Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    Blocked in violation of policy

    This LTA is best known for catching yet another boomerang. Nonetheless, administrator Winhunter's actions have drawn significant criticism from the community, upon which this forum has no further power to act. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Dear administrators,

    Recently, I found that a number of article about galaxies contained fanciful names invented, apparently, by an amateur astronomer from Belgium. These names have no legitimacy, no recognition and no place in any encyclopaedia article. So I began to remove them.

    At 00:02 on 29 July, I made this edit. At 00:05, the edit was undone by User:Winhunter. At 00:06, they left me a message accusing me of vandalism [2], and at 00:07, they blocked me for 72 hours, claiming vandalism [3].

    WP:VAND says "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge." It later says "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism."

    It is not possible to perceive my edits as vandalism. They were clearly not intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. They were clearly a good faith effort to improve the encyclopaedia. Nor were they misguided, disruptive or wilfully against consensus. Indeed, they had been explicitly endorsed by a consensus [4]. So the block was obviously wrong.

    The administrator who placed the block has made less than 200 edits since 2010. Approximately 30 of these were on 29 July this year, when they went on a spree to undo my edits. They broke sort ordering in a table that I'd fixed, replaced incorrect punctuation that I'd removed, and of course replaced nonsensical galaxy "names" in a series of astronomy articles.

    The administrator was vaguely questioned about the block [5], but has not responded. Given their extraordinarily sparse editing history, it seems unlikely that they ever will. They have not edited since their spree of reverts ended in the small hours of 29 July. The block was obviously incorrect, and the failure of the administrator to explain or account for their actions seems to me to fall far below the standards you expect. So I raise it here for your awareness. I think that an administrator who barely edits in a decade and then places such an obviously wrong block is a problem. I hope that you agree. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm gonna have to agree with the IP here. The block, in my opinion, was unwarranted. In particular, what's more troubling is that the blocking admin clicked the block button after the second warning when it is normally after four warnings unless the user is only here to truly vandalize. The IP's edits were seriously not vandalism at all. And 72 hours is seriously harsh. All of the IP's edits were WP:BOLD. Also, to revert all of the IPs' edits was also really unnecessary unless you have good reason (e.g., sock). In terms of content, I agree with the IP. The source used to name NGC 523 comes from a blog and the names are not known per consensus at the WikiProject page. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 21:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Someone needs to go back to admin school, and in the meantime needs to account for his/her actions. EEng 21:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, that's how ANI works. We look at ALL of the aspects of the case, not just the ones you'd like us to look at. While I understand your frustration at the block, you need to understand that civility is required. Your best course of action would be to apologize for it, or at the very least make clear that you understand that it's not acceptable. Note, I am not saying Winhunter's block was valid, but you both have issues in this case that need to be addressed. --Tarage (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking a look at my block log, I'm of the mind that it's a lot more helpful than insulting an admin trying to help you. The fact that you're still calling that help "contempt and trolling" is probably not helpful, either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No admin was trying to help. What makes you claim that they were? 2.25.45.251 (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Berean Hunter was offering you advice, and has even indicated that they were sympathetic to your situation before you blanked your page with that insulting edit summary rant and caught a block extension for it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That is simply not true. They did not offer any advice, nor indicate that they were sympathetic to my position. They stalled and refused to lift the clearly unjustified block, and said " I'll remove this from my watchlist and let another admin consider your case". 2.25.45.251 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is true as anyone can see in the diff I posted. If you feel like Berean Hunter wasn't helpful or sympathetic, then I suggest you try to wrangle your feelings into something based on the real world, and not on the assumption that everyone who doesn't immediately jump to your defense with guns blazing is actually out to get you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was a poor initial block, and WH should respond the next time they log on. Unfortunately it may be a while, as WH doesn't appear to be very active. WH is responsible for the poor initial block, and the IP and other blocking admins and reverters share relative blame (by some formula I don't plan to come up with) for the ensuing flameout. Advice: Don't block too quickly, don't assume all IP's are vandals, don't react too aggressively, don't punish someone venting on their talk page, don't revert something you don't understand just because you see other people doing it. That said, I'd say this is something that Wikipedia is best known for.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh lord that opens another can of worms. I'm not going to touch that one. Regardless, this is yet another troubling instance of administrators going well beyond their bounds with seemingly no means for the community to enact corrections. I realize there is a pending case in arbitration for something similar, but I have little faith that it will result in anything but a 'this is a one time issue' statement. We need better. --Tarage (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay I agree with Floquenbeam here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._K._Chesterton&diff=prev&oldid=791125842 is enough evidence that this is who we're dealing with. Someone needs to block ASAP. --Tarage (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I really do not understand what you're saying here. Was that edit a bad edit? It seems to be it was a good edit that improved the article. I think the previous was very jarring, using the present continuous tense when the guy's been dead for more than 40 years, and using five words where one would do. I think that any capable editor would wish to make the same or similar change. But you think I should be blocked for making this edit? 2.25.45.251 (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also add the advice: don't insist on hearing from the blocking admin first, when that person typically shows up infrequently, especially when it becomes so obvious that the block was incorrect. All in all, I'd have been pretty livid too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just put this out there as well; an admin who (prior to reverting all of the IPs edits) had 19 edits to Wikipedia in 2017, two in 2016, and four in 2015. Black Kite (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For sure, it was a bad block for the wrong reasons, but given the above, it needs to be reinstated. --Tarage (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I keep seeing new things to comment on. Assuming this is not who I think it is, then I really think the long 1RR restriction imposed as a condition for the current unblock is unfair. Not sure how an incorrect 3 day block morphs into a 3 month 1RR restriction in order to get unblocked. Perhaps if it was also applied to WH and to the people who automatically reverted the IP again - people who actually reverted incorrectly, unlike the IP - but somehow I don't think that's likely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I just restored the IP's edits in Contemporary Latin per WP:MADEUP and WP:SELFREFERENCE, which should have been pretty clear-cut. Like Floquenbeam, I'd be pretty pissed off if I were the IP, making good faith efforts. It's no excuse, but certainly a reason to fly off the handle. Kleuske (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I second Floquenbeam and Kleuske. All in all, it was a bad block from the first blocking admin. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 22:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agh - that's really not good either. Whether or not the IP editor is BKF (at this point it doesn't really matter), I think there are a number of things that a number of editors could learn from the whole situation. But it did all stem from the original bad block, from an admin (and I'll say it again) with 25 edits to Wikipedia in the last three years. Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Kite, I agree completely. I wish we didn't have such a trigger-happy Recent changes patrol who are biased against IPs, and this block...yeah. I went back through the archives of my talk page: I have been in the middle of mindless reverts on the one hand and insults on the other hand since at least 2011. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, first let's get a factor that could possibly conflate the analysis out of the way here: If you dig far enough back into the IP's contributions, you do begin to see a pattern of needlessly inflammatory language in edit summaries: [6]. That's something the user is going to want to address regardless of the outcome here.
    That said, most of these comments are stale and none of them (as far as I can tell) were involved with the issues involved in the content dispute or the block. Certainly, no incivility issues were cited by the admin, as they should have been if they were contributing factors to the block. And that's just the tip of the iceberg with regard to this admin's inappropriate approach here. First off, they lept straight to a level three warning, assuming bad faith and perhaps forestalling otherwise productive discussion. Or at least, under normal circumstances it might have forestalled discussion, but Winunter doesn't seem to have cared for discussion regardless because, less than a minute later and for unexplained reasons, they changed their mind and blocked the IP altogether, without giving them a chance to process the warning and/or make a case for why their edits were not vandalism. And putting aside any possible, attenuated argument for how the IP's edits may have been disruptive in some form (and I don't think they were, in this instance) they clearly were not vandalsim. Even if said edit had been inappropriate (and they actually seem to align with our verification and sourcing policies, as well as consensus discussions on the matter), they were pretty clearly made in good faith to add permissible content, and thus not even in the remotest since WP:vandalism as the term applies on this project.
    In short, Winhunter's behaviour here seems completely sloppy, if not outright WP:disruptive. And their failure to account for any of it is not particularly reassuring; far from being a context to assume that they may have legitimate reasons for having taken the actions that they did, the fact that they may once again have gone into dormancy is actually strong additional cause to consider stripping them of the bit. We simply can't have admins empowered with the block hammer who make highly questionable choices in how they implement it, without sufficient explanation, and then just disappear into the aether again immediately. Indeed, the particular details of this case raise the question of whether it is advisable to allow a user to maintain such tools at all, after such a prolonged period of inactivity. Admins need to be completely up-to-date on community guidelines, be reasonably well-practiced in how to implement them and be regular, recognizable, and constructive contributors to the project in general. I sense we are about to hear yet more complaints about how the community ought to be able to desysop without needing to appeal to ArbCom, for the second time in as many weeks; I'm neutral on that issue, but I will say that this instance makes a much stronger case than the one that can currently be found at the top of the page.
    The one place where I will call out the IP is in their approach to that talk page discussion. Yes, they have cause to be frustrated here, but Drmies and other admins, having discovered the facts here, ultimately gave them a method to exit the mess and restore their full editing rights. All they were requested to do was repeat the unblock request (presumably for reasonable pro forma reasons) and instead chose to register their ire. That does raise the question of how they will cope with disputes or administrative matters in the future, I think. Nevertheless, I do think they deserve an apology for having been dropped into this mess in the first place. Snow let's rap 23:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that imposing 1RR as a condition for unblock is unreasonable when there's enough blame to go around, and should be removed. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The whole behaviour and general gameplay of this editor is the likely cause of the grief. The first and second blocks were really justified by saying things like "Don't be stupid." [7] and "just how stupid are you? it takes virtually no brainpower to distinguish between vandalism and my good edits,..." [8] (then delete it all just to avoid scrutiny!]. Editors here are all volunteers and should not be subjected to such behaviour, and it avoids the trumping policy of all - WP:GF - good faith. The pattern seems to me easily construed as deliberately WP:disruptive.
    I also responded to the various complaints of the reverts made by me here.[9]
    NOTE: I do suspect this unregistered User might be just another sockpuppet of the now indefinitely blocked Tetraquark [10], who also deletes Talkpage information they don't like or even blocks, turn quickly highly combative at any even minor slight, also edits astronomical pages (especially towards images), and equally shows similar poor and rude behaviour. (For a non registered User, they seem to know an awful lot about Wikipedia policies. e.g. Quoting WP:IG) Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he for sure is for sure the BKF vandal, which is why I am concerned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Best_known_for_IP --Tarage (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Do either of you have any evidence to back up these suspicions? If not, WP:ASPERSIONS, if so WP:SPI. Kleuske (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I do. Check out his edit history where there are numerous removals of phrases like 'best known for' with edit summaries straight out of that LBA page. If you want actual diffs I'll post them later tonight. It's pretty obvious. --Tarage (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, WP:SPI is the correct place to post the diffs. Kleuske (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)That was my initial thought as well, Kleuske (see my comments immediately below). But now that Tarage has linked to that longterm abuse page for the editor in question, I daresay the case is pretty strong and more than satisfies the WP:DUCK test, based on the contributions I have looked at since coming upon this thread. Unfortunately, SPI is going to be of less use than usual, since the use rin question does not register and hops from IP to IP. I do, however, agree that SPI should be the next stop: a sanction can still be implmented there, even without a CU, based on behavioural evidence (which i think is strong in this case). Filing at SPI will also allow exploration of the socking issues to be disentangled from the inappropriate admin actions being discussed here. Plus an admin action is more likely to be prompt at SPI, especially in light of the fact that admins may be hesitant to be the latest to reverse this editors status after the back and forth of the last 24 hours, if they first dsicover the situation via this mess. Snow let's rap 01:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, I'll leave it to you then. --Tarage (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not recall removing "phrases like 'best known for'", and struggle to see in any case why you would think that could be called vandalism. It's quite ironic on a thread about being blocked with a false accusation of vandalism though. If you can find an edit of mine that you think was deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, only then you can accuse me of vandalism. You will not find any such edits. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am pretty confident that you never act with the explicit intention of obstructing or defeating the project's purpose, for what it's worth. However, I also suspect you may have a substantial and fundamental disconnect with the collaborative nature of this project. Snow let's rap 10:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha, pretty sneaky sis! But this isn't my rodeo! It's your theory, and though you have me more than half convinced after sharing that link, if you're really confident, you're going to have to propose the action yourself. Snow let's rap 09:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)That theory sounds like a matter for SPI. I will say that there is apparently a second line of speculation as to this user being someone else above (at least, there is reference to such positions, apparently drawn from another discussion that is not being linked to here). I will say that certain elements of this IP's behaviour and knowledge of process do suggest an experienced editor to me, but without more substantial editing, I am not willing to assume that they are anything other than what they claim to be: a moderately experienced non-registered user who ran afoul of particularly under-experienced admin and then lacked the patience to negotiate the situation as easily as they might have. And I suspect most community members here will feel the same, pending deeper evidence.
    OhanaUnited, I initially shared your perspective and almost called on Drmies to reconsider repealing that restriction. Then I did a little more digging and saw the full context of how that came about. Bear in mind especially that Drmies' initial posts on that talk page were to validate the IP's position and call for all blocks and restrictions to be removed. Other admins/community members(both involved and uninvolved) then agreed, and the IP was asked to resubmit their unblock request, and was given back talk page access for that purpose. At this point the IP used that ability to speak their mind again to immediately balk and complain about the unfairness of having to take 15 minutes (at most, surely) to format that request. It was only at this point that Drmies changes their stance and implemented the 1RR restriction, while also removing the block. Even considering the frustrating and unfair context in which they were initially blocked, that was an impressive display of shooting themselves in their own foot. I'm not sure that 1rr is exactly the most targeted possible sanction here, given that edit warring does not seem to be their issue. But I suspect the intended preventative effect here was to make the editor think twice about acting impulsively when dealing with their fellow editors. Snow let's rap 01:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was pinged here as the blocking admin? I'm the unblocking admin, who disagreed to some extent with the initial block or at least the given block rationale; I'm the one who (with Anthony) broke a lance for the IP editor. I used to do that in the old days for some other editor whose name escapes me (though Floq might remember)...no, I can't come up with it now. Anyway, I imposed the 1R restriction because it seems to me that trouble starts when the IP gets reverted and then strikes back. Snow Rise, your comments are quite to the point and I appreciate them. If the community thinks that the restriction is too much, that's fine: overturn it. But do note that I have not reverted any of their edits, that I believe I have advocated for them (here and in a slew of messages on the ArbCom mail list, where this user posted with ever-increasing urgency, and that I offered assistance, saying that they could ping me if they got reverted. Mind you, I didn't even need for them to request to be unblocked again--I was just hoping they'd say something reasonable. User:OhanaUnited, in these circumstances, I don't think my restriction was unreasonable. At any rate, have at it, y'all--I did my bit by supporting the IP's initial case and unblocking them, and at the same time trying to protect all sides with a restriction that will require the IP editor to reflect and give them the opportunity to call in the cavalry--but I won't be surprised if this backfires spectacularly, given how the temperature seems to rise when this editor shows up, no matter how solid and positive their edits are. Please don't ping me anymore in this ANI thread: it's not a concern of mine. If the IP wants to ping me to point at some revert or other, my door is always open, of course. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • But I wasn't blocked for reverting anything, or striking back after reverting. I was blocked for vandalism, when I had clearly done no such thing. I am glad to see that the consensus here seems to be quite strongly that the block was not valid. I am extremely heartened to see that someone suggested I deserved an apology for it. I am less heartened to see I'm accused of being various sockpuppets but whatever.
      • As for what I said when asked to make one more unblock request: what was the need for it? I'd been blocked for vandalism, blocked for being angry about that, and then blocked for no actual clear reason for *three months*. I'd followed all the appeals right up to mailing the arbitration committee, which was crazy given how obvious it was (confirmed here) that the original block was wrong. And then someone says "I'll unblock you, but only if you ask me to one more time." It seemed really pointless. I stand by that.
      • And as for editing restrictions, well I'm not likely to edit any articles for a while anyway. You'll notice I have not edited any articles since being unblocked. The whole experience of being blocked for "vandalism" when making perfectly good edits was extremely unpleasant, and doesn't particularly make me feel like fixing errors I find, far less refixing them when other people have unfixed them, having been accused of "disruption" when I did that before.
      • Anyway I have found this a very useful and interesting discussion. Thanks. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying "I was blocked for vandalism," is not entirely true. The first two instances you were plainly blocked for saying things like "Don't be stupid." [11] and "just how stupid are you? it takes virtually no brainpower to distinguish between vandalism and my good edits,..." [12]. You then multiplied the mistake by then delete it all just to avoid scrutiny!
    I see these blocks as a reflection of your own poor aggressive behaviour and the utter contempt you exhibit to others (including me.) This is clearly the needed evidence of "disruptive editing." None of your excuses above at all addresses your own poor behaviour, and your near continuous inflicted 'insults' to other Users if they disagree with you. Wikipedia is for editors in collaborations not those acting like vigilantes. (Some wisdom: Showing an inkling of contrition here would help your cause considerably.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding Wikipedia:Vandalism it plainly says: "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose,..." The word 'behaviour' here is important, and hasn't been addressed by this IP User at all. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor accuses me of aggressive behaviour while aggressively undoing my reverts and slandering me, restoring to articles things that they themselves had described as "abhorrent" and (incorrectly) "vandalism", and responding aggressively when I asked them why they did that. They are yet to provide an answer. I do view them as a problem but that's really a separate discussion. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Go right ahead. You are falsely accusing me of something. You were blocked not just because of the edits but because of your behaviour. If someone reverts an edit once, twice or three times, right or wrong, you should attempt to seek consensus. You did not do this at all. Instead you started throwing insults. End of story. Get it. Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Arianewiki1, the IP was first blocked for supposedly vandalizing Wikipedia. Of all the three blocks, only one was regarding civility and NPA. The other was for disruptive editing. I don't know if you're insinuating that the IP was vandalizing, because that is entirely false. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 16:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hooo boy, if somebody filed an RfA like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Winhunter 2 today, they'd get WP:SNOW opposed out of the door. How times change. Meanwhile, I have been in 2.25's shoes myself as I used to edit logged out at my local library for security reasons - see User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 45#The war on IPs continues, and I seem to recall I was pretty pissed off when I got hit with a two year block. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The first one is even more telling, but in both Winhunter expresses a very personal take on fighting vandalism, clearly identified as arising out of their frustration as non-sysop to be able to stop them more immediately and effectively. In fact, at every opportunity and before all other factors, they identify their reason for wanting tools to be the ability to rapidly block vandals. That's pretty telling under the present circumstances. It seems these days, in the few minutes they can spare the project every few years, the user now has no time for warnings or discussion before blocking on their vandal assumptions. Not withstanding the fact that I'm low on AGF for the IP, we do owe them for bring this to our attention and I think this matter should be referred to ArbCom, regardless of whether or not the IP gets boomerang blocked for socking. Snow let's rap 10:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMO this is why admins should need to earn their wings every year, and not just by making X admin actions; they can't just disappear for over a decade and then swoop in and do stupid $#it with the tools and get away with it. There needs to be a requirement that admins make at least X number of actual edits (not admin actions) every two years or they are de-sysopped. We've been skirting around this problem for way too long and I've seen way too many absentee admins do stupid stuff. Softlavender (talk) 10:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That would help considering the other contributing factor of this issue: editors who became admins in the early days of Wikipedia, when the requirements for a RfA candidate were much lower. Cjhard (talk) 11:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I would survive a reconfirmation RfA, I've made too many enemies. I suspect if you tried to make it policy, the turkeys would gather round and prevent a vote (or a !vote) for Christmas, even though in principle it's a good idea. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know, I think those voting against a reconfirmation RfA based on nothing more than a personal grudge would be identified as doing so and would be discounted when establishing consensus, just as the case would be in regular RfCs. But you're not wrong that it would perhaps be more of an issue. That's something in favour of Softlavender's idea of an increased minimum standard of activity to maintain sysop status: it provides an objective standard, avoiding the axe-grinding issue completely. Cjhard (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I mentioned this possibility above, and though I can't recall having seen it anywhere before, I can't fathom that it has been suggested repeatedly over the years. It's definitely a more reasonable solution than recurrent RfA's in my opinion. That's just begs for disruption and bad blood from a completely needless airing of grievances, which the most disruptive editors will be most certain to turn out for. But a minimum standard of activity? That's completely called for. I'm surprised we don't have it, except to say that the community probably wasn't thinking in the longterm as we originated and perpetuated the process; only with time has the need become obvious. Seems like something that is ripe for VPP, if you ask me.Would need broad support from existing admins though, to survive the community process. Snow let's rap 12:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • SPI clerk comment - based on the IP's behaviour here and the non-CU technical evidence available to me, I can't reason a situation where this IP is any other than the Best Known For long-term abuser, who is banned by the community. If you want, compare in particular the IP's archived diatribe on their talk page with their comments in the linked ban discussion. While I respect that several admins here have taken it upon themselves to overturn what does appear to have been an inappropriate series of blocks, along with whatever's going on behind the veil of ArbCom, the community ban has been neither appealed nor overturned, and as such I have re-blocked the IP for 3 months to enforce the banning policy. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Ivan. --Tarage (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin acct

    "That is simply not true. They did not offer any advice, nor indicate that they were sympathetic to my position. They stalled and refused to lift the clearly unjustified block, and said " I'll remove this from my watchlist and let another admin consider your case"." (link)

    My responses show that is patently false and the fact that they cherry-picked a sentence from within a post that contains evidence that contradicts them is telling.

    I would still like to hear from Winhunter regarding the IP's initial concern. Has anyone emailed him?

    BKF will have an additional ax to grind with me. His employer contacted me last week and I supplied them with lots of details. They identified him. Different managerial levels are involved and he has received formal counseling that he is not to use their network to edit Wikipedia again to which he has agreed. They are interested in him being a "good neighbour" from here on and it is ironic that I had just written someone looking into the case an email reply detailing the standard offer, how he should contribute elsewhere for no less than six months with an account and that he would have to request a ban appeal from the community. They intend to monitor the situation. That said, since the IP hints at inappropriate admin actions on my part, I'll refrain from commenting further on a possible socking connection here.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not certain that this is the user described in Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP (if he doesn't scream abuse at my sympathetic reply above, it isn't), but if it is, he is community banned and should not be editing Wikipedia at all. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to support Arianewiki1 above - Behaviorally, this really looks like TQ. Scr★pIronIV 18:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He's been blocked as a sock of BKF. --Tarage (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh fair enough. He'll be back on another IP soon enough. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Berean Hunter thanks for your email, apologies I was busy during the week so couldn't respond to this thread earlier. I do recognize I could have actioned the original block in a better way so thanks for everyone's feedback. Noticed the thread is now concluded though if anyone require additional information from myself please feel free to reach out. -WinHunter (talk) 05:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm reaching out. What does "I could have actioned the original block in a better way" mean? EEng 05:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm open to suggestion for improvement. At the time I saw the continuing removal of similar data across multiple pages for the same subject which made me feel he was a repeated vandal. I could have explained the reason of my block a bit better at the time of the block and also see if I could have used a more appropriate warning . -WinHunter (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Respectfully WinHunter, those responses are insufficient to address the questions being asked by the community members here. This thread is not in fact "concluded" and I dare say that it's an indication of your inexperience with this community in the decade since you became an admin that you don't realize that. The IP was banned for being a likely sock of a user banned for behavioural problems, but that doesn't let you off scott free for your involvement in this matter. You instituted a block for another user for vandalism, even though most every editor who has reviewed those edits agrees they are not WP:vandalism in any sense relevant to this community's guidelines. More seriously, you applied the block without any warning, discussion or effort at clarification with the user in question, (unless you count a level three template slapped to their talk page less than one full minute before you blocked them anyway). Then you immediately disappeared as the situation exploded, leaving other admins and the community to deal with the fallout of your actions while the user disruptively worked their way through every community process they knew of (both on the site and off), armed with a legitimate claim of admin abuse which only amped up their existing persecution complex and gave them an excuse to game the system.
      • I admit I am not an active Wikipedian, though I did not intend to "disappear" and when someone emailed me I immediately login over my iphone and tried to respond with my thinking at the time. I am not saying I did the right thing at the time and I do apologies for all the trouble as a result of that action, I was trying to explain my thought process and mentioned that I am open for suggestions for improvement. I am happy to review the latest policies again to refresh my knowledge and if the community still find next admin actions unsatisfactory I am more than happy to let the community to decide my future.--WinHunter (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You say: "At the time I saw the continuing removal of similar data across multiple pages for the same subject which made me feel he was a repeated vandal." Well...why? Legitimate users remove content across multiple related articles as a matter of daily business here; that is not sufficient cause in even the remotest sense to use your privileges to block. You then go on to say "I could have explained the reason of my block a bit better at the time of the block and also see if I could have used a more appropriate warning." But the reality is that you didn't provide any explanation of your block, beyond the erroneous "vandal" in the block summary, nor did you provide any real warning or make any real effort to discuss the matter with the user that you decided (on apparently no hard evidence) was a vandal. You got lucky this time that your random block happened to be a banned user, but the community is now reasonably asking if your lack of involvement here over a long period of time makes you a problematic steward for our most significant (and thus potentially disruptive tools). Sorry to be so strident about it, but your answers are not particularly reassuring me, because they seem to indicate you don't know basic proceedure for our WP:BLOCKing policy. Snow let's rap 06:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec)Winhunter, please go to Arbcom and hand in your admin tools. You are very lucky that the IP you blocked turns out to be a banned user, but the reason you blocked them was absolutely wrong. "the continuing removal of similar data across multiple pages for the same subject" is not vandalism if the editor is correct and the data needs removal. These kind of edits need discussion, not the admin hammer, and that you still defend your block indicates that you have not learned anything from this episode. Coupled with your almost complete lack of edits and admin actions for years and years now makes it clear that you are no longer to be trusted to act as admins should. Fram (talk) 06:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with both of the above, in particular the call to resign. As I said on another thread, "We seem to have a mini-epidemic of editors in positions of trust who don't know which way is up, possibly due to limited experience editing articles and discussing with other editors." An admin with 3600 article edits and 350 article talk edits??? [13] And how does someone with that few (not-deleted) article edits accumulate 3300 deleted edits? Plus, he still doesn't doesn't seem to understand what he did wrong. EEng 14:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason of the high delete count is I decided to volunteer over recent years to helpout on WP:CSD as I have more limited time after my day job, and I hope you would find most of those deletions uncontroversial (like user request for their own userpages / obvious advertising etc). As I responded to another editor above I am happy to learn from this experience and review the latest policies, and if my next admin actions is still unsatisfactory I am more than happy to let the community to decide on my future. --WinHunter (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that explains the deleted edits, but that leaves everything else. You still seem unable to enunciate what you did wrong in this case, which is _______________________________ (fill in the blank, please). EEng 16:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll do you one better. "The reason I need to be an admin is _____________________." --Tarage (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Winhunter, your failure to engage these concerns is extremely troubling. EEng 23:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Fram and EEng. As a fellow Hong Konger, I would also like to ask you to hand in your admin tools. Removing inaccurate contents is something everyone does, IP or registered. Your revert could be viewed as repeated insertion of "Introducing deliberate factual errors", which ironically is grounds for yourself being blocked. I also think everyone here agrees that the resignation of WinHunter's admin rights, if that happens is considered as done "under the cloud". OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Kick to ArbCom with community recommendation

    There is clear consensus from this discussion and the comments above and below that administrator Winhunter's recent block and failure to adequately respond to inquiry is a dereliction of administrative accountability. As neither the community nor its administrators are empowered to act in this situation, the community requests Arbcom's urgent response. (Amended close, original here.) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

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

    It seems that WinHunter is either unable or unwilling to provide significant explanation or engagement regarding the substantial community concerns relating to the problematic way in which WinHunter has approached the use of their privileges--as well as other concerns regarding whether they have sufficient experience, perspective, and engagement in the project to be serving in an administrative capacity. At present, WinHunter seems to either be trying to ride out the scrutiny, or else the handful of brief and insufficient responses above represent the sum total of their ability and desire to explain actions which, consensus in this discussion seems to clearly hold, were deeply problematic (and if I can add my own impressions, indicative of a lack of even the most basic understanding of our blocking policies).

    However, ultimately the removal of tools is ArbCom's purview, so I don't see what more is to be accomplished here. We could long-term block WinHunter, but that does not seem the most transparent way to address the root issue, nor do I think we should prevent the user from possibly returning to the project to contribute productively in other capacities (unlikely as that seems given the user's lack of activity over the years since getting the bit). I therefore propose that we resolve to open a report with ArbCom, but that the report be coupled with a link to this discussion and a strong community endorsement that ArbCom investigate the issues here (and, depending on the result of this poll, a strong recommendation to desysyop). I was hesitant at first to suggest such an approach on the basis of one major incident, but the responses above have been wholly insufficient to assuage my concerns as to whether the user is an appropriate steward of the ban hammer, and I don't think I'm the only one. Snow let's rap 01:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Addendum: Since WinHunter has said that they are willing to accept community consensus on their future role as an admin (without specifying a particular community process), we can also consider asking them to voluntarily relinquish their tools, if the poll suggests they should, thus saving some time in the process. If they are unwilling to part with the tools on the basis of the community consensus here, then we can proceed with the request for review by ArbCom, no harm done. Snow let's rap 01:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Like Snow said, wait and see if Winhunter has the courtesy to simply resign ("under a cloud", of course). EEng 03:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering their behaviour so far, I seriously doubt it. But I'll give it a week or so. Hopefully the knowledge that another ADMINACCT case is heading there should be enough to get something out of them. If their response is anything like what it took Arthur a couple of months to produce, i'll be filing the case anyway. Twitbookspacetube 05:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not concur with your sentiments. I do not believe that "all admins" need a "wake-up call", but that the vast majority of admins do a decent to very good job. They don't need or deserve to be lumped in with an egregious example such as this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, just to be clear, I wouldn't be making this proposal, but for the fact that the issues are particularly egregious; I can't ever recall seeing another pattern of facts surrounding the improper use of blocking privileges quite like this. There are occasional sloppy or involved blocks that stand to have some scrutiny, but the distinguishing factors here are this user's tangential involvement with the project, single-minded reasons for wanting to be an admin, and lack of basic familiarity with the relevant policies. If not for that highly specific combination of factors, I would not have made the proposal--and I I'm not sure that all three apply to so much as a single other active admin. None that I've come across, certainly. Snow let's rap 05:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: "Vast majority of admins do a decent to very good job". That part I agree. But within last 30 days alone, we have 2 admins, including this one, who failed to satisfactory justify their actions (the other being this case which I'm sure you're aware of its existence because you commented on it). And these are the only complaints that surfaced because the affected party knows where and how to complain. Think about how many newbie biting incidents that didn't get reported and this number would have gone up. Two in a month isn't something we should be proud about. At any rate, admins have to be accountable for their actions and that's a given when they decide to run for it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course admins have to be accountable, and most of them do so willingly. As for 2 in a month - since there weren't 2 such last month or the month before, I'd say it's just random, the normal distribution of disconnected events, uncorrelated to the quality of our admin corps.
    Look, I know there are some bad admins out there -- believe me, I've run into a few, and it's shocking simply because it's so rare. Most of the admins interactions I've had have been perfectly normal and justifiable, and if I'm being called to task, I've generally deserved it. We have 1,250 admins, over 500 of whom are active, and I'd be surprised if there were more than a couple of handfuls of bad ones, at the very most. So, I still think you're wrong about the necessity of a "wake-up call" to all admins. What we need is better procedures to get rid of the handful of bad apples, not swatting our admins en masse on their noses with a rolled up newspaper. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That more or less sums up my position; the fact that we've had two public discussions about possible admin misconduct this month doesn't add up to me to say much about admins on the project in general. I find most act with restraint; indeed, if there is a problem these days, it's in getting an admin to act definitively on a pressing matter--but that's another discussion altogether. I certainly didn't intend this proposal to be a wake-up call for anyone; the facts are just particularly compelling that there is are basic competency/engagement problems, in the present case. Snow let's rap 08:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The user's inactivity, combined with their recent poor decision and poor response, suggests that they shouldn't be an admin. Perhaps this should serve as a lesson for us about having inactive admins. If you aren't a reasonably active contributor, you probably shouldn't be making administrative decisions. It's like any volunteer situation—while volunteer help is always welcome, you don't want some guy who only pops in a few times a year to be ordering other volunteers out of the building. Everyking (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The IP was first blocked for supposedly vandalizing Wikipedia. From the beginning, it was clear that this block was wrong, and wrongly done. And should have been reverted by the blocking admin, as soon as the consensus became clear on this matter. Perhaps (understatement) the IP has to be blocked for other reasons, by another admin. But it remains that WinHunter messed the situation... and failed to clean it. Don't keep the mop, if you don't understand what cleaning could mean. Pldx1 (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support on the stipulation that part of the case also be able the community's ability to restrict/revoke mops for behavior like this. --Tarage (talk) 01:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ArbCom has no jurisdiction over the community's ability to desysop. The only non-ArbCom solution is to block the admin. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Then who does? --Tarage (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The community itself. It would require a policy change, usually via RFC. ArbCom is not supposed to make policy, rather enact it. A community desysop procedure does not exist, although I share your opinion that it should. -- Begoon 02:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you intending to attempt to sound as if you are talking down to somebody there, from a place of superior / more worldly perspective, simply because you have gripes about ArbCom? No, I've never been a party to an ArbCom case, and quite happy to be able to say that. But like any other member of this community who has been around as long as I have been, I'm hardly ignorant of how matters are handled/unfold there. Or of the passive-aggressive contempt that flows in their direction from some corners of the community, regardless of the context in which their name is invoked. In any event, as I see it, we don't really have an alternative course of action here. Only ArbCom is empowered to de-sysop, so this matter has to be handled through that channel;the best we can do is share a link to this discussion and a comment about how concerned the community is with this particular user having privileges.
    If you have a better course of action to suggest, I'm all ears. But I don't see what your comment contributes, at least in terms of actual substance with regard to the proposal. At least, I don't understand what "proceed with caution" would mean in this context, as a response to the proposal. The worst that can happen is that they don't act, and we have to consider another sanction if this user proves problematic. Maybe I'm missing something, but it just looks like you're taking the opportunity to register your low regard for ArbCom, but without actually say whether the proposal should be endorsed or not, or providing some alternative course of action. Snow let's rap 03:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. There also needs to be a clear reform of the way administrators have been able to retain and use their tools even in spite of vast inexperience and absences of nearly a decade or more. I've seen this problem arise several times in the past few years; it is insupportable and needs to be fixed with new and stringent activity & knowledge requirements for admins. (For example, while I find it understandable that an admin might be away from WP for a year, if one year stretches beyond more than two years of virtual absence, I personally think the tools need to be removed [pending a new RfA], even if they used the tools a few times in that period.) Softlavender (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I don't think the problem is absence per se, rather that very long absence takes us back to the time when RfAs were more, um, promiscuous, shall we say. Admins minted back then who have been active most or all of the time since have stood the test of time, but cases such as this one don't have that experience to reassure us that they should ever have been admins in the first place. EEng 05:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's mainly the long absence, since most early-minted admins have either grown up with the project and have at least learned on the job (or they have been de-sysopped). Those who split for a decade soon after being sysopped have no clue what they are doing and no sense that they should learn, or be held accountable, or why. Softlavender (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we're saying the same thing. EEng 08:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Close discussion

    • I think the close is inappropriate, and we should keep this thread open until we either hear from Winhunter or decide what to do as a community. EEng 20:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To what end, though? We've already pretty clearly established that Winhunter isn't going to offer a satisfactory reply (it's been six days since the last one) and that nearly everyone who has commented here is, erm, uncomfortable with their status. The next steps are just as I said: either resign or Arbcom (or the third option that nobody really cares that much, which is not apparently the case). We can't force an administrator to resign, and we also can't force an administrator into a backdoor reconfirmation RfA which I fear this is turning into. I could file the Arbcom case on behalf of the discussion, but I'm not going to. There's the seeds here for a discussion about a community desysop process or revised activity requirements, for example, and I'd be pleased to see such a discussion, but this is both a bad venue and a bad frame for it, and a bad way to try to establish precedent. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ivanector, respectfully, both your close and your response here suggest that you read neither my proposal nor the majority of responses to it thoroughly enough. I pretty clearly acknowledged that the community is not empowered to de-sysop Winhunter. Indeed, the very crux of the proposal is that we therefore forward the matter to ArbCom, which is one of the "alternatives" that you then propose in your close, despite the fact that this is exactly what the community members here are explicitly endorsing. Further, during the nine days this discussion has been open, no editor other than you yourself has so much as whispered the notion that we force this user to go through another RfA, and I don't think it was on anyone's mind until you mentioned it. That's a completely novel idea that has never been attempted before in the history of this community and I think we would have noticed if someone were suggesting it. It certainly was not remotely part of my proposal or hinted at in any response, so your concern that that this is "where this is headed" seems entirely unfounded.
    I don't mind this being closed without a direct sanction (that was afterall, exactly what the proposal was suggesting) but I do think it is appropriate that the close reflects the community's strong condemnation of this misuse of tools; that could prove useful at ArbCom--minimally useful, I will grant you, but seeing as the use of such wording was basically the exact purpose of the proposal that was endorsed by the community here (as you say, anyone could have taken this to ArbCom at any time) and given that the !vote was a WP:SNOW result, I feel like your close missed the point of both the discussion and the community consensus, and unintentionally whitewashes the community's deep concern out of the close, which is supposed to be a summary of that consensus. Snow let's rap 00:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an option the community can enact: an indefinite block. Indefinite blocks have been used when someone disappears to avoid scrutiny. If WinHunter decides to reappear and provide accountability, the community can decide whether to proceed with an ArbCom desysop request. If not, the bit will expire due to inactivity and I can't imagine the bureaucrats returning the bit to a user who lost it while blocked. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Tools do not, from the best of my knowledge anyway, expire after a period of inactivity. But if they did, I am certain the strategy you suggest above would have been employed a time or two here. Probably with some degree of contentiousness though, as it would be sure to be seen by some as a backdoor desysop in violation of ArbCom's present sphere of authority. It would still be niece of admins could time themselves out in that respect, but to the best of my knowledge, there is no need to see a crat about restoring full tool functionality after a long absence. Snow let's rap 00:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:INACTIVITY 207.38.154.23 (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh. Thanks for that. Even so, I think that blocking an admin just for the sack of forcing their tools to be taken away through a technical/procedural process, would be viewed as an inappropriate manipulation of the process by too much of the community--even editors who might otherwise support that same user being desysopped by a community vote (if that were an option). Under the present circumstances, I continue to think that ArbCom is the appropriate venue here, under current policy. though, notably, a lot of the community at late seems to be considering the notion of whether the removal of tools should be something that can be mandated by a community vote. I'm kind of inbetween on that notion myself, but regardless, ArbCom is our only option if we want to be perfectly transparent about what we are trying to achieve. Snow let's rap 03:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Snow Rise, I appreciate your proposal and did read it before closing anything here, along with everyone's commentary, but I think the conversation is misguided. The (only) procedures for removing advanced permissions from an account are via Arbcom; this exact situation (an administrator makes poorly judged actions and fails to respond) is covered by WP:LEVEL2, which is a procedure which does not take into account an endorsement by the community at all. All that is likely to be accomplished here is delay, which works well against arbitrators seeing a situation as requiring serious intervention. And as I've said, I'm concerned that proceeding with this discussion allows the establishment of a half-baked precedent for community-directed rights removal, which is a discussion which needs to be more carefully considered than what we can do here right now. I don't think for a second that your proposal is in bad faith of course, but I do think you should get on with the LEVEL2 process sooner rather than later. Out of respect for the discussion to this point, I'll rework my close. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Ivan, I appreciate your taking the time for both the response and the subtle amendment to the close. I am in full agreement that a broader discussion about what the do about de-sysop procedures ought to take a place in isolation to any one particular case of alleged misconduct. I also agree that any such discussion ought to take place in a more contemplative and carefully organized (rather than reactionary and ad hoc) fashion--and by necessity in a broader community forum than ANI. Frankly, I did not expect that multiple people would see the proposal as as a jumping off point for a broader community discussion on the state of ArbCom's sole remit on that role, but I guess I should have factored in the tension that has existed on this page on the topic, just recently. Personally, I have very much mixed feelings about whether or not sharing that role with the broader community would be a wise policy change, but given the atmosphere of late, I suspect it's just a matter of time before someone starts to seriously agitate for it. Snow let's rap 09:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    People have been seriously agitating for it for 10 years. Proposals even make it as far as RfC once in awhile. They never gain consensus. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Replace negativity-focused wikipedia compliance process with the positivity-focused wikipedia compliance process: I stumbled upon here while reading how wikipedia works. I start with an apology and self-declaration. I am not very experienced. I am not an admin. I do not even know if I am allowed to comment here, or if I am qualified enough that would make my comments permissible in your judgement. Apologies if I am trespassing or intruding in the unallowable territory. This is amazing how much time is spent and how many people get involved in disputes, blocks and revokes. I wish wikipedia was a nicer place to be. While clicking through wiki article links posted by others above, I came across Removing administrator rights which says if an admin has not made any edits in a year then revoke their admin rights. About the revoking the ban, if someone is so passionate enough to rejoin, let them come back specially if the sufficient time has passed. If he has not apologized, then may be he is too scared to apologize if he feels it might be held against him. Assure him that he needs to come clean, pour his heart out and it wont be held against him, etc. I think block is like imprisonment. If there is repeated imprisonment, without rehab, detox and counseling, then it may not cure the objectionable behavior. Better way to retain the passionate but "frustrated abusers" is by having a formal wikipedia mechanism to put the person through "mentoring", "onboarding", "shadowing the experienced editor" and "positive counseling" (not just negative warning and blocks/jail) and "community service" (get them to assists others making same mistakes, learn by teaching) and so on. Wikipedia's way of keeping vandalism and bad behavior out purely seems to be based on bombarding each other with warnings and blocks, no loving compassionate counseling. Those who are more experienced in playing this negative behavior, while being pleasant to their powerful colleagues, seem to win. Everybody else either has to be submissive and be corrupted by this negative-way of being successful and become part of this rot, or be thrown out (experienced ones can smartly frustrate newer ones into lashing out) or quit to retain their peace. Wikipedia principals are good, guidelines are nice but confusing and useful only for the experienced wikipedia power-players (at least publish an order of priority of wiki guidelines e.g. use consensus before using BRD, use gentle explaining before issuign warning, do not use warning unless you have mentored the person, and so on), processes are efficient but bad because they seem to "encourage narcissist behavior" (warn warn and warn at the slightest pretext, provoke them smartly into lashing out and play victim of attack and block), system is designed this way that only narcissists 9who are smart enough to pleasantly disguise it) stay, survive, thrive and rise. I remember reading in some guideline that calling some one narcissist is basis of ban, I am not attacking or calling any individual narcissist. Apologies, if I spoke too much. I only intend to draw your attention, and I beg you please can we do something to change this system. You have more experience, power, leverage, network to make this change happen e.g. do not warn but mentor, use positive reinforcement, ban or restrict negative behavioral modification tools/processes (currently they are excessive). Apologies too if that mechanism already exists. If it does not exist, then I assume all or most of you above are admins or very experienced editors. I request you to please take it up to set up this kind of positive onboarding and positive behavioral modification process. About these two guys, give them both "loving compassionate chance with proper counseling". Though the admin might have broken rules by not being active for a year, inform him that if he does not regularly use his account then his admin rights will be revoked, inform him in a pleasant way, not in the usual wikipedia bossy-warning-bully way. Same for the blocked guy, put him through some counseling under the wings of one of the designated experienced kind-hearted patient non-preachy non-bossy volunteer admin to learn the ropes for 3 months. Please include all. Let us not kick, jail, kill anyone. Conquer them with love. Let me know too if I am disturbing in not-allowable forum, and i will shut up. Thanks for reading, for your patience and kind consideration. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    PS, Just noticed, while I was typing my comment, the discussion has moved on and case closed. Apologies for my comment above (submitted almost simultaneously with closure verdict). Thanks for the understanding. I am just a reader-learner. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Triple-Two, first off, welcome to the project. To answer some of your inquiries: You are permitted to post in this space; any user is allowed to, permitted they are participating productively in a discussion, abiding by our general community guidelines, and just generally not acting in WP:disruptive fashion. That said, in this particular space, it's usually best to keep your comments more focused upon the specific issues being explored here rather than making more generalized and prolonged arguments about the manner in which the project operates. However, there are a bevy of other spaces where this kind of discussion does take place: you may be interested (as starting points) in spaces like WP:WikiProject Editor Retention and WP:Village Pump; to adress other issues with a learnign curve that you note, the Wikipeida directory, editor's index, the help page, and the Teahouse, (a space for mentoring newcomers) may all prove useful to you.
    At the core of your commentary is a laudable notion that new members of this community ought to be welcome into it with warmth, gratitude and encouragement. I think you will find that this vision is shared more in common with your fellow Wikipedians (especially amongst long-term consistent contributors) than you seem to be assuming. There are many spaces which address the issues through the type of lens you seem to be encouraging; we have numerous WP:MEDIATION and WP:DISPUTE RESOLUTION processes that editors can avail themselves of, as well as multiple mechanisms to solicit impartial additional views on editorial issues--you are correct that are not highly visible to newcomers, lost amongst the deep mechanics of the community processes here, which take time and familiarity to parse through. Sadly, while there is always room for improvement, I think that the complexity is partly just an inherent result of the scale and complexity of this project, and not merely the result of poor priorities or design by this community.
    In the same vein, I think you are perhaps assuming too much about the motives and perspectives of the admins and community members who work with the processes involving blocks and sanctions. Keep in mind that this space is specifically reserved for persistent or serious issues, so of course one sees a high level of contention. There are countless thousands of little collisions on the project on any given day that are handled with tact and mutual respect and encouragement and never arrive here or an an admin's talk page. The strong lines sometimes drawn here by the community also don't mean that experienced editors here lack sympathy for new contributors. You will find that most discussions end with an assumption of WP:ROPE or even more positive outcomes. And when it doesn't go that way, it isn't because the community wishes to punish someone, but rather because we want to prevent further disruption. Take the present case: you suggest that we should give a warning to this admin that they cannot do as they did, and then let the matter go at that. But I'm afraid you don't seem to fully understand the issues here. Having admin tools is a major responsibility here, and those privileges can only be used in ways that are, by design of community consensus, highly constrained. The admin in the present case, who has been long absent from the project and got his tools at a much earlier time in this project's development, has shown highly questionable judgement in the use of those tools and then has compounded this by being almost completely unresponsive the community's concerns, and seeming to have an insufficiently clear understanding of what the problems with their conduct are. The community has to look into such issues, but it's not a punitive inquiry in any sense: notice that the discussion is focused on the loss of the problematic tools, and not a block or any other such sanction.
    All of that said, I hope you continue to embrace a compassionate and sympathetic approach to your interactions on the project, should you stay with us. Snow let's rap 03:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe Twitbookspacetube previously expressed a willingness to attend to that, if further sufficient engagement from Winhunter was not forthcoming. I'm a less than ideal choice, given my availability over the next couple of weeks, but if Twitbookspacetube has reconsidered and no one else is available--or if someone feels strongly that I'm the most appropriate person, having made the initial proposal-- I'll try to find the time for a bare bones filing. Snow let's rap 03:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit busy at this precise moment, but I'll take a look through this quagmire and put something together. Twitbookspacetube 04:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Twitbookspacetube; given the user's general lack of activity, I wouldn't call it a pressing issue, but I nevertheless appreciate that someone is willing to file the matter with ArbCom at least somewhat contemporaneous with the closing of this discussion. Snow let's rap 01:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks all. As I said I'm disinclined to file a case request myself beyond a summary "the community requests a case" sort of thing, and won't have time anyway in the next few days to a week or so. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The case is so filed at [14]. Twitbookspacetube 03:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Attack page?

    Would User:Morty C-137/SPI-Case be considered an attack page? I was under the impression that accusations of sockpuppetry should be confined to WP:SPI.

    Recent reports regarding Morty C-137:

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive956#Morty C-137: Battleground attitude, personal attacks and edit warring.

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive343#User:Morty C-137 and User:Rjensen reported by User:Cjhard (Result: Warned)

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive342#User:Pepe.is.great and User:Morty C-137 reported by User:KDS4444 (Result: Warned)

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive953#Morty C-137

    --Guy Macon (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This discussion has already been had by administators and answered, and I consider Guy Macon's filing here to be in obvious bad faith. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Morty C-137: Where did this admin discussion occur? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been attacked over and over [15] and I have every right to keep records given that we are "required to give evidence". Morty C-137 (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what I asked. Where has an admin told you this page is OK? This page has been up for over a month with no SPI case filed. We can't keep pages like this around, per WP:POLEMIC. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I just linked a diff for you above. Take it up with them. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Since Morty's decide to revert the blanking, I've deleted the page per WP:POLEMIC. These type of pages cannot be left around for long periods of time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, that proves this whole listing is in bad faith, since you gave me no actual chance to save the material offline and you're ignoring policy. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've undeleted for 10 minutes so you can copy everything. Then it's getting deleted again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I'm lucky I saw that at the 9th minute, such a "generous" amount of time. What a load of harassing crap. Morty C-137 (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    May I interject here? Morty C-137 none of those users nor an admin EVER said that you could do that. Dinah In Wonderland 19:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Seconding this. It's possible Morty linked to the wrong diff, of course. If you're collecting evidence in this manner, it's best to do it off wiki. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Two things here. A quick look through Cjhard's (very short) edit summary:

    1. It screams "sock puppet" of the sleeper kind. The account has only approx. 815 edits but extensive knowledge not only of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines but it's internal politics, feuds, obscure cases and ANI reports (examples [16]. It made 16 edits in 2007, 8 edits in 2008, 4 edits in 2009, 4 in 2011, 3 in 2012 and then... it "woke up" and exploded with several hundred edits starting in May of this year. And a lot of these involve following and reverting Morty around - there's no freakin' way this is a legit account.
    2. It's immediately obvious that the account HAS in fact been following and harassing Morty.

    It's hard to tell who the sock master here is but at least this account looks like one of the socks of the same person.

    I can easily see why Morty is frustrated here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want to accuse me of being a sockpuppet, do it at SPI. Doing it here, incorrectly, without evidence, and without having the courtesy of pinging me in a conversation I hadn't already been made aware of, is an unacceptable personal attack. Honestly, I'm getting tired of it from Morty, and my tolerance for it is waning. Cjhard (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Better yet, provide your input to the SPI case Morty finally opened: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cjhard. Cjhard (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If User:Morty C-137 doesn't understand why his behavior (both in maintaining a page full of un-substantiated attacks on wiki, and his recent contributions at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard) is problematic, administrative action against him should be considered. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    AFAICT there's no "problematic" behavior at RN/B, which, incidentally, is not a discussion you yourself participated in. As far as I can tell.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've commented on it now, though I'm not sure what your remark regarding my lack of participation is supposed to imply. I hope that, after the fourth invocation of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, he will let the discussion die on its own; it hasn't been about "Reliable Sources" for quite some time. That said, it's not actionable; as the SPI case is filed and the attack page is blanked, hopefully an admin can close this soon. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (copy of recent post to WP:REFUND): This page is covered both by WP:POLEMIC (a policy), and WP:CSD#G10 (a speedy deletion criterion that references WP:ATP, a slightly different but essentially similar policy page). I referenced the first policy in the deletion log, kind of assuming the link to G10 was clear, but if that's too lazy and if it helps in dotting the i's and crossing the t's, consider it deleted per WP:CSD#G10. We generally haven't considered short-term compilation of evidence an attack page, but they aren't allowed to linger in user space for a long time; in this case over a month, plus a week since its undeletion. From WP:ATP: "keeping a "list of enemies" or "list of everything bad user:XXX did" on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate". If it's going to take a long time to compile evidence, that should be done offline. Morty now has this material offline if he chooses to use it. If an admin thinks WP:POLEMIC/WP:CSD#G10/WP:ATP doesn't apply here, they can certainly undelete (I'll say as much at ANI in a moment). Or ditto if Morty wants to take it to WP:DELREV instead. But it pretty clearly qualifies to me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC) (end of copy)[reply]
    I'm not preventing Morty from continuing to compile evidence, I'm not preventing him from filing an SPI, I'm not claiming Sjhard is or isn't a sock, and I'm not Morty's enemies' newest buddy. But my experience has been that we enforce WP:POLEMIC/WP:CSD#G10/WP:ATP like this all the time. I even tried to blank it instead of delete it, and was immediately reverted. Again, if any admin thinks undeletion is warranted and WP:POLEMIC/WP:CSD#G10/WP:ATP doesn't apply, please feel free to undelete. Now I've been told I'm a stuck up jerk, that I'm someone's pet admin, and that I am intentionally harassing Morty, and I still temporarily undeleted the page for Monty to copy the contents, and I've explained myself sufficiently to satisfy WP:ADMINACCT. I've had more than enough, so I'm disengaging now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Whether the page in question should be deleted or not is subject to the usual administrative rules and guidelines (though I've seen other people do similar, just in a but less transparent way and get away with it). My point rather is that Morty's action were understandable and importantly, that this ANI report is completely pointless.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Floquenbeam, I apologize for the jerk comment. That being said, I am frustrated because (a) the last person to blank that page was a freaking sockpuppet of a stalker and (b) you didn't explain ANYTHING of your blanking, followed by just up and deleting it when I reverted and tried to add the newest sockpuppet to the list. How the hell was I supposed to know what you were up to when you were too lazy to give an explanation? Morty C-137 (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Could be a sock puppet. Nothing has been proven yet. --Tarage (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I learned today that this user filed a false allegation of sockpuppetry against me. It's certainly "Not Here" behavior. It needs to be stopped either on its own or by a hasty door showing. The attack page is a symptom of the problem. --DHeyward (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    There's no shortage of symptoms; the repeated assumption/leap to accuse other users above (including intervening admins) of "harassment" demonstrates A) a pretty profound lack of understanding of basic process (which can always be remedied with experience) and B) a more fundamental sense of persecution and refusal to WP:AGF (which is more problematic). We already see enough users show up here on a revolving door basis who are convinced that any time their wishes are thwarted or their behaviour questioned, it is a form of harassment. Best to disabuse this notion early, before it progresses to the conspiracy theory stage and truly disruptive discussions that usually follow. Snow let's rap 11:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Dheyward ran right in after someone was blocked. The Clerk on the case admitted "I can see why it looks suspicious." But hey, go ahead and roundly misrepresent everything. Morty C-137 (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two sets of sockpuppets attacking Morty. The earliest one is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D.H.110/Archive A second set is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D.Pearson/Archive. I'll quote Bbb23, who is sadly now inactive here: " I can see the confusion because of the usernames, all the pepes and earsons, but they are separate masters editing from different continents and using different other technical data. I don't know why this person is mimicking the other.-" That is my finding also. Two different continents but the later one is mimicking the earlier. I have my own thoughts on this but need to ponder on the evidence a bit longer. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Holy mother of WP:IDHT; you really need to stop assuming (and vocally asserting) that everyone who questions you is out to get you, and listen to what the experienced admins and users here are trying to tell you. A few things relating to your last couple of posts:
    A) I wasn't commenting on Dheyward's assertions, but rather pointing to your behaviour above of attacking every administrator who takes action to keep you from trampling on policy. I don't see how I am "roundly misrepresenting" anything by pointing out that this is an incredibly self-defeating strategy.
    B) You have so selectively quoted mz7's comments in the SPI that you opened against DHeyward (and mischaracterized their role in the SPI) so as to have essentially reversed the conclusion they came to. Here's the full quote, with the context you omitted: "I am not an SPI clerk, but for what it's worth, I agree that the reverts alone are insufficient evidence. I can see why it looks suspicious, but DHeyward is a longstanding editor (created in 2005), and the Doorzki account is not exactly new either (created in 2012). If these were single-purpose accounts with no other edits besides these reverts, we would probably call it a WP:DUCK. However, that's not the case here: both editors have coexisted for a while now without drawing suspicion of sockpuppetry. Given this, I would need to see more evidence of interaction between these accounts or other idiosyncratic behavior (e.g. similar writing style/editing philosophies) before blocking or even recommending CheckUser in this case."
    C) Your latest SPI is an absolute nightmare of disorganized non-cogent accusations and non-contexualized links. Moreover, you clearly knew what you were adding to that page, because this was your edit summary for your second edit: "Fuck it. I was trying to get my head wrapped round it and was going to start paring things down and reformatting, but since I got harassed today and told "use it or lose it", it's up. Have fun, whoever.". Uhh, no. That's not how this works. If you want the community to take your accusations seriously, the responsibility is on you to make the argument in a structured and intelligible fashion. It is not the community's responsibility to go digging through that mess of gibberish to make heads or tales of which of the dozens of editors you accuse might actually be a sock, just because you still wanted to open another SPI but you were also angry and wanted to make a statement about your attack page being closed.
    You need to take a pause for the cause here, because at ANI we look at the behaviour of all involved parties, even once we've established that one of them is problematic. It will do you no good at all to identify a sock who may or may not be harassing you if, in the course of trying to make your case, you demonstrate a profound inability to contribute to the project yourself without accusing every good-faith contributor and admin you come across of being in on the harassment, and just generally demonstrating a highly WP:disruptive attitude. Snow let's rap 13:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Related: Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#User:Morty_C-137/SPI-Case (2nd request). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Really, this user has been here for 4 months[17] and he has an enemies and sock accusation list. Not since Psycho in the movie Stripes has someone created a death list so quickly. It's hardly the type of activity new users find themselves embroiled in and arguing about. It's about time to call this one as an obviously returning editor. --DHeyward (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Considering his SPI against Cjhard is failing(unsurprisingly), I think we need to start limiting the amount of accusations Morty is allowed to toss around. Yes, it is unfortunate that he has been the target of two sock puppet editors, but that is no excuse for slinging accusations at everyone and hoping some stick. --Tarage (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the SPI is as much as done; the CU found no relationship between Cjhard and any of the other editors. I'm actually pretty shocked jpgordon decided to run a CU in that situation at all, but perhaps they recognized it may prove necessary to refer back to that SPI as fruitless. In light of the polemic/attack page, the recurrent fruitless SPIs, the constant assumption of bad faith and unsubstantiated claims of harassment (particularly the accusations against Guy Macon and Floquenbeam above), and just the generally WP:battleground and WP:disruptive attitude this user is bringing into every space they enter into, I'm fully prepared to support restrictions of some sort--a topic ban from SPI in particular. Frankly, at this point, it's beginning to feel less like IDHT and more like "I will never hear that", but the smallest targeted restrictions should be considered first. I definitely think something needs to be done though; this is a whole lot of drama for the community to have to contend with to indulge for a user who has been around for four months and spends half of their time grinding axes; harassment from socks gets one a certain amount of sympathy, but this user is primed to see foes no matter the circumstances. Morty either needs to learn what is an acceptable claim of harassment or, as has been suggested above, he will have to be shown the door. Snow let's rap 01:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    English Wikipedia has a history of sanctioning editors when they respond poorly to harassment. Some of this is unavoidable, but I still think we need to come up with a better approach. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see how responding poorly to harassment by another editor gives Morty C-137 a free pass to abuse multiple editors who had no part in any harassment.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] Morty C-137, given the wide variety of editors who you have accused of harassing you and acting in bad faith, could it be possible that the problem is you?
    There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy Macon presents a heck of a Gish Gallop, but none of those diffs show what he is saying, with the exception of one edit that I've already apologized for. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Respectfully NRP, multiple admins have attempted to approach this user with kids gloves only to be told to stop "harassing" him. I wasn't suggesting a block, but rather trying to isolate them from areas they don't seem yet competent to handle--areas in which they are currently sinking a lot of time into, and which are the nexus of all of the issues they are having with just about everyone they seem to be interacting with on the project now.
    The smallest and most targeted sanction I could think of is a topic ban from SPI complaints, appeal-able in a few months once they have enough experience to know what really looks like suspicious activity, under this community's standards--not just the criteria of anyone who disagrees with them ever, on any article. Though, if I'm frank, it's the refusal to AGF / general hostility to anyone thwarting their will that is the real problem. If you think you can reach them, short of that sort of thing becoming a necessity, by all means have at it. But I'll direct you to the above, and this user's talk page, where numerous notably patient admins and veteran community members have tried. Snow let's rap 09:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Whilst dealing with true harassment is something we need to do much better, dealing with tactical (or misguided) cries of harassment based on a simple disagreement or failure to gain consensus is something we do poorly too. CRYHARASS can be similar to CRYBLP: a diversion from the underlying issue by appeal to the authority of an inapplicable generality which deliberately invokes strong reactions. Both of these are gaming tactics, and, historically, we've not dealt particularly well with that, either. NRP makes a good point, but, as you say, the issues are wide and nuanced. -- Begoon 10:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I think what’s clear is that since his block Morty C-137’s conduct hasn’t improved since his first block. His behaviour on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is a great example of his personal attacks, tendentiousness and battlefield behaviour continuing unabated. His presence is almost inevitably disruptive in any political topic he engages with and his temperament appears to be inherently compatible with a collaborative project like Wikipedia. A series of increasingly long bans ending in retirement or an indefinite ban appears inevitable. However, Morty’s work on articles related to Rick and Morty suggests that he is able to contribute to the project positively in areas which require less collaboration and are less politically charged. The optimist in me would suggest that a topic ban on all political topics along with a sanction against making any personal attacks (specifically accusations of wrongdoing without evidence and/or outside the proper channels) might prevent his negative behaviour while retaining him as an editor. Cjhard (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest a short block for incivility and not assuming good faith, followed by longer and longer blocks until he either gets the point or is blocked indefinitely. His behavior has completely disrupted what would have otherwise been a calm, rational discussion on RSNB about whether a particular source, previously reliable, has become unreliable. This is interfering with the operation of the encyclopedia. I am agnostic on the politics topic ban, not having examined his behavior in that area. --Guy Macon (talk)09:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd argue his behaviour on RSNB is an example of his behaviour in the politics topic, given the nature of the sources discussed and what they're being used for. Cjhard (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd argue that, as a party, jumping on some sort of perceived bandwagon might not be the best thing for you to do here. Despite the very poor SPI, people may still have questions. Your last couple of posts have not helped to convince me that you don't deserve deep scrutiny, yourself. -- Begoon 12:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What does that have to do with Morty's disruptive behavior and personal attacks? A Morty-free encyclopedia has a lot less drama overhead. Threatening his victims doesn't solve the problem. --DHeyward (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    DARVO. Those who have been through abusive situations recognize this sort of behavior when someone tries it on them. I've done nothing to warrant the torrent of abuse you've heaped on me, I legitimately saw something weird in a pattern of edits and reported it. You've been page hopping for the past couple days insulting me and trying to get me "banned" while calling me things like "ban-boy" and it needs to stop. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No Morty. I've followed you to admin pages where you are abusing other editors including me. It needs to stop. Your behavior is deplorable and your accusations lack merit. I've not sought you out or even knew you existed until someone pointed out your merit-less SPI accusation in an apparent attempt to get me sanctioned and I learned that I was one of many. I have done nothing but point at your poor behavior. It's incompatible with Wikipedia. I have not started any ANI/SPI/3RR or any other process against you but that seems to be your sole contributions as there are at least 4 open ones about you. Your familiarity with these avenues, your long list of "bad users" and attitude suggest this isn't your first rodeo. I personally find that those that see sockpuppets at every turn are often the worse sock puppeteers and is why they think a torrent of socks are out to get them. --DHeyward (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It would appear that DHeyward has now begun stalking my edits and reverting me wherever he can find me, in an attempt to get me angry. [29][30] [31] Morty C-137 (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?"[32] --Monty Python and the Holy Grail
    According to WP:WIKIHOUNDING, "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam." DHeyward appears to be simply correcting related problems on multiple articles that you have edited. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, 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."
    Repeat: to repeatedly confront... with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress. Dheyward has never edited those pages before - they were following me in hopes of creating irritation, annoyance or distress. Morty C-137 (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If these edits you cited [33] [34] annoyed you, you are in the wrong place. You called them reverts when in fact your exact text and citation were retained. You didn't bother to check that the source and content were duplicated. --DHeyward (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Morty C-137, it appears that pretty much everything causes you "irritation, annoyance or distress", including the most innocuous of edits. Right now it looks like you are heading toward an indefinite block, and your continued claims of harassment and bad faith are making that block more likely. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Disruptive commentary by LynnWysong, lashing out at an editor she has a beef with, but irrelevant to this discussion, even if she unhats this, again. LynnWysong: You're rapidly putting yourself into a place where other editors are going to start considering you a net negative to the project if you keep inserting yourself into discussions you know nothing about, merely to slag off one of the editors you've taken a dislike to. My advice is to knock it off. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to know if anyone's opinion here is influenced by this. Seems like whether or not keeping a page like this, the real issue here, is okay, depends on who you are. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know Morty C-137, but what I see here is that he/she was brought here because they were keeping a page to prepare for an SPI. In the edit summary they provided, they were told that they shouldn't keep it more than six months without taking action. That forced him to file an SPI before it was ready. Now, he's being accused by the object of the SPI of having brought the accusation here instead of at SPI in the first place. Uh, no, he didn't. And now, he's being told that since he made that accusation, his own behavior is under review.
    In the meantime, a couple of years ago, an established editor was keeping a similar page. When it was pegged for deletion, the community rallied to her side. This is hypocrisy at it most pathological.
    If what Guy Macon (talk · contribs) was really upset about was the editor's behavior at other articles, that's what this ANI should have been about. Right now it looks like a bait and switch. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) This is just wrong on so many levels...first, Montanabw's page had only been there for two months, it was supplementing an active SPA of a LTA, and it was moved away to WP space once people noticed it and MfD'd it. Second, Morty didn't have to file the SPI at that time, he could have easily kept this stuff off-wiki as suggested by the deleting admin and others until he was ready (not that it would have affected the outcome; baseless accusations are just that no matter how polished). Third, Cjhard was telling Volunteer Marek to take the accusations to the SPI, not Morty. And fourth, there's no "whistleblower protection" here, per WP:BOOMERANG; everyone's behavior is scrutinized. ansh666 02:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    1. But, didn't it say that Morty's page had only been there for one month?
    2. Yes, he could have, and, upon having not had his hand called, he may have not filed it all.
    3. Ah. I misunderstood
    4. How does WP:BOOMERANG apply when then the person supposedly being boomeranged didn't bring the action? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Lynn, I don't even know where to start. To begin with, most of the commentary here has nothing to do with the WP:POLEMIC page (which Floquenbeam was completely within their administrative prerogative to remove, regardless) but rather about their generally comabative and hostile attitude towards criticism in general, whatever the context and space it occurs in. Second, so you managed to dig up one occasion, from years ago, in which a similar page was retained? So what? I think you should read WP:OTHERSTUFF (even if it is just an essay); or better yet confirmation bias, because while that one page may have been retained (for a very short time) on the basis of a "no consensus" result, the standard approach on this project, applied time and time again, is to not allow such evidence to be compiled and stored longterm. There's an unambiguous policy about this: WP:POLEMIC, in case you've missed it the dozen or so times it's been cited here already. It doesn't matter if, once upon a time, in one discussion, the community failed to uphold that policy (or decided under the facts of those circumstances that it was appropriate)--that's not a reason for doing so again here.
    Meanwhile your argument that deleting that policy-violating page "forced Morty to file an SPI prematurely" makes absolutely zero sense. No one put a clock on Morty and no one tried to (or realistically could) prevent Morty from compiling his evidence offline, if he felt that was a worthwhile use of his time. He was simply prevented from hosting the information in his user space. Again, per policy. Certainly no one encouraged Morty to file any one of those SPIs without proper merit or evidence (other than "they got in my away, why else would they do that if they weren't out to get me?").
    Lastly, I don't really care what Guy's other concerns with the user were and which issue he should have raised first, according to you. The community members who have responded here are all discussing what they perceive to be a complex of issues with this user, but all of them going back to a short fuse and an inability to have their actions questions or their will thwarted without lashing out with accusations of "harassment". And frankly, your off-base argument that they are being singled out or treated differently from other members of the community (when almost all longterm POLEMIC pages are deleted upon discovery) is not going to help this user correct course, but only encourage them to turtle up further into the comforting assumption that they are being persecuted. Snow let's rap 02:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just bringing up what I see to be a true flaw with ANI, which is that it never seems to deal with the issue at hand. (edit) The editor was brought here ostensibly for keeping a page against policy, and he/she is being threatened with a boomerang, when they didn't bring the action. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Until Ansh's response to you above, WP:BOOMERANG wasn't mentioned once, and nobody is being "threatened" with anything. The user's conduct is being examined. There is no prohibition here against noting relevant problematic behaviours just because they happen to not be the focus of the OP's original comments; that would make zero pragmatic sense for this space. Certainly the community is not required to turn a blind eye to an issue that is explicitly on display in the ANI itself. Snow let's rap 02:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlike what many people assume, BOOMERANG doesn't just apply to the filer of a case (or whatever the applicable metaphor is), it applies to everyone involved. (oh, I see - I wasn't addressing Morty specifically on that last point, just speaking generally) ansh666 03:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "And frankly, your off-base argument that they are being singled out or treated differently from other members of the community (when almost all longterm POLEMIC pages are deleted upon discovery) is not going to help this user correct course, but only encourage them to turtle up further into the comforting assumption that they are being persecuted." I don't think that doing a bait and switch at ANI, bringing up a minor problem-a POLEMIC page that had only been up for a month when others are not only allowed to stay longer but even defended, and then switching to what "the community" perceives as the real problem, helps with a feeling of persecution either. Also, he's being taken to task for filing SPIs, that don't appear to be entirely frivolous or vindictive. In my experience, discouraging filing SPIs when someone thinks they have legitimate cause will lead to much worse behavior. Believe me, I've been the victim of it, so I'm coming from a different perspective here. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 03:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This discussion is thoroughly off the rails. I request an un-involved admin close it with no action against any editors. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I've changed the template from {{hat}} to {{cot}} to prevent edit warring. But hopefully off-topic discussions can stop here. Alex ShihTalk 04:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, with Lynn's divergence being now hatted, I must disagree with your description of the discussion and with your recommendation. There are real and substantial issues still being addressed here, and (Lynn aside) all of the community members who have responded to this thread are roughly of the same mind that the behaviour in question is problematic (even if no clear solution / response from the community has been proposed). Morty has responded to every halfway critical appraisal of his actions with cries of "harassment", even while under community scrutiny and while responding to admin directives here at ANI. If he's willing to shout accusations in the faces of admins trying to restrain him, how can we reasonably believe he's about to change his approach when dealing with the rank and file in disputes on some random article--especially the highly charged socio-political ones he favours? I don't see the point in closing this thread when it's virtually certain the user will be back here at ANI or back spamming SPI before we can blink. Snow let's rap 05:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Off topic Show me an ANI thread with this much activity that wasn't off the rails after 36 hours. I'd honestly like to know what that looks like. Absent some kind of ground rules, firmly enforced, there aren't any rails to be off of. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My point also. The ANI was filed in response to what was called an "Attack Page". Now, I didn't see the page, and I don't know if there was anything on it that could be termed an "attack" rather than part of compiling an SPI case, but it sounds like that was what it was, and that it wasn't a frivolous case, as per Volunteer Marek. "Not frivolous" as opposed to "valid"...I'm not making judgements on the validity of Morty's suspicions, but it does seem to me that he was doing what he was supposed to do when one has suspicions of socking, and that is to file an SPI. Sounds like he filed a couple, ended up with egg on his face, and was being more cautious with the third, when all of a sudden his hand is forced. So, he files the SPI in response to that, and now he's being attacked himself on all fronts, for one being accused of "spamming" SPI. This is the problem with ANI. This thread went off the rails as soon as it stopped being about the "Attack Page" and whether or not it was okay to have it. Which means it went off the rails in lines 2-5 of the thread, when Guy Macon started bringing up the recent ANIs that had been brought against Morty. And, as to how long one should be allowed to maintain a page of difs related to sockpuppet suspicions, what is the "timely manner" (quote from policy) in which it should be used? The answers are: "It depends on whether or not you've recently been brought to ANI" and/or "It depends on what editor is keeping them, and who they are keeping them on," neither of which is an objective, rationale response that is going to diffuse an editor that is already feeling persecuted.
    So yes, this should be closed without action. If another ANI is opened, there should first be a perusal of Robert's Rules of Order by all parties. The dogpile method that ANI currently uses is not just dysfunctional, it's something out of Lord of the Flies. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cjhard has now been closed: "Checkuser finds nothing interesting connecting Cjhard with any of these accounts or with any problematic accounts at all."

    Meanwhile, the previously listed problem behavior ([35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45]) has continued with [46][47][48][49].

    There is a broad consensus that the behavior of Morty C-137 is problematic. Everyone who criticizes Morty C-137 in any way is accused of bad faith, harassment, or sockpuppetry. If this is closed without administrative action, someone will open a new report when the behavior continues. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    A Proposal

    Morty C-137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now editing 2017 Unite the Right rally, and while he has managed to technically avoid violating 3RR (because some of his reverts are of obvious vandalism), editing that page at all during this discussion is a sign of incredibly poor judgment on his part. As a friendly offer to him, I suggest that he voluntarily agree to a post-1932 American Politics TBAN for the next month. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I note that I can't promise that other editors will consider this sufficient. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And I note that I think that the object of the ANI has been met, which was to address the "Attack Page." It's gone. But you're right, he probably should walk away from articles like that for a while (why 1932?). I, for one, wouldn't touch one of those types of articles with a 10 foot pole (My focus is on the fur trade and nice, un-contentious articles about horses Oh, wait) My observation is that anyone who does edit those ends up getting regularly brought to ANI and blocked. Just part of the whole "encyclopedia anyone can edit" scenario. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Power~enwiki: Have I made any bad edits on that page? Can you point to any? I'm willing to bet you can't. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not the right response Morty. He didn't say you made questionable edits, but that your editing the page was questionable. You need to walk away from all this for a while. Believe me, I know what it feels like to be dogpiled, and that's why I took hits here calling that out, but if you don't settle down you're going to be right back here and it will probably be for the right reasons next time. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell, there is no "right response", ever. No matter what policy is complied with, there's another contradictory policy. Trying to report harassment results in more threats; filing quickly when there are likely sockpuppets gets attacked, trying to put it all together to get it right gets attacked the same way. Whatever I say, whatever I do, someone with an agenda will twist it and misrepresent it in some way. They won't do shit about people who hunt me page to page, they won't do shit about the people constantly making new accounts to harass me, but they'll go after me nonstop. Morty C-137 (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And your belief that is the case is a good reason for the proposed TBAN. Your non-political edits seem to be stress free for you but your political edits have you seeing boogeymen at every turn. That's a problem for all of us much more than any problems you are dealng with. --DHeyward (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And there's a reason someone who stalked my edits trying to irritate me will have no impact on my opinion. Morty C-137 (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's OK. Being blocked from editing Wikipedia has been show to be an effective method for impacting the opinion of editors like you.
    You are claiming that it's always someone else, never you. For some inexplicable reason dozens of people who don't know each other have somehow gotten together and decided to harass poor, innocent you, while the vast majority of editors get along fine with everyone else.
    The fact of the matter is that we do care about those who legitimately harass you, and we are putting in our absolute best effort to identify them and stop them from posting to Wikipedia. But none of that changes the fact that your behavior is a problem as well.
    Here are some diffs. Study them, and identify the things that you are doing that others here are not doing. Then stop doing those things.
    • "Bullshit and WP:WEASEL words"[50]
    • "The repeated dishonesty ... just designed to try to irritate and provoke "[51]
    • "Rudely and dishonestly misrepresenting ... false accusation"[52]
    • "Fraudulent ... in bad faith"[53]
    • "Obvious bad faith"[54]
    • "Inappropriate and done in a manner calculated to harass."[55]
    • "That proves this whole listing is in bad faith"[56]
    • "You'd prefer to beat me up. Now I see why admins are considered suck stuck up jerks on wikipedia."[57]
    • "What a load of harassing crap."[58]
    • "Go away. You know you only posted that garbage to harass me."[59]
    • "But hey, go ahead and roundly misrepresent everything."[60]
    • "Not sure what game you're playing or if you just decided you hate my guts for some reason."[61]
    • "Such a sad individual."[62]
    • "So many personal attacks."[63]
    • "Stalking my edits and reverting me wherever he can find me, in an attempt to get me angry."[64].
    Free clue: The thing you keep doing that is pissing everyone else off involves accusing others of harassment, accusing others of bad faith, and in general acting like a total jerk.
    I propose a short block for the above behavior, followed by longer and longer blocks if he keeps doing it. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I know full well you decided you hate me and want me blocked, and you won't shut up nor stop misrepresenting my edits till you get your way. Such as your rank mischaracterization of when I noted the many personal attacks from DHeyward after he launched a flurry of them including calling me "ban-boy". Morty C-137 (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, bad behavior (real or imaginary) by others does not excuse your behavior. If you think that either I or DHeyward have misbehaved, file an ANI report with diffs supporting your claims. Your continued assertions that it is never you, always someone else are making it more likely that you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Morty C-137, your post right above is an example of the behavior Guy was pointing out. It probably isn't really helpful to your cause. May I suggest you consider moderating your behavior some? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already posted the diffs here. LynnWysong was right about one thing, Guy Macon posted this just to cause a dogpile because this board isn't for resolving things, it's for a bunch of vultures to get their fill ripping into victims and engaging in DARVO. Morty C-137 (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Votes on action against Morty C-137

    • Support short block Enough of this. This has wasted way too much time and the editor, even after a failed malformed SPI, still doesn't get it. --Tarage (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support short block as a minimum option to deal with Morty. Hopefully it'll cause him to look at the criticism he's received here and correct his behaviour, but his levels of IDHT are through the roof, so the more likely outcome is that he will add this to his list of grievances by the harrassers at Wikipedia and we'll be back here when he resumes editing. Cjhard (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Then what's the point? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I also support a topic ban on political topics as a measure which might be more effective in preventing Morty's disruptive behaviour in the long term. Cjhard (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • OpposeThis ANI has been a cluster. The fact that it started by characterizing Morty's draft SPI report as an "Attack Page" fatally flawed it from the beginning. Process should mean something. Even if you have to let someone off the hook that probably doesn't deserve it, you can't use flawed process to justify retribution. Let's piece the conch back together and do make people do it right. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Extended discussion on the "draft SPI report"
    • Of course it was an attack page. It was (quite properly) deleted under WP:CSD#G10 and undeletion was declined at deletion review. Read WP:POLEMIC:
    "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Unrelated content includes, but is not limited to the compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used..."
    or read WP:ATP, which says
    "keeping a 'list of enemies' or 'list of everything bad user:XXX did' on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate. Bear in mind that the key to resolving a dispute is not to find and list all the dirt you can find on somebody."
    --Guy Macon (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "...the compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted." Compiling evidence for an SPI is a legitimate action, and should not be termed an "Attack Page". The key words there are "timely manner" and "imminently." That should have been the focus of the ANI, unless there were things on there that didn't apply to the ANI. I don't know, and you didn't provide difs of any, instead you brought up his past ANIs. Not right. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you keep insisting (although everyone else here keeps telling you otherwise) that it is somehow "inappropriate" to bring up multiple issues about a problematic user? This isn't a court case, nor is Wikipedia a bureaucracy. And Guy didn't pull any kind of "bait and switch" as you've implied repeatedly above. He brought an initial issue here, which could have been resolved quickly, except for the fact that Morty instead chose to accuse every admin and community member here who tried to get them to what was wrong with their approach of harassment. That is what lead to community looking into the broader issues with this user's conduct, insofar as I can tell from the above. Your insistence that Guy did something wrong or that the other community members here are acting inappropriately by no turning a blind eye to clearly problematic behaviours that were not mentioned by the OP has no basis in policy or community consensus and is, frankly, nonsensical. I appreciate that you identify with this user's aggravation and also that you don't have a high impression of Guy, but I don't think you're keeping proper perspective here and you're out on a limb as a result. Snow let's rap 04:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no impression of Guy at all, other than that I think he set up this ANI in an unfair manner. And, the fact that I am "out on a limb" for providing a dissenting opinion here is yet another indication of why this process is so dysfunctional. No, ANI is not a court, but it would serve the community much better if some ground rules, based on common court procedures, were established, rather than the free-for-all it currently is. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well of all of the possible pro forma adjustments to the approach of ANI that you might suggest, the recommendation that we refuse to address behavioural problems not raised in the original post is pretty close to single most non-pragamtic and counter-intuitive suggestion you could make, and not one I think you will ever generate much support for, for that very reason. Snow let's rap 17:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Too bad. Because that is why ANI discussions constantly derail, resulting in bad decisions that don't resolve the issue at hand. I'm not saying that behavior can't be an exacerbating factor in a case, but in this case, the discuss veered so off-course the proposed "prevention of disruption" doesn't even fit the issue brought to ANI, and that is that Morty was planning another SPI report in the wake of two that were bad choices of action. So, the logical consequence would be to ban him from filing any more SPI's, but that doesn't seem necessary anymore, so, I guess the "community" has to find some other way to justify all this. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support both block and TBAN - As a pending changes reviewer, I am witnessing the reversions made on Jenny McCarthy in opposition to Morty's acts. A temporary block will stop D.Pearson's hatred, while the topic ban will prevent further attacks. I also recommend page protection for any affected articles that Pearson is attacking Morty on, including the one I mentioned. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Extended discussion regarding socks
    O.M.G. You mean the reversions made by BanMorty (talk · contribs) and MortyKillYourself (talk · contribs)??????!!!!!!! No wonder the guy's got a huge chip on his shoulder. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but do notice that both of those uers has been already blocked. This community has done, and will continue to do, what it can to shield Morty from this trolling. What it cannot and will not do is allow Morty to see a foe (and then pursue them as such) in every person he comes across who questions his generally bombastic approach, for purely good-faith reasons. What would you have us do, block everyone he suspects of being a sock? Or just let him file SPI after SPI against longterm good-faith contributors, simply because they reverted him on an article that happens to be one of those where he has clashed with his troll? This user needs to learn that WP:DUCK ≠ "person who criticized me". Until they learn and internalize community standards on such things, it's hard to see any alternative to restraining their contributions. Snow let's rap 03:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Snow RiseI am simply pointing out that there are mitigating circumstances here. The guy is under attack and isn't dealing with it well. He was accused of seeing "socks everywhere" when in reality, there are socks everywhere. He filed a couple of un-advisable SPI's, (but I don't think they were entirely frivolous-it does sound like he had a reason to believe there was socking involved) and seemed to be realizing he needed to be more methodical if he did another one, hence the "Attack Page". He's like a high strung dog that was attacked by a pack of coyotes, when the other dogs came into help him he was so worked up that he couldn't tell friend from foe. He may have continued to calm down but what happens? He gets dragged here under the auspices that his more methodical manner of dealing with socks is an "Attack Page".
    Yes, the difs provided by Guy are concerning, and those are what he should be taken to task for. But that issue has been so buried in the red herring of the "attack page" that right now, any block or topic ban is probably not going to send the right message, and would instead seem arbitrary and capricious. That is why process is important here. This idea of "well, we can't really punish you for what you were brought here for so we'll find something else to punish you for is, in my mind, the sign of a "community" devolving into anarchy. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what this place is for and what the goals of the community are in a situation like this: no one is here to "punish" Morty, the goal is is prevent further disruption. Would it be nice if we could do that short of restricting his participation on the project? Of course. But multiple admins and community volunteers tried that approach, only to be told they were "clearly out to get/smeer/misrepresent/troll/harass" Morty, or something similar, all while the editor continues to exhibit problematic behaviours in both mainspace and in community spaces and on procedural pages. And I'm sorry, but your argument that if he had just been left in peace to plan his attack page, everything would have turned out rainbows and sunshine does not track for me, to put it mildly. Nor is the fact that a troll amped him up excuse for his lashing out at everyone else; we need our editors to show a more baseline level of restraint than that. And I think it's just plain histrionic to suggest that this project is "descending into anarchy" because the community has decided to do something about this situation; insisting that our editors comport with just the most very basic and essential provisions of our community behavioural guidelines is the opposite of anarchy. And like most community sanctions, Morty will be able to appeal any topic ban after a time, once he can demonstrate a period of non-disruptive editing and identify what went wrong here (without alluding to alleged harassment by the community). Snow let's rap 17:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you're putting words in my mouth and twisting what I said, which means this discussion, like this whole Action, has devolved into a hopeless mess. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support either or both short block and topic ban. Morty C-137 has clearly indicated that he will not stop his disruptive behavior unless forced to do so. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block and AP2 topic ban. --DHeyward (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support short-term block and (especially) topic ban from AP2 topics. The IDHT is off the charts here and Morty seems incapable of distinguishing community concerns from genuine harassment. In my opinion the troll who has pestered him (presumably after locking horns with him on some article or another) has only exacerbated an underlying and pronounced difficulty with the collaborative process that seems to be fundamental to Morty's approach on this project. In other words, I'm quite certain that Morty's battleground attitude is a feature of his general attitude while editing here, and that it has been (and will continue to be) present, even in the absence of any kind of actual provocation. A preventative block to temporarily disengage him from his current feuds, combined with removing him from the especially contentious areas until he has demonstrated an understanding of our behavioural standards stands the best chance of forestalling further attacks on passers-by. Personally I would have started with a much more narrow ban from SPI, but the AP2 topic ban being the one put forward, I can support it without qualms. Snow let's rap 03:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban of some kind, no opinion on a possible block. I think that a tban from SPI (broadly construed to prevent Morty from throwing about these blanket accusations regarding others being socks in general - we're smart enough to be able to get rid of the two sockfarms when they pop up) would be better than a tban from AP2, but if that's the consensus there's no opposition from me. ansh666 05:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - both block and TBAN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal for Snow Close

    It is clear that there is community consensus for a short block followed by a topic ban.

    I propose that this report be closed with a short block followed by a six month topic ban from filing new sock puppet investigations and from all edits about and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States, broadly construed. This should be accompanied by a warning about accusing other editors of harassment or bad faith, and an explanation that any further accusations should be in the form of ANI reports, not inline comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Absolutely not as a WP:SNOW close. However, I do support your proposal. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a block, that would purely be punitive; TBAN is another thing. By the way, any admins thinking of closing this might want to first examine the rev-del'd edits a few minutes ago to this section. Black Kite (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A block would not be punitive if the behavior is ongoing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Which opens up a golden opportunity for User:Morty C-137. Are you listening Morty? All you have to do is give us the slightest indication that you understand why eight people just supported having you blocked and/or topic banned and indicate that you will make a good-faith effort to change. Pretty much everyone here (including me) would love to close this with "no administrative action required" and move on. Just give us a reason to think that things will change. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy, that's good advice, and I've left a note on Morty's talk page urging him to heed it. It doesn't look like he's edited since you left the offer – let's see how he responds before this proceeds further. Mojoworker (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For those of us who were unable to see the rev-del edits, can you give us some understanding as to how they pertain to this? --Tarage (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a grossly uncivil comment against the editor in question from a likely sock. Alex ShihTalk 02:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A CU confirmed (by me) sock. There have been two unrelated sets of socks attacking Morty. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D.H.110/Archive stopped in April. The ones mentioned there in June are part of this set: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D.Pearson/Archive. They are definitely unrelated other than the target - the second set is mimicking the first. Except at the beginning, when D.Pearson suddenly appeared to defending Morty and to help him edit war, leading to a possible/inconclusive SPI.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morty C-137/Archive. Doug Weller talk 08:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There's another one on there right now. So childish. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So is User:Morty C-137 laying low or reappearing in different form after contemplative period? --DHeyward (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I've been wondering. Sro23 (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe waiting for the next exciting Rick and Morty episode? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    All joking aside, he was with his grandmother in hospice, and then attended her funeral. He won't be editing anytime soon, so the compassionate thing would be just to close this as unnecessary, or simply let it archive. Mojoworker (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the appeal to compassion, but sanctions on Morty remain necessary. Morty has retired before, only to be back shortly later. I'm certain that "anytime soon" will be in the span of one or two months, and the behaviour and disruption will continue as it has. I accept that the short block may be unnecessary, but if there's consensus for an AP2 ban, that should be instituted. Cjhard (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by User:FuzzyCatPotato

    USERS WARNED
    See closing remarks. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    FuzzyCatPotato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a member of the Board of Trustees for the RationalMedia Foundation and has blatantly been involved in conflict of interest editing on the RationalWiki article and on other articles by inserting links to RationalWiki, and I fear he is not here to build an encyclopedia. In January 2017, I noticed a link to Rational-Wiki added to Michel Chossudovsky that I thought was inappropriate, so I removed it per WP:BOLD, and left {{uw-coi}} on his talk page. He reacted defensively, reverting @Fyddlestix: and me when we were trying to remove the inappropriate link. He posted on the talk page, which is fine, and consensus was established per WP:BLPEL. Oddly enough, a community-banned RationalWikian troll known as Keegscee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appeared to interfere in the situation. FuzzyCatPotato once again added a link to Rational-Wiki in July 2017 on the vaginal steaming article. A few days later, I noticed the link and removed it per WP:ELNO but did not notice who added it. I did notice he was the one who posted it when reviewing my own edits in August 2017, so I left an escalated warning template on his talk page about promoting his wiki, following the standard procedure I would follow with any person repeatedly promoting an organization they are affiliated with. FuzzyCatPotato responded extremely defensively and sarcastically, stating "Spamming" I am shaking in my boots, accusing me of being a "Conservapedia editor demanding "respect", implied that he sees this as a war in his edit summary at EL/N, made a blatantly uncivil and disruptive comment on my talk page that he later reverted claiming it was the "wrong website" and later blamed on a friend, and made nonsense edit on his own talk page which he later reverted with the edit summary "fuck off" which is presumably directed at Wikipedians he disagrees with. A large percentage of FuzzyCatPotato's edits are related to Rational-Wiki, he describes his Rational-Wiki account as his "real" account on his user page here, and adding insult to injury is a suspicion of paid editing by @Beetstra:. At least four of the voters in RationalWiki's most recent AfD were affiliated with the website, and if there is ongoing paid editing or meatpuppetry, FuzzyCatPotato is at least involved in it. FuzzyCatPotato's most recent edit was to try and WP:Wikilawyer an excuse for continuing to add R-W links after the matter had previously been discussed, after previously claiming he would not interact with me anymore. I believe FuzzyCatPotato's overall behavior is disruptive and that he should be blocked or banned accordingly. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 01:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, I am unplugging from the situation and Wikipedia as a whole effective immediately (at least for two weeks) due to summer courses, leaving trust in the community to solve this matter. I invite any Wikipedian to WP:TROUT me should I do otherwise. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 02:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Frankly, though I would never encourage any editor to remain engaged here when their other obligations are demanding their time, it's less than ideal to make a broad ranging (if apparently actually factually accurate) behavioural complaint against another user and then immediately disengage from the project, since we may require additional information to contextualize and analyze the accusations. If you really cannot edit at all in the next two weeks, I guess that's just where we are at, but I must tell you that it greatly decreases the liklihood that definitive action will be taken to restrain the editor, even if they are genuinely disruptive. It's also not impossible that your own involvement might ome under scrutiny while you are not here to defend your involvement, just to give you a head's up.
    That procedural observation made, I do see the problem being raised here with this clearly COI editor. There seems to be a clear lack of perspective and respect for Wikipedia's content standards, where they conflict with what this user considers to be the WP:TRUTH of matters. Of even more concern are the PA's/trolling, particularly where they are at their most WP:BATTLEGROUND, as with this edit, and the following sequence of comments/reversions, no matter the textbook Wikipedia:My little brother did it claim. More digging will be necesary here, but already I am inclined to believe a topic ban may be the minimum required to address the WP:NOTHERE, WP:COI, and WP:DISRUPTIVE behaviours.
    An SPI is the next logical step, though, since an indef will be the almost certain result if it turns out that there is a sock party going on here, and there's no point in debating the seriousness of the other behaviours and what sanction should be applied to prevent them, if the indef for abuse of multiple accounts is going to be the ultimate outcome anyway. Since you are the most concerned editor here and the one with the most familiarity with the purported disruption/socking/gaming, I'd encourage you to either put together the basic evidence for the SPI for us to consider--or even file it yourself, if you are confident that there is enough to make the WP:DUCK argument, and assuming you have the time before taking your break. Snow let's rap 03:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    My only involvement here was at Michel Chossudovsky - the incident there ([65][66][67][68]), while odd, was eventually resolved and is pretty stale now. These, much more recent edits [69][70] are also pretty odd, but Fuzzy has self-reverted both of them and apologized. So assuming that we AGF and Fuzzy has learned their lesson there (ie, no more letting your friends use your account, no more decidedly un-funny "joke" posts) I'm not sure there's anything to be done there either.

    The core of the problem seems to be the - thus far unresolved - question of whether RW can be used as an EL. See two separate ongoing discussions here and here, which (to my surprise) don't seem to have a clear consensus just yet. Personally I'd think it's obvious that RW is wholly inappropriate for use as a source or EL anywhere on wikipedia, but I guess that's neither here nor there. Those discussions should be allowed to conclude and both FuzzyCatPotato and PCHS-NJROTC need to abide by that consensus, whatever the result. Assuming they do that, there should be no further cause/reason for further drama or disruption here. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, regardless of the prudence of using those links on those articles, if PCHS's concerns about sock/meat puppetry turn out to be verifiable, you can bet there will be blocks. Snow let's rap 05:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, I was just plain confused by that bit. Where is the evidence? Keegscee is mentioned above but isn't FCP, and it's not surprising that people active on RW would turn up to !vote to keep an article on their own site. A COI issue, sure, but it doesn't mean they're socks. Am I missing something? All I see here so far is innuendo... Fyddlestix (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The situation is more balanced than may first appear. User:PCHS-NJROTC proclaims the editor is a member of Conservapedia, and has been since 2009. For anyone new here, the folks at Conservapedia and Rational-Wiki have, shall we say, diametrically opposing views. FuzzyCatPotato has a COI which the user acknowledges (example). However, PCHS-NJROTC's campaign to oppose Rational-Wiki has exactly the same COI. I noticed the fuss at a couple of pages on my watchlist and my guess is that FuzzyCatPotato has allowed exasperation to gain the upper hand a couple of times, and that is why a couple of recent diffs in the OP show silly edits. However, the shotgun OP is very weak—why make me look at Special:Contributions/Keegscee only to discover the user was indeffed over seven years ago? Johnuniq (talk) 05:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    [COIN: RW editor, RW mod, RW boardmember]
    The above complaint is multifaceted; let's do line-by-line.
    Conflict of interest:
    Sockpuppetry:
    Disruption:
    Paid editing:
    • ??? Honestly not sure where this comes from. I'm on the (nonprofit!) RationalWiki board -- we don't have the money to pay one, much less multiple, Wikipedia-writers. But if PCHS-NJROTC has evidence more solid than an evidence-free assertion by another Wikipedia user, then they may go right ahead.
    Wikilawyering:
    • I don't know what this refers to.
    A final note:
    Though PCHS-NJROTC does not note so here, PCHS-NJROTC has a substantial personal bias against RationalWiki. In his own words, PCHS-NJROTC is "biased against their wiki" to the degree that he is "against almost everything Rational-Wiki promotes". In PCHS-NJROTC's words, RationalWiki is my "mothership"; a "hate site"; the cause of "numerous fecal hurricanes on Wikipedia" for "the last seven years"; content created by teenagers -- indeed, "most of them are juvenile"; and "more like E{ncyclopedia }D{ramatica}" (a low blow). This bias led to PCHS-NJROTC falsely accusing User:David Gerard of WP:COI for a copyright issue with Freeman on the land. This bias was also why I initially dismissed PCHS-NJROTC's concerns on my talkpage.
    Summary:
    A short-term block for disruption to my own and PCHS-NJROTC's user talk pages is probably in order, as is a ban on adding links to rationalwiki.org to other articles. All else is baseless.
    Thanks. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Having followed up on the context of each diff the OP provided, I haven't been able to find evidence of any recent socking associated with the present contest of wills. Yes, there are some extremely stale issues associated with numerous editors with an association to RationalWiki, but nothing connecting with FCP. FCP does have a rather large COI and could arguably stand to contribute to other areas if they want to prove that they are WP:HERE, rather than focusing on an organization for which they sit on the Board of Trustees, but they have not hidden the conflict and no evidence has been submitted to prove they are being disruptive to the level necessitating sanction. Those trolling comments certainly push the line, and I think FCP ought to read WP:COMPROMISED, because they very easily could have ended up with their primary account blocked (still could, technically speaking). It also calls into question just how responsible and professional an organization RationalWiki is, that one of its board members is either publicly trolling here or had a buddy who was willing to such, that they let use their account. I'd not want to have to explain that to the Board, if they became ware of this. But that said, and for our purposes on this project, I am willing to AGF on those couple of bizarre comments and I don't think they would amount to sanction in any event.
    Under normal circumstances I would say we could stand to wait a little while to let PCHS-NJROTC substantiate their claims a little more. But since that user has made it clear that they planned to check out of Wikipedia for a couple of weeks starting immediately, that doesn't seem like a fruitful approach. Given the ambiguous and unsubstantiated nature of the claims made against FCP, no likely further involvement from the OP, the perspective of other editors (who are much more neutral than either the OP or FCP appear to be) who present an interpretation that suggests this is at least a two-way street, and the fairly even-tempered mea cupla of FCP, it is my opinion that this thread should be closed fairly quickly, with a thorough trouting for both editors, but probably no other action required. Snow let's rap 08:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (RMF board member here) The complainant is on a mission against RW, as detailed above. His spurious COI complaint against me was because I reverted a violation of copyright on his part. This complaint is more of the same, which is why the cites are so shoddy and spurious. I suggest a neutral editor examine the evidence and close it — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Gerard (talk • contribs)
    I am going to go ahead and reply since several people seem to desire my response, but I don't desire to spend the day watching this. Blocks are preventative, not punative. To clarify, the paid editing suspicion was raised by @Beestra: and he is the one that would need to provide insight on that. I am not saying that FCP is Keegscee, but they are from the same site and I fully believe the Rational-Wiki community collaborates to influence Wikipedia, as supported by the fact that another board member came to his defense in this discussion. There's also a description of an interesting organization that sounds an awful lot like a meatpuppetry ring on Rational-Wiki's article on Wikipedia. Some people have pointed out that I am a Conservapedian, and while that is correct, I have been a Wikipedian longer, have made more contributions to Wikipedia, I learned about Conservapedia only through Rational-Wikian shenanigans on Wikipedia, and unlike FCP, I do not go around promoting Conservapedia on Wikipedia except to acknowledge my involvement on my talk page. People bring up my dislike for Rational-Wiki, but honestly who here does like groups who have been responsible for disruptive behavior? I think bringing that into the equation here is a clear indication that some people think this is a WP:BATTLE, but I'm frankly not interested in a war with them; I'm interested in the integrity of the encyclopedia. FCP has acknowledged that his actions are block worthy, but he has also promised to change his behavior. Blocks are preventative, not punative, so I think the question is whether we are to believe he will change. Based on his response, I would recommend WP:TROUT for now per WP:AGF, possibly a topic ban, and an immediate revisitation of the issue if he does not change. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 12:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC) Something else I am going to add is that the first {{uw-coi}} template was honestly to help Fuzzy, not to slap him/her. In round two of Fuzzy's links, I was (and still am) annoyed, and I'm annoyed that he would push the issue as a COI editor. I don't have a problem with Fuzzy being here as a RationalWikian, but he needs to follow our rules and assimilate to the culture of Wikipedia. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 13:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC) (No smart ass pun intended; I just realized the similarities to political arguments)[reply]

    "There's also a description of an interesting organization that sounds an awful lot like a meatpuppetry ring on Rational-Wiki's article on Wikipedia." You can in fact link to RW to demonstrate your claims about RW, you know. So please back up such claims. (I asked you to do so when you tried it on with your copyright violation, and you didn't then either.) You have yet to make a supported claim for action, and appear to be attempting to cover up such with sheer weight of verbiage. You have supplied nothing to show that FCP did anything wrong, and you really need to do so. Supply actual evidence, rather than piling on more claims - David Gerard (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Here and here. I don't like messing around with links when editing from mobile devices. I know very little about that organization in all honesty, but I am skeptical of any non-WMF/non-community based efforts to get people to edit Wikipedia a certain way, and Rational-Wiki seems to be promoting it, or at least in favor of it. You seem awfully defensive of your fellow board member who is here because he did something undeniably (and admittedly on his part) stupid, David. 74.5.231.189 (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The accusation that Guerrilla Skeptics on Wikipedia is in any way associated with Rationalwiki is a frequent one, but in several years of it I know of zero people involved in both. (As per the second link.) Unless you can actually produce some. Also, there's no evidence Guerrilla Skeptics on Wikipedia has done anything wrong and that there would be anything wrong with being associated with them.
    You're still not substantiating your claim at all, just stacking unsubstantiated accusations even higher - David Gerard (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to agree. All those links do us provide coverage of Wikipedia's own policies from a "skeptics" point of view and celebrate the fact that the MEDRS/scientific contet policies align so well with their objectives already. They do not organize or encourage gaming, vandalism, trolling, or disruption in any way. There's a tempest in a teapot discussion of whether or not another group entirely had edit warred on a single article, four years ago, but zero incitement to replicate that that behaviour--in fact, the very tone of the coverage seems to suggest that the editors of that Rational Wiki article would disapprove of such a thing. Frankly, offsite speculation about a four-year-old edit war that doesn't relate to the present dispute in the slightest doesn't much interest me. If someone wants to go check out Rupert Sheldrake to make sure disruption is not an ongoing issue there, that's fine, but I see no way in which those links provide even indirect, tangential or circumstantial support for the claims they are being affixed to regarding FCP or an alleged rational wiki conspiracy.
    It seems increasingly likely that there is no hard evidence at hand to support that notion, which seems to be pure supposition on PCHS's part, based on the fact that there are a large number of editors from RationalWiki commenting on the article about RationalWiki--but, as Fyddlestix points out above, there would hardly be anything surprising about that being the case, and it doesn't require a sock/meat conspiracy to come about. Frankly, I'm beginning to feel like we are playing a shell game every time PCHS is asked to substantiate their claims and I strongly feel they should consider WP:DROPPING THE STICK on this (and better yet would be a quick close by someone who has not yet commented here) before this starts to enter into WP:BOOMERANG territory. Snow let's rap 01:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would second closing it per WP:AGF + WP:TROUT anyway because the accused acknowledges that he needs to adjust his behavior in COI editing and refrain from trolling or allowing other people to use his account to troll, which are the chief issues prompting this thread. It would indeed be difficult to prove WP:MEATPUPPETRY (the paid editing issue was raised by someone else, I have no idea what prompted him to believe that, and he has yet to comment here). PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 01:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A few things on your comments there: First off, there is no "accused" here; this isn't a trial in even the most remote sense. Second, What FCP actually said was that both your behaviour and theirs could have been less bombastic. I'm inclined to agree; the community is having to AGF with regard to both your approaches. Lastly, while you keep invoking Beetstra's name here as the source of the socking allegations, that user didn't file this report and hasn't commented here. You are the sole editor putting forward this vague assertion of an off-project conspiracy to vandalize the project (which claim you have repeated even through your most recent comments below), which you further say FCP must definitely be involved with, but without providing anything that looks even remotely like what we would consider evidence of such a strong claim. You can't vaguely cite another user from ages ago about some half-formed suspicion which they are not even themselves forwarding and then expect it to be taken seriously as context that proves that we should be closely scrutinizing the activity of another editor. That's not how this process works.
    If you have anything concrete to suggest that FCP has socked or coordinated organized vandalism, gaming or disruption (either through on-project channels or off), then by all means supply it in the form of diffs, user comparisons, external links, or any other form of evidence used in the usually methodology for establishing these things. If you can't do that (and it seems pretty likely at this point that you have nothing that is compelling at this level), then I agree with others who have commented above that you are basically peddling innuendo without evidence here, and you should drop this line of discussion. Yes, you're right, it would be extremely difficult to prove meatpuppetry in this instance, but that doesn't mean you get to just make/imply such accusations again and again without evidence. I suggest your further commentary here avoid it altogether; you can't continue to introduce it into the discussion with a sly reference to an editor who is not even involved here and expect us to not notice that its you who is implying this supposed conspiracy without any real evidence. Snow let's rap 03:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an uninvolved administrator, the impression I get from this thread is that a Conservapedia admin has crossed paths with a RationalWiki Trustee, both of which projects happen to have opposite views, and goals fundamentally incompatible with this project, and yet this neutral project happens to have become the site of their battleground. Unfortunately, we can't preventatively action users unless they've obviously violated our policies or consensuses, and this does not appear to be that kind of situation. It appears to be two ideologically-opposed users trying to get each other suppressed. Short of a two-way interaction ban, I don't see how we can realistically take either side, and would advise both users to quite simply leave each other alone as there is apparently no way you will be agreeing anytime soon. If you're really that unable to avoid each other, on this big project, I fear the community will have to impose a restriction. Swarm ♠ 01:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I could care less about getting into a fight or winning a fight with anyone from that site on Wikipedia (as a matter of fact, I find their WP:BATTLEGROUND reactions to be annoying). I could care less if FCP is blocked as long as he doesn't act disruptively (and those trolling edits are irrefutably disruptive, regardless of who committed them with Fuzzy's account). I actually would rather avoid indefinitely blocking him if at all possible because I think he will get mad and create socks if he is blocked indefinitely like Keegscee did. I just don't want people from Rational-Wiki (or Conservapedia, or any other organization for that matter) introducing links or content that are at odds with Wikipedia policy (WP:RS, WP:ELNO, WP:BLPEL, WP:NPOV, WP:ADV, WP:SPAM, WP:OR etc.), and I don't want them vandalizing or trolling either. The integrity of the encyclopedia is the top concern for me as a Wikipedian; Conservapedia, my own ideology, self glorification, etc is second to that when I edit here. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 01:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also going to add that I think you hit the nail on the head when you said both sites' objectives are fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's neutral encyclopedia project. That's what brings us here today, the addition of links to RationalWiki escalating to a point that I have felt that a RationalWikian was being disruptive. Although I might not get involved in the situation if only to avoid off-Wikipedia consequences, a Conservapedian doing the same thing would be just as wrong. I think the simple solution would be to just spamblacklist both sites with a whitelist exception for the links on the sites' own articles. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 02:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As James Baldwin put it, "I can't believe what you say because I see what you do." You've had a thing about the Rational Wiki folk for a while now, with spurious COI reports, block shopping, and most of the other sorts of behavior we see from editors who let strongly-held views cloud their judgment. In light of your recent efforts the "I'm not interested in picking a fight" line rings hollow. A focused topic ban on Rational Wiki and its editors would spare the rest of us this ongoing dispute and ultimately would be for your own good. It would remove the temptation to go too far in what is clearly a hot-button topic for you while allowing you to contribute in other areas. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I do take issue with Rational-Wiki, just as I take issue with blatant vandals (and they are known in reliable sources as a pro-vandalism site, at least historically), but I'm not interested in a fight. Certain people make it into a fight. The recent issue with the link at vaginal steaming should have been a simple matter of a link that violates policy being removed and User:FuzzyCatPotato reading the policies I provided to him, but instead he decided to respond in a smart ass way (ooooh, I'm shaking in my boots, to paraphrase). I have made very few edits to the RationalWiki or Conservapedia articles, whereas FCP has made many. Spam blacklist both Rational-Wiki and Conservapedia, or issue a decree regarding RationalWiki and Conservapedia editors making edits related to either of the two subjects per WP:COI (as Swarm points out, it's a two way street) and my interest in having anything to do with those sites' coverage on Wikipedia will vanish, and at that point I would have no opposition to a topic-ban. Unless consensus is established in favor of the link at vaginal steaming (which I do not foresee; it will either end in consensus to remove or no consensus), you bet I would object a topic ban if there's nothing in place to stop people from adding links to R-W and Conservapedia, and I would appeal to WP:ARBCOM about it. I don't care about a fight and never have, I care about maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia, and as supported by Keegscee's case, at least some RationalWikians have been a threat to that. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 02:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If your interest is in the content outcomes and not in suppressing the voice of an opponent, then I suggest you take the content matters to any one of the numerous forums that can handle said issues. There are certainly spaces where you can propose that Rational Wiki be blacklisted. I don't give you great odds based on such a broad-ranging proscription, especially if the evidence you provide (alleging that allowing links to that Wiki are inherently disruptive) have a similar quality to the "evidence" you've provided of behavioural problems in your opponent above. But the option remains open to you to make such a proposal. And really, it is probably your only option, since most the community who have responded here (who were previously uninvolved in the dispute) seem to be in agreement that this is a content dispute, at its core. Snow let's rap 04:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There's on-going threads at WP:EL /N and Talk:Vaginal steaming. There's a few WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT arguments, as well as a WP:OTHERSTUFF/WP:HARMLESS argument, but everything else points to WP:ELNO. I don't engage with the Rational-Wikians about it (outside of necessity) or try to start fights over it, but I have been scrubbing blatant violations of WP:RS and WP:BLPEL and likely violations of WP:ELNO for seven years with no objections that I can remember except from Rational-Wikians. The exception is the one I removed from Freemen on the land, which I removed because I didn't see the correlation between that article (or previous versions) and the Rational-Wiki article (or previous versions), but since the community disagreed, I dropped the stick (even though I personally think the article needs to be firebombed and rewritten since it is apparently a paraphrase of a non-neutral publication with admitted incompatibilities with Wikipedia policies). I'm sure it's obvious that I'm agitated at the moment, but it's frustrating to see someone who refuses (until this AN/I post) to back off per WP:COI. If the community took issue with my removal of the links, I'd have stopped years ago, but until now, there's been almost nothing but support.
    I brought this to AN/I mainly because his (or his friends') blatant troll posts and incivility were troubling to me as I worried that the situation was going to escalate, but he has taken responsibility for his actions since the posting of this AN/I and I am content with accepting that, unless he engages in more blatant disruption. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 04:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree that we both deserve a good WP:TROUTing for allowing that off-topic rabbit hole to continue like that. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 12:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite topic ban for PCHS-NJROTC from all RationalWiki topics and from commenting about the actions of editors that PCHS-NJROTC has publicly acknowledged as being associated with RationalWiki. Plenty of people are available to clean up unwarranted external links, and PCHS-NJROTC's attention is disruptive and not required. This is per Shock Brigade Harvester Boris above. Johnuniq (talk) 06:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have an idea for a compromise that will settle this, and my proposal will be forth-coming this afternoon when I have time to put it together. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 12:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support a topic ban on RW for PCHS-NJROTC. The fact that he is still commenting here after claiming to have pressing RL matters to attend to strongly suggests that they are too emotionally involved to be able to contribute neutrally in that subject area. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite topic banFrom all Rationalwiki discussions and topics on Wikipedia. It's clear that PCHS-NJROTC has a problem with them, but the perceived issues are all in his head. Bringing it here and continuing on, like the ARBCOM proposal below shows the need for such a topic ban. Valeince (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Support I felt this response was an overreaction at first, and there was not significant enough disruption here to warrant a topic ban, and so I hoped that the thread would be closed before the matter went farther, as it arguably could have been days ago. But the ongoing WP:IDHT on these issues, and especially the bizarre proposal below have swayed me to the position that this editor is going to keep worrying at this bone and treating this topic area as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Their assertions (that there are mass disruption issues relating to editors who are connected to a Wiki that they are clearly ideologically opposed to) have not been made alongside sufficient (or really any) evidence to substantiate these claims, and yet they continue to propose community inquiry/action against particular editors and now vaguely-defined groups of editors. At this point, a topic ban is looking like the most narrow and targeted means of moving this user along, hopefully towards some more productive work. Snow let's rap 02:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I felt this response was an overreaction at first, and there was not significant enough disruption here to warrant a topic ban This has been my experience, as well. I watched this thread evolve for a bit before I jumped in, because I was unsure as to whether the exchange between I and PCHS would even help. But eventually, I decided that it provided important contextual information about PCHS's state of mind wrt the original content dispute: It seemed less rational and more ideological, especially after he accused me of trying to proselytize to him. I felt much the same way about the proposed topic-ban; it seems like overreaction, given that PCHS certainly seems to be pushing for what he believes is right. But as we all should remain aware (and which I completely forgot at first), we're not here to do what is right, but to do what is best for an encyclopedia. It was seeing the proposal he made in response to Johnuniq that 'set my head straight', as it were. It's just so obviously an attempt at trying to steer the discussion away from him, and back towards those he feels should be punished. After reading the proposal below, it strongly reinforces my belief that what is best for both PCHS and WP as a whole is for PCHS to stay out of any discussion or article concerning RationalWiki. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I can't add anything to what Snow Rise has said, really. PCHS has, unfortunately, dragged this from a simple point of discussion to a demonstration, in full public, that he cannot edit neutrally and non-disruptively in this area. I wish he hadn't done that, but now that he has, I can't see an alternative to supporting the indefinite topic ban. Sorry. -- Begoon 06:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose FuzzyCatPotato, who is on the board of the so-called Rational Wiki blog (and is known by the same screenname there) has been adding links to Rational Wiki throughout Wikipedia, e.g. [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], and [82]. These are just a few examples of this problematic behavior. This is clearly is promotionalism and violates Wikipedia's core policies. PCHS-NJROTC was correct in pointing this out and now other Rational Wiki editors who have accounts here are trying to have him topic banned. How does that make any sense? The real issue here is FuzzyCatPotato's shameless advertising of his blog on Wikipedia. Rational Wiki is the farthest thing from a reliable source and proudly defames people by their real name (e.g. [83]), which is nothing less than slander and libel, with an intention to hurt people in their real life. There is no way that any RW blog links should be present on Wikipedia. desmay (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Desmay, I feel that you may be conflating two issues here. Had I been party to the EL discussion at Vaginal steaming, I would have opposed the addition of the links myself, especially now that I've had a look at the RW page being linked to. I don't think (in that instance anyway) that the link is appropriate. But that is a content issue, not a behavioural one. I don't think FuzzyCatPotato's intention in adding those links is promotional; that is to say, I'm fairly certain that they believe the link improves the Wikipedia article. They may have bias in that respect, but the effort to add the link is itself an act of good faith (and note that the issues has divided opinions even amongst experienced and uninvolved editors at WP:ELN).
    That said, let's be clear: there is disruption on both sides of this complaint (that is, with both FCP and PCHS). The difference between the conduct of the two is that FCP has owned up to their issues, identified why their comments were inappropriate, promised that they will not be repeated and given us every opportunity to WP:AGF about their behaviour from here in. PCHS, on the other hand, continued, through their most recent comments, to double-down on their disruptive behaviours by making assertions of socking/meatpuppetry by other editors without sufficient evidence (consider a form of WP:personal attack on this project), apparently WP:OUTTING still other editors, and making wild claims about a RationalWiki conspiracy and then attempting to validate this claim with reference to users who have not been on the site for more than seven years, and discussions that are even older than that. Even once it became obvious that this behaviour was leading them towards a topic ban, PCHS continued to dig themselves deeper by proposing actions that are so completely far out of whack with existing community policies that they not only have no chance of being adopted, they also give us reason to believe that this user has so little sense of perspective on this topic that they cannot contribute without disruption.
    Look, I suggested repeatedly for this thread to be closed before PCHS earned themselves a WP:BOOMERANG, but things just moved too fast--mostly because of their insistence on making some pretty wild claims with too little (or really no) evidence to back them up. So believe me when I say that I would love to see this thread closed no-action. But at this point, it's not going to happen until PCHS reverses course here. A contributor simply cannot be making the kinds of broad assertions of bad faith activity, such as PCHS has made repeatedly in this discussion, without proper evidence. Nor are our contributors allowed to WP:OUT other editors (even long-absent users) with regard to their identities and other online activities. Nor is it helpful to suggest we start tracking User's off-site activities to enforce an ideological filter between them and their favourite areas to edit upon, just because they happen to contribute their time elsewhere online. And yeah, from the looks of talk page discussions, I suspect I would agree with PCHS nine-times-out-of-ten on those external link debates; PCHS seem to have the right end of the stick on policy, in that regard. But sadly, issues have moved beyond that. Snow let's rap 23:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect that you're trying to assume good faith but Rational Wiki editors, by their own admission, attack and edit other Wikis on an ideological basis, as reported in the LA Times [84]. I don't understand how one could honestly think that linking to another ideological Wiki is appropriate. Would links to Conservapedia be permitted on Wikipedia articles? Many of the editors that are active on the Rational Wiki specifically edited Wikipedia's article about Rational Wiki in order to try to show that it was notable. In the past, the Rational Wiki article redirected to Conservapedia, since Rational Wiki was built in order to vandalize and stalk editors on Conservapedia. Unlike PCHS, who keeps his affairs at Wikipedia and Conservapedia separate, I cannot help but suspect that these editors are collaborating offline to influence the decision of this ANI thread, especially since they view PCHS as an ideological enemy (by their own admission). This thread should be closed as you recommended because it's tainted by an outside influence trying to achieve their own ends. desmay (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm an editor at RW. Care to provide diffs of where I "...attack and edit other Wikis on an ideological basis..."? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    MPants, I believe your aggressiveness here is exactly what Desmay is talking about. Desmay, I can understand where the uninvolved editors are coming from, but I appreciate your support and believe you have correctly seen the situation for what it is. Some people here have been turning this into a battleground, and I am just as frustrated by it as Snow. I watch for abuse because I know it happens, just like vandal patrols (something else I'm involved in) watch for blatant vandalism because they know it happens, and just like police watch for speeders because they know it happens. If another user questions link removal, I start a discussion rather than edit warring. If any of that is WP:BATTLEGROUND, then what is WP:Counter Vandalism Unit, which is portrayed as a defender of the wiki? The problem is that (at most) half of the people here are WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia, and the other (at least) half are here to be street fighters. The street fighters crave drama and run the encyclopedia builders away. I have been here nearly 10 years, helped bring an article to GA, have created widely used templates, spearheaded a WikiProject, and anything that happens here is met by people who want to fight. Quite frankly, I'm tired of all of it; we are volunteers, and if there's no sinister motive, there's nothing really to gain from contributing here but wikistress. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 03:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    PCHS, I'm not sure what reasonable editor would construe a request for evidence to be "aggression". I believe your interpretation of my comments as "aggressive" is a symptom of the reason why a boomerang is the only response to this thread under consideration. Indeed, I can't help but notice that you're still swinging that stick you claimed to have dropped by arguing with everyone who disagrees with you, rather than accepting that the pretty clear consensus here was arrived at for good reasons. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Snow: if you notice, I suggested closing it when FCP acknowledged he had done wrong. Then David Gerard came in out of nowhere with his two cents. I'm not going to say I was wrong to speculate possible off-wiki collaboration, but I will say there's no grounds for a block at this point. I understand your frustration as I am also frustrated (which is probably why I have acted as I have lately), but as long as all parties WP:DROPTHESTICK (which is something I am actively seeking to do at this point) I don't see how any further action here benefits the project. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 03:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Temporary Ban For Both Gosh what a mess. Since both seem to be using wikipedia as a battleground, perhaps it would be best to simply do a temporary ban on both the RationalWiki and Conservapedia editors (FuzzyCatPotato and PCHS-NJROTC) for a month or two. This will hopefully reset both to seek more compromising in the future here on wikipedia since these are very polarizing topics they are dealing with and WP:COI seems to be relevant here. After the temporary ban, they can resume editing on those topics.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with that (at least on my part) as long as it doesn't show up on my block log. If it shows up on my block log, I will be requesting WP:VANISH as soon as the block expires. The reason for this is not to pout, but because this account is, unfortunately, tied to my real life identity (which I chose to do to neutralize repeated OUTING), and I care not to be associated with a contaminated block log. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 03:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. The issues with inappropriate links to RW being inserted into articles identified by PCHS are real and there doesn't seem to be any particular disagreement with that. As far as I can tell, several editors with RW affiliation have mounted a concerted counter-attack here and PCHS has not responded well to that. AFAICT, the "socking" allegations are actually them observing that an AfD on the RW article was well attended by editors affiliated with RW and wondering out loud if there were meatpuppetry going on; I think I'd be asking the same question. The "compromise" proposal below was no doubt ill-conceived and ill-advised, but as it's been withdrawn I'm not seeing the ongoing problem. I can't see how all that adds up to a boomerang. What would a topic ban be preventing, exactly? Preventing PCHS from removing external links that are contrary to policy? Why do we want to prevent that, exactly? GoldenRing (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My own "RW affiliation" is pretty transparent: I registered there after PCHS started the RfC, and my edits there have consisted of a single article-space edit and a brief back-and-forth with another editor. So the rather obvious implication that I was motivated to endorse the suggestion because of my RW account is completely spurious: All the diffs I gave above to support my initial comments predate the creation of my RW account. My problem is with PCHS' handling of our original discussion, which shows an ideologically-based opposition to RW (as well as to WP:V wrt subjects that contradict his religious beliefs), as well as his behavior in this thread, which shows a marked level of tendentiousness. I'm not sure where you got the idea that Swarm opposed the idea of a TBAN, because their most recent (and only) comment was actually to say that both editors could drop the stick or face sanctions. Well, Fuzzy has dropped the stick, and PCHS has repeatedly claimed to want to do so, but you can see that he's still gripping it with his latest round of replies. That sounds a lot more like an implicit support, though I wouldn't deign to put words in their mouth. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Compromise solution (probably will require ArbCom intervention, probably best to wait for the on-going content dispute to conclude first though)

    Withdrawn per WP:DROPTHESTICK

    Extended content

    There seems to be a general agreement that disputes between RationalWikians and Conservapedians are not beneficial to the project, and as Swarm pointed out, both Conservapedia and Rational-Wiki are incompatible with Wikipedia. While both Conservapedians and Rational-Wikians could be productive contributors to this encyclopedia project, the really have a WP:COI when editing anything to do with Conservapedia or Rational-Wiki, and it is easy for a WP:BATTLEGROUND situation to spawn. For example, the Rational-Wiki article's first AfD was weighted by at least five Rational-Wikians, two additional people I think I recognize as Rational-Wikians, and at least four Conservapedians. Additionally, these admittedly biased websites have no legitimate place in Wikipedia besides their respective articles and brief mentions on user pages. Therefore, I propose:

    • Known Rational-Wikians and Conservapedians will not edit anything related to Rational-Wiki or Conservapedia or mention those sites anywhere on Wikipedia except their own user page.
    • Any user found to deliberately conceal their activity at these sites to avoid scrutiny will be subject to blocking.
    • Non-RationalWikians and Non-Conservapedians will be limited to one post per discussion on the talk pages of these site's articles (to discourage WP:BLUDGEONing) and a 1RR will be enforced.
    • (Assuming there is not consensus to keep linking to R-W) No editor will add links to rationalwiki.org or Conservapedia.com except on those site's articles.

    PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 20:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    My suggestion: topic-ban the single editor who is throwing around unfounded accusations and piling more on top when asked to justify his claims, which would be you as documented above - David Gerard (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems wholly unnecessary - and completely unfair to any RW or Conservapedia editors who might be out there and manage not to cause this kind of disruption. As long as individual editors comport themselves well here, there's no problem to fix. So I particularly object to the bit about "concealing their activity" on other sites. If they're editors in good standing and don't cause disruption, their activity on other sites is none of our f-ing business.
    All that is required here is for the two (maybe 3?) of you to behave yourselves: don't post external links that are inappropriate, don't make personal attacks, don't use wikipedia as a battleground. If any of you can't do that, then the problem can be solved with topic and/or interaction bans. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    PCHS, to put it bluntly, this is never going to happen. We don't penalize or presume the worst of our fellow contributors on this project because of their alleged affiliations, political or otherwise. We can, and will, sanction specific users as necessary to prevent further disruption in a target area, but only after they have demonstrated their inability to contribute constructively in that area. What we don't do (or do anything remotely like) is create editorial restrictions for some vaguely defined ideological class of editor, based on either expressed beliefs or their status as volunteers with other groups. We absolutely and without question will not be digging into the off-site activities of our volunteers in order to try to enforce such an ideological filter on their activities here. And frankly, the fact that you thought this might actually be a viable proposal here suggests that you desperately need to familiarize yourself with some of our community's policies on the degree to which you are allowed to reference another user's off-project identity in either content or behavioural matters. In fact, if your identification of any of the users above stemmed from anything but their own self-identification here on Wikipedia (for example, if you are linking the activities of RationalWiki/Conservapedia accounts with community members here at Wikipedia) then you are already grossly in violation of WP:OUTTING and this needs to stop now.
    This is really unfortunate; you might have avoided the WP:BOOMERANG here at any of a number of points the last couple of days by simply quitting while you were ahead and backing away from your self-defined battleground here. As it stands, you are now facing a likely topic ban from this area. If you continue to list users here for their offsite connections, even where they have not as yet made any kind of policy violation, you will probably end up with a longterm block. Snow let's rap 02:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I was just about to ping each of the users you mentioned above. It's absolutely the last thing I wanted to do in a situation like this, given it could further swamp a thread that should have been resolved within an hour. But insofar as some of these editors may have been WP:OUTTED by your mentions here they would have had a right to have those comments revdelled, if they chose. But before typing out the ping template, I decided to follow up on their user pages, to see how many might have self-identifed their affiliations there. Which is how I discovered that of the nine editors you mention (as proof that this area is especially susceptible to disruption and requires extreme preventive measures), not one seems to have edited Wikipedia in the last couple of years. Six of the nine haven't edited Wikipedia in seven or more years; not one of the users you identify as a RationalWiki editor has edited here in the last seven years. Your behaviour and outlook here is beginning to look bizarre and WP:Battleground in the extreme. Snow let's rap 03:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The dispute on linking to RationalWiki (or Conservapedia) should be discussed elsewhere. PCHS-NJROTC appears to be voluntarily suggesting that he be topic-banned from pages on "other wikis", and is close to boomerang action regardless. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    To be clear, I am not agreeing to any one-sided topic ban and pledge to bring any such action to the WP:Arbitration committee for review if need be. I don't care about fighting or winning, but I do care about the integrity of the encyclopedia; inappropriate links and citations have been worming their way in for years, all non-idealogically fueled arguments are against Rational-Wiki links at this point, and unless there is clear consensus for WP:IAR, Rational-Wiki and Conservapedia's only place in Wikipedia is on their own respective articles and brief mentions on user pages, and unless someone else is stepping up to the plate to continue scrubbing the links, removing me from the picture allows them and blatant vandalism referencing RationalWiki to stay. Beyond rather blatant violations of policy (which is unfortunately being made controversial due to a few editors' ideaology clouding their judgement), I have little interest in the dramafest that editing the articles about either site would bring; in fact, my main content focus has been institution-related articles (schools, hospitals, cafeteria, companies that work with institutions, etc), which is why I am a member of WP:WikiProject Schools and I helped spearhead the creation of WP:WikiProject Hospitals. Most of my other activities are policy related. Policy enforcement is a thankless job as it is, and if the community is seriously going to sanction me from enforcing policy for pointing out that someone pretty blantantly was trolling (supposedly due to WP:COMPROMISE), essentially just because another RationalWikian trustee along with some other people who support them ideologically got upset that I embarassed them here by pointing it out along with the fact that RationalWikians have been disruptive before and another user thinks they may be engaaging in paid editing, then I must question whether Wikipedia is even a project worthy of respect or endorsement. A lot of people pout, but I have been a member here for nearly ten years and have seen a lot of people come and go; I contribute because it is cool to be part of a project that I feel makes a difference, but with an increasing number of outside forces editing Wikipedia to push agendas, and people who are apparently content with that, how much longer will we continue to be a respected resource that makes a difference?
    If you want to restrict Conservapedians and Rational-Wikians from editing those sites' articles or adding links to those sites, I would support that, but I adamantly oppose any action that would prevent me from ensuring Wikipedia policies are followed beyond those two articles. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 02:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Heck, I would be alright with just something officially stating no external links to Conservapedia or Rational-Wiki except those topics' own articles and on user pages, no reuse of those sites' content due to incompatible POV policies, and no use of either one as a source. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 02:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin attention requested

    THis thread has gone on long enough. Everyone's had their say. Would an admin please take a look and make a decision? Pinging recently active admins: @GoldenRing, RickinBaltimore, Ian.thomson, Swarm, and DMacks: Apologies for the mass ping. I'm not sure how else to attract some attention. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I've commented above and won't close this. I've avoided this discussion so far and so read through it with fresh eyes. I don't see any consensus. Five editors have supported a topic ban, but at least a couple of them have an admitted RW affiliation and unless they made blindingly good points (which I don't think they do) I'd discount them on those grounds. That leaves two or three supporting a TBAN, three opposing it (counting myself and Swarm, whose comments oppose it even if they haven't strictly !voted) and one supporting something else. As I say, no consensus. GoldenRing (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A "No consensus" close is as good as any, but I can respect you not wanting to close after commenting. That being said, I've responded to you, above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Closing remarks

    • Re a topic ban on RationalWiki for PCHS-NJROTC: I'm seeing that this idea is popular and I understand why (not just "WP:BOOMERANGs are fun to watch," either). As for evidence, I've only been shown that the problematic behavior has been going on about a month and can see most of the drama in this thread ultimately starts with PCHS-NJROTC. That PCHS-NJROTC is fine with both he and FuzzyCatPotato being topic banned tells me that, assuming he's not just looking for a Phyrric victory, he realizes on some level that he done messed up. @PCHS-NJROTC: a topic ban alone does not show up on the block log (though violations of the ban would).
    Re a topic ban on RationalWiki for FuzzyCatPotato: I'm seeing some decent reasons raised for this but no consensus. @FuzzyCatPotato: and (although no one has really mentioned him adding links) @David Gerard: My normal reaction to seeing people adding links to websites they have a WP:COI with is... well, there's a reason I can type Template:uw-causeblock and Template:uw-spamublock in my sleep but copy and paste most of my other warnings and block messages. That said, y'all actually contribute to the site and seem to get y'all shouldn't add any more links. No comment on whether or not it's appropriate or inappropriate for our articles to include external links to RationalWiki but (at the risk of stating the obvious) I'm gonna remind you it is inappropriate for you guys to add them.
    As such, I'm inclined to close this with just a warning to both parties. For different reasons, PCHS-NJROTC, FuzzyCatPotato, and David Gerard should probably act like they've been topic banned from adding, removing, or changing external links to RationalWiki in articles, and instead discuss the appropriateness of their inclusion on a given article's talk page. Or at least like y'all have a WP:1RR ban in place for those. It might also be useful if y'all act like there's an interaction ban between PCHS-NJROTC and FuzzyCatPotato and between PCHS-NJROTC and David Gerard (but not FuzzyCatPotato and David Gerard). I'm not actually enacting any bans, however, but will likely !vote "support" if I see this come up again. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    E.M.Gregory's behavior at AfDs

    As you can infer, I am here to report E.M.Gregory's behavior at AfDs, particularly his WP:UNCIVIL edits and habit for WP:BLUDGEONing the process. The issue has a long history; here are a few instances of editors addressing his excessive comments: [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91]. Even when he is not called out on it, Gregory can still be found blugeoning the process as far back as 2016, mainly in terror or political discussions (diffs can be provided if needed; a simple AfD stats check may suffice however). Here are also examples of Gregory's tendency to cast aspirations, make comments on editors, or be uncivil in order to taint the discussion: [92] [93] [94] [95]. He suffers from a bad case of WP:IDHT and always continues commenting at the same rate. When he is not doing this, however, Gregory can be highly productive content editor which is why I propose a three month tban from AfDs related to politics and crimes. He can appeal the ban in three months on the condition he is not bludgeoning other AfD discussions.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    EMG is a skillful editor and has a knack of expanding articles to meet AfD objections. TGS and I have been bested by EMG in many AfDs. But EMG has a habit of drowning AfDs in a flood of comments. See this AfD for instance, where they make an astounding 34(!) comments. No one else is even close. I even told them to give a rest when they were half-way through (at 18 comments), but they don't listen.

    Examples can be multiplied easily. Just look at any AfD which they participate in.

    I suggest the following solution: let EMG make !votes on AfDs, but forbid any follow-ups. In other words, the are allowed exactly one comment on any AfD. I recall that this solution was used for behaviour at RfA by a certain editor who I am not naming here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If this is implemented, in my opinion, two or three would be a more reasonable limit than one. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How would this even be enforced though? I agree that Greg has made some very good points in AfDs, but at the same time he heavily overdoes it by commenting on everything and anything. In the end and what should be very clear is that he is ticking editors off and so the only thing I can think of being punitive would be at least a one month topic ban. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not merely in the spirit of compromise between you- but could I suggest two? That would give him a 'right of reply' yet would (hopefully) decrease the temptation to always have the last word. And don't we consider, on principle, the third edit to be the wheeling one? — fortunavelut luna 11:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully agree with up to 3 edits per AfD but as I said I don't know how that would be enforced? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming for the moment that sanctions are necessary: "zero" or "one" are clean and easily enforced. "Zero" corresponds to a topic ban, "one" corresponds to a !vote explaining their reasons. Since EMG often makes persuasive points at AfDs (though I mostly don't agree with them), I think "one" is better. In my view, nobody needs a right of reply at an AfD: the discussion is about the article, not the editor. So I don't see any real reason for increasing the "one" to "two" or "three" or whatever. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The RoR might be explanatory, perhaps, of the previous point. — fortunavelut luna 13:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think two is a good agreement then here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I will support a two-comment limit. His initial input is not disruptive, just the continuation of it. There is no reason half an AfD page or more should be devoted to Gregory's comments. Other editors have a right to weigh-in without a response from Gregory reasserting what he already said or "updating" his current state of mind on the discussion on a daily basis.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Having closed a few AfDs where E.M.Gregory has participated, I can vouch for the fact that his style of participation makes it harder to adjudge consensus. I think that Kingsindian's proposal (with Guy Macon's amendment) would be reasonable. A Traintalk 14:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment made me curious since I can't remember interacting with you, probably for the simple reason that you close discussions long after I have left. I ran an interaction search and The AfDs that you closed: were Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beheading of Bhausaheb Maruti Talekar (where I made 1 comment,) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica Day (1 comment,) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mustafa azad (1 comment); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somos Los Otros NY (1 comment); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reem (singer) (1 comment); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Institute of Carpet Technology, Bhadohi (3 comments as I attempted to source an under-sourced Indian post-secondary technical college); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katharine Gorka (2 comments); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umbrella repair in Hong Kong (unsourced stub that is actually about Unbrella repair in Hong Kong, 1 comment, your rolled it over); and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oren Kessler (think tank foreign policy wonk) - here I did make multiple comments; you closed as "no consensus." Frankly I am puzzled as to understand in what way my comments on the pages you closed made it "harder to adjudge consensus."E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What your survey is missing is discussions that I have relisted, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapuah Junction stabbing (2010), where you made 51 edits. Being able to make concise arguments is an important part of working collaboratively. A Traintalk 20:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    'So, yes, I have strong opinions on terrorism.' Actually, you have strong opinions on one type of terrorism. That is evident in your topic-focus.Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Convenience break 1

    • Responding
    • In general, what I do at AfD is to search for sources on topics that appear plausible, routinely sourcing paltry article. Most of the hundreds of articles that I have found at AfD and sourced, are on fairly minor topics, uncontroversial, like last week's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Wood (journalist). But there attempts by fans of a subject to delete an article about a notable subject, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew C. Whitaker. Others are about people who are, for sundry reasons, hated by other people. Take, for example Dorothy King, a rich girl popularizer of archaeology and vocal opponent of the idea that the British Museum ought to send the Elgin Marbles to Athens. It takes time and an enormous amount of work to defend an individual or topic intensely hated by most editors who follow the field she writes about. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorothy King (2nd nomination). It is, however, is very simple for an editor to delete such a page since most of us WP:AGF and take the Nom at his word. Fair enough, not only because most Noms at AfD are good editors playing straight, but because an enormous number of articles are stared every day on wannabe rock bands, minor athletes, non-notable films and the like. The editors who bring such articles to AfD deserve our admiration even though every once in a while even an extremely diligent editor like Bearcat - who monitors new article on wannabe politicians - will miss real notability in a minor politician. But the fact that most AfD nominationa are non-controversial discoveries by good editors weeding out the PROMO means that an editor with an animus can slip in areicles on topics that dislike. And, of course, we all make mistakes. Here's one I caught, that might easily have been deleted merely for having been a thing a few years ago, although I'm sure Nom was acting in good faith Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Soccer War (book).
    • I regard AfD as a sort of intellectual pastime, screening today's list of new AfDs or topical lists to spot notability editors missed as well as unpopular topics with real notability. I am blessed with access to powerful archive searches, and some experience scanning academic jargon, which enables me to regularly check topics in ancient history (like people who were notable in the 1990s) where ediors running good-faith google searches often miss notability.
    • One of the articles where I argued this summer to keep and Slick argued to delete read, in part " this is an obvious WP:NOTNEWS event that is better explained in a list." (here: [96]) This is typical of his comments at terrorism-related AfD pages. Slick returned to the page to let off a little steam [97], then, as the discussion trended keep, accused us all of bad faith, took his marbles, and left in a huff [98]. Well, we all lose our tempers sometimes.
    • What was truly troubling is that although that AfD was closed by Sandstein as keep ("The result was keep"), in June, this week slick returned to the scene to make the same argument she made at AfD, i.e., that the article should be merged to a list. Since, if he had brought it back to AfD, the discussion would probably have been closed as keep on procedural grounds, I viewed GracefulSlick's Merge proposal as a sort of AfD-by-stealth, and said so here: [99]. And so The Graceful Slick brought me here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another article that Slick rather aggressively brought back to AfD only a month after it closed a Keep was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson. Article was created, by me, almost a year after the attack because an important arrest of a ISIS operative in Germany threw a whole new light not on ISIS's work instigating attacks outside the Near East that had been presumed to be lone wolf. It shows the way in which GracefulSlick is so incensed by the existence of articles on terrorist attacks, that he sometimes seems to be unable to read and comprehend the actual information and sources in the article he is attempting to delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just notiiced on a 3rd example of GracefulSlick's highly problematic behavior with regard to recent terrorism-related notability discussions. Here Graceful Slick blanked a page: March 2017 Île-de-France attacks, (here: [100]). When her blanking was reverted by User:User2534, Slick suggested that the page be merged. Because this attack is one in a series of what are now 6 or 7 2017 terrorist attacks on police and soldiers now patrolling the streets of French cities under the State of Emergency, and because each of the other pages on these attacks had been kept after being brought to AfD, it appears to me that both the blanking of the page and the proposed merge are inappropriate for a page that was bound to be contested if taken to AfD. I do feel that this attempt to restrict my editing is an indirect way to "win" at terrorism-related AfD discussions by blocking an editor with whom Graceful Slick disagrees on the notability of terrorism-related articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    When, as at the 2 AfD discussions (both closed as keep) this summer about the 1026Malmo ISIS-relate arson attack, I have read long, complex sources, I can often weigh in with information that other editors have not seen.
    This was the case recently at alt-left, a topic that I spend several hours yesterday reading and managed to revise a terrible attack page into a pretty-solid, NPOV version - that was rapidly mucked up by a highly problematic editor. Nevertheless, I kept arguing because I had seen and read WPSIGCOV in the WaPo and by Peter Beinart in The Atlantic and a convoluted essay by intellectuals including Leon Wieselier-type cultural critic James Wolcott written months before Trump's appalling remarks, and other editors at the AfD seemed unarare that the term had ever had such coverage. Ultimately, the alt-left is a trivial insult, notable, but likely to soon be of interest only to intellectual historians.
    Islamo-Leftism, on the other hand is a serious topic that editors attack for similar reasons of animus, outrage and ignorance. I do not regret the many times I weighed in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamo-Leftism, or, frankly, the times I have returned over the course of 2 or 3 days or 2 or 3 weeks to weigh in, often on older topics that require sourcing to old books (I recall once requesting that an article related to a specific ships captain involved in piracy in the strait of Malacca at AfD be rolled over while I checked the sourcing in the article citing a book that had to be brought to the main library I use for offsite. Solid, turn of the century source even if I don't recall the pirate captain's name.
    So, yes, I have strong opinions on terrorism. But I am also willing to do actual work validating and invalidating articles at AfD, and I regularly do this by commenting, then coming back in a day or so, searching, reading sources, often striking changing my iVote, making multiple comments and doing the kind of actual sourcing that few editors do at AfD.
    This draws fire at terrorism-related pages. And from Kingsindian who has been gunning for me since we met at Susya when I was very green.
    But this is how I work and I not only think that my edits at AfD have been valuable to the project, but that requiring that I make one or two comments and stop will prevent me from being able to follow the method that has made me useful: I scan for articles that may not have been properly gauged by Nom, run my own keyword searches, and make a comment. Then revisit in a day or two, and, if other editors disagree or no one else has done the work and the topic is one I think I can handle, I dive in and source it, often surprising myself enough to change my iVote. But regularly making multiple comments as I work - or when I want to sum up what i have found and return to my day job for a day or so. (other edits are due to poor keyboard skills, i.e. the sheer number of my edits on most pages deceives since about half are correcting my own typos or misspelled links). But, yes, if I am to be useful on complex and unusual topics at Afd, I do need the freedom to make multiple edits.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please add some paragraph breaks so this can be more easily read. Huge blocks of text are quite difficult to read online. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk)
    • E.M. Gregory deserves kudos and medals for their great work in all their AFDs I have seen. It is tremendously valuable to have someone actualy take the time and apply expertise to salvage articles. I don't follow terrorism topics, but from the above I gather that some with set views in that area are frustrated by the facts and sources that E.M.Gregory brought to bear. I tend to believe E.M.G. ws right and they were wrong in those AFDs then. Sure if you are bent on deleting a topic and EMG shows up then you have probably lost your quest. But EMG only shows up when they have the right info. --doncram 00:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Doncram: this isn't about being "right". Gregory's input is appreciated but no one needs to read the same thing dozens of times. He bludgeons anyone who dares to have a differing view which is not fair to editors who have legitimate opinions about the article(s) in question.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    E.M.Gregory does little but bludgeon the AfD process. Here are three recent AfDs in which we both participated:

    This ought not to be acceptable behavior, especially his obsessive need to (incorrectly) summarize the discussion every day. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Convenience break 2

    • Support two-comment limit on all further AFD related to politics and crimes for a period of three months Oppose - Per S Marshall who notes that the editor has agreed he does sometimes get carried away and per Lankiveil and my own comment to their post where I stated I could oppose if the editor took some measure. E.M.Gregory has stated on this ANI discussion that; "I do acknowledge that I can get carried away in the heat of debate" and " I will try in future to keep my commenting at AfD strictly on point". Lankiveil's post made me realize that, while there may not be a consensus for the ban from commenting more than two times at AFD, there does seem to be a pretty good consensus that the editor has become disruptive enough that there is concern. Even oppose votes seem indicate that some behavior is at least out of the ordinary and outside the standard approach. Graham's hierarchy of disagreement (which is something we use to gauge someone's argument during disputes) places much of what they say in the ad hominem level. One level from the bottom. Using this on a constant basis can be disruptive but not everyone agrees whether that is a bad thing by itself. Consensus may have come to an acknowledgment, not just from the editor but from the community in general. Pretty sure that is discouraging enough to make the editor at least realize they are now on the radar of many experienced editors, even some that are supportive of their contributions to the AFD process. Lankiveil made me notice that even a straight oppose opinion does hold some consensus agreement on the behavior of the editor and they even go as far as suggest they limit their responses (as many as they like) to a single post space. Perhaps the outcome would be a consensus for some other form of limitation or be a strong piece of advice such as mentioned to avoid another ANI.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (older comment) I agree with TheGracefulSlick who stated; "His initial input is not disruptive, just the continuation of it". Also of note is that the approach becomes adopted by others with less experience. It becomes off putting and I believe dissuades others from adding their !vote and opinion.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Nonsense. I have read through several of the complained-about AFDs and see nothing wrong. The "evidence" here starts with a diff to another editor's tendentious complaint within an AFD, within Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapuah Junction stabbing (2010), in which EMG's participation is constructive and others' participation is perhaps dubious. For example the AFD nominator participated too much at the beginning, or at least more than I would have preferred. EMG offered housekeeping-type help, such as asking about previous AFD and then providing link to it. Over a long time there was eventually some bickering (in which EMG offered new info while others repeated themselves without new info IMHO) but it was fine overall. To censor one editor (the most constructive one IMHO) in the absence of general limits on AFD participation would be pretty awful. If we were to do that kind of thing, then that would be a great way for any one of us identify one or two editors who tend to disagree on inclusionism-exclusionism scale so that we would "win" more AFDs. --doncram 13:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support voluntary corrective feedback  I was a target of E.M.Gregory at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa May (actress) when I was accused of WP:BLUDGEON when I pointed out that E.M.Gregory was using old research for his claims.  Since a lack of current research is not explained by another editor's participation in an AfD, he has been swept up in the heat of the moment and abandoned the force of reason. 

      The three-month proposal with any of these edit count restrictions is very practical and it should not imply that E.M.Gregory is required to prove that there is any behavior change by the end of that period of time.  The negative feedback is likely to be constructive for his career.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think this discussion has been derailed by incivility denial, but I can accept that the commitment to "try in future to keep my commenting at AfD strictly on point" is a key response to a key problem and is a good way forward.  I echo the comment of User:Sport and politics just below mine to comment on the contribution, not the contributor.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Having had the misfortune of being involved in an AfD's with E.M. Gregory, i found the comments devolved in to commenting on the contributor and not remaining focused on the content. Bludgeoning is a correct term to describe the actions of E.M Gregory. Sport and politics (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    here here are two more examples of recent E.M. Gregory behaviour at a recent AfD where a wall of text has appeared, and it is an example of how hard it can be to know establish a consensus on an AfD. Sport and politics (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a different restriction. Someone above mentioned an example where EMG commented 34 times, but here is an AfD where the count seems to exceed 40. It is completely ridiculous that someone is allowed to dominate an AfD like that. However the really annoying thing is not the number of times he edits the AfD but his habit of responding in place to everyone whose opinion differs from his. Instead of limiting him to a maximum number of comments, he should be required to keep all his comments, no matter how many, to a single subsection. (Actually I wouldn't mind if everyone had some such restriction.) Zerotalk 19:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I hope you realize that by not supporting the actual proposal under consideration, but instead proposing something completely different, which is unlikely to receive additional support from other editors, you are subverting the current proposal and making it less probable that the behavior of the editor in question will be controlled (which appears to be your bottom line), not more probable. Sometimes, just like in real life, you don't get to have your ideal solution, you get to choose between what are (in your opinion) less than ideal fixes, and you back the one that seems best to you. Not doing so runs the risk of getting no solution at all. I do wish people would think these things through instead of just throwing stuff out there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I support any restriction that prevents EMG's current mode of behavior. So please count me in favor of the majority opinion in favor of restriction. Zerotalk 08:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support some sort of restriction on EMG's comments on AfDs, preferably limiting EMG to one comment. I would also support a TB on AfDs if there is enough support for that option. This problem behavior has been going on a while. My first encounter with EMG was at WP:Articles for deletion/Barron Trump (2nd nomination), where EMG pummeled everyone who disagreed with comment after comment, often repeating the same point again and again. Then EMG had the audacity to accuse others of WP:IDHT. I really don't know the quality of EMG's edits apart from AfDs, but this obsession with endlessly countering every comment of disagreement is very destructive to the consensus process. Sundayclose (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a two- or three- comment per AfD restriction. E.M.Gregory's manner at AfD makes collaboration more difficult, which is behaviour that a collaborative project should discourage. A Traintalk 20:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a two comment (or similar) restriction per AfD, to stop the WP:BLUDGEONING. I almost started a discussion like this myself, but I had hoped E.M.Gregory would take the hint when other editors, including myself, suggested that refrain from making so many comments. Examples of excessive comments: 42 comments, 31comments, 42 comments, 48 comments. - MrX 22:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, given the evidence that the editor can't seem to control their behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    File:Night of the Living Dead (1968) theatrical poster.jpg
    In exceptional circumstances bludgeoning is indeed justifiable. –EEng
    But mostly it's frowned upon. –Beyond My Ken (talk)
    Helpful ant not disruptive [1]
    • Support per BMK directly above. Softlavender (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose There is no reason to argue with him. If he i addressing issues with articles, that's a good thing. I haven't seen arguments that his content creation is bad and other editors appreciate his comments so they can see how an article has changed from its listing. It's only annoying to those that disagree with him. That's not disruption and it's not a reason for a sanction. --DHeyward (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem to be rather missing the point. It's not EMG's content creation which is the locus of the problem here, it's his bludgeoning of people who disagree with him on AfDs. I can see how that would be annoying to those who differ with his viewpoint, can't you? After all, we're all Wikipedians, whether we agree with EMG or not, and simply taking an opposing position from EMG does not mean that the editor is fair game to be bludgeoned.
      And however do you come to the conclusion that "There is no reason to argue with him"? Are you saying that he is invariably correct at AfD, and that once he speaks there is no point in any other Wikipedian commenting to disagree, since there is (you say) no reason to argue with him? How, I wonder, did he come by this fantastic ability to be constantly correct? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not missing the point and quite aware of the underlying reason for this complaint. It's not just comments at AfD as those that are frustrated also seem to have disputes regarding content and focus. Otherwise the content area regarding terrorism would not have been mentioned. Secondly, no I am not saying he is right and therefore needs no reply. I am saying there is no reason to respond or argue with statements in an AfD. To use your reply as an example, the first part of your reply was a patronizing statement questioning my understanding. It was needless but a curt reply asserting you are incorrect is sufficient. There is no need to further discuss how incorrect you are even if you reply again. We could go 'round and 'round generating lots of comment but simply not replying is sufficient. The last comment in a thread isn't the "correct" comment, it's merely the last one. Your comments don't invalidate my view. Irritating commenters are stopped by simply not replying after positions are made clear. As a rhetorical question, if this ANI entry were a complaint about "BMK's follow-up comments at ANI being disruptive," how supportive of sanctions would you be especially if it was filed by those that you have been in dispute with? Your need to comment on my oppose is exactly the behavior this sanction is trying to thwart but whether it's disruption or participation is in the eye of the beholder. Your passion is participation at ANI and that is fine. EMG ha a passion for retaining articles on terrorism. I am reluctant to restrain participation especially if the result is better articles. No one has put forward any evidence that he is tilting against windmills and arguing against consensus. A I recall, one of the metrics put forward for admin 'good judgement' is how often their !vote matched the AfD outcome. If EMG's !votes are matching the outcome, he is not being disruptive, he's building the encyclopedia using good judgement. --DHeyward (talk) 06:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but your analysis is weak. For one things, considering the personal matter you brought up, participating at AN/I is not my "passion". Of my edits, 73.16% are to articles, and less than 4% are to AN/I. My "passion", as you put it, is to improve the encyclopedia in any way that I can, always primarily at the article level. AN/I is simply a sideline.
      But more specifically to this issue, your ≈statement that "No one has put forward any evidence that he is tilting against windmills and arguing against consensus" is, once again, completely missing the point. Bludgeoning can occur whether or not the bludgeoning editor's opinion is upheld by consensus or not: it's not the result which determines whether bludgeoning has occurred, it's the actual ongoing act of responding to a large number of comments, thus creating a negative atmosphere in the AfD which inhibits participation by other editors. In other words, at least in this instance, the ends do not justify the means. Bludgeoning is never justifiable. If an AfD is being trolled or overwhelmed by canvassed participants, EMG should seek out an admin to deal with the problem, or post about it on one of the noticeboards, they should not attempt to shout down the opposition by personally controlling the discussion. "If EMG's !votes are matching the outcome, he is not being disruptive" is simply totally and completely incorrect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you believe Bludgeoning is never justifiable (emphasis on never), why are you bludgeoning me over my oppose opinion? I already said you need not reply and my point was obviously clear. Please stop making my case lest you find yourself at ANI by someone that opposes your bludgeoning. --DHeyward (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not bludgeoning, this is what is called "a discussion". Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS, and it's virtually impossible to reach a consensus without having at least some discussion. If you're intersted in rolling the dice to find out what happens if you file an AN/I complaint about me for having a discussion with you, please be my guest.
      As opposed to a valid discussion, WP:BLUDGEONing, especially as described here, is something else entirely. If I replied to each and every "oppose" !vote, or almost every one, repeating much the same argument each time, and then replied again to the responses I got, that would be bludgeoning. You seem to be saying that if were to do that in this discussion, in favor of a sanction of EMG, and EMG is not sanctioned, then that would be bludgeoning because I did not agree with the eventual consensus, but if I did it and he was sanctioned, that wouldn't be bludgeoning, because my view was the consensus one. That would make bludgeoning sort of like Schrödinger's cat, constantly in a state of uncertainty until the final result was in after the box was opened.
      In any case, since we're unlikely to agree, I think you are right and we should leave it that we disagree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your constant replies to my oppose, and other comment in this ANI and numerous others, is indeed exactly what the essay covers. You have a need to get the last word in on my oppose opinion. My opinion is rational, explained and shared by others yet you continue to reply. It's not different than the "bludgeoning" as it's being applied to E.M. Gregory. You call it discussion and apparently believe it's productive even though your comments are unpersuasive and have now taken on a form of strawman where you incorrectly characterize what I said in your words and then attack your own characterization. Why? I didn't feel a need to comment on your support or even challenge your patronizing {tq|I hope you realize...}} comments in another editors opinion even though you do realize that you have no idea what the closing admin needs to realize out of that opinion. You have responded to numerous comments here even though you don't require clarification because you are not in a position to decide anything and it doesn't appear you are seeking input to form your own opinion, just discredit others or drum up support for your own. In short, you behave in the manner which you criticize EMG, pin a rose on it and call it different even though the smell is remarkably similar. It is not different yet you justify your behavior while asking to sanction another. I am consistent in that I believe you may participate in any way you please just as EMG should be allowed to participate. If you wish to muzzle him because you don't like his comments, consider a muzzle fitting based on your own behavior. They are not different except in your mind. --DHeyward (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per A Train. Seeing a stack of EMG comments on an AfD makes it so much harder to judge actual consensus and close properly. If he could express himself more concisely I think more people would actually read and listen to him. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Firstly, there is certainly no case for any kind of topic ban preventing EMG from AfD participation entirely. Most seem to agree on that. Secondly, if the "problem" is as stated, and EMG makes useful and insightful comments, but then makes too many follow-ups, then this is not a good solution. By restricting him to one or two comments the incentive will be for him to wait until late in the AfD, so that he can address all other comments "in one go", thus removing the advantage of having his useful input available early on, and possibly resulting in a large, wide-ranging comment, itself requiring a number of responses. That's far from ideal. In any case, having looked at the examples given, I don't find the behaviour at all as disruptive as portrayed. On the occasions where he makes many comments the debates are long, and his comments seem well explained, relevant and not combative. Additionally, I share doncram's concerns that this type of approach could become a dangerous precedent for those wishing to "hobble" an "opponent" -- Begoon 06:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose having read through all of this, a restriction is too harsh. The OP is trying to throw them out of AfD which is telling. Agree with User:Begoon we should not be letting people hobble an opponent like this. The editor is a smart editor and I'm sure he will be more careful in the future to avoid behavior that can be fairly seen as repeating objectionable behavior. Legacypac (talk) 09:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      @Legacypac: a brief read through this thread will show I am not trying to throw Gregory out of AfD. I actually supported the two-comment restriction awhile ago and haven't advocated my original proposal. And Gregory has been repeating this behavior since 2016. I am pretty sure that is enough time to be more careful after all the warnings he received. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any restriction lasting more than 3 months Too valuable an editor for us to risk de-motivating with unnecessary sanctions. Oppose even a time limited restriction as too harsh if they’ll concede it would be good to cut back a bit on the badgering. EMG makes a good case about why his freedom to post multiple times helps us reach a good evidence based consensus. I echo Doncram about him deserving medals, and find Begoon's argument persuasive. Except to say he can be combative on occasion. In the Teresa May AfD he had the gall to accuse the phenomenal Unscintillating of bludgeoning! He also claimed my keep vote was arguing from false premises. When I posted a link to prove conclusively that was not the case, he didn't retract his claim. Insults from deletionists are water of a ducks back, but having an almost ARS quality scholar question my veracity was somewhat hurtful. No matter how outstanding a scholar you are, you can still make mistakes. Wikipedia helps protect against individual mistakes by collective decision making. While limited badgering can be helpful, taken to an excess it's disruptive, as Grace & the supporters explain. Have faith that good AfD closers can recognise innacrate assertions in the delete votes; they don't have to pointed out explicitly every time. All that said, EMG is a very appreciated editor overall, and I really hope feedback on this page is not dis-heartening. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I struck out my original proposal since a few editors are confusing my support for the comment restriction with it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here [101] is a link to the strange series of AfDs on Teresa May, non-notable porn model/actress, a page repeatedly re-created, and defended by people at least some of whom enjoyed or were politically motivated to want to have a hatnote atop the Prime Minister's page redirecting to a porn actress. It was a strange discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see you are still working from old research.  At the 2016 AfD you successfully created a twodabs solution to avoid a hatnote on the prime minister's article.  I proposed your exact solution at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_9#Teresa_May, but in that discussion you turned your back on your own solution.  And it is a 100% red herring to characterize an association between Theresa May and Teresa May as Wikipedian POV attempts (and which is another example of you disparaging Wikipedia contributors when there are better ways to express your viewpoint).  As per the book by Theresa June Rosa Prince quoted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa May (actress), it is more accurate to say that Theresa May saved her political career and became prime minister by associating herself with Teresa May.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had forgotten entirely that the porn actress somehow figured in a real political campaign. What I clearly do remember is that even extensive archive searches could not turn up notability for the porn actress/model as an actress or model, but tabloids ran photos of nude Teresa May" when Theresa May became a major political figure, that the former porn model was able to make money selling nudie photos taken when she was young, and that part of the discussion or point of those AfDs was to address the perceived unfairness of repeated attempts to drape a nude model across the top of the Prime Minister's Wikipedia page. I fear we're drifting off topic here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do acknowledge that I can get carried away in the heat of debate, although not as often as some editors seem to think, and despite the factthat I have been the target of trolls, of a series of sockpuppets created to HOUNDDOG and provoke me into losing my cool, of regular visits to my talk page by odd IPs attempting trip me up with invitations to make strange edits. dislike my position on terrorism, and by editors who disagree with my position on the notability of terrorist attacks (which, by the by, are only one of the topics where I edit regularly by adding content and sources) and who often seem to be trying to provoke me into saying something that will get me bumped. I deeply appreciate the willingness of editors whom I have not met at AfD to come to this page and expend valuable time looking at the arguments and evidence. And I will try in future to keep my commenting at AfD strictly on point.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't a bad idea..in fact E.M.Gregory you might actually counter to the nominating editor TheGracefulSlick that you would voluntarily restrict yourself to no more than two comments on just the two subjects mentioned, politics and crime for three months, if the other editor agrees to the same. This might allow the other editor to demonstrate that they are not attempting to just "hobble an opponent" as I believe I see it written. At this point I think a voluntary restriction even without that would gain you a heck of a lot more faith from your fellow editors. But perhaps this is too much to ask.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Earlier above I asked E.M.Gregory how he feels about a voluntary restriction and, if so, what kind of restriction he thinks is appropriate. I hope we get a reply because that could help move this issue toward resolution. Sundayclose (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Mark Miller and Sundayclose Gregory's participation here seems unlikely. In fact, he is now badgering me at this merge discussion. Apparently following standard WP:MERGE talk procedure is illegitimate.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support for a 3 or more comment limitation. About the 34 comment example, while it may be true that no one was close, the situation seems a little more complex than the pure number would suggest. There are longish back and forths between EMG and multiple other editors in that discussion. Under the "two to tango" concept, I'm generally reluctant to criticise only one party for long back and forths since ultimately if the other editor wasn't responding, then the first editor would just be talking to themselves which would be obvious (and also is very rare). The fact it's multiple isn't the best of signs. Still I don't consider that a great example of the problem. More concerning to me is the sheer number of !vote EMG responded to which is rarely a good sign. As for the possibility EMG will just wait and post lots of followups in one go, well all the comments here suggest to me we should be able to think better of EMG than that. Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually think an omnibus response would be quite acceptable. One of the primary problems with WP:BLUDGEONing, in my view, is that the ongoing commentary from the bludgeoning editor could have the tendency to inhibit comments from editors who have yet to participate. They look at the fact that practically every post is getting a bludgeoning response, and they decide to just avoid the hassle and pass the whole thing by. I don't think you get that effect if the editor who would have bludgeoned had instead posted a single comment dealing with multiple comments. They might even be able to fashion it into a single coherent argument rather than individual hammer strikes, which I think is a definite improvement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support to address repeated and disruptive WP:BLUDGEONING. Had I joined this conversation earlier I would have recommended the restriction be limited to "terrorism, mass casualty, and political AFDs" as this seems to be where the disruption occurs and a wider than necessary restriction is undesirable. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I explain above many,many of my edits are the result of my notoriously poor keyboard skills: I often return, sometimes more than once to fix a link or a word that is misstyyyped or or repeaeated. More to the point, however, is that free confess to occasional BLUDGEONONG, what I am doing at these pages is not repeating myself, but bringing new sources, carefully reading policies and citing them, improving the article then making a WP:HEY comment, sometimes making a second HEY comment, revisiting and reversing an iVote, and, more lately, I have taken adding "fact checking" comments when an editor in a discussion makes a clear assertion in a discussion that is verifiably inaccurate. Moreover, many of the complaints here are by editors with whom I disagree on one of the many topics that I edit on: terrorism. I edit in this area more than I might choose if it were not such a hotly contested area. For those who don't know, an article will be brought to deletion on the grounds that it is insufficiently sourced, then I or someone goes in and sources it, at which point it is tagged as oversourced and the AfD discussion turns to some new topic. Take a look, for example, at Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis, two pages the editing of which would have tried the patience of a saint. I am no saint, but had I been restricted to 1 or 3 or 4 edits Father Georgios woulls have no page, despite due to the fact that politician Marwan Barghouti was convicted of ordering his murder, and there are editors who JUSTDONTLIKEIT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    E.M.Gregory, you can cherry-pick pages where you comment all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the overall and overwhelming pattern in your comments on AfDs is to bludgeon by repeating the same points over and over, not "bring new sources" or fix your typing errors. Trying to pretend that your behavior is "occasional BLUDGEONING" so that it can be excused doesn't help your case here. You bludgeon more than any editor I have ever seen on AfDs. That being said, I hope you can continue to make constructive edits and, regardless of any administrative outcome of this discussion, that you will restrict your comments on AfDs to one or two. It's time for you to err on the side of caution. Sundayclose (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I also encourage other editors to look at that AfD and reach their own conclusions. I also would like E.M.Gregory's response to a suggestion above to impose a voluntary self-restriction on commenting at AfDs, and if E.M.Gregory agrees with that suggestion, to state what kind of self restriction. Sundayclose (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - We need more participants at AfD, not less. I've always found his replies to be helpful and constructive and he often improves articles brought to AfD when no one else bothers to try and improve them. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: this is complex and nuanced issue. Do not hit it with a large blunt instrument. E.M. Gregory is a productive content writer and diligent researcher whose contributions to AfD are, overall, a net positive. He has acknowledged, above, that he gets overinvested in some AfDs. Now give him time and space to change.—S Marshall T/C 17:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @QuackGuru: read through WP:BLUDGEON. It does not matter if his comments are informative. He uses dozens of them to dominate an AfD and intimidate other editors with different opinions. How are you okay with that?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Many editors ignore comments made by others and ignore policy. QuackGuru (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are saying in ever single example presented here it was just opposing arguments ignoring his comments and policies? Even though there are constructive responses and eventually pleas by editors for him to stop badgering the process.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Did other editors focus on content or did they also focus on the editor? QuackGuru (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why don't you read the diffs and find out? I know Gregory has directed many comments toward me to taint the discussion. I apparently have a bias toward Israeli victims because I nominated an article about an attack in Israel for deletion. I have been called an aggressive advocate for deletion of said articles and my ability to understand reason has been questioned. So, to answer your question, yes other editors, being Gregory, did focus on the editor, instead of content.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agreed with one comment and it was pretty much accurate to me. The editor's initial comments are not disruptive, just the continuation of it. This is about behavior not content. Did QuackGuru want to address the behavior issue to help with the consensus or just add the !vote?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed many editors comment on the editor rather than solely the content. For example, many editors comment about an editor on the talk page but refuse to comment on actually improving the article. Then I notice editors try to ban them after they ignore policy. QuackGuru (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not following your here but I will say that comments about the editor seem to be about the editors behavior which is what ANI is for. If there are content disputes that would be for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and not this board. If what you mean is, that no one is commenting on his content that might be why. The last part seems like an accusation but again, I'm not entirely sure what you are actually saying here.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The last part example was a general comment. I was not making specific comments about any editor. At AFDs editors sometimes comment on each other rather than on the article and AFD. Then things get too heated and we end up here. QuackGuru (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @QuackGuru: can you just explain more clearly why you are opposing a comment restriction? No one is questioning the informative nature of Gregory's comments. However, you must admit 30-40 comments is disruptive. Don't you agree editors who have constructive counter-arguments should be able to express them without WP:BLUDGEONing? You also have to realize how off-putting it is for users to see an excessive amount of comments from the same editor, especially if they disagree with him. They more than likely will not even !vote to avoid the hassle; that is not creating a collaborative environment.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I limit my comments because I don't want someone to accuse me of disruption even when there are problems with multiple articles. I know the problems with multiple articles on my watchlist will continue for many years because they have. I know if I fix the problems I will end up at AN/I. Comments in the AFD does not prevent others from commenting or voting. If editors want a comment-limit at AFDs then it can be applied to all editors. A new section for limits on AFD discussion can be started at WP:BLUDGEON for all editors.
    Generally speaking, I have seen editors mention a policy violation on the talk page and others reply by ignore policy. QuackGuru (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "I know if I fix the problems I will end up at AN/I." Oh....I see....no actually I don't. I understand what you are claiming but I can't see how that is true. Are you under sanction restrictions or is this a general attitude about contributing to Wikipedia? Is that really fair? "Comments in the AFD does not prevent others from commenting or voting" Sometimes, just the rapid replying can cause edit conflicts and could dissuade input from just not wanting to be a part of what may look like an argument and then get caught up in disruptive behavior by replying.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If I try to fix the problems at alt-left by reverting I will get blocked or banned. Policy violations are a "content dispute". Edit warring gets editors into problems even if they are right. QuackGuru (talk) 04:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Punitive punishment or not I really hope that Greg realizes that he is ticking other editors off. We get your point, you don't have to repeat the same arguments over aND over and over again ad nauseum... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, despite the fact that I do not often agree with this editor's interpretations, and despite the fact that I do find their bludgeoning to be quite annoying. I would encourage them to perhaps consolidate any rebuttals into single postings in discussions rather than responding separately to each and every argument that they disapprove of. Admins do read the comments when closing discussions, especially difficult ones, and it is in most cases not necessary (and quite annoying) to deal with the tactics that this user often employs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankiveil (talk • contribs)
    Not sure about others but I know I would be willing to change to oppose if the editor agreed to that much.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not entirely sure I would say the essay was the main argument. The reporting editor stated that it was "particularly his WP:UNCIVIL edits and habit for WP:BLUDGEONing the process". While WP:BLUDGEON is an essay, WP:UNCIVIL is policy. The essay seems to refer to the editors "habit" that effects the process, so it appears to me the essay referred to something that was only a part of the issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The remedy proposed is limiting his participation to X number of comments. That's a response to "bludgeoning" not incivility. Nobody get X number of incivil comments. The inference is that multiple comments become incivil because it annoys people. But that definition is only in the essay. The essay is good for self-reflection but he cannot control how people feel about his comments. There's lots of buggery on Wikipedia but unless it rises to incivility, harassment or disruption, it's not a policy violation. There's no evidence that the AfD process has been harmed. No evidence that the outcome has been negatively affected. Some editors are annoyed which is why this discussion isn't about civility or disruption since annoyance at AfD wouldn't, by itself, be a policy violation. The sanction proposals would be quite different if this were about civility or disruption rather than bludgeoning. --DHeyward (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLUDGEON is simply pointing out and defining a particular kind of WP:Disruptive editing, just as WP:Tendentious editing does, and WP:Disruptive editing is a behavioral guideline which admins quite frequently use as a blocking rationale, so I see no particular problem with WP:BLUDGEON being cited here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Unfortunately there are AfDs in which multiple responses are necessary due to one or more of the participating editors deliberately misrepresenting or ignoring policy due to personal preferences. This can result in situations where only one editor has the time or patience to respond to such comments and their comments can quickly balloon into what appears to be bludgeoning, but in reality is a justified rebuttal of questionable arguments or refusal to respond to points raised. In my experience, the topic area that E.M.Gregory edits in (Israel-Palestine) is more likely than most to have dubious arguments made in AfDs, often en masse by editors with the same POV, so it's not a surprise that they have participated in several AfDs where they have made numerous comments. Number 57 10:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I think the work of EMG in the AFD area is helpful and not disrupting. His answer usually directed to certain user comment. If someone don't want to read it they can just skip it.--Shrike (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • To my utter unsurprise, this has turned into a political discussion, where people are claiming that the "opponents" of EMG are trying to get him because of politics and not behaviour. If ANI is to disallow complaints brought by "opponents", perhaps one should shut down ANI altogether, because that's the way most disputes start. You know, people have to actually disagree about something. Let's dispense with irrelevancies, and focus on the absolutely undisputed facts about bludgeoning.

      Let's look at this ongoing AfD about "alt-left". EMG has made 33 comments on the AfD; nobody else is even close. He has made the same point about SIGCOV 5 times, about WORDISSUBJECT 6 times, and has made "note" comments 7 times. This, this, this, this and this is repeated badgering of "delete" !votes. The last one even acknowledges that EMG is repeating their previous points.

      Perhaps someone can tell me how one can have a sensible discussion in an AfD if everyone (or even a significant number) in the AfD behaved this way. What is so important in EMG's points which can't be made just once or twice? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    See, I don't see the problem with this. The reason is - and I know this is hard to believe - not all !voters read through all the previous arguments. So I can understand that he is replying with the same arguments to repeated !votes. StAnselm (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If everyone at an AfD replied to every comment they disagree with, it would mean total chaos. But this total chaos is what you are supporting. Or is it just EMG who should have such a privilege? Zerotalk 10:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the chaos comes from people !voting without reading the discussion, or sometimes even the policies they cite. I think that might have been the case with the WP:NEO arguments in that particular discussion. No-one should !vote in an AfD if they don't want their !vote scrutinised. StAnselm (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your response but it has no relation to EMG's behavior. What he responds to endlessly is opinion opposed to his own; that is the only visible criterion. Zerotalk 03:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Nothing I can add to what's already been said by those opposing this proposal.SMarshall and DHeyward make particularly convincing arguments. User:Joefromrandb
    • Oppose - E.M Gregory does occassionally get carried away, but, his comments at AfD are generally helpful not disruptive. If you don't like his comments, skip over them. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I don't see a major user behavior issue here to warrant any kind of sanction whatsoever. Coretheapple (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose EMG may be passionate but he is not being disruptive. He has said he will try to keep his AFD comments "strictly on point" in future and I am sure there will be no shortage of editors willing to make sure he keeps his word. WP:BLUDGEON is just an essay and should not be used as a basis for a community sanction – that sets a bad precedent. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question I have no opinion concerning the appropriate manner for dealing with Gregory's behavior, but are the editors who say they see nothing wrong with his behavior honestly saying it's okay for one party to contribute 35% or 40% of the text in a so-called community discussion, to rebut every single opposing comment? You don't see anything wrong with that? Really? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in AfDs. These are not widespread "community" discussions. They are usually about four of five people on average. Some get no comments and thus have to keep being reposted. If this were a wikipolicy discussion that had 500 participants and one person contributed 30% of the text, yes, THAT would be an issue. —МандичкаYO 😜 02:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikimandia: Really? Ok, take this AfD, which is definitely not a discussion between 4 and 5 people: about 35 people took part. EMG made 38 comments in the AfD. I did a rough text count. There are about 10,000 words on the page. About 25% of them were by one person: EMG. Now, consider a situation in which if even 10 people in the discussion wrote as much as EMG did. The discussion would be longer than Animal Farm which is about 30,000 words long. Does anyone think that this is an acceptable outcome? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Too many comments on an AfD should not be among the top 1,000 areas of concern on Wikipedia. This is the stupidest ANI I have ever been involved in. I could not care less how long an AfD is or who created what percentage of the text. As long as the replies are civil and on topic, and not are not created by socks, who the hell cares? And I notice that whenever EM Gregory replies, he is not even pinging people most of the time. So it's not like they are constantly being alerted to a new reply and being drawn back to the conversation. —МандичкаYO 😜 09:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that excessive commenting on AfDs, as defined by an essay, is not an appropriate reason to carry out a community sanction. Excessive commenting is not optimal, but that alone is just not sufficient, when not combined with offenses that actually violate a policy. Coretheapple (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I've always thought E.M. Gregory a valuable asset at AfD, which is a thankless and difficult area to work on and requires people like E.M. who are thickskinned and willing to engage to further explanations. I don't see how being longwinded is something that needs to be sanctioned. AfD discussions are not political debates where everybody gets exactly the same time to make their point. In my opinion, E.M. goes above and beyond at AfDs and there have been a couple of times where he went out and found good sources that saved articles from being deleted. Like other people have said above, people do not need to read every reply.... tl;dr can come in handy. —МандичкаYO 😜 02:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - Wikimandia you may not have an issue with Gregory excessively expressing his opinion to every single voter that opposes him but do you have an issue with him accusing editors of having a prejudice against Israeli victims? In some of the AfDs about Israel-based incidents he uses that as a way to manipulate the discussion and personally attack anyone who votes delete. When pressed to provide diffs to prove the existence of such a bias, he failed to do so and refused to redact his statements. Is there no issue with that as well?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh come on. If he actually committed a personal attack, then THAT should have been reported and dealt with on the spot, especially if there were repeated personal attacks. What you described does not sound like a personal attack but a weak argument if he could not back it up. So no, I don't care. And there are plenty of people topic banned from Israel-discussions - if he were actually a disturbance on that topic than that would be the discussion here but it's not. And your reply here to me is exactly what you are accusing E.M. of doing! E.M. is a huge asset to AfD which desperately needs good editors. —МандичкаYO 😜 03:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack and character assassination

    Dear administrators, I would like you to block Volunteer Marek for character assassination and personal attack. As you can see here, he is using a personal attack to argue against one of my suggestions (I started a poll and discussion on including a list of the sources used in the memo). It was a suggestion, nothing more. Of course you can have a different opinion, but you should state it with arguments and not with cyber bullying. He indicates I am a "they" and that I am part of the alt-right movement - so basically claiming my suggestion shouldn't be considered because I have the wrong ideology. Furthermore I must say that I do NOT identify with the alt-right movement, I see myself as a left-wing with special interest in equal rights for both genders (feminist and masculinist). And you can clearly see that I am NOT part of the alt-right movement: I have created the article called Gay concentration camps in Chechnya and write about feminist, LGBT and masculinist issues. Please block him for this inappropriate attack on my person (temporarily) and please delete the character assassination permanently. I am not the first he did this to, as you can see here: "Please abstain from using terms as "sketchy-ass accounts", "starting up shit", "garbage" anywhere in WP. It is against the Wiki spirit. (OTOH, granted, we are all sometimes guilty of similar transgressions, see e.g. my Block log.) [[User:Zezen|Zezen]] ([[User talk:Zezen|talk]]) 04:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)". Here another user who claims to be attacked personally.[reply]

    PA "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream."--Rævhuld (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If an accurate description of your editing practices comes across as character assassination, you have only yourself to blame. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz You are not even an administrator, so why are you writing here? Indicating that I am part of the alt-right movement is not really an accurate description. A proper description of what I am writing about is: gender issues, LGBT content and political incidents.--Rævhuld (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Because anyone is allowed to comment here, not just admins. And when placing a comment here, be advised that not only the person you are requesting to be looked at behavior is analyzed, but yours as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rævhuld: Second HW's comment. You should read WP:NPA is some detail, and I particularly draw your attention to 'Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack.' Whilst you may have provided a degree of justification, it is weak enough to suggest that little or no effort had been put into reading the actual policy and seeing if VM's remarks correlated. There will be no blocks (well, not of VM, anyway), and no deletions. Further investigation reminds me why your username is familiar. Raevhuld, your userpage is chock-full of complaints, criticisms and pieces of worthy advice, although of course they are not there now due to your fondness of the {{archive now}} template. — fortunavelut luna 12:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: You should read WP:NPA is some detail, and I particularly draw your attention to 'Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack.' Whilst you may have provided a degree of justification, it is weak enough to suggest that little or no effort had been put into reading the actual policy. My userpage is not chock-full of complaints and I have never been blocked.--Rævhuld (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely. The reason your userpage is not chock-full now is because you immediately archive them. So, more accurately, "your 'Archive 1' is chock-full of complaints, criticisms and pieces of worthy advice" which you seem to have delighted in not taking. And, please, it is unnecessary to quote chunks of people's posts back like that, if all you mean to do is ping them. — fortunavelut luna 13:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, the archive is more balanced. Even if you take out the automated notifications. His *recent* contributions are certainly more problematic, but given anything related to the alt-right at the moment is causing all sorts of tiresome arguments. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, but which recent edits are problematic? The most "problematic" edits I did was criticizing genital mutilation using peer-reviewed articles and trying to change the article homophobia into gaycism. Both are very left-wing posts.--Rævhuld (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am archiving everything that is older than a week. I like to have a clean talk page with only the recent talk page discussions. And I have linked to the archive page at the very top very clearly with a huge symbol. So what is the problem? You make it sound like I am hiding something. If I would hide something, why not just delete all comments I dislike, just as other users do? I mean, Volunteer Marek's talk page is totally clean, and if you read his log, you can see, he has been deleting a lot of things he disliked. Not to mention that he hasn't linked to an archive (does he have any?)--Rævhuld (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is required to keep archives of their talk pages (it helps), and implicitly, their talk page history serves as an article; removing talk page messages is completely fine with the understanding that the editor thus has acknowledged the talk page message was given to them (eg [102] this means that we will assume VM is aware of this discussion because VM wiped your courtesy message). --MASEM (t) 13:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But it is totally ok to criticize me for archiving my page?--Rævhuld (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, and no-one did :) I did, however, comment upon the large quantity of negative feedback, and was forced to reiterate the archiving purely because you (somewhat disingenuously!) claimed to have a clean talk page. The only point I was making was, of course you have- because the contents is not there anymore. Just FYI. — fortunavelut luna 13:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    First, you need to provide diffs, not just a link. I looked at that section and can't see anything like you suggest. As others have said, without clear diffs, it's impossible to tell and could be treated as a personal attack against VM.
    However, in the broader sense, calling out a specific editor as alt-right or any other type of ideological position left or right (when said editor hasn't clearly stated that) as a means to dismiss their contributions or suggestions is a PA "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.". I'd also consider in the current climate that specifically calling out someone alt-right falls under "Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons. (See also Godwin's law.)"). If these are the case, that's commenting on the contributor, not the contributions, and that's not appropriate at all. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You can see a diff here. Kind regards.--Rævhuld (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @Masem: It was this post, which Raevhuld now keeps removing from the talk page. as you can see, it never accuses them of having any political preferences, merely that their editing suggests a particular interest in some subjects over and above others. Playing tha ball rather than the man, as it were. — fortunavelut luna 13:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Because indicating that I am part of the alt-right movement isn't attacking the man, but playing the ball. For sure. Why couldn't he just argue against my suggestion without attacking me personal? And how are my edits alt-right? I am writing about gender equality and LGBT and terrorist attacks. How is that alt-right!? And why do you need to interpret my edits ideological, instead of just criticizing my edits? You are just trying to attack me very broadly and vage instead of actual criticizing my suggestion.--Rævhuld (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying you "immediately started editing articles related to alt-right, "man's rights" (sic) and terrorist attacks" is saying nothing more than- that you immediately started editing XYZ, etc. No personal attack, and saying so does not make it so. Why don't you close this thread now? I think we've talked it through enough, haven't we? — fortunavelut luna 13:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But it isn't true. The only articles related to alt-right was those about terrorism - which I actually took a very protective status towards Muslims on. What about the many other articles I wrote about women's, men's and LGBT issues? And how is indicating that I am part of the alt-right movement actually an argument against my suggestion? I am NOT part of the alt-right movement, but your way to argue sounds very alt-right to me.--Rævhuld (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not attempt to WP:GAME WP:NPA, thank you. — fortunavelut luna 13:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree it falls off the bright line of an NPA (and thus inactionable). I have some other concerns but don't immediatel have time to write out at the moment. --MASEM (t) 13:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Couple of the comments I wanted to make earlier :
    • I would think this article could be considered under the GG 500/30 sanctions if an admin felt it that way. It's an intersection of tech and gender related issues, which I think could broadly fit under GG DS.
    • I do think we need to balance the accusations of sock puppetry against legitimate new(ish) editors here. GG was one thing: it wasn't as mainstream, so the flood of new editors there pushing for the alternate views were likely from niche forums (4chan, reddit). The Google Memo, on the other hand, is clearly mainstream, and while I am sure that the same niche forums brigading here, from the broader public response to the Google Memo, there are definitely large numbers of people that agree/support its views, despite the slighter majority that have denounced it (eg the broader picture given in the RSes). To that end, as an open wiki, I can see a valid reason for people to come here and question about any POV issues they may see in the WP article on the topic, in contrast to the GG space. I think editors needs to be keeping a more open mind here and not presume every visitor to that page that is new and/or apparently a sleeper is trying to maliciously affect the article, and some of the behavior from VM and others presuming any editor asking about contrary views being an SPA or the like is not appropriate. Inactionable at this point but the start of the same trend that GG was on.
    That said, some of the follow up comments here from Rævhuld are a bit concerning, and certainly some of VM's observations aren't out of line. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also been subject to Volunteer Marek personally attacking me.
    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber
    And great! Another sketchy brand new account - just like A1Qicks, just like Raevehuld, just like Ari1891adler, just like several others. You guys are burning through your sleeper accounts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC) 1
    They're voting because they're confusing Wikipedia with whatever alt-right GamerGate subreddit they came from. The first two are newly created sketchy SPA accounts. The third one... I guess tha... never mind, just click "edit count" and then take a look at their contributions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC) 2
    Really? You sure it's not the sudden appearance of all these sketchy-ass accounts with less than 100 edits starting up shit on the article and brigading the talk page? Oh wait...! Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC) 3
    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Samsara#Google_memo_article_protection
    I wasn't talking to you brand-new-single-purpose-account-with-six-edits-created-just-to-push-POV-on-articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC) 4

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyakakushi46 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Volunteer Marek Continues:
    *Comment Note that both User:A1Qicks and User:Keyakakushi46 are single purpose accounts with fewer than 50 edits. The latter appears to have been created solely to brigade this vote and talk page, the former looks like a straight up sleeper account.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If participating in your first page is suddenly against the rules then how do you suppose you could ever get any new users? Of course it isn't but this rule seems to be specifically interpreted in such way just to discredit me. These comments Volunteer Marek makes do not further the discussion and are clear personal attacks.
    More from Marek:
    A brand new single purpose account knows how to throw WP:ASPERSIONS around. Right...... Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
    This is getting ridiculous. Could an admin tell him to cease this? It's is against WP:NPA and WP:CIV is borderline harassment at this point. I've asked him to stop everal times now. Keyakakushi46 (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And so the pile-on begins... I took a look at the discussion the most recent VM detractor linked to, and while it's arguable that VM is a little too free with the accusations, what's not really arguable is that the accusations are spot-on; This is a highly suspicious account with a dubious ability to improve the project. There's also something to be said for giving a little leeway to an experienced editor who is responding to constant accusations of hypocrisy, POV pushing and lying by an account with fewer edits than I have pounds in my trousers (Relax: I'm taking about my hammer). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPants at work: I think Rævhuld was confused about who you replied to since you didn't indent your comment at a ll so it looks like it is directed at him. Keyakakushi46 (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Captain Obvious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Spot on? So indicating that a person like me, who is a LGBT supporter and writing for women's, men's and homosexuals rights part is part ofthe alt-right is spot on? No, that is just bullshit. Especially if you take into account how many alt-right trolls I had to deal with here on Wikipedia. --Rævhuld (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read my comments or just fly off the handle as soon as you realized I was defending VM? I was obviously responding to the comment above mine. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I also wonder if this is related to a now deleted SPI that was raised recently regarding VM. Wondering if we have a sock farm on our hands in a different way. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at my account, you can see, that your fantasy is far away from reality.--Rævhuld (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That I suggested to add Hjernevask to "See also"? Or that I politely pointed out, that VM seems to have a vendetta against my person? He claimed that my suggestion was "disruptive"--Rævhuld (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone please tell Raevhuld to stop messing around with my comments on the talk page? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone please tell Volunteer Marek that saying things like "don't be ridiculous" or using the term "stupid" all the time is offensive and users who are attacked have the right to remove it?--Rævhuld (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is clearly an issue with sleeper accounts, clearly SPA canvassed from off-site etc alt-right activists showing up at the moment. No comment if VM is justified in this particular case, but as a general theme its causing a number of issues across various articles. The POV push to remove describing Alt-right figures as 'alt-right' because they are only now realizing that to large portions of the public 'alt-right' means 'white nationalist/supremacist/racist/misogynist/homophobic' etc is hitting a lot of biographies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As the article founder of the Gay concentration camps in Chechnya article, I am clearly not alt-right. All my contributions have to all time been very left-wing - I stand up for LGBT and equal rights. And when I write about terrorism, I am actually not attacking Muslims, but rather the opposite:protecting them. Non the less, attacking me is neither all right nor an argument in this debate. If you think one of my contributions are wrong, you are welcome to debate it on my discussion page or pinging me on the discussion page of the article. As long as you don't call me names or claim that I would be part of the alt-right movement.--Rævhuld (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Only in death: The concern with our usage of "alt-right" is that we use the most mild definitions (e.g. opposition to political correctness) when applying the label, but the most severe definition in the article ("reject mainstream conservatism in favor of white nationalism"). The majority of subjects we describe as alt-right are not described in RS as supporting white nationalism. This is a legitimate and serious BLP problem. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That however is not an issue of our making. If reliable sources describe someone as alt-right, that is not a BLP violation to describe them as such (depending on circumstances either attributed or LABEL). That the alt-right do not want to be lumped in with white nationalists is a problem of their own making by embracing a political ideology that has a wide array of negative associations. There is a relevant discussion at Milo Yiannopoulos talkpage regarding 'Alt-lite'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem of internal inconsistency is entirely of our making. Policy allows discretion. When that discretion is pushed to one end in our description of the ideology and the other in our description of individuals, a solution within policy exists and it becomes our responsibility to solve it.
    There is another relevant discussion at the NPOV noticeboard (link). James J. Lambden (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Trolling. Please read the article. I removed personal attacks, or do you really think it is all right to call people stupid or ridiculous?--Rævhuld (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you make a stupid argument, VM is under no requirement not to point this out. The fact that you insist upon reading "this is a stupid comment" as "you are stupid" does you no favors. It should be obvious to anyone that smart people can make stupid comments. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling people alt-right, even though they obviously are left-wing, and stating that an argument is "stupid" or "ridiculous" without trying to disprove it is clearly a personal attack and disruptive behaviour and against WP:TONE.--Rævhuld (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    They could have meant alt-left and got the terms confused in regards to someone who is left-wing. Calling an argument stupid or ridiculous without trying to disprove it is not a personal attack unless it is directed at someone, whether that be you or another edit. I agree that is however disruptive and not constructive. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Raevhuld is upset but should not be editing others' comments.
    VM is disrupting the talk page with personal comments: (personal), (personal), (personal), (personal), (personal), (personal), (personal), (personal), (personal), (personal), (personal), (personal)
    Raevhuld should be reminded not to edit others' comments.
    VM should be reminded that article talk pages are only for discussing article improvement. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Raevhuld should also be reminded, in the bluntest clearest possible way, to desist from behaviour that could be easily perceived as trolling. GoldenRing pointed this out to them, but this has not seemed to deter them from continuing in exactly the same manner. — fortunavelut luna 17:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He wrote his opinion and I asked him into it. How disruptive ... and yes, I wrote on your talk page, because you called me a "troll" with no actual evidence for it. I called you out on it, saying that you could just write on my talk page if you think I am doing something wrong. Oh no, how disruptive. It seems like you are very disruptive yourself.--Rævhuld (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. But if we focus exclusively on the actions of upset editor and ignore the actions that cause them upset we pratically guarantee a continuous stream of upset editors. That is no way to minimize disruption. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Really, I do not think that being 'upset' is much of a justification, since the most disruptive behaviour they have demonstrated actuallyonly began after this ANI thread turned in way the OP did not want! — fortunavelut luna 17:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you get concrete on that? Which disruptive behaviour did I do? Calling out on bullies isn't disruptive. A guy bullying people for being new or just in general writing mean things to people instead of staying cool and focused, that is disruptive behaviour. Meanwhile you seem all too willing to ignore this particular user and all too willing to attack me.--Rævhuld (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not say it was justified. I said it was an all-too-common reaction. When the all-too-common reaction to a policy violation (WP:NPA) creates disruption, focusing exclusively on the consequences and ignoring the cause guarantees future problems. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    James, everyone here knows you hate VM. You're not going to get support for this. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me the dislike goes both ways. On my talk page at least, James J. Lambden appeared to be the milder mannered of the two. Samsara 12:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Raevhuld

    Rævhuld was indefinitely blocked by @RickinBaltimore: on August 19th [110]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I have blocked Raevhuld for 48 hours, essentially to stop the stream of time-wasting templates. User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, you were so very right about templates and I apologise for responding to your wisdom with low wit. I propose that this user be blocked indefinitely, with an unblock when they can convince myself or any other uninvolved admin that they can edit collaboratively. GoldenRing (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    And here's another ANI-report about Rævhuld (not by me, though) that was never acted on. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I tuned off to this editor as soon as I read this comment awhile ago about Germans -- and we all know what this was referring to. He occasionally makes constructive edits but I do not believe they counteract such odd behavior.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I was expecting this a little sooner, as I have been keeping an eye on him since long. Few diffs concerning the accused can be found on Mz7's talkpage, a link to the conversation with Mz7 can be found here: User talk:NeilN#My old discussion_with_Mz7. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - the comment editing is clearly disruptive in a bannable way. I would rather support a 2 week ban, but see no reason to believe the editor is willing to be cooperative. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Per other editors. Stikkyy t/c 05:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (somewhat obviously perhaps); but I'd like to emphasise that I actually think GoldenRing was restrained in their response, as, going by Raevhuld's response, they still don't understand the issues. — fortunavelut luna 06:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the indefinite block proposed in this section. Thanks, GoldenRing, for the initial action and for bringing it back here for further consideration. I think your proposed action is necessary, given the history. -- Begoon 06:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have responded to his unblock request, declining it, and have extended the block to an indefinite one. Their edit history shows to me that there is a history of harassment with them, however it's coming FROM them, not towards them. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, what did the editor do which was so egregious that it merited an indef block, especially with zero entries in their block log prior to this incident? If the editor has simply lost it in the reaction to this affair, perhaps one can keep the length to one week or something. But indef seems extremely harsh. Before implementing an indef block, other remedies like topic bans and IBANs ought to be considered. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Did you read what was linked in the first 3 support !votes and look at the user's entire editing history and talk page/archives? My !vote certainly wasn't about the editor "simply los[ing] it in the reaction to this affair", and I'm certain that RickinBaltimore's action was not either. The editor has been consistently disruptive, from their early edits right up until this point in time. An indefinite block can be appealed, and if they can convince an admin they understand the issues and will not repeat them it can be lifted. A fixed time ban which simply expires does not provide this step, which is just as likely to be useful for the editor as for the community, in the long term. -- Begoon 02:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support temporary block, strong oppose for indef block - Indef block at this stage is way too harsh in my opinion. If he simply lost his cool, give him a 3-4 week or so block and if he does this again, then indef him. Jdcomix (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Indef block due to which contributions?

    I would like to learn more about the contributions that led to this indef block. RickinBaltimore? Samsara 11:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Samsara, be happy to chime in. As stated earlier, there have been concerns regarding this editor's behavior going back about six months. (see here: [111] and here: [112]). Additionally, there was this comment that TGS mentioned prior: [113] that was a bit conerning to say the least, in essence hinting that the admins on the German Wikipedia were Nazis. They have been disruptive over all, and definitely not anywhere near a net positive for the project. Other concerns were raised about the editor in May as well with relation to their editing. (See here: [114]). It's my opinion, and of other editors, that they aren't here to build an encyclopedia based on this on going behavior.
    I will say however, that of course I'm transparent when it comes to my work, and if it's deemed the block is in the end too harsh by the community as a whole, I'll scale it back of course, however I don't think that's in the best interests of Wikipedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The standard offer is always a choice as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And that I wouldn't be opposed to of course. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Knowledgekid87: Why escalate from GoldenRing's originally proposed block condition of "unblock when they can convince myself or any other uninvolved admin that they can edit collaboratively" to "standard offer"? Samsara 18:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, they're pretty much the same thing, except the standard offer outlines it better. You can still send an unblock request a day after being given the standard offer, and if that unblock request convinces the admin who takes it... Voila. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) The user's unblock request was further proof that they failed to realize their problems. They only convinced others to believe the temp block was not enough.

    What was the reason why I was blocked? I don't know. I just reported Volunteer Marek, who personally attacked me and other users - like instead of coming with arguments, he assumed the ideology of left-wing me and wrote "ridiculous" or "stupid" under comments. Furthermore he attacked users for being new. But instead of actually blocking bullies, Wikipedia just blocks people being bullied. Without even giving an actual reasoning. Great. Rævhuld (talk) 08:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

    — nihlus kryik  (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The standard offer was proposed after the unblock request was denied, so without further actions from the user. The standard offer includes a six month waiting period that was not part of the originally proposed block conditions. Samsara 19:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As the essay itself states, standard offer is just a suggestion, there's no requirement to follow it. ansh666 19:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass deletions and edit warring across celebrity articles by Hillbillyholiday

    Noted issues

    There are some recent mass deletions that I view as disruptive. As seen in the edit histories of the Jennifer Lawrence, Amanda Bynes, Megan Fox, Shia LaBeouf, Kanye West and Britney Spears articles, Hillbillyholiday has been mass deleting a lot of valid content from celebrity articles and edit warring over the matter with a number of editors; links are here, here, here, here, here and here. I addressed Hillbillyholiday about it on their talk page, stating, "Some of the content should perhaps be cut, but you should give editors a chance to assess these matters, especially when it's WP:GAs or WP:FAs involved, and especially when it's just an issue of trimming things and/or rewording things. Quotes can be summarized, for example. I am well aware that you cut things that you consider trivial or fluff, but Wikipedia editing is not supposed to be based on WP:IDON'TLIKEIT." Hillbillyholiday's response was that he or she is willing to listen, but that the content is "mountains of unimportant, irrelevant garbage" that "have reintroduced clear BLP violations and highly questionable sources" and that "The trouble is, most decent folk here are too scared of making drastic but necessary cuts, and too many articles are guarded by their creators, who are loathe to see anything go, often in the mistaken belief that because there is a star on the page it must be fine. Some of these bios got their 'GA' status nearly a decade ago and haven't been reassesed since. The whole concept of FA/GA is basically meaningless, and it's rather embarrassing having to use the terms in an argument, but if these articles are the best Wikipedia has to offer, or are seen as models for other bios, then we should all be ashamed."

    I stated that if Hillbillyholiday is willing to discuss, he or she would not be mass deleting non-BLP violating content without first addressing the matter on article talk pages and discussing it. He or she would not be edit warring all over the place. I also asked Hillbillyholiday what WP:BLP violations are the issue? I pointed to this Britney Spears deletion, for example, and commented: "In that edit summary, you stated that there is a WP:BLP violation. If so, then you should delete the WP:BLP violation, not delete chunks and chunks of material because you don't like it. We lose a lot of important material with these huge chunks you make to these articles. Overquoting is easily remedied." I also noted that I get Hillbillyholiday's point about WP:GAs and WP:FAs, but "WP:OWN is clear about treading carefully on WP:FA articles. In a lot of these cases, it doesn't matter that the article reached WP:FA years ago. There is still the fact that a lot of care went into these articles, including a lot of discussion about how they should be formatted."

    When there is back and forth edit warring, and content deletion without giving editors a chance to justify their edits, and when some editors can barely catch their breath because they watch a number of these articles, I just don't see how these mass deletions are helpful (unless cutting WP:BLP violations and/or unencyclopedic content). Pinging the following involved editors: SNUGGUMS, FrB.TG, Krimuk2.0, Mattbuck, Sundayclose, RektGoldfish and FlightTime. I'm sure there are more editors, but I haven't yet looked at all the other recent deletions Hillbillyholiday has made and whether there have been objections and edit warring regarding them. Also, Hillbillyholiday already knew that I would be starting this thread. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I was only involved with the Jennifer Lawrence page. Regardless of overall article quality, Flyer is right that mass deletions (except for things like blatant BLP violations) should at least be discussed beforehand. Edit warring only makes things worse. I thought about bringing Hillbilly to WP:AN3 for it, but wasn't sure at the time if the user had reverted enough to warrant a block. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for this thread. It's particularly outrageous when such mass deletion is done for high-quality FA-class articles, and in the case of Lawrence, when it was featured on the bloody main page! On top of that, taking a snarky dig at my support for feminism is outrageous. I understand if this editor has issues with the sexualisation of women in mainstream media, but does Hillbilly really think that attacking well-meaning editors will help solve the issue? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have nothing new to add here, my comments can be seen at Hillbillyholiday's talk, I am here to support Flyer22 Reborn concerns and the starting of this thread. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I had problems with Hillbillyholiday on Amanda Bynes, where Hillbillyholiday removed the "Personal life" section almost in it's entirety (about one-third of the article). Hillbillyholiday's only explanation was in an edit summary: "way too much coverage of mental health issues, perhaps deserves reporting but briefly and in a sensitive manner with good sources". This subject's mental health issues have been in the forefront of her public life for the last five years; she has not worked as an actress for the last seven years. The content that Hillbillyholiday removed was sourced to NBC News, CBS News, and the L.A. Times, among others. Hillbillyholiday has not made any attempt at discussion. Hillbillyholiday has deleted the same content four times in the last three days, including the most recent revert of RektGoldfish. Hillbillyholiday seems to have ownership issues with a number of articles; when told that there might be a discussion here, Hillbillyholiday's response was "I doubt I'll be participating". Sundayclose (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, per that response, I don't think Hillbillyholiday is taking the problems others have expressed with his or her mass deletions seriously. Like I recently stated, "That supposed lack of concern, as though it's fine and dandy to keep doing this, is one of the problems. [...] Hillbillyholiday's reasons are not always very good. Hillbillyholiday often removes stuff on a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT basis, which is not how we should edit. See this dispute at Talk:Jennifer Lawrence? I agree with those who challenged Hillbillyholiday. Some stuff that Hillbillyholiday removes is very relevant and should be retained or simply trimmed or reworded, not deleted altogether. Some may not like that Jennifer Lawrence is a sex symbol, but it is a part of her notability and public image. For some removals across these articles, I don't think that Hillbillyholiday is completely in the wrong, but I do think that he or she is often going about them in the wrong way. When multiple editors disagree and are reverting you, for example, you should not keep removing the content unless there is some WP:BLP violation or some other serious issue. Edit warring is disruptive, and edit warring against multiple editors usually results in that lone editor getting blocked; so, if the editor does have a valid case for the deletions, then nothing is resolved except for the disruption.'" Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    SNUGGUMS, FrB.TG, Krimuk2.0, Mattbuck, Sundayclose, RektGoldfish and FlightTime, it's likely that the best thing to be done in this case is report Hillbillyholiday's edit warring at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard. As seen with this edit, Hillbillyholiday has reverted yet again, this time at the Shia LaBeouf article, despite the section I started at the Shia LaBeouf talk page. Hillbillyholiday clearly thinks he (or she) can do what he (or she) wants in this case, as is clear by the editor still taking hatchet jobs to articles and not even bothering to comment here. Hillbillyholiday is clearly waiting for this WP:ANI thread to blow over. If none of you want to start the case at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard, I will. After that, you all can weigh in there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (It's he.) Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User has been reported at AN3. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: When someone's edit history comes up a sea of undiscussed massive deletions [115], including of cited information, and undiscussed (or snarkily and dismissively discussed) edit-wars to keep the material deleted, that's a problem. If it doesn't stop, I suggest a topic-ban on direct editing of BLPs (at least until the crusade dies down). Softlavender (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? You'd keep stuff like this? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a massive deletion. And we all know that the Daily Mail is a poor source for WP:BLPs; it's been discussed to death, after all, and we had a big RfC on it earlier this year. Hillbillyholiday started that RfC. The problem is the massive deletions of non BLP-violating material by Hillbillyholiday and edit warring over it. Hillbillyholiday has a very strict and over-the-top view on what BLP violations are, and it all started around the time a certain editor/administrator was recklessly removing content sourced to People magazine and similar and Hillbillyholiday was emboldened and jumped on the bandwagon. Hillbillyholiday was wrong then, and he (or she) is often wrong now. A lot of decent content is lost because of Hillbillyholiday's odd views of WP:BLP and also because Hillbillyholiday simply removes anything he or she does not like. And the editor is still edit warring. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what, I'm done with this editor, their constant "I know what's best" attitude and WP:OWN issues are too much. I suggest they replace the {{retired}} on their talk and take it to heart. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Flyer, you have said that it is fine to have a section on a BLP entitled "Mental health" which uses sources such as msn.com and usmagazine.com to provide facts about the subject's "depression", "paranoia", hospitalization, and diagnoses. (Talk:Kanye_West#Recent_deletions)

    You think saying someone had a "public meltdown" in Wikipedia's voice is acceptable. (WP:BLP/N#Britney Spears)

    Forgive me if I don't put much store by your comments when it comes to appropriate sourcing for BLPs. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure how anyone can evaluate the sourcing on these articles so fast. --Moxy (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hillbillyholiday, so you have finally graced us with your presence. Like I relayed before, get your story right when reporting on what I've stated. To repeat what I stated at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard: "As for the Kanye West matter, I clearly stated [...] The sources for the Mental health section of the West article are solid, except for one source. The sources are WP:BLP-compliant. So I am right about the sourcing. Whether or not the content should stay is another matter." I did not state that the section was fine. I stated that sources in that section are WP:BLP-compliant. I also stated that I had been concerned about the section before and had almost removed it. I also stated "we can ask about it at the WP:BLP noticeboard." If we are judging the section purely on sources, those sources, except for consequenceofsound.net, are fine. Here is a Billboard source from the section; it notes that West stated that he contemplated suicide. Not a WP:BLP violation. This The Los Angeles Times source states that West was persuaded by authorities to commit himself to a hospital. Not a WP:BLP violation. This Entertainment Tonight source states that West is formally undiagnosed. Not a WP:BLP violation. And this CNN source states that West was released from the hospital. Not a WP:BLP violation.
    And I've explained the Spears matter well enough.
    Stop trying to make it seem as though your massive deletions are normally removing egregious BLP violations and therefore you should not be sanctioned; that simply is not the case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said CNN, Billboard, et al. were unreliable or BLP violating -- stop putting words in my mouth. I simply asked whether msn.com and usmagazine.com were acceptable sources for a subject's mental health issues, and you said they were ok. You also reckon "meltdown" (source: MTV) is a suitable descriptor. If you can't see how these opinions are problematic, I think you may need a topic-ban from BLP-related articles. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And how exactly is MSN a BLP-violating source? Same goes for Us Weekly. Like I stated to you before, Us Weekly is the same category of sourcing as People magazine, which I remind you yet again was deemed to be generally fine for WP:BLPs. As I noted back then, that People RfC should not have focused solely on People since the disagreement was about People magazine and sources like it.
    And, as you have no doubt seen, EdJohnston has also stated that he does not consider the Spears matter to be a WP:BLP violation.
    The only topic ban here should be yours. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You state that you are done, but I guarantee that you are going to wait for this matter to cool down and then start up your disruptive deletions and edit warring again, which is why I think that EdJohnston or some other administrator should propose an immediate block if (rather when) you start back up again. The slap on the wrist is not enough. I've seen this type of disruption from a number of editors. They almost always start back up again after things have cooled down. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hillbillyholiday does and has done valuable work in refining and enforcing our most important rule. While I recognise that the intentions of Flyer22 Reborn are undoubtedly good, edits like this one and this one are problematic (note the edit summary on the latter). I caution this user that they are likely to be blocked if they attempt to edit-war material that they themselves acknowledge breaches BLP into articles. There are better ways to challenge a deletion that you disagree with. --John (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither this nor this are WP:BLP violations. In the latter case, the only supposed BLP violation that Hillbillyholiday noted is "public meltdown," but editors, including EdJohnston, disagree with Hillbillyholiday that use of "public meltdown" is a BLP violation in the case of the breakdown/meltdown that Spears acknowledges she had.
    So nice try when it comes to trying to point the finger in my direction. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Mmmm. So what did A lot of this is not WP:BLP violations in any way. Do stop mass deleting content, especially on WP:GAs or WP:FAs. mean then? I suggest you modify your own behaviour, or it'll get you blocked. I can't really make it any simpler than that. --John (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, so you interpret me stating "A lot of this is not WP:BLP violations in any way" as stating that there were some BLP violations in the content? I was not. I was giving Hillbillyholiday the benefit of the doubt even though I did not see any BLP violations. And, as we can see, the only "BLP violation" he cited is "public meltdown," which is something others do not agree is a BLP violation. And even if there had been a BLP violation, it does not justify his mass deletions at that article. That is why both FlightTime and Softlavender also reverted. It is why EdJohnston stated, "If it turns out that Hillbilyholiday engages in edit warring on other articles such as Shia LaBeouf, then someone could file a new AN3 report specifying that article. Massive content removal from BLP articles on the grounds of general article quality isn't supported by WP:3RRNO as an exception to our edit warring rules. Such removals need editor consensus."
    So your threat of blocking me is uncalled for. Not only that, it is in direct conflict with the WP:INVOLVED policy. Just like all those years ago with your silly threats about blocking me over use of People magazine, you are back to threatening me. I see that you haven't changed. And let's not pretend that you are talking about someone else blocking me; your tone, including in your edit summary, clearly shows that you intend to be the one doing the blocking. I suggest you modify your line of thinking, or otherwise be sanctioned for administrative abuse. Any block you throw on me would be undone in a matter of minutes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for explaining what your edit summary meant. As for the rest of it, you've been warned and should now either retire and reconsider or save it for the unblock request. Your choice. I won't reply to you again here. --John (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So not only do you not admit that you are wrong, you double down on your block threat? I repeat: A number of editors found you to be wrong all those years ago and noted that you are WP:INVOLVED when it comes to me. You were wrong all those years ago. And you are wrong now. You have not at all shown how Hillbillyholiday is in the right. You are simply here making baseless threats that are obviously unbecoming of an administrator, all because of your silly grudge and your skewed interpretation of what BLP violations are. You really think you are untouchable, don't you? You remember that NeilN was one of the main editors challenging you before, right? You do know that he is an administrator now, don't you? Do you think that he would not unblock me if you blocked me? Because I'm willing to bet that he would. I've been waiting for you to retire for years, but we can't all get our wish. Either way, block me and see what happens. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Flyer22, I am very surprised to hear this kind of taunting coming from you. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's understandable when dealing with taunting such as "I suggest you modify your own behaviour, or it'll get you blocked. I can't really make it any simpler than that." and "you've been warned and should now either retire and reconsider or save it for the unblock request. Your choice. I won't reply to you again here." Both of the comments make it seem like I was the one being wholly disruptive and that I am a detriment to BLP articles. John did all this years ago because I was using and defending People magazine. It took NeilN starting an RfC about People magazine to stop the block threats (John's misguided threats to block me) and John's mass deletions of material sourced to People magazine. And now he's portraying this matter as though Hillbillyholiday is in the right and that I'm halting Hillbillyholiday's good contributions, despite all evidence to the contrary, including what EdJohnston stated at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard. I think you've seen me be frustrated before; my above responses to John are tame in comparison to some things I've stated about him before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There has to be a middle way here. EdJohnston says the Britney Spears material isn't a BLP vio; I take them at their word. However, it is hard to deny that even the non-BLP violating material in these articles is just egregiously excessive, and even when not sourced to the Daily Mail or papers like that, it's gossip tabloids. No one, least of all me, wants to go through those articles and their endless chatter about boyfriends and girlfriends and whatnot, though I did remove the names and dates of birth of children in Megan Fox--even if verified, that kind of information is just totally unnecessary; "leave the children out of it" is a matter of convention, as far as I'm concerned. And while Hillbillyholiday may have been guilty of 3RR, we should note that in Amanda Bynes none of his reverters had a decent explanation--"read BRD" is not a decent explanation, it's just tag-teaming. I reverted the last editor, who also gave no explanation, and who seems to have no interest on Wikipedia besides that one single person (a lot of this stuff is just creepy, really).

      We should really look better at such content. "Not a BLP violation" does not mean that certain BLP info should be in our articles. "It's verified" (by People, US Weekly, etc.) doesn't mean it should be included. Even if HBH is incorrect in this or that article, he is not an idiot r a vandal and should be taken seriously. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Drmies, I agree that we should not be including any and everything. I certainly was not arguing that. I have made big cuts at celebrity articles over the years, but not in a way that anyone has deemed disruptive. And the cuts were never based on me simply not liking the content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As for Amanda Bynes, Sundayclose (above) did give a rationale for reverting Hillbillyholiday, before Hillbillyholiday had responded on the talk page at the WP:BLP noticeboard. I haven't been involved with the Amanda Bynes article, but I do think that the content should have been significantly trimmed instead of deleted completely. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tend to agree with drmies here, a lot of the stuff that goes into some of our pop culture articles is often entirely too much detail and reads like a gossip sheet rather than an encyclopedia. It appears that things have become a bit entrenched on both sides, but calling each other vandals isn't going to help matters. Try discussing the actual content and justifying why it needs to be included rather than being upset that another editor has removed it. The world will not end if something gossipy stays out of an article for a while ...Ealdgyth - Talk 12:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ealdgyth, thanks for weighing in. Discussion, or at least discussion first, is what I and others are asking of Hillbillyholiday. Look at the aforementioned Jennifer Lawrence discussion. Editors were trying to discuss/reason with Hillbillyholiday, but he kept reverting. And that article is FA, and it didn't become FA years ago; it became FA earlier this year. Experienced editors brought that article to FA by working together, and more care should be taken with FA articles. Like I stated at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard, Hillbillyholiday is only interested in discussing if his version of the article is in place, or if he intends to revert again anyway. It often takes Hillbillyholiday being reverted by multiple editors before Hillbillyholiday even decides to take the matter to the talk page. Although editors tried to reason with Hillbillyholiday at the Jennifer Lawrence talk page, it is like he was not truly listening and was bent on having things his way. See Krimuk2.0's account above; Krimuk2.0 was insulted by Hillbillyholiday in one instance. The content being cut at these article is not simply gossip; a lot of it is a part of what has made these celebrities notable or is a significant aspect of their notability or public image. One aspect of Lawrence's public image is the view that she is physically attractive. And Amanda Bynes is known more for legal troubles than acting these days. I am not opposing cutting gossip; I am opposing sweeping, drastic cuts, especially when they include material that should be retained, and edit warring to keep the cuts in place. I edit with editors who make significant cuts; SNUGGUMS is one, but SNUGGUMS is always pleasant to work with, even when we disagree. SNUGGUMS takes the time to listen. And, like I recently stated, is one the best editors we have keeping these celebrity articles in check. At John's suggestion and my support, the Britney Spears article is now undergoing a WP:GA reassessment started by SNUGGUMS. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Flyer22 Reborn, please forgive me for commenting. I already said that I wouldn't, as I have had no involvement in those particular articles. But can't we all now agree that the deleting and reverting behavior that you have raised here has now stopped? Or are you now seeking some kind of punitive action to be taken against Hillbillyholiday? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Martinevans123, I stated above (my "15:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)" post) and at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard that I think that Hillbillyholiday will resume this behavior. For years, I've seen editors do this -- stop the disruptive behavior and let the matter cool down and then resume afterward. I've seen Hillbillyholiday do this as well; he is no stranger to slow-burn edit wars. Hillbillyholiday has shown time and again that he believes that he is right and that everyone else is wrong and that he will continue to make sweeping deletions even at the objections of multiple editors, sometimes incorrectly citing that there is a WP:BLP violation. So I stand by my earlier statement that I think that an administrator should propose an immediate block if (rather when) Hillbillyholiday starts back up again. But I know that since he has stopped the disruption for now, it is likely that this thread will be closed with no action. I have no doubt that we will be back here again in the future, however. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you now seeking some kind of punitive, or "pre-emptive", action to be taken against Hillbillyholiday now? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't going to reply, but since FinalPoint1988 pinged me below, I'll go ahead and state that I feel that I've been clear on what I think should happen. Yes, I believe that Hillbillyholiday should receive a stern warning to not engage in this type of disruption again; this affected multiple articles, not just one. But, again, I am not expecting that any action will be taken since Hillbillyholiday has gone into temporary hiding. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So sad to see such overreactions between established/very valuable contributors such as Hillbillyholiday, Flyer22 Reborn, Martinevans123 and John; like Gareth Griffith-Jones said, such things can trigger the sudden absence of great editors like Hillbillyholiday (also an overreaction), In my personal POV, if some established editor removes some "doubtful material" in the future, (providing good reasons in the summary), it would be a good idea to take the matter to the talk page, before reverting him/her, I agree with Drmies, not all the sourced info should be included, there are tons and tons of fan sites and gossip magazines for such chattery...and of course, none of you is a vandal for reverting others..Take it easy...and happy to see Flyer, John and SNUGGUMS taking actions on the matter. FinalPoint1988 (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but I'm not quite sure how my input counts as "overreaction". I was just seeking some clarity. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And I certainly don't view my and others' views of Hillbillyholiday's disruption to be overreactions either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am seeing 1RRs (Hillbillyholiday removes 1 or more large segments, someone restores all or partial, Hillbillyholiday removes again, another restores, and that's it, no more reverts), so I'm not sure if this is necessarily edit warring. I think it is appropriate BOLD behavior on BLPs with questionable material, but not the type of BLP material that 3RR exemptions would apply to (that is: it is sourced, and not necessarily contentious, but is it really appropriate/necessary to include in a BLP?) I think Hillbillyholiday should be trouted to avoid the 1RR and take to talk page when things are reverted, or better, take to talk page after removing such large parts of the article, just to let other editors know their concerns beyond the scope of an edit summary message, but the removals all do appear to be within proper good faith of what BLP is meant to help protect. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The number of reverts by Hillbillyholiday at Britney Spears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Amanda Bynes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) show differently. And WP:Edit warring is not defined solely by WP:3RR anyway. And it has been applied to edit warring across multiple articles. As for things that should be retained, I stand by my "13:06/13:11, 21 August 2017" commentary above. And I see that editors are disagreeing at the WP:BLP noticeboard regarding the Amanda Bynes case. I am pleased that TonyBallioni took the time to analyze the matter and restore some of the material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Short break and back at it - FlightTime (open channel) 22:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The user has mass deleted sourced information on the page for Jeremy Meeks and due to multiple edits, it's not possible to revert back the information that's been deleted. AnonUser1 (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it's "possible to revert". One would simply edit and save the version prior to the consecutive edits, or use Twinkle's "revert to this version", with an edit summary. Simple. Of course, I'm not saying you should do that - you should talk about it first - I'm just saying that your implication that multiple, consecutive edits make reversion harder isn't really correct. You had 8 consecutive edits just prior to Hillbilly's 4, and there's nothing wrong with that at all. -- Begoon 11:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would strongly recommend anyone wishing to retain their editing privilege not to revert this series of edits. I'll go further; anyone who even thinks this was a loss to the article should not be anywhere near a BLP article. John (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @John: Regardless if you're correct or not it is very un-administrator like to make a blatant community threat such as this. Are you open to recall ? And before anyone goes off on me, I've been here almost 9 years and this is the first (and last, hopefully) time I've called anyone anything. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Community threat? This is me doing the job I was chosen to do! The tabloid trash that was removed from this article on a living person should never have been put there. Removing it was a good thing. Restoring it would be a bad thing, and knowingly restoring it would be a blockworthy act. If you genuinely don't know good from bad, or what BLP means, it's far better to stay completely away from biographies of living people. John (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I happen to think John is right here. And I'm pretty sure we can't say "regardless" like that? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hillbillyholiday is back to removing a lot of material that he does not like, such as at Rihanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but it can be argued that the material he removed at the Rihanna article needed a significant trim. The Jeremy Meeks stuff was sourced to a lot of tabloid sources -- sources that the Wikipedia community has repeatedly deemed unsuitable for BLPs. So Hillbillyholiday is making some good edits; I never disputed that. It's the sweeping/indiscriminate removals, edit warring and incorrect BLP justifications I have had (and still have) an issue with. As long as he is willing to discuss more and revert less (unless a serious BLP issue is occurring), I don't think that there will much of an issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that was "a lot of material that nobody likes very much"? It looks like you may soon be asking for this thread to be closed? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the Rihanna article, I can't judge the material that way since it was added there, presumably, by a number of editors and had been there for some time. So it seems to me that some people care(d) about the material. Maybe even a lot of people since the subject is Rihanna. When it's substantial material, even if about a lot of tattoos, I think it is often better to discuss the removal first. See again what SNUGGUMS stated above. In some cases, some features of a celebrity have received substantial media attention and are a part of that celebrity's public image. In the Rihanna case, I would not have added that much detail about her tattoos; I would have perhaps named a few, the ones which seem most relevant, judging by sources on the topic, and included a bit of author commentary on the matter and a bit of commentary from her, if available. I take more of an analytical and WP:Preserve approach, assessing whether or not the particular aspect is significant with regard to the subject or whether it is WP:Undue. Not just for celebrity articles, but for all types of articles.
    As for this thread, I obviously still think there are issues with Hillbillyholiday's editing; so I don't regret starting this thread. And I do think there will be problems with Hillbillyholiday's big deletions in the future. So I won't request that the thread be closed. Be patient. It will either be closed or be archived without being closed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you make some very cogent, reasonable and valid points there. I'm not sure Rihanna's tattoos are worth preserving in an encyclopedia but, hey, what do I know. I guess there's a place for most things. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems to me that Hillbillyholiday has a fundamental issue of not understanding WP:BLP guidelines and in, fact, not understanding basics of Wikipedia. Please see the complaint about BLP noticeboard on Amanda Bynes, in which Hillbillyholiday pastes the part he/she wants deleted (which was the entire personal life section) and includes its 24 sources, yet calls it, "A blow-by-blow and primary-sourced account of her troubles, with no perspective, no attempt to summarize or weave it into the story of her career. No decent secondary sources." However, there is not a single primary source included, so it appears he/she does not understand what that means. He/she says "No decent secondary sources" although the majority of the sources are from The Los Angeles Times, and others includes CBS News and NBC News. These are among our most reliable of reliable secondary sources. Additionally, Hillbillyholiday complains that there is "no perspective, no attempt to summarize or weave it into the story of her career" — it is NOT our place to "add perspective" or weave these events into the story of her career!!!! This is not what we do in Wikipedia and especially not for WP:BLP. I don't know if there is some kind of Wikipedia101 course Hillbillyholiday can take but I would suggest a topic ban because it appears to be some sort of crusade based on the edit warring and mass deletions without discussions. —МандичкаYO 😜 00:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikimandia (МандичкаYO), Hillbillyholiday did recently remove a lot of material that he did not feel like sorting out. As noted on that article's talk page, Tenebrae, TonyBallioni and I will be working on that matter, trying to save some material, per the WP:Preserve policy. Some of what Hillbillyholiday removed in this case were valid removals; so I didn't revert. I simply asked for outside help. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I was pinged: policy is that we get consensus for restoration of material that has been challenged even if it is verifiable, not vice versa (see WP:ONUS, part of WP:V, which is our most core content policy). In BLPs, I think this policy makes even more sense. The consensus at BLPN was that the removal of the content from Bynes was largely justified: we're working towards restoring some of it in line with the BLP policy, but even the small parts I restored were not universally uncontroversial. Re: the behavior as a whole, I agree that this seems like a trend of being BOLD without discussion. At the same time sometimes it is a lot easier towards working to restore from history, especially with BLPs. I'd encourage Hillbillyholiday to be more conservative with their removals, and if they feel the need to blank for BLP concerns to immediately open a talk page discussion or BLPN discussion to see what people can reach consensus to include. This seems to be the best way to manage the tension between ONUS and PRESERVE in these cases, especially when there are legitimate BLP concerns. I also don't see any need for sanctions at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously the articles can always be improved (ie add better sources, and cutting out stuff that as time has passed we can see it's not really of any real importance, etc), but Hillbillyholiday is removing huge chunks of articles because WP:IDONTLIKEIT and because he/she apparently has no understanding of what reliable sources are and wants it included "with perspective added." This is the behavior that needs to be addressed, otherwise this cycle will continue and we will be right back here again. Hillbillyholiday needs a tutorial in what reliable sources are and what the difference is between primary and secondary sources, and to understand that we are not here to "add perspective" on incidents that occurred and "weave them into stories." Bold edits made out of ignorance of Wikipedia rules are not helpful. It would be like if I went to an article on some physics theorem and removed six paragraphs because the way it was written made it too complicated and I had never heard of those journals cited, and then put the onus on other people to have to explain on the talk page why it belonged in the article. You think they would allow that? Of course not. And it shouldn't be allowed here either. —МандичкаYO 😜 01:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for commenting, TonyBallioni. And, again, thanks for helping. When it comes to preserving content via pulling material from the edit history, my concern, as was my concern with a blanking case I brought to WP:ANI last year, is that many editors do not check the edit history for material that has been removed. I might look on the first page for material that may have been removed, for example. But I usually don't look pages back unless I know that I'm looking for something. This has been an issue when it comes to preserving content, which is why editors advise others to preserve the material by posting it, or a link to it, on the talk page (except for any of the BLP violations, that is). But, really WP:Preserve states, "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As for WP:ONUS, there was recently a big debate about that. I stayed out of it. But I do not think WP:ONUS can support an editor going to an article and removing what they want and us not being able to revert until we make our case. Otherwise, we'd have a lot more articles in bad shape. I haven't seen WP:ONUS work that way. I have seen it work in the opposite direction -- an editor attempting to add content to an article and multiple editors disputing the content, and the onus being on that editor to justify inclusion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't realize Hillbillholiday's behavior was so egregious. He removed an entire, profusely cited Personal-life section at Tila Tequila with the outrageous edit summary "not worth sorting out". Just because one editor can't be bothered to "sort out" something doesn't mean he can unilaterally remove a huge, cited biographical section. If that editor doesn't want to "sort it out," no one requires him to. Others may choose to do so. If there are specific uncited personal-life claims, we remove them, obviously. But we do not summarily erase entire sections because we're too lazy to "sort it out" or to ask other editors for help. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources.

    I do generally look out for better sources when improving a section but the "Personal life" of Tila Tequila is of little to no importance. Any valuable information can be incorporated into an career section if needs be. Where were the required high-quality secondary sources? Answer: There were none. Or maybe you happen to agree with Wikimandia's frankly laughable and rather insulting comment that I need "a tutorial in what reliable sources are and what the difference is between primary and secondary sources"? --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps you can outline what your belief of a secondary source is? To some (me included), you have an odd focus on secondary sources. Review your commentary at the Jennifer Lawrence talk page and what others stated to you about secondary sources. If, for example, a celebrity's legal troubles are reported in high-quality news sources, why are you expecting the material to be covered in academic sources? Most of the book sources on celebrities are unauthorized biographies, tell-all books, or some other type of book source that is of relatively poor quality. For celebrities, the best sources are going to be media sources. So what type of secondary sources are you expecting? Even in the case of our political articles, most of the sources are going to be media sources because either the books haven't caught up and/or the editors have not thought to replace the media sources with book sources, or they don't see the need to replace them. You stated that you "do generally look out for better sources when improving a section," but your edit history generally does not reflect that. So your idea of a better source is one of the issues with your editing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User has picked up his edit warring behavior again. Is an administrator going to get involved in this continued behavior? He averted a block last time by taking a couple hour "wiki break," but returned just to continue his behavior. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, as I predicted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Go on then, I'll indulge you. I recently looked at Dane Bowers who was involved in an incident over the use of the word "pikey" (not his words, btw). And after a quick search I found this: Kalwant Bhopal; Martin Myers (2008). Insiders, Outsiders and Others: Gypsies and Identity. Univ of Hertfordshire Press. p. 207. ISBN 978-1-902806-71-6. A decent, academic publication that not only looks at the matter, but puts it in some kind of context!
    Your mischaracterization of my work (and canvassing and regular diversions into irrelevant ancient history) is becoming quite tiring. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a rare instance of an academic book covering such a matter about a celebrity. Go ahead and review again the book you attempted to provide as justification for your arguments at the Jennifer Lawrence talk page. I stand by my statement that "Most of the book sources on celebrities are unauthorized biographies, tell-all books, or some other type of book source that is of relatively poor quality." And, really, I should know since I actually look to build articles, rather than tear them down, and rely on academic sources for other types of articles (meaning that looking for such sources is not lost on me), and since I keep the WP:Preserve policy (yes, a policy, not simply a guideline) in mind. And either way, there is no guideline or policy that academic book sources are preferred for celebrity articles. You are going around chopping articles partly because of your idea of what subpar sources are and because you want these articles to be built to your "high-quality" standards. That is disruptive. As for your WP:Canvassing claims, pinging involved (or previously involved) editors is not a WP:Canvassing violation. And ancient history? Bringing up your past behavior and rationales from years ago (meaning how and where all of this started), or simply a few or several days ago, is relevant. Anyone interested in building a case against someone's behavior at WP:ANI knows that past behavior is context, if relevant. And, as is clear by your edit history, and others' testimonies above and elsewhere, I have not mischaracterized your behavior at all. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just another example of Hillbillyholiday not taking any of the concerns expressed by me and others seriously. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reviewed the edits at Michael Michael and Cristiano Ronaldo and I have no major concerns about HBH's editing, except that I wish they would consistently explain in article talk what they are doing and why. On the other hand, if you are still coming to terms with the ramifications of WP:BLP and WP:BLPSOURCES and you express this by reverting poorly-sourced material into an article about living person, you risk getting an extended period for self-study. Don't do it folks. --John (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @John: Some of us are more concerned about the blatant edit wars he is getting himself into. These are not BLP worthy reverts; these are content reverts as the majority of it is sourced. One can't just take a sledgehammer to an article, cite WP:BLPSOURCES and then move on without explaining what he's doing when there is a chorus of editors questioning him (and then reverting editors upwards of 5 times on an article). Other policies on the wiki exist for a reason and are still applicable. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:NOT3RR. --John (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. You mean that part where it suggests discussing instead of edit warring? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I was thinking more of the sentence before that. BLP trumps everything, including user conduct policies like 3RR. --John (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fairly precarious position given that this user has invoked BLP when it may not have been appropriate. I think the better area for you to link to is WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE; however, I am concerned with the lack of civility and increased disruptive editing this will cause down the road, as evidenced by this rather large ANI thread. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess we should be expecting you to block Tenebrae over this then. But, yes, let's review those two articles. In the case of the first one, we can see that he removed poor and decent sources. Looking at the "Murder of Charlie Wilson" section, it's clear that some of that material could have been retained. Mainstream Publishing seems to be a decent publishing company. And History.com is a WP:Reliable source. Some of the content at the other article could have been retained as well. And why remove this content? What, because it's sourced to goal.com? I don't know much about goal.com, but I do see that it is used in a lot of sports or athlete articles. And as for the non-English source, English sources are preferred on Wikipedia, but they are not mandatory. Hillbillyholiday commented on "a hodgepodge of primary sources," as if primary sources are automatically disallowed or are poor sources in BLPs. You condoned Hillbillyholiday's editing in that latter case, but not all of his removals were justified. Clearly, this editor keeps removing material because he does not like it. Making the good removal here and there does not justify the questionable and/or bad removals. Hillbillyholiday showed his "I don't like it" rationale again when he nominated the Norma Stitz article for deletion and gave an "I don't like this" rationale; Malik Shabazz validly speedily closed the matter, and, as seen at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 23, Hobit and KGirlTrucker81 endorsed the close. Now Hillbillyholiday will try to delete the article again; hopefully, he gives a valid rationale this time. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm the closer of this AFD subjected to this ANI discussion, where he reverted my close and then re-revert closures again and taken to DRV. I'll vote keep once he renominates this article again. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 20:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no problem with any editor arguing at article talk that some of the removed material satisfied both WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:WEIGHT. I have no problem with any editor politely asking HBH at his user talk to be a bit more conservative in his removals. But neither of those is a fit matter for WP:AN/I. As far as editor behaviour goes, I agree that HBH has not been perfect (see Masem upthread), but while I am certainly not looking to block anybody, someone knowingly reverting in noncompliant material on a BLP because some of it was ok is a red flag for me and I will block for that after a warning, to protect our encyclopedia and the subjects of our articles, and to enforce WP:BLP. --John (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, clearly I and a number of others disagree with you that Hillbillyholiday's disruptive behavior is not a matter for WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the thing: Hillbillyholiday was not simply removing possibly noncompliant content. He was unilaterally erasing entire sections which, as User:TonyBallioni and other careful, responsible editors have shown, actually contained well-cited and pertinent biographical material. All it took was a little collegial discussion and some judicious cuts. Anyone going through Wikipedia with a sledgehammer is incredibly, needlessly disruptive and appears to not want to play well with others. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll give another example: At Michael Michael, where he has been edit-warring blatantly, Hillbillyholiday removed passages with completely RS book and History Channel citations. We cannot have an editor going around with a chainsaw and no judiciousness whatsoever. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Despite clear warning, Tenebrae has just made this edit

    X is an English career criminal of Greek Cypriot descent,<ref>Rat shopped wife mother, brother and lover http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/144139/Rat-shopped-wife-mother-brother-and-lover.html?print=yes</ref>

    Another part of that edit was to re-add a section heading Murder of Charlie Wilson, an area in which the subject is only tangentially involved. (As far as I can gather. The sources given are notoriously unreliable.) It was not some drive-by "sledgehammering" on my part, it took some delicate rewording to bring a semblance of neutrality and accuracy to the article. Tenebrae needs to be, at the very least, temporarily banned from going anywhere near BLPs. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Excuse me, but I've been here 12 years and have created well over 100 biographical articles and have stood up for BLP, especially with purported birthdates, countless times. How dare you, after the few years you've been here, presume to attack a longtime, highly responsible editor out of your own petty pique. You are exactly demonstrating the issue multiple other editors have with you, which is that you seem to lack basic civility or any capacity to behave in a collaborative manner. You're also clearly guilty of WP:OWN at Michael Michael and possibly elsewhere. When multiple editors are in agreement that your editing is careless, bludgeoning and own-ish, maybe it's not everyone else that's the problem. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You have over 130,000 edits??!! I am truly appalled. You know you are currently edit-warring to restore a MASSIVELY BLP-VIOLATING version, right? You should do if you've been here that long. Why? 'Petty pique', I suspect. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'll repeat, since you seem guilty of I-can't-hear-you: At Michael Michael, you are edit-warring to remov passages with completely RS book and History Channel citations. You don't have a blanket right to edit-war; I don't know why you think you do. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are as responsible an editor as you claim, then the reason for your current edit-warring can only be sheer spite. You've just re-added a section Murder of Charlie Wilson which neither mentions the subject of the BLP, nor the murder of Charlie Wilson. Twice. In 1990, the former treasurer of the Great Train Robbery Charles Frederick "Charlie" Wilson had moved to Marbella, Spain, where he was suspected to be involved in drug smuggling.[4][5] Engaged to launder some of the proceeds from the Brink's-Mat robbery, he lost the investors £3million.[6] Astonishing. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and I was going to add an "expand section" tag, but you were edit-warring so swiftly and vociferously I didn't have a chance to lest I over-revert. That's the collaborative way of doing things, and you clearly have no interest in behaving collaboratively with any of the multiple editors here and on the edit-warring noticeboard. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a pattern developing here? Is most of the content being deleted is embarrassing content related to women? Is there wiki-wide consensus that all the sources being deleted are unreliable? QuackGuru (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The case is beyond women, including supposedly embarrassing content related to women, and unreliable sources. As noted above, valid content is being removed as well and edit warring is happening across a number of these articles partly because of that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is not for AN/I then it is for WP:ARBCOM. If any admin is supporting edit warring then that too could end up at WP:ARBCOM. This whole thing seems weird. I mean really weird. If I was edit warring like that without gaining consensus then I would of been blocked or banned. Even if an editor believes they are right or even if they are right that does not excuse edit warring and if any admin supports edit warring then that might be seen as unhelpful. QuackGuru (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Some admin action required for Zapad 2017 exercise

    User talk:Vladimir serg has been continuously reverting the artcile to outdated and totally inadequate version, without any explanations, or discussion. The account is solely used for reverts of this artcile.Axxxion (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Yo Axxxion, it's a clear content dispute at the moment, and they generally don't get covered here. But since that editor soes seem to have been engaging in a slow-burning edit-war, you might like to file a report at WP:WPANEW. About which behaviour, incidently, they have now been advised upon. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 14:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Thanks for your intervention. But I disagree with your interpretation of the situation with this article: there is no actual dispute here: very easy to see that if you will take a closer look at what has been happening there for the past several weeks. For there is no real editor behind the account User:Vladimir serg, which is in reality a single-purpose account used exclusively for mechanical reverts of just this particular article to the text, which in turn is a machine-translated Ru WP version of the corresponding article from late June, whereas the article needs regular update, as it is about an event that is to happen. These reverts are in effect disruptive activity, pure and simple. The article needs semi-protection status, which is also called-for due to the fact that the topic is potentially politically loaded and controversial.Axxxion (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides, there is an obvious Wikipedia:Civility issue with this account′s last (and only) posting: [116]. All attempts to engage the person behind this account in any discussion have been futile. Most likely he has no English-language competence, in the first place.Axxxion (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Voltron: Legendary Defender unregistered user problem

    Hi there! This unregistered user 2601:545:8202:4EA5:4C05:5527:3B3A:3B36 keeps adding non-essential details to the article's episode summaries. I have explained why i reverted the edit, but it does not seem to take and the user has resorted to name calling. I'm unsure how to progress.--Refuteku (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You, of course, are presenting only your side of events. You labeled my editing "vandalism" BEFORE I applied any epithets, which is in fact what led me to it. And the evaluation of my edits as "non-essential details" is purely your subjective opinion. I also provided corrections to passages poorly constructed by even an objective measure. 2601:545:8202:4EA5:4C05:5527:3B3A:3B36 (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I should indeed have used the term "disruptive editing", that is correct. Now about the episode summaries. The character Pidge's gender had no relevance to the plot as none of the characters performed any plot related actions due to this revelation. And most of your grammar corrections were unsuited for an encyclopedic article.--Refuteku (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, "disruptive editing" is NOT correct. And your assessments are still your subjective opinions, despite your attempt to claim otherwise. For example, "continually" was the correct word to use, rather than "continuously"; but you first dismissed my entire edit within 3 minutes, clearly without careful consideration. 2601:545:8202:4EA5:4C05:5527:3B3A:3B36 (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's correct, since you have refused to discuss your edits in a civilized manner. Continually and continuously can both be used, if that's what you are hung up about. It's better to revert a large edit entirely, and then add the proper stuff from it afterwards which is now have done. This is preferably done by the first user, but as you started of by being aggressive i figured you were not interested in that.--Refuteku (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not "refused" anything! You never offered the opportunity; you only reverted "vandalism". You are DEAD WRONG about "continuously/continually", not that, as you well know, that is really the only issue. Your summary reversions put lie to any notion that I am a sole, or even initial, aggressor here, "not interested" in discussion -- which raises another issue: your continual distortion of the situation. 2601:545:8202:4EA5:4C05:5527:3B3A:3B36 (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Continually it is then :)--Refuteku (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If only there were some way these disparate editors could combine their efforts to form, say, a giant robot with a blazing sword. But I digress. Dumuzid (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    lol, well, the effort needs to come from both users.--Refuteku (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    A plague on all their houses, but especially Refuteku's. Most episode summaries, especially of animated series, are pretty much "non-essential details" themselves, and srguing about individual summaries is so plainly content dispute that it's hard to see Refuteku's accusations of vandalism against an apparently new editor as the actions of a reasonable, good faith editor -- especially without the slightest effort to use the article talk page. Violating WP:BITE does more damage to Wikipedia than adding a few words more than a guideline calls for does, by any rational measure. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I see, well i do apologize for using the word "vandalism". I was slightly annoyed by the all caps "Leave it alone" revert the user did. I think it was after the second revert that the user wrote on my talk page and i tried to make it clear why i reverted the users additions. Albeit i did not explain it from all angles in my response. And i probably should have told the user to stop editing until we reached a conclusion.--Refuteku (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's what this all boils down to: As Wolfowitz points out, there are no hard and fast guidelines about what is vital or appropriate content for a plot summary (it would be impossible for the community to construct a one-size-fits-all standard for a vast array of narrative works) so it is up to involved editors to discuss these details and form a consensus or reasonable compromise solution. You have instead decided to immediately engage in an WP:Edit war over the matter and then, when this didn't work, flown here in the hope that we would impose your idiosyncratic interpretation of the plot of a cartoon most here will not have seen. You've missed about twenty dispute resolution steps inbetween this most trivial of content disputes and filing a complaint at ANI. You made no effort to so much as begin discussion this on the talk page, let alone avail yourself of a WP:Third opinion or other community process for breaking the deadlock, if it came to that (though, frankly, if you two are incapable of coming to a compromise on this matter, Wikipedia as a process is not going to get any easier for you). The IP can be forgiven (briefly, if the behaviour does not persist) for engaging in the initial edit war, but you have been here for more than 11 years it seems, and even with very intermittent activity, you ought to know that edit warring is not permissible.
    This is clearly a content dispute. Were it my call, I'd be half attempted to hand you a 24-hour WP:BOOMERANG block for edit warring, violating WP:3RR first and then coming here to complain about an IP you are clearly displaying WP:BITE towards, who has violated no policy with their additions and has only become disruptive insofar as they emulated your edit warring behaviour--then send you both back to work more constructively on the content issue, pulling in outside perspectives if you really can't agree on whether it's worth mentioning what "Princess Allura's mice" are up to. Instead iw ill simply urge you to undertake that effort at discussion now, before you end up earning yourself such a sanction.
    Also, though I don't want to give you the impression that this is the correct space to debate content matters, I think you should expect (if you can't compromise and need to bring in other opinions--which would be a further waste of editorial time, but i suspect that is where this is headed) that you will probably not get your way on some of those edits; the revelation that a major character has a secret identity of an alternative gender seems like the kind of detail that warrants half a sentence's worth of mention, whatever story it takes place--and in this particular case, a quick Google search suggests that this twist reveal has actually become a bit intertwined with the show's WP:NOTABILITY: [118], [119], [120]. Again, please reserve your commentary on that issue for your forthcoming (and I'm sure very grounded and reasonable and within scale and perspective) arguments on the talk page, and don't delve into it here; I'm simply trying to point out that I think you're going to need to be flexible here. Regardless, discuss what is best for the article and stop trying to impose your preferred version as mandate. Snow let's rap 00:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    TOPIC BANNED
    Consensus on the TBAN is clear. It was suggested below that the scope be narrowed, but I think it's clear that there is not much support for that, and many who initially supported it have changed their mind. Therefore:

    QuackGuru is indefinitely banned from all articles and edits related to religion, broadly construed. For the avoidance of doubt, this does not ban him from editing noticeboards (eg WP:FTN so long as his edits are not related to religion.

    I am going to leave the discussion on a site ban below open; I don't see consensus for it yet, though it may yet develop. GoldenRing (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User has recently started making these kinds of posts in Judeo-Christian related articles and talk pages:

    Please see Talk:Jesus for more.

    Between the WP:ADVOCACY to portray the followers of the Abrahamic religions as rape-worshippers, the WP:UNDUE emphasis on New Atheism, and the continual disregard for WP:RS he's showing, a mixture of WP:IDHT, WP:CIR, and/or WP:TEND (I know not in what proportions) apply here. Regardless of whichever worldview one is being a sectarian for, regardless of whichever group of people is being vilely misrepresented, we don't allow that kind of sectarianism to get near our articles.

    This behavior is very recent but given this user's prior history for similar behavior on other topics, maybe he could use an earlier heads up to change course. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    QuackGuru's recent history includes extended tendentious discussion at WT:V. Details in my comment below. See also his extensive block log. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    • I did discuss the controversial issues at the Jesus talk page after I read many sources. I was not trying to portray followers of Abrahamic religions as rape-worshipers. That's absurd. There are things that are not clearly explained in the article. The same as other pages. See Talk:Bathsheba#David is a rapist.
    • The article is unclear and I am discussing it on the talk page.[121]
    • I was not responding to a warning. I was stating that I was continuing my editing on another page by providing a link to another article.
    Ah, this explains QuackGuru's ill-fated attempt to rewrite WP:Administrators. I assume that this was the secret underlying dispute that QuackGuru wouldn't disclose and was trying to win when he tried to add an oddly-specific line to WP:ADMIN a few days ago: [124], Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Replacing sourced content with failed verification content. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So, WP:Gaming the system? That level of deliberation makes it hard to assume good faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, that attempt to insert the block-the-admin-for-a-year is one of the silliest, most ham-handed things I've ever seen an experienced editor do. EEng 18:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This enough leads me to question QG's intentions. Gaming and POV-pushing are absolutely clear. I recommend the editor to back off this topic area completely for a while until they lose this malicious momentum. It isn't too late to apologize and move on. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 18:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I spotted the failed verification content just today. This edit was made on 19:32, 16 August 2017. It is completed unrelated to this revert made on 15:44, 20 August 2017. This edit was made on 15:40, 20 August 2017. Check the dates. This is a new dispute. I added a source to verify the content and made a small tweak to the content. The content still fails verification. See Talk:Jesus#Failed_verification. QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's no way to tell if there's a real connection and I'm not going to agree or disagree with you. But since you made that edit to WP:ADMIN, and then proceeded to carry out controversial actions along the same lines, the first and clearest assumption is some hidden POV pushing agenda. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 18:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had my own run-ins with QuackGuru, and I would heartily welcome his absence from any of the articles I edit. But I think this is rather more complicated than POV-pushing against Christians and I would advise against closing this thread early or imposing a simplistic solution.

      QG's basic modus operandi is to defend the scientific viewpoint against the unscientific one by paying close attention to the scientific sources, and when he does it in articles about medical content this is viewed as a net positive by the community, because it tends to exclude people who want to push homeopathy or acupuncture from being able to edit in medical topic areas. That's the main reason why an editor with his rather extensive block log is still unbanned: he is source-focused and he prefers the scientific sources to the in-bubble ones. Taking that approach into articles about Abrahamic religions strikes me as a little unwise, but it's consistent with all of QG's well-established behaviours.

      I actually think that what we need here is a way to distinguish Quackguru's valuable and useful behaviours from the unproductive ones that make him really really annoying to deal with. The thing he does with "failed verification" tags is a longstanding behaviour, and I think that underneath it all he doesn't get the fundamental concept of verifiability. He's got a history of using {{fv}} tags on individual words. I think he doesn't see that verifiability is on the level of facts, theories and concepts rather than words and phrases; and won't listen to that if you tell him because he assumes you are the one pushing the unscientific POV. I also think he doesn't get the fundamental concept of source reliability, because he acts as if the most skeptical source is always the most reliable one. But what he isn't doing is intentionally pushing a POV. That's not him. These behaviours are motivated by a genuine wish to improve the encyclopaedia ---- combined with an unfortunate tendency to inappropriately personalise content disputes by classifying editors as "scientific" or "unscientific" and treating the "unscientific" ones as hostile. Forget I spoke.—S Marshall T/C 18:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • You see, Quack, this is exactly the kind of thing I mean. Someone wrote "Atheists reject Jesus' divinity", and you tagged it with {{fv}}. And you don't understand why that calls your editorial judgment into question.—S Marshall T/C 19:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    S Marshall, you confirm my impression of what I've seen of his presence on other parts of the site, which is why I haven't suggested blocking. Hopefully, a notice from the community that he should focus on other topics would be enough. Otherwise a restriction like (as you mention below) a topic ban might be necessary. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • He won't do what you tell him to do. You're going to need something logged and enforced. Expect him to conform to the letter of the restriction while trying to circumvent of the spirit of it, so if we do go down the topic ban route, we'll need to define the scope of the ban very carefully. It may be better to identify specific problem behaviours, rather than a range of articles, for him to avoid (or a combination of some behaviours and some specific articles). Awilley has extensive experience of this user and what he says is worth reading closely.—S Marshall T/C 21:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded re not blocking for now. Were this a user who had not demonstrated any usefulness elsewhere, I'd probably be filing this just to confirm that it was OK for me to have already pulled the trigger on a WP:CIR/Trolling block, but QG has shown some usefulness on particular topics. I can't say that a topic ban from all religion articles is necessary yet. Broadly construed, that would overlap with quackery related articles since some quacks love to use religion as a shield. So far, there's only been issues with stances on Biblical matters but there is the question of whether or not the behavior will spread to other religion articles. "Bible-related articles" would end up covering some pages that don't necessarily concern religion (e.g. Philistines). "Bible-related religion articles" still has occasional overlap with quackery if broadly construed as possible, though an amendment "except where modern medical practice is concerned" would fix that in any case. Though this is only if a topic ban proves necessary. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like he will move on to other articles about other religions. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am trying to resolve this dispute regarding the content. See "Ian.thomson, do you have a suggestion on how to resolve this dispute since the current content fails verification?"[125] I think it can be quickly resolved by adding one source to verify the content since the source at the end of the sentence does not verify this part. QuackGuru (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would support a topic ban from religious articles. QuackGuru's single-minded approach and tenacity combined with numerous competence issues make them a pain to work with in any capacity. They are amazingly tendentious and daring to disagree with them results in so much WP:SOUP that it's usually easier to just edit elsewhere. That said, I think an outright block/ban would go too far, as QG's knowledge of medicine-related sources is valuable to the encyclopedia. I appreciate their efforts to expose quackery and defend science, and I applaud people who look at religious belief with a critical scientific eye. But QuackGuru's hamfisted approach is not going to improve articles about religious belief, and the degree of their misdirection can be seen by their bizarre proposal to add the following sentence to the Lede section of our Jesus article: "According to science, Jesus is not God's son." Thank you, science, for clearing that up. ~Awilley (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been watching QG's entrance into this topic with some.... well watchfulness. QG often gets involved in articles where there is some long-term POV pushing that is harming the neutrality of our content, and generally QG has been on the side of the angels, which is why the community has continued to tolerate their somewhat "beserker" tactics. In the case of the David/Bathsheba stuff, it is absolutely true that QG eventually arrived at very well-sourced and excellently neutral content dealing with the very terse biblical text about David and Bathsheba, which had consensus from everyone at the talk page. I don't think there is need for any action here. The OP said that the purpose of their post was to warn QG not to take the tactics too far, and I believe that has been accomplished. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Basically all of QuacksGuru's comments at Talk:Jesus have been designed to bait or troll other editors ... comments such as "God is a rapist" and "Jesus is the bastard son of a rapist". Because of that particular comment I warned him for inappropriate talkpage usage two days ago. He keeps posting provocative / controversial stuff to the talkpage that he knows will never get added to the article, but tries to disguise his trolling by adding stuff like "thoughts?" or "hmm, do you guys think this should be included?" ... he's just gaming the system to avoid getting an autoban. I think as a troll that has no intention of improving the article he should be blocked from commenting there. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are the two sources.[126][127] I understand you think the sources are not useful for that article. QuackGuru (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe try addressing the concerns of the people in this thread instead of doubling down on the baiting and insincerity. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban on religion, broadly construed. The observable gaming, baiting, clearly disruptive editing, POV-pushing, and the single-minded behavioral problems all add up to the need for a specific sanction here that will hopefully still leave QG free to edit medical and scientific articles. As others have noticed, he won't do what someone tells him to do, so a specific logged and enforceable sanction is needed. QG is a problem editor and has been blocked over a dozen times, but he has not yet reached net negative and still has use in some areas of Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 08:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Site ban based upon recent behavior. If he is unwilling/unable to listed an ANI, he will never do so when editing an article. Second choice; Ian Thomsons's suggested topic ban ("QuackGuru is topic banned from religious articles, talk pages, and topics except where modern medical practice is concerned or where the discretionary sanctions for complimentary and alternative medicine apply.") BTW, shouldn't that be "religion articles" instead of "religious articles"? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC) Modified 04:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Topic ban from Religion broadly construed. Unlike Guy above, this is not an 'unwilling' issue, its an 'unable'. Sorry, anyone who has dealt with QG for more than 5 minutes knows two things 1)QG is always right, 2)QG will never change his position once taken. The argument may change, if you present evidence he will just fall back to another reason why he is right. Anything short of a broadly construed ban across the entire topic will result in wikilawyering and attempts to game the system so he is in the right - as the change to the policy RE admins amply shows. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Topic Ban from religion articles per above. Agathoclea (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Topic ban from Religion broadly construed according to the wording suggested by Ian Thomson,since it is felt the editor is useful in other areas, for reasons given above by others. Yesterday Jytdog said "The OP said that the purpose of their post was to warn QG not to take the tactics too far, and I believe that has been accomplished" but this is not the case as QuackGuru is still fighting to put a "Failed Verification" tag on the statement "Atheists reject Jesus' divinity" [128]. So silly, juvenile, a waste of everybody's time and needs to stop and stop now.Smeat75 (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not fighting over it. I simply added a tag because the content failed verification. I discussed it on the talk page. I requested a source for the content that failed verification. See "Per policy that content still fails verification. I recommend a source for the content. See WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION: "When using templates to tag material, it is helpful to other editors if you explain your rationale in the template, edit summary, or on the talk page." That's what I have done."[129] Your edit summary was "Undid revision 796515523 by QuackGuru (talk)rv silliness"[130] There should be no problem with spotting FV content and recommending a source for the content. Following policy is not a waste of time. Do you understand the content FV? Banning an editor for spotting content that fails verification is not helpful to improving the article. Adding a tag is not taking tactics too far. QuackGuru (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Topic Ban from religion articles based on users inability to comprehend or addresses the concerns raised by others.--Moxy (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • support topic ban from all religion topics, broadly construed. The inability to understand and listen to others is a major problem. The extreme rigidity may be an asset elsewhere, but it is not helpful in this case and QGs inability to see other arguments is on full display here. If the people editing in the medical area can put up with this IDHT behavior, more power to them. Other good faith editors shouldn't be forced to. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure if I support this proposal or not, but I will say that it has been my experience that QC's ability to determine whether content is supported by sources is highly suspect. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Ian Thomsons's suggested topic ban - Specifically that; "QuackGuru is topic banned from religious articles, talk pages, and topics except where modern medical practice is concerned or where the discretionary sanctions for complimentary and alternative medicine apply". Whoever said we need a scalpel and not a sledge hammer is right. Also nice analogy. They can always ask for the ban to removed after a period of time.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban on religion articles, broadly construed. QG has essentially ignored the negative feedback in this thread. Simply telling him that his editing is problematic has obviously not been effective, so we need to take tougher action. I understand and appreciate the arguments against the "broadly construed" part, but doesn't it send a mixed message to QG to tell him that his editing approach is okay with medicine articles but not ok with religion articles? Tendentious wikilawyering is a problem and it's a slippery slope if we only chose to address it in certain areas. Lepricavark (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    "Broadly construed"

    • No. "Broadly construed" is a mistake, and is insufficiently thought through. As Ian Thomson has rightly said above, there are real areas of overlap between the medical articles and the religious ones, such as Faith healing. If we're going to install a topic ban then the boundaries should be more carefully drawn than "religious articles, broadly construed". There should certainly be an exemption specifically permitting QG to edit anything in Category:Supernatural healing and Category:Alternative medicine, and I would urge that the correct wording for any topic ban from religion should be "narrowly construed". Forget I spoke.—S Marshall T/C 12:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Proposed topic ban phrasing of "QuackGuru is topic banned from religious articles, talk pages, and topics except where modern medical practice is concerned or where the discretionary sanctions for complimentary and alternative medicine apply." I specify "articles, talk pages, and topics" instead of just "pages" because we don't want him banned from WP:FTN whenever a thread about a religious topic comes up though we don't want him handling religion matters there. Specifying modern medical practice (instead of medicine broadly construed) should prevent behavior like editing the Cronus page to point out the medical impossibility of children surviving being eaten by their fathers, Aphrodite to point out the medical impossibility of being born from castration, or Athena to point out the medical impossibility of being born as a grown adult from one's father's forehead. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • honestly, I don't think QG is an asset anywhere. He may have the right POV, but his behavior is a great example of how not to appproach collaborative editing. I support the broadly construed wording, and the only reason I'm not pushing for a full site ban is that the various medical editors do not support one. But there is no need for such uncollaborative editing behavior and IDHT actions to be allowed elsewhere. His editing behaviors are not helpful and tend to waste other editions time. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I spotted content that failed verification. I requested a source to verify the content I discussed it on the talk page. There are other issues I discussed on the talk page. For example, Jesus's self-perception is not clearly explained in the article. I found a source that says "The Christian Trinity was not taught by Jesus. Nor did Jesus ever say that he was the Son of God. Only the disciples wrote that Jesus is the Son of God."[131] There may be better sources or other sources that explain it more clearly. QuackGuru (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Requiring a source for "atheists deny the divinity of Jesus" is unreasonable and disruptive. You are taking our policies to extremes and pissing people off in the process. When everyone is telling you that you are doing something wrong, stop arguing that you are right. Accept that you are indeed doing something wrong. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree wholeheartedly with Blueboar. This particular argument is so far beyond pointless that it resembles trolling. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Blueboar, I tried adding a source, but it was removed. Then I thought adding a tag for others to help find a source. It appeared editors have acknowledged the content failed verification. Numerous articles have tags in them for years. Why is it disruptive here but not on other articles that have tags? I spotted content that failed verification on another article and discussed it on the talk page. Is that also disruptive? QuackGuru (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    QC, you also changed the text to specify "New atheists". As if traditional (or "old") atheists do accept Jesus' divinity? No, that's just silly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I could not find a source to verify the exact current wording. I made a small tweak in order for it to be more accurate. I am also fine with just adding another source without changing the current wording. QuackGuru (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need a source for the statement that Atheists reject a claim of divinity. There are no sources contradicting it, it's common knowledge and it's true by definition. Indeed, it's what makes atheists atheists. There is no source needed, and even if it did need a source, you could have gone to Atheism and taken your pick of the four citations used on the first sentence. I don't see anything defensible about this edit, or your position. It looks like nothing more than either willful disruption or a bad case of you really not getting it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Before adding one of the sources at Atheism they can be read to check to ensure they support the claim "Atheists reject Jesus' divinity". The sources at Atheism support the absence of belief in the existence of deities in general. In order to use a source it should state specifically opposing Jesus' divinity. I don't want to add a source that could be perceived as failing verification. QuackGuru (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    <facepalm> ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the reason you are arguing over this? After this discussion your behaviour towards me has changed drastically. QuackGuru (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice of you to link to an example of you making a rather ironic personal attack in your edit summary. You're doing a wonderful job of making me reconsider abstaining from supporting the topic ban. Oh, and to answer your question: Because you have -once again- taken a complete non-issue and used it as an excuse to pick an argument with another editor, then proceeded to resort to a line of argumentation that would get you kicked out of a freshman rhetoric course. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot speak for ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, but for me I am torn. Part of me wants to strongly praise you for the fine work I have seen you do on various pseudoscience and fringe theory articles. Part of me wants to criticize you for your obvious trolling on various religion articles. And part of me just wishes you would dial in down a couple of notches in pretty much all of your interactions with others. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You said "Part of me wants to strongly praise you for the fine work I have seen you do on various pseudoscience and fringe theory articles." That's not what I remember you said about me before. I remember years ago you criticized me at the fringe noticeboard for cleaning up one of the alt-med articles because I did not have consensus. Many of these articles were littered with primary sources and unreliable sources. I was surprised you reverted back to an old version. It was in 2013‎. I'm not going to bother digging up the diffs. That was a while ago. I noticed editors who have disagreed with me in the past are showing up here. QuackGuru (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry. I was not aware that to you "part of me wants to strongly praise you for the fine work I have seen you do on various pseudoscience and fringe theory articles" means "I am never allowed to disagree with you". Now that I know this, I have zero desire to praise you in any way. You might want to take the fine advice found at Law of holes. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm showing up here for no other reason than to say (1) delivery matters, (2) sometimes things aren't always what they seem, and (3) the little reed, bending to the force of the wind, soon stood upright again when the storm had passed over. ~Aesop Atsme📞📧 21:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    • Per Ealdgyth. Its religion on all pages or nothing for me. If there is an intersection at a specific article of religion and medical, the topic ban on religion should prevent editing in that area. No loopholes. The above couple of comments should suggest why leaving exceptions is a bad idea. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree: No loopholes. We need to not create a loophole for bad faith editors who are predictably going to go "You can't revert me because %_alternative_therapy_% is part of my religion!" The reason this whole problem is so complicated ---- the reason Quack wasn't site-banned years ago ---- is because he does genuinely good work dealing with, well, quacks. (His account is really well-named.) Articles on medical topics are watched by relatively few editors and are under constant siege from people who want to push their favourite brand of snake oil. Quack's skepticism and genuine knowledge in that topic area are valuable and if we're going to hamstring him in this way then there really isn't a reason to keep him around. But we'd need to take two or three good editors off their other work to keep an eye on Quack's watchlist.

      The Wikipedian tendency to attach "broadly construed" to topic bans is to be avoided in this case. It's a problem that needs a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer. Nope, changing my mind about this.—S Marshall T/C 16:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • "if we're going to hamstring him in this way then there really isn't a reason to keep him around" - you may find people would actually rather take that option. "he does genuinely good work dealing with, well, quacks" - to be accurate what he does is act badly towards everybody, but the way he acts badly has a positive outcome when directed at quacks. If I shoot 1000 people, it doesn't make it right just because some of them were criminals. I cant see a benefit in putting a topic ban on him if its not going to be as wide as possible given his wikilawyering and tendentious editing. The only other restriction I would support is a blanket 1rr *everywhere*. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a lot of stories I could tell. I will pick one that pissed off some editors. There were too many citations for one sentence at Vani Hari. Four citations was overboard. Only in death does duty end disagreed. I eventually fixed it by removing the citations that failed verification and replacing them with citations that passed verification. I did not get reverted after I fixed the problems. S Marshall, you mentioned I genuinely good work dealing with, well, quacks. That's only part of the story. There are problematic skeptics adding misleading content. I keep editors on both sides honest. I know that gets some editors pissed off at me because I followed policy and focused heavily on the content. I read the sources and ensured the content was neutral and sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • hey, TBAN train. Above I noted that QG gets involved where there is entrenched POV pushing.
    Please take a breath.
    There is a legitimate point of view that QG is representing in some places here - a feminist one , which holds that images and metaphors about sexuality and gender, specifically around Mary but more broadly many others derived from the Bible, have contributed fundamentally to rape culture in Western civilization. Some of these things are not just minor references in passing texts but core notions in some Christianities.
    Looked at with irreligious eyes, Jesus is a bastard and God can be described as a rapist with respect to Mary, and the Bible describes God using rapist language elsewhere. Above QG here cited Susanne Scholz (a feminist biblical scholar and professor at Southern Methodist; she doesn't have an article here but is cited in our article Rape in the Hebrew Bible) and QG cited here Jane Schaberg who is in turn citing Julia Kristeva who describes the Virgin Mary as "one of the most powerful imaginary constructs known in history of civilization". (getting into a bit of TMI here, I found myself in Catholic churches at statues of the pieta after 9/11.... Mary is a powerful construct)
    The story of David and Bathsheba can be read as fitting into countless examples of powerful men taking the bodies of women. "Grab 'em by their pussies" much, anyone?
    The statement, "Atheists reject the divinity of Jesus" is somewhat of a begging-the-question formulation. Kind of like saying "Sarah Palin rejects death panels." or perhaps "Jytdog rejects the claim that pink unicorns like to eat marigolds". One reads anyone of those three and says "Well yes but that is kind of a strange thing to say...."
    These are somewhat sacred cows I know.
    I have worked through the years on some content related to the Bible and other religious topics. There are large swaths of WP that have been captured by True Believers; and places that are expressions of faith in WP's voice rather than being encyclopedic content. (that last sentence is an example parallelism, a hallmark of poetry in the Hebrew Bible btw)
    I wouldn't raise these issues the way that QG is, but ~some~ of the !votes here appear to me, to be more knee jerk reactions written in a lack of awareness of these very legitimate lines of critique, or just not seeing them, than they are about what QG is writing per se.
    So let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream, but breathe, ya'all. RIghteousness is not a simple thing sometimes. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Jytdog points out above, this is in some respects not as straight-forward as it superficially appears to be. I agree with those who see QuackGuru as a net positive to the encyclopedia, but it appears to me that precisely those qualities which makes QG valuable in medical articles makes them problematic when they are applied to a much more complex social and historical phenomenon such as religion -- and I say this as a longtime atheist (lapsed Catholic) myself. Religion can be dealt with in the same fashion that QG deals with medicine, but really only in POV writings such as those of Richard Dawkins. I may or may not agree with Dawkins' take on religion, or I may or may not hew somewhat closer to Stephen Jay Gould's view of "non-overlapping magisteria", but wherever I stand it's a personal viewpoint which is essentially not provable in the same way that scientific facts are, or can be, proved (by the scientific definition). It is for this reason that QG's entry into articles about religion is problematic, as he attempts to apply the same ultra-strict standard to a subject which is not amenable to that, and has no defining authority similar to WP:MEDRS. (Note that WP:Religion is a failed proposal.)
      The upshot of all this is that I support Ian.thomsons's suggested topic ban, which reads "QuackGuru is topic banned from religious articles, talk pages, and topics except where modern medical practice is concerned or where the discretionary sanctions for complimentary and alternative medicine apply." I think this strikes a good balance, allows QG to apply his strengths where they will be helpful to the project, but keeps QG away from articles which -- quite apparently -- they don't know how to deal with appropriately. QG is essentially a one-trick pony, but that trick is a powerfully good one when applied appropriately, and the encyclopedia benefits enormously when they do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I did want to mention that while Jytdog makes a valid point about religionists in many cases forcing religion articles to be (essentially) the equivalent of "in universe" articles, freezing out non-believer views which would make those article more rounded and less skewed toward the religious viewpoint, I'm very certain that QG's approach to editing those articles is the worst possible way to go about changing that. Someone who wishes to make religion articles less, well, religious, needs to take a softer approach, and be a good listener, a good rhetorician, and a person able to strike compromises between a hard-core believer position and a hard-core non-believer one. Those articles need to be opened up incrementally and with great tact and respect. QG is not that person. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Beyond My Ken thanks for engaging with what I wrote. I have imagined this thread being on Chinese WP, with all the references to "religion" changed to "acupuncture." I would expect it to be pretty much exactly the same, with accusations of "trolling" etc. The capturing of large swaths of WP by a Christian POV just is what it is, as is the Christianish perspective of many editors. From an abstract perspective QG should not have to be any more delicate with their fence-rattling in challenging Christian bias nor in raising a feminist perspective on Christian subjects, than they should have to be on alt med things. But part of WP:CLUE is "knowing what works" and what you wrote about approaching it more delicately is just the way things are here in en-WP. This is very third-rail-y. Yep. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a rather distinct difference between interpretation of religious belief and medical science. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Ian.thomson this is true -- very true -- but it is also true that it just as possible for page to be "captured" by advocates for a Christian POV as it is for a page to be captured by advocates for alt-med, and there is no difference in the kind of violation of NPOV that both represent. Circling back to the difference.. the means of resolving the problem are much different especially as the relevant literature is so different, and that is where strategies/tactics that BMK discussed above, and that I think you are concerned about as well, come into play. I am not unsympathetic to your opening this thread. It just not a black and white thing to me. But I should have noted the difference in subject matter and sources and how that changes the negotiation more clearly. You called that out well. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To show you what I mean about capture, not that long ago the lead of David looked like this. That is horrible and getting that fixed was way more of a struggle than it should have been. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)The means to fix such a POV in an article on more subjective topics is to present a variety of interpretations with due weight. If it is necessary to overhaul the article, outline it from professional academic tertiary sources that give an overview of the more noteworthy interpretations. The way to not do it is highlighting just the bits with the most shock value from cherry-picked sources (many of them completely unreliable beyond WP:PRIMARY quotes) that sometimes only tangentially connect to some undeniably uncommon interpretations and presenting those interpretations as scientific facts. That difference, QG's apparent inability and unwillingness to acknowledge that difference, plus the continued "can do no wrong" attitude QG displays (which is simply incompatible with the sort of cooperation needed in editing articles on subjective topics), are why people are supporting a topic ban.
    If you have evidence that the Christianity article is horrendously skewed by a POV that needs to be fixed, by all means present (on the talk page) some tertiary sources to demonstrate what perspectives are not given due weight. I even grant that it could use more material covering feminist perspectives, as I am familiar that there's plenty of sources feminist theology and feminist interpretations of theology out there and I think it'd be great to see them given due weight in the article -- but I know that there's a hell of a lot more to it than trying to empirically claim "God is a rapist" like some MRA parody of "feminazis."
    I don't see it as black and white either. The gray is a mixture of "he may not have the mindset needed to properly collaborate on subjective topics" and "he is useful on empirical topics," and "some of our articles deal with subjective matter" and "some of our articles deal with empirical matter." Beyond that, the former or current state of articles doesn't really matter because this is a behavioral matter and not a content dispute. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    See here. Jesus' self-perception is not mentioned in the article. If historians are unclear or disagree that can be included in the article. Rather than just focus on improving the article you accuse me of disruption. I focused on the article.[132][133] It is a behavior problem to comment on the editor on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That you assume that a historical figure's self-perception is so easily grasped shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how history works. Unless we have something written by a historical figure, we don't truly know what they thought of themselves, only how other historians interpret that figure. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not say or think that Jesus' self-perception is so easily grasped. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I explained if historians interpretation of Jesus' self-perception are unclear or disagree then that could be included. You appear to be against including any historians interpretation of Jesus' self-perception. Sources I have read say similar things like: "The Christian Trinity was not taught by Jesus. Nor did Jesus ever say that he was the Son of God. Only the disciples wrote that Jesus is the Son of God."[134] We can work together and find better sources and clarify this point in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Unless I am greatly mistaken, there are no "historical interpretations of Jesus' self-perception", since the only writings we have about Jesus came from people who never knew him, and were working with received mythology passed down orally through time, larded with a great deal of total invention and fabrication by the writers who wished to present a particular view of the man. So what we have are interpretations of someone's perception of what Jesus' self-perception may possibly have been if he did the things people who never knew him write that he did. That's fine if you're discussing the mythical Jesus and not the historical Jesus.
    A great deal of time and energy has gone into trying to distill some small grains of fact from the Gospels, and there has been considerable improvement in our knowledge of the historical man, but we are nowhere near the point where anyone can say with finality that the historical Jesus absolutely did X or absolutely did not do Y. Herein lies your problem: history is not science, biography is not science, religion is not science, so attempting to deal with the putative biography of a quasi-mythical quasi-historical religious figure as if it were amenable to the same techniques that one uses in science is simply absurd, as there are no answers, only more or less convincing arguments -- and what is "convincing" is different from person to person. Your attempt to deal with this subject matter as if it is -- to pick up on a trope in this discussion -- either black-or-white is fundamentally flawed and unworkable in this context. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, a historical figure's self-perception is only known if they wrote something down about themselves. That's something that one has to understand to get beyond any introductory studies in the humanities. Asking for historians' interpretation of his self-perception is asking for their interpretation of something they don't have. This is not something you approach as you would an empirical matter, which seems to be the only way you know how to approach things.
    You started off approaching this using sources that largely rejected WP:RS to push the ideas with the most shock value, after trying to rewriting policies to suit your needs. It would be obvious to someone the least bit capable of contemplating how others might see things why people might think you're trolling or at least POV-pushing. That you keep citing that source from AuthorHouse despite having already been told that it's not reliable only further calls your competency with this topic into question. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not say to use AuthorHouse in the article after I was told it was unreliable. I was using it as an example in this thread. I was explaining what sources I have read said. I said above "We can work together and find better sources and clarify this point in the article." That means I want to find better sources. See "If there is no academic consensus on the matter then we can include different interpretations or views regarding Jesus' self-perception."[135] Historians have commented on Jesus' self-perception. I gave one example to show it is possible to find historians commenting on Jesus' self-perception. QuackGuru (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We've been in many disputes before. I thought you were going to comment here eventually. Are you trying to make me look bad? QuackGuru (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    QG: At the risk of stating the obvious, the only one here who is making you look bad is you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And that is perhaps the real problem here... Quack is a tenacious "Wiki-lawyer", especially when he feels he is right... to the point where his tanacity becomes disruptive. He needs to learn to stop digging when consensus is against him. Blueboar (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been in many disputes with you too. This was a new dispute regarding Jesus' self-perception. I'm sure I or others can find better sources. Is it a problem to using better sources for Jesus' self-perception for the article? QuackGuru (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @QuackGuru: Read this whole thread carefully and think about how people besides you see things. Imagine that it is about someone else covering a topic you're willing to admit you know nothing about. This is not about article content, this is about your behavior. Notice that the closest anyone is coming to defending you (a minority that somehow includes me) is pointing out that you have good intentions, that you're helpful in other areas, and there are problems in the articles -- no one is agreeing with your tactics. Almost everyone has stated that your behavior is problematic and more users than I'd like to see are ready to have you topic banned from all religion articles.
    If all the traffic is coming your way, you're in the wrong lane. From an outside perspective, you are in the wrong here. Whenever I see a user without your history cause this sort of uproar on ANI, that user always got at least a topic ban, if not an indefinite block or even a community ban. That some users (including myself) have pointed out that you're useful in medical articles is not an excuse to keep fighting, it is your chance to back down before an uninvolved admin decides you're just not worth the trouble. That S Marshall and I have argued that any topic ban should exclude medical topics would demonstrate to anyone with an iota of awareness that we are actually trying to balance helping the site with helping you as a member of the community.
    If you are not willing to (or worse, cannot) consider what any other member of the community has to say except when it's backing you up, you do not belong on a collaborative project. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support religion topic ban. Just his continued hammering and failure to listen in this thread is enough evidence for that. Elsewhere I recall his behavior fitting the patterns he is showing here. Legacypac (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • support tban as framed by ian. QG is not going to demonstrate the necessary CLUE here. QG you have done buried yourself here. Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is, again, one of these ridiculously over-complicated TB proposals. TBs are about a subject and edits related to that subject. Not pages. When did this whole pages TB become a norm? Normally with a TB you could edit a page that had some content related to a TB so long as your edits didn't broach the subject of your TB. There's worries that broadly construed could, say, stop QG from commenting on FTN because there's likely to be some religion related content on the page. Just simplify this: QG is topic banned from all edits relating to religion broadly construed. Which I'd Support. Capeo (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support either religion topic ban or Ian's wording. I don't know much about the user's history to able to tell if he can edit articles involving both medicine and religion without intentionally causing trouble or controversy.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just going by the behaviour on ANI alone, I support the broadly construed topic ban. Blackmane (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • QuackGuru has an extensive history of IDHT, of waving his hands around about this or that problem (such as allegations of OR and non-verifiability), of demanding sources from others for even the plainest statements, but disdaining to support his claims or point to specific cases, of being deaf to what he doesn't want to hear.
    E.g., his attempt to unilaterally change the WP:ADMIN policy (see WT:Administrators #Replacing sourced content with failed verification content for other endeavors) can be traced back to some recent discussions at WT:V (see WT:V#Re-start and WT:V#Problem with wording), which in turn appear to have been his attempt to get some leverage in a content dispute at Chiropractic (see Talk:Chiropractic/Archive_38#Too_many_problems_with_recent_changes_to_lede) for a sample.
    In all these cases QuackGuru is often in the situation (such as noted above by Blueboard [15:42: 21 Aug]) where everyone present is telling him something, but he adamantly refuses to hear. While some editors might agree with some of his results, the problem is that he is not amenable to the process, being too full of his own self-rightousness, and this diminishes the work everyone could be doing. I concur with all the above comments, but especially Ian's: QuackGuru does not belong on a collaborative project.
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Site-ban discussion

    I've closed the discussion above and imposed the topic ban for which there was clear consensus; I don't think we are yet seeing consensus for a site ban, but the discussion does seem to be trending that way so I'm leaving this section open to see what develops. GoldenRing (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'd support a community ban as outlined above by User:J. Johnson and I challenge anyone to read the tortuous discussion above and seriously argue QG is a net asset to the project. --John (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a community ban as outlined by J. Johnson for the reasons outlined by them and Only in Death. That Quack's inability to collaborate with others may sometimes yield positive results in certain topics doesn't excuse that behaviour when it does yield positive results. Cjhard (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Withdrawing support and opposing site ban, based on QG's response to this thread. I do so without striking out the part about bad behaviour which yields positive results, as I believe that the principle applies and QG should be reminded to cease this behaviour, rather than only applying it in non-religious topics. Cjhard (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: Continuing CIR issues on Talk:Jesus. The fact that QG is still continuing his inane claims and time-wasting assertions on Talk:Jesus and on this ANI thread raises some serious WP:CIR issues and serious concerns about how much time-wasting the community can and should put up with before an editor reaches net negative. Apparently the OP's desire to give QG "an earlier heads up to change course" has not had its desired effect, and given that entrenched bludgeoning and time-wasting is this editor's MO, I think we need to address the fact that WP:CIR applies here, not just tendentiousness on religion articles. Softlavender (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Yes, I think there is a competence issue here, on a number of levels. I was surprised to see QG make an edit citing a blatantly self-published source (and then feeling the need to post it at WP:RSN) and then following it up with another citation to another blatantly self-published source. StAnselm (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tentative oppose QG has done positive work over the years within the medical and science topic area. I do need to see an immediate assurance that the issues mentioned above will stop and not resume. I believe that with such an assurance a site ban would be a net negative to the project. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support:. Normally I would advise waiting to see if the TBAN did the trick, but [136] strongly indicates that it won't. If, after six months, QG posts an appeal that shows that he understands why he was site-banned and is willing to change I would be willing to open up a discussion regarding whether to give him some one-stike-you-are-out WP:ROPE. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tentative oppose for now. QG was informed about the TBAN today at 9:03 (UTC). If he violates the TBAN on purpose, I will support a site ban but we should at least give him time to demonstrate if he is willing and able to abide by such a restriction. Regards SoWhy 10:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I am taking this feedback on board seriously. Medical and science topics is where I make most of my positive contributions. I realize that sometimes I push things too far and do not drop issues when consensus is against me. I will do my best to change this behaviour going forward and avoid not getting it. I understand it is better to stop writing, listen, and read carefully what others are saying even when I feel strongly that I am right. I will make a strong effort to see their side of the issues, and work on finding points of agreement and move on when consensus is against me. I agree to fully follow the topic ban above. QuackGuru (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks QG. Glad to hear you are taking these concerns seriously. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, out of process This discussion is out of process. Site bans are not a first step, but rather, they follow violations of other measures. The topic ban on religion just began today. QG has not violated that topic ban. If there is a violation then take further steps, but after a remedy is in place that should end the discussion. I have spoken up on behalf of QG in the past where they engage with controversial medical topics in a way that has led to constructive Wikipedia article development. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm don't know what's going on here and at this point I'm afraid to ask. Yes, there's an extensive block log. Yes, he's legitimately helpful in medical articles. Yes, he didn't listen to anyone while the topic ban discussion was going on. Yes, he has promised to take the feedback in a way that shows awareness of the issues. I'd just like to state that when I said "you do not belong on a collaborative project," it was an if/then statement (with an admittedly implied "then") that was bolded for emphasis, not a !vote. As such, the bold statement in this post is my !vote regarding a community ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In the discussion above, I found a clear consensus for a topic ban on religion. The point of leaving this section open is that it was not clear to me whether there was consensus that the disruption outside that topic merited further sanctions (almost certainly a site ban). So comments of the "wait and see if the topic ban is violated variety are missing the point. The point of this whole thing is to prevent disruption; the question for this section is, "Does removing them from the topic of religion sufficiently prevent disruption, or do they have a track record of disruption in other areas that needs to be addressed with further sanctions?" For my money, the answer is that the topic ban is sufficient for the time being (especially given the response from QG above). But I don't get a super-vote. GoldenRing (talk) 11:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Bluerasberry, Guy Macon, Doc James. Doesn't seem like a necessary step at this point. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose site ban at the moment but Support topic ban from everything except medical and science articles and their talk pages (or something better that someone else writes that does the same thing). To my mind, the two major contributing factors to the disruption that QG causes are: 1 Their view on sourcing, citing and verifiability is radically different from the vast majority of the community (but appears to be closer to the consensus as to how medical articles are referenced) and 2 They appear to be incapable and/or unwilling to communicate in such a manner that will alter anyone's existing opinions regarding these topics (but appears to be capable of working somewhat more collegiately with those who hold views already closer to their own). Most of the recent discussions I've either been involved in or witnessed that illustrate these have already been referenced above, but I can supply a few more if anyone's feeling particularly bored or masochistic. The events at Jesus, David & Bathsheba are entirely unsurprising to me, as they demonstrate the idiosyncratic interpretations of policy backed up with a willful refusal to engage or moderate their viewpoint. If QG was to start editing the article on Golf tomorrow I have every expectation that every line would be tagged as requiring verification, including that grass is green. However, QG does appear to be able to offer useful content and research within medical articles, as their views are closer to existing consensus and even those who work with QG there and who are obviously somewhat exasperated seem to think that they would be missed. So, why not let them stay there and leave the rest of the wiki alone? Scribolt (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: per Guy Macon. Editing in the medical field, I have always found QG to be someone who wants to improve the encyclopedia, even if his means sometimes leave much to be desired. I believe his assurances given in his response to this proposal, and will be quick to remind him of the likely consequences if there's even a hint of him not living up to his promises. --RexxS (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral on site ban, but propose extended topic ban to include policies. QG has been disrupting the discussions at Wikipedia Talk:Verifiability, Wikipedia Talk:Identifying reliable sources, and other policies for weeks, making proposals which often make little sense or seem focused on countering arguments made by only one or two editors in disputes in which he is involved, and then when asked to provide diffs to demonstrate that the problems are sufficiently widespread to justify policy modification either walking away from the discussion, attempting to divert, or becoming oppositional, generally after vast amounts of discussion have been expended trying to pin down and discuss his proposals. This is compounded by the fact that he has, as noted above, said that he disagrees with the most fundamental concepts on which Wikipedia is based: "Dose the existing consensus mean the article improved? Consensus does not remove original research. Consensus does not do anything to improve any article. WP:ONUS as part of consensus is tantamount to obstructionism. What is really consensus? It is a way to tell others to shut up." diff. I agree with Doc James that QG has been a useful editor in the MEDRS areas, especially in countering fringe topics, so I'm going to remain neutral on the site ban, but I would recommend that the topic ban be extended from what has already been established above to also include "the text of policies and guidelines, the talk pages of those pages, and any other creation, modification, or deletion of policy or guidelines, or discussion relating to creation, modification, or deletion of policy or guidelines, broadly construed, but not including discussion at any noticeboard such as Reliable Sources Noticeboard seeking clarification, application, or enforcement of existing policy or guidelines without modification." Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as per Doc James: QG has done positive work over the years within the medical and science topic area Cloudjpk (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support It's looking like a site ban is not going to pass, even though it is warrented and would he imposed on most other editors for all the disruption. Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose ...best not to ban....much harder to follow socks....best keep an eye on them.--Moxy (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per my comments in the above section. QG can be problematic in certain circumstances, but overall he's a net positive. I am also heartened by QG's comment above, which shows what I think is real thought as to the potential downside of their methodology. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose site ban. still does valuable work in their core area. Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose the TBAN is probably sufficient. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Anon reverting my edits out of spite

    (non-admin closure) A sort of peace has broken out and complaint has been withdrawn, nothing more to do here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Current IP 2602:304:788B:DF50:95CC:313F:A69C:59A9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    January to August IP 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This is my first ANI so bear with me. When I revert this IP (s)he goes into my contribs and reverts something from me.

    At Watchmaker analogy I reverted [here] and [here]. (S)he proceeded to revert me [here].

    I had similar problems with this anon last March. Also starting with me reverting him at Watchmaker. Different IP but the same person. fwiw here is a discussion on my talk page. These are my warnings to him User talk:2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B#Bebop, here are the diffs [one], [two], [this one he was right].

    Also note when editors come on his talk page he's more often than not confrontational and snippy.

    My issue here is that he's starting this behavior anew and I'm quite certain the community has strict policies about this kind of disruption.

    If I don't present my case well here - let's hope I don't get too much practice. SlightSmile 21:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:HOUND is what you are looking for. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    RE Watchmaker, I would suggest when someone is removing un-cited WP:OR that you not reinstate it unless you are in the process of providing a citation - as one of the defenses to a hounding accusation is that it is perfectly acceptable to check another editor's contributions if they are making problematic edits. No comment elsewhere as I have not gone into either your or their editing history. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever argument, WP:OR or otherwise a disruptive editor uses, it is a judgement call to revert or not. One could argue (s)he's gaming the system. Even if he's right and I'm wrong at Watchmaker, I have never seen this hounding behaviour being tolerated.
    We've all seen IPs and new editors come in here and think they're the boss. His bad faith reverts of my edits is unacceptable and I refuse to start being intimidated by this kind of combative behaviour. If I did one tenth of that, go into editors' contribs who revert me and revert something out of spite how many seconds would it take you to block me. SlightSmile 11:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How is he hounding? All I see is a content dispute on Watchmaker analogy, which the IP was correct on, and some other reverts that were quickly handled. Also, the IP edits substantially on pages you have not. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you NK. I see it now he's a regular at the miracles article. His revert is still iffy and out of spite but I won't push it on that one. Please note the two reverts in March [one] and [two] are definitely unacceptable hounding. I can't make an ANI on something that far back, but if it starts again I expect the people here to step in for me. He made it clear on his talk he would do tit for tat reverting. Editors shouldn't have to take that kind of harassment. Meanwhile I withdraw my complaint. SlightSmile 12:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not hounding. Hounding would be following an editor on every single page they edit and undoing it all, or showing up in every single talk page the user contributed to. Neither one of those is the case here. It is merely a content dispute. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    At Watchmaker we could argue whether or not it is content dispute. That section had been there for years and along comes the boss who's gonna kick some ass. Combative behaviour. Do I have to paste the March diffs from my 12:22 post again! If it doesn't officially qualify for hounding it's definitely a form of disruption. Look again. How many seconds did you say it would take the community to block if I went into an editor's contribs? SlightSmile 14:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Two reverts is not hounding. Please assume good faith. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Good faith that's a good one. Know anymore funny jokes? SlightSmile 14:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at my talk. I did tons of assume good faith. SlightSmile 14:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So are there more than these 2 reverts (from March)? Are we missing some other "hounding" or "harassment"? I'm a bit lost here, I confess. Is there some connection between the March edits and the recent edits that convinces you that this is the same person "hounding"? WP:SPI will investigate that for you, if so, although it would need good behavioural evidence by now. -- Begoon 12:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no doubt it's the same person. I realize that three reverts, two of them months ago seems trivial but as I noted, they assured me on their talk they would do tit for tat reverting if I should revert them while (patrolling is that the word?). I've seen editors blocked for less. It's not the three reverts in themselves, it's more like, is this the start of a pattern. As I stated above I withdraw my complaint for now but what's my recourse if they do it again. When has this combative behaviour become acceptable? What am I missing here. SlightSmile 14:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We have come across each other maybe 3 times in 6 months. if that is hounding, you might as well close the whole project as people edit topics of interest and see each other often while editing these common areas of interest. The questionable behavior is on the filers part, they reverted to include what is clearly WP:OR which is in the first diff and then left a snarky edit summary (which was later reverted by another editor for... clearly being original research). As far as the discussion on my talk page months ago, they left a snarky comment there too, so they got a snarky comment back, it is after all my talk page. I follow no one around, the only editor I have ever had a serious disagreement with it Apollo the Logician and he battled many other editors. My edit history speaks for itself. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey nice to see you again. Note I gave up the word hounding long ago. I'm not going to start digging up diffs on your combative behavior at Watchmaker and apparently neither are the admins here. The Watchmaker issue seems to be resolved anyways so it's unlikely we'll meet again but if we should cross paths for whatever reason you are not to go into my contribs to make a point. SlightSmile 18:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That would require one to assume I went into your contribs to make a point in the first place. Too bad you didn't go back to the first edit in the Watchmaker thread where you reverted me in support of Apollo the Logician, (who is now banned). Apollo was also the one who made the section unencyclopedic [[138]] and you followed it up with another revert after I returned the article to the long term stable version by telling me "Personal analysis - write a book" in the edit summary [[139]]. That is ACTUALLY how we first met. So if you want to accuse other people of bad behavior, at least have the competence to include the full story. I don't have anything else to say, I will assume it is a big misunderstanding. I can assume good faith. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    All good. Nothing more here. SlightSmile 18:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Zbunyip

    User:Zbunyip has been involved in many disruptive edits on Adelaide Park Lands (and subsequesntly other pages), and despite attempts to engage them on User talk:Zbunyip, they have refused to respond, and seem to have engaged in edit warring. Their modus operandi is to replace content that was supported by reliable references with their own biased POV that is contrary to the statements that were there, and they do NOT supply any reliable references to support their own opposite POV. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Zbunyip for the trail of havoc they are creating. I would revert their edits, but don't want to be involved in, (or classified as being involved in), an edit war. The inaccuracies and falsehoods they have been introducing worry me. Advice please. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that many of this editor's edits are problematic. I haven't looked at them all in detail, but they have included removal of sourced material with refs and addition of unsourced material without refs. In particular I've had to revert his changes to Tjilbruke (see diff 1) because he substituted the name of one Aboriginal tribe with another, and another editor has just reverted his multiple edits to Kaurna (see diff 2). He has also edited articles on other Aboriginal tribes, the Ngarrindjeri (see diff 3, and the Ramindjeri (also since deleted by another user, see diff 4).
    This is a controversial subject area, requiring specialised knowledge of the sources, and I'm not particularly well qualified to go into this very deeply - but it seems that this editor is taking a partisan stance (particularly in the Kaurna/Ramindjeri dispute), and his edits in these particular articles (as well as in other areas), which commenced on 19 August 2017, are similar to those previously made by Mifren, who last edited on 1 August 2017. Bahudhara (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Zbunyip's writing style doesn't remind me of Mifren, despite the thematic similarity of their contributions - I'd be quite surprised if this is a case of sockpuppetry. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, now having seen more of his work, I agree, the styles are very different. And he is now reaching out for advice at the Teahouse and user talkpages. Bahudhara (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Protect my user and talk pages

    Page protected as requested. Blackmane (talk) 05:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please protect my user and talk pages to the "autoconfirmed user" level. huji—TALK 10:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. It really doesn't take much digging to see why this is required and urgent, though I will shortly also revdel the offending edits. @Huji:, take care and get in touch if you require any further assistance. GoldenRing (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @GoldenRing: much appreciated, and thank you for taking the extra 10 seconds to investigate, revdel, and understand the urgency huji—TALK 14:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Destructive edits by user Baapkabaap

    The user is 2 year old but recently active. The account seems to be making destructive edits and attemps to change history and minute details including changing an hindu religious infobox to muslim possibly with the intention to provoke or attack.

    Btw, A warning has already been given to the user by SarahWelch but the user is ignoring it. Please look into it. Thank you.

    His wiki page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Baapkabaap

    His wiki contribution: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Baapkabaap — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShotgunMavericks (talk • contribs) 11:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring at Hobyo

    (non-admin closure) Both reported users blocked. Nothing more needed. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 04:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Not sure how to report this, as the template for discussion at WP:AN3RR calls for information I can't supply. Two editors, User:Mohamed958543 and newer editor User:Faarax200, have been edit-warring at Hobyo, with dozens of reversions and re-additions today. User:Mohamed958543 is calling it reversion of vandalism, but all I can see is a content dispute:[140], [141], etc.. On day one of Faarax200 editing, they went into dispute resolution over Galkayo: [142], which I can't see in the archived discussion for some reason. But the pair of them have been edit-warring ever since. Faarax200 knowingly logged out to edit, but per Talk:Hobyo#Faraax200 Vandalism this seems to have been in good faith. Mohamed958543 has been blocked for disruptive editing before [143], and I've warned him about 3RR at his talk page and the article talk page, but he's continued right on after the warning: [144], [145], deleting referenced content with no rationale apart from repeated edit summaries along the lines of "Stop ruining the page! you made this new account for Vandalism". Not sure which is the best version to roll back to. Collective wisdom gratefully received. 146.199.101.199 (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    For the admins:
    Page: Hobyo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User: Mohamed958543 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    User: Faarax200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    — nihlus kryik  (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Mathematician makes a mistake and starts personal attacks

    Both editors are reminded to focus on content, not contributors, and refrain from making uncivil remarks. No further action is necessary here. Swarm ♠ 21:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello,

    User:Joel B. Lewis despite having made a rather obvious mistake in regarding the Master theorem. The key citation is "don't be an ass", followed by gibberish that is contradicted by The Art of Computer Programming, page 110, in a section that was written by D. Knuth himself. It would be beneficial if measures are taken against this sort of unfriendly behaviour, and further it should be taken good care that the passage in the article remains correct, possibly by alerting an expert admin. --Mathmensch (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • So why are you bringing a content dispute to ANI?
    Why are you claiming that your change is supported by Knuth, when Knuth isn't even cited on this article?
    So far, you have made an uncited change, then were (quite correctly) reverted by another editor with the summary "Not obvious to me that it is a counter-example", which is entirely reasonable, per WP:BRD. You have not given the supporting source you claim. You have not discussed this on the article talk: page. Instead you've reinstated your change, still unsourced. Your comments on a user talk: page (not the best place to start) of "And acknowledging and correcting one's mistakes is of supreme importance." / "I see you misunderstood the Θ {\displaystyle \Theta } \Theta notation." are hardly likely to encourage any reasonable debate.
    If you want to make a change, then the onus is on you to explain why this change is an improvement and to support it with source(s) (and yes, Knuth would be seen as WP:RS) - especially when you've been reverted once. It is not good behaviour to run off to ANI complaining about another editor being "unfriendly", when you've begun by impugning their own technical competence. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, let me explain.
    First of all, I'm bringing the insult to ANI, and not necessarily the content dispute, which is so basic that the other author's action could be mistaken for vandalism. Obviously, I did explain what was wrong with the article, namely that is a trivial counter-example. I put that into the summary line of .
    I mostly disagree with your criticism of my behaviour. I was trying to explain to the author his mistake. Being a mathematician, he could (and should) easily have corrected it. This is why I left a message on his talk page. And if someone insults me, I'm going to notify the admins. I'm sorry, but I'm not your verbal punching ball.
    The statement in the article was false, and I corrected it. In the current version of the article there is not the slightest mention any more of the claim (or its falsity), whence a reference to Knuth is unnecessary. (Furthermore, the whole thing is well-explained in the article Big-O notation.)
    Further, a mathematical counter-example can easily be verified by any mathematician, and every mathematician will confirm that even though Mr. Lewis is a mathematician, in this particular case his claims are just false (e.g. that I would not allow for zero functions in the definition of the Theta-notation, by corrrectly stating that the lower bound must be non-trivial; otherwise, the notation would be superfluous anyhow, since it would be equivalent to the notation).
    Then, I have given a supporting reference to my claim (as you yourself acknowledge), namely Knuth's book (and the wikipedia article), and at least the former is the reference on the subject.
    And finally, where on earth did I impunge anybody's technical competence?
    Please read up what I actually wrote; would save me lots of time. --Mathmensch (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Andy Dingley for the clear and correct summary of events; I have nothing to add. --JBL (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I now corrected the theorem in a different way.--Mathmensch (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't appear to be a personal attack. "Don't be an ass" is just another way of saying "Don't be a WP:DICK" or "Don't be a jerk". However, I can say that the tone of that entire paragraph does seem very heated and borderline WP:UNCIVIL. Other than that, this is a content dispute, so I advise both Mathmensch and Joel B. Lewis to remain civil when discussing this disagreement. That's all I really have to add; I don't opine that administrative action is needed at the moment. DarkKnight2149 17:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    "I'm sorry, but I'm not your verbal punching ball."'
    Nor is JBL yours. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with others that this seems to be a content dispute that doesn't belong at ANI. Yet despite that, the article talk page is empty of related discussion which is never a good sign. If you want to bring a content dispute to ANI, you should at least make sure the article talk page isn't empty i.e. the whole situation isn't so basically flawed it's not even worth us looking at. Please don't bring up any discussions on editor talk pages, I don't particularly care. I also agree that others that "don't be an ass" is basically a variant of don't be a dick, and while as the page used to say, such comments should be made with care no one is every likely to be sanctioned for a single such comment barring other circumstances (e.g. a iban) so it's also something pointless to bring here. In other words, this doesn't belong at ANI. Note that because we don't deal with content disputes, there's rarely any point explaining in depth why you were right and the other party was wrong in the content dispute even if you feel someone else has unfairly characterised your role in said dispute and there's particularly unlikely to be any point when as I said, the whole thing is so basically flawed because the article talk page is empty. Nil Einne (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Unless anyone has anything else to add, I'd say that an administrator closing this discussion is entirely justifiable. Mathmensch and JBL need to work out their differences elsewhere and resolve the content dispute in a civilised manner, preferably on the Talk Page of the article in question. Until the situation gets much worse (which would likely be bad for both users), there's nothing that can really be done here. DarkKnight2149 18:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Calling someone an "ass", a "dick" or a "jerk" is definitely a personal attack. It is about time that the silly myth about these personal descriptions being acceptable was put to rest. It is always possible to criticise someone's edits without criticising their person. That said, this case can be closed with a warning to both participants to use more civil language. Zerotalk 10:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If I were a mathematician though, I would much rather be called a dick than an incompetent mathematician. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks like an aspersion's Richter scale. dick: 1; mathematician: 3; incompetent mathematician: 5; incompetent dick: near infinity (that's the meaning of an open scale). Pldx1 (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There's literally a guideline dedicated to "don't be a dick". It isn't necessarily an insult as much as it is a description of how they are behaving. But, as previously mentioned, the entire paragraph is borderline WP:UNCIVIL regardless. DarkKnight2149 20:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second the comment by Zero wholeheartedly. All of these comments dismissing the complaint outright are really not helpful. Please provide helpful advice for users who come to ANI in good faith or don't comment at all. This user quite obviously is not trying to drag the content issue onto ANI. That being said, context is everything, and the "don't be an ass" thing was obviously provoked. The idea behind WP:NPA is to "focus on content, not contributors", and rather than attempting to resolve the content dispute through good faith discussion, Mathmensch, you blatantly insulted JBL's intelligence. We're all human, and I don't think any of us here would not respond with some level of "personal attack" after being so blatantly condescended. Here's a very simple concept: treat others the way you want to be treated. Don't insult people, and maybe you won't be at ANI complaining about being personally attacked. Swarm ♠ 19:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Both users are uncivil and this is a content dispute. So, as previously mentioned, both Mathmensch and Joel B. Lewis need to drop their attitudes and resolve this in a civilised manner. And if or when they can't do that, intervention will be needed. DarkKnight2149 20:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Darkknight2149's Proposal

    We haven't heard much from Joel B. Lewis in this situation. So, here's what I propose:

    Regardless of who did what or what has already been said, I motion that both users calm down and continue to discuss this disagreement, but with level heads (ignoring any unsavory comments the other user may or may not have said before) and no immediate administrator intervention. If this dispute continues to heat up, both users are to be topic banned from that particular article for 24 hours. After the ban expires, the two users will have another opportunity to get along in resolving this issue. If incivility continues after that, more Topic Bans are to be implemented with increasing severity until it's indefinite, they get along, or they drop the stick.

    So, to @Joel B. Lewis: and @Mathmensch:, I ask - Are the two of you willing to give the other the clean slate and discuss your differences, regardless of who said what? That is the ideal solution and, if you two still can't reach a consensus, you can always request a third opinion without going at each other's throats. DarkKnight2149 21:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    • I'm against anything that equates Joel B. Lewis's comment with Mathmensch's comments. Yes, Joel could have been a saint and not responded in kind, but that's asking a little much of a mortal human. Mathmensch was condescending and rude from the beginning, and then came running here when he was able to provoke a reaction. That behavior shouldn't be rewarded by treating both editors as equally responsible. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Nicknames of Donald Trump

    Looks like hours after article List of nicknames of Donald Trump was deleted via [146], article Nicknames_of_Donald_Trump was created. WP:G4?. Objective3000 (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is definitely G4, deleted to Make Wikipedia Great Again. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Apologies for reopening a closed discussion on ANI. I think that someone higher up the food chain than I ought provide guidance to Keizers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The editor appears insistent upon adding rather gross nicknames for a living person on many articles. The last strawish thingy for me was citing an article discussing female genitalia on an article about a nursery rhyme. I'll provide diffs is needed; but, just look at their contribs. Or tell me I'm wrong and reclose. Objective3000 (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think it's a big secret that I think Trump is an asshole, yet somehow I manage to refrain from disrupting articles to express this view. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Never give up hope, we can agree on some points, POV disruption and assholes :) - FlightTime (open channel) 13:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The following three diffs are sufficient for any uninvolved admin to indefinitely topic ban Keizers (talk · contribs) from all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. I only just added that notification to the user's talk but I do not believe that is an impediment to a topic ban.

    Would an admin please stop the disruption. Johnuniq (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello there, a ban is not necessary, I have received the message. I would like to point out that no one at any time made it clear that it was not allowed to mention genuine RELEVANT events (e.g. the Twitter war between Jon Stewart and Trump). The REAL issue here seems to be that I must censor the offensive name in particular. I think you need to be absolutely clear to users about this. In any case the message is clear to me. Keizers (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, I have just removed (censored) the offensive name in question from the Jon Stewart article. I did leave the mention of the Twitter war, please let me know if the entire subject must be removed from Wikipedia, due to its potentially being upsetting to our President. Thanks. Keizers (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. Pointy sarcasm is almost guaranteed to help here, under the circumstances. Well done.-- Begoon 13:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) @Johnuniq: While the letter of WP:AC/DS#aware.aware does allow sanctioning of editors who have been made aware of DS but haven't edited since, it would be extremely unusual and, I suspect, quite controversial. They were alerted to BLP DS at 01:55 today, made twelve edits (all related to nicknames of Donald Trump but more than half of them to article talk or user talk) and then were alerted to AP2 DS at 11:20, since which time they haven't edited. While that does technically give us leeway under BLP DS, I don't think sanctions are appropriate right now.
    @Keizers: you are clearly editing against consensus regarding nicknames of Donald Trump. Drop the stick now and go do something else, or there will be sanctions. Note after EC: I'm glad you've got the message. Leave it alone and let other editors sort it out. GoldenRing (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A typo destroyed the ping @Johnuniq: GoldenRing (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please also give me feedback regarding the editing of other articles e.g. Jon Stewart. Is it permissible to add content from secondary, reliable sources about relevant events (e.g. Twitter war with Trump), but simply NOT permissible to mention the insulting name that Stewart used? Keizers (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Feedback? Yeah, stop being a fool. We're mostly bored with that. -- Begoon 13:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ad hominem attacks have no place here. Keizers (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Keizers: Go and read our policy on editing content related to living people. That something is verifiable in reliable, independent, secondary sources is not grounds for inclusion in an article. Verifiability is necessary for it to be included in an article, but not sufficient. In particular, when you add content related to a living person and someone reverts your edit, the burden is on you — not to demonstrate that the content you added is verifiable, but that there is consensus among editors for it to be re-added to the article. Where your edits related to living people are reverted, you must not re-insert them without getting consensus for the material (or, where an editor has objected on specific grounds, you must not re-insert them without genuinely addressing those grounds). Your edits to Jon Stewart have been reverted; you must not re-insert them without solid consensus behind them. You have taken the first step, by starting a discussion on the talk page; now let it play out. GoldenRing (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the constructive feedback. If I had had that guidance before, we could have saved a lot of time Keizers (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Begoon: I don't think personal attacks are going to help here, either. GoldenRing (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair comment. I phrased it very badly, and I apologise for that. My intent was to criticise the specific behaviour, not the person, and I obviously failed to do that. -- Begoon 05:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the Jon Stewart article is the only one where you may have an argument for inclusion as Stewart and Trump are having a bit of a tussle. (Although, I think it’s trivia at this point). OTOH. Trump is not having a battle with Humpty Dumpty and Cheetos’ mascot, Chester Cheetah. But, you’ll need to gain consensus on the Stewart talk page. Objective3000 (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, on this article I'm not going to revert after the first unsubstantiated revert, as the reason given was "it doesn't belong here": I've removed the offensive term in question, but kept the mention of the Twitter war. I agree that some people might find it trivial (I do not), however no more so than half the article.Keizers (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a lot of nicknames. I appreciate the time you spent gathering them. I'm not sure which ones are common. The inclusion criteria that they must be common is too restrictive. QuackGuru (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    See this. If Keizers cannot make a definite statement with explanation why he understands that edits like that one are totally inappropriate, I think it may be time to consider a topic ban on inserting the Donald's name anywhere. John from Idegon (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Need somebody to look at the interaction between QubixQdotta and myself as it has descended into personal attacks and now threats

    I'm not sure if this is the best place for this but things seem to be getting rather out of hand between User:QubixQdotta and myself to the point that I think that it can be considered an incident.

    He has accused me of Gaslighting (diff), which is not a term I had heard of before, but based on the article I take to be a personal attack as it refers to an intentionally abusive form of dishonest manipulation. I am genuinely unable to see how my actions could be interpreted that way so I removed the comment and warned him for personal attacks. He has doubled down on this, reposting the accusation on his own talk page(diff) he has since posted what I take to be a threat on my talk page: diff (I'm not too bothered by the first part of that but the part saying "You might be seeing me a lot these days, so maybe trying to be my worst enemy right now isn't the best idea. Just saying." doesn't seem too healthy.)

    OK. So how did we get here? Did I provoke him? I'll admit to taking a robust line with the large number of editors seeking to engage in revisionism on Fascism, Nazism and related articles. (Nice uncontroversial subjects, right?) I see the attempts to recast Fascism and Nazism as being left wing, or anything other than right wing, as revisionism and contrary to the historical consensus, and that has long been the general line on those pages' talk pages. That said, I also try to remember that there are intentional revisionists and those who have been confused into repeating the revisionist line in good faith and not to bite these people. I am also well aware that the motivation for this is more to distance right wing politics from Nazism than to attempt to rehabilitate it. I am sympathetic to those who do not wish to be associated with Nazism (I mean, who would?) but this is not a legitimate was to do it. In this case I may have jumped the gun a little but I think I was correct to see something more than a confused editor here.

    Let's step through it chronologically: (I'll prefix QQ for QubixQdotta and DR for myself)

    • QQ: diff - It starts here. An unreferenced revisionist edit to Nazism.
    • DR: diff - I revert.
    • DR: diif - I issue a level 2 warning for deliberate factual errors. I am prepared to concede that that was a little harsh. We have had a tidal wave of this sort of bad editing and I may have let my annoyance with others spill over into this. In retrospect maybe it should have been a level 1 or 2 for unreferenced changes.
    • QQ: diff - The usual revisionist line about the Nazi's being "socialist" on my talk page but far more egregiously than normal he flat out accuses the mainstream history books which we use as sources of dishonesty.
    • DR: diff - I reply explaining why this is wrong. I'll admit that my annoyance is showing as I have heard this line so many times before and I do find it hard to believe that it is advanced in good faith when combined with an attack on the sources in general. I'd call it robust not abusive. I use the word "stupid" to refer to the idea of taking Nazi terminology at face value but I do not call QubixQdotta stupid. I try to send him off to look at the Talk page archives, look at the sources and to use the article talk page, not my talk page, if he wants to press it further. I'll admit the end is a bit overdramatic but I think the basic point, that anybody who doesn't recognise mainstream sources as valid is not going to get very far here, is valid.
    • QQ: diff - Replies with the accusation of "gaslighting" and a claim that he is trying to work constructively, which I find hard to take seriously. (Over on Talk:Nazism he was questioning sources again, not in any specific way, just not really accepting that sources are valid in general, a line his has since softened.)
    • DR: diff - I revert the accusation and rollup what has gone before.
    • DR: diff - I warn him, only at level 2, against personal attacks.
    • QQ: diff - Copies the accusation to his talk page.
    • QQ: diff - Posts two messages on my talk page. One is a general expression of annoyance, which I'm OK with, but the second one seems to be a quite blatant threat and that is what brings us here.

    And that's where we are. There is also some back and forth on Talk:Nazism but that is not as bad and I won't bore you all by itemising it.

    In retrospect, I would have handled it differently, playing out the rope a lot more calmly for him to hang himself with, but I do not believe that I provoked him in any way that can justify a complaint of gaslighting (which, based on the article, is a much more serious accusation than it may at first sound) or that final threat in which he seems to be saying that he is moving in and taking over here. The threat is seriously disturbing. That is why I have brought this here. Maybe, or maybe not, the rest of the story is overkill but I didn't want to give the false impression that this came from nowhere.

    It would be great if somebody could look this over and decide where, if anywhere, we go from here. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You called me "stupid" and a "horse that was brought to water" when I was simply trying to have a civil discussion with you. I tried to keep my cool and talk to you, but you went back to insults towards my intelligence and motive for editing here (not constructive and by far not WP:KEEPCOOL or WP:GOODFAITH). I am here to help the project and I have gotten nothing but negativity and insults about me. What I meant by my statement was that I don't want to be your enemy if I'm going to be working with you on the article. I admit the statement could definately be taken out of context but thats not what I meant. But anyways, I don't care for the way I've been treated by DanielRigal and I can honestly say that I have never sent any bad words your way about what you believe in or about your intelligence. From an honest place of respect for you coming into this article, I feel very disrespected as a fellow editor and it really isn't okay. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 00:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Gaslighting is making one question their own perception (you claim was an "attack"; it was more of a expression of how I felt) - which I said based on the fact you said, "If you really do believe that all the history books are wrong (and intentionally dishonest) then Wikipedia is probably not for you. In fact, that seems to be a view incompatible with any understanding of the real world at all." Another insult towards my intelligence, I was honestly offended because I'm a free thinker and I question everything. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 01:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Although the rhetoric got slightly out of hand, at the core of this is a content dispute. QQ made an unsourced edit based on their interpretation of Nazism, basically WP:OR, which was correctly reverted and Daniel has admitted to being harsher than necessary.

    QQ's followup comment, Daniel's 4th diff, shows a misunderstanding of sourcing. Irrespective of what we, as editors, think of the source material, if the source is reliable and states that Nazism is far right wing then that is what will be entered. QubixQdotta, the "stupid" comment could not be interpreted as being directed at you and rather as a generic statement. At this point, what I see is that QubixQdotta overreacted a bit and things got heated but nothing that can't be mended. However, if you, QubixQdotta, want to push an edit like the one that started this mess then you better make sure you have solid reliable sources that back you up. Blackmane (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    That original edit was made on the fly because I thought it was vandalism. I don't usually edit political articles, so I didn't even know people considered Nazism far-right. It was alien to me. "QubixQdotta overreacted a bit and things got heated but nothing that can't be mended." I appreciate the kind words but honestly, I'm positive I kept my cool the whole time. (maybe tone doesn't translate well through text?) While I'm sorry I didn't source on the "far-left" edit, that doesn't change the fact DanielRigal escalated the whole thing into calling me names, insulting my intelligence, and a "horse that was brought to water" and even recently "playing out the rope a lot more calmly for him to hang himself with". With all due respect, I didn't say anything of that nature to DanielRigal. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 02:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Another misunderstanding is that my motivation is to take away sources. That's not my motivation. It's to elaborate on why academics think in these diverse ways. I read the Nazism article and noticed very simplistic bouts of information being sourced heavily with pages and pages of information from textbooks: "The majority of scholars identify Nazism in both theory and practice as a form of far-right politics." (sourced here Nazism#cite_note-Fritzsche_Eatwell_Griffin-13). It made me extremely curious as to how this extremely sophisticated 3-in-1 source could be summed up into such a simple sentence (it wasn't even sourced a second time), and it made me extremely curious to know what was in those pages and how I could utilize them more effectively. The article just left a lot to be answered. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 02:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're coming here to look for answers and make edits and to elaborate on why academics think in these diverse ways then you're in the wrong place. The whole point of Wikipedia is to act as a collation of what reliable sources say and not to provide a forum on the discourse of whichever topic one may be curious about. Nor is it a place to interpret what one source says against what another says. If you don't see what the main goal of Wikipedia is and how your first edit set things off, then DanielRigal is correct in saying that Wikipedia is not for you. Blackmane (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again with due respect, you're missing what I'm saying. I did not say anything about interpreting sources or providing a forum. I'm talking about taking what these academics have said and providing their information as is. What I'm doing is totally based on Wikipedia policies about WP:NPOV. What I want to do is the exact opposite of interpretation. It's pure fact and facts about the views of academics. I discover facts, I don't interpret. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 04:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You misunderstand WP:NPOV. It does not mean that we give equal WP:Weight to every possible idea and theory. We base our articles on the consensus of experts, in this case historians of the Nazi regime. Now, we also will sometimes mention other WP:fringey viewpoints, but even then they have to be espoused by recognized experts, and we do not present them as the prevailing view or give them the same exposure as the generally recognized viewpoint.
    In this instance, that Nazism was a far-right movement is undoubtedly accepted by the vast majority of historians and political scientists. Yes "Socialism" is in the name, quite deliberately so, as when Hitler changed the name of the party he was attempting to attract as many people to it as possible. The early party platform (the so-called "25 points", which was never rescinded) did include socialist programs, and there was even a "socialist" wing of the party, led by the Strasser brothers, but Hitler drove Otto Strasser out and purged Gregor Strasser in the Night of the Long Knives, just as he did Ernst Rohm, another socialist-leaning Nazi, and Josef Goebbels, a Strasserite with a socialist background, fell totally under Hitler's spell. In the end, even though the 25 points was never withdrawn, and even though some programs Hitler initiated when he took power were quasi-socialistic, overall, the party and the regime was not left-wing, and the "Socialist" in the party's name was honored mostly in the breech. To spend much more time then I've done here exploring the socialist aspects of Nazism would be to give it WP:UNDUE weight.
    So, bottom line, you've been here a little over a year, but you apparently haven't totally grasped how things are done and what our editorial policies are. I'd suggest that you bone up on those before you get yourself in another editing dispute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And please, fix your sig. It's not only unreadable, it's so far down below the line that it visually interferes with the line below it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No I actually didn't misunderstand NPOV. I read the part about undue weight too. I'm talking about taking what these academics have said and providing their information as is. What I'm doing is totally based on Wikipedia policies about WP:NPOV. What I want to do is the exact opposite of interpretation. It's pure fact and facts about the views of academics. I discover facts, I don't interpret. [qub/x q;otta] ▤▧ 05:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Yes, you actually have misinterpreted it, because you're still saying the same thing, and it's not what NPOV means. You may have read the part about "undue weight", but you obviously didn't understand it. Considering how adamant you are about this, and how resistant you are to accepting that you are wrong, I think it may be worthwhile for editors to take a look at your article edits to see if you've been following this false reading of NPOV in them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. Thank you for altering your sig. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @QubixQdotta: Please further adjust your signature to conform to MOS:CONTRAST, thanks. — fortunavelut luna 09:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    On my browser, the username is unclickable. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, his username isn't linked. :P — nihlus kryik  (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The boxes after the name appear to have the required link. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The comment about QQ being around for a little over a year reminded me of something QQ said about having been "a very experienced Wikipedian" when I welcomed them back in May 2016. This led to a rabbit hole, and I ended up filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jump Guru. Oops. It plausibly looks to me like a dormant account was reactivated to !vote in an AFD in 2016. It's a bit stale, but regardless, QQ definitely claimed to be an experienced editor shortly after the account was created. Grayfell (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, what a surprise, you could knock me over with a feather! Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • so the OP's main reason for filing was this diff by QubixQdotta, and the part of that the OP found somewhat disturbing was: You might be seeing me a lot these days, so maybe trying to be my worst enemy right now isn't the best idea. Just saying. I agree that this is... thuggish.
    Above, QubixQdotta wrote: I don't usually edit political articles, so I didn't even know people considered Nazism far-right.
    Really?
    I looked at their contribs. Here is their edit count. They have made about 750 edits, with 20 deleted.
    • Around 200 of those edits are related to Peckerwood gangs, which arose in prison in opposition to black gangs and have some roots in/affiliations with the Aryan Brotherhood. (per the editing statastics, Qubix is the leading contributor by far to the peckerwood page.
    • It is true that Qubix doesn't contribute much to mainstream political pages, but their biggest chunk of Talk is at Alt-right (see their contribs there; that includes a string of edits in May (their last edits to the page) that were so offensive they were redacted as you can see in the history here. In their second comment from back in January they give very strong and clear views on alt-right politics. I see no sense of ignorance about politics there.
    By February at the alt-right page they were being asked to propose concrete changes already, and replied by continuing to write things like this: ... "White supremacy" is a label that often gets swept over things that people are too lazy to further investigate. I understand it makes you guys happy to see nazis get burned alive on Wikipedia, but I rather see truth about the matter, not what I see on the news everyday. ...Excuse me if I get passionate about the truth of topics but it really means alot to hear truth which includes the truth about the movement's racism and Richard Spencer's crazy bigoted garbage. I'm used to my community telling me alternative facts/weird conspiracies about politicians and that I'm supposed to believe them. I come to Wikipedia for truth and to spread truth.
    By April they were writing things like this: I know right OP? It's almost like elitist editors on this page completely ignored WP:COI and WP:NPOV. And why so passionately too? Oh I think I know: $$$. :)
    So we have some of the The Truth and the usual accompanying conspiracy theorizing going on here...
    • And then there is stuff related to Nazi page already discussed above.
    QubixQdotta is s[bringing the tiger into Wikipedia way too much (per WP:Beware of tigers). I am not sure what the right answer is but Qubix definitely needs to rethink how they are approaching these topics, and other editors at them. The SPI is also turning very strange... I cannot make sense out of what this is person is doing in WP or the various voices they use here and ways/topics they edit. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was looking at the SPI and wondering whether I could/should say anything helpful/useful but the truth is that I can't really make head nor tail of it. I'd just like to thank everybody for their time taken looking into this matter which has become far more complex and time consuming than I expected. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    96.240.96.130

    Someone please block this IP 96.240.96.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), please, at least for a week or two (I would bring it to AIV but this is a rush ask); all of their edits since the 4th have been vandalism/unsourced television show and network vandalism, and they're using the 'multiple edits to muddle quick rollbacks' strategy to get their edits to stick. Just discovered tonight and how they haven't gotten well past their last warning is incredible to me. Nate • (chatter) 02:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You can use Twinkle or rollback to easily revert multiple edits. There haven't been any edits in the past few hours, so I posted a level 3 warning. I'll try to remember to keep an eye on the IP's edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning 2

    Filer again blocked, this time 48 hours by User:Alex Shih. DMacks (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This bot reverted my legitimate edits to Johnny Gaudreau and gave me a vandalism warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoFlamesGo (talk • contribs) 02:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Nah, he's working just fine. You were reverted by more than one editor who told you not to add that information and to discuss the matter. You did the opposite of that. While I would not fuss at a human editor identifying your edit as vandalism, you did behave in a way that would reasonably make a clever bot think you were engaging in vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The OP made the same complaint about another of their edits in #User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning up the page, where they were told that their edit was inappropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume User:Beyond My Ken meant inappropriate? Given they got blocked for it there. DMacks (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thanks - fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Phone number spam (Previous title: Anyone want to help roll back vandalism?)

    Hi. User:185.212.169.218 has been adding the same phone number to a large number of articles about universities. I've reverted some but have to go do other stuff tonight. Does anyone have time to revert this IP's other contributions? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This also needs a block as the spree is ongoing. I've reported at AIV. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yikes. I'll revert it whenever I see it. RC is moving a bit too quickly for my comfort, right now. --a u t a c o i d (stalk) 06:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:185.212.169.201 seems to be related, if not the same person. Reverting their changes. --a u t a c o i d (stalk) 06:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There are multiples. Can we get a range block? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 06:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been done ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Oshwah. User:51.15.153.37 seems to follow the same pattern. Reverted all of their edits I've seen so far. --a u t a c o i d (stalk) 06:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Poof! Like magic, it stops editing ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @MelanieN: Pinging MelanieN as this looks similar to an existing scam on many Indian university articles. Ravensfire (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Now 162.244.81.106 (talk · contribs) is doing it. Reported at AIV. Would love help to revert contributions. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked and reverted. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree this looks like a scam rather than simple vandalism. I'm concerned that the RC patrollers and watchlisters are seldom picking it up. Is there a good way to bring the issue to the attention of our RC patrollers? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The latest IP range used was a webhost, which I range blocked. If the same phone number is being spammed, one can suggest an edit filter at WP:EF/R. I'm not really aware of an area where you post alerts to RC patrollers, but some patrollers probably hang out at IRC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks and disruption by Etherialemperor

    The edit that spurred this report is here where Etherialemperor calls me a "fag".

    This coolness after disruption on Richard Spencer where Etherialemperor repeatedly changed "supremacist" to "nationalist" for the entry on Richard B. Spencer, despite the lead sentence of that BLP calling him a white supremacist. Etherialemperor tried to edit the BLP despite the HTML comment warning against such a change to the lead. Additionally, editors who reverted Etherialemperor where called editing in "bad faith" (WP:NPA) for disagreeing. This user's POV and apparent dislike of certain types of people is affecting their editing and causing disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 48 hours for the personal attack, given there's no doubt it was meant as such. There are other issues here, but initially I'd like to see how they act once their block expires -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 07:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    NB. edit referenced above has been revision deleted -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 07:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your swift response! EvergreenFir (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    NO ACTION
    Being dealt with here. No admin action required -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 12:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello Administrators,

    My attorneys have reported that Wikipedia is displaying my picture illegaly on a page which is not my profile. I have asked the profile author to put page for " Speedy Deletion " .

    I confirm that DO NOT give copyright permission to Wikipedia to use my picture on any of their pages or their sister websites.

    Remove it immediately.

    Location : https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dr._Mukesh_Hariawala_in_2012.jpg#mw-jump-to-license

    I do not wish to be logged it but you can cummunicate with me directly at

    (Redacted)

    Thank you.

    Dr Mukesh Hariawala — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.248.176.187 (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Best practices (re-creation of deleted page)

    Monitor Records (New York) was prodded by TenPoundHammer (note, I'm pinging but not "notifying" because his actions were absolutely correct and not up for review) because there was no indication of notability. I know this to be an important classical label in the 1960s-1970s, so I de-prodded and found sources. However, it became blindingly obvious that the article was a blatant copyright violation of the Smithsonian page, so I deleted the article. I plan on creating this article again (non-copyvio) with the sources I found, and my question is thus: Should I re-create the article, which would give me credit in editing history for having created the article (when in fact I am not the true "originator" of the subject), or would it be better to restore the article, and then revdelete all previous versions prior to the "replacement" version I create (thereby giving article creator credit to the copyright violator). I've not run into this situation before in my editing "career" here, and I'd like broader input into what the community deems the most ethical course of action in this situation. Not typical ANI material (fortunately) and maybe this belongs at Village Pump, but I want eyes. Thanks! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Create it as a new article. You shouldn't feel guilty about appearing to be the first person to create a proper article on the subject, because you will be that, but if you wish you can put a short note of explanation on the article talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well; we should only submit articles that are in line with policy. If someone has failed to do that before you, that's of no concern of yours. Pace NYB, but I do not agree that TP notes are necessary- think how many times this actuall happens- even accidentally, where one is not aware of a previous version. Anyway. — fortunavelut luna 14:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that a talkpage note is not at all necessary; was merely noting that it is permissible if desired. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, thanks. I also agree there's no harm in it whatsoever, and it's to be praised as an example of how occasionally editors can go beyond the spirit of collegiality, and by doing so, make up a little ground for those who do not  :) — fortunavelut luna 16:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Put the Deletions in the Template:Article history on the talk page, then anyone can see the history. - X201 (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    More eyes as requested :P Create the new version and template the talk as suggested by X201. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Per FIM and NYB, this is fine. Talk page suggestions by NYB/X201/FT are not harmful, but not needed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lankandude2017

    Lankandude2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recently been adding original research (in the form of material from sources that do discuss the article subject) to articles including British Sri Lankan Tamil. This has been discussed at Talk:British Sri Lankan Tamil (and Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#British Sri Lankan Tamil article), but Lankandude2017 continues to revert to his preferred version of the article, against talk page consensus. This has already resulted in one block for editing warring, and Lankandude2017 has now returned from that block to continue the same behaviour. He has also been warned for accusing me of racism, as discussed at User talk:Lankandude2017#Accusation of racism and in the couple of sections below. I have generally been trying not to rise to this, as it is clear that several other editors are keeping an eye on the situation, but he has now signed a talk page post as me, which is getting pretty disruptive. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    And now Lankandude is adding frivolous/malicious AIV reports against Cordless Larry and myself. --bonadea contributions talk 15:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    ...and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bonadea (with no evidence of sockpuppetry). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    SPI page deleted (by me), and Lankandude blocked for a week (by Alex Shih). --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect to the admins already handling this, this is hallmark behaviour of a particular sockmaster, and I've re-blocked accordingly. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Violation?

    Is this a violation of this? Tiderolls 16:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    That it is. EEng 16:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and there have been several recent crystal-clear warnings that this type of post is a violation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked one week by User:Ivanvector. — fortunavelut luna 16:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If not for Only in death's warning I might have let this go, we do allow some leeway for users to adjust to their community-imposed restrictions. But with the plainly-worded warning there's really no way that I can see that they weren't aware that the edit would definitely be in violation of the restriction. This wasn't just testing the limits of the ban, it was repeating almost exactly the sort of edit (objecting to "de-Americanizing" a biography) which led to the ban discussion in the first place. Easy and necessary block, in my opinion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks to everyone offering an opinion. My take was that the warnings were adequately explicit; I was a bit stunned to see Light show's post. I thought it was possible I was overlooking something obvious. Regards, Tiderolls 17:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Emanuel argento disruptive edits

    I'm not an expert of such situations, I don't know exactly where to ask for help and I apologize in advance if this is not the proper place to make such requests.

    The new user Emanuel argento is erasing content on the article Cassata. Nothing big, honestly, but the problem is that he neither gives substantial arguments, nor shows sources. He didn't stop even when I provided sources to motivate the presence of such content on that page. He kept reverting my fixes, erased the source I provided and trolled me on the edit summary. Today I found out that he erased again my edit. At this point I don't know what to do.

    While he has never been warned before on en.wikipedia, I found out that he accumulated a lot of controversy on it.wikipedia, as you can see here (Sorry for linking a page in a foreign language, but I think it is necessary. A web translator may help). Despite admins and reviewers gave him several suggestions, advice and warnings to stop his damaging edits, he ignored everything and everyone. He was also notified with a "block" warning (sorry, I don't know how this procedure is called on en.wikipedia) after several admins and reviewers reverted 84 edits by him in 2 weeks (!). In his defense, he said he doesn't want to be annoyed by admins, because what he say is true (!!). That's how collaborative this guy is.

    In the last weeks I reverted other odd edits by him (for example, here), so I suppose he is probably giving the same, bad contribution here on en.wikipedia. That's why I showed you his it.wikipedia talk page.

    I just read on the guidelines that, in order to solve an edit war (like the one occured on the cassata article), a discussion on an article's talk page is the best thing to do, but in this specific case I think it'd be useless (he doesn't listen to admins, why should he listen a regular user? He's completely uncollaborative).

    On a side note, I noticed he seldom motivates his edits, but when he do, he writes in Italian. I think this is not completely fair and constructive to the community (I can understand him since I'm Italian, but what about other non Italian-speaking editors?).

    That said, I kindly ask an admin to keep an eye on Emanuel argento's diruptive behavior on en.wikipedia. I also ask that some admin could help me to restore all the legit content he erased from the cassata article.

    Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simostar (talk • contribs) 17:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Proposing topic ban for all articles related to Palermitan cakes or confections, narrowly construdeled. EEng 19:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC) Seriously, can we change the header on this page to read This page is for reporting and discussing urgent or chronic matters incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors? Not that anyone would read it anyway. But really – an argument over whether a cake does or does not have chocolate in it [149] is an ANI matter? On the other hand, there seems to be a pattern here [150] so maybe we should take this to Arbcom.[reply]
    Vandalism always looks so much more artistic in Italiano doesn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

    User:Edwardx

    First rule of socking: "Hey, everybody look at me! I'm a new account trying to get an existing account in trouble! For really dumb reasons!" is a pretty stupid way to go about socking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user is continuously tagging pages which passes notability. Even though the user has many years experience , he is not even looking at the refeneces to check whether it is reliable or not. Quoting some recent incidents Tagged Prod, this page has enough and more reliable references including interviews, radio interviews etc , Previous tagged CSD , when removed with reason, placed Prod even though it has enough reliable sources These 2 articles are related and One article was created by me. Being an user with around 11 year experience as per the wikipedian's front page, the user is not follwing Wikipedia guidelines for placing tags in pages.Interesting thing is that many articles created by this user is also tagged for deletion by other admin. Those were created without following guidelines of wiki. This is not good for wikipedia and it must be warned. Any one is free to talk to me at my talk page BetterSmile:D (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC) BetterSmile:D (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you have any evidence of him mis-tagging articles that someone besides you did not make? Because that's gonna be the thing that distinguishes whether he's mis-tagging articles or you're just assuming bad faith and making a revenge post. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we supposed to assume Bettersmiley's name and interest in this article is just a startling coincidence? An article that was created by a sock and edited almost exclusively by other socks? Are we also to assume their keen interest in this dude by the same sock farm is also a coincidence? I think not.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Ejdjr account appears to be in use for promoting advertisement of his affiliated institution and personnel using Wikipedia as a platform

    The use of Wikipedia for the purpose of advertisement of an institution with which User:Ejdjr is affiliated by the creation of a new page for it is against Wikipedia policy. His edits at The Friedman Brain Institute have had extensive negative comments from several administrators and other editors which seem to be ignored. User:Ejdjr is also removing quoted text from biography articles about personnel at his institution written by the NY Times which he simply calls ungrammatical and deletes at will. This he did at Dennis Charney several times. User:Ejdjr appears to be involved in the use of his account on multiple occassions for furthering the purposes of his affiliated institution and its related personnel by trying to create a new article to promote it and by trying to delete referenced materials associated with personnel at his affiliated institution. He has been informed on his Talk page that if he persists in using Wikipedia for the purpose of creating an advertisement page again for his affiliated institution or deleting referenced material from articles associated with personnel related to his institution that his account priviledges may be restricted which User:Ejdjr continues to ignore. Since I am only an infrequent editor at Wikipedia, it seemed appropriate to leave this report for further eval. 146.203.126.241 (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for posting this. I've left a message on that user's page as well. I do appreciate the cleanup you have been doing behind Ejdjr's quite blatant POV editing, which has indeed violated policy on several occasions (e.g. here). I encourage you to create an account, and continue contributing! Thanks again! Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree the account seems to have been used for undisclosed promotional editing. Thanks for giving them warnings and advice, Jytdog and 146.xx. But since it's been over a month since they last edited, I don't think there's much more we can do until they return — if they do — and, hopefully, respond to you. Their promotional article draft has been rejected so many times they may have given up. Bishonen | talk 21:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

    Conduct of User:Xenophrenic with respect to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 4

    I have no doubt that User:Xenophrenic is a good and well-meaning person, but his passion for defending atheism as a viewpoint from which he is convinced no ill can come has led to tendentious editing and accusing editors who disagree with him of having an anti-atheist agenda. To this end, Xenophrenic made 64 posts in the discussion regarding Category:Persecution by atheists, challenging virtually every editor who disagreed with him, and including unpleasant comments like "That is yet another demonstration of the quality of your reading comprehension skills", "please troll at a different discussion page", "You're agenda is showing, and I don't think a closing editor is going to take you seriously". Granted, there were provocations going both ways, but Xenophrenic was the most active participant in this conduct. It was also pointed out in that discussion that Xenophrenic has tended towards edit warring in attempting to depopulate categories that he feels portray atheists negatively.

    My involvement with this topic began when I closed this long-backlogged discussion (a very difficult close, due to the extensive discussion and numerous options proposed by participants), finding no clear consensus to delete, but renaming the category to a title with much narrower scope that was suggested by multiple participants in the discussion, Category:Persecution by atheist states. Xenophrenic appealed the close, which is certainly his right. The appeal was closed as endorsing the close of the initial discussion. However, Xenophrenic's conduct of confronting every disagreeing participant at length continued during the appeal. In a discussion with only about a dozen participants, Xenophrenic made 28 comments, often with the imprimatur that those who disagree with him just don't get it, aren't reading the discussion, or have an anti-atheist agenda.

    I also sought to populate the newly refined category with clearly relevant articles and subcategories such as Category:Persecution of Christians in the Eastern Bloc and Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union, as articles in these categories clearly describe efforts to impose state atheism through persecution of religious practitioners. The population of such a category is, in my view, standard operating procedure, the same as when I close a discussion as "delete", and then remove links to the deleted target from articles, or when I close a multimove request as moved, and then update the links to reflect the changed page titles. Generally, these efforts are uncontroversial. In this case, Xenophrenic reverted these edits, and has continued to edit war over these additions - he has, for example, removed the category from the subcategory eight times, and has been reverted eight times, by several different editors. Clearly Xenophrenic knows to time his reversions to avoid the letter of 3RR, but not the spirit of it. Xenophrenic's rationale continues to be the belief that the category should not exist at all, that atheism can not be a motivation for people (or states) to act negatively, and that any sources to the contrary must be biased and agenda-driven.

    I have no further interest in this topic, but I feel constrained to seek some limitation on Xenophrenic's conduct in this area - even if only a break from this topic for a few months. bd2412 T 20:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Wow. This user seems to be on a very persistent mission, starting on July 5, to see that category deleted. They were clearly highly invested in that deletion discussion, and although the consensus and the Deletion Review consensus, were against them, as of today they're still on a mission to remove that category.[151] While the edit warring problem is obvious, especially given their block log, I'd say this crosses strongly over into tendentious editing. A permanent sanction would certainly seem to be needed here, but a block moreso. I've blocked them for 2 weeks. I think this would have been warranted based on the edit warring alone, and certainly for the underlying WP:RGW issues. Swarm ♠ 20:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Swarm: Since this thread seems to be about more than edit warring, maybe it would be best to conditionally and/or temporarily unblock in order for him to participate here? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Rhododendrites: Absolutely. If a community sanction is imposed, I will absolutely be in favor of unblocking in deference to said sanction. If such a sanction is implemented, any admin may unblock without any objection or input from myself. Swarm ♠ 03:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Swarm: hmm that didn't generate a notification for some reason. Regardless, what I mean is that since we're talking about Xenophrenic in the context of more than just edit warring, it seems a shame that he is unable to comment/defend himself. I could be wrong, but isn't it pretty common in such scenarios to allow for a restricted unblock (i.e. only to edit this page)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You are mistaken. Blocked users may have their comments transcribed to AN/I, but I've never heard of easing a restriction for the purpose of AN/I. Given the fact that the only questioning of the block is escalation, I would certainly not support any unblock in absence of a stronger sanction. Swarm ♠ 04:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. Perhaps I was confusing the practice with that at AE/ARB. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban: I have conflicted with Xenophrenic on this topic, and I have not seen many of his edits elsewhere. Hopefully, he makes good content edits, and if so, hopefully, he can prove himself so he does not need a topic ban. However, Xenophrenic does appear to be on a mission to whitewash WP content on atheism -- this is seen in his edit warring even after discussions were closed against what he wanted, along with his accusations that user like myself have the bias. I make no apology for my personal religious/political beliefs, but I am not pushing them on WP -- I think the "persecution by atheist states" category is noncontroversial, as there were atheist states in history that engaged in religious persecution (this fact does not condemn all atheists, just as the Inquisition does not condemn all Roman Catholics -- and I speak as a Protestant). --1990'sguy (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accusations like a viewpoint from which he is convinced no ill can come and attempting to depopulate categories that he feels portray atheists negatively should really come with diffs. That's not to say Xenophrenic has been a model of good faith collaboration, and it's likely he's stepped over the line edit warring somewhere recently, but his arguments are pretty solidly based on policy and sourcing.
    Adding context: This ordeal began in response to a category Jobas (now indeffed for sock puppetry) began as one of several anti-atheism editing projects. The first CfD attracted several SPAs, many poor arguments, and blatant canvassing. (As an aside, since BD2412 and I have disagreed on the definition of an SPA, I define it here as a user with few or no edits on enwiki outside of a particular topic or purpose [i.e. including users active on other Wikimedia projects with few-to-no edits on enwiki who happened to find this obscure projectspace discussion]).
    Xenophrenic has challenged the sourcing in several places, engaging with more or less the same group of editors, with arguments on both sides repeated ad nauseum. It's often about wanting sources establishing the concept "persecution by atheists" as opposed to a synthesis of something like "they were atheists" and "they persecuted religious groups" therefore categorize not just as "anti-clericalism," "persecution of communists," "religious persecution," etc. but also "persecution by atheists" (I've paid a little less attention to the new category's debates, though it seems to suffer from the same issue). But the content particulars aren't for ANI, of course.
    I'm sympathetic to Xenophrenic's position, if not his methods, and appreciate that this is an effort to demand better policy arguments and sources despite being outnumbered, but that in an effort to make up for being outnumbered his editing has gotten rather out of hand. An edit warring block is probably deserved, but I would oppose further sanction without evidence that extends beyond this particular mess. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not unsympathetic to the fact that atheists are a much maligned group. I would note that a closer could have legitimately closed the original CfD as "no consensus" and left the category as it was. I would consider the category rename to be at least a partial "win" for those supporting deletion, since it no longer is directed at atheists generically. bd2412 T 22:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • In a way, it seems like you're characterizing this debate as one of atheists vs. non-atheists here and in the way you've described Xenophrenic (the objection I started with above). Neither Xenophrenic nor I have been arguing about the plight of atheists or that they aren't depicted fairly on Wikipedia. The problem has nothing to do with the treatment of atheists (or absolution of atheists, etc.) such that the category has now been improved by being less about atheists broadly... the problem is that it's a loss for Wikipedia to have categories based on WP:SYNTH, and that the substance of an editor's policy-based arguments are being misrepresented by characterizing that editor having "a viewpoint from which he is convinced no ill can come". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • In retrospect, I withdraw the portion of my statement regarding "a viewpoint from which he is convinced no ill can come". Perhaps Xenophrenic's views are not that absolute. His edit warring and battleground conduct is what it is irrespective of his motivations. bd2412 T 17:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Topic Ban for Xenophrenic on all Religion/Atheism Articles Appears impossible for this user to accept that credible sources see things differently on this topic. desmay (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • What credible sources are those? People keep claiming their existence, but none were produced at the CfD. The closer found it too hard to reach a policy-based decision such as summnig up arguments about WP:OCEGRS, so the vote was counted. The category at CfD was empty at the time of its nomination and anyone wanting the renamed category included in articles would need to produce reasons based on sources. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have spent significant time looking at the case and Xenophrenic is not the problem. The fundamental difficulty is that several agenda-driven editors have been pushing the idea that atheism is evil by inserting connect-the-dots factoids in articles along the lines that persecution has occurred because of atheism. Atheists have committed persecution, but so have people with black hair, and secondary sources known to be reliable for the relevant historical period are required to determine which were the significant factors that lead to persecution. Discussions have been closed based on a vote without reasonable assessment of the policy-based information presented regarding underlying sources. For example, the Soviets used atheism to crush opposition—souces do not suggest Soviets crushed religion because they were atheists. Johnuniq (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OCEGRS is the problem because it would not be possible to write an article about persecution by atheists or atheist states that satisfied WP:N and WP:V. No one is pushing the idea that there is anything wrong with lawyers or Tulsa so advocacy does not arise. By contrast, advocates are using poorly sourced factoids and categories to POV push regarding atheism. Johnuniq (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with this user on the facts, but I'm having some trouble connecting his conduct with the need for a topic ban, and I'm not completely sure a two week block is fully justified. He's engaged passionately in a debate about whether a category should exist ---- and lost. He's also removed the same category from articles and has got overexcited with reverting. And... what else? Please could someone help me join this up?—S Marshall T/C 22:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the record, I did not propose a block. However, I was unaware of Xenophrenic's block history, which includes a half dozen blocks for edit warring, most recently a one-week block in February of this year. Typically, blocks for edit warring are progressively longer. bd2412 T 22:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking through Xenophrenic's edit history, when he disagreed with the outcome of the previous debate on this category, he went ahead and removed that category from every article to which it had been added. I have nominated plenty of categories for deletion in my time, and when I have been on the losing side, I've never taken a step like that. bd2412 T 23:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a followup: I think the block was very reasonable, if not lenient. This would be a typical block for continued edit warring, without factoring in the strong POV-pushing associated with this user's behavior. This aggravating factor was handily present. Swarm ♠ 03:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't at all agree with Xenophrenic's 'methods', but I can share his frustration in face of demonstrable WP:SOAPBOXing and all the (seemingly networked) bad-faith 'in-group' behaviour required to 'push' it; wikipedia is obviously not prepared for such affronts, and those responsible for such behaviour are no doubt quite aware of that, too. And this is a problem that goes beyond this particular topic.
    Demonstrating unverifiability (in addition to the above behaviour) is not 'POV-pushing' (and it is disingenuous to call it so): even a cursory search should be enough to demonstrate whether something is commonly-accepted and widely-demonstrated fact (or a fringe-opinion created/promoted by one particular 'in-group'), but when pages of responses to that request by those pushing a claim (and even deciding administrators) do everything but that (and are deflection, vote-counting that doesn't add up, and 'let's find a behaviour fault' (often non sequitur) ad hominem accusations instead), that makes a situation that pretty well describes itself, and makes this look like an additional effort to remove opposition.
    I'm not sure whether we (or who) are supposed to even 'vote' here (and any rational decision should, again, consider more than that), but: sanctions for bad behaviour, yes, but topic-ban, no, especially when those seeking the ban are incapable of defending (by any demonstrable means) their this-topic-related claims that are the root of all this. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What's more, it should be further noted that the reporting admin (and the 'decider' admin in earlier discussions leading to this) is clearly siding with the WP:SOAPBOXers: this sort of behaviour (that has yet to address the verifiability of anything) has no place on Wikipedia, and I would really like to see this, upon further non-partisan examination, WP:BOOMERANG, and perhaps also against others supporting the same decidedly un-encyclopaedic goals. In any case, this entire situation requires further objective attention by those truely interested in Wikipedia's verifiablilty, as this misuse of Wikipedia, as far as I can see, is becoming a disquieting and increasingly organised trend. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I had no involvement in this matter, nor any interest in the topic, prior to my closure of the long-pending CfD discussion. The most substantial portion of the conduct noted above had already occurred by then. There is no conspiracy at work here, and no agenda beyond carrying out the best available consensus of the community. bd2412 T 21:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody's claiming any 'conspiracy', but I have full confidence in anyone deciding whatever here to judge that for themselves. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I closed the first deletion discussion(here) as no consensus, but I did point out that the category as it was named was clearly WP:OR and needed to be renamed. I cannot defend Xenophrenic's edit-warring, but he's still correct that the category name as it exists is WP:SYNTH and clearly cannot be verified (or hasn't been as yet). Topic-banning someone for pushing a POV that's technically correct cannot be logical, surely, regardless of the edit-warring issue. I am becoming seriously concerned that there is a group of editors who are pushing for their "opponents" to be removed from the arena, as has already happened with QuackGuru in one of the sections above. I don't think letting them get their wish is a very good idea at all. Black Kite (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've seen many sanctions applied where the administrator explained that good edits don't justify edit-warring, or whatever other bad behavior. Now I see the opposite. Black Kite is even threatening the editors who had their consensus overridden by Xenophrenic's edit-warring with an "investigation" into offsite coordination. On what evidence?
    The message is clear: ignore policy and consensus if necessary to make sure your edits stick. And don't worry if you're reported, we'll protect you because we agree with your POV. Administrators don't get a super-vote on content decisions, especially after the fact. Enforce the rules consistently or not at all. D.Creish (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you've forgotten that if I was using a "super vote" then I would have closed the CFD as Delete, wouldn't I? Perhaps actually reading around the issue might be useful here; as Johnuniq and The Promenader amongst others say above, demnstrating unverifiability of an issue (and don't forget WP:V is policy) is perfectly good editing (it is not POV editing), even if edit-warring is not. Those who wish to see the category retained but have still not fixed the verifiability issues with it cannot hold the moral high ground here, sorry. Especially editors like yourself whose very short editing histories here seem to be characterised mostly by editing warring and POV editing themselves (how ironic, eh?). Black Kite (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I read the deletion discussion (including all 61 of Xenophrenic's comments.) The majority were in favor of keep. Ignoring the canvassed votes the majority was even greater. You said the "keep votes were very poor indeed in regards to policy" without explaining what policies or why and closed as "no consensus", so I don't know what point trying to prove. If you'd closed as "delete" it would have been overturned. D.Creish (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? 99 article space edits and you're giving Black Kite grief on AN/I about how to close discussions? Seriously?—S Marshall T/C 18:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sandman789 and Money Mike Sandberg

    User blocked and non-notable COI articles (including fake article on userpage) deleted.
    (non-admin closure)
    Softlavender (talk) 05:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Sandman789 has been repeatedly creating an article that has been speedy-deleted as A7 and sometimes as G11, using various forms of the name, presumably using the various forms of the name to game the system on salting, and has been removing speedy deletion templates. At this point, a block is in order to stop the repeated re-creation, and the removal of speedy-deletion templates. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    There may be a conflict of interest, because Sandman789 may be Sandberg, but that doesn't affect that there is disruption. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If a non-notable article is being repeatedly recreated despite repeated warnings, I agree a block is in order. The username seems to also indicate an obvious COI. He is also hosting a WP:FAKEARTICLE about himself on his userpage, in violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. That needs to be wiped as well. Softlavender (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    I am not creating a "fake article".

    There is nothing I am doing that is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandman789 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User Pichku on article Carl Freer

    A user User:Pichku has recently started editing the article Carl Freer. At first the edits appeared well intentioned and constructive, but the user has now started acting in a disruptive manner, reverting other changes, including clean up by bots and administrators back to the most recent of their edits. Attempts to communicate with the user in their talk page end up deleted without reply, and the user has started a section on the talk page seeking consensus, but not willing to consider that removing reliably sourced content is not a way to reach consensus. As there appears to be little interest in the page now, it might take more editors to convince the user of what a real consensus looks like. —Fugu Alienking (contribs) 11:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a content dispute which Fugu is trying to avoid by doing this. In all my good faith, I have started a discussion on talk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carl_Freer#WP:BLP_violating_edits_by_Fugu_Alienking
    I have mentioned the BLP violations that Fugu made and only want to discuss how they are editing the article. I eventually noticed that from 2007 to 2017, Fugu's user history is only to revert Carl Freer (related articles) and another BLP (also related). This is single purpose editing. I have amended or redacted info that I thought oughta be discussed first due to BLP concerns. Please direct this person to a discussion page or enforce a discussion which they are avoiding. As I understand they should discuss reverts. BLP concerns should be discussed first. It would be a lie that I did not respond to their message on my talk page. They misused "disruptive editing" warnings on my talkpage but I did respond on the article talk page and edit summary. Every one can take a look at the article talk page in my discussion shown above. There is not one instance where they discuss merit of their sources and content. I clearly do discuss their BLP issues. --Pichku (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is indeed a content dispute - there are faults on both sides here, but fundamentally you both need to cool off and discuss the changes you're wanting to make. There are also definitely single purpose account issues here, so perhaps trying to expand on some other unrelated areas and letting a few more editors look at Carl Freer would help the situation? I see no admin action required in this report, but I will remind both Pichku and Fugu Alienking that edit warring will just end up in either a block or the article being fully protected - I don't want that to happen, so take a moment to read about some other dispute resolution -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 11:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There may also be a conflict of interest that Fugu has not disclosed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fugu_Alienking They say they only met the subject in a lift but their editing on the article in 10 years span of time with no interest any where on wikipedia unrelated to this subject and related articles and single purpose editing only is what drove me to edit the article more and more. There'sNoTime, you can see that I have asked more than once on the talk page of the article inviting Fugu to discuss changes. I have been ignored and reverted. Just trying to learn how to handle him and I did not report him first because I dont have good faith. --Pichku (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pichku: Absent any evidence of a conflict of interest which isn't just "casually knowing someone" I'm afraid we can't do anything. I would, on the subject of COI, assume good faith. As for asking Fugu Alienking to take part in a discussion, I can see they are involved at this thread. I think the best course of action for you would be heading to the third opinion page and asking for a review of the situation -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 11:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. My comment was on basis of their history only of 10 years. I am requesting Fugu's first opinion on their new edits on your mentioned thread before heading to 3O in good faith. --Pichku (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive edits to citations by User:Quinton Feldberg; editor is not reponsive

    Quinton Feldberg has recently made hundreds of WP:MEATBOT-like edits that are erroneous, useless, or both. Many of his edits have been useful and constructive, but his error rate is far too high. He has been notified multiple times on his talk page of the errors and has been asked to correct his scripts and do a better job of previewing edits. He has responded a couple of times saying that he would look into it, but the edits have continued.

    Yesterday, I asked him to stop editing until his scripts and previewing behavior were fixed. He did not do so. He continued editing, with an error/useless-edit rate of around 25%. The edits continue as I write this. I am requesting that an administrator review this situation to determine if I am overreacting or if some sort of official response is warranted.

    User talk:Quinton Feldberg#Citation edits becoming disruptive is a good place to start. There are multiple sections above and below that section with links to diffs and explanations of the problems with the edits.

    If this is the wrong venue or I could have done something on my own, I apologize in advance and will be happy to receive a trout for your trouble. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I have told them to stop doing semi-automated edits and join this discussion. Given the high error rate and disruptive nature of semi-automated editing where the editor does not respond to concerns, I will block the account should they continue -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 13:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have unfortunately had to block the account (3 hours) to prevent continued disruption - hopefully this will spark some constructive discussion. -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 13:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. I've seen this user's contributions on my watchlist a lot of late, but always thought they were doing good. Hopefully they'll reply to the block notice. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As others have noted, perhaps three quarters of their edits are useful, but the error rate is too high. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    MTA Bridges and Tunnels (Police)

    I'm honestly not sure where to report this. The above users have been engaging in a long term edit war over these two articles, resulting in the indef semi-protection of TBTA Police by C.Fred (talk · contribs), as well as multiple shorter term protections on MTA Bridges and Tunnels. GySgtHartman appears to have a COI, by being an employee of the agency in question. He is also the only logged in user involved, meaning that he can edit through the protection. However, he also appears to be editing while logged out as the IPv4, except when necessary. Could an admin look at this and consider applying some blocks? Thanks. – Train2104 (t • c) 13:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    There is also a sockpuppet situation in these articles:
    Said user focused on law enforcement accounts in New York state with a particular focus on changing any mention of "police officer" in many articles to "peace officer". Some—but not necessarily all—of the IP edits may be from him. The semi-protection of TBTA Police was in relation to this block evasion (although I didn't realize I made it indef). That's why I've been actively monitoring these articles. —C.Fred (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Need Help to "Move" (Rename) Page "Major and the Monbacks" to "Super Doppler"

    This was also posted at WP:AN and I dealt with it there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The band Major and the Monbacks officially changed their band name to "Super Doppler" on June 7, 2017 via a Facebook post from their official band facebook page [1]. I would like to change the wikipedia page name to "Super Doppler" but do not have access to "Move" (rename) the page from my account. Currently, the wikipedia page titled "Major and the Monbacks" is affecting the SEO and searchability of the new band name and a google search of "Super Doppler" automatically links to the Major and the Monbacks name. The page needs to be changed so that it reflects the new band name.

    The band released their new record 'Moonlight Anthems' on June 16, 2017 under the new name Super Doppler before embarking on a US Tour. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbfriedman757 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Another urgent matter. Jesus. EEng 14:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Super Doppler. Facebook. Facebook https://www.facebook.com/superdopplerband/posts/10155554351199604. Retrieved 23 August 2017. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
    2. ^ Nicholson, David. "Major and the Monbacks slap a new name on their familiar sound". The Virginian-Pilot. The Virginian-Pilot. Retrieved 23 August 2017.
    Wikipedia uses the most common name for a topic. The Virginian-Pilot article and the FB post would be good for noting that they've changed their name, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The problem with Zapad 2017 exercise persists

    At least, semi-protected status for the article is called for to protect it from the disruptive activity of the single-purpose account User:Vladimir serg, which is used solely for mechanical reverts of just this particular article to the text that is a machine-translated Ru WP version of the corresponding article from a few months prior: such as this. The person behind this account does not do any actual editing, just reverts, no way to engage him in any discussion. Obviously, no English language competence there.Axxxion (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at their contribs, Vladimir serg's only Talk page note is here which is not promising - they just wrote Your version "Zapad 2017 exercise" is nonsense}}. Their first edit note (on their third edit to the article) was previous version is nonsense.
    They don't seem to understand collaboration much and are editing aggressively.
    They are at 3RR already and have been warned for edit warring. I opened a discussion on the Talk page asking them to respond there. If they continue as they have, one more and you can bring them to EWN which will lead to a block; if they keep doing it their blocks will longer and then they will be indeffed. You are unlikely to get action here, now, in my view, but maybe an admin will judge they are NOTHERE already. Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Please report me to WP:ANI. Be sure you spell my name right. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

    Chris Toutman has asked me to "report him". I have been communicating with him today and he actually has been somewhat attacking. Please note these examples:

    I noticed you made a null edit on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, so I can only presume you're illiterate. Reading is such a key skill on Wikipedia. I'd go back to those institutes and get your money back. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

    No need to smartmouth. Im doing the best I can while working Mark0880 (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks WP:CIR Chris Troutman (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC) It is a requirement in Wikipedia to remain civil. Please adhere to this guidline. Thank you, Mark0880 (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880

    I asked for assistance from Mr Troutman and got another snide reply.

    But that's what I was trying to get help for. That blurb bio is copied out of the book, onto Amazon. Amazon is not the author of the bio. The bio is in the book. Not sure how to handle that Mark0880 (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880 It doesn't matter. I found the content on Amazon. If the content actually came from the book, then you stole from the author of the book, not Amazon. The point is that you stole content and that content is copyrighted. Even if you had copied words from public domain (like Shakespeare or Chaucer) you'd still have to attribute the source. Please explain why you don't understand what plagiarism is. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

    I am unsure how to proceed however I do know we need to remain civil, and Ive done all I can to foster that today to no avail.

    Mark0880 (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880[reply]

    You need to provide WP:DIFFs. Copying and pasting is the least effective way to prove what he said (or write articles for that matter). Without diffs, anyone who is going to help is going to have to go through Chris's contributions, go through your contributions, and look for the relevant parts themselves. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You also need to notify Chris you've reported him here. Which i've done for you on this occasion. Amortias (T)(C) 22:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=796929729"