Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:Xx236's disruptive editing and advocacy on Vladimir Lenin and other Soviet themed articles

The short version: Over the past month, Xx236 has been editing disruptively on various Soviet-themed articles, most notably Vladimir Lenin and Talk:Vladimir Lenin. They are engaged in WP:Advocacy to push a staunchly anti-Soviet and anti-Lenin view that is far more extreme than those found in the WP:Reliable sources. They have been warned about this on multiple occasions and clearly are not listening. The only way to deal with the situation now is to ban them from editing Soviet-themed articles and their Talk Pages. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The long version: Since 19 April 2017 (a month ago today), User:Xx236 has begun twenty-three different sections at Talk:Vladimir Lenin, each containing a different complaint about the FA-rated article. They have also added unreferenced and poorly referenced trivia about the Polish anti-communist movement into the Lenin article itself ([1], [2], [3], etc) and argued that unreferenced additions should not be removed so long as they are "obvious facts" (?) ([4]). They have similarly bombarded other Marxism and Soviet-themed Talk Pages with section after section in quick succession (fourteen over at Talk:Joseph Stalin, five at Talk:Main Currents of Marxism, four at Talk:Red Army, six at Talk:Soviet Union, six at Talk:Anti-Katyn, six at Talk:Soviet Union in World War II, two at Talk:Socialist state etc). This is just getting silly and needs to stop. It clearly comes under the definition of WP:Disruptive editing.

If their complaints actually had merit then it would be a different kettle of fish, but they don't. Rather, XX236 is just making poorly worded and highly idiosyncratic claims: stating that Lenin was not a Marxist ([5]), that Christopher Hill cannot be a legitimate historian because he was a Marxist ([6], [7]), and that the Soviet Union was not a socialist state ([8]). Other comments are totally incomprehensible ([9]) or are criticisms of statements made in reliable sources ([10]). They reject various WP:Reliable sources produced by academics and scholars as unsuitable on the most spurious of grounds: Louis Fischer's work because he was a leftist writing in the 1960s ([11], [12]), Mark Sandle's because it had the word Socialism in the title ([13]), and Robert Service's because several Amazon reviews and a random Trotskyite website don't like it ([14]; [15]; [16]). At the same time they are repeatedly claiming that the Lenin article is biased in favour of its central subject and the Soviets ([17]; [18]; [19]; [20]; [21] etc) and that it does not deserve to be a Featured Article ([22]; [23]; [24]); this is despite the fact that it has been heavily scrutinised by many different editors during GAN, PR, and FAC only last year, none of whom thought it had a pro-Soviet bias.

Xx236 is engaged in WP:Advocacy. They make it abundantly apparent that they hold passionately anti-Lenin and anti-Soviet views ([25]), in part perhaps because they claim to have had Polish relatives killed by the Soviets [26] and grew up in the Soviet-backed Polish People's Republic ([27]). Clearly, they are seeking to use Wikipedia to spread the 'truth' of their POV, and are very concerned that anyone might develop views about a "good Lenin" ([28]). To this end, their proposed changes to the article consistently downplay or seek to delete anything that might possibly contribute to a favourable or at least not entirely hostile view of Lenin. At the same time, they are trying to add undue emphasis on anything 'bad' that Lenin and his government did, foregrounding these at the expense of the more balanced view that we get in the Reliable Sources. For them, the article is 'biased' because it does not promulgate their own view that Lenin was a terrible human being whose every thought and deed oozed nefariousness and malice ([29]; [30]) and who should be held responsible for everything that the Soviet Union ever did during the 20th century ([31]; [32]). Those who disagree with their proposed edits are dismissed as Soviet sympathisers ([33]) or generally treated un-civilly ([34]) (update: after initiating this ANI request they even labelled me "immoral and disgusting" [35]!) They are not here to build an encyclopaedia in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies; they are here to 'Right Great Wrongs'. This has been pointed out to them repeatedly, but they are refusing the get the point, and claiming that any accusation of advocacy is a "personal attack" ([36]; [37]).

Their constant posting has proved time consuming for myself and others — among them User:Jack Upland, User:Amakuru, User:John, User:Jimfbleak, User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, User:Crossswords, User:Ian.thomson, and User:Britmax — to deal with. That their edits are disruptive has been pointed out to them by both myself ([38]) and Jack ([39]) but that has not stopped them. On 17 May, I raised the issue once more on the Lenin Talk Page, asking them to stop ([40]); several other editors chimed in to support me on this, and both Ian.thomson and Fortuna suggested taking the issue to ANI ([41]; [42]). Xx236 has taken no notice, accused his/her critics of trying to do "their revolutionary duty" ([43]), and continued posting new complaints at the Talk Page ([44]). At this stage it is abundantly apparent that Xx234 has absolutely no intention of desisting from their advocacy and disruptive editing. The only option left is for a ban to be introduced preventing them from editing Soviet- and Marxist-themed articles and their Talk Pages, which is what I propose. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Update as of 28 May: It has just been brought to my attention that in 2009, Xx236 was given a topic ban for POV-pushing on other Central and Eastern European themed articles ([45]) and was subsequently given a temporary block for trying to evade that ban. ([46]) Their current advocacy and disruptive editing is clearly part of a broader problem and that—by this point—they should be well aware of what they are doing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping. This assessment is wholly correct. I can't improve on Midnightblueowl's gloss, but I would emphasise that the main issues to me are the lack of communication and the poor quality of the edits; if either of thse factors was a positive one, it might cancel out the other. But they don't. And combined with the amount of energy other editors have spent- and fair play to them, that's far more than me- and wasted on Xx236, I have to support the proposed Tban. This should last until such a time that they can persuade the community that they are capable of neutrally editing the subject without mounting a soapbox. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Totally support topic-ban from the topic of the USSR, broadly construed to include not just the Soviet leadership but people who lived there, military campaigns involving the Red Army etc, and any topic ban to explicitly involve talkpages as well as articles themselves. I've seen this going on in the background since Vladimir Lenin found its way onto my watchlist during its FA review, and endorse ever word Midnightblueowl says above. Whether or not Xx236 (aka Xx234~enwiki) is acting in good faith is irrelevant; it's clear that they have an ultra-fringe POV that because Communist regimes committed atrocities, anyone who has anything positive to say about any aspect of anyone or anything connected to a Communist government is automatically an unreliable source and consequently no Wikipedia article can mention anything positive about any aspect of the USSR. (This isn't a standard we apply to any other topic; Nazi Germany, Harrying of the North, Genghis Khan, Cultural Revolution etc faithfully document what positives there are, and give due weight to the views of historians who feel that insert name of atrocity was exaggerated or justified.)

  On the specific topic of communism, it's sometimes easy to forget that significant parts of the world still have Communist governments and even many non-communist countries still have significant communist movements—"when you add up the positives and negatives the Communist Party was overall a force for good" is still a significant school of thought, not a fringe opinion like "Hitler was right" that's only held by a handful of cranks, and Wikipedia is obliged to give due weight to this school of thought. Despite the many, many times this has been explained, Xx236 appears incapable of understanding the difference of "my point of view" and "neutral point of view". ‑ Iridescent 13:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oh dear, I've just read most of Xx236's contributions at Talk:Vladimir Lenin and I've checked a good few of Midnightblueowl's links, and the tendentious POV-pushing and bulldozing IDHT are overwhelming. We clearly have someone here who has a visceral hatred for Lenin, Soviet Communism and anything related to the USSR - and their life's experience might well justify that. But we certainly can't have our Wikipedia articles turned into hate pieces, and I really cannot see any way this might be someone who can be brought round to the Wikipedia way of doing things. So that's a Strong Support for a topic ban from all pages associated with the USSR, broadly construed (especially as this appears to have been going on for a long time). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

  Oh, and @Midnightblueowl: You did a pretty good job of keeping the long version so short! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Likewise. From the linked discussions its clear they are totally incapable of editing neutrally in the area. Even if they are right about Lenin not being a Marxist ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

"Nobody is born a Marxist, not even Marx" :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support I would even block if this continues. — JJBers 14:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed. Hopefully a ban will deal with the problem at hand and that will be the end of it. However, if Xx236 attempts to evade a ban or goes and edits disruptively on other topics then I think that a total block will be inevitable. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support Tban of this WP:TEND editing. There are other websites where this editor can grind their axe. MarnetteD|Talk 16:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I've been watching this happen and I think Midnightblueowl's summary is excellent. For completeness, I am also pinging Gravuritas, who has been making somewhat similar points, though with a better understanding of how Wikipedia works, and who has expressed support for Xx236 at least once or twice. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Thanks for the ping. Sorry, don't think MBO has given a fair summary of the situation. To someone with some knowledge of the history of Eastern Europe, the article is biased in Lenin's favour. To take a simple example, the article emphasises Lenin's anti-imperilist pronouncements and glosses over his many imperialist actions. Small edts, e.g by me, to begin to correct this slant are met by a snowstorm of resistance, in particular by MBO and JU. Xx236 appears to me to often be correct in his analysis, even if his way of working is somewhat grasshopper-like. JU has greeted him with scorn for his English, and MBO has been obstructive: e.g. describing one of Xx236's suggested edits as having 'multiple grammarical errors' when it only needed two 'the's to correct it. I wish Xx236 worked more slowly, and concentrated on one or two edits at a time, and I have previously suggested such on his user page, but I understand his frustration. The risk in banning him is that the current cosy cartel of editors who enthusiastically study Lenin and Soviet history, but ignore other external sources, will be left to govern this article. I, using somewhat different RS, will be continually outvoted and will accordingly give up. I would suggest a rap on the knuckles for Xx236, and another rap on the knuckles for those editors who have stifled him when he makes fair, constructive points.

Gravuritas (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Gravuritas' statement that I criticised one of Xx236's additions because it contained "multiple grammatical errors" is untrue. That was actually a concern that I expressed about User:Staberinde's contribution [47], and (as the link shows) it was far from being my only concern about that addition. Myself and Staberinde subsequently cordially discussed the issue at the Talk Page and came to a compromise that we could all live with. It had nothing to do with Xx236 at all. Therefore, aside from the fact that Gravuritas' claim here is just totally false, it is also an issue that is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Correction accepted. Sorry, have no time to check timeline.

Gravuritas (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

And, for what it's worth, I never "greeted him with scorn for his English" or "mocked" him as Gravuritas has claimed previously. In any case, this is a red herring, because language issues have been a minor factor, as anyone who looks at the Talk page can see.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Moreover, while I appreciate that this section is not designed as a discussion of Gravuritas' edits, Gravuritas has made the claim that their own edits have been met by a "snowstorm of resistance" and that I am "obstructive" and a member of a "cosy cartel of editors" who deserve a "rap on the knuckles" for our opposition to Xx236's edits. For this reason I think it important to give some clarification. It is true that I, and other editors, have opposed many of Gravuritas' edits and suggestions, just as we have opposed Xx236's. But this is because Gravuritas has also been engaging in many of the same disruptive behaviours as Xx236, albeit in a more articulate manner. Gravuritas began their activity on the Lenin article on 20 April 2017 (only a day after Xx236 reappeared) and clearly shares Xx236's fiercely emotional anti-Soviet perspective ([48]; [49]; [50] etc) and I believe that to be the reason that they regard "the article [as being] biased in Lenin's favour". Like Xx236, they have made additions to the FA-rated Vladimir Lenin article that are simply un-referenced ([51]), and have removed academically referenced information with which they happen to disagree because it could potentially cast Lenin in a slightly positive light ([52]). They have also repeatedly engaged in edit warring to make (often) idiosyncratic alterations to the article without consensus ([53]; [54]; [55]; [56]; [57]; [58]; [59] etc). In doing so they have made multiple false claims to bolster their position: claiming that a Talk Page discussion has backed them when it has not even taken place ([60]), making inaccurate statements about the history of the article ([61]; [62]) etc.

Rather than seeing their critics as people trying to keep a balance and uphold Wikipedia rules and regulations, they have repeatedly accused those who criticise or oppose their actions of being Lenin sympathisers ([63]), "apologist[s]" ([64]), "deniers of [Stalin's murders]", ([65]) and defenders "of the indefensible" ([66]), even going so far as to call on their critics to apologise to "Stalin's millions of victims" ([67]). Clearly, they do not care much for WP:Civility, and editors who disagree with them (for a variety of reasons) have been accused of being an "ignoramus" ([68]), a promoter of "biased garbage" ([69]), and "scum" ([70]; [71]). When confronted on this, Gravuritas' response has been to state that the Civility policy doesn’t count in certain scenarios and that they will not abide by it ([72]). This behaviour is evidently nothing new; they have been repeatedly censured for breaches of civility ([73]; [74]; [75]; [76]; [77]) and their behaviour has been brought to ANI twice before, in July 2016 [78] and again in September 2016, when User:Spike Wilbury told them to clean up their act and behave in a civil manner ([79]) – clearly they have not done so. It is perhaps due to their general outlook and their similar patterns of disruptive editing that Gravuritas has developed some sympathy for Xx236 and has defended them when no-one else has. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Everyking (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. In fairness to Xx236, I think that many of this user's edits are good faith attempts to improve articles, unfortunately, Midnightblueowl makes a convincing case that the total pattern of behavior is disruptive. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I don't doubt the sincerity of Xx236's actions. I believe that they are motivated by a genuine desire to tell readers 'the truth', rather than any impish love of mischief. Unfortunately, that does not stop their edits from being any less disruptive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, it isn't just a matter of good intentions; some (a few) of Xx236's edits do really seem to be helpful, but that does not prevent the user's overall behavior from having undesirable consequences. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support everything what Midnightblueowl said. Its not only about these topics but his whole attitude in communicating to other people, which he has a dissagreement with. There were 2 instances where he called my edits (adding articles into the See Also category) trash and other hostile choosing of words when trying to make an argument. English skills are no excuse here, he knows what he is writing.--Crossswords (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Xx236. And for Gravuritas. Being moderately more articulate and civil doesn't make his unacceptable edits any less of a cas of POV pushing. Bit of them need to be told to walk away and tlstol trying to use Wikipedia to promote their POV. oknazevad (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I can not check everything above, but I looked at editing by Xx236 on the pages Lenin and Stalin, because that was allegedly the problem. Here are all his recent series of edits on pages Lenin [80], [81],[82] and Stalin [83]. I do not see anything even remotely problematic here, anything which would justify his topic ban. His talk page comments are indeed questionable, however I do not think they warrant a topic ban. I am looking at the diffs by the filer of this complaint, For example this comment - yes, he is right, the role of Lenin in creating the Soviet system can be well documented. Or this - yes, he is right, the expertise of R.Service on the subject was challenged by at least one serious historian. And so it goes (can't check everything). His only problem: he does not provide any sources to support his statements on article talk pages (but I think he provides acceptable sources while editing articles themselves). If this is indeed so seriously problematic, please bring it to WP:AE (the subject is under discretionary sanctions), but please provide at least 5-6 clear-cut diffs that are immediately problematic after looking at them. My very best wishes (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• I feel that you may be being a little generous with your assessment, there. You state that you see nothing wrong with Xx236's additions to the Lenin article, but they were adding unreferenced and poorly referenced material to an FA-rated article without trying to gain any consensus for its addition first. The material itself was more about anti-communist groups in Poland than it was about Lenin himself; it counts as WP:Trivia. That's clearly disruptive. As for your statements about Xx236's Talk Page comments, again I think you are being over-generous. You cite this comment and state that "yes, he is right, the role of Lenin in creating the Soviet system can be well documented", but that isn't actually what Xx236 said. Xx236 stated that Lenin was involved in constructing Stalinism, not the "Soviet system". The two things are different (and it's not even as if the article ever denied that Lenin constructed the Soviet system of governance - indeed it talks about how Lenin did this at various points). Further, that particular link was not originally selected by me to demonstrate that Xx236 was making dubious claims (that Stalinism owed a fair bit to Lenin is hardly a controversial point); rather, it was selected because it demonstrates Xx236's view that the article was biased.
• You then state that "yes, he is right, the expertise of R.Service on the subject was challenged by at least one serious historian". Aside from the fact that virtually every historian of modern Russian history has been challenged on various points by their peers (such is the nature of academic scholarship), Xx236 was not actually stating that Service's work had been challenged by a professional historian; rather, they were suggesting that it was bad because they found a Trotskyite website that gave it a poor review and because it had a couple of poor reviews on Amazon. That wasn't helping anyone; it was just an attempt to undermine the (academically referenced) content of the page (presumably so that Xx236 could then step in and start changing things). Their whole approach to interacting with others at the Talk Page has fallen well within the definition of WP:Disruptive editing and they have ignored every previous attempt to deal with the problem. A topic ban really is the last resort here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• PS: Apologies for being a nitpicker about some of your comments. I—like several others—have been dealing with Xx236's incessant disruptive editing for several weeks now and I really do think that something needs to be done about it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• I can see what had happen. There is another contributor on talk pages who repeatedly makes totally ridiculous comments like this: "There is no real evidence that the Moscow trials were "rigged" or that the saboteurs were not actually working to overthrow the Soviet leadership". That provokes Xx236 to became engaged in WP:SOAP-like discussions and make talk page comments that are now brought on this page as a proof of his misbehavior. My very best wishes (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• I would agree that User:Claíomh Solais also makes some dubious Talk Page comments; they are clearly coming from a strongly pro-Stalin POV that is (in its own way) contrary to the WP:Reliable Sources. However, they have only been active recently on Talk:Joseph Stalin, not Talk:Vladimir Lenin. There has been virtually no interaction between Claíomh Solais and Xx236 (I can only find two Talk Page discussions where they have both contributed), and certainly no instances where Xx236 has directly responded to Claíomh Solais' comments (bar perhaps this confusing comment from 26 April). Thus, I think it somewhat misleading to state that Claíomh Solais' comments have "prokove[d]" Xx236 to edit disruptively. There is barely any connection between the two at all. Even if there were, the fact that there is one editor posting comments from a pro-Stalin perspective over at Talk:Joseph Stalin really would not excuse Xx236's disruptive editing to push an anti-Soviet POV on a whole host of articles. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• Here is the problem. I am looking at first three diffs ([384], [385], [386]) you provided as evidence of misbehavior by Xx236 on page Lenin. Here is first of them: [84]. Yes, that looks disruptive. However, one must look at the whole series of edits by Xx236 [85]. Is it really problematic? Yes, I would not make such edit, but this is hardly a reason for a topic ban. I can mostly see WP:SOAP like discussions on the part of Xx236 and several other users. A strong warning about it? Yes, sure. Topic ban? I am not convinced. My very best wishes (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• The addition of poorly referenced WP:Trivia into an FA-rated article is problematic, but I would agree with you that that alone would clearly not warrant a topic ban. Rather, the reason why Xx236 warrants such a ban is because for the last month they have been engaged in a relentless programme of WP:Advocacy and WP:Disruptive editing across a wide range of Soviet-themed articles. Their comments, as you note yourself, are problematic. That they have been repeatedly asked to stop and have flatly refused means that there is no other option left but a topic ban. The addition of the poorly referenced trivia in the Lenin article was just one, very small, part of this wider pattern of disruption. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I quickly checked his comments on several talk pages and even responded. I do not see his comments as something really disruptive. But he is definitely frustrated and needs a wikibreak. My very best wishes (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support -- I reviewed the discussion at Talk:Vladimir_Lenin#Xx236_-_Please_stop_with_the_disruptive_editing, plus others, and I have to say I agree with the proposal. Sample comment: "If I'm in a wrong place to discuss such subjects, so please do you revolutionary duty". What does this even mean?

Add to that the additions of editorialising to articles (sample), as well as the belief that the country has been teeming with street children up to the 1990s (diff of article move), and this seems to be a case of WP:CIR / clouded judgement. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

My crime is Soviet/Russian historiography studies mostly the Great Patriotic War, forgetting the period 1939-41. Why don't you ask for citations but prefer to attack me here? The statement is obvious, there are hundreds of Soviet/Russian texts about the Great Patriotic War and much less about the WWII. Xx236 (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

This not the place to discuss the page Orphans in the Soviet Union, but you have started so I'm responding. The page is about the street children and about orphans: Major contributors to the population of orphans and otherwise homeless children.... The majority of the text is about street children. Homeless children was a more general notion, it included orphans and non-orphans. The Russian article is about homeless children. Xx236 (talk) 07:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• This Wikipedia needs a basic discussion of Soviet subjects to remove possible bias and omissions. Such serious discussion is being replaced by a hunt on me. This Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a Marxist-Leninist circle or a highschool in which students are bullied becaus ethey belong to an another culture.

This Wikipedia needs a feministic review of biographies of white male leaders eg. Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin.

Midnightblueowl is a much better editor than me, but Wikipedia needs not only editing but also knolwdge and my knowledge is at least comparable. Midnightblueowl doesn't accept my critics, even if I'm right. As far no my opponents has declared knowledge of Russian language or of the whole subject - Soviet history. People who edit pages about everything, aren't able to be very competent in every field.

I have been accused to be pro-Polish, but the accusation failed. I have been accused several times to be wrong, but several of my opinions were right. I'm not going to discuss these absurd accusations. Learn and return.

Please remeber that all of your biased and false accusations will be preserved for ever. In 100 years a doctor thesis will be written - leftist censorship in English Wikipedia.

I'm 90% right so if you decide to topic-ban me, I'm leaving for the period of the ban.

What about the editors who have attacked me ad personam, eg. my language? Xx236 (talk) 07:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

My edits of Vladimir Lenin haven't been disruptiive, they are still there. Please change the misinforming name of the thread. What you do is immoral and disgusting.Xx236 (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Lplease punish my recent anti-Soviet crime in Moomin.Xx236 (talk) 10:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• I do not think that anyone accused you of being "pro-Polish per se, Xx236, nor did they "bully" you because you "belong to another culture". Nevertheless, you have added WP:trivia about Polish anti-communists into the Lenin article, mentioned Poland in the Talk Pages, and made your anger regarding the Soviet treatment of Poland quite clear. Your experiences as a Pole have clearly influenced your view of the Soviet Union; and that's fine, but you can't let that interfere with the rules and regulations of Wikipedia, as you have done. Your grasp of the English language is not perfect, granted, and while that has made some of your comments difficult to understand, the main problem is the general rambling structure and bizarre content of your comments, which has nothing to do with being a native English speaker or not ("Lplease punish my recent anti-Soviet crime in Moomin" being a classic example).
• Your above comment also demonstrates your tendency to view all your critics as ideologically motivated ("a Marxist-Leninist circle... leftist censorship in English Wikipedia") rather than as people seeking a neutral presentation of the information present in WP:Reliable sources. I have no doubt that there are editors on Wikipedia with a Marxist-Leninist or otherwise far left POV (I cited Claíomh Solais above) but unless all of the editors who scrutinised the article at GAN, PR, and FAC are secret communists eager to promote the image of the 'good Lenin', then I do not see how a highly biased article has been produced (as you claim). Ironically, while you accuse me of constructing a pro-Lenin article, others ([86]) have accused me of having crafted an anti-Lenin article and being part of a bourgeois disinformation campaign. I've made it quite clear that I am not a Leninist nor do I think that Lenin's rise to power was a good thing—the man was clearly an ideologically driven zealot quite happy to see thousands killed—and yet you repeatedly paint me and others as some sort of communist cabal simply for opposing your disruptive editing. It's rather frustrating. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Once again, K.e.Koffman provides a single diff ("sample") by Xx236 instead of looking at the whole series of his edits on the page. So, the thing was sourced. Was it an adequate sourcing? I do not think so, but the statement was true and could be very easily sourced to something much better. My very best wishes (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Just because a statement might be true does not necessarily make it relevant or worthy of addition to an article (especially a Featured Article). One of the (many) problems with Xx236's additions to the Lenin article was that they were effectively WP:Trivia. Lenin was one of the most influential figures of the 20th century. A significant portion (perhaps a majority) of the international communist movement look to him as a central ideological figurehead; there are thus statues and street names dedicated to him all over the world. In becoming a communist icon, he has also become a symbol that everything anti-communists despise, and they have reacted against him and his influence. Accordingly, there must be literally hundreds of thousands of potential facts about Lenin and his legacy that could be added to the article. That does not mean that we actually have to start adding them. Xx236 had simply cherry-picked a few random facts from Polish history and added them (without any attempt to gain any sort of consensus first); this sort of editing is disruptive. So on this particular issue, the problem is not that Xx236 merely added poorly sourced material; it is that they added said material to the article in the first place.Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is edit by Xx under discussion. Some of their changes are minor and non-controversial (that shows the user wants to improve the page), others are debatable. I think the Philosophers' ships absolutely must be included on the page, but the statement must be significantly rephrased and elaborated. As about the "legacy" insert, I agree it should not be included in this way, however this is just a minor content dispute, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, I think that you are trimming the issue down too much. The issue is not just about the addition of poorly referenced material into an article. It's about a huge campaign of disruptive editing spanning many different articles, and in particular their Talk Pages. The addition of poorly referenced material is just one small part of that broader disruptive pattern. In and of itself, that one small issue would not warrant a topic ban; but the broader pattern clearly does. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I checked his mainspace/article editing (4 pages) and his comments on 6 talk pages. I think he obviously has a POV (just like many others), but he wants to improve these pages, his talk page comments are frequently very much reasonable (I responded to some of them), and most important, he actually improves these pages, together with others. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose on the same basis as has been outlined by My very best wishes and Gravuritas. The majority of the editors !voting here have had little in the way of contact with the user and are basing this ban on a select number of edits which don't even begin to reflect the many years of constructive gnoming Xx236 has put in. I'm not even going to claim that I haven't had a few content clashes with him, because I certainly have. This is a knee-jerk reaction to behaviour he ends up sorting out himself by cooling his heels off his own bat, and the purported rationale of bans of any form are not supposed to be punitive. Xx236's eye for detail and finding problems with content and reliable sources for improving articles make him an asset, not a liability. Eastern European subject area articles are rampant with POV pushers of all ilk. The number of seriously POV editors who have managed to avoid any form of ban is (almost) laughable. Punishing one predominantly constructive editor who has moments of flipping out is ludicrous in the face of the plethora of extremist civil POV pushers is ludicrous. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but I don't buy the argument that Xx236 should be given free reign to edit disruptively just because there are also other POV pushers out there. I also disagree with the statement that this is a "knee-jerk reaction". Xx236 has been asked repeatedly to stop their disruptive editing behaviours by several editors (including myself). They completely and utterly ignored that request. If the request for a topic ban is turned down then they will just keep on and on with this disruptive behaviour in the knowledge that they basically have immunity. That means that there will be lots more disruptive editing that myself and other editors have to spend time and energy dealing with. The whole thing is really rather damaging to Wikipedia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• I beg to differ, but I am not promoting any form of 'free reign'. A TBAN applying to this and 'related topics' broadly construed means a ban for Xx236 from involving himself from literally hundreds of articles on the Soviet Union, post-Soviet nation-states, etc... which most certainly does make such a proposal a knee-jerk reaction. These are articles where the user does his best gnoming using the talk page to point out contradictions, missing information, etc. He is not confident with his English and seldom actually edits the articles themselves, but leaves succinct missives on the talk page knowing that there are a number of editors who have the more obscure articles on their watchlists who will look into his observations and make appropriate changes. There are actually very few instances of his observations being unconstructive, and he is certainly made aware of this by other editors when consensus is against him. Issue a stern warning, or have the user temporarily blocked from the article in question, but don't conflate sporadic incidents of the occasional silly piece of WP:DE with WP:NOTHERE, WP:COMPETENCE with the objective leading inevitably to the elimination of a productive editor. Again, I would reiterate that I have great respect for the majority of editors commenting here, but I also know that they have virtually no knowledge or contact with Xx236 outside of a limited range of articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, Xx236 made more than 30,000 edits in this very wide subject area. His edits are usually very "gnomish", I saw his edits many times. He edited a lot of different pages for years, and no one objected. However, for someone with his interests, such wide topic ban is equal to a side ban. Ban him from pages Lenin and Stalin if he is such a problem for you. My very best wishes (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I am not related to the edits in the mentioned pages, but this user has a history of similar edits in Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Vilnius or other Lithuania-related pages where he tends to push pro-Polish POV without backing it up with reliable sources. In addition, he was already topic-banned in the past for similar behavior. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for bringing that to our attention, Sabbatino. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• I have put in a request asking for an administrator to bring this ANI to an end and implement the measures required as a result of it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Problematic behavior by User:Medeis at the reference desk

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

---

First of all, apologies if this is in the wrong place, and feel free to move it.

Several days ago, an anonymous user asked this question on the Reference Desk. After some brief discussion, User:Medeis suggested it be closed due to the questioner asking for opinions, something discouraged on the Reference Desk. Myself and User:JackofOz did not agree that he had done so or that it should be closed, and stated our reasons why. One user, User:Baseball_Bugs, did agree that it should be closed, but for a reason quite separate from Medeis's, and one that is not a valid reason to close a RD question at all (the questioner not having responded for 18 hours). At this point, with two in favor and two opposed, otherwise-uninvolved User:Ian.thomson closed the thread for a third reason - an anonymous IP was vandalizing it. I opened this discussion, Ian Thomson explained his reasoning, an administrator banned the problem IP, and some other users expressed support for keeping the question open and concern at Medeis's general excessive tendency toward closing people's questions and ignoring consensus on the reference desks. No one posted in support of the closing, and Medeis didn't offer any new reasoning beyond what (s)he'd already said. I unhatted the question since the vandal issue was now dealt with and there was clearly no consensus to close, and figured that would be the end of it.

However, Medeis promptly hatted it again. I reverted this second hatting, and asked Medeis to explain him/herself in the talk page discussion. Without doing so or in fact saying anything further at all, (s)he simply hatted it yet again, with no explanation beyond "not this again." At this point I'm bringing it here out of 3RR concerns and because Medeis is clearly uninterested in the consensus on the talk page.

I find this situation quite troubling and am not sure what should be done about it. This is far from the first time issues of this nature has arisen around Medeis. (S)he is extremely active on the Reference Desk, possibly the most active user there, and the majority of his/her contributions are helpful. However, a quite substantial minority are not. Medeis received a six-month topic ban from the Reference Desk in 2014, although it was later rescinded when another admin decided there wasn't consensus. This had no effect on his/her behavior. A perusal through the Reference Desk talk page archives, or Medeis's own talk page, will find many other instances where Medeis's application of his/her own ideas about what the Reference Desk's rules should be has caused friction with other editors. (S)he seems to view the Reference Desk as his/her personal fief, and if the general rules and guidelines of Wikipedia/the RD or the community consensus disagree with his/her personal views, (s)he simply ignores them.

I am really not sure what to do about a user like this. Personally, I think a topic ban would be warranted - I don't think Medeis's positive contributions to the Reference Desk outweigh the combative and haughty attitude with which (s)he interacts with others there. But (s)he is far from a pure vandal, so I'm not sure that would be appropriate under Wikipedia's procedures. Warnings and discussions in which consensus sharply disagree with him/her seem to have no effect whatsoever though, and if an admin simply unhats this question again and takes no other action, we're just going to be running into these issues again, and again, and again. Any thoughts would be appreciated. -Elmer Clark (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

ADDENDUM IN RESPONSE TO User:MarnetteD'S QUITE REASONABLE REQUEST FOR MORE EXAMPLES:

Ten more examples of (IMO) inappropriate closures by Medeis, all within the last month. Especially troubling is that she simply removed a couple of them, making it impossible for anyone else to even realize it was ever there.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Medeis hats a question on the grounds of it being "far too broad to be worth the cognitive effort," even though it had already received a well-referenced answer that the user said he appreciated (if it's not worth the cognitive effort to YOU, you don't have to answer...) [87] Medeis closes someone's questions related to a sci-fi story they were writing on the grounds that "the RD doesn't do homework for you" (no indication was given that this was homework, the question implies otherwise if anything), after a half dozen others had already given relevant responses [88] Medeis closes a question that had already received several relevant responses because "we cannot comment on unspecified material," weird to begin with and an extremely narrow and unreasonable interpretation of what the person was asking [89] Medeis hats a question because "WP:BLP does not allow speculation about the motives of living figures--provide relevant sources" when the user specifically asked for references, not speculation - apparently Medeis sees simply having asked this question as a BLP violation, which is ridiculous [90] Medeis removes a two perfectly neutral and reasonable questions from the same user because she assumes he's a known troll from the past simply because, I guess, his questions relate to racist regimes of the past, and this known troll was a racist (none of the contributions from the actual questioner's IP were problematic). A definite WP:AGF violation if nothing else. [91] and [92] Medeis removes a question as "a request for personal judgments" when an equally reasonable interpretation would be that the questioner was asking about standard procedure [93] Medeis removes an innocuous questioner because the questioner had been banned for causing unrelated problems elsewhere [94] Medeis hats a question, where, admittedly, another user had expressed concern that the question was too vague as stated, but he was actively talking with that user to clarify that he was specifically looking for references, not debate, and asking for help on how to reword his question better [95] Medeis removes a question saying "we don't make judgments here," even though it was blatantly obvious the questioner was asking about prevailing Victorian attitudes and not RD users' personal views [96]

I have also thought of a specific sanction I think would be appropriate - can we simply ban Medeis from closing reference desk threads? If they genuinely need to be closed for legitimate reasons, someone else will. But these constant closures of people's perfectly reasonable questions do serious harm to the Reference Desk - I cannot think of a better way to scare people off. -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• Moved this thread from AN to AN/I as AN/I is the more appropriate forum for discussion of editor behaviour. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• Notifications left for both involved editors; Medeis' notification and Elmer Clark's notification. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see it noted that it was not I, but user @Ian.thomson: who hatted that discussion after I and @Baseball Bugs: suggested that it should be. I see no mention of the fact that @WaltCip: enforced the hatting and semiprotected the page, given an IP user he identified as a sockpuppet had been editting disruptively and refactoring my edits. I do see Elmer Clarks revival of the thread, when even the original OP had lost interest in it, after two days as a deliberate provocation, hence my reversion of the pointy reopening and my "not this again" comment. To summarize, there's no need for me to discuss reverting refactorings of my own comments, I am not the one who hatted the thread, an admin protected the page and closed the thread, and a reversion of a pointy re-opening two days later does not count as edit warring. μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • • I just wanted to point out for the record I am not an admin and I do not have the authority to semi-protect pages. I'm not sure where Medeis is getting this idea.--WaltCip (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I did in fact note that it was Ian Thomson and not you the first time (but not the second or third). And I think it's a little ridiculous to say I "revived this as deliberate provocation" after the "OP had lost interest" when that OP expressly asked for it to be re-opened and wondered what was going on in the talk page section. Your description of the admin's actions are also very misleading - the only admin action taken was specifically in response to the vandalism issue, it was certainly no endorsement of the thread being closed on your supposed grounds, which, in fact, everyone else roundly disagreed with on the talk page. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I was pinged by Elmer Clark and because I only have time right now for Wikipedia in at least the the next 24 hours but probably longer, let me give my opinion. I have made it clear many times that the fundamental problem with the Ref Desk is that it is not so prominent, there is an unhealthy low ratio of people asking questions to people answering questions, this then invites disputes about administering the site. Basically, it's the "too many captains on a small ship problem", which then probably leads to negative feedback on any would be question askers; they are not going to bother to come to our ref desks. Medeis is our de-facto alpha woman who has taken it upon herself to hat questions that she thinks are not appropriate. Most of the time her actions are appropriate, the problem really is about the way she goes about this which is going to lead to friction when her actions are judged to be wrong by others. Even if that happens just in one out of 50 cases, that's then still going to be a problem.

The way forward is for everyone but especially Medeis to get a sense of perspective here. The Ref Desks has been surpassed a long time ago by StackExchange, this is why I spend a lot more time there than here, see my questions and answers there, clearly the set-up there invites a lot more high quality contributions. As I've also said w.r.t. to the other hot button issues regarding legal and medical advice: It's besides the point as no one ever comes here to get any sort of meaningful advice anyway. We're pretending to be a university when in reality we're just bunch of toddlers making a lot of noise in Kindergarten. Imposing your rule here is then like fighting to get your way as the mayor of PhinDeli Town Buford, Wyoming, a total waste of time. What may be more worthwhile is to try to make the Ref Desk to become more prominent. Count Iblis (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

First the OP has noted one specific situation (for which they have some of the particulars wrong) and then expanded that to make broad statements about behavior by Medies for which not a shred of evidence to back up is provided. Next, what admin action does the OP want - they make a vague reference to a topic ban and then act like it is up to somebody else to enact it. Lastly, I have to wonder how someone with who averages less than 100 edits a year since 2010 has any idea of what goes on at the ref desks on a daily basis. The free-for-all that the RD's have become could use "centralized discussion" but until that happens this thread is not going to accomplish anything. BTW M is nowhere close to the most active editor on the RD's. MarnetteD|Talk 21:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not believe I have any of the particulars wrong - see my response to Medeis. And while I rarely edit these days (largely because of how toxic my favorite part of Wikipedia, the Reference Desk, has become) I still read it almost daily, so I don't think it's inappropriate for me to comment on general trends there. Your other point is fair and well taken though - give me a couple of hours and I'll post some more specific examples of recent problem behavior. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

And as to not suggesting any specific course of action, I simply don't know what would be appropriate in a case like this (I've never encountered anything similar here) and was hoping more experienced editors might offer up a reasonable solution. If you're only supposed to post here to petition for a specific course of action then I apologize. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I have started threads before asking the community what action they think is appropriate but those threads showed a long-term trend with minimal commentary (maybe a paragraph of context and a list of WP:DIFFs with short summaries). Show, don't tell. Also, in those instances, the most obvious course of action was a block (topic bans generally being a last chance). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• I don't want a part of this drama but I would like to clarify something: My explicit reason for hatting the thread was not vandalism, it was that it seemed the shortest and simplest way to stop an edit war since the thread had gone quite off-topic. I did not consider it an administrative action since that's probably what would've happened without the tools. Since other users disagreed and someone blocked one of the users involved in the edit war, I didn't see any point in continued action from me.
  The RD is problematic, there does need to be centralized discussion for changes (probably at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)), and I'd be interested if that happens. Otherwise, that's really all I've got to say. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

If the OP has read the ref desks "daily" for nearly seven years (and they have changed quite a bit in that time) they would know that there have been numerous editors (including myself) who have closed threads. Some have agreed with those closes and others haven't, yet you have only brought one editor to ANI. That is troubling to say the least. MarnetteD|Talk 23:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I certainly don't have any blanket objection to closing questions ever, I simply believe Medeis in particular frequently does it when not warranted, to the detriment of the desk. -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

There are three classes of editors who close questions on the refdesks (with a fair amount of overlap). First, there are those who make uncontroversial closes, and the only reaction they get from other refdesk editors is an occasional thank you. Second, there are those who make some dodgy closes, but as soon as several other editors star pushing back they back off, usually with an apology. Third, there are those who do a lot of dodgy closes, and dig in their heels when they encounter pushback from the other regulars. Medeis/μηδείς is in the third group. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Medeis hats discussions all that frequently nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you see my list of examples? Do you not think ten hattings in a month is a lot? Or do you think all/most of those examples were in fact justified? -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Close this thread

• Support There is no admin action requested. So the only reason for the thread it to smear Medeis. As far as I am concerned this needs to be closed before it delves any further into WP:HOUND territory. MarnetteD|Talk 23:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Please hold off, I am adding further references and requesting a specific course of action as we speak -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I've now added ten more examples in the collapsible box and suggested a specific sanction I believe would solve the problem without sacrificing Medeis's positive RD contributions. Please let me know if I need to take any further action to allay your concerns. -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks MarnetteD. If admins are interested, here's yet another pointless provocation by OP 2600 on my talk page, the same IP who was reverting other's actions and refactoring my comment on the thread that is the "basis" for this "complaint". (I'll be asking for a permanent semi-protect there as soon as I post this). μηδείς (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this IP has nothing to do with this complaint at all. It's totally irrelevant, a confounding factor actually that muddies the waters of the real issue. The issue is you closing questions, or advocating closing them, when there is no reason to do so, and persisting even when consensus is clearly against you. You originally wanted to close the question because it was asking for opinions, before this IP even showed up. Later, you DID close it twice, even though this IP had been banned by then. -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, this IP was NOT the OP! -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, if you are going to add new evidence, you should give actual edit summaries or edit qutes with diffs on the open forum, not hidden under a hat inside your original complaint. You make numerous errors which I would call factual errors. My deletion of User:Neptunekh's edits requires no sanction. She's a banned user, one who has threatened self-harm, and who is subject to summary deletion as such. The 2600 IP6 range has not been banned, IP ranges are not banned, but User:WaltCip has indeed identified them as disruptive sockpuppets, and again, no further sanction is necessary to revert their edits. You will find that all the so-called hattings you have attributed in this case are mere reversions to the prior state established by Ian.thomson. I agree with him that his hatting does not mean he agrees with me.

Nevertheless, I agree with him that unnecessary edit warring over moot non-requests for references is not a good idea.

Finally, you repeat this nonsense that I am responsible here for an unjustified hatting. Again, after Bugs and I suggested it, Ian did it, and Walt enforced it. Yet you attack me. Who are you, I wonder? You go from accusing me of hatting a thread of dubious value in most people's eyes to "advocating" the hatting of such a thread. Looking at your "contributions", they are almost entirely against me. Is rhat why you registered an account? Is advocating the closure of a thread, without closing it, now to be forbidden?

The rest of the "evidence" you hide above shows that when opposed, I don't edit war regarding closings, such as the case where I thought the Boer War OP might be the user called the Nazi troll. Another user reverted me, and said he didn't think it was actually the same troll, and that was it.

Yes, I have restored edits of mine that were refactored. But no edit warring on my part. No childish stalking or pointy attacks. (For example, Count Iblis and I frequently disagree, but also contribute civilly without seeking to ban each other.) In the meantime I have provided plenty of actual contributions to the project. Hours worth of work on the African nation question, and the Eastern Slavic question.

What have you done? I think I have said enough. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

This post is a good example of the same kind of problematic behavior you display at the reference desk. Excessive focus on procedural issues and minutiae while largely not addressing the larger issue at all, paranoid and unfounded accusations regarding people's motives (I have thousands of edits and have been registered since 2005...so no, I did not create this account to harass you, and I made my added evidence here as clear as possible, with a boldface header and located right at the top), and a complete disinterest in the fact that many people see fundamental issues with the way you approach things. Even among your supporters here, no one has argued that these closings, and a general mindset toward closings that is as broad is yours, is a good thing. And I acknowledged many times that you also make many unambiguously good contributions, and specifically tried to find a solution that wouldn't jeopardize that - and I think I did. Unfortunately no one here has even responded to it. I don't suppose you'd be open to voluntarily leaving hatting questions to others who follow less controversial criteria... -Elmer Clark (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Who wrote the unsigned comment above, I was wandering... Only to find out it was Medeis. What's up with that bit of indent confusion, Medeis? El_C 09:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it was simply one post with a formatting error, not an unsigned post which I immediately responded to. And my apologies to WaltCip, my confusion was to look at the last in a series of edits and to assume they all belonged to the same editor. μηδείς (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Also I'm still struggling to see where I apparently identified a sockpuppet and enforced an unjustified hatting... Did I pass an RFA in my sleep last night?--WaltCip (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Fairly sure Medeis is referring to User:Berean Hunter who did hard block the trolling IP range (not the IP who started the question) and protect the page. Special:Log/Berean Hunter. As for the indent, it's unfortunate and confusing but seems sa simple mistake so although I may be the master at making a big deal out of things at times, I don't see it's likely to be productive here. Nil Einne (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Affirmative...except the "...enforced an unjustified hatting" interpretation further up. I removed the trolling IP's last edit per DENY but this should not be taken as an endorsement either for or against the hatting. I left that as a matter for the editors there to decide.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• I think This link provides some necessary additional evidence people need to decide what to do about this situation. --Jayron32 10:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Concur with that. Even if you think some sort of action against Medeis is warranted, it's unlikely it'll be achieved here. A simple read of this thread, and the connection with the disputed post on RD/L is enough to tell you that. BTW this also means I'd support closing of this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Yesterday, I read some of the discourse between editors on that ref desk talk page and I would say that it would put off both established editors as well as newcomers. Clearly, it is an unhealthy environment. I believe this ANI post may have been an attempt to remedy that based on the filer's interpretation of Guy's advice. ANI was one of the options listed. Probably time to try one of the other options...
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Honestly the ref desks would be a nicer place if more people *would* close down discussions promptly. Its the Mos Eisley of wikipedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support closing this much-ado-about-not-much discussion, as the question's poster (as noted below) has provided clarification that could take the inherent guesswork out of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Return of the OP

The OP has returned and clarified his question, so I have reopened the thread, leaving the side-discussion closed as moot. μηδείς (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

This discussion isn't about one incident. It is about a long-term pattern of behavior. As I have said elsewhere, I have serious reservations about singling you out for your inappropriate hatting and deletion when [A] others are doing the same thing, and [B] a literal reading of the special rules ("reference desk guidelines") that only apply to the refdesks allows the disruptive behavior. Given those two mitigating facts, I do not think that administrative sanctions against you are justified. That being said, your behavior (and the behavior of several others) on the refdesks has been disruptive, you have shown yourself to be unwilling to stop despite severe pushback from the other refdesk regulars, and undoing the closing after someone reported you at ANI for it in no way makes your ongoing disruptive behavior moot. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Guy Macon's Advice

I choose not to express an opinion about whether the behavior of Medeis/μηδείς requires any sort of administrative action at this time. Others have weighed in on this, and I support whatever the consensus is.

That being said, in my opinion the following is glaringly obvious:

1. The reference desks -- all of them -- are toxic and have been toxic for a while.
2. The help desk and the village pumps are not toxic.
3. Something some of the refdesk regulars are doing at the reference desks that few people are doing at the village pump or help desk is the cause of this. I believe that this something involves non-administrators attempting to control the behavior of other editors without going to dispute resolution or asking for an uninvolved administrator to intervene.
4. This is not a "one editor is causing all of the trouble" sort of problem. There are multiple editors who attempt to control the behavior of other editors, a much larger group that keeps asking them to stop doing that, and a few who egg them on and call for even more self-appointed refdesk policemen.
5. We also have troll problems on the refdesks, yet the help desk and the village pumps have far fewer problems in this area. Something some of the refdesk regulars are doing at the ref desks that few people are doing at the village pump or help desk is the cause of this. I believe that this something is troll feeding, which includes attempting to control the behavior of other editors as well as the traditional refusing to ignore the trolls.

I have, what I believe to be a solution.

I have asked, repeatedly, that we at the refdesks try my solution as a limited time (30 days or so) experiment.

The experiment never gets done because those who attempt to control the behavior of other editors on the refdesks refuse to stop, even temporarily.

Here is my proposed solution to this problem:

• Get rid of the special rules ("reference desk guidelines") that only apply to the refdesks and which the admins (rightly) refuse to enforce. Turn it into an essay that makes it clear that it is advice, not a policy or guideline.
• Apply the standard rules that apply to all pages on Wikipedia. In particular, apply WP:DDE and especially WP:TPOC.
• Stop complaining about other editors on the refdesk or the refdesk talk pages. Instead, complain on the user's talk page, and if that doesn't work, file a report at WP:ANI or try some other form of dispute resolution, starting with WP:DRR.
• Let Wikipedia's existing mechanisms for dealing with disruptive behavior do their job. This includes full use of WP:DRR and WP:ANI and includes administrators blocking anyone who violates WP:TPOC or persists in complaining about other editors on the refdesk or the refdesk talk pages after being warned not to do that again.

What we are doing is not working. And before anyone asks, no I will not post an RfC with the above solution. I refuse to post RfCs where I am 100% convinced that the proposal will not pass. Feel free to post it yourself and get shot down if you think I am wrong on this. I suggest Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) as an appropriate place to post the RfC.

Finally, I really don't see anything that ANI can do to fix this. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Can we just send the refdesk to MfD and have a straight up or down on the whole thing? Seems easier. TimothyJosephWood 15:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

<shows up here straight from the refdesk> Delete and salt, then nuke the site from orbit. (I'm not serious, but I really believe Guy is on to something with his proposal.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I find it interesting that [A] there is strong resistance to trying it for 30 days. [B] those who loudly object are, for the most part, the same few editors who insist on controlling the behavior of others. [C] who loudly object are, for the most part, the same few editors who keep being criticized for inappropriate hatting and deleting, yet vow to continue doing it anyway. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I refuse to post RfCs where I am 100% convinced that the proposal will not pass. That is a truly remarkable statement. You are pushing strongly for changes that, according to you, stand no chance of community consensus. One thing is certain, such changes will not be passed on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see why you would find this to be remarkable. I have proposed what is, in my opinion and the opinion of several other refdesk regulars, a good solution. I acknowledge that the consensus so far is against even trying my proposed solution as a limited-time experiment. I agree to abide by the consensus even though I disagree with it. I presented my solution in the hope that I may some day persuade enough people to change the consensus. What would you have me do? Pretend that the consensus is right when I think it is wrong? Refuse to abide by the consensus just because I think it is wrong? Post an RfC that I believe will be a waste of effort? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, Guy, the sentence he quoted does carry an implication that you're engaged in WP:ADVOCACY because it says you want to accomplish something without going through the normal channels. I don't see it as a problem, however, because it's advocacy for a change in WP policy, it's a change that is obviously intended to improve the project and it comes from an editor who is obviously here to contribute to the project. It's just an "it sounds bad" kind of thing, IMHO. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• This has been proposed before, but the problem is that there aren't any special refdesk rules, just a brief summary of general policy at the top of the page. So WP:DISCLAIMER, WP:BLP, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:NOTHOWTO, etc., would still apply. And frankly, we are a lot more lenient in regards to those policies than anywhere else in the rest of the project. I am not sure how anarchy will help any supposed toxicity. μηδείς (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• What part of "This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow"[97] are you having trouble understanding? If, as you claim, standard Wikipedia policies apply, then it seems to me that you should be held accountable for multiple violations of WP:WP:DDE and especially WP:TPOC. The reason that I wrote the words at the very top of this section were because I assumed that you had a good-faith belief that what you have been doing is allowed under the "reference desk guidelines" (specifically, the part that says "It should be noted that the Wikipedia talk page guidelines apply to the reference desk, both for posting questions and for responding to questions, unless these guidelines clarify that they do not apply"). If this isn't the case, please explain your ongoing disruptive behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I drafted a response to Medeis saying "Guy Macon drew attention to special refdesk rules in his post of 05:02 Thursday", but before I had a chance to save it he himself drew attention to them in a rather aggressive manner. 5.150.74.242 (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:DISRUPT isn't going to apply because it refers to "improving an article or building the encyclopedia". WP:TPOC doesn't mention hatting. 5.150.74.242 (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

What part of

" If a discussion goes off-topic (per the above subsection § How to use article talk pages), editors may hide it using the templates {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} or similar templates—these templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors"

are you having trouble understanding?

BTW, Further guidance about hatting is specifically covered in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Closing discussions.

Wikipedia:Disruptive editing applies to any page anywhere on Wikipedia. The correct quote is "disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia". The purpose of the reference desks is to help build the encyclopedia, plus refdesk discussions often lead directly to improvements in specific articles. Disrupting the refdesks is definitely against the rules. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree 100% with what Guy said directly above me, and was about to say the same exact thing until I saw he beat me to it. The refdesk is part of the encyclopedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

One Editor’s View of the Problem

I will comment briefly, mostly to agree with User:Guy Macon. It isn’t entirely clear whether the original poster actually wants to impose a restriction on User:Medeis or simply wants to discuss. (A major problem here, at WP:ANI, is editors who want to discuss, typically in a hostile fashion, rather than requesting actual administrative action. In this respect, WP:ANI is like the Reference Desks, in being toxic, but is unlike the Reference Desks in having sanctions.) I have sometimes been active at the Reference Desks, and sometimes have ignored them for periods of weeks.

In my opinion, the real problem at the Reference Desks is editors who take the Reference Desks far too seriously, and who therefore think that things need to be done about them. Taking the Reference Desks too seriously is a self-fulfilling prophecy; insisting that there is a problem, either one particular post, or in general, is the problem. Also, as User:Guy Macon says, the Reference Desks have their own trolls. The trolls are fed by the tendency of some Reference Desk posters to get into a blather about the trolls. The trolls, of course, mostly come in from IP addresses, and occasionally from throw-away accounts. The usual response, which is the usual and appropriate response on Wikipedia talk pages, is to semi-protect the page or pages. However, a few regular editors, whom I refer to as RD “idealists”, think that this is the wrong answer, and that the Reference Desks are special, a special outreach of Wikipedia to unregistered editors, and that locking out the unregistered editors is the wrong answer. This results in heated discussion, which probably feeds the trolls. All of this is just one more example of how RD regular editors cause a problem by insisting that there is a problem that must be solved.

In any case, insisting that there is a problem that needs to be solved, whether it is threads that need hatting, or User:Medeis, is what causes the problem, and is why the Reference Desks are toxic.

I agree with User:Guy Macon that a real answer would be for the RD regulars to stop trying to control the behavior of other editors, and would add that they should also stop worrying so much about how to fix the Reference Desk problem. The discussion of how to fix the Reference Desks is the Reference Desk problem. As to the original topic, User:Medeis, she should stop hatting and deleting threads, where her actions do more harm than good, but the original poster should just leave her alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I think most of it is quite correct. However, I disagree about how significant what Medeis is doing is. Do you not agree that closing a new questioner's question is likely to chase him off from using the Reference Desk (and potentially Wikipedia in general) again? And that that is fundamentally antithetical to the RD's purpose, and diminishes its value as a resource? At ten (again, IMO) unjustified closings a months, we're potentially talking about hundreds of people affected here. I find it hard to believe that taking administrative actions while simply brazenly ignoring established procedure and consensus in a way that affected this many people would be tolerated in any other area of Wikipedia.

And I'm not sure this is relevant to your point in the first paragraph, but I originally posted this at WP:AN, not AN/I, and it was moved here. And this is the first time I've ever personally brought an issue to either place. There may be a more appropriate place for this discussion, but I don't think it's the Reference Desk talk pages for exactly the reason you pointed out - the reference desk isn't special, and whether a type of behavior is acceptable there should be decided by the community at large based on general Wikipedia guidelines and principles, not just by the reference desk regulars among themselves based on their own self-imposed rules of RD conduct. Also I did originally bring this up there, and consensus was unanimously against Medeis, but (s)he still re-hatted it twice anyway. I don't know where to turn at that point besides to admins. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

pinging User:Robert McClenon so you know I replied to this since it's been 24 hours plus and I'm not sure you're still following this -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Elmer Clark - It appears that I was just pinged because I failed to comment on a response. Apparently the OP thinks that it is important to discussions here that back-and-forth continue at length. I will respond shortly, but pinging me because I failed to get into an argument seems like an effort to continue an argument. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I missed something, but I didn't see a specific administrative action asked by the OP (nor a general administrative request such as for administrative attention). What does the OP want, other than for me to say something (and this thread isn't my thread, but the OP's and Medeis's and the community's). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Very sorry if my pinging was inappropriate, I thought it was standard procedure to do so when you were replying to someone and there was a good chance they might not see your reply (in this case, because I replied to you so long after your comment). You're certainly free not to involve yourself any more. To be clear, the specific administrative action I am requesting comes at the end of my addendum to the original post - Medeis being banned from closing reference desk discussions. -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

(Ah, I realize now my wording was ambiguous and could be taken to mean I pinged you because you were taking too long to reply. It wasn't that, it was because my own reply came so late you might not have seen it.) -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand that this is not the best place for this discussion, but I just wanted to pipe up to say that as a long time Refdesk user (Mostly under my old username:APL) I agree strongly with Guy Macon's analysis above.

There's a huge set of written and unwritten rules that dictate proper behavior and God help any question-asker that violates them. Deletion and hatting is the most visible aspect of it, but you can also more subtly browbeat newbies too. (Did the question-asker ask an obviously US-centric question without actually specifying the USA? Let's all lecture them about it!) Add to all that a pervasive suspicion of IP editors, and it feels like there's a real hostility towards new users.

Of course, the existence of this hostile attitude makes it a rich and entertaining target for actual trolls, so the problem is self-reinforcing.

Whether Guy Macon's proposed fixes would fix it, I'm uncertain.

ApLundell (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

We could, you know, try it for 30 days and see whether it works. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Everyone needs to stick to 0RR 1RR w.r.t. non-vandalism edits on the Ref Desk

Editing the Ref Desk is not similar to editing a Wiki article, there is far less need to revert outside of vandalism. There is a need to hat questions that are not appropriate, and it's these sorts of actions that can get reverted. So, I propose that we all stick to 0RR 1RR when it comes to editing the Ref Desk as far as non-vandalism edits are concerned. We stick to 1RR 2RR w.r.t. dealing with the edits of the OP of a question. So, if you hat a question but the OP reverts you then you can revert to your hatting (even if the OP is a regular, the idea is that an OP will typically be less objective than others). Note that the OP would already be in the wrong when reverting the hatting, as he/she would need to stick to 0RR 1RR, but most questions are asked by non-regular IPs who won't know about these rules. If most regular sticks to these rules, then all inappropriate questions will end up being hatted without creating much drama. Count Iblis (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: as pointed out in the comments below the original proposal invoking 0RR was wrong, so I corrected the text by changing X RR to (X+1) RR. Count Iblis (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I question your statement: There is a need to hat questions that are not appropriate.

Why do we need to hat anything? I know I've done a little bit of it myself, but on reflection I think hatting is not only unnecessary but counterproductive. Firstly, it actually highlights that which is purported to be hidden, so that's a complete wank. Secondly, nothing is gained by hatting. Thirdly, it's an open invitation for reversion and edit warring.

So someone asks an "inappropriate" question. So what? Best to just leave it alone, or explain to the OP why it's not appropriate, and then just move on. Consider a RL ref desk: Someone rocks up and asks a question that is beyond the remit of the desk. What does the librarian do? Turn back time and pretend the client had never existed? Throw a shroud over the client to hide them from view? No. They just say that they can't answer that question, and maybe suggest where would be a better place to ask. Then on to the next client. Simples.

Now, sometimes answers can get somewhat off-track, and there may be a case for hatting a section of a thread that is really not useful to the OP or anyone else. But as for hatting questions - no way. I'd rather delete a seriously offensively inappropriate question outright, than hat it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think you make a good point here. But apart from the hatting issue, whatever we do on the Ref Desk, unless it's reverting vandalism, one should be able to stick to 0RR. Count Iblis (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The ref desk rules say that certain types of questions, though not inherently vandalism, are inappropriate for the ref desk and are subject to deletion. Would you prefer that approach to hatting? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Deletion means removal, not just pretending to hide it behind a hat. There should be a high threshold for removal, but some questions would undoubtedly surpass it. Merely hatting a question actually highlights the question rather than downplaying it, human nature being what it is. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

My main point is to stick to 0RR, not whether hatting or deletion is better. Suppose the issue of what to do with a problem post would arise then under 0RR it would tend to be sorted out in the best way possible with the least amount of friction anyway. Count Iblis (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying that once someone hats something, it should stay hatted? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

No, because you can then remove the hat and decide to do something else (if anything) with that post. But when you do that the editor who hatted the question cannot revert back to the previous version, as that would violate 0RR. So, for an edit war to go on and on would requite more and more different editors to step in and undo each other's edit, but there are only a handful of regulars at the Ref Desk, so that's not going to happen. Count Iblis (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not 0RR then, it's 1RR. And consider this: user A hats or deletes. User B unhats or undeletes. Why does user B get to "win"? What's special about user B that his opinion overrides user A's opinion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

What's special is the fact that user B just demonstrated that the close was not an uncontroversial or uncontentious close. It is the exact same principle used at WP:BRD. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

So it should then be taken to the talk page. However, if you want to literally use 0RR, then no one can be allowed to unhat or undelete until it's been decided on the talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Count Iblis, could you please edit your comments and the section title to reflect the fact that you are proposing 1RR and not 0RR? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Where was this decided?

Re: "The ref desk rules say that certain types of questions, though not inherently vandalism, are inappropriate for the ref desk and are subject to deletion",[98] Where was this decided? Could someone please post a link to the RfC or other discussion where the Wikipedia community (not just the refdesk regulars) decided that this was OK?

WP:CONLIMITED is quite clear on this:

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages, information pages and template documentation pages written by a single individual or several participants who have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process have no more status than an essay."

Whenever I bring this up, someone replies accusing me of saying that no removals are allowed. I have always been clear that removals on the refdesks are allowed in cases specified by existing policies and guidelines, particularly WP:DISRUPT and WP:TPOC. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm talking about the long-standing rules against giving professional advice and about not asking questions whose purpose is to invite debate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this thread has strayed from its origins. The OP was trying to WP:HOUND a specific editor. Everything after that is misplaced. ANI is not the place to decide what is going to happen to the ref desks. As a couple of us have suggested a Wikipedia:Centralized discussion should be started. Then notices can be placed in various places to generate as full of a discussion as possible. An alternative is a RFC but, IMO, this has gone on so long that a CD is preferable. We can continue to spin our wheels here but, eventually, these threads will archived with nothing having been finalized. As with my request about the original thread I suggest this be closed. Then the discussion can be resumed at the appropriate spot. MarnetteD|Talk 16:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Close it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I really don't appreciate your repeated accusations about my motives. I think I've given you a very good explanation for why I've brought this up here, and accusing me of "trying to hound someone" nonetheless is a clear violation of WP:AGF. It's also absurd on its face given that, as you've pointed out, I'm much too inactive here to be involved in any ongoing personal disputes with other editors. I believe I've only interacted with Medeis once before ever, and it was about (essentially) this same issue. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

And if this is the wrong place for this - perfectly possible, as I pointed out in the very first sentence of my post - wouldn't the correct solution be to move it rather than to close it? I think consensus from the comments here is that there definitely is an issue with Medeis's behavior, but I didn't go about addressing it properly. I would hope more experienced editors would work with me on that instead of just closing it - it's not a good thing if the avenues for addressing problems on Wikipedia are de facto only available to experienced users because anyone making procedural mistakes simply gets their issue tossed out regardless of the merits. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that if you're after a topic ban (say), you should just check the Banning policy where it says that you should make you proposal at WP:AN (preferably), or WP:ANI. So, in summary, this is a legitimate place for this discussion, but perhaps you need to start afresh with a direct proposal rather than just a general discussion. Providing diffs of disruptive (or perceived disruptive) behaviour would be essential, I can help with that, so please, if you feel dissuaded by the bureaucracy here, don't let that stop you. There are many here willing to help you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Elmer, the suggestion to ban Medeis from hatting/closing or deleting any Ref Desk Q's is a good one, as she has shown a complete lack of judgement in when to do so. You should make that into a formal request, and I will support it. As for the accusation of you acting improperly in bringing the issue up here, I completely disagree. StuRat (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I'm concerned about bringing this up again in a new post though because at least one user (User:MarnetteD) already seems convinced that I'm hounding Medeis, and I'm afraid starting a whole new discussion somewhere else would just reinforce that. Also I did provide diffs in the collapsible box in my "addendum" above, you may have missed that Rambling Man (is there a better/more prominent way I can format that? Medeis seems to think it wasn't prominent enough as well). -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The outcome I really don't want is for this discussion to be closed because of my procedural errors/confusing and bad formatting/the perception that I'm hounding Medeis/etc without any ruling being made based on the merits, and then Medeis forever being able to cite this discussion as "proof" that this issue has already been looked at and addressed if anyone ever brings this up again. Advice on how to avoid that would be greatly appreciated... -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe diffs are included right at the start of the discussion, in most cases. But there is a certain irony if this thread is closed because it wasn't worded properly, when Medeis closes threads for that reason, too. StuRat (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Support a topic ban banning Medeis/μηδείς from closing or deleting any Ref Desk Q, with the option of later doing the same to other editors if it is determined that their closing/deleting is becoming disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

You're inviting the Nazi ref desk troll and/or the Vote(X) troll to raise holy hell anytime their garbage gets deleted - and to punish Medeis if that's the user doing the deleting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

How do you figure? There's still literally every other Reference Desk user available to close obviously disruptive threads. And Medeis can easily avoid being "punished" by simply...obeying the sanction. -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Obviously disruptive threads need to be closed fast, and it doesn't really matter who does it. Why, oh why is this discussion even happening when the community - agreed procedure for dealing with this problem has not been tried first? See this comment:

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't the reason why what we are doing isn't working is that we are not following the existing community - agreed guidelines, which are:

• Whenever you remove a post report on the talk page that you have done this or (if you are removing a troll post from Soft Skin which includes mention of any or all of gas chambers, Hitler, the Holocaust, Jews and National Socialism) identify it in your edit summary. 86.173.152.150 (talk) 10:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.100.217 (talk)

• • "Not working" - compared to what? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    • It works great for you because of your phobia against giving "professional advice"; a site that looks extremely unprofessional is the ideal site for you because you then know that no one is going to construe anything from such a site as being "professional advice" (not that you are in the habit of giving professional advice but the mere thought that you may have inadvertently given professional advice may keep you awake at night) :) Count Iblis (talk) 03:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC) .
      • It's not a phobia, it's a rule, and I had nothing to do with its establishment. If you don't like that rule, take it up with the Foundation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
        • One thing doesn't exclude the other. As a doctor you know that you need to adhere to very rigorous hygiene rules when engaging in certain medical procedures. But if you then get obsessed by sticking to such rules even when it's not necessary and tend to argue on nebulous grounds why such rules still apply, you may be suffering from OCD. Count Iblis (talk) 08:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
          • What has that got to do with not allowing professional advice on Wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
            • There are in principle valid reasons why you would not want professional advice to be given on some website. However, these reasons come with certain assumptions that have to do with there being a real problem. The way the Ref Desks operate in practice makes them quite unlikely places for anyone to ever get any serious advice like legal advice or medical advice from. It's like pretending that a Kindergarten in an academic institution and then fighting about how to stick to proper academic standards when there is little more to it than brawling Kindergartners. Count Iblis (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
              • I do not buy that argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
                • Nor do I, and it does not accord with the intent of the WMF policy. In fact, it subverts it entirely. No professional advice, period. Anything that violates that rule should be closed down, by any editor, whether or not some critics see them as "self-appointed moderators", and re-opening such a closed thread is behavior suitable to be brought to ANI for sanctioning. There is no possible way to enforce the WMF policy without actually enforcing the policy, and that is not a task that can only be done by admins -- like enforcing BLP or copyvios, any editor can enforce it. Some in this discussion appear to want the WMF "no professional advice" policy to be magically enforced by fairy dust and good will, in the face of a documented history of trolling, but that hasn't worked, and won't work. If the community is not going to allow the RefDesk to be self-policed by those who spend their time there, then it should be shut down entirely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
                  • A fundamentalist interpretation devoid of the real issues is always going to cause problems. We've seen in the past how giving editors carte blanche to enforce BLP led to disaster. The reason was that you could now invoke BLP in an entirely unreasonable way to get your way in an editing dispute that had nothing to do with BLP. That problem was only sorted out later when the BLP noticeboard was created. But in the meantime what happened was that a few editors appeared on the scene who were more interested in playing the cop, they did rack up a huge block list but they who also tended to be unblocked quite fast by Admins siding with them. We've had very polarized discussions here on AN/I about these editors the blocks and the unblockings. Count Iblis (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
                    • It sounds like you're describing Betacommand. The core problem with a guy like Betacommand is a lack of clear direction from the WMF about what the rules really are, and more importantly, why they are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration proposal

Proposal. The behaviours at the ref desks have been out of control for a long time now. It was a mistake that Arbcom did not look into it as a result of previous cases, including TRM's. They should do so now. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• You don't need to propose. If you want to go to ARBCOM, go to ARBCOM and make a case. They'll either accept or reject it.--WaltCip (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• It is perfectly legitimate to first discuss a proposal before filing an arbcom case. If a bunch of people say that you have no chance, you might not want to file. If a bunch of people say that it looks like a good idea, you might decide to file based upon that. Also, the exact wording of your filing is important, and should be happerd out before filing. For that, I suggest writing up a a draft in userspace and inviting comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I will Support the filing and opening of an ArbCom case concerning behavior at the Reference Desks. This should have been taken up previously, but still should be taken up. The scope of the case does need to be stated properly. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• Two kinds of disruption occur at the refdesks—pushback from the liberty crowd when discussions are sensibly closed, and pushback from the liberty crowd when trolls are reverted. Arbcom cannot provide a solution that is not based on a community decision about what is acceptable, so nothing productive will occur until a massive RfC establishes the purpose of the refdesks and whether any limits apply. Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • This could also be stated that "disruptions occur on the ref-desk when a small group of users aggressively misinterpret the rules to remove or shut down legitimate questions." depending on who you think is in the right. Getting clarification on such issues, or determining a way to make them them no longer an issue, might just be a service arb-com could provide.

However, I think we'd need to all be prepared for the possibility that they'd decide that the RefDesk has outlived its usefulness. ApLundell (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

This sounds fine to me (and I think it's clear that someone other than me should be making the proposal). However, I would hope that it would not turn into a vague discussion of the "general culture" of the reference desk during which Medeis's specific behavior isn't addressed, which IMO goes above and beyond the broader problems plaguing the reference desk as a whole, and is a problem that can be tackled with much simpler measures than fixing everything wrong with the entire RD. -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Question particularly for User:Dweller: Would standard discretionary sanctions applied to the ref desks help? Is been a long time since I've looked at them and I was never very involved (and one doesn't like to second-guess the committee too much) but if the problems described above are described accurately then DS seems a fairly likely part of the outcome of a full case. Would that help? Or would it just create an environment where new editors' Wikipedia experience starts at AE? GoldenRing (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  Possibly/probably. Arbcom could also usefully help determine whether the RefDesks really are exempt from usual policies or guidelines. And, strongly, the problem editing isn't coming from newbies. It's RefDesk regulars sniping at each other and at questioners and disagreeing about 'the rules'. Longstanding editors and administrators who ought to know better behaving like mastodons. It's like a bloody playground, has been for ages and ages and ages, has spilled into ArbCom's turf on several occasions and each time it's not been addressed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• I hope this doesn't happen. The refdesks are usually a saner place than the rest of Wikipedia. Medeis is a knowledgeable refdesk contributor whose presence makes the place smarter, so I want for her to keep participating. And I'd rather that the broader Wikipedia dispute resolution bureaucracy simply stay away from a part of the project whose dysfunction is less severe than the part that's being proposed to fix it. I remember another one of these discussions where Medeis made some points about WP policy interpretation which I thought were philosophically at odds with how the project works at its best, and that her recurring conflicts with other contributors might follow from that. So I've thought that informal discussion or mediation might bring out better understanding and maybe compromise about those issues. I'd like to help with that if possible, though my editing opportunities are very limited these days. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 06:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

What questions would you specifically request the arb-com look into? I'd like to suggest the following : - Does the reference desk still serve a purpose proportional to the effort put into it? - Do the Ref Desk guidelines hold any weight, and should they be enforced? - What should be done about questions that do not strictly contravene the rules, but about which there is disagreement on whether they are legitimate questions or trolls? ApLundell (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration#Scope of arbitration explains that Arbcom will not decide what should happen at the refdesks. The policies and guidelines I am aware of focus on the encyclopedia and Arbcom will rule on whether editor behavior aligns with those procedures. I am not aware of any rules regarding the refdesks so Arbcom cannot help. However, I can answer your last question. Participants should understand that pursuing freedom or personal enjoyment is not the purpose of this website, and should already know that there have been many cases of trolling or otherwise inappropriate commentary. Therefore, the correct procedure is to accept any close or removal that could be construed as good faith. Only revert when it is believed the close was itself trolling or a blatantly misguided me-too action from a new participant. Even then, a close should be reversed only when pursuing the discussion would be beneficial—do not revert a close merely becauses like or freedom. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

So individuals can make up arbitrary rules ("Questions about sexuality are self-evident trolling.") and then enforce them as long as they might be doing it in "good faith"? That can't possibly be right. ApLundell (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I doubt very much whether any editor has carte blanche to misbehave just because it's on the Reference desk rather than the encyclopedia. ArbCom can and does deal with misbehaviour on talk pages as well. The correct procedure is to follow the community - approved "Reference desk guidelines" (see section above). I don't think good faith should be the criterion because it raises the potential for argument ("Sorry, guv, I didn't know it was against the rules, I did it in good faith.") 81.151.101.13 (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The above claim is factually incorrect. The special rules ("reference desk guidelines") that only apply to the refdesks and which the admins (rightly) refuse to enforce were never approved by the community. They were written and are being enforced by a small group of editors who never asked the community to approve what they are doing or to appont them as the refdsk police. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

These guidelines were adopted when the Reference desk was reconstituted in 2006. Prior to adoption there was discussion on the talk page, as can be seen from the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules. Any proposal which is adopted after being discussed on a talk page is regarded as having community consensus. 81.151.101.13 (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a bit similar to how "not truth" was for a long time the de-facto "consensus" on verifiability here on Wikipedia. There was actually never a consensus about it, just the claim that it was so and then you got many editors who would support the status quo due to a lack of a good alternative. Or take the issue of gay marriage in the real world. The opponents have cited the many thousands of year's old consensus that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. But did that consensus ever get established based on a detailed analysis of gay relationships? Of course not, such relationships were taboo until just a few decades ago. Count Iblis (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Once again, 81.151.101.13's claims are factually incorrect. Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline (later renamed to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines leaving a redirect) was created on 8 December 2006‎. Shortly after that, Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules was created as a content fork of Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline, then nominated for deletion in the MfD that 81.151.101.13 linked to above. The "discussion on the talk page" (the MfD) was a discussion about the seperate, content fork page, not about Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline(s). Futhermore, 81.151.101.13's claim that "Any proposal which is adopted after being discussed on a talk page is regarded as having community consensus" is also factually wrong. See WP:LOCALCON.

Given the apparent familiarity with Wikipedia policy, the ability to search for ancient MfDs,. the apparently deliberate multiple factually wrong claims, and the edit history (2 edits total), WP:DUCK tells me that 81.151.101.13 is a sockpuppet. The question is, is he a sockpuppet of one of the refdesk regulars who have taken on the role of self-appointed moderators, or is he a sockpuppet of one of our IP-hopping refdesk trolls? My money is on the latter. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Guy isn't telling the whole story. The result of the Mfd was to merge Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guideline. I do know the difference between a talkpage and an Mfd. There followed a comprehensive discussion of the proposals on both pages. The policy Guy links to actually says

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.

You can see the scale of the discussion here: Special:Permalink/94890911. 81.151.101.13 (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I hear quacking... The 11-year-old discussion 81.151.101.13 linked to above was among a handful of refdesk regulars who unanimously !voted to allow everything and did not discuss removing or collapsing comments at all. Again, zero evidence that the wider community ever approved the creation of self-appointed refdesk cops. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Whatever the original problem at the Reference Desks is or was, it is compounded by a few editors who are so determined to solve the problem that they create a problem in the source of solving it. This noticeboard certainly isn't the place to solve the problem. (However, this noticeboard does not effectively solve any problem that polarizes and divides the community.) An argument can be made and has been made that Medeis should be topic-banned from closing threads at the Reference Desk, but that doesn't appear to have consensus, and besides that would only address one part of whatever the problem is. If there is no consensus to take action here, either file an arbitration request and close this thread, or close this thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

SteveBaker's opinions

SteveBaker was a Ref Desk regular who made a large number of contribution. He has just left a note on the talk page to explain why he left a year ago, see here. On his talk page we can find a few comments from a year ago, like this one that make it clear that the problem is with self-appointed moderators. Now, I don't agree with SteveBaker on everything here, I don't think banning Medeis would be a good idea, but his the broader perspective on the problems is spot on; self appointed moderators imposing their rules is asking for problems. Count Iblis (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

If an editor is supporting and applying consensus policy, then they are not a "self-appointed moderator", they are an editor supporting and applying consensus policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

That would be fine and good if you could provide a link to the discussion where the Wikipedia community agreed to the special rules ("reference desk guidelines") that only apply to the refdesks and which the admins (rightly) refuse to enforce and a link to where the Wikipedia community further agreed that ordinary editors can perform deletions and hatting that would otherwise no be allowed under WP:TPOC or WP:DDE. Do you have such links? Because unless someone provides links RfCs or other discussions that I am not aware of, the special rules and especially the whole idea self appointed moderators imposing those rules looks like a classic case of WP:LOCALCON to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be an RfC, and it's not an instance of LOCALCON, since there is a specific WMF policy against giving out professional advice which can be enforced by any editor, not just admins, just as the BLP and copyvio policies can be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that the Ref-Desk are doing something totally different than the rest of Wikipedia, but policy is shaped by what goes on in the rest of Wikipedia. The ban on professional advice and how to act against violations cannot be interpreted precisely like we do when editing articles, so one ends up with some ad hoc agreements on how to go about these things. You'll then get people who'll act more aggressively against problems and sometimes they'll see a problem when others don't see a problem. Discussions can then escalate when questions and answers are hatted by one editor while other editors don't see a problem with the question and now see that their answers have been hatted. A very strict zero tolerance approach is good for editing articles, but it's not good for the Ref-Desk with the exception of removing obvious problem questions (which then wouldn't be controversial to do). Count Iblis (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I strongly disagree. If anything -- because it's completely ancillary to the primary mission of Wikipedia -- the RefDesk needs to be even more strictly patrolled then articlespace does. In fact, with all due respect to the fine editors who labor there, Wikipedia would not be harmed in any way if the RefDesk was closed down entirely. Given that, extremely strict zero tolerance for violations of the "no professional advice" policy seems to me to be an obvious necessity, and I have absolutely no problem with editors enforcing the policy in that manner. Obviously, some disagree, but ArbCom is that way, and no one's filed a case request yet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

...not to mention pro­fes­sion­als doing things you never would have imagined. EEng

You have to consider here that no real professional advice is typically given there (in the rare cases where there is such an issue it's going to be removed) the problem is usually purely formal. So, someone asks a question that is not meant as professional advice but it can be construed that way; the closing of such questions leads to tensions. I do agree that it's better to have clear cut guidelines that can be strictly enforced to the letter, but the way things are done now will always lead to ambiguities it's a recipe to get the sort of conflicts we see there. Professional advice has to be invoked in a well defined but reasonable way, otherwise virtually anything can in principle be construed as professional advice as today you have professionals doing virtually anything you can imagine. Count Iblis (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Please don't allow this to be archived without an administrator making a decision

This issue has come to ANI at least a dozen times already, and if allowed to time out and archive will come back a dozen more times, with the more problematic editors emboldened by the lack of action. The Wikipedia community is pleading with you for help. Either help us or tell us that further requests for help will be ignored so we can go elsewhere. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon - What are you requesting be done, anyway? There isn't a consensus for any action that has been mentioned, such as restrictions on Medeis. The alternatives that I can see are an ArbCom case, a centralized discussion at Village pump (Miscellaneous), or an RFC. We can see that nothing is being accomplished as it is. An ArbCom case could, first, impose discretionary sanctions, and, second, instruct the community to draw up standards. Alternatively, propose something. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I am expecting an admin to close this, saying that there is no consensus for any administrative action, and advising those who post essentially the same complaint at ANI in the future that this answer is unlikely to change. Then we can point to that closing the next dozen times someone brings up essentially the same complaint, which different editors do on a regular basis. Either that or I am expecting an administrator to close this with some sort of administrative action (a restriction on a user, 1RR on hatting/unhatting, or maybe something else) designed to solve the problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

No single admin is going to make the kind of decision that is being requested. It will likely take a well-written RfC because this matter must be put to the community for consensus. Even if it ends up at ArbCom eventually, it will still likely need to go the path of allowing the community to make the attempted decision(s) first. Admins and ArbCom do not make policies...the community does.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Editor doesn't care about the purpose of the footnotes

Recently, User:Rebelrick123 added in the "Championships and accomplishments" in some wrestlers biographies the accurate name of the title (specifically the WWE Championship) they held. For example, Triple H has held the championship 9 times, but his fifth and ninth reign were as Undisputed WWF Champion and WWE World Heavyweight Champion, as it is pointed out in the footnotes. From his POV, notes are not necessary if we inform what they were, and due to this he puts all the title names that wrestlers hold them in those times in parenthesis; so in this case he was Undisputed WWF/WWE World Heavyweight Champion for 9 times? Nickag989^talk 09:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this requires any admin intervention at this time since it isn't about editor behavior or sourcing, etc. This seems best handled by consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling from the looks of it. Regrds. --64.85.216.193 (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• I renew my call that Wikipedia simply drop all coverage of professional wrestling, footy players, music genres, beauty pageants, and anything Ru Paul–related as just not worth the drama. EEng 14:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC) And no, I'm not actually serious about this. At least not entirely.

It's a nice thought. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Seconded, Boing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Will take my rest here, nice to meet ya, fellas. --QEDK (愛) 18:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• "Professional Wrestling" championships are Kayfabe. If a detail is controversial, either the version provided by WWE is canonical, or it's probably a too-specifc detail of a fictional universe and not worth including. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

User false accused me of threatening a real person.

Champion falsely accused me of supposedly threatening Donald Trump only because I joked about how similar oir names are, the user then decided to speedily delete my user page, report my user name (without consulting me, and claimed it was/is a "threatening" name), and seems bent on blocking me yet never asked me anything or why I use my name. This seems like an obvious abuse of privileges bestowed upon the user to speedily delete a harmless user page where I talked about myself and made a single joke. Donald Trung (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Donald Trung:---Well, Sjb72 was the deleting administrator and Champion is hardly the one to fault.You may contact Sjb for further queries.Further, we don't like sarcasms etc. esp. coming from brand-new users.And you are better with changing the username.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 15:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

IMO you should just ask for a rename. The fact that the username is by your own admission a nickname derived from but not your real name, and reference to Donald Trump mean it's always going to be problematic. The fact that this nickname is old doesn't really help things much. Ultimately as a clear reference to another living person who isn't your friend or relative, and a notable one at that (which he would be long before he was politically active, in fact probably was from when you the nickname arose hence why you knew of him in Australia), even if it isn't intended to mock said individual; means any of your actions could be as associated with them. I'm not commenting on whether this meets the standard for a forced username block, but there's nothing stopping you voluntarily requesting a rename. Also I can't see what was deleted but the fact it was deleted makes me think it did raise concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

OP is currently posting nonsense 'speedy keep' rationales on various AfD's; I think we're being lead on by a daft troll. Can we rush a block on this and save a bunch of time and pain? I strike that; there's more of a competence issue that I'm seeing rather than malicious intent. Nate • (chatter) 16:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I was the deleting administrator of Donald Trung's original User page. The content was short, and from the content could be described as an attempt at humour at best, and at worst , a hoax or an attack page. I did consider changing the deletion reason, but decided to leave it as per the original CSD tag. Donald Trung, I strongly recommend changing your username; if you keep it as it is, you are going to be facing a lot of scrutiny from other editors. I would imagine that you will end up having discussions on this page repeatedly, and it really isn't worth the hassle. I expect you came to Wikipedia to help improve it (as did the rest of us), but at the moment you are getting a lot of drama, which if left unchecked, will probably cause you to leave. Stephen! ^Coming... 06:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Pages are constantly hijacked by edits from IP Addresses and Users

IPs

• 39.46.149.198
• 39.46.83.185

and User

• Torrentz4

are constantly spamming on ExtraTorrent, Torrentz and KickassTorrents. Kindly look into the matter asap.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BeLucky (talk • contribs) 16:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

{{Uw-spam3}} applied to each of the editors' talk pages. Let me know if it continues. I'll either block the editors or semi-protect the articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

User:NinjaRobotPirate It is still happening. Kindly block the IPs/Users or semi-protect the articles for best.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BeLucky (talk • contribs) 13:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I semi-protected all three articles for a week. It looks like there are various disputes over successor websites, and the spammy external links aren't helping matters. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• @BeLucky: Yes you were (lucky)! Yesterday you hit WP:15RR on ExtraTorrent, and I'm not sure that what you were reverting would have come under WP:NOT3RR. This is not a criticism, just a suggestion to be mindful, and reach for RFPP or here, a bit sooner, eh? Thus avoiding any noticeboard entanglements, to paraphrase :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Block on Newimpartial

After the close a few sections above which said no more warnings, Newimpartial has continued his efforts to obstruct spam cleanup and processing stale userspace drafts here [99] by dragging in an editor with similar views to him on protecting spam pages which lead to this by his new proxy [100] He is still questioning my activity with admins here [101] and here [102]. He's still casting aspirations against me still based on wrong assumptions and a lack of understanding of deletion process and policy while digging deep in my extensive editing history to find justification for his little obstructionist project. Legacypac (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose for now - this whole thing kicked off about 15 hours ago, and as near as I can tell in the fifteen threads started since that time (on 12 different pages) Newimpartial is simply trying to figure out what's going on. They're new, they got excited about something, and they're trying to figure out why the guidelines say one thing while (multiple) editors are doing something seemingly contradictory. I do agree, however, that they're being less-than-civil with regard to their tone regarding Legacypac, but to say that Godsy is a meatpuppet purely because they became interested in the case is a bit problematic in and of itself. I think both sides need to chill out. Primefac (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Give him a chance. He's stopped the disruptive tagging, and it is reasonable to ask questions. WP is not all that simple to understand: the policies and guidelines interact in complicated ways. And, Legacypac, you need to AGF about the other editor, not call them a "proxy". DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to mount a "defense" except to note the mass of MfDs and CSDs here <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Legacypac&offset=&limit=500&target=Legacypac> and the uncivil exchanges on the part of Legacypac here <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Lasersharp/Taipei_Interactive_English_Club> and here <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Andwats/Don_Fex> Legacypac also referred to my removal as CSD tags as "vandalism", which is not very WP:CIVIL to say about a WP:GOOD FAITH edit. I apologize for being opinionated beyond my experience, and I have withdrawn in participation in MfD or deletion nominations, but there was certainly no bad faith in my part. I do feel that WP:BITE has not been followed in this case so far, present company excepted :).Newimpartial (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

And I never was "obstructionist"; I only wanted the process outlined in WP:STALE to be followed as I understood it. But I have let that go. Newimpartial (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I never used the term meatpuppet but I provided a diff where he asked another editor to do what he was being told not to do. I AGF but CIR. mass targeting my CSD tags to protect spam is vandalism just like inserting spam yourself. Legacypac (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you not tell the difference between "protecting spam" and WP:GOOD FAITH due process, Legacypac? Because that is literally what this whole thing hinges on. I was never "protecting spam".

Nor was I "mass targeting". I was looking at each case on the merits - maybe not correctly, but thoughtfully - which is why I was annoyed and wanted to see the pages that were deleted so quickly that I didn't get a chance to look at what you were labelling. And there were definitely errors in your CSD tags; I think everyone can agree about that, even the admins who deleted.Newimpartial (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• I first noticed Newimpartial due to their participation at miscellany for deletion which I frequent. I noticed the first an/i thread through my watchlist which lead me to become interested in the related drv. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

No it hinges on WO:CIR and unwillingness to listen to experienced editors who are trying to educate you. When you start accusing me all over the site of plots and misdeeds while systematically undoing my spam clean up work, you exhast my WP:AGF toward you. Legacypac (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

But at no time was I "systematically undoing". First I was reviewing MfDs on their merits - not especially yours, and not always voting "keep" - and then I was reviewing CSDs on their merits - not just yours, and not always "undoing" or objecting. You can say I wasn't applying the criteria used by the group currently engaged in patrolling the userspace drafts, and you would be right as it turns out, but I was certainly not "systematically undoing" anything, and I only referred to what I understood as your attempts to get around WP:CONSENSUS on a few of the pages in which the actual deletions were being discussed, until I "made it" to ANI. Then I stopped participating in XfD discussions, pretty much immediately, and only then - and because you had not made any response to the issues that I had raised about WP:STALE policy - I mentioned it to a couple of other editors and admin. That isn't "accusing you all over the site", by any stretch of the imagination, and I'd stand by my record of remaining relatively WP:CIVIL; I certainly didn't resort to threats, as you did. Your WP:AGF was over pretty much before it started, as I think the diffs I posted above demonstrate.Newimpartial (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. THis is another example of how Wikipedia fails disaterously to properly inform new users about what they can and can't do when they sign up. Not everyone is as intuitive as us old-age pensioners who never even grew up in a computer environent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• Newimpartial's comments are very condescending with bullshit blue links and redundant advice. It might not be trolling but either it is intentionally provocative in the hope that Legacypac will explode or go away, or Newimpartial's comments indicate WP:CIR problems. If someone has a point to make, just make it. Newimpartial has recently been involved in a lot of "discussion" on numerous pages (including my talk)—has there been a commensurate benefit to the encyclopedia? Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• Wait and see. If there's one thing more loathsome than a spammer, it's a spam enabler. What I see here is a new user off to a very very bad start, and compounding the situation by refusing to listen to advice, being argumentative, etc. I don't think it quite raises to the level of an indefinite block just yet, and I've seen new editors recover from worse, but if Newimpartial continues along their current path their time on Wikipedia will be short indeed. At this point, the ball's in their court: they can take some advice from Legacypac and others and help us improve wikipedia, or continue their current trajectory until they've spent so much time on the naughty list that a block is inevitable. I'd like to hope it's the former, but we shall see. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• I see an allegation by Newimpartial of "Legacypac, who has a terrible record with Speedy Delete nominations" as justification for CSD detagging. This is a serious allegation. I ask User:Legacypac to enable User:Legacypac/CSD log, to turn it on using the preferences panel, for transparency. A quick random check of contributions reveals a lot of tagging and some bad tagging [103][104][105][106] (NB this search is biased as it can only find CSD taggings on undeleted pages). I suspect Legacypac may be slightly deletionist with respect to random useless stuff, but not deserving of anything beyond a polite discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as blatant NOTWEBHOST violations is currently chock-full of mistagged article drafts. I'd go through and decline just about all of them (maybe one in twenty so far have been bad enough to speedy as a G11), but I already know the ensuing discussion wouldn't be polite. —Cryptic 04:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I checked the As. Mostly the tag is good. The rest, U5 is a stretch, with a stretched overlap with G11, and none will ever make mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Surely there is some spam fighting or New Page Patrol or something more productive for SmokeyJoe to do then searching my CSD tags especially since every tag is already directly reviewed by an Admin. As best I can tell my CSD acceptance rate is over 99%. Occasionally Admins don't see something I spotted (could not spot the hoax in one case today) or disagree. I've analysed SmokeyJoe's 4 diffs here [107] I feel it quite unfair to call any of those 4 (out of 1000s generated fighting spam) to be bad tags.

The last couple days made some progress on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Stale_userspace_drafts but WOW there is a lot of accumulated spam/copyvio/hoaxes etc in there. @Cryptic I've observed your understanding of WP:U5 differs from that of many other Admins. For me if you combine unsuitable material for wikipedia plus no or few mainspace contributions (usually zero outside a single user page) that = U5 and I apply U5 in line with how I've observed other Admins use it. There are often other reasons to delete the page but I tend to pick the one that is easiest for the reviewing Admin to confirm (like U5). Copyvio and hoaxes take longer to confirm for example. Legacypac (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

If by "other Admins" you mean User:RHaworth, who'll delete almost anything that's tagged on the basis of whether he thinks it's a viable article rather than looking at what the criteria say, and who ended up deleting every one of those, then I suppose you're right - no other admin was willing to touch them in the intervening seven hours. (It neither surprises nor disappoints me that nobody declined any of them; I couldn't see any of them ever surviving a move to mainspace either.) U5 specifically excludes pages that are plausibly intended to be drafts, though, and every one of those was, and most were explicitly marked as such: if you look at the discussion enacting U5, you'll find that allowing drafts was unanimously opposed. It's largely because of stretching the criteria like this that we haven't been able to pass speedy criteria that cover these hopeless drafts, whether by removing the AFC requirement for G13, by introducing modified versions of the A* series, or by anything else that's been proposed. —Cryptic 16:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

If someone else adding a "User Space Draft" box turns drive by editor dumps into drafts that can't be deleted we should change the wording on that box asap to say something like "this is a page in userspace that may have never been reviewed by anyone other than its creator and may be subject to deletion according to Wikipedia policy (link UPNOT). Legacypac (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - The characterization of this situation is inaccurate. An editor disagreeing with another editor isn't a reason for a block, especially if they are newer and have just been given advice from the community (and appear to have made adjustments). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Prolific and long-term editor refusing to reference, or reference inline, or respond to any messages

• Neddyseagoon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I am opening this in the hope of starting a discussion with an editor who has contributed well in many ways to Wikipedia, by editing for more than a decade, including being a prolific article creator - according to WP:MOSTARTICLES (which is, I believe, very out of date so numbers will be higher) - Neddyseagoon is the 72nd most prolific article creator on English Wikipedia and many above him are bots. My concern is that there are serious referencing issues with every one of the many I'm coming across on New Page Patrol. Mainly, there are no inline citations, but there is an 'External links' section or similar, which may have been (although it's unclear) used as the sources. I feel after creating so many articles and editing for so long, the basic sourcing should be done correctly. A lack of inline citations is extremely difficult for any other editor to fix, as they don't know which sources were used for which bit of information, particularly difficult when the sources are not easy to get hold of (which is the case for most of them). These often end up unclear and blotted by a tag for many years, but could easily be rectified with little extra work at the start. The WP:BURDEN to make sources clear is on the creator. There are many messages on Neddyseagoon's talk page about this issue, over a long period of time, but from what I can see, in over ten years, Neddyseagoon has not responded to a single message on his/her talk page.

I would like to commend Neddyseagoon for his/her work over such a long period of time, and politely request that he/she responds to messages and creates inline sources in future. I'm only opening this after failing to manage to engage Neddyseagoon in conversation on the issue. I do think this type of editing creates real problems that other editors are spending a lot of time trying to solve, but that it is extremely difficult for them to solve, but easy for Neddyseagoon to do correctly from the start. Examples are: [108], [109] others are completely unreferenced like [110]. Articles this editor has created have been repeatedly tagged for deletion since 2012 (from looking at Talk page messages) for sourcing issues and lacking content. There are regular specific comments from New Page Patrollers and others about a lack of sources since 2013, and a message asking Neddy to stop linking dates from April 2013 (he/she still links dates in 2017). I'm not judging - I pigheadedly made mistakes with sources myself years ago - but would like Neddyseagoon to consider how this affects other editors and to please respond to messages and make citations clear and inline. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

That massive talkpage needs to be cleared for starters. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Yep, that's another issue that editors have left messages about but have not been responded to. Boleyn (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Convenience links to Neddyseagoon's userpage and talk pages, since they're not given above. I'm rather surprised that I've never heard of him, seeing how prolific he is. No comment on the issues raised here. Nyttend (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Should have noted this earlier, but I went ahead and archived the page for the years 2012-2016, following the pattern that Neddyseagoon himself had established for prior years. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• I wondered what area Neddyseagoon was creating articles in, so I clicked on a couple of the links above and found a further problem. Grigory Alexandrovich Demidov was not inter-wikied, but Italian and Russian articles exist (I have now linked them). There was a bit of untranslated Italian in the list of issue, and the text resembles content in the Russian article. I have accordingly added Translated article templates to the talk page attributing both as sources. There is a firm requirement under our licence to attribute when copying within Wikipedia, including when translating from Wikipedia in another language, no matter how loosely. Preferably the first edit summary should state this, in addition to the talk page templates. It looks as though Neddyseagoon has also been committing a form of copyvio by not doing this. (I also found a source on the Russian Wikipedia, but my ability to read Russian is insufficient to use it for footnotes, so I made it an external link). Yngvadottir (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• User:Ymblanter, could you help with your language skills? Nyttend (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

  I will have a look tomorrow.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• He developed a habit of blanking/moving his talk page as a matter of archiving, I believe. That is probably why you didn't see any of his responses but he does have them. See this. He appears to have gotten less communicative with "Please now stop telling me this...." when Kudpung raised concerns in 2011. Last comment was "I'm making stubs out from Template:rembrandt" in 2013 which was unsigned. Since he has this which mentions Ealdgyth, perhaps he would talk to him.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

SHE might when she wakes up in the morning. I can't remember ever actually interacting with Neddy, however. Not sure, given the editing stats, it'd make much difference, to me it looks like someone who went mostly inactive for a long time and hasn't figured out things have changed from 2007. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Neddyseagoon has edited since this discussion was started, including creating articles with the same issues [111]. I'm unsure if she reads her messages at all (I suspect she doesn't, or not regularly). She obviously has not commented here or on her Talk page thus far. I'm not sure where we go from here if Neddyseagoon is not willing to interact. Perhaps she will comment soon. Boleyn (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

He hasn't made a user talk comment of any kind for four years; while he obviously knows what user talk is for as he's made comments in the past, this appears to be someone who's flat-out refusing to engage. It seems like a real shame, given that this is obviously a long-term contributor who's trying to help, but if he continues to edit problematically and refuses to engage either on his talk or here, this may be a case where "indefinite block until you promise to stop" will be the only option. ‑ Iridescent 19:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• When I first looked at this thread I figured this was a disagreement over reference format (inline is only one method, a list of footnotes/references at the end of the article is equally acceptable) but it seems there are other editing issues requiring a response from the user. I dislike attention-getting blocks but this is a collaborative project, and when editors want to contact you to discuss editorial issues and you don't ever respond, you are being disruptive, plain and simple. She hasn't edited any page in user talk: space at all since she last edited her own talk page in 2013; she's clearly not paying attention to it. I'm about to be away from the computer for several hours so I won't block myself but another admin who can pay attention for a bit really shouldn't hesitate. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Ivanvector, why in the world would you block yourself? EEng 20:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I also just went to try to email her in case she's missing notifications from her talk page or something, but she doesn't have email enabled. It is entirely possible she has simply stopped looking at her talk page and isn't getting any of the messages left for her, but in that case (and without knowing) we really have no choice but to block to get her attention. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Where is all this "her" coming from? He has a big "this user is male" userbox. ‑ Iridescent 20:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so he does. I was going by Ealdgyth and Boleyn's comments above, editors who I trust to get that right. I wouldn't call that box big, really. Apologies, anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Ealdgyth was referring to herself above and not Neddy. See this.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Notwithstanding the proposal below which seems to have come up while I was mulling over a block rationale in another tab, I have blocked Neddyseagoon (and not myself, thanks EEng) for failing to respond to messages from other editors at all for nearly four years (or maybe six, depending on how reliable their archives are). More followup on their talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• The name rang a bell, and I found this interaction from 2008. I hadn't noticed at the time that the translation occurred without attribution. I am not sure whether this user's recent editing has changed markedly from back then, but there is a list of at least some translations at User:Neddyseagoon/To do list if anyone wants to put attribution templates on these articles. I believe what would be needed is an edit summary and the use of {{translated page}} on the article talk page.

  I hope that the issues can be addressed, as it is surprising that a prolific and long-term editor would be blocked for the first time, after a discussion lasting two days. Can we try and separate the communications issues (lack of responding) from the referencing issues? The 31-hour block is for the lack of communications, and the block proposal is for the referencing issues. IMO, the referencing issues need more investigation and discussion. That should happen while waiting for the 31-hour block to expire. If editing resumes after that, still with no response, then moving to an indefinite block may be warranted at that point (but hopefully not). Carcharoth (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

"After a discussion lasting two days" mischaracterizes the situation. Various editors have been trying to start a generalized discussion of Neddyseagoon's problematic editing for many years now. He last responded to any such discussion on 25 July 2013, nearly four years ago. As I explained in my block notice, I hoped the block would serve as a stimulus for him to finally participate in that discussion while prevented from editing elsewhere, but it seems he's elected to sit out the block instead (although he might just have not been around, it was a short block). I'm still hopeful he'll participate. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't make my point very well. What we have here is an editor where it is worth taking time and effort to establish working communications. It won't be easy, but a less brusque approach might work. If you look at his user talk page contributions just before he stopped talking to people who left him messages, you can see that he does understand the issues, but isn't the most voluble communicator. See here and here. This looks like a classic case where an attempt to engage with the editor may work better than attempting to impose authority (in the form of a block). Some people don't respond well to blocks and what they may perceive as threats. A personalised message on his talk page, rather than in the pressured environment of an ANI thread with an indefinite block discussion in progress, may be more likely to get a productive response. I am going to try that now. It may not work, but if anyone thinking of closing the discussion could give this approach time, I'd appreciate it. Carcharoth (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Update: I left this message. Carcharoth (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: I agree with your approach, though I think it is the same approach which Boleyn tried on 14 May without response. I don't see much reason to expect that your kind message will have any different effect from the series of kind messages which preceded it somewhat recently, such as [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], or [117], or [118]; all of which seem to have been ignored. I don't think this is a case where the user is not reading messages on his talk page, since he's clearly used it before, he started adding WikiProject banners ([119], [120], [121], [122]) after this suggestion to do so, and he does (or did) follow advice to add translation attributions in the past, so it seems to me like he's engaging selectively (and quietly) rather than not engaging at all. In my mind this suggests that he is aware of this discussion and choosing to ignore it. Of course I would like to be wrong about this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Block proposal

Much as I dislike it, I'll get the ball rolling with a formal proposal:

Now that he's been made aware of this thread, if Neddyseagoon continues to create unreferenced articles or unattributed cut-and-paste articles, and does not respond to concerns either here or on his own talkpage, he will be indefinitely blocked from editing until he agrees to comply with Wikipedia's policies on sourcing, verification and copyright violation.

• Support as proposer. ‑ Iridescent 20:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support This is not the first editor (named and IP) that I have seen who uses the "as along as I don't respond to talk page messages I can edit in any manner that I want" strategy. If this causes them to discuss things then a block will have served its purpose. Otherwise it will stop the disruptive editing. MarnetteD|Talk 20:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support C'mon Neddy. What we really want is for you to start communicating per WP:ENGAGE. Start working with your fellow editors. Don't let it come to this...pipe up.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Commenting out my support for now and hoping that Carcharoth is successful.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I'm truly sorry, but this is already long overdue. As noted above, there've been continuing problems with attribution of copied or translated material (the numerous talk-page notices from CorenSearchBot mostly relate to that), but there's also been more serious outright copyright violation, as for example at Violet Manners, Duchess of Rutland. The complete lack of any response to the many messages left about this means that we have no idea whether the user even understands that there is a problem. I hope that Ivanvector's block will be converted to indef, as proposed here – and that the user will quickly be persuaded to communicate. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support and hope Neddyseagoon engages and these issues can be resolved. Boleyn (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support An editor as prolific as Neddy ought to have been Autopatrolled long since. As things stand it's inconceivable that Neddy would be granted Autopatrolled (or that anybody would be inclined to nominate him). Regrettably, it's insupportable for Neddy to continue without engaging and improving. Cabayi (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Since you brought the Autopatrolled bit up, it should be mentioned that this editor has received that and had it taken away a few times for these issues. See their user rights log.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 09:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support - As proposed and per MarnetteD. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Agenda pushing by User:Wakebrew on paranormal-related articles

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

---

Wakebrew has a history of making POV edits at paranormal related articles. The articles affected are the following:

• Pyrokinesis
• Psychic
• Mediumship
• Paranormal
• Scrying
• Witchcraft

If you look at the recent history of these articles (i.e. Wakebrew's edits of the last couple of weeks) you will see the problem, and you will also see he has been reverted by multiple editors. He has recieved warnings from multiple editors regarding his non-neutral edits and was blocked for a week. Now the block has lapsed he seems to have picked up where he left off. This editor is virtually a SPA.

This report is not a defence of the current wording installed at these articles. Generally I think there are some improvements that could be made, and I had an attempt at Mediumship. It is my contention that Wikipedia's coverage of paranormal phenomena should be firmly presented in terms of beliefs and scientific evidence (rather than factual statements) and I have raised the issue about terminology at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Mediumship.

However, whatever the current failings of the articles I don't think Wakebrew is having a moderating impact on these articles so I am hoping we can discuss imposing a topic ban in this area. Betty Logan (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Given that this is a continuation of a behavioral problem which has already led to a fairly substantial block, I've blocked the user indefinitely. This isn't intended to be permanent, but it's clear that they're refusing to listen to anyone and they can't continue to edit like this. As far as I'm concerned, they can be unblocked whenever they adequately address our concerns, but if unable to do so there's not much room to work with them. Swarm ♠ 05:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Does OTRS accept telepathic unblock requests? EEng 14:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

My crystal ball says... no. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Problematic edits

24.178.29.47 (talk · contribs) There is this IP who is making inaccurate changes in hip-hop related articles. I been keeping an eye on this IP edits for awhile now, and the edits don't generally helping the articles at all, they don't seem to have any concept of proper grammar or the Manual of Style. The IP make very awkward grammatically incorrect edits in album pages and have been warned by several other editors about these edits, but continue to making questionable edits without explaining why. I left a comment try to explain why I have a problem with the edits, but didn't get a response. I have try again, but still didn't a reply, this editor has ignored warnings and continue making these unnecessary changes to articles. After the edits has been reverted, they returned to the article and restore the same changes.

Here are the edits in the past few months:

• Lil Boat - [123] [124] [125]
• True to Self - [126] [127] [128]
• Teenage Emotions - [129] [130] [131] [132]
• Woptober - [133] [134]
• Trapsoul - [135] [136]
• Long. Live. ASAP - [137]
• Hurricane Chris (rapper) - [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143]
• These Things Happen (G-Eazy album) - [144] [145]

These are the best evidence I can find from these diffs. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Noting PaleoNeonate's message that they must communicate, I'll wait to see if they do. If they resume editing without responding, ping me. I actually think this is someone that has been blocked for disruptive editing before as an IP and evading but if they finally decide to communicate then I'm willing to be patient. If not, I'll block them for failing to engage and disruptive editing.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: The editor is still not responding, they are still editing and doing the same thing, here's the recent edits [146] [147], it's clearly they are ignoring the warnings. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked three months.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Sometimes this is what's needed for editors to realize and finally react... — PaleoNeonate — 17:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: Thanks. The editor has been problematic since March, I try to be civil with this editor by explain why the edits are disruptive, but they keep ignoring my warnings. If I see this editor using another IP address and editing as before, I let you know. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

South Korea

There is currently an edit war at the article South Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) about whether or not Korea was a tributary state of China, with users accusing each other of being sockpuppets, of nationalist POV pushing, and the like. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry for engaging in an edit war, which is against the rules, and also misusing warnings. I got carried away.

"Yearly tributes" is not found in the sources. Also, Goguryeo's tributes are not as simple as that to make such a misleading blanket statement. Please see Talk:Goguryeo where there is a discussion going on about it.

Regardless, I think it would be better for me to just simply stop. No excuses for my aggressive behavior. I'll stop now, and accept the changes. Sorry for causing trouble. Maco8 (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Maco8: Serious question here – have you ever edited Wikipedia before under a different account? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I blocked Maco8 as a sock puppet of Massyparcer (talk · contribs), who also used Burgershots (talk · contribs) to make similar edits, complete with accusations of Chinese nationalist POV-pushing. Should I semi-protect the article, too? From glancing at the article history, it looks like Massyparcer socks hit it fairly often. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that semi-protection would be a good idea, since politically- and ethnically-motivated socking is particularly hard to control. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I've noticed that there was a dynamic IP also make against of Chinese nationalist POV-pushing at Materialscientist talk page and this diff, not just the sockpuppet User:Burgershots, so the semi-protection as disruptive editing maybe would be an good idea on that. SA 13 Bro (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The length may be a bit too conservative, but I semi-protected it for a month. The recent protections have been relatively short, so I didn't want to jump to a really long protection despite the long protection log. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Majanikolic1 violating WP:NPOV

@Majanikolic1: is a WP:SPA that only edits Maja Nikolić and is clearly unable to edit neutrally. User been deleting sourced content because it could reflect negatively on Maja Nikolić from the article. (1 2 3 4 5 6), while also adding unsourced content in the article (1, 2).

User was warned about COI editing at talk page (User talk:Majanikolic1) but persisted with their agenda-pushing edits. I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 114#Maja Nikolic on 2 May, but nothing came out of it other than a comment about the poor state of the article, which I agree with and made an attempt to add more references. The user in question stopped editing for awhile, so this was forgotten about. However, said user is back and still clearly WP:NOTHERE. Bennv3771 (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Semiprotected the page for a month, with the advise for them to take their concerns about their biography to the talk page. El_C 18:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

86.141.32.128

Please can someone block this account.[148]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

They were given a final warning, and haven't edited since.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Difficult rangeblock challenge for the Teenage Fairtytale Dropouts vandal

We could use another pair of rangeblocks on the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal, one for the 2001:8003:208F:F00... group and another for the 49.195... group. Here are the past four ANI reports about this LTA case:

• September 2016 – Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive935#Two rangeblocks (or more) for Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal. No action taken.
• October 2016 – Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive936#Rangeblocks needed for LTA. Various solutions discussed including rangeblocks and Special:AbuseFilter/802 from Samtar.
• January 2017 – Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive944#Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal. Includes range calculations from Cameron11598.
• February 2017 – Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive945#Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal redux. Asking about a possible higher-up action from WMF.

The frequently stated problem is that taking this LTA out of action would also remove a large range of good faith IP users. If someone can figure out a way to stop this guy without high collateral damage then that would be fantastic. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to create a fairly tight abuse filter and apply it only to a specific IP range or group of ranges? Sorry if that's a "duhh, no". I don't know much about the abuse filter, and I only have the right because I've occasionally needed to view private filters; I don't remember ever editing one. Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to that, but I agree it would be very useful to apply a filter to one or more ranges of IPs. Binksternet (talk) 05:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

49.195.0.0/16 blocked anon-only for two weeks...that took a very long time to evaluate. The collateral damage isn't all that much when one actually starts assessing them. Let's see if that helps throttle him. Also, blocked 2001:8003:208F:F00::/64 for two weeks...he seems to have persistence for about a week on the IPv6 addresses. Let's see if that helps here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Problematic developments of genocide articles

We've been experiencing a lot of 'development' of articles on genocide topics over the past year in particular. The latest spate of unexplained changes are coming from a new user, Thisiswhyeventsunnerveme (talk · contribs). I don't have the time to thoroughly investigate these changes to content and, most particularly, WP:TITLE, but have noticed that accounts have been cropping up once a previous account has stopped making changes, all following the same behavioural pattern of making very confident moves, and all not communicating with any other editors in any shape or form. Whether we're talking sockpuppetry or meat is of little consequence, but the issue is that of trying to keep up with these articles and moves. There are no reliable sources for the titles alone, so we've broken out in a plague of WP:OR genocide articles. It seems that 'genocide' has become flavour of the month... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, but in my haste to log out for the day, I forgot to notify the relevant user of this thread. I've now done so here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Checkuser needed. Is there any way we can compare to Accopulocrat (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) using CU logs? I am seeing some real similarities, including page overlaps, moves, subject interests, etc. GAB^gab 01:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: Only the actual content changes. There are certainly similarities in the subject matter, but this editor is avoiding anything else (edit summaries; any communications) that may indicate who they are. I smell WP:EVADE, but there's more than one banned editor dealing with this subject matter out there. The annoying thing about checkuser is having to establish who you're dealing with before action is taken. In the meantime, the editor has made a mess of redirects and will leave the grunt work for others to clean up. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked based on behavioral evidence that this is Accopulocrat.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

From what I can see, BH's conclusion appears to be correct. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Unable to contribute to Spacetime article

I don't feel like edits to the spacetime article have been even-handed. I've bent over backwards trying to have a discussion with disagreeing editors, but there has been a steadfast refusal to engage in discussion, and there has been a lot of name calling and what I perceive to be bullying and railroading. I spent a great deal of time thinking through my edits, and fear that it will all be simply reverted. I would like another set of eyes on this. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what to do at this point; I feel like I've done all I can. The article has been reverted to an earlier state that I fundamentally disagree with. The only discussion was a single editor's opinions, and what discussion there has been has been to attempt to demonize me. A revert was entirely uncalled for, and all of my attempts at discussion have been ignored or dismissed. This seems to primarily be the work of one editor, however, as I had noted on the talk page, there seems to be discussion going on outside of the talk page. One editor seems to be successfully waging a campaign to deny discussion of improvement. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

This noticeboard is not the proper place to resolve content disputes. We have a variety of dispute resolution procedures available for that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

When I read WP:BULLY, it says to report here, so I did. I'm seeing at least 4 of the behaviors mentioned there, perhaps more. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

A second look says 6 problem behaviors.

I agree with Cullen328, this looks like a content dispute and should be resolved at an appropriate venue. I would say WP:DRN. On a side note, I'm of opinion that the entire article is too long in either case, and in fact could be shrunk to a few paragraphs. Time dilation, Galilean transformations, spacetime intervals, etc - all these should be in an article on SR and GR, not spacetime. Banedon (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Glad you agree. I'm not really interested in spending my time wikilawyering, but I'm tired of the abuse and reversionism directed at good faith edits. It has been a recurring theme, and yet people who are openly claiming to own articles are somehow allowed to get away with it? 47.32.217.164 (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Strangely, after having reported this issue here, I'm starting to get a response on the talk page. I am however still concerned about the bullying and the conflict of interest of off-page railroading. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I give up. I no longer care. The rest of the gang has showed up and decided that "peer pressure" should be the yardstick, not article quality. Consensus has been claimed. The bullies have won. Let this be a lesson to all those that would edit boldly, and stand up for their edits. You will be circumvented. You are not wanted. Not invented here. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The IP editor has a "my way or the highway" attitude, and the other editors should be using the Draft space for much of their work. This is clearly a topic for dispute resolution. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

189.216.25.162

189.216.25.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been adding unsourced and questionable info to articles, including articles about living people, and has continued after repeated warnings. Trivialist (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

One of the IP 2601:1C0:4401:F360:C5A8:2998:F0D7:6896 have been reported at WP:AIV, this IP 189.216.25.162 maybe was a long-term abuser, I'm not sure User:Sro23 knew about this sock or not. SA 13 Bro (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I've checked the block log, this IP was possible sockpuppet of User:WinnieThePoohFan2004. SA 13 Bro (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I thought that IP editor's contribs looked familiar. Yeah, I blocked it before as a possible sock. The problem was that WinnieThePoohFan2004 didn't leave behind much of a trail. It made trying to connect the accounts difficult. I'll block the IP editor again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reblocked, I patrolled the IP and didn't check the block log at first while another IP editor have described an long-term disruptive editing on the diff at WP:AIV. SA 13 Bro (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Content Dispute re Piggate

Resolved

 – Content issues do not belong at WP:ANI as admin don't decide content. WP:BLPN is likely what you are looking for. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I have a dispute about the inclusion of the following content in the article Piggate:

"In November 2015, solicitor Myles Jackman, an expert on sexual liberties and obscenity law, said that performing a sexual act with a dead animal would not be illegal under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. (He did not address the laws at the time the event was said to have occurred.) He noted that possessing a photograph of such an act would be illegal under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 if it was produced for pornographic purposes, but not if the purpose was "satire, political commentary or simple grossness".

My argument against it can be seen at the article's talk page:

"I do not see how the legality of the alleged act is relevant. Let us be clear with what we are dealing with here: this is a piece of hearsay passed on (without the assertion that it was true) by a political enemy of Cameron in an unauthorised biography. No evidence of this allegation has been produced and no formal allegation has been made. Therefore to have a discussion of the legality of such hypothetical act seems not just unnecessary but actually a violation of WP:BLP as it is insinuating that this act took place or that there is some credible evidence to suggest that it did. I have brought this to the talk as suggested by Andy Dingley but there does not seem to have been a talk consensus for adding this in the first place. Reaganomics88 (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)"

However, the only response to this was by Andy Dingley

"I don't much care what you think - even your username makes this much obvious, let alone your repeated blanking of large sections here. But the consensus of other editors has been that it's a section worth keeping. The legal notion that the combination of two illegal acts becomes not illegal, rather than doubly illegal, is a somewhat surprising one. A surprise that RS, including broadsheet newspapers, have seen fit to cover. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)"

There does not seem to be a consensus for this content's inclusion in the article nor a legitimate reason for its inclusion. Reaganomics88 (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute - even the headline says so - and there's nothing admins can do about that. Please go discuss it on the article talk page, and if you can't get consensus, please follow the dispute resolution steps outlined at WP:DR. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I was aiming for WP:DRR/3 and WP:RFC. Reaganomics88 (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing to stop you opening an RFC on the wording. However, if you believe the wording you want to remove is a BLP issue, I'd suggest that WP:BLP/N would be a far better venue to seek advice from. Black Kite (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Go for one of those then, if you wish, but ANI is not the place for either as it is not an admin issue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Legal threat?

Slai2972 (talk · contribs) has just posted this at the article Norton House Education (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) where they have been edit warring. It may not be a full NLT violation but it does need checking. MarnetteD|Talk 14:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Editor notified here. MarnetteD|Talk 14:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Mop applied. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• There may be reason they're a bit worried. It is being claimed in the article that Norton House is a new name for Senate House, which had a document able scandal around child molestation. But there's no documentation about Senate House being renamed Norton House that I can see (granted, language barrier and this is a quick search hitting a lot of false positives due to the commonality of "senate house" wording in world news). That's not sourced one iota that I can tell and thus, if it is not true, I can understand why Slai2972 has posted as they have. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• I have removed that info temporarily as after some searching I could not find evidence they are explicitly linked. However a mandarin/cantonese speaker will want to take a look too. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Being a Cantonese speaker, I've read through the article that was used as a source. The source says nothing about Norton House being involved, nor about it being renamed. It merely reports that an employee of Senate House has been arrested on these charges. However, some digging around does find that Norton House and Senate House have the same physical address and phone contact details. Also, a link to the Senate house website redirects to the Norton House website, which is indicative of a name change. Despite this, I would say that unless a source explicitly says that Senate House went through a business name change to Norton House as a result of this case, there is no way this source should be used in an article on Norton House. Blackmane (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Extra comment A revdel may be appropriate in this case. Blackmane (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Harassment

I have a Twitter impersonator, as was called to my attention here, which is now buried in the archives of my Talk page.

Another editor, User:Let99, and I got into a content dispute over the past couple of days.

Let99 did some opposition research and just wrote:

• this on their user Talk page: It also appears that you advertise for and take payment to edit Wikipedia, so I think that it's more likely that you will be blocked. The Wikipedia rules are very clear about that.
• this on the article Talk page: My link has been reverted twice by jytdog without a good reason. If it's this same jytdog, it's someone who takes payment to edit Wikipedia, so the motivation for there is suspect.

This is a clear violation of the spirit and letter of WP:HA. I do not find this acceptable. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

No, that is not what is happening. There are statements on the Paleo Diet that have claims that don't have references. I added a reference. Like many of the existing references on that page, it doesn't specifically mention the Paleo Diet, but it does specifically address the claim made in the article. Jytdog is reverting my edits without discussion claiming that it doesn't belong there, because it doesn't have the words "Paleo Diet" in the source. (That is irrelevant, because it does perfectly address the claim in the article.) Because the Paleo Diet is a high controversy topic where some people are making a fortune, I did a quick search in Google to see if this user was affiliated with entities that make money from the Paleo Diet. The Twitter link offering paid Wikipedia editing was there, so I mentioned it. That is not harassment, just due diligence. The relevant talk section is here. Jytdog should have started a discussion there before starting the edit war. Jytdog is one of those Wikipedia users who uses heavy hands and Wikipedia gobbledygook to try to to force through edits and silence opposing opinions. That kind of behavior is why Wikipedia has a reputation for toxic editor culture. What should have happened, is that Jytdog should have started with a comment on the talk page instead of reverting my edits over and over. (They weren't the same edits. I changed it to make it even more relevant after the first revert.) By Jytdog's argument, any reference on Wikipedia that doesn't specifically mention the name of the Wikipedia article should be removed. It is not a convincing argument. Let99 (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Because Jytdog is repeatedly reverting my edits without any discussion, I've added a "citation needed" tag to the unreferenced claim in the article and proposed three possible references on the talk page. We should be having a civilized discussion about how to edit a page, rather than this knee-jerk reverting and threats. No single editor owns the content on these pages, so, in general, it should be discussion first, with reversion only as a last resort. I'm the one who is being harassed here. Let99 (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not "due diligence", it's a crystal-clear policy violation. (Editors are warned, however, that the community has rejected the idea that editors should "investigate" each other. Posting such information on Wikipedia violates this policy. if you want chapter and verse from policy.) Stop it now. ‑ Iridescent 22:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. How would you suggest dealing with toxic editors, who prefer conflict over cooperation, where there is a high suspicion of paid editing? Where should that be reported? Who would actually look into it? Paid editing is not a small problem on Wikipedia, and there are few tools other than a quick search of the username. Most discussions of editor behavior happens on third party sites. (Non-public information is obviously completely different.) Let99 (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Let99: Please review Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

That page says that people should disclose their payments, but obviously most don't. It's a big industry. Sources: [149][150][151]. A quick Google search will turn up links that offer that services. The paid users who have trusted accounts and who know how to do effective wikilawyering to silence the opposition with obscure rules and calls to the admins surely charge the highest prices. If admins are not willing to look into those situations, then how do you suggest regular editors should defend themselves? Let99 (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)This is not the location to discuss suggestions for changes to paid editing policy, particularly since it actually has nothing to do with this situation. The essay you previously claimed represented Wikipedia policy on that ("Wikipedia rules are very clear about that") is actually a failed policy proposal, as it says on the page, so it's not the rules. The action that Jytdog took in reverting edits he thought were improper is actually standard Wikipedia process. If you read up on the Bold/Revert/Discuss cycle, you'll see that a revert is the proper response to a problematic addition, and that it is then on you to start a discussion to overcome the objection. To arrange it otherwise, no reversion until after a discussion, would do more to keep bad edits in than to promote good edits. So, may I suggest that rather than continuing to contest Wikipedia standards in this inappropriate location that you apologize to Jytdog for your inaccurate and inappropriate treatment, strike through the accusation on the article talk page, and then move forward with a discussion of the edits focused on the edits, rather than on the editors? --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

It was not a problematic addition though. The given reason for reverting was that the source does not mention the words "Paleo Diet"--but neither do many of the sources on that page (or on the entire Wiki). I wonder if you all realize that this is exactly the toxic wikipedia editor culture that so many people talk about. There are more civilized, rational ways to deal with these disagreements. You think that the first response to the addition of a credible, relevant link that you disagree with should be reverting? That's what makes Wikipedia such a bad experience for many editors. Let99 (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Nat Gertler - the paid editing policy actually is very relevant. I'm asking what a user should do when paid editing is suspected. Should I just do nothing and let articles be overrun by extremely aggressive, toxic editors? I did not know the answer, so all I did was a quick search of Google for the user's username. It turns out that, buried in Wikipedia's extensive, cryptic rules system is a caution that editors are "warned" against doing any research on other users. So, sorry for doing that, but I think that my question is very relevant: what is the proper alternative action that I should have taken? I did not post any secret, personally identifiable information. Let99 (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I certainly assume enough good faith on your part to expect that you did not see it as a problematic addition. Jytdog clearly saw it otherwise, and did what an editor is supposed to do in that instance. You claim there are more civilized, rational ways to deal with disagreements; your method was to try to hunt down destructive facts on the editor you disagreed with, made public play of what you thought you had found, and repeatedly complain about his not having adhered to the rules you choose to invent for the situation. Faced with other people looking at the situation and not agreeing with your own evaluation of your actions, you have doubled down rather than listening. If your concern is a toxic editor culture, you may wish to stop looking for the mote in the eyes of others. My suggestions to you remain: apologize to Jytdog; whatever your intent was in suggesting he was a paid editor, it does not appear to be true, and in putting that forward, you are just giving more leverage to an existing attack against him. Read the directions at WP:STRIKE to see how to strike out your text; doing that will show that you are retracting that, while keeping the discussion integral. Stop attacking Jytdog, as you've done multiple times here. He has not asked for you to be "banned", despite your accusations of that. Read some of the relevant guidelines and essays you've been pointed to. WP:BRD has the material on the bold/revert/discuss cycle. WP:COI has material on what to do when you suspect that someone has a conflict of interest (look down to the "How to handle conflicts of interest" section, although you probably shouldn't zoom right there; the other parts on what Wikipedia considers to be conflicts of interest may prove useful in your editing.) Assuming good faith is needed even... no, especially... when dealing with someone with whom you have a disagreement, and will likely make your editing more comfortable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

You seem to not understand what actually happened. Let99 (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• I don't often express my emotion here at ANI but I find this behavior disgusting, with respect to a) the sloppy arrogance in presenting my impersonator's claim that I do paid editing as a "fact" b) the dragging of off-wiki garbage into WP; c) their ham-fisted effort to "win" the content dispute by presenting this at the article Talk page where the content dispute is happening (truly crass behavior that taints all efforts to effectively manage COI in WP); and d) their repeating here at ANI that they feel that this is perfectly appropriate behavior. I am seeking a block and a stiff one; what they have done, are doing, and intend to keep doing is unacceptable. Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

If someone is impersonating you on Twitter, you can get it removed. (File a support ticket.) I did not present paid editing as a fact. You seem quite intent on getting me banned at all costs though, even though my behavior is several times more calm and rational. The policy says that "editor are warned..." I have taken my warning. It would be really bad community management to ban a user for some obscure rule that no casual user could possibly have seen, unless they spend all of their time on this site. I've been editing this site for years and have never seen that. Let99 (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Ummm, this is a half-assed attempt at WP:OUT outing. The fact that it's false information doesn't really change that someone decided to post personally identifiable info on Jytdog to WP in an attempt to win an argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

There was no non-public personally-identifiable information posted. You should address my points above: how should one respond when paid editing is suspected? Where exactly should that be discussed, because it's a serious problem with Wikipedia in general. I've even encountered "professional" wiki editors here who seem to work in groups in order to shut down any possible hint of dissent with their opinions. Let99 (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

If this has been addressed already elsewhere, I apologise. If off-wiki evidence leads you to suspect someone is beeaking Wikipedia's rules, begin by emailing an administrator and asking for advice. There's a long and ugly history of on-wiki discussions involving off-wiki behaviour turning into doxing so we're (probably over-) sensitive about that. (That is a fake Twitter account - Jytdog is just too smart to do that.)

The reason we don't usually cite sources that don't address the main topic is to avoid WP:SYNTH. In the example above, the unsourced statement is supporting a bigger claim about the main topic so we need to find a reliable source that also adduces the unsourced claim in support of the bigger claim - otherwise Wikipedia is constructing arguments de novo. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole, thanks for the information. I'm aware of WP:SYNTH. Before judging me too harshly, you should see what Jytdog is up to. This is the sentence that I was providing a reference for: "Although little is known about the diet of Paleolithic humans, it is very likely that they did consume wild grains and legumes." It needed a citation, so I linked to this article, which directly addresses and backs up that statement. Jytdog did not want to discuss it, but instead, acting as if he owns the article, just started reverting. I tried rewording it once, but it got reverted again without discussion. I then added a citation tag to the sentence and proposed three links on the Talk page: this, this, and this--all very relevant. So then Jytdog deletes the entire sentence from the wiki article. I've been entirely calm and rational the entire time, encouraging discussion on the talk page rather than continuing the edit war that Jytdog started. He is doing everything he can to try and crush anyone who disagrees with him. I'm the one who is being harassed here. Sorry for looking up the user's name in Google -- please give me an alternative solution as to what I should do when paid editing is suspected. How would I find a wiki admin to email? What is the admin going to do--Google the username? It's a chronic problem on Wikipedia. I'm not saying that Jytdog is a paid editor, but only asking how else one should research that when it's suspected. There doesn't seem to be any way for regular editors like myself to defend against these kinds of attacks from editors who are more familiar with the intricacies of Wikipedia's cryptic policy system. We have no way of defending ourselves against things like this, and the final result is that many articles (especially controversial ones) have terribly wrong information on them. Let99 (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

That last source (Smithsonian Magazine) certainly brings the probability of grain-eating into the paleo diet debate, and the primary source it discusses (Science) is reliable, but the Smithsonian piece is just a brief comment by a science journalist/editor/generalist, so not a strong source. Jytdog says in his edit summary that this claim, about the probability of paleolithic grain consumption, isn't made in the body of the article, and if that's so, then per WP:LEAD it doesn't belong in the lead.

As for what to do about suspected paid editing: if you don't yet know any admins, take your concerns (without identifying the suspect or evidence) to WP:AN - as opposed to here (WP:ANI) - and ask for an email chat with an admin about possible ways forward. It's a very, very vexed issue and this community is still wrestling with how to deal with it, but discretion is essential. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Let99 your dehumanization of me violates everything we do here. You have treated me like I am filth, and why? In order to try to get a single ref into a single Wikipedia article. That is not acceptable behavior. Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Let99: I reckon you should remove the claim you made about paid editing and the external link to the twitter account in Talk:Paleolithic diet as a show of good faith (and per WP:HA and WP:OUTING), now that you are aware it is an impersonator. Bennv3771 (talk) 03:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Wait, let me get this straight. Somebody is claiming that Jytdog is getting paid to hide criticism about the Paleo Diet? Is this for real? A quick perusal of the history of that page, its talk page and the AE's that it has spawned would show how ridiculous that is. He is, on the other hand, a stickler for proper sourcing and properly reflecting that sourcing. Something every editor should be really. Let99, you're trying to stick something into the lead that's not even in the article. You're being told that's wrong and your response is to assume Jytdog is a shill and try to do opposition research against him? I suggest a quick course change, an acknowledgement of where you went wrong and a striking of your claims. You're already in blockable territory for harassment. Capeo (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment)He wasn'tThey weren't trying so much to stick something in the lead as to take something that was already in the lead and give it a reference. However, that reference was already objected to by another user for trying to stick it into another part of the article. After two users had rejected its inclusion by reversion, hethey stuck it in a third time, insisting that histheir version remain until there was a discussion, apparently not taking two different reverters as a sign that he had not achieved consensus. When histhat demand was ignored, that's when hethey started getting into really problem territory. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

Propose indefinite WP:BOOMERANG on Let99 for attempted doxxing and WP:IDHT-related WP:CIR. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Not sure that counts as a "boomerang"; the initial complaint here was against himthen. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose No, we don't do that; blocking is a last resort, not a way of batting away people whom an admin happens to find annoying. All it takes is a "sorry, I misunderstood policy and I won't do that again" and we're done here. ‑ Iridescent 16:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Iridescent, I did not seek an indef, but rather a good stiff block. But where are you seeing any sign of awareness? And since when is bringing off-wiki "opposition research" onto an article talk page, to try to win a content dispute, just "annoying"? If Let99 showed a sign that he/she "gets it" that the behavior was completely unacceptable, of course no block would be needed. As it is, there is no sign of that and we have no reason to expect that they will not continue. (I find their protestations of "what else should I do?" disingenuous at best - my sense is that their "concern" about paid editing arose after they found the fake twitter account) Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

My "oppose" was to the IP's proposal (indefinite WP:BOOMERANG on Let99 for attempted doxxing and WP:IDHT-related WP:CIR). Blocking is preventative not punitive; provided Let99 agrees not to do it again and gives some indication that they understand why this was so over the line, then as long as they don't cause further issues that's all that's needed. It appears that this is someone who thought they were being helpful and didn't realize why this was so inappropriate in a Wikipedia context. ‑ Iridescent 07:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I completely hear that, with regard to what you were opposing. And I agree that if we get some evidence that they "get it" there is no need for action. By now it does not appear to be forthcoming at all -- their last two edits about this have been this and this About the "helpful" thing - I believe they thought they were being helpful in trying to initially add the ref, but their subsequent behavior had nothing to do with being helpful but rather was unacceptable tactics to "win" the content dispute they got into with me. And it is that subsequent behavior -- and the risk that this behavior will continue -- that is the subject of this thread. btw they are starting to make the harangue about "toxic editor culture" everywhere they run into content disputes -- see this thread - their comments and the diffs of their disruption of a closed RfC there. Jytdog (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Chloe Khan revdel request

Resolved

 – The offending material has been removed. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Chloe Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can I get a revdel of these two edits [152] [153] and some kind of block to prevent the material from re-appearing? I believe this material violates BLP as it states that the subject of the article works in a particular industry, and we have no RS to support this. I believe it is contentious because it is a somewhat controversial industry. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I raised concerns about the article. I mentioned things that are part of the article and the overall information about Khan. I also raised the concern that we can not be sure that it was Khan that contacted Wikipedia until we get it confirmed through her social media or agent. Just like I had to contact Jasmine Kara a few weeks back to confirm that she was the one who had edited her own article. Kendall-K1 wants to do censorship and blank parts of my comments, and I reverted it back to my original comment. May I also remind Kendall K1 that Khan has admitted to having a career as a webcam girl, and a career as a Playboy covergirl, lets not get lost with the fact that she is or has been part of the porn industry. That it should be a controversial industry seems POV and there are thousands of articles on Wikipedia covering the subject and the stars of the industry. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I recall several recent legal threats from/about this person? An attention seeker not enjoying the attention now, or maybe trying to stir up more attention? Legacypac (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

A quick Google image search easily confirms Khan was a cam girl for some period of time under the name Chloe Mafia. I don't think any of those sites would constitute an RS though... Capeo (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you both. An attention seeker who now does not want her past to come back and bite her. BabbaQ (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

BLP issues and implied legal threats at Talk:Brittany Pettibone

As part of an off-topic and very strange defense of "Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, etc nationalism" at Talk:Brittany Pettibone, Richardbrucebaxter has insinuated that legal action should be taken against Wikipedia.[154] This legal threat is vague and phrased indirectly, but so is almost everything else this editor has written. For background, the article is legitimately messy, and this hinges on the tedious debate on the difference between "white supremacist" and "white nationalist". I have not had good results attempting to communicate with this editor previously, so I'm taking this here. Grayfell (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that your interpretation of the articulation of a distinction between white nationalism and white supremacism as a defence of "Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, etc nationalism" verifies why editorial care must be maintained in order to avoid legal disputes with respect to BLP. Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't know if that statement can be fully construed as a legal threat, but the entire post leaves me with a certain sense of unease.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/2017/05/the-growing-nazi-axis/
• http://cubmagazine.co.uk/2017/02/kcl-professor-who-apologised-for-supporting-muslim-ban-appears-on-white-supremacist-talk-show-to-slam-mass-migration-from-the-middle-east-and-africa/
• http://www.newsweek.com/pizzagate-resurfaces-anti-semitic-slander-528950
• http://www.nationalmemo.com/pizzagate-old-anti-semitic-slander-resurfaces/

Her show and statements have been described as National Socialist or white supremacist by multiple top-quality sources. (Including the civil rights organizationSearchlight in a dossier) If they have any legal issues, they should contact Searchlight and the respective organizations, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is just stating what multiple high-quality sources have already said. Perhaps someone could contact Brittany Pettibone, and ask her to make a video or statement on white supremacy/white nationalism? PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

comment - I agree with Kudpung regarding the legal threat. WP:LBL is policy and so is Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#Defamation. I also don't see where Richardbrucebaxter has caused disruption; disagreement perhaps, but not disruption. Perhaps the op can provide more diffs? I certainly hope WP hasn't reached the point that disagreeing with an editor's POV on a BLP TP warrants ANI. This appears to be a case of misinterpretation of a new editor's input. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

By itself this one indirect legal insinuation would mean little. This editor's contributions to the talk page use pseudo-legal language which make minor points fill up a large amount of space. Talk:Brittany Pettibone#Edit Dispute (780588858: "Increase neutrality of lead") (one of several sections like it) was an 8,000+ byte post made mainly to suggest changing "...far-right activist" to "...activist for what is presently considered to constitute far-right politics; freedom of speech and traditional values". The reason, if I am reading them correctly, is because far-right is "a political category defined at an arbitrary time in history by one or more parties." This is mistaken in so many ways it's hard to parse, and using that much space to make such a strange point seems like an attempt at obstructionism.

The paragraph about "Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, etc nationalism" presented as plain fact the idea that racism is all that's keeping the races from amalgamating within 3-4 generations. It was, again, phrased so obliquely that it could be defended as a theoretical example, but it's still a racist, pseudo-scientific rant which doesn't in any way improve the article. All of these minor issues combined seem like a problem worth bringing to wider attention. If more eyes is the only outcome, I'm fine with that. Grayfell (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it?

User:Godsy is WP:HOUNDING me again. Interaction tool show 36 content pages [155] in the last few days Godsy edited just after me and zero I've edited after him. I'm not sure how to tell exactly what percent of pages I edited that is, but it's alot. Although I have 8000+ pages on my watchlist it shows Godsy, Godsy, Godsy, Godsy, on about every other line. Godsy's past hounding and harassment in various forums was a key reason I stopped editing for months until recently. I've posted some nice and some more pointed requests on his talk page to stop the stalking but he deletes them with snarky comments and keeps stepping up his "oversight" of my edits. Surely Godsy can find some other pool of articles to work on then those in my logs. One solution might be to restrict him from editing any article I've edited within the last week. Sorry to bring this to ANi, but I've got no other way to stop his behavior which is ruining my enjoyment of editing (except to stop editing again). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 03:54, May 31, 2017 (UTC)

• To basically repeat what I said here: "Appropriate use of others editing history includes but is not limited to fixing unambiguous errors and correcting related problems across multiple articles (paraphrased from WP:HOUNDING). I've done nothing outside of those things. That aside, many of the pages we've both edited recently have not been reached through your contribution history, e.g. pages at and related to miscellany for deletion (a venue which I frequent)." — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Just looking at this as someone who is not familiar with the history between you, Godsy's edits are improving the articles. One way you might handle this is to examine the edits that he's making and try not to duplicate any patterns of mistakes that you see. For example, I see at least a couple of times where he has made categories visible hours after you moved a draft. If you slow down your editing just a bit and unhide the categories yourself next time, that would be one less reason why any editor would have to come behind you and clean up. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• (@Godsy) You're ignoring what comes before and after the statement you quote above:

  Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

  Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. ... The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason.

  Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• I agree this is continued wikihounding, and I suggest a one-way interaction ban on Godsy relating to Legacypac. This has been going on long enough, and Godsy has been warned numerous times. Softlavender (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Per BMK's quote from WP:HOUNDING above, I have a suspicion that Legacypac's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. I support a one-way interaction ban to avoid Godsy raising similar suspicions again and again. Johnuniq (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• I've given Godsy a 24-hour block; one-way interaction bans are rarely useful, and a two-way ban would be inappropriate for Legacypac. The bit paraphrased from WP:HOUND is for editors whose work actively needs to be cleaned up, e.g. the same person's consistently mis-tagging pages for speedy deletion, adding copyright infringements, just simply writing in poor English, etc. What we have here is nothing of the sort: it's simply finding anything, even minor spacing errors or missing punctuation, and you'll note that many of the edits are made to content that Legacypac did not create or modify. In other words, there's absolutely no reason to go after Legacypac's contributions, because Godsy's not modifying any of Legacypac's actions. All he's doing is making clear statements of "I'm watching you and following you wherever you go", a sense reinforced by the fact that a bunch of these are new creations that Godsy can't possibly have found any other way. Nyttend (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• 'One-way bans are rarely useful' - the exception I have found is where one editor is clearly and unambiguously stalking another. From looking at the above editing history where, as far as I can see, there is no other explanation than stalking for Godsy to show up, I would say this qualifies as umabiguous. So I would support a one-way ban on this occasion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• And in most of those cases, the stalking is significant enough that we need to block, not merely Iban. Bans are awkward to keep track of, especially one-way interaction bans, and easily gamed, including by third parties; if he decides to stop stalking, the ban will be a pain with no benefit, e.g. punishment not prevention. Either Godsy will stop stalking after the block expires (so why saddle him with a ban?), or he'll keep it up, and a longer block will follow. Nyttend (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Am I correct in reading this as "I didn't wikihound but I'm going to wikihound more aggressively? [156] I have so much to look forward too. Legacypac (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I read it the opposite way. "I'm in the right, but I'm willing to stop fixing all Legacypac's mistakes until the arbitration case is done". Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

He plans to research my edits and start an Arb case. That sounds like even worse hounding, not a promise to stop. Legacypac (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Use of proper community processes to address problems, particularly ones where there's a significant chance of a boomerang (ARBCOM and ANI), should really be considered exempt from the definition of hounding. Of course, if the use of those processes becomes abusive to the processes themselves, access to those processes might be restricted (though I generally oppose such restrictions there is precedent for them). One of the primary goals of anti-wikihounding policy is to keep editors from following each other around to other articles, and having their personalized dispute impacting articlespace. Another primary goal, of course, is to prevent the loss of useful editors through harassment. But there has to be a safety valve for such policy, either where it's misapplied or where the person being protected has also engaged in bad acts. Allowing ARBCOM and, perhaps to a lesser extent, ANI to handle these complaints strikes me as a far better answer than the alternative. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Looking at two of these articles (Ya cai and Pacific Premier Bancorp), I feel User:Legacypac should do more janitorial work when moving articles out of user space. Most of Godsy's edits appear to be non-controversial things like fixing categories and/or templates, while the articles themselves are "barely notable at best". Glyptography is egregiously bad as a new article. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• I actually agree with this. While I'm absolutely sympathetic to the fact that perceived stalking is not welcomed behavior, Godsy's case that there was actually a valid reason to review this user's page moves doesn't seem entirely unreasonable, and I wouldn't go so far as to consider this 'unambiguous stalking'. I will also point out that this is part of a long term dispute that appears to be in need of arbitration proceedings. Oppose any one-sided sanctions. He should obviously leave Legacy alone from now until arbcom proceedings begin, but this dispute should be addressed via dispute resolution rather than a rushed censure of one party. Swarm ♠ 05:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Swarm you rightly make the point it is a long term issue - one where Godsy drove me away for months with his harassment and cherrypicking words from a certain RFC he helped engineer to give himself ammunition against me. I've warned him multiple times nut he persists.

You miss that any page I send to mainspace goes through NPP where there are hundreds of editors that specialize in cleanup and further checks. I've found that they do great work and I appreciate them. Further I watch and revisit promoted pages to further improve them. Godsy's hounding is not required to protect the project, and I feel you are implying I'm some sort of vandal that is hurting Wikipedia and needs to have every edit scrutinized.

Pacific Premier Bancorp is a $6 Billion NASDAQ listed bank so its a strange example of "barely notable at best". Legacypac (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not implying anything about you nor am I justifying Godsy's behavior, nor am I disagreeing with the validity of the block. I'm just agreeing with the obvious fact that Godsy's edits are actually helpful, and pointing out that there's an underlying dispute between two established editors and an IBAN would unfairly constitute a summary judgment of bad faith against one of them and indefinitely prevent DR proceedings. DR processes up to arbitration are the way to go about handling this and if undertaken in good faith then there's nothing wrong with that. Of course, there's no more room for this "feuding" behavior. Swarm ♠ 07:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me the feuding is all coming from Godsy despite numerous warnings, and needs to stop. This bad-faith hounding cannot and should not be painted as a positive thing. If Godsy had been in good faith he would have simply noted to Legacypac on his talk page how to be more careful with his draft moves (or whatever), or brought up his concerns neutrally in some neutral quarter. Instead, he has engaged in bad-faith feuding and hounding for over a year, and has been asked to desist numerous times. In my opinion the community as a whole is beyond assuming good faith at this point. We can see blatant stalking and harassment when it continues over more than a year despite warnings, and even an RfA which failed because of this harassment. Softlavender (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I offered Godsy a conditional acceptance of their unblock request in exchange for, essentially, a show of good faith. Their offer was an RfC as to whether WP:HARASSMENT actually applies to this situation. If validating their own behavior in a dispute stands out to them as the most important aspect worth devoting resources to, I see no reason to try to aid them further in seeking DR. Swarm ♠ 07:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'm puzzled that an editor with a clean block log has been blocked without a single warning or chance to desist. I'm also puzzled by the statement that "one-way interaction bans are rarely useful", when there was already a clear consensus for the one-way, and they have generally worked in this sort of situation. All of that said, I'd like to forewarn Godsy: If you file an ArbCom case request, in my opinion one (or both) of two things are going to occur: (1) It will be thrown out due to lack of exhausting other forms of dispute resolution (other than your personal vendetta against Legacypac, neutral forms of dispute resolution have not been exhausted) or as a content dispute which belongs elsewhere; and/or (2) you will be hit with a boomerang, which may actually be harsher than a one-way IBan. You've already had your RfA fail because of this nonsense. One would have thought you could take a hint then, but you didn't. I hope you'll take a hint now. Softlavender (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

BLP concerns

Following on from this, has anyone actually looked at the sample articles from the original interaction tool link, above? Looking at a few of the subjects, found the following:

• Naomi Schiff moved from draft to live here as the article "Appears notable". Well, either it is notable, or it is not. Now the article at this stage has no refs. So that's an unref'd BLP moved into the mainspace. Do they meet WP:N? Well, there's nothing to WP:V that at the point of move.

• Lena Gorelik moved here with the rationale of "Stale draft meets a red link on page where she won a major prize". The ref in the article failed verification, which was tagged by an editor with the next edit. Again, at the point of move a WP:BLP failing WP:V.

That's just a couple from this small sample. Who knows how many more have been moved in this state. So, is it acceptable to move unsourced, draft articles of living people into the mainspace without a) attempting to source them or b) verifying that the content in them is actually true and they meet some sort of notability? Or, to put it another way, if an editor was creating BLPs from scratch straight into the mainspace, didn't source anything, how long before they were at WP:ANI? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial about the author or race car driver and they both easily meet WP:N. If you are so concerned you could have added more refs in the time it took you to post at ANi and making unfounded broad attacks.Legacypac (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:CIR. You should be taking a lot more care in what you're doing. If you can't see what the issues of moving an unref'd BLP into the mainspace, then you should not be doing it. Thankfully this issue you have created has now been brought to the attention of the community. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:AGF and not making false allegations are also important. These were not referenced BLPs, and I did Verify so kindly retract. Many editors put unreferenced BLPs in mainspace every day and I don't see you attacking them at ANi. Further, BLP policy is manly concerned with negative content, not author wrote a book and won an award stuff. Legacypac (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a concerning statement. We delete unsourced BLPs, Legacy. Swarm ♠ 17:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The pages had sources ♠, they just could have used better/more inline references for uncontroversial content. I've already added some additional inline references, as is my normal practice to review and improve these pages soon after unearthing them. Legacypac (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Non-Admin Comment glance at my recent ANIs, initiated by Nyttend and Legacypac, to see examples I provided of other questionable treatment of userspace drafts. Legacypac has (rather obliquely) assured me that they do not purposely move articles out of draft to get them deleted, as I had naively thought, so it seems that at least for Legacypac, "Stale user- or draft-space articles" are apparently a problem that calls for resolution in each case by one of four remedies: Speedy deletion (on broad criteria), MfD (if speedy deletion seems too dubious), AfC submission (which seems like a bit of a shell game if the user submitting has no intention of doing further work on the article), or movement into mainspace in hope that issues will be resolved (by other editors) there. However, I have not seen such a "userspace draft policy" approved anywhere, and this procedure seems to violate both the spirit and the letter of WP:STALE. Newimpartial (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

This post, given the wide rejection of this editor's other misunderstandings of deletion policy, could be the beginning of more trouble for Newimpartial. See his talk ANI closed with a warning and threat of a block next time and look through current Mfd discussions [157] for editors nearly universally rejecting his spam protection ideas.In addition to the options he listed, Blanking, redirection to mainspace, and removing valid userspace pages from the userspace draft category are good options. Legacypac (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

You don't mention that your request for a topic ban for me here at ANI received no votes of support and multiple "Oppose" votes. And I have not been participating in any XfD or CSD issues since the first ANI by Nyttend, except for a CfD where an admin asked for my input today. Also note that my voting record on AfD was better than on MfD :) but anyway that is all in the past. This discussion right now really isn't about me at all. I don't see how you can read my post immediately above as anything but good faith participation in the discussion of BLP draft moves - it isn't personal.Newimpartial (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

And thanks to Legacypac for their link - I now think I see the heart of the issue. The instructions on <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Stale_userspace_drafts>, which presumably reflect a local consensus, conflict openly with WP:STALE. Newimpartial (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

"Newimpartial, with your minimum experience, if you want to avoid being called to this page and risk getting blocked, I suggest that you focus on adding new content or cleaning up vandalism - you just qualify to enroll at the WP:CVUA - and leave the heavy maintenance areas to people like Legacypac and admins like DGGwho know perfectly well what they are doing with user sub pages and Drafts, user names, and spam. You probably think you have been acting in good faith, most new users do, and I think you have, but the onus is on them to read the rules. People are calling for a block here, there won't be another warning. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)" ... and yet 4 days later Newimpartial has become expert enough to come to ANi and criticize my handling of these exact issues and tell us that instructions that have not changed in years are wrong? With your recent 200+ consecutive edits of pure disruption around MfD topics WP:CIR, WP:NOTHERE WP:CLUE all apply. Legacypac (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

90% of my recent edits are content work, mostly in article space. All I am doing here is pointing to the apparent conflict between the "Stale draft guidelines" and WP:STALE, as an issue arising from an ANI about editing of articles recently moved from draft space to article space. Nothing personal, and basically an FYI for admin who may be interested in raising the policy issue. It seems clear that the stale draft guidelines were never revised in line with last year's stale drafts discussions and the consensus arriving therefrom. Newimpartial (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Um, reread your first post. Pretty clear you don't think I follow policy and that is why you posted here. Legacypac (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Per my first post, I have the impression that you, Nyttend and some of the other "Stale draft cleanup" crew are not following, or are tendentously interpreting, WP:STALE. I now understand that your local consensus is reflected at the draft category page: thank you for drawing that to my attention. As several admins here have expressed interest in the treatment of user- and draft-space articles, especially in this case their being moved into article space, I am offering my piece of the elephant. Nothing personal directed at anybody.Newimpartial (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The tagging of a userpage by someone or a bot as "Stale Userspace Draft" [158] does not mean that only WP:STALE applies now and we should ignore WP:UP#NOT. A tiny minority of pages so tagged are legitimate efforts to draft an acceptable future article. Most are spam/promotion, fake articles, garage bands, inappropriate copies of mainspace, hoaxes, general meaningless nonsense from throw away accounts, copyvio, zero chance of notability ever and more. The pages Lugnuts is complaining about is some of the best content from that category! If the pages I'm promoting are so bad someone wants to ban me from promoting pages, than let's save everyone a lot of time and mass delete the current 30,000+ pages tagged Stale Userspace Drafts. Legacypac (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Propose "topic ban" for Legacypac

I'd suggest 'topic banning' Legacypac from moving any type of draft content into the mainspace, instead allowing/requiring them to move potential new articles into the Draft namespace where they can be submitted/reviewed through the Articles for Creation review process. That way BLPs and other content with verification and referencing issues remains out of the way of search engines and the 'encyclopedia proper' until it's checked by a AfC reviewer. Nick (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Interesting idea Nick. Do you trust me less than every spammer or new editor that can directly create content in mainspace?

Every new article goes into WP:NPP and is not indexed by search engines for Not Enough 90 days/until marked reviewed anyway. These have such old creation dates they go to the back of the list where they are quickly reviewed by people that work the oldest first. There was backlash from the peanut gallery of rabid inclusionists willing to protect spam that submission to AfC could be a back door to deletion, so I don't use that option much. Crazy but true. Legacypac (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It's 30 days, not 90,[159] and my reading of the source is that it goes by page creation date, not when you move it into mainspace. (I'd be happy, on a number of levels, to be shown to be wrong about that.) —Cryptic 15:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I was working from memory having read all the NPP pages recently. I could be wrong on the 30/90, and I can't find where the discussion was now. User:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง should know. Does the code look for creation date of the content or the creation date of the new mainpage page? If the former, a spammer could create nonsense in no index userspace and just wait awhile to move it, circumventing the noindex on new pages. Also, noindex anywhere is not foolproof, as I found recently when I searched a user coined term and the first Google result was the supposed to be no index user draft I was evaluating. Legacypac (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support, at least with regards to BLPs. Given the BLP policy is manly concerned with negative content, not author wrote a book and won an award stuff and other responses from Legacypac, it's very clear that—regardless of whether Godsy was acting appropriately or not—Legacypac has a serious misunderstanding of one of Wikipedia's most fundamental policies. ‑ Iridescent 18:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

  Escalating to support total ban from moving pages to mainspace in light of The pages had at sources^(sic), they just could have better inline references for uncontroversial content. The pages in question were this (no references of any kind) and this (reference that obviously doesn't contain what it's supposed to). Either LP is intentionally lying, or is so sloppy they shouldn't be trusted to make decisions as to what is or isn't appropriate for the mainspace. ‑ Iridescent 18:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support per Iri. BLP is something we have to get right. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Reality Check If you are really concerned about BLPs there are 99,787 mainspace BLP articles lacking sources [[160]] to delete. Be sure to bring all the creators to ANi to BLP ban them all. Start with the ones created June 2006. Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• You think "We have a huge admin backlog so I'm deliberately adding to it" is helping your case? To be frank, while I haven't looked over your contribution history, just judging by your comments in this thread I wouldn't oppose your being community banned; I appreciate you're under stress, but you clearly have a spectacular attitude problem. ‑ Iridescent 18:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't patronize me. I don't recall interacting with you before, but you are misrepresenting my edit history which you admit to not checking. Anyone on earth can create completely unverifiable BLP content. There are almost 100,000 pages live we know about. Pushing punishment on me for not adding more refs in 4 days to content I did not create but only managed to try and improve the project is crazy when you are not seeking to punish people that created similar content last month or 10 years ago. Most of my effort goes toward deleting vandalism. Occasionally in that effort I surface something that appears to be useful. Sometimes it just needs to be merged and title turned into a redirect. A core idea of Wikipedia is its a work in process and no editor is required to make everything perfect. Legacypac (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Question for clarification how is sifting through stale userspace drafts "deleting vandalism"? Now I am even more confused than I was before. Newimpartial (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support per Iridescent. A similar boomerang restriction was proposed last time they opened an an/i thread regarding me, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Proposal: Temporary restriction on Legacypac (a thread which includes evidence that they have made many more inappropriate page moves). They also recently introduced Glyptography into the mainspace which was deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support his attitude stinks and he refuses to understand why his edits are problematic. The block of Godsy was probably a bad one. A block of Legacypac looks increasingly like a very good idea. Lepricavark (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

IP vandalism on WP:AIV

Resolved

 – IP vandal sock blocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The IP user 73.106.75.108 is adding the names of several veteran editors, including several admins, as "vandalism-only" accounts. No idea as to their motivation - could be pure vandalism, or personal vendettas. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Drm310: A sock of someone. Blocked and AIV cleaned up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this one. Filter 855. Also a good lesson in geolocation. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Sprotect Pastirma?

Pastirma is a dish from the Near East. I've never tried it. I'm not sure I want to. I wouldn't recognize it if I saw it. I have no interest in whether it's of Turkish, Armenian, Circassian, Persian or other origin. I don't know why the article is on my watchlist, and can only guess that I first encountered it via an earlier mention here on WP:ANI.

Until recently the article was long and (seemingly) well sourced. (I do not claim to have checked the sources.) Recently an IP seems keen to say that no, the origin is not nation/people X but instead nation/people Y. The IP's version is a lot shorter and has much more scanty sourcing. Try to AGP as I do, I suspect that this may be a matter of upholding national/ethnic pride. (I'll concede that the short text is well written; it isn't shrill. I am making no accusation of vandalism.) I'm inclined to revert (a second time) to the longer, better-sourced version and to s-protect this -- not because I prefer this interpretation, of course, but simply because it is much better sourced and thus more credible and objectively far superior -- but if this is the right thing to do, then it would be better if a second admin were to do it. -- Hoary (talk) 09:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Do not get sucked into food wars. You will only regret it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

From looking at the history, the version you reverted to was sourced (both weak and good sources) so it looks like the usual nationalistic food warring. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The text added by the IP appears to be a copy of https://www.facebook.com/turkishcookbook/posts/1044416968903832 (although that in turn may come from some older source). So it's inclusion here is a copyvio. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 11:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Sultan Aji Muhammad Sulaiman Airport

User: Mazta2012 has removed the airport's logo from the article, claiming that it is not official. This is not true because the logo was directly uploaded from the airport's official website, therefore it is official. I have asked the user to explain himself but it seems he refused to answer. Can the admin help me in this issue? Thanks. CWJakarta (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute. There's no doubt that image appears on the website, but it's not clear to me that this makes it anything other than the logo for the website. I see you've started a discussion on the article's talk page. I suggest discussing it there. This really doesn't need an admin at this time. --Yamla (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Lord NnNn

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

---

Lord NnNn (talk · contribs) Continued disruptive editing. - Mlpearc (open channel) 13:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Please define "disruptive editing". All I'm doing is simply adding information to pages and you are senselessly removing it without giving me any justification for your actions. Lord NnNn (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the content, but when you make an addition and it is reverted, the next step should be to discuss it on the article talk page and seek a consensus. You should not edit war to reinstate your addition and demand that others provide justification for its removal - which is what I see you have been doing on at least a couple of articles. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lord NnNn: It's all explained in the warnings on your talk page, the ones you deleted. - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lord NnNn: Once again, I gave my reason the first time I reverted your addition. Also, please make all cmt on this issue here, kinda hard to follow you around. - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Your reasons made absolutely no sense. I literally quoted what was given in the reference article, I even used the same words, please go through the article again. Lord NnNn (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Then start a discussion on the article talk page and seek a consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Contacting president Putin?

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

---

Should not the user be indefinitely blocked [161]? I am not really happy with KGB or FBI being alerted on my Wikipedia activities.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, the KGB has not existed for quite some years so no worries there. The FBI is still in business, at least for the moment.

With that out of the way: A comment like that from some users would simply be a lame attempt at humor. I'm not familiar enough with @User:Cminard to know if that's the case here. And you should have contacted her as required. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

KGB became FSB, and this is where she complained to. I was indeed required to contact her, but believe me attention of FSB is a pretty serious threat for me, and asking for more attention increases the chances of some events I would not like to see. Now she has been dealt with, anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely, WP:NLT. I expect these organisations, along with the NSA, were probably already monitoring your, and everyone else's, Wikipedia activities. :) --Yamla (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure Putin is a very busy man, I highly doubt some report about a content dispute on Wikipedia is going to get to his desk or concern him in the slightest. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• If you have a look at the deleted old version of her user page, you'll get some idea of how seriously she's likely to be taken by the relevant authorities. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • um...I know this is pretty old by now, but some of that deleted stuff should have been oversighted--and still should be. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I do not think Putin would be interested at all, but right now there are a lot of cases in Russia when people are jailed for twits etc. The signals typically come from, um, unstable whistleblowers. I am not currently in Russia, but still...--Ymblanter (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Good thing for Trump we don't jail people for twits here in the US. EEng 17:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

BLP violation removed. Legacypac (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Content note: Article contains the passage: Three dolphins applauded the president for feeding them fish, while the walruses even shook his hand. EEng 17:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I prefer Adorned in white overalls to resemble a bird, Putin did manage to get some cranes to fly. ‑ Iridescent 17:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a shame the title of this thread isn't something like BITEy behavior at Pets of Vladimir Putin. EEng 18:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Does anyone have any objection if I quietly vanish this shrine to crazy as well? It's not quite Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host, but it's certainly serving no useful purpose. ‑ Iridescent 17:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Someone put a proposed deletion tag on the copy and pasted article, so she copied it, and removed the prod. I nominated the article for deletion now. — JJBers 17:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
(It was this article)

I voted to keep the article since it is as good as the other similar pages, some of which I was already aware of. Who knew Putin's dog is tracked by Russian GPS? Legacypac (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

BLP violation removed EEng 19:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a violation of WP:WAX... And possibly WP:TRIVIA. — JJBers 18:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Persistent copyright violations on article posted to ITN

User:RioHondo has had ample warning (see Talk:Marawi_crisis#WP:COPYVIO), but persists in copy/paste edits on Marawi crisis (today's violations removed here). The page is currently featured on the main page in WP:ITN. I cannot undertake to baby-sit their edits indefinitely. Yesterday they edit-warred to restore blatant copyvios, claiming WP:NOTCENSORED etc (diff). As I mentioned on article talk, the user is unable to comprehend the issue. zzz (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

There's a tag for close paraphrasing to get contributors to work on the wordings without having to remove entire edits. You simply delete at will any good faith addition without an initiative to discuss the problem first or an effort to improve it instead and paraphrase them yourself as other contributors are doing. Proper tags instead of wholesale removal does more to improve the article without having to lose any important detail added.--RioHondo (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

So, you are going to continue copy/pasting material, because you think someone else may deal with it at some point. Thanks for clarifying. That is exactly why admin action is required. zzz (talk) 11:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

As per article talk page, there have been close-paraphrasing of sources, not entirely copy/pasting. No biggie. Tag and it shall be fixed by me or any editor--RioHondo (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll stop commenting here now, except to point out that "close paraphrasing" generally refers to words or phrases. You are copying entire sentences (example diff, above). zzz (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the above copyright violation and substituted some purpose-written prose. I will check the rest of the article later (I have to get ready for work now). RioHondo, the policy is that copyright violations can and should be removed immediately. Please don't add copyright material with the expectation that others will clean it up for you. All material you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words please. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@RioHondo: You've now been alerted that close paraphrasing is not acceptable. Just to be clear, the next occurrence will result in a block (indefinite if coming from me). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

NeilN & Diannaa Will keep that in mind, and thanks for your help in paraphrasing the entry. Will devote more time to digest the content of sources to improve my updates and reporting of the current event article. Please note however that the nominator's mass deletion of other entries outside the source in question was my main reason for the earlier revert. I intentionally removed the entry he cited as problematic but he reverted again, even bringing back the problematic entry i removed. But anyway, I appreciate the help in the article as I believe we're all here to improve Wikipedia. Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

A nationalist user pushing nationalistic POV and removing article

User:Iryna Harpy repeatedly removes the article List of Ukrainians of Russian ethnicity, simply removing the whole thing: [162]

This is obviously done to push her nationalistic POV, as she's been doing on many articles.

She also attempted to remove my thread on the talk page: [163] - obviously trying to hide the fact it had been brought up.

Such pages exist for most significant minority groups, e.g. Lists of Irish Americans, Russian Jews, Italians in Britain, Arabs in Spain, etc. It's not racism, it's giving recognition to the presence of ethnic minorities in societies and the role they play.

And most important, Wikipedia support and encourage such pages.

Is it normal for someone with a nationalistic POV to try and make a whole ethnic minority disappear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.90.76.213 (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Given multiple similarities, I've blocked the OP as a sock of this person. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• I've indef semi'ed. Being a redirect, not really taking away any editing privilege for IPs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The user removed the Russian name of the river from the page. — Ιγκόρ (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Like below, take it to the talk page. Admin do NOT dictate content. Editors on the talk page do. We don't get involved unless there is a clear consensus there and someone is ignoring it or edit warring. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ιγκόρ: Again, as per the section below, please assume good faith rather than jumping on the WP:Aspersions bandwagon (please read the policy), what someone else says about an editor does not make it true, and it is inadvisable for you to try to turn content issues into a witch hunt. You are a new user and, obviously, are unaware of editing protocols followed at Wikipedia. When making WP:BOLD changes, you are also advised to do so with caution, and to follow WP:BRD. Each issue should be brought up per article on the article's talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Flags of separatists of the Donets Basin

User:Iryna Harpy twice removed flags from the page ( [164], [165]) despite there are evidence of using these flags: [166], [167], [168], [169], [170] — Ιγκόρ (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• This isn't an admin problem, it is a content issue. Bring up the issue on the talk page, not here. Admin don't decide content. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

There are other issues. I wrote her and tried to explain it, but it seems she is not going to listen me. — Ιγκόρ (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be a WP:MOSFLAG issue, although it might help if Iryna Harpy was to answer question posed on her talk page. Mjroots (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The place to raise it, again, is on the article talk page. Not here, not on any user's page. The article's talk page allows for other editors to join in and a consensus to be found. Even if it is a MOSFLAG issue (and I don't doubt it), that is the place you take it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Mjroots and Dennis Brown. It's rather difficult to keep on top of undiscussed reverts when it's night where I live (Australia), and Ιγκόρ would appear to be living in another time zone (i.e., I'm asleep). Yes, this is a content issue, and Ιγκόρ is adding flagcruft, plus making assorted other unsourced content changes without any form of discussion to articles already suffering from a lack of sourced material, as well as articles that haven't been developed any further due to being POV-splits. Furthermore, the user is changing content to 'update' existing regions not recognised as being separatist states by any definition other than his/her own POV. I've just risen (very early in the morning) to be greeted by a barrage of reverts, as well as an ANI thread opened(??!!). I'm going to continue to assume good faith on behalf of Ιγκόρ, but this new user needs to comprehend that we are not workshopping on a face-to-face basis, and that other editors don't respond within a matter of an hour or two because they are ignoring the user who has bombarded them, but that there are legitimate reasons for time lags. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Could you explain me what do mean by that statement: "Furthermore, the user is changing content to 'update' existing regions not recognised as being separatist states by any definition other than his/her own POV."? By the way, you still didn't answer why you removed the Russian name and the pronunciation of the river? Did you know that there a city which named after the river. Its name is Lugansk/Luhansk (Russian and Ukrainian variants). Maybe you didn't know, but the Donets Basin is a multilingual region.

“ Luhansk, Russian Lugansk, formerly (1935–58, 1970–89) Voroshilovgrad, Ukrainian Voroshylovhrad, city, eastern Ukraine. It lies along the Luhan (Lugan) River at the latter’s confluence with the Vilkhivka (Olkhovaya) River. ” — https://www.britannica.com/place/Luhansk-Ukraine

As one can see, Britannica uses both variants of spelling the river's name.

One more thing: here is my edit on your page (06:09 UTC), here is when you reverted my edits for the second time (10:30 UTC). More than 4 hours between. I guess, the problem is not that you're in Australia, ain't it? — Ιγκόρ (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae

I would like to have this user blocked from my account.

I first interacted with this user when editing the 'Ginnifer Goodwin' page when adding her latest project. The user aggressively claimed that it was simply to promote my 'client' and her 'project' and accused me of taking advantage of Wikipedia's editing access to promote a person that I had no personal or professional ties with, especially considering that I am under 18. (Please keep in mind, I am new to wikipedia and the original explanation was not clear by any means to me) I even tried to rephrase the edit to make it 'less promotional'. But this user and another both came against me and even when one relaxed, they reversed their opinion and insisted that I was wrong because this user had said so. A few days later, I noticed that this user had edited every single page I had contributed to and insisted they were incorrect & later accused me of using gossip sources, when the only possibly uncredible source was matching that of another editors on the page of a corresponding person. They literally went through my whole contribution list and kept track of all my online movements. As a minor and a new user, I felt uncomfortable, defenseless, confused, and uneasy. The day after I noticed this, told this person on their talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tenebrae#hello.2C) to leave me alone and that they were making me uncomfortable because of their imposing, impolite, and unwelcoming nature and their tracking/stalking of every single contribution and page I had accessed on wikipedia. It seemed like the person was trying to start a conflict or drive me off of the website. I felt like any sort of edit I made would always be watched, tracked, and blamed on by this user and this user would continue to pay special attention to me and target me. As I am a minor, I don't really have the means to defend myself against a fully grown, experienced editor that demands seniority from others. They say I am threatening them, I am merely making them aware of my discomfort and since I know this user is a volatile & frequent contributor, I am not asking them to be removed or anything like that. I am simply asking that this person no longer has access to any of my account information for my own comfort and solace. Thank you. If you have any questions let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosemaries19 (talk • contribs)

• You didn't notify the user, which is required. I did for you this time. I will let another admin deal with this, I just shuffled the paperwork..... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Here is my "volatile" talk-page response to this user's initial post on my talk page today [171]:

There is no way of knowing who anyone is on Wikipedia, and your threatening insinuation that you purportedly are a minor and that I am "stalking" a minor appears to be on the verge of a legal threat, a policy under which you can be sanctioned. My edits were strictly to correct gross violations of WP:BLP, WP:TABLOID, WP:GOSSIP and other inappropriate edits that were not "within reason and accuracy". As for your WP:PROMOTIONAL edits, more than one editor reverted them. Wikipedia welcomes all contributors and asks that they adhere to the policies and guidelines encapsulated at the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia.

Both I and User:Ebyabe here reverted this editor's fannish, promotional edit (as 172.250.87.105) at Ginnifer Goodwin. Moreover, Rosemaries19 added anonymously sourced dating gossip here, and fan-magaziney bridal-party details attributed to the non-WP:RS Daily Mail here, both of which I reverted. Yet a third editor reverted her here. I don't think the issue is me when at least three editors are reverting this person's non-constructive editing.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

hi there. the response is taken out of context. i posted on your wall my request for privacy & did not mention or request any specific edits. as for the ones you brought up, i sourced the same gossip that was on matt smith's before she removed it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matt_Smith_(actor)&oldid=782343735) which I did not add. I merely saw the section and reflected it on the corresponding actress's page using the same source they listed. As for the Pippa Middleton edit, that was on her page before I touched it as of here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pippa_Middleton&oldid=782601042) i merely rearranged the already there information and replaced the world 'fiancee' with 'husband' (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pippa_Middleton&oldid=783061259). i have not contributed anything that hasn't already been there for those sources. The last edit I made was here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ginnifer_Goodwin&oldid=782961000) which is not in any way promotional and simply listed an upcoming stage project. it was completely factual. as for victoria, i merely added in a source. all of these edits were based off of/added because of content that was already there. edits that, if incorrect, this user did not notice until i contributed to their pages, which is no fault of mine. did not change any of the content. however, these edits were not of my concern. my only concern is that this user has been tracking my movements and as a user who is a minor and a human being it makes me uncomfortable and i do not wish for my profile to be visible to this user any longer. Thank you. (Also: you are the only one of these editors to specifically sift through and keep track of my movements)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosemaries19 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Rosemaries19: Things don't work at Wikipedia the way do at social media websites. You don't have a "wall" and you don't have a "profile". Nor is your claim that you're a minor relevant to anything here. If you're uncomfortable being a minor and editing Wikipedia, first, you shouldn't have said you were a minor; no one would have known otherwise. Second, it's your choice to edit Wikipedia. If you're concerned about it, it's easy: don't edit here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

You don't get special considerations because you are a minor. If anything, it's likely to get you more scrutiny because of a perceived lack of maturity. If Wikipedia is making you uncomfortable, don't edit. --Tarage (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Also you have a very mistaken belief that you have rights here. You do not. This is a private website. --Tarage (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Some thoughts. 1. Rosemaries19 has made a total of 19 edits as of the moment of me writing this. Side-note; Cool coincidence. 8 of those edits are about Tenebra; 4 on Tenebrae's talk page and 4 at AN/I. To say that Tenebrae is sift[ing] restlestlessy and intentionally through almost every edit that Rosemaries19 has made is really like saying that Tenebrae did a five minute scan of the editors contributions to see what they were up to and whether or not action, guidance or nothing would be necessary. Stalking of a minor is a ridiculous overstatement of the facts. Rosemary, you have not made hundreds of edits that would take days to comb through. 2. It is impossible, completely impossible, to ban anybody from tracking your edits. I don't need to be logged in to see every single edit you make. Stalking falls under harrassment and if somebody is found to be stalking another editor to harass them there will be consequences, but, a) what you're requesting is infeasible and b) unreasonable because, per point 1, this is not stalking. 3. Wikipedia dropped the "that anyone can edit" slogan years ago. Every editor, from IP to bureaucrat has editing privileges not editing rights. These priviliges can be revoked at the drop of a dime. So not everyone can edit and anybody that does is doing so with the risk that they will lose it. 4. You do not have a right to privacy with regards to your account. Anything you do with the account can and will be seen by hundreds of people. If as a minor you are not comfortable with this, then this site isn't suitable for you. 5. Please sign your comments by either clicking on the link next to "Sign your posts on talk pages:" or by manually typing in four tildes (~) before clicking "Save changes". Click on "show preview" to double check that you have done so. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Mr rnddude sums it up pretty well. You've made a handful of edits. No one would know you are a minor if you didn't make such a big deal of it. That makes me suspicious to start with, as me thinks you protest too much. You seem to have found ANI pretty quick for a newbie as well. Rather than be suspicious about Tenebrae's activity, I'm more suspicious of yours. As they say, on the internet, no one knows you are a dog. I'm certainly not going to take any action against Tenebrae. By coming here in front of thousands of editors who view this page regularly, you have guaranteed that many editors will be watching you now. We call that the Streisand effect. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:NLT

Some views on the content of this post on my talkpage would be appreciated. Cheers, Number 57 21:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I've given them a warning about the legal threat. The rest is a content dispute. I advise Continentaleurope to bring their concerns to the article talk page instead of reverting further. clpo13_(talk) 21:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the Labour party opened a number of libels against those who made claims. They did not mention Wiki per se. So do not worry. I am trying to avoid similar faith. I should have been more clear in my words, as re-reading what I wrote sounds incorrect. Just to clarify, the LP opened libels against Blogger Caruana Galizia and the Nationalist Party....(happens every time for every political dispute) and I wish to avoid similar agenda...specifically when non-registered editors are using wiki to put their agenda. Kindly read some articles of Maltese media, available online to understand my concern.Continentaleurope (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent behavior by Atlantic306

Recently, I've received uncivil messages by Atlantic306 the newest case being here at my talk page after I made changes to articles they also edited, W. Roy McCutcheon and J. Bradley Creed because they were unconvincing for WP:PROF, but since I'm highly active in professors and education articles, there's no foreseeable basis that I was intentionally singling this user out at all. This also accompanies past similar messages by them relating to my own autopatrolled articles here, here, here, here, my subsequent response of disapproval here, immediate continuation as before followed by my subsequent request to stop, which returned with this. There's also an instance from July with quote I noticed this when pages I'd marked as reviewed were quickly Afd", but there was no basis of I rapidly singled them out either, since I'm active in several article examinations. I've never sent this user messages or had any deep interaction with them at all actually, so I'm not confident any attempts at their talk page will resolve it and, because the community is entitled to know about such uncivil cases, I've opened a case. SwisterTwister talk 22:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)