Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive960

Talk:James Comey

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Objective3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This boils out of an editing dispute on James Comey discussed on that talk page and WP:NPOV/N]. He is clearly disruptive on Talk:James Comey, a page to which DS apply. I note his un-productive edits continue, and he is making wild accusations against me [1], while refusing to make any comments specific to any content on Wikipedia. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Diffs, please. You included only one, claiming wild accusations against you, but in that diff I see only you are threatening me, which you did,[2] and you are hiding my comments, which you did.[3] In short, you are making wild acccusations of wild accusations, not an auspicious start to an ANI complaint. Arm-waving-to-evidence ratio exceeds my limit by a mile. Have you considered a short wikibreak? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

My complaint is that he is engaged in non-productive behavior on a page with Discretionary Sanctions; you can look at Talk:James Comey yourself if you want further diffs. As far as I can tell, not a single comment of his in our discussion had any relation to the James Comey page or my comments, he was purely engaged in point-winning debate behavior, which I found incredibly frustrating because I did not know what debate I was supposedly participating in. I aimed to discuss this on the existing DRN forum regarding James Comey, but that type of complaint isn't allowed there, so I brought it here. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

After looking at the crap that is both the bizzare NPOV/N non-RFC and the Comey talk page Objective3000 seems like one of the few people there that are actually abiding by sourcing policies while Power and, moreso Hidden Tempo, are pushing a clearly Republican POV by making ridiculous arguments to try to discount RS. That whole NPOV/N discussion is a clusterfuck but it certainly isn't Objective3000's fault. It doesn't help that Masem, an admin, can't seem to differentiate between a Trump memo being primary, and useless for anything other than saying it exists, and actual journalism that constitutes an RS. Capeo (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the personal attack. All my point on the NPOV/N board is that the lede should be a much more impartial tone, everything else of discussion is fine in the body, but we shouldn't be trying to pick sides here (either way). --MASEM (t) 04:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC) −

Just to have it on the record, neither I nor Power are "pushing" any kind of agenda. In fact, Power has disagreed with me on most of my proposed edits.[4][5][6] And this complaint isn't about me, but I consistently argued for focusing on the source material in the aforementioned "clusterfuck," while Objective3000 instead preferred to engage in ad hominem attacks, uncivil remarks, and disruptive forum-type offhanded remarks again and again and again and again and again and again. So while all parties may not have clean hands, this is not an individual who is abiding by policies and abstaining from disruption while repeatedly demanding that a NPOV noticeboard collaborative discussion be shut down. If my name is mentioned here again, I will thank editors not to make attacks upon my editing (or anyone else's) without providing any diffs whatsoever. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

"Just to have it on the record, neither I nor Power are "pushing" any kind of agenda." - I don't know about Power~enwiki, but when it comes to Hidden Tempo there is most definitely agenda-driven editing going on. Hell, look at his user page [7]. He first proclaims so that all can hear about how he is against "activist editing" and has no agenda and then proceeds to... well, lay out his agenda. More seriously, HiddenTempo edits have been a serious problem on Trump related articles ever since they came back from their topic ban.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Your false claims without evidence aren't appreciated, Volunteer, and you are way out of line. If you have a problem with my editing, you know the proper channels to go through. Disrupting somebody else's AN/I report with passive aggressive attacks and crying about my user page isn't the way to go. Besides, while you're busy violating 1RR over at Rachel Maddow, I wouldn't be surprised to see you back here defending your own AN/I report, for the nth time. Hidden Tempo (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the diffs aren't necessary because the relevant talk page, where everyone can read how much you love to waste other people's time is already linked (indeed it's the subject of this report). There's also the NPOV board discussion. And a bunch of others. Nice threat there btw, with the comment about "my own AN/I report, for the nth time". Yet... I'm not the one who got topic banned from these articles. Strange, huh? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Nope. If you attack another editor on AN/I. You are required to produce diffs (see Mandruss's edit below). And the subject of the report is Objective3000, not me - reading the section header will help with your confusion. Nobody's threatening you, but considering you've just violated DS with double-tap reverts[8][9] and don't seem to have any intention to self-revert, that's why you keep getting dragged to the drama boards over and over and over again for the same exact violations. Hidden Tempo (talk) 06:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

And there you go making stuff up again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I provided diffs of your 1RR violation right here, VM. There's no point in going back to your "oh your just makin shit up" excuse. Pretending you didn't see something doesn't mean it never happened. If you think the violation was within the rules, then you have nothing to worry about. Hidden Tempo (talk) 06:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh ffs, the article is not under a 1RR restriction and regardless these would qualify as legit reverts under WP:BLP. See, this is what you do. Like every freakin' statement and claim you make is in part or wholly untrue. Like when you claim that "so and so supports me" (only to be repeatedly told that is not the case [10] [11] (and others). Or when you accuse me of "making reverts every 24 hrs without discussion" which is not only blatantly false (neither "every 24 hrs" nor "without discussion") but it has been pointed out to you repeatedly by others that it's blatantly false. Etc. etc. etc. etc. The discussion on the Comey talk page is like textbook illustration of WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and general "discussing in bad faith".Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

You are required to produce diffs, that's how it works here for better or worse. Nevertheless I have now browsed that talk page. What I see is a heated ongoing debate between two or three users, one of whom (Objective3000) I have some experience working with and have never known to be disruptive in article talk. Sorry, but I don't have that experience with you, and I can only go with what I know.
You appear to be trying to dictate the nature of their responses to your comments, and you don't get to do that. They, in contrast, appear to be practically begging you to calm down and communicate with them. Whether I have that exactly right or not, I certainly see no actionable behavior on their part, so your best move is to (1) withdraw this ASAP and (2) pursue courses of action described at WP:DR.
If necessary, back away and let other experienced editors handle whatever content issue is in dispute. As hard as it may be to accept, the article would survive without you. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Before this discussion spirals further out of control: if Objective3000 agrees, I am happy to withdraw this with no action taken. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more beneficial to resolve this before both parties return to the aforementioned "clusterfuck" and come back here anyways? You should probably step away from the article for a lengthy period of time and I for one prefer to discuss that on this current thread instead of another one a week or so from now.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd still love to understand how "Sounds like OR. We state what RS state." is a constructive response to a request for new suggestions, or what Objective3000's views on that section of the lede are, or, if my intentions were unclear, which sentence of mine he thought "sounds like OR". From constructive discussion with other participants, it appears I agree with him on the editing change. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Power~enwiki - the comment, however brusque it may seem, clearly references content. It's perfectly fine, I think you're reading too much into it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not saying that specific comment was inappropriate, I'm saying I still don't understand it. And I repeat: if Objective3000 agrees, I am happy to withdraw this with no action taken. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Power~enwiki, I believe you've misunderstood or misremembered the interaction. You didn't request for new suggestions, you made an explicit suggestion: "Some reference to the fact that most major US newspapers/TV channels spent most of the week before the 2016 election talking about Comey's statement regarding Anthony Weiner and "emails" is necessary." [12] It's pretty clear that this is what Objective3000 was referring to. Hatting the conversation was inflammatory, leading a mild misunderstanding into this. Cjhard (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Aha! That was supposed to simply mean that the section of the lede in question shouldn't be removed from the article. His comment is still confusing; the newspapers themselves are obviously reliable sources as to their content. (primary sources, but reliable sources) Power~enwiki (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Right, so shake hands, get your trout slaps (plural, for both of youse), and go back to the talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course I’m OK with the filer withdrawing. Objective3000 (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Masem, I've struck the unnecessarily inflammatory comment of mine above, though I still don't think you're entirely helping on the situation there. I stand by the rest though. Hidden Tempo is clearly pushing a POV, while drowning the discussion with superfluous assertions about bias in respected RS, and Power~enwiki is mostly supporting them. I'm not seeing personal attacks in the difs supplied by Hidden Tempo above. Just Objective3000 trying to keep the discussion on point in the face of a bunch of off-topic meandering. While staying quite calm I should add. Capeo (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you; the larger issue really though is that we are seeing more and more cases of discrete ideological groups of editors that have lost sight of a middle ground of how to view these topics in light of a lot of complicated issues related to WP's goal, policies, and the state of the media today, which starts with this type of bitey behavior seen in this ANI but can (and likely will) get worse. Trying to get editors to work towards a middle ground in neutrality and tone amid what's being thrown around in sources outside WP is a necessary step to get compromise between these positions.

--MASEM (t) 14:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, Capeo, if you have a problem with me, address me directly (with diffs), rather than just tangentially attacking me from the sidelines. The discussion was taken place on the NPOV noticeboard, designed to eliminate POV. So while you may really think that someone is pushing a POV, and it's "clear" to you, the facts don't support your false claim and I'll again kindly ask to cease complaining about me on someone else's AN/I report without evidence. Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some rev-del might be needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

...at Suicide of Tyler Clementi. Disruptive edits by the IP were rev-deled on the talk page, but they should probably also be rev-deled on the page itself. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Taken care of. Neutrality^talk 21:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks on me

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

★Trekker has been using personal insult because they disagree with my edits. This started when I separated Marvel Music the record label company and Marvel Music the imprint as separate articles. Here are some notable quotes from him.

If they are indeed notable they should both be included on the template, not one removed like this incessant editor keeps doing for some moronic stupid reason.★Trekker (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Contacting people who have been previously involved in an issue is common courtesy on wikipedia. Stop being an annoying tool who thinks they know more than they do.★Trekker (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Why did you change the header to a warning to someone else, what is your problem? Also, I have already pointe doubt why your edits are dumb as hell several times.★Trekker (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I feel that this sort of attitude is not warranted. I can understand disagreements with the interpretation of information, but this user is clearly trying to take my edits personally. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, those comments definitely move into personal attack territory. I'll give them a warning to stop. A warning is probably sufficient for now, but if they don't stop, it could be escalated to blocking. Sergecross73 msg me 16:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

That being said, Iftekharahmed96, you need to notify any editor you discuss at ANI like this with a talk page message. You'll likely find yourself in hot water yourself if you forget to do this in the future. Please keep it in mind. Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for handling this Sergecross. So in the future, I should notify said person who is being reported that I may report them before actually reporting them, right? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes. You can either write a message on their talk page, or just add a "{{ani}} ~~~~" which gives a template and your signature on their talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 16:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Iftekharahmed96: You don't need to warn them that you may report them, but you do need to inform them once you report them. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for clarifying 331dot, I'll keep that in mind next time. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I misread what you said. No, you don't need to warn them that you may report them, you just need to write something on their talk page as soon as you have reported them here. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

You really should use proper linking to these edits, right now it looks like I wrote these things here, which isn't the case.★Trekker (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Self-reporting to avoid further escalation into multiple venues

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I just want to make the community aware that FleetCommand has ventured to Mr. Stradivarius's talk page, apparently dissatisfied with advice I gave concerning an instance in which I temporarily full protected two articles to help solve a dispute. Codename Lisa has suggested ANI as a venue, so perhaps it's wise to cut matters short and come straight here before further admins are privately canvassed for intervention. Also pinging AussieLegend who is another involved party, and RecentEdits, a new user, also involved.

To give only the briefest summary of what the two disputes are about, in one case it was suggested that something should be written regarding Petya (malware) for the Windows XP article (and WannaCry, although this was already mentioned), and such a paragraph inserted into the article, and in Microsoft Office 2010, a source was challenged as being out of date by four years. At least some of the same editors are involved at both venues.

Relevant talk is at:

• User talk:Samsara
• User talk:Codename Lisa
• User talk:Mr. Stradivarius
• Talk:Windows XP

Samsara 02:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Hello, everyone

I have told administrator Samsara that I am willing to wait the protection out and that I am unwilling to file any complaint against harassment or otherwise. The sentence "Codename Lisa has suggested ANI as a venue" is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.

As you can see from the diffs, I tried to close this discussion or remove it because I felt Samsara is trying to forcibly become my attorney by filling a complaint on my behalf. A couple of reverts by my fellow admins (Oshwah‎‎ and Zzuuzz) proved that nobody thinks so. Good! As long as whatever happens under thing thread is not construed as unnecessary hostile action initiated by Codename Lisa in response to a trifle in article space, I am fine: Take all the undue hostile action you want. Everyone is being unnecessarily blunt in this case... ironically, that includes me.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• This report isn't really clear - what is the dispute actually about? We'll need some diffs explaining the issue, and what administrator action is being requested. It's not optimal to ask admins to go digging through a number of talk pages to figure out the problem when it's obviously clear to you and others. Black Kite (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure either. I just noticed back-and-fourth reverting here and put a stop to it. I'm talking to Codename Lisa on my talk page; I'm just trying to figure out the situation here... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Samsara - I'm being told that you've been asked by Codename Lisa not to file this ANI. She feels that you're doing so entirely on her behalf, and that she has declined and asked you not to file it. She's upset because she feels that you did so anyway and without her approval. I'm still trying to figure out what this is all about... can you help me out here? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

As a named party to this I must admit to being somewhat confused myself. Windows XP is on my watchlist so when I saw an IP edit with the summary "Undid revision 791434022 by User:Codename Lisa (talk) Undo obvious COI by an editor with a long history of acting in Microsoft's interest" I checked it out. The IP had restored an edit that had been reverted by Codename Lisa, an editor of good standing with a long history of constructive editing at that, and other articles. I was aware that she had started a discussion on the talk page,[13] so I reverted the IP with the summary "Edit has been opposed - take it to the talk page",[14] seeing the IP's edit as, at best, an unwarranted personal attack. I was later surprised to see a post by Samsara on my talk page accusing me of engaging in a dispute at the article and directing me to discuss it.[15] There was no dispute, what I reverted was at best disruptive editing. Now that I am aware of the history, I see it as pure vandalism. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

You did participate in the dispute - you made a revert. There is no ambiguity about this. Samsara 11:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't a dispute per se, it was vandalism. We don't normally refer to vandalism, or reversion of vandalism, as a dispute. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Samsara, your report is vague at best. Are you asking for a review of your actions? Then I would say protection was a little hasty, even if it was within discretion. I don't think it would be wise to revert the protection as it isn't abusive or out of policy, it just isn't the best solution, imho. I wouldn't have opened the discussion here, but you may not be aware of the full picture. There is a history of the IP stalking and bugging CL, which may be why she didn't want this report open, as it makes the problem worse. AussieLegend, those edits were not WP:VANDALism. They may have been against consensus, but vandalism is defined only as those edits which seek to undermine the encyclopedia, and that doesn't qualify. Personally, I recommend removing full protection and letting the editing process work itself out, and if needed, simply block anyone that edit wars. At this stage, I don't see a couple of reverts to be that problematic, at least not enough to force all other editors to stop editing. I almost just closed this thread, but felt adding this would be better. I wouldn't blame anyone if they did close this now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• "vandalism is defined only as those edits which seek to undermine the encyclopedia". Then they are definitely vandalism, because if my memory serves me well, this person's account was originally blocked on Wikipedia for maliciously introducing inaccuracies into the articles. Materialscientist knows better though. I was not in the ArbCom case. But make no mistake, this stalker is here to undermine. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 14:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Nobody notified Materialscientist about being mentioned here and below, so I've taken the liberty of doing so. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Geez...I didn't know that 16 year old software can cause something like this. —JJB^ers 19:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

A clean start

Hey, fellas. This is the involved party FleetCommand (Speak your mind!).

As Black Kite and Dennis Brown said, the opening post isn't very clear. And, it appears Codename Lisa has become the first victim of this lack of clarity and has diluted the discussion with a drama that is best avoided. So, let's have a clean start with a proper report, solve the problem and make peace with it. Shall we?

Summary: Requesting an admin to lower the protection of the Microsoft Office 2010 article. Justification: This isn't a content dispute; it is vandalism and harassment.

Details: On 20 July 2017, Codename Lisa reverted a poor contribution to the Microsoft Office 2010 article: [16]. It is my personal belief that this revert is justifiable on the basis of WP:V and WP:NOR. It is also the belief of another editor, AussieLegend, that the reverted edit was "clearly inappropriate".

There is, however, a malicious stalker who seeks to harasses Codename Lisa by chasing her around Wikipedia (WP:HOUND). We refer to this entity with the codename "Flyboy". Administrators Mr. Stradivarius, JamesBWatson, Bongwarrior, Zzuuzz and Materialscientist are familiar with this stalker. See their countermeasures here and here. 12 hours after the aforementioned, Flyboy, from the 2601:5c2:200:31ae:f15b:f5c2:8a8c:9212 IPv6 address, counter-reverted Codename Lisa.

How do I know this IP address indeed belongs to Flyboy? Two ways:

1. Geolocation data shows both IPs are contributing from the same location ("United States, Virginia, Charlottesville") and the same ISP ("Comcast Cable") which we have on record. (See below) This is one pattern.
2. The behavior: Quick accusation of edit warring (Microsoft Office 2010) and writing a plausible lie (both Microsoft Office 2010 and Windows XP) are characteristics of him.

As I said, Codename Lisa has a full record of all IPs from which this person has contributed, along with their geolocation data. I have already furnished Mr. Stradivarius with this information. (Other admins may have received it at other times from Codename Lisa.) Any admin here may request a copy. (Materialscientist has warned that making this information public is against Wikipedia policies.)

8 minutes later, administrator Samsara locked the Microsoft Office 2010 article with full protection, citing "content dispute" as a reason. He hastily accused both Codename Lisa and AussieLegend as uncooperative editors and asked them to take the issue to the talk page. It goes without saying that I was baffled with such a heavy-handed response; it is unusual to lock a page after so few reverts. I tried to communicate with Samsara at User talk:Samsara § Microsoft Office 2010 protection and convince him that he is dealing with harassment, not content dispute. But he summarily refused to look at the evidence by saying he is not a CU! (Apparently, he is not aware that admins also have access to geolocation tools.) Furthermore, he refused to comment on the Microsoft Office 2010 article (which was my topic) as well, and instead wrote paragraphs about another article, Windows XP. (See below.)

Extended content

Flyboy didn't stop at the Microsoft Office 2010 article: He committed mischief in the Windows XP article ([17]: disruptive reversion) and the Windows Server 2012 article ([18]: pure vandalism). These have been addressed with the vigilance of AussieLegend and Codename Lisa. The geolocation data for the IP vandalizing the Windows Server 2012 article also tallies with our record. The Windows XP article also got locked. Please see AussieLegend's comment before this thread.

I argue that because this a case of harassment, not content dispute, the full protection is unjustified. As such, I turned to another admin for appeal: Mr. Stradivarius. The discussion can be found at User talk:Mr. Stradivarius § Protection on the Microsoft Office 2010 article. He responded that "I do remember this editor, and my initial reaction is that they should probably be blocked". But of course, there are rules governing an admin reverting another admin's tool use. So, here we are.

I request the protection to be lowered and the disruptive revision by the malicious editor reverted.

Thank you.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 13:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Putting myself in Codename Lisa's or AussieLegend's shoes: If someone were making reverts and edits to hound and harass me, or if I'm trying to revert such edits - I'd feel pretty frustrated to see the articles suddenly full protected followed by a message on my talk page telling me to "take the content dispute to the talk page". I that think the full protection was placed on Microsoft Office 2010 and Windows XP a bit too early, but it's somewhat explainable if Samsura genuinely thought that he was stopping a content dispute or war. Mistakes happen; shoot, I make plenty of them :-).

The issue with the article protection isn't what I'm most concerned about honestly; that can be easily sorted out and resolved - no big deal. My main concern is the fact that Codename Lisa appears to have been (and still is) the subject of long-term ongoing harassment and hounding by an anonymous user. That's a big drain on a user, especially over time. It's absolutely not acceptable, isn't something anyone should have to tolerate, and needs to be dealt with and monitored so that it stops. Codename Lisa, I'll make sure to keep eyes out for you in this regard. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Concur, it's a horrible situation and if we can't stop it, we need to do our best to mitigate any effects on CL.

One thing I don't understand is why MaterialScientist says it's a violation of policies to post the list. If all that's in the list is IPs which have edited wikipedia, what they edited and geolocation and other such data on the IPs, this isn't outing. Actually it's a regular part of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse reports and WP:SPI reports. (Although when posting the data will generally be aggregated e.g. a list of IPs from a certain ISP and geolocation and another list if there are other ISPs or geolocation, as there's no need for a list with duplicate info for all the IPs.) Is there some other data that is in this list? Or is it a WP:Deny issue?

Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Nil Einne - Can you provide me the diff where Materialscientist said this? I'm not trying to take any sides or say that anyone was right or wrong; I'd like to read the discussion where this was explained so that I can understand the full context and what he was trying to explain. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm going by what was said above "(Materialscientist has warned that making this information public is against Wikipedia policies.)" I have no personal knowledge of this dispute other than what I read here.Nil Einne (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Sadly, I didn't keep the diff. It might even have been on IRC. Still, Oshwah is an admin. If he asks, I must give a copy. He then can publish, with his own responsibility. Is that okay?

Also, CL has received a similar warning. (I don't know from whom.) Maybe she can give a diff. In fact, it was she who made me swear not to disclose. But her wording made me realize I had received a similar warning a long time ago! (To be honest, last time an admin asked me why I don't publish it, I had no recollection of the warning and just cited CL's disagreement.) FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 16:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The dispute and the harrassment are only tangentially related - the original proponent of the edit at Windows XP has not, to my knowledge, been suggested to be part of the harrassment case. Samsara 16:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Because he probably is not! Like millions of others who edited these articles and other articles. Please, for the love of God, focus on the subject at hand. And as far as I am concerned, per WP:SILENCE, there is no dispute in the Windows XP article; just an attempted harassment, which was suppressed, no thanks to you. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 16:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes I agree with FleetCommand here. AFAICT no one is accusing User:RecentEdits of being involved in the harassment. They were probably fully entitled to make the WP:BOLD edit. But the point is CL was also fully entitled to remove the edit as part of the typical WP:BRD cycle, and CL did initiate the discussion so it's on RecentEdit or anyone else to continue the editing. I don't see anything wrong with those sequences of edits, they seem to be normal editing which doesn't raise any real WP:Edit warring concerns and don't require page protection. The problem is the IP then came along. If this was just a normal IP then yes edit warring would be a concern and all parties involved should take care and perhaps the page protection would be justified since we all know that the BRD cycle is ideal but there's no simple solution when the reverts continue after the typical BR. (I.E. Perhaps the IP shouldn't have reverted, but it's also not clear if the solution is to revert the IP.) But the issue here is that from it's claimed this isn't a normal IP but a persistent harassing sock. I don't personally see the point getting into arguments over whether or not it's vandalism, WP:DENY and WP:SOCK would fully support reverting the IP's edits without question. We don't allow de-facto? banned serially harassing socks to edit just because they're editing from dynamic IPs. This suggests page protection wasn't necessary and there isn't any real legitimate edit war. There may or may not be a legitimate dispute over the content, that's awaiting RecentEdit or someone else who isn't a serial harassing sock participating in the discussion/disagreement. AussieLegend had a point that their edits weren't necessary taking a side in the dispute, they may have simply be reverting as an uninvolved party, similar to the way an admin doesn't become involved when acting in a purely administrative capacity. I can say if I had seen the edits and was aware of the history I would probably have reverted without even considering much about the merits of the edits. Heck I may have done so and also gone to the talk page to support the actual change. Let me just repeat what I said before, serial harassing socks aren't entitled to edit. Nil Einne (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Heck I may have done so and also gone to the talk page to support the actual change. Based on that comment, I question your ability to impartially comment on this motion. Samsara 07:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, my! An admin resorting to personal attack! That's a new low.

And this is the same admin to whose talk page I went to talk about the Microsoft Office 2010 article; instead he rambled on about the Windows XP article. I question your ability to understand plain English.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 08:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from banned editor removed

″I question your ability to understand plain English.″ This, as well as a general poor grasp of Wikipedia policy, appears to be the core problem of Samsara's actions here and continued hesitance to accept that they've misread the situation and made a mistake. Honestly, it demonstrates an extraordinary lack of competence. Cjhard (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I haven't studied this particular IP, but if an IP is blocked, and another IP continues the same work, blocks and summary reverts are in order. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Except that, as a quick Google search just demonstrated to me, by continuing to blindly revert without regard to content, you are creating an inaccurate encyclopedia - Windows 10 is stated by Microsoft to be a supported system for Office 2010. Whatever other motives may be attached, the IP was correct to point out that the source was not up to date and should be replaced/updated, and the "powers that be" were wrong to continue to revert. I have said before that we cannot allow abusive IPs to suppress facts. We need to be sure of our reverts instead of finding reasons to dismiss IPs. I say this not with particular regard to just this case, but to other similar cases. "Oh, he's just evil so everything he posts can be safely assumed to be wrong." just doesn't cut it as a logical argument. In fact, it's a potential vector for attacking the integrity of our material. Samsara 02:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Hello, Samsara

It is good to see that you are finally commenting the correct content, as opposed to commenting on the wrong content and on contributors.

Thanks for finding this source, by the way, even though it is an ex postfacto action. I propose that I will add it to the article if you lower the protection now.

However, the burden of verification is on the person who adds or reinstates a statement. In this case, the malicious person with an IPv6. In addition, from a dishonorable cause an action does not arise. Yes, not only it is not illogical, it is part of the world's legal system. As long as the IP stalker is here to stalk, harass and vandalize, he is entitled to nothing.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Samsara: "I say this not with particular regard to just this case".

That's the core of our problem with you: You don't pay any particular regard to this case. You are analogous to a judge who treats a premeditated double murder like a land border dispute and then prides himself on being impartial whereas he is just being indiscriminate. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 07:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain why it's not impartial to say you will revert an edit from a defacto banned serial harassing sock even if you support the merits of the edit? As I already said BRD generally means the edit should stay out after it's been reverted once while the discussion is ongoing. Still as I also said, edit warring on keeping the edit out if someone does decide to reinstate it is not always the solution. Even if you support the edit, it's not always the right solution for you to revert the edit while discussion is ongoing (although this is often less problematic). But when the edit clearly should not have happened under any policy or guideline because the IP is a serial harrasing troll, then reverting when that edit is perfectly justified under policy. Generally it's better if you don't have an opinion on the edit. (And frankly if I was actually involved in reverting this edit, that's what most likely would have happened as I really couldn't give a damn about the dispute.) However even if you do have an opinion, it's still perfectly justified. In any case, if you actually support the edit, there's no reason supported by any policy or even common sense to complain that you reverted the edit despite supporting it because it came from a serial harassing troll but continue the existing discussion and come out in support of the edit. Yes you're not a neutral party but you're reverting something you support and for a perfectly policy compliant reason so supporters of the edit have no good reason to complain, it's not like you're reverting in support of your POV but opposed to it, and opponents of the edit are obviously going to be glad you didn't let a serial harassing sock interfere when they shouldn't have. In the end maybe your view and that of anyone allowed to edit participating in the dicussion will win out and the edit will later be reinstated. Maybe it won't be. The point is that we don't allow serially harassing socks to get involved in editing and that was precisely my point. Even if I supported the edit, I would actually have reverted the edit while coming out in support of the edit because it's what any good wikipedian should do. (Note in case there was any confusion, I'll repeat for a second time that I don't actually care about the precise edit involved here.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. You are actually opposed to the edit, nominally you're justified in reverting it if it's from a serial harassing sock. Still to reduce controversy it is sometimes wiser to leave it for someone else who is either neutral or supportive of the edit to revert it if you think this is likely to happen. Nil Einne (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

You "would have reverted the edit while coming out in support of the edit"? Holy shit is this place fucked! Joefromrandb (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uncivil editing: user:LittleJerry vs. User:Roy Bateman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In June, Roy started this topic stating his concerns about grasshoppers and Caelifera. Chiswack Chap relied and addressed his concerns. Rather than continue the conversion and gain a consensus, Roy continued to split the two articles. I reverted and told him to get a consensus first and not edit war. However, he continued to revert. He eventually went back to the talkpage but I reverted his changes since the discussion was still going and he did not establish consensus. Others were asked to give their opinion and it was decided that grasshopper and Caelifera should be the same article.

Now a month later, Roy went against the consensus and split the articles again. I reverted and left a message informing him that he should ask for more opinions from Wikiproject Insects before making changes and warned him that he will be reported. He continued to revert again and again. LittleJerry (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

LittleJerry has now made 3 deletions of my work in 24 hours (3RR - again!), so I suggest that it is he who is being uncivil (also see this). The word "consensus" has been much used, but seems to me that the scientific consensus is very clear - (i) the term Caelifera is a valid taxon and internationally recognised as such and (ii) the term "grasshopper" is not synonymous with Caelifera and therefore it is inappropriate to turn the latter into a redirect page. This creates a situation that is both taxonomically and logically false: effectively turning 'pygmy mole crickets' into 'grasshoppers'. I suggest that two editors, both working under pseudonyms, "deciding" that it should be otherwise are promoting half-truths that is potentially damaging to WP.

The first paragraph above is also misleading: you will note that I have continued the conversation (more than is sensible perhaps) and at least one other editor, Cwmhiraeth thought that the separate Caelifera page was appropriate and kindly made an edit - before LJ deleted it! I also noted that the page Acrididea existed and provides a satisfactory resolution of this issue - effectively being the taxonomic equivalent to 'grasshoppers' and inserted this into the grasshopper article (with reference). However, this was also deleted by LittleJerry - who appears to be the self-appointed censor for both this and the Caelifera pages - I object. Roy Bateman (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Roy Bateman, scientific consensus is not what we use here at Wikipedia. We use reliable sources and consensus among editors. If you are running counter to either of those, you are wrong. There have been many users who edit here who fail to understand that distinction. If you cannot abide by Wikipedia's rules, then you shouldn't be editing. "Your work" is not yours, but Wikipedia's. The one damaging Wikipedia is you. --Tarage (talk) 22:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Uh, what? Scientific consensus is all that we use here. To say anything contrary to that is the antithesis of WP. That said, Roy seems to be trying to make an unnecessary differentiation. Caelifera are pretty much universally called grasshoppers in English. Acrididea is already listed as a superfamily of Caelifera in the article. Which are often called grasshoppers anyway so I'm not understanding Roy's attempts to split the article. Capeo (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I am suggesting that "Caelifera are pretty much universally called grasshoppers" may have become self-fulfilling because of Wikipedia - the truth is actually rather more interesting, partly because it contains pygmy mole-crickets which are no relation to mole crickets. Roy Bateman (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is marvelous because it includes Criticism of Wikipedia - but read the second paragraph. Roy Bateman (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of reliable sources. Wikipedia is not considered to be a "reliable source" even within Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I never said that. However, editing against consensus is not okay, wouldn't you agree? --Tarage (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

You didn't say it. Bateman referred to it. As to user concensus, has Bateman provided any good sourcing for his contentions about what the international scientific community supposedly believes, or are you supposed to take his word for it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes - it is in the article Caelifera - if LittleJerry doesn't censor my input again. Roy Bateman (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap has provided reliable, authoritative sources which treat Caelifera and grasshoppers as synonymous. Roy Batemen has not provided evidence for his "consensus". He has also provided no sources that state only Acridoidea are grasshoppers, only those which simply support the validity of the clade. LittleJerry (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

LittleJerry is not even quoting what I wrote correctly - at least three reliable sources are quoted that have infra-order Acrididea (not Acridoidea) as the group of subfamilies that are grasshoppers or grasshopper-like. Roy Bateman (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Regardess, I checked the sources you used and they do not state what you say that do. LittleJerry (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I've made changes to Caelifera which may resolve the content issue. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Power~enwiki, but they do not resolve the issue. I should point out that Power~enwiki's proposal, that the taxonomy and phylogeny section in grasshopper be moved to Caelifera, was tried by Roy without consensus and rejected by the other users. I should also point out that Roy was split the articles again despite the fact that this conversation has not been resolved. LittleJerry (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I was called to this discussion by a note on my talk page after filing this report on WP:AN3 about this fiasco. Edit warring and 3RR violations all over the place by several editors. Multiple blocks are in order. Toddst1 (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree not to make any more changes to Caelifera until the conversation at the noticeboard is done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you - but that was after having deleted the content (to at redirect) for the seventh time (now restored). Not only is this attempted censorship, but makes it difficult to get to the talk page there. You have also used Threats and intimidation (e.g. on my talk page). I hope you appreciate that you are removing inputs from other editors when make these (now >6 kB) deletions. Roy Bateman (talk) 03:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Caelifera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After checking the edit history I determined that Roy Bateman and LittleJerry are the main edit warriors at Caelifera. They have been constantly reverting the article back and forth since June 19 (a 6000-byte edit that changes it from a redirect to Grasshopper to a freestanding article). So I blocked both parties 48 hours per the edit warring complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spam / "hack" (loosest sense) edit needs followup

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

this edit by Matt mathis (talk · contribs) introduced a fixed position div covering the top part of your browser's viewport, and linked to an offsite page, such that any attempt to use normal Mediawiki controls (including stuff like rollback buttons, undo, etc.) will send you to the offsite link. I would suggest indef the account and revdel the edits containing the offending code (that includes their user page). Oh, and the template in the diff above should probably have an increased protection level (isn't there a "template editors" group?). --Xover (talk) 08:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind the block. Geni is on the case it seems. :) (but revdel + protection is still needed imo). --Xover (talk) 08:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Why is there no editfilter that disallows "position:fixed"? Maybe with an exception for autoconfirmed people with 500+ edits. It seems unlikely to produce many false positives. Of course there can be infinite spaces before and after the colon. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Excellent thought. Also, perhaps one of the project's most visible pages isn't the best place for this whole "How-to" discussion? Just a thought... -- Begoon 11:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but there already is one, which has been active for years now. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Puppet Disruptive editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User: 68.112.105.202 and 2600:1008:B156:BB82:180F:87BE:7CC1:9AB4 keeps vandalizing Ink Master (season 9) and continues to spread numerous lies. I believe its the same puppet from Wisconsin. 107.77.221.126 (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

What is the problem with their edit? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

2600:1008:b100::/41 is definitely Starbucks6789 (talk · contribs). 68.112.105.202 could be, too. 107.77.221.126 is probably Leviathan648 (talk · contribs). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I just applied semi-protection on the article for one week. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Just looked at the ip address location and I can confirm that me nor 107.77.221.126 are puppets of Leviathan648.107.77.221.158 (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

So let me get this right, NRP: we're dealing with multiple different IP socks of two different indeffed editors who are continuing to spar on that article? Good golly. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tendentious editing by NadirAli across Multiple Articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Despite the fact that User:NadirAli was warned not to edit war by User:GoldenRing just four days ago at Arbcom [19], this man has continued to do so, ignoring consensus established by at least three to four users. The issue started when NadirAli blanked a large chunk of material from the Kalash people article [20]. He was reverted by other users, including myself, but then proceeded to continue edit warring and tagging the article [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. On the talk page of the article, he justified his inclusions by using story books and alt-right sources such as "raceandhistory.com". It seems that this individual suffers a major WP:COMPETENCE issue, which has been noted by other users before, like User:FlightTime [26]. Other users disagreed with the troublesome behavior, including User:Capitals00 and User:Anupam noted that two different held by scholars should be represented in the article and this was agreed upon. Nonetheless, NadirAli defied consensus in the talk page and gave more weight to his preferred view [27]. Countless users regularly waste their time telling this man not to edit tentenditiously on India-Pakistan articles, such as User:Joshua Jonathan [28] or User:Kautilya3 [29]. This man was banned for several years from India-Pakistan topics and doesn't follow consensus on other topics either, including articles about Star Wars, as noted by User:EEMIV [30]. Is it time for us to consider whether the project is wasting their time having to constantly block and coach this stubborn man? I'm mostly a WikiGnome but I can spot trouble when I see it. Two options - site ban or topic ban? Knox490 (talk) 04:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

This is not an "edit war" across multiple pages. I have opened discussions on those two pages. The Kalash article is disputed, and as user:Mar4d pointed out, the vast majority of sources support for Animism. So mentioning most in the article, a basic fact you seem to ignore and openly reject in the article is going to be a problem for many users. The dispute is still on and I will point administrators to talk:Kalash and talk:Hindu at discussions I myself started for verification before simply believing Knox490's attack accusations. I have been on Pakistan topics for a year and a half.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thought I'd ping User:El C, User:Ohnoitsjamie, and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise - 3 sysops who've blocked this man in the last year. If I listed all the sysops who've blocked this man, I'd get carpal tunnel - 17 sysops in total. Knox490 (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I did not start any edit war with you. Check the article history. I pointed you to user:Mar4d's comments on the talk page and you left this comment in your edit summary. As such I placed the disputed tag. After that you suddenly opened an ANI. I request administrators to review the talk pages first and article history.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment In my opinion, this is a content dispute and should be treated as such. The talk page is the best venue to solve any inconsistencies, and I have already left my input there. I would not say the current article is perfect, but it is nevertheless somewhere on a middle road. Having studied the various WP:RS produced on the subject, the majority of the scholarly view suggests the Kalash religion is animistic. There are some sources which construct a link to pre-Vedic Hindu beliefs, but the connection remains vague and not as extensively discussed by sources. They are still incorporated in the text though, as they are theories. I have already indicated that the most reasonable rewrite would be one which primarily focuses on their animistic practices, and combines input from those sources which suggest a Hindu origin. The majority of the sources favour the former, so in terms of WP:WEIGHT, we should write it according to what the sources imply. I suggest that all involved users use the talk page to discuss this further. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 05:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I have been discussing the disputes, which you have ignored [31][32][33]--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• I tend to agree that this is a content dispute at this stage. I don't think the description "blanked a large chunk of material" is entirely fair - that diff contains a lot of changes and the movement of a large slab of material to another place in the article. I would advise NadirAli to edit carefully; I'm rather concerned when an editor claims that the "vast majority of sources" supports their view, but what they've actually done is replaced text sourced to Ethnic Groups of North, East, and Central Asia: An Encyclopedia with their own text sourced to [34]. If the vast majority of sources support your view, then back your text up with your best sources, not this. If this is actually the best source you have for your position, then I think it's time to back down a bit. GoldenRing (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

To editor GoldenRing:, thank you for your comment, but that is not what I was referring to. Please see the links on the talk page which I posted as well as Mar4d posts. (talk:Kalash people). Those were the ones I was referring to. The other issue I had was the disputed tag removal in the article as in the case of Zia Ul-Haq's Islamitisation (that dispute was been now long resolved). Other issues were edits like these. I have been wanting to have this article to be receive arbitrary sanctions because it has been targeted by various nationalists from Greek to Macedonian to Indian. Your help in nominating it would be useful.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

To editor GoldenRing: These were the sources I was referring to, in addition to the ones presented by user:Mar4d (some of them may overlap) [35] [36] [37] [38][39][40][41][42]. There's many more, but I think is is good enough. Regards.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no opinion except that I looked at some of the edits, and the editors are warring with each other, making personal comments, within the Edit summaries. This is not the best practice for anybody and could be grounds for action. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

NadirAli, you just requested article protection because you said "Greek nationalists" and "Indian nationalists" have "targeted" it. This is exactly the reason I came here - your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality should not be tolerated here and I say this as someone of Anglo-Saxon heritage. This is what got you banned from Wikipedia for years and from India-Pakistan articles. I don't think you can edit constructively here and think that sysops here should consider re-implementing that ban.Knox490 (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban on all India-Pakistan articles. I have not interacted with this editor to my knowledge, but a thorough look at NadirAli's edits seems to show a battleground mentality -- he gets into arguments with people accross numerous different articles. The discussion above also seems to show that NadirAli is willing to delete information backed by reliable sources to push his own POV, rather than accept the best efforts of other users who are willing to compromise with him. This hasn't happened once, but numerous times. Looking at his block log, NadirAli has been blocked over 20 times and I think other constructive users are annoyed in having to deal with his editing behavior. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment/Question - What're your thoughts about much of that same problematic behavior -- e.g. battleground mentality, non-NPOV, non-AGF -- outside the India-Pakistan topic? --EEMIV (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Note to admins Please take notice of these comments and several other instances past disruptive behavior as noted by others [43].--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I requested arbitrary sanctions (something I accidentally myself got blocked for), not page protection. Big difference. It's already been semi-protected for months. Also look at this comment by user:Dbachmann, an administrator. WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality? He's stating pretty much the same thing as I am. It's been edit warred over for years before I touched the page, even if my actions can be seen as "edit warring".--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment As someone who has written the history section of the FA INDIA as well as the History of Pakistan page, I can say with some confidence that as far as the content dispute is concerned, it is not all Nadir Ali's fault. The Kalash people article is one of the many articles in which India-POV editors typically find some "academic sources" and stuff the lead of the article with Indo-Aryan, "Hindu", "Vedic," etc. I've seen this for over ten years. Contrast the lead of the Kalash article on Wikipedia (which begins with: "The Kalasha are an Indo-Aryan Dardic indigenous people residing in the Chitral District of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. They speak the Kalasha language, from the Dardic family of the Indo-Aryan branch. They are considered unique among the peoples of Pakistan.[9] They are also considered to be Pakistan's smallest ethnoreligious community,[10] practicing a religion which some scholars characterize as a animism,[2][3][4] and other academicians as "a form of ancient Hinduism".) with the the New World Encyclopedia article, which is based on the Wikipedia article, and which begins with, "The Kalash or Kalasha, are an ethnic group found in the Hindu Kush mountain range in the Chitral district of the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan. Although quite numerous before the twentieth century, this non-Muslim group has been partially assimilated by the larger Muslim majority of Pakistan and seen its numbers dwindle over the past century. Today, sheikhs, or converts to Islam, make up more than half of the total Kalasha-speaking population.The culture of Kalash people is unique and differs drastically from the various ethnic groups surrounding them. They are polytheists and nature plays a highly significant and spiritual role in their daily life." (See here) Do you see the difference, the subtle POV pushing in the Wikipedia article in the service of WP:Lead fixation? Nadir Ali, should no doubt not engage in edit wars, but his opponents are not innocent, just because they are paying lip-service to Wikipedia etiquette and have access to academic sources, which they are no doubt misusing. Every one should be given a warning, a stern one. No blocks or topic bans required at this stage.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

To editor Fowler&fowler:, would you and others not agree that the WikiProject Hindu needs to be taken off that talk page? It's an article about an ethnic group, not a religious group. If I were to attempt to remove it, I would be libeled once again. As examples talk:Tajik people, Talk:Pashtun people, Talk:Uzbek people, Talk:Sindhi people, Talk:Tartar people. Despite these people being primarily Muslims, I do not see them tagged with WikiProject Islam. I see this as a move of deliberate appropriation, but again would refrain from removing it for the same reasons have been astonishingly accused of (WP:BATTLEGROUND?).--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I have removed WikiProject Hinduism banner, and I suggest no one add it again without substantial discussion and consensus on the article's talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

To editor Fowler&fowler:, even if there was consensus that these people were followers of so-called "Hinduism", don't you and others agree that the article is about the ethnic group and not their religion? Tags go in topics about religious groups (ie. Muslims, Jews, Christians etc.) and as I pointed out, no article on Muslim-majority ethnic groups have WikiProject Islam tagged on them for the reason I explained.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support Tban. I realize that people can and do change. On the other hand, people are very often creatures of habit. User: NadirAli has been blocked a great number of times and as recently as this month he was blocked. So he is stubbornly and persistently a problem editor. I realize that people have strong feelings about religion/country and often try to impose what they wish was true rather than base matters on scholarship and the use of reliable sources. But we have to keep up our standards and not lower them. A topic ban is appropriate at this point. We can't allow people to aggressively push the use of dubious sources such as the alt-right source and the other poor source that User: NadirAli tried to use. Knox490 (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban After reviewing the case and evidence, it is clear that NadirAli continues to be disruptive. NadirAli hasn't demonstrated improvement even after blocks by numerous admins, including five in 2016 and 2017, some for repeat violations after coming out of a block. The extenuating arguments made above are unpersuasive. To say some or many "academic sources" are "allegedly somehow" bad does not make sense. That is asking for a license for POV-pushing and encouragement to abandon wikipedia's content policies such as verifiability, reliable sources and NPOV. We can't pick a side if and when there is a dispute in academic sources, we summarize the sides. If some sources are to be banned from wikipedia, don't selectively delete them in some articles and keep them in others; instead, nominate that source with evidence of wiki-plagiarism, then add them to WP:PUS like admin Utcursch has done with Gyan Publishing etc. If you can't provide evidence, please don't defame living scholars and please don't disrupt. NadirAli, as mentioned above by GoldenRing, removes tertiary source such as "Ethnic Groups of North, East, and Central Asia: An Encyclopedia" by James Minahan (whose publications have been favorably reviewed), and adds questionable website sources such as kaleshwelfare.org. Again shows NadirAli hasn't cared to understand content policies after past blocks, continued disruption and WP:NOTHERE. An indef block, or one where NadirAli can appeal for an admin review after 1 year of constructive editing elsewhere, seems appropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

In Nadir Ali's defense, I would like to suggest that the problem of misusing what are putatively high quality academic sources in Wikipedia articles to further a POV is a much more noxious one than one of just edit warring, for which we can all facilely quote WP policy. If Wikipedia has evolved in the last ten years, so has the ability of Wikipedia's editors to access academic sources. With the sheer amount of published academic material available, it is quite easy to find academic citations for assertions that, in sequence, shift the slant of the article. As I stated above I have seen this in a number of Pakistan- and Afghanistan related article, in which editors with access to academic sources introduce subtle ideological shifts involving "India," "Hinduism," and so forth, . Consider, for example, the WP article on the Hindu Kush mountain range, situated not far from where the Kalash people live. What do articles on mountain ranges typically have? It is not hard to see, by examining Himalayas, Andes, that they have sections on geography, geology, hydrology, climate, ecology, and then brief sections, if any, on local culture, economy. Indeed the extensive Britannica article on Hindu Kush has precisely such sections: physiography, geology, drainage, climate, .... In early November, 2016, the Hindu Kush, article (total word count 1600) was not quite the model, but proportionally had as much about the mountain system as it did about historical topics (by which I mean; political history, religious history, social history, etc in which the name of the mountain range occurs). Fast forward to the Hindu Kush article in mid-December 2016 (total word count 2800). What has been added? It is the history section, especially a subsection on "slavery," which expands on an old notion that the mountain name got its name "Hindu Kush" because tens of thousands of Hindu slaves from India died in its forbidding defiles, all abducted by Islamic invaders, and so forth. I haven't checked but I'm reasonably sure that what was added was impeccably sourced and prefaced with "according to Professor So-and-so, ...". But you can imagine that when editors from Afghanistan or Pakistan see such changes, they get irritated. There is often not too much they can do because the edits are sourced to scholarly sources, and WP discussion on UNDUE etc are often inconclusive. (It is much easier to add UNDUE assertions sourced to impeccable sources, than it is to show that such assertions constitute a minority opinion in the larger literature on the topic.) This is the sort of thing that editors such as Nadir Ali, admittedly in their characteristic way, are battling. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

F&f: Edit warring about "undue assertions sourced to impeccable sources", without a shred of evidence that it is "undue" per reliable source(s), is disruption! If someone has a feeling / prejudice / personal wisdom that "a view may constitute a minority opinion", that is just a feeling/prejudice/personal wisdom unless that someone can provide a reliable source that states "view X is a minority opinion and here is the majority opinion". That is particularly true, in cases where the sources are stating that X is the majority view and the wikipedia article is already summarizing the majority view X. Your opinion and colorful language/assertion does not matter, nor does someone's OR with no source, nor source misrepresentations and nor 'citation pending request' which you seem to miss in this. Sockpuppets and persistently disruptive editors adding unsourced, unverified OR with gross source misrepresentations or pushing a particular POV do not "balance an article", they disrupt and push a POV. Nothing you state actually evidences any extenuating circumstances for NadirAli, since your edit diffs have nothing to do with NadirAli (which raises the question why are doing that). The evidence is that NadirAli keeps disrupting despite blocks by numerous admins, NadirAli keeps deleting reliable sources and edit warring with non-RS blog/website based content. GoldenRing, Knox490 and others are right about NadirAli's disruption, diagnosis and Tban proposal. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Sarah Welch: I already stated, and let me state again: Contrast the lead of the Kalash article on Wikipedia (which begins with: "The Kalasha are an Indo-Aryan Dardic indigenous people residing in the Chitral District of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. They speak the Kalasha language, from the Dardic family of the Indo-Aryan branch. They are considered unique among the peoples of Pakistan.[9] They are also considered to be Pakistan's smallest ethnoreligious community,[10] practicing a religion which some scholars characterize as a animism,[2][3][4] and other academicians as "a form of ancient Hinduism".) with the the New World Encyclopedia article, which is based on the Wikipedia article, and which begins with, "The Kalash or Kalasha, are an ethnic group found in the Hindu Kush mountain range in the Chitral district of the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan. Although quite numerous before the twentieth century, this non-Muslim group has been partially assimilated by the larger Muslim majority of Pakistan and seen its numbers dwindle over the past century. Today, sheikhs, or converts to Islam, make up more than half of the total Kalasha-speaking population.The culture of Kalash people is unique and differs drastically from the various ethnic groups surrounding them. They are polytheists and nature plays a highly significant and spiritual role in their daily life." (See here) Do you see the difference? All the words Indo-Aryan, Hinduism, are absent in the latter article, which was written by cleaning up the Wikipedia article. Contrast the article Hindu kush that you've rewritten in large part—thereby conferring on it the honor of being the only Wikipedia article on a major mountain range whose history section (with notable slavery section) is bigger than its geology, physiography, palaeogeography, drainage, climate, and ecology put together— with Britannica's Hindu Kush. Do you see the difference? You, on Hindu kush, and other editors on Kalash people, are violating all sorts of Wikipedia guidelines, in spirit if not in the letter. Nadir Ali might be doing it more in the letter (of the law). But so what? Damage to these articles is being done by everyone. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• F&f: You are mistaken about the history of the Hindu Kush article (the unsourced text on Soviet tanks there, cold war, Taliban was there in the November 2016 version; all that was neither added by NadirAli, nor I, nor you). This is not the talk page of Hindu Kush article, this is ANI. Nor has that article anything to do with NadirAli, nor this case! Please avoid irrelevant stuff. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sarah Welch, so you call this and this "blogs"? At least it's more straight forward than the vague statements of "a form of 'Hinduism'" (an undefined term for a century and a half). It's the same as the joker who started this thread, persistently accusing me of using "a storybook" as a source, when Empires of the Indus is clearly a non-fiction book. That combined with the other sources I and user:Mar4d posted, along with most academic sources not referring to the Kalash religion as so-called "Hinduism". Using lies or misleading statements and false accusations to report a dispute on ANI should be given the strictest penalties--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• NadirAli: Please see WP:NOTTHEM. Please do provide edit diffs when you cast aspersions on what you label as "the joker who started this thread". GoldenRing and Knox490 have provided evidence, and they do have a valid concern just like the numerous admins who have blocked you in the past. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Rather than this man acknowledging his blunders and promising to stop doing them, he starts namecalling, using the word "joker", thereby committing one more violation against WP:CIVIL.69.204.2.184 (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support Indefinite Topic Ban across all Indian, Hinduism related articles Disruptive editing going on since 2006. There is no chance that this editor will not create any further disruption. Marvellous Spider-Man 04:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, and comment Having seen ANI threads go down the drain as, essentially, mud throwing contests in the past, I'm dispirited to learn that this is going in the same direction. As Fowler&fowler noted, "subtle" ideological viewpoints and editing have characterized South Asian articles since forever. I see it wrong to squarely single out NadirAli, as that would imply he alone is responsible. Because that is simply not true, at least from how I have seen him edit constructively on several Pakistan articles. I cannot help but notice that everyone in favour of a topic ban here are mainly those who seem to have had a history with the user. This thread was started with a proposal to "site ban or topic ban" NadirAli. And this is not to cast aspersions, but what is to say that those same users are foolproof clean from personal POVs, leanings and positions on certain issues, editing viewpoints (we all have one after all) and all else Nadir here is being accused of? I at least wouldn't place the odds very high, knowing this topic area and as Fowler&fowler eloquently put out. I think we'll defer the rest to an admin's judgement, but I must say I'm quite disappointed to see things go down this route escalating from what was originally a content dispute (and where I would still back my horses on Nadir's argument; the theory that Kalash have Hindu origins remains vague, and certainly not scholarly favored any higher than their animist origins; and the compromise version thus worked better than the previous revision). Mar4d (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose TBan and comment – It is true that NadirAli appears as a compulsive edit-warrior. I face his edit-warring quite regularly, e.g., [44], [45] at Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq's Islamization (April 2017), [46], [47] at Hindu (this month, even while the Kalash people dispute was ongoing). I have also seen him move war [48], [49], [50] at Iron Age in India even after RegentsPark told him to file a Request for Move. I have had to spell it out to him that any deviation from WP:BRD constitutes edit-warring, which shouldn't have been necessary for an editor with such a long history. But on the positive side, he does discuss on the talk pages, even if a bit late and even if his argumentation is rarely consensus-seeking, ignores RS, and keeps repeating points in a self-assured way. But beneath all his bravado, there is often a germ of a valid concern somewhere, which might need to be taken into account. Fowler&fowler tried to explicate that above in the present instance, even though I don't accept that the New World Encyclopedia is a better standard to follow. So, all said and done, his presence on the project might be beneficial in the long run for rebalancing articles, even if we have to put up with the annoyance of his aggressive editing occasionally. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Kautilya3: would a limited Tban or 1RR restriction or some other approach on NadirAli be helpful to the project in Afghanistan/Pakistan/India space articles? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• @Sarah Walech, I have provided diffs and links, including the links to user:Dbachmann's comment (I hope you & Knox are not going to propose a topic ban against him for this), the book sources I shared as well as the link to Empires of the Indus which says it's a non-fiction book, while he repeatedly claims it's a "storybook" (already provided in the edit summary diff) and removed the disputed tag on that basis. Accusing somebody on an administrators noticeboard of using a "storybook" as a source is lying to administrators and should not come without consequences. GoldenRing already noticed some of the lies posted here. As for the admins who have blocked me, about half of them are gone (including one who was de-sysopped for blocking users who edit warred with him) or semi-active (as will be the case for all of us eventually).--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• NadirAli: You write, "Accusing somebody on an administrators noticeboard of using a "storybook" as a source is lying to administrators and should not come without consequences." I searched your edit history and ANI page, Knox490 questions "raceandhistory.com" as a source. Why and how is that lying? Edit diff please! You did add raceandhistory.com here, Knox490 does have a valid concern with your editing here and here and etc (something admin GoldenRing notes above). Did one out of 12+ admins who blocked you get de-sysoped for blocking you? Did half of them become semi-active because of you? If so, please provide some evidence, some edit diffs. Otherwise, please see WP:NOTTHEM, avoid mentioning what happened to admins who blocked you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Sarah Welch, I never used it as a "source", just to present an argument. I don't ever remember claiming it to be a source, so to accuse me of using it as one is indeed a lie. I presented three links, two of them WP:RS and one for general arguments, but only one was linked here in order to deceive others and discredit me. Regarding the other admins, well you brought it up so I replied. If posted diffs to other admins retiring/semi-retiring because of me, I would just be advocating that I'm the problem in these disputes, rather than pushing for content to comply with the majority and more direct sources, which I am. Now if you'll please excuse me, there are pages I need to work on.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose any ban for Nadir Ali and Comment: I will stake my reputation on Wikipedia (including that of the editor with the most number of edits on the FA India, the author of its history, geography, and biodiversity sections), when I say that India- and Hinduism-related UNDUE edits are being made on on a number of Pakistan- and Afghanistan-related pages. These are what Nadir Ali has to put up with. Sometimes it involves inserting "India," "Hinduism," needlessly, sometimes it is much more UNDUE. I have already mentioned the Kalash people article. The article quotes Harvard Sanskritist Michael Witzel to imply that the Kalash religion is a form of ancient Hinduism. But Witzel in his latest book is very careful to use only "pagan" for the Kalash religion. See here. He uses that word half a dozen times, once explicitly with "pre-Hindu." (See here.) In the Hindu Kush article, on a mountain range, on the borders of which the Kalash live: between 10 December, 2016, (total word count 1600) and 16 December 2016 (total word count 2800) extraneous material on history and slavery was added and the geology section was changed in a manifestly unencylopedic fashion. No amount of last-minute tinkering with rearrangement, done a few hours ago, in response to this thread, can hide the UNDUE edits, especially the spectacular insertion of "Greater India" ("Geologically, the Indian subcontinent was first a part of so-called "Greater India",[22] a region of Gondwana that drifted away from East Africa about 160 million years ago, around the Middle Jurassic period") in the opening sentence of the geology section in this edit with edit summary, "no youtube/personal videos/blogs please; replace with content from scholarly sources". Recondite geophysics journals are cited, (actually taken from the Indian subcontinent page), but the cited articles say that what drifted away was Greater India (including Madagascar and Seychelles), and Australia and Antarctica. (Parenthetically: "Greater India" is a highly specialized geophysics term that has gained currency in the last 40-odd years. It refers to the reconstructions of the Indian continental crust plus hypothesized northern extension of the oceanic crust which subducted under Tibet at the time of the India-Eurasia collision. Sometimes it is used to refer only to the northern extension. In fact, that is what the first cited authors say. They say, "We apply the common term Greater India to refer to the part of the Indian plate that has been subducted underneath Tibet since the onset of Cenozoic continental collision.") I wrote the article on Greater India on Wikipedia some ten years ago, before it was hijacked, and know what the specialist usage means. I wrote the geography section of the FA India. Do we mention "greater India" there? We don't. Is it mentioned in the Himalayas page? It is not (see Himalayas#Geography_and_key_features). Is it mentioned in the Karakoram page? It is not. See Karakoram#Geology_and_glaciers. Presiding admin: please take note. This is the kind of "cited to high quality RS" UNDUE content that people like Nadir Ali have to put up with. It takes someone like me, with vast experience in academics, someone who knows a thing or two about the geological formation of India, to dig out from under the UNDUE avalanche. Nadir Ali, very likely does not have the tools to access all these obscure articles. And, the editors who added the UNDUE content, please don't Wikilawyer facilely and tell me this is not the right venue for my post. It very much is, if I have to give examples of what Nadir Ali has to face. Granted he his not innocent, but neither are the others he has to encounter. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

PS It is not lost on me that the Wikipedia article Greater India today has no mention of geology in its lead. It says, "The term Greater India is most commonly used to encompass the historical and geographic extent of all political entities of the Indian subcontinent and beyond, that had to varying degrees been transformed by the acceptance and induction of cultural and institutional elements of pre-Islamic India." How great does that look when referred to on Pakistan- and Afghanistan-related pages even when "Greater India" is not wiki-linked. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@NadirAli: Fowler&flower, with his usual WP:TEXTWALL, seems to be falsely implying that you edited Hindu Kush article and gives it as an example "what NadirAli has to face", along with "Granted he [NadirAli] is not innocent" but an excuse for you to disrupt that article, etc!! I do not see you ever editing the Hindu Kush article since 2013? Did you have an alternate account that we are unaware of? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

You can't win any silly brownie points with that literal interpretation. You don't think I already checked whether or not Nadir Ali had made edits on Hindu Kush when I examined the history of all edits on that so assiduously. I gave that as an example of the more general point about what Pakistani and other editors have to put up with. I gave that as an example of the sheer scale of the sourced UNDUE that is being added to these articles, not to mention, in the passing, the UNDUE antecedents of the very people who are crying so piously for Nadir Ali's blood. Kalash people (not edited by you); Hindu Kush (not edited by Nadir Ali) and Indian subcontinent (edited by you and Mar4d, who has made a post above) were just three examples. I said, "This is the kind of 'cited to high quality RS' UNDUE content that people like Nadir Ali have to put up with. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• In other words, now you stating "NadirAli never tried to edit Hindu Kush since 2013, but you know that NadirAli somehow got upset with "having to put up with" the "reliably sourced, but allegedly undue content" in Hindu Kush article; that you allege somehow justifies disruptive behavior by NadirAli in other articles." This "he can't put up with the content in our Mickey Mouse article, so he disrupts that other article" is unpersuasive for any ANI case. Strange but thanks for clarifying, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

In my very first post, I offered in comparison, the New World Encyclopedia article on Kalash, which begins with, "The Kalash or Kalasha, are an ethnic group found in the Hindu Kush mountain range in the Chitral district of the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan." I then clicked on Wikipedia's Hindu Kush and the UNDUE edits were manifest. I then wrote in my oppose, "India- and Hinduism-related UNDUE edits are being made on on a number of Pakistan- and Afghanistan-related pages." ANI threads are not just about the people whose name appears in the section title; they are also about the people who are pointing fingers, crying for blood, but themselves making edits in the same topic area that violate WP guidelines. If you think you haven't violated DUE at Hindu Kush take me to the WP forum of your choosing and I will offer proof. But before that you might want to consider how you managed to add to an article on the great mountain range of Central Asia the sentences, "Al Biruni found it difficult to get access to Indian literature locally in the Hindu Kush area, and to explain this he wrote, 'Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country, and performed wonderful exploits by which the Hindus became the atoms scattered in all directions, and like a tale of old in the mouth of the people. (...) This is the reason, too, why Hindu sciences have retired far from those parts of the country conquered by us, and have fled to places which our hand cannot yet reach, to Kashmir, Benares and other places'" (See here with edit summary, "add sources.") What is this if not a flagrant example of an "India- and Hinduism related UNDUE edit on a Pakistan- or Afghanistan related page?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban on all India-Pakistan articles This editor has not learned from his previous mistakes, despite the multiple chances given to him, as shown in his extensive block log. Many of his contributions demonstrate aggressive POV pushing, such as those listed by User:Ms Sarah Welch above. --EngiZe (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose any topic ban as direct party involved and also note the one proposing the topic ban also voted in favor of the same thing he proposed, an attempt to add more votes. @EngiZe, is this your first ANI post? It seems like it for a user only here a year and a half (how did you happen to find this board and specific topic?). Prior to that what disputes were you involved in before your "clean start"? You seem to have edited in this topic area too.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• I also wonder if all the blocks in my log are ever cross examined in a review board or a review case, not that such a system exists yet on Wikipedia to my knowledge. Many blocks would turn out to be unjustified, especially Rama's Arrow, who kept blocking other users besides me that also opposed his aggressive edit warring and putting in falsified reasons in block logs. Some of them included User:Szhaider, a former Urdu Wikipedia administrator. Even now, as back then, while many users were opposed to me (many of which turned out to be sockpuppets/masters in the past month and others who had their own previous squabbles with various other users as user:Mar4d questioned and I pointed out, including the user posting above who went by another username before their "clean start"), there are many good standing editors with good reputations including administrators who agree with me on these topics, not to mention my valuable contributions to Wikipedia, including this area. Szhaider voluntarily left because he had no hope in the system as do I.[51] And I never really intended to stay here that long. But seeing Wikipedia is already on the decline, I thought I might as well fix it up as much as I can before my presence on the site goes away with the website itself.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Although I opposed desysopping of Rama's Arrow back in Feb 2007, I did mention some issue he had, that in my current view, made it all too easy for NadirAli and two other Pakistan editors to receive blocks. See here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

There was more discussion on that on WP:RFA/Hkelkar-2, where RA was revealed to be using his rollback tools to dodge 3RR and team tag edit warring and then blocking the same user he edit warred with for edit warring. In my block log and other Pakistani users block log he put some strange reasons without providing any evidence for it or posting it on ANI, so I'm arguing to cite my block log without cross examination of each case is a deception. At least evidence should be provided to back it up. Another was Blguyans block of my in 2009 to indefinite despite me having been gone a full year and based on a decision where most of the "evidence" was twisted statements from the one side and the ability for the other side to break the very principle rules of Wikipedia and get away with it without even a warning. So how can half the blocks in my log even be taken seriously. But to add to Fowler and Mar4d's statements on WP:UNDUE, I think these are strings of cases of WP:Systematic bias, where some vague statements are being inserted in the lead and infoboxes to change public perception on the whole subject, when the majority of sources make clear cut statements for animism as in the case of the Kalash article, yet they're both being treated equally. Even the sources I posted in the discussion were never addressed and instead I was accused of "removing 'reliable sourced' content" when under the current compromise, I just made the factual edit that majority of scholars refer to the religion as a form of animism. But in the end, I am repeating that it matters less. Given the inevitable decline of Wikipedia -now from second website to tenth most viewed website plus the loss of over a third of contributors because of unjust treatment and favoritism, my repeated question is what will it matter what happened ten years ago or last month? Imagine looking back at these disputes in the next few years when Wikipedia will end up somewhere much further below.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment:When making decisions about various matters , one should first do the requisite research via such methods as looking at reliable sources of information. Yet, some people make a decision what they want to believe and then use whatever source/method they can find to attempt to justify their belief along with suppressing scholarship, reliable sources, etc.

NadirAli used an alt-right website to support an edit of his and then deleted contrary information supported by a reliable source (decent book source). He then engaged in edit warring on top of this. This is not an isolated incident. He has repeatedly been banned from Wikipedia. This leopard is not going to change his spots. His whole mindset is backwards. He did sloppy research and then engaged in the disharmonious behavior of edit warring to make matters even worse.

At this point, I am starting to think that perhaps NadirAli should be banned from Wikipedia. He has shown little to no remorse relative to his bad behavior. At the very least, he should be topic banned. Knox490 (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Continuous repeat of previous lies. Just as that "storybook" accusation that you made. I posted numerous reliable sources, including one from Oxford University and attempted to remove what was WP:UNDUE and not properly sourced statements as pointed out by other users. You also accused me of WP:BATTLEGROUND for requesting arbitrary sanctions on the article because it was targeted by various nationalists when User:Dbachmann made the same comment on talk:Hunza. Again, I do not believe posting untrue statements on an administrators board should come without consequences.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

NadirAli, on the talk page of the Kalash people article, did you use the alt-right source "raceandhistory.com" in order to try to support a position of yours? If so, why did you do this? Also, do you consider the source raceandhistory.com to be a reliable source or an unreliable source? If you consider it to be a reliable source, please explain why you feel it is a reliable source.

If you agree that raceandhistory.com is an unreliable source, was my questioning of your competency a legitimate concern? If not, please explain why my concern was unwarranted.Knox490 (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I hope to dig into this in greater detail, but at the moment it seems to be a slight over-reaction. I do not think a topic ban should be applied where a lesser remedy will suffice. In this case, plenty of evidence has been provided demonstrating that Nadir Ali is a prolific edit-warrior; in which case, the logical step would be to place him under a 1RR restriction. To justify a topic ban I would need to see more evidence that their edits are unconstructive in and of themselves. The claim about raceandhistory.com is concerning, but very little substantive evidence has been provided that there is a recurring problem of competence or inappropriate sourcing. Vanamonde (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing - Pahlevun

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is an issue with user Pahlevun and their disruptive editing on the People's Mujahedin of Iran article. Their disruptiveness and asserting ownership makes it impossible for other editors to contribute to the project. I suggest a topic ban be imposed. Below is a list of examples of poor editing behavior:

• Disruptive editing - tendentious editing, Rejects or ignores community input. “His or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia.”
  • Examples:
    • Uncivil, Personal attack - Pushing certain view accusation (07:33, 29 June 2017), hijack references accusation (12:03, 8 April 2017).
    • Undoing work of other editors without explanation: 12:10, 12 April 2017.
    • Marking major / non-minor edits as minor including additions, reverts, and removals. These edits do not meet the criteria for minor “edit”: 18:30, 26 July 2017; 07:14, 15 July 2017‎; 18:23, 9 July 2017; 11:50, 22 May 2017; 5 May 2017‎; 19:47, 8 February 2017; 14:41, 28 February 2017; 12:38, 30 March 2017;
    • Large additions without providing edit summary - 08:20, 29 June 2017‎; 15:49, 25 March 2017‎; 17:53, 4 January 2017‎.

• Ownership
  • Examples:
    • Reverts good-faith change without providing an edit summary: 08:25, 5 May 2017.
    • Multiple additions made within a short amount of time without discussing on Talk Page: 07:00, 15 July 2017‎ and 15:31, 15 July 2017‎; 16:45, 29 January 2017‎ and 13:02, 3 February 2017‎.
    • Unwilling to work with editors, it’s their way or no way: 12:11, 12 April 2017 (→‎Lead Clean).

DirectAttrition (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

OP has been indeffed as just one of at least 11 confirmed sockpuppets that have been making a sustained effort to purge People's Mujahedin of Iran of negative material about the group. (It's likely that there are even more socks out there, or will be soon.) Pahlevun has in fact been a saint trying to contain the ensuing disruption; I suggest a speedy close. For more on the socking, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atlantic12.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I have never tried to engage in "disruptive editing", nor felt ownership on any article. The complaint is now proven to be a WP:SPA and not here to build an encyclopedia. I don't know if it is necessary to explain myself. Pahlevun (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin here. I think that, given the complainant is a sock it's probably all moot now. I went through the provided diffs, and there is very clearly no personal attacks or incivility as far as I could see. That said Pahlevun, it probably is a good idea to ensure that edits to controversial articles always have edit summaries. If there's no objections, I'll cinch this section up for posterity. A Train^talk 21:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request: Check whether the article creations are made by someone close to the channel

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• J Bar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.215.194.46 (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2017‎ (UTC)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. I have done so for you. The best way to determine if that account is used by someone close to the channel is to simply ask them. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Potential socks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Just saw User:Jd forlife2k16 and User:JD-LIFE2k17 on the userpage patrol log. I actually patrolled one before I saw the other. It could be that they accidentally created two accounts or wanted to change their username and weren't sure how, but I thought it'd be best for somebody else to take a look in case they are socking. As of now I am not notifying either account per WP:BITE. If they're innocent, I don't want to drive them off. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal Attacks by Bulldog4

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have been threatened and falsley accused of vandalism and personally attacked by Bulldog4. I feel that this is a violation of the principles of the wikipedia community:

• False and unfounded accusations of a personal vendetta. (link)

• False and unfounded accusations of Vandalism. (link)

• False accusations of using a sock puppet account as well as the ridiculous accusations of placing a "device" on Bulldog4. (link)

This is really not making wikipedia a safe place to be for me, his multiple allusions to legal action and attempts at trying to defame my account and edit reputation is frustrating. I would like to see some intervention.Moist towelett (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

You need to better link diffs, but this one in particular strikes me as a legal threat: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moist_towelett&diff=prev&oldid=792497819 Suggest blocking. --Tarage (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Also it appears that Bulldog4 may be editing with a COI. --Tarage (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I will state that Bulldog4 has alluded multiple times to the fact that they are the subject of the article they are editing.Moist towelett (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far. They do seem to have a COI, but that is irrelivant considering they have issued a very clear legal threat, on top of their increased incivility. Thankfully their edit history is not very long... --Tarage (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The subject was also previously editing under user:Strathisla1.Moist towelett (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Even if their comments only skirt the lines of a legal threat, it is nonetheless chilling any attempts at discussion and is almost certainly meant to intimidate. Agree with a block, we don't need people like here. Blackmane (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Given the above, a CU might be worth running as well. Both editors probably need to be dealt with, considering they both appear to have a COI. --Tarage (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked for the vague legal threat and the above behaviour, but primarily because they are clearly here to push an agenda and not to contribute to the encyclopedia -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 07:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect There'sNoTime, what about the other user who is probably related? Why did you close this without the CU? --Tarage (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

That other account stopped editing two years ago. There is nothing that CU can do since such information is not accessible after three months. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the swift action by everyone in this thread. If the username appears again and makes another Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest claim where should I report them, back to here?Moist towelett (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inappropriate non-admin closure of an AfD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm raising a concern I had about the recent non-admin AfD closure for Aturaparijnana by User:Anoptimistix. There were only two comments made: the nominator's and my "Delete" comment. Anoptimistix attempted to improve the article (which as I understand is totally fine). But then rather than make a "Keep" comment and maybe notify the other commenters that there was new information to consider and/or ask for a relisting, they instead closed the AfD as a "Keep", even though there was certainly no consensus to do so. Moreover, I feel that the attempted improvements didn't really address the main issues raised in the AfD in the first place (so I have since renominated it for deletion; I hope that's not a problem). --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a complete misreading of Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Appropriate closures. That wasn't a Keep by any stretch with just one comment in the way of deletion and no keep comments, and if anything the AfD needed to be relisted, not closed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First I agree that this was a problematic close. Almost certainly done in good faith but definitely running afoul of WP:INVOLVED. However the correct course of action here would have been to first contact the closing editor with your concerns and suggest they re-open the AfD. If that failed the next step would have been WP:DELREV. I am inclined to revert the close and delete the current AfD. Thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that's the right way to go. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok. There being no immediate objections, and given this doesn't look like an especially complicated case, I'm going to move on that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

(non admin comment) Yeah I feel this is the best course of action for the time being --Kostas20142 (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Close of original AfD reverted. New AfD deleted per CSD G6. Article reverted to last pre-close form. Seafood for Anoptimistix tonight. -20:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated misuse of minor edit box

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Mondiad repeatedly misuses minor edit box when they are making major edits or tagging some article. They have been repeatedly warned about this issue but still continue to do it, diff and diff, but they continue with it on a large scale, including this edits: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, ... Many of this edits can be seen as a way to advance his position.

I notified them about this discussion diff.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator:, I consider these to be minor edits. If you don't agree, you can always edit the articles or leave me a message on my talk page. I don't see how this translates to "advancing my position". For instance, have another look at this diff, it is a cleanup, you should thank editors for housekeeping activities. Best regards and good luck! -Mondiad (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

No, these are NOT minor edits, and if you think they are you simply need to stop marking any edits at all as minor. The cost of mistakenly marking an edit minor is way higher than the benefit of correctly marking one, so in your case just stop doing it. If you keep this up the community will have very little tolerance. EEng 01:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Please study WP:MINOR because "minor" has a special meaning at Wikipedia. Do not mark edits as minor unless they fully comply with WP:MINOR which yours do not. Johnuniq (talk) 06:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with everyone else. These are clearly not minor edits in the wikipedia context. While you're free to personally believe something is or isn't a minor edit, you need to only use the minor edit flag when it's considered a minor edit in the en.wikipedia context as per the info page above. If you're unwilling or unable to learn what a minor edit is in the en.wikipedia context, you should just refrain from using the tag. Nil Einne (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

At the risk of piling on, I looked at those edits and they are definitely not minor. While we don't have the ability to block and editors use of the flag inappropriately, sometimes I wish we did. Either familiarize yourself with the meaning of the term or just cease using the flag completely.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Mondiad Taking in consideration that after multiple explicit warnings and explanations and even after you are reported here you still insist that you did nothing wront stating: I consider these to be minor edits I am afraid that this can be seen as WP:IDHT behaviour. Instead to acknowledge issues with your editing you cherry-picked one diff to prove you are never advancing your position. Why didn't you picked the first diff I presented (diff) in which you deleted cited text which was subject of disupte and which removal has been reverted a couple of days before with this diff? In order to remove the text you did not like from the lede of that article, you masked your edit as minor. This is only one of many edits you did to advance your position by masking them as minor. This is not an issue of mistakenly using minor edit box, this is repeated misuse of minor edit box to advance your POV, acting like WP:IDHT and WP:CHERRYPICKING. There is no doubt you indend to continue with it untill somebody stops you. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator Can you prove that Mondiad misused minor edit flag to advance their POV as you claim? I have seen other editors to mark as minor edits changes that are not really so, it is widespread and most of them have never been reported in this place. Many editors use it in every change they think is not controversial and can not cause disputes. You reported for the same thing another Albanian editor some months ago. There you were told that "there's no need to stir up drama". Do you remember that? Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Flag waving faillacy. You want to present this report as ethnicity motivated. Its not me who pretends not to understand that it is forbidden to mask major edits as minor, even after repeated warnings and explanations. Its not me who stirs up drama by demonstrating blatant WP:IDHT behaviour. In the first diff I presented and in my last comment above I clearly pointed to the example of diff which shows that Mondiad made a controversial major edit and masked it as minor to advance his position.

I obvously gave a clear explanation in this report because many other editors obviously share my opinion and continued with their efforts to explain to Mondiad that he was wrong. Unfortunatelly he continues to refuse to get the point blaming other editors instead (diff). What he did is wrong. How can anybody adress the tags he put if he masks his edits as minor (diff) You are free to disagree. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• STOP! At this point we needn't get into motives. I note that Mondiad has made 5 edits since commenting in this thread, and marked none of them minor. Unless there's further trouble along these lines, there's no need for further comment here. Let's leave this thread open a few days just to see. Report any "minor" problems back here. (signed) He-who-pours-oil-on-troubled-waters aka EEng 21:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to spoil harmony, if Mondiad has decided to err on the side of caution here, but this really does look like a tempest in a teapot to me. First, while I would not have marked any of those particular edits as "minor", most of them are borderline enough that I wouldn't raise an eyebrow if I saw someone else doing it. More importantly, I just don't understand the fear here; any review of a contributions or revision history page where one would see the "minor edit" tag will also be simultaneously presented with other data and metrics regarding the edit; it's more or less impossible to hide a potentially contentious edit from experienced editors merely by marking it "minor"; most of us are so used to the variability in how people use the "minor" checkbox that we tune it out altogether when looking at revision histories. Or at least, I assume I'm not the only one who does that. So I don't understand the problem--or at least, I feel it is being overstated.

Maybe if this discussion was about a complex set of editorial habits which tended to obscure or mislead issues, I'd view this as a source of more concern. But I see no implication of such criticism in this discussion; the only concern raised so far is about this contributors idiosyncratic use of that function. For that matter, WP:MINOR is not a policy or guideline page and describes its advice in terms of "etiquette", not a firm mandate. (WP:MINOR is an info page, but their status relative to general policy is actually a matter of frequent debate of late; so long as they are not created by a full WP:PROPOSAL process, I don't think they can ever be just assumed to be a reflection of fully vetted community consensus, and thus are closer to an WP:Essay in how binding they are, even if the idea is that they should be more neutral than an essay). Again, if Mondiad is willing to comply for the sake of assuaging concerns, then that's all the better, and probably the best possible outcome. But I remain confused as to the nature of the damage/disruption that is alleged to result from Mondiad's departure from the norm on checking that box. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Please do not mislead the editor. WP:MINOR is crystal clear and pretending that standard procedures don't matter is very unhelpful. People are welcome to do all sorts of silly things, but when guidance is provided, they should behave collaboratively, not act as if "This is a minor edit" means what they want it to mean. Johnuniq (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see where I'm "misleading" anyone. I'm raising the question of whether or not the editors here, when they criticize another editor's deviation from their expectations on this issue, have solid policy rationale for doing so. WP:MINOR is an WP:information page, not a WP:POLICY or WP:Guideline; the idea behind info pages is that editors who write them are encouraged to make them more neutral than WP:essays, but they do not go through the WP:PROPOSAL process or get vetted by the broader community in any significant way, so they do not have the status and force of a guideline. You use the phrase "standard procedures" as if that is some kind of behaviourally significant term on this project, because you knew you couldn't use the word "policy" there, and that in itself should tell you something.

If this user has not in fact violated a community guideline (I haven't seen one cited yet, anyway), then his behaviour may yet still be disruptive, but I would like to hear a more significant argument as to how, before we condemn him for his actions. Any time we depart from the firm, established community consensus that is enshrined in policies and guidelines, we need to be extra certain that we have a really good pragmatic reason for doing so, especially if it is to censure another editor. If you really feel this passionately about WP:MINOR as a "standard procedure", you could always put it through the PROPOSAL process to make it a guideline; I bet you it would be successful, but I bet that some of the current idiosyncratic wording on the page would also be lost in the process. Regardless, I'm not going to come down hard on another contributor for having a different assessment of "minor" from me--not when it's not going to change how I analyze his edits, anyway. And I don't think I'm "misleading" anyone by pointing out that he doesn't seem to have actually violated any community guideline. I have said, and I'll repeat again, that if he has already started to adjust his approach, he should just continue with that solution; striving for harmony with his co-contributors is still the best and most principled way forward here, regardless of the debate of what he is "technically" allowed/not allowed to do. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, for the record, I just accidentally marked my last post minor (perhaps because it was on my mind), but I'm sure it's not the first time I've done it and it highlights another issue; its an incredibly easy thing to do without intention of meaning. It's not like typing out a PA, or repeatedly clicking revert in an edit war; it's right there when you are already about to save your changes, and it can't be undone once done. I bet for gnomes who work mostly on correcting small formatting or grammatical errors, it's an incredibly hard habit to break when they do tackle something more substantial. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• There've been no more minor edits. Close this. EEng 17:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removing battle result quilifier

The user User:Appah Rao is systematically removing qualifiers (e.g. Decisive) from the battle infobox result line, he sometimes claims to be "Removing unsourced content" and other times just removes them with no explanation. Examples of this conduct are: 1, 2, 3 and 4.

The use of these qualifiers has been a long-standing practice on Wikipedia and although they are not quoted from one reference they agree and summarize the whole article, there has been no discussion of removing such qualifiers from Wikipeida (to my knowledge and user own justification is the lack of source not general practice agreed upon).

I did not contact the user because I have long ago decided not to engage in disputes with other wikipedians, but he has changed an article that I have created and done the principle work on with no substantial contribution from anyone else and I can't walk away from it because a single user has decided to systematically change Wikipedia's practice by his own whim.--DelftUser (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

DelftUser, communication with other users on content disputes is not optional. The fact that you created the article is irrelevant. It is not yours and you are required to either edit it collaboratively with other editors, or not edit it at all. SeeWP:OWN. When unreferenced content is challenged, it must either be sourced or removed. See WP:BURDEN. Further this noticeboard is for reporting behavioral issues with other editors. That is a risky path for you to be taking, because from this viewing the only editor that is behaving inappropriately is you. John from Idegon (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

This case definitely doesn't belong in ANI. All for "decisive", it's not sourced nor is it important. It's more of a WP:PEACOCK word. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@DelftUser: I recommend asking for input from WP:MILHIST. "Decisive" has specific meaning in describing battles, and they would be able to offer more details on that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as Nihonjoe pointed out, it's a common usage in military history that describes a significant outcome which effectively ends one phase of the conflict. This is why there are many decisive battles throughout history, particularly when attrition warfare is not an option. Alex Shih^Talk 16:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked sock/editor articles created

A blocked sock/editor has created quite a few new articles that I checked while patrolling new pages. Are these pages supposed to be deleted? If so, how should they be tagged for deletion? The articles look like they were created before the block.

Best Regards,

Bfpage (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

You're going to need to supply some evidence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

See WP:G5, but yes, please give us some details, particularly so that the account(s) can be blocked if they're determined to be socking. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Harassment by Ms10vc

Hi This used harass me. He tries to put pressure on me and intimidate me by trying to influence an administrator.. The page said: "this page documents an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline." And these contributors have knowledge on the subject, there is no harm in asking their opinion. And I have the right to write to a contributor in his own talk page if it is to let him know some clarifications. It is an appropriate notification. So I did not do anything who is prohibited by the rules. On this case, we are in full harassment of this account where it tracks down my messages on the contributor's talk pages. This behaviour should be stopped. He has done canvassing here by asking a contributor who does not pass on "en.wiki" to come here for no reason. Colokreb From then on, such a contributor no longer has any reason to reproach me with anything. I have a witness @Jean-Jacques Georges: --Panam2014 (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Panam2014, while I do agree with you about Ms10vc's general behaviour, you'd do best to show diffs about what he's doing here and on other projects. It would be more useful, and more convincing to the admins, than simply asking for my opinion, especially since I took no part in your current debates with him. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I have a large file on the actions of this individual who uses Wikimedia Commons to communicate here and besides it is clear that he tries to modify the same pages to influence a decision on the francophone page. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Then show them to the admins here : it will be certainly more decisive than just pinging me. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned above, please provide some diffs which show harassment. I note that the above link to Drmies's talk page ended in advising you to come here, so what exactly would you like us to do? :) -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 13:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. First, the conflict began in french Wikipedia. After that, the groupe attempted to provok a new conflict here. Then, it is clear that there are no consensus to add that fictitious flag (see talk pages). And, in the end, from 15 April to 1 July Ms10vc attempted to impose the flag in english wikipedia, arabic, italian, spanish, and turkish (and has been reverted). --Panam2014 (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's not good behaviour, I agree - however, it doesn't appear like the editor has harassed you? Do you have anything to back up the claim of harassment? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 13:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime: Ms10vc track down the slightest of my movements and spend his time accusing me of wrong things to try to sink me. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Well that's more actionable - could you provide some links to that? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 13:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime:He harass me and defame me for the third time : [52] and [53]. Every time I do something that does not please him he comes out of the wood. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. The facts are clear and simple. I have promised to User:Drmies to always have a good behavior and to always discuss and give sources ==> [54]. In order to avoid doing anything wrong, I prefer to ask his advice. Panam2014 was already warned about his personal attacks ==> [55]. After that, he reverted my modification pretending that I did not provide any source ==>"No source for the flag stop now". But in fact, the source is present in the Commons' page of the flag. I asked Colokreb to send me the relevant pages of the book and he kindly did it. If it's a matter of source, I can send the pages to anyone who wants to verify if I'm lying or telling the truth. Last but not least, Panam did a new personal attack by accusing me of lying ==> [56], and then he went the Wikipedia:Canvassing way ==> [57] and [58]. And because the best defense is a good offense, he now tries to fool the game by accusing me of harrassment. Best regards --Ms10vc (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The account Ms10vc have promised that but he has not meet its commitments. In line with his pov pushing on several Wikimedia projects, he tries to accuse me of anything whenever I move. Today, Ms10vc has been warned for his behaviour by Dirmes. For the rest, Ms10vc did "canvassing" at the beginning of the month trying to contact Colokreb who never intervened here. In view of this, he has no legitimacy to reproach me (wrongly) for what he is doing openly. For the moment, I was right to say that no source was provided. Speaking of source, I was referring to the fact that no source was provided to prove that one of the two flags is more true than the other. The sources do not allow us to conclude. Giving the sources is not enough given that we have contradictory sources. Accusing someone of lying is not accuse it of being a liar. And I explained how it was a lie. For the second point, "this page documents an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline." And these contributors contribute to the English version and have knowledge on the subject, there is no harm in asking their opinion. And I have the right to write to a contributor in his own talk page if it is to let him know some clarifications. It is an appropriate notification. So I did not do anything who is prohibited by the rules. On this case, we are in full harassment of this account where it tracks down my messages on the contributor's talk pages. And now, @L3X1: is agree with me. This behaviour should be stopped. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I want to add something. In addition to my other diffs, when we see that the conflict only took place on "fr.wiki" and that much later Ms10vc modified several versions of Wikipedia on the same day and in the same way, it shows that for the story that concerns us here, the purpose of the modification here is only to influence the debates on "fr.wiki". It should also know that Ms10vc is blocked indefinitely on "fr.wiki" and he lost 4 pseudos (minimum : [59], [60], [61] (the last harrassed me and JJG have accused Zivax (admin) to helping his friend Panam2014 about a story with JJG). So we are in full "WP: Meat puppetry" knowing that he can not intervene directly. As for the rest, we saw that he tried to bring Colokreb here to try to influence the debate. It is indeed "WP: Canvassing". Finally, it is clear that his behavior is not irreproachable on Commons : [62]. Finally, I am willing to give more diffs if needed. --Panam2014 (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for editor stating "I believe Islam is cancer"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This may be controversial, but I do not believe that an editor with such a strong dislike towards a religion (or indeed people) should be editing related articles or related material within articles. Music314812813478 (talk · contribs) had the statement "Since I could not find any userboxes for it, let's just say that I believe Islam is cancer." on his userpage until it was removed.[63] Their response to the removal was "I don't like this "it hurts, so it should be taken down!" culture, but I guess I'll have to play along."[64]. Note that their two blocks for edit warring were both on Islam related subjects.[65] [66] Doug Weller talk 20:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I've checked a couple of their contribs at random, and many of them should be reverted. I have reverted a couple myself. A topic ban from Islam related stuff would be a good start, but I am worried that that may not be enough. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

There are many antitheists on youtube, who believe that the world would be saner without religion. They don't have topic bans for having beliefs about religion similar to my beliefs about Islam. Why should I get a topic ban then? Also, how is disliking a set of beliefs somehow bigotry? I said Islam is cancer; I never expressed hate for Muslims.Music314812813478 (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I've waded through the user's edits and there's a readily apparent tendency to wade into contentious articles and make brash POV edits without discussion or consensus-seeking. A very high proportion of the user's recent edits have been reverted as unhelpful. I would go so far as to say that the user might not be quite ready to make edits to any religion-related articles at all. [Edit conflict] Actually, wow, look at the post from 21:33 UTC above. I think Music314812813478 means well but maybe they should be editing articles about ABBA songs or the Mets or something. A Train^talk 21:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't organise mass reverts of my edits assuming they have anything to do with my statements about Islam, especially if my edits are well sourced. And frankly, some of you may subconsciously insert your own biases in reverting my edits. And why extend my topic ban to ALL religion articles just because of what I said about Islam? I source my edits, and am willing to discuss them. They may have a slant, but so do the edits of most editors (such as User:StAnselm), and a slant does not necessarily mean a bias.Music314812813478 (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Slant is a pretty good synonym for bias, as far as anyone is concerned. Playing semantic games on ANI is not a great look. Your larger problem, MusicPi, is that your biases make you into a bull in a china shop. Here's a representative slice of your recent edits (all of which were immediately reverted).

• Here you use a naive and academically dismissed perspective on Hitler in an attempt to distance Christianity from the Third Reich.
• Here you make a non-sensical edit to deflect criticism from Christianity.
• Here you add a strange, tone-deaf, Christian-centric conclusion to the intro paragraph of the History of ancient Israel and Judah article
• And finally this doozy, where you add Nazism to a template about socialism, presumably because Nazism is literally called "National Socialism". This is either immensely naive or just malicious. There are thousands of devoted Christians editing Wikipedia who don't edit the way you do.

In conclusion, I suspect that you're not here to build a collaborative encyclopedia, but to artlessly push your point of view. I think if you voluntarily agreed to walk away from religion and politics articles you would stand a chance of escaping the community-imposed ban I see on the horizon. A Train^talk 22:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, the TBAN seems rather obvious given the strong beliefs and apparent actions taken upon those personal beliefs. I happen to be non-theist. But, I don’t act upon that as an editor, and have argued in favor of including various miracles and dogma in religious articles even though I consider such nonsense. One must look at such in historical, scholarly ways. Question is, does the editor understand that you leave your biases behind when you sign in? Objective3000 (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Objective3000, yes I do indeed. My edits are well-sourced and I am willing to add content contrary to my beliefs if the source contains such.Music314812813478 (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, Doug, for filing this. I think this should perhaps be extended further, to all religion? Very problematic edits about Judaism and "Hebraism" -- bad refs, copyvio, content not supported by sources at two articles. They are trying to add overbroad content praising ancient Israelites' contribution to western civ at two articles....

history Hebraism article (some of that waiting for rev]]del)

history at History of ancient Israel and Judah,

To be more specific diff of the content they were intially trying to add at both articles, just stuck into the lead:

Hebraism is just as important a factor in the development of Western civilization as Hellenism, and Judaism, as the mother religion of Christianity, has considerably shaped Western ideals and morality since the Christian Era.

References

That is a creepy late 19th century orientalizing ref (see https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3vs8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA40 here]) that has no place in WP (except as a primary source for outdated orientalist history writing). And after we had said "no way" to that ref at the talk page of the Ancient Israel/Judah article, and Music had proposed a better one (a contemporary high school/freshman level textbook) that we had said "well ok" to, they ran and did this at Hebraism article, keeping the creepy old source but adding stuff from the new one as well.

And they are making just the strangest arguments at the two talk pages, including asking me if a proposed edit is copyvio or not. If somebody doesn't know if they are copying out of a source and pasting into Wikipedia, that is a whole deeper level of problem, along with the CIR yet POV-pushing problems in content creation. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

T-ban? Just block him. Look at it this way: If he would have made the same statement about Judaism, everyone, me included, would be dragging him to the gallows. Why is it ok for Islam? It's a bigoted statement and bigots do not understand that their POV is not a fact. That's what makes them bigots. And bigots are of no use here. John from Idegon (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

If I promise to not edit-war and always use gold-plated reliable sources for Islam related articles, would you spare me the topic ban?Music314812813478 (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I've read your opinion about CNN. Our opinions about what a gold-plated reliable source is differ too much. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not bigoted for thinking negativley about Islam. I love Muslims as a people. There are peole who have infoboxes saying similar things abot ALL religions, not just Isllam or Judaism. Why should I get a block for saying something similar on my user page.?Music314812813478 (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed them, but could you point me to the "This user thinks Buddhism is a cancer" infobox templates? Because we should probably address those at the same time. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE seems to be the best solution. We are building an encyclopedia. Agenda-driven SPAs are not helping. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

This extends beyond religion. Look at Music314812813478's edits about Nazism and socialism -- I've pulled some of the diffs above. Given how disingenuous the editor's replies have been on this topic alone, I'm not sure it's fair to ask the community to shoulder the extra work of monitoring and enforcing the ban. It's very hard to WP:AGF give the above. A Train^talk 22:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Good grief. Should be nowhere near politics. Objective3000 (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog:I got that ref from the Christianity article. I am a youth living in modern times, living modern ways. I had no intention of orientalizing anything. And I did propose new stuff after you challenged what I added right? And I was asking if what I added was tooclose to what the source says.

+

WP:NOTHERE seems to be the best solution. We are building an encyclopedia. Agenda-driven SPAs are not helping. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

T-Ban appears to be a foregone conclusion. The hatred toward Islam, the huge percentage of edits devoted to religion, including ACT! for America, an anti-Islam group; and the desire to keep editing religious articles support NOTHERE. Objective3000 (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

−

Please guys, I don't want any more drama. I promise to never say or do anyhing similar to such an obnoxious statement ever againMusic314812813478 (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

− Music314812813478 (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

That seems excessive. Look, I don't disagree that this editor seems to have significant bias issues that cut to the very question of their ability to contribute here in a neutral fashion. Even the very act of having posted that comment on their user page and didn't expect the certain response raises the question of how much perspective they can really have on what is inappropriate or inappropriate commentary on this project--in userspace, let alone articles that have to comply with WP:NPOV. But blocking them for a having a strong opinion that happens to be objectionable? I don't think so; all community sanctions are meant to be as minimally targeted as necessary to address problem behaviours--not unpopular thoughts, whether we happen to find them bigoted or not.

Now, editors reviewing his edits in the area of Islam seem to agree that a bias is showing there (quelle surprise!), and even if we weren't seeing the signs in the edits, a topic ban would seem a reasonable precautionary measure, given just how deep the declared negative emotions are here, with regard to the topic. Taking the entire evidence, a very broadly implemented TBAN is something I can get behind. But blocking for having a bias...I'm sorry, I'm just not comfortable with that. Whether we want to believe it or not, we're all here operating under biases--powerful biases. It's just that for most of us, they aren't as blatantly obvious as they are for this contributor.

So are we going to penalize them for being forthright about their views? Don't get me wrong, that message should have been taken down (per WP:POLEMIC and common sense regarding what we are WP:HERE for. But the worst that resulted from that blunder was that the rest of us became aware of the bias and recognized a larger problem. A problem that can (hopefully) be remedied by a topic ban. The alternative, if he begin to block people for being close-minded, is that we create a system that incentivizes them to just suppress their bias as efficiently as possible and learn to fly under the radar in implementing it, by learning the "proper" things to say while still working at their agenda. Or, even more potentially damaging to content, editors can double think themselves into believing they are being neutral, while continuing to operate from a strong bias. That kind of thing is much harder to detect or to confront. It's a best of limited choices situation, to be sure, but I'd just as soon have a situation where such editors are allowed to express themselves out of the content areas they otherwise would have turned into WP:BATTLEGROUNDs.

Now, is it possible that this editor is going to just prove too dogged on this issue and we will have to consider broader sanctions. Sure, of course. I mean...they seem to have a long way to go towards leanrning what neutrality means on this project, at a minimum. But they've expressed a desire to be an unbiased, productive editor by removing their personal emotions from the equation. I'm just not convinced WP:NOTHERE applies to them. I'm not altogether impressed with them, but I think they have an understanding of the communities priorities. And though I don't think they can be trusted with Islam-related articles (not now and not for a long time), I don't see sufficient reason to remove them from the project. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Obvious straw man argument is obvious. No one is in favor of, and I quote: "blocking them for a having a strong opinion that happens to be objectionable". We have looked at their contribs. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

There are many antitheists on youtube, who believe that the world would be saner without religion. They don't have topic bans for having beliefs about religion similar to my beliefs about Islam. Probably because we don't say things as inane, meaningless and pointlessly confrontational as "I think Islam is cancer" but rather make the effort to demonstrate that we have, actually, put some thought into it, studied the subject, and come to a conclusion more along the lines of "I can fully understand the attraction and benefits of organized religion, especially when one is raised in a culture defined in part by it. Indeed, progressive elements of religion are often amazingly sane and logical, and on balance produce far more good than harm. But the potential for harm that comes with dogmatic and intolerant religious beliefs is, without question, one of the most damaging forces this world has ever known; the root of much evil." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Alright I agree to stay out of religion and politics articles.Music314812813478 (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you agreeing to a topic ban on articles pertaining to religion and politics, narrowly construed? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes.

I was under the impression that we can say anytingbon the user pages. I was naive and rreckless. Please don't ban me for my own foolishness, I swear I will try to edit solely for building ajbencyclopediaMusic314812813478 (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• If the user escapes a block and is amenable to the idea, I would volunteer as mentor. Personally, I think the responses here demonstrate that mentorship would be effective, and that, combined with a topic ban (indefinite for now, but with the standard "appeal in 6 months" clause) as defined in my previous comment would settle the matter. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Sir, does this extend to arguing for my past edits? Just asking.Music314812813478 (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. If you're asking if I (assuming a mentoring/topic ban solution is accepted here) would argue on your behalf for your past edits, the answer is "No". If you're asking if you would be permitted to continue to engage other editors in discussion about the value of your past edits, then the answer is "Only edits which don't touch upon the subjects of religion or politics". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I mean if I could still argue for my past edits on the talk pages of religion and politcis related articles, whilebstaying out of the articles themselvesMusic314812813478 (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC).

No. A topic ban is a prohibition against edits dealing with those subjects, including talk page. Having taken a quick look at your editing history in those subjects, I assure you that you would be best served by not doing so. For example, adding a socialism sidebar to Nazism is indefensible: Nazism is a right-wing ideology and socialism a left-wing ideology. It's equivalent to adding a Star Wars sidebar to Star Trek. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

MjolnirPants if you're willing to keep an eye on MusicPi and the editor agrees to abstain from editing any religion or politics articles indefinitely (subject to review), then personally I see no reason for an immediate block. A Train^talk 22:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@A Train: I am. I do believe, however, that the topic ban should be formalized, and defined as being narrowly construed, because religion and politics are massive subjects, and it could be easily argued that many edits tangential to those subjects (almost everything in philosophy except epistemology, for example) would fall under a broadly construed topic ban. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the mentorship is a generous offer. One could argue that arguing for past edits would be up to the mentor; but then it wouldn’t be a Tban, would probably be unmanageable and also indicates a desire to continue with religious articles. A Tban has to be a Tban. I'm fine with narrowly construed under mentorship. Objective3000 (talk)

You're a better man than me, MjolnirPants. :) Anybody want to take a stab at codifying this tban with a proposal? A Train^talk 22:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I doubt that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban with mentorship

I'm proposing an indefinite topic ban on the subject of religion and politics, narrowly construed and with the option to appeal in 6 months. This is to run concurrent with formal mentorship, for which I've volunteered. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support as nom. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support and good luck. Objective3000 (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I look forward to Music314812813478's incredible rehabilitation. A Train^talk 22:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support and god help you. --Tarage (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants is far too kind. Its not like there is a baby among the bathwater. I tried finding contribs that were not related to politics or religion and found 2 articles on the 9th of June that were not related to those topics, but Music's edits were. [67] [68] (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

We can always indef next week. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support I do not have as much patience as ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants has. I am often accused of being a pessimist. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

And even more often accused of being a potato.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support The situation here is that someone promoted a strongly negative idea about a religion on their user page. Imagine if another editor did the reverse and gave the impression they were here to ensure that non-observers were put in their box. Neither approach works at Wikipedia. Thanks to ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants for the "put some thought into it" explanation above. Johnuniq (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The editor has agreed to it, and it seems reasonable. Mentoring cannot hurt and if Mjolnir is in a position to see if/when things truly going off the rail again, the community will know all the sooner. Easily the best combination of options discussed above. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support and godspeed EvergreenFir (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal tone on a talk page

Would some admin please review the behaviour at Talk:William Lane Craig --Epipelagic (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Warning: Discussion employs words like threeness and whichness. EEng 19:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I actually find it mesmerizing to witness effectiveness of diversionary tactics employed in the talk page, of which this report is a perfect example. Ditch ∝ 02:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a bit of a mess. Special:Diff/791942283 is unacceptable and I've left a warning at their talk page. However, I'm also struggling to see anything constructive that you've added to that section, either. GoldenRing (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I took a look at each edit left at Talk:William Lane Craig by Approaching. Apart from the last thing said here (which, yes, can be seen upon as quite uncivil), I actually believe that Approaching was quite patient up to that point and did his best to ask questions and explain things - sometimes repeatedly. It's not easy to keep cool at times and frustrations can certainly boil; we've all seen it happen. I think that leaving him a simple reminder to try and not let frustrations dictate what is said to others - is the best way to handle this situation. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

If you looked only at edits made by Approaching then you saw only part of what was going on. User Approaching edits also under the name BabyJonas. Beyond that, this issue goes deep into the archives. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Epipelagic: You need to stop saying "User Approaching edits also under the name BabyJonas" as though it's a problem. It's not even accurate, let alone a problem. User: BabyJonas was renamed to User:Approaching in October. There is nothing untoward about that. Keep bringing it up and you're headed for a block for casting aspersions. GoldenRing (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Threatening a block for casting aspersions? I was not making an issue here out of the different user names. By "this issue" I meant the issue of this thread, the personal tone of the talk page. The contributions made by User:Approaching were made under two user names, so Oshwah could not fairly assess what was happening without examining the contributions under both names, and ideally going deeper into the archives. That is a simple fact, not casting aspersions. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Epipelagic: Then perhaps you would like to explain this? GoldenRing (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Very well. I was talking to another editor, and invited him to examine for himself what was going on. I said: "In the archives you will find Bill the Cat and Approaching (along with his sock, BabyJonas) are just two members of a dedicated group (including a number of SPAs and possible other socks) that controls the article in this manner."

The control I'm referring to is the manner in which attempts to add any critical comment is constantly knocked back. I'll give you some diffs if you want, but it's probably easier and clearer to just scan the archives in context. If you look at the revision history statistics, here and here, you will find that since 2009 Bill the Cat 7 has contributed to the talk page 118 times and the article 79 times, and since 2013 Approaching has contributed to the talk page 85 times and to the article 29 times. That shows a measure of long term dedication. Some SPAs or near SPAs, focused almost wholly on pro-Christian/anti-atheist POVs, are here and here. Then there are the single purpose IPs that conveniently emerge at times when there is pressure to include something that might be critical of Craig. That raises the issue of possible socks. They are easy to locate, but I'll point you to some if you want. I made an error when I referred to Approaching as having a type of sock, since he was editing under two user names. It didn't occur to me that Approaching had formally changed his user name. Had Approaching just told me it would have ended the matter. I apologise to Approaching for the error. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Epipelagic says "Had Approaching just told me it would have ended the matter." I want to draw attention to when he was first told on the 16th , and after being told, how he continued to cast aspersions on the 17th.

On the issue of socks, SPAs and control: (a) I am not working in concert with anybody, (b) User:Epipelagic should invite the accounts he accuses into the discussion (per the rules). (c) The extent of my control on the article was to disagree with the tone and content of some of the critical edits, and foster dialogue on acceptable and unacceptable criticism. I'm happy to go into further detail if needed. Approaching (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Thank you for apologising. The user themselves explained this to you nine days ago, but you dismissed the idea as "eccentric." I think it's time you stepped away from that article. GoldenRing (talk) 11:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Epipelagic, I hope, in the event that I ever need to apologise to you, that I'll be able to do so with more grace, and less deflection than you did on this occasion. Nevertheless, it's good that you did apologise for your mistake. In other news, that talk page is an absolute festival of people on both "sides" trying to hide behind superficial, faux civility to be objectively "nasty" and "score points". It would be lovely if that could stop. -- Begoon 11:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Well in his explanation he just said it was permissible for him to change his user name. He didn't say he had it officially changed, which is entirely another matter. I just thought it very strange that he thought he could use different names as they took his fancy. And I agree that page is an utter nightmare, and I'm happy to leave it to its fate. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, but you've been here far longer than me, and I know we both know where to look before throwing "sock" comments around. "Sorry" was good, and loses no face. "Sorry, but..." is what my teenage daughter says in similar circumstances. (Not a lecture, just an opinion.) -- Begoon 11:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick point: Unless I am completely mis-reading things, The Baby Jonas --> Approaching name change occurred in October 2016, however, the user apparently continued signing posts as Baby Jonas until mid-May 2017, when, within the same discussion, suddenly the same user (in the middle of a discussion thread) began signing his name as "Approaching." Let me be clear that I am not saying anything was done wrong or against policy- people do all kinds of funny things with their signatures. I am just saying that I could see how it might be confusing, especially happening in the middle of a discussion thread with no mention made of the change. Ditch ∝ 22:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I fumbling that. I didn't realize the signature had to be changed manually. When I found out, I changed it myself. Approaching (talk) 08:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not important, I suppose, but it does seem a little surprising that you wouldn't notice for an extended period that your posts were being signed with the old username. Was it something you eventually needed to alter in your "Custom signature" preferences that fixed it? -- Begoon 13:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It was a while ago, I honestly don't recall. In fact, if there's a way to keep it to default, I usually do that unless there's a good reason. Approaching (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It was just 2 months ago. In the middle of a pretty contentious discussion. It would have appeared, at the time, to anyone involved in the discussion, that it was two separate users commenting. I'm sure you can see how that would be troubling when the point of discussion is consensus building? Ditch ∝ 19:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the response. I confess I still find it a little confusing that you wouldn't notice for such a period that your posts were being signed with the old username, in a discussion you revisited, but I haven't looked at the specifics in any great depth, other than to note the all round poor atmosphere on the talk page. -- Begoon 15:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Ditch, of course. From my side however, there was simply no intention of pretending to be two people. Besides, even if I had changed my signature back in 2016 it would have been jarring to any conversation I was taking part in. Either way, I was happy to explain the change to anyone who asked, and I did so transparently whenever it came up. Do you feel like I was trying to take advantage of he name change in some way?

Begoon, I suppose my response to Ditch will be relevant to you as well. Frankly folks, it is what it is. I can say I intended no illicit benefit, and I'm pretty sure my posts around that time should make that clear. Approaching (talk) 05:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: Thank you for absolving me on this. It's quite harrowing when another editor goes about calling me a sockpuppet, ignoring explanation, and smearing me in public discussion. But I'm not the only victim of this. He has also targeted others on the page, who he calls "single purpose accounts". Getting User:Epipelagic to stop such hostile insinuations will go a long way towards improving the atmosphere on the page. Approaching (talk) 05:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, to many respondents, for their fair-mindedness. It has been frustrating, as User:Oshwah has noticed. That talk page has been made unnecessarily toxic to the point of borderline harassment. I pursued advice on resolving this issue elsewhere, but to no avail. I'm going to try a different approach, and I hope to see a real change on that page. Approaching (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it customary to be notified when one is (at least partly) the subject of an Admin action request? I just found out about this thread. It seems to me that it's been tentatively resolved so there's no point in adding much else. However, I would like to request some Admins please monitor the page for a few weeks to keep everyone honest. Thanks everyone. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

admin attention requested at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Perfect Orange Sphere

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There's an outline of behavioral evidence at the page, and Moltenflesh is as obvious a avian aquatic fowl as I've ever seen. Same exact mannerisms, same exact non RS sources, same exact POV-pushing claims derived from them (compare this and this, and see this for where Moltenflesh admitted being the IP of the first), same exact poor logic at the talk page of their particular fascination, the same exact retaliatory behavior. Note how two other socks (one of which was pushing the same exact edit) were found that weren't matched to the sockmaster via checkuser: It's pretty obvious this is a case of someone trying to be slick by using proxies (there have been blocks on IPs from all over the world who were obvious socks of this editor), and it's once again turned the talk page of the article into a giant wall of WP:IDHT and really really bad logic. I'm all for WP:AGF, but this is just so obviously a sock by now that it's time to start playing whack-a-mole again. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Point of information: are there any nonavian fowl? EEng 02:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

No, though I suppose it's possible that there are editors who don't randomly transpose elemental adjectives from time to time. Clearly, I'm not one of them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I notice you don’t give any examples of diffs to support your accusation, likely because this all revolves around generalizing as much as possible to make anyone sound like anyone else. I have already been cleared by a checkuser, the rest of your “evidence” amounts to “I disagree with him so he’s bad!”. I have no relation to anyone you’ve mentioned, and checkuser has shown this.

Ironic that you’re talking about ``really really bad logic`` when you’re, as seen here, looking for even the vaguest excuse to revert my edits such as ignoring WP: PRIMARY and making logically impossible accusations of WP:SYNTH when my edit utilized one source!

Oh and that edit you say links me to a sock? You supported it too! Of the version that I want to add, you said that it: ``would be supported by the source, and uncontroversial enough``. If you would simply discuss on the Talk page instead of slinging insults, you wouldn’t have to be on a witch-hunt. And on that note, I’ve been cleared by a CheckUser of any socking. As for you however, let’s review the evidence for you socking:

MjolnirPants and his alt MPants at work show identical interest, behavior, and style to the account Lord Mondegreen, including several near-simultaneous actions that are far too much to attribute to coincidence. I believe that Lord Mondegreen is primarily a sockpuppet that MjolnirPants/MPants at work use on the argument from authority page.

Lord Mondegreen’s edits consistently reflect someone with much greater experience than the account’s small amount of activity, which is almost totally restricted to the argument from authority talk page, would suggest. See this and here at the bottom. Within 48 hours of being made, the account was creating an archive of a Talk page as its fourth edit, and the very next day was making semi-protection requests for pages. This reflects a knowledge of Wikipedia that is unusual in the extreme for accounts only a few days old and with less than ten edits. Note that it would only be weeks before MjolnirPants/MPants at work would be on the page creating archives as well, despite the Talk not being archived for several years prior: [69].

The Lord Mondegreen account also joined another contentious Talk page discussion as part of its first edits, where it was citing Wiki policy at a high level of proficiency. In fact, the account is used almost exclusively for editing Talk pages and noticeboards. As seen there, 71% of all of its less than 110 edits have been to such pages.

After it began by joining in these Talk discussions, the account essentially went inactive until March of 2016. Its very first edit after the long absence was to join in a Talk page discussion supporting MjolnirPants, where it explicitly mentioned and praised him.

After supporting MjolnirPants there in March 2016, it then goes inactive again for over a year until May 2017, where its first edit after all this time is to support MjolnirPants in an ANI post about his behavior.

Now, on June 20th, MjolnirPants went on a WikiBreak. The Lord Mondegreen account had only very light activity during the time he was on this break, undoing two small edits on the argument from authority page.

On July 16th, I began to discuss at length on the Talk page with Lord Mondegreen, and the account posted to my Talk accusing me of being a Sock. Sure enough, MjolnirPants’ the very next day comes off of the WikiBreak supporting Lord Mondegreen's claim.

The highly unusual use of the Lord Mondegreen account, most of which’s edits are supporting MjolnirPants/MPants at work combined with each account’s repeated apparent knowledge of the other’s activities even during long periods of inactivity or even outright declared absence strongly suggests that all of these go much beyond a simple coincidence. We have WP:PRECOCIOUS, WP: IDENTICAL, WP: NEEDED, WP:OCUSE, and several other red flags all met.

Many other behaviors also suggest a relation between the accounts. Aside from the argument from authority page, the most popular topics for both are alt-right topics and religion. MjolnirPants/MPants at work regularly edit pages related to Pizzagate, Milo Yiannopoulos, George Soros, etc. Similarly Lord Mondegreen edits discussions related to Sean Spicer, white privilege, and so on.

Both also sound very similar stylistically, and quote in similar manners with {od} and {tq} that I don’t see used often elsewhere, especially with such rarely used accounts as Lord Mondegreen’s, see [70] and compare with [71].

If anything, all of that is what would need Admin attention. Moltenflesh (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

...the same exact penchant for blatant falsehoods (four diffs in the OP, which I might point out is rather more than "none") and giant walls of retaliatory accusations. But I can dig up more. It's just that those are soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo obvious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to your accusations of "exact mannerisms" and "same sources". Your only example is one source that your yourself voiced support for being on the page! If you would discuss it there rather than refusing discussion or cursing people out in edit summaries this discussion would take all of a total of 20 minutes editing time at most between us. Moltenflesh (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-Summit IMDb link

Basically all articles about movies and TV shows on Wikipedia have IMDb links, regardless of whether their official websites are also listed. Examples: X-Men:_Evolution#External_links, Will_&_Grace#External_links, SpongeBob_SquarePants#External_links.

user:Bonnielou2013 seems unaware of that or wants to get the IMDb link removed specifically from Non-Summit because he/she made the most edits to it and feels like he/she is the "owner" of that page.

I've reverted the removal of the IMDb link, but I'm afraid that he/she will remove it again and keep doing it.

Please contact him/her officially as an admistrator to tell them that removing IMDb links isn't a practice on Wikipedia, and point out the proper discussion page where one can suggest removing IMDb links altogether from all articles if they find them inappropriate. -- 2804:14C:B1:815F:F159:765F:9F33:6870 (talk) 08:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• It looks like they're getting confused between using IMBb as a source (not reliable) vs using it as an External link (generally allowed). I'll drop them a note. Black Kite (talk) 09:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• By the way, you are required to inform them that you have mentioned them here - I've done that for you. Black Kite (talk) 09:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

As Black Kite said there may be some confusion on the part of the other editor here about when IMDb is disallowed and it would be good to correct that confusion. However there also seems to be some confusion on your part. There's no policy or guideline that requires IMDb links are present. The closest is Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb which says "Generally yes" not that IMDb links are required. Therefore the editor is fully entitled to dispute the inclusion of an IMDb link in a specific article and doesn't need to discuss it anywhere other than the article talk page where it becomes a WP:Content dispute and should be handled via normal means of dispute resolution none of which should involve ANI. They will obviously need to provide a valid non WP:OWN reason for this, but no administrator is going to contact them officially in the manner you suggest. Other the the fact the advice would be wrong, that's not how administrators work. Of particular note is that it's a South Korea game show and IMDb seems to have significantly less info than even our article, so it's possible a good argument could be made in the right places the IMDb link is not useful. Nil Einne (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, yeah, having now seen the IMDb page, it's not adding anything useful at all. Personally I'd leave it out here. Black Kite (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the article talk page on the merits of the IMDb links. But in doing so I looked more closely at this dispute. Ccan you please point to where Bonnielou2013 indicates any form of WP:Ownership of the article? Far as I can see, the only thing they did related to this was a single revert with the edit summary "one external weblink sufficient per WP rules; IMDb not reliable WP source". They don't seem to have discussed it anywhere nor did they revert after you reverted them. As said above, the reason suggests a misunderstand of guidelines and policies but it doesn't seem to indicate ownership problems. If you have no real evidence of any ownership tendencies, please refrain from making such accusations. It could be regarded as a WP:Personal attack. Nil Einne (talk) 10:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you both Black Kite and Nil Einne for responding to the above issue. Yes, as you pointed out, I was confused with policy pertaining to the use of IMDb after a recent notification of my own incorrect usage of it [72]. And reading your discussion of it Black Kite, I agree that for this page Non-Summit, the IMDb does not provide anything useful and would leave it out.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

DagosNavy and WP:TROUBLES

DagosNavy (talk · contribs) has a long running POV on WP:TROUBLES issues. Lately this has taken the form of edit-warring to remove categorisation as terrorist incidents from terrorist incidents, specifically Republican attacks under WP:TROUBLES. See Special:Contributions/DagosNavy.

Specifically: Attack on Cloghoge checkpoint and removal of Category:Terrorist incidents in the United Kingdom in 1992 as "Rm unsourced and wrong category, "terrorism" involves the attack on unarmed civilians, this was an attack on military forces)":

• 21 July 2017
• 8 July 2017
• 27 June 2017
• 25 June 2017

That's 4 changes, all opposed, within a month. All on an article with a clear 1RR restriction. This might not be bright line, but it's obvious POV and edit-warring. There is nothing to support this narrowed definition of terrorism.

Similar behaviour at other articles:

• Warrenpoint ambush
• 1970 RUC booby-trap bombing where we see similiar behaviour to remove Category:Terrorist incidents in the United Kingdom in 1970, in this case described as "Rm dead category".

1. We do not remove articles from categories because they are "dead" (i.e. empty)
2. We certainly do not do this when the category is only empty because you have just emptied it!

Bastun has reverted this, or I'd have done it too.

This is not a new issue, it has been raised before. Most accessibly, see User_talk:DagosNavy#TERRORISM-RELATED_CATEGORIES

This is a clear POV push. They make no attempt to answer or defend this. It's against clear consensus, it's also now turning into this "dead category" deliberate falsehood. There is no plausible expectation of any improvement in this behaviour.

Topic ban time is overdue. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

DagosNavy - May I ask about the repeated removal of that template from Attack on Cloghoge checkpoint, as pointed out in the four diffs above? Why the repeated removal? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

A clear case of argumentum ad hominem. 1RR restriction reads "one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period", so four changes within a month, none of them within the 24 hours period is immaterial, not to mention the open threads on my talk page User_talk:DagosNavy#TERRORISM-RELATED_CATEGORIES and Talk:1970 RUC booby-trap bombing per WP:BRD. In my latest edits on Troubles-related articles (Warrenpoint/Cloghoge/RUC bobby-trap bombing) I just removed a recently erased category (not empty, the category was removed by User:Ponyo), later restored by another user. By the way, no sources were provided that these ones were terrorist attacks, and WP relies on verifiable sources as far as I know.--Darius (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps Ponyo would care to clarify why they deleted the category, and whether this was due to a previously uncelebrated outbreak of peace in 1970, or else because you had just emptied the category, against a clear consensus opposing your repeated attempts to do so.

Please do not treat other editors as fools: what you're trying to do here is obvious, and that attitude is why it's now time for a TBAN. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

More ad hominem. I didn't empty anything (check my contributions page), Ponyo deleted the category (I later learned) just because it was created by a banned user. User Bastun eventually restored the category on 22 July, after my edits.--Darius (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Why are you removing terrorist attack categories from articles? Obviously that's going to be controversial, it's been discussed in several places, there is no central agreement, and yet, e.g., you removed the category from Attack on Cloghoge checkpoint saying "unsourced" when a) it's an attack by a proscribed terrorist organisation; b) not that categories need to be "sourced" but one of the references in the article, Terrorism in Northern Ireland, describes the attack. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bastun, first of all, sorry for not have been so clear in some of my edit summaries (my fault). Yes, you're right that Terrorism in Northern Ireland describes the attack, but also the American press of the time did so, and they usually dubbed the IRA as "guerrillas"; so did author Tom Geraghty (hardly a republican sympathizer) in The Irish War: The Hidden Conflict Between the IRA and British Intelligence, therefore there is a conflict of sources. I agree with you and other users that the IRA carried out terrorist attacks, but this doesn´t make any IRA action a terrorist act. It is like adding the category "War crimes" to all the battles were the SS became involved just because this was classified by the Allies as a criminal organisation after WWII. We need a source in the article's body supporting that war crimes were committed in that specific battle, not the generic label of the SS as war criminals.--Darius (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Darius, I notice that no one has bothered to use the talk page of the article. Considering this is an Arbitration Enforcement covered article, it would be wise to start a discussion if you want to make a change. Since you seems to be in the minority, the burden would be on you. I really don't care about it being a week between reverts, if you are continually reverting when you know there are multiple people who disagree, then you are edit warring and causing problem. Go to the talk page. That would probably apply to any other article you wanted to do this to. Otherwise, you risk AE sanctions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dennis, thanks for your advice, may be I should became more involved in the disscussion. IMHO, however, being in the minority point of view doesn't mean that the burden of proof is on me. Lack of sources supporting this category, instead, breaches WP:VER and WP:LABEL. I promise to get more involved in the talks, thanks again.--Darius (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Being in the minority isn't always permanent, it means that you need to present a case for the change, via WP:BRD. As for sources, categories aren't really sourced, there isn't a way to cite them. They are chosen by consensus depending on if the totality of sources in the article supports the category. This is why the talk page is a must. At least 4 people disagree with your changes, so yes, the burden is on you to create a consensus that is consistent with your desired edits. That is universally true here. That is what we admin are going to look at when we have to decide if sanctions are needed, whether or not someone took the time to develop a consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Dennis I forgot to mention that the issue was discussed at User_talk:DagosNavy#TERRORISM-RELATED_CATEGORIES and Talk:1970 RUC booby-trap bombing. I want also to make clear that my latest removal of the category was made on the basis that it was deleted by User:Ponyo, not because my position regarding the topic.--Darius (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

It was deleted for a day. You've been here almost exactly as long as I've been, you know you have to walk softly around The Troubles and other Arb restricted topics. Or if you don't, I can provide the templated links for you on your talk page, as I see no one else has. Your talk page isn't much of a discussion and the other article is a local consensus. You probably need to start an RFC if you want a wider consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The Troubles? EEng 02:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You're right, I will start an RFC at the appropriate moment. In the meantime, I will restrain myself from making edits regarding the definition of "terrorism" in Troubles-related pages until a wide consensus on a proper definition can be reached, always keeping in mind WP:VER and WP:LABEL. As you can see in my contributions history, I am quite busy right now with other topics (and in real life). Best regards.--Darius (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding involved editor Minimax Regret and notifying them. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I am also concerned by DagosNavy's editing behaviour in regards to this issue. I would also like to point out that I have opened a discussion on this category issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Terrorism_categories. Whilst DagosNavy is clearly pushing a POV and trying to enforce it against clear opposition which violates the spirit of the Troubles AE, a centralised discussion should have taken place first. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Mabuska, I was not "trying to enforce it (my PoV) against clear opposition" since that clear opposition relies only on a "local consensus" as an uninvolved admin (Dennis Brown) stressed on 23 July (see above). And I am not a PoV warrior, since I have largely explained that my position is supported by WP:VER and WP:LABEL. I will restrain myself, however, from challenging that "local" or loose consensus, until a wider consensus on the definition of "terrorism" can be formed, as I have already stated on 22 July.--Darius (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

You keep citing policy without explaining how it applies in each situation. WP:LABEL does not vindicate your position unless it meets certain criteria and that is dubious as you don't spell out how it applies which would help when several editors are reverting you. I note at the recently opened discussion you didn't try to argue how it applies especially in response to my highlights of key phrases of the policy. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I do not think there is a consensus, I think Darius is pushing a more neutral tone while you and some others are inserting words like "terrorism" and "murder" into articles in a POV fashion. Darius is the one seeking a more neutral, consensus Wikipedia then a faction wishing to insert these POV terms. As I have noted in other places, it would be NPOV for you to say "Theresa May called this terrorism", it is POV to say "It is an indisputable objective fact that this is terrorism". Minimax Regret (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Minimax your relative newness to this topic is plain to see: DagosNavy has not sought consensus on this issue at all as far as I can see and until you became involved via arguing with Bastun, DagosNavy is the only editor (excluding Apollo for obvious reasons) who truely objects to the addition of fully valid categories; None of the editors here added the categories or article names in dispute in the first place so that part of your argument is irrelevant and misleading; Your position does not match that of DagosNavy who as far as I can tell accepts usage of the term terrorism in regards to IRA attacks on civilians. If I am wrong please correct me; Indeed you instigated an edit-war over the namespace of Murder of Jean McConville which it has stood at without argument since moved in 2013 by a completely different editor! Yet you claim that we are only now trying to add it to the article namespace! You are edit-warring without consensus and citing falsehoods!

It is hardly violating NPOV to call a spade a spade when a proscribed terrorist organisation that carried out a widely accepted and acknowledged terrorist campaign is labelled terrorist. Rather you have highlighted your own POV on the issue. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Isn't this a case for WP:AE rather than ANI? Nfitz (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring and personal attacks –User:Whatisurproblem

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Whatisurproblem – also editing as 70.79.43.23 – has been making edits introducing idiosyncratic terminology and other questionable changes[73] the majority of which have been reverted by various editors as confusing, low-quality, or contrary to MOS. His reaction from the beginning has consisted of edit-warring, abusive edit summaries,[74][75] and summarily deleting (or replacing with profanity) all attempts to discuss his edits or to warn him about problems with his conduct on his Talk pages.[76] He asked at the Teahouse for help dealing with what he ironically calls "persistent editors", then attacked an uninvolved editor whose response he didn't like.[77] He seems to have good intentions, but – as exemplified by his choice of username – shows no ablity to work constructively or abide by WP standards of conduct. Magic9Ball (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Notification of this discussion was made but reverted.[78] Magic9Ball (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Whatisurproblem is WP:NOTHERE. Please block forthwith. – S. Rich (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I have also been involved in this, primarily from the Danielle Campbell page. A new IP has appeared - 50.64.27.247 - which I also suspect (based on this edit, and geolocation) is the same user. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Temporarily blocked for 60 hours to prevent ongoing disruption - after the block expires if this behaviour continues they will be indefinitely blocked -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 07:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New User blanking page and using N Word

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Blanking page: [79] Using N-Word: [80] page vandalism: [81]

Casprings (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it's better to let this be handled at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, where I reported him. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 05:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Administrator requested to implement a closed move outcome

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please can an administraot implement the outcome of this move request as it requires going over existing redirects. Many thanks Sport and politics (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done as pagemover. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jojhnjoy and IDHT

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Jojhnjoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Added convenience links. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Jojhnjoy has been ignoring consensus and edit warring over formatting changes to articles about German cars, in order to supposedly match German style, and follow some crackpot version of SI units. Specifically, changing engine speed values from rpm to min-1 or /min, omitting the word "revolutions". Other deviations from MOS:UNITS and WP:CARUNITS include replacing cc with cm³ (cm<sup>3</sup>), and removing the commas from numbers. Data given by sources in hp, bhp, or kW is changed to PS, as if that's "more German", even though PS was officially obsolete in 1972. Examples: [82][83][84][85][86] This kind of thing is not an urgent problem, but over time one should expect WikiGnomes to eventually come along and fix it, changing cm³ to cc, adding commas in numbers, and using rpm, not min^-1 or /min. One should not revert editors who are making small tweaks that bring an article closer to the MOS and WP:AUTOCONV.

An intractable discussion ensued with User:1292simon at Talk:BMW 5 Series (E28), which was carried over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#rpm or min-1?. The editors at the Automobile Project were unanimous in this: MOS:UNITS says we prefer rpm, and we should prefer typical English language number formatting and abbreviations. Extensive reasons for why we should use consistent, recognizable formatting and units were discussed, as well as the harm that these units could mislead some readers. Jojhnjoy made absolutely clear he would not listen to consensus, no matter if seven, eight, nine or more editors all told him he was wrong. He swears MOS:UNITS says the opposite of what it says, ignores one editor after another who tell him he is misreading it.

I requested admin closure of this discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, because even though it was not a formal RfC, the completely one-sided consensus, and the fact that Jojhnjoy was adamant that he wouldn't stop, made me think that if an Admin officially declared the blatantly obvious outcome, per WP:SNOW, Jojhnjoy might relent. Admin User:Deryck Chan declined my request because the discussion had not been properly set up for closure, and told to me come here to AN/I instead. Fair enough.

Jojhnjoy went back to reverting today, on the false grounds that my formatting changes intruded factual errors. The changes in values I made were done after carefully checking the source. Even if Jojhnjoy's accusation is correct, he should have only fixed any data errors, and not reverted all of formatting which he knows is supported by very strong consensus.

Rather than begin again with a formal RfC where the same 8 editors are forced come back and !vote all over again that Jojhnjoy is quite wrong about MOS:UNITS, I took Deryck Chan's suggestion and came here to request a block of Jojhnjoy.

This is not an isolated case. A similar pattern is apparent at Template talk:Convert#Kilopondmetres per second, where User:Kendall-K1 warned others against engaging, pointing to Template_talk:Convert/Archive_May_2017#Kilopondmetre where several editors commented on Jojhnjoy's inability to drop the stick, WP:POINT and above all WP:IDHT.

The most succinct way to put it is that Jojhnjoy does not recognize that Wikipedia is a collaborative project where one must at some point drop the stick when consensus is overwhelming. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• There is a simple reason for my recent revert: Dennis Bratland added false information to the BMW E12 article. The BMW E12 is a German vehicle from the 1970s. Back in that period, technical units were used and to have accurate information in the article, these technical units given in the sources are essential. That's why I added them. Dennis Bratland changed these figures, for instance, he changed the torque figure 14.5 kp·m to 143 N·m. (He did it with all torque figures for the German models in that arcticle.) That is wrong, the source 12, page 89 and 90 which the torque information is based on, doesn't match Dennis' edit. Since he claims that he checked the source carefully, I cannot assume good faith anymore. I wrote in the edit summary: Please refrain from distorting valid information. The sources don't match your edits. If you need an explanation, feel free to ask. I also offer help with German sources on my user page: If you need help with anything from Germany or Austria, especially vehicles, engines or sources in German, feel free to ping me on the corresponding talk page. Dennis neither asked for my help nor left a note on the talk page of the article. The only thing left I can assume here is that he wants to add false information on purpose.

• Apparently, Dennis Bratland seems to dislike some units. For instance, he considers min⁻¹ nonsense (also here), ignoring all arugments and sticks to cc even though he knows that cc must not be used, in discussions we head he read the SI brochure (and that's why I guess that knows about that): It is not permissible to use abbreviations for unit symbols or unit names, such as (...) cc (for either cm³ or cubic centimetre) (...). The use of the correct symbols for SI units, and for units in general, as listed in earlier chapters of this Brochure, is mandatory. In this way ambiguities and is understandings in thevalues of quantities are avoided. This is strong evidence that using cm³ makes articles easier to understand. For me it hardly appears that he really wants to improve intelligibility anymore.

• Above, Dennis wrote: Data given by sources in hp, bhp, or kW is changed to PS, as if that's "more German", even though PS was officially obsolete in 1972. This is just wrong in several ways. 1. I always stick to the data given by sources, however, I work on articles on German historical vehicles mostly (I even mention this on my user page) and therefore the sources I use (which are in German) usually give data in PS. German sources never give data in bhp or hp. I cannot change something that was never written in the sources. 2. I just use the original data given by the source and put that into the Template:Convert as explained. When sources give information in kW or hp, I use them instead of PS. Claiming I would prefer PS over other units is just wrong, since I prefer the most accurate data. 3. Even if Dennis Bratland does not know that technical units were the official units by law until 1978, he should look that up before claiming something which is wrong. I even explained that several times, he should be able to check this. But he does not. Instead he claims "PS was officially obsolete in 1972". That is not true: Bundesgesetzblatt, April 13, 1973: Bis 31. Dezember 1977 dürfen außer den gesetzlichen Maßeinheiten noch folgende Maßeinheiten verwendet werden: (...) d) das Kilopondmeter (kpm) (...) f) das Kilopondmeter je Sekunde (kpm/s oder kpm·s⁻¹) = 9,80665 Watt; g) die Pferdestärke (PS) = 75 Kilopondmeter je Sekunde = 735,49875 Watt.(...) In English: "Until December 31, 1977 the following units may be used besides statutory units." 4. Dennis Bratland gave five examples ([87][88][89][90][91]) which he claims would prove that I change the data given by the sources to PS. The first example is the Porsche Carrera GT. Someone confused PS with hp and I corrected wrong information. The second example is the BMW E12. The source actually gives data in PS in that case. The third example is the Mercedes-Benz L3000. I did not change any data since there was none, I added data which again is given by the sources in PS. Fourth example: Volkswagen Typ 3. Again, I did not change any data since there was none, I added data which again is given by the sources in PS. Fifth example: The BMW E28. The sources give data in kW. And I used kW.

• Yes, I did not use commata in some cases. That is a bad habit though and I don't forget commata on purpose. As far as I know, for four-digit numbers, commata are not necessary. And as you can see here, I try using dots and commata correctly. I also use min-1 or /min since there is nothing wrong with them. We had an endless discussion about that, let me sum up my key points: The sources use minutes, some technical and scientific literature does, minutes are understood by everyone, according to SI, frequency may be displayed in base units (s-1) and minutes may be used with SI which makes min-1 totally acceptable. Also, min-1 and /min are the same. When sources give frequency in rpm, there is nothing wrong with using that. However, in this case the sources do not and changing something which is not wrong to something Dennis prefers does not add anything useful to an article. Since I consider ignoring useful changes to an article bad, I re-added some of Dennis' contribution.

• Also, in earlier discussions I said that MOS:UNITS does not mention rpm for rotational frequency. Dennis wrote: He swears MOS:UNITS says the opposite of what it says, ignores one editor after another who tell him he is misreading it. Now it is very easy to claim that I am misreading it since it was changed in the meantime. Before, it said nothing about rotational frequency and still there is no rule that prohibits displaying rotational frequency using time units.

• The problem in general here could be described as a nescire ad non esse: If I don't know something, it does not exist. I suggested that the Kilopondmetre would be added to the Template:Convert. In the discussion, several other authors did not seem to understand it and ignored easy mathematical and physical principles completely. For instance, that kp·m and m·kp are mathematically the same, (2 × 3 and 3 × 2 equals 6 always) and that force is not mass, (you cannot say this car has a mass of 1000 metres or 1000 seconds or 1000 Newtons. It must be 1000 kilograms.)

• Dennis Bratland should not assume that I don't recognize that this is a collaborative project. The consensus might be overwhelming in this case. But does ignoring physical principles, valid sources and inventing facts and rules to create a killer arugment help the collaborative aspect of Wikipedia? This project has approximately 120,000 active users. Ten of them don't like minutes for frequency. I accept personal opinions. But I don't accept that Dennis Bratlands wants me to get blocked from editing just because I don't agree with his personal opinion.

• I definitely don't want to harm the Wikipedia and you could possibly tell that since I created a lot of articles, some are even 1:1 translations of German Good Articles. I am also a so-called mentor for new users in the German Wikipedia. I hope that I pointed out well enough why Dennis' accusations are unfounded. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles seems clear that RPM is preferred over min⁻¹, and yet here [92] we have an edit by Jojhnjoy that was made after that consensus was reached and that goes against consensus. There appear to have been more than adequate warnings made. I also find it troubling that two different users have asked Jojhnjoy to stay off their talk pages: User talk:Jojhnjoy#Off my talk page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

Dennis Bratland said he read the source carefully (The changes in values I made were done after carefully checking the source). Reading the source carefully means that you check the technical data section. Therefore I assume that he knows that the information he added is false. I don't want to accuse Dennis of vandalism, but you could hardly say that adding false information after checking the sources carefully was not on purpose. Kendall-K1, this is the aspect you completely ignore. Now tell me, what would you choose? Reverting this edit, even though ten authors think minutes should not be used though they are not wrong or leaving wrong information in the article? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC) This is about disruptive editing, not a content dispute. I don't care if you want to change one of the statistics of one car from 125 to 130 or whatever. If your edit had changed only {{cvt|125|kW}} to {{cvt|130|kW}}, you would be well justified by the bold, revert, discuss cycle that we use to build this encyclopedia. But you made a wholesale revert using this 125 vs 130 quibble as an excuse to return to your pseudo-German, bastardized-SI formatting style Power at 1/min 70 PS (130 kW) at 5800 Torque at 1/min 23.8 kp·m (233.5 N·m) at 4000", for the entire table. A dozen 8 other editors wasted an appalling amount of time trying to make you accept the fact that consensus is that this contradicts the MOS, and it's considered harmful, and that zero editors agree that there is any benefit whatsoever to this incongruous formatting. That is why we are here. That is what this is about. Nobody else wants to hear you go on and on about 125 vs 130 kW. You have gone on the attack with snide edit summaries like "Please refrain from distorting valid information." Followed on this page with "I cannot assume good faith anymore" and "Dennis neither asked for my help nor left a note on the talk page of the article. The only thing left I can assume here is that he wants to add false information on purpose." These statements are hostile, violate the AGF and civility policies, and express an absolute disregard for the unanimous chorus of other editors, many of them engineers, many in the automotive field, and all skilled Wikipedia editors, who have said 'no, Jojhnjoy, you are the one who has got it wrong.' Maybe I did get a fact wrong (I admit to doing so all the time) but don't attack me. Convince all those other editors. Or realize you tried to convince them all, and failed spectacularly, and must now stop (or give Wikipedia:Dispute resolution a try). And then you follow that with another snide, arrogant attack, now targeting 1292simon, "Since you obviously need help...". You dismiss editors who maintain Template:Convert, "several other authors did not seem to understand it". If you're right that every single other editor at Wikipedia is a stubborn ignoramus, then what possible good can you do here? If you are utterly unwilling to even consider that the real problem might be your attitude, then what can you accomplish here? Jojhnjoy should be blocked from editing for disruptive editing, specifically WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Nothing anyone says gets through to this guy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC) There is no excuse for adding false information to an article on purpose. If you don't care about the sources, I cannot help you but tell you that I consider such editing behaviour disruptive. Desperately trying to create a reason to get me blocked from editing does not help. I dislike your word choice "pseudo-German, bastardized-SI formatting style" for something which is completely common and even used in the article's source. In my opinion, it just expresses that you don't want it since you dislike it. Reverting an edit that contains false information added on purpose completely is acceptable. The comment in the edit summary is neither a snide comment nor an attack. "Please" and a "help-offer" should indicate it. My edit summary was meant to be firm with you but still polite. Maybe you could help me: When you add false information on purpose to trigger a revert you could abuse to start this discussion in which you want me to get blocked from editing, what should I assume? Good faith? Please excuse me, but I don't think so and I guess that this could be comprehenisble to other authors. 1292simon just reverted my edit even though I pointed out that the information you added was false. That leaves me two options. Either, he ignores the sources or doesn't understand them. Assuming good faith would mean assuming that he doesn't understand them. Therefore I decided to explain it. Ignoring physics means that one does not understand. Otherwise I cannot explain it. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC) I did not "add false information on purpose". The source said 125 kW. I wrote "125 kW". Simple. And even if I did deliberately change 130 to 125 for no good reason, even if I'm a terrible person, a vandal who hates truth and only edits Wikipedia because I'm evil at heart, so what? I'm only one person. Surely you've dealt with vandals before. How can I, a lone "vandal" vex you so? Just revert me 3 times, report me to the WP:AIV noticeboard, and get me blocked. Simple. The reason that is absurd is that I'm not one terrible editor. Every single other editor who has looked at this issue has told you you are wrong. That's what this is about. Deal with that problem, and stop worrying about how diabolical my intentions are. You ask this question: "does ignoring physical principles, valid sources and inventing facts and rules to create a killer argument help the collaborative aspect of Wikipedia?" The answer is found at WP:TRUTH. You believe with all your heart that you are right. We get that. What if a crazy person who believes 2+2=3 behaved as you behave? How would Wikipedia solve that? If eight editors tell him that 2+2=4, and he still believes that he alone knows the TRUTH, what then? If he is willing to back down and bow to consensus, and then either go edit some other topic not involving adding two and two, or else patiently bide his time while methodically following the steps at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE, then even an editor who believes 2+2=3 can remain in good standing. Or turn it around. Let's say you're the only editor who knows 2+2=4, and evil Dennis Bratland, and everybody else says 2+2=3. What can you do? If you persist in disruptive editing, Dennis and all the other lunatics will get you blocked from editing. Evil wins. But if you admit that at the moment, consensus is 2+2=3, then you get to edit another day. You can use the process to seek other opinions, and eventually convince ONE editor that 2+2=4. Or, to drop the metaphor, convince one editor that you're right about how we should use SI units. Convincing only one editor isn't enough, but it's a start. Way better than you're doing now. If you still, even after all this, still sit here and won't admit that you have failed to gain consensus, and admit you must drop the stick until you have, patiently, taken the next step at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE, and instead you keep attacking me (i.e. WP:NOTTHEM), then I can't see how you won't be blocked from editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC) Let's check the source, page 89 and 90. For understanding, it is important to know that technical units were the official units until 1978 and the conversion made by BMW is wrong. I already mentioned that before. Source information: 528: 165 DIN-PS // 23.8 mkp 525: 155 DIN-PS // 21.5 mkp 520i 130 DIN-PS // 18.1 mkp 520: 115 DIN-PS // 16.5 mkp 518: 90 DIN-PS // 14.5 mkp Let's see what I wrote in the article: (I had to convert this manually since the template:convert lacks a function to convert kilopondmetres to other units) 528: 165 PS // 23.8 kp·m (233.5 N·m) 525: 155 PS // 21.5 kp·m (211 N·m) 520i 130 PS // 18.1 kp·m (177.5 N·m) 520: 115 PS // 16.5 kp·m (162 N·m) 518: 90 PS // 14.5 kp·m (142 N·m) And now Dennis' edit: The changes in values I made were done after carefully checking the source. — Dennis Bratland 528: 238 N·m 525: 215 N·m 520i 181 N·m 520: 165 N·m Also worth mentioning is that you changed 115 PS to 85 kW which makes the template display 114 hp. However, 115 PS rather equal 113 hp. 518: 143 N·m. I withdraw the accusation that you added false information on purpose. Though, then it means that you don't understand the source, possibly because of → a nescire ad non esse. If you need an explanation, feel free to ask. You did not ask yet. I even offered help on the according talk page. Instead, you consider it a snide, arrogant attack. You accused me of something and want me to get blocked because of that. You commented three times on this page and three times you desperately mention that I should get blocked from editing. In my inital comment on this entire thing I explained why your accusations are unfounded in fact. Since you did not try to explain that any further, I don't see a reason why I should get blocked from editing. I also understand that your "dozen authors" were a metaphorical figure. Note, ″evil Dennis Bratland″, I don't hold any grudge. I suppose we should correct the wrong figures in the BMW E12 article and ask more users about the displacement and rotational frequency using WP:RFC. Also, I guess we now have a good reason for adding the kilopondmetre to the template:convert. I suggest that we both refrain from changing rotational frequency and displacement in each others articles and let more users comment on the question whether common German figures should be used for German vehicles or not. In conclusion I hope that you would withdraw your proposal that I shoud get blocked from editing and that you mark this incident as solved. Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC) I've wrapped the last part of this in {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} because this is far too long a thread for anyone at AN/I to read. Please reply above {{Collapse bottom}}. I know English isn't your native language, but from what I can tell, you are quite fluent. Yet you seem ignore what is said to you over and over. I keep saying I don't care if you change the data, yet you keep repeating your arguments for why the this or that statistic should be be changed. Change it! Let's try this. Please answer the following questions, only with a yes or no answer. Below your answers, you may write several paragraphs of rhetoric if you wish, but please begin with only yes/no answers. If you think the question is unfair, a false dilemma, or whatever kind of fallacy, then by all means, answer "unfair" instead of "yes" or "no". But that's it. Yes, no, or unfair. Do you agree that a dispute over 125 kW (170 PS; 168 hp) vs 121 kW (165 PS; 162 hp) is a content dispute? Do you agree that I don't object to you changing 121 kW to 125 kW? Do you agree I don't object to you changing 238 N⋅m (176 lbf⋅ft) to 233.5 N⋅m (172.2 lbf⋅ft)? Or even 233.5 N⋅m (23.81 kg⋅m; 172.2 lb⋅ft)? Do you agree that I wouldn't even object to skipping {{Convert}}, and just doing the conversion by hand, writing 233.5 N·m (23.8 kp·m) @ 4,000 rpm? Because it's the formatting, not the data, that we are taking issue with? Does that explain why I pay no attention to your offers to "help"? Do you think Trekphiler, 1292simon, or I, or any participant in this dispute, would have a strong objection to you changing the data in BMW 5 Series (E12), as long as you kept the typical format xxx kW (xxx hp) @ 5,800 rpm xxx N·m (xxx lbf·ft) @ 4,000 rpm? Do you agree that this AN/I discussion is not a content dispute? If I am the one guilty of bringing a content dispute to AN/I, i.e. the wrong forum, shouldn't you argue only that I'm guilty using the wrong forum, but not argue about the content itself? Do you agree that WP:Disruptive editing is not about content, it is about editor behavior? Do you know what I am referring to when I repeatedly use IDHT, or point to WP:IDHT? Do you know why your suggestion to add kilopondmetre to {{Convert}} was rejected/ignored at least twice, and no participant voiced support for adding it? Do you understand what the editors in these diffs were saying? [93][94][95]? Do you agree that they were telling you that you are not listening at all? If you do not have "links to articles in which this conversion is used, the output is unclear, and a change to the template would make the output more clear", are you justified in returning to Template talk:Convert and asking, again, to add kilopondmetre? Do you agree that your arguments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles, Talk:BMW 5 Series (E12), and Template talk:Convert, regardless of whether or not they were true, were totally unsuccessful? If a new editor has posted a dozen or more times, writing hundreds of words, yet won no support at all, would you, as a mentor, advise them to keep reverting and keep arguing, simply because they believe they're right? Or would you advise this editor stop, and to try something else, such as the options at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE? If there were an RfC resulting in a change to WP:UNITS that said we should use min-1 or /min instead of rpm on German-related topics, do you think I should accept it, even if I disagree? Have my comments so far told you that I would follow the MOS, even if I believe I'm right? After all this, do you intend to keep posting links to sources about PS, SI units, DIN standards, and BMW 528 cars? Or will you focus instead on the behavior problem you are accused of, "Failure or refusal to "get the point"? Can you recall any time in the past when you believed you were right, but later realized you were not? Do you wish you had handled that situation differently? Do you think those times when you were in error are all in the past, and will never occur again? I know these questions are hectoring, but I've tried everything else. Several others have tried everything else. Why not try this? Answer these yes or no (or unfair) questions, and see if that gets us anywhere. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC) Well, thank you for saying I am quite fluent. Off-topic question: Would you agree that my level of English is near-native? 1. Yes, I know what a content dispute is. Germanic languages have compound words 2. Yes, I am aware and that disappoints me to be honest since you should object to anyone changing information based on sources to something the sources don't cover. 3. Yes, you technically repeat the second question. Though I would want say that we should display the original information given in the source to avoid confusion. Therefore I would choose neither 238 N⋅m (176 lbf⋅ft) nor 235.8 N⋅m (173.9 lbf⋅ft) but 23.8 kp·m and 90 PS (66 kW). 4. Yes of course. 5. No, it does not since you apparently ignore valid information in favour of formatting. Something I don't support. Correct information with bad formatting is better than well formatted false information. 6. No, I don't think that correcting wrong information would result in any objection. That's why I don't understand that you re-added false information even though you said you would have checked the source carefully. 7. Yes of course I know this is page not meant for laying out content disputes. But why do you do it then?. 8. Unfair question. You were the one who told me not to fork discussions away from other participants. What would you have said if I would not have said anything here? Don't you think that not replying would have increased the chance that my account would have been blocked from editing? Don't you think that I have the right to say something to your accusations? 9. Yes, of course I am aware. However, which rule is more important? WP:NOR or WP:IDHT? 10. Yes, actually I can read. I am a mentor for new users in the German Wikipedia and therefore know the German rules quite well. The rules here differ, something I would consider a big point is WP:NOR. In the German Wikipedia, nobody would object to edits such as these since refraining from false information saves this project and has a higher value than formatting. 11. No. Honestly not. There are several good reasons for adding it but I assume the problem is a nescire ad non esse. If I don't something, it does not exist. And the objection to physical principles is something that made me abandon the adding-attempt. 12. Yes, I understand what they are saying though they don't seem to understand my point. The problem is that the kilopondmetre is not really in use though it is necessary. A lot of sources provide a wrong conversion, for instance, this one. To ensure that articles contain correct information, it is mandatory to have the source information in the article and converting that to Newtonmetres. I cannot provide links to articles for that. 13. Yes of course, they were not understanding though. It's like telling "every German source has min−1" and getting a reply "I never heard of this nonsense". The reply doesn't make the statement unproved and therefore I ignore it. 14. Unfair question, see 12. Also, kp·m·s−1 ≠ kp·m 15. Yes, the problem is: a nescire ad non esse. 16. Yes, if they have good reasons, of course. See WP:IGNORE. But keep in mind: I am not a new user. 17. No, I would not since I believe that someone who has valid arguments that are based on sources has a right to add and improve content. Even if it is against a popular opinion of several other authors. I support authors with unconventional valid arugments and sources to give them a lobby. 18. Yes of course. And even if this would result in rpm, I would accept it. Currently though, we lack a rule since it has never been an issue. Usually, native speakers of Germanic languages know English on a high level; though this level is usually not sufficient for contributing to the English Wikipedia. Trust me, 95 % of native German speakers are uncapable of contributing to the German Wikipedia since they don't know their own language well enough. Though they could read and understand both English and German language articles. Maybe I am the first one who is able to mention that min−1 is common and that's why it hasn't been an issue for so long. 19. This is not a yes-or-no-question. 20. Unfair question. I will keep posting links to the evidence that prove that the information I add is valid and based on a reliable source. 21. Unfair question. An accuse doesn't require any change in behaviour. 22. Yes of course, everbody can. 23. Depends on what you mean. Since some of your prior questions were based on each other, I assume this question is based on 22. Answer: Depends. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. 24. No, of course not. I do not possess divination powers. Do you? I hope that my answers help you but to be honest, do you still wish that I get blocked from editing? Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC) Sorry for all the badgering. Like I said, I thought it was time to try a different approach. Your answers speak for themselves, so I won't try to pick them apart an further. To answer your first question, it's unlikely a native speaker would make the mistake of thinking #19 "Have my comments so far told you that I would follow the MOS, even if I believe I'm right?" is not a yes-or-no question. I think the subordinate clause at the end threw you. There are numerous other examples. Still, quite fluent. Perhaps you're a native English speaker putting on a fake persona. Who cares? Behavior is what matters. To answer your last question, yes, I think an indef block is required, and it is because of your repeated play-acting that you don't understand what is said to you. Even beyond the actual misunderstandings, the evidence is compelling that you are misconstruing others' words in bad faith. You first show you got it, then later pretend you don't got it. You're messing with people. And your repeated affirmations that you won't used any of the usual dispute resolution tools, and instead will keep up what you've done, reverting when you know consensus is against you, and these overlong debates where you reject every single word others say, and don't understand the need to compromise and accede consensus, even when you know consensus is "wrong". Topics lke Abortion or Global warming or Art are battlegrounds with editors who are utterly committed to their incompatible beliefs. The ones who agree to put that aside and go along with consensus until they are able to get consensus to change are still here. The ones, like you, who think believing you're right is enough to ignore consensus have been blocked, and will go on being blocked. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Topic ban We all have better things to do than to repeatedly shout down Johnjoy's unlistening ear over this. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• Topic ban – But what topic? Anything related to rpm? Cars? Units? The big problem here is that it's impossible to have a discussion with Jojhnjoy. I don't know how to fix that. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• Warning and perhaps topic ban While this is an editors who doesn't get it I don't think he means to be acting in bad faith. I would suggest a stern warning and maybe a short topic ban if the user doesn't agree to drop it. I think this is generally an editor who is working good faith but simply isn't listening to the group consensus. The topic bad would be adding/changing unit types on any article. Springee (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to shout down my unlistening ear over this since I already said I would refrain from changing rpm to /min. If you would read and understand the first sencentence on my user page you would possibly notice that a topic ban would equal a complete ban in this case. Also, User:Kendall-K1, I don't remember that you ever tried discussing with me. You once asked a question and since the answer was not what you expected you immediately resigned. I don't understand how you would even want to judge me. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Indef block. I have evidence in the form of diffs to support a block. Jojhnjoy is unrepentant, and his intellectual dishonesty continues right up to his last post above. Accusing Kendall-K1 of being unwilling to discuss is dishonest, and the discussion at Talk:Convert shows several others were very patient and indulgent with Jojhnjoy, and he didn't listen to a word. Kendall-K1 had no duty to keep up the charade. Anyone who has read the entire discussion at the Autos Project, and the above comments, has no need for me to walk you through it as I do below. This reply to my questions above says it all: "would you advise this editor stop, and to try something else, such as the options at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE?"

  Jojhnjoy: "No, I would not since I believe that someone who has valid arguments that are based on sources has a right to add and improve content. Even if it is against a popular opinion of several other authors. I support authors with unconventional valid arugments and sources to give them a lobby." No to moderated discussion, no to third opinions, no to RfCs, no to any of the noticeboards, no to mediation. None of it. Jojhnjoy sees no problem with the way he has dealt with this dispute so far, and going forward, he will handle future disputes exactly the same.

  If you haven't already read it all, here are the diffs that show this ongoing dishonesty, and bad faith:

 Disagree. I consider your "evidence" weak and unfounded. Jojhnjoy is unrepentant, and his intellectual dishonesty (...) is a personal attack on another user. Would an administrator please delete that? I did not accuse Kendall-K1 of being unwilling to discuss. I said: I don't remember that you ever tried discussing with me. You once asked a question and since the answer was not what you expected you immediately resigned. I don't understand how you would even want to judge me. This does not mean "Kendall-K1 is unwilling to discuss". One would please remove Dennis Bratlands wrong accusation. My reply to Bratlands question does not say it all. He apparently ignores the key point: someone who has valid arguments that are based on sources. He ignores that I am a mentor for new users and that it is my job to support unconventional but valid opinions to prevent new users from resigning from this project when old users tell them their suggestions are bad. I recommend a temporary block of Dennis Bratland to prevent him from continuing with his demand for my block based on false and unfounded accusations, including the accusations that I would handle future conflicts exactly the same, that I would be edit warring and having bad faith, calling me "unrepentant and intellectually dishonest". Though, I do not consider a block necessary if Dennis Bratland just stops. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

I was the first to speak sympathetically about min-1, calling it "obscure but not unheard of", and saying we should have an explanation of it on some article. Later, 1292simon agrees Agree I pointed specifically to where Jojhnjoy was misrepresenting MOS:UNITS.  Disagree My key point was that MOS:UNITS says "In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units [and] non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI (...)". Since minutes are SI-compatible, min−1 is acceptable. That's how I would understand that. Dennis Bratland does not point specifically to where I am misreading it. First, he says "nope" to my statement that I asked an American who understood it. To me this seems as if he would want to deny that. Second, he says all automotive car media use rpm, which is not true (or a lie). Third, "common style guides recommend rpm". Well, okay, but DIN 1301 is no a guideline but a norm and says something different. Okay. Fourth: He claims that BIPM has never heard of this nonsense. There he calls it nonsense, (for the record, this will be important for 16.), and it is not true. It says that time units could be used for frequency (s−1 for instance) and since minutes are acceptable, they can be used too. It also explains that units may be combined and that is common. It does not specifically say that frequency can be expressed in minutes, however it indicates it and it is very common in science, so this assumption cannot be wrong. Instead, Bratland claims real SI would be Herz. (It is not a typo since he did it again.) Fifth: He says, we have zero sources telling us to stop using rpm. Yes, that is true. But I wanted to point out that we don't have sources telling us to stop using minutes either. (Or one would consinder the style guidelines a source though then DIN 1301 has to be considered too. Still no result. Also, the MOS:STYLE does not say "minutes must not be used for frequency". I pointed that out later. So his claim he would have pointed out to where I am misreading MOS:STYLE is wrong. Later still, I repeated that I'm OK with min-1, but we should follow the MOS and avoid confusing readers  Disagree Dennis Bratland does not say he is OK with min−1. He says he has added a photograph of an airplane gauge cluster to the discussion. Then he said from what he could tell, some German car manufacturers use it on non-German markets when they are trying to be different. This is an accusation. From what I can tell, it is normal and does not mean that they are trying to be different. I live in a "non-German market" and German car manufacturers are not trying to be different here by using min−1 since it is normal. Then he says that some manufacturers don't use it and that English sources usually use rpm. I mostly agree, however, I read a lot of scientific literature and there you would find min−1 mostly. So it is not true completely. The consensus or opinion in the English Wikipedia is to use rpm. But again: Where is the rule that tells me that I must use it too? Bratland says that there is nothing wrong with min−1 but that it is not how they do it. I would not prevent other authors from using rpm on their articles since there is nothing wrong with that either. Here is Jojhnjoy's argument for why we don't need to say x,xxx r/min or x,xxx r min-1, and can omit the r. Nobody believes him. Agree Nobody believes me. But that does not mean that I am wrong. For believing that you cannot omit "r" in this case, you must ignore scientific literature, the SI brochure, DIN 1301 and hundrets of European vehicle manuals and technical data sheets. Again, Jojhnjoy misinterprets MOS:UNITS as if it said we must use SI exclusively, somehow only reading the first half of the sentence "In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for angular speed, hands for heights of horses, et cetera)." We have already quoted this, and pointed out the misreading.  Disagree I did not say that they must use SI exclusively. I said: 'I am not anti American'. Then: Please stop forcing units on topics where they don't belong. That does not mean 'they must use SI exclusively'. After that: Everybody uses and understands SI units. Well it is partly true. Seconds for instance. And in science, even Americans use millimetres. So that statement is not false entirely. Then I said that the argument that readers would not understand "/min" is absurd and not reasonable. I think that is true. And yes, MOS:UNITS encurages me to use minutes with German vehicles. Still. Yet Another editor repeats that Jojhnjoy is misreading MOS:UNITS  Disagree He does not say that I am misreading it. He says that there is no much sense in this discussion and that this is the English Wikipedia, not a specialist one and that min−1 would lead to confusion. This makes sense to me, thats why I said one could use /min instead. But then this user says that "MOS:UNITS covers the case of rpm being the sensible choice", but they ignore that MOS:UNITS said "angular speed" back then, not rotational frequency. Also, it is the last part of the sentence and the first part says "the primary units chosen will be SI (...)" In reply, he tortures the meaning of the phrase "angular speed" to claim that the MOS is excluding the rotation of car engines. It makes no sense. What else could it be referring to? We don't use rpm to describe the rotation of planets or satellites, or the roll rate of an aircraft in flight.  Disagree (I ignore that your sentence lacks some sense since I undestand what you want to say): I did not want to claim that MOS:UNITS excludes the "rotation[al frequency] of car engines". I said that does neither mean rotational frequency for cars nor that one must not use minutes. It did not say "It means that rpm must not be used". It's hard to follow what makes sense for you but since rpm is not used in the technical and scientific literature I read, I don't know how Americans use it. I don't even know when and why they use in³, cuin, ci, cu, cin and cc for displacement and how the rule works. For me only in³ seems like displacement since the other lack the exponent 3. So I cannot say anything to the last part of the sentence, whether it makes sense or not. A different edtior rejects the argument for excluding r or revolutions, saying it must be x,xxx r/min, at least, not just x,xxx /min. The math error was reading r as a variable rather than a unit. Agree, I understand that r can be interpreted as a unit and I know that this "unit" refers to "revolutions", but I would expect that people who claim being engineers know what auxiliary units are. "revolutions" is an auxiliary unit. And those should be avoided when possible. Yet another editor clearly says Jojhnjoy is misreading MOS:UNITS.  Disagree. This author says that his kids would not understand mathematics even though they can read. Well, fair enough. But does that really mean that my point is wrong? Then he quotes the MoS but does not say that I am misreading it. Then he says that "his experience is that for reliable sources for motor vehicles rpm is the conventional choice." Okay, I understand that. And he reminds me that sources wouldn't be engineering texts. Okay, I understand that too. But in the conventional sources for this specific vehicle /min is used. Here is a disingenuous argument that others cannot claim to have seen r/min on European car dashboards, because it is original research without a citation, while Jojhnjoy allows himself to repeatedly claim that "everyone" easily understands min-1, without citing any evidence at all, and ignoring every request to cite such evidence. Claims the right to assume it at his whim.  Disagree. My point was that on German vehicle dashboards, r/min is not used. And claiming that r/min is common is original research. Doubting original research is desired. I could give arguments why this is wrong, instead I decided to post images of German dashboards. None of them showed r/min. Some of these photos were even taken by myself. Also worth mentioning is that a lot of German vehicles don't have a gauge that shows the rotational frequency of the crankshaft. (example) I hope that you know the difference between assuming and claiming? "European cars have r/min on their dashboards" is a claim. "I assume that 1/min is widely understood" is an assumption. Now one more different editor says "Power at 1/min" and "Torque at 1/min" makes no sense, and it needs to include the unit, r or revolutions. Agree, he said that, but that does not mean I have to believe it. Later, I post that "'1000 /min" is just gibberish'", agreeing with the previous editors who say there must be an r between 1000 and /min. Why do we keep having to belabor this stupid point? Everyone is sick of it. Agree, you said that, but that does not mean I have to have the same opinion. Also, a there is lot of evidence that proves that it is not gibberish. Jojhnjoy makes a disingenuous argument that we must define "evidence" before asking for evidence that rpm is widely understood and /min or min-1 is less common, without himself giving any definition of evidence when he asked for it earlier. It's all silly and dishonest, because all of us know what a citation of a fact looks like.  Disagree. A fact looks like this: In the English Wikipedia, for rotational frequency, minutes must not be used. or In the English language, minutes must not be used. Not I never heard of that, media say, style guidelines say, etc. Of course I could cite sources that use /min or min−1, scientific sources, engineering handbooks, technical datasheets, DIN, SI, etc. but that would not be evidence for the point that minutes are allowed. In spite of all this pettifogging, I oblige, and cite a number of authoritative sources that say rpm is preferred, and is therefore widely understood, and in which /min and min-1 is conspicuously absent.  Disagree Yes, in your sources minutes are absent. But that does not mean that they don't exist. I could cite sources in which rpm is absent. But why would I do that? Citing sources that don't use minutes don't automatically say they are false and must not be used. He repolies that these citations are "original research", while posting "I asked an American, she understood 1/min" as if that's not original research? It's not funny. It's blatant dishonesty. OK, it's kind of funny, but it's the kind of funny that gets you indef'd if you don't cut it out. Agree Yes, since your sources don't prove the point. When I say that I asked my fried who knew /min, it does not mean that everybody understands it. I never said that. If you really think that it would get anybody blocked from editing, well... no comment on that one. Jojhnjoy replies with the accusation we're still seeing, "you consider min−1 'nonsense'", after I said twice that min−1 is a convention that is fine if that's your convention. I had clearly said that what I consider "gibberish" and "nonsense" is using this or any thing else, /min or "per minute" without the r or the word revolutions. Several others had already said this clearly. Why is Jojhnjoy speaking as if he doesn't realize that? He's setting up a straw man, as if multiple others hadn't already clarified that.  Disagree You said "BIPM never heard of this nonsense." (Remmeber point 2. "for the record"?) Is there anything wrong with saying that you consider it nonsense? Would you say "I don't consider it nonsense but it is"? I know what a convention is, but the opinions of eight other authors don't make a convention automatically. That's at least how I would say it. In my reply, I say exactly that. If Jojhnjoy missed it the first or second or third or fourth time, he can't miss it now.  Disagree I never missed it. I just didn't agree this was a convention. Jojhnjoy replies directly to this last point. He posts "55 kW at 5800/min is no nonsense. Stop acting like you never saw that, since it appears in so many books and technical data sheets". He is specifically addressing my complaint that the r or revolutions is what's missing, and raging that it isn't necessary. He's admitting he knows what our objection is. Took long enough.  Disagree While the first part is true, I worte "55 kW at 5800/min is no nonsense. Stop acting like you never saw that, since it appears in so many books and technical data sheets", it means that I ask Dennis Bratland to stop acting like he never saw that. It does not mean that I address your complaint about the r, I address your acting in general since you would not want to accept my opinion but keep loading your rpm "evidence" on me even though I already mentioned that I know that Americans use it. However, Dennis Bratland called it "nonsense" and "pseudo-German, bastardized-SI formatting style". That's something, I don't have to put up with. Later Jojhnjoy posts that he is adamant that he will ignore consensus. This alone is blockable, if you really mean it, and he has doubled down enough times to show us he means it.  Disagree I just cite myself: This is my personal opinion and a recommendation. It does not imply that I would ignore consensus. It does not mean that I would vandalize. Demanding an indefinte block of another user just because they don't share the same opinion is unacceptable. Therefore I wish that an administrator stops Dennis Bratland at this point since I cannot see any contribution towards a solution anymore, I feel that the only thing left here is Dennis Bratlands desperate attempt to get me blocked from editing indefinitely and that really makes me feel uncomfortable. This brings us to the AN/I report, and Jojhnjoy is right back repeating the accusation "Apparently, Dennis Bratland seems to dislike some units. For instance, he considers min−1 nonsense (also here)". In spite of all the above, he is back to pretending he doesn't understand that my only objection to x,xxxx r/min or x,xxx r min-1 is that it's not English convention, not that it's invalid. He is back to pretending that what I called "nonsense" and "gibberish" was omitting the r. He refers to the very long thread on this exact thing, and pretends he won that argument, simply because he believes himself, ignoring his total failure to get even one of eight editors to agree. This same diff says that his woeful misreading of MOS:UNITS was excusable because "it was changed in the meantime." A half dozen editors lectured him on MOS:UNITS, and they were clearly referring to the same version that said angular speed, not rotational speed. The change is irrelevant, and Jojhnjoy knows this because a half dozen editors told him so. In spite of all this, he goes on pretending otherwise.  Disagree You call it "nonsense" and "pseudo-German, bastardized-SI formatting style". I consider that an expression of disgust. Therefore saying that you dislike it is plausible. I accpet the opinions of other authors, but that does not mean I have to agree with them. Therefore I failed getting anyone to agree. However, I don't consider it necessary, therefore there is no failure. Also, I never misread MOS:UNITS, the recent change of MOS:UNITS could have given the impression that I did. I just wanted to clarify that. I don't go on pretending..

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I added my comments on these points. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, I checked Dennis Bratlands block log. To me, this seems like Dennis Bratland was blocked for demanding the block of another user. Unfortunately, the block log does not tell exactly why he was blocked, though it seems like he had violated an interaction ban. The link links to this page, Bratland says: He (Spacecowboy420) is supposed to be blocked immediately without warning if he posts about me, my edits, or responds to me anywhere on Wikipedia. I am afraid that my assumption is not wrong. Therefore I would like to ask Floquenbeam for a short statement on this to ensure that Dennis Bratland was not blocked for demanding the block of another user. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Dennis was blocked for repeatedly asking for a block of someone with whom they had an interaction ban. This is quite clear from the unambiguous wording of the block log; I don't understand Jojhnjoy's confusion. It is obviously not against policy to demand a block of another user (although "demanding" is unwise 99% of the time), why would I have blocked simply for that? Anyway, I'm replying here because I was pinged, but I have not read the rest of this thread, and do not plan to be involved with it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that reply, I didn't know what an interaction ban was since interaction is not limited to persons; the phraseology of Wikipedia terms is misleading sometimes and I never heard of an interaction ban before. Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Move along. Nothing to see here.

Please drop it. It's clear you don't understand what happened, but so what? You don't need to understand it. It isn't relevant. I am more than willing to stipulate that I am indeed the worst if it makes you happy. But, as WP:NOTTHEM tells you, no matter how awful I am, it doesn't help you much. Yes, personal attacks or not assuming good faith are not allowed almost anywhere but noticeboards like this one. AN/I is the place where editors make accusations. I'm not going to be blocked for that, especially when multiple editors support my evidence. A plausible WP:BOOMERANG argument might be that my edits at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles were the real cause of Jojnjoy's alleged disruptive editing. You could try to argue that, but none of the disinterested third parties who were there agreed. And I was never present at Template talk:Convert, so if I'm to blame for that, I have superpowers. I will admit that my proposal for an indef block has gained no traction at all, not even one editor is considering it. So I won't bring it up again unless I have a substantially new and more compelling argument, which I doubt. I persuaded no one and so I give up. A topic ban has a lot of support. I predict that a topic ban saying "Jojhnjoy can't change unit conversions or formatting" will be followed by Jojhnjoy changing rpm to /min or or bhp to PS or whatever he likes, and then saying the topic ban doesn't say I can't do that! Because past behavior is an indicator of future behavior. Jojhnjoy looks at the same text you're looking at and tells you with a straight face it doesn't say what you can plainly see that it does say, and he never, ever backs down from that. We shall see. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I explained why I would not harm this project and Dennis Bratland ignores it. He considers this edit a reason for an indefinite block. I said there I still recommend refraining from adding cc and rpm in German topic articles (...). This is my personal opinion and a recommendation. It does not imply that I would ignore consensus. It does not mean that I would vandalize. Demanding an indefinte block of another user just because they don't share the same opinion is unacceptable. Therefore I wish that an administrator stops Dennis Bratland at this point since I cannot see any contribution towards a solution anymore, I feel that the only thing left here is Dennis Bratlands desperate attempt to get me blocked from editing indefinitely and that really makes me feel uncomfortable. What am I supposed to do? I don't agree with the consensus but that does not mean I don't accept it, also, I mentioned that I would refrain from changing rpm and still, Dennis Bratland does not stop demanding an indefinite block. If he keeps this threat of an indefinite block alive by demanding it over and over again, ignoring everything good I say and do, focussing on all my mistakes and harassing me with questions just to have another reason for adding accusations over and over to this AN/I no matter whether they might be false or right, I consider it harassment. As long as nobody stops Dennis Bratland, I don't see an option for myself and I will surrender, this means I would not want to contribute to this project anymore. Despite the outcome of this, I shall go now and not return for a while. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Topic ban - There are multiple instances identified above, where the editor has shown no respect towards other editors and blatantly disregarded Wikipedia policy. This goes completely beyond any difference of opinion regarding article content. Even the response above this shows no appreciation, let alone remorse, that policy breaches have been committed. Instead, the user believes it is a personal vendetta, so he launches an attack on the creator of this ANI. Past behaviour indicates that these are deliberate strategies, not naive mistakes. I think a topic ban is the only option in this case to stop this unwanted behaviour. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - If the consensus is for topic ban I would suggest the scope of the ban be changes to unit conversions, not contributions to for example automotive articles. I think a warning would be sufficient. If the editor says he is going to abide by consensus going forward I think that should be sufficient. I think an indefinite block is unreasonably punitive given this is an editor who is trying to make things better. A warning, if heeded, should be sufficient. @Jojhnjoy: this means you need to acknowledge that group consensus needs to accepted. If the consensus is units should be pound*feet for torque vs N*m so be it (don't change the units). However, if you feel that the current source is wrong (ie, regardless of the unit conversion, the value conflicts with a second source) then bring it up at the talk page and let people decide which source is better. I think if you agree to do those two things this a waring should be fine and this ANI can be closed. Springee (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Springee. I said earlier, that I would refrain from editing in a way that doesn't match consensus. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Also, thank you, 79.71.19.76 for correcting mistakes, this entire thing is extremeley exhausting, I guess that explains it. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

From the comments above it seems like a topic ban is the popular option. I suggest Jojhnjoy be prohibited from adding or changing any unit names or conversions to articles. He has agreed to stop editing against consensus. My main concern now is that I'm not sure he is able to discern when consensus has been reached. For example, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles the consensus seems clear to me and to everyone else, but not to Jojhnjoy. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Stopped editing articles maybe, but the stick is still in action over here today: User talk:1292simon#Volume

Support any block or tban up to public flogging. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Is that up to and including? Because we haven't been doing enough of that recently at ANI, and morale has dropped as a consequence. EEng 01:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing my support for public flogging here, as the psychic horse medium tells me that the stick is now completely worn out.Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Support At least a topic ban. The user is still "arguing" incoherently about "units" at other user talk pages. This isn't going to go away unless prevented. -- Begoon 12:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support WP:TBAN – as nominator. Given the recent talk page activity, it looks like a full topic ban, including talk pages, will be required. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I would also support a temporary block, now that Jojhnjoy has violated the proposed tban even while the discussion is ongoing. I still think an indef block is not required, but we seem to be headed in that direction. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I cannot violate a topic ban that was just proposed but not imposed. Supporting a temporary block because of that does not make any sense to me. Rather seems like creating block arguments out of thin air. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose... but. Again I think Jojhnoy is editing in good faith but I agree he's not listening. This is the English language Wikipedia and 'cc' is a common term in the context in question across the English speaking automotive topics. It would really be a good idea to just avoid discussions of units and unit labels before a TBAN is imposed. My opposition is getting weaker because the stick is still in the hand.Springee (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Just for your info: 1292simon changed cubic centimetres to "cc". I asked them "Why do you change cm³ to cc?" This is a legitimate question since I have never heard of this cc. I looked up the SI brochure and linked, that one must not use cc for cubic centimetres. 1292simon linked this in his reply: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Specific units, however, it says "cubic centimetre: cm³". Also, it says "cubic centimeter (U.S.): cc | Non-SI symbol used for certain engine displacements". So this means that it should be used for topics related to the United States for certain engine displacements. It does not mean that one should change cm³ which is totally okay and SI compliant in topics not related to the United States for engine displacement to something different. No rule, no consensus. They changed it in almost all articles I created (none of them related to an American topic) but refrained from changing other articles, I don't know why. That's why I asked. It was followed by a question by Andy Dingley: "Didn't you get a topic ban or something?" What is this? What do I have to think here? That one is allowed to edit all articles I created just because they dislike something I used that is covered by both Wikipedia rules and article sources? Without a consensus? In the German Wikipedia, such behaviour is considered disruptive. Maybe, the rules here are different. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

You've never heard of "cc"? To refresh your memory, you brought up the subject of "cc" here: Template talk:Convert/Archive May 2017#Cubic centimetres. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you know what the difference between seeing and hearing is? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

As an uninvolved observer, I'm compelled to point out another word: "listening". I don't see where you've ever done that at all, and it seems to me that doing that could have avoided most of this. Try listening, is my recommendation. -- Begoon 14:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, what is the reason for spending more than one hour on changing cm³ to cc in articles of a sepcific user knowing that they wouldn't like it even though neither style guidelines nor rules nor consensus justify it? If you explain it, I shall listen. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

What Andy said, obviously. There is literally nothing anyone can say to this guy that makes any impression. He has read these words 50 times: "In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic." He will sit here until the cows come home denying the words say what the say. You can't fix that. You can't work around it. That is an insurmountable obstacle to editing. But I'm with you guys, whatever you want to try. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Well why does the first part of the sentence exist then? I understand that it wouldn't be wrong using cc, however, cm³ isn't wrong either. So what is the reason for spending so much time on changing all these from cm³ to cc? Could you explain it? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

1. Read WP:COMPETENCE. If misunderstanding English is going to cause this level of disruption, then you cannot edit in Wikipedia.

2. You were told by EIGHT (and counting) native English speakers that you were misreading it. We all make mistakes, and misunderstaning the MOS is normally not a problem, because normally editors listen to consensus. If your English is not perfect, then don't die on that hill. Don't defend to the death your opinion about a language you clearly do not fully understand.

3. How many times did you promise you wouldn't change units? How many times in the last 24 hours alone? Yet you went right ahead and started changing units. Hello?

#4 is a doozy. It's the wall of text from hell. You were warned. Seriously. Don't click show. You'll thank me later

4. Finally. You asked the English/Computer Science major to parse a sentence for you. Let's parse away. Parse like the wind! Let's parse In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, et cetera). In essence, the sentence says "X is Y". That's it. Simple! <SUBJECT> EQUALS <NOUN>. What is X, the <SUBJECT>? The subject is "units". What is the key adjective that identifies X, the "units"? "Primary". Primary means first in order, of chief rank or importance. The MOS is flexible and tolerates other units. Using units that are not the primary units is not an emergency, but it's an issue. It's something that is fixed by WikiGnomes. New additions to wikipedia might not conform to the MOS, but over time, editors work to make small changes which tend to progress closer to the MOS. So if Editor 1 changes a non-primary unit to THE primary unit (there can be only one, that is what primary means), then Editor 2 should not revert. Especially when he has been TOLD NOT TO, and PROMISED not to. Great! Now, we ask, what is Y, the <NOUN>? Y is a list of three possibilities, separated by commas and the conjunction "or". Remember, primary means only one of these applies. It isn't free choice. The three things are 1) SI units, 2) officially accepted non-SI units or 3) "other units" described as "conventional". Now here, your mistake is thinking that since SI is on this list of 3 options, then SI can be the primary unit. You simply get to pick any one of these three, and edit war with anybody who changes it. But is that so? No. If could be the primary unit SI for any topic, then this entire sentence is pointless. It need only say, "always use SI". Or "use whatever you want". Or not even exist. It doesn't mean that. Under what circumstances must the primary unit be the second item, or the third? The inherent logic of a sentence "there exists one widget such that either no conditions are fulfilled, some conditions are fulfilled, or even more conditions are fulfilled" is that if the topic falls into the scenario with the most strict conditions, then it must be that option. This must be so because otherwise, why even have these three options? Option 3, "conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic" is the most restrictive of the three. Reliable sources are not just any blog or tweet or livejournal. They are a high bar to meet. And there must be multiple such discussions, and they must agree with each other. If every other article in Motor Trend or The Motor wavered between cm3, and cc, then there is no convention. It's high bar to meet, to have the situation (which we indeed have) where easily 95% of all English language motor vehicle publications use cc. And it's a high bar to meet for all these discussions to not only use cc almost all the time, but to all be about a single topic: motor vehicles, or (an even higher bar) internal combustion engines. Wait! You say, what about German sources? See WP:NOENG. Non-English sources are acceptable, but English sources are preferred. It matters not that the English and non-English sources don't share a convention for engine displacement; it is enough that the convention exists in English. Am I sure? Yes, I'm sure. If this were not the case, then the third possibility could never happen. There's like 7,000 languages. No unit convention could exist that they all agree on. Might as well not even have this MOS rule. We must assume the MOS was not written by imbeciles. So we have found ourselves in this narrowly-defined situation, where we pass all the stringent conditions of the most restrictive of the 3 choices for the thing I call Y, or <NOUN>. If we didn't meet all these conditions, then we would fall through the sieve to the more accommodating choice 2. Here the only condition is that your topic can make use of one of a short list of unofficial but accepted non-SI units. Like minutes, or AUs. This is a broad category, but still, it is a bar that must be met. If the topic were the height of basketball hoops, no unofficial SI unit exists. The nearest miss is AUs, but that is absurd. So if you can't meet that bar, then you fall through to the broadest category of the three: SI. No conditions at all. There need be no conventions used by reliable sources, it ban be any topic, and SI has a unit for everything. You do not pick one of these three on a whim. That would be a pointless MOS rule. The rule is clear, there is only one primary unit, and there is only one logical way of choosing which unit to use that treats the rule with any respect at all. If you don't follow this algorithm, starting with the most narrowly-defined of the three options, then you make a mockery of the rule. It is interesting that this is instinctive to English speakers. It never would have occurred to me that other languages don't have this kind of implied logic. Just as few native English speakers are aware there is a rigid rule for the order of adjectives, and most couldn't tell you what that rule is. But put the phrase "yellow old favorite dirty t-shirt" in front of any English speaker, and they will instinctively rearrange it to read "favorite dirty old yellow t-shirt". They don't even know they're doing it. This parsing of the sentence In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, et cetera). is HIDEOUS and nobody should have to read such a thing, let alone write it. That is why you should simply listen to others. Listen. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

:::::Dennis, thank your for this long explanation, however, I understand it. As you said, or is a conjunction. That means that in this case basically we got 3 options. And now I just want to cite you: ″Option 3, "conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic" is the most restrictive of the three.″ → So you just said it is the most strict of these. But is it? Which is the option we should apply? I don't think that these options really allow telling which one is the "right". I could argue that "using SI or using units allowed with SI" is based on each other and therefore these two options support each other and make the option 1 an option you would rather choose. How is it defined? Where is the rule? How is someone who does not know about eight other readers opinions supposed to read it? Imagine someone would use normal SI-units and would really read MOS:UNITS and Specific units, I guess that they would never expect other authors to object cubic centimetres. If there is a strong consensus, why don't the rules express it? Why don't the rules tell that one must stick to cc? ″Reliable sources are not just any blog or tweet or livejournal. They are a high bar to meet.″ → I agree. ″And there must be multiple such discussions, and they must agree with each other.″ → Where should these discussions take place? In Wikipedia? In science? ″If every other article in Motor Trend or The Motor wavered between cm3, and cc, then there is no convention.″ → So, what is your definition of a convention? Convention = All the books you read use cc? ″It's high bar to meet, to have the situation (which we indeed have) where easily 95% of all English language motor vehicle publications use cc.″ Your expression of these "95%" show me that you might be overconfident. You are much more wrong than you would expect. Do you think that I would believe you if you keep using arguments based on imaginations? Of course it could be a rethorical figure but in my opinion rethorical figures at such points are arguemnt boosters that would rather make me ask myself: "Does Dennis really want to convince me?" It is obviously not true that 95% use this cc. I read scientific puclications (about automotive engineering) a lot and I have never encountered it. (BMW does not use either by the way.) Actually, the first place I found it was Wikipedia and it surprised me that it means cm3. Since I have seen British engines before, I thought the common form of displacement was in3, even the name indicates that (6.354; 354 in3 = 5801 cm3 which is the exact displacement of this thing.) ″Wait! You say, what about German sources? See WP:NOENG. Non-English sources are acceptable, but English sources are preferred.″ → I understand that, but do you ignore that I cited an English language source that did not even tell it is not permitted to use cc but also that not using cc avoids confusion (and therefore makes things easier to understand)? Wikipedia rules suggest that you could use both. So I decided to go with the SI-permitted way. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

"I understand it". No you, don't. Everyone is telling you that You're not listening. "If there is a strong consensus, why don't the rules express it?" It does express it. It is perfectly clear to everyone except you. The reason I'm so confident that there is consensus amount reliable automotive sources that everyone except you says so. We don't need an exact count of the number of times sources have used cm3 because everyone except you agrees it's not even close. It doesn't matter if it's 95% or 99% or 83%. What matters is, it's overwhelming. I could go on saying the same thing to every one of your repetitive arguments. Everyone except you rejected the sources you cited. Nobody except you is asking for "convention" to be defined. Could you be the lone editor who sees the TRUTH? Maybe. After all, as Carl Sagan said, "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Perhaps you are the lone voice of reason. But everyone thinks you're the metaphorical Bozo the Clown in this. The MOS could have errors, and it could be edited to be more clear. But it will never be perfect. There will always be some editors who don't understand it, whether due tho their own language issues, or the flaws in the wording of the MOS. The solution to that problem is not for one editor to go on a crusade. The solution is, always, to use the normal consensus process, which means listen to other editors. Nobody is attacking you for misunderstanding MOS:UNITS. That is forgivable, and easily solved. Your behavior is being criticized because you won't listen, won't back down, and won't recognize that all of the arguments you're making about SI units and conventions and so on were considered and then were rejected. You lost. You are, in the words of WP:IDHT "sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. " That is disruptive editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support. The latest cubic centimetres issue shows no respect for consensus (not to mention a request to stay off my Talk page), since the topic was already covered [96]. His claim that I made the changes "in articles of a sepcific user knowing that they wouldn't like it" shows both WP:OWN issues and a lack of WP:FAITH (I made the changes because I believe they make the articles easier to understand- whether Jojhnjoy agrees with this or not).

  I am so sick of lengthy arguments with this guy about obscure units, when he just does not listen to anyone. His strategies of victory by attrition and raising the same issue in different locations are a significant waste of other editors time. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

Well I gave you strong evidence that your edits would not make the article easier to understand, also, even harder to understand and you ignored it. You linked to a discussion but you completely ignored the context. My proposal back then was that the template:convert would automatically change cc to cm3 since I thought this was something like ccm (something weird only few people know about for something very common usually expressed differently.) So there is no consensus that we should replace something common with something that usually must not be used. The rules for units indicate that cc could be used for certain engine displacements related to "American displacements". But on the other hand, the first thing the rule mentions is: cubic centimetre: cm3. I guess there is nothing wrong with using it and yet you change it even though there is no consensus. Also, very interesting that all the articles you changed were either created or edited by me. And worth mentioning too is that you did not change cm3 to cc in hundreds of articles I did not edit once. (Search for "cm3" in the Wikipedia search, I cannot link it here.) I think this is too obvious for coincidence. You messed up several things, for instance, you increased the displacement of the Trabant 601 by the factor 10. Such edits could be anything, but you did not increase the article quality. You made it worse (most likely not intentionally) but to me it seems like you just wanted to change it. Not to improve the quality. By the way, I did not waste more than one hour on changing cm3 to cc: 12:42 ... [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] ... 13:45. Well, if you don't want me to discuss, I shall refrain from editing your talk page. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC) the first thing the rule mentions is: cubic centimetre: cm3: I designed that table so I'll tell you why cm3 is first, and that is that it's the most common way overall of expressing cubic centimeters, and therefore putting it first is the most logical presentation. It doesn't mean cm3 is preferred over cc in every particular context. EEng 01:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC) I know that, but also, it does not mean that cc is preferred over cm3. It expresses that both could be used but cc is rather American I guess? ("cubic centimeter (U.S.): cc)" --Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC) You implied that the format of the table implies that cm3 is somehow preferred; I told you it doesn't. That's all. EEng 17:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Jojhnjoy, your accusation "You made it worse (most likely not intentionally) but to me it seems like you just wanted to change it. Not to improve the quality" is hurtful, and violates WP:FAITH. As for your question about why I chose those particular articles, I am happy to explain. The main purpose of my work was to implement the change from min-1 to rpm, as per consensus at Wikiproject Automobiles. Yes, I figured that articles you have edited would be a good place to look for min-1s to change, so that's where I started. Nothing personal. Then, while I was editing those articles, I noticed the cm3 and decided to change them. You might disagree whether this is an improvement (although I suggest you are own your own there), but that was my motive for the changes. Yes, I also there was the odd article along the way with no rpm change, but rpm was the main purpose. Sorry for the typo in the Trabant article. But it says a lot that you went on the attack about an innocent mistake, when you could have just fixed it instead... 1292simon (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Well, an edit that makes a correct information wrong makes an article worse. That is a fact. Also, I wrote most likely not intentionally. To me it seems like... For instance, you also ignored commata mistakes, etc. and not only once. That made me write: you just wanted to change it. Not to improve the quality. But doesn't that opinion make sense? I did not write that you don't want to improve the quality. I wrote it seems like that to me in this case. Do you understand why? I understand the rpm change and don't question it. "Yes, I figured that articles you have edited would be a good place to look" → There is no coincidence, as I guessed. "I noticed the cm3 and decided to change them. You might disagree whether this is an improvement (...), but that was my motive for the changes." You changed them since you noticed them. Interesting. Well I contacted you on your talk page and you replied with a rule that suggests that you could use it for certain (especially American) displacements but didn't tell me that cm3 was wrong. What do I have to expect here? Imagine I had corrected that typo myself, since some users really think that I could violate a ban that was just propsed but not imposed, I have to fear more such comments and therefore I shall refrain from changing anything. This entire thing is completely unpredictable but I don't want an administrator to agree with such opinions; the easiest way is just not generating them. That's why I didn't correct it. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC) My comment about you violating the proposed ban was not intended for you and I don't expect you to understand it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Definitely a strong case of IDHT and refusing to listen to others. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban. This is crazy IDHT. EEng 17:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to make this clear: I would not change my opinion but accept other opinions and I shall refrain from changing units (which I wouldn't do anyway). Feel free to change whatever I write to something more right as long as the information itself is not getting distorted, (make 73.5 kW out of 100 PS but not 74.5 kW for instance). I will ignore everything but the latter. But please, don't think about changing "bonnet" to "hood" or "boot" to "trunk"... --Jojhnjoy (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Way too late, and you should save your attempts at humor for elsewhere. You can ask for a review of your topic ban after a year, if you've shown in the meantime that you can behave yourself. EEng 01:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Suggestion — In response to several obstinate, disruptive posts, broaden the TBAN to prohibit Jojhnjoy from any article or talk page edit related to switching terminology, conventions, word choice, phrasing, or units to anything other than those considered conventional in English-language reliable sources. His IDHT editing isn't limited to edit warring over using German unit conventions. He won't drop pointless debates for en.wikipedia.org to bend over backwards to save ESL readers the trouble of looking up an English term the don't recognize. He is still welcome to submit proposals to add Denglisch to the list of national varieties of English, or eliminate en.wikipedia.org's various rules that give precedence to English over other languages. But don't debate it elsewhere. Accessibility is nice, but Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia explicitly seeks to accommodate ESL readers, en.wikipedia.org does not. In all cases where Jojhnjoy is unsure about this, he is required to either just drop it or go ask at the talk page of this AN/I report's closing Admin. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

You consider my opinion disruptive even though I explained it? Even though the first thing I wrote was that I would not want to remove any such figures? Before that, I wrote "For the sake of comparability, I do not recommend adding real wheel power output to articles." Do you know what a recommendation is? I also wrote: ″I would support external tests that test the engine power according to DIN 70020 or SAE or whatever standard.″ You tell something about English-language reliable sources? You safely ignored the most reliable English language source for min–1 and cm3 (SI-Brochure). You accuse me of edit-warring? Prove it! You cannot, since you lied. Wait, who started the pointless debate? Ah! Dennis Bratland did. Very interesting that you close a discussion even though there were only two main participants, one being me and one being you. The result is your opinion. You ignored my objection and the reasons for my objection. There is no clear result. You just claim this is the result. Well, if you think so. Also, I did not use caps lock and the word fuck excessively. I did not critcize the other discussion participants but the point. I tried behaving politely and discussing factually. ″YOU DON'T NEED TO KEEP FUCKING REMINDING US THAT OTHER LANGUAGES HAVE OTHER FUCKING WORDS FOR THINGS. THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A DIFFERENT FUCKING LANGUAGE." – Dennis Bratland Well, Dennis Bratland, I explained it: ″only native English speakers would know what it means since the word horsepower translates to what the unit symbol PS is used for, lacking approxiamtely 10.25 W. (This is a different story though.)″ Do I go on about your misunderstanding? No. So pointing out that English is not my first language is not relevant. I suggest that you stop with anything like that. I shall just ask two questions: Who is behaving properly? And whose behaviour is disruptive? Someone who discusses politely and factually and explains their standpoint in a way that should be comprehensible? Or someone that does not cite sources properly, criticizes other discussion participants inappropriately since they disagree on the own opinion and are non-English rather than criticizing their points, uses the word fuck in caps, accuses other discussion participants of having a "thick head" and considers a discussion resolved even though 50 % of the other main discussion participants disagree? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC) I stand by what I said. Your response right here is further evidence that the TBAN needs to prohibit all of kinds reverts or talk page badgering related to word choice, unit choice, or terminology, construed broadly. You should be allowed to ask once (and only once) what a term means, or what the correct term or unit is, but you must accept the answer you get, and not debate it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Do you think that lying increases your credibility? I consider that weak. Lying to get somebody blocked from editing. And you still stand by what you said? ″His IDHT editing isn't limited to edit warring over using German unit conventions.″ (– Dennis Bratland) ″You accuse me of edit-warring? Prove it! You cannot, since you lied.″ (– Jojhnjoy) ″I hope you are blocked from editing indefinitely, and soon.″ (– Dennis Bratland) ″Dennis was blocked for repeatedly asking for a block of someone with whom they had an interaction ban″ (– Floquenbeam) --Jojhnjoy (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC) You don't understand what an interaction ban is. Hence your inane comments about it. The proof of what I say is right here in your own posts. I respect the ability of my fellow editors to read your posts and judge for themselves. Your inability to respect anybody else is the point. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban per above and retaliatory filing at #Dennis Bratland and WP:NPA below. Experience at Template talk:Convert shows that two-way communication is not possible. Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Can we close this?

The proposal is for a topic ban on unit names and conversions. We have four five in favor of the proposal, two in favor of any sanction up to but not including flogging, and one opposed. How do we get an admin to penetrate the smokescreen and actually implement the ban? Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

+1 Kendall-K1, this is a good attempt to solve this. I shall refrain from editing unit names and conversions. Further, I shall not add, modify, change or correct any units in existing articles. Whenever I find mistakes, I will mention that on the corresponding talk page and cite reliable sources. When I create a new article and have to add units, I will just cite the source word for word and perform no conversion at all. Any objection? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• And now Jojhnjoy has decided to advertise his tonedeafness even more widely -- #Dennis_Bratland_and_WP:NPA. At this point I think we need to just consider a very long block, period. Why are we wasting our time on this guy? EEng 01:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Wasting our time seems to be Jojhnjoy's specialty. Just take a look at the length of this ANI report and contemplate how much editor time went in to it. I tried to find some way we could keep him around. He really did make some useful contributions. And he came so close to getting off with just the tban. I will now support any sanction anyone wants to impose, up to and including indef block. Kendall-K1 (talk) 05:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• Honestly, I'm not completely happy with this close. What is an 'article related to "units" and "measurements"'? I think what's meant is that J must not add or change units or conversions in any article. I wouldn't fuss but with this guy we can't have any wiggle room. EEng 17:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

User_talk:Jojhnjoy#Topic_banned --Jojhnjoy (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

If your point is that you're already wikilawyering your topic ban, you've made it abundantly. Surprise! EEng 17:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Im not very proud of this close either, did anyone bother to specify the duration of the Tban? I can only assume indefinitely based on the amount of complaints and Jojhnjoy's disruptive history. My advice to everyone is not to dwell on it. I've been explaining the details of the Tban to Jojhnjoy. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Not to seem unappreciative, but I think someone more experienced needs to handle this. EEng 17:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm with EEng here. This was not a good close for a discussion about such a tendentious user who would obviously wikilawyer it to death. Mind you, that leads me to ask whether any "topic ban" would be sufficient here. I'm thinking, as demonstrated by the reaction, it wouldn't. Begoon 17:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposing topic ban for edits related to units ...

Original section heading by proposer: "Proposing topic ban for edits related to units, conversions, automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, mopeds, motorscooters, trains, planes, space vehicles, elevators, escalators, monorails, moving sidewalks, or engines or propulsion systems of any kind or description, whether already invented or predicted only in science fiction, as well as the physics and chemistry they rely on." Over-long section heading redacted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Given that (as seen in the link so kindly provided above by J himself) J lost no time in wikilawyering the topic ban, I'm going to take the opportunity to propose a broader one as described in my section heading just above. After six months of showing he can participate usefully in the project in other topic areas, he can appeal for a modification of the ban -- maybe start with motorscooters. EEng 18:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Added later: Give that J has opened yet another ANI thread just now (#Jojhnjoy_.232) I would fully support a site ban/indefinite block. This guy just doesn't get it. EEng 18:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support Though it could probably be a bit more succinct. Something along the lines of Any edits related to units of measure of any kind, vehicles or any modes of transportation, engines or propulsion systems of any kind or description, whether already invented or predicted only in science fiction. Conversions can't be an issue if they can't edit units at all. Capeo (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
• No The user is too disruptive to edit here collaboratively. Anyway, you missed Space elevator. There could be unanticipated units, or discussion of such there. Site Ban. -- Begoon 18:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I notice this was amended while I was typing my support. The new close has the same issue. TB's aren't about pages, they're about edits. Edits on ANY page pertaining to the TB. Using the word pages will lead to further confusion and lawyering. Capeo (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support also open to revisiting the public flogging proposal. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair point. It could be time, now. -- Begoon 18:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Due to behaviour since the original ANI was launched, I think a wider ban is warranted. 1292simon (talk) 02:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the ridiculously verbose section heading. Out of respect for the OP's length of service I will refrain from editing it per WP:TPO bullet 11. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Turns out the National Rifle Association is right: bullets keep the peace. EEng 05:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per the follow-up thread here, he's agreed to drop it. If he does, this is ludicrously long to expect any editor to remember. If he doesn't, a full site-ban is the appropriate response. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support – EEng and Begoon are right that my proposal was too vague. I don't have a lot of experience with ANI, and none with topic bans. I was just doing my best to move this discussion along. As I said earlier, I will now support any sanction up to and including indef block. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply you were too vague, and if I did, I'm sorry. It's hard formulating restrictions short of site bans when dealing with such disruptive users. That you would try is to your credit. -- Begoon 14:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support but... I don't think anybody said it is disruptive when Jojhnjoy creates new articles, or translates articles into English, or adds entirely new content to exiting articles, on any topic, even if his additions dodn't comply with the MOS. Editing policy supports adding new, albeit flawed, content, to be improved later. The problems only started when he changed old content that was consistent with the MOS, and reverted edits that tweaked his additions to match the MOS. And the debate. So much debate. Not allowing him to add new content related to units or measurement is excessive and punitive. OTOH, it will effectively end the disruption if he is banned from changing anything that is formatted correctly and uses the units the MOS recommends, on any article, on any topic. It's changing the 'good' to the 'meh' that is the problem. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

That's why this is a TBAN, not a block. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I guess what I've been envisioning is a novel kind of sanction that doesn't meet the definition of a TBAN and would be difficult to enforce. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Damien Moore

• Damien Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Earlier today I noticed that sourced material from this BLP had been removed by an IP. I restored it and left a message on that IP's talk page. Given that this a statement about the sexuality of a politician I did check if this person had made any public comment about this. He has [106], so I added this too. The IP left a message on my talk page which I responded to, explaining why I had restored the material. The IP continues to remove the material and has now made a legal threat [107]. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Drchriswilliams: Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Firstly, I don't believe this is a direct legal threat (though it's thin ice, and deserves attention). Secondly I don't believe that source refers to Damien Moore as being openly gay, and would prefer it if a second reliable source could be found to confirm or deny the statement. As it stands, and given this is a BLP I'm going to revert the edit until a second source can be provided. This isn't anything against you, it's solely to calm the situation down a little so that we can move forward in improving the article. What do you think? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

As I was typing this, multiple sources have been provided - I have reverted the IP, and protected the page. Apologies for the above (struck) comment -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It's ok, I was in agreement with your approach to play things safe with a BLP and not add claims without an adequate source. There were several sites published content using material from the same journalist/interview on the same day (12 June)- on another site [108] the article describes Moore as "openly-gay". Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Has anyone contacted his office?

As someone with property in his constituency I've been following this guy in the news for a while. He's about as "openly gay" as an MP might be expected to be, short of camping it up on Little Britain. There is no secret of this in local press coverage, either by him in interviews, or in comment pieces. This should stay, but we should talk to his office first. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you for the further confirmation, my initial reaction was based on the fact this is a BLP and I wanted to ensure this could be added with plenty of references. It's now been added, and the page protected. Do you believe contacting his office is still necessary, given how well it is publicised? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, sort of. We should see exactly what the problem is, but it could just prolong and complicate matters further. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 14:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm somewhat concerned given the IPs involved are legitimately Parliament-based, however on the other hand given the references available which do directly describe him as openly gay I would be hard pressed to see that statement removed.. -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The IPs WHOIS lists them as coming from that building. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 14:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The IP self-identified as "work[ing] for Damien Moore",[109] so I have advised them of COI and paid-editing guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I am waiting for someone to contact me on the following number: [redacted]. This is the number of the office of Damien Moore. He is not openly gay, the Pink News article referencing his being gay is inaccurate and unsolicited. The Southport Visitor article also cited as a source makes no mention of him being openly gay. I am sure that even you people would agree that Mr Moore would know better than anyone if he is openly gay or not and I can assure you, he is NOT!194.60.38.227 (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Relevant quote from the cited Southport Visitor: "Mr Moore, who has quit his job as a manager with supermarket giants ASDA to concentrate on his new parliamentary career, said his sexuality had not been an issue in the campaign. 'I would never deny being gay if asked, but I never flaunt it. The issue was not raised either in this campaign or the one in 2015. In fact I was never asked.'"[110] —C.Fred (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

C.Fred Logically to most of us that's somewhat of a confirmation but at the same time it's plausible deniability. He's not actually confirming it there imo and I'd say the two sources are rather lackluster as far as reliability goes. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Chrissymad: By what means do you infer that they are not reliable? ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 15:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Two local papers reporting the equivalent of a quick sound clip with little context doesn't exactly make for the most RS as it pertains to making a broad statements about a living person's sexuality where they haven't explicitly identified as much. I just think we should be erring on the side of caution re: BLPs. Someone saying "I wouldn't deny it" is not, in my opinion an affirmation. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I share Chrissy's concern about QLocal. I can't find a masthead to see who their editorial staff are.

As for PinkNews, that is on the one hand the strongest source, because the author is an academic researcher. However, there's nothing in the article to corroborate Professor Reynolds' claim about Moore's sexuality. —C.Fred (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The IP has stated that they are going to ask for an amendment to that QLocal source. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 15:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)This appears to be more a semantic question in real life than a behavioral one on Wikipedia; The subject seems to be using one end of the phrase's meaning, and some of the journalists another. To look at an analogous case, it is trivially easy to find examples of cites claiming that a certain recently paroled person is a "murderer", yet he was famously acquitted of that charge. Now, Wiki wouldn't print that, but that's more a question of protecting Jimbo's ricebowl than of accuracy or common decency - which should both be part of what the BLP restrictions are about. Anmccaff (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the content in question given the dispute - BLP articles should not contain controversial material, and until some further references are provided (and a consensus formed on the inclusion) I think it's best that we don't have this statement. We can always re-add it. This isn't an admin action, though I would ask interested editors to discuss before reverting per where we are in the WP:BRD cycle -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I endorse this decision. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 15:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree that no admin action is needed at this time related to the article. Situation best handled by discussion at article talk. If any further intervention is necessary, BLP/N is probably the better venue.

I think the IP is transparent enough that no action is needed related to WP:PAID. —C.Fred (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I've attempted to summarise the issues at Talk:Damien_Moore#Content_dispute, and would encourage interested editors to address the issues there -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I find it worrying that the person claiming to be at his office has not left a name. I find it strange that the y costently say "openly gay" perhaps they think he is just "gay" and that the openly menas somthing other than just admitting it. I did call the number given and never got through, thoughit a real number at HoC and his office.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

This guy really, really, REALLY likes the 5th Iranian president

• Farzad Khorasani (talk · contribs)

As near as I can tell, most (if not all) of Khorasani's edits on Wikipedia have been to add pics of Mohammad Khatami to articles. I cleaned up a few clearly inappropriate instances (where other editors had not already done so), but left a huge mass of Iran-topics alone (where the pics may or may not still be lending undue gravitas); suggest someone more familiar with those subjects remove as necessary. Dropped a note on his TP.--Froglich (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

User:AnimeDisneylover95 repeatedly edit warring and refusal to get the point and conform to general consensus

This user apparently has his own ideas regarding contributing to VA articles, but for whatever reason, he insists that every additional voice credit be added in their filmographies, even though the general consensus in WP:anime suggests otherwise. The user also apparently can't stay calm in expressing his own stance, as evidenced in the discussion linked above (in WP:anime) and here. The way this user is behaving is very concerning and may prove a threat to the prosperity of WP:anime, so I suggest that he be sanctioned or be imposed some sort of editing restriction within the project. Sk8erPrince (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Express your stance below (should User:AnimeDisneylover95 be sanctioned/imposed an editing restriction?):

• Impose T-ban in WP:anime and WP:BLP: Reasons are noted above. Sk8erPrince (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Prince you just had your own T-ban lifted 4 days ago... Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Appeal my TBan (unarchived for admin closure). I know it is unrelated but you are already entangled into a dispute with an editor. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

As you've already noted, that's unrelated to the issue at hand. The restriction is gone, so it doesn't apply here (even if it wasn't, that still wouldn't affect how I report other users, as my T-ban was deletion processes, not WP:anime or WP:BLP). Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It just bothers me is all considering some of your past comments towards IPs and the like. Here is a recent example: [111]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't directed at an IP user, and the incident with another IP user was a long time ago, and it has already been resolved. Anyway, the focus isn't me, but User:AnimeDisneylover95. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

When you bring a report here the focus is on both parties involved. The closing admin is going to look at the conduct of both sides. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• No action - Sk8erPrince should be admonished for the pre-mature close of a discussion. Going forward this should be worked out via other venues such as Mediation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• No action per Knowledgekid97. —JJB^ers 01:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• No action per Knowledgekid87. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 01:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Imposing interaction ban with Sk8erPrince and User:AnimeDisneylover95

• Impose two way interaction ban permanently: I have no interest in interacting with this user, and seeing as he can't stay calm when interacting with me (and doesn't conform to logic), nothing good will ever come out of any discussion between him and I, so I'd rather just avoid any interaction with him altogether. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support one way IBAN with Sk8erPrince not being able to interact with AnimeDisneylover95, but not in reverse. —JJB^ers 02:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support one way IBAN with Sk8erPrince not being able to interact with AnimeDisneylover95. I had hoped that mediation would be a way out for Prince but it looks like he has no interest in the likes of dispute resolution. The edit summaries are also just too much for me, these snide remarks have got to stop. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support one way IBAN with Sk8erPrince not being able to interact with AnimeDisneylover95. I don't know what Sk8erPrince's issues are but he can't seen to stop trying to being unnecessarily aggressive. I'm very close to recommending a block because he won't leave AnimeDisneylover95 alone. --Tarage (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Considering Sk8erPrince's history of interactions with other users (he was given a six-month ban from nominating articles for deletion last year), and considering his attitude in the previous discussions, I agree that some kind of interaction ban is needed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  The way I see it working is Prince would be allowed to report User:AnimeDisneylover95 in the case of harassment on ADL's side. This would make it so Prince isn't a potential sitting duck. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. IBans have no correlation with harassment, so just because I won't be allowed to interact with said user in the future, that doesn't mean I can't report them. Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It would be nice for other editors to weigh in here but if you are okay with a one way IBAN then I see no reason why it shouldn't be implemented. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly what an IBAN means. Reporting a user who you have a one-way IBAN with is an instablock. 204.148.13.62 (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support one-way IBAN - described in the above votes. Although I also believe his behavior deserves more sanctions. Hey Sk8erPrince I'm very disappointed to see you re-implemented the list of deleted pages you apparently deleted (even though you aren't an admin). As I recall, you removed them during the appeal of your tban to prove you have changed. I guess that was far from the truth.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• I think we can all agree that Prince is on a very thin rope here, I would not object to something like a block if these kinds of things continue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support one-way IBAN Everyone can move on then. --Adam in MO Talk 01:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBANThis seems to be the best solution in view of the findings above. Academic Challenger (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

I am having troubled issues with an user by the name of Sk8erPrince, This user has snapped at me by all accounts all over an issue that has been going on for years since 2015, when it comes to additional voices on voice actors all thanks to a "consensus" from WP:anime just today. I have been careful when I put in information, as they need to be cited with a source otherwise it will be rejected and I have been citing pages and actor's confirmation of the particular character they play with reliable sources, resumes, everything made by a voice actor, ever since 2015. Yet, I still encounter the same arguments that they still continue to "beat a dead horse on by users such as Sk8erPrince regarding "additional voices are unecessary" "Notable roles for voice actors are ONLY allowed", the "reliable sources do not help much" etc, etc...,etc..... I reverted most of the edits to have it back to it's original format today, but Sk8er replied with this message: "Remove additional voices, per consensus in WP:anime. Go on, keep reverting my edits and obstruct the progress of this project. I'll see you in ANI." I refuse to reach an agreement and I'm just conflicted that he's threatening me to report me to you, I'm just frustrated!!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

A few corrections: One, I am not an admin. Two, I went ahead and reported you; it's no threat (look right above you). This isn't a joke, bud. You aren't upholding the spirit of Wikipedia (in the sense that it operates on consensus), so there is definitely a need to impose a sanction on you (besides the fact that you aren't keeping a level head as an editor). If you think I'm a problem, you might as well think everyone that was involved in that discussion is a problem as well. Sk8erPrince (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Why would I also report everyone else if their views/opinions are a lot different than yours, as they said the additional voices are allowed if "notable" or cited with "source"!!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

'If "notable" or cited with "source".... [with the prioritization of named roles]'. Please don't just read the parts you like; read the whole thing. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I am concerned that Sk8erPrince opened an RFC, closed it himself, and is now trying to enforce it on another user. Opening one is fine, that's the proper way to go about content disputes like this. But you shouldn't have been the one to close it. I also have issues with the fact that you called out a specific user in your RFC. There was no need for that. This feels like wikilawyering. --Tarage (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The RFC was open for less than a day. What the hell are you doing closing it that quickly? --Tarage (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I felt like the user in question was raging too much, and it wouldn't be beneficial to keep the discussion going. However, I agree with Knowledge that the discussion should be opened longer. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Do not be the one to close it. That is horrible form. Let someone else close it. --Tarage (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)\

That's perfectly reasonable. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Christ the more I read about this the more it seems like Sk8erPrince is WAY out of line. You are being horribly aggressive here where it isn't needed. Calm the hell down and stop attacking other editors. It was a mistake on your part to bring this report. --Tarage (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I am noting that the "consensus" on WT:ANIME Sk8erPrince is referring to is from a discussion that is less than 24 hours old and involves only five editors other than himself casting a !vote in a straw poll that affects a large number of biographical articles. Much of AnimeDisneylover's comments were made before most of the "consensus" had weighed in. At the time, Sk8terPrince also tried to prematurely close the discussion at WT:ANIME after the discussion went for less that 24 hours(oldid). While it is like that the trend of the discussion is going to continue as is, Sk8terPrince's assessment is premature and is misrepresenting the order of things. AnimeDisneylover, it seems to me, made only two undos during the course of the discussion (Kyle Herbert,Cassandra Lee), and while it's probably wise that touching anything on any VA articles should not be done by either party during this discussion, I very much want to attempt to give a fuller illustration of the situation, because I'm quite alarmed at how fast Sk8terPrince dragged AnimeDisneylover here. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the non-biased assessment. It's accurate. Closing the discussion prematurely was my fault; I'm sorry. I'll wait until someone else closes it. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the issues, I just feel bewildered to see this issue continue to being brought back up and whether or not reliable sources (e.g. articles, end credits of a movie, show & video games, resumes, and convention bios) are necessary for these voice actors?--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources are always needed for verification in VA BLPs. The issue here is whether or not the inclusion of additional voices is necessary. That's the whole point of the discussion here; to settle content disputes like this. When the discussion is over, there is no more room for argument. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you please stop arguing with every post he makes? You made your point, there's a talk page discussion that now has many eyes on it. You are still being overly aggressive to the point where I'm starting to wonder if perhaps you need a break. --Tarage (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Considering both users have had a history of actions like this, I agree with the above statement that some kind of action (either a temporary interaction ban or meditation) is in order here. I agree with some of Sk8erPrince's points but his attitude above and in the WT:ANIME discussion has a lot to be desired. As for the discussion itself, while I agree that closing the discussion (and by the proposer no less) was premature to say the least, given its nature and how many articles are to be affected, a discussion in a wider venue (i.e. in a different WikiProject's talk page or even at the Village Pump) might be necessary. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection with an interaction ban with User:AnimeDisneylover95 (preferably permanently), seeing as he clearly hates me. I, for one, would not like to be on the receiving end of his uncontrolled outbursts. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry I outbursted myself but honestly their is no reason to act in the same situation at me, especially in regards to a 2 year old issue that continues to be brought back up over and over again from not only you but also to anyone that continues to have this conflict.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• I continue to have concerns about Sk8erPrince, in light of their continued edit warring without using the talk page even though that was requested by an administrator and failure to cease making edits regarding notability while the RFC is still open. This is not collaborative behavior. --Tarage (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm leaving the Sailor Moon article alone for now, unless unsourced info pop up. I have no intention to edit war; but I don't appreciate the fact that my edits are repeatedly reverted without a valid reason. Seeing as another editor has explained why the tags are relevant, I have no reason to take any further action. However, I must clarify that I made a mistake in John's article regarding the edit summary - it wasn't a notable issue, but an issue regarding RS (IMDB is NOT RS; that's a known fact). Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Ad Orientem who was the one who initiated the protection. --Tarage (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. If additional protection is required or someone is engaging in nakedly disruptive editing let me know. That said, I'm not going to jump into this dispute for a variety of reasons, chief among them that I am not familiar with the subject or genre so there would be CIR issues. And beyond that, it looks like there is a (gasp!) fairly constructive discussion going on above and I don't want to rock any boats. But if something comes up that obviously requires admin action, or a strong consensus favoring some sort of action that requires the tools develops, just ping me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I feel this can be closed so we can all move on, I am not seeing any additional input and everyone seems to be on the same page regarding the I-BAN. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Implement the IBAN for Sk8erPrince, and close this. Agreeing. —JJB^ers 20:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Well, before moving on I want to object to the one-sided position left behind regarding the closed discussion.  Calling the action "horrible" is a pejorative, not a policy statement.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland and WP:NPA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dennis Bratland insults me. I don't consider his behaviour acceptable anymore. I clearly expressed that I don't like that. It is enough. Please stop, Dennis Bratland. Unfortunately, I don't see any other way than reporting him here.

• He claims I have been edit-warring even though it is a lie. Possibly to get me blocked from editing, at least he desires that. Even though he knows it is wrong, he wants to stand by what he said, that is why I accuse him of lying.

• (″His IDHT editing isn't limited to edit warring over using German unit conventions″)
• (″User:Jojhnjoy has been (...) edit warring (...)″)
• (″I hope you are blocked from editing indefinitely, and soon.″)
• (″I stand by what I said″)

• He says I am inable to respect other persons.

• (″Your inability to respect anybody else is the point.″)

Further stuff to take into account:

Extended content

He keeps referring to my ability to speak German and I feel like he talks disparagingly about it, also, he acts like I would not know English sufficiently. For instance: ″He is still welcome to submit a proposals to add Denglisch to the list of national varieties of English″) (″I said you are stereotyping Germans. (...) When you see phrase that strikes you as odd, consider that you have just met an English idiom, and you should spend a half second googling it before going off on a tangent because you misunderstood″) (″I know English isn't your native language″) (This could be seen as a vague point, however, I feel insulted. Also, he is just assuming that English isn't my native language even though it sort of is.) He says that my comments are inane even though I explained that I am confused by his block log saying intentional violation of interaction ban, after very clear warning. (″You don't understand what an interaction ban is. Hence your inane comments about it.″) (I asked a question about that here, I linked the reply to my question.) He compares me to Bozo the Clown. (″ "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Perhaps you are the lone voice of reason. But everyone thinks you're the metaphorical Bozo the Clown in this.″) (Not exactly an infamous person, though somebody to make fun of). He accuses me of not being here to build an encyclopedia but troll blatantly. He says my opinion and objection are "disingenuous time wasting bullshit". (″I have no more patience left for this disingenuous time wasting bullshit. You are not here to build an encyclopedia. This is blatant trolling, or what we call 'disruptive editing'. I hope you are blocked from editing indefinitely, and soon.″) He keeps accusing me of editing disruptively even though there is serious doubt. (″This is (...) what we call 'disruptive editing'″) (″obstinate, disruptive posts″) (″That is disruptive editing″) (″Jojhnjoy should be blocked from editing for disruptive editing″ He chooses condescending words to describe what I do and which opinions I have. (″crackpot version of SI units.″) (″pseudo-German, bastardized-SI formatting style″) (″cut the crap″) He cites me and writes: (″Nobody gives a rusty flying fuck″) (″Please stop this bullshit″) He "yells" at me: (″THIS IS ENGLISH FUCKING WIKIPEDIA GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD. YOU DON'T NEED TO KEEP FUCKING REMINDING US THAT OTHER LANGUAGES HAVE OTHER FUCKING WORDS FOR THINGS. THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A DIFFERENT FUCKING LANGUAGE.″) He calls me unrepentant and accuses me of intellectual dishonesty: (″Jojhnjoy is unrepentant, and his intellectual dishonesty continues right up to his last post above″) He justifies his behaviour. (″Some people never listen until you yell at them. Probably won't work but it's worth one try.″) Even though he knows that I feel uncomfortable with that: (″I feel that the only thing left here is Dennis Bratlands desperate attempt to get me blocked from editing indefinitely and that really makes me feel uncomfortable.″)

--Jojhnjoy (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Jojhnjoy, this is a really, really, really super-ultra totally bad idea. Suggest you withdraw this while you can. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit war by MBlaze Lightning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Indian nationalist pov pusher whose focus on wikipedia is making articles about indian army @MBlaze Lightning who had been blocked in the past for socking and edit warring, breaking 1RR is edit warring again. Mblaze removed sourced content. When I reverted it pointing out the content was sourced Mblaze edit warred and falsely claimed the information is not verifiable in the sources. he has edit warred by reverting four times. This is violation of 3RR and is not the first time they did this. Seems like this user dies not learnt after being blocked multiple times. Should be given a longer block this time.119.160.97.6 (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Undisclosed paid editing, 3RR violation and legal threats on UK Mail article

An IP, 80.195.114.35 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and an account, MillieCoutts, have been engaging, most likely, in undisclosed paid editing after a warning, and have also made a borderline legal threat to Jim1138, and have also violated the three-revert rule on UK Mail, the article interesting question (see its history). Please intervene. Thanks, ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 09:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I should add that the legal threat was made about 3 months ago, but was not acted upon. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 09:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The legal threat is old, but the 3RR is new = blocked. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 -- what about the account? They have continued to edit after the paid editing notice. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 09:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I have taken a look, and the text that was being repeatedly removed and restored wasn't very good, so I have tried to create a more accurate and neutral version. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Cheers. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 09:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll be giving them the benefit of the doubt at this stage given the timeline, but happy to revisit if they continue without addressing the notice now some time has passed. And thanks for doing that, Jonathan A Jones. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• User has removed it again. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 12:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Twice. I've given them a 3RR warning. --bonadea contributions talk 12:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• And I think User:Canterbury Tail probably needs to read up on WP:OUTING; Name not Dave managed to steer clear of it, all right, but you didn't. I have contacted WP:OVERSIGHT for you. — fortunavelut luna 12:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes I removed it after going over it again. Canterbury Tail talk 15:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• Added to my user page for another way of getting my username wrong))) ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 12:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• I've protected the article as the COI editors don't seem to be taking the hint. Number 57 12:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Marc Short

There is something bad going on at Marc Short (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), an article about a Trump White House official. A bunch of unconfirmed accounts have been battling there for the last 3 days. Some of those edits appear to be legit, so I'm hesitant to request semi-prot. It may come as no surprise that two IPs geolocate to the DC area. Perhaps someone should take a look. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

And FYI I have also reported one of the accounts to WP:UAA. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Legal threats and personal attacks by WillyBova

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've been discussing an issue with this editor on Carrie Brownstein, where they assert that referring to a person by their surname, as per MOS:SURNAME, is insulting, anti-Italian, anti-semitic and poor grammar (which is ironic considering the user's obvious difficulties with English) and that my revert of their edit back to the MOS-version is vandalism. The full conversation is at Talk:Carrie Brownstein#Surname.

WillyBova has been uncivil from the start, but I've tried to AGF and discuss the issue with them. Unfortunately, they have now escalated into a full legal threat [112]. The edit was made by an IP but is clearly the same editor. The diff leads to a wall of text, so here's the legal threat part of it:

"Please, Give up up the Ghost and undo your edit, or this discussion will go on Forever till the Supreme Court decides the issue as You have Now Slandered Me. In addition You have admitted I was correct, Revert your edit or this process continues until a Court of Law concludes the issue."

On checking WillyBova's edit history I also found a threat to arrest Mudwater [113], I think in response to this revert Mudwater made of their edit. That edit could be construed as a joke in extremely poor taste, but I doubt it was intended that way given this user's editing history. They have also falsely accused me and another editor of vandalism [114] [115] and continued [116] to do so even when I pointed them to WP:NOTVAND, clearly explained that we had a content dispute [117] , and asked them repeatedly to be civil.

WillyBova's editing history shows issues with WP:COMPETENCE as far as their grasp of English goes and an inability to compromise. Please could an administrator look over this case and decide if a block is warranted. I've been as patient as I can, but there's no indication that WillyBova is open to compromise or discussion and I don't feel like being their punching bag. Marianna251TALK 18:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

They've now issued yet another legal threat, which includes a threat to legally out me. Marianna251TALK 18:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for making legal threats. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thank you. Marianna251TALK 18:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks NRP, you beat me to it. Even if they rescind the legal threat, there is a severe WP:CIR issue here as well it would appear. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI, since it included legal threats, I've collapsed the discussion on Talk:Carrie Brownstein per WP:TALKNO. If that wasn't appropriate, feel free to revert/ask me to change. Marianna251TALK 19:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

That's fine with me, they have also requested an unblock, which I have declined. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I've also deleted their userpage since it was a copyvio of [118]. Canterbury Tail talk 19:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

A third untenable unblock request appears to have been made, perhaps talk page access may need to be revoked at some point? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• This is over until and unless something very unlikely occurs i.e. this guy gets unblocked someday. Close. EEng 22:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PeterTheFourth

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

(former nac) I commented multiple times here, but I don't think that makes me involved. Unidentified humor was misinterpreted as serious, resulting in this complaint. The misunderstanding has been cleared up, PeterTheFourth has agreed that the comment was a bad idea, and the entire thread has been removed as inappropriate for a BLP talk page. I think we're done. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)}}

PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs) has determined it's okay to continue to propose a certain twist of semantics as grounds for a discussion at Talk:Steve Bannon...as seen here. It has the appearances of a bombastic BLP violation on the talkpage. Now edit warring over the issue of discussion. Its a twist of semantics, and PeterTheFourth knows that the person being quoted was not saying what PeterTheFourth is implying.--MONGO 04:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

"I'm Not Steve Bannon, I'm Not Trying to Suck My Own Cock." - Anthony Scaramucci. [119] [120] [121] [122] [123]

So it's now Mongo's mission to get me permanently banned for referencing this? Jeeze. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You're playing a semantics game.--MONGO 04:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Mongo, can you provide diffs of what had actually been said/ implied, etc, just that that link above is the page history generally. #vague! ;) — fortunavelut luna 04:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

[124]. This sort of thing is not how we "build" a neutral encyclopedia and not the first time by any means we have seen this user attempt to smear our BLPs by mischaracterizing the quotes.--MONGO 04:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's the original comment I made, and here's where Mongo 'made it his mission to get me permabanned'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Did you see the the complex source I posted? Headline: "New White House Communications Director: Steve Bannon Is ‘Trying to Suck His Own C**k’". Is it really that bad that you see it as your mission to permanently ban somebody having a little bit of levity about this? (edit conflict) PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Funny that if it were said about a certain GamerGate programmer now running for Congress, you'd not only be calling for blocks, but for oversight and a clear lack of levity (it's been done and it's sophomoric and shouldn't be in the encyclopedia but you know that and you should redact your comments). . --2600:8800:1300:489:75BA:8FE2:25C:7499 (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@PeterIV, that diff says nothing aboutpermabans, or missions. In any case, this is a storm on a tea cup, lots of knickers on a twist, and ultimately a content dispute. As ye both do know. Whether Scaramucci or Bannon autofelate on an irregular basis may well be encyclopedia-worthy; but it's not ANI worthy :) The talk page discussion is still embryonic, and not even related to the article yet (which hasn't been edited for, what, three or four days?). Get ye back there now, lads. — fortunavelut luna 05:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

It may well be encyclopedia-worthy? How preposterous. In the bombastic manner (tabloidish, nonencyclopedic) in which peterthegreat is misusing the talkpage in a smear campaign this falls under the discretionary sanctions applicable to that BLP and others like it. This is exactly what BLP is about...do no harm...and exactly what is in violation in the manner it is voiced and discussed there.--MONGO 05:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I'm an idiot! Here's the correct diff for the permaban comment. (edit conflict) PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Mooch's obscene comments about Bannon and Priebus would be fair game for Mooch's own article, given the publicity it generated. But it doesn't belong in the articles of his targets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

PTF, you didn't identify it as levity, and Wikipedia editors, as a group, are well known for making comments that would be hilarious except for the fact that they are completely serious. Don't expect people to see the wink. Vulgar levity on BLP talk pages is best avoided altogther. Article talk is not a locker room. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You're completely right. It's more than a little irksome that I make a joking response to something and now somebody with a prior history with me is a) threatening to try to get me permabanned and b) has a friend of his now deleting my comments. On the other hand, I shouldn't be making these joking responses in the first place- no matter how farcical the political climate can get, that's no excuse for discussing its coverage in such joking terms. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Right, so allow the removal, ignore the permaban threat which was made without knowledge of the tongue in your cheek, chalk it up to experience, and move the hell on. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Deal. Besides, I'd be cutting past 3RR, and even I'm not stupid enough to cross the red line. Thanks for the clear advice. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Now it's been restored...here by petertheforth's accomplice. This needs administrator intervention.--MONGO 15:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

That is what they do, time and time again. It's how the walled gardens etc are created. Until some admin is prepared to stick their neck out, this sort of thing will just keep happening. - Sitush (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

That stuff on the talk page, in addition to being garbage, is also a BLP violation. Anyone who puts it back should be put on the shelf for a good stretch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Annnnd...removed again. But I'm not closing this again, apparently there is some drama potential left. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Any way you could restore the thread but not the apparently offending comment? I asked the question, semi-seriously, because I thought Scaramucci's crude outburst raises questions about the extent to which White House officials ought to be considered reliable sources for articles about other White House officials, given the degree to which they seem to sometimes be willing to defame each other. This is different than mere gossip between malicious parties, since one of the parties is an official spokesperson for the White House, where Bannon works. He may well have to make statements about Bannon in the future. Should they be considered reliable? Seems like an open question to me. I think that's something that's possible to talk about without defaming the subject of the page.68.80.130.184 (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Your question was "Are claims by the White House comms director about Bannon considered a reliable source for Wikipedia?" The answer is that they are a reliable source for what Scaramucci said, and nothing more. His comments have no other use in Wikipedia, and don't belong in articles about his verbal targets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

You could always broach the issue at WP:RSN (where it will not be so attached to the present drama) if you think it's a worthwhile point of discussion. But if I am going to be honest, I don't think much will come of it; we rarely use WP:PRIMARY sources themselves to reference claims made in WP:BLPs, but at the same time, we aren't going to dismiss WP:Secondary sources which do, since it would involve WP:Orginal research for us to try to supplant the internal processes of our secondary sources with our own fact checking/evaluation of the claims found in the primary sources. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• I can see the argument that Bannon's alleged autofellation isn't encyclopaedic in his own article, but this is merely a talk page comment. Why is this being deleted from the talk page? The comments are quite clearly reported on Anthony Scaramucci, and around the world in the international press; if the BLP is violated by mentioning it on a talk page, then it's violated by mentioning it on Anthony Scaramucci. It certainly isn't a major BLP violation then. However, I find User:MONGO's threat on User:PeterTheFourth (diff) quite disturbing. MONGO said You pull another major BLP violation like this one and I'll make it my mission to see you permabanned. Surely this statement is a violation of WP:AGF and WP:THREATEN? Nfitz (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• BLP policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia, including talk page. Read the policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• It is understandable that an editor could not resist poking others regarding Scaramucci's colorful language. However, people still seem to be wondering whether it is OK to discuss sucking cocks. No, it's not. Doing so is an admission of an inability to understand hyperbole, and is either prurience or trolling. My recommendation would be topic ban anyone who continues that line. Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tendentious editing by GetSomeUtah ‎

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GetSomeUtah has been engaged in Tendentious editing and deleted "Iranian" from the profiles of many Iranian-Swedish individuals without giving sufficient reasons. Discussions with him does not prevented these disruptive edits. Examples of his disruptive behavior is provided in the following: [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] Nochyyy (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I'm surprised that I was not given the courtesy of a heads up on my talk page as required when flagging these incidents on the noticeboard. Regardless of that, I have noted elsewhere that I have been trying to restore changes that a seeming over-eager IP editor made without any explanation. Nochyyy (talk) seems bent on reverting pretty much all my edits on every topic that have nothing to with Iranians, including the Mayor of Provo, Utah, and Bozeman, Montana, of all topics. I fail to see what is disruptive about my edit there: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_R._Curtis&diff=prev&oldid=791949972. Indeed, Nochyyy's reversions seem somewhat trivial.

− −

Is this what admins do? I'm confused. I'm always happy to discuss substance, but having Nochyyy file complaints and not inform me strikes me as an odd way to build confidence and trust in resolving issues.

− −

It has also been obvious in my contribution log since my interactions with David Eppstein that I have ceased and desisted on all things Iranian. Please...for those who want to turn all things Swedish into "Iranian-Swedish," please have it, and I will not stand in your way. I have demonstrated that. If admins feel I am not contributing to Wikipedia, then say so, and I will leave. But don't set people up to watch and revert everything I do and then label it "disruptive editing" or, as Eppstein does, just revert without any comment in the entry at all. Best regards, GetSomeUtah (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I reverted some of your other arbitrary edits, here[157] you removed cited information without any convincing explanations. You claim that people who have born and raised in Iran and have Iranian names and now reside in Sweden are not "Iranian" without giving any reason, that shows you do your edits based on your personal bias not based on facts. By the way other users warned about your disruptive edits. Nochyyy (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

NB @GetSomeUtah: Notice was provided before you posted here, although, in your defense, it was posted out of chronological order, so you may have missed it. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nochyyy: I have only looked at the first edit you reverted. I see an article about an individual born in Sweden who was characterized as Iranian-Swedish, but without a reliable source. What was wrong with that edit?--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Family name is iranian and there are several sources indicating he is Iranian [158][159][160]. If a page does not include a source, "a citation needed" remark is sufficient. Nochyyy (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Do we have guidelines on the use of hyphenated nationalities?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You opened this by giving examples of edits without reasons. The edit I looked at contained a reason. Perhaps it can be sourced. Let's not debate whether there are adequate sources, that's a content dispute which belongs elsewhere, let's narrowly discuss your claim that the edit was wrong because it did not have a reason. It did. (I would like to know more about our guidelines in this area was I haven't spent much time with the issue but I see that it is often contentious.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nochyyy: David Eppstein expressed some concern with these types of edits here And pointed out a potential misunderstanding here. If your multiple examples are in chronological order, all of them precede the admonition by Eppstein. In my opinion this issue should be closed and only raised if the behavior continues.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Take this example [161], the reason is "If he fled Iran and has adopted a Swedish identity and citizenship, he is no longer Iranian", so whenever somebody fled their country and go to exile, they no longer citizens of their homeland? This one [162] she came to Sweden when she was 17, and before that she was living in Iran according to the page, suddenly she is not Iranian any more? almost all these people have been born in Iran, had Iranian parents, some of them active in Iranian affairs, just because they reside in Sweden, they are not Iranian any more? Black people in USA after centuries still called Afro-Americans. These edits are completely biased, GetSomeUtah still defends her behaviour and just claims that only one of his edits was wrong Nochyyy (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

This is ANI - It is not a place to debate content this is a place to discuss editor actions. You claimed that an editor made changes without giving sufficient reasons. The first one I looked at gave a sufficient reason. I subsequently noted that all of the examples occurred prior to an editor urging them to stop and they have. Why are we here?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick:This was a large scale tendentious behavior that disrupted many pages, there should be some consequences for this kind of behavior. He did that for several days and never even used talk page, just deleted contents.Nochyyy (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Just as an aside, but some people in this debate may have overlooked that per MOS:BLPLEAD, the lead sentence should routinely include the subject's nationality, not their ethnicity. So, unless the person in question actually maintains a double citizenship, ethnic Iranian heritage should in most cases be irrelevant for the lead sentence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

In most cases, these people were born and raised in Iran, so they are citizens of Iran. Nochyyy (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Suggest Boomerrang if OP doesn't drop this

This was resolved (albeit spmewhat poorly) before it was brought here, yet OP os still insisting on some kind of sanction, which would only be punitive at this point. On top of that edits like this constitute blatant hounding. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I checked other edits of GetSomeUtah ‎and in this case, he deleted some sentences for arbitrary reasons. Nochyyy (talk) 08:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion of boomerang action. The additions of links to Swedish Iranians such as [163] borders on linkspam and is done by an IP editor. Nochyyy's diffs clearly show that GetSomeUtah is in the right for reverting here. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The guy was born in Iran and is its citizen, how including Iranian-swedish in his profile is a linkspam? Just because it is done by IP editor, it should be reverted?Nochyyy (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

So you're not going to drop it, is that correct? That boomerang is only inches away from you at this point. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I withdraw my complaint. Nochyyy (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jojhnjoy #2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Alex Shih just topic banned me: ″Jojhnjoy (talk · contribs) is hereby indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to automobile and units of measurement, based on the consensus of this community discussion.″ While it is consensus to topic ban me from units, it is not consensus to topic ban me from automobile topics. Therefore, this inclusion of automoible in the topic ban is arbitrariness. Also, the discussion was already closed and I mentioned that I would accept a topic ban from units several times. Of course one can misread several posts, especially in long discussions. However, that must not happen when applying a topic ban. And checking my contributions as well as my user page would show that I usually edit automobile articles only. This means applying an arbitrary automobile topic ban almost equals an indef block in my case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojhnjoy (talk • contribs)

Way too many words. Dennis Brown - 2¢
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Further, Alex Shih ignored my AN/I report of Dennis Bratland: Dennis Bratland accused me of edit-warring and also used this as an argument to get me topic banned. (I was never edit-warring.) He did not just accuse me of edit-warring but tell the untruth on purpose about my editing behaviour. Further, the same user told I am unable to respect anybody else. ″What is considered to be a personal attack?″ ″Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.″ (Dennis Bratlands accusations are not only lacking evidence, he also told the untruth on purpose and clearly said he would stand by what he said.) ″Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases (...) directed against another editor (...)″ (are a personal attack.) ("Your inability to respect anybody else (...)" is both defamatory and derogatory. This is not an expression of a thought, this is a claim. And claiming that another user is unable to respect anybody else is not acceptable. It is an accusation about my personal behaviour and it lacks evidence. Extended content He claims I have been edit-warring even though it is a lie. Possibly to get me blocked from editing, at least he desires that. Even though he knows it is wrong, he wants to stand by what he said, that is why I accuse him of lying. (″His IDHT editing isn't limited to edit warring over using German unit conventions″) (″User:Jojhnjoy has been (...) edit warring (...)″) (″I hope you are blocked from editing indefinitely, and soon.″) (″I stand by what I said″) He says I am inable to respect other persons. (″Your inability to respect anybody else is the point.″) The reason for ignoring personal attacks on me was: This is a diversion from the current discussion. I decided to ask Alex Shih on their talk page about this. I admit, it was cynical, but that was meant as a form of expression. I did not get a reply even though Alex Shih was active at that time. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC) And you would like what to happen? -- Begoon 19:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC) 1. That the topic ban would be applied to units and measurements only, not to also to "automobile" since the consensus does not include automobile, and 2. That somebody tells Dennis Bratland that it is fine to have a different opinion than another user but that it is not allowed to personally attack and yell at this user. (I would like them to change their tone and mode of expression). --Jojhnjoy (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC) Suggestion Jojhnjoy, take a break from this topic for two weeks then come back and ask. I agree that Dennis Bratland was way over the line with the profanity laden comment posted 20:00 July 27th (in one of the hidden blocks of the original thread) but when you look at the reactions of the other editors its clear he was doing that out of frustration. That frustration was shown by other editors as well. The core problem is you didn't show that you were listening to the concerns of others. Because this is a first offense I think the tban is overly broad and should have an expiration date but it reflects community frustration. To the community I suggest keeping things as is for 2-4 weeks then change it to a narrow ban, no changes of units in articles, talk page suggestions are OK but if editors feel badgering is occurring then implement the broad tban (ie the current ban). That tban would then stand until appealed or for 6 months. I'm suggesting this because I think the edits were intended in good faith and the fundamental problem was a failure to listen to the community. Springee (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC) Sounds good. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC) Wait, what? Springee, what are you saying? Jojhnjoy, is under an indefinite TB by community consensus on the first close with a year before appeal, if I remember correctly. Appealing before then is breaching their TB. The second close was questionable as "automobiles" was only a tiny part of the suggested extension of the TB and a consensus hadn't yet formed so it was not a good close. The "fundamental problem" you describe encompasses no shortage of time. There were a few editors that thought the pattern of IDHT warranted an indef block. And how are talk page suggestions okay? It's a TB. Any edit, anywhere, is a breach of a TB. All of your advice is just leading to a Jojhnjoy #3 and I wouldn't be shocked if an indef is the result. Capeo (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC) If my advice was against rules my apologies and it should not be followed in that case. I'm not sure what you mean by two closes. I only recall reading one but I haven't followed this too closely. I think the sanction comes across as punitive vs protecting Wikipedia. In looking at the original dispute I saw an editor changing units to what he thought were better while arguing against consensus. In a case like this I think a warning/short term band/block makes sense. I don't see why a broad topic ban makes sense in this case nor why an indef ban is warranted. To me that comes across as punitive vs protecting Wikipedia. If the material contributed by Jojhnjoy is otherwise good then why prevent him from contributing in an area where it's going to be hard to avoid adding some units of measure. I have not interacted with this editor on any article I'm aware of so I may not be fully aware of the history here and I'm assuming this wasn't typical of his other editor interactions. Springee (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC) In general, I am shocked by the procedure in this Wiki regarding bans. Bans must be protective, their punitive aspect is not desired. The question: What or whom would you want to protect and from what would you want to protect it/them? Did I edit-war? No, but Dennis Bratland lied about that several times (1) (2) just to get me banned. Did I change certain parts of articles just to make them fit what I desire without improving anything else? No. Whenever I added something, I made sure that it is an improvement. I did not just change because I preferred certain things. Did I ignore sources and change what the sources say? No. In fact, I used the source information without "converting" or interpreting anything on my own, for instance, I use kilopondmetres whenever sources use them too since expressing the actual source information is more accurate than converting that to something else. I think it is important to have the source information in the article. Did I behave disruptively on talk pages? No. Just see this talk page here. I have an opinion, I don't agree with Dennis Bratland. Is disagreeing with Dennis Bratland against Wikipedia rules? Just read for yourselves, but I think one could hardly believe that my discussion behaviour on that talk page is disruptive. Maybe I am stubborn and avoid being over-friendly. Though this is completely neutral. But what would you do if the first thing the other person does is making a demand of you? Telling them how nice they are? I have an opinion and why would I change it without useful arguments? Well, let's see what I did. I created several articles from scratch. Some of them are even translations of German good articles. I don't have 10,000+ edits, but I hope that it is clear that my contributions show that I am someone who adds real content to this Wiki. I stick to what the sources tell, I do not modify it. And if that's SI or SI compatible, it is not wrong. Maybe some authors dislike cubic centimetres, so what? I expressed several times that I would let them use whatever they want when they create articles since their way of expressing the same sizes is not wrong either, especially for American topics. But my opinion is that I don't like their volume and forcing that on German topic articles is what I consider elevating their conventions over those of another country. I even cited a source that tells that their way of expressing volume leads to confusion. Okay, well, they ignored it. And now? I know that I cannot change their opinion. But why would I do that? If they think they should change cubic centimetres to their volume, I let them do that, but changing just for the sake of changing is considered bad behaviour, at least in the German language Wikipedia. I did not see any improvement in their changes, that's why I don't consider such edits useful. But that is just my opinion. Who am I that I could justify that? What if I am wrong? Though, what is the problem with accepting my opinion? Just because I have an opinion, it does not mean I would want to change several things. Though, whenever a source says "Größtes Drehmoment / bei Drehzahl 1/min kp·m 21.9 / 4000" (P. 160, section 6-07) I shall write that in an article because that's citing the source. When they think they should change it, well, they could, I would not revert that as long as they don't distort the information like Dennis Bratland did (even after checking the source carefully), though I don't consider that good edits, avoiding ungood edits is what I prefer. They may feel free to dislike or even hate it as much as they want, I don't care! The source says it and I will cite the source. Dennis Bratlands attempt to create doubt regarding the sources here failed. But what happened? As far as I can tell, I did not deal significant damage to this Wikipedia, I just drove some users extremely mad since I would not want to agree with their opinion. I did not vandalize. It's their right to be mad but unloading pure hatress, as Dennis Bratland did, is what I consider disruptive. Protecting other users, regardless of what they are being accused of or what they actually did is even more important than WP:NOR. Making accusations based on feelings, telling the untruth on purpose, (=lying) to get another user banned, demanding excessive bans / an indef block over and over and over, not letting any opportunity for telling me slip by, supporting public flogging (even though I know this is sarcasm, it is extremely inappropriate) and closing discussions with a result just one person supports is not accpetable. Yet some users just want a punishment. They support it and a normal user topic bans me??? Not even an administrator? I haven't seen suggestions that would protect the Wikipedia, everything I have seen just looks like ′throwing stones at me′. And then one, lone user suggests a wider ban, there wasn't even any comment on that yet and an administrator immediately bans me from editing automobile articles? No discussion? Especially in my case, where the ban would prevent me from contributing entirely, it is important, that the ban is ultima ratio and is imposed only after careful consideration. Imposing such a ban which is obviously extremely exaggerated and bears no relation to the "damage" I caused does not make any sense considering what I said. Further, why was the ban even imposed? Because some users demanded / suggested / supported that. An administrator should take that into consideration, however, it is the administrators responsibility to determine, whether a ban would protect the Wikipedia or a protection could be guaranteed without any ban. Simply imposing an extreme ban that prevents a user from contributing entirely even though this users contributions are usually good and aren't causing extreme damage to this project just because less than a dozen other users demand this ban is wrong. I know that reading long texts can be exhausting, however, this is a ban that prevents an author from contributing entirely. And why? Just because some other users want it. One just cannot impose an ban like that! That is gross negligence. If you really think that I should get blocked from editing indefinitely, please--Jojhnjoy (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC) You haven't got the hang of this "shutting the hell up" thing yet, have you? Never mind. It'll come to you eventually. -- Begoon 15:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• I've contacted Alex Shih on his user page. All this other stuff is just wasting time and space, TLDR. You could have just asked him to explain on this talk page but under WP:ADMINACCT asking how he got to "automobile" and appealing the decision is a reasonable one. But for god's sake, keep it concise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I asked Shih on their talk page regarding a different thing and didn't get a reply (I asked cynically, but still) even though this user was active and banned me, so why would I keep expecting replies? That's why I didn't ask. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The current consensus, although it hasn't been closed yet, is "Proposing topic ban for edits related to units, conversions, automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, mopeds, motorscooters, trains, planes, space vehicles, elevators, escalators, monorails, moving sidewalks, or engines or propulsion systems of any kind or description, whether already invented or predicted only in science fiction, as well as the physics and chemistry they rely on." So "automobile and units of measurement" is actually quite generous and I'm not sure why Jojhnjoy doesn't want to accept it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Dennis Brown, for collapsing the wall of text and notifying me about this discussion. And Jojhnjoy, I apologize for not responding to your message left on my talk page. Whether or not it was cynical in nature as you mentioned is not of my concern, I simply did not know what response you wished me to address, and I felt the statement I made in the previous closure of your second AN/I report addressed some of the concerns that you have mentioned, in which I feel voluntary two-way interaction ban with Dennis Bratland is a viable solution. As for the including automobile in the topic ban, from I read in the rather extensive discussion, I feel the community has gone beyond units of measurement, rather it was beginning to focus on tendentious editing in the areas in which you have been heavily involved. I believe this is evident as my re-closure was done concurrently with the current proposal.

Wikipedia is not compulsory, and I find myself agreeing with what Springee has proposed to you, because consensus can change after some time away. When the time comes, you can contact me on my talk page again and I will be willing to propose amendment to your topic ban if you can provide a strong case of addressing the concerns by then. Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 17:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Alex Shih, I apologize for the way I asked the question, it was most definitely asked in a wrong way. I understand that you did not know how to reply. Also, I understand that the re-closure was done concurrently with the current proposal, I didn't recognize that yet. Also, thank you for that offer.

I hope that you understand that I consider this entire ban completely exaggerated. Bans should protect this project. I think this ban is a punishment and does not serve any other purpose than getting rid of me.

Dennis Bratland lies about edit-warring (1) (2) to get me banned and harasses (1) me. I asked Dennis Bratland to prove their statement about "my edit-warring" and also told them that they cannot since they lied. The response was "I stand by what I said." I consider it extremely disruptive. Lying to get another user banned and not apologizing for the lie, further, standing by the lie. In the German language Wikipedia Dennis Bratland would most likely get blocked for such behaviour. With my question on your talk page, I wanted to address it.

Andy Dingley even talks about public flogging (1) 2) (it is sarcasm but inapropriate). And nobody cares. Again, in the German language Wikipedia, Andy Dingley would get blocked for such behaviour.

I know, rules are different here, but would you really want to ignore it? And how is it not against WP:NPA?

I know that I didn't behave properly at certain points either. But is that a reason to ignore personal attacks? Or is that even a personal attack? Maybe I am misreading WP:NPA. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• If I am objectively reviewing the close, considering the closed and not closed (which might have been an oversight) portions of the discussion, I have to say that the close was consistent with the discussion and I find no fault in Alex's read of consensus nor in applying policy against it. This doesn't speak to the merits of the case, as we can only review the close here, not "retry" the case, or take a second bite at the apple. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Well then, if that's the case, then I am banned from editing in the topic field I have in the Wikipedia because seven other users wish so. I cannot change that.

What about the edit-warring lie, the public flogging and my inability to respect anybody else? No comment on that? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Jojhnjoy, I understand, and I personally don't necessary agree completely with the current proposal, but my opinion is irrelevant. In regards to the public flogging remarks, I feel that perhaps majority of the editors here will agree it was a reference to this metaphor, which was directed more on the situation rather than on you as a contributor. Have you read about the drop the stick essay?

Anyway, I have spoke to EEng about merging the current proposal with the current closure, and I will speak to Andy Dingley and Dennis Bratland individually sometime about your concerns, but as for now, would you be kind to walk away from the whole discussion so that we can avoid imposing a sanction? Because I believe you do have a lot to offer in other places like WikiProject Germany for now. Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 18:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, thank you. Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible you think I accused you of violating WP:3RR? That is not the same as edit warring. Many editors, including me, were 'edit warring' in the general sense, i.e. making more than one edit that undoes another editor's work. Nobody violated 3RR. The relevance of edit warring to this case is edit warring against obvious and overwhelming consensus. Combined with way to many talk posts that showed a failure to listen. I don't mean to debate every AGF and civility issue raised, but maybe it helps to note that edit warring and 3RR are not the same. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• I've seen this anyway. I am against a restriction of this TBAN to just automotive articles, strongly against a TBAN that extended to anything involving automotive articles. I think the TBAN should be, as is justified by past behaviour, to against changing units or dimensions in any way, in any articles. I'm not against changing the value of a dimension (i.e. "length 3m" to "length 5m"), just the units to express them. This should include (for clarity) any change in such units, including {{convert}} etc. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Retired?

Jojhnjoy says he's retired, so unless he pops up again I don't think any further discussion is needed. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• We've heard that one before. If he's retired, then enacting the TBAN makes zero difference. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm just trying to say that we shouldn't waste any more time on this guy unless absolutely necessary. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Retiring for a day to six months is the oldest diversionary tactic in the book, and I sure as hell don't want to start over from the beginning if he reappears. Someone make a close with whatever form of Tban is supported by the current state of the discussion, record it wherever those get recorded, and then we're done. EEng 23:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Surely you're not suggesting Jojhnjoy would employ diversionary tactics? Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I am suggesting it, and don't call me Shirley. EEng 01:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I have updated the wording of current ban to broaden the scope per the discussion in the proposal. I think it's fair to ask an uninvolved editor to close this discussion now. Many thanks, Alex Shih^Talk 04:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:UNCIVIL behavior from Sk8erPrince

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am here to report the WP:UNCIVIL behavior from Sk8erPrince, aimed mainly at IPs and new editors. My report will also discuss a lesser issue of Prince's obsession with listing AfDs.

Despite three queries asking Prince to tone down his behavior ([164], [165], [166]), which I'll point out were blanked without discussion, Prince has been making edits that, while mostly constructive, are concluded with uncivil edit summaries directed at new editors and IPs: [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173] (you get my point).

On another note, Prince's tban from AfDs was recently lifted. One issue arising from that ban was Prince's habit of listing his "successful" (deleted) articles on his userpage, even though we have a tool that does the same thing. Legacypac wisely removed the list [174] but Prince reinstated it [175] and began expanding on it again [176]. A part of the reason Prince's ban was lifted was because editors believed his outlook on AfDs had improved -- AfDs are a fundamental piece of Wikipedia, not a point system.

I believe this ANI discussion should focus on a possible block for Prince's incivility and the reinstatement of his tban.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm just going to make this simple and quick.

• 1) I don't appreciate editors vandalizing or messing up the content on Wikipedia, even if they are good faith edits (doesn't help that a lot of them are here to vandalize the encyclopedia/unfamiliar with existing guidelines). WP:CIR is a guideline on Wikipedia, after all. I don't deserve to be blocked if I'm constantly fixing their errors and improving the encyclopedia as a whole (you noted that I have been making constructive edits as well). Also, the IBan discussion involving myself above hasn't even been closed yet, so to start another discussion about me at this point is pretty premature.
• 2) With or without the AFD Tban, there is no guideline nor is there any restriction that prevents me from making my own AFD list. Why is that a problem? The previous Tban was imposed on me because of behavioral problems. As you can see in my new AFDs since the lift (see figure 1, 2 and 3), there isn't a single instance in which I was actually uncivil in Tban discussions. The condition for lifting the ban is that I don't repeat the same issues (attitude, mass nominations, etc.) from before, which I clearly haven't. Also, the new AFD list I've made allows me to monitor if previously deleted pages have been recreated. Makes it easy for me, you know? Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'll make this even simpler and quicker: your topic ban should never have been lifted, something I believe even those who !voted in support of lifting it should see now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You don't speak for everyone else. Let them speak for themselves. Repeated uncivility in AFDs would lead to my Tban being reinstated (come on, don't act like you know the conditions of the Tban repeal better than I do). As I am guilty of no such thing, there is no valid reason to reinstate it. Period. Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll speak for myself as someone who did not take part in the community discussions that implemented and then removed your TBAN. First off, WP:CIR is not a guideline, as you assert. It's an WP:ESSAY. It's still a principle I happen to agree with, but the reason it has never been elevated to the status of guideline is specifically because of the subjectivity involved and the fact that it would create too many problems from being leveraged by another class of disruptive editor (those who are prone to WP:BITE and WP:OWN or who are just plain overly hostile to countervailing opinions in general) to try to freeze out discussion. In other words, its not a policy because if it were, you actually would be able to cite it here as an excuse for being short an incivil with other editors. But it's not, and you can't.

In a similar vein, you seem to be confused about the meaning of WP:Vandalism on this project, because such activity can never be good-faith editing. Your usage there seems to suggest you aren't fully versed in what the term means on this project and that you include certain types of edits you just don't agree with, regardless of whether they represent a concerted bad-faith effort to disrupt. Lastly, if you had a TBAN from participating in AfD discussions, then yes, it would pretty much certainly extend to making lists of AfD's whose outcomes you agree or disagree with.

Taking the evidence presented above (including the past sanction history) and combining it with your comments here, my impression is that the competency issues probably hinge more around you than the other editors you are interacting with, in general. In particular, you seem to have a strong confirmation bias that has prevented you from taking on the advice of the community, and from deriving the lesson that your ban could have imparted for you (WP:IDHT). I'm not going to !vote for you to be indeffed, because the incivility (insofar as what has been presented here so far) don't seem to rise to that level--not for me anyway, and I take WP:C very seriously. But I'm tempted to support the reimplementation of the TBAN, insofar as it seems this is an area you continue to have problematic perspective on (but there, I need to look into the edits a little more closely before supporting). Snow ^{let's rap} 23:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Formal proposal

Indef block and restoration of topic ban (for whatever time in the future he gets unblocked). We've already had, I think, three threads on this editor, which began almost immediately after the lifting of the TBan. I really don't think we need this person here, he's a net negative to the project. Let's nip this in the bud, not wait for three or four more threads, because you know they'll be coming. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'm certainly not a net negative to any project on Wikipedia. My contributions in improving articles (and reverting bad edits) clearly outweighs any "sassy" edit summary I make to uninformed editors. I restructure entire pages with improved sources in my areas of interest; how does that possibly make me a net negative? Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Obviously you would oppose this, and you are much more than sassy. You told a newcomer who asked a question "I don't give a goddamn about your weeabooism. Piss off". That's not sassy -- that's being a jerk.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll admit, that wasn't the nicest thing to say. However, you cannot deny the fact that said user smeared my talk page with an unjustified complaint (it was also poorly written), and going as far as to insult Funimation for using "stupid" names. And you described their complaint as merely just a question, and nothing about it is confrontative? That hardly seems fair to me. There's also the fact that some inexperienced editors incorrectly inserted tables on articles that I rectified (see figures 1 and 2). I mean, those are obviously examples of screw ups, and those revisions are in no way applicable for any encyclopedic standard. Telling them that they should learn how to insert tables properly without screwing up is in NO WAY an act of incivility. Also, improper usage of specific terms such as "whitewashing" and "vandalism" (if anything, I am an ANTI-vandal) towards me is unacceptable when I am clearly not in either category. Honestly, you're pinning all the blame on me, when those users I sassed off are just as guilty if you look at the whole picture. A lot of it is merely reactive; I'm not targeting on any specific group. If anything, perhaps I am way too passionate about improving articles and following guidelines and policies that it made me get a bit upset when I see other users not following them. Perhaps going on a Wikibreak is just what I need to cool off a little while. Anyway, there's still no doubt that all my contributions do not amount to being a net negative myself. There's one last thing to note: Of course, without a doubt, you and Ken would want to set up a sanction for me - both of you opposed my Tban appeal, and when neither of you got your way, you nitpick every little detail in an attempt to get me in trouble, even regarding policies and conditions that I clearly did NOT violate (yes, I'm referring to the conditions of my Tban appeal). I don't deserve any of this. Any user that takes a look at my list of contributions could obviously see I devote myself to my areas of interest to ensure articles are within encyclopedic standards, and that is the most valid reason to oppose this proposal when the only thing that needs improvement is less sassier edit summaries (which I am capable of doing). Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Prince, your reply sealed the deal for me. As an vandal fighter, a part of the job is not to emulate the behavior of aforementioned vandal. By insulting or belittling newcomers, you provoke bad behavior. Worst still, some of the IPs or newcomers could have been editing in good faith and you scared them away. Experienced editors asked you to be more civil; you completely blew them off. You claim you'll change now that the issue has been brought to ANI. Where was this eagerness before the thread? And you think it's Ken and I's objective to have you blocked? Oi, please, your victim card is denied.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

"and you think it's Ken and I's objective to have you blocked?" If that isn't your objective, you wouldn't vote to support the proposal. There is no "victim card" being played here; it's pretty obvious that you've been stalking me. Again, I really don't deserve to take all the blame. I might need some assistance in bettering myself, but what could a block possibly achieve? It's almost as if you are suggesting that their unconstructive edits are of higher value than my own rectifications. I've always had a strong eagerness to improve articles that are within my areas of interest, and I would appreciate it if you don't blow off my contributions over inexperienced editors that don't know better. Sk8erPrince (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Accusing me of stalking you, are you? Probably not the brightest move but feel free to keep digging yourself deeper. I'll let other editors weigh-in now; I'm not going to contribute to this back and forth squabble.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support - If they didn't get it the last time they were dragged here, and don't show signs of any change now, it may be time to move to break out the cluehammer. Twitbookspacetube 07:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I wanted this done the last time we did this song and dance, which was what, a week ago? Christ. This is a classic case of not getting it even after narrowly escaping sanctions. --Tarage (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support that he reinstated the deleted page list I removed shows he is clueless. I've tried to help him and defend him but it's evident some time away is required. So sad. Legacypac (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - A number of the provided above diffs are of zero concern. This diff (diff 174 above), singled for being the most egregious example, has absolutely jack all to do with incivility by Sk8terprince. Indeed, it's the IP being inflammatory that is, or should be, the subject of that particular diff. Diffs 171 and 172 are Bite-y but not uncivil; case in point, the second of those two diffs is a comment about the content not the contributor. The material is garbage, not the editor. Sk8terprince should obviously be expected to be civil towards other editors, but indeffing them is just punitive. Especially considering their clean block log. I expect a more serious behavioural issue to be presented to me for such a strict measure. Note, however, that my patience is starting to wear thin. It's just that this time, I'm completely dissatisfied with the crime/punishment scale and the weight of the provided evidence. I'm also quite annoyed that their choice to list articles they've sent to AfD and had deleted is this convtroversial that it needs to be relitigated each time at AN/I. I list all the AfD's I've participated in, opened, or closed, on my own userpage for record keeping purposes. I list my vote and the outcome. I reference them on occassion if I see similar articles pop up. There is no problem with this. I don't care if it is a point scoring exercise in Sk8terPrince's case unless it's actually disrupting the AfD process itself, I don't care. It's getting to be obnoxiousness relitigating this (the AfD list I mean) every single time. I will say, however, that if this keeps continuing down this course, at some point, I will find myself supporting an indef. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Tarage. -- Begoon 12:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support In addition to the attacks on other editors, Prince has also been blanking his talk-page when editors have been trying to reach out to help. [177], [178] This gives an indication that Prince simply does not care or does not understand that he is at fault here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support "The condition for lifting the ban is that I don't repeat the same issues (attitude, mass nominations, etc.) from before, which I clearly haven't." - actually, the main problem displayed in the diffs provided in the OP, as well as in Sk8erPrince's responses above, is his attitude. That the problematic comments have not been in AfD discussions is beside the point. This is another rude ES comment, to another fairly new and very eager editor whose grasp of English is not perfect. Dismissing the rudeness (actually a borderline personal attack against a brand-new user who asked a simple question, albeit a little badly phrased) here as "sassy", and saying that edit summaries like this is "in NO WAY an act of incivility", shows that he does not understand how his comments come across. And that means this is unlikely to change - he's had several chances to do so, with several previous ANI threads addressing behavioural/attitude problems, including one currently on this page. --bonadea contributions talk 20:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose to indef. My thoughts converge with Mr rnddude's on this one; Sk8erPrince clearly has issues with collaboration and I can well imagine being presented with enough evidence to support a block, but the evidence provided in this complaint (and which I've thus far found with a little extra digging) does not constitute grounds for such a broad sanction as an indef. It's an interesting position for me to be in, insofar as I am often flabbergasted at the kinds of violations of WP:C which do not get met with sanctions here, in recent times. Nevertheless, if one "piss off" is the worst of the evidence presented here, I think a short-term block is the most I can support, until I see further evidence. I may support the reimplementation of the topic ban, after I've looked into that second issue more. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Looking at Sk8erPrince edit history I see lots of reverts accompanied with few edits to Talk pages or UserTalk pages. This to me is indicative of not getting the WP:CON nature of decisions making on Wikipedia. Plenty of folks have suggested using Talk pages to Sk8erPrince to build consensus and he just deletes their comments from his UserTalk page. I'd also say that one thing about This diff that is troubling in addition to the rude comment is that Sk8erPrince implies in his summary that he is knowingly deleting sourced material ("Most of the previous info is unsourced..." Most, but not all.) Looking at the other diffs, there are examples of material deleted with sources, but perhaps that was accidental. Overall, the only way I see to resolve this problem is Sk8erPrince engaging in conversation on Talk pages and being guided by WP:CON. If that isn't something Sk8erPrince is willing to do, they are WP:NOTHERE Klaun (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support temporary block, oppose indef (for now) - I have been following Sk8erPrince's actions over the past year, and I've participated in some of the previous discussions involving him. His battleground attitude, particularly in the past, has gotten him into a lot of trouble, hence the months-long topic ban placed on him last year. After that expired, I hoped he learned his lesson and for a while I thought this was indeed the case, as some of his nominations were proper this time around. However, his recent actions have made it clear that the fundamental problem remains: an apparent inability to keep civility. I feel that Sk8erPrince has been trying to contribute to the encyclopedia in good faith, which is why I am opposed to an indefinite block at this time. Some of his contributions to voice actor articles during his ban were actually constructive. However, the community's patience has begun to run out, and after repeated discussions, I feel that a block is necessary to show that he has to change for the better. He has repeatedly promised to change, but he tended to go back to his old ways after discussions have ended. However, I still feel he should be given one last chance, with a firm warning that this would be his last chance. If he still continues, I will not be opposed to an indefinite block. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Sincere request for guidance and support

I would like to continue contributing to Wikipedia in my areas of interest, but I am finding it difficult to contain my own irritation when other editors make unconstructive edits on pages that I am watching. Any specific methods that I could incorporate to help me better contribute to the encyclopedia is greatly appreciated. Thank you. Sk8erPrince (talk) 07:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

If you can't control your own behavior or lack the maturity to do so then Wikipedia is not for you. --Tarage (talk) 08:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

There are two types of new editors my friend, those who commit vandalism, and those who try to help out but make mistakes.... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• I am pretty conflicted as to what I should be doing right now, so I might as well take a temporary leave and reflect upon my actions. Two weeks of leave might be a good start, but it might be a bit longer. During this period, I will not make any edits. Sk8erPrince (talk) 08:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

It is FAR too late for that. This ANI thread will run with or without you, and I highly suspect if you do cease editing, you may find that when you come back you still won't be able to. --Tarage (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Also for the love of god work out how to use an archive system on your talk page. Deleting every single post is by far the most obnoxious way to try to piece together how many warnings you have received. --Tarage (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Guidance: You need a lot more than 4,000 edits before you can be that abusive when addressing other editors. Be patient, give it time, and before you know it your abuse will be seen as virtuous defense of the encyclopedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

That's very droll Mandruss, but not terribly helpful. A Train^talk 17:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

No its not very helpful but sadly has grains of truth to it. Hopefully the majority of us are past this kind of stuff. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I generally try not to comment upon these kinds of more generalized observations in an ANI, but I have to agree; enforcement of WP:C has hit an all time low in the last couple of years. The absolutely caustic, incivil, and hostile things that some established editors routinely get away with (a few of them as their basic, every day modus operandum) makes my head spin. I keep waiting for the situation to snap back in the other direction, but with the broader social climate being what it is, and our admin corps just barely starting to recover from the attrition that hurt it in recent years, I'm not holding my breath. Still, if anyone ever hosts a community discussion on the matter, I'd appreciate being notified. To bring this back to the nominal topic of the thread though, Sk8er isn't on the same plane as our worst offenders. Don't get me wrong, I see plenty of evidence of WP:IDHT and general issues with collaboration, but none of the diffs listed in this complaint rise to the level of justifying an indef, imo. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Mentoring

Has anyone suggested this? It might at as a constraint whilst allowing for profitable contributions to be made? — fortunavelut luna 15:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Its a good idea but I feel that Prince has been given way too many chances. The thing that bothers me the most is that he doesn't appear to understand what he is doing wrong or the effect it is having with editors here. He acts like "okay, I will go away for 2 weeks and when I come back all will be forgotten". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you volunteering?—S Marshall T/C 22:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I would like to point out that mentoring him was suggested last year, but he rejected it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

iPad 4rd Gen Vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This page I was looking at for info today has obviously been vandalized by someone.

IPad_(4th_generation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leifea (talk • contribs) 01:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Leifea: The vandalism was did by IP 2602:306:37fd:4b90:8585:7462:d425:ab48, and have been reverted by User:StarryGrandma. Future vandalizing in persistently should report at WP:AIV. SA 13 Bro (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Page protected for six hours. This will be more than enough time to encourage whomever to move on :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Halimah Yacob

Sections merged. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

== Evasion of user block ==

Reid62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for one week, and is editing pages such as Halimah Yacob and Adnan Saidi using the logged out IP 202.156.181.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --202.172.56.4 (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Reid62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked indefinitely, but there is a new user Rachel Lucy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with similar behaviour that might be a sockpuppet. --YewGotUp (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

== Continuos vandalism on [[Halimah Yacob]] page ==

202.172.56.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is vandalizing Halimah Yacob page together with this IP 118.189.63.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) countless times. Suspected sock-puppetry. They also engaged in edit warring. Please investigate. Thank you. -- 202.156.181.76 (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow. This looks like a WP:BOOMERANG if I ever saw one. OP has serious WP:NPOV issues, not to mention making threats he cannot back up, i.e. WP:BLUDGEON, like here. John from Idegon (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Per a 3RR complaint the article on Halimah Yacob has been semiprotected for two months. This is enough for the moment to save the article from a non-stop war. Other admins may see a need for some blocks, and if so they should go ahead. EdJohnston (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

This edit makes 202.156.181.76 look like a sock of Reid62, but I'm not 100% sure. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

== Continuos re-vandalism on [[Halimah Yacob]] page ==

Newly-created user YewGotUp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is re-vandalizing Halimah Yacob page together with this IP 118.189.63.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 202.172.56.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) countless of times. Obviously sock-puppetry. Seems liked the edit warring continues. Please investigate the users and blocked them and locked the page up with a golden lock. Sick of this wars. Revert the page to Sue's last edit. Thank you. — 202.156.181.76 (talk) 09:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

IP seems to be scoring own goal. Jane Dawson (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

IP edits at ccTLD articles

• Evidence is at User:Johnuniq/ccTLD because I suspect more attention will be needed in the future.

An individual using slowly changing IPs has been disruptively editing multiple articles for at least a couple of months. They add dubious or blatantly false factoids often with {{citation needed}} tags. The edit summaries could be interpreted as trolling. At enwiki, most edits focus on ccTLD articles. The problem is cross-wiki, although different topics get more attention at other Wikipedias.

There are a couple of difficulties regarding this case. First, very few editors watch the ccTLD articles, and second, the topic is esoteric so general editors may not recognize the absurdity of the changes. Whereas many of the edits are obviously poor quality, a general editor may think the IP is making a good-faith effort. Reviewing the evidence page above should dispel that thought.

I will alert the IPs that have been active in the last three weeks about this report: 81.135.204.201 (talk · contribs) + 86.134.240.162 (talk · contribs) + 86.174.198.166 (talk · contribs). Let's see what happens, but if disruption continues, I recommend deciding that the individual is effectively banned so their edits can be rolled back without tedious explanations, and new IPs blocked. Target articles may need temporary semi-protection. Any thoughts on action regarding other Wikipedias? Johnuniq (talk) 05:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The ccTLD articles being hit seem to be those of small, mainly African, ccTLDs with low numbers of domains (<100K). Some of these smaller ccTLDs are run out of local university computer departments and are very small operations. The Canadian ccTLD registry published a list of the top TLDs in its 2016 report ( https://cira.ca/factbook/domain-industry-data-and-canadian-Internet-trends/domain-name-industry ) and the German ccTLD registry publishes an updated top ten list of TLDs ( https://www.denic.de/en/know-how/statistics/international-domain-statistics/ ). The largest ccTLD is the Chinese ccTLD, .cn, with approximately 20 million domains. While it is a bit of an esoteric subject, the ccTLD registries tend to watch their markets closely and a ccTLD with 69 million registrations would not go unnoticed. The .com TLD has 127 million domains and .net only has about 15 million domains. Wikipedia may also be used as a reference site by people working with spam filters and the addition of non-existent subdomains and registry links to some of these ccTLD articles can cause problems. The subdomains are generally listed on the ccTLD registry sites as part of their policy documents. The IP edits kept adding spurious subdomains to some of the ccTLD articles. The IPs seem be associated with an ISP range and they are dynamic and change every few weeks or so. It may be necessary for the ccTLD articles to be semi-protected so that only confirmed users can edit them. Jmccormac (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The identified problematic editing is still continuing from 81.135.204.201 (talk · contribs), mainly on .ng today, despite being asked to stop whilst this is discussed. Gricehead (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Folks, this needs attention! Sorry it's drama-free but a quick look at User:Johnuniq/ccTLD should be sufficient to show there is a real problem that needs a community approach. This discussion does not need to finish with a sanction, but there does need to be a demonstrable consensus that the IP should be strongly rejected—reverts escalating to WP:RBI would be my recommendation, with semi-protection as needed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Johnuniq: I agree this is a problem, and however I can help I will - do you have any suggestions? Is there a credible pattern to the types of edits that might benefit from an edit filter? Or are we looking at long-term semi-protection of the articles (something which won't sit well with a lot of people)? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 10:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Helping would involve monitoring the related changes link in my evidence page and reverting the IP. I think all their edits should be reverted, as if they were banned. That is the only way to (eventually) persuade them to have fun elsewhere, per WP:DENY. That's why I want this ANI report to reach a strong conclusion. Some way of searching for their trolling edit summaries would be useful to detect activity in other articles (commentsearch?). An edit filter could help by detecting many of the nonsense summaries, but it would be pretty easy for the user to change that strategy. Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• I threw a block at the most recent one--fat lot of good that will do. I assume a rangeblock would have too much collateral damage, since the net seems to be wide; then again, perhaps a few focused rangeblocks might help. I have no problem with long-term semi-protection, but it would be nice if some smarter person did that, doing all those articles in a batch. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I've been checking to see how many semiprotections might be required. From the table at the bottom of ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 there are 249 country codes. But the abuse documented in User:Johnuniq/ccTLD does not extend to all of them. I'd be willing to semiprotect the 60 TLD articles itemized in User:Johnuniq/ccTLD#Overview. That would be a start. If you look at the edit history of .bi you will see the nonsensical edit summaries "RUNTIME ERROR' and 'INTERNAL SERVER ERROR' left by the IP 81.135.204.201 (talk · contribs). Most of the documented abuse consists of inserting bad numbers in the articles. Semiprotection has the downside of excluding any good-faith IPs, but the frequency of good IP edits to these articles appears low. EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
    • As for doing the whole lot at once, cascading protection would likely be the best idea? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Nope, because that doesn't work with semi-protection any more :( -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd also support a ban to make it a little easier to block. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• A ban wouldn't hurt, though the changes by this IP editor probably qualify as vandalism. If you read the analysis at User:Johnuniq/ccTLD#Outline of problem, it is hard to assign any good-faith interpretation to this pattern of edits. The IP is adding nonsensical dates, bad edit summaries and fake statistics. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

List of Subaru engines

At List of Subaru engines there appears to a problem with some false information about certain Subaru engines floating around the Internet, which keep being added to the article by drive-by IPs. The IPs don't appear to be vandals, just people who add things they read somewhere on the internet without sources. This has been going on for years. What would be the best solution? An edit filter for certain engine numbers? PC protection? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hidden comments or edit notices? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Just protect it and be done with it. --Tarage (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that indefinite semiprotection or full protection will be acceptable to most admins, and clearly temporary semiprotection or full protection will not be effective for a problem hat has been going on for seven years. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Guy, if there's a particular hoax engine that keeps getting re-added, why not take Jo-Jo's approach and add a commented-out explanation in the relevant subsection? A Train^talk 18:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Biographies of members of the Universal House of Justice

User:A35821361 has created biographies of members of the Universal House of Justice, the highest elected governing body of the Baha'i Faith. Several editors (User:Smkolins, User:Onel5969, User:Dragfyre) have found the biographies to generally lack notability from reliable sources and the content created by User:A35821361 to be poorly sourced about living persons. The great majority of third party sources used in the biographies do not mention the individuals being biographied and are tangential to the subject, much of it original research. Substantial information about the individuals is not supported by any references at all. It is fairly trivial to show that the content was not meeting policies. I pared down the biographies to sources that actually mention the subject beyond just a name (which left many biographies with just one paragraph) and described the details of my edits on talk pages (see list below). User:A35821361 has been edit warring and restoring the poorly or unsourced material.

Full disclosure, User:A35821361 is a former adherent of the Baha'i Faith who left and is dedicating efforts to bring to light information he feels could be damaging, thus the desire to make pages about people in leadership. Myself and User:Dragfyre and User:Smkolins are Baha'is, though not associated with the leadership. User:A35821361 left an edit in his sandbox that links to an attack page blog that mirrors much of the data A35821361 has put into the biographies (without using the blog as a source).

I wrote on his talk page about it in May 2017, Dragfyre warned him 11 July 2017, and I warned him again 27 July 2017. I told him here that I posted on this noticeboard.

As User:A35821361 has not addressed concerns in any meaningful way, the policies involved are pretty straightforward, and it has turned into edit warring, I'm bringing it here for a resolution. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 08:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Living Persons

• Gustavo Correa - created by User:A35821361 12 June 2017. Edited by me 20 July 2017 along with talk page description of the changes. A35821361 restored the objectionable content four times [179][180][181][182] before making a half-hearted effort to comment without addressing any specifics. And 2 more times this revert [183] after commenting below.

• Farzam Arbab - created by User:A35821361 12 June 2017. Edited by me 24 July 2017 along with talk page description of the changes 3 days later. A35821361 restored the objectionable content 3 times [184][185][186] before making a half-hearted effort to comment without addressing any specifics. And 2 more times [187] [188] after commenting below.

• Douglas Martin (Bahá'í) - created by User:A35821361 19 September 2016. I redirected the article 20 July 2017 because it was sourced from a discussion board. A35821361 restored the objectionable content 3 times [189][190][191] before making a half-hearted effort to comment without addressing any specifics. User:Onel5969 nominated for AFD.

• Stephen Hall (Bahá'í) - created by User:A35821361 31 May 2017. I nominated it for deletion, which ended in keeping. Afterwards I edited the content 26 June 2017 to make it clear which sources actually mention Stephen Hall. A35821361 restored the objectionable content 9 times [192][193][194][195][196][197][198][199][200] while User:Smkolins and I tried to discuss with him on the talk page in detail, pointing out that sources in his version don't even mention the person or are speculative.

• Stephen Birkland - created by User:A35821361 30 May 2017. This page looked largely like an attack by sourcing most content from a few former Baha'is that didn't like him and went on to post about him in online forums. In the absence of reliable sources, the attacks created undue weight to what normally wouldn't be notable. After significant discussion and warnings, even today he reverted to the page that highlights an attack on a living person without using third party reliable sources.[201]

• Paul Lample - created by User:A35821361 1 June 2017. Edited by me 2 June 2017 and further 20 July 2017 along with talk page description of the changes. A35821361 restored the objectionable content 2 times [202][203] before making a half-hearted effort to comment without addressing any specifics.

• Payman Mohajer - created by User:A35821361 12 June 2017. Edited by me 20 July 2017. A35821361 restored the objectionable content 2 times [204][205].

• Kiser Barnes - created by User:A35821361 6 July 2017. The article was redirected by User:Smkolins 6 July 2017 using edit comments. A35821361 restored the objectionable content 2 times [206][207].

• Glenford Eckleton Mitchell - stub was redirected by User:Dragfyre 11 July 2017 due to lack of notability. A3 restored content 2 times [208][209]. User:Onel5969 nominated for AFD.

Deceased

• David Ruhe - created by User:A35821361 4 July 2017. User:Onel5969 redirected the article 4 July 2017 due to lack of notability. A35821361 reversed the redirect 2 times [210][211]. User:Onel5969 nominated for AFD.

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 08:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I became tangentially aware of some of these articles only through NPP, which I try to help out with from time to time. I found no issue with creating redirects of these articles to the Universal House of Justice article, but there is clearly not nearly enough independent coverage of the 3 or 4 I looked at to warrant a standalone article. The lack of understanding of notability guidelines by the other editor (A35821361), is a bit discouraging. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I contend that the articles noted above do, in fact, meet the minimum requisite for notability guidelines, as some of the individuals covered have lead successful careers in academia, business, or the arts or have founded NGOs that have received awards. Covering that material in their respective Wikipedia articles is not tangential. Contrary to the assertion that I am "dedicating efforts to bring to light information he feels could be damaging", I am presenting objective, unbiased information that is well sourced from third-party references.

Broadening the discussion a bit, while I contend that the articles of Universal House of Justice members do meet notability guidelines, most of the biographies of Bahá'í individuals on Wikipedia do not meet any semblance of notability. For example, today, July 29, happens to be the death anniversary of Adelbert Mühlschlegel. Besides his being a member of the German National Spiritual Assembly, there is nothing notable about him and the article about his life is only three sentences, with two Bahá'í sources listed. To take another example, Thornton Chase was an insurance salesman who was the first American convert to remain in the Bahá'í Faith, with no other notable accomplishments. His article is nothing more than a summary of one book written about him by a Bahá'í author.

Wikipedia is far richer and more useful a resource when articles of prominent, notable individuals that are, in fact, well sourced from third-party references are allowed to exist.

Regards, A35821361 (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• I think that's what people have been trying to get across to you: The articles you've been creating have not been "articles of prominent, notable individuals that are, in fact, well sourced from third-party references". They have been articles on people who, by and large, are only notable due to their membership, past or present, on an Institution which already has a perfectly good article which could use some concentrated effort to bring it up to, say, at least B-class, and for whom you have provided no references that can be used to prove that they are notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. When asked directly to provide sources that can be used to provide notability, i.e. sources that are not primary sources, all you've done is restated the same points you've been making the whole time (i.e. these people are notable, all sources are valid, my contributions are objective and unbiased), without either indicating that you understand what Wikipedia's policy on notability is, or offering so much as a shred of evidence that your edits are in compliance with that policy . It's great that you've managed to find some sources for these articles, and that you've put a lot of effort into writing them. What you don't seem to understand is that Wikipedia doesn't work the way you seem to think it does. This is not a personal blog where we can post anything we want. There are specific policies we have to comply with when submitting content, policies that have been pointed out to you again and again, without you explaining how your edits conform to them—or even indicating that you have, in fact, read those policies. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 18:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
• Another thing: You mentioned the fact that many biographies of individual Bahá'ís are poorly sourced and do not indicate the notability of their subjects. This is, in fact, true, and it is something that editors who want to improve the coverage of the Bahá'í Faith on Wikipedia have to struggle with. So why, when people have indicated to you that it's impossible to establish the notability of these individuals based on the sources you've provided, have you been engaging in edit warring with other editors rather than trying to search out better sources? Why, indeed, were you blocked for 36 hours for breaking 3RR on Bahá'í Faith when you could have immediately sought to talk things out with people? What's your motivation here: Making a point, or establishing consensus? If it were the latter, don't you think we'd be seeing different behaviour from you over these conflicts? I'd be happy to work with you to improve every single one of these biographies. Somehow, your actions so far don't give me the confidence that you're ready to collaborate in that way. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 18:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Persistent WP:UNCIVIL by MalikShabbaz

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Experienced user, yet ignores calls for WP:CIVIL, constant mockery and WP:NPA. He has been asked to stopped twice, yet not only did he persist in uncivil commentary, he also mocks the editors calling for WP:CIVIL. I don't see how this will stop voluntarily.

Uncivil commentary only from June-July 2017 that I came across: [212][213][214][215][216]

He has been warned about it by myself and by another editor, having responded with further attacks: [217][218]

I decided to just ignore it as recommendation suggests, but every time I bump into the editor on talk pages he is again insisting on uncivil commentary.[219][220][221] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saturnalia0 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking at a lot of those diffs and not seeing really "uncivil" behavior toward other editors. This diff, for example... It's hard for them to analyze figments of your imagination, though is, at best, mild snark. This one, The Wall Street Journal's editorial section printed a screed by a blogger for the Weekly Standard, and they share a dislike for the SPLC?!? I'm so shocked you could knock me over with a feather... like, really? If that's "uncivil" you might as well ban half of Wikipedia.}} This diff isn't even by Malik Shabazz, it's by User:Edaham. I don't see anything actionable here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

not sure why I was mentioned here. Anything wrong? I had a look and a post has been referenced here in which I re-reverted the removal of a piece of text on a talk page which had been removed previously in order to get rid of it again. It was trolling. Forum members generally upheld and supported both the removal and the curt tone I took when deleting it. Edaham (talk) 09:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC) Edaham (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

He was pretty uncivil towards me (see link 176). Calling my assertion of NPOV "stupid", "somebody gets his nose out of joint" (what does that even mean?), "the whims of the Fox News crowd" (casting aspersions). He should focus on discussing the topic at hand, not the editors.Terrorist96 (talk) 07:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Saturn and Terrorist96 are only here because MalikShabazz doesn't appreciate their POV pushing at a discussion about black supremacy. The issue has been analyzed and agreed upon numerous times but these two editors want to change consensus without RS. I propose a boomerang if this is not closed promptly.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• Would people please make sure the first diff shows a problem. The first link above shows nothing—why should editors have to click every link and work out whether this complaint has any substance? Nevertheless, I looked at a couple of other links and they also were fine. Please don't template an editor about mild commentary they made nine days earlier. Johnuniq (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• I don't think this is egregious enough to warrant action, but T96 is correct that Malik was less than perfectly civil in that NPOVN thread. No matter how frustrated, editors should argue the point, not their opposition--especially if they are just meeting them and the contributor is showing every indication of acting in good faith. And though I don't want to get into the weeds of the content issue here, but I agree that it is exceptionally odd that any article on any form of racial supremacist ideology would not contain reference to racism. That does seem to conflict with a very straightforward reading of terms that can be sourced into the article, whether the specific word "racist" can be robustly sourced itself.

But if the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on that article is to keep the term out due to the WP:WEIGHT of sourcing, so be it. But the editors who insist on that standard do not get to then belly-ache when it becomes something that must be periodically re-explained. If the issue gets revived by a new editor "every two months, like clockwork" then maybe it is a consequence of the article not meeting common expectations of what an encyclopedic entry on the topic would include, and not just a case of racists or inexperienced editors trying to insert POV. Regardless, editors on that page, like any other, are required to show courtesy, even when they have to revisit an issue repeatedly because of some idiosyncrasy of the topic or content. Work on any particular article is WP:NOTMANDATORY and the editors there can take a break from the talk page any time they like. However, so long as they remain to protect their stance on the best approach to the content, they are required to WP:Assume good faith and avoid WP:Personal attacks, even minor ones. Also, as I recall, this is not the first time Malik has ended up at ANI over accusations of incivility.

So, to summarize, nothing that raises near the level of actionable, but I think Malik could stand to remember that firm adherence to WP:NPA is not at all conditional on how right he perceives himself to be on the content issue. I saw nothing in T96's comments which suggested he deserved to be on the receiving end of Malik's ire; his arguments seem to be advanced in good faith. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• Conversely to a previous thread, my thoughts converge with SnowRap's on this one. I agree with GracefulSlick's reading that this thread has come about due to the content dispute on the Black Supremacy article and that this thread warrants no action. That said, referring to the opposition and their argument as the Fox New's crowd is, to borrow Malik Shabazz's on words, is just stupid and certainly non-productive.

• On the actual content matter itself; I too find it odd that an article about racial supremacy makes no mention of racism. That said, I think the defintion of words that Terrorist96 has given has come back to bite them. A letter of the law reading of the definition of the term racism would suggest that supremacy as a belief itself is not racist. Note, racism necessitates an act of prejudice, discrimination, or antangonism on the basis of the belief that one's own race is superior. This describes the act(ions) itself as racist(m), but, not the beliefs. Now, you could hold a month long philosophical exercise on whether a person could hold such beliefs without ever acting on them, but, this is no the time nor the place. The fact that the article belongs to a series on discrimination would indicate that it is racist/m. But all of that is pertinent for the article itself and not this thread. A small part of this that may be relevant is that the repeated nature of this discussion does indeed, as SnowRap points out, suggest that the article does not meet standards of quality for such an article.

• In essence, Malik has been sharp at moments and would do well to dull the blade. There is obviously no need for combative counterpoductive responses. The arguments by Saturnalia and Terrorist96 do appear to be made in good faith. Therefore, it should be expected that you treat the editors in good faith.
  There is also absolutely no need to start biting at Saturnalia for bringing this here either. It can be dealt with, without the user of administrative tools. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Sigh... "You cannot be as stupid as you sound." Still think there's nothing actionable?Terrorist96 (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead and block me if you think it's wrong to call out an obvious troll on his trolling. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:AGF.Terrorist96 (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Malik, really, it's better not to respond at all to provocations like "It's just been white-washed (lol) from the article". First, by doing so you are giving this fine gentleman exactly what he wants. Second, by not responding you're making it easier for others to distinguish whose conduct merits concern. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

MalikShabbaz was a bit snarky likely due to T96 wasting editors’ time. Suggest that T96 strike his comment: Black separatists are black supremacists by definition along with the white-wash accusation; and withdraw this filing. I wouldn’t waste a minnow on this. Objective3000 (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Na. I broke no rules and provided two sources for my statement as well. It's not my fault the user got "triggered" by my post. I would also like to point out that this user has been blocked twice in the past for incivility.Terrorist96 (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Five or six days in over a decade and 99,000 posts. Your white-wash accusation is more serious. Friendly suggestion: you shouldn’t push this. Objective3000 (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

So my personal opinion that an article has been white-washed is worse than direct attacks (calling me stupid)? Got it. :| -Terrorist96 (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Terrorist96: you just accused another editor of being "triggered" by your posts, which to my mind is trolling. If you keep this up, I'll block you. If this is what you're posting, it's no wonder that you're getting a potentially uncivil response every now and then. Baiting other users like this is not allowed. @Malik Shabazz: I suggest you just ignore the comments, like other users have said. If the trolling continues, post diffs here, and I'll block him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

To claim that an article is white-washed is to make a NPOV claim. To make an NPOV claim, the article has to be judged as not neutral and by extension, the editors that have edited it have contributed to its POV. To make such a claim is not a personal attack on the editors. Making a NPOV observation is not grounds for and cannot justify actual personal attacks. You can't blame the victim for the aggressor's actions. I said he was "triggered" because I am being blamed for "baiting" him (by making a NPOV observation, and I wasn't even replying to him). I only have control over what I say, not what others say. Can you please link me to the WP rule that says I am at fault for causing (unintentionally and in good faith) someone to act uncivil? If nothing is done here, then the message being sent is that you can call people stupid (a quintessential personal attack) or a troll without consequence, and in turn we will blame the victim for causing it. So, you can personally attack people then claim innocence because they made you do it! I have nothing more to say.Terrorist96 (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• I find amusing the accusation that the black supremacy article is being whitewashed. Someone close this as a favor to T96 before he digs himself deeper. EEng 20:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• 96, if you'll take a step back, you'll find out that Malik is as easy to work with as they come here. You should really try a different approach. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sammycanter82

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sammycanter82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[222] Editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE to write an encyclopedia, contributions are exclusively nonsense e.g. [223]. Requesting a protective block to stop the disruption. WCM_email 12:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed as vandalism-only account.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

We do need an admin for simple wikipedia because now he's adding garbage over there.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. --George AKA Caliburn · (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 14:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BedrockPerson and biblical people infoboxes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As odd as this sounds, we have a user, User:BedrockPerson, who has a repeated pattern, over one year old, to add and re-add unsourced material to infoboxes about biblical characters. He/she has repeatedly used edit summaries in a misleading way while doing so. The user's insistence that this unsourced material stays in articles has created a fair deal of work for other editors has has become disruptive, despite attempts by other editors to discuss the problem.

He/she has been warned about misleading edit summaries [224] by User:IgnorantArmies on 13 December 2016, and about disruptive editing by the same user on the same day [225]. I also warned the user about misleading edit summaries on 19 June 2017 [226]. Myself and User:Dougweller spoke to him/her on 16 May 2017 about the addition of unsourced material in infoboxes [227] [228]. He/she continued adding unsourced material to infoboxes, and I warned him/her again on 20 July 2017 [229]. After an editing conflict involving sourcing and infoboxes on July 28-30, [230] the page David was protected. The user immediately moved on to Ish-bosheth (today) and continued the disruptive pattern of behavior [231].

There are also numerous cases of warnings about edit-warring and disruptive behavior on his/her Talk Page as well, by User:Ian.thomson, User:Doug Weller, User:Jytdog, User:Debresser, User:El_C, and others. The user is most recently off a 7-day block, the latest in a series of escalating blocks imposed for edit-warring, abusing multiple accounts, and personal attacks, and has returned immediately to the old pattern of behavior.

Here's a list of examples of addition of unsourced material to infoboxes. This is not a complete list -- it contains many of the clearer cases. An asterisk after a diff marks an edit inappropriately disguised with a "minor edit" selection or other misleading edit summary, which is also an ongoing problem that he's/she's been warned about. In addition to the warnings posted above, if you click on cases below where BedrockPerson has made multiple edits in a day, you will often find other users trying to explain the WP:RS and WP:INFOBOX-related norms here at Wikipedia either in the preceding or following edit.

30 July 2017, Ish-bosheth: [232] David: [233], [234]*. 28 July 2017, David: [235], [236]. 20 July 2017: Warning about uncited additions to infobox. [237]. 20 July 2017, Habakkuk: [238]. 19 July 2017, Habakkuk: [239]. 19 July 2017, Samuel: [240]. 2 July 2017, Jezebel: [241]. 16 May 2017, Abimelech (Judges): [242]. 16 May 2017, Abdon (Judges): [243]*. 16 May 2017, Ehud: [244], [245]*. 16 May 2017, Ibzan: [246]. 16 May 2017, Jair: [247]. 16 May 2017, Jephthah: [248]. 16 May 2017, Othniel: [249]. 16 May 2017, Samson: [250]*. 16 May 2017, Shamgar: [251]. 16 May 2017, Tola (biblical figure): [252]. 6 March 2017, Abdon (Judges): [253]. 6 March 2017, Abimelech (Judges): [254]. 6 March 2017, Elon: [255], [256]. 6 March 2017, Ibzan: [257]. 6 March 2017, Jair: [258]. 6 March 2017, Jephthah: [259]. 6 March 2017, Othniel: [260]. 6 March 2017, Samson: [261]. 6 March 2017, Shamgar: [262]. 6 March 2017, Tola (biblical figure): [263]. 22 April 2017, Moses: [264]. 11 April 2017, Isaac: [265], [266]*. 6 January 2017, Ishmael: [267]. 4 January 2017, Joshua: [268]. 27 December 2016, Isaac: [269], [270], [271], [272]*. 27 December 2016, Jacob: [273], [274], [275]. 26 December 2016, Jacob: [276]. 21 November 2016, Abraham: [277]. 25 July 2016, Abraham: [278]. 21 July 2016, Kenan: [279] Alephb (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a significant and long-term problem. The core issue here is WP:ADVOCACY for a point of view that treats the Bible as history.

The content issue, is that the Bible is not a history book. Mainstream Ancient Near East (ANE) historians are not sure that many of these people existed, and to the extent that ANE historians find good reason from extra-biblical evidence to support arguments that many of these ~might~ have existed; dates for when they may have lived are vague with big error bars, and adding dates of death or birth etc to infoboxes, which are where we present uncomplicated facts, is way out of bounds.

The behavioral issue presented here is Bedrockperson's consistent and long term edit warring and lack of engagement with the literature overall, instead presenting only prooftexts or cherrypicking scholarship from religiously motivated sources. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. But, for the sake of simplicity, I limited the list above to cases where BedrockPerson added material with no sourcing whatsoever. Cases of inappropriate and slanted use of sources also exist, but I limited the list in my last paragraph to the open-and-shut practice of adding dates without any sources at all. Alephb (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Honestly I'd link all I've tried to do in terms of getting consensus and defending myself but I am without effort. I simply don't care. At this point you two are beating the corpse of a husk you tore bereft of its life long ago. BedrockPerson (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• Doing some homework pretty much proves Jytdog and Alephb correct in their claims, without any hyperbole in it. It is well established that at Wikipedia, the bible is not considered a history book. More generally, the adding of any date to any infobox without sources, after being repeatedly reverted and asked to stop, is highly problematic. There is a significant and relevant block log as well. There is enough that I feel I (or any other admin) could unilaterally indef block, if we had to. Alternatively, I think the community would likely support a topic ban, which would have the same effect. This is pretty classic WP:DE, and it makes the user a net-negative to the project if someone has to constantly look over their shoulder. I'm all ears if someone can find a reason why we don't just do one of these. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, don't care. Dude asked me if he needed to do this and then just did it. He doesn't care, neither do I. Call it a bad attitude, but it's Tisha B'Av, I have more important things to take a piss over. I'd like to keep editing on Wikipedia, but blocked or not, either way, much won't change, I fear. BedrockPerson (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

You've only been here a year. If you are causing this much trouble and are already saying you don't care, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. --Tarage (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• I had seen some of the problem before this report and an indefinite topic ban is the minimum required. How should the topic be described? Would it be sufficient to say that BedrockPerson is indefinitely topic banned from editing articles related to biblical people or from adding information to any article unless accompanied with a reliable source? Johnuniq (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• I've indef blocked. I suggest keeping an eye out in the future, and as per WP:BEANS, that's all will say. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting revision deletion to remove a malicious, libelous talk page content about an active politician

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I ask that some administrator use revision deletion to get rid of libel.

I saw libel by 72.173.48.151 on Talk:Mo Brooks, an active, living American legislator running for higher office. The IP makes offensive claims against him, probably relating to his opposition to the Affordable Care Act. See their edit [280]. This kind of attack against a living person who is under the scope of ARBAPDS cannot be tolerated. Please delete the revision. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I {{courtesy blank}}ed the section and deleted the revision. Alex Shih^Talk 02:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Malformed and possibly ill-advised deletion proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Page listed at MfD. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

There are two issues here which I think require administrator/experienced editor attention.

On the technical side, 87.102.116.36 has attempted to initiate a Miscellany for Deletion discussion for Draft:European Union (Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19 (Gibraltar). However, they have created it on a talk page, which I think is the wrong place. If would be helpful if someone who understands the deletion process well checks whether this deletion discussion is in the right place and that the other parts of the process have been followed.

However, this draft was only created four days ago as a result of the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Union (Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19 (Gibraltar) (in which I took part). At first sight, the MfD is an attempt to override the previous consensus without going through deletion review. I note that 87.102.116.36 has properly notified the editors of the previous deletion discussion about the new one and it's easy to put a page in the wrong place. I also note that this IP has a long history of disruptive edits on the topic of British constitutional law. If someone looking with a fresh pair of eyes considers that the new MfD discussion is a blatant breach of policy, it may be better to close it rather than repair it. Matt's talk 09:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a widely accepted practice for IP users who can't create pages to make the talk pages and ask for them to be moved (see WP:AFDHOWTO). If this page hadn't recently been at AfD, I'd have moved it myself to the appropriate namespace (WP:SNOW may apply but it still might be appropriate to note this at MfD). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I've completed the listing process for the page. Anything else can be addressed at the MfD. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How to handel abuse from editors and admins?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am extremely cautious as to even put up this topic, but I feel it's a topic that needs to be covered and answered. This is not an argument as I am not outing anyone, and certainly not writing the usernames of anyone. I've ran across some complaints from various different people stating editors and admins where violating many rules on here and it was claimed as "target harassment" usually I would shrug it off and move on, but after receiving several emails regarding this I decided to look into it. To my surprise, I have uncovered several editors and admins have indeed been abusing their rights. From blocking, denies for AFC that met the requirements, unnecessary comments, using the checkuser to place tags on users that certainly were incorrect tags, protecting articles, and names for unclear reasons, and lastly finding these editors and admins dragging these people's names through the mud via social media. When some of these admins are yet In this Committee and there is undeniable proof of all stated above, what is a user supposed to do? Other than going through wiki legal, and filling a lawsuit, why can't any of this not be handled in a civilized way? Why is this even a subjected that has to posted here? This is not something that should be going on inside of Wikipedia, we all have been here long enough to know better. I purpose an updated version of this whole issue. To avoid further complications related to this subject.FIGHTER KD 02:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any public evidence on the wiki to back this up? Otherwise, these are all allegations that have no merit. You also might want to be careful with making legal threats as they can have a chilling effect. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Your user page claims that you edited back in 2011, yet your edit history only goes back a few days. What was your previous account? Also what do you mean an 'updated version'? --Tarage (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing here for this board to act on. Suggest a rapid close with a suggestion to take non specific whining to User talk:Jimbo where it belongs. John from Idegon (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Whoa stop and everyone calm down. I was in no way stating legal threats, I was pointing out the routes that people choose to go through instead of here or straight to the source. Not in any way threating anyone! I do apologize if anyone found my this as a threat, or whining. I was merly attempting to show people the proper route that's it! Also as I stated on my talk page "just because my username is different then it was in 2011 does not mean that I did not join in 2011. I don't have the slightest clue what my username was that long ago, I don't even remember what all I did yesterday much less 6 years ago! So I had to start from scratch!" I truly apologize for anyone thinking I had melicous intent. There's no need to get offensive and state I'm whining. I'm acting in good faith so please refrain from assuming something different. Thank you FIGHTER KD 05:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FIGHTER KD (talk • contribs)

Unless you actually bring proof, you are wasting your time. We are not going to change everything because you are upset. --Tarage (talk) 08:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sock

• FIGHTER KD (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mkdw, would you be able to tell us if this is Waffen77 or Krisdegioia? For reference, these comments and although it might not be necessarily clear from edits here on en.wiki, it becomes very clear that it is one of the above with these edits.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• Who cares who is the master? The account screamed WP:NOTHERE from day one. Johnuniq (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Because Johnuniq, the account is not blocked but I have leveled an accusation of sockpuppetry and worded it such that I have given the checkuser proper causation under the CU policy to perform a check. He now has the potential of finding other unblocked accounts as well as helping to assign it to the proper SPI case. Would it be safe to say that you would like to see any other sockpuppets they may have discovered and blocked?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Likely to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Krisdegioia. Mkdw ^talk 01:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Following DESiegel's comment, I've gone back and checked the all of the IPs associated with the account and at least four others are  Confirmed. Mkdw ^talk 02:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• I have seen absolutely Zero evidence of any intent to violate Wikipedia policies on the part of FIGHTER KD, nor do any of the above linked pages appear to contain any checkuser evidence, nor any meaningful "behavioral" evidence. I would like to know on exactly what basis this user was suspected, much less "confirmed" as a sock. I am asking this specifically of Berean Hunter, the blocking admin, under WP:ADMINACCT, specifically the point that Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. for a justificatiuon of this block, which appears quite unwarranted to me. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

These deleted edits of the master compared to the these edits that I had linked above (read the messages in the photos), along with the obvious KD in their name is a good start. I have filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Krisdegioia to record the data here. Cu supporting evidence after I managed to recognize the sock should tell you something. After 10:30pm my time so I'll check back in the morning. Perhaps you could request another CU to look it over.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @DESiegel: I ran a checkuser against the editor. Their IP falls within a well-known and documented range used by several of the accounts listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Krisdegioia. Aside from block evasion, behavioural evidence which contributes to a likely finding is the fixation on cybercrimes. Something shared among the other sock accounts: [281], [282], [283], [284]. Administrative misconduct has also been raised by these accounts against any administrators that block them. These have included threats to the point where oversight has been used and some discussion with WMF Legal and CA. Finally, specific CU evidence aside from broad statements is prohibited from being discussed on Wikipedia. Mkdw ^talk 02:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Mkdw, none of the difs you link to are by FIGHTER KD, and so they have no relevance here. I don't see that a focus on cybercrimes is particularly telling -- many people are interested in that topic, including many legitimate editors. An IP range can be used by many people, most of whom are not connected to one another, as you no doubt know. How large a range are you referring to, please? (I don't ask for details, i know those are confidential. But the size of the range involved is not.) I will examine the rest of the evidence tomorrow, as it is late for me also, but I find myself singularly unimpressed at this point. So far all i see is a rant against perceived unfairness here. The rant was ill advised, and overstated, but there is in fact a good deal of casual unfairness in several administrative processes here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@DESiegel: I did post a diff by FIGHTER KD (talk · contribs). In accordance with our sock puppet investigation policy, the diff of one of FIGHTER KD's edits was provided and used for comparison against edits made by other confirmed sock puppets. It is only by comparing that "behavioural evidence" can be assessed. I'm not sure how you'd propose comparing behaviour otherwise; your assertion that diffs by other editors are not relevant in such cases is severely incorrect. Raising the issue of administrative misconduct, such as in this very ANI thread by the editor, demonstrates a second pattern (in conjunction with the cybercrimes topic area) in which diffs were also provided for comparison with the other accounts.

Earlier, I know I had seen that this editor had actually posted something about Kris Degioia. It's taken me awhile, but I found it. commons:User:FIGHTER KD uploaded several photos to the Commons about Kris Degioia (some have since been deleted):

• Commons:File:Kris degioia cyberstalking victim.jpg
• Commons:File:Kris degioia and Ron Jermey.jpg
• Commons:File:Kris degioia live debate on NBC.jpg

As for the checkuser findings, the IP range is extremely small, some within the same subnet as other confirmed accounts. More than one range was used. Overlaps occurred on multiple re-appearing ranges (e.g. range 1, 2, and 3, were ALL used on accounts 1, 2, and 3). In the ranges documented, this sock master is the only one that uses them. The ranges do not appear to be public. UA results have revealed that an identical operating system and version, browser type and version, and other information were shared by FIGHTER KD and other confirmed accounts (this is in addition to the IP ranges). I won't be sharing any further checkuser information.

I understand you adopted this editor, and you're looking out for them. It would have been helpful if you had disclosed this when you commented here as your statements may have been interpreted as neutral third party. If you think there's been administrative misconduct, you know the avenues to report it. I firmly stand behind the findings here.

DESiegel, I urge you to revoke your above statements. Not only are you mistaken about some of the things I have literally said, you are wrong about the way in which some SPI evidence is evaluated, and wrong about this editor. You went so far as accusing that "in fact a good deal of casual unfairness in several administrative processes here". I do not feel you have done your due diligence to support such a statement, other than to (self-admittedly) tiredly look over a few statements. What you have done is effectively endorsed the viewpoints of the confirmed sockmaster regarding administrative abuse. Whether you intended it or not, your statement will almost undoubtedly be held onto (and probably used) going forward by this sock master (which has happened to others). I hope you seriously take into consideration the warnings I gave you about this editor regarding their history of threats and doxxing. Even their statement above alludes to much of it, such as evidence they've supposedly found on social media. I hope this resonates with you before you continue make unsubstantiated and borderline bad faith claims about fellow editors, such as Berean Hunter (and me), who are working to protect the community. Mkdw ^talk 05:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks ducky to me. FYI, I just cleaned up copyvio text introduced by the sock at Field Hockey Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). There was some paraphrasing done by another editor, but it was not enough to erase all the copyvio text introduced by the sock. I reverted to the pre-sock version, since it was the last clean version. Dr. K. 06:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if DESiegel is looking for further response from me at this point. I do see where he has written that he disagrees with the findings so I suggest that we let other editors continue to review this. When did you become aware of my posting that started this subsection where I stated that they are a sock? Contrary to the way that you seem to think that administrative procedures were lax, this info was posted here for quite a number of hours and no one raised a question. It isn't like I was trying to hide anything. When did you become aware? I'll be outside most of the day but will check back from time to time. I have a smoker with ribs in it and I'm not going to leave that unattended. There's quite a bit of work involved in my kitchen yet.

If any checkuser that reviews this wants to supersede my block to make it a CU block, I won't object. I invite further review from other editors as it seems that DESiegel does not accept the above.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I think this comment they just posted on their talk page confirms this is a sock: "I did not reveal my name as I did not fell I was necessary, due to me coming back to Wikipedia has nothing to do with the exhausting reasons you seem to think as why I have." RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Funnily enough I raised the same point a couple of days ago. Their answer has, I suppose, never suffered from inconsistency... — fortunavelut luna 15:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Rick, that comment confirms they have had two usernames. It does not confirm they are a sock per the definition in the first sentence at WP:SOCK. I'm assuming you simply misspoke rather than not understanding the distinction, but it's important to get the language right. If there is bad faith here, that comment alone doesn't show it. If they are a sock, they have yet to learn Rule #1 of socking, don't tell people you have had a different username. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

If you read their unblock requests, they are openly admitting it again, unless of course I'm reading it COMPLETELY wrong. I always try to take people at their word, but this is a bit much. RickinBaltimore (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

You read it right, they openly admitted, again, that they have had two usernames. Which does not make them a sock, as I said. That said, reading their talk page it appears there is a history here that I wasn't aware of, and I'm over my head, so I'll shut up now and leave this to people with more experience in this area. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

It's been determined they've been socking through confirmed checkuser results and not by self-admission. Mkdw ^talk 21:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and uncivil, abusive behaviour

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GeoJoe1000 (talk · contribs) recently made a series of disruptive edits to an article demanding that changes be made. He made no attempt to make the changes himself, discuss it on the article talk page or at the relevant WikiProject, or to approach one of a dozen regular editors of the article to enquire about the changes. I posted a message on his talk page (since deleted) reminding him that this was not an appropriate editing practice and that he had other, better options in future. What I got in reply was another series of edits to my talk page which were abusive. I posted another message to his talk page (again, since deleted) explaining why certain editing decisions were made by the community and warning him that his behaviour could be considered abusive. What I got in response was another abusive rant accusing me of being a bully. Another user, Tvx1 has since posted a message arguing in support of the editorial practices, pointing out that I had nothing to do with the decision and reiterating that GeoJoe1000's behaviour was not appropriate. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Some highlights from my talk page, courtesy of GeoJoe1000:

"Are you thick?"

"If you're going to do it, be my guest. Otherwise, shut up."

"I'm not sure why you didn't actually direct me to this page at any point unless your goal was to be completely incompetent."

"I already figured out you're a dick back in 2014."

"Just mind your own business and I won't report you to the admins."

"Just because you're not as blunt as I am doesn't make your language any less abusive."

"Don't be a bully."

That accounts for about 75% of what he has posted to my talk page, and is clearly uncivil behaviour. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

GeoJoe1000 - I agree with what was said here; you need to discuss your concerns on the article's talk page, not in the article itself. I'm responding to the edit you made here specifically when I say that it's not okay to disrupt Wikipedia in order to make a point; this edit is a clear example where you did just that. Additionally, your uncivil comments here, here, and especially here - are absolutely not okay. If you continue to disrupt articles like this or make uncivil comments toward other editors, you will be blocked for this. Your behavior here is not acceptable and your conduct requires improvement. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys - Remember that you need to inform editors of any ANI discussions that you start that involve them, per the directions at the top of this page. Not to worry; I've done this for you :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah — sorry about that; it's been a while since I did an ANI. Forgot to include the notification. Thanks for fixing it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Understood. As long as uncivil comments are not made toward me in response anymore, I accept responsibility for my behavior and will be sure to do better in the future. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

No uncivil comments were made towards you. All I did was point out that your behaviour was inappropriate. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I won't press the matter as you will not admit any wrongdoing on your part. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a poor way to phrase that. I accept responsibility for my actions regardless of Prisonermonkeys' actions. I have no plans to continue communications with him whatsoever. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Then how do you expect to work collaboratively? You know that I am active on that page; it stands to reason that we will both be involved in future discussions. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

How do you expect to work collaboratively? Let's hear your plan. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

GeoJoe1000 - First of all, I commend you greatly for responding to this ANI, for accepting responsibility for your behavior, and for committing to improve the issues pointed out here. What you've said here is (sadly) a very rare behavior that occurs in this noticeboard, and I can't emphasize enough just how much it's appreciated. This kind of acknowledgment is what we look for in mature editors who are committed to the project and Wikipedia's founding goals. Don't ever change this; your responses here are what separate the experienced from the new, make leaders out of followers, and a skill-set that separate those who are respected by the community from those who are not.

That being said, I highly urge you to improve your collaboration with Prisonermonkeys by continuing to communicate with the user and put your commitments into practice. Ignoring the user and saying that you'll no longer interact with him is not how you'll improve in the long-term, and it won't resolve the underlying dispute at-hand. I understand that interacting with others where you're in "rough waters with" isn't an easy thing to do, but doing so will be significantly beneficial... and for everyone :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the positive feedback. That is certainly new for me in this whole incident. I let emotions and history get the better of me this time around. Unfortunately, I imagine the problem I'm having is one that cannot be resolved through the formal processes Wikipedia has in place, but rather it's simply my own issue based on how I feel about the actions of certain users. While there's nothing inherently wrong in how Prisonermonkeys responded to my actions, especially considering their disruptive nature, I just get the feeling I am not welcome and never will be. For example, "In the meantime, don't go putting this on us because you're unhappy. You have no right to go around vandalising articles and disrupting Wikipedia the way you did, least of all when you made no attempt at inquiring after the problem or fixing it yourself. If an admin had seen it, you'd likely be blocked for it." Personally, I feel as if Prisonermonkeys has no desire to act collaboratively and simply wants me to avoid his pages. There has been no indication that Prisonermonkeys wishes to work with me or has any desire to help me be an asset. Again, I imagine this impression might not come across through the the message alone. But, I understand the need to do better in the future. I will do my best to not have to come here anymore. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

GeoJoe1000 - Don't let the responses of others (even me) get you down and make you feel as if you're unwelcome at this project. That's absolutely not what anybody's messages or responses should convey to you (and if they do, that's not cool at all). When emotions get the better of you, I always tell people to step away for a bit and either take a small break or just edit elsewhere for a bit. Then, when you feel that your emotions are neutral, return and resume collaborating. It's not a sin to acknowledge that you're frustrated or upset; it's what you do in response to it that matters :-). By the way, given your absolutely commendable response to this ANI, I'm obviously no longer considering the imposition of any sanctions or actions. You've learned a lot here, and I trust that you're sincere and that you'll follow the policies and guidelines cited here. But do be careful; these articles are under discretionary sanctions, and repeated policy violations on articles under this remedy are quite serious. However, I don't think that this will be a problem - please prove me right ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Heads-up on heavy sockfarm/COI/paid editing activity.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Undisclosed_paid_editing_sockfarm. Several sockfarms seem to have recently created about a hundred promotional articles. Some have been matched to ads for Wikipedia editing on Upwork. (For a sense of that problem, see [285].) Over at WP:COIN, articles are being tagged and deletions proposed. No need for admin action yet, but that may happen. Because of the large number of articles, I'm using PROD heavily.[286]. Anyone can remove a PROD, but often, the paid-by-the-job paid editors, having been paid, don't. John Nagle (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BusInCordoba seems to have this in hand. 35 socks blocked so far, and more being looked at. Dozens of articles speedily deleted. Nobody complaining about the deletions. John Nagle (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eustace R. Dewoh

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Eustace R. Dewoh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This account is a classic example of WP:NOTHERE. They appear to be an SPA, their single purpose being to attack article subjects and fellow editors on talk pages in clear violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPA. I don't think I need to provide diffs here as their contribution history is short enough, but let me know if it becomes necessary. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for WP:NOTHERE. Usually, diffs are always warranted, but a look through their edit history is enough for me. Some of those edits may need to be rev del'd at that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rangeblock for Hillingdon UK to stop the Frenchie vandal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

At Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Frenchie vandal you can see that some IP6 addresses from Hillingdon are being used by the vandal. I would like to see a rangeblock set for 2A02:C7D:14EC:9300:xxx if possible. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Note that these are all block-evading IPs, as Special:Contributions/79.78.129.41 is blocked for six months. Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Six-month hardblock for the /64 range.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Also noting the range contribs and that the earliest IP in that range began editing on March 10 here and that every single edit within that range since that time has been him which is why I chose the lengthy block time.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Excellent work. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please view Shady59's behavior at C. Ronaldo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could someone please view the behavior of user Shady59 at the page of C. Ronaldo. There has been a thorough discussion about a particular sentence in the article and the majority disagreed with him. Still he's trying to push his opinion by constantly reverting the changes that have been made. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Majority disagreed? When did that happen? The experienced users have the same opinion as me where as some relatively new accounts created during the start of the discussions are the ones who disagreed. Max Eisenhardt is trying to push his POV whereas others are stating as per citations. Shady59 (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, stop lying! We requested an RfC on the talk page and after 30 days by far the most people who commented on this issue thought it was completely inappropriate to refer to C.Ronaldo as 'the greatest footballer of all time'. You simply don't have any sources that state he's the greatest of all time. And stop accusing me of POV, while you're the one who's constantly trying to push his own POV agenda. Also, stop this nonsense about 'experienced' users'. It's simply about the arguments you give and the majority (which happens to include a lot of experienced users) don't agree with you. Stop vandalizing the page! Max Eisenhardt (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Most people who commented? Majority of experienced editors with around 100,000 edits agreed to keep the statement, whereas you & some new user accounts disagreed. I wouldn't even mind to go as far as thinking there could be sock puppets involved. Shady59 (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

This is laughable! The most experienced users? What the hell are you talking about? I'm not experienced enough so my opinion doesn't count? Also, there are plenty of experienced users who are against you and your POV, and you now this very well. We already summed them up at the talk page: 'the amount of users who are not in favor of the current introduction: scope_creep, Pincrete, Icewhiz, Collect, O'Flannery, Prayer for the wild at heart, Nabla, Erik0609 and myself. So stop this ridiculous behavior. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• I've full protected the article and removed the sentence to the talk page so the editors may work towards achieving consensus. This is still a content dispute and the edit-warring has been halted. Go work it out. No further admin action necessary at this time.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anybody around to do a quick range block?

Please see the history page of IP 99.53.112.186. A number of IPs within the same range are vandalizing this IP. I've blocked three. I think they are a government server in France. Anyway, they're targeting one IP. — Maile (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

They were initially targeting user:Lomita, but turned on me when I started to intervene. If you look at user:Lomita, you will see that this vandal has been around for at least a week. If you do a range block, there will be multiple ranges to cover. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I notice at User Lomita that actually left an edit summary with a profanity meant for you. Per admin below, would you like me to semi-protect your talk page? If so, how long? — Maile (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It's quite an extreme range block to perform, but possible (with 16 separate range blocks) at a real push, and not for any real length of time. It's about a million IP addresses - semi-protection seems the better option here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I do not want my talkpage semi-protected, otherwise, I could not edit it. However, I already added a semi-protection request for user talk:Lomita. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Whilst I appreciate that, if it's a choice of semi-protecting your talk page, a /12 range block, or expiry from extreme boredom, then your opinion will have been counted but your talk page is likely to be getting locked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I am okay if you can't do a range block, but I do not want my talkpage getting protected. I would rather put up with these socks targetting me than not be able to edit my own talkpage.99.53.112.186 (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I was looking at how weird the ranges are. I'm pretty sure the first one I opened showed the French government. Some of them now say it's the United States government. And one of them comes up rather international, the US government, the Canadian government, UK Parliament, and the Wimedia Foundation ... all rolled into a range for one IP 37.169.66.131. Spooky stuff. — Maile (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

That sounds suspiciously like the sensitive IP list. I figure all this range comes from Free Mobile, in France. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your action - --Lomita (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

User RexxS inserting himself into conflict and escalating an Edit War

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

RexxS has been entered into an edit war to retaliate against me for posting on a his friend's web page.

First some background:

From, back last January: "You can expect people you've had content disagreements with, like LynnWysong to be just as disruptive as they were last time." he apparently holds a grudge against me for my actions in Montanabw's last RfA.

And, when in my frustration over MBW's lack of any real effort to engage on the talk page of an article, I posted on her talk page for the first time in almost 18 months. Upon seeing this, RexxS went over to the article in question, one that he has never edited before, and reverted my edits. I went to his talk page, and [287] called him on it. Instead of responding to me there, he wiped off my post, and ran over to my talk page, and tried to justify his initiation of an edit war basically admitting that had done it to retaliate. I tried moving the discussion back to his talk page, but he just deleted it. I then asked him that, since he had made it clear that his only reason for reverting my edit was too retaliate, would he please reverse his reversion. He wiped that off his talk page, and came over to mine and accused me of trolling, at which point I told him that any more retaliatory edits would force me to bring the matter here.

I then let things cool off for several hours when I went back to the talk page, copied over my statements from MBW's talk page as she had requested, and reversed RexxS's reversion. Within two hours, he came back on, again reverted me accusing me of edit warring, and tried to make the case that the problematic paragraph I had identified earlier "was far superior". I replaced the problematic paragraph, telling him that, if he wanted to contribute constructively, he should address the issues I had brought up several weeks prior instead of escalating an edit war and possibly tag-teaming. He again reverted, and just repeated his statement that the paragraph "is superior" and accusing me of imposing my "own POV."

As I stated on my first (first ever!) post on RexxS's web page, the only time I interact with him is when he feels the need to defend MBW, an editor which I'm sure most people agree is capable of taking care of herself, when I am in conflict with her. The first time was here, when he felt the need to come on my talk page for the first time, to chide me for doing what he had invited me to do. I can only guess what his motives are in escalating this situation the way he is, but I ask that he be told to back off. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that RexxS violated the 3RR rule, his second reversion coming 13 hours after his first, and his third coming less than four hours after that. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Pedantic note—I have no horse (so to speak) in this race as I know nothing about horses and care less, but since RexxS has only ever edited the page three times then by definition it's impossible for him to have breached WP:3RR. ‑ Iridescent 12:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see that. Figured he would be smarter than that. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Another pedantic note: If you are reverted, you don't revert back (unless in a case of clear vandalism), but YOU use the talk page, please. WP:BRD is a smart guideline, meant to de-escalate. Be smart and follow it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Gerta for your input, but please read more carefully, especially before you make condescending statements telling me to "be smart". As I had stated, I was using the talk page, but, after several weeks, did not get a constructive response. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to point out, for all you BRD lovers out there, that I find that guideline to frequently abused, by editors that revert, then either disappear rather than engage, or if they do engage, do so in filibuster type manner just to try to get the other editor to give up and go away. So no, much of the time, following is NOT very smart. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Although, the basic dispute has been going on since 3 June, so to some extent, all concerned parties would appear to have been disappearing on and off without subsequent engagement. — fortunavelut luna 13:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

And why would I edit if I thought the article was okay? The other editor would come, revert, then leave. I would revert back, and finally after her next to last reversion, I took it to talk. But, this is not about what took place befor RexxS came on the scene. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

"The other editor would come, revert, then leave. I would revert back, and finally after her next to last reversion, I took it to talk." Seems to me, in passing, that the "taking it to talk" might profitably come a little earlier than that. No opinion on the rest of the dispute. -- Begoon 13:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe so, but in retrospect, the experience just reinforced my previous ones with BRD, which is why I'm not real quick to bother to go to talk. But, that's not at issue here. Please tell me what you think about what RexxS is doing. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

What Rexx is doing? "Reverting changes which have not gained consensus on the article talk page" is not going to get him a slap on the wrist while he abides by 3rr. Especially since other editors also disagree with your contributions. If you mean "going to an article he hasn't edited before after seeing a dispute on a page he watches" - that's also unlikely to get him more than a finger-wag. Part of the eventual dispute resolution process is seeking third opinions from elsewhere. Think of this as a short-cut. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to go back months into the article to try to show which changes did not have consensus-but I'm not accepting your interpretation of the situation that it was mine that didn't. So, trying to let him off the hook but twisting the situation like that is not going to fly. But the bottom line is, his behavior regardless is unacceptable-at least in a community that plays by grown-up rules, which, I would hope would be the case here, if not elsewhere on the project. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Well ultimately if you are not going to, no one else is either. From a quick skim of the last month of revisions on that article, its clear content has been disputed by multiple parties, of which Rexx is merely the latest to engage. Which means consensus is required on the talkpage. Complaining because someone *else* disagrees with you when they have neither broken or even bent Wikipedia policy is not going to go anywhere over a petty content dispute. Even a cursory glance of the above responses should indicate to you by now that Rexx is not likely to get sanctioned or even a formal warning. If your goal is meaningful resolution to the conflict, I suggest you to take it to the article talk page. If your goal is to remove one of the parties to the dispute, you will need far more evidence of disruption than you have provided so far. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not real quick to bother to go to talk. Lynn, you should probably reconsider that part of your approach. No opinion on the rest of the dispute. -- Begoon 15:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

(EC) If the other editor does not engage then BRD has worked not failed. You open a discussion, wait for the other editor to engage and when no one does so, you're fully entitled with the realms of BRD to revert back. If you've opened a discussion, you come out looking a lot better than if you did not do so. In fact, when you fail to do so because you think you tthink the other editor is not going to properly engage, you're basicallly guilty of WP:Assuming bad faith. All in all, it doesn't help your case in any way. Even if the editor actually reverts again without discussing, while this is not necessarily an excuse to revert back, it does generally mean you're heading towards the stage where you can legitimate ask for an edit warring block because the editor keeps making the change without discussion when you yourself have made attempts to discuss.

As for "filibustering" well first one persons filibuster is another person's fair discussion. More importantly, if a person is going to filibuster they're going to filibuster. By you actually opening the discussion you've demonstrated good faith and you can use some form of dispute resolution which is much more likely to be favourable to you when you've actually made a good attempt to discuss. OTOH if you get into a revert war, what's likely to happen is both of you will be blocked and no one will give a damn about the dispute because all they see are two idiots who don't know how to collobrate via discussion.

Finally, it's intrisic on both sides to discuss and yes this includes initiating a discussion. If you come to ANI to complain, no matter whether you may say it's about WP:Hounding or revenge or whatever, you've automatically harmed your case by failing to initiate discussion. Actually many of us automatically ignore most cases where someone comes to complain about another editor's behaviour but has not actually initiated discussion themselves.

In fact, it's even worse if it's a BRD type situation, and you reverted a second time rather than initating discussion and the other party then initiated discussion. Since while arguably a person should initiate discussion straight after reverting the first time (provided there seems to be a legitimate content dispute and not an error, vandalism etc), it's definitely clear that a person reverting a second time by themselves should initiate discussion generally before reversion. Since the behaviour of everyone involved may be inspected when you come to ANI, you should expect that your failings are going to harm your case, no matter if you feel, even if justifiably, that they are irrelevant. Let alone where they aren't actually irrelevant. Yes as I said earlier, it's still intrinsic on each party to initiate discussion, so both parties are going to come out looking bad if they keep reverting without discussion in a BRD type situation it comes down faster on the party in the B corner even if their failure to initiate discussion before reversion isn't generally a good reason to revert again before discussion has takenn place.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

So, what would you call refusing to address specific criticisms on a paragraph, instead just flippantly saying in one's opinion, "it's superior". Sounds like filibustering to me. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

But that is not the case here. I had initiated discussion weeks prior. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Please do not insert your comments into the middle of my sign comment, it's unnecessarily confusing. Incidentally, I have no real interest in discussing this further. I have particularly no interested in analysing the details of whether something is or isn't filibustering other than to say I think you've misunderstood my main point. Whether something is filibustering is often going to be disputed but even if there is unanimous agreement it is, there's also going to be almost unanimous agreement that this doesn't excuse someone failing to initiate discussion, especially since there is no way to reliably predict how the discussion will evolve. Also precisely what time this happened is mostly besides the point. BRD means bold, revert, discuss. So making a bold edit may be fine, but if someone reverts then you discuss. If you were bold and were reverted weeks prior then you should have discussed weeks prior before you reverted again weeks prior. The fact you failed to initiate a discussion before reverting again weeks prior is never going to come out in your favour even if you did later initiate a discussion after the second revert. (Actually initiating the discussion is a positive but it doesn't excuse the initial failure. And it's even less justifiable when your reason for failing to do so appears to be because of a poorly thought out rejection of BRD.) As I already said, I'm not particularly interest in he precise detaisl in time frames involved, I'm more concerned about your dismissive attitude towards BRD and have tried to emphasise why it's both harmful to wikipedia, and harmful to your editing for you to fail to observed it. Nil Einne (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Since I'm still fairly confused and can't be bothered clarifying the precise time frames involved, I'll emphasise another point I already made. If you initiate a discussion and receive no reply, after a while it's usually fair to reinstate the change with an appropriate edit summary (e.g. "No objections to talk page comments so assuming consensus"). But once someone has reverted the change again, having initiated the discussion and failing to receive a response isn't generally an excuse to straight away reinstate the change again. Instead you need to give time for the person to respond on the talk page and you then need to participate in the discussion. Yes it's annoying when you've waited and received no response but it's easily possible someone just missed the talk page discussion. In this sort of case you'll probably be perceived less harshly than if you had taken ages to initiate a discussion but it's still no excuse to keep trying to force the change through despite their being objections on the talk page. (And again this is regardless of how long it took these objections to come up.) Remember that WP:Consensus should always be the goal, and there are plenty of options for dispute resolution if you get stuck. And ultimately even if not viewed so harshly, the fact of the matter is trying to force through a change despite objections even if you've already waited and the objections only came after the first justifiable reintroduction is still not going to be seen positively, especially when you display a dismissive attitude towards BRD. Nil Einne (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Just as a quick comment, I haven't looked into the actual dispute. Also one thing I forgot to emphasise is it's easily possibly a person will quickly come round to your side during discussion. Ideally revert wars shouldn't actually harm that, but in reality human nature likely means in some cases if you only get around to making your points after the person has gotten annoyed with you for continuing to revert, they're going to be less willing to come round to your POV. In other words, BRD is recommended for good reason. By failing to observe it, very often you're harming your goal, not helping it. This is a colloborate project which means discussion is a key part of participating. Nil Einne (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

From my perspective, when LynnWysong posts complaints about content issues on another editor's talk page, then she really ought to expect talk page watchers to notice, especially when she announces "I am reverting back". That piqued my interest and I looked at the current state of the article and its talk page, where LynnWysong had not replied to the points made by Montanabw (whose talk page she had posted on). She has now gutted the introduction in the first paragraph of the section Free-roaming horse management in North America #Land use controversies four times [288], [289], [290], [291] against the objections of both Montanabw and myself (although only the last three were within 24 hours). This kind of battle-field mentality and forcible change through edit-warring ought not to be rewarded. I have consistently asked LynnWysong to engage on the talk page to seek some kind of consensus, with little success. From her comments there, it seems to me that her stance on the article is "my way or the highway", and I'm not at all keen to see that gain sway as a means for article change. --RexxS (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

On what planet would one have to live to think that I was not engaging on the talk page????? I wrote a specific set of criticisms of the material I reverted on July 9, only to be reverted three weeks later with vague implications of POV pushing and edit warring. I referred you to those criticisms, which you ignored. The points you are saying were made by Montanabw were made by ME! Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Gerda Arendt: and @LynnWysong: (pinging LynnWysong second because they may merely have been misled by earlier comments in this discussion) please take note of the fact that, contrary to your comments above, WP:BRD is just as much not a guideline as WP:CIR is not. Please avoid referring to it as such, in order to avoid confusion. MPS1992 (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Sorry to confuse you, and to concern you with my dismissive attitude towards BRD. But it is not a guideline, merely a suggestion. When it works, great. When it doesn't work, it shouldn't be used to hammer someone. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: And, just a polite suggestion, when you are making a multipoint criticism of someone, maybe you should sign after each paragraph. Makes it much easier for someone to defend themselves. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for my sloppy way of using the term "guideline" in a broader sense: I mean it as a good model for behaviour that prevents escalation. I live well on a voluntary 1RR, sometimes even stick to 0RR, and can recommend to try it: when you are reverted, don't change the article but go to the talk page and find consensus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

One of the reasons I don't like BRD is because reverting is basically a hostile act, especially after someone is told to be bold. Much more collaborative to ping the editor first, and tell them you have problems with their edits. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

"reverting is basically a hostile act". That's an attitude you'll want to drop if you want to avoid disputes like these in the future. Cjhard (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The opinion is shared by most people on wikipedia, so you should take it on board if you want to survive here. Nil Einne (talk) 04:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@LynnWysong: The first revert is a hostile act only if you choose to see it that way. I choose to see the first revert as (by far) the easiest way to say "I dispute this edit, and here's why in 25 words or less." It also (1) removes the disputed edit immediately, instead of waiting perhaps days or weeks for a consensus to be reached, which is a good thing, and (2) conveniently sends the other editor a notification of the challenge (if they are a registered user editing logged in). Editors who view things this way work quite nicely together. It could be said that your position on this violates WP:AGF, since you would incorrectly assume that my routine first revert is hostile to you.
As to especially after someone is told to be bold, you might want to actually read WP:BOLD beyond its title. The second paragraph begins with "Don't be upset if your bold edits get reverted." It even boldfaces that so you won't miss it.
(No need to thank me for my opinion.) ―Mandruss ☎ 06:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

As said before, I can't be bothered responding to anything else but this suggestion is simple enough. The answer of course is there's no reason to do so. Just respond after my signed comment like everyone else does. My comments were intended to be read as a whole and explicitly not divided into parts. It should be fairly obvious what you are responding to if you comment is clear and in those few cases where it's not you're free to quote a small part of my comment. Nil Einne (talk) 05:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

BTW since I read one of your other responses to me, I'd note you seem to be concentrating way too much on flawed wikilawyering about the words. The point about BRD is if often works. When it doesn't you haven't made things worse by following it. Failing to follow it however very often makes things worse for everyone involved. Even if you don't care about anyone else which is a very bad attitude to have on wikipedia, you should care that as this case has amply demonstrated, your failure to follow it significantly harms any complaint you have. And yes this applies even if it's a legitimate one.

The point about BRD is that while it should nearly always be followed, it's often not helpful to take action (whether against the editor or in the article) because someone didn't follow it, it just makes things worse. There's no enforcement mechanism and rightly so and it's already supported by existing policies and guidelines.

But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be followed or that the person failing to follow it isn't harming wikipedia or their own case. Note as the page says, it's neither a guideline nor a policy but rather an explanatory supplement to how things work, see also the linked Wikipedia:Project namespace#How-to and information pages. In other words, there's nothing about it which means it's something that should beignored because you don't like it and it's explicitly not a mere suggestion. Treating it as such is likely to significantly harm your career here on wikipedia.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

So, basically

As it finally comes out here, @RexxS: read my comment on Montanabw's talk page, came over the article talk page, and through careless reading of the talk page, assumed that Montanabw had made the points that I had made, and to which in three weeks she had not responded to but simply reverted my edits and made a quick response implying that the issues were with my POV and sourcing issues (Yeah, right, BRD just works great). He then took up "her" cause, thinking that it was I, not her, that was gutting the lead paragraph, and kept reverting to the "gutted" version, saying it was the "superior" version. This is what happens when people just jump in is situations in which they have no history to defend their "friend", and really don't care enough to be sure that said friend is in the right. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

No, basically

It certainly does come out, LynnWysong, but in your haste to battle, you never bothered to read properly, did you? I never said anything about the lead. My complaint is about you gutting the first paragraph of the Free-roaming horse management in North America #Land use controversies section as anyone can verify by reading my comment above, and my comment on the talk page: "The section on Land use controversies contains several themes: how free-roaming horses are viewed by the interested parties; the nature and extent of problems arising; and how management might solve those problems. I believe that the version with six paragraphs has a far superior introduction, which sets the scene for the rest of the section and the themes it encompasses. Without that introduction, the alternate, shorter, three-paragraph version seems to me to flit from one idea to another in a less structured way, which is confusing for the reader. I see no reason for an edit war to force one editor's preferred version over one that is easier to comprehend." (RexxS) Here are the four diffs again of you removing that content: [292], [293], [294], [295]. You have made no attempt to address either Montanabw's comments nor mine, beyond your misreading of the point I made: "I disgree the lead paragraph is far superior, for the reasons I gave above. I've replaced it." (LynnWysong). And that sums up your behaviour. You didn't bother to properly read what I wrote; you jumped to a mistaken conclusion, and decided that you knew best, so reverted back to your preferred version of the article as your natural reaction. You're an edit-warrior who is disappointed at not getting your own way, and are now trying to smear all of the folks who don't agree with you. Perhaps it's time you read WP:BOOMERANG? --RexxS (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Um, could you please tell me what Montanabw's comments are? Oh - and I concede to your minor point. You did say "introduction in the first paragraph of the section Free-roaming horse management in North America #Land use controversies " and I replaced it with "lead", but <edit> obviously <end edit> meaning the same paragraph <edit> since that is the one I replaced <end edit>. Now, just what were Montanabw's comments? Please copy and paste them here. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@RexxS: I forgot to ping you on my last question. And, since I don't want to keep everyone in suspense, here's a dif to Montanabw's only edit to the talk page since 2015: [296] The one I responded to on her talk page. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Trout or Boomerang to the OP; someone please close this as completely non-actionable

There's nothing actionable here. No 3RR was breached. This is so far some sort of content dispute that was inappropriately discussed on a usertalk page and someone else saw it. There's no evidence of longterm behavioral problem in the reported editor. Please keep all content discussions on article talk and nowhere else. Utilize WP:DR and/or WP:ANEW as necessary. Trout or boomerang the OP for wasting everyone's time over a single run-of-the-mill everyday occurrence; no breach of policy. Softlavender (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Late to the party here, but in a nutshell, I am really appalled that LynnWysong (SLW) has chosen to go after RexxS, who is well-respected across Wikipedia for his level head and insightful commentary. I can state unequivocally that I did not ask RexxS to look into this particular article nor to intervene on my behalf. SLW brought this one upon herself by posting an attack at my talkpage, and in doing so alerted my 300-and-some talk page watchers to the issue. I agree with Softlavender that the complaint here should be closed. RexxS did nothing wrong, and in fact attempted to bring the article in question into compliance with WP:NPOV policy. Montanabw^(talk) 04:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support boomerang to the OP if they don't drop this soon. Nil Einne (talk) 04:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support trout - I suggest that the OP DROPTHESTICK, because her BATTLEFIELD attitude is showing and is likely to lead to something more serious than a trout if she keeps it up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support boomerang - This editor has all the hallmarks of a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude: their incivility, complete failure to assume good faith as demonstrated by this over the top reaction to an innocent and common phrase [297], their attitude to reversions, their constant unsubstantiated claims of wrongdoing, and their POV-pushing edit warring on Free-roaming horse management in North America [298]. This behaviour must be adjusted or prevented. Cjhard (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SPECIFICO at Louise Mensch

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

NB: Some users are complaining about the length of this request. However, the crux of my argument is contained in just two of the five paragraphs that follow, namely paragraphs 2 and 3. If you're short on time, just read those two.

At Louise Mensch, SPECIFICO has spent the last several months edit warring; engaging in personal attacks; misrepresenting sources; and displaying serious WP:OWN, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior. Some form of admin intervention, such as a topic ban, is long overdue. For those unfamiliar with Mensch, she is a former British MP who has seized on the public's anxiety over Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections to accuse literally hundreds of politicians, journalists, and media figures—from Matt Taibbi to Bernie Sanders—of being Russian "agents of influence." She is also a fixture on Snopes.com for propagating fake news including that France covered up torture at the Bataclan and that Russia funded the Ferguson protests. However, SPECIFICO has racked up many dozens of reverts to purge Mensch's article of reliably sourced criticism, all of which, she insists, violates WP:BLP in some unspecified way. Here is a partial list of SPECIFICO's reverts:

• [299]
• [300]
• [301]
• [302]
• [303]
• [304]
• [305]
• [306]
• [307]
• [308]
• [309]
• [310]
• [311]
• [312]
• [313]
• [314]
• [315]
• [316]
• [317]
• [318]
• [319]
• [320]
• [321]
• [322]
• [323]
• [324]
• [325]
• [326]
• [327]
• [328]
• [329]
• [330]
• [331]

A careful analysis of SPECIFICO's edits raises serious concerns about her approach to engaging with other editors. Many of her edit summaries appear to consist of mere repetitions of policy acronyms, such as "BLP Smear weasel," "BLP violation. Weasel, defamation," and "SYN UNDUE BLP vio." She frequently misapplies policy, for example when she asserts that "IBT and Daily Beast are not RS for controversial for extraordinary claims. See RSN discussions of both. Please find coverage in RS," referring to the International Business Times and The Daily Beast. As Guccisamsclub noted, SPECIFICO's invocation of WP:EXCEPTIONAL was invalid: "not WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims; these are her public statements." In addition to the IBT and The Daily Beast, she flippantly dismisses sources as diverse as The Intercept and The New Republic as "Not RS" and "poorly sourced." On the talk page, SPECIFICO responds with trolling, one-word retorts like "fail," or outright denial that other editors actually mean what they say: "Sweetheart, I know you don't respect Taibbi anywhere near enough to cite his opinion as a noteworthy fact relating to Ms. Mensch." As that last comment suggests, SPECIFICO has launched a sustained series of WP:BLP violations and personal attacks against Mensch critic Matt Taibbi, who she states "is a marginal source in a fringey publication ... (with) no standing as a 'russia expert' among the literate and well-informed public." In between the odd disclaimer ("I have no opinion of him"), she has further opined: "I'd hardly call Taibbi a 'journalist'"; "He is not widely respected as a journalist"; "Of course Taibbi's editors at The NY Press did not turn out to be 'astute' enough when they fired him over his infamous humour piece on the Death of the Pope. I think however that the comparison of Taibbi to Joe McCarthy is unwarranted" (SPECIFICO was the first and only one to make such a comparison); and "by his own admission he is erratic and sometimes irresponsible and unduly dramatic" (SPECIFICO provides no source for these characterizations). During a BLP/N discussion in which her WP:BLP concerns were widely dismissed as unfounded, SPECIFICO often ignores what is being said and goes off on tangents such as "She (Mensch) appears to enjoy being provocative and will not apologize for being an assertive and flamboyant 21st-century female. In my experience, many such women's BLPs suffer the same sorts of issues that I found in this article." (SPECIFICO has an established pattern of bringing her gender into her Wikipedia disputes; see, for example, her personal attacks on Darouet and Thucydides411; she said the former was "outright misogynist" and told the latter: "Thanks for the mansplaining, kind sir. IMO, you have some gender education in your future. I hope it's not too painful." As NeilN will attest, SPECIFICO was the only one making gendered remarks during that exchange.) Through it all, SPECIFICO is impossible to nail down; she constantly alludes to a "broader analysis of (Mensch's) writing," and "increasing numbers of balanced RS discussions" with a more favorable view of Mensch, but, when directly asked for her sources (e.g., "As for the 'many RS discussions' that you say you would prefer to use, could you link to some of them?"; "Anyway, could you actually try to be constructive for once and point out, as suggested, which of these numerous pieces that include more balanced coverage you think would be useful here instead?"), she flat-out refuses, offering only cryptic non sequiturs in the vein of "It's all about sourcing and what the RS actually say, not the connections or inferences we make or lead readers to make" or just "don't make goofy edit comments. It's a policy violation on this project. Thx." (There is one exception, The Oregonian, which I shall return to in a moment.)

On several occasions, SPECIFICO has not merely been content to dismiss well-sourced material with a poorly-chosen acronym; rather, she has actively introduced errors into the article. Sometimes these errors are petty, like when she changed the description of Mensch's ex-husband from a "property speculator" to a "real estate developer," misrepresenting the cited source, which refers to him only as a "a 39 year-old property speculator of Italian origin." (Perhaps more interesting is her initial attempt to pass off this change as a "Copyedit (minor)"; after Guccisamsclub pointed out "The SOURCE calls him a speculator," she "remove(d) 'speculator' smear.") Far more serious, however, is SPECIFICO promoting Mensch's dubious allegations about a FISA warrant on Trump Tower in Wikipedia's voice: "The existence of a FISA Warrant was later confirmed in reports by the BBC, the Washington Post and other media." SPECIFICO's "source" is this article in The New York Times, about a wiretap on Carter Page that had been revealed by The Washington Post; the source says nothing about Trump Tower and does not contain even a single passing mention of Mensch, much less declare her reportage "confirmed." Yet, in her edit summary, SPECIFICO actually accuses N-HH of violating WP:SYNTH!: "Remove SYNTH defamatory and unsourced BLP smear falsely stating that US media did not confirm Mensch's scoop regarding FISA Warrant." For the record, here is what the Post's resident fact-checker, Glenn Kessler, has to say on this topic: "Interestingly, as far as we can tell, only two other reports have touched on this FISA claim, and they also have British connections. One is a report in the BBC from January, which the White House cited as a source. ... Separately, McClatchy, in a January article mostly focused on whether money from the Kremlin covertly aided Trump’s campaign, reported one source had confirmed 'the FBI had obtained a warrant on Oct. 15 from the highly secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court allowing investigators access to bank records and other documents about potential payments and money transfers related to Russia.' This echoed the BBC report, but is much different than the Heat Street (Mensch) account." N-HH's summary—"The existence of a FISA order was later separately reported by some other media, but American media outlets have not corroborated the details of the claims made in the Heat Street report"—was therefore not WP:SYNTH—let alone a "defamatory and unsourced (sic) BLP smear"—but a carefully measured restatement of the facts outlined by Kessler. N-HH tried to explain "Er, as explained 5x now, this is not my 'SYNTH' but precisely what the Washington Post analysis says. The NYT piece is about a different FISA warrant," but SPECIFICO would have none of it, reverting again with the summary "remove unsourced SYNTH blp smear many American mecia (sic)." Likewise, SPECIFICO cited two articles from The Oregonian as supposedly drawing a sharp disctinction between Mensch's "true reports and not-confirmed reports," complete with genuine WP:WEASEL wording about unspecified "additional revelations ... that were later confirmed," but her summary bears little resemblance to the articles in question, which describe Mensch, e.g., as an "aggressive conspiracy theorist." When N-HH confronted SPECIFICO about her (mis)use of this local newspaper, stating "I don't think it's unfair to say that you were cherry-picking sources and cherry-picking the content from them in order to suggest in WP's voice that (Mensch) is having lots of her precise claims confirmed," SPECIFICO made the truly astonishing claim that "You may not be familiar with the American journalism sphere, but let me assure you that the Oregonian is a higher journalistic stature than either the New Republic or the Guardian."

SPECIFICO has previously been topic banned from the Ludwig von Mises Institute (and then Austrian School, because she violated the narrower ban) for similar behavior to what I have outlined here, including BLP violations under the guise of mere copy edits; Netoholic compiled an authoritative list of SPECIFICO's "Lack of editorial balance" and "Insertion of errors into articles" here. Many of Netoholic's observations could just as easily apply to the conduct before us today: See, e.g., "Looking just at the month of May 2014 (which comes after his ArbCom decision), he [SPECIFICO] made 77 article edits from May 1-30. Looking at that the red in that list of edits should make it apparent that he is mostly preoccupied with removal [of] information, and that indicates an unbalanced approach to editing. In none of these edits did he locate an original reliable source and add the citation to Wikipedia. ... Not only is his style confrontational, and his edits contentious and based on personal opinion without reliable sourcing, but even when sources are provided, he inserts errors into the articles." Indeed, a quick glance at the revision history shows that nearly all of SPECIFICO's 68 edits to Louise Mensch involve her removing content added by other users, much of it impeccably sourced.

In my view, as with Austrian School, SPECIFICO has conclusively demonstrated that she is unable to edit constructively on the topic of Louise Mensch; a new topic ban is in order. If anything, SPECIFICO's antics have flown under the radar for far too long because she is not more overtly uncivil and generally refrains from violating 3RR, but it's hard to see how anyone could study her actions at Louise Mensch and come to any conclusion other than that she has been a net drain to the encyclopedia.

To get a better sense of the magnitude of the problem, what follows are choice excerpts from months of attempting to reason with SPECIFICO at Talk:Louise Mensch and the aforementioned BLP/N entry:

From Talk:

"So cite the sources and change the language. Jeez."—Guccisamsclub, 20:51, 26 March 2017; "I am under no obligation to delete well-sourced, notable and uncontroversial material. This material consists of Mensch's own statements, as quoted by numerous RS, which invariably and explicitly characterize them as conspiracy theories. No sane person, never mind a reliable source, has disputed this characterization."—Guccisamsclub, 08:24, 27 March 2017; "Just because you called them 'BLP smear violations' does not mean they are. You've already had ample time to 'dispute' the content. Have you have disputed that these are — as the sources say — 'conspiracy theories'? No. Or have you disputed that Mensch actually said those things? No. Have argued that the sources are being misquoted? No. Have you tried to explain why this content might theoretically be contentious? No. Here's what you have done: you have deleted sourced content with a false edit summary; threatened me with DS and then refused to explain why; cried BLP without bringing up a single specific source or claim. None of these are valid ways of challenging sourced content."—Guccisamsclub, 15:13, 27 March 2017; "It should be mentioned that SPECIFICO has fought about this endlessly, both here and on BLPN. Since the material consists entirely of Mensch's own statements as quoted in RS, her concerns got absolutely no traction. But she still keeps trying to delete the content she doesn't like, after the consensus ruled against her. This amounts to vandalism."—Guccisamsclub, 10:44, 18 April 2017. "The content in question is not denigrating. It simply documents, in a perfectly reliable source, what she is on record (and it seems not at all ashamed of) openly doing. What 'smears' are involved exactly? I'd accept that there would be a problem if we were simply citing empty critical commentary on Mensch – eg comments describing her as a shill or whatever – but this is not what the content consists of. There are no BLP concerns. Your frankly bizarre comment about Taibbi 'hardly' being a journalist skirt closer to a problem in that regard."—N-HH, 06:24, 18 April 2017; "I'm not sure why you're still going on about 'smears' and 'opinions'. As has been pointed out several times now, the material taken from the Taibbi piece is not his commentary, but an account of Mensch's own comments, explicitly cited and referenced to her own writings by Taibbi. This really isn't a complicated or obscure distinction, generally speaking or in this case."—N-HH, 17:48, 18 April 2017; "Journalists writing for mainstream publications are, in fact, prima facie reliable sources for WP purposes, and you've shown nothing to disprove that assumption in his case."—N-HH, 21:02, 18 April 2017; "How is citing Mensch's own claims, and a secondary-source debunking of them, a 'BLP' violation or smear? Please stop just flinging these accusations around about every bit of content you want excluded for whatever reason."—N-HH, 09:49, 7 June 2017; "'Cherry-picking' only applies as a problem when there are lots of other texts that say something radically different about her. Are there? As for the 'many RS discussions' that you say you would prefer to use, could you link to some of them?"—N-HH, 08:30, 1 August 2017; "Anyway, could you actually try to be constructive for once and point out, as suggested, which of these numerous pieces that include more balanced coverage you think would be useful here instead? Literally every contribution of yours on this page consists of you saying 'I'm right, I'm not going to discuss it other than in meaningless general terms, this material is in or out depending on whether I say I want it here or not'."—N-HH, 11:18, 1 August 2017; "Now, for the third time, which more balanced sources out there do you think we are missing out on here, which could be used for content and which would also clarify whether this one is an outlier?"—N-HH, 13:52, 1 August 2017; "Talk page stonewalling and literally ignoring simple requests actually intended to help you get the perspective you say is missing from the page don't help WP much either."—N-HH, 15:18, 1 August 2017. "While articles should not denigrate people, they should present them as they are perceived in reliable sources. Mensch has made claims that go beyond what the mainstream media has found credible and characterizes Trump and others in an extemely negative light again, even by the standards of mainstream media. Readers should know that."—The Four Deuces, 14:08, 18 April 2017; "I think the current wording provides her with a credibility that reliable sources do not. They say that she routinely writes conspiracy theories, but in one instance was right. Even a blind pig sometimes finds truffles, as one source says. (Don't worry if that metaphor bothers your.) She's basically similar to other right-wing journalists, even working for the Murdoch press, except she doesn't like Trump. That's no reason to give her a free pass."—TFD, 17:31, 17 May 2017; "This is the same Heat Street that spread Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy theories while run by Mensch. Over on that article you are calling it propaganda, while here you are defending the same sort of theory."—TFD, 22:20, 6 June 2017.

From BLP/N:

"I haven't been involved in this article but examining the talk page I'd ask why you brought this here instead of responding to this comment, addressed to you ... Wherever it's discussed you'll have to identify which specific claims you believe to be BLP violations and why."—James J. Lambden, 22:14, 27 March 2017. "Can you explain why you've removed sections sourced to articles by, or interviews with, Mensch herself in reliable sources? If there's one reliable source for people's views, it's their own words.—Black Kite, 22:29, 27 March 2017. "The Independent is hardly some random website, but more importantly their story quite literally has a video of Mensch on the BBC saying exactly what they claim. I dunno that one can get much more reliable than being able to watch her express precisely the views ascribed to her, and it's hard to claim it's UNDUE to repeat something she was willing to go on national television and say. Are the rest of these 'extraordinary claims' going to turn out to be just as evidently true?"—Pinkbeast, 02:37, 28 March 2017; "You're also straying a bit off the BLPN topic here. The burning issue for BLPs is, is it _true_? There's no doubt about that. What you're now arguing is an ordinary content dispute (where the other editors who have commented seem to agree the material should be included)."—Pinkbeast, 12:42, 31 March 2017; "Leave it in. As said above, the idea that there are BLP violations here is one that SPECIFICO has come up with (no matter how many other users agree there isn't)."—Pinkbeast, 01:32, 6 April 2017. "While your at it, you may want to consider that a BLP exception to edit warring is pretty clearly not a justification when the edit war concerns fairly minor grammatical changes of comparatively little consequence. There's nothing in this thread as far as I can tell to the effect that the difference between 'promote' and 'put forth' is of earth-shattering BLP importance."—Timothyjosephwood, 19:14, 3 April 2017; "Oh Christ. Get off it. Go open an RfC maybe. And how about we close this, and stop trying to discuss the article in so many different places no one can follow what's going on."—Timothyjosephwood, 15:21, 5 April 2017. "Specifico, in the Andrew Neil interview she does say that she believes that murder allegation. She tweeted it, and she stands by it as a belief."—SlimVirgin, 23:07, 2 April 2017; "As for 'promoting' versus 'putting forth' [conspiracy theories], there's barely a difference, but she is (as I understand it) the original source not simply a promoter, so 'putting forth' is more accurate. And it's not her political commentary that is being criticized, it's her, so 'Mensch has been criticized for putting forth ...'."—SlimVirgin, 00:32, 5 April 2017. "You have not cited single source: not in the article, not on the talk page, not anywhere. Stop wasting people's time. Seriously."—Guccisamsclub, 21:24, 28 March 2017; "What did you honestly expect with this edit? Your vague and perpetually shifting 'concerns' are completely without merit, a fact that's been pointed out to you over and over and over again. You routinely delete factual and uncontroversial content with edit summaries like 'removed BLP smear', suggesting that you either don't know what a 'smear' is or that you don't care."—Guccisamsclub, 01:49, 31 March 2017; "This is getting annoying. On what planet are Independent and the BBC 'weak'? On what planet is a brief mention (literally a sentence fragment) [of] the subject's own words, covered in numerous RS (on top of the BBC and Independent, if you can be bothered to read any of them) 'UNDUE'? This is one of the more salient bits in the whole bio. If this is 'undue', so is everything else in the article. Your complaint is utterly baseless and has gotten absolutely no traction, so just drop the WP:STICK will you."—Guccisamsclub, 13:28, 5 April 2017. cf. SPECIFICO's smearing of Andrew Neil, who had the temerity to ask Mensch hard interview questions: "I think that Neil had her on his show for the purpose of disparaging her. And Neil's reputation for that kind of BLP-noncompliant infotainment is pretty well established."

Enough is enough.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

• I support banning SPECIFICO from any further edits relating to Louise Mensch.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Umm... 1) I've managed to stay away from ANI for a little while now, and its been great... and 2) if you expect anyone to read through that grotesque wall of text you are kidding yourself. I'm sure as hell not. TimothyJosephWood 01:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • If you'd rather stay away from ANI, stay away from ANI. ANI is still an unfortunate necessity when dealing with subtle long-term abuse, particularly of the sort that requires copious documentation to establish.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @TheTimesAreAChanging: TJW has a point. Just look at it in your browser. It's unreadable. You'd get a lot more traction here if you cut and reformatted it to something that could be easily read. GoldenRing (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I see a total of 5-6 edits in the last 2 months. None of them seem to be consecutive, or otherwise indicative of "edit warring" (except the most recent involving TheTimesAreAChanging). Am I missing something? DN (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Darknipples and TimothyJosephWood. This looks like some sort of heavyhanded railroading in order to eliminate or silence an editor one has a generalized content dispute with. The proper venue for content disputes, broad or specific, is some form on WP:DR (breaking each item down into a separate issue). Particularly since the editor in question has made no more than six edits to the article in the past two months. Trout and possible boomerang to the OP. Softlavender (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, TTAAC's conduct is even more problematic than that. He was topic banned from American Politcs at Arbcom Enforcement under ARBAP2. He socked briefly to evade his TBAN and was blocked for that. He then sat out the minimum time for his TBAN. He wrote what we now know was at best a misleading email to @Sandstein: [332]] promising good behavior and disclaiming much interest in resuming POV disruption at American Politics articles. He immediately became active in several American Politics-related articles, introducing POV content that other editors removed. Louise Mensch, the article he cites in this complaint, is a BLP about a controversial figure in the American Politics and matters relating to the Russian interference in the 2016 election. It thus relates to two areas under ARBCOM restrictions. SPECIFICO talk 04:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

P.S. The staggering wall of what he thinks is evidence against me suggests some kind of obsessive fixation. He was warned about this previously when an editor, I forget who, discovered TTAC's creepy diary about me on his Sandbox here [333]. SPECIFICO talk 04:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose and suggest boomerang action be considered. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • To expand on this after a reference to "one sentence votes" below: SPECIFICO removing the claim in this diff [334] is clearly the correct thing to do, no matter how many times he must do it. I also agree with SPECIFICO in the most recent dispute. WIthout a more concise case, there is definitely no reason to sanction SPECIFICO. Power~enwiki (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, but support both BOOMERANG restoration of TTAAC's topic ban and deletion of TTAAC's sandbox -- my understanding is that pages such as that are allowed for only a limited duration while a complaint is being prepared. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've actually observed some battleground behaviour from Specifico in the past in RfCs I've been bot summoned into for articles in the vein of American national politics. So when I saw that list of diffs, I thought I was about thumb through a huge blow-up at some Trump/DNC/what-have-you related article. But as I opened diff after diff I found instead...nothing particularly worth noting. Certainly nothing outright disruptive or sanctionable. This is before I even realized what lay bellow the diffs. Holy moly. There are walls of text and then there is that. But I've seen ugly situations in the past on this project that would have required multiple long paragraphs to explain, so I gave TheTimesTheyAreAChanging the benefit of the doubt and dug in. I still found nothing remotely worth this degree of obsessive chronicling of another editors behaviour. If there are signs of problem editing on SPECIFICO's part (that rise to the level of needing community action) anywhere in that report, said signs have been completely obscured by the yawning shadow of that wall of text. I would not be surprised if there's some WP:edit warring going on here, but clearly the report itself is more disruptive than anything Specifico has done to encourage this feud. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Also Oppose a WP:BOOMERANG for TTTAAC: Hmmm, alright, so I've looked through the talk page in question, as well as the the revision history of the article itself, checking out a couple dozen edits going back to the beginning of June. There are indeed problematic behaviours on both sides. Specifico has dominated almost every thread on the talk page with posts, despite being outnumbered in the consensus discussions of most of the issues being discussed there. Looking at the revision history over the same period, there are certain editors who specifico seems to have reverted on almost every occasion they contributed to the article in the last two months (the same editors, by and large, that Specifico is locked in debate with on the talk page--and for almost every revert, Specifico uses the phrase 'BLP smear' or something similar, which feels talismanic to me.). Then there's the BLPN discussion, where most of the uninvolved editors who commented seemed to have issues with Specifico's WP:WEIGHT stances.

All told, this isn't as one-sided as I at first thought, from TTTAAC's fumbling approach here. There's definitely entrenched positions on both sides, that have given way to outright tendentiousness. However, I still oppose any sanction here. This battleground is clearly characterized by two sides, and there is just no recovering a decent argument for calling out Specifico in this report. But given the degree of acrimony on that page, I oppose sanctions against both parties here. Instead, these two need to be trouted like no trouting that has come before and then sent back to the talk page with a mandate to RfC/DR the content matters. Which is clearly what they should have done two months ago. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Too many T's, twice. It's only a close approximation of the Dylan title. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Yep, noticed that soon as I started to write the next message below! Woops! Just save me the embrassment and courtesy edit that crap away next time. ;) Snow ^{let's rap} 07:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Nah. Somebody else would revert me per TPG. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

You know, that is at once the funniest and truest thing you could have said there. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Not sure how I got tagged on this one, but - I spotted SPECIFICO's original complaint about Louise Mensch on BLPN when I happened to be watching it; specifically, as far as I could make out, a complaint that people were editing silly things she'd said very publicly into the article just because she happened to have said them. The later history on the article and their contribs elsewhere doesn't inspire any more confidence in SPECIFICO. Whatever TTAAC has been up to, if Mensch becomes notable for saying ridiculous things and SPECIFICO can be relied upon to elide them from the article and write hagiography about her, SPECIFICO's editing could use attention - which is not the same as saying it merits a ban, but they're grinding a big axe and most of their editing is grinding that axe. Pinkbeast (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

To respond to that: Every silly or apparently/presumably inaccurate or controversial tweet doesn't belong in a BLP, any more than every silly or apparently/presumably inaccurate or controversial tweet that Donald Trump writes belongs in his article. These things are applicable to a BLP only if the particular tweet or statement has had repeated mention and extensive commentary in a number of neutral reliable mainstream news sources. Otherwise they are BLP violations. That's the problem with Twitter: a public figure's tweet can garner a lot of ridicule or controversy in various quarters, but all of that is irrelevant unless multiple neutral reliable mainstream news sources have specifically covered it in depth. During this election cycle and beyond, mentioning people's tweets on Wikipedia has become a major problem. Tweets are trivia unless they generate sufficient noteworthiness from unbiased sources. Softlavender (talk) 09:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I think we need a policy citation for that rather remarkable statement. I think you are confusing WP:BLP with the WP:GNG. What the policy says is that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation, and that primary sources may be usable where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source. Note in both cases the singular indefinite article. Wither this talk of "extensive commentary in a number of neutral reliable mainstream news sources"? GoldenRing (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

"Tweets are trivia unless they generate sufficient noteworthiness from unbiased sources". True, but her tweets *have* generated a lot of coverage. What SPECIFICO has been trying to remove is accounts by secondary sources of her tweeting, fraudulently citing BLP, while also happily approving selective and WP:SYNTH accounts of her supposed genius. And they have edit-warred and bogged down the talk page to make sure that all happens. N-HH talk/edits 10:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I haven't read the material that's being inserted or reverted, but we've run into this problem on various other BLPs. To take Donald Trump as an example, he has tweeted thousands of crazy comments, but they don't all belong in his BLP, even if one reliable source comments on any given tweet. Since tweets are by nature highly numerous, short, offhand, and relatively trivial and ephemeral, there has to be a strict sense of editorial responsibility which excludes any sort of partisanship or polarization of sensationalism in sources (and God knows Mensch is polarizing, from what I've seen). We have to stick to sane neutral sources and measure the weight and importance of coverage. If she offhandedly tweets something wild but no source on the level of WaPo covers it in depth, so what; that's the same as Trump. If (for example) her list of possible Russian agents/collaborators is covered by a source on the level of WaPo, then OK, especially if two or more sources on the level of WaPo cover it. But otherwise, her article and Trump's (and dozens of other BLPs) would be drowning in tweet mentions. Softlavender (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you've said that and I agreed with it. I also pointed out already why it's the exact opposite of the point at issue here, and that we do have secondary source coverage, so I'm not sure what expanding on it is achieving. Perhaps you should have "read the material" first? N-HH talk/edits 10:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, by virtue of his business interests, being President of the USA, alleged corruption, etc., Trump has a great deal of notability beyond his bizarre tweets. In Britain, of course, we know Mensch for a variety of reasons, but I get the impression she is gaining notability in the USA primarily as an originator of ridiculous conspiracy theories. If that is that case, it is far more appropriate to include those ridiculous conspiracy theories in the page, even if they were tweeted. (Yeah, I know, this is about page content, but the only context I have for SPECIFICO's conduct is this page's content...) Pinkbeast (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Leaning to support here. The complaint is indeed almost unreadable but that's down to formatting (sort of bizarrely, I first read it in diff form, which is actually easier - something of an achievement, that). Reading through the diffs supplied, there is clearly some WP:CRYBLP going on here. It does vary somewhat: some of the reversions are removing negative material that is clearly sourced to non-RSes; some of it is removing well-sourced material that is negative to the subject; some of it is removing primary-sourced (and frankly bizarre) things the subject has undoubtedly said; some of it is adding in positive material not supported by the sources; and some of it is removing well-sourced material on downright false pretences. What pretty well every edit SPECIFICO has made to that article over the period the diffs cover has in common is that it's positive to the subject and in my view it amounts to POV-pushing. GoldenRing (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I'm generally opposed to banning people after a pile-on at ANI, but SPECIFICO's conduct on that page over months has been utterly disruptive and unhelpful. They remove anything they don't like, and insert anything they do like, citing various policies ("that's a BLP violation; that's not NPOV") while wilfully disregarding what those policies actually say or mean. They have literally bogged down the talk page with non-sequiturs and bizarre claims about what sources are supposedly OK or not and what those sources supposedly say. They appear literally to not read or understand what other people are saying to them. It's made trying to edit or improve that page pointless. N-HH talk/edits 10:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Once we've reached the point that a user, such as SPECIFICO, has "made trying to edit or improve that page pointless," it's difficult to see that there is any alternative but "a pile-on at ANI." And I did this knowing full well that SPECIFICO and her allies from American Politics would attempt to distract from the underlying misconduct with retaliatory and unwarranted WP:BOOMERANG requests against me. If this proposal fails—in part because SPECIFICO's subtle, months-long disruption requires more copious documentation than the community has the attention span to study in detail—then you and I will probably have to give up on improving Louise Mensch, just as Guccisamsclub seems to have done already. But it was worth a try.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright, just stop. You're not doing yourself any favours by not owning your (not insubstantial) mistakes here. A) you could have, at any point, RfC'd these issues or pursued any number of community solutions, rather than tussle directly with Specifico, as you have done on multiple articles in the same subject area before. B) Most everyone criticizing your conduct above is an uninvolved party, not some "ally of Speecifico's" out to tank you out of some cabal loyalty. C) If you think the failure to take your claims seriously is a matter of poor attention span from the community, you are deep into WP:IDHT (maybe irretrievably deep). There is a way to structure and present a complaint to the community here at ANI and it's not "aggregate every possible action that the editor has taken in the dispute that I disagree with, plus anything anyone has said over the same period that is vaguely critical of them, and then smash it all together into unprecedented walls of text, without organization or context. And then expect every community member to follow up and piece together every part of it." Nor are you blameless in the acrimony between you two, on that page or elsewhere. If you avoid a boomerang at all here, it's on account of no help you gave yourself, but rather because editors took the time to investigate the matter and see this was a two-way street, despite that embarrassment of a post up there that you self-charitably call "documentation", not because of it.... Snow ^{let's rap} 11:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm referring specifically to Darknipples and Power~enwiki, both of whom seem to have followed SPECIFICO here and whose one sentence "votes" demonstrate little or no familiarity with the Louise Mensch article, SPECIFICO's activities there, or my complaint. (Darknipples, for example, has left three WikiLove messages on SPECIFICO's talk page in the last two months: [335], [336], [337]) I usually do have to resolve my differences with SPECIFICO via RfCs, and am currently considering a new RfC related to her total deletion of Vladimir Putin's official response at Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia, but I am amazed you don't find anything disruptive about the fact that SPECIFICO would force every uncontroversial statement of fact about Mensch's views—backed by impeccable RS including The New Republic, The Guardian, and so many others—to RfC. Some of us volunteers don't have the time and energy for that level of drama.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

That's quite an "interesting" assumption. My presence here couldn't possibly be because ANI happens to be on my watchlist, could it? What's funny is that if you had actually even bothered to read some my convos and messages to SPECIFICO, you'd see that we have our share of disagreements, past and presently. I thought uninvolved editors were welcome to comment and ask questions here, but now I suppose all I've accomplished is to expand this seemingly WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of yours to include me as some kind of "collaborator" in cahoots with SPECIFICO. DN (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Boomerang topic ban TheTimesAreAChanging from the Louise Mensch article; and/or reinstate his topic ban from American Politics

Given what SPECIFICO wrote above regarding TheTimesAreAChanging's AE topic-ban from American Politics, his subsequent socking and other evasions of the topic ban, and his disingenuous promises to Sandstein, and the clearly trumped-up Everest of "evidence" he has submitted to try to railroad SPECIFICO, etc., I think it is clearly appropriate to topic-ban him from the Louise Mensch article, since Mensch is a British-American former politician who is now a journalist exclusively devoted to American Politics. Softlavender (talk) 07:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from Louise Mensch at the very least, and support re-instatement of topic ban from American Politics broadly construed (which would include Mensch) if there is sufficient consensus. Softlavender (talk) 07:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I probably would have supported this, had I continued to base my decision on the supreme mastery of own goal that is TTAAC's above filing. But having decided to ignore it an look into the matter myself, and especially having seen that talk page, I don't think I can support it now. TTAAC's truly epic verbosity blunder here notwithstanding, in the actual content discussion, he seems to have acted in good faith and mostly reasonably. Reading those discussions, looking at the story told in the edit history for the article, and weighing the perspectives on the actual sourcing issues shared at the BLPN, it looks to me like both parties were inflexible and needlessly confrontational, but a bit below what I consider deserving of a topic ban, even considering both have had the community step in due to intractability in the past. I'd rather each got a warning from an admin (yes, especially TTAAC, given the fixated way in which they have come at this situation) promising to watch the situation closely, and then make them RfC out every issue that they can't give ground on. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• No. We don't boomerang for well-documented, well-founded complaints, however poorly-formatted they are. GoldenRing (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• I've been pinged. As the author (and then lifter) of the previous topic ban, I do not express a view on the merits here, but note that the topic area of modern US politics is subject to discretionary sanctions (WP:AC/DS), and that requests for enforceable sanctions including topic bans can be made at WP:AE. Any ban decided on here would be a community-based sanction, in the administration of which I am not particularly interested.  Sandstein  09:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• No. TTAAC has barely been engaged on the Louise Mensch page. It would be absurd for a couple of edits to be treated as grounds for a ban. N-HH talk/edits 10:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• GoldenRing and N-HH, I think you've missed the point: The point is that TheTimesAreAChanging was indefinitely topic banned from American Politics and closely related people on January 12, 2017, for repeatedly attacking SPECIFICO and racking up a stern AE warning one month previously: [338], [339]. He sockpupetted as You'llNeverGuess (talk · contribs) to evade the topic ban, and was blocked for one month and his TP access and email access had to be blocked as well. On July 12 he emailed Sandstein to appeal his block, promising to refrain from "the vitriolic talk page rants that got me in trouble" on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections [340], but the next day went back to apparently doing the same thing on that same talk page [341], [342], [343], [344]. The endless attacks on SPECIFICO here are more of the same that got him topic banned in the first place. Even Beyond My Ken thinks his topic ban on American Politics and related people should be reinstated. Softlavender (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't care what people did in the past (and tbh I don't see "vitriolic talk page rants" in those last diffs). SPECIFICO's conduct on this page has been, as I said, disruptive and unhelpful while superficially polite; TTAAC's has not. It would be a joke if the outcome of a complaint about the former was a ban for the latter. N-HH talk/edits 10:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit conflicted with the preceding, as I was also saying I don't see any vitriolic rants in those 4 diffs. Softlavender, perhaps a bit more caution in your use of diffs? We're not just throwing s*** at the wall to see what sticks. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

You may be right: I'm going by Casprings's comments on TTTAAC's usertalk thread there and SPECIFICO's comments in the section above. I didn't have time to read through those discussions at length but Casprings certainly objected to them, and further since TTTAAC's attacks on SPECIFICO were what got him topic-banned in the first place, and he (TTTAAC) seems to be headed down the same road, he had better engage in civil discussion with SPECIFICO and/or engage in WP:DR instead of heading straight to ANI with a mountain of diffs without giving SPECIFICO any chance for discussion on the talkpage; TTTAAC has only made four edits to the article talkpage (only three in the past month): [345]. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Right. So you're proposing an indefinite topic ban on the basis of... what exactly? Hearsay? I don't think it's unreasonable to expect someone proposing such things to have read the evidence on which they are (allegedly) based. It's time for someone uninvolved to close this; let's just forget it happened. Is a doubleboomerang even a thing?. GoldenRing (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

None of the diffs listed above are "vitriolic talk page rants". Perhaps the practice of "diff-bombing" should be frowned upon more seriously than it currently is. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender Please stop playing at admin. This proposal is not a good one. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's try not to let the hostile tone of the dispute infect the meta discussion here, huh? No one is playing at anything: any member of this community is free to make a proposal in this space--that part of the process has never been the province of admins (exclusively or even especially; most proposals come from non-admins, I think), and SL was not the first person to suggest a boomerang in this case. This whole situation has been a fustercluck from word go and that's not particularly the result of anyone responding here, so please avoid bombastic statements directed at good faith contributors attempting to parse the issues. It certainly won't improve anything for anyone, so just lodge your !vote and move on. On a side note, the correct syntax for pinging someone is "{{u|username}}". I presume you were going for "[[User:Softlavender]]"there, rather than "[[User|Softlavender]]", which is what you entered, but even if you had used the former, the ping would not have been sent.Snow ^{let's rap} 19:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I guess that comment hit a bit too close to home, huh? Mr. Ernie's observation is spot-on, and it's hardly just Softlavander that needs to stop. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Good grief, what on earth are you talking about, "hit to close to home"? I was the first person to oppose a boomerang for TTAAC, and the first uninvolved editor to dig into the talk page and suggest that this situation is a two-way street, after he shot himself in the foot with the filing. You two need to trust me here: you are doing TTAAC no favours by lashing out indiscriminately at anybody who doesn't feel he is 100% in the right here and Specifico 100% wrong. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

+1. I and others objected to Softlavender's carelessness with diffs, above. But generalized aspersions about motives are a different matter and are disruptive to this process. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure about your explanation of ping. WP:PING says "Mentions: When your user page is linked to on any talk page or on a page in the Wikipedia namespace by another user." Agreed the link to the disambig page User was a fail, but tell me if you get this: User:Snow Rise? The system tells me it was sent. -- Begoon 19:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I stand corrected User:Begoon; ping received. Though I don't think it was always the case that the Wikilink pinged the user in question, seems it is the case these days. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem. The funniest thing is, until now, I'm not sure anyone successfully pinged Softlavender -- Begoon 20:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Whoops good catch User:Snow Rise. And no, I'm not "lashing out indiscriminately" - I've very specifically directed it at one user. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough; I shouldn't lump you in with someone else. That said, the distinction Mandruss made above is good advice: the observation that Softlavender's proposal was not a good one, as you saw it, is a fairgame kind of comment. The admin comment less so. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I feel TheTimesAreAChanging is more at fault than SPECIFICO here, but see no case for any admin action yet. I'm familiar with Louise Mensch as a person more so than the editing history on that page; I feel emphasizing her career as an author and as an MP over the details of her Russia-mongering is correct and that both her claims and her rebuttals on that topic should have minimal weight in the article. In the most recent editing dispute ([346]), I feel SPECIFICO is in the right, though the "BLP" objection is more sophistry than substance. As far as a general heated tone, this is inevitable for pages related to current US politics, and neither editor should be sanctioned for it. Power~enwiki (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Commment I wasn't even going to say anything here, until TTAAC dropped this little "gem" on Power~enwiki and I in the above section [347]. It takes a certain temperament to edit political pages consistently without falling for the drama, or creating it yourself. I, myself, had to take a step back at times, but I have usually managed to avoid ANI. Others use ANI as a sword, a shield, or even a crutch, metaphorically speaking. I think this discussion has been very telling with regard to both parties. DN (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Trout and Mediation

This is a case for mediation (WP:RFM), not ANI. I don't feel involved enough to open a case myself, but I hope somebody else does. If that happens, I propose that this case be closed, the two editors be hit by a WP:TROUT, and no administrative action taken against either of them. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, I decline your trout. I am an innocent vegan in this matter. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

The article is now under BLP and American politics discretionary sanctions. I'm still trying to get the discussion at Wikipedia talk:AE#Updating Template:Ds/talk notice to make it clearer to make a decision so that these notices are clear to everyone, not just those who know where to click. Doug Weller talk 18:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Can someone kindly put this thread out of its misery and close this? There is pretty clearly no broad support for either proposal, the article is now officially under DS, and... the poor souls who won't actually spend the time to read through this thread and sort this out will thank us. If there are future issues, hash them out at AE where there is a gracious length limit to reports.

Maybe drop certain people a reminder that if you are obsessed enough about one editor that you're willing to write a small novel about them at ANI, then maybe it's time to reconsider your priorities and go unredlink some of the few thousands of articles we don't have on flowering plants... or I dunno... there are exactly 479 stubs on rivers in France and 550 on geological formations in Canada which should be able to keep folks pretty busy. TimothyJosephWood 21:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Need some admin eyes on a few Afds

Hello all. I've been closing Afds and came across the following Afds related to the music group Phase, which seem to have the same editors+ips (at least two who seem SPAs) commenting on the same things, and in some cases, literally with the same words (copy paste moves of their comments); and voting keep multiple times in the same Afd. At least one of the editors MusicPatrol has been warned about attacking other editors who voted delete. Premeditated Chaos has also commented on obvious SPAs in one of their closures. But the mass of keep voters (apparent SPAs) is there in many Afds. The Afds are as follows:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Point of You
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wait (Phase album)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In Consequence
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amethyst (Phase song)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phase (band)

I'm pinging TParis and Premeditated Chaos who closed two of the Afds, JamesBWatson, Bearian, Amberrock, Night of the Big Wind, SubRE and TenPoundHammer who have left significant comments within these Afds, and Asouko and MusicPatrol who seem to be the main keep protagonists (I'm separately notifying these two on their talk page too). I wanted to request for some admin eyes to check the validity of some of the !votes. Thanks. Lourdes 01:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

(Pinging JamesBWatson and TenPoundHammer again as I messed up the pinging earlier. Thanks. Lourdes 01:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC))

Looking back at the contribs of both Asouko and MusicPatrol, I'm starting to think they might be the same person. There's this complete and utter focus on Phase as a band with very few edits elsewhere, language/grammar issues with each, and a worrying tendency for both to go running to music-focused editors asking for "expert" help preserving the Phase-related articles.

If you look at MusicPatrol's early contribs they're all copy-pasted tag bombs and baseless CSD tags on other bands. The tag-bombs MusicPatrol adds were identical to a set of tags that were placed on the Phase article when it was nominated for deletion in 2012, both in what tags were used and the order they were put in. All that was changed was the date: Original vs. MusicPatrol bombs: [348] [349] [350] (there are more at the bottom of MusicPatrol's contribs page, and more that are visible to admins in their deleted contributions). And yet MusicPatrol never edited the Phase article until 2017, so how did they find that specific tag pile to copy/paste if they weren't keeping an eye on the page? I'm thinking the MusicPatrol account was created as a bad hand to Asouko's good hand, as some kind of POINT-making tit-for-tat exercise ("if our band gets tagged so does everyone's"). They did a little more of that behavior when they initially returned in 2017 as well.

As an aside, MusicPatrol didn't participate in the original AfD for Phase, but a user called User:Hibaghanem did. Hibaghanem also only ever edited Phase-related content and did participate in the Phase AfD, complaining that Phase wasn't any worse than a bunch of other bands, many of whom were among those tag bombed by MusicPatrol as noted above. Hibaghanem's first edit is to add Phase to the discography of Duncan Patterson ([351]), and Asouko's second edit (after creating Phase's article) is to wikilink that addition to point to Phase (band) ([352]). Later, Hibaghanem nearly blanks MusicPatrol's talk page, removing a huge amount of "speedy-declined" template messages. Then Hibaghanem leaves a message that complains about MusicPatrol's tagging of the now-deleted Black Winter page, which Asouka had edited but Hibaghanem never had. While that's not proof positive of anything prohibited, the behavior of all three accounts strikes me as massively sketchy at least. Hibaghanem is stale now though. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

{moved from User talk:PMC. Lourdes 01:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC))

I see you've raised concerns about me... I appeared on wikipedia to correct what I thought of being dodgy in here, pretty much like SubRE done but after admins talked me into correcting articles I have done so. I crossed Phase as I was browsing Anathema's page and then checked Asouko's edits and logged in and tried and revert the edits unsuccessfully. And it ended up being some sort of Vendeta. I don't know what's wrong in that really. MusicPatrol (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Also I noticed you've done a great job Reading all the logs and that which I had done the first three days of the thing my self, it appears that Hibaghanem was a photographer from Syria and the account being not used makes sense, Syria being a warzone. All the edits she's done where changed by Colonieschris. About Asouko I don't think being protective over an article you've created, and SubRE can be proved useful for wikipedia if he is reading the guidelines before he is waiting anything. But that's just me again. MusicPatrol (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

What raises my eyebrows is that you showed up, supposedly as a brand new user, and no more than 10 minutes after you registered your account, you started tag bombing other bands with the exact same tag combo (even in the same order!) as had been placed on the Phase (band) page. That's extremely unusual behavior for new editors. Most n00bs will copyedit here or there, add in little factoids, or maybe try to create a new article. But turning up out of nowhere and slapping piles of maintenance tags and CSD tags on a slew of articles all in a row? It's unusual to the point of absurdity.

Both you and Asouko have extremely similar writing patterns, with grammar and spelling errors and overuse of ellipses, you have the same obsessive interest in a select few articles, you have the same tendency to go running to other music-focused editors asking for "expert" help. You guys are not passing the duck test in my opinion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Certainly enough for an SPI, imo. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Well I one learns from observation... go and check SubRE's behaviour and you will notice how he did clumsy edits and then started changing the patterns copying other editors' behaviour after being told... I've been using wikipedia for ages before I stepped in... Anyhow I don't see why I should even be defending my self on that, it feels a bit silly if you are asking me... You can go ahead and do whatever you feel it's proper. You were appointed as an admin after all! what I couldn't take was trying to talk somebody into not doing something I was told not to do either and it all kicked off from there. I trust you will do what's best for wikipedia, I might as well carry on adf-ing pages after that if that's the correct way to go after allMusicPatrol (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

And thank God we did ask for admins to see these else nobody would see the logs. The whole argument seems like an Ad Hominem rather that checking the facts you are attacking me personally. Let me know if there's any chance to send you my phone number privately and talk, because arguing on line doesn't itch any scratch for me MusicPatrol (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if it might be procedurally appropriate, but I'll request DoRD (if they agree) to check the said Afds for any socks. Thanks. Lourdes 18:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I've opened an SPI with a CU request: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Asouko. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

User Umair Aj is harrasing me since several days

The user Umair Aj is been harrasing me since several days. My first encounter with them was when they were promoting Pakistani singers on the article of singing. Since then they are following me and are deleting my contributions and removing well sourced contents and references. And mass tagging Afd on my reliably sourced articles please do something. User was previously blocked for sockpuppeting, Please see the users sockpuppeting investigations Anoptimistix Let's Talk 12:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It is really surprising. I just edited Arjit Singh as per impartiality of tone and undue weight, peacocking, and overuse of quotes but being a fan of Arjit Singh, User:Anoptimistix felt offended. I invited him on the talk page of Arjit Sigh to resolve the issue and also requested the admin to raise the protection level of the article as User:Anoptimistix was persistently adding promotional material which was also removed by other editors. Last but not the least proposing an article for deletion which fails WP:RS is not a harassment.-Umair Aj (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

That's interesting, but you've been blocked for using multiple accounts to evade scrutiny before. Are you saying you didn't do that? -- Begoon 13:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

You can report me for sockpuppeting but are you saying that under discussion issue is not per the guidelines or is there any violation?-Umair Aj (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

No. I'm asking a simple yes/no question. You can respond either way, not at all, or anything inbetween. That's entirely up to you. -- Begoon 13:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Then we should restrict ourselves to impartiality of tone, undue weight and peacocking which is obviously removed by me.-Umair Aj (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional question: Why don't you want to answer the above question? -- Begoon 13:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

You are also avoiding my question. Is there any violation of policy on my part?-Umair Aj (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. That's what my questions were hoping to establish. At a guess, yes, you've got "POV sock" written all over you, but I won't make the judgement. -- Begoon 13:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Then don't guess because he who guesses always creates impediments. My question is simple, removing promotional material/proposing deletion is a violation?-Umair Aj (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

"he who guesses always creates impediments". Thank you. I collect bizarre stuff like that. Today I saw on some packaging: "MSG has not been invited". I'm indebted. Have a nice day. -- Begoon 14:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome. From your questions it is pretty obvious that you are indeed a collector of bizarre stuff like this I'm "getting at" nothing. You also have a nice day. By the way you did not answer my question?-Umair Aj (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit conflict: Begoon, I believe Umair Aj's confusion (and my own) is about the relevance of your line of questioning about his use of multiple accounts. He received a ban for it almost two years ago, there's no indication he's done it since, there's no suggestion he's done it recently, and he hasn't claimed that he was innocent of the first offence. What are you getting at? Cjhard (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Then it should have been an easy question. I'm "getting at" nothing. Thanks for turning up. -- Begoon 14:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment Umair Aj were persistently deleting references and contents from the article of Singh for which I reported them at WP:ANEW. Further they were intentionally misinterpreting peacocking, as the guide says only unattributed contents are peacocking and also misinterpreted MOS:Quote and violated Original wording policy by removing direct quotes. Administrator CambridgeBayWeather restored the content.Umair Aj wanted to deceive other users that I am not interested in the discussion by not pinging me on the talk page of Singh, and were using uncivil language while interacting me on my talk page. Further they were stalking my contributions history to wait for an opportunity to take my newly created articles for Afd. The sockpuppet user might also use multiple accounts in past and future to harass other users if not restricted now. Anoptimistix Let's Talk 14:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Please check the following songs by Arjit Singh. It will be clear that Anoptimistix is a fan and doing promotional stunts. "Phir Bhi Tumko Chahunga", "Uska Hi Banana", "Aayat", "Raabta", "Ae Dil Hai Mushkil", "Muskurane", "Laal Ishq", "Kabhi Jo Baadal Barse", "Samjhawan", "Suno Na Sangemarmar", "Ilahi", "Sooraj Dooba Hain", "Sanam Re", "Soch Na Sake", "Mast Magan", "Bolna", "Sawan Aaya Hai", "Gerua", "Janam Janam", "Nashe Si Chadh Gayi", "Khamoshiyan", "Hamari Adhuri Kahani", "Enna Sona", "Dilliwaali Girlfriend", "Palat", "Dharkhaast", "Kabira", "Zaalima", "Yeh Ishq Hai", "Alvida", "Baatein Ye Kabhi Na". This user also used IP addresses to add promotional material.-Umair Aj (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Anoptimistix: Show me the evidence, where I used IP address. Many of the song's article like "Sooraj Dooba Hain, Man Mast Magan, Suno Na Sangemarmar, Kabira, Samjhawan we're not mine, neither I edited it. I have created many articles about many topics, I am also a music lover I frequent creates notable songs article with reliable references, which are quite popular in India. If you have any problem with music or songs sung by Singh or dislike them., then I cannot do anything to change your taste. I have started many articles according to policies and guidelines backed by Reliable sources. Started songs articles are not crime. Further most of them are not indexed by search engines as pirated and unpirated files are indexed, so your doubts about promotion should be clear. These songs articles which I started had been used by many editors for inlinking purposes.

Umair Aj is attempting to divert the discussion, as they have been reported many times for sockpuppeting, vandalism, edit warring, the user neither neither creates contents , nor adds contents in existing articles. Their only job is to damage the articles and harrass users. Anoptimistix Let's Talk 14:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Aceruss slow-motion edit war

Aceruss (talk · contribs) has engaged in an eight-month edit war on Rudy_Giuliani. By my count, Aceruss has made 28 edits reverted by seven editors (MShabazz, Objective3000, Volunteer Marek, Oshwah, General Ization, Bbb23, and WikiDan61) in this article. The editor has also made similar changes to: Crime_in_New_York_City, Mayoralty_of_Rudy_Giuliani, David_Dinkins, History_of_New_York_City_(1978–present) with additional reverts by additional editors. All of these edits are variations of the same subject; which I won’t bother describing since this filing is about a behavioral issue, not a content dispute. Very few of these edits were preceded by any attempt at gaining consensus and no consensus for these changes exists. A sampling of diffs: [353], [354], [355], [356], [357], [358], [359], [360], [361], [362], [363], [364], [365], [366], [367], [368], [369], [370], [371], [372].

The user’s talk page includes nine related warnings for edit warring, disruptive editing and vandalism. I believe the article is under discretionary sanctions and may also be in AE’s bailiwick. Objective3000 (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

This user apparently doesn't get it & shows no indication that he or she will make any attempt to understand how we do things here.Joefromrandb (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that this constitutes edit warring as the user is repeatedly reverting changes to these articles and in-place of engaging in proper dispute resolution practices - that's what defines the spirit of the policy. There are discretionary sanctions imposed for many of the articles this user has been edit warring over. Given the number of times that this user has been warned for edit warring, as well as the notice left informing the user of discretionary sanctions applied (diff), I'm prepared to apply a topic ban for this user from editing any pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States, broadly construed. This won't fix the issue of the edit warring behavior in its complete entirety, but it'll at least start by placing sanctions and keeping problematic edits out of this topic area. Are there any objections? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

That would appear to cover virtually all of the problem editing thus far. Objective3000 (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Happy to respond. There are two or three editors who act like they own the Rudy Giuliani page. They have expressed extreme dislike for Rudy Giuliani. There have been several other editors who have said my edits should stand. I am simply adding facts and balance with very reliable sources. I have used the talk page extensively as you can see and been very friendly to all, and been met by insults, threats, reverts and other unpleasantries in return from these two or three editors. Let me get to the heart of the matter here and then I will answer any questions you have for me.

In October 2013, David Dinkins autobiography was published. In it he proclaimed he is the greatest crime fighter NYC has ever known. The next day editor PK800 started making edits on at least seven Wikipedia pages about these effusive uncorroborated claims. He was reverted multiple times and many editors spoke out against what he was doing, including Malik Shabazz. (see David Dinkins talk page). No one spoke in his favor. Yet he just kept re-reverting until others grew tired of this. Fast forward to NOV 2016 when I started editing. They did not welcome the newcomer, they chewed my head off.

PK800 only used the talk page on one of his seven plus pages he put these claims on, the David Dinkins page. He achieved no consensus at all. The only source that says "Under the Dinkins administration, crime in New York City decreased more dramatically and more rapidly than at any time in New York City history" and other effusive claims is Dinkins autobiography.

I and other editors put up literally dozens of RS: NY times, NY magazine, NY post, Time magazine etc all contradicting this autobiography. They never argue facts! They just revert and threaten.

Here are two examples of what these guys are doing:

1) page: David Dinkins I made an edit on 7-31-17 and stated the fact that the source does not say "Under the Dinkins administration, crime in New York City decreased more dramatically and more rapidly than at any time in New York City history" which it doesn't- it doesn't even mention Dinkins name once! see for yourself. Malik Shabazz reverted saying "it's what the source says"

2)I added to page Rudy Giuliani the fact with solid RS that crime went up to record levels during Dinkins administration, yes it did go down some from that point at the end of his term which I left in. Objective3000 and Malik Shabazz continually revert my factual well sourced edits, which are balanced and add proper context.

3) I have asked them both, why must PK800s edits with zero consensus, and corroborated only by Dinkins effusive factually incorrect autobiography stand as the only edit permissible?

Why are my well sourced factual edits constantly reverted entirely mainly by these two editors?

Thank you, I have more to say but will wait to hear from you, I have never been through this process before and look very much forward to clearing the air here.Aceruss (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Aceruss, do you understand what edit warring is? Yes or no? --Tarage (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I don’t intend to respond to this unless someone thinks I should. I think the diffs and warnings from many editors speak to the issue. Besides, to be fair, there are worse outcomes than a Tban, and the editor may not realize the dangers in using a shovel here. Objective3000 (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

If the user doesn't understand what edit warring is, I'd prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt and educate him instead of throwing a topic ban at him. This would be much more beneficial for everyone if resolving this issue is as simple as that... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I bow to anyone that is willing to take time to educate. But, the editor has got to learn to stop making unproductive comments like: They have expressed extreme dislike for Rudy Giuliani. That and most of what was posted above by the editor is simply false. And the heart of problem may be that the editor doesn’t know it’s false. I may be overanalyzing and leave it to more experienced editors. Objective3000 (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

PK800s edits had no consensus at all. Why must his edits be considered untouchable? Look at the disputes he got in long before I was around on the David Dinkins page. NO ONE agreed with him. Do we care about well sourced facts at all?Aceruss (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Aceruss - I understand that you have disputes and disagreements with some of the content added to these articles, but reverting these changes in a repeated back-and-fourth manner is not how to go about properly resolving them. Have you started discussions on the articles' talk pages with your concerns and pinged those involved so that they can comment and discuss it with you? Have you worked with them to come to a consensus with what the content should be changed to? These are some of the different parts of proper dispute resolution practices - things that you should do in order to properly sort out any disagreements. If you engage in repeated back-and-fourth reverting of content in articles as you've been doing (the diffs provided here clearly show this), and in place of following the processes outlined in the dispute resolution guideline, it's considered edit warring - which is absolutely not allowed on Wikipedia. Although there is a policy that serves a rule to judge what would be undoubtedly considered a violation of the edit warring policy, there is no time constraint or "rate limit" in principle; if you're repeatedly reverting others' changes on the article instead of following the dispute resolution guideline, you're engaging in edit warring. That's the best way to explain how this policy works.

My honest goal here is to resolve this ANI discussion without having to resort to any sanctions or other actions; I really want to be able to close this discussion knowing that simply explaining this policy to you was all that was needed, but I need your acknowledgment that you understand these policies and what I've explained, and I need your commitment to discuss these disputes properly and no longer engage in any more edit warring. Can I trust that you understand these policies and that you'll follow them without allowing further incidents and disruption to occur? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I don’t know PK800. But, I have to respond to this. I may be wrong, but the edit by PK800 that Acerrus refers to was three years ago and was removed quite a while back from the Giuliani article. Continuing references to this makes no sense. Objective3000 (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps that is something we can do. I have noticed on all modern NYC mayors articles (1965-present) there is absolutely no reference (not counting election results) to any other mayors accomplishments, good or bad, except all these Dinkins comments on Giuliani's pages put in by PK800. How about restoring the paragraph's relating to crime on Rudy Giuliani and Mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani and the Giuliani section on Crime in NYC back to their pre-PK800 readings (basically eliminating any Dinkins edits good or bad) and I posted my suggestions on David Dinkins page, but will leave that page for others to decide how to proceed there and if agreed I will also not edit the Giuliani sections in question for at least a year, we can all move on to other things, catch a breath, perhaps collaborate (or not) on other topics. Sound reasonable?Aceruss (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah thanks for responding. There is something missing here. Have you taken a look at the Rudy Giuliani talk page? I might have used up too much Wikipedia bandwidth using it. Yes, I have. And the two or three of them will not allow ANYTHING to be changed on that page. And I am not reverting others changes they are reverting mine. I almost never revert an editors good faith edits wholly. I argue a point or two and we work it out to improve Wikipedia. I have done this on many other pages. I have educated myself on all Wikipedia guidelines. I follow them. These guys make up there own rules and gang up on me.

1)is it not a rule to not bite the newcomers, they did to me 2)is it not a rule to argue the central point and not name call- they dont argue any points or facts they just threaten me and insult me 3) is it not a policy to assume good faith-they NEVER do to me 4)is it not a guideline to not give a significant/ insignificant minority viewpoint undue weight? A clear majority viewpoint is Giuliani lowered crime in NYC yet they treat any mention of it like a fringe theory 5) They use an auto-biography as their RS I use a ton of solid RS and they say theirs takes precedence 6)How about Grahams hierarchy of disagreement they are always in the bottom 2 or 3 never at the top refuting the central point 7)The statement Dinkins lowered crime more than anyone else in history is a complete falsehood. If I put Giuliani lowered crime more than anyone else in history (much closer to the truth) they would erase it in one minute 8) many other editors have supported me and as I said many said the same things against these guys before I arrived

So yes I am trying to follow the Wikipedia rules and guidelines. But these 3 editors are making up their own rules.Aceruss (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Aceruss, you have not yet let us know that you understand what edit warring is or that you understand that edit warring is not allowed. Most importantly, you have not made a commitment to refrain from edit warring behavior in the future. This is troubling. You accuse other editors of making their own rules, yet you have so far failed to convince anyone that you understand this essential rule. Please explain your understanding of edit warring and your personal commitment to avoiding it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete, TheGracefulSlick and the Malmo arson attack

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An article I started 2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson was brought to AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Malmö ISIS-related arson earlier this month and kept. That first AfD was started by CrispyGlover, an editor with all the hallmarks of a sockpuppet, but I have no idea whose and am not accusing anyone. After being kept, the article was aggressively edited by Pincrete in what I regard as a POV manner. Next, it was brought ot AfD by TheGracefulSlick, an editor with whom I have disagreed on a series of terrorism-related AfDs. Eariler today, I did a careful revision of the article. Then, 5 hours ago TheGracefulSlick closed the article as Keep, withdrawing her nomination. She did not, however, do a proper close. This enabled Pincrete to follow her to the article 6 minutes after TheGracefulSlick closed it, iVoting Keep. Pincrete also reverted the article to the version last edited by TheGracefulSlick yesterday when she brought it to AfD. After which TheGracefulSlick returned, reverting her comment to reopen the discussion. I would like an administrator to take a look at the Afd.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• Diffs: The Malmo article after my last edit [373], the Malmo article after Pincrete's reversion [374]. Some examples of my edits that Pincrete eliminated: [375], [376], [377].E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• Regarding CrispyGlover, I quite honestly have no idea who he is, and that is why I am accusing no one. I brought it up here because he started the first of the two AfDs on this topic. He shares behaviors with blocked sockpuppets who have been banned after discussion here, two of whom I knew well - to my sorrow. For example, his 4th edit was opening this user page [378], his 5th this talk page [379], he then weighs in at an AfD [380], demonstrating a familiarity with WP:GNG, although he edits occasionally, he very often edits at AfD, where we met in May at an unusually heated IP and terrorism-related AfD [381]. I looked him up because while that that AFD had a large number of editors, almost all of there are regulars in the IP area, he was an unfamiliar name at a AfD that attracted sockpuppets, leading to this interaction [382]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• TheGracefulSlick's behavior in first closing [383], then 5 hours later, reopening [384] this AfD is just strange.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this particular conflict, but posting diffs that illustrate the problems you're talking about would probably help. Alephb (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: please don't post accusations without evidence, and saying "X has all the hallmarks of a sockpuppet, but I'm not accusing anyone" is really disingenuous. You also don't seem to have alerted a single one of these users that you've mentioned. I guess I'll do it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

If I may I would like to prove some constructive criticism.... Gregory you at times go into overkill when it comes to keeping articles. You have valid points but I feel it would be best if you let other editors speak for themselves as well, try toning down at responding to every comment. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• If you can assert "at all times," you have not looked at my editing record. Admittedly , I get hot under the collar when discussions of terrorism get political, but even there when being repeatedly insulted by TheGracefulSlick at multiple simultaneous AfD discussions, I was insistent, but not rude. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: Knowledgekid 87 said "at times", not "at all times". Doug Weller talk 05:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Terrorism is a political issue here in the United States (even though it really shouldn't be). If you feel that you are insulted then do your best to try to focus your edits on the AfD rather than the editor (This can be hard, I am not saying it is easy). Remember that each comment is weighed at the end by the closing admin. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I am quite happy to go into detail both about why I reverted specifics, and what support my position has received from other editors, should anyone wish. Would E. M Gregory care to explain why they added textual claims that this was (Islamic) terrorism when they know that a Swedish court has decided it was not. Would they care to explain what he knows that the court did not and why they are indifferent to making such claims about an acquitted individual to whom BLP applies, since the acquitted is identifiable, even if not identified. Pincrete (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Acquitted individuals can be proven guilty by evidence that surfaces after the trial. The Malmo arson attack article was created at a point when the accused arsonist had not only been acquitted by a Swedish court for insufficient evidence, but had been immediately transferred form police custody to the custody of the Swedish Security Services to be investigated for suspected ties to the Islamic State (with a possible penalty of deportation). The article was started after the high profile arrest of an ISIS operative in Germany, an arrests that was covered in-depth by major world media because it revealed important aspects of how ISIS operates in inciting terrorist attacks outside the Middle East, and those articles include detailed material on this case - detailed in the additions to the article that I made and that Pincrete deleted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Re:"Acquitted individuals can be proven guilty by evidence that surfaces after the trial", in some jurisdictions they can, but only IF CHARGED, no source suggests this person has been or will be charged. The individual is being held for possible deportation, not for retrial. The rest is pure fantasy on your part which everyone who has read the sources agrees with. Pincrete (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment who exactly is being accused of what here? I'm one of the named, but even I can't work that out. Pincrete (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you guys should just work this out on the article's talkpage. Start an RfC or something on the matter.. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe Pincrete is being accused of violating NPOV guidelines (an accusation generally not actionable on this board), but nothing else. Some of the other editors involved need to be advised to follow AfD guidelines, but I don't think any of the un-orthodox behavior here is actionable. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - E.M.Gregory can we just close this thread and move on? I closed the AfD in the first place because I felt I was being pressured by you with your constant comments about me -- not the notability of the subject -- at other AfDs. You yourself do not have clean hands with your constant WP:BLUDGEONing and recent casting of asperations. For what it's worth, I'm finished nominating unnotable terror attacks for awhile. Too much WP:UNCIVIL behavior for my tastes.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
• The AfD has been closed as Keep by User:TheGracefulSlick, so I am more than willing to have this discussion closed. It would, however, be useful if some generous and skillful editor would go to [[385]] and make a link to the AfD that closed on 1 August appear. The link to the AfD is [386].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SimonTrew at RfD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I quite regret making this report as the editor I am about to report and I have collaborated with civility in the past, but I guess those days are long gone...

SimonTrew (more commonly known as Si Trew) has violated their indefinite RfD topic ban: see the previous ANI discussion and/or search for their name at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions for details regarding their ban. See July 31's RfD page (and/or its history) for their blatant breach of their ban. After interacting with him on his talk page, I concluded that it was time to bring the issue here. Steel1943 (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• I shall reply to this in the most honest way I can. Steelq1943 has already told me on my talk page that I had an an indefinite ban from RfD.
• I believe that ban is unjustified. The disruptive behaviour is not byy me listing stupid index entries, but by User:Eubot making them. All I am trying to do is to fix them, that is to sau, to make the encylopaedia better.
• It does no good, or indeed no goed, to have seven times as many entries in the index to the encylopaedia, that is to say the redirects, as there are articles. Two or three are ok for misspellings and such. What an encyclopaedia should do, I think, is let people who know that they don't know, look it up. It requires a very basic education to look up a dictionary, go to a library, or check an encyclopaedia.
• It says on the front page, orr used to, "The encyclopaedia that anyone can edit". Apparently I cannot edit it. Or rather, I cannot make it better in the best way I know how to. I can translate articles, but not many articles come up at Wp:PNT that I can translate. I did two today.

When User:Neelix listed ten thousand redirects it was given the WP:X1 concession. I actually argued against it being needed for User:Eubot needing the same concession, though others were arguing for it. I said we can handle it.

• It seems to me that all I get is essentially the flak from User:Eubot creating these redirects, and my listing them.
• Do you want to make the encylopaedia better or worse?

1. If worse, just ban me.
2. If better, we have to somehow manage these User:Eubot creations. I can get rid of the stupidest, and I can keep and reclassify the good ones. I tend, and have said at WT:RFD, it is about 60% keep, 30% delete, 10% don't know. I then get pulled up on not doing my homework on the 10%. I already did ninety percent of the work. Can't you do a little?

And I didn't invoiliate their indefiinte ban. I invoilated, if i did, his indefinite ban. Don't pluralise me. Si Trew (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I thought my ban was for two weeks, I stayed away for three months. I do not need this farrago. But it is no surprise to me how Wikipedia loses intelligent, multilingual editors.

00:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

And Simon Trew did not inviolate their indevfnite ban. If he crossed the line, he inviolated his indefinite ban. I am not a plural. In any case, "indefinite" does not mean that it lasts forever. It means it lasts until someone says it doesn't. I say, it doesn't last now. Who is to tell me that it lasts longer? I have voluntarily stayed away to let the air cool. If we are going to get through the other 27,459 then someone has to do it. Throw your shit at Eubot, not at me. Si Trew (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for 72 hours for multiple blatant violations of the topic ban. Based on the rhetorics above and previous community discussion, there should be another discussion about enforcing the later two options suggested should further violations take place without proper appeal. Alex Shih^Talk 01:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The subject of any kind of ban does not get to decide when the ban ends. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Community ban discussion

Noting here after the fact: the text of KrakatoaKatie's close implementing the community ban: "[User:SimonTrew] is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and all RfD-related pages, subpages and activities, broadly construed, and from nominating redirects for speedy deletion. This topic ban does not cover refining a redirect to point to a section of the page it already pointed to, nor does it cover other redirect-related edits such as tagging." Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The "later two options" mentioned by Alex Shih are these, from the close of the previous AN/I discussion by Krakatoa Katie:

At this time, no consensus exists for an indefinite block or a site ban. However, if Si Trew continues to cause disruption or violates his topic ban, one or both of these two options is likely to follow.

It's not clear to me that SimonTrew's current violations are sufficient to justify either of these options, but now that it's been made abundantly clear to him that his topic ban is indefinite and the only the community can lift it, any additional violations would, I think, be enough to start that discussion going. I hope the current block will suffice to steer him away from dealing with redirects in any fashion, even those things allowed under his topic ban, since it appears he cannot do so without wanting to take steps which violate his ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I haven't changed my mind, but it's worth mentioning that a read of SimonTrew's talk page indicates an incredible amount of anger and arrogance on his part, and what seems to be a willful inability to collaborate and cooperate. Apparently, SimonTrew is never wrong, and anyone who crosses him by disagreeing with him or upholding policy by blocking him is always out to harm Wikipedia, because Wikipedia cannot (it seems) survive without SimonTrew's contributions. These behaviorial quirks should also be taken into account if and when the discussion about additional sanctions is begun. In the meantime, an admin would probably want to consider removing TPA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Good lord he is pounding on that keyboard isn't he. Holding on to shift for dear life. Yeah... it's time to remove him from Wikipedia. This is a temper tantrum. --Tarage (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, he is venting in all caps and is so emotional that he is not checking his spelling. I suggest that we let him try to cool off during his block, and see whether he complies with his topic ban upon his return. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Well quite, but he has done this quite a lot over the years. Almost every time he is thwarted in fact. He does something, doesn't get his way, throws a tantrum. Some people just do not have the emotional maturity to handle rejection. Do you honestly believe he has learned his lesson this time? Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't buy this "I don't understand what 'indefinite' means". If he honestly doesn't understand that, and decides the only way to figure out is to 'test his ban', then he doesn't have the competency to edit. Either he is a fool or thinks we are, and neither is worth it. --Tarage (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I've added in the text of the ban above. FWIW I believe Si Trew when he says he doesn't understand what indefinite means. He has had difficulty interpreting guidelines like this in the past, which I believe is innocent but gets him in trouble anyway, especially his angry reactions when other editors try to explain things. If he would just listen and discuss when the community criticizes his edits, instead of digging in and stubbornly, angrily refusing to consider his own behaviour is the extent of the problem, he could be productive at RfD like he was yesterday at PNT and he has been in other places. It doesn't bode well that he violated the ban on his first day back and in particular that he's still preoccupied with the specific redirects which brought him to a ban in the first place. I'd like to wait for his current block to expire to see if he'll respect the ban after having the terms explained again, but I'm not very hopeful that this thread won't end in a community ban. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

His response [387] to my explanation on his talk page of the meaning of "indefinite" is not in the least encouraging, as it's full of finger-pointing, blaming others for his problems, the refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the community, and self-righteous flag-waving on his own behalf. As I said above, he seems incapable of believing that anything he does could be detrimental to the project, or that any decision he's made could possibly be wrong. In the end, this would seem to be a person who just isn't suited to editing here, regardless of the quality of any particular contributions. We shall see what happens when his block is up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Ivanvector, like you, I tend to think Si could be being genuine in his professed misunderstanding of "indefinite". For a guy who's been editing here for so long, though, that does raise obvious, other issues. The bottom line question, though, seems to be "Can Si change his behaviour and fit in, enough that he isn't constantly causing shitstorms like this?" I don't know the answer to that. -- Begoon 13:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I've increased the block to indefinite per NLT, based on what is pretty unambiguously a legal threat. I guess I should revoke talk page access too, but...I dunno, I don't really like doing this. As always, any admin is free to change the block in any way they feel necessary (and I welcome any criticism from anyone about it). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh sweet marinara, he's back on his "clean hands doctrine" nonsense. This is his third indefinite block for responding to good-faith polite criticism with an explicit, specific legal threat. Clearly he is not listening, won't listen, doesn't understand what this project is about, and shouldn't be here. Support indefinite ban per WP:CIR. I would strongly suggest indefinitely revoking talk page access as well, he's only going to use it to whine about the Eubot redirects that only he thinks are an issue worth any kind of urgency at all, and/or to issue further specific personal attacks and legal threats. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - As noted below, that comment about the "clean hands doctrine", if he thinks that erasing his talk page has anything to do with it, suggests incompetence or dangerous ignorance. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support indefinite full site ban per my comments in the previous ANI discussion. The following is my response to Thryduulf regarding the proposed ban on Si Trew (which eventually became the topic ban Si Trew has now):

  Rather clear definition ... but will probably be breached at some point. Per my comments regarding implementing a full site ban on SimonTrew, given his history of blocks and actions, my ability to have confidence that such a ban will be followed is, unfortunately, very low. As I stated above that my opinion that SimonTrew should have a full site ban is "somewhat regrettably", it's because as Thryduulf and Ivanvector have alluded, he really is performing all of the edits on RfD in good faith and belief that he is making improvements to Wikipedia. However, the actions he takes following most edits he performs at RfD causes commotion that results in blocks (such as legal threats). If a RfD ban is the route that we are going to take (which I say is rather lenient at this point), then due to his history, after the first offense of breaking such a ban, the response shouldn't be a limited time or indefinite block ... it should immediately be a full site ban. Steel1943 (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

  ...I have interacted with Si Trew for years over RfD, and with his recent history of blocks and behaviors, I had very little confidence that he would be able to honor the community-enforced topic ban. Unfortunately, for the past year or so, his behavior has become so erratic that it is causing issues with community collaboration outside of RfD, most issues stemming from his talk page. In my opinion, he needs an indefinite full site ban to allow himself time to recompose, considering that all other methods performed thus far to suppress these behaviors have apparently been ineffective. That, and worse case scenario, if he cannot ever recognize his behaviors that result in issues with the Wikipedia community and/or cannot convince the community that he truly has a mindset to avoid troubles with the community, the site ban prevents such problems (such as the one that convinced me to start this discussion) from ever happening again. Steel1943 (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: I've revoked talk page access and courtesy blanked the legal threats. Alex Shih^Talk 17:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Sadly support full ban. I've not been active at RfD of late so the ping above from Steel1943 was the first I was aware of this issue. Reading through this thread, I was all set to recommend leaving the 72 hour block as a final chance, with any further violation of the topic ban explicitly resulting in something like a 1-year block with an inverse topic ban after that (i.e. allowed to contribute only in a specific area). That was until I saw the legal threat. As this is the second time he's been on the receiving end of a block for making legal threats, in addition to all his other blocks, I'm unable to justify why he should be allowed to edit again. The community does not have infinite time to invest on one editor, and no matter how good his contributions may be to PNT overall the behaviour that resulted in my bringing him to this board a couple of months ago, to which he seems to have immediately re-engaged in on his return, is a significant net negative to the project. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support full ban - I've read this entire thread as well as his talkpage - I would've been happy with a 72hr block however unfortunately he couldn't keep his mouth shut, He's been blocked for threats before and I believe he promised he wouldn't do it again, There's alot of leniency when it comes to venting over blocks but threats are on another level and is certainly something that shouldn't be tolerated, Angry or not legal threats shouldn't be made,

If unblocked he'll only violate his RFD ban again or again make another threat and the CIR issues certainly aren't helping so in short this place is better off without him and a community ban is the only best option for him and for us. –Davey2010^Talk 22:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support full ban. I supported one last time and the case is that much stronger now. I guess I'll just leave it at "I told ya so." -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

  @Tavix: Yeah, I had originally considered saying "I told ya so" as my entire comment. But, I figured it would be more effective to show readers not familiar with the history of Si Trew's ban the full extent of how "I told ya so". Steel1943 (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

  I really appreciate you taking the time to put a case forward, so others like me who really don't want to waste too much more time on this time sink don't have to. I've been wanting this for a full year now, noting that his first legal threat was against me, for an issue during my RfA. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

  @Tavix: Agreed. That, and I miss the old days. Steel1943 (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose His aim is improving Wikipedia. There has to be another way. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Joefromrandb: For those who are familiar with Si Trew and his actions (such as myself ... I've been interacting with him for almost 3–4 years), there are not any remaining alternatives. Si Trew has been given more WP:ROPE than most editors receive, and I can guarantee you that at this point, any alternative to a full site ban will not be effective. As Thryduulf roughly stated, Wikipedia should not have to carry the burden of dealing with Si Trew's bombastic actions whenever he resumes editing; his erratic attitude was what led to him being topic banned, and sure enough, he immediately breached his topic ban the day he started editing again. The only remaining option is a site ban. Steel1943 (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• I disagree (although I readily admit that you would know better than I). What about a zero-tolerance topic-ban, with a one-year block to be imposed upon offense? Joefromrandb (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) A "zero-tolerance" ban was essentially the type of topic ban the community imposed on him. And if I recall, Si Trew in September 2016 had an indefinite block, including losing the ability to edit his talk page, due to legal threats (though his talk page access was restored about a week or so later.) As others have said during this thread, Si Trew has revealed a rather problematic WP:CIR issue that seems very unlikely to go away; he keeps repeating the same behaviors that lead him into issues with the community. Also, even when he takes prolonged breaks of 2–3 months (he has a few times now), once he comes back, he jumps right back into the confrontational attitude that puts him at odds with the community. At this point, I have very little confidence that he is capable of respecting the Wikipedia community as a whole. (I truly say this with regret since Si Trew and I were able to respectfully collaborate at WP:RFD in the past, but I don't think those days will ever return.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Site-ban based on the legal threat as well as the rest of the general history. The idea that keeping one's talk page clean has anything to do with the clean hands doctrine raises competency issues. Support a full site-ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support site ban - I've read pretty deeply back into SimonTrew's history, and there' a lot going on there. I think there's somewhat of a linguistic and cultural problem which contributes to his POV concerning Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community, but it's not enough to explain it entirely, and, whatever its root causes (about which I won't speculate) it manifests itself as an inability to edit cooperatively and collaboratively without routinely going off the deep end. You can call this a competency issue, or you could say that he just doesn't get it, and seems incapable of getting it, and you'd be right either way. It's not enough, Joefromrandb, to have the goal of improving Wikipedia, one's idea of improving Wikipedia has to correspond (at least roughly) with the community's idea of what improving Wikipedia is, and one has to be able to go about it in ways that don't result in being antagonistic to the community; and if conflict with the community does occur, one cannot inflate the problem with self-congratulation, insults, and legal threats. This pattern of behavior from SimonTrew is absolutely clear, and there are no indications whatsoever that he will change, or that he is even interested in changing. As I said above, this is fundamentally someone who is unsuited to edit here, so a site ban is entirely justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Beyond My Ken: FWIW I don't think there are linguistic issues at play here, or at least not what is usually meant by that on Wikipedia. Si is a native English speaker (he's British iirc) living in Hungary, who speaks several other languages fluently (and some others less comprehensively than he seems to think, based on his rambles at RfD before he was most recently topic banned). I get the distinct impression that he does not get to speak English in person as often as he would like, which may be a contributing factor. When he is at his best, working with (not against) other editors and sticking to the point he can be a very valuable editor. Unfortunately this is only the case for some of the time, and while it used to be almost all the time it's now almost none of it. Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that information, which I did not know. Nonetheless, I see something off about SimonTrew's use of language that I can;t quite put my finger on. Maybe, as you suggest, it has to do with not using English with frequency. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support site ban I'm surprised at the amount of rope thrown over into the abyss. Stikkyy t/c 00:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support full ban per Wikipedia:Competence is required#Some common types (Social). It suffers from Only An Essay disease, but it concisely summarizes most of what has been said here with no backup in behavior policy or guidelines. Not that that basis is hard to find, we could start with WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NLT. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support full ban. I am not intimately familiar with Si since I don't spend time at RfD, but having read this thread, and the ranting on his talk page, it seems clear that enough is enough. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support full ban but I would not be at all surprised if this isn't the end of this... --Tarage (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support site ban The amount of WP:IDHT on display here is staggering. Of even more concern is this user's apparently firmly-held belief that the community's wishes (up to an including community sanctions) are irrelevant so long as they do not see them as justified, which means the community has literally no leverage to forestall further disruption other than a block. Other comments here and behaviours discussed above paint a picture of an editor who doesn't not embrace (or even seem to fully understand) the collaborative nature of this project. I defer to the opinions of contributors who have wrestled with this user in the past as to whether he is likely to reform behaviour in the slightest, and whether a longterm block would be better than a site ban, but I have no hesitation about supporting removal from the project for the time being, whatever form that has to take. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support site ban per the user's disruption and failure to adhere to the topic ban. —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits} 02:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support ban Having read through this discussion and his talk page and also the discussion earlier in the year that led to his RFD ban, Simon made it clear that he suffers from some mental illness. I will not patronise him by saying I understand, as I clearly cannot unless I suffered from the same affliction, but along that vein, the WP community tolerates a great deal. Many editors here have various sorts of conditions that make their everyday life hell but somehow, for the majority, they are able to get along with others. For those that cannot, especially in cases where there condition has clearly gotten the better of them, WP is not a medium that is in any way adequately equipped to manage that. In such times, including this one, all that can be done is to thank the editor for their contributions over the months/years and show them the door. Blackmane (talk) 03:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef block. Clearly there is an intransigent WP:CIR problem that the community cannot waste any more time on. Softlavender (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User of IP addresses vandalizing President of Russia, possible sockpuppetry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There are IP addresses vandalizing the Wikipedia article, and I suspect that it is actually one operating user using multiple accounts. We have User talk:2600:8805:5800:2100:b871:8496:aa33:72b6 and User talk:2600:8805:5800:2100:a831:bcde:b100:5590,with edits such as this. He also got even with this user, as which I was operating since I wanted to quickly revert the change. I suggest you investigate. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 04:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

72b6 already reported at WP:AIV, suggest you add 5590 to that report. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page creation blocked

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm trying to create a page (a redirect, in fact) for the early Disney short Cleaning Up!!? (IMDB ref), but creation of that name is blocked. It's to be a redirect to List of Disney animated shorts#1921. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:GwentWatch

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GwentWatch (talk · contribs) appears to be a single purpose account devoted to removal of the word "Gwent" wherever he/she sees it. Is this allowed? If so, why? Apologies if this is the wrong location for this question. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• No, you're right - I'm just on my way out, but could someone more tech-savvy than me mass-revert all of their changes? There are obviously huge numbers of Newports (for example) in the world and removing the qualifier makes the article unclear. Black Kite (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Was going to, but Iridescent beat me to it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• ✓ Done All reverted. In some cases, GW's removals will actually have been correct—Gwent is a relatively recent invention, so some of the historic figures will actually have been from Newport, Monmouthshire—but there were far too many to sift through them individually checking which were legitimate. ‑ Iridescent 19:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

And to think all this time I thought we were talking about a pretty fun side quest RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Croatian Air Force and Air Defence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please see this topic ... user FOX 52 acts as if it was his theme on wikipedia and writes nonsense, for example, a propeller plane PC-9 is "Electronic Warfare aircraft" and anyone who writes correctly he deletes

The information in the table is based of this source, which is downloadable to view. Further IP user 78.0.202.213 was warned about sourcing and edit warring - and was subsequently blocked. Now user IP 93.136.110.152 appears to a sock of previous IP user - FOX 52 (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

please explain how is pc-9 "Electronic Warfare aircraft"?

ANI isn't a place for content dispute, besides, you are indeed a sock per WP:SOCK. After viewing Croatian Air Force and Air Defense history, you've been editing with multiple IPs way too similar to that of yours for quite sometime. IPs starting with "93.1" and "78.0" located in Croatia. More specifically, IPs starting with "93.1" have a history of heavily editing the article since...2016, 2015? Here's a very similar edit from November 27, 2015 and a more recent one from August 1, 2017. Now I haven't viewed every single edit and some of the similar IPs might also be other people editing from Croatia as well. But better safe than sorry, I recommend the article be protected for a very, very, very long time...like forever from IP editing. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

It is better to close this article better than it is not exactly written..bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.110.152 (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page move problems with Eurofan86

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Eurofan86 has moved a few pages, seemingly testing the system, and one of the articles needs to be returned to normal. Please restore KRS-One and quickly delete both KRS-Two and KRS-Hunid. Binksternet (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks like a bunch of folks were trying to fix this at the same time. Seems to be straightened out now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

No idea what the hells's going on but I asked at RM for this to be moved and had tagged the WP:KRS redirects as G3/Vandalism, Last time I came here asking for help I was essentially moaned at so didn't bother this time round, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 01:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

In retrospect it looks like I may have mucked things up by not noticing that some of that I was trying to work on were not in mainspace but instead in Wikipedia space. My apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted all the random things they created. Seems to be all sorted out now. Just debating whether it's worth a block, considering they continued to move pages around after being final-warned. Black Kite (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Black Kite - Thanks for fixing everything, I should quickly point tho they've not moved a page since I warned them however they are still genre-warring so an edit warring block may be in order but entirely up to you, Thanks again, –Davey2010^Talk 01:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

They appear to have stopped after the final EW warning. Will keep an eye on it. Black Kite (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Black Kite, unfortunately they've just continued, Both Lil Wayne and Meek Mill are full of reverts by said user and another editor, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 02:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated copyright violations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've just removed a couple of sentences of copy-pasted material from Draft:Fénix Awards, created today by JKBRASIL. The user has had a dozen or so copyvio warnings of various kinds over the last few years, including a final warning in February 2017. The message does not seem to have got through. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I have indef-blocked the user for copyright violations after final warning. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harassment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Following a recent edit, I've crossed paths with an Administrator who has patronized me, belittled me, Wikihounded me, and been inconsistent/illogical with rationale as to why he/she reverts my edits (or restores them 10 min later). Admin has history of such behavior. Not sure how best to handle it. I thought about seeking a consensus on a talk page, just in hopes of getting my contribution restored, but don't think I'm supposed to mention any conduct issue on a Talk page. So, what do I do if I have an legitimate harassment concern with an Admin who, in addition to making my Wiki experience distressful, signals that he'll/she'll block my content for sport? Nerve wracking even putting on ANI because my issue is with an Administrator, but...where else do I go? Would appreciate any advice...Justbean (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, a good start would be to actually tell us which user you believe is at fault - you seem to have been under scrutiny by a number of other editors. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Based on latest user talk page and Talk:Cowboy, the original poster is probably addressing Montanabw, who is not an administrator but an very experienced editor. The title of this report should be modified accordingly. Alex Shih^Talk 08:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is Montanabw. Justbean (talk) 08:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Then I'm removing "Adminstrator" from the heading. Montanabw is well known to be of the female variety, so you can henceforth dispense with the "he/she". ―Mandruss ☎ 08:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

So - now we know who you are talking about, you need to provide some evidence. Please provide diffs which show that Montanabw is harassing you. You are also obligated to notify Montanabw (see the edit notice on this page); I have done this for you. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm new to all this. I wasn't comfortable just showing out names until I knew this was the right place for me to get help...so apologize if I'm not as well versed in Wiki speak and Wiki politics. That said, I will let her know. Beyond that, I have proof, but is there any way I can provide context? Like a page/email I can detail a few things in? What I've learned is that it's easy to dodge "overt" harassment with diffs...what she does is more subtle. Needling. Justbean (talk) 08:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I feel Montanabw was simply trying to explain WP:UNDUE and WP:RS to you in regards to your edits at the Cowboy article. If you are going to edit Wikipedia, you need to embrace constuctive criticism, not take someone to ANI for it. I suggest you close this and go back to Talk:Cowboy and re-read her suggestions.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow TheGracefulSlick...not even given the benefit of the doubt. Not even willing to hear me out before you shut down my inquiry. This is why I didn't want to disclose anything here in the first place. Thanks for all your help. Will take my concerns elsewhere, where I can at least be heard out. Justbean (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick Despite not knowing a thing about me, or what this actually concerns, I've already been accused of not being able to embrace criticism, and of being petty...and I never even got a chance to explain the situation. If this is what help looks like on Wiki, no wonder people lose passion and walk away from contributing. Justbean (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Is this closed or not? All I did was read the discussion on your talk page and Talk:Cowboy and at no point did I see any harassing behavior from Montanabw. I did not have much to go by since your initial statement was too broad but, based on it, I assumed you were referring to the Cowboy article. She provided reasoning for her removal of the content and explained it to you further on the talk page. I apologize if I do not see an issue with that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick, your assumption was wrong. Justbean (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Justbean: First, don't file an ANI complaint, then state that you're walking away from it, then continue commenting after it has been closed as withdrawn. Second: You were asked for diffs, you asked for people to look at context (not a bad thing, I did it once myself and understand that problem), an experienced editor looked at the context and gave you some advice, and you threw a fit and stomped out of the room. That approach will get you exactly nowhere at Wikipedia. My experienced advice is that you seek assistance elsewhere (perhaps Adopt-a-user) and with a better attitude. As far as I'm concerned this discussion remains closed. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Mandruss I didn't "file an ANI complaint." I didn't know where to go...I merely inquired. I didn't even name the person I had a problem with until prodded. And because I simply said "yeah, that's the person," that doesn't mean I filed anything. If I did, it was unintentional because I was looking for help. I couldn't find anything, for what I was experiencing, on the Wiki Conflict Resolution pages...and coming to ANI was the closet I found. I hesitated, because I didn't even know if I had the right place. Obviously, I've never done this before, so it's disappointing to be so belittled when I was literally looking for help. Up front, I literally asked: "So, what do I do if I have an legitimate harassment concern with an Admin who, in addition to making my Wiki experience distressful, signals that he'll/she'll block my content for sport?" Somehow, that -- asking a question -- became a filed complaint? I'm sorry I ever looked for help. I'm sorry I'm not more well versed in Wiki ANI so as not to trouble you, but you have all made nothing but assumptions about me and not a single one of you bothered to help me. You just made me feel stupid and silly for asking. I happened to be in the middle of responding when you all closed the discussion. I simply decided to reply anyway. I never asked for this discussion to "re-open," nor would I want it, after experiencing this.

I was looking for help from a person who could -- person to person -- give me advice and tell me IF there was even grounds to file a complaint and, IF SO, how to go about doing that. But what I got was an impersonal robotic barrage of marching orders, psycho-analysis based on assumption, and an awkward political situation with Montanabw that I didn't have before I inquired about your help. This.was.awful. Justbean (talk) 09:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Justbean: I have placed information on your talk page that should help you get started with navigating Wikipedia. You'll find that most experienced editors are more than willing to give you guidance if you ask them for guidance. Any kind of guidance - understanding policy, where to find stuff, how to use a template, anything at all. Asking for guidance is not the same as battling with an editor with 10 years more experience over a complex content issue, let alone accusing them of the serious offense of harassment, on this page or any other. Feel free to continue this on my talk page if you like, but please let this thread die now. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyvio on Main Page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Fixed by Alex Shih. Kelly ^hi! 09:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

File:USMC Tiara.png is from the Smithsonian Institution website; according to their license terms the license is non-commercial use only, not public domain.[388] Kelly ^hi! 08:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kelly: Thanks Kelly, I've switched the image with another image from the same set, re-uploaded with commons copyrights tags. Alex Shih^Talk 09:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: - thanks! It looks like the DYK text still needs fixing, it still states the tiara is pictured. Kelly ^hi! 09:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kelly: Ah sorry, fixed now. Alex Shih^Talk 09:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of films based on DC Comics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was menaced of blocked for the user Xtremeroller on my talk page. I want to know if I deserve the blocked.OscarFercho (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

1. You are required to notify the user if you make a complaint about them on this page. See the instructions at the top of this page. 2. I have advised Xtremeroller not to issue edit warring warnings when they were part of the edit war. 3. Both of you need to go to the article talk page and discuss the content issue. See WP:DR for more information. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. Excuse my bad English. Tks, again.OscarFercho (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Vijayguruji

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Vijayguruji was recently blocked indefinitely, but continues promoting his occult services on his talk-page. Can an admin please revoke TP-access? Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done. GAB^gab 13:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat from IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia:Legal threats says I should report this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CJK09&diff=793760195&oldid=793747409 CJK09 (talk · contribs) 19:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I've left {{uw-legal}} on the IP's talk page, since there was nothing there before. —C.Fred (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I've also reverted their rather obvious POV edit on Palmer Report as well. Will keep an eye on it for now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

CJK09 is repeatedly removing relevant links to public figures including Congressman Ted Lieu, Governor Jennifer Granholm, and Professor Laurence Tribe from this article, while insisting on retaining questionable links to articles from news outlets that compete with Palmer Report. CJK09 has made that that he/she only intends to allow links on the Palmer Report page that are negative/critical, regardless of the significance of the positive recognition that Palmer Report has received. This is clear case of extreme bias. CJK09 must be removed from any future access to the Palmer Report page. We will take this complaint all the way to the top of wikipedia if necessary, and they would clearly side with us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.17.133.155 (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, no they won't. Edits are to be made from a WP:NPOV at all times. The edits that have been posted, that myself and other editors have reverted do not fall in line with this policy. This is a matter that needs to be discussed on the article talk page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) CJK09 hasn't been active on the article in question in over 15 hours. I see absolutely zero reason to take administrative action against that user. —C.Fred (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to just take a step back and let more experienced editors than me figure out what to do with the article. CJK09 (talk · contribs) 20:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The IP's been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. If this continues again, protection might be warranted until there's a discussion on the talkpage. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Justin Gatlin

Already listed at WP:RPP but I wonder if semi-protection could be fast-tracked - over 100 edits since 20.51 - Arjayay (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Strike request as now done - Arjayay (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

gentlecollapse6 and his editing of Channel Pressure

Recently, I've been working on the article about Ford & Lopatin's album Channel Pressure. This has included adding a fair amount of essential analysis and opinions about the record for reliable sources to showcase the album as great as possible, not too much unlike other high-quality album articles like 21, Revival, and this featured article about a record by The xx. However, a user named gentlecollapse6, who I've seen also work on a fair amount of Daniel Lopatin-related articles, has kept turning my edits into short, weak general summaries, removing numerous essential and useful facts about the records for invalid, absurd, and non-guideline-related reasons such as, in his words, "overzealous fan sticking his interests in the face of everyone else," "ridiculous and annoying," "geeky fan page," "nerdy detail vomit," and "it's an article on a cool, slightly obscure side project that you've now made totally un-obscure by wringing every piece of writing you could find on it, thereby misrepresenting its scholarly significance in general." Not that I mind the WP:UNCIVIL tone of what's he saying that much (heck, I've been guilty of that, before) but it's very clear he's trying to change the article how he personally thinks the article should be rather than how album articles should work based on how a normal and experienced Wikipedian would view the quality of an article. I'm really not seeing what he's trying to go for with not having an article "compile every possible written fact about relatively obscure subject." I think an article should cover all minor but essential viewpoints about a subject no matter how "obscure" it is. My addition and expansion of information to the article is like how any other high-quality article is detailed, and gentlecollapse6 needs to understand that information from independent will not be removed just because he thinks it's "geeky" and "vomit." He's also shortened the lead too much and even has gone as so far as to make an entire section into a small note citation because he thinks it unimportant...... not even joking. These are not productive edits this user is doing. editorEهեইдအ😎 16:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Imo, the article is absolutely fine as it is now. EditorE has made some valuable additions but generally gets carried away, to the point of including remarkably over-detailed track-by-track analyses noting every individual influence and element of the tracks in addition to a separate music and composition section (the former of which I've moved to a note so as not to delete all EdE's work—the latter #music section summarizes it all quite well), largely cribbed from the artists' own track-by-track interview article, of an album that has no more than 14 professional critic reviews total to date. That's excessive, and makes the page look like an inaccessible mess.

Wikipedia editors are supposed to exercise editorial judgement about when some information is too much information—when information is too specialized for a given topic relative to its scholarly noteworthiness, and when an influx of gushing detail threatens to betray the neutral, encyclopedic tone of Wiki. The Encyclopedia Brittanica sure wouldn't have a separate 600-word track-by-track analysis for its entry of an obscure album that didn't chart, was met with lukewarm reception, and hasn't been shown to be a particular influence on any larger cultural developments. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to say that I understand that Gentlecollapse6 has good intentions in what he's doing and he's not a bad user, I just feel he's taking the not-too-inaccessible guideline a little too seriously, which is why I've started this discussion. editorEهեইдအ😎 23:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a classic content dispute that should be resolved through discussion at Talk:Channel Pressure, or through dispute resolution. I see neither a request for administrative action nor anything requiring administrative action at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

No, this is a case of gentlecollapse6 making disruptive edits. What he's doing, as well as improperly changing my section naming in Returnal, is unproductive and needs to be exposed. editorEهեইдအ😎 09:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC) editorEهեইдအ😎 09:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Filipina user adding vanity edits to articles

Could've reported this to SPI instead or perhaps to AIV, but I seem to notice a similar pattern here and here. Both use what I presume to be either a real name or perhaps a pseudonym, and both user's editing patterns seem to match up, i.e. jacking an existing article and replacing its contents with a vanity page either in Tagalog or broken English. Could it be just a coincidence or do I smell something fishier? Blake Gripling (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Probably just some kids being silly, not anything organized. You can ping me if there's more trouble, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

IL-2 Sturmovik: 1946

Could uninvolved admins please take a look at what has been going on with this article? For some time now, multiple contributors (or one contributor with multiple accounts) have been adding unsourced promotional material regarding game 'modders' to the article, along with an entirely unsourced claim that "The License has now expired" for the game. While the former is merely a violation of WP:NPOV (lots of people have hacked the game, but Wikipedia isn't obliged to list them all, or to cherry-pick some of them without external sourcing), the latter looks to me to be some sort of attempt to legitimise breaches of copyright: I can't think of any other reason to make such a bizarre claim, since games software doesn't require a 'license', and copyright for software extends as long as any other, meaning that it is still legally protected. Note that despite attempts to engage one of the contributors in discussion, there has been no response. [389] 2A00:23C1:8250:6F01:D9F6:91AE:F279:43C5 (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

And incidentally, one of the contributions of this disputed material should probably familiarise themselves with WP:COI. 2A00:23C1:8250:6F01:D9F6:91AE:F279:43C5 (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

A cursory glance at the contributors of the accounts restoring the promotional content shows very suspicious behaviour, indeed. Have filed a request at WP:RFPP Twitbookspacetube 01:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hoax article

Hoax deleted and Aprilotenberg indeffed per as a promotional-only account. Nothing else to do here. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 16:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

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

---

User:Aprilotenberg created a page called Matthew Kjellberg purportedly about an 18-year-old brother of YouTuber PewDiePie. This is a hoax, the whole article was copied (including references) from DJ Manian, a member of Cascada. Aprilotenberg has previously had this same page deleted. User:Ad Orientem thought it was a promo rather than a blatant hoax. If an admin can check Matthew Kjellberg and delete it ASAP that would be really helpful, and then block it from being created again because this hasn't been the first creation and may not be the last. Harambe Walks (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

PS my first port of call would have been to Ad Orientem but he's on holiday. Thanks Harambe Walks (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

PPS M. Kjellberg might be a real person, but a blatantly unnotable one at that. Harambe Walks (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Article deleted and user blocked. This is a fair indication of WP:PROMOTION and WP:NOTHERE. Alex Shih^Talk 15:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion closure request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Would someone uninvolved be willing to close the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#"Quick fails"? The discussion, which has slowed to a halt and involves a relatively small number of users, concerns the content/wording of the good article criteria. Thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:47.190.47.120

47.190.47.120 (talk · contribs) has been edit warring and has now resorted to discussing my life outside of wikipedia.

Example: Talk:Billy Mitchell (video game player)

• It is easy to see your public conversations on the internet, from your forum and social media posts to your interesting Reddit threads. It is easy to see you have a personal friendship and bias toward Mitchell. My request for fact checking with a noted expert that you dislike for some reason is not relevant to the point at hand.

Datagod (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

When you post a link to your personal website on your user page it's not "doxxing" for somebody to follow it, especially given that you only removed the link a couple of weeks ago. There's potentially a user conduct issue here in that the argument should be on the merits not the personalities, but it's certainly not doxxing. ‑ Iridescent 20:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Reading this discussion It seems like the IP wants to make the dispute more personal which is not appropriate per WP:PERSONAL. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• I agree it is not doxxing, I did not mean to imply it was. But discussing my personal life and making claims of membership on other websites certainly is crossing the line. Also the various posts about my thought processes, my posts on social media, and the contents of personal conversations is bordering on creepy. Datagod (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • You didn't just imply that it was doxxing, you wrote "Requesting administrative help for a doxxing attempt" as your edit comment when you started this discussion. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
    • oops! Didn't realize I did that. I guess I was thinking of it. Datagod (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, at least you had the integrity to admit it. Donald Trump would simply say the edit summary was fake news. EEng 10:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you actually attempting to deny that you are the same Datagod seen here as a Twin Galaxies founder, along with photos of you being friends with the very people you keep editing Wikipedia articles in favor of? It even has some of the same photos you have posted on here. This is valid infomation as it shows a clear conflict of interest to where you should not be editing articles involving this topic. http://www.twingalaxies.com/member.php/31794-datagod47.190.47.120 (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

User Datagod seems eager to play victim while exhibiting the same behaviors he takes note with. He is constantly claiming I am or am related to a person he has some sort of personal squabble with. The fact that he appears in photos and at events with Billy Mitchell all over the country is very valid considering that he keeps editing Wikipedia in Mitchell's favor, including continually re-editing in a false historical claim about being the first to a Pac-Man split screen. I have posted on that page's talk page multiple links that prove he was not. Datagod, the same person who added a photo of himself with Mitchell into Wikipedia, should not be editing a page for a person he has a personal relationship with anyway.47.190.47.120 (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Ejbaluyot creating nonsense articles

Ejbaluyot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly creating new articles that make very little sense. See, for example, Youtube Memorable Words, Rivals of European Public Broadcasting, Stitching AKN, International TV on Youtube and Omroepstatus. I wondered whether these involve some sort of machine translation, but didn't receive a response to my question about this at User_talk:Ejbaluyot#Your edits. We seem to have a competence and/or language issue that could do with administrator intervention. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted recent contributions of the user (as none of them make any sense) and issued a warning on user talk page. Alex Shih^Talk 18:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

User:GoldenGuy23

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GoldenGuy23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This editor has been blocked by Ritchie333 back in April for adding unsourced or poorly sourced content in music-related articles. The problem about this editor he keeps adding unreliable sources that are against the guidelines (WP:ALBUMAVOID), which is why he got blocked in the first place and this isn't the first time this happened, he was blocked by another editor, named Beeblebrox, in late January for the same thing. He don't seem to learn his lesson about this issue and continue to doing the same thing he was blocked for.

Here are recent activity:

• [390] [391] [392] [393] [394] [395] [396] [397] [398] [399] [400] [401] [402]

See my point, this editor keeps adding unreliable sources and it doesn't help that the edits are sloppy. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I have to agree. This user appears to be acting in good faith and they don't seem to be damaging the articles with their edits; their responses to sanctions are reasonable and well-intentioned. The problem here almost seems minor enough to brush off. Unfortunately the scope of these minor offenses is long past becoming severe. Their edits have been brushed off for a very long time, to the extent that serious blocks have been implemented, and despite all this they're still making extensive edits without reliable sources. Like I said, this user appears to be acting in good faith so it brings me no joy to sanction them further, but we can only give someone so much ROPE. Blocking indef. No prejudice against an unblock. Swarm ♠ 06:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Swarm: Thank you for agreeing with me, if the editor get unblock and continue doing the same things as before, I will report it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

some sort of weird vendetta

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was in the process of tracking down another vandal when I ran across some sort of weird vendetta (I am not an involved party). The last at least 50 edits here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/A_Great_Catholic_Person

look like some sort of grudge match, someone please have a look.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I did post the {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ warning on their talkpage, it was immediately removed. Just covering my ass.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Just block 'em for trolling and not being here to build an encyclopedia anymore. This "reasoning" for the disruption is all we really need to read to realize this editor wants to be blocked at this point.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
• The user was just blocked indefinitely (which is sad that it got to this point, they had previously been a rather productive user) - my question is if it's possible to revert their reverts without me having to go in and rollback individually. Is there an admin function that can handle this? And thank you to the attentive users who helped with this! Garchy (talk) 04:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Garchy, I checked, and the user has self-reverted everything. I don't think there is need for mass rollback. Sro23 (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Now socking as Special:Contributions/2600:1011:B10A:B4CF:397A:3240:A2CF:C7CD. Sro23 (talk) 05:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
• This was the same editor who made a comment about not liking Indian people. Whatever they were in the past, they're not that now, and we're well rid of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
• Good block, probably should've been indeffed the first time around (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive959#Racist deletionism, fresh off a block). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mooters 1563 going wild at Talk:Yahweh - obscenities and vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See this set of edits by Mooters 1563 (talk · contribs).[403] I really don't want to repeat the obscenities aimed at User:Katolophyromai who he also gave a warning to - he was also vandalising the talk page. I'd say this is someone we don't want near Wikipedia anymore, but I was in bed when I found this and want to go back to it, so handing it over to y'all. If people think he can edit elsewhere then he could just be banned from pages to do with religion I guess. Doug Weller talk 21:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

[Vandalism Redacted] Mooters 1563 (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Why thank you for making it so clear you don't belong here. I see you've removed your obscenities and replaced them with more craziness like the above.[404]

I could do it but I'm involved, and then I'd have to ask for a block review, so could someone else please do the honors? Doug Weller talk 21:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Support ban - no need for the community to have to deal with editors like this.--Moxy (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Support indefinite block – just take a look at their contributions, no further explanation needed. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Just block him - No one in their right mind would ask you to block review this level of vandalism Doug. --Tarage (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

And since he's now blocked, I'm removing the above uglyness... --Tarage (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Y Indefinitely blocked. Malinaccier (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Shearonink (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I had opened about him Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wittgenstein123, I guess a checkuser would be needed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misuse of Rollback right by User:Razer2115

Boldly closing this, as it seems to have served its intended purpose. Razer2115 is reminded to only use rollback in instances of obvious vandalism, and Pahlaj Nihalani has been fully protected so the two parties involved can discuss. Discussions on whether IMDb is a reliable source or not can be held elsewhere. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 16:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

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

---

The user has used rollback right to revert an edit which is not covered in valid uses of rollback function. I request Wikipedia administrators to take appropriate actions. Thank you 217.182.79.182 (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

What I'm seeing here is an editing dispute with one side trying to comply with WP:BLP and the other trying to insert sourced material. Was rollback the best way to revert? No, it wasn't. Is there a need for administrative repercussions? No, there isn't. Razer2115, please use rollback for obvious vandalism only. Both of you, please start discussing the matter on the talkpage and hash out a version of the text which is acceptable to you both. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

On reflection; I've fully protected the page to give the two of you a chance to talk it out before you have to be blocked for edit-warring. Please take the opportunity to do so. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

His rollback right should be removed for using it in edit warring. And I will start a discussion on the article talk page. 217.182.79.182 (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Yunshui, I understand your point and yes I should have been more careful while using rollback feature. I have to admit, my knowledge on what is considered as reliable source in movie industry is rather limited. I made the revert as I believed Imdb is somewhat reliable source for non controversial matters like -Filmography. Regards Razer(talk) 15:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Just an FYI IMDB is not considered a reliable source, as it is user-generated content. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

IMDB is quite reliable for cast lists. Not so much for "trivia". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

IMDb is not considered a reliable source for cast lists. Nil Einne (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

That's wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:CITINGIMDB, while an essay, says that it's not appropriate for pending releases, and it's not suggested for actually released films. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I've never known them to get cast lists of past films wrong. IMDB, at least for cast lists, certainly more reliable than Wikipedia itself in general. One reason is that entries are vetted by the folks who run the website (unlike here). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Subscription required, but they are legendary for cast list unreliability: [405]. It's just an unreliable source, the same way we are. -- Begoon 14:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death over the years at RSN, feel free to have a look at the archives. IMDB is not a reliable source. Even the film wikiproject (WP:RS/IMDB) does not think it is useable in almost all situations. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

---

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