Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive997

User:Jan Arkesteijn and the misleading use of false colour versions of old paintings on Wikipedia transcluded from Commons

Example 1

Example 2

Jan Arkesteijn (talk · contribs)

I believe sanctions or a topic ban on this project are worth considering for the long term pattern of misleading edits by Jan Arkesteijn on Wikipedia, and in a slightly more complex way via Wikidata as infoboxes and reports may automatically transclude the (P18) image linked on Wikidata relating to the article subject.

The pattern of misleading use of images is under discussion at Commons:ANU, where anyone is free to add an opinion or provide further evidence.

As an example please refer to the multiple cases on the Commons Admin noticeboard, and the specific deletion request at Deletion_requests/File:Richard_Wilson_(1714-1782),_by_Anton_Raphael_Mengs.jpg where this diff shows Jan Arkesteijn replacing an official correct colour image of a painting from the National Museum of Wales with a false colour version on the article Richard Wilson (painter). Further research will show other examples of replacing museum quality images with misleadingly false colour versions, such as on Erasmus Darwin (replacing an official National Portrait Gallery image), these have not been researched for the discussion on Wikimedia Commons as that project's policies do not cover these types of rare inter-project disruption.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Support. This user's esthetic disruption is extraordinary. See also [1]. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC).

• @Fæ: So, reviewing the situation...wow. Just to make sure I understand the situation, this user has been deceptively replacing images of historical paintings with deliberately falsified versions, for years, and in spite of multiple blocks, and has gone so far as to falsify EXIF data? And, when called out at Commons' AN, he simply lied and said he wasn't doing it? Is that really the situation? I'm seeing his conduct described at Commons as "vandalism", "forgery", and "fraud". I see the number of falsified images is potentially in the thousands, and that these falsified images are in place all over Wikipedias of all languages. I also see that Jan primarily contributes by adding images to articles here, as well as other language Wikipedias, something he can most certainly not be trusted doing. He edits a wide variety of projects. I'm strongly inclined to indef here, if there are no objections, but I suspect that a global ban for severe cross-wiki disruption might be a more appropriate measure.  Swarm  talk  21:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much. For years they uploaded their own recoloured versions of professional photographs of paintings from archives, museums and galleries, apparently thinking these were improvements by replacing authentic copies of aged old paintings with their digitally enhanced very pink faces, super blue skies or over brightened dark backgrounds. It was only in the last series of complaints and sample cases that it was highlighted that EXIF data was also their creation, so that clearly the casual viewer or reuser would be misled by whatever copyright statements were displayed with the EXIF. There are over 1,300 instances where a Public Domain Mark license has been misleadingly declared this way, yet the source institution has made no such declaration.

Though people can take their own photographs of paintings and release them on Commons, recolouring other people's professional photographs or archive quality photographs and failing to make that clear, and failing to upload the original, so if the source goes dead we can never work out if the image has been digitally altered, is seriously misleading regardless of our endless presumptions of good faith or the retrospectively declared intention. As this activity spans 10 years and these photographs were promoted on Wikidata as the "official" versions, it is unlikely that the encyclopaedia-worthy colour correct and professional versions of these artworks will ever be repaired across all the different language Wikipedias or Wikidata.

Without intending to brag, I am technically competent at examining EXIF data and tracking down original image sources, with my own track record of uploading over a million GLAM related archive quality photographs to Commons. However properly fixing one of the cases, including amending Wikidata and repairing global usage, can take me 15 minutes, so fixing several thousand is an unrealistic backlog for the limited Wikimedia Commons volunteer time we have available from those with the right types of skill or interest. In some cases repair will be impossible due to sources going offline in the years since upload. --Fæ (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support and how to globally indef and rollback their uploads? This is global digital cultural vandalism. Why just why? Legacypac (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Is any image NOT a false-color image? The technology for reproducing colors using RGB falls short of perfection, and the appearance of colors on anyone's screen depends on adjustments on the machine they're using. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  There is a big difference between adjusting your own photographs and tampering with official research quality photographs from archives that have been carefully taken to be as colour correct as technically possible. --Fæ (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

*Oppose - As I've supported Jans block on Commons I think it would be very unwise for me to close this, Anyway in a nutshell - Different project = Different rules, We don't mass apply blocks just because they've been blocked on 1 project, Although Jan has been replacing images here no one's really battered an eyelid and I doubt anyone will, Unless he starts replacing local images then a block (or any sanction) at present is unwarranted. –Davey2010^Talk 00:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• No one's suggesting we "mass apply blocks just because they've been blocked on 1 project". This is an extraordinary, perhaps unprecedented situation, in which a user has deceptively and willfully falsified the appearance of images on, potentially, thousands of articles, not only on the English Wikipedia, but on an untold number of other language Wikipedias. This is an extreme degree of cross-Wiki disruption, and the user can obviously not be trusted to edit in good faith here, so consequences should not automatically be restricted to Commons.  Swarm  talk  22:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Swarm, Ah right sorry I just assumed he'd done this on a few articlse but it turns out [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/summary.py?name=Jan+Arkesteijn&search=image&server=enwiki&max=500&ns= he may of done it on 100) and even then that tool is only looking for "image" meaning yeah there could be hundreds if not thousands of hidden changes.... –Davey2010^Talk 14:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• I appreciate this is a bit late, but I think it important to record here that Fae's claims about EXIF, repeated by Swarm, are highly disputed and not shared by other Commons users. EXIF is just data, it isn't signed and isn't associated with an particular user or organisation. There's no such thing as "original" or "official" EXIF. The claims that Jan altered the EXIF to mislead are unproven and simply bad faith. Jan added useful information to the EXIF (title, creator, source url, copyright, etc) just as many Commons uploaders add on the File Description page. EXIF tags are the official way that professional photographers and agents annotate files with such information. It helps ensure the information is retained even when an image is dislocated from its source. We have absolutely no reason to believe that Jan was altering the EXIF for any other purpose than to be helpful and informative. On one batch of files, he got the version of CC BY mixed up and wrote a 4 rather than 3, which seemed to upset Fae greatly, leading to a ridiculous deletion request that was swiftly closed. I fully agree that Jan is a menace when it comes to colours, and the underhand way these artworks have been altered is consistent with a ban. -- Colin°^Talk 13:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: TBAN from files

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

---

Jan Arkesteijn is indefinitely banned from uploading, modifying, or otherwise working with files, broadly construed.

• Support - I think it should go without saying that, at the bare minimum, this user cannot be trusted to continue working with files.  Swarm  talk  23:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support I think this should be implemented together with below so that if the editor ever does appeal their site ban, it's likely it will remain in place (of course the community could decide to revoke it when revoking the site ban, or implement one when revoking the site ban, but I think this sets a good precedent for them). Nil Einne (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support This may seem a strong remedy, however JA is active on other projects but appears unwilling to recognize the problems they have created, and has not lifted a finger to help with finding the original images or ensuring that Wikipedia(s) and Wikidata are using authentic professional photographs, rather than this-is-what-I-like-for-a-personal-desktop-wallpaper amateur versions that will be mistaken for the authentic professional photographs because they are sourced that way and have EXIF data that appears original. There has been no indication that behaviour will change in the future. --Fæ (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support as a minimum, this is seriously irresponsible behaviour. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Site ban

Jan Arkesteijn is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia.

• Support - We do not know how many thousands of Wikipedia articles have been affected by this user's falsified images or on how many projects. We do know, however, that the number of images is likely in the thousands, and it can be presumed that many if not most of the images in question are in use at one or more Wikipedias. We know that this user's intent, even if it was ultimately to "improve" the images, was deliberate, subversive and malicious, and not only included falsifying the appearance of historic paintings in spite of blocks, and over the course of years, but falsifying EXIF data to misrepresent copyright status. The user has not been accountable for their actions, and actually denied that they were even doing it, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. And we don't know how long this will take to repair. I think they've completely and utterly destroyed the most fundamental level of trust that is required to edit here, and, as their disruption is widespread across many projects, they're probably in global ban territory, and banning them here, which not only is justified in its own right, would be a prerequisite to a global ban proposal.  Swarm  talk  23:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support per my support above. There is zero reason to trust a serial vandal. Legacypac (talk) 10:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support Absolutely indefensible with no hope of reliable rehabilitation. The followup question is: how do "we" clean this up? EEng 19:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support I don't really know what this editor was trying to do. But it seems to have caused significant harm. And the editor seems unable or unwilling to explain why they believed their edits were a benefit to wikipedia and what explanation they have offered has been confusing. The nature of reproduction of colours on device screens means it's questionable if there's any one right version. And sometimes e.g. a recent controversy over Doria Ragland comes to mind, it's in many ways just editors personal opinions of what colours most accurately reproduce something they probably didn't even see. But if someone has gone to great effort to reproduce the colours as best as they can, any change would need to start from the same base. It's quite doubtful that Jan Arkesteijn saw the original copies of each of these images and then used a quality colour corrected device to modify any images to reproduce them. Therefore there changes seem to be just random personal changes. It's also not possible that Jan Arkesteijn has seen the real person and is trying to improve the images to reproduce how look in real life. (Likewise it's quite doubtful they've seen a bunch of different images and descriptions of the person and are trying to reproduce that as far as possible.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support With the normal conventions that a later appeal would be handled in good faith, perhaps to allow non-image related contributions. --Fæ (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support There is precedent for such an egregious breach of trust; supporting site ban per that. ——SerialNumber54129 14:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Going by this tool so far he's changed over 150 articles .... ofcourse that tool is only looking for "image" meaning he could've continued with either different edit summaries or none at all, I have no trust in this editor at all - There is a clear deception here, A major clean up is more than likely going to need to be done. –Davey2010^Talk 14:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support per everyone's reasoning above, but noting that any eventual return to editing should not automatically include the ability to do image work, and a separate image ban would need to be addressed separately. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• Get rid of them already. Strong support. They're just like OberRanks, deliberately falsifying info. No benefit to the project. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 08:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support as this user is a serial vandal who isn't here to benefit the project. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support And why does a number change on the blackboard in these two images: main image and changes [2][3] Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• That number appears to be a phone number. It is not the point of the picture, which is to show the human subject and so my impression is that this was a good faith update made for privacy reasons per WP:BLPPRIVACY, "Articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers...". Andrew D. (talk) 11:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

You are right, and I know that. I've been looking at those bluish commons pics for the last hour. :) Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support And wit that I think a site ban is the only way. That is not only an aesthetic choice, that is blatant alteration.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose There's no such thing as true colour because that depends on the incident light and other factors. In the sample comparison pictures above, the various versions all appear to be different and the only one that is grossly different is the yellowish one that was taken by a different editor. My impression is that this work was all done in good faith. If Commons wants to make a fuss about this, that's their business and we should leave the matter to them. Andrew D. (talk) 11:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Andrew D.. Is this work done in good faith: [4] [5][6] It appears that he changed a blackboard number. That looks like vandalism to me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Altering colour and changing content are not the same thing. You cannot change a number in good faith.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

As explained above, that number appears to be a phone number. It is not the point of the picture, which is to show the human subject and so my impression is that this was a good faith update made for privacy reasons per WP:BLPPRIVACY, "Articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers...". Andrew D. (talk) 11:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Its a publicly available photo (and for all we know was altered before release). There is not more justification for altering this then there would be for altering a direct quote. This went way beyond just an aesthetic choice.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support I've been holding my tongue on this for two weeks. I honestly can't believe the editor wasn't indeffed within 24 hours of this thread being opened, let alone that anyone would still be opposing this proposal so late in the game. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes but consensus is clearly towards siteban. We are almost done. Excelse (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support what would be a well deserved ban. -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 14:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support as per above, particularly convinced by Swarm's rationale and Hijiri 88's statement. Re-touched files could have been uploaded separately if there was an actual need for it... I am quite literally left without words to describe this. The damage done is probably near to irreparable, and the breach of trust is so serious I can't really think of any scenario where Jan Arkesteijn could (or should) be trusted to touch any file ever again. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Impru20^talk 15:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support, but given that this is a rare crosswiki disruption situation involving enwiki, commons, and wikidata, and probably others as a result, we should be posting this ban discussion at meta for a ban from all Wikimedia projects. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support, total ban, complete crosswiki discussion as per Ivanvector, this sort of attack undermines the credibility of the encyclopedia so much as to be an existential threat.Jacona (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support total crosswiki ban- The damage deliberately inflicted by this user will take a lot of time and effort to clean up. They shouldn't be allowed to touch this project again. Reyk _YO! 20:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Swapping or removing affected photographs

Opening this section per "address the issue of the user's contributions" which needs some discussion and agreement as to the best process possible.

Based on the analysis on Commons, most of which has been done by myself so far, there are three different types of repair that may be needed:

1. Swap - Where the original professional photograph of an artwork already exists on Commons, global usage should be swapped over and if there are no other considerations, the misleading version can be put up for deletion as being out of scope for Wikimedia Commons on the basis of having no realistic educational value. Example File:Nymphs and Satyr, by William-Adolphe Bouguereau.jpg has been globally replaced with File:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Nymphs and Satyr (1873) HQ.jpg and this Deletion Request created.
2. Overwrite - Where the source is still available, and has not been uploaded as a separate file on Commons, the false-colour current version can be overwritten on Commons. An overwrite rather than uploading as a separate file is preferable, as Wikidata and all transcluding Wikipedias are repaired without using up more volunteer time. Example File:Witches going to their Sabbath (1878), by Luis Ricardo Falero.jpg was overwritten with false colour versions from 2011 and, probably due to age, is in use on in a dozen different language Wikipedias; the file was overwritten 2 weeks ago and this immediately restored all projects to the best colour-correct representation.
3. Non-artworks - There are many photographic portraits of people uploaded with significant colour changes. Repairs may not be needed, either the changes are minor saturation differences that few people are going to care about, or the photographs are in black and white. However especially where the photograph is of an obviously "official" nature such as the portrait used on Jane Garvey (aviation administrator) which came from the Smithsonian and so is effectively assured as accurate by the Smithsonian, the changes need to be manually checked and the volunteer doing the checks needs to be assured that if they decide that the Jan Arkesteijn version is oddly coloured, and overwrite with a more authentic colour original, that they will be supported by the community.

It would be of great help if someone could construct a coordinating burn-down list of affected articles and images that need checks, which would help ensure that checks only need to be done once if different volunteers are looking at cases.

Doing these repairs needs reassurance that on Wikipedias, Commons and Wikidata that the changes are within policy and considered reasonable non-controversial maintenance. There has yet to be a consensus that Wikidata entries should all be repaired, yet this is a critical fix since infoboxes on articles in multiple Wikipedias are entirely reliant on Wikidata linking to the most representative and accurate image for an artwork or person.

This is a rare event, yet the impact is wide. As Jan Arkesteijn has used Wikidata to promote their false-colour images, there may need to be further policy-based consideration of whether we are happy that being entirely reliant on Wikidata for auto-transclusion of images in infoboxes across Wikipedias, when there is no process for ensuring that the images are accurate or even deliberately misleading, which leaves Wikipedia both open to image vandalism and the gradual erosion of encyclopaedic reliability, even though zero edits may be made on this project that would ever show this is happening. Specifically this is not a Wikimedia Commons problem, as Commons simply hosts images without judgement so long as they are of potential educational value. Using Wikidata to link to, say, an oddly oversaturated photograph of a politician to make their hair more orange, is not against any Wikidata policy or Commons policy and is not currently called "vandalism". --Fæ (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• The idea that there's one definitive true colour for a painting still seems wrong. Here's a fresh news item which demonstrates how paintings age and are restored, so their colours are constantly changing. "...it was compromised by an old degraded varnish which had yellowed with age. Removing it revealed how Gainsborough included touches of blue in the sitter’s hair and around his eyes, reflecting the gorgeous blue of his jacket." Andrew D. (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Yet there will still be an "official" version, the issue is alterations made not by art historians or restorers, but phtotoshoping a phtoto to "improve it".Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The official version of a piece of fine art is the original artwork. This will vary in appearance depending on how it is presented, especially the lighting. Any photograph is then a secondary approximation and it's just about impossible to take one now without some form of digital processing., unless you use a raw image format. The image will then be transformed further by the compression algorithm, scaling, display technology and the lighting in the place of viewing. For an example of the sort of issues and compromises that then result, see  Talk:Doria_Ragland#Photo, where there's debate about exactly how and whether to display a still from an official video. Photography is a complex business but ordinary readers and editors now routinely use colour filters, bokeh and other camera tricks every time they take a snap on their phone. And it's not clear that we have any strict policy about about this. For example, see the page Image dos and don'ts which states that "In general, when working with images: ... Clean up images: crop, color-correct, etc.". It is outrageous that an editor can follow such advice in good faith and get banned for it. Andrew D. (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Andrew, how about taking some time to reflect on what the above consensus is, and what the super majority of considered opinions are, and the factual case evidence presented, before taking this discussion about repairing the encyclopaedic value of Wikipedia on an avoidable and unhelpful tangent? This was not someone in good faith taking their own instagram photographs of their dinner and adjusting the exposure afterwards, this was someone actively refusing to engage with the consensus view that their recolouring archive photographs was damaging the educational value of the original archive quality and research quality photographs, in many cases taken by named professionals who are employed by GLAMs precisely because they know how to photograph and light artworks in the best possible way. In some cases the photographs are taken by auctioneers where their professional and commercial reputation relies on representing the works in as faithful and true a way a possible. As a current example, this upload of the original has been on Commons for 6 years, in all that time Sotheby's have been falsely represented by this incompetent representation of their catalogue photograph, which turns the green chair aquamarine and makes the Earl's skin so pink and red that anyone researching the history of British painters might think that Henry Raeburn was a bit clueless. It is unfortunate that this bizarrely recoloured photograph is used to illustrate Earl of Hyndford, with no warning that it is in no way a faithful reproduction of the original. Nobody who appreciates Wikimedia's top level mission to deliver knowledge through Wikipedia, Commons, Wikidata etc. could support any activity which undermines and threatens the quality of that knowledge, providing a backdoor for a form of fakenews rather than a shared best possible representation of history and facts.

P.S. you may have missed the detailed and extended 2016 discussion on Commons which resulted in Jan Arkesteijn's restriction against overwrites there. The views were consistent and firmly expressed, so "an editor can follow such advice in good faith and get banned for it" is over-egging it, as Jan Arkesteijn can hardly claim that their uploads in the past two years were ever non-controversial. --Fæ (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• The Commons discussion indicated that Arkesteijn was tweaking the colour-balance to counter the problem of yellowing varnish, 'his tendency to shift the colour to blue, presumably because he doesn't like the fact the canvass has yellowed with age ... Restoring or fixing colours due to ageing of the painting should definitely be allowed. ... I understand that this is not an issue for a ban, but regards disagreement over what it means to have "original colours".' As I understand it, it is quite normal for editors who work on old images to put a lot of effort into fixing up their imperfections – removing blemishes, fixing creasing and so forth. If the colours of a painting have aged, then it is reasonable to do something about this and the professionals do this too, as the news item about the Gainsborough painting indicates. My impression remains that this is a technical disagreement rather than a case of malicious vandalism. Anyway, is there some clear guidance somewhere as to what is or isn't permissible when uploading antique images of this sort. The page I cited above – Image dos and don'ts – says explicitly that such image cleanup is expected. Andrew D. (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The information page mentions "color-correct", this was "color-damage". Had Jan Arkesteijn been able to work collegiately with others to understand why this was damaging to encyclopaedic or educational value, then we could have avoided a block or a ban discussion. --Fæ (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure that image do's and dont's apply to works of art it, it would apply to as poor image of it (after all we cannot upload an original copy). And as I said, we are not professional art restorers, we are blokes using a PC. In fact it is misleading as it does not look like the original. The only circumstances where image d&D would apply is an uploaded image of poor quality (to bring it in line with the original at a museum).Slatersteven (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

As I said in my support, if Jan Arkesteijn had access to the original paintings and had made their corrections based on their expertise with a colour corrected display etc with reference to the original paintings perhaps we could say there was a legitimate dispute over which ones more accurately represented the original content. Now if they don't have access to the original paintings but believe the versions produced by professionals do not accurately reflect the paintings as they were like when they were new, and they had the necessary expertise to try and correct these issues and had either come to the community and explained what they want to do and why and received consensus, or perhaps made new files where they clearly explained what they did and why and not tried to add them to anywhere except via proposing it on talk pages, then this would be okay. But this wasn't what happened. In fact, Jan Arkesteijn doesn't even seem to have been willing to properly explain what they were doing. Nil Einne (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Question: If the "false-color" images were clearly labelled in their titles as being so, with an explanation in the image information on the order of "Colors altered to simulate what the original painting might have looked like before the yellowing of the varnish applied to it after the fact", and the images were uploaded as separate files, not overwriting the official images, would these be sufficient measures? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Sansonic's unsourced additions

Sansonic has been warned multiple times about making unsourced additions to British Pakistanis. See, for example, User talk:Sansonic#July 2018, User talk:Sansonic#August 2018 and User talk:Sansonic#November 2018. The additions continue, however, and are starting to get a bit silly. Is it time for a block? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

not sure why Sansonic and another shared IP keep tampering the article endlessly. Talk page speaks volumes about the ignorance of good faith editing. Devopam (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, high time, Larry. I notice that Sansonic hasn't edited their talkpage since 2011. Perhaps they've stopped reading it, too. Their block log contains some serious blocks, but only from 2009 — 2010, so I suggest ignoring it for purposes of block length now. How about a week, with a warning of more if it happens again? Bishonen | talk 19:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC).

That seems appropriate to me, Bishonen. Looking at Sansonic's user page and their edits to the politics section of the article, I am concerned that many of their additions are being driven by political bias. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I meant to suggest you do it, Larry, but that's fine; I've blocked. Actually it may be as well to demonstrate that other admins besides you disapprove of their editing, since you have posted so many warnings to them. Bishonen | talk 20:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC).

Thanks, Bishonen. Yes, I considered myself involved, so didn't want to give a block myself. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Movie Classic adding very subtle vandalism

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

---

User:Movie Classic has been editing several animation-related articles since signing up in July. Most of the edits are unobjectionable; however, scattered within them have been several instances of edits that are almost certainly known to be false. See the following edits: [7], [8], and [9]. In each case, the editor is putting in an entry that claims that a cartoon is being included with the DVD of a movie that no longer exists.

This seems like a particularly dangerous vandal, scattering plausible-sounding false information in among a much larger number of legitimate edits. I think an admin should take a look.—Chowbok ☠ 03:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

It's kind of stale, don't you think? Only 50 edits, and none since September? Should be relatively easy to clean up. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 05:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:GAIV. Per guidelines for Administrator intervention against vandalism . "Any vandal who hasn't been warned properly should not be reported." Users are not blocked if: (1) The user hasn't been warned sufficiently.; and/or (2) The user stopped editing after the warning. Given that the above user was never warned, and has not edited since September, this should be closed out as non-actionable. — Maile (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Unambiguous conflicted, promotional editor; please indef

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

---

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

Pure WP:SPA for Marc Bell (entrepreneur); that page has been subject to a slew of undisclosed conflicted/paid editing. Each of those people has sought to downplay/erase Bell's involvement in porn, which is where he made his money, and instead add all sorts of shiny things. This person is exactly like those who came before, and edit-warring to boot:

• Diff
• diff
• diff

Non-credible responses at User talk:Sprocvler.

Please indef. Jytdog (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Severe personal attacks by Hyper121

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

---

• Hyper121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For this[10] sort of automated edit by me, these sorts of replies[11][12][13] are unacceptable, and are considered severe personal attacks. -- Alex^TW 23:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

No kidding. Blocked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Jpgordon, cheers! -- Alex^TW 02:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Frame

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

---

There's been some minor oddities about how Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Frame was closed (see User talk:Serial Number 54129#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Frame). I don't think anything that happened rises to the level of disruption, or even beyond good-faith editing, but it would be useful if an uninvolved admin took a look to validate the non-admin close. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Just looking at it casually, the article was saved as no consensus so no damage was done by the closure. Damage is when an AfD is closed and the article is permanently destroyed. Trackinfo (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Bishonen | talk 20:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC).

I am reading No, it isn't as meaning their are options for recovering the article after an AfD deletion (although requests to access or resurrect the content may be difficult/offputting for a non-admin but will usually be granted to a non-admin for a reasonably reasoned request).Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Nothing is permanently destroyed. Any admin can restore a deleted article without any trouble at all if an article is deleted incorrectly. --Jayron32 16:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Deleting an article that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia is not damage. Reyk _YO! 12:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

It didn't go a full seven days after the *third* re-list, but other than that it seems like a perfectly reasonable close to me. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I was the originator of concerns over that closure which ultimately I think everyone agrees was ultimately correct, but there were some procedural errors in processing. Because RoySmith was a little involved in that discussion I suggest he's probably brought it here for a neutral admin to agree closure was OK. There are 3 procedural points:

• 1: The relist with 168 hours, a 'minor' procedural error that I think we all agree is trivial at ANI level
• 2: The removal of the relist from the closed ANI discussion record. I don;t think there was any issues with RoySmith re-instating it.
• 3: The closure of AfD within 168 hours of the relist with no consensus ... which perhaps is the interesting one and would likely have been dealt with a simple dialog between myself and the closer Serial Number 54129 if (2) had not occurred. The (non-admin) closer has argued, and as far as I can now judge quite reasonably, the WP:RELIST allows A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days. ... and closed with the comment: The result was no consensus to delete the article was established; a future merge, can, of course, still be discussed on the relevant talk page (My view now is actually very pragmatic given the spread of delete/keep/merge meaning no delete consensus was likely to occur and merge are better discussed outside of AfD).

The interesting point on 78.26's comments is the implication the close after the 3rd relist may have been not perfectly reasonable. If this point needs discussion then DRV would be a better option ... (not to overturn decision but for procedural clarification) ... though I believe RoySmith brought this here for a quick uninvolved admin review of actions. I have no doubts whatsoever everyone is here in good faith.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• The close looks fine to me. After the the first 7 days are completed in full a discussion can be closed at any time when consensus is reached, there is no need to wait a further 7 days after a relist. The only procedural error I see is a user removing a relist from a closed thread. Szzuk (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• The AfD close looks remarkably unremarkable. The main procedural oddity is that the issue is being discussed here rather than at WP:DRV. This discussion should be speedily closed. Andrew D. (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, the discussion itself was rather exemplary, with editors discussion notability, attempting to retain encyclopedic content, keeping and open mind, and even changing their position as evidence and logic presented itself. Still, after an entire month, no clear consensus has presented itself. There are two potential issues, both small. According WP:RELIST, A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined. I suppose that closing as "no consensus" technically violates this, as by definition consensus has not been determined. But it was a whole month. Consensus was highly unlikely to be reached, and the reasonable close was that consensus is that there's no consensus. Regarding the removal of the third relist notice, the editor who did that admitted it was a mistake on Serial's talk page, and thanked the editor who reverted them. I don't see anything that harmed Wikipedia, anything that would cause me to distrust any of the editors who participated here or in this discussion, so cookies and hot chocolate for everyone! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Sean Emmett

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

---

There's a UTRS request here, and as a result I modified some of the content at Sean Emmett to reflect what the source actually says. Since then, we've had edit warring to make this change with the edit summary "Incorrect facts were posted. Sean Emmett was never arrested or charged with murder in Dubai" - but the edit removed all of the "Personal life" section, and none of the removed content had said that he was arrested or charged with anything (not after I'd already removed that allegation). I've protected for 3 hours and would prefer to hand it over to others to keep an eye on now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do would be to extend the semi-protection if it resumes. Fish+Karate 15:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

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

IP 103.60.175.85

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

---

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

Hi. This IP is the same editor as IP 103.60.175.15, who was blocked last month for one year for BLP issues. Now they're editing under this IP, and doing the same edits to the same articles (example, example). Please can this address be blocked too, and if possible, their edits rollbacked? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to @Jo-Jo Eumerus: for info, who dealt with this previously. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Here are userlinks for the old IP: 103.60.175.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Both IPs' filter logs have lots of entries for changing dates of birth in the infobox. I would support a one year block of the new IP. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked one year and everything rolled back. Katie^talk 19:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it looks like you probably just rolled back the last 100 edits or so. If you meant to rollback every edit, there's another 500 or so. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the "rollback all" script only rolls back the edits that are listed on the page where you use it; perhaps Katie only had a list of the last 50 edits visible. I've certainly been had that way! I've rolled back the rest now. Bishonen | talk 21:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC).

Thanks to everyone here for their help. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Cocktail and cocktail related pages

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

---

(block evasion reverted) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits)

Who are or were you? These last several months, we've been getting edits from mobile phones, under your 2600+ identification. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

GoodDay, you've got it wrong. 2600 corresponds to a /4 CIDR range, which for IPv6 is 21,267,647,932,558,653,966,460,912,964,485,513,216 addresses. You can't assume they're all the same user. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I've been seeing a lot of 2600, 2604, 2605 etc mobile IPs lately. Some are helpful, while others are not. Just find it strange, how these become more frequent. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's just the march of progress. Many mobile ISPs are starting to implement IPv6 and simultaneously it is easier than ever to browse the web and edit Wikipedia from a mobile device. Some traditional (non-mobile, can't think of a better word) ISPs are also implementing IPv6, it's not just mobile devices. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

But, also, this IPv6 editor is obviously evading a block, and so now they are blocked as well. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Help:Reverting

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

---

Dear Administrators, please help me. Some Indonesia's fans had tried to change page Miss International 1976 and Indonesia at major beauty pageants. They changed placements of theirs country. They robbed achivements of some countries and replaced with theirs contestants. If you see history of these pages, you can see it. They had been abusing multiple accounts. I tried to stop but did not succeed. They are User:DPIDAMU, User:DeanBWFofficial and others. I'm so sorry because my English language skills is limited. Please help me to prevent them. Please consider blocking the user for a longer period of time or permanently. Thank you so much Nguyenquochieu2107 (talk) 7:10 , 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The two accounts you listed have already been blocked by User:GorillaWarfare. It's likely anyone else has also been blocked but you should list anyone who hasn't been blocked if you think they are a problem and make sure to notify them. Nil Einne (talk) 09:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: and @Nil Einne: Thank you so much

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

Range block needed again for Malaysian nationality vandal

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

---

• Sporting Kansas City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Siti Nurhaliza‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (nationality vandal by :a610, :3379, :c820, :a81b, and previously more ip in October)
• Disney Princess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of Disney Princess firsts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mulan (Disney character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of Disney's Mulan characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2018 Sukma Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fernando Muslera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Faris Ramli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Keylor Navas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bryan Ruiz ‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• FC Augsburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Shah Indrawan Ismail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2017 Home United FC season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (nationality vandal)
• Sahil Suhaimi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Warriors FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2016 Saint Louis FC season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Saint Louis FC U23 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Danny Phantom (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (name vandal)
• Hafizul Hakim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (name vandal by 3379, d4a9 and others)
• Khairul Hafiz Jantan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (name vandal)
• Hafizh Syahrin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (name vandal by 3379 and 139f)
• Khairul Idham Pawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (name vandal by 3379 and 139f)
• Syafiq Yusof (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (vandal by :3379, but as changing human name and from yes to no parameters)
• Johan As'ari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (vandal by :3379, but as changing human name)
• and many many articles for vandalizing the nationality to hoax value
• 2405:3800:501:331E:59A8:3578:DBA4:3379 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (active from 20 November, blocked 31 hours and active again on 21 November, blocked again for 1 week on the same day)
• ‎2405:3800:382:2cc2:d9bd:68bd:7dd9:c820 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (active on 19 November)
• 2405:3800:200:C7AE:E849:AA1A:6C46:A81B (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (active on 19 November)
• 2405:3800:402:7ff7:c113:bbdf:2bda:a610 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (active on 20 November)
• 2405:3800:382:4AD2:4DB8:9275:47FD:D4A9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (active on 21 November)
• 2405:3800:81:4A87:D909:D055:63E9:1B72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (active on 22 November, blocked for 31 hours)
• 2405:3800:402:80d9:adaa:b75a:4158:dab0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (active on 23 November, blocked for 48 hours)
• 2405:3800:481:7AB8:F18E:E31F:B507:AD7B (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (active on 25 November)
• 2405:3800:200:7877:F02A:382A:8EC1:D3F3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (active on 25 November)
• 2405:3800:500:a4e0:51a6:8fb:9577:3eac (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (active on 25 November)
• 2405:3800:401:9BC3:D125:C888:FB24:139F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (active on 25 November)
• ‎2405:3800:402:170c:c16c:9ed9:4569:9cda (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (active on 25 November)
• ‎2405:3800:83:284:4d04:4b2:61a5:114c (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (active on 25 November)
• 2405:3800:280:770c:b833:7ecf:b6e3:6a1b (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (active on 26 November)

The same vandal which was reported as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive994#User:2405:3800::/32 had returned. The previous range 2405:3800::/37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which is a subset of the mega range 2405:3800::/32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seem approiate to cover all current ip he used recently in November. Matthew hk (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

add 2 more ip. still the same /37 range . Matthew hk (talk) 12:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

add 1 more ip (compare Special:Diff/869950794 and Special:Diff/869975177). still the same /37 range and now block evasion of 2405:3800:501:331E:59A8:3578:DBA4:3379 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Matthew hk (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah:, @Ohnoitsjamie:, He re-appeared as 2405:3800:81:4A87:D909:D055:63E9:1B72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Matthew hk (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Well the same /37 range had emerged yet another (unrelated?) vandal 2405:3800:382:448:d92d:cf9d:b9ce:1eaf (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and one collateral damage (‎2405:3800:281:a94f:a468:eaf5:f9fe:29b9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). Matthew hk (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually that doesn't seem to be vandalism but a correct edit. I'll explain on the article talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

We the ip (2405:3800:382:448:d92d:cf9d:b9ce:1eaf) did not provide reliable source, and the news use "Datin Paduka" for Nancy Shukri. Well it may be two collateral damages for the /37 range, as you dig out the source for the usage of Dato on a female especially on Nancy Shukri. And the current time in Asia is the morning, so lets see the nationality vandal will emerge again with yet another ip or not, and than take ages to stack up to level 4 warning and then take ages to block when posting in AIV, and then he just flipped to another ip and loop. Matthew hk (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

You obviously did the best with what you had. And you're right that one source uses that title. Assuming you did a Google News Search, possibly you searched with the title in the search them? When I do a Google News search, that's pretty much one of the only results I find with that title . If I search for just her name, I find a large number which use some variant of Dato' Sri (mostly commonly Datuk Seri, sometimes Dato Sri) [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. Also I should clarify I only meant to refer to that one IP. When I had a quick look earlier at examples from the range, most were vandalism so I agree most edits from that range seem to be a problem and even with these two examples of good faith editing, the collateral is probably very small. Nil Einne (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

And here come another ip (2405:3800:481:e8c3:e6d4:6fea:2255:f4b (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) from /37 range that not related to nationality. How notable it is, to mention the similarity of Malaysia plates with prefix P to vehicle registration plates of Trinidad and Tobago?? Matthew hk (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

And may be yet another collateral ? 2405:3800:401:6045:C9EA:92E7:ADC1:4376 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) adding unsourced linkage of two festivals of Asia. Matthew hk (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Well after active for 3 days from 19 November, the vandal seems disappeared. The new edits from the /37 range seem another good faith edit on fixing hon. title (Dr., Dato, Datin). Matthew hk (talk) 11:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

And yet another may unrelated vandal (Special:Diff/870240966). Matthew hk (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Well, after a few seem collateral damage, he is back as 2405:3800:402:80d9:adaa:b75a:4158:dab0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Matthew hk (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Back again as 2405:3800:481:7AB8:F18E:E31F:B507:AD7B (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2405:3800:200:7877:F02A:382A:8EC1:D3F3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2405:3800:500:a4e0:51a6:8fb:9577:3eac (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Matthew hk (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

4 ips just today. 2405:3800:401:9BC3:D125:C888:FB24:139F (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Despite it may had high potential collateral damage (this one seem good faith Special:Diff/870337663), don't know today as a holiday, how many ip he would jumped. Matthew hk (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

6 ip just one Sunday is a good number. Matthew hk (talk) 13:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Active again at night as 2405:3800:280:770c:b833:7ecf:b6e3:6a1b (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Matthew hk (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Matthew hk - I've blocked the IP range 2405:3800::/37 - this time for two weeks instead of one month. It's still a wide range and collateral damage is highly likely, but something is obviously needed... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

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

User:DragonKing22

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

---

• DragonKing22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Today, I reverted a change DragonKing22 made to Template:Animation industry in the United States, which he swiftly reverted back. When I asked him about it on the template's talk page, he responded in a not-so-civil manner. Normally, I'd just ignore comments like this, but looking back at the user's history, this outburst seems like just the latest in a patter of unnecessary personal attacks.

This user was blocked once for personal attacks in 2015, but his behavior doesn't seem to have changed much since then. See, within the last year:

• This diff from March 2018
• This diff from March 2018
• This diff from May 2018

These are relatively old links, but it shows a pattern of disruptive behavior and unnecessarily abusive language. I'm posting this here for an admin to review. Much thanks, Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked x 24 hrs following their most recent comment on their talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

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

"I am just done and one day I am going to make a website that is even better than this shit hole of a place!" ...with black jack. And hookers. --Tarage (talk) 06:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tarage: Well, that's how I usually fold up  :) ——SerialNumber54129 10:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

User:GSS doesn't understand process for proposing articles for deletion

Persistent vandalism of Rahul Mandal. The user keeps reverting edits and re-directing page. The user does NOT UNDERSTAND the process for proposing articles for deletion, does not allow contributions from other users to his proposal and keep re-directing page. HardB (talk) 08:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@HardB: actually it is you who doesn't understand the process... You are creating a page about someone with no notability. GSS is well within the process here. You made no attempt to resolve your dispute with a very experienced editor. Instead you jumped right to reporting them here and didn't follow the first rule of reporting a user which is that you MUST notify them. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: regarding notability, one can hardly blame Hardb for assuming that this winner of TGBBO would be notable...when the other eight are presumed so: see Category:The Great British Bake Off winners. Just FYI. Personally, I don't think anyone is edified in that encounter. ——SerialNumber54129 10:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh and calling GSS's edits vandalism is a joke. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Note to admin: Should be noted that User:HardB comes very close to making a threat in comments towards User:GSS in this edit. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

That's not a threat. And redirecting the article isn't vandalism. You guys need to settle down. Since GSS stopped edit warring and nominated the article for deletion, this seems resolved to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Zackmann08, Thank you for notifying me about this discussion. @HardB: I actually assumed good faith when I redirect this article per WP:ATD which you reverted twice without any explanation or improvements even after I asked you to see WP:BLP1E and nominating it for deletion was an attempt to avoid WP:EDITWAR and to seek a permanent solution for this. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 08:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with NinjaRobotPirate, not a threat. User:Zackmann08, if you want to help at ANI, please try to deescalate - not inflame these discussions with wild accusations of threats. This isn't an RPG.--v/r - TP 18:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Gugi2001 and NOTHERE

• Gugi2001 (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Ethnicity in lede for every Kosovar international footballer

The user keep on spreading his greater Albanian nationalism and ignoring WP:OPENPARA, with no sign to communicate in user talk or respect the MoS. For example, Bernard Berisha, Benjamin Kololli and Valon Berisha never played for Albania national football team but Kosovo national football team only, so their "nationality in sport" is Kosovo only (and in Valon Berisha's case Kosovo and previously Norway). However, the user keep on spamming Kosovo Albanians to the articles with edit summary "Kosovo is not nation!". Matthew hk (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Here is the revert diff in Valon Berisha Special:Diff/869972795 and Special:Diff/869973246.

As a note. Valon Berisha played for both Norway and Kosovo in sport. So how relevant to call him Kosovo Albanians footballer? Matthew hk (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Here is the revert diff in Benjamin Kololli Special:Diff/869974141 and Special:Diff/870118340. Matthew hk (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The revert in Kololli was done by other in this diff Special:Diff/866965006. Matthew hk (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

As a note. Benjamin Kololli is born in Switzerland and played for Kosovo in sport only . So, how relevant to call him Kosovo Albanians as nationality+ethnicity (dual nationality?) Matthew hk (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Here is the revert diff in Bernard Berisha: Special:Diff/870119181 and Special:Diff/870119425. Matthew hk (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

As a note. Bernard Berisha is born in Kosovo, (by-then part of SFR Yugoslavia ). He represented Kosovo in sport only. So, how relevant to call him Kosovo Albanians? Matthew hk (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• I can't look further into this matter right now, but I did revert the most recent set of edits which contained uselessnesses such as this. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• Isn't this kind of Balkans-related arguing over nationality under discretionary sanctions? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I don't mind if wikipedia actually accepts every Kosovar people were tagged as Kosovar Albanian as a standard due to "dual nationality", but currently most of the Albanian ethnicity and nationality are not backed by reliable source, and non-notable to mention according to the discussion in WP:Footy. There is a few exception, as many Kosovar footballer had played for both Albania national football team and Kosovo national football team, for example Samir Ujkani. Matthew hk (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

More diff: Loret Sadiku: Special:Diff/869815417 . A dual-(sport)nationality of Sweden and Kosovo, was tagged by the user as Kosovo Albanian. Matthew hk (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

And more related discussion on lede and ethnicity in WP:Footy.

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 120#Nationality in lead
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 115#Marwan Kabha Matthew hk (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• Well. May be solved faster with SPI. Exact wording in edit summary. Matthew hk (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• Hmm I'm guessing I might lose a couple of ArbCom votes over that--six, to be precise. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• The 100th anniversary of the end of WWI having just passed, this is a good time to remind people that no one gives a shit about which footballers are Albanian or whatever. Give it a rest after 1000 years, for fuck sake. EEng 13:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Amen to that, brother. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• +1 from me. --Blackmane (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/77.179.137.192

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

---

I noticed a large-number of edits coming from this German IP this morning (more than 500). The edits don't immediately seem problematic, mostly making the same mass-change to the tops of infoboxes ([20] for example), but they did seem way too rapid to not be coming from a bot. I queried the IP regarding the edits and they immediately stopped but did not reply to my query. I'm thinking this could be benign, but would like it checked to see if there is anything more than meets the eye. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. That's 574 edits sustained at an average rate of about 5.18 edits per minute across a period of 111 minutes. The edits are extraordinarily consistent, and stopped immediately upon receiving a talkpage message. This seems a lot like a bot to me. SQL^{Query me!} 23:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It might be worth raising the issue at the bot noticeboard. I assume they would have a more informed opinion than me. But, yeah, it does seem like an unauthorized bot to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate and SQL, sounds good, I'll generate a notice over there. Home Lander (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Persistent Disruptive Editing by Keditz

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

---

Keditz (talk · contribs)

This newish editor has a track record of disruptive editing, and warnings for same, longer than my arm and they don't seem to be listening. It has reached the point where I am beginning to have rather serious doubts regarding their temperament and or general competency. Please see their recent contrib log and their talk page. I had initially blocked them for two weeks after being pinged to RfPP. But after some consideration I think it might be better to discuss this here. For the record, I do not think this is a case of NOTHERE or malicious editing. But this does look like someone who, while well meaning, just doesn't seem to get it. Ignoring my temporarily lifted block, they have also been twice blocked in the recent past. If any admin looks at this and concludes that this discussion is a waste of time, they should feel free to re-block them for whatever length they deem appropriate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy ping FlightTime. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you @Ad Orientem:. I don't really have anything new to add outside my concerns brought by previous reporting here. I will add that I also don't think this is in any way "a case of NOTHERE or malicious editing", I do however have concerns about CIR. At one point I decided to try and ignore their editing, but they are editing my primary area, music articles. I will leave this for the Admins who are more experienced at editing patterns. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 14:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Please can you tell what's disruptive? When I have edited, I have left sources and explained what I believe I improved. I also do not edit many pages, there's a few main ones (Like Michael Jackson) that I'm trying to just make a bit better. FlightTime also commented on my edit on Michael Jackson, saying "Better". I also heavily improved Lionel Richie. I believe you're making it seem that I'm worse than I actually am. - Keditz (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, since your last block you have been running around reverting people left and right, you were recently dinged for adding material sourced only to Wikipedia, and in general behaving like a "bull in a china shop," as Floquenbeam rather aptly put it. I actually don't like blocking editors who are well meaning, which is obviously the case here. And that is the reason I unblocked you so we can discuss this here. But you seriously need to slow down, and take several deep breaths. We were all new at one time and there is a learning curve. Some tolerance is granted to newer editors for mistakes. But your contrib log looks way too battlegroundish. Most editors take the hint after being blocked once. If you will promise to slow down and be less aggressive in your edits and maybe try discussing your concerns with highly experienced editors before you hit the revert button, we may be able to move on from this. But we now have multiple editors here who are expressing concerns over your editing. You need to keep that in the forefront of your mind for the foreseeable future. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Already reported to ANI recently (12 days ago): [21]. Seems to need an indef for CIR and DE. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC) Pinging Magnolia677, Ivanvector, and DannyMusicEditor, who participated in the ANI thread 12 days ago. Softlavender (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Provided the fact that he has been editing wikipedia just from 2 months, he should not be blocked that much time, Its purely against wikipedia policy which states that do not do anything so that it forces the new editors to flee away rather try to find another way. His determination to edit articles, give citations and good etiquettes like giving edit summaries proves that he can be one of the most top class editors here in wikipedia. So its a kind request to not take harsh actions against him. And a kind request to all editors that do not provoke him as for that case it will be you who would be responsible. Regards 47.8.217.243 (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Aw, little IP, how nice of you to show up here, never having done anything on Wikipedia before. Softlavender (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender I appreciate your contributions, but that is really not an appropriate comment. It is unfriendly and bitey. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

NM that was block evasion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

They seem to be an experienced edd, I have asked if they wouold like to create an account as they may have a dynamic IP.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

My first warning to Keditz was because of an edit at the Post Malone biography: Changing rap-rock to rock despite the source clearly saying rap-rock. This is typical behavior. Too much of what Keditz puts into articles has the feeling of personal views overtaking published sources. I would agree with the assessment of a "bull in a china shop", as Keditz appears to experiment in mainspace with layout and prose. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Too much of what Keditz puts into articles has the feeling of personal views overtaking published sources. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that I have made mistakes on Wikipedia, but I believe quite recently I've stopped with being disruptive. As I've said, look at the Lionel Richie article and see how much better it is now than it was before. My intentions are not to be putting false information. Keditz (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Keditz If you will agree to slow down, discuss with experienced editors any concerns before reverting them and refrain from making dramatic changes either in content or layout to established articles w/o first discussing your proposed changes on the relevant talk page, I would be satisfied and willing to close this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• (e/c) Would a 0RR or 1RR restriction help? A quick review of their contribs since my block shows (a) edit warring on some pages, and pretty frequent reverting on others, which might be prevented by such a restriction, and (b) a mixed bag of content addition/changes, which I'm not in a good position to judge the quality of. If the content additions/changes seem to be a net positive, I'd suggest a revert restriction. If not, I guess the response would depend on the nature of the content addition/changes problem. At least they seem to be using talk pages marginally more than before the block? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Note I have some personal business which will keep me occupied for the next few hours at the least. I will check back in later today. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• User:Keditz has been adding poorly-sourced puffery to music articles including Pearl Jam and Eddie Vedder, essentially trying to big them up as one of the best of all time. That's exactly the same kind of thing User:Chandra Shekher Mishra was doing earlier, and I note that the Keditz account was created just a couple of weeks after Chandra Shekher Mishra was indef blocked. Am I being overly suspicious here? (Also, it looks like Keditz was adding material copied from elsewhere, so we really need copyvio checks on their existing edits.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Technically, they appear  Unrelated. Different continents. Courcelles (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I had to ping Ad Orientem to my talk page. Even after this discussion, here we are. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

This has to stop. latest edit, the source clearly states "shot multiple times". Keditz is clearly (still) changing content to their prefrred version with no regard to reliable sources, also blatent OWN atitude and obvious CIR issues and preffered editing style of EDITWARRING. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Keditz Indef'd by Laser brain. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• (ec) I've reblocked Keditz indefinitely because they continue to damage the site with their edits. If consensus emerges out of this discussion that they be allowed to continue editing (which I strongly advocate against), feel free to unblock the editor without consulting me. --Laser brain (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

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

96.5.246.66

• 96.5.246.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

A school IP currently blocked for one year started refactoring the notices here, here and here. Can any admin here revoke talk page access for this IP? Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Talk page semi-protected for ten days, since I do not want to leave the IP without route to appeal for a year, the semi-protection will accomplish the same thing for now. Courcelles (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Rangeblock request for edit warring and likely sockpuppetry

• 2a00:23c4:1594:aa00:2cbd:c3f6:b0d9:1c66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Men's rights movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP from the 2a00:23c4:1594:aa00::/64 range has been making edits to the lead of Men's rights movement repeatedly over the past couple days (e.g., [22], [23], [24], [25]). This user is likely Yoleo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who made the same edit here and possibly to Ms nj 0800 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Given the IP's Geolocation and target page, Mikemikev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) might be the sockmaster.

Requesting a rangeblock or semi protection for page. Thank you!

EvergreenFir (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

•  Done MRM article semi'd, IP /64 rangeblocked. Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:CIVILITY & WP:AGF by User:DePiep

I wasn't going to file this until I saw that DePiep was placed on WP:PROBATION 2018-05-29. In the probation it states DePiep is placed indefinitely under an editing restriction, in which he is subject to immediate sanction (including blocks) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, or personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. This restriction may be appealed in not less than six months from the enactment of these sanctions.

This diff to me clearly violates both WP:CIVILITY & WP:AGF. As does this. Was particularly disappointing given that I had just posted on their page asking for how I could help with a project they were working on (see this diff. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Euryalus and Beeblebrox: FYI. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• I am willing to give DePiep a chance to explain them-self, if they can. But this looks pretty straight forward and a clear violation of the terms of their probation. Worse their block log is longer than my arm and most of the blocks were for similar behavior. I am strongly inclined to support an indefinite block. The linked diffs are grossly uncivil and flatly unacceptable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) The first diff there is DePiep telling someone asking what looks to me like a good-faith offer to help to "fuck off", and we might reasonably debate whether or not that's a personal attack but I, an administrator, judge it to be uncivil. The second diff is a clear assumption of bad faith. I have blocked DePiep for 2 weeks. Given the exhaustive previous discussion and their enormous block log all pretty much over the same sort of behaviour, this seems like it would be a good time to discuss whether this person should edit Wikipedia at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 03:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Since we started with two weeks, I'd support bumping their block to 3 months with a clear understanding that it's the last block they are going to get that will have an expiration date. This needs to stop. And if they are unable/unwilling to treat their fellow editors civilly, then it's time for them to find another hobby. I say that with some regret. Clearly this is a productive editor. But there are limits to what the community should be expected to put up with, and we passed that point a while ago. If there is a consensus for indeffing them now, I won't object. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Ad Orientem and Ivanvector: I think another thing that needs to be considered is just how many times DePiep has violated their probation and not been reported. As I mentioned, I almost didn't file this complaint at all. I wonder how many other people have had issues? Just a quick glance at the recent contributions by DePiep and I found: this thread and this edit. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Unfortunately DePiep is easily trolled. Please be satisfied with having had him blocked for two weeks without wanting to punish your opponent further. Yes, DePiep should be like the majority here and only bother people in a civil manner, but we're not all the same. Move on. Johnuniq (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Johnuniq, Ad Orientem, Ivanvector, and Alex Shih: I don't understand how this was closed so quickly? Given the EXTENSIVE block history for this user and the fact that they were on WP:PROBATION I don't understand how only a 2 week ban is being applied? Their last ban was for 3 months. The latest ban should be AT LEAST that long. They clearly aren't getting the message. How many chances are they going to get? At the very least this warrants a further discussion. I think closing this discussion so quickly is a mistake and would ask another NEUTRAL admin to reconsider. Obviously I'm biased here since I filed the initial report. I am simply asking for a lengthier discussion before this is closed. If the consensus is that 2 weeks is enough then so be it, but given the lengthy and extensive history of this user, I think this more than warrants a longer discussion. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• I am reverting Alex Shih's good faith close. I am not seeing a consensus supporting the two week block and I think further discussion is warranted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Per WP:ROPE, two weeks is sufficient here. If it were longer, I'd have supported that too. If it were shorter, I'd have supported that too. A block was needed, if he returns in two weeks and never again tells someone to "fuck off", then the block has served its purpose. If he does again behave incivilly, we can always block him again for longer. Admin discretion over block length is perfectly within reason here, and I see no reason to extend the block to a longer expiration date. If an actual site ban (or indefinite block) is warranted, then perhaps that is a discussion for a separate thread, but any expiring block of sufficient length will do in a case like this. --Jayron32 18:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah but Ivanvector, the blocking admin, also said "this seems like it would be a good time to discuss whether this person should edit Wikipedia at all".--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Then start a new thread asking for a formal site ban. I suspect it wouldn't take all that long to find consensus for one. --Jayron32 18:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Jayron32 and Ad Orientem: I'm all for WP:ROPE and if this were the first, second or even 3rd time the user had been blocked for this I would say 2 weeks is fine... But this is the ELEVENTH block the user has received. Additionally, they were on WP:PROBATION where they promised to stop this sort of behavior and didn't. According to WP:ROPE it should not be used:

• If a user has already been blocked numerous times for the same behavior, they've already gotten all the rope they need; the hangman is just asleep at the lever
• And If the user was justifiably blocked but is not giving any indication that they even feel they did anything wrong See this diff where the user essentially says they should be given leeway because my actions warranted their response.

• I am all for giving people chances to correct their mistakes. We ALL make them. But for their 11th time to be such a tiny slap on the wrist... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Look, in my opinion there are only two kinds of blocks: expiring ones, and indefinite ones. If we set it to autoexpire at a certain date in the future, it is because we expect the person to change their behavior when the block expires. Two weeks, two months, whatever, an expiring block means "When this runs out, we have full expectation the problems will cease". If we DON'T expect the person to improve their behavior, then what is the point of letting their block expire? If you think that a site ban is needed instead of a limited term block, start a new thread asking for a site ban. I suspect you would get significant support for one. However, unless and until we do that, any expiring block of any sufficiently long length has the same effect. --Jayron32 18:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• That really is the crux. Do I think this pattern of behavior will cease when the block expires? In all honesty, I do not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm with Ad Orientem. I also want to note that while I am the one who filed this particular complaint, until yesterday, I had zero issues with DePiep. I actually really valued their input on a number of things. I just don't want anyone to think this is some long standing grudge on my part. Looking at their track record though... 11 blocks all for the same thing? And this time when they were blocked their first statement was to try to justify their actions by essentially saying they were provoked. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support 5 month block - I've been pondering between 5 months and indef for some time now,

On one hand their block log is ridiculous and them making PAs despite being on a topicban makes me want to support indef,

On the other hand under the topicban this has been their first offense (and I feel it would be harsh to immediately indef them when others here have been blocked more than 7 times and still edit here)

So for now I support extending to 5 months in order for them to clear their head and gain some perspective, Anymore violations should result in indef. –Davey2010^Talk 19:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• I just don't feel 2 weeks will achieve anything whereas a 5 month block would (or should) have more of an impact if that makes sense, –Davey2010^Talk 19:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. DePiep is generally productive, but that is a long b-log, and the transgression of the probation was pretty stark. A nice long wikibreak seems to be in order.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support 5 months - @Davey2010: I would support a 5 month ban with the caveat that next time there is a block of any kind, it is indef. I'm not saying "next time someone complains", I'm saying next time that an admin decides that the actions require a block of any kind, that needs to be it. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• As blocking admin, I felt that DePiep's overreaction to Zackmann08's query was sanctionable only in the context of their topic ban, otherwise I would have just said "hey, knock it off and be polite". Yet, just a little bit less than six months ago they were banned specifically from these behaviours, which included language indicating they should be blocked immediately if they violated those conditions, and so in my view a block was warranted. Since this was fairly mild and apparently the first instance of violating that ban, I felt that two weeks was sufficient. I blocked while Ad Orientem was writing their "give them a chance to explain" response above: I hadn't seen it before I blocked. As for my comment about discussing whether DePiep should edit at all, I was referring to this being part of a long-term pattern which warranted a topic ban in the first place. Personally, after the fact, I think that one slip in nearly six months is probably not ban-worthy, but at the same time it indicates their behaviour isn't really improving. Afterwards I saw Johnuniq's wise comment about trolling, and thought it best to leave this as is unless others really wanted to talk about it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

For the record, any admin should of course feel free to override my block with whatever is decided here. I do not need to be notified (I'll be following anyway) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector and Johnuniq: point of clarification here... Was the trolling comment directed towards me? Lot going on here so I don't want to assume anything. That being said, if you feel that I did anything wrong in this matter, please do not hesitate to tell me so, either here in this thread or in a message on my talk page. If I was in the wrong at any point, I want to own that and learn from it. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: I can't speak for Johnuniq but I interpreted his comment as a general comment, not suggesting that you were trolling DePiep. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support 5 month block per above with the stipulation that this is likely going to be their last block with an expiration date. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support a long block as a final warning - the only thing more impressive than the size of the log is that it shows a pattern of unchanging behavior that goes back nearly 10 (9.83) years. Even a final warning at this point I think is generous.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose We've just had an RfC on this. Against my views, at least, WP consensus has decided that this language is not uncivil. If that's the case, then we can hardly sanction DePiep for breaching it!

IMHE, DePiep has sometimes been abrasive to deal with, but never an editor I'd want to sanction like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Context is key. I don't see any civility nor AFG here nor here, as originally posted at the top.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: I'd like to echo what Tom.Reding said. As the RFC stated, context is key. This not just about the use of the words fuck off. That alone is not sanctionable. However, it indicates a lengthy history of behavior. Also, it just violates common sense. If you have been blocked 10 times already for lack of WP:CIVILITY and violating WP:AGF why on earth are you getting anywhere near that line? Whether or not you think fuck off is a violation of civility, surely we can all agree it is right on the line? But more importantly, the entire content of the interaction shows a lack of WP:AGF. For example, in this response, I had come to DePiep to ask how I could be helpful with a project. That was their response. This isn't about the use of those words. If you replace please fuck off with "please go away" or "piss off" it still lacks WP:CIVILITY and doesn't WP:AGF. Even if you completely remove that part from the response... I came to offer assistance their response was I don't think you are her to improve templates, to cooperate, or to improve wikipedia at all. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

That is pretty much the same detailed take I would have written and thankfully someone else did this time. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I can see why you're upset by such comments and certainly they're way off what we'd want to see (FYI - track his block log and ANI to see what he's said to me!). But IMHO, the length of block being discussed here need concrete disruption and damage, not just offence. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Procedurally, this is akin to an employee who has been written up for inappropriate behaviour and then doing it again. In most companies, that would usually be a termination offense. Were it not for that probation, then I'd probably agree with you --Blackmane (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC).

• As far as I can see, DePiep is concerned about attempts to delete templates based on a non-existent "single use" rule. This TfD and follow-up with the closing admin (MSGJ) at MSGJ's talk seem very reasonable. DePiep has maintained a lot of complex templates used by the chemistry wikiproject and appeared to react badly soon after Zackmann08 started a TfD process that may have deleted 122 such templates. Given the complex, high quality and policy-compliant material, I think the wikiproject maintaining the articles should manage how they operate. At any rate, DePiep appeared to melt down. A two-week block solves that problem and escalating law-n-order calls for higher sanctions are inappropriate. All kinds of people edit here. Some of them are highly concerned about the corner they maintain and react badly when passers-by want to turn everything upside down. The solution is to block DePiep for two weeks for every bad word. This is not Nannypedia where people's self esteem must be protected at all costs. Browsing User talk:Zackmann08 shows that others have raised concerns and Zackmann08's effort to totally eliminate their opponent is very inappropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Johnuniq: 1) I specifically asked DePiep for their input... I wanted an explanation from them and a discussion that is why I started a Templates for DISCUSSION. I have no problem with opposition. Your statement that I'm trying to eliminate my opponent is just a flat out lie, not to mention fails to WP:AGF. 2) You do realize that DePiep has had a meltdown at least 10 previous times now right? At what point do you think it is enough? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Understood, I'm lying and failing to AGF. Further, the fact that DePiep's meltdown occurred during a disagreement with you is a complete coincidence and it is only with a heavy heart and sense of community welfare that you are advocating that DePiep's two-week block is insufficient. Let me repeat my earlier comment: DePiep should be like the majority here and only bother people in a civil manner, but we're not all the same. Move on. Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

My reading of this aligns closely to Johnuniq's. Two weeks for a first violation of the sanction is a fair response. The three month block was two years ago (August 2016). Chomping at the bit for harsher punishment is not going to invoke any AGF from me. Neither is the bludgeoning. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

One can reasonably argue for or against a longer block. But the suggestion that DePiep should get some kind of special consideration and be allowed to flout our guidelines is not acceptable. WP:CIVIL is not a suggestion and it does not apply only to some of us. Anyone who is unable or unwilling to abide by it needs to find another hobby. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think special considerations are being suggested here; CIVIL by the letters is being violated everyday, and we have talked about in the past how it could be equally uncivil for someone to ask someone that's upset "please be civil". In DePiep's case, there's plenty of discussion in previous ANI to the point that I think we are simply in "report violation and block territory"; bringing out all of their past history again to me is just unnecessarily repetitive. Alex Shih (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Stumbling across this report I feel I should throw this encounter into the mix - Template talk:Infobox lighthouse#Template-protected edit request on 29 October 2018. What was a discussion about a prospective template edit very quickly became, in DePiep's mind, an attack on his technical abilities. If a block is to be imposed, it needs to be longer than the last, so Support block >3 months. Cabayi (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Did you post the right diff? I can't see anything warranting a block in that link. Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• What's sanctionable in that diff is DePiep's concern that Cabayi "distrusts [their] work" (I'm paraphrasing because I'm on mobile), a clear assumption of bad faith. The majority of users would escape such a statement with at worst a warning, but DePiep is not like the majority of users: they are banned (not "have been warned" but banned) from making statements like this. Procedurally their comment is the same as an editor topic-banned from gun control posting an edit about the NRA. I see it as an odd sanction but it is one the community agreed on to try to limit a disruptive user, and I'm not really evaluating the merits of the sanction when I block for what is clearly a violation of it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

And the ban in this case includes a strongly worded advisory to block them "immediately" if violations occur. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I am a simple person and would read DePiep's comment (from above) in a much kinder way. I'm not claiming DePiep's communication style is a model of clarity, quite the opposite, but I don't think it's reasonable to parse "showing a distrust in my work, while not being able to point out any errors" as sanctionable. I agree there is a problem but as in many of these cases I suspect our responses can go a bit overboard. Re the edit request, the mandatory copyright attribution should have been followed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• I think two weeks is sufficient, it's the first time the 'civility parole' has been breached (or, at least, reported here as having been breached) since it was initiated over a year ago, and De Piep is probably well aware the next block, if there is one, will be indefinite; dragging that out for a further 4 1/2 months seems punitive, not preventative. Fish+Karate 10:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• I just want to say, a) god damn it and b) Johnuniq's comments above nailed it. DePiep is like a very expensive racecar that does one kind of thing really, REALLY well (and diligently) but it doesn't take much to make it go kablooey. User_talk:Zackmann08 please be more careful not to break things. I'm with the Fish - 2 weeks is plenty. And for god's sake User:De Piep please walk away from your keyboard when you feel a gasket blowing. Please self-manage better. Please. You are going to lose your editing privileges for good, and that would suck. Jytdog (talk) 04:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Jytdog: first of all, you pinged my talk page and didn't even link to DePiep correctly... But more importantly, I never broke anything? So what on earth are you talking about? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
    • If you have to ask what I am talking about, you are not reading this thread and have a severe WP:IDHT problem. Everybody here has acknowledged that dePiep is way too explosive; editors who are familiar with his work understand that it is very valuable. I know that you weren't aware of what you walking into when you started thinking about the relevant infoboxes, but by now you should be aware. Please read Johnuniq's comments again. If you persist in not listening this is going to boomerang on you, now or eventually. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Strong support for an indef (or a longterm block at a bare minimum) This user has been blocked 11 times in their time with the project, and on all but two of those occasions, it was for harassment, personal attacks, and general disruption. Just five months ago, the community undertook a detailed examination here of the underlying inappropriate conduct, in which De Piep was advanced yet more WP:ROPE, but with a clear warning that this was the last of the patience the community was prepared to extend given the persistent abuse of other editors in flagrant defiance of the most basic application of our civility standards. There were some truly problematic comments discussed at that time (not the least of them the very troubling "Auschwitz" comments directed at Icewhiz), but we nevertheless attempted a solution that gave this editor a chance to self-correct. That we are back here this soon for multiple brightline violations is an indication of a basic competency deficit; this user is either incapable of exercising control over their impulse to make abusive comments during content disputes, or they have so little regard for our conduct standards and the express concerns of the community that they feel they cannot be bothered. Either way, enough is enough.

Personally, I grow truly weary of hearing, as seems to be the refrain in every other user conduct discussion involving civility of late, how great the user's contributions are "otherwise". Holy Mother of Not Seeing the Big Picture, that's not the point. The systemic damage done to the project and its editorial resources by allowing our conduct standards to be habitually ignored by the "right" editors dwarfs any benefit any one editor brings in; if this editor contributed 100,000 quality edits a year, I would still !vote to block based on the extensive and long-term pattern of inability to internalize this project's need for a respectful and collaborative environment. DePiep has been given every opportunity to pull up from this nose dive, and I for one regret my earlier support for adopting a "wait and see" approach in the last community discussion. As the block log and the associated ANI discussions illustrate, for the better part of a decade this user has been broadcasting who they are with their conduct. At what point do we choose to receive the message? Snow ^{let's rap} 20:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: thanks for the super in depth analysis. Also pinging @Icewhiz: in case they want to chime in. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Zack, I would be careful of doing that in the future; it looks a little like WP:canvassing when you ping someone to a discussion immediately after hearing a description of a previous dispute which would seem to suggest that they would come down on the issues here in a particular way. In this case, I would say that's unlikely to be the result: Icewhiz was (quite admirably in my book) pretty quick to accept DePiep's apology in that prior discussion--that was actually a big part of why I (and I suspect others) were convinced to go the WP:ROPE route in that discussion (by adopting an editing restriction rather than re-instating the indef), out of respect for Icewhiz's magnanimity.

Nevertheless, pulling in editors from previous conduct discussions is still likely to be interpreted by others as an effort to stack the deck and works against you in two ways: 1) it makes it look like any emerging consensus here for a sanction is really the result of aggregated sour grapes, and 2) fairly or not, it devalues the weight your own assertions will be granted. I do believe it was appropriate to mention those particular censured comments--they are very important context for understanding why DePiep was put under this particular editing restriction to begin with. But pinging old parties to the present discussion when it can appear that you are doing so expecting them to support your position is a bridge too far, imo. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: you are correct. Thanks for calling me on that. I've stricken (striked?) my comments and will refrain from pinging any other editors. FWIW I was not attempting to canvas, but that is not the point. I need to avoid any appearance of impropriety. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thank you--that is precisely the emphasis I was hoping to impart; I personally believe you were not acting in bad faith and that under a strictly textualist reading of WP:CANVAS one in your position might argue that Icewhiz was someone who would want to be informed. But nevertheless, for the need to preserve faith in the integrity of the process and reduce acrimony in same, it's better to err on the side of of caution in such pings that a reasonable editor might have concerns about. I appreciate you taking my observation in the spirit it was intended. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

On a side note, as regards the (surprisingly more complex than one might think) topic of stricked/stricken, you might want to look at the work of cognitive psychologist and language researcher Steven Pinker, some of whose earlier work is focused upon the question of irregular verbs, as is one of his popular science books, Words and Rules, to a great extent. I also just recently happened upon this short which does an admirable job of trying to condense the subject down into a basic primer of the pragmatic angles to that question. Uh, but long story short, I think most people still go with "stricken" in their personal idiolect, but I could be mistaken about that. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Hold your horses. All this dramah is about Template:Chembox Pharmacology and the proposal by User:Zackmann08 to rewrite everything from scratch. The said template is transcluded into [[26]] 778 pages. As noted at Template_talk:Chembox#Convert to Infobox (for realz this time), "anyone who has looked at this template knows it is a complicated one". Therefore rewriting from scratch will generate for sure a huge workload to check if everything got as planed in all the trancluding articles. In this context, a message that can be parsed as "I will take the lead, but, nevertheless, you are allowed to work harder" has been poorly received. And so on, and so on. This is really the right time to invoke the Holy Mother of Not Seeing the Big Picture. Pldx1 (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Pldx1: I'm not sure what my efforts to rewrite an outdated template have to do with a conversation on civility? As previously noted, I initially came to DePiep with an offer to assist them with their efforts to rewrite the template. Their response was to tell me to fuck off because they felt I was clearly not here to be constructive. So again, not sure what your point is? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
    • This section is not a conversation about civility, but deals with an application against an alleged non-civility. Therefore, context matters. What could have triggered such an unfortunate event? For example, what was said just before the bad_word was issued? Disclaimer: I do not use the Chembox template and I do not propose myself for a thorough review of the political correctness of the code nor even of it's computer correctness. And so, I have nothing to add. Pldx1 (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
      • @Pldx1: so essentially you are saying I provoked them by offering to help? That makes no sense at all... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support block OP's diff clearly shows DePiep violating their editing restriction. I would also support TBANning Pldx1 from ANI discussions for the above blatant trolling, and the ongoing trolling over multiple years, which was slow-motion enough that it's largely evaded notice, and trouting Zackmann08 for feeding the trolls. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC) (modified 02:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC))

• Block him. Sorry, but "All this dramah" is not about any Chembox template or such, or even "bad" language, but about the persistent, long-running incivility of this user. This probation was his opportunity to show improvement of behavior, and he avoided a block only because he agreed to these more stringent conditions. He violated those conditions, therefore "he is subject to immediate sanction (including blocks)". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_3, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_28, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_30, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_19 were closed as keep. Thus DePiep should have answered: let us sing Kumbaya together, see you in 2020. But requiring to enlarge the current 2 weeks block by Ivanvector seems over the top. Pldx1 (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Huh? The point of your comment is .. what? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment something needed to be done, but I don't see clear evidence that additional action beyond the existing 2-week block is needed. I'm neutral on anything up to a total of a 2-month block, and oppose anything more. I do support extending the timeframe of appeal for the previous sanctions by 6 months. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment – DePiep has posted the below in their talk page:

• About the ANI as started by Zackmann [27] (currently open). I fully admit that the two diffs show unacceptable language, an I want to apologise to Zackmann08. These PAs etc. are unacceptable. These are context & timeline of these edits: that day was one in which I was engaged in month-long discussions (here [28] and here [29]) exactly about the topic Zackmann invoked in a new TfD [30] (the topic being: "subst then delete single-use template"). Most probably at the moment of TfD ignition Zackmann was not aware of these discussions. It was at that point and moment that I lost my patience and civility. Incidentally: the three earlier similar TfD's in those very same templates (2012, 2014, 2016—initiated by Zackmann) I already had been using as an example in the discussions. That is how tight it all was, both in time and in topic.

re OP Was particularly disappointing given ... [31] (third diff). That diff was about an other, unrelated template, and I had responded early by sending Thanks, and so I do not see how this would support the complaint (see 21:26, 18 11 2018). There is no unfriendliness in there. Zackmann repeated this false impression later on. I reject the suggestion.

Since there is no excuse, I do not seek or ask undoing of the current block. I use these two weeks to cool down, take a distance, and rethink on how to prevent any such situations.

• There is also this. In a later post, Zackmann refers to two other discussions as "has violated ... and not been reported": this ([32], btw I actually walked away from this) and this ([33]). However, I claim that there was nothing to "report" in those threads. Throwing in such a post is muddying the waters, while ANI has no mechanism or process to undo any non-argument. No admin ever concludes "incorrect, so this !argument is not to be used". The effect is that it keeps getting attention and repetition, and cannot be nullified. (Same about a later post by Cabayi [34]: nothing to report, plain content/edit discussion, while author keeps concluding 'blockable').

Reading Zackmans posts in the ANI thread I find them rather over-judgemental and imprecise reasoning. OP third diff [35] (both I already mentioned), a punishment?, "essentially saying" = putting words in my mouth, "Apparently discussions aren't allowed anymore" (?), and a non-admin !vote even. These, too, introduce the problem of how to unmuddy the waters. One more example: Non-admins Zackmann, SMcCandish, Davey2010, Snow Rise, Cabayi arrived !voting (ouch) for an extended block; even leading admin Ad Orientem to add: Per above ... (that is, following the non-admins' !votes). -DePiep (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Note that this discussion has been going on for half the duration of the block already... –FlyingAce^✈hello 02:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I think it's time for an uninvolved admin to have a look and close this. These things have a way of gaining a life of their own. Conceding rare exceptions I tend to think that ANI discussions should not last longer than three days. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• @Ad Orientem, Ivanvector, Bbb23, SMcCandlish, Tom.Reding, Johnuniq, Mr rnddude, Cabayi, Snow Rise, and FlyingAce: (I tried to ping everyone involved) this has now been moved from the main page to an archive, but I don't see any indication of a resolution. Can we restore this to the main page while the discussion is still ongoing? The last comment was a request for an uninvolved admin to have a look and close (which I agree is a good idea). There seems to be extensive support for a longer block but I am OBVIOUSLY biased so would appreciate an uninvolved party to review. I tried to restore this to the main page myself by was reverted by Bbb23. I'm not interested in any more fighting about this but seemed there was an ongoing discussion that should be resolved before this is archived. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

This has dragged on so long that I am rather inclined at this point to treat the issue as stale and let it go. Hopefully DePiep will take on board the comments and opinions posted above and realize that any future recurrence could well end in an indefinite block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and ignorance of editing policy

Editor User:Moscow Connection is violating PROMOTION, BALANCE, WEIGHT, NPOV, LEAD and OWN at the articles Japanese idol and Momoiro Clover Z. I started discussions, see Talk:Japanese idol#Momoiro Clover Z and Talk:Momoiro Clover Z#Disruptive removal of polls by Oricon. The editor is doing that in an attempt to promote an idol group, Momoiro Clover Z, in respective articles by using surveys without proper attribution (to The Nikkei), giving them overweight, against the records sales and polls by Oricon, the authoritative organization formed to follow trends and records sales in Japanese music industry. The editor is removing the reliably sourced polls by Oricon and ignoring the sales. The sales are the primary and main source of establishing popularity, besides perhaps in influence (which the group doesn't have any), in every popular music article, for example, see J-pop. In the discussion the editor is not constructively arguing with arguments, just "says" things and that he "wants" this and that, but ignoring that it's against editing policy, showing OWN behavior. Doesn't allow others to edit the article, and makes WP:POINT revert (for e.g. [36]) with which ignores multiple violation of editing policy. There also other more specific issues, but they can be found in the proper discussions.--78.1.87.210 (talk) 09:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• The anonymous editor has been edit-warring over some photos in the "Japanese idol" article for several days now. (He just makes the same edit over and over.) Yesterday I posted him a warning inviting him to "seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents", so here he is.
  And yes, I want the article in question to retain all the photos. Momoiro Clover Z and Babymetal are extremely popular, I've explained that to him. The surveys used in the Momoiro Clover Z photo description are reliable. There's much more to popularity than Oricon sales. AKB48's sales are artificially bloated cause the group has a system that encourages fans to buy multiple copies of the same CD. (Hes, they still sale CDs.) Momoiro Clover Z is very popular concert-wise and they are respected by music critics and heavily talked about in the Japanese media.
  And we don't have many good photos of Japanese idols we can use. I've already said to him that if he has some photos of Japanese boy bands, he can put them in the article any time.
  All that said, I think that it is this editor's edits that "violate PROMOTION, BALANCE, WEIGHT, NPOV". He seems to be an AKB48 fan who doesn't like the fact that the "Japanese idol" article has photos of other groups. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

You are both edit warring, and over a really trivial matter. I suggest that the page is reset to before the edit wear and locked whilst both eds calm down a bit.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• I just revert the article to its former state, I have all the right to do it. While this editor, who is obviously an avid AKB48 fan (which is not bad in itself), attempts to change the article by force, it's just disruptive. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

This is not an exemption under WP:3RR, you do not have a right to edit war except under very specific circumstances.Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't violate 3RR. I reverted him once a day or so. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

"Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached." and edit war can in fact be slow, and take place over number of days. Again you do not have a right to edit war (even a slow one). Also you accused the IP of edit warring, and he appears to have not breached 3RR either (and indeed seems to have made only one or two edits a day).Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

What I am trying to tell you is that the pair of you were as bad as each other and this ANI is probably as very foolish idea. Neither of you are winning friends or influencing people (except negatively).Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what I'm "as bad as the other person" cause I'm a constructive editor who has invested tens or maybe even hundreds of hours of my time in that article. And then someone comes and says that he doesn't like some photo and he starts edit-warring over that.
I came here to do something today (here and in another language) and I had to spend almost two hours dealing with this. That's practically a whole day wasted. Now I'm actually thinking of going away for some prolonged time cause the editor made my few latest days here impossible. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Wow. "who has invested tens or maybe even hundreds of hours of my time in that article. And then someone comes..." - if this isn't the reasoning behind the editors OWN behavior, constant twisting of the truth - making my concern about the violation of editing policy to something I simply "doesn't like" - then I don't know what it is. The editor admitted that both reverts without analyzing what it reverts and shows signs of OWN behavior. As for the counter-claim that I violated all the mentioned editing policies, while I'm arguing and editing in favour of editing policies, it's a perfect example of what kind of an editor we are dealing with, with lack of any signs of good faith and that's gaming the system. --78.1.87.210 (talk) 12:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Stop accusing me of violating every Wikipedia rule you can find. I don't "own" the article or even remotely anything like that. It was some years ago, I worked on the article years ago. There have probably been hundreds of edits by tens of different editors since then. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I will not stop, because this is enough! I had enough of wasting my time with someone like you. You clearly show OWN behavior when it comes to these articles and specific content, you admitted that in your comments. It doesn't matter what you did years ago, don't twist the narrative again, we are dealing with you in the present time, here, now!--78.1.87.210 (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Incredible to what the point the editor Moscow Conection is going to WP:GAME the system. He is now lying and accusing me of being an AKB48 fan, which I am not at all. Typical personal attack to defame other editor, also making strawman. If anything, I'm a B'z fan, but that doesn't have anything to do with the content. With also accusing me that "doesn't like" he is violating WP:GOODFAITH. First and foremost, I was not edit-warring over only some photos, yet about their rationale of inclusion according to editing policies (as cited above), as well other text in the articles. The editor is constantly ignoring and removing the Oricon surveys, made by the "holding company at the head of a Japanese corporate group that supplies statistics and information on music and the music industry in Japan" which neglects and at least gives balance to the unattributed results made by The Nikkei. The editor admitted he is making POINT reverts ("I didn't notice he added something about Oricon polls. If that's what he did, then, surely, the information can remain"). Again he admits he "wants to retain all the photos", which is against the rationale according to editing policy. These two groups are not extremely popular and did not explain anyhow with any reliable source to substantiate his personal opinion. According to "according to Oricon polls of 20,000 people for "Favorite Artist Ranking" which is held since 2004, they are not featured in Top 50 and Top 20 acts between 2013-2017, with the exception in 2013 when placed as 14th.[76][77][78][79][80]", that doesn't indicate anyhow "extreme" popularity and because of that he intentionally removes the Oricon polls. AKB48 has recorded sales and certifications in millions, seemingly the editor again doesn't want to accept that reality and pushes his own agenda. There is no provided source that the group is "respected by music critics", again personal opinion, while for "heavily talked about in the Japanese media" there's no comparison to whom for measuring the weight. The editor again confuses photo's quality with the rationale for NPOV inclusion. @Slatersteven: this is not a trivial matter, it's only trivial when is intentionally simplified by Moscow Connection. Here's an intentional violation of multiple Wikipedian editing policies and OWN behavior. --78.1.87.210 (talk) 12:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I assumed good faith, but you repeated your disriptive edits, you just repeated the same edit and didn't want to listen...
    I didn't make any WP:POINT reverts. I've already explained here: [37].
    Whay are you randomly accusing me of violating all the possible Wikipedia rules in existance? That's just strange. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
    • The one whose, not listening, reading, and is constantly making POINT reverts is no other than you. You didn't explain anything, your explanation only proves that you made POINT reverts, you don't have a basic grasp about the things you're talking about! You didn't assume any good faith, your accusations and personal attacks prove that as well. I am accusing you because you're intentionally doing that. You constantly show evidence of misunderstanding and ignorance of editing policies, and when somebody comes and tells you that you simply twist the narrative that the person "doesn't like that and that". You are gaming the system here fooling around making idiots of everyone. The one whose wasting everyone's time is you with your defence of your promotional agenda of this idol group as if you're some crazy fan, even worse, part of their management or something. You both don't understand editing policy and don't let other editors edit the article and content. You DO NOT OWN THE CONTENT AND THE ARTICLES. Do you understand that?!--78.1.87.210 (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Interestingly, another editor, User talk:Anosola, who also extensively edited the article about the group Momoiro Clover Z, now reverted both articles ([38], [39]) and added additional The Nikkei survey for 2018. Even more interestingly, three years ago, in 2015 there already existed a dispute about the same thing (!). Look for User talk:Anosola#Do not edit my talk page and about your fan edits and User talk:Anosola#Music of Japan (as there also PROMOTION of the group at Music of Japan#Idol music section!) in which the editor Moscow Connection was also engaged (!). If this isn't evidence for intentional and long lasting pushing of a promotional agenda then I don't know what it is. It is suspicious to the extreme, this isn't and cannot be characterized as "trivial matter".--78.1.87.210 (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• This is beyond crazy and insane. The editor Moscow Connection in his latest comment at Talk:Japanese idol#Momoiro Clover Z went so far in lying that dared to question where are these "Oricon surveys... I don't see anything like this in this article" - he doesn't see anything because he removed them ([40]). Even further, he said that "You are welcome to add some info about some Oricon surveys", but I already did and he removed it. Additionally, he dared to say that I "repeatedly removing the photo... that's all you do here in this article", what about the Oricon surveys and other? I am speechless that someone would intentionally fool people around to such a point of acting demented, doing everything, in an attempt to push the promotional agenda.--78.1.87.210 (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I didn't notice you (finally) added some prose. All the edits you have made in the last few days were marked as reverts, so I assumed it was the same edit you made earlier (this one). I've just put the sentence back. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
    • You admitted again that you're doing POINT reverts without knowing what you're doing and reverting at all. It is unbelievable that you did not notice what you were reverting. This is or blatant lying or your not sane in your head. Thanks God you're becoming at least saner, but did you self-revert the same information in the Momoiro Clover Z article? No, you did not. Did you self-revert the information from the groups LEAD, as editor Curly Turkey explained you in the talk page discussion, no you did not.--31.217.24.109 (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• I've just noticed the anonymous user removed the photo yet again: [41]. I will now post him his last warning, but I will wait with reverting till tomorrow. (Simply because I don't want to look bad.)
  I believe the article should be semiprotected. I've just spent some time rewriting the part he added (cause in his addition he questioned the success of one particular group instead on discussing the overall results of the polls), but then I decided to look at the article and what do I see? The photo is gone again, he has removed it! --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The image was reverted because you were intentionally not editing the LEAD and probably would not have done it by yourself, so I did it ([42]) in proper order and attribution to The Nikkei as stated in the discussion. Just a reminder, remember tomorrow to edit Momoiro Clover Z article as well, if not I will.--31.217.24.109 (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

How about we remove both photos so no one is happy? This is stupid as hell. --Tarage (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed.Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Integrityinsport

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

---

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

I blocked Integrityinsport indefinitely for violations of BLP. It's also a NOTHERE/RGW issue IMO. If anyone thinks it may be possible to control the problem with a less harsh remedy, please feel free to adjust or lift the block. Guy (Help!) 00:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• No, they're only here for one reason and that one isn't allowed under any circumstances. I've also revdel'd their contributions since they're fairly clear BLP violations. Black Kite (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, yes, thanks - I should have done that. Guy (Help!) 01:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the deleted revisions, very, very good block. Courcelles (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Editor has done nothing but edit war against consensus on gender issues

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

---

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

This user, who has a total of 123 edits to their name, has done virtually nothing but troll and edit-war against consensus on gender issues. They've already been blocked once in their 2-month wiki career. And witness their endless talkpage bludgeoning on Talk:Actress (disambiguation). To me this is obviously a returning troll or block evader, but I have no idea who. In any case, they are spectacularly NOTHERE and need to be dealt with.

Pinging all involved (i.e., those who've had to deal with the user): @Jim1138, MarnetteD, Bonadea, Flyer22 Reborn, EvergreenFir, Ethanpet113, Equivamp, Binksternet, Grayfell, Drmies, and Enric Naval:. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Also pinging: @FlightTime Phone, FlightTime, HickoryOughtShirt?4, and Acroterion:. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed. Endless WP:DRAMA. This looks like a classic case of NOTHERE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Sorry I missed the party, but I completly support the outcome. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 14:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Flood of IP vandalism at unblock requests

We're getting a flood of nonsense unblock requests from IPs, some (most?) of which are blocked proxies, and all obviously the same person - looks like quotes from Tolkein. See Category:Requests for unblock. We need some hands to the pump, please, and help from anyone good at identifying and range-checking proxies. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• When I get where I'm going in just a minute, I'll pitch in. For reference for those unaware, 120 requests last I looked in a category that normally has about 40. Katie^talk 16:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

A lot of these are already blocked by ProcseeBot. Talk page access needs to be revoked, and honestly there's no good reason why ProcseeBot shouldn't do that on its own. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

We do get occasional collateral from blocked proxies. Anyway, these are streaming in at around 10 per minute - filter 945 is now active. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Fair. The category seems to be clear of bogus IP requests now anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I did a pretty good deletion sweep of this crap. Courcelles (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

There's a ton more left that were just blanked by others but they are all copyvios too. Praxidicae (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It didn't even occur to me that these are copyvios. @Praxidicae: do you have a list? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector I ran the first few through Earwig and then stopped because they were all coming back as cv. I think they're mostly deleted now but I just set a filter on my RC that'll watch the feed as they pop up. I've stopped tagging though at Jpgordon's request. It looks like these are what is left (they were blanked rather than deleted which is probably problematic given the copyvios.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:45.117.64.68
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:114.108.177.104
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:181.112.57.78
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:186.46.120.230
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:181.191.49.34
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:154.72.63.84
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:103.250.166.12
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:175.100.106.102

Praxidicae (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, they're all from Tolkien's works, which AFAIK are not public domain. I just didn't think of it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted this list per G12 (G3 would also apply, under which I deleted a bunch of others) and have blocked the proxies that were not already blocked. @Boing! said Zebedee: I lengthened some of your blocks, just FYI. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Ah, I blanked some without thinking about copyvio - I'll go back over them and check now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• All the ones I blanked are deleted (or rev-deleted) now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

JK, there's more!

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:1.10.186.156
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:80.80.172.26&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:182.50.64.148&oldid=870716866
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:202.138.127.66&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:190.152.19.62&oldid=870713015
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:118.174.220.154&oldid=870712433
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:1.10.186.156&oldid=870712397

Sorry for any dupes. Praxidicae (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• This is going on again today. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Deleted and salted (for two weeks) a bunch. We're back to normal service for now, but one should keep your AWB instances open... MER-C 13:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Continued incivility and bad-faith accusations by Walter Görlitz toward me at article content discussions

I don't remember how far back this goes exactly, but Spike Wilbury can attest to Walter's incivility toward me as far back as September: "Brandishing topic bans and WP:NOTHERE as conflict resolution tools is absurdly aggressive. Feel free to comment on the topic here but further comments on Dan56 or other editors is likely to result in a block to prevent further disruption."

• He again suggested the threat of a topic ban this month, after I contested his formal closure of an RfC that had expired and that he had been involved in; my ANI complaint challenging the closure concluded the closure was inappropriate.

• Yesterday, he reverted without explanation an extensive addition I had made to an article and immediately filed an ANI complaint against me, complaining my edits were performed without prior discussion and "requesting a topic ban for Dan from this album article at the very least and possibly from the topic of U2 or possibly music in general."

• His overall inability to communicate without being dismissive, snarky, or rude is toxic; this discourages me from discussing any edit he protests without encountering some hostility from him, forcing me to open RfCs for my changes to get a fair assessment on the merits, especially in the most recent case when he is the only editor challenging them.

• Today, he has followed me again to the recent RfC at the same article to post embarrassing commentary; in response to Beyond My Ken's question directed at me, asking why I chose to open an RfC rather than start a regular discussion at the talk page; Walter responded to it himself, brandishing another bad-faith accusation: "Because, you came straight here and edited the article again after the last time you were told wasn't a problem, just to make the point that there were two Rolling Stone reviews. You wanted to make it clear to everyone and the rest was just whipped cream on the bullshit you've been spotting for a month".

Can someone sit him down, talk some sense into him? It is one thing to be overly protective of articles one has a personal stake in. But he is creating a toxic, offensive environment, making it embarrassing to even respond to the most recent remarks. Dan56 (talk) 10:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: This thread seems to be related to the now-closed thread above: Dan56 won't take "you're wrong" for an answer (permalink). It would appear that Walter Görlitz is unable to be objective or neutral with or concerning Dan56, and if he is unable to discuss content without mentioning editors, he will likely end up with a one-way IBan towards Dan56. That said, both Dan56 and Walter Görlitz need to leave specific and detailed edit summaries for every edit, not just when they feel like it. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• As I commented on the RfC, Dan56's opening of the RfC without first making an attempt at discussion seems like a very pretty aggressive thing to do, so I'm not sure that WG's response to it was completely unwarranted. It looks to me that Dan56 does not come here with clean hands. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• It is clear that these two users are more interested in hauling each other to ANI rather than discuss on the talk to generate WP:CONSENSUS, if things continue like this, Topic ban / IBAN will have to be proposed. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It is demeaning to have to respond to an editor who can accuse you of illiteracy for failing to agree with him: "You need to learn to read."; just recently, in reference to you^, D. Dan56 (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

    accuse you of illiteracy – I always carry a copy of my parents' marriage certificate in case anyone tries that on me. EEng 12:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

    • By engaging in such personal attacks on me, Walter Görlitz is only confirming that the thread against his appalling behaviour is justified. He is digging his own grave with such acts. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

      It's unnecessarily pointed wording, but his thrust was that you were straw manning his argument, which is frustrating. It's not uncivil to point out when someone's exhibiting a "reading comprehension difficulty" moment (or pretending to in order to mischaracterize someone's OP). While the choice of words was poor, and unlikely to be taken kindly, that's all Walter is doing there. It is not credible that he literally believes you can't read, otherwise it would not be possible for you to follow the discussion or write on Wikipedia. That is, no one is going to buy that he's actually accusing you of illiteracy. Walter just needs to absorb the advice at WP:HOTHEADS and moderate his tone.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

      Surely not literal illiteracy! EEng 03:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Topic ban both editors from the article and interaction ban them from each other - this is the third discussion on this page (Dan56 and RfC closing, Dan56 won't take "you're wrong" for an answer, this thread) plus more on other pages (e.g [43]) about this dispute, which at its core is just these two editors insisting on disrupting each other's work. It's just wasting time on an unresolvable personality conflict at this point. Get them out of the way and let others work on the article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • What work of his have I disrupted? It has exclusively been my edits challenged/reverted by Walter at Boy (album) recently. What work of his anywhere else have I disrupted? Dan56 (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• TB & IB - Per Ivanvector, who hit the nail squarley on the head. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Ivanvector's IB would be reasonable (this really is clearly a personality dispute), and maybe a short-term TB. I don't really see enough evidence for a TB for either party at this point. And we need to keep in mind that the average editor treats a TB like a public flogging; some otherwise-productive editors quit over one if it's indefinite or lengthy. Three months max, I would say, but only if there's sufficient evidence that their conflict is topically limited, and it rises to TB level, and we don't think an IB would resolve the problem (don't use two sanctions when one will do). If we're certain there's a failure "to communicate without being dismissive, snarky, or rude" and it's not limited to this topical context, then it may not be a t-ban matter, though many editors learn from a short block or even a warning to stop doing that sort of thing, lest it lead to stringent sanctions. Give people the benefit of the doubt that they can do so.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• I've suggested both because the article is clearly suffering from their personality conflict, and should be given a chance to recover. I don't want this to turn into a situation of both editors warring over who is allowed to edit because the other is ibanned. I just wrote somewhere else that I don't really care for time-limited bans (my opinion is that the banned editor should actively convince others that the ban is no longer necessary, instead of it just expiring with no action on their part) but I don't have a strong opinion about the matter in this case. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • If anything, my consolidation of critical information in the article has allowed for this addition of new content by Y2kcrazyjoker4. So, how exactly has the article "clearly suffered"? Dan56 (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Whatever is done to Walter, should be done to Dan as well, as he exhibits all the same traits (OWN, IDHT, etc) that he’s accusing Walter of. Both are prolific, good editors in the music area that don’t play well with others in disputes. I’d prefer neither get restrictions, but it doesn’t appear either know how to disengage when they encounter each other, so if this is the only way, so be it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm accusing him of an enduring pattern of incivility and assumptions of bad faith in interactions with me; hence the title of this thread. Anyway, show proof; open a thread here. Don't just make a lazy generalization when you comment on my character. Dan56 (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Im guessing you’re unfamiliar with WP:BOOMERANG, as there’s no need to open up another discussion just for you. If absolutely necessary, I’m sure it wouldn’t take much to dig up stances of incivility of yours as well, but judging by the current trajectory of the discussion, the community is already well aware of, and tired of, both of your disruptive bickering with one another. You’re digging your own grave here. I called you both good editors that I’d wish not need to have any action taken upon. And you still decided to badger me. I take it back. Restrictions are necessary. Sergecross73 msg me 23:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm not badgering you; I have a right to respond to judgments on my character at a noticeboard. And... Dig them up. Find an instance of incivility in my interactions with Walter. Please. Dan56 (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Virtually every response you make to every editor involved in this RFC is uncivil. You accuse people of being fanatics, petty, ignorance, etc. And the fact that you likely won’t recognize this as problematic is potentially worse. Sergecross73 msg me 23:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
          • Lie I never called anyone a fanatic or ignorant; I called Walter petty because he was being, as he admitted, "pedantic". Dan56 (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
• TB & IB per Beyond My Ken and SMcCandlish - Both are getting on each others nerves and both seem unable to steer clear of each other, Topic and interaction ban the both of them = Problem solved. –Davey2010^Talk 20:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Okay: On second thought, I am fine with this. I have nothing further to add to Boy (album), and if Walter cannot be civil, I don't want to ever communicate with him in any way. Ever. Again. I have never (knowingly) followed him/his work, and would prefer he avoid me. Dan56 (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I didn't suggest a TB; I was critical of the idea unless certain conditions are clearly met, and it was short term.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I would accept with both, but would rather not remove the article from my watchlist since I primarily have it there because it's an old album that has been prone to unconstructive edits in the past. There is also the underlying issue of Dan56's use of RfCs as a substitute for discussion. I'm not sure that will be addressed with a TB or IB. If you've seen any of his RfCs, he starts by claiming that we're making votes, which is not the case, and interacts only with those who disagree with his position. Is it reasonable to discuss that or am I making too much out of that? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not a substitute for discussion. It's a last resort when you demonstrate an inability to discuss content in a civil manner; and when you make your position clear and not subject to change or compromise in your edit summaries, giving authoritative instruction to not revise against your preference: [44], [45]; along with clear instruction to leave you alone and not try to discuss the content in question with you: remember this? ("Do not ping me again") You are not making too much of anything; you are misrepresenting things altogether. Dan56 (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

For something specific at the article level, yes. RfCs are also used more broadly to solicit wider editorial input on a question that would affect many articles. I'm sure you know that, but we shouldn't over-generalize. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• TB & IB - per my comments and the other proposers above. Sergecross73 msg me 23:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I already said I agree to this; be more mindful of what is discussed. Dan56 (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I’m well aware. I’m interested in making sure that there’s a consensus to enforce it whether you agree to it or not. People flake out on self-imposed stuff all the time. Sergecross73 msg me 00:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I don't think anyone would flake out of deliberately avoiding someone who has been insufferably obnoxious and dismissive toward them. Dan56 (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
        • If your willpower to stay away from him were enough, we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now. This whole conversation wouldn’t exist. Sergecross73 msg me 00:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
          • I did not confront him or choose to meet him; we encountered each other by happenstance at the article in question (ended up being one he had personal/past investment in), and a previous RfC; I should be able to promote my changes at an article if I feel there is merit to them--and there was, as the current revision of the article stands to show--without being demeaned or insulted. This discussion should exist; so he adheres to the ban. And hopefully learns. Even if it is somewhat at my expense. Dan56 (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
            • So just to be clear, you think this entirely my fault and you accept no responsibility for your own behaviour. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• If you two folks think that WP:IBAN will be good for you guys. I would suggest you to take a hard look again at the practical aspects of an IBAN. It is clear that you two edit in the Music topic area. It will not be easy to edit while constantly making sure that your edit is not undoing or changing the other editors edit. Sooner or later someone is going to make a careless mistake and end up being blocked for violation of IBAN. Think about it. But if you guys really believe that the matter has reached a point that there is no better option than IBAN then so be it.--DBigXrayᗙ 05:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• RE: Walter. I take responsibility for letting your toxic incivility get to me. That being said, I'd rather not deal with you again. And as I've already said before: I have contributed all I have cared to at Boy. Dan56 (talk) 06:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Good point DBigXray. This may not be a good solution. Do you have any suggestions? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• There is no winner in an IBAN, both sides will suffer. My following comments are addressed to both of you. Just give up the thoughts of trying to score points over each other on a talk page discussion. Disengage from the article for a while. If ever you come across again, start a CIVIL discussion with a fresh mindset, try not to let the past disagreement influence the future discussions. Follow WP:DR route instead of taking the bloody road to ANI. Both of you are experienced editors, it will be a loss for the project if either of you is topic banned. The last thread was closed and this new thread got opened the very next day, (the lack of resolve to peacefully settle is clearly visible), so sanctions are almost certain, if you continue testing the patience of ANI. Several folks above have already supported IBAN + TBAN. The two of you should jointly agree to give up this battle of ego and make a decisive statement to disengage and resolve your differences through a discussion. Come up with some ideas/restrictions that you believe can resolve the differences between the two of you. If you can convince the community that the matters can still be resolved and an IBAN isn't needed as yet then the community "may" decide to give you another chance depending upon how convincing your statements are. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• On the talk page at the article in question, I have explained my reasoning more clearly but am still curious why we went straight to RfC. You're right that IB is probably overkill (at least on my part). Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Walter Görlitz, Dan56 is the right person to answer. To me it seems Dan56 felt that further talk page discussion will be a waste of time. Sour discussions in past may also have contributed to that. It is hard to put the blame for the current situation on only one of you when the behavior of both is subpar. That said, this issue so far isn't as big. Although it seems to have good potential to enlarge and spill over to other music articles, if preventive actions or a drastic change on how you engage with each other is not made. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Understood. I overreacted and came here rather than talking. He overreacted and went straight to an RfC. If I had simply looked at other "classic" albums (which I point to on the article's talk page, and explain where I had looked initially, and explained that two review sections is not in the MoS for albums) I would have seen that Dan56 was neither avoiding the consensus reached in the previous RfC (which was my initial concern) nor setting a precedent in creating two review sections. If Dan56 had pointed to these precedents on the talk page rather than going to RfC, I would likely have argued against it, but probably would have self-reverted while discussing. Again, I recognize that I am a contributor and agree that less "nuclear" options should be sought first. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Walter Görlitz fair Enough. Dan56 I see that you have already replied above that you will not "deal with Walter" or "contribute to this article". but we are still concerned about the other music articles, since you two edit in Music area, it is safe to assume a future interaction will again happen, (if so, there is a high probability that we may see another ANI thread). Please see the comments above and let us know what you think of it and if you have anything more to add here. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds about right. I don't have more to add. Dan56 (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment Based on the discussion above, both editors have accepted the responsibility. There is willingness from both parties to improve their conduct with respect to each other and avoid further clashes. Several AN/ANi threads were opened recently but they all are part of 1 dispute. I believe we should give them a chance to edit without IBAN and postpone the more drastic measures for the next time. Both editors should note that any further lack of good faith among each other and subsequent hauling of the other editor to ANI may lead to IBANs. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Leaving it at that is just postponing the inevitable. We’ll be back here in a month or two listening to their bickering and taking cheap shots at each other (and in Dan’s case, anyone who doubts him in the slightest.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Sergecross73 the primary objective of this discussion is to find out a way to prevent the bickering (By IBAN or whatever) and not to just BAN/block. This dispute after all is a content dispute and continued by ego and inability to engage in fruitful discussion. Correct me if I am wrong but, this is the only 1 incident of dispute (related to star ratings) between them. Putting an IBAN for 1 incident appears overkill to me. Specially after both parties have agreed to disengage, we should give them a chance. None of the two have edited the disputed article since this discussion started, so I take it as a good sign. I know I am being optimist here. Time will tell if they can keep their word but I feel IBAN is harsh now. Both of them know that "a new ANI thread and subsequent IBAN" is only a click away.--DBigXrayᗙ 05:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I mean, the primary objective is keeping this issue from recurring. I just feel it’s a bit naive to believe they’re going to take care of it of their own accord at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 01:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I will attempt to avoid Dan and converse rather than edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

No more IPv6 editing! Block them all!

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

I have to admit, I haven't heard this before: "Can you rangeblock all Ipv6 from editing?" Drmies (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

A proud IPv4 bigot. My ISP uses IPv6, so you'll need to hardblock to get us all. Acroterion (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Well if I must... They were really insistent, and the customer is king. Drmies (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, dear, we finally have sixism raising its ugly head. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Just.... why? Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 10:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I suspect this isn't classical bigotry, more outrageous jealousy. Nil Einne (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

IPv6 editors are not like animals, we are not going to block them like animals, just because he hates them. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

And what about this guy and all his sockpuppets alternate dynamic IPs? ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 16:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Someone trying to crack my password

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

---

It seems someone is trying to crack my password. I'm not worried about that but if there is a general attack in progress it may be worthwhile slowing down repeat log-in attempts or blocking wherever the attempt is coming from. Dmcq (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Password attack. Good idea about throttling. DuncanHill (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

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

URGENT: 189.51.98.118

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

---

Special:Contributions/189.51.98.118 appears to be a vandalbot posting defamatory content across multiple pages. They need a block immediately. The edits are going so fast that by the time I revert one, three more have been made. There will probably be a dozen more in the time it takes me to write this message. — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 13:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Already blocked by the time you wrote that message. -- KTC (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Tarage at AN

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

---

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Tarage, but it's mostly about events at this board and would benefit from the thoughts of regulars here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Several hours backlog at RPP

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

---

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection appears to have a backlog of several hours. Your kind attention is solicited. DuncanHill (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

All  Done, mainly (but not exclusively) by ‎Mifter--Ymblanter (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks to all who helped. DuncanHill (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

In full fairness, Ymblanter also helped a great deal. Best, Mifter (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

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

User: 86.179.179.77

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

---

If you take a look at this user's contributions, you can see that he called another user a "cunt." I then put up a warning on his talk page, which he later reverted and proceeded to call me a "cunt" as well. CrispyCream27 • talk • user page 22:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a troll, so I've given this IP a brief wikibreak. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kinu: Much thanks. CrispyCream27 • talk • user page 00:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

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

please block now

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

---

Special:Contribs/86.171.208.223. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this thread L293D. We also need a rev/del of the porn spam edits the IP is making. MarnetteD|Talk 00:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Someone was recently blocked for posting that exact same picture on my talk page and a few other pages, which leads me to think it may be a possible block evasion. Special:Contributions/81.157.199.37 CrispyCream27 • talk • user page 00:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Slakr has taken care of the block, mass delete, and mass revdel. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Also went ahead and blacklisted the image. --slakr^\ talk / 00:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for your efforts in dealing with this. MarnetteD|Talk 00:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Would you look at this one...

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

---

I've gone my entire volunteer tenure with Wikipedia never feeling the need to open a discussion here at ANI, but that has to end now, because I've just come across something I felt ought to be raised here. It's just the one comment, but if there's something that needs desperately to be seen here at ANI today, this is it: [46]. I mean, come on, it's like this person thinks it's the season of good cheer or something!

Seriously, friends, I thought we could all stand to see a different kind of diff here for a change. Even be it in a slightly frivilous thread. :) I hope the end to everyone's 2018 is off to a good start! Snow ^{let's rap} 08:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

That was nice, thanks for posting it! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Appreciation and best wishes, something that keeps every volunteer editor here encouraged. Good share. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by User:IQ125

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

---

Well, I tried to avoid taking this action but IQ125 obviously WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT. Their edit history at Irish Bull Terrier has been highly disruptive as the following diffs will demonstrate:

Editor was warned

• 11-15-2018 - I posted a friendly warning, he deleted
• 11-16-2018 - harassing mockery of my warning to them on my TP
• 11-16-2018 - notified of this discussion

Editor argues to keep citing an unreliable source (self-published book by unknown author in limited print) despite RS such as The Telegraph and quotes by the RSPCA and editor of Dog World calling it a fictitious breed created to circumvent dog fighting laws

• 11-12-2018
• 11-14-2018
• 11-14-2018 - insists unreliable source adds "strength to the article"
• 11-05-2018
• 11-15-2018

Disruptive reverts and incivility

• 11-13-2018 - disruptive revert of Merge tag and properly sourced material
• 11-15-2018 - disruptive revert of Merge tag and properly sourced material
• 11-15-2018 - disruptive revert - restores reverted material
• 11-15-2018 - accuses me of vandalizing the article
• 11-16-2018 - calls editors "dog people pretenders"
• 11-15-2018 - argues about proper move of article name to lower case by SMcCandlish

The Merger discussion

• Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier#Merger discussion - the only "no merger" is by IQ125

As a result of this editor's inability to recognize RS, AGF and respect consensus, I cannot see any other remedy short of a t-ban from terrier articles broadly construed that will resolve their disruptive behavior, allow the proposed merger to take place without incident, and remain in place. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 14:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Question: on 26 October IQ125 reverted an edit differentiating the Irish bull terrier from the Staffordshire bull terrier, saying they're "the same dog" (edit summary, [47]). On 12 November they're the only editor opposing merging the two articles, because Irish bull terrier is "a separate breed" ([48]). Is this trolling? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• support (edit conflict) TBan per nom. I took part in the merge discussion, and have followed both it and the article since. Although of course their vote to merge or otherwise is entirely their own business and not disruptive, their continued behaviour in the article—diffs again per nom—is wholly disruptive.
  I also suggest a corollary that, should they attempt to move the article back unilaterally after the close (I'm rather assuming the result there, admittedly), an immediate WP:IDHT block will be enforced, per this and without further community discussion. ——SerialNumber54129 14:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• No: The only one being disruptive is User: Atsme. As you can see from the detail above, he seems to have far to much time on his hands and suffers from a bad case of compulsive obsessive disorder. It seems Atsme and another editor have taken it upon themselves to rewrite the Irish Bull Terrier article. They are deleting cited information from the article. I posted on the articles talk page to stop doing that amongst other comments to work with them rather than reverting the article. User:Atsme and the other editor do not want to work together cordially and build a better article. Some of the information they are both posting in the article is bogus. Atsme knows nothing about the dog breed Irish Bull Terrier and should not be editing unless he can provide a citation for anything he is adding. Atsme is edit warring and practicing article ownership, I object to that [Emphasis Added] Thank you. IQ125 (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I haven't looked over all of this but just saw this last response in my watchlist. IQ125, are you sure that you want to state that the person that you are having a disagreement with "seems to have far to much time on his hands and suffers from a bad case of compulsive obsessive disorder"? You should rethink that.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) @IQ125: speculating on an editor's mental health in this manner is a personal attack. Please retract your comment immediately. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support TB and corollary per Atsme and SN54129. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support TBan, in order to halt obvious disruption, edit-warring, and personal attacks. I have a hunch this will probably not be the last sanction this editor will receive, given that they immediately remove every single message, notice, or warning from their talkpage: [49]. -- Softlavender (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from dogs terriers, dog fighting, and breed-specific legislation, broadly construed and one-way ban from interaction with Atsme, per diffs provided, the apparent trolling over whether or not the two breeds mentioned here are the same breed, per conduct in this thread, and because this behaviour does not appear to be limited to articles on terriers (e.g. [50]) and extends at least to breed-specific legislation and dog fighting (the topics, not necessarily those specific articles). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: refined suggested scope of topic ban. On review those do seem to be the specific disrupted topics. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support T-ban ("no-gaming" extended versions by Ivanvector and Cavalryman V31 – maybe just make it dogs in general) and corollary (by SerialNumber54129). I-ban may be overkill, unless some kind of personal harassment develops. Frankly, any time someone shows up in ANI and starts making insulting accusations about other people's mental health as if that that's any kind of response to the issues raised about their behavior, they should just be indeffed on the spot (though not without a close, on the merits, of the ANI and its evidence, since indefs are often not permanent). I went to great lengths to bring the new-seeming editors at that page up to speed and into the fold on how to participate without ending up at ANI or having their work reverted, and apparently not a word of it was absorbed. If anything, the behavior has markedly worsened, turning to excessively clumsy mass-revert editwarring against multiple editors, and uncivil rants that recycle IQ125's pet [pun intended] theories that don't have reliable sources. There's a WP:CIR problem here, and I wouldn't consider an indef off the table, even aside from insults used above; I'm skeptical this person has the temperament or communications, writing, and research skills to contribute constructively at a rate that outpaces the disruption they cause. I also note that the sources added by this person appear to be self-published (either directly or through a vanity press), so it's not just an attitude thing but a core content policies issue. The only good things that're going to come out of this are that we now know the article in question isn't encyclopedic and needs to be merged to the extent any of it's salvageable; and the tutorial material I wrote for Dr Nobody and IQ125 is being used as the basis for a new "how to write about breeds on Wikipedia" essay I'm almost done with. [Now available at Wikipedia:Writing about breeds.]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC); revised 21:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC); updated:  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Question For how long would this topic ban be in place? Jacona (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Huh? Isn't this the second issue we've had with this same article? Is this in any way related to the issue with User:Dr Nobody? I swear this is related. Why is this suddenly a problem space? --Tarage (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  

  Evil, dangerous things lurk in the shadows.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  Tarage yes, and since DrNobody is a relatively new editor, I volunteered to mentor them. I initially picked Irish bull terrier as a teaching aid  Self-whale... for when a trout just isn't enough...little did I know what was lurking in the shadows. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 21:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah, even I got IQ125 and Dr Nobody confused for a moment. I've re-checked what I've written above to make sure it pertains exactly to IQ125 (e.g. the revert-warring, etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per Ivanvector but also all of the Bulldog breeds. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC). Amended, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC).

• I don't know why we would bother with a tban. I have no involvement whatsoever in this topic area, but every time I've encountered IQ125 they were edit warring, owning an article, refusing to communicate, making revenge edits, or generally refusing to get the point. Our main topic area overlap is chess. e.g. this ANI thread from February 2015, which involved edit warring to copy/paste merge a list that was closed as redirect, refusing to communicate, filing a bogus SPI about me, etc. There's also been stuff like repeatedly adding information about sexual orientation based on about.com, repeatedly removing copyright templates from the Nazi architecture page, edit warring to repeatedly make inaccurate copyright claims in relation to a nonfree image used in these two templates, then when I fixed the NFCC for use in an article (not the templates), they uploaded an exact copy (the templates were kept because the image was deleted)... so dogs, chess, musicians, architecture... not sure what would be accomplished with a topic ban on one. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  Although I withdrew the specific proposal below once I was shown that the assumptions it was based on were not correct, I stillbelieve that IG125's behavior regarding their lack of response to comments on their talk page, and their immediate deletion of those comments, is dismissive and contempuous of the community and therefore warrant a block, although not the indef block I originally proposed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban and based on what Rhododendrites says above, a site ban may also be necessary. We do not need promotional articles about dog pseudo-breeds, and we do not need the contributions of an editor who uses unreliable sources and edits against consensus. Disclosure: My wife and I own a purebred terrier. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  I'll prepare your scarlet COI patch. ;) Snow ^{let's rap} 00:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  But pick a different color; dogs don't see red.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN, though I would additionally support a block. The general tendentiousness is pretty obvious here, and the resort to PAs (at ANI no less) demonstrate that this user, despite their tenure here, either has not made the effort to familiarize themselves with our basic conduct standards or just disregards them out of hand. That's an issue that goes beyond the WP:OR/inadequate sourcing/edit warring concerns which may or may not be forestalled by a topic ban. Clearly there is support only for the TBAN as the most targeted option at this time, and parallel sanctions are rarely applied regardless, but I am attempting to disentangle the two separate problematic patterns of behaviour so that it is made clear for IQ125 that both need to change and a TBAN will not isolate them from being back here in short order to face the consequences of PAs/harassment, if they should occur in other areas. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Close please

Will an uninvolved admin please wrap this up? IQ125 has not edited since being asked a week ago to retract their personal attack above, except to blank their talk page twice, and the thread is attracting silliness. (I welcome the silliness, but let's move on) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector, it may never happen which may explain why the silliness continues. ^{A wait for it moment with the sound of drumming fingers on the desk} 😳 ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 22:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

So here is my no-brainer prediction: if this is closed or allowed to be archived to be archived without action, IQ125 will be back here sooner or later, and their behavior will be worse at that time, because they will have been emboldened by the lack of action here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Collapsing so focus will return to the substantive issues of the complaint. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Additional proposal Withdrawn by proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC) As far as I can tell from examining their talk page, IQ125 has never responded to any comment, question or warning left on their talk page. Almost every edit they have made to their talk page has been to delete those comments, etc. [51]. This is a blatant violation of WP:Communication is required, and in and of itself is worthy of an indef block until the editor positively confirms that they will communicate with other editors when they bring their concerns to them, which should be a condition of their unblock. They have been here for over five years, long enough to know that their behavior is unacceptable (since they delete every comment shortly after it's posted, and there is no archive, it's practically impossible to tell if someone has specifically warned him about this without reading every contribution to their talk page}. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC) Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC) Oppose - blanking comments from one's talk page is explicitly permitted per WP:BLANKING. This conduct is not sanctionable. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC) Sorry, IV, unusually for you, you missed the point entirely. It's not the blanking which is problematic, but the lack of discussion. Editors who refuse to talk to other editors get indef blocked all the time, since it's impossible to have a collaborative project with someone who won't collaborate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 10:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC) In this case, the editor does talk to others; just not on his own talkpage: [52]. He's not the most civil or rational or prolific of communicators, but communication has not been 100% absent, which is usually the only reason we give someone a wake-up or indef block. Softlavender (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC) OK, thanks for pointing that out. In the face of that, I'll withdraw the proposal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict × 3) I appreciate the clarification, and I did understand the point you were trying to make. We do often sanction editors who never respond to anything ever, but that's not the case with IQ125. They're very obviously participating in discussions, often problematically, but that is the opposite of never communicating. I realize that constantly blanking a talk page makes it difficult to know if the user has been warned about particular things in the past (not impossible) but my point is they're allowed to do that specific thing. All it really means is they have no basis for being upset when they're repeatedly warned about the same things over and over. Side note: I don't know why SineBot thought you didn't sign your edit. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC) It was SignBot. I mucked up the sig and used xsign to replace it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) Oppose It isn't true that he never communicates, I have had talk page discussions with him on chess-related articles. We should only indef editors for WP:CIR if they have never made any edits to any talk page, ever.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC) I've withdrawn it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC) I have to strongly agree with BMK's analysis with regard to the difference between blanking and communicating, and not communicating (whether blanking or not). Blanking stuff off your page is permissible, but being utterly unresponsive to other editors is not. If we were to end up wikilawyering ourselves into the corner that it did become permissible just to support the ability to nuke things off one's talk page without ever any response to anyone no matter what, then obviously we should go to the talk page guidelines and revise WP:BLANKING to actually be workable (something we arguably should have done a long time ago, given that a radically high percentage of people who behave that way in user talk end up at ANI for other and legit reasons and that a high proportion of people who end up here for other and legit reasons also engage in that behavior; there's a two-way and very strong correlation). The consensus that editors must be competent and a collaborative participants rather than dead-silence, I-can't-hear-you meatbots in order to continue editing here is much stronger than any alleged consensus for the idea that it is utterly impossible for the community to impose any sort of user-talk behavior restrictions. That said, I would think that this ANI subject is in enough hot water as it is, we don't really need to address this "sub-complaint" at this time. And he has been at least a little communicative (though not very constructively) on some other pages. The entire thing might be better as a WP:VPPOL discussion about adjusting WP:BLANKING and maybe some other parts about that overall page to match actual community norms, about a decade overdue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC) I'm happy to see that no one in this thread is exhibiting BITEY behavior. EEng 01:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Yep, BITEY can be a bit terrier-fying. Everyone here is having a tail-waggin good time. 🐶 Atsme✍🏻📧 01:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC) You'd prefer we not be clear about the inappropriateness of PAs? I'd certainly contemplate a short-term block in place of the TBAN, but when someone responds to a complaint by commenting on the mental health of their "opposition", its clear that they are not understanding the degree of civility that is expected of them here. Snow let's rap 03:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Punning around, Snow Rise,...of the kind - to relieve some of the tension about the pit bull terrier dog topic. I hope an admin closes the discussion soon. Atsme✍🏻📧 04:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Oh! Errr--yeah, I totally got that! Snow let's rap 15:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC) 😅 🍻 Atsme✍🏻📧 21:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Additional super srs rly gaiz proposal Is EEng not an Enophile? – BMK I propose @EEng: be topic-banned from ANI for not bringing the above adorable cat picture here first and forcing poor SMcCandlish to pull their weight. --Tarage (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC) He's at 2NPs - give him 1 more chance. I had to pull his weight yesterday when he tripped over it's its...or maybe it was its it's. Atsme✍🏻📧 04:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC) Wasn't it "It's-It"?[53] Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC) This is my reward for raising expectations. EEng 23:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC) What, you expect a reward for working here in the vineyards? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC) Wikipedia is not about wining. EEng 23:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC) Give yourself a real reward. Put your favorite beverage in a glass and raise it instead. 🥂 Atsme✍🏻📧 02:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Obvious socks of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HughD

Reported at WP:AIV, but nothing seems to happen there.

2603:300A:1601:C500:A86B:49C1:DB3D:543A (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
75.145.160.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Both are a perfect match for HughD in geolocation, subject area and edits, and also match countless previous IP-socks. 75.145.160.153 is a mail-server, BTW, that has been used by HughD before (judging by the IP's contributions), and ought to get a very long block, because there's IMHO no legitimate reason for anyone to use a company mail server when editing WP... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with Thomas.W indefinite block for both IPs. Legitimate users who may happen to use these IPs in the future can log on--RAF910 (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

We don't indef IPs, not even proxies, since IPs can be relocated/given to someone else. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

OK...then block them for as long as possible.--RAF910 (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked both IPs for a few months per WP:DUCK. Best, Mifter (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Hilo48 and Timeshift9

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is written about a week after I created this block. I no longer support a full-block or topic-block for @Timeshift9: after a careful consideration of other editors views. Though I remain firm in my conviction that @HiLo48: should be blocked for 3-6 months. Refer to my statements on each of them below for my reasoning. Global-Cityzen (talk) 06:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm requesting Timeshift and Hilo be temporarily blocked for some wanton and blatant Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, chiefly with respect to their continued deletion of material in the Wentworth by-election, 2018 article, specifically their refusal to engage or even offer civil points of difference in the article's talk page.

• The history page shows examples of Timeshift repeatedly editing in ways that make it difficult to directly compare his reversions of my and other editor's edits (which have added information to the infobox). For instance he'll make a minor [54], then the very next one will be the revert.

• At the very least general history page shows how often they (sincere changed to TS9) is willing to violate the WP:3RR rule.

• Timeshift is guilty of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, most notably in this instance on the talk page: Oh look, results aren't final/are still changing! I love being proven right...! :) Silly troublemakers proven wrong. Feeling very smug :D Timeshift (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC); an edit that was made two days after the page was finally settling down and is blatantly tenditious and WP:POINTY, much to the frustration of the majority of editors who are seeking to IMPROVE the page and UPDATE figures when appropriate rather than simply DELETE the figures in the infobox

• Both users misrepresent alleged precedent in relation to the infobox (see this section of the talk page and when exposed to this, simply ignore and pursue their deletions

• Neither engage in consensus building with multiple editors, and are now simply taking ownership of the page.

Hilo has form, repeatedly. Global-Cityzen (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Can this please be quickly turned into a boomerang for the lies and irrelevancies it contains? And the forum shopping? I really don't want to have to go into detail on every piece of nonsense there. HiLo48 (talk)

These "lies and irrelevancies" accusation is precisely what HiLo has done on the page's talk page, whenever he is asked to justify his and Timeshift's edits to remove information from the box. Yet again he has form in this regard; this time at another page. Global-Cityzen (talk) 06:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

And now the latest 3RR violation by Timeshift (here). Global-Cityzen (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

There has been a massive amount of discussion re this article. We have reached a point where both Timeshift9 and I are being accused of not having discussed things that we definitely have discussed. I can accept someone not remembering everything I have written, but I cannot abide false accusations that I have never written it at all. That is were discussion has gone. We are both being asked to repeat points we have both made before, as if demanding this is a winning argument. We have both, at times, given up on discussion at that article because of the toxic atmosphere, but it's hard to forever ignore what we see as poor content. I also have a life away from Wikipedia, and get rather sick of and don't really have time for having to repeat myself here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm accusing Timeshift and HiLo of repeatedly ignoring prompts that directly challenge their reasons for editing. If one reads through the talk page, they will note that both users' objections are responded to in substance, namely that;

• No precedent exists for not including figures in an Australian election infobox, as User:Impru20 pointed out on the talk page: "about the alleged "precedent", I've found that this is bogus at best. Batman by-election, 2018, for instance, didn't abide to such a "precedent", nor did Australian federal election, 2016 or others. Further, it is not that other by-election articles actually did: it is just that most of those did not see their infoboxes added until later." No substantial point was made by either of these users in response to this expose.
• When asked why they would advocate continuously deleting verifiable information by the same user, neither responded.
• We are not asking them repeat points made before, rather asking them to present any argument for the exclusion of verifiable information in an infobox whose central purpose is to convey that information to the reader

And unfortunately, when challenged on these issues of substance, HiLo simply engages in ad hominen attacks on the user, saying they are extolling in inaccuracy WITHOUT demonstrating how. Whilst Timeshift simply waits 2 days for the discussion to settle before launching into the same disruptive editing process. Global-Cityzen (talk) 07:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Lies. Yet again. HiLo48 (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I recommend that yas open up an Rfc at the article-in-question, in order to settle the content dispute. GoodDay (talk) 07:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou, I've done that (here). Global-Cityzen (talk) 08:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Timeshift9: has just reverted the same content for a FOURTH TIME IN 30 MINUTES simply saying he "disagrees". If that's not an example of edit warring I don't know what is! These numbers have been up for at least two days without interruption, it's just some of the most abhorrent behaviour you could imagine. Global-Cityzen (talk) 08:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Apparently the issue concerns whether an infobox should be included at Wentworth by-election, 2018, and if so, what it should contain. It seems the issue was raised a week ago at the relevant wikiproject and my brief skim of that suggests there is no consensus for inclusion. Enthusiasm is not a good substitute for patience. The OP's statements about "refusal to engage" and suggestions of incivility are blatantly incorrect. Johnuniq (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I've applied protection for a few days, that should allow the election results to firm up and we can go from there. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Awaiting final results is really only a small part of the issues with this article. HiLo48 (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

As an uninvolved bystander, this is not a helpful step. Getting aggressive with other editors about an infobox is a needless escalation of a dispute that was already fairly pointless to begin with. Everyone play nice. Global-Cityzen, you've been making some absolutely phenomenal (and very badly needed) contributions on women's sport recently - may I suggest that it might be a better usage of your time than this dispute? The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• On Timeshift9, they have been carelessly reverting everything and anyone not complying with their views, even reportedly conducting at least eight reverts from four different users within a 24-hour period (up to ten depending on whether you would consider other minor edits), namely: [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]. Note that this behaviour continued even after being notified twice on it ([63] [64]). The edit warring has continued up to the current day, with new violations of 3RR (in total, five reverts before the article's lockdown: [65] [66] [67] [68] [69]) and including some mocking/provocation to some of the users involved in the discussion ([70] [71] [72]). To be fair with everybody, though, it should also be noted that the OP (Global-Cityzen) has also violated 3RR today as a result of getting involved in such edit warring, with five reverts, but this should not obscure the fact that there is a serious behavioural issue with these two users.
• The biggest issue here, however, is with HiLo48, who has been openly disruptive from the start, resorting to using arguments from ignorance and proof by assertion once and once again with a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour (note that it was them who started the discussion in the first place and that while starting a discussion is perfectly ok, the ensuing behaviour shown while engaging other people there is not). This includes:
  • Persistent personal attacks and general incivility, continuously resorting on commenting the contributor for opposing reality or "the truth" ([73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79]) while showing a rather patronizing behaviour to those not agreeing with them (specially and most notoriously with Onetwothreeip). HiLo48 even went as far as to enter into vandalism accusations without caring to explain why ([80] [81] [82]), despite repeated warnings to either bring such accusations to the proper venue with actual evidence or just cast them off ([83] [84] [85]). They also threatened to report me for one comment they allegedly saw as "insulting", but curiously, just like the "vandalism", they never did it ([86]).
  • More WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS ([87] [88] [89]).
  • Apparent failure to understand what discussion and talk pages are for. This includes a general refusal to engage in constructive consensus-building and persistent refusal to address/reply to issues raised by others, seemingly failing to understand why they should bother to reply (while concurrently acting as if others had never addressed any issues raised by him) ([90] [91] [92]). Note that this has continued even after this case was opened ([93] [94]). At some point of the discussion they also accused other of misrepresenting them, but never actually explained how nor addressed concerns raised at their accusations of misrepresentation.
  • Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, by:
    1. Suddenly shifting the discussion focus to issues not even raised at first so as to purposely hinder any consensus-building attempt aimed at preserving the infobox (most notoriously ([95] [96] [97]), raising the issues of Phelps' pic looking "appalling" and a alleged failure to understand what colours do mean in infoboxes, despite party labels being shown just below (this alone would raise some competence concerns, but nonetheless it would be an issue with either the pics or the infobox template as a whole, not for the particular infobox used in Wentworth by-election, 2018. This was pointed to them (and was the main motive behind the discussion being centralized) to no avail).
    2. Mutilating the infobox to make it truly useless and force a point on how "useless" it actually was ([98]), a fact they have not even tried to hide ([99]).
    3. Deliberate withdrawal from the centralized discussion at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Infoboxes in by-election articles without addressing any of the content concerns raised there, then moving the discussion again to Talk:Wentworth by-election, 2018#Still Infoboxing in order to raise the same exact issues that led to the discussion being centralized.
  • I could spent more time putting more examples or explaining this even more in-depth, but I think this is enough for it. Further, after some research it transpires that issues on HiLo48's behaviour are very recurring, for the exact same reasons as depicted above (or even others: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16)
  • Their own block log is troubling, and as far as I have checked, if it is impossible to find any issues between January 2015 and March 2018 is just because they remained inactive for that whole period. Their own userpage is very disturbing, being full of attacks on Wikipedia as a whole, a notorious disregard for civility policies or some other really really disturbing statements against Wikipedia's workings.
  • Foremost of all, Competence is required to communicate with others and present rationales when questioned by others, to collaborate with other editors, defend their editing when asked to do so and, obviously, to not ignoring some of the most basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It looks like this has been an issue with HiLo48 for years, and it seems obvious that HiLo48 is not able to learn from their mistakes and adapt. Refusing to engage with civility with other users, or even acknowledging that they cannot be "bothered" to discuss issues or even purposely provoking others for the sake of it, goes against the very essence of WP. But then, acknowledging a complete disregard for WP's workings is just unacceptable, and if they think they should not be here, nor are they here for contributing Wikipedia, then maybe they should not be here. Impru20^talk 16:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I have neither the time nor the energy to respond to that hate speech from someone clearly obsessed with me. How many lies and personal attacks can come from the keyboard of someone before they cop a boomerang? HiLo48 (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

HiLo48, none of that is "hate speech"; it is neutral, accurate reporting supported by evidence. None of it is "lies", as each statement is supported by several diffs which bear out the statement. None of the statements are "personal attacks", either; they are all neutral observations. It seems to me that your modus operandi when you disagree with someone more than once is to attack them personally and to accuse them of personal attacks, lies, vandalism, etc. Sooner or later this long-term behavioral pattern on your part is going to end up getting you very long-term blocked or site-banned due to an inability to edit collaboratively and due to creating disruption instead. Softlavender (talk) 04:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I see it differently. HiLo48 (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, of course you would say that. And you haven't refuted the dozens of diffs the editor presented, or offered any proof that what he stated is "hate speech", "lies", and "personal attacks". Attacking others and making baseless comments may seem like the easy way out for you, but it just makes the other editor's case look perfectly accurate. Softlavender (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Not to objective, open minded editors. HiLo48 (talk) 05:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

In other words, you still can't refute anything the editor wrote and you still can't offer any proof that what he stated is "hate speech", "lies", and "personal attacks"; instead you are continuing to cast aspersions. Softlavender (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that's precisely what you're doing. HiLo48 (talk) 06:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Yet another personal attack, which seems to be the only way you respond to evidence-based statements about yourself and requests that you actually make your case. The more you post "Nope" (edit summary) along with a personal attack, the worse you look. As Impru20 has noted, your recent disruptive behavior is not isolated, and has been reported many times on ANI, and you have been blocked five times for personal attacks. Softlavender (talk) 06:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

This is pointless. I don't have the time to respond to that litany of alleged crimes on my part, nor do I have the time to catalog all the sins of the gang who disagreed with me. I do note that the environment at the article became so toxic that many experienced editors gave up, and let you guys just go for it for a while. That left a short term majority of people from one side of the debate, certainly not representative of the usual editing community for Australian political articles. Being in a majority is never evidence of being right. It's really just a chance to bully those in the minority.

Meanwhile, Admins have shown very little interest in this complaint. They have told people to go back to the article's Talk page for an RfC. This is a content dispute. I suggest you go to that RfC. HiLo48 (talk) 06:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not involved in the article, so I am not "you guys". What Impru20 posted was not a "litany of alleged crimes", it was a well-evidenced report of your recent disruptive behavior, which you responded to by falsely calling his report "hate speech", "lies", and "personal attacks". This is your pattern, and it will get you into sanctions if it continues. Softlavender (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

This discussion does pretty well in summarizing HiLo's behaviour. Bring any argument to them, no matter how well explained or referenced, that if it is against their views it will be met with outright unmotivated opposition, condescendention, incivility and a refusal to "understand" what the problem is, as well as a total disregard of WP:AGF. Impru20^talk 06:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

How can I assume good faith of editors who falsely accuse me of having NEVER said things I have definitely said? And who created such a toxic discussion environment that many experienced editors stop discussing at that page? HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Please indicate, with diffs, where editors have falsely accused you of having never said things you definitely said. Softlavender (talk) 07:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

No. I really can't be bothered. If you are looking at this objectively, you will have seen how much discussion there has been. A massive amount. I wouldn't make an absolute claim about anything anyone had said or not said in that pile of now fairly useless trash. It was rather silly of those who disagreed with me to think they could. HiLo48 (talk) 07:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

In other words, yet another refusal to back up your claims about other editors. And this: "It was rather silly of those who disagreed with me to think they could." is borderline block-worthy, as it points up your refusal to edit or discuss collaboratively. Softlavender (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there is much more that needs to be said here but I find the reverting of many more times than three in a day to be very concerning. The poor discourse on the talk page is a problem, but the constant reverting seriously compromises the editing process. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not condoning Edit warring, but avoiding the appearance of doing so is much easier when you create a toxic editing environment, discouraging the majority of those who disagree with you from even trying. This leaves you and just a couple of others with identical views that any new editor must confront. HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Have you ever made more than three reverts of the article in a 24 hour period? Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea about timeshitft, but having just commented on the RFC and seeing HiLo48's reactions to anyone who disagrees with him (who appear to be in the majority) I think that there is a problem with him. This is a case of tendentious editing.Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

HiLo has indeed been a frequent offender when it comes to civility issues, both on main space and project space; I believe he's even had an RFC/U on his conduct in the past. That said, he's unrelenting and inveterate to those said issues, attributing these to cultural differences, and I doubt that blocks or sanctions of any sort will induce him to change his behavior, if his screeds on his user talk page are anything to go by. Either we accept that he's going to just be uncivil, or we look at the serious possibility of a community ban.--WaltCip (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Or we have a series of rolling topic bans, this time form Australasian politics. This edit warring over such a trivial matter is an indicator of a very severe battleground (but not in a POV pushy but rather "I HAVE SPOKEN" kind of way) mentality that is hugely disruptive and wasted a lot of eds time that could have been better employed.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thinking about it, this should apply to both parties, one for edit warring the the other for incivility, both for battleground mentality.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Global-Cityzen: Can you clarify whether you meant to suggest HiLo48 was violating 3RR? I thought you did but maybe you were simply using singular they. I had a quick look and didn't see any examples of HiLo48 violating 3RR in Wentworth by-election, 2018 Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Since there's an Rfc now occurring at said article, these block requests should now be considered moot. GoodDay (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

They shouldn't. One thing is the content dispute (which is what is being addressed with the RfC) and another one is the behavioural problem (which is continuing, at least from HiLo48, in the RfC or even in this very same thread). Impru20^talk 06:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

This is way too extreme of a form of WP:IDGAF from User:HiLo48. It's really inappropriate for a ANI discussion about your civility. —JJB^ers 15:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Trust me, it would be way worse if he was writing real replies. As noted above, this is nothing new for him and it's never going to change. We can follow GoodDay's suggestion and consider the block requests moot, but that would just be kicking the can down the road because the behavioral issues are just as glaring as ever. Lepricavark (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Then a block is needed as it is preventative not punative. It is supposed to prevent the kind of behavior we are seeing. If it is accepted that his behavior is wrong, but he is not going to change no matter how much we ask then a block (for now make it a topic ban, maybe that will get through) is the only answer. What we must not do is accept policy beaching actions on the grounds of "well what can we do?", otherwise what the hell is the point of having them. How can it be fair to have rules that only apply to some users?15:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

I just noticed this on their talk page, [100], it seems that they got pretty uncivil to this user. They also accuse them of vandalism in the edit summary as well. —JJB^ers 16:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I've only now noticed that talk page. I don't appreciate being accused of conspiring with other editors when they've done that themselves, per User_talk:HiLo48#Wentworth_by-election,_2018. This section has gone long enough, can we get a determination already? Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that until now as well... and now I also noticed this after digging out a little further ([101]). So I now understand this reply from HiLo48 where they accused me of having "clones". Disturbing.

Further, looks like they won't stop their incivility elsewhere even with this report ongoing ([102]). Impru20^talk 22:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I would recommend a general block then if the incivility isn't even just on the Australian elections pages. They seem to be generally incivil to multiple places (including the one you linked). —JJB^ers 00:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

What more needs to be said. It's hi time hi lo is blocked indefinitely. He is here only to disrupt and has a history of incivility and personal attacks and edit warring as long as anyone in the history of Wikipedia. Block him before he does any more damage to the project. No one will miss him and his contributions.Merphee (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

An observation. The problem with making such wild and sweeping statements as that is that it rather encourages examination of one's own contributions. For instance, your 400 edits to articles might be mentioned. IMHO of course. ——SerialNumber54129 10:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Merphee, please do not attempt to "fight fire with fire". It's one thing to make observations that raise concerns about specific conduct, and it's quite another to make blanket statements about another user being generally useless and a caliber of person that "no one will miss". It's even more inappropriate to contemplate their motives as being entirely predicated in trying to disrupt the project; when you make that implication, you are essentially saying they are here for no other reason than to troll the project, and that kind of accusation should not be made unless you are prepared to make a case with substantial evidence--you know, one of the very things Hilo has been called out for not doing himself here. Furthermore, it's an absurd assertion in these circumstances; whatever legitimate grievances may be raised here with regard to Hilo's conduct, it is abundantly clear that they care about the topics they edit and are not here to troll the project. Lastly, "clever" little turns of phrase like "hi time to block Hi lo" are not productive or useful; they contribute nothing but snark that can inflame an already antagonistic process--if you cannot contribute your insights here in a sober tone when criticizing another user's behaviour, please do not comment at all. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

"hi time to block Hi lo" are not productive or useful" I do agree with that point you made. I shouldn't have said that. However I completely disagree with everything else you just said. That is my opinion based on HiLo's long term incivility, bullying, throwing around accusation after accusation with no no basis, chasing new editors away, harassment, hounding and so forth. You are entitled to your opinion Snow Rise, and I am entitled to mine. I believe he probably cares about his point of view on article's he edits, but there is no way I could possibly believe based on the hard evidence over countless interactions with countless editors, HiLo cares about editors who may disagree with him. And frankly him caring about the article has nothing to do with it. It is his bullying, personal attacks and incivility that has landed him here. Again. But I respect your opinion. You need to also respect mine. Please refer to Softlavender's excellent description of HiLo's incivility below, if you are in any doubt.Merphee (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)  

Of course it's your opinion and of course you are entitled to it, but some opinions are not to be shared, as a matter of policy and long-standing community consensus. For starters, you shouldn't be detailing your speculation regarding his motivations--your comments should be focused on his conduct, not your guesswork as to the psychology behind it. And saying that he is here to troll without providing evidence that clearly established such a bad faith motivation is also beyond the scope of acceptable commentary. Both of those principles are codified in WP:NPA. Clearly if I wasn't convinced there are behavioural issues with Hilo's conduct, I would not have introduced the proposal that he be blocked below, or noted my endorsement of criticisms by other editors, after I had read through the thread and followed up on the many diffs and links. But there's a right way and a wrong way to do that and your approach was needlessly personalized and aggressive, and more likely to undercut your points than to bolster your case that Hilo needs restraining, because it makes it look like he had an active foil in any of those discussions in which you may have taken part, and undercuts the perceived neutrality of your comments here. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

You keep using the word "troll" which I never said he was. However when there is such widespread incivility toward so many editors on so many different articles over such a long period of time and he is so aware of policy I fail to see how HiLo's conduct is not highly disruptive. However having said that I do think my comments were needlessly personalised and aggressive and I take your point in that regard Snow Rise. In hindsight I shouldn't have even commented at all and in fact should have stayed well out of this debate. So this is where I will close my mouth and step away.Merphee (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Been through an investigation and came out clean and it was because of Hi lo's incivility and personal attacks. Don't appreciate your comment dude. May need to go looking through your me thinks. It is as plain as day from comments here that HiLo has attacked and caused havoc since he's been here. I'm entitled to my opinion. I'm NOT on trial here SerialNumber so keep your opinion to your self! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merphee (talk • contribs) 10:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, civility, yes; the irony is duly noted. And please remember to sign your posts, Merphee. ——SerialNumber54129 11:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Merphee is entirely correct. Here is a prime example from just three months ago:

Merphee removed an uncited, unattributed POV statement from The Australian that had been tagged for three years: [103]. HiLo48 went straight to Merphee's usertalk to harass him: [104]. Merphee added back part of the material he had removed: [105]. HiLo48 inserted an extremely POV quotation into the article: [106]. Merphee opened a neutral discussion on the article's talkpage about the POV quote: [107]. HiLo48's response was "Stop destroying the article" and he continued to deflect, bicker, and ridicule: [108]. Merphee

correctly removed the quote and attempted to summarize it instead: [109]. HiLo48 reverted [110], and failed to neutrally respond to the issues Merphee brought up about it, instead bickering, casting aspersions, and making demands: [111]. Therefore Merphee engaged in WP:DR by opening a thread on WP:RSN: WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 246#The Monthly. HiLo48 falsely accused Merphee of forum-shopping: [112], [113], and then opened an ANI thread falsely accusing Merphee of forum-shopping: [114]. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Just so. ——SerialNumber54129 20:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Link to the full ANI dissusion that Softlavender mentioned at the end of their message. —JJB^ers 04:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban for Hilo48

From Australian politics in the hope they get the message. Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this is feasible, but I don't think HiLo48's problematic behavior is limited to Australian politics. I think a very very long block (3 to 6 months or indef) is what is needed, because as is evidenced above, he has no intention of stopping his abuse of other editors. I think ArbCom is going to be the next stop for this editor if this isn't solved/stopped here. Softlavender (talk) 12:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

True, but maybe the issue is the attitude of "well we do not know what to do so lets do nothing" had engendered an attitude that he can do as he likes. If he is sent a clear message that enough is enough and there are actions we can (and will) take it may cause him to rethink this attitude.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support something is better than nothing. Lepricavark (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support I would also support a full block. —JJB^ers 17:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment – a little better than nothing, but I would see it as ineffective. Overall I'll have to agree with Softlavender: this extends far beyond the topic of Australian politics. A prime example would be the behaviour exhibited in this same thread ([115] [116] or [117] as examples); the recent dispute with Merphee in The Australian pointed out by Softlavender; the activity at Talk:Gasoline (concurrent with this report being ongoing, [118]); a recent breach of WP:3RR at G.I. Generation (also concurrent in time with this report, [119] [120] [121] [122]); describing the "fuck off" expression as a "too useful a tool" to deliberately provoke other editors "and draw community attention" so that those other editors get sanctioned that way; the similar uncivil + BIT behaviour at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football ([123]); a call for not trusting admins for not using their sysop powers on "miscreants among their ranks"; or a possible canvassing attempt to influence the discussion at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Infoboxes in by-election articles ([124]). This aside from the already spotted misconduct or the long-term concerns with their behaviour. At this point, I think that only a long-term or indef block would work. Impru20^talk 17:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support, but nevertheless recommend that this proposal be tabled in favour of a long-term block proposal, since every respondent to this proposal so far (of which I am about to become the fifth) seems to agree that a TBAN does not match the scope of the issues. I've been following this discussion for a few days, reserving comment. I've observed Hilo48 to be somewhat short in some of their responses in the past, but I hadn't any idea the problems ran this deep. But the pattern is well established by the numerous diffs provided by editors in good standing above, and clearly runs strong in recent interactions. The nature of Hilo's response to concerns above is itself problematic--particularly the back-and-forth with Softlavender that seems to cast a great deal of light upon Hilo's perspectives on limitations as to his conduct vis-a-vis civility and providing justification for their actions. No editor is immune from having their conduct scrutinized by the community, no matter how put-upon they may feel, and in particular, no editor is allowed to make accusations about the supposedly disruptive and bad-faith conduct of other editors without providing proof, particularly when those accusations regard supposed conduct touching upon such serious concerns as "hate speech", dishonesty/gamesmanship, and personal attack. The fact that Hilo steadfastly refuses to provide such evidence and yet simultaneously refuses to withdraw the comments in question is more than sufficient evidence to tell us that they do not feel that they need to comport with our policies where they don't feel it's "worth their time". That's an untenable attitude for for any community member to have with regard to their involvement on this project, and more than enough reason in itself to endorse a block here.

I understand Slatersteven's inclination towards the most targeted possible sanction, hoping that this will prompt a fundamental change in Hilo's approach, but I join the others who have responded to his proposal in observing that the conduct in question goes well beyond the topic area that would be covered, and that the problems are more about apparent hostility toward views contrary to Hilo's own (and a definite refusal to prioritize civil discourse in many instances) than they are about over-zealousness in that one area. Moreover, taking all of the evidence presented here in its entirety, I find it highly unlikely that Hilo will actually reform in that manner as a consequence of receiving that community response--much more likely, I think, is that it will feed into their "Wikipedia's administrator's and administrative spaces are corrupt and the community's priority's are ass backwards--that's why they are trying to get rid of me" mentality. I just don't see the likihood that they can be won over by a TBAN, and I think a significant block may be the only way to make clear that a long-term and basic change in approach to their response to disputes is going to be required of them--whether they accept the underlying philosophy or not. Softlavender, Lepricavark, JJBers, Impru20, I'll put forward the proposal myself, so if there are any sour feelings resulting, they can be directed at me; feel free to reiterate your thoughts above in an !vote below, or not, as per your present perspectives. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Let's us be careful, that we're not seen as punishing an editor. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak for everyone, but my endorsement of some form of action definitely arises out of a desire to prevent further disruption, not punish prior conduct. And indeed, looking at the comments of others in the forgoing discussion, it seems that most have contemplated the community's possible responses in terms of prevention. Can you be more specific about what previous comments have prompted your concerns that participants in this discussion are being motivated by a desire to punish previous conduct rather than prevent further disruption? I followed pretty much every link in the discussion above before contemplating my own !vote, but if I am missing additional backstory here between those involved in the discussion, it could influence my own support for sanctions. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm lenient in these matters, unless it involves vandalism. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, ok--understood. I disagree that we would appear punitive by acting in this instance, given the concerns expressed, but I understand where you are coming from; I just wanted to make sure I was not missing any additional context. Thank you for taking the time to respond. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Well it seems the consensus is to table this for a longer block. I have no objection to tabling this (this is not an endorsement of a longer block).Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Longterm block for Hilo48

Per comments above from contributors who feel that a topic ban does reach to the nature of the conduct in question here, I am proposing a block as an alternative. The reasons expressed for preferring a block regard the fact that there is a perception of incivlity and general tendentiousness in Hilo48's interactions with multiple editors over a significant span of time, and a hostility in this discussion towards the notion that they may wish to reexamine their conduct, particularly as regards WP:AGF during disputes and making accusations against other editors that are not supported by evidence. The first editor to propose a longterm block contemplated one as long as six months--I think that may be excessive, but respondents can reach their own conclusions as to the particulars. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support as nom, per my thoughts expressed in the proposal above and recommending a block of 2-3 months in duration. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support this proposal as preferable to the one above. A topic ban is far less likely to be effective. Lepricavark (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support as per Snow's and my own thoughts so far. My impression based on the provided evidence is that a TBAN would just lead to HiLo's belligerence being re-directed elsewhere. A block is probably the only way forward at this stage. Impru20^talk 20:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Let's be careful that we're not seen as being punitive in nature. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support block of at least 3 to 6 months or indef. (His last block was for one month [125]; standard block escalation would be no less than 3 months.) As is evidenced above, HiLo48 has no intention of stopping his abuse of other editors. I think ArbCom is going to be the next stop for this editor if this isn't solved/stopped here. This is most decidedly not a punitive block; it is a preventative block preventing abuse of other editors -- there's no telling how many editors HiLo48 has driven off of articles or off of the site itself, and we absolutely cannot allow that to continue. Softlavender (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support Previously said I would support this. —JJB^ers 02:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support block of at least 6 months or indef. There is no evidence HiLo has changed his ways or has any intention of doing so. This is not a punitive block by any means, it is instead aimed at stopping him abuse and accuse other editors with no support for his accusations.Merphee (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support a wiki-wide block of 3-6 months for @HiLo48:, though I now oppose blocking in any capacity Timeshift9 (see below for my shift in reasoning). On HiLo, as multiple editors now reveal, the kind of behaviour that I outlined on the Wentworth by-election page (offensive commentary, refusal to engage in civil fashion on the talk page) is an ongoing issue. An escalation in sanction (up from a previous 1 month ban) seems appropriate. Global-Cityzen (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support block for 3 to 6 months per above. Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 05:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose this block seems punative in nature, also it concerns me that there seems to have been a poisoning of the well by some of the usual suspects who have disagreed with HiLo48 in a number of areas and are taking this ooportunity to get revenge. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment after re-reading this entire thread and following the links and diffs therein, it has become obvious that many of the people commenting here are playing fast and loose with the truth or are putting the worst possible slant things. Frankly, in some of the complaints I see absolutley no misbehaviour at the linked to item.

    I am unimpressed with the way HiLo48's accusers have conducted their business, for example User:Global-Cityzen's first comment claims HiLo has form and points to a block from 4 years ago[126]. They then in their next comment say Yet again he has form in this regard linking to WP:Australian Wikipedians' notice board instead of a diff - I am not going to delve into that to try and find some alleged misconduct. They then launch into a list of alleged misdoings with nary a diff in site. This is not acceptable.

    Then with this wall of text, User:Impru20 says Persistent personal attacks and general incivility and provides a list of seven diffs supposedly to back that up, except wither the links do not work (two) or they either contain absolutley no incivility or at worst in one case barely bordeline incivility, after provocation. They then accuse HiLo48 of "righting great wrongs" and provide three diffs that point to nothing of the sort. They then accuse HiLo48 of persistent refusal to address/reply to issues raised by others purportedly backed up by five diffs that do not support the allegation. There is much more in that post, but I do not intend to make this another wall of text in reply. Suffice it to say that in my opinion the post superficially looks like it has lots of evidence to back its claims up, but those claims fail when they are examined closely. I struggle to AGF in that post.

    Then User:Softlavender chips in claiming of Impro20's post HiLo48, none of that is "hate speech"; it is neutral, accurate reporting supported by evidence.. Accurate? Neutral? Really? Supported by evidence? I don't think so. They then say None of it is "lies", as each statement is supported by several diffs which bear out the statement. Except that the diffs do not bear out the statement. They then say None of the statements are "personal attacks", either; they are all neutral observations. ROFL! You've got to be joking, neutral? This is the epitome of a personal attack. Later Softlavender says What Impru20 posted was not a "litany of alleged crimes", it was a well-evidenced report of your recent disruptive behavior. No litany of alleged crimes is exactly what it was, not at all "well-evidenced".

    And now User:Merphee joins in with this personal attack.for which he is pulled up by User:Snow Rise and then doubles down before finally saying In hindsight I shouldn't have even commented at all and in fact should have stayed well out of this debate. So this is where I will close my mouth and step away. but I note they did not strike any of their comments, so a rather fulsome apology.

    Now we are back to User:Softlavender. This time accusing HiLo48 of harassing Murphee. except the link provided in evidence shows HiLo48 commenting on a content deletion and following up with providing a source after a cursory search in response to the claim that the content was unsourced. HiLo48 may not have been overly polite, but neither were they uncivil as is alleged.

    Again User:Impru20 posts another diatribe here filled with links and diffs for things that are completely un-notable, or are irrelevent or non-sequitur. Once again it looks impressive until you follow the links and find it is non-sense.

    From here on it is just rinse and repeat. This entire thread has simply been a pile-on of people with apparent axes to grind and no substance. HiLo48 may not be the most diplomatic person at times, but his comments do not rise to the level of incivilty anywhere near the level that passes uncommented on in Wikipedia every day. Enough kangaroo court already, lets get back to building an encyclopaedia. - Nick Thorne ^talk 14:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne: Nick Thorne, kindly keep your accusations of bad faith to yourself! The fact that you are good friends with HiLo obviously makes the neutrality of your comments here exactly the same as any editor who has dealt with HiLo before and had a negative experience. Can't you see that. However I apologised and stepped out realising I shouldn't have got involved in the first place, but you sir just keep going on and on with your bad faith accusations against editors and administrators that support a block. How in any way are you neutral?? In my humble opinion, you should have kept out of this like I admitted I should have kept out of it. I would strongly suggest those administrators and editors that are neither buddies with HiLo nor those who have had conflict with HiLo should make the final call on whether HiLo receives a block.Merphee (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

On what concerns me:

1) be careful when accusing others of writing "walls of text", as that is exactly what you have done here.

2) You say that I provide a list of seven diffs supposedly to back that up, except wither the links do not work (two). I've checked them all and they all work. Then you say that "they either contain absolutley no incivility or at worst in one case barely bordeline incivility, after provocation". So, let's see: accusing others of "ignoring reality", lying, "using Trumpisms" without any further statement or argument is not uncivil to you? Or at the very least open and useless provokations? Further, when HiLo says "That post is the biggest load of insulting, arrogant, offensive, non-empathic crap I have seen for quite some time" what is that for you? We could provide dozens of diffs from HiLo provoking, berating or patronizing others (and yes, condescension is a form of uncivility, in case you didn't know), so I do not quite understand the justification given there.

3) You then say They then accuse HiLo48 of "righting great wrongs" and provide three diffs that point to nothing of the sort. The diffs provided point exactly that: the first one was a reply to a specific question asked to him, where he just replied that the point of his disruption was "the creation and maintenance of a quality, global encyclopaedia", when he has acted the opposite. In the second and third ones, he accuses others of not accepting "the truth"; a "truth" which only he seemingly knows (a prime example of RGW).

4) They then accuse HiLo48 of persistent refusal to address/reply to issues raised by others purportedly backed up by five diffs that do not support the allegation. May you please elaborate how the diffs do not support the allegation? In one of these, he resorts to "the problems have been described" when he was asked a particular question on a situation which had not been addressed. In another one, he explicitly says that he can't currently be bothered to explain the issue. This is exactly a refusal to address/reply to issues raised by others. Nonetheless, this is just three that were given as examples; more could be found and given if warranted (even from this thread itself).

5) There is much more in that post, but I do not intend to make this another wall of text in reply. Suffice it to say that in my opinion the post superficially looks like it has lots of evidence to back its claims up, but those claims fail when they are examined closely. Firstly, you did not succeed in not making your comment another wall of text in reply; secondly, you have only countered the evidence with "this doesn't show this, this doesn't show that" but without actually explaining how the diffs did not show such behaviour from HiLo.

6) Accurate? Neutral? Really? Supported by evidence? I don't think so (...) Firstly, I see it bad enough that you are condemning Softlavender's behaviour in this discussion. When you are being brought to AN/I, such as HiLo has been, and pretend to claim innocence, you don't get into a rant accusing others of "hate speech" and, quite literally, arguing that It was rather silly of those who disagreed with me to think they could. You just don't. If others provide evidence against, you should bother to counter that, as the thinking that you shouldn't because you think you are above all of that and shouldn't argue anything shows there is a serious WP:CIR issue here.

This said, I would like to point out what I see as a serious AGF breach on your part. Firstly, because you are deliberately assuming bad faith from everybody involved in this discussion and supporting a block to HiLo, which is not good. Specially if your reasoning is of the sort of "hey no those diffs do not prove anything and everyone is wrong too, but hey it is my opinion". From your first comment in your oppose !vote, you have pointed to some sort of "revenge" wish against HiLo from some users having negative interactions with him in the past, without actually backing up that claim with evidence. Also, why do not you disclose that you have been defending HiLo's actions for years, even after blocks were imposed, as can be checked from a single read at HiLo's talk page? If this is going to be reviewed on the alleged history of those supporting a block, maybe the history of those opposing the block and who have been staunchly supportive of HiLo's behaviour for years should also be taken into consideration. Further, this separate discussion at HiLo's talk page hinting at some sort of conspiracy from Wiki admins is just unnacceptable. If there is anything to discuss, it should be discussed here. Impru20^talk 15:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Impru20: I do not apprecate being described with weasel words to the effect that I am a meat puppet of another editor. That is a direct personal attack and is unacceptable. I happen to agree on a couple of issues that attract a lot of attention from certain over enthusiastic supporters of the contrary position. That does not make me a member of the HiLo48 fan club. I took an independent look at your massive wall of text and found that it was less then entirely convincing. Without looking at what the links and diffs actually point to it certainly looks like a damning case. However, it turns out that theose links and diffs do not back up the statements you made. I make no judgement as to why this may be the case, only observe that it is so. You continue to attempt to bludgeon the conmnversation with lengthy posts making the same unsupported claims, as if they are established fact. I very strongly advise you to cease and desist or a boomerang may figure in your future. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne: Excuse me, but I thought you have directly addressed me. If you do not want for me to reply to you, do not address me; I can't see how that is bludgeoning. Yes, your history of support to HiLo48 is perfectly visible at their talk page, but I did not called you a "meat puppet" of him or suggested you were that (you will have your reasons for thinking so; I am not going to enter into that). But if you see that a s a direct personal attack, should I see your initial comment on me as a personal attack? Should I see your veiled references to other users and myself on HiLo's talk page as a personal attack too?

The diffs show precisely that, and I even explained how. Other users who did check the diffs were the ones who made the block proposal, so yes, you have your opinion, but it is not an "established fact". It seems that HiLo's does indeed have some protective aura around them than makes every ANI thread on him end the same way, no matter how supported or well-argued are the claims made. Fine. I just sincerely hope this case is not brought here again in the near future because HiLo has again attacked someone in another discussion. I already argued what the alternative to a block would be: that HiLo change their behaviour. Not something very demanding or unfair I think. Impru20^talk 07:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• There is no consensus for this block. The only people who have supported a block so far are those who have had a history of negative interactions with HiLo.--WaltCip (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Really, the only people? Global-Cityzen for example, when?Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I've never interacted with HiLo before this ANI. —JJB^ers 17:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

So I think we can discard this assumption of bad faith.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

WaltCip, not only is there a consensus, there is an overwhelming consensus. Softlavender (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Walt, I also have no history of conflict with this editor. I'd like to ask that you be more careful with such blanket statements, and that you consider striking that comment. Given the proposed length of the block, I would not be entirely comfortable with it being implemented with just eight "support" !votes, but I believe you have seriously mis-characterized the concerns that have gone into what consensus does exist here; maybe some editors have a previous beef with Hilo (that's unfortunately a common occurrence in most ANI complaints), but it seems to me that most of the commenters in the present case have foregrounded their concerns in good-faith arguments, backed-up by a substantial number of diffs. I personally only supported action after watching the discussion for days and becoming concerned by Hilo's comments in this very thread, which I think are in and of themselves cause for concern. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• @HiLo48: Which of the editors supporting your block have you interacted with previously?  Swarm  talk  20:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Too much. I've interacted with HiLo48 on and off for about 9 years. HiLo48 and I disagree on just about everything. They are refreshingly blunt rather than cleverly using the Wiki system to "get" people. North8000 (talk) 01:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Nick Thorne's perceptive dissection. ——SerialNumber54129 14:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Is this acceptable? Just asking. Impru20^talk 15:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I've been through the situation that HiLo48's in, years ago & I easily recognize the pile-on effect. Including the 'monitoring' of his own talk-page. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

So, it is bad to monitor a talk page where you (for myself) are being mentioned at your back, yet it is cool for HiLo to 'dare' an admin to block the users supporting a block in order for he to even care to comment at his own ANI thread? And is it also cool for you and Nick Thorne to have previously given HiLo48's express support for his behaviour before coming in here? ([127] [128]) Seemingly, there was more here than what seemed at first sight, as I see both of you have an history of automatically supporting HiLo whenever his behaviour comes at scrutiny. Amusing enough, if there was any support !voter not involved on this issue, they all became involved the time they were all treated with the same disregard here. Impru20^talk 16:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I will not push for an editors block or ban, if he/she hasn't vandalized articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@GoodDay: This is one thing (that you in particular won't push for a block unless there is vandalism) which is very different to the issue at hand, or the allegations that it is others' undoing, and not HiLo's, what have brought them here. Indeed, blocks can (and are) enforced on situations which are not vandalism; to the point that, should this have been regarded as vandalism, it would have been reported at AIV, which is a different venue to ANI.

Frankly, it would be just as easy for everyone here for HiLo48 to sincerely commit to constructive discussion from now onwards. As was pointed out by myself even before you did it in this thread, or way before Nick Thorne's remarks, editing restrictions are preventive, not punitive. A block is being sought on HiLo48 because their behaviour is conflictive and they have shown no intention to change that (much to the contrary, they have been openly hostile when addressing concerns raised here and asked for an outright and indiscriminate block of participants in this discussion). For me, it would be enough to see evidence that there is a sincere commitment to change such a behaviour; this is becoming increasingly difficult as new evidence keeps mounting.

Whatever the outcome of this discussion be, should HiLo48's behaviour remain unchanged, and just as Softlavender pointed out above, even if a block was not enforced it will only delay the inevitable. This issue will keep being raised at ANI and, eventually, will make its way to ArbCom, where the "everyone hates me"-victim play will not work, and HiLo may very well end up banned from Wikipedia (note that here we are merely discussing a temporal block, 3-6 months-long). I have just been engaged with HiLo at the one instance which made Global-Cityzen open this ANI report, and it has been enough for me to recognize that there is a serious issue here that will get inevitably addressed in the end, one way or the other. Seeing how you and Nick Thorne are in good terms with HiLo, I would rather advise you to, rather than keep playing his game and speak of alleged conspiracies against him by the admins or other users, make him come to terms and show a profound change of behaviour when engaging in discussion with others. Because what your sympathy towards him makes you see as a mere "not being polite" or a rude behaviour allegedly justified due to "provocation", others see as provocation in itself, patronizing, uncivility and, ultimately, a disruptive and tendentious editing which turns any discussion into a toxic and unbearable environment. Impru20^talk 17:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I've been before Arbcom, years ago. I don't want HiLo48 or any other editor to have that experience. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. User:Nick Thorne seems to have summed up quite concisely that we cannot block an editor based on a "consensus" of users when a number (not all) of those have been involved in issues with that editor. And I say that as someone who has had issues with HiLo in the past myself. Black Kite (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I've never interacted with HiLo48 before this ANI. —JJB^ers 18:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hence why I said "not all". Black Kite (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• oppose agree with Black kite's comment. This thread needs shutting down, I see it's sunday again. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose ban dont see how a ban of a long time predictive editor will help here.....a good block is ok to get the point across....but not a ban. Us old timers know of many old editors with communication skill problems and we simply deal with it on a case by case bases. Its sometimes very hard for old timers to take admins with less the 10,000 seriously....that said it would be great if HiLo could tone down the hate talk towards younger admins..as they are just trying there best.--Moxy (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

And how do you think we can achieve this aim? Just because you are an old ed should not be a right to ignore (or indeed insult) admins? It is clear HiLo does not take some admins seriously, thus he can (and does) act in a way that many other eds would not be allowed to. So do you have a solution?Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

As has been suggested before .....a longer block this time and oversight. How does banning help us? This is the type of thing we expect our administrators to handle without the loss of longtime editors. --Moxy (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Errr this is a long block, not a site ban we are voting on.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy: This proposal is for a block, not a ban. A long-term or indef block has been proposed, though several users have stated they would be fine with a 3-6 months block. A block and a ban are not the same thing. Impru20^talk 17:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Yup.....as I have stated .....OK with a block not a ban. How you like me to be more clear? Will highlight the ban part for thoses that still don't get it.--Moxy (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Blocks should be preventative, each time this comes up the same arguments used "but we cannot do anything", as if you are not choosing to tolerate this and "and the same old faces are here who have it in for him". Well each time it seems more faces show up, so maybe the problem is not the people who have issues with him, and that this will just get worse as he winds up more and more users. It might be best to actually start to try and address this in am meaningful way before the clamor for a full ban does become overwhelming (or more likely he attacks the wrong admin, because he thinks "we cannot do anything"). I am also concerned that many of the oppose votes do not appear to have read what has actually been written here (or who has written it). So can we actually have a list of the vote yes to a block who have previously taken issue with him at an ANI or have been in prior conflict with him, Rather then just ill founded and ill considered aspersions?Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, some of the oppose !votes do seem to be mere pile-ons, which is precisely one of the things which those opposers have criticised from the support !votes. As I have pointed out above, seeing how some of those opposers are in good terms with HiLo48, it would be actually much more helpful for the situation at hand to have them advice HiLo48 to change his behaviour here rather than keeping commending him for his doings. Precisely, that some of these users have been so sympathetic to HiLo's behaviour for years (as can be seen in HiLo's talk page), even in spite of blocks or warnings, could be one of the reasons that HiLo behaves the way he does, as he may feel that, for somebody, he will always be doing 'the correct thing'. Impru20^talk 18:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I very much don't appreciate being told that I'm stating lies even though I've not said anything untrue. Somewhat ironic actually. (link) —JJB^ers 18:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I expected to be blocking HiLo based on the way the discussion was going, but I've finally gotten the time to read the whole thread and examine all the diffs, and I'm actually in agreement with Nick Thorne and Black Kite. The block supporters are overplaying their hand here. Reading through this thread, it just seems dirty. The original report was about two editors who were mutually battlegrounding and edit warring over a petty content dispute. Much of the focus of the original complaint appears to have been on Timeshift for their unhinged edit warring. Interestingly, Timeshift was not accountable for their actions here, yet is being given a free pass. That's not how things work, and that's not how things would have gone had this been reported to WP:AN3. Examining the talk page, the users were all bludgeoning each other with endless commentary and no one is attempting to seek dispute resolution. Of course things are going to get heated in that situation, and the lack of dispute resolution is clearly the reason things went off the rails, and HiLo can not be solely blamed for that. So, in a questionable move to begin with, it comes to AN/I, the page gets protected, and the reporter is told to start an RfC (i.e. seek dispute resolution), and the thread seems to be headed towards an uncontentious close with no action. Then, Impru, who is one of the users bludgeoning discussions on the talk page and who has been uncivil to and has attacked HiLo himself, posts a massive wall of text and diffs purported to make a behavioral case for a severe block instead. But, examining those diffs, there's nothing particularly serious there. Yes, the diffs show HiLo being blunt, heated and/or uncivil at times, but I didn't see a single diff that stands out as being particularly severe, beyond the level of a heated content dispute, and certainly nothing there justifies his calling HiLo a CIR/NOTHERE case. Honestly, I don't think HiLo's emotive mannerisms are any worse than Impru's detached, condescending, passive-aggressive mannerisms, excessively wikilinking to policy pages and reducing opposing views to logical fallacies. Sorry, but the diffs don't back it.  Swarm  talk  21:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: It is perfectly valid that you think that of me. However, it would be nice that you do actually explain where do you particularly see I act like that, so that I can ascertain what your views on uncivility and condescension are and see how those compare to HiLo's behaviour (from your description of events, this looks as if I acted much worse than HiLo, when I was not even the user filing this ANI report nor bullied other users into desperation as HiLo did).

Yes, as you would know, editing restrictions are preventive. Sure, Timeshift would have gotten blocked should their behaviour have been brought to AN3 at the time they happened, but they weren't, and by the time any action was proposed Timeshift had already stopped commenting and edit warring for days. To the contrary, HiLo has not shown any will to improve their behaviour (an idea which is reinforced by the little 'talk page conspiracy' bit).

From what I've been able to research (which I had to do, since unlike what some try to point out, I did not knew about HiLo's existence until two weeks ago), it is clear that HiLo will basically ignore admins and WP policies and guidelines which they see as flawed, that they think addressing others' issues is something they should not even be bothered to do and that they can basically bad-faith on everyone with a free license (as they themselves have explictly acknowledged).

Showing an inability "to communicate with others and present rationales when questioned by others" is a CIR issue, unless the guideline needs re-writing (which I dunno). Just pointing out that HiLo has done this even after you required them for it, and not in a particularly nice way ([129] [130]). You've overlooked it. Not my business though: I've only ever encountered HiLo once and will be unlikely to encounter him again for a long time given our topic editing areas, so I'll be fine whatever the result. Basically, because I won't be the admin who has to deal with this mess again in the near future because no action was taken at the dozen times this issue was raised previously at ANI. Impru20^talk 22:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Impru20: why are you so bothered then that you spent six hours on a sunday afternoon focussed on this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Impru20 Govindaharihari (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Anyone who takes the time to read your comments in the original discussion and in this one can see it for themselves. You may not be self-aware of it, or willing concede anything on your end, but that's my honest impressions of your conduct overall, and I think the excessive debating/invalidating of differing opinions itself mirrors the conduct I observed in the original discussion. I get the distinct impression that you're a fairly intelligent person who likes to debate and is self-aware of the fact that you're good at it to the point where you will outmaneuver your opponent ad infinitum until they concede. Don't get me wrong, I respect that, but in the context of a content dispute, it's no more productive for resolving disputes than being uncivil and refusing to listen to reason, and where you have a group of editors who have been needlessly debating each other endlessly for the better part of a month, while taking no actually productive steps to move past that state, you can't really just scapegoat one person in the situation. The criticisms of HiLo are fair, but the proposed sanctions are not. Like I said, HiLo can be blunt, emotional, even uncivil, but that in itself, to the degree that was demonstrated by the substantial case you made, does not add up to 'longterm block'. I haven't overlooked HiLo's unreasonable response to me, but it's clear HiLo has serious grievances with the project that aren't related to me, and, frankly, aren't my concern.  Swarm  talk  04:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Govindaharihari: Bothered? Maybe because I was directly addressed by other users at this discussion? Maybe because other users and I were being called liars and other things at a private talk page without even the courtesy of pinging us so that we could defend ourselves? Yeah, I did not find it amusing for it to happen at a Sunday either. Impru20^talk 07:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: I do concede those are your honest impressions of it (never said otherwise), but I do not concede that is reality, specially when your only evidence that my own behaviour was worser than that of HiLo's is your own expression (and excuse, but whenever I say "It was rather silly of those who disagreed with me to think they could" at an ANI thread on me and demand an admin to block other users at leisure, just to name two issues which are strongly concerning on their own, then we could start off thinking my conduct is minimally similar to that of HiLo's). You are not even the first person to acknowledge that the discussion leading up to this ANI thread was heated, but that does not justify HiLo's behaviour a single bit (if anything, their constant uncivility and disruptive behaviour is what made that discussion toxic in the first place). HiLo's grievances with the project is what makes them act like if guidelines and rules do not go with them, and I'm rather astonished to see some users receiving such a special treatment as if they had a free license to reign all over Wikipedia just because they play the "bullied victim" game, when in fact they have no objection themselves to bully others into submission. Acknowledging that and at the same time suggesting no action should be taken will only mean this issue will end up being brought here again whenever he acts like this again on other users. Not by me, though. Impru20^talk 06:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Well I suspect this is going to be closed as no consensus, so see you in 6 months.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support Seeing the above issue and talk page comments to the tune of "block everyone who I feel has lied about me", I'm seeing an editor who has no business being here on Wikipedia. They have the attitude of someone trying to fight the system rather than work with it, and frankly we have enough combative personalities here to begin with. --Tarage (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Despite the retraction of my original comment, I still feel that there's no consensus for a ban or even an extensive block, given the assessment above by Nick Thorne, though of course, I firmly disagree with Govindaharihari's attempt to shut down the discussion shortly after leaving a comment of their own (come on, that's just something you don't do on ANI or anywhere else for that matter). With that being said, something needs to be done. It's clear that there are grounds for complaint even with incivility on both sides of the aisle. HiLo has had a very long-term history of incivility, even on WP:ITN where I've had the displeasure of interacting with him a few times with regards to discussions of systemic bias. Even if we put an extra-large trout on his user talk page telling him "seriously, don't do that again", that would suffice better than just walking off saying "oh well, no consensus".--WaltCip (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

At this juncture, I'm afraid I must agree. With nine !votes in support and six now in opposition, I cannot view this is an acceptable representation of community consensus to block--maybe if there were just a slightly larger proportion of supports or the same proportion but with slightly more respondents, but given the length of the block proposed by most, the level of support is insufficient in my view, and I don't think it would be healthy to leave this open much longer. Regarding the views Hilo has expressed in this discussion, I continue to be bothered by the attitude towards community norms on the appropriate treatment of fellow contributors--views which Hilo's user page demonstrates are very much actively a part of their mindset whenever they interact with others on this project; these views are clearly a real problem and of a variety that Hilo seems unlikely to re-assess/address on their own initiative. I'm further worried that they seem to have now adopted a strategy of just ignoring community concerns and hoping they will blow over, which has clearly worked for them in this instance.

All of that said, at this juncture I think Walt has the correct assessment here. There is no consensus to block, so our best hope is to have an admin who has previously not commented here close--someone who will hopefully astutely summarize the concerns raised, noting that a majority of editors were ready to contemplate a long-term block. This will serve two potentially useful aims: it may convince Hilo that a change is in order, by reinforcing that they came pretty close to a much heftier block this time, and it will be a part of the record if they prove incapable of self-correction and end up involved in similar situations shortly down the line. I'm not sure a trout is appropriate, because I'm concerned the quasi-farcical nature of that response will play into Hilo's perspective that concerns about civility are not to be taken that seriously and are over-expressed in our policies and community expectations. A sober close with a decent accounting of concerns and a direct statement for Hilo that community patience with the hostility is beginning to wear thin would be my preference. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it's eight in opposition. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Who?Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Do the math, I've counted eight opposes in this sub-section. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I count 7 opposing a block, maybe it is someone who did not mark their oppose as an oppose but as a comment?Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC).

Well GoodDay, Nick Thorne, North8000, SerialNumber54129, Black Kite, Govindaharihari, Swarm make 7. More likely GoodDay counted Moxy who did oppose but not a block. Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I was counting Moxy's. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, but additional !opposes only reinforce the main thrust of my comment: there is no consensus here sufficient to enact the proposed sanction, and leaving the discussion open longer is unlikely to bring that consensus any time soon, while it will attract more acrimony. Personally I think community action would be well warranted and that some of those users may come to regret extending more WP:ROPE at this point, but the situation is what it is. Snow ^{let's rap} 17:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment As I mentioned in my "oppose" entry, I've interacted with HiLo48 on and off for 9 years and we disagree on just about everything. I find them to be refreshingly blunt, they tend to be a little rough in conversations and then they just move on with no ill will. I.E it's just their way of conversing. I took a quick look at the areas in question above expecting to find something that I could volunteer to speak to them about but there's not a lot there......basically a content dispute between two editors at one article, and some brief vague negative stuff about HiLo48. I see nothing there to warrant such a serious move. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: My main concern is that HiLo48's observable longterm habit of bullying and harassing editors, blatantly and repeatedly misstating the truth, and refusing to stop or to adequately respond to these issues, is driving many editors, especially newer or less experienced editors or editors whose English skills are not as rapier sharp, off of the project or at the very least off of certain articles or subjects. Although he has accrued substantial goodwill from constructive editing, at the same time we can't ignore the damage he's done and doing. We need a preventative, which is what a lengthy block would accomplish. I believe that ArbCom is going to be the next step if the issue isn't resolved or if he does not desist from these behaviors. Softlavender (talk) 11:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree, next time rather then ANI he is taken to arbcom.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Well maybe next time can we have some actual substantive diffs pointing to the alleged behaviour? I am spectactularly unimpressed by the unsupported allegations made against an editor in this case and the gross over-reaction by some other editors. I do not support incivliity in any form, but neither do I support the lynch mob mentality demonstrated here. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Going over this a few diffs have been provided, you can argue that accusations of vandalism may not be PA's. But unless it is clear vandalism it can be a PA to make a false accusation (for example). You may not think they are substantive, others clearly disagree.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Nick, I respect your position that the complainants here did not make their case/supply sufficient evidence to meet the standard you would expect before considering a community sanction, but can we please avoid hyperbolic language like references to "lynch mobs"? We're talking about someone maybe being blocked from editing en.Wikipedia, not organized murder. Let's try to keep language in proportion and respectful of the negative value of off-hand references to actual terroristic crimes. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

It may be a subtle difference but it is an important one, I did not call the editors here a lynch mob, I said that I observed lynch mob mentality. Would you be happier if I saidi saw group think, or a dog pile? What we have had here is a classic example of editors with an axe to grind jumping at the opportunity to grind it. All in all it has been most unedifying. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I would indeed prefer "group think" or "dog pile"; I think those terms invoke the same basic notion that you were getting at (which is an idea which we may reasonably need to reference here from time to time) but by contrast they are unlikely to inflame a discussion by making people feel like they are being compared to the KKK or some such. I appreciate that you were just trying to make a reference to a principle of group psychology, but some terms come loaded with a lot of baggage and tend to amp up discussion needlessly, whether that was the intent or not. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose this block seems punative in nature. Also I don't believe that Hilo has been given enough time to systematically question the unsupported, un-diffed comments in this discussion. We need to pause a bit more when we discuss a block of a long-time editor. I am an uninvolved editor. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 00:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support per their behaviour in this thread alone. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 21:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nick Thorne, Black Kite, Govindaharihari, Swarm, Barbara, and perhaps quite a few others too. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Nick Thorne etal.Nickm57 (talk) 09:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Just to nitpick here. Checking over the report title & sub-titles, I must point out that the editor who's under report is named HiLo48, not Hilo48. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban for Timeshift9

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

---

Its takes two to tango and this was just pure battleground for no real reason.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose TBAN – just as I see a TBAN alone would be ineffective on HiLo48, I think it may be too excessive for Timeshift9. As per WP:TBAN, The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive. While edit warring is disruptive, I don't think there is enough evidence of a long-term behaviour on the part of Timeshift that justifies a TBAN (given the preventive, not punitive, nature of editing restrictions), and I'd rather see it as an isolated incident. Further, the 3RR violations (which would also involve Global-Cityzen) would have probably justified a short block at the time, but given that there have been no new discussion/behaviour issues or warring, I would say to just let it go for now. Impru20^talk 18:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - we should be careful, that we're not seen as being punitive in nature. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose It doesn't look like Timeshift9 was the bully here. Get at the root cause of the issue which was obviously Hilo after looking at their interaction.Merphee (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. —JJB^ers 04:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Statement. Upon reflection I don’t believe a full-scale ban would be necessary for @Timeshift9:. Specifically I think TS9 engaged in WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINTY behaviour on the Wentworth by-election page within about a 4 hour period around the time I created this section, though I can’t deny I reacted by adding the original material he was so opposed to several times, possibly in violation of 3RR. Days later, and he’s actually made an edit to the infobox which sought to improve it (from “swing” to “change” of something like that). So a full-scale ban would be wrong, and (and against what I feel is my better judgement), I lean to opposing a topic ban for him. Unlike HiLo, this would appear to be an isolated case and I hope the both of us can learn from it. I’m firmly of the view HiLo should be blocked wiki-wide for 3-6 months, as I’ll explain above. One piece of advice I have for Timseshift, take a read of how to pull back from the brink from tenditious editing/editing to “prove” a point. Global-Cityzen (talk) 05:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. Veteran contributor with a huge contribution to this area over many years. Many people behaved badly in this clusterfuck of a dispute and his conduct in no way rises to anything approaching topic ban worthy. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Strong arguments have been made this was a one off, and being provoked is often defense.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I think this can be closed as a snow close at this point. —JJB^ers 19:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Requesting close, please

Several sanctions have been proposed here, but I think as a WP:SNOW matter it is clear at this point that no consensus exists to justify any at this time. The conduct here is, in my opinion, of sufficient concern that I hope the closer will review the information in detail and at least dole out some strong warnings, but aside from that, I do not think any more productive result is likely to occur here at this juncture. Normally this would be ripe to be left for the bot to archive, but the slow-moving back and forth has prevented that and is likely to continue to do so for a while, to little or no benefit for the community but souring feelings further. If we could get a party who has not already commented, preferably an admin, to do a considered close here, I think it would be best for all. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Shashi Sushila Murray

• Shashi Sushila Murray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Per their edit count, they opened their account Oct 30 of this year and have 990 edits. This person says I'm just here to contribute to improving wikipedia. I'm not part of this community. (!)

In any case, they disrupted my interactions with a geneaology-driven conflicted/advocate editor, e.g here and here, and followed that up with postings from Wikipediocracy at that person's talk page, diff.

I don't understand what ax they are grinding or why they have decided to come after me, but they seem to be actually here for the drama. Jytdog (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any disruptions, I don't see a conflict of interest, and I don't see any accusations to defend myself from. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 23:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

There's certainly something suspicious about an editor whose first 10 edits are to their user page complaining about Wikipedia, saying I only started editing once I realized just how much wikipedia sucks. There's also no shortage of blocked editors with axes to grind against Jytdog. I'm not sure there's evidence to do anything, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of how or why they came to the project, they seem to be making constructive contributions to articles. On further investigation, the interaction with Jytdog wasn't initated by SSM; this user had been interacting with the other editor for some time. I don't think anything needs to be done here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

This editor is obviously very intelligent and is quite open about their criticisms of Wikipedia. We need intelligent criticism as long as it does not become disruptive and tendentious. I have chosen to engage this editor in conversation which has been useful so far, in my view. I will continue to do so unless I see truly disruptive behavior, and I am not seeing anything so far that requires formal administrative action. So, I am not sure what the purpose of this thread is. Are you asking administrators to do something specific, Jytdog? As for their participation in discussions with the genealogy editor, she had been conversing with him (as had I) long before you came along, Jytdog. My friendly advice to you, Shashi Sushila Murray is to apply as much or more skepticism to the Wikipedia criticism sites as you do to Wikipedia itself. A large percentage of the "regulars" at those sites are very disruptive and highly disturbed individuals, although some of them make sense. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• yep i hear all that. The goal here was to bring this person to the community’s attention. Regardless of their claim that they are not “part of the community” they indeed are. I reckon this will be closed with no action. But they are establishing their reputation. Jytdog (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• (unsolicited comment) - I have been involved trying to assist AlvanhHolmes (now Oldperson) since their first post on the Teahouse. It has been frustrating..... The only gripe I would have with SSM is they encouraged Alvan to *not* WP:AGF and that made interacting with Alvan (who states they are 79 and brain tumour affected) more difficult. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ariconte: Seriously? WP:ABF is only a joke. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 23:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Well yes, I was being serious. I didn't suggest WP:ABF. Ariconte (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ariconte: I mean that Shashi seriously disregarded one of our key guidelines. It's not an accusation of wrongdoing on your behalf. I hate it when people misunderstand me. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 02:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ariconte, TheDragonFire300, and Shashi Sushila Murray: In defense of SSM. At no time did they violate a WP guideline, or encouraged me to act in bad faith. If so then I demand that an example be provided, rather than some hand waving exclamation, or am I violating a guideline. At all times both she and I have been respectful of other editors in our communication. On the other hand he subject of this complaint has been acting in an imperious manner towards me and SSM, and possibly others and apparently does not take kindly to be asked why, or to provide an example. In defense of self and SSM. This request was started by Jytdog. Apparently he has his own problems. One of them being that of a dog chewing a bone, and the bone he is chewing is SSM and myself.As an editor , in my opinion he is a discredit to WP. He talks down to new users like me, gets very angry when questioned. He accused me of bad behavior because I asked another editor what he meant, example please,, respectfully at that. It appears that Jytdog expects complete and total submission. Anything less is, in his words, bad behavior. As far as I can recall, when another editor stated that my style was archaic, or 19th Century and I asked for an example, because I had no idea of this problem, I was told by him that I was argumentative and that is apparently perceived to be disrespectful . In my opinion he conducts himself as though he OWNed Wikipedia, and that he was an alpha dog and takes any thing less than obedience as disrespect. And so it is with the case of SSM here. That is how he is perceived. Neither she nor I have acted in bad faith, but at least I perceive that I have been confronted with a soul who will not brook contravention nor be questioned.Oldperson (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

By way of further explanation. An author is not the editor of their own works. However when given a suggestion or critique, and it is in a vague manner, it is not bad behavior or unseemly to ask for an example. It is akin to being scolded without an explanation or example of why one is being scolded. How does one correct without knowing what they did wrong in the first place, And this is the style of Jytdog. I would ping him as a courtesy, but I know from experience that he is already aware of this post of mine. And Ariconte I appreciate your help, I really do. There seems to be a tendency among some long term editors, that they are beyond approach or reproach That their word is law. I am aware that most are very busy and have limited time, but it wouldn’t hurt to be more like Ariconte and be approachable and helpful, but that is only the opinion of a noobie and I am not acting in bad faith. A final note: I have noticed a tendency and a rremarkable ability of LTE’s to rationalize and deflect, never back down, oor admit error rather they double down. Oldperson (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

BTW I respecfully advise I do not plan on participating full time in this discussion, so I will not look into it further. Sorry. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 21:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I've refrained from commenting, since this seems like a big waste of your time. Seeing as this is primarily based on speculation and attracting his ire seems to mostly be because I disagree with him and, in my mind, was rebuffing what felt like bullying (Oldperson is alluding to Jytdog's current troubles which I have some level of sympathy for, I understand that it may not be appropriate to reference in this context but it's easy to find via his talk page, and which has shown me that I'm not the only person who has had this perception of being bullied). I still hold to my position that I don't see any disruptions, I don't see a conflict of interest, and I don't see any accusations to defend myself from. I am also puzzled that I'm being put into an elevated position relative to Oldperson: I'm a new editor too. I might be very intelligent (thank you for your kind and diplomatic words, Cullen328, I think we all have a lot to learn from your mature diplomacy) and learning how to edit on Wikipedia may come naturally from my formal training, however, Oldperson has been equally influential on me through their wisdom with age and experience. I don't mean this to be impolite at all--only assertive: I do think it's a bit condescending to assume that because of someone's age and current medical condition that I somehow have some kind of misguided influence on them which I also consider speculation. In the end, I feel bullied and the other ongoing proceedings have only given me greater context that there's a past behavior of inappropriate (time wasting) escalation over a lack of being able to tolerate disagreement. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 21:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Nasty image at top of InSight

File:Cleaning a disgusting toilet (6648588843).jpg to be exact, appears to be template vandalism somewhere. Home Lander (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks to be gone now, thanks to whoever got it. Home Lander (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Home Lander: Zzuuzz, take a bow. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks as usual, Zzuuzz. Home Lander (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for shouting at ANI. So, instructions: 1) check most recent article change. 2) check most recent NS10 changes. 3) wash hands. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Zzuuzz, or wash my eyes out after seeing some of these things. Home Lander (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Home Lander: I'm not sure "or" is the right word. FYI, User:Bellezzasolo/Scripts/templatechanges.js adds ZZuuzz's link to your toolbox. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Bellezzasolo, Y Installed. Looks slick. Home Lander (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

user wakari07

Firstly excuse my language as english is my first one. I am writing this notice for administrator about user wakari07 who is doing another edit warring this time on the current events page of Portal:Current events/2018 November 26. The user is not understanding how the wikipedia policy of BOLD, revert, discuss cycle work by blaming me for reverting information he put it. I tell him this multiple times, as following BRD CYCle he has to take discussion first to talk page but he is refusing and instead blaming me for violation of brd. I also see from his current talk page that he is accused on three ocasions about edit war (crimea bridge), pro-Russian activism (novichok at salisbury) and a personal attacks (by user @Icewhiz:, his older talk page which is logged shows more of the same edit wars in particular from a former user Wingwraith (edit history show that user is not active anymore). To my surprise the user's block log show he has not been once blocked before so i feel that an administartor should use this case to do something and put a block. As i see it the user has escape punishment for too long. Waskerton (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry one other thing the user shows he really does not care about administrators. I told him i would take him to noticeboard if he continue edit warring and he play a dare and said "then sue me." This really show the editor has not any respect for wikipedia and the proper rules and procedures of it. Waskerton (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, I did not put in that valuable information. Waskerton started deleting it. Wakari07 (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

no but you are restoring. Event chronology is clear i am reverting material up to you to take to discuss page. Waskerton (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• I briefly crossed paths with Wakari07 in the context of 2018 Ahvaz military parade attack - which was also an in the news topic. There was some edit warring going on close to the event. I posted on their TP after they alleged I commited vandalism (in an edit summary, while deleting an accusation against another user) by breaking a ref which I did not break. They then retracted this on their TP, but said at the same time that I was "on the same mission" diff as a different user who was also alleged to be on a mission as well as having ISIS as his "your preferred terrorist agency" diff. At the time, I walked away from this as that point (nor am I sure I want to post anything more here than this explanatory note). Looking at Wakari07's contributions they seem to be mainly editing new geopolotical events - i.e. they had a gap after Ahvaz and are now hotly involved in 2018 Kerch Strait incident. I would suggest, at a minimum, that they need to tone down language vs. other users and their use of the revert button.Icewhiz (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for comment @Icewhiz:. on another comment wow "your preferred terrorist agency" pretty ridiculous stuff to say. If that is not bad encyclopedia conduct in wikipedia then i don't know what is. @Marjdabi: your commment here about this user here would also be good. Just as more proofs for admins as for why this wakar07 user shouuld have a block restriction put on him. Waskerton (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the current events edit. It's not some big news that the whole world needs to know or something. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 11:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The newborn subject(s) quickly grew to become the Lulu and Nana article while we were stupidly editwarring. It's on top of page one of my (WP:RS) newspaper today. Thanks to all hardworking constructive knowledgeable editors. Wakari07 (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Waskerton, it's BRD, not BRRRRRRR... Nobody in the "cycle" has an obligation to "take discussion first to the talk page" - both sides can and should do so as soon as it's clear there's a dispute. Frankly, you should be the one starting the talk page discussion, since you're removing sourced content. Wakari07, I know you've been down this road before; you should know better than to continue reverting. And no, edit summaries don't count as discussion. Oshawott 12, why did you think continuing the edit war was a good idea?

  Everyone, Portal talk:Current events/2018 November 26 is still a redlink. If any of you still care (and I would think so, since the entry is still being warred over), you should turn that link blue. It doesn't matter who starts the discussion. ansh666 22:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  • @Ansh666: okay firstly i add back the news because i see now how big the news is. But about brd...as i understanding the policy it is the one who is get reverted who should bring discussion to talk page. i am not just do a remove content but am revert somebody. For other person to restore is breaking brd policy as I see it. Anyhow i would have let been okay with it but to be frank the user which you point out has such a longhistory of edit wars that i feel you should teach him a lesson about this which has beeing going on for way too long. Especially as you are administrator. Waskerton (talk) 08:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Okay, first of all: WP:BRD isn't a policy. WP:Edit warring, on the other hand, is. BRD doesn't mean you're allowed to just keep reverting if nobody starts a discussion. Second: as I said, BRD doesn't mandate who should start the discussion. It merely advises that if you're reverted, you should discuss the edit with the other party. Please read and follow WP:BRD#Details carefully. ansh666 01:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the moderation. I am aware that this is not the right place for settling content-related issues. Icewhiz, I replied to your September 24 question on my talk page. Is this satisfactory? Wakari07 (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't want to continue the edit war, I just thought that stopping the edit war by removing the disputed content would be better. If I was wrong, I'm sorry. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 00:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Backlog at AIV

Anyone fancy using their tools? DuncanHill (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Please... there are ladies present. EEng 06:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Strange multiple questions on Reference desks

Different science questions are being put randomly on all the different reference desks by different random ips. It looks to me like a strange attack on the reference desks. The titles are long questions and the text is the exact same question repeated. For an example which makes it clear the questions are not typed in but are copied see [131]. where non unicode characters are copied - the original question was at Reddit [132]. Dmcq (talk) 12:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Other obvious sign, the exact same question at [133] and at [134] but asked by two different ips. I think a program may be doing this automatically. Dmcq (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The questions I've seen previously have been from Reddit. I just saw one [135] that is from Quora but with the question mark removed and it just says nothing in the text. Don;'t know if this is a new phase or a real question yet. Dmcq (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe killing the ref desk would work? With some sort of fire-based destruction? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I see you user page already asserts you are full of smeg. Dmcq (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Not just any old smeg, but steaming hot, roasting smeg at that! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I remember the first time I realised that the refrigerator company in the unit upstairs were actually called Smeg. Guy (Help!) 00:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• I answered many of these in good faith, but I agree in the post-analysis that Dmcq is probably correct here: This appears to be a somewhat mild, if annoying, bad-faith attack of sorts. At least, I think evidence is clear that the OP of these questions is not asking them in earnest in order to get answers, and regardless of how much disruption they have actually caused (which is minimal), they should probably, in the future, be deleted. I wouldn't delete what has already been answered (I wouldn't mind myself, but some people get precious about their good faith answers, and get upset when such answers are deleted along with their questions). Going forward, I think the best course of action is (when we catch this) to delete the questions without further comment. --Jayron32 17:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

This reminds me of another editor awhile back who was doing the exact same thing - finding questions on other sites, then copy and pasting them to the ref desk; they were somehow under the impression that we should be building up a base of questions and answers or something. I think they were copying from Yahoo, but I can't remember who it was... Curdle (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

They thought it was Piece work :P - FlightTime (open channel) 20:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I remember one who responded and said they were doing it because they thought we didn't have enough questions or something and we told them to stop. I can't remember if they sometimes modified their question. I also remember another possibly last year who like this one seemed to potentially be using a script to do it as IIRC they used multiple different unrelated IPs and the copying sometimes didn't work properly. That one I responded like I did here and removed them when I noticed. I think I often deleted the questions outright if they hadn't been responded to and left links if they had been. Nil Einne (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Dmcq: This is probably the same vandalbot spamming unblock requests (see above). I'll leave it to your discretion what to do with the questions, but if you see that the IP has been blocked that's going to be a fairly good indication that it's a troll. Personally, I'll just revert 'em when I see 'em. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  These are all single-use IPs. If this is a spam-bot, they've also got a routine to jump IP addresses. They may be good fodder for open proxy checks. IIRC, the geography for these IPs is all over the map, which is usually a red flag for open proxies. --Jayron32 21:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

We had this at least once before. IMO in such cases the questions should always be deleted. Links can be left to the original questions if necessary which is what I did last time when they had been responded to to avoid controversy. At least last time this happened, the original questions appeared to be asked by multiple different people. This means it's unlikely the poster is the copyright holder and content at Quora and Reddit is not released under a compatible licence unless the copyright holder explicitly does so separately. (And if compatible licence is CC-BY-SA, it would require attribution.) Nil Einne (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I think I've dealt with the ones at Misc, Language and Humanities. There doesn't seem to be any at entertainment or maths. I'm a bit busy at the moment and probably shouldn't have even dealt with the earlier ones so I'll leave Science and Comp for now. (I probably should have just left a link and maybe the original IP and time and not bothered with the copied explaination for simplicity.) Note that because some of the questions are very simple, the claim could be made they're too simple to be eligible for copyright but IMO that's too questionable a route to rely on especially when so many are being copied even if from different people. Nil Einne (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if it's a new tactic by the same vandal/DOS attacker who has been around for a while. Can a CU check for similarities that the rest of us can't see? 173.228.123.166 (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

190.247.103.23 is still vandalizing wiki

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

---

Moved from WP:AN

I think we need to block him for a month so he’ll learn his lesson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B00C:6BAA:8C2A:4623:F367:106D (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• 190.247.103.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1009:b00c:6baa:8c2a:4623:f367:106d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• List of Regular Show episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• A Regular Epic Final Battle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Moved the complaint to ANI and Added page links and userlinks for the comment above. The two IPs seem to be engaged in WP:Edit war on these 2 pages over a content dispute. Both of you please take the discussion to the talk page. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Reported IP user has been blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits by User:HarryConroy5 at Take That

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

---

The user is engaged in adding unsourced claims as well as removing sourced information. Since he seems to be a new user, after my first warning I tried to briefly explain that he needs to provide sources for his claims, but that was ignored and disruptions continued.--Harout72 (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that User:HarryConroy5 went as far as posting a fake block notice on my talk page.--Harout72 (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Aside from edit warring and the warnings that he left citing Harout72's edits as vandalism, the edits by HarryConroy5 on Take That are clearly disruptive. They repeatedly either add unreferenced content, or they remove referenced content and restore the unreferenced additions. The user has been blocked for 36 hours for the disruption to this article. I'm hoping that this will be what is necessary for this user to stop the behavior. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: This block has now been extended to an indefinite block due to sock puppetry. Case closed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Dear sir I followed what seemed rght by wiki information all I was trying to do was stop Harout72 from making unsourced claims, wiki should be based on facts not unsourced claims can you please ask Harout73 to provide their claim on that 45 million sales as this untrue according to NNME, MEDIATRAFFIC, BPI, ORICON,IRMA CHARTS and Certification, I do not vandalise pages but expect all edits to factual. many thanks and yes I new to wiki so I apologise if I make errors but facts need to written to wiki creditability otherwise any rubbish can be written if we don't challenge it — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarryConroy5 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Excessive Paid attacks- User:GSS

User:GSS has been aggresively attacking the page with paid tag on most of his pages. I am declaring that I am not paid in one or the other form for creating Dylan Tauber, however I declare that I know him directly. When I am looking at the nature of User:GSS edits, it seems that he is one or the other related to paid editing farm, where it is a master account to help the paid editors. I deep dived into his allegations and it is impossible to say that these are paid edits until and unless you are not of them. Makfranzi (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

If any admin wants some evidence please feel free to ask I will mail you. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

User:GSS is able to check paid edits in less than one minute. There is a very clear pattern and link with paid editors directly or indirectly. For example

• Cortona Academy and Pradeep Kar
• Transnational Foods, Rolf Sorg and Superior Glove
• PrepClass, Temi (robot) ‎and Monique Villa
• Draft:BeautyStat and Draft:Mixer (app)
• Oye Akideinde amd Efe Irele
• Draft:Abhinav Kohli and Draft:Vikram Gandhi
• Draft:Mohit Keswani and Draft:Rohan - Rohan

These edits clearly reflect paid affiliation or a link with a paid farm. Makfranzi (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you are absolutely right, It takes me one second to take action as I did with Dylan Tauber and you need to disclose as per WP:DISCLOSEPAY. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

User:GSS, first thing, I am not paid neither I have been asked to create page, I know him directly is not WP:PAID. I was surpised to see how you deleted Dylan Tauber in a few mins when he is notable enough, well referenced. However, when I looked at your contributions, there were certain flaws. I am changing COI tag instead of PAID on Dylan Tauber.Makfranzi (talk) 06:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I have changed it to UDP based on the evidence that I have. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I have changed it to COI, please provide your evidence of paid editing please. Makfranzi (talk) 06:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's see. A new editor, creating a page from scratch, rushing it to main space, and then running to ANI when a more experienced editor cries foul? There is only one ending to this story. Goodbye Makfranzi. --Tarage (talk) 08:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and before this, TWO years ago, creating "The Greenstone Group". Two completely unrelated articles, somehow in such a state that both are wiki ready? From a new user with less than 100 edits? Bullshit. Who is paying you? --Tarage (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that this is totally legit. Indeffed. MER-C 13:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

MarchOrDie

MarchOrDie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in poor behavior, including personal attacks and attempting to exclude users from a discussion, in relation to a content dispute between them, myself, and several other editors. (For reference, the content dispute is about the formatting of infobox titles on certain railway station articles, and whether that formatting complies with the MOS) This complaint is not about that content dispute, but about MarchOrDie's behavior related to it.

After Cards84664 and I disagreed with several of their edits (in at least one case, MarchOrDie reverted multiple times), they proceeded to start a discussion on a MOS noticeboard. MarchOrDie did not notify Cards84664 or myself of this discussion (a noticeboard most rail transport editors are unlikely to follow), nor did they notify WikiProject Trains or WikiProject Greater Boston Public Transit, despite those WikiProjects being primarily responsible for the ~300 articles subject to the discussion. I can only assume this was a deliberate attempt to exclude myself and other rail transport editors who might disagree with their stance in the content dispute.

While the discussion has been ongoing, their actions have gotten more aggressive. They claimed that "consensus has been reached" in this edit, when that is clearly not the case given the pace of the discussion. After Oknazevad reverted a single one of their edits, MarchOrDie left a rather aggressive edit warring notice on Oknazevad's talk page with the comment "We had the discussion. You lost. Get over it." Their further comments in that thread have included "throwing your dummy out of the pram" and "It's true what they say about railfans. Get over it boys, you lost." When I left a message on their talk page asking them to cease these personal attacks, MarchOrDie responded with "Personal attacks? I think you need to recalibrate your prissiness settings."

No one's behavior in this dispute has been perfect - I have left a few snarky comments myself - but MarchOrDie is clearly treating this as a dispute they must win for the sake of winning and to spite the editors they disagree with. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment:) I observed MarchOrDie's exchanges prior to this posting at ANI (if you poke through the linked pages, you will see my level of involvement), and while I do not think the comments and actions are block-worthy, there is at least a low-level violation of the WP:BATTLEGROUND policy. I think it would be in order to issue a reminder to this editor to read that policy and to notify involved editors and projects when starting a MOS discussion that would be likely to affect those editors' work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the WP:BATTLEGROUND is strong. So is the arrogance, and uncollaborative behavior. Plainly put, he is trying to force compliance to his interpretation of a guideline regardless of ongoing discussion and objection. One user cannot just declare consensus like that. At the least he needs to be reputed and a neutral third party act as closer for the discussion. Plus he needs to drop the attitude. oknazevad (talk) 12:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm familiar with WP:BATTLEGROUND, thanks. If you're going to hold out for weird formatting on a walled garden of articles, and when someone politely queries it, you reply We have this argument once a year. Please stop disrupting articles that you know nothing about., with an edit summary of "find another hill to die on, please", then present yourself as a victim when someone later says "Get over it. You lost", I think you may indeed need to recalibrate your prissiness settings. If you demand politeness of others, you ought to practise it yourself. I don't think I have anything else to add here. --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @MarchOrDie: Why would you not invite interested parties to a discussion? This is in the instructions on WP:RFC.--v/r - TP 18:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection

Please semi-protect the RefDesks. DuncanHill (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

And there may be rather a lot of diffs to suppress too. If it's not too much trouble. DuncanHill (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: --->WP:RFPP  :) ——SerialNumber54129 13:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I do know. I already got ignored there. Thought I'd try being ignored here for a change. DuncanHill (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@DuncanHill:—you got ignored at RFPP? ——SerialNumber54129 13:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Lectonar did 2, and I did 2 of them as well. One needs revdelling of many edits / summaries as well (others have been revdelled by other admins already). Fram (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both. The edit summaries for sinebot need to be revdelled too, as they repeat what the vandal wrote. DuncanHill (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• And Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous needs the treatment too. DuncanHill (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

  Seems the "deal" is off! ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 14:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I just had a check of some recent ips they used and they all came from [136]. It might be a good idea to just go round those and automatically ban them rather than stopping all ips. Dmcq (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Can we train ProcseeBot on that page? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Make registering an account mandatory. Wikikpedia won't do that though & so it's useless to try helping something that refuses to help itself. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Except 99.9% of IP editors aren't causing us problems. To ban the 99.9% for the 0.1% seems foolish. You don't imprison 1000 people to make sure you caught the one criminal. --Jayron32 16:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, then they'll just register throwaway accounts. It's not that much bigger an obstacle. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

A better objection. Though it might stop a few drive bys.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Well a possibly bigger advantage is with those who aren't using proxies is that ISPs might be more likely to actually do something. There is another editor who likes to post on both the RD and encyclopaedia who is LTA and arbcom actually asked the foundation to see if they can do anything about them. This was nearly 3 years. The editor has kept at it, any they nearly always use a normal ISP connection in the UK. (While they may still very rarely use accounts nearly all their editing nowadays is without one.) Assuming the foundation didn't just forget about it or still hasn't gotten around to it, I can only assume their ISP hasn't actually done anything despite the foundation having contacted them about it. I know in the past when regular editors would sometimes contact ISPs about problem IP editors, a common response was basically that it's our fault for not requiring accounts. I'm fairly sure that for most ISPs, continuing to post when you've been repeatedly told to stop is a violation of their ToS or AUP. While there's no guarantee ISPs will do anything even if we require accounts, 'person keeps creating accounts and we keep banning them' is probably more normal for ISPs to deal with (while things are a little different from 10 years ago, there are still plenty of forums etc) then person keeps editing which they can because we haven't blocked them because it might be another one of your customers. While it probably won't result in immediate action against the customer, I suspect many ISPs especially in the developed world will at least inform the customer they've received an abuse report and please stop. And if the person keeps it up, after a few reports they may get more serious. It obviously won't make much difference for someone using proxies like this case. Nil Einne (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Requests at RfPP are not ignored. RfPP is understaffed so requests aren't always answered within 30 minutes. [137] Enigma^msg 18:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Well, raise the satff's salaries, that'll attract new workers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Not ignored, just admins are too busy filling my watchlist with pathetic edit wars with each other about the size of post-nominals, or seeing who can piss the highest over blocking or not blocking someone with a funny username, or writing great screeds about why someone should or shouldn't be blocked for stalking, and why people should or shouldn't be blocked for blocking or unblocking or changing the length of a block for stalking, while all the time ANI and RPP get ever bigger backlogs. If it looks like ignoring, and walks like ignoring, then I'll call it a ruddy duck. DuncanHill (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

It is not incentivized. I am one of the most active admins at RfPP and I often wonder why. Not like I get anything out of it. Thousands of requests answered this year. Enigma^msg 00:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

RFPP can't be understaffed. The last two times proposals for creating a limited page protector group came around we were all told repeatetly that the proposal was a solution looking for a problem since RFPP never had a backlog. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I obviously missed that discussion. Enigma^msg 18:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• And now Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language needs protection and revdel of edit summaries. DuncanHill (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done and proxy blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• And now back at Humanities. They reappear as soon as (to the minute) protection expires. DuncanHill (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz

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

Requesting assistance/another perspective on an issue I'm having with User:Walter Görlitz. Let me start by saying that this isn't the first time we've clashed on here.

I'm not 100% sure this is the place to bring this up, but I know you guys can help.

Original Edit - I changed the heading "Supporters Shield table" to "League table", which I thought matched the previous year's articles for continuity purposes, however I made a mistake in the heading name (I used "League table", where I should've used "Overall table", as they are used interchangeably in football articles) and...

Walter Görlitz's Revert 1 - In turn Walter Görlitz reverted to the original edit, which I saw as containing the incorrect information.

J_man708's Revert 1 - I impatiently reverted it back, without rectifying that the correct terminology had been used. I did this, as I assumed that Walter Görlitz has basically claimed "ownership" over the article, due to knowing he is notoriously difficult to work with.

Walter Görlitz's Revert 2 - Walter Görlitz then re-reverted my change back before...

Walter Görlitz's Edit - Making the edit that I had attempted to make correctly and reaching the Status Quo of the article as it is now.

J_man708's Edit - I deleted insignificant spaces on either side of the heading and used the Edit Summary to voice my complaints. Straight out, I admit that I was in the wrong here. No justifying it, but I was annoyed that Walter Görlitz's Revert 2 had happened before he immediately made the edit to correct the article.

Walter Görlitz's Revert 3 - Walter Görlitz then reverted my edit and responded in the Edit Summary.

J_man708's Revert 2 - This is where I brang up my annoyance with Walter Görlitz's Revert 2, to which...

Walter Görlitz's Revert 4 - Walter Görlitz reverts again and demands I see the talk page.

So, the discussion goes to the talk page and six days later is STILL going, due to his need to have the last word (something I haven't given him the satisfaction of having). Some key edits to show you guys what type of person I've been dealing with over the past few days are here.

WP:MOREX - Using the fact that he's 137th on the list of all time editors and has over 200,000 edits, which he used to bolster himself for some reason.

WP:MYWAY - Archiving the conversation and in the same edit claiming "I'll let you have the last word if you admit that I was not wrong..."

WP:DICK - Giving one word answers in order to have the last word. Also claiming that I'm a sociopath in an edit summary.

I made several attempts at making peace with him, stretching from asking him several times to end the conversation there and then, to extreme measures like personally blanking the section and even asking if he'd like to blank it in order to go create an end point to the discussion.

WP:WIKIHOUND - I saw several football pages that are on my watchlist suddenly get edited by Walter Görlitz, which then became articles I'd created. Even an article which had no edits from anyone else saw an edit from him. So, I've tried going off and editing something else. Instead of editing soccer articles, which Walter Görlitz frequents, I moved to surfing articles. It didn't take long for me to start feeling stalked there, with his name appearing shortly after my edits. Hell, I even made a cricket edit just to see if he'd follow, which he did.

He also has a complete disregard for the rules as to edit-warring and actually justifys his actions on his Userpage.

At this point, I'm happy to let the admins deal with it. If I get banned for this, I really don't care. I know I'm not without blame here.

Thanks for any assistance. - J man708 (talk) 10:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Initial brief comment: I haven't looked into the whole of this, but Walter Görlitz has an increasing history of edit-warring, endless bludgeoning, and disruptive editing. His closing a conversation on the talkpage in which he wasn't getting his way [138] is a brand-new level of disruption. Something really does need to be done about his behavior. This is at least the third time this month that his disruptiveness has come up at ANI. Softlavender (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I closed the discussion because the editor stated he wanted to close it ("so please let's end the conversation here and you can feel free to end the edits elsewhere"). He continued the discussion, so I removed the closing and continued the discussion. Unsurprisingly, J man708 continued with his changing topics any time we got close to a resolution on one point. I have given up on achieving a reasonable outcome from the discussion. This all stemmed from J man708's unexplained edit. I asked why the change happened. As soon as the editor provided an edit summary, accusing me of WP:OWN, reverted because I do WP:STEWARDSHIP Revert at 2018-11-21T06:58:41 and application of the heading used in previous articles at 2018-11-21T07:00:12 after checking. That resulted in a series of WP:NULL edits. The reason for the interaction is that he holds a grudge when I "ran off to admins to try [to block me for edit warring in the past]". When I saw this and the projection that I was holding a kangaroo court on him, I realized the situation. From that point, I recognized that the editor wasn't actually wanting a discussion and just prolonged his own misery by retreading previous comments, so I responded with one word. And for the record, I mused that the editor was a sociopath because as we were reaching conclusion on one point he lashed out and raised another point altogether. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Indeed, Walter Görlitz is obviously following J man708 to unrelated articles. The editor interaction analyzer ([139]) shows a pretty long list of pages that J has edited many times and which Walter has edited once, within hours of J, and within the last few days since their dispute on this one article. Just a few examples are David Browne (footballer) ([140]), World Surf League ([141]), Alwin Komolong ([142]), Brad McDonald ([143]), A-League all-time records ([144]) - in each of these cases J has a long history of editing the article while Walter's very first edit to the article was within the last day or two. There are too many of these to be coincidences. I'd like to hear a good explanation before I push the block button. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Not denying following, but the edits do not intentionally modify J man708. I was curious what kind of edits J man708 made. I then applied standard formatting and updates: dates and language at best. I wasn't planning to start edit wars or otherwise cause problems. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Or, were you making semiautomated edits on all those pages just to make sure that J man708 saw your name everywhere? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• That assumes that I knew that J man708 had those articles on his watchlist. Something I did not know. I did not check the history of edits on the articles to make that determination. It's more OCD than hounding. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• You're one of a very small group of editors with more than 200k contribs, but you don't know how the watchlist works? You didn't have to check the history of edits on the page to know that they were pages J man708 had edited recently, since you got to those pages by following their contribs. And since you knew they edited those pages recently, you ought to have known some if not all of those pages were likely on their watchlist. Let me explain how this looks from an outside view: you got into a heated dispute with another editor, then there seems to have been a cooling-off period, followed some time later by you making yourself visible everywhere that editor went for several days. What makes you think that doesn't look like WP:HOUNDING? If you want to check out an editor's history, fine, but cut yourself off before you're making minor scripted edits on every page they edit for an extended period of time if you don't want people to think you're doing it with intent to cause distress. I should block you, but I'm hopeful you can see what's gone wrong here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey Ivanvector, been away for a day or two, having a small WikiBreak. I'm sure that he can see that this looks like WP:HOUNDING, but his previous actions to me suggest that it's not something that will sink in. How many more chances to act appropriately does this guy need? He acts like the WikiPolice stating "I'm not trying to stop the editor since, as was seen with you, admins don't always block. I want the other editor to know that their behaviour is over the line and they need to stop since the subtle warnings were ignored..." I ask, why is it perfectly acceptable for the rules to be blatantly disregarded by Walter time and time again? I understand that it initially comes from good intentions, but he himself to me is a total contradiction. He's content with weaselling his way out of a block, but he's quick to throw others under the bus claiming "Long-term editor. No need to warn." - J man708 (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• • IMHO you should push the block button. Walter Görlitz is in need of a break. Again. Antique Rose 16:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Antique Rose I've had "I don't like it" type reverts on music related articles that confirm the increasing history of edit-warring, endless bludgeoning concerns made by Softlavender. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Two-editor (ping pong) disputes don't end well on talkpages. An Rfc should be opened there, to bring in more input from other editors. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

That's the funny thing. The "dispute" had ended before the discussion got off the ground. The content is not the issue. For J man708 the issue was that I reverted again after he claimed I was showing OWN (when I only asked a question) and then I made the change to the heading used in previous season articles. So the discussion was about something other than the content. I tried to keep it on the content for the first few days, but, as explained above, realized yesterday it wasn't about the content at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

And one further comment about J man708's claim that I was approaching WP:MOREX. That wasn't the case. He threw my block history into the mix. I commented that with so many edits, and so much time spent on the project, I am likely to run afoul of other editors. I never intended that to be an "I'm better than you" type of edit. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

"his need to have the last word (something I haven't given him the satisfaction of having)" Pots and kettles? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I've hatted the talk-page discussion, with no prejudice to administrative action in either direction. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey Andy, I totally understand that it looks like I'm guilty of "Lastworditis" aswell. My reasoning behind it was that I know the history behind this editor and that he is too far too stubborn to see reason. Should this occur again, I'm more than happy to bring it to you guys to sort out sooner. Cheers. - J man708 (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• I think we’re jumping the gun here just because we may have some “Walter at ANI” fatigue here. I see two editors doing a lot of arguing, reverting, and bickering. Not great, but yet another instance of “it takes two to tango”. I again would recommend action against both or neither. Preferably neither if both could calm down and disengage. Open a neutral RFC and close this discussion down. Sergecross73 msg me 03:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Then perhaps there's a certain "lowest common denominator" to the issues caused? Also, I brang this here because I believed this to be the correct place to bring this. For me, there's WAAAAAAAY too many avenues of mediation (ANI, RFC, AIV, EW-3RR, etc.) on here and it seems the majority are there simply to pass the buck. - J man708 (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Without any insight into any actions either of you have done previously, neither of you come across well in that chain of diffs. Is there any actual disruption to the article? No. Did the article end up being 'correct' (in as much as a dynamic Wikipedia article can be)? Yes. Does this warrant any administrative action? No. Fish+Karate 10:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

That's fine to think that, we're all going to see things in different perspectives. Just wondering though, was this the correct avenue to follow to mediate this issue, or should this have been placed elsewhere? As I said before, the Wikipedia mediation process is too complex for my liking in its current state. - J man708 (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that it looks like after a bunch of heated discussions, you’ve settled on “Whelp, time to try to get Walter on trouble”. I’ve reviewed your long, hatted discussion. Not sure mediation is necessary. Try trimming out all the unnecessary banter and sniping at each other. Don’t comment on each other at all. Make short, concise responses about the subject to each other, and don’t respond to responses that don’t address any relevant points. Ask Wikiprojects for input when you can’t agree. Start WP:RFCs for more input. This doesn’t require administrative action, it requires you both to brush up on the basics of civil, constructive discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 04:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• I would say that this would lie within edit-warring HeartGlow30797 (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

User DuckeggAlex refusal to communicate, adding OR to many articles, expanding articles to absurd length (withdrawn)

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

---

User DuckeggAlex has been adding unsourced material to many articles, for instance Anglican eucharistic theology, an article that he has expanded to inordinate length, causing numerous editors such as User:Anglicanus to rollback his edits with summaries like this Multiple MOS problems. Far too long. Personal commentary. POV. Multiple grammatical mistakes [145]. The article Roman diocese has been expanded under his editing to 137,748 bytes when WP:SIZERULE says "> 100 kB Almost certainly should be divided". And this is after several roll-backs, at its greatest it was 192,739 bytes [146] It is an unreadable, arcane, eye-watering bloated mess. It has been expanded to ludicrous lengths from a sensible version from 2017 [147]. For a long time DuckeggAlex added enormous amounts of material with no sources, or putting citations directly into the body of the text, as here [148], there are literally hundreds of examples of this which I and User:Mathglot are trying to fix, but it is a huge huge job over many articles. User:Mathglot has been incredibly patient and helpful with this user on his talk page, trying over and over to explain how to reference sources and that sources are required and it does seem that DuckeggAlex has taken this in to a certain extent as he has been adding properly formatted references to the article Roman diocese today. However DuckeggAlex has created terrible messes on many many articles which we are trying to clear up and the main reason why I am raising this here and requesting admin action is that he does not respond to messages on his or any talk page but just carries on. As WP:ENGAGE says "communication is required". DuckeggAlex has never responded to a single message on his talk page. A short block would perhaps make him aware that WP is a collaborative project, he has to listen to what his fellow editors are saying. He is obviously a learned and intelligent person who could contribute a lot here but he is not going about it the right way at all. He needs to slow down, learn to communicate with his fellow editors and acquaint himself with how we do things here. He is disrupting wikipedia and this should not be allowed.There are also possible copyvio issues, as was said by another member of the community here [149]Large unilateral additions in quick pace. It all leads me to speculate about copyright. Could this editor be typing stuff in from a book? I don't think this can be sorted out except by a short block on this user, say a week or so, to get his attention and that is what I am requesting. Please block DuckeggAlex to prevent further disruptive editing, not indefinitely, but for long enough for him to realize that WP is a collaboration, he must follow our rules and guidelines and communication is required. Thank you.Smeat75 (talk) 07:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

This user appears to be a civil loner who was flying under the radar adding OR to numerous articles. He is stoic to the point of not reacting when warned about a rollback of 90 of his edits, nor when it is carried out. There are numerous issues to deal with, but what I first noticed was massive amounts of original research added to articles with flimsy, or no sourcing. This run of 100 edits with no references at all at Roman diocese is a prime example. Another example is at Elizabethan Religious Settlement and is described here. They are the major examples, but not the only ones: we are using this worksheet to manage it. One major problem in dealing with this issue, is that he hasn't responded at his TP or article Talk pages after numerous requests to do so, counter to WP:ENGAGE. Finally there appear to be some CIR issues regarding referencing. I've been trying to work with him; he appears to have just learned how to use paired <ref> tags for the first time, after repeated pleas on his Talk page, after having not managed it as recently as 27-Nov. OTOH, he seems to have been on board with it on October 30, here. I don't know if he forgot, or what.His editing is becoming disruptive. He is also likely a sock of Alexander Domanda (talk · contribs) and Alexander Domandar (talk · contribs) but there is no overlap, and appears to be no malicious intent. Mathglot (talk) 08:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

DuckeggAlex has begun to communicate and cooperate and has agreed that Roman diocese should be severely pruned, so Mathglot and I have decided that we would like to withdraw this request for DuckeggAlex to be blocked. Mathglot has shown extraordinary patience and helpfulness to him.Smeat75 (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Concur with withdrawal. Mathglot (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

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

DBigXray again

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

---

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

DBigXray continues to edit in a problematic manner even after recently coming off from an ANI report (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive996#DBigXray), where he was warned by Cyberpower678 on his own talk page.[150] Though he refused to accept his fault.[151]

On 1984 anti-Sikh riots, he attempted to modify long standing content by claiming that involvement of Congress in the riots is just an allegation[152] and it can be removed[153] though two editors said it needs to be sourced [154][155] and I restored the content with sources.[156]

Following the restoration of long standing content with reliable sources, DBigXray started to deliberately misrepresent WP:BLPCRIME (which was nowhere violated) and he is using WP:BLPCRIME as exemption to edit war.[157][158] He has refused to accept that he is misrepresenting the policy.[159]

Apart from gross misrepresentation of WP:BLPCRIME[160] he seems to be having poor understanding of WP:RS since he frequently refers academic publishers such as ABC-CLIO, New York University Press (NYU Press) as "poor sources",[161][162] while himself using poor blog sources.[163]

Similar ongoing problematic editing in form of filibustering can be also seen at Talk:Sentinelese, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Sentinelese and spears, etc. Orientls (talk) 10:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Another attempt to bring classic cases of content disputes / Infobox disputes [164] to ANI so as to weaponize accusations and use it as a way of getting around content disputes by intimidating[165] and attempting to get the editor sanctioned. Shouldn't opening of this thread by Orientls be called harassment ? --DBigXrayᗙ 10:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• I've clashed with DBX enough, but this complaint is frivolous. Content that has been in an article for years can still be problematic, and it was in this case. Furthermore, if Orientls cannot tell the difference between challenging the reliability of a source and challenging whether it is actually saying what it's being cited for, and cannot tell the difference between "The Congress was involved in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots" and "members of the Congress perpetrated the 1984 anti-Sikh riots", then we have a competence problem on our hands, and Orientls ought not to be editing content that is so contentious. I will say, DBX, there's no need to bring BLPCRIME into this; the problems are basic ones of NPOV and NOR, but there's no named living people to whom we're attributing crimes. Vanamonde (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• You are wrong because editors like Britmax,[166] Adamgerber80,[167] D4iNa4[168] have agreed that I correctly represented the sources for restoring long standing mention in infobox. Why you have to remove long term addition all of sudden against consensus? When somebody is referring reliable sources as "poor sources" it means that he is not challenging the information but rejecting the source as unreliable and that was clearly disruptive because sources were undoubtedly reliable. Even DBibXray has only said that there should be no inclusion since there have been no mass convictions and cited WP:BLPCRIME as justification for edit warring and disputing this information while rejecting reliable sources as "poor sources".

Now focus on DBIg. He completely refuses to accept that he is wrong and still refuses to understand any objections raised about his problematic edits. He also started an unnecessary BLPN thread and didn't notified on talk page about it.[169] because he wants everyone to believe that WP:BLPCRIME applied here. Why he even invoked WP:BLPCRIME when it is rather too obvious for everyone else that it cannot be applied here? It is because he doesn't care about policies but his own POV like community has already discussed before. That is a clear recurring conduct issue. Orientls (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• I ask Cyberpower678 to reopen because I (and probably others) missed this ANI due to weekends. Above issues as well as continued harassment by DbigXray were the very same issues that were highlighted last time. One of the party from previous ANI has even left Wikipedia after being harassed by DBX.[170] I will detail more once cyberpower678 reopens this. Qualitist (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

See WP:BLPGROUP

I must admit that I am rather amused to see the desperation of these folks above, trying to get me sanctioned by hook or by crook. Throwing on the wall to see if it sticks.

For anyone who cares about facts, I had last interacted with Wikiemirati more than 3 weeks back. After which Wikiemirati declared his intentions to grind his axe on me whenever opportunity knocks,[171]. Wikiemirati claims he is "very busy" "highly busy in the real world"[172], and in his last edit did not write anything that raises suspicion, and yet I am being accused about someone retiring without presenting any "diff as evidence". The way things are going here, I guess soon I will be blamed for Khashoggi's murder.--DBigXrayᗙ 05:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)^{struck and updated --DBigXrayᗙ 07:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)}

This was not "more than 3 weeks back". This was after he had reported you here. Nowhere he claims he quit because he is "very busy". Qualitist (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

In order to demonstrate that I interacted with him, you are supposed to share a diff of my comment where I am interacting with Wikiemirati, but instead you are posting a diff that shows Wikiemirati "grinding his axe". This just proves my point about your 'desperation' above.

And why don't you clear the air about your own previous accounts--DBigXrayᗙ 06:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I see no acceptance of fact that you misrepresented the timelines and also lied about the reasons he quit. You have already tried to investigate if I had any account before and you failed. Why you are modifying already answered comments? Qualitist (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The diffs are there for any admin to see. I have better things to do than to satisfy the desperates who use ANI to settle scores about content disputes.--DBigXrayᗙ 06:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Moving all the extra stuff that was added after the thread was closed into the archive There is nothing productive taking place here and no administrative actions are required. If you want to shout at each other, go and to it on your own talk pages. Fish+Karate 11:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

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

172.56.37.245

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

---

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

It needs a quick block, possibly a revdel. Isa (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I've put down a short /23 range block. It might need an extension - it looks like a repeat customer. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

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

AlexTheWhovian's talk page - harrassment

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

---

An IP editor, 86.187.169.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is attacking/harrassing AlexTheWhovian over a matter relating to supposedly 'cheeky' comments. The editor is refusing to cooperate, ignoring talk page warnings, and not being civil over the matter. While I am not completely familiar with the situation, I don't feel that the editor's behaviour is acceptable. Admins, could you please help to solve this?

Thank you,

Entranced98 (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked for 36 hours by CambridgeBayWeather. Fish+Karate 11:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

And I semi-protected AlexTheWhovian's talk page for a week. Easier than RD bits later. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Where do I take a password reset issue for help/resolution?

Login failed.

Password reset request successful

Login in with temporary password failed.

Now what?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Netscr1be — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.141.107 (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Wrong venue; try WP:VPT. Mathglot (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

216.194.38.228

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

---

216.194.38.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Harassment as shown here, other edits made today are an open and close WP:NOTHERE. Cards84664 (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Went to block, found they were already blocked by NinjaRobotPirate. That said, I turned off their talk page for abuse. Courcelles (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, it's not easy to be faster than a ninja. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Michael in oc

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

---

• Michael in oc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Michael in oc is a newish user. The account was created on 24 October of this year [173], but they have only 9 mainspace edits, 2 in October, 2 in November, and 5 in December. [174] All of their edits have been to the article American nationalism, and every single one of them have violated WP:NPOV by deleting or changing sourced material to skew it in a particular direction.

On their talk page, Michael in oc makes no bones about their edits being biased [175], [176]: he wishes to replace references to "American nationalism" to "American exceptionalism", a tangentially-related concept which has a separate article of its own. (American exceptionalism)

When told, by me, that administrators do not adjudicate content disputes, that they should be discussed on the article talk page, Michael in oc's response was to immediately restore the reverted edit without discussion. I feel I have no alternative but to bring the issue here so that Michael in oc can be made to understand that their editing behavior is not consistent with Wikipedia's norms, and that he should start a discussion on the talk page instead of restoring disputed edits.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Their response on my talk page is here, reporting an (as of yet) non-existent retaliatory ANI complaint. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

How about WP:ECP? Kraose (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty drastic remedy for the behavior of one editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken has self-appointed themselves as an enforcer of NPOV by making constant REVERTs to any edits made to the American nationalism page, violating the very policy they claim to espouse. This includes repeatedly reverting an adjustment to Illustration description that originally contained a biased conclusion not consistent with the material being cited. Rather than adding to the encyclopedia value of the project, Beyond My Ken seems to have a behavior pattern of simply reverting everything rather than paying close attention to, or having an understanding of, what is being developed on the page. See my Talk thread for additional information. Michael in oc (talk) 04:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I see no evidence that you've employed the article talkpage to establish a sourced basis for your edits or to find consensus with other editors. How about starting a discussion there, rather than simply asserting that you're right and that you're being obstructed by other editors? Acroterion (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

This page is highly politicized and discussions not acceptable to the ideologues trying to use the page for non-encyclopedic purposes are removing any discussion from the Talk page that they don't like to see. The 'Talk' I was referring to is the Talk for my user page. Michael in oc (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

BMK is a highly experienced editor, one Michael in oc should be learning from and consulting with to address whatever issues they perceive need to be fixed. Revisionism does not go over well here. I don't expect another editor who tried to label Nathan Bedford Forrest as a civil right leader today will have an easy go of pushing that narritive either. Legacypac (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

If you're going to make an accusation of revisionism, then please be specific on what I was being a revisionist on (Harper's Weekly content cited, etc.) rather than just making the assumption and then providing an example not relevant to what was edited. Michael in oc (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I saw that you used the words "enforcer of NPOV". On Wikipedia, I believe that everyone is an enforcer of NPOV. What's wrong with pushing NPOV? I don't see anything wrong with keeping our core policy? Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 05:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, we all play this role. In the context I was using it, tied to the behavioral pattern of excessive reversions by Beyond My Ken, I was expressing frustration at a set of self-appointed "uber" editors who spend more time enforcing their perception of the rules on others than they do on providing original content to pages. To me, this behavior undermines the spirit of what Wikipedia is about and through this blind application of process over substance opens the door to all of those who intentionally mis-cited content on the American nationalism page for politically motivated purposes, undermining it as a source of neutral information (ironically and sadly). At this point, I have no ability to edit the page without Beyond My Ken incessantly removing any edits I make. This is the very definition of disruption. Michael in oc (talk) 05:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Michael in oc: You don't need to ping me every time you mention me. Since I started this section, I'm aware of its existence, and will return to read it periodically, and comment if I feel it necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, before you characterize my editing again, I suggest you take a closer look at it. Although lately I haven't been doing much more than keeping up with my watchlist because of RL time constraints, I actually have a pretty good record as a content creator. ([177], [178]). On the other hand, as I pointed out above, you have made 9 mainspace edits, all of which were to remove material which was apparently offensive to your personal political philosophy. You have contributed nothing new to any article, and have created no new articles. I hardly think you're in a position to criticize my content work, or to characterize my editing as involving "excessive reversion". Yes, I did revert all of your contributions, but not because they were your edits, because they did not improve the article, and appeared to me (and still do) to be NPOV violations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I was just getting started in editing the article, including adding new content, before you started disrupting me. Please stop, so that I can continue my work on the article. You seem to have no other interest in the article other than just applying your own version of rules enforcement. I'm actually someone who has an interest in contributing to it, so please let me. Michael in oc (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Michael in oc, every edit you made to American nationalism, except the first, removed material. How is that "adding new content"?

• (1) [179] - changed "American nationalism" to "American exceptionalism"
• (2) [180] - deleted the words "by those outside the United States"
• (3) [181] - changed "its nationalism" to "its identity"
• (4) [182] - changed "American nationalism" to "American identity"
• (5) [183] - changed "thus espousing an inclusive form of American nationalism that is civic in nature, where membership in the nation is not dependent upon ethnicity" to "illustrating membership in a nation that is not dependent upon ethnicity"
• (6) [184] - changed "its nationalism" to "its national identity"
• (7) [185] - changed "a wave of nationalist expression" to "a wave of patriotic expression"
• (8) [186] - deletes "thus espousing an inclusive form of American nationalism that is civic in nature, where membership in the nation is not dependent upon ethnicity" entirely, with no replacement
• {9} [187] - restoration of edit #8 after removal on NPOV grounds

These edits may seem minor, but they change the meaning of the statements in the article, all of which are sourced. No new sources were provided, and no coherent explanation given for the edits. Michael in oc apparently is not happy with the expression "American nationalism" and wishes to replace it with various combinations of "American exceptionalism", "American identity", or "patriotism". Unfortunately, he has provided neither a source not a rationale for these changes, and they change the meaning of information derived from a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIR as it applies to Michael. What you wrote makes no sense to me. Legacypac (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Rather than replying to my request for a specific example of where I was a revisionist (after you made the accusation), it appears you've decided to make a personal attack instead. How is that helpful to this situation? Michael in oc (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The evidence of your revisionism is above, clearly laid out, with your bias sticking out like a sore thumb.

I'm concerned that if you dig in your feet over something as relatively minor as this, that allowing you to edit the article further may lead to even more intractable disputes. I suggest that this may be your last chance to open a discussion on the talk page and seek consensus for your edits, because further behavior along these lines could easily end up with a topic ban from editing the article entirely. I don't espouse that now, but it could easily be coming down the pike if you don't start following our norms of behavior.

That's not a threat, because there's no way that I, alone, can impose a topic ban on you, only admins or the community can do that, it's just an observation from 13 years of experience here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• I peeked at Michael in oc's deleted contributions, there are no, so Beyond My Ken's assertion that this user is newish is correct. Speaking as an administrator, you both need to tread on this topic very, very, very carefully. While its not explicitly covered, the page itself could reasonably be construed as party to the American politics 2 Arbitration Case (according to how I'm reading it, anyway), which covers "All edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed", and given that there is now a dedicated Trump section it wouldn't be too out of the realm of possibility for this page to end up under sanctions if it looks to be a forthcoming battleground article. @Michael in oc: You need to take this to the article's talk page and discuss it there with the community. I am not asking you to like that option, but I am encouraging you to do it before we need to call out the artillery. You also need to adopt a consensus based mindset. If you expect to make it to the end of next year on here then you need to learn how to work with others in (usually an easy thing to do) and to compromise - or worse, walk away from - discussions where you aren't going to win (typically learned the hard way). In Beyond My Ken you have a very good teacher whose advise I would take to heart, because its advise that is attempting to keep you from getting owned. To make sure you both make an effort, I'll put some protection on the page for the time being. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Beyond My Ken did a good job in providing a well-written expansion on the content I added before the article was locked, something that's helped me appreciate their abilities in supporting article development. I still see problems with the underlying assumption of the article being posited, that there's a single form of American nationalism that we should all adhere to based on one Towson University associate professor (as opposed to American patriotism which has traditionally been used to understand American identity when compared to other countries). Also, the Thanksgiving illustration description is not supported by the cited sources. However, to respect the process, I plan to raise these items in Talk before the article is editable again. Michael in oc (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Incivility, disruptive "dumping" in threads, and activism against notability guidelines by James500

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

---

All of us are critical of some ideas from other editors from time to time, and may call something "nonsense" when sense actually cannot be made of it. But there's a major difference between that and habitual use of hostile, hyperbolic, denigrating language in a fallacious argument to emotion and argument to ridicule pattern whenever one is meeting with disagreement. Especially when it's combined with either refusal to address others' points, or a hand-wave and Gish gallop technique of using a firehose of off-topic ranting and rambling that doesn't actually address the substance of the discussion others are trying to have. That's simply disruptive.

Without digging into very far at all into just the notability-related edits of James500 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – and I am not the first to raise these concerns about his edits [188]:

• In response to a simple copy-editing proposal (mostly about word-order in a guideline sentence): "Utter nonsense. ... "manifestly factually untrue manifest total nonsense from start to finish" [sic] ... "Literally nothing he says is accurate." ... "This is completely misleading" ... "I am confronted by epic exaggeration ... and spectacularly misleading statements", and much more [189]. This is all just from the first 15% or so of James500's enormous 8.8K, 1400+ word rant, all dumped as a single WP:BLUDGEON paragraph, and most of it having nothing to do with the proposed revision or the problem to resolve. (Instead it goes on at length about what kinds of publications do what kinds of reviews, how GNG should (in that editor's consensus-diverged view) be interpreted and applied, his unhappiness with "deletionist mega-trolls", and on and on, concluding with his opposition to the guideline even existing – there "no possible justification" for it, he says. Also, the frequency which other respondents agreed with the proposal for revision clearly disproves James500's claim that it is "nonsense".)
• Responded with nothing but "That is total nonsense" [190] when asked by multiple parties and about multiple posts ([191], [192]) to stay on-topic and either use paragraph breaks or write shorter.
• Did not understand the rationale someone presented, and simply declared it "nonsense from start to finish" [193] (followed by argumentation that missed or intentionally skirted the actual point again; other participants showed no such comprehension problems or faux-problems; it appears to be an act to excuse ranting.)
• Declared arguments for deleting an Australian lawyer bio to be categorically "utter nonsense from start to finish" [194] (an evidently habitual phrase), but did not address any of them. Simply asserted that being a Queen's Counsel automatically translates into "notable", an idea that does not enjoy consensus (there are over 1,000 QCs in Australia alone, probably 10,000+ throughout the Commonwealth; it's an indicator of professional competence, not notability).
• "That is nonsense" again plus more off-topic hand-waving [195], when called out for misunderstanding WP:Systemic bias so badly that he said "I have yet to see any statistical evidence of actual over representation of any kind of topic on this project." [196]
• Another pointless "nonsense" post again [197] that substantively addressed nothing at all but appears to be pure battlegrounding against Hijiri88, with whom James500 is in frequent disagreement in discussions relating to notability.
• Similar ad hominem commentary, declaring other editors' input "completely irrelevant", "no value", "playing pointless semantic games", "nonsense", etc. [198]. (The other editors were simply making the point that small-town newspaper coverage of a local resident doesn't establish notability, a view well-accepted by consensus; so, James500's straw man mischaracterizations of them are demonstrably false.)
• Yet again "that is nonsense", with no substantive commentary of any kind [199].
• "I disagree with everything that you say." [200] (Followed by activism that Wikipedia shouldn't have it's definitions of and rules about primary and secondary sources and should instead use those from another field.)
• Labeled a section (WP:AUD) of the WP:Notability guideline "bizarre nonsense" [201]. (Not a civility problem, but helps establish that "If I disagree, it's okay to call it 'nonsense'" is a habitual pattern, as is unconstructive activism against consensus-accepted policy material and its application, covered in more detail below.)
• Claimed to have implemented [202] a proposed change under discussion ([203], [204]) to resolve the thread's main concern, but actually made a very different change discussed by no one [205], and which is unacceptably redundant wording which to many readers would read like some kind of typo. (It may have been reverted by now; I haven't checked yes, it has been.)

This sort of behavior seems most frequent in James500's "pet peeve" area: he is a consistent agitator against the very existence of Wikipedia notability guidelines (see [206], [207], and [208] as just a few recent examples). This is essentially a WP:1AM and WP:GREATWRONGS exercise in activism against long-standing consensus (an activity that is frequently considered WP:NOTHERE and WP:NOT#ADVOCACY, and grounds for action in and of itself). Given this, it makes the editor's hostile and unresponsive commentary pattern doubly inexcusable.

Disclaimer of sorts: I have no prior interaction of note with James500 that I can recall. I myself was once among the staunchest opposers of WP adopting notability guidelines (at least as they were being drafted early on). I'm sympathetic to James500's viewpoint more than he'd realize. But the guidelines are part of the Wikipedia playbook, and the community has crafted and re-crafted them carefully for over a decade. I'm also not known for brevity; having a lot to say isn't a problem – dumping it in a massive unbroken text wall is, and so is posting piles of stuff that doesn't actually pertain to the discussion just to keep re-injecting one's "Wikipedia should work differently" activism viewpoint.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC); updated: 14:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Previous ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive300#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Salami tactics
• On civility, this editor may need to be prohibited from this kind of flippantly insulting and dismissive commentary (making any real counter-argument certainly doesn't require it!). Just a civility warning might be sufficient at this time.

  Regardless, a topic-ban from discussions of notability other than its application to specific cases at AfD (where James500 is a frequent and on-topic albeit extremely inclusionist participant) should separately be considered, given that railing against a guideline's existence is not a constructive activity and is a drain on other editors' time and goodwill – and isn't likely to stop on its own. A compounding factor is the editor's attempt, in this same context, to hijack the phrase "systemic bias" to just mean "we don't write enough about ancient and medieval dead people", even to the point of clearly stated denialism that white male Westerners are overrepresented (see [209] and his comment above it, though there are several other examples even in just the few pages of contribs I looked at, e.g. [210]). Guaranteed to raise the ire of anyone who cares about WP:BIAS issues, this is difficult to distinguish from intentional trolling, and at very least seems a WP:CIR matter.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC); revised: 14:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm frankly surprised this editor wasn't site-banned years ago. His tone is unnecessarily aggressive at best, and he's got an extreme battleground mentality when it comes to "the deletionists". This entirely aside from his specifically targeting me for some particularly slimy "enemy-of-my-enemy" harassment. He pretended to rage-quit Wikipedia when I called him out a very small portion of this (specifically his trying to trick the AFD analysis tools by never bolding his !votes, which is why this happens despite his having auto-!voted "keep" in hundreds of AFDs before that point). This is not a healthy presence for the project. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Note that the above diffs are mostly me summarizing the disruption in response to James, to which he either feigned contrition before quickly reverting back to normal or just ignored me entirely. I find these more useful as evidence than simply providing the original diffs of James's actions, as my comments explain them in context. For the slimy harassment, the primary diffs of James's activities are located in my comment, but with the quotes about "deletionists" I didn't think it necessary as they all appeared on the live version of the same page. SMcC has suggested to me on my talk page that I give all the individual diffs of the quotations, which I might do tomorrow, but Ctrl+Fing the quotes will show them accurate, and even worse in their original context. I doubt, however, that I could be comprehensive in giving all the diffs of this editor's disruptive incivility. Anyway, in the meantime anyone with access to deleted pages might want to check out the page that was userfied as a result of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Salami tactics and then deleted at James's request: it's more strong evidence of the editor's battleground ideology. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Will write/link more later tonight, but James is long overdue for a tban on deletion in general, and especially on notability in particular. Easily one of the most consistently disruptive wikilawyers I've come across in my time on Wikipedia. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The issue is a discussion at WP:NBOOK where SMcCandlish is trying to outlaw book reviews as sources and James500 is arguing against this proposal. We're supposed to discuss these matters to establish consensus but it's a common vice for editors to go on too long and all concerned should read WP:TLDR. Preventing editors from speaking at all is not appropriate because this would distort the consensus process. Trying to silence such an opponent at ANI is inappropriate as SMcCandlish has just explained at WP:GRAPES. Andrew D. (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  Then there's the kind of case where someone doesn't get what they want out of a nomination process, RfC, BRD discussion, or other thread, and feels that someone in particular blockaded or thwarted them. So they dig around in that editor's history for enough dirt – none of which involved them – to try paint a picture of their "enemy" as a disruptive editor (or bad admin, or whatever) at WP:ANI, WP:AE, WP:RFARB or some other drama-board. Even cursory review of editorial interaction is going to show the noticeboard's respondents that the real motivation is petty vengeance. The editor engaging in this will be lucky if it ends with just a snowball close against their pillory-my-opponent proposition; a boomerang is quite likely.

• Wow. So, if I may paraphrase this one oppose we all knew would be inevitable regardless of the reality of the situation: "nope nope, fake news. he's mad because he wants to outlaw book reviews?" — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if Andrew would have posted such a clearly WP:BATTLEGROUND comment (which essentially amounts to "This user is an inclusionist, and therefore must be defended regardless of his other policy violations.") if the ANI thread about his misbehaviour hadn't been closed two hours earlier. @28bytes: This is why some threads should probably just be allowed get archived without a "formal" close. For one thing, saying there's no consensus for sanctions against him, without specifying that the lack of consensus relates specifically to his deprodding, and not to his battleground behaviour, disruptive comments at AFD, etc., makes it harder to bring up the other problems later. Virtually everyone who opposed sanctions specifically referred to PROD, and hardly any of them addressed the other stuff. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Andrew Davidson: That's a patently false statement and you should strike or correct it. I have suggested nothing even faintly, remotely resembling "trying to outlaw book reviews as sources". That idea isn't even on the same planet. PS: This has nothing to do with "vengeance" (for what? I have lost nothing and not been harmed in any way, nor was my proposal "blockaded" by this person, but is proceeding exactly as intended and as discussed [211]). It's entirely and only about a clearly evident pattern of disruptive and uncivil behavior (which runs far deeper than I suspected it did, judging from the evidence presented by Rhododendrites and Hijiri88; I only looked back about a month in talk-post history, in notability-related pages which is where I observed the problem occurring; that's not dirt-digging, it's basic ANI due diligence).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC); updated: 14:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Evidence of a long-term pattern

James's perspective on deletion and notability is an extreme one. That's not the problem, though. The problem is that for years, he is, in my experience, the Wikipedian most likely to expend incredible amounts of text to wikilawyer the absolute correctness of his perspective and the extent to which there is clear consensus supporting him and against others; and furthermore, that other people -- especially "deletionists" -- are the ones wikilawyering, acting in bad faith, and harassing him. His perspective is objectively correct until presented with evidence, at which point anything can become subjective (GNG, the interpretation of data (data which is probably wrong anyway because James disagrees), etc.), so he's still right. It's an exhausting time sink, and the battleground approach he takes throughout often turns the whole discussion toxic.

James routinely acts in contempt of standard community norms when they do not suit him. A handful of such examples would be ok -- we aren't robots, after all, and nobody asks for absolute conformity -- but persistent, seemingly antagonistic refusal to many users' requests are disruptive/tendentious and counter-collaborative. For example, when it's clear he's going to be in the minority, he refuses to bold his !votes (seemingly so that AfD stats cannot track it). He wrote an essay encouraging others to do that same -- a wild wikilawyering exercise that was nixed from projectspace at its MfD. Another example is how James removes all messages from his talk page and does not archive them. This is standard for someone evading scrutiny, and extremely uncommon for anyone else. Again, not on its own grounds for a sanction, but combined with all of the rest shows a pattern of disregard or even hostility towards established practice and other users' polite requests. Then there's refusing to indent threads like everyone else (which is included in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, from which James argued to remove it back in 2011, so it's something he's known for many years now). James frequently responds to someone on the same indentation level, even after being asked to do so many, many times. For examples, [212] [213][214] [215] [216] [217]. The last two are both examples of extensive wikilawyering, and he defends the practice of not indenting at length and declares that closing admins must carefully consider his non-indented comments or should be desysopped (a declaration that also came up when talking about not bolding !votes, which, as it happens, is also addressed in the deletion review link). Yet another example: it's well established at AfD (a venue James knows well, which makes the following seem disingenuous) that just linking to a search engine is insufficient to demonstrate significant coverage/GNG. Yet he defends doing so and even says that asking for sources at AfD is equivalent to insisting an AfD be referenced like an article. This last example is less ubiquitous in his edits than the others, though. Another example, posting to a thread after it has been closed: here a thread created by a banned editor was closed with no support at all; James posted under the closed thread to argue the opposite -- that AfDs with only delete votes should be relisted and AfDs with no participation should be kept as no consensus. And then there's stuff like "'Plagiarism' is not a valid concept, it is a political weapon"...

The wikilawyering/battleground is everywhere upon even just a spot check for large text additions to Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces. Especially at any notability-related page (I would invite any skeptical editor to look through the archives of Wikipedia talk:Notability, Wikipedia talk:42, etc.). In terms of WP:BATTLEGROUND, James makes constant references "deletionist", "ultra-deletionist" [218] [219], etc. bogeymen and all of the terrible things they do. It's an always-available, imaginary evil to play against, to make his ideas sound sensible, rather than way outside of consensus themselves. He also frequently responds with insults or dismissals of people's comments (along these lines, though not always as clustered together).

You may look at some of these diffs and say "hey some of these are a few years old now." It's true. Most of my interactions with James were in 2014-2015. He did not edit from early 2016 until earlier this year, when we find ourselves back here for the very same sorts of things. Speaking of my interactions, it will also become clear in looking at some of the diffs above that I have been directly involved in many disputes with James. Take that as you will.

In short, because James has shown a long-term pattern of wikilawyering and a battleground mentality when it comes to discussions of deletion and notability, I would Support an indefinite topic ban on discussions related to deletion and notability, broadly construed. At this time I would abstain from taking a position on a community ban until I have time to take a closer look at his mainspace contributions, which may well be good. As I recall, James has some expertise in law (this is not me taking a wikilawyering swipe, to be clear), and that's a kind of expertise Wikipedia could use more of. My hope is that this is one of those situations when issues really are constrained to a particular topic area, and can be addressed with a lesser restriction. If mainspace contributions are good and the problems are indeed limited to deletion/notability discussions, I would certainly oppose a site ban (I'm only mentioning it because it was brought up above). Apologies for this wall of text. This is already the most, I think, that I have ever written on ANI, but I think that when it comes to a major sanction of an established editor, a long post is called for. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Rhododendrites, I think it is inconsistent to accuse me of "expending incredible amounts of text" in a post more than 8.6 kB long, preceded by a post that was more than 10.7 kB long before it was expanded, and many others that are not particularly short. Especially when many of these criticisms relate to things that happened a long time ago and are stale. Am I expected to answer all of these many criticisms without writing something of a similar length? James500 (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  Evidence age matters when reporting an incident; that report is by me, and uses fresh evidence. Rhododendrites' evidence from further back establishes that this is a long-term abuse pattern and not a one-off temporary problem. It's the furthest thing from inadmissible or irrelevant. If I'd known of the depth of this problem I would have proposed a broader t-ban at very least, or perhaps an indef or site-ban. There is also no valid comparison to be made between your habit of dumping massive, attacky, off-topic, anti-consensus rants into ongoing discussions, and someone providing a comprehensive multi-year summary of your problematic edits. If the only response you can muster to this ANI is to point fingers at someone else in a nanny-nanny-boo-boo manner, this is not a good sign. No, you are not expected to post a huge rebuttal. You are expected to make it clear that you understand why some of your editing patterns are a problem and why that problematic activity is going to stop.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  I am not allowed to respond to a criticism even if it is factually inaccurate? Even if the problem alleged does not actually exist, did not actually happen, and is not supported by the evidence provided? Or even if the criticism misunderstands a relevant policy or guideline, or misunderstands something I said? Or even if I stopped doing the thing I am accused of long ago? Or even if other editors in this dispute have engaged in incivility etc towards me? Even if the only editors who agree with the criticism are involved in this dispute with me? If that is the case, I clearly have no choice but to say whatever you want me to say. It goes without saying that I will accept the community's decision in this matter and do whatever the community asks me to do. If I am not allowed to say anything in my defence, I think I should wait to hear what some uninvolved editors think before saying anything. If they tell me I am in the wrong, I will apologise 100% and modify my editing 100% in accordance with their wishes. If they would like me to explain myself, I will be happy to do so. They can even set me a word limit, and I will stick to it, if they feel that necessary. James500 (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  No one said anything about what's "allowed". I'm trying to advise you how not to get blocked or banned. You can take that in the spirit in which its offered or ignore it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  James, as an outside, uninvolved editor, I have to say: your response above is exactly the kind of problem people are talking about. You took a comment that said you should not go tit-for-tat with someone, and turned it into I am not allowed to respond to a criticism even if it is factually inaccurate?. This is the problem I am seeing. You twist others statements into pretzels, then complain about how salty said pretzels are. There's a repeated pattern of taking specific words from another person's statement, and using those out of context to claim the editor meant something other than what they clearly said. It's that confrontational "gotcha!" style of arguing that's exhausting other editors' patience with you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  I understand what you are saying. I am sorry for my response to SMcCandlish above. It was a mistake. But most of the time I cannot actually understand what SMcCandlish is saying. I, for example, have absolutely no idea what the expression "nanny nanny boo boo" means. If he had used the expression "tit-for-tat", as you did, I would have understood immediately. He and I have a communication problem. I cannot understand most of what he says. If he is going to continue to talk to me, I am going to need someone to translate what he says, because I cannot understand him, most of the time. James500 (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  But you're doing exactly the same thing again. Rather than just absorb the point, you've latched onto some tiny phrase in what I said, "in a nanny-nanny-boo-boo manner", which can be completely removed from my post without substantively changing anything about its meaning, then you claim you "cannot actually understand". There is no communication problem. There's a WP:GAMING and WP:CIR problem, and you are not fooling anyone.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• I would support a notability/AfD ban. According to AfD stats, he's voted delete exactly once, at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Female_Struggle (another delete vote shows, but it was actually a keep vote incorrectly identified by the software.) Obviously there's been some gaming of the statistics as noted above, and there may be valid reasons to consistently vote keep/have an inclusionist point of view, but his votes stand out for two reasons. First, the use of statistics from book searches to keep articles, and to be fair, he has been in the right on several of these I've checked. But for other articles, especially articles unrelated to books, he is completely unwilling to vote delete, often citing non-existent or irrelevant notability guidelines without explanation in an attempt to keep the article, and argues against any notability guideline that could be deletionist in the slightest. I'm not sure a site ban is warranted, though. SportingFlyer talk 06:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

As an aside, I've linked to several user pages and discussions with specific people above. I intentionally didn't link to usernames to avoid any sense of canvassing, but now I wonder if that conflicts with ANI norms of talking about people's discussions without notifying them. I will presume not do so myself unless told otherwise. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't conflict with ANI norms. I have seen people pilloried for canvassing when they name-link a large number of allegedly aggrieved parties. The ANI rule is to notify people about whom one is making a report, i.e., the person[s] potentially subject to sanctions. If someone else ends up also potentially subject to them, they'd be notified if they're not already involved in the thread. We also typically name-link people if we've made a specific claim about their involvement, statements, understandings, etc., in case we might be mistaken.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Tell that to this guy Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I never read your replies but your comment leads me to believe you still think it was okay for you to call out someone edit's on AN without notifying them. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Meanwhile of course, I'm assuming you're still claiming you needed to be notified for something which actually had nothing to do with you which even SMcCandlish's (IMO mistaken) comment doesn't agree with. I would note that in any case, SMcCandlish does recognise something you failed to last time around. Wikilinking someone's name or pinging them raises the same canvassing concerns that notifying them does. Therefore if you are concerned over canvassing it's a moot point whether you wikilink or notify. The question should be solely about whether it was acceptable to do so, so your objection to someone being notified when this came up remains pointless. Nil Einne (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I should clarify that I'm not complaining about you mentioning my comments here without notifying me. That's the sort of thing which was completely okay as there's almost no chance anyone is going to raise concerns with my behaviour, except by opening a new thread. My only concern is that you still feel it was okay for you to talk about the actions of the editor who originally closed the AN/I thread, even though you simultaneously felt they didn't have to be notified, while also feeling you had to be notified even though your actions had nothing to do with the discussion, and it was fairly unlikely people were going to discuss your behaviour. Nil Einne (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I didn't think the issue there was my discussing the editor in question without wanting them notified but the other editor's choosing to shoehorn a reference to them in to an otherwise unrelated filing. And, as with the discussion at WT:CIVIL to which that editor had canvassed others, context matters: if the editor in question hadn't just received a stern final warning for canvassing, I wouldn't have even made note of the shoehorning. Conversely, SMcCandlish opened an ANI thread about a discussion I had posted in more than he had; his not pinging Rhodo was actually more unusual than his pinging me, so he could hardly be accused of canvassing, even if an ANI thread had just closed with him being warned about canvassing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I don't think it's acceptable simply to namelink people if you are bringing their involvement up for discussion anymore. You need to notify them when you are naming them. If you are not naming them because their actions don't matter, or you believe they don't matter then you should not name them or notify them. If their involvement was incidental and it's unlikely anyone is going to bring up their involvement for discussion, it may be okay to simply wikilink them but this is IMO risky probably why it's rare. When that happens, it's not uncommon that someone's actions come up for discussion and they are never notified despite not yet being a participant because the assumption is made they were already notified. It's IMO rare for someone to notify people except at the beginning of a thread so if people aren't notified at the beginning, they often aren't going to be notified point blank. (Of course in practice, whether notified or wikilinked someone may simply read a discussion, say something or not, and decide they have nothing to add and then not read it anymore only for their actions to later come up for discussion. We can't handle all possibilities we simply do our best to be fair to editors.) Since canvassing concerns arise either way, not notifying someone when you are wikilinking them is of limited benefit. The only exception I'm aware of is when you're simply pinging someone because they've dealt with the editor or page of concern before so may be interested in the discussion (rather than being the focus of it), although even then it's not that there's a harm in notifying them, simply that it isn't needed. Nil Einne (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: That seems like a reasonable interpretation to me. I tend to ping someone in a thread like this if I'm putting forth my interpretation of what they've said, I'm directly quoting them (perhaps out of context?), or have characterized their actions (and it's important in the context), since they have a right to say whether I'm being accurate or off-base about them. But if someone I'm reporting got in an argument with 10 editors, and certainly not going to ping them all to come and restart their flamewar. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Comment in defense of above site-ban reference I'm not actually proposing an SBAN or even an indef, and at this stage would be satisfied with a TBAN. My reasoning for saying that I am surprised he hasn't been site-banned is that having a battleground mentality this virulent is normally a quick ticket to a community indef (functionally the same as a site ban), and while I too have not examined James's mainspace edits, I do note that since returning this year his article edits are roughly equal in number to his WP:-space edits, and many (most?) of the former are actually deletion-related (this applies to all of the ones on European literature, lists of star systems, and years/centuries in philosophy), and so would be covered by Rhodo's proposed TBAN anyway. The harassment of editors he sees as "deletionists" in non-deletion-related areas, such as requesting that an editor who was blocked partly for harassing me be unblocked, is also, IMO, the worst thing about his behaviour, and experience[220][221] has taught me that TBANning editors who do this won't actually stop it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• support TBAN from notabilty and deletion discussions. That was a lot to read, and yes, this person is disruptive on these topics and refuses to accept the community consensus (such as it is) or even to see the need for it. Hopefully they will contribute in other areas. Jytdog (talk) 09:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @User:Jytdog: If I was to accept what you consider community consensus on notability and deletion, would you change your !vote? If I was, amongst other things, too agree to refrain from !voting to keep articles that should not be kept according to what you consider community consensus, would you change your !vote? James500 (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

    I have to observe that this is a spectacular example of a WP:NOTGETTINGIT and WP:CIR problem. This is not about negotiating with particular individuals to WP:WIN them to your side by slightly tweaking your tactics. The point is complete cessation of tendentious and uncivil verbal combat against site-wide consensus about what notability is, why we have it as an inclusion criterion, and how it is applied by the community.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

    I have struck my comment. I am sorry that I made it. I think that I now understand what you want me to refrain from doing. I agree to refrain from doing what you have just told me to refrain from doing. I will never open my mouth on the subject of notability again. James500 (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• support Tban from notability and deletion discussions per Jytdog. Nil Einne (talk) 05:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

So, is anyone gonna look at this?

So far this thread has received commentary from the editor who filed it, the editor who is the subject of discussion, another editor (me) who was pinged, another editor involved in the dispute that led to this thread and with a long history with the subject of the thread, and a battleground editor who defended the subject of the thread with a bizarre non sequitur because said subject agrees with him on one hot button issue. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• I've been reading this thread and there's quite a bit I could say. But anything I did say would only be throwing petrol on the fire without doing anything to help the situation. I do agree though that the stuff about "forbidding book reviews" is just obfuscation. Reyk _YO! 08:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
• Posted a comment in the previous section. Waiting to see how James responds before making any further statements. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
• Frankly, I agree entirely with this thread, but I'm so tired of this crap that I don't feel like contributing to it, and I'm sure I'm not alone on that front. That's all I'm gonna say. ansh666 19:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: James500 exclusively votes to keep articles, but his participation at AfD has been generally productive. The AfD tracker shows that "without considering No Consensus results, 81.9% of AfD's were matches and 18.1% of AfD's were not". This is pretty good. If there are problems with participation in notability discussions, then there are probably better ways of dealing with the situation, such as ignoring their comments. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• @K.e.coffman: I can only presume you didn't read all of the above (though can't say I blame you). One of the very issues above is that James found a way to game those stats, refusing to bold his !votes except in certain circumstances and thus controlling which are tracked by the tool. If you actually look through his contribs to AfD rather than use the stats tool to do so, you will see that his record over the years is poor. Regardless, none of this is about accuracy at AfD, it's about a years-long pattern of disruption, battleground mentality, etc. around the topics of deletion and notability. I can pull a lot more diffs demonstrating this, but if all of the above didn't convince you, I don't know what will. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and I do recall the "Salami" essay MfD. But it seems that the non-bolding of !votes has stopped, and I'm going by personal experience with seeing James500 at AfD. Most recently, I saw his edits at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University Over the Abyss where I was going to vote keep, because it was a notable book. I'm sorry that your experience has been negative; I generally try not to get into repetitive discussions, hence my advice to ignore posts like that. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

That you have had positive experiences doesn't invalidate the heap of diffs to the contrary, unless you're saying all of the above is perfectly acceptable? Or you just don't believe it's evidence of a pattern. There are so many diffs, that I wonder what sort of evidence you would consider sufficient, if anything? Again, this is more about discussions about deletion and discussion of notability than accuracy at AfD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: TBF, leaving out the "no consensus" results kinds misses the point, since it leaves out the cases where there would have been "consensus" of one or two editors ("soft delete") had it not been for him showing up and undermining that, and there is also the fact that he actively tried to trick the AFD stats tool by not bolding his !votes. This, for example, doesn't show up as an AFD in which he cast a !vote, despite the fact that any human being who can read can see he clearly did -- and in fact the AFD only took place because he disruptively requested a bunch of articles he hadn't read be undeleted "just 'cause". All of this was outlined, somewhat briefly/simplistically, in my own comment above, and Rhodo at least also alluded to the refusal to bold !votes in order to trick the AFD stats tool -- did you read them? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: This is all off-topic. This ANI report has nothing whatsoever to do with AfD stats, but with long-term and topically focused incivility, and a habitual campaigning against WP consensus being WP consensus (i.e., to have notability guidelines and to apply them, to delete non-notable articles). That is the entire subject. Even if he had a 100% AfD record, these issues would remain.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC) Revision: The ANI I opened had nothing to do with ANI stats, but enough editors have raised the issue that I concede its inclusion. However, I think most of the discussion about it has been a "sidetrack" of the central concerns, which are civility and soapboxing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• After reviewing this thread a few times over the past few days, I feel I can say definitively that I don't plan to comment on it in detail. The early grave of a no-consensus closure-by-default is sufficient, in my view. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know what that means. Are you saying that in your view there is no action justified, or is this a non-comment to justify spending time digging through ANI yuckiness? I would ask you the same as coffman, then: what, exactly, would be convincing if not the evidence above? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• It means I've seen him at AFD and haven't seen anything beyond "annoying" in his behavior, certainly nothing that would justify sanctions here. None of the specific diffs presented here are enough to convince me otherwise. The warning that the ANI regulars are aware of him and if he becomes more tendentious, he is more likely to be sanctioned in the future, is probably sufficient here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Several times it's been bad enough to come to ANI. On one or two occasions it did. On the others, James did, as above, saying "I'll stop" when confronted with the possibility of ANI. There have been breaks, but no stopping. Eh. Perhaps the single most consistent and problematic long-term wikilawyer I've come across in my time on Wikipedia. Anyway, if I see a request for more evidence/diffs, I will drop more links. I'm less than convinced people will actually click them, though, so I'm going to allocate time elsewhere for the time being. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: I hadn't seen him at AFD but in a discussion about notability in general (which he apparently considers to be part of a deletionist plot to destroy the encyclopedia), and called him out on his combative language. He responded by, several months later, requesting that an editor who was indeffed (partly) for harassing me be unblocked for apparently no other reason than that he didn't like me, and showing up on an ANI thread to defend another user whose harassment of me was under discussion (he had never edited the noticeboard before). You might call this behaviour "annoying" but I call it downright disturbing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I've taken a second look. Excessive wordiness, complaints about indenting style, and a too-aggressive use of the word "nonsense" may not be encouraged, but they certainly don't justify any of the sanctions. Disagreeing with the community consensus on notability (in discussions about changing the notability policies) is something that can't be the justification for sanctions. Beyond that, we have a general tendentious tone; I don't think a warning "James500 is encouraged to be less tendentious" will please anybody. The (now-10-month-old) discussion on WT:NBOOK is one I've been a part of (as have SMcCandlish, Rhododendrites, Hijiri88, and James500); an RFC is probably necessary there and James500 should be encouraged not to comment on the drafting of the RFC (before it is open to general comment). Am I missing anything else? power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: I pinged you above with specific diffs of James500 engaging in hounding of an editor he had decided was a "deletionist": did you not see them? There was nothing in my above reply to you about Excessive wordiness, complaints about indenting style, and a too-aggressive use of the word "nonsense" may not be encouraged; you are indeed missing something else, but given that you responded to a comment that was 100% about harassment and completely ignored that, it looks like you are doing so deliberately. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

After the incident where Hijiri88 felt that James500's vote at Philafrenzy's RFA was hounding, I don't feel this is a topic that needs to be investigated. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Umm ... it was hounding, as clearly demonstrated by the evidence above that shows irrefutably that he was hounding me (how on earth did he know who Huggums537 was, and why did he show up there right before showing up at ANI thread I had opened?): the problem was that RFA is a fiery enough place already, without using the RFA talk page to address who is hounding who. But bringing that up here just comes across as mudslinging for the sake of it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I will not engage in excessive wordiness. I will improve my indenting style. I will not use the word "nonsense" to describe other editors' talk page comments. I will not comment on the drafting of the RfC at WT:NBOOK. I will refrain from tenditious tone in the future. Is there anything else you would like me not to do? James500 (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

That honestly sounds entirely reasonable and notably more "getting-it" than previous responses, though you may be at once over-promising (that's a lot of detail to remember) and under-promising (in that some of it's gameable). Consider that the central issues here are incivility, and a "lobbyist"-style, anti-consensus approach to notability. It wouldn't be taken as reasonable to, say, start using "stupid", "twaddle", etc., in place of "nonsense", nor to just stop opposing notability guidelines on their talk pages but instead go to AfD and argue robotically to keep every article regardless of the applicability of notability guidelines. It's not about navigating a checklist of don't-do-this-little-thing and do-that-little-thing, it's about working within Wikipedia as a system and a community. That said, I'm inclined (finally?) to take this show contrition and awareness at face value.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I confirm I will not use the word "stupid" or "twaddle" or any similar word to describe other editors' talk page comments, and I confirm I will refrain from incivility and follow Wikipedia:Consensus. James500 (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the above explicit ignoring of my request below is quite telling: someone saying they will "refrain from incivility" in response to another editor telling them to avoid using a specific uncivil word, which they can later say is "up for debate" whether its use qualified as uncivil, would be bad enough by itself, but James500 still hasn't even acknowledged that targeted harassment took place. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri can you be more specific about what term we are talking about here? If it's "deletionist", I am afraid I am with James on that one small point. I think I've seen you advance this theory before that it is a pejorative, but if I am to be perfectly blunt, I think that's a bit histrionic and I don't think you are going to find it is a common view--in any event, I am quite certain that it's not going to be a big factor in anyone's analysis of whether James has been incivil in general with regard to the conduct discussed here, which presents far bigger questions. I say this as someone whose AfD stats, last I checked some years ago, skew strongly towards the "delete" side of things, and who will probably thus be accused of being a "deletionist" at some point. But the word in itself is just a term that some editors have adopted as descriptor for a supposed editorial philosophy. Let me be clear that I happen to think it's a small-minded, jingoistic term personally; it does seem to suggest, especially in the context in which it usually used, that the "deletionist" works from a knee-jerk, dogmatic approach and just wants to see things gone out of some obsessive, non-nuanced, mechanical approach to deletion discussions. Whereas the "deletionist" might say, in any given context in which that term is invoked, that they are simply following policy and that content guidelines make it clear not everything is appropriate for this project. So when someone uses that term to describe the approach of another editor, it degrades the strength of their argument, because they have chosen to adopt an argument that looks at least a little like a scarecrow argument and which attempts to build itself by addressing the "opposition's" characteristics rather than the issues themselves--both of which are weak forms of argumentation when it comes to policy/editorial decisions.

But WP:INCIVIL or a WP:PA? No, I'm sorry, I feel that's excessive. A dumb term? Yes. A clumsy bit of work in categorizing people instead of on-topic discourse of the virtues of approach A as opposed to approach B? Typically, yeah. But nothing actionable. People have to be able to have some flexibility to make their arguments on this project, and sometimes that does involve analysis of the bias of other editors. I think people reach to such arguments and statements more readily than I'd like on this project as a general matter, but I certainly can't get behind labeling that as incivil in itself, because sometimes its going to be vital. So I would call "deletionist" just generally lame, rather than offensive. But beyond my personal views, there's this to consider: we just had an RfC on WP:CIVILITY in which a substantial number of users felt the phrase "fuck off" was not per se offensive, even if said in the context of a dispute. What chances do you think you really have of convincing a majority of editors at ANI to take action against "deletionist" in that context? Of course, I could be mistaken; it could be you were referring to something entirely different, in which case, sorry for bending your ear with my deletionist dissertation!

More broadly, while I wouldn't defend James' conduct throughout (I'll speak to that in a separate post) I will say that at this point he is being more cooperative than one typically is at this point in a conduct discussion. He's already pledged not to do/say a number of specific things here that others have expressed concerns about. Usually a truly tendentious editor will not make such promises, because they believe (and correctly so in most circumstances) that if they do not abide by those promises, someone will quickly bring them back here seeking a sanction--because at that point, they will have tacitly conceded that the behaviour was not appropriate. Again, without pretending James' conduct has been perfect, James has agreed not to utter some words that I think a lot of other editors would not willingly part with. So is it truly that important to you that he concedes an apology to you specifically? Is that really where you feel the focus of this discussion needs to be? Because I must be honest with you, whether it is a fair assessment in this instance or not, it makes it look like any commentary on the conduct issues you may be offering here have a strong personal element. And therefore it doesn't seem so much targeted to meet community/project needs so much as you're own. If you have reason to believe James is being disingenuous, that's one thing. But if on the other hand you believe his promises are good-faith, is it really worth the risk of derailing that progress in order to try to get him admit being the one at fault in the personal dispute between you? Snow ^{let's rap} 05:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Without getting into many of the specifics here, @Snow Rise: the issue is not the term "deletionist." Plenty of editors use that term on a regular basis. The issue is the manner/context. Regardless of what a deletionist is, whether such a thing exists, or the extent to which it is a good or bad thing, James uses the term "deletionist" as an evil bogeyman -- a rhetorical tool to make wild assumptions of bad faith fitting into an overall battleground approach to notability-related discussions. It is an easily available straw man rationale to support any mischaracterization of notability/deletion-related matters that otherwise have broad consensus behind them. I've been called deletionist (as well as inclusionist) a number of times. The words don't matter (similar to the recent civility RfC, it's about how they're used/context, and long-term patterns). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, yes I do see some hints of the term being used in a jingoistic, dismissive fashion in some of the diffs provided thus far, but I am afraid I (and I suspect many other community members) would have to see more of those specifics before supporting such a strong sanction as a topic ban from all notability-related topics (that's a pretty solid chunk of all possible editorial activity on this project, even if we limit it to policy pages and don't include article content/AfD contexts); see my larger post below for a fuller description of my feelings on that. I certainly find this kind of usage (even insofar as has been presented here already) to be myopic, dogmatic, and indicative of subpar logic. But if we begin to topic ban editors from policy areas where they regularly hit that trifecta, we're going to have our work cut out for us here at ANI for, oh let's say the next thirty years. I'd need to see either something that more cleanly crosses the threshold into open hostility/incivility, or attempts on his part to filibuster/game the system/troll/what-have-you, before I could contemplate a topic ban here. Just expressing skepticism about the existence of a policy, on that policy's talk page, is not in and of itself unacceptable in my view. We need to be able to occasionally challenge even fundamental assumptions about how this project works from time to time. While I think James' approach would be nonsensical, I'd not be comfortable declaring his perspective anathema. That really would be pure dogma. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Sorry, I saw your above comment, but didn't get it read to the end, and through some accident of combining diffs I thought it was written by SMcCandlish, and replied to him in an email (pinging him so he knows that email was in error). Hijiri can you be more specific about what term we are talking about here? If it's "deletionist", I am afraid I am with James on that one small point. Per the final consensus statement of a recent RFC that apparently involved comments from "hundreds" of editors, context matters when discussing civility. "Deletionist", in the context in which James used it in quotes like gigantic pile of wholly unmeritorious incredibly extreme mega-deletionist garbage,[222] [w]e ... need a way of dealing with deletionist trolls at AfD,[223] [s]uch deletionist trolls need to be silenced,[224] Massive oppose to all deletionist SNG,[225] all or most of the constructive useful editors have left because they have been bullied out by those deletionists who do nothing but smash up good content and make a nuisance out of themselves,[226] ignore any deletionist garbage SNGs,[227] some deletionists seem to think [X],[228] [i]n the minds of some deletionists[229] and some deletionists seem to want Wikipedia to be a children's encyclopedia based on poor sources[230] definitely was not civil (note that I linked to a mass diff of all of these quotes several days ago).

There's also meta:Deletionism, which says Few editors would explicitly describe themselves as "deletionists", rather the term is often applied as a slur, as self-deprecating humor, or simply used to expose contrast with people describing themselves as inclusionists. This view -- the official view, for at least the last seven years, of the page to which WP:DELETIONIST is soft-redirected -- is in-line with my user-essays User:Hijiri88/Don't call other editors "deletionists" and User:Hijiri88/Don't call yourself or others "inclusionists" (presumably what you mean by I think I've seen you advance this theory before that it is a pejorative -- the latter is actually a bit tongue-in-cheek, as I've called myself an inclusionist several times, with reference to my support for including more articles on marginalized/underrepresented topics in the encyclopedia). Despite those titles, I'm not trying to impose a hard-and-fast rule on the community, but rather saying that the word "deletionist" is, by definition, almost never used except as a pejorative or in a humorous/ironic sense, and so should be treated the same as other pejoratives when it is clearly used in this sense -- and you can't tell me that deletionist trolls need to be silenced is not using it in this sense!

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Well I note that you have somewhat selectively quoted James there: "deletionist trolls need to be silenced" sure does sound bad, but what he actually said is "Such deletionist trolls need to be silenced with objective precisely worded criteria..."; so, a substantially different tone when the entire clause is presented. That said, I will concede that it is hard to view "deletionist troll" as a term that represents a respectful, collaborative mindset, regardless of what sentence it appears in. But in my opinion, the operative word in that phrase which defies WP:AGF is not "deletionist", but rather "trolls". "Deletionist" standing alone just cannot be considered a pejorative insofar as it describes an editorial philosophy; that philosophy, insofar as I can tell, is largely a scarecrow label, which is why I think it erodes, rather than augments, any argument it is added to. But at the same time, it's not intrinsically hostile, and I think we need to be careful with what we label a "pejorative" vs. "a term that tends to suggest a myopic view and a proclivity towards factionalism". It's difficult enough to enforce basic civility standards on this project without opening up that can of worms.

All of that said, the diffs you present do help to develop the argument of a problematic pattern here; I just don't think that recognizing that pattern particularly centers on the word "deletionist" so much as the general refusal to AGF. The thing is, James seems immensely more willing to make concessions about these behaviours than your average person being scrutinized at ANI. Myself, I have never interacted with him or even seen his conduct out on the project beyond what has been presented here, that I can recall, so I have no sense of how sincere he is likely to be about moderating his approach. But it does seem to me that given those concessions, there's almost no chance of a TBAN resulting from this complaint--indeed, a sanction was unlikely to have resulted here regardless of any promises. However, since James has tacitly admitted his rhetoric could be altered to be more gracious to his philosophical opponents, I for one would take a dim view of things if he did not follow through on those promises, and I'm betting I am not the only one. So if this has to come back here again over essentially the same behaviours he has promised not to indulge in, a sanction will suddenly be looking much more likely. So I certainly hope he didn't make those promises hoping they would mollify scrutiny without a need to follow through--he's likely to be surprised by the outcome if so. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a Catch-22, though. People have already complained that the evidence presented was too long and detailed, and someone even made a (bogus) WP:WITCHHUNT accusation. You're asking for an actual witchhunt, to diff-dig into James500 past edits to dredge up additional examples of the exact same things of which we already have sufficient evidence – both as to them being repeated instances of the same sanctionable behavior and as to them forming a very topical pattern of tendentious battlegrounding.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Except you do not seem to have a consensus which holds that the conduct presented so far actually is sanctionable, at least not with regard to the sanction you are seeking. I'm by no means urging you to go digging through anyone's edit history. I'm just telling you that James' conduct that you have presented thus far does not constitute the kind of disruption or incivlity I would need to see before endorsing the proposed TBAN. You may do with that information as you will, but certainly should not take it as encouragement to do anything you feel would be inappropriate, unfair, or generally discouraged by the community in discussions of this sort, or which you have been advised against in particular here. As to others telling you that your previous posts were excessive, I was not among them, so I can only speculate as to what they meant, but from my observation your post was very long, but also very repetitive, describing the same kinds of behaviours over and over. That may have been intentional to demonstrate the persistence/proclivity involved, but the problem is that I for one found those particular behavours (while by no means admirable) to fall short of outright disruption. Besides, James has promised to abet the behaviours which you spend the lion's share of your initial post describing, and you don't seem to be forwarding the contention that he is being disingenuous in his pledge, if I am reading you correctly? Snow ^{let's rap} 08:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, the apparent lack of consensus is mostly due to friends of James and people who don't like SMcCandlish, Rhodo or me showing up to defend him, while largely ignoring the actual substance of the problem. Take, for example, Power's bogus assertion that James wasn't hounding me: has he presented any reasonable explanation for the evidence provided other than that James was hounding me? He was either hounding me or one of the other "deletionists" involved in those discussions (e.g.: the admin who filed the ANI report that got Huggums banned, whom I will not name as doing so would put me in a catch 22 of either pinging him or being accused of discussing someone on ANI without notifying them) -- the weird thing is that SMcC was, coincidentally, against banning Huggums, the same position James suddenly decided to espouse several weeks too late, "coincidentally" at the same time as I opened an ANI thread on the serial plagiarist / unreserved "inclusionist" Dream Focus and two other editors opened two AN threads on two other "inclusionists", in both of which I was involved. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to say it smacked of circular reasoning. When we already have 17+ years of noticeboard decisions deeming consistent patterns of (especially topically obsessive) uncivil discourse and battleground/soapbox campaigning to be sanctionable, the fact that someone has two wikifriends who defend them no matter what is alleged (and in one case blatantly lie about the ANI filer), and the fact that some respondents to the discussion don't seem to closely follow either the evidence or the rationales, doesn't magically make the activities suddenly not sanctionable. They are sanctionable, unquestionably. It's just a matter of whether we should let it skate this time on the basis of promises by the subject of the ANI. I'm actually included do that in this case, since it's James500's first visit to ANI (that I know of) as the scrutiny subject.(When I was noobish I ended up here, too, for being sharp tongued. I learned to moderate and have contributed something like 140K non-automated edits to date. So I'm willing to extend the same benefit of the doubt. I don't like to call it rope, which is presumptive of eventual failure. I even tried to get that essay changed to stop making such presumptions but the snarky owners of the page will have none of it. They really like the tiny little niche they've made where CIVIL doesn't apply, even if you're applying it to people being sanctioned under CIVIL. It's really hypocritical.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I think you're looking at it the wrong way: that applies to cases where the result will be eventual failure. In cases where it won't, it simply doesn't apply, so can be ignored. I've already stated why I think it applies here (James has made similar promises to me before, and broken about half of them almost immediately), but that's kinda beside the point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Looking at it the wrong way is certainly possible. I hang upside-down when I take my vampire bat form.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

More than a bit off topic ...

Guys, this is a bit off-topic, but can we please avoid the use of small text here? I don't believe it's really appropriate for ANI; WP:ACCESSIBILITY and other policies make it clear that anything that makes text generally more of a challenge to read should be generally avoided--some of our editors have to work from devices with small displays and others have varying degrees of vision impairment. We sometimes allow this for superfluous "joke" content (I think it should probably be avoided even there), but for anything that touches upon (or even just supplements) discussion on editorial, policy, or conduct matters should be presented with a normal font and font size. Anyway, I've always been of the opinion that if you feel the need to say something small, it maybe doesn't need to be said at all! (Hey, that has great meter!) Though for the record, I thought your comments actually were perfectly relevant and consequential--which is the other reason I removed the small tags. All that said, I hope you don't mind. :) Snow let's rap 08:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC) Meh. If we think our <small> or {{small}} output is a bit too small, this should be discussed at WT:MOSACCESS, a target size to change it to agreed upon, and MediaWiki:Common.css changed to implement that. Many of us use one-step-smaller (not excessively small) text to mark up material that's pertinent to the conversation but maybe not to the central matter and likely not of interest to everyone (e.g., only to a few people in a sub-thread).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC) Respectfully, that's a short-sighted (pun not intended) view of this issue; you have no way of knowing who would want to see or respond to that content, and this essentially boils down to an equality of access issue (and not for nothing, but the WMF has actually adopted an official resolution that says that the policies of local projects are not allowed to override such concerns). I don't think that users with vision impairment or who can only edit from a mobile device are likely to view this as a "meh" issue. And yes, the ultimate place to discuss the policy language itself is WT:ACCESSIBILITY (indeed, there have been discussions there and other policy talk pages that have sharpened the language already, though clearly it needs to be more explicit), but it's been happening here a great deal lately, and this space is entirely about process and oversight, where equality of access is paramount to our objectives, so I just don't think it's appropriate. If there's something one is inclined to say that they are certain will be only of interest to a small handful of editors, probably it can be said elsewhere, but if they are going to say it here, it should be easily readable to all participants. You're a reasonable person, can't we agree that given the context and the concerns here, it makes sense to apply the precautionary principle when it comes to access to discussion about process? After-all, there are other and more elegant ways of emphasizing and de-emphasizing portions of a post if we think they are on the line of being important enough to mention here, but also likely to be secondary to the main thrust of one's comments. (I find that introductory clauses like "On a side note," or "Incidentally, I've found that..." work pretty well for this purpose.) Snow let's rap 00:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC) This is still the wrong venue. Try WT:MOSACCESS. ANI isn't going institute a ban on <small>.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@James500: Please also apologize for your hounding of me and promise not to hound any more editors in the future, and don't ever call any other editors, even unspecified groups of hypothetical editors, "deletionists" again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

James500 avoiding such stuff in the future would be implicit in his agreement to cease uncivil activity and battlegrounding.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt only, I have never hounded Hijiri88. The allegation made in this thread that I did is not true. If the community wishes me to provide a detailed explanation of why I made any edits to which that allegation relates, I will do so. James500 (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

As for specific words, this ANI has nothing to do with whether the word "deletionist" is per se uncivil (it isn't). I've already indicated to James500, above, that his long string of highly detailed "I won't do that any more" promises may be a bit off the mark. He doesn't need to "part with" a particular word (even "nonsense" - we do, after all, have WP:NONSENSE for when something is truly nonsensical). It's about the use to which he's been such putting words; it's all about intent. To the extent terms like "deletionist" have valid use (and they do), they should be reserved and used sparingly as adjectives to describe an unquestionable view or pattern when it is relevant to do so, not as labels to stick onto individuals as a fallacious ad hominem denigration tactic. WP:HOTHEADS provides some good generalized advice about this sort of thing.

"Deletionist" absolutely is pejorative when used to pigeonhole individuals, to set them up as enemies to combat, and to dismiss everything they say as worthless without actually addressing any of it. James500 should respond to the substance of arguments people make, and respond to arguments he disagrees with as arguments, not as stupid or malicious people (or exaggerated hobgoblins) to whack with his stick. Contrast James500 abuse of "deletionist" in the way someone else might use misuse "fascist" as an argument to ridicule against anyone politically right-of-center, versus ANI respondents' use of "inclusionist" in references to James500's stated views and his non-constructive "keep everything" pattern at AFD. See the difference? It's the same distinction as "We shouldn't hire Amy because she's Baptist" versus "Amy's Baptist and has a dim doctrinal view of Catholic crucifixes." Radically different use and intent.

This is also relates to the third concern of this ANI, after incivility and soapbox/battleground behavior: using rivers of off-topic "hand-waving" to mire discussions in noise. It's another disruptive form of failure to address substance. James500 actually seems to have started absorbing these kind of distinctions, though it took us a lot of ANI mileage to get there. In closing: if you think someone's argument really is nonsense in light of what a policy or a guideline or sources actually say, then prove it, don't just label its author. Clearly provide what you're certain is the correct analysis.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with quite a bit of what you said there, in particular this: "To the extent terms like "deletionist" have valid use (and they do), they should be reserved and used sparingly as adjectives to describe an unquestionable view or pattern when it is relevant to do so, not as labels to stick onto individuals...", with especially strong agreement as to the italicized clause. However, the question is, when an editor employs these particular tactics, in these particular words, have they demonstrated incivility, hostility, or disruption such that they should be sanctioned by the community? Or have they simply embraced a form of irrational argument that weakens their standing among reasonable editors, but which otherwise falls within the scope of permissible commentary? In my opinion, it is more the latter than the former, at least as regards the specific instances that have been reported here thus far. And honestly, the comparison between "deletionist" and "fascist" is a pretty obvious false analogy that illustrates the fault line between the argument you are advancing and my own perspective on this; those two terms are not remotely identical in form or function and indeed, it is a rare context indeed where calling someone a fascist would not be seen as provocative and inflammatory. Almost any use of the word "fascist" in a dispute is going to be less acceptable than any use of the word "deletionist". Besides, isn't this point also moot--isn't that another habit which James has pledged to stop indulging in? Snow ^{let's rap} 08:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Some time ago (possibly several months) I decided to reduce my use of the word "deletionist" to a minimum. I will not use the word "deletionist" to describe editors. I do not believe in the existence of "deletionists". IIRC, I have nominated hundreds of articles for speedy deletion (an admin may have to confirm this as I may not have logged or patrolled all of them). Does that make me a "deletionist"? I do not think the word is meaningful. I immediately stopped using the word "nonsense" when Hijiri88 asked me not to use it at WT:NBOOK. I have been trying to accommodate the editors who are criticising me, and minimise conflict with them, for some time. I do not know if they are aware this. James500 (talk) 09:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I've indicated awareness of it twice, though I'm not sure what you've said mollifies others, due to concerns that the same stuff (or effectively the same, e.g. using different denigrating words, or a different tactic for undermining WP applying its well-accepted notability guidelines) will start up all over again after some period of laying low. It's basically a matter of "try it and see" versus "let's not go there", at this point. I have no objection to the former because sometimes people's habits will change after an ANI like this. But I don't think this ANI should be closed without at least a warning as to the central civility, discussion-bludgeoning, and gaming/lobbying-against-notability concerns.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Judging by the WP:WALLOFTEXT, this has gone past Trout territory and straight into Whale.--Auric talk 14:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban I am under the impression that I am supposed to !vote on this. I do not want to edit notability or deletion discussions unless the community does not oppose my doing so. However, I would find the existence of a topic ban so humiliating and distressing that I would be prepared to do anything the community wishes (other than something even more humiliating or distressing) in order to avoid such a ban. A topic ban is therefore not necessary. James500 (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Much of the commentary in this ANI case relates to other editors' perceptions, assumptions or speculation about why I made certain edits, what I was thinking at the time, what I meant by them, my motives, how I expected them to be understood by others and so on. This commentary is far from entirely accurate. If the community wishes, I will disclose what I was really thinking when I made those edits. James500 (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

A topic ban is therefore not necessary. - I appreciate the sentiment that a formal sanction can be humiliating/distressing, and, at least speaking for myself, I would be happy if there were an outcome that addressed people's concerns expressed in this thread without effecting those kinds of feelings. If this could be taken as a self-imposed/voluntary topic ban on notability/deletion to be documented in the close, I, for one, would not see the need for something formally imposed/logged at this time. On reflection, given the other assurances made in this thread, I would be satisfied if it were specifically notability-related and deletion-related policy/guideline/essay pages in particular (in other words, it would not extend to e.g. individual deletion discussions themselves). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

This would work for me as well. A number of James500's AfDs are fine, as he is adept at finding sources, especially on topics relating to books. I would mention for him to be careful on AfD's on other topics, where I would welcome his vote as long as they are specific and explain why the topic would pass notability guidelines, using available sources to do so - so no quoting WP:PRESERVE as policy. SportingFlyer talk 00:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I assume what you mean to say is "no quoting WP:PRESERVE as a policy relevant to an article notability determination"?; WP:PRESERVE itself is policy, and a somewhat important and broadly supported editorial priority. It's just that it clearly, by its own terms, only applies to content within an article, not a given subject's notability. If James has been quoting it in AfD as a presumption for not removing article's, I could see why some would find that vexing. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, I have never cited WP:PRESERVE as an argument for keeping an article, or as an argument that a topic was notable. I only cited it, in conjuction with WP:ATD, as an argument for merger. It may be, however, that other editors have misunderstood the intended meaning of my !votes. James500 (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I've read through a number of your AfDs. !Votes like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Digital Imprimatur (an "oppose" vote) says the content cannot be deleted because a viable merge candidate exists per WP:PRESERVE. Or here, where Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Trench_(novel) (another oppose vote) where it claims the page is "ineligible for deletion" because it has a proper merge candidate, yet there is no "merge" vote or discussion of notability of the topic - just that it can't be "deleted." There are several others as well. While your argument is clearer now, this is still an extremely confusing case of wikilawyering. SportingFlyer talk 10:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Both of those AfDs are old and use a form of !vote that I have deprecated and would not use today. The rationale I gave in the AfD for "The Trench" would not happen today. I would have found the book reviews that were cited in that AfD. I no longer use the word "oppose" as a way of indicating that I am have no objection to a page being merged/redirected. James500 (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, geez, that's obviously not a valid rationale. I could easily write an article on my mom's dinner with the Beatles in the late '60s (a dinner party organized by the head of Norman Petty Studio, where Buddy Holly recorded, when the Fab Four were on a US tour and in the Southwest for some reason – maybe on their way between major cities, unless they actually did play in Albuquerque). This trash could not be kept on the basis that it would be technically possible to merge it into The Beatles or some other article about them. If it's trash, it gets taken out. What PRESERVE means is that if we have sourced, encyclopedic material (passes WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, etc.) about a topic that actually is notable at another page, but this material is in a page on a non-notable topic, then it should be merged not deleted, when this is feasible. It's not a keep rationale at AfD. And ideas like "this would be non-indiscriminate if the topic were notable" doesn't work. E.g., you can't merge the breed history of a non-notable alleged breed to List of dog breeds or Collie since the history of a "backyard breeder" experiment is indiscriminate trivia in the context of a broader topic like breed groups. Mention is often appropriate, though, especially for completeness (e.g. don't exclude a non-notable band from the list of who performed at a notable music festival, even if you obviously can't dump their bio in there). Context is king.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: You should have a look at some of Andrew's "keep" !votes sometime; he frequently cites PRESERVE as though it applied to one-sentence sub-stubs, content-forks and completely unsourced nonsense. Honestly, if it weren't for James's rhetoric, I would have next to no problem with his AFD activity (I would say I agree with somewhere between 70% and 90% of his !votes in principle); the same can definitely not be said for Andrew. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, if it the other editor's AfD/notability stuff is or becomes problematic, that's best saved for another ANI, if it comes to that. Hopefully just discussion, and observing ANIs like this one, and not seeing one's AfD !votes taken seriously, and so on, will shift the behavior.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Request for advice

I would like advice as to what I should do from an uninvolved admin. Should I respond to the allegations, or apologise for saying the word "nonsense" or for saying anything else that I actually said, or offer other concessions, or wait and see, or something else? Please tell me what to do. I am absolutely terrified and in enormous distress. James500 (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

You could apologize for all the disruption demonstrated above. Are you really claiming that saying the word "nonsense" is all the wrong you've done? Because if you are that recalcitrant in your unwillingness to abide by our policies I imagine the number of editors who think the solution is an indef block will rise substantially... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Advice from an uninvolved admin is pretty much what this process is for: the closer (more often than not an admin) either imposes a community-suggested sanction that keeps the editor out of this kind of trouble, or a warning that advises how to avoid ending up back here again for the same issue (or – should it apply – summarizes that the community take on the matter is that the reported editor did nothing wrong and the filer is being a bonehead or has a nefarious motive).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• There's independent advice at WP:ANI advice and this generally seems quite sound. As the issue here is that James500 is accused of being prolix, points 6, 7, 10, 11, 16 seem most appropriate. In summary:

6. Keep it brief.

7. Don't badger

10. Keep calm

11. Don't get upset

16. Speak moderately.

Andrew D. (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Davidson above gives good advice, but deliberately doesn't leave edsums explaining why an edit took place. This is considered incredibly rude by most editors, so don't you forget. -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 19:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Modified to reflect reality by Roxy, the Prod. wooF 12:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Not leaving an edit summary is "Incredibly rude"? I think not, but in any case, it's specifically not required. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I seem to recall an editor getting site-banned at one point where their lack of edit summaries was seen as disruptive, they were placed under an editing restriction requiring them to use edit summaries, which they initially abode by but then started to ignore. It's kinda off-topic here except that Roxy recently opened an ANI thread on Andrew requesting he be banned from de-prodding, and was overruled by a large number of editors claiming that we don't ban people from doing things that policy allows them to do. Anyway, sometimes editors go out of their way not to leave any form of edit summary (even an automatic one indicating which section of the page they edited), and while that's not forbidden, I do think it's a pretty clear sign of someone trying to hide something. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure would be nice if this could return the actual topic of this ANI. While the advice above from Andrew D. isn't wrong, by any means, it only addresses a fraction of the problem, the other big chunk being the activism against WP's notability guidelines themselves. This has to stop. Normally I'm inclined to take someone at their word when they say it will stop, but we have indications that this editor has made similar promises before, laid low for a short while, then gone right back to their anti-consensus campaigning. If this doesn't resolve now for a T-ban, we'll likely be right back here in a few weeks or months re-reviewing the same evidence plus more just like it and then issue a T-ban. Worse could happen, but it's rather inefficient, since the problems are unmistakable and long-term, and the end result predictable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I've read a lot of the above but can you point me (on my talk page if it makes more sense if it's going to be long) to where he's made similar promises before? My remembered experience with James has purely been on book AfDs. I only tend to weigh in on those when I think they're keeps and have seen alignment there. I can't recall him being off base in book AfDs that I thought should be deleted or in areas where I tend to more often be vocally on the delete side (e.g. articles about organizations/corporations). His gaming of the tracker is no good and so I would like to see a promise to stop doing that (which some have indicated above has already happened) but pending that evidence of promises not kept in the past I would suggest a close reflecting James' promises and we move on. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I have been bolding my AfD !votes for some time (probably several months now), and will continue doing so if I am allowed to continue to edit AfDs. James500 (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I briefly described the string of events that led to that development above: James claimed that use of the AFD stats tool was "wikihounding", I asked him at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GJ 3522 (and a few other places before that) to bold your !votes, you responded with Are you going to stop trolling and violating WP:HOUND, or shall I just put Template:Retired on my user page? Your behaviour has completely exhausted my patience. If you plan to continue trolling and wikihounding, please let me know now, because I will simply leave.[231], I responded on my talk page (as I know James would blank anything I left on his without indicating whether or not he had read it), and James pretended to rage-quit the encyclopedia. I'm guessing someone probably told him off-wiki that continuing to evade scrutiny despite being asked to stop would probably result in him being indeffed, so hedecided to finally give in once he came back a week later. This whole thing is why it's so ironic that the editors who are trying to defend him are doing so with the AFD stats tool he hates so much. (And how one of them is actually insisting that I'm the one making bogus accusations of hounding: James only stopped accusing me of hounding when I accidentally happened to notice that he had been hounding me.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Some thoughts: I'm a little torn on all of this. Some of the editors who are here accusing James of tendentiousness are community members whose opinions I respect, and in general, I am pretty much for a significantly higher standard of civility than has been generally enforced in recent years. And yet, I can't help feel a little underwhelemed by a lot of the evidence that has been presented against James here. I'm left to presume that there must be a lot more context that was not included here to explain these concerns, but I can only speak to the matters that were raised here.

To wit, I'll start with "nonsense": using this word, especially with regularity, certainly doesn't paint the picture of the most open-minded or collaborative contributor, I will grant that. Similar to the opinion I expressed above to Hijiri about "deletionist", it is the sort of thing which I tend to view as weakening one's view rather than augmenting it--at least when used too casually. But is it generally outside the scope of civil discourse? No, I would not say that it is, typically. I mean, context is queen, so of course I can think of any number of instances where it would be overly aggressive/hostile, no doubt. But few, if any, of the instances raised here would qualify as brightline violations of WP:CIV. And I think I'm often perceived as being nitpicky about adherence to WP:CIV, so if I am not convinced, it's probably unlikely that a sanction for this would be forthcoming. In any event, James has chosen to address concerns about this by agreeing not to lean on the term anymore, so that seems a closed issue, unless the proposition is that he will not follow through.

As to his POV on WP:NOTABILITY...it's dumb. It's short-sighted. It's completely infeasible. It would, in my opinion, should the community ever adopted it, invite such a deluge of special interest editing and--shall I say it?--nonsense that the reputation, quality, and utility of this project might never recover. It's a poor theory, is my point. But is it WP:disruptive for him to even forward this opinion? I don't see how it would be. Bad ideas get forwarded here every day, but we rely on the consensus process to filter them, and that's usually pretty reliable when they are such bad ideas and where the change is so fundamental that it would need a huge amount of support to generate inertia for the change, as would be the case here. This site is a laboratory of ideas if ever one existed, being the largest collaborative, bottom-up endeavour of its sort in human history. To an extent, it is healthy to have a certain number of people at the extremes; or at least, it's a an indication of health in our consensus process and culture of open-mindedness. Extreme positions when it comes to editorial matters are only a concern when they are exercised in bad faith or when the party expressing them cannot accept overwhelming consensus. Now I can conceive that maybe there has been such bad-faith/disruptive behaviour associated with regard to James that is driving the concerns here, but if that's the case, the evidence has not been well presented, despite some very long posts with many diffs. I certainly think numerous of the comments presented suggest James has lost the plot vis-a-vis notability and "deletionism", but I don't see glaring problems with how he presents those opinions, which is what we would need for something to be actionable here.

Of the comments which do touch upon behavioural issues needing addressing, most can be found in Rhododendrites' large-ish post above. Things like refusing to indent, or follow standard !vote formatting are in my opinion more significant problems than they may seem at first blush. However, I'm not sure how the course of action Rhododendrites suggests (endorsing SMcCandlish's proposed topic ban on notability) addresses those issues. In general I think all of the complaints/frustrations various community members have with James (which may be perfectly legitimate in and of themselves) have been amalgamated into one monolithic sense of frustration, but we'd need to tease them out again before action can be taken. And notably James seems to be making an effort to make concessions above. (Admitedly I don't know him well enough to gauge his level of sincerity though). I'm not going to !vote "oppose" on the notability TBAN just yet, because, as I say, I trust the perspectives of editors who have raised concerns here, so I'm open to being won over. But I'd have to see a strong showing of obstructionism, rather than just evidence that his views lay at an extreme. And I say this as someone who is at the diametrically opposite side of this issue--I think SNGs are far, far too permissive with regard to the content they let in. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I've addressed much of this (before seeing it) in a post above about this not being about particular words. The other main theme of this, "is it WP:disruptive for him to even forward this opinion?", isn't what has been under discussion or what the evidence shows. That is a long-term pattern of railing against Wikipedia having and apply notability guidelines at all and (an issue raised by others, not me, because I did not "diff dig" very deep nor outside of talk pages) trying to thwart them at AFD (by arguing to keep everything) since he has zero traction in getting the N guidelines deleted or substantively changed. If I recall, we've only identified a single case in which James500 has agreed with an article's deletion despite having made himself an AFD fixture, and even if there are more it's something he virtually never does (he's gone out of his way to hide this by gaming the AFD stats). This is in fact disruptive, of Wikipedia operating the way the community wants it to operate. There is no "amalgamation" of unrelated concerns in this ANI. James500's problematic editing is all notability, all the time. In looking at the last month of James500's edits, I could not find a single case of him being uncivil, abusing process, derailing discussions, misrepresenting the meaning of a policy or guideline, or engaging in "WP is wrong and must change, or else" behavior in any other topic area. It looks to me kind of like you're responding to the frustrated tone of Hijiri88 and Rhododendrites, deciding they're being mean, and not actually looking at the their evidence on its own merits.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I do not !vote to keep all of the articles at AfD. I generally ignore AfDs about articles on topics that I consider potentially non-notable, because I do not have the time or resources or patience to pursue their deletion. In particular, I lack access to certain paywalled databases and certain sites that my browser security settings, which I do not know how to modify, will not let me. The most that I can usually do when I find an article that I consider potentially non-notable is to report that I have looked at Google and found nothing, as I did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurts Publishing (where my comment was responsible for the deletion of the article; in that case I was unable to access HighBeam, therefore I could not complete a WP:BEFORE search). The reason that my accuracy rate is above 81% is that on the order of 81%+ of the topics I !vote to keep actually are notable within the true meaning of the guidelines. The idea that I am trying to undermine the guidelines fails to take into account the fact that I am only one person and I am completely incapable of doing that, because the other participants would shout me down. James500 (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

"It looks to me kind of like you're responding to the frustrated tone of Hijiri88 and Rhododendrites, deciding they're being mean, and not actually looking at the their evidence on its own merits." Can I trouble you to re-read my comments a second time and tell me if you still think this is the major thrust of my arguments, because, respectfully, I do not think that captures the general sentiment of my observations above and if that is the message you took from it, I don't think you read it as carefully as you might have. Nowhere that I can see have I impled that anyone has been mean or mistreated James, and I can assure you that no such perception coloured my interpretation of their (or your) evidence. And I think I did a pretty heavy (indeed, verbose) accounting of why I just do not believe you have made your case for the sanction you are proposing with the conduct evidence you have presented here thus far. As to your more immediate argument: there is no policy that says James may not !vote "keep" in 99% (nor indeed 100%) of AfDs he participates in, nor is there any principle of community consensus which holds that he is being WP:disruptive if he !votes in service of an extreme editorial philosophy, even if he does so consistently and in a way where it seems improbable to another editor that he is making a full accounting of policy as it applies to those facts. The cure to that sort of non-nuanced, sloppy argumentation is that, if his opinion does not jive with the policies as they apply to the specifics of that particular content issue, it can be discounted. And if he makes a habit of it, other community members will be of the habit of dismissing his perspectives.

At present, I feel your arguments about James' conduct blur the lines between the kinds of outright disruptive behaviours we must attempt to control and expression of more subjective, a priori editorial perspectives and priorities, which are not in our purview to regulate--not as a consensus on this project always has (and in my opinion, has needed to) operate. Again, I do not dismiss the possibility that there is more to the story here than has been presented so far, and that I may not be convinced that some sort of community action is warranted here. But I for one would need to see evidence of conduct that is of a substantially different character (that is, constituting more blatant gamesmanship or incivility) than has been presented thus far. And the response of several other editors here give me to believe I am not alone in this. Indeed, I believe I have expressed substantially more openness to the possibility that you have a legitimate complaint here, than some others have, and the entire point of my last post was to try to lay out the kind of conduct I would need to see in order to endorse such a substantial sanction as a TBAN from all things notability. As to my reference to amalgamation--my point is that I view certain isolated behaviours discussed here as easier to handle individually. For example, the indenting and bolding of !votes. But on some of those particulars, James has already given ground. I doubt very much, however, that he will concede to removing himself from all discussion impinging up notability (his presumably snarky comment to that effect above not withstanding. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean to mischaracterize your original point; it just seemed to be (and still does) focused on whether having an opinion and expressing it is, or is central to, the issues of this ANI, which isn't the case. It's just about behavior patterns and their effects. No one's critical of James500 for disliking WP's notability system or proposing that it be changed or scrapped, but for tirelessly trying to undermine it and being terrible to other editors while doing so. The difference is meaningful. Constantly pushing the same idea after consensus has declined to accept it is a priori disruptive if it continues indefinitely. "There is no policy against [x]" isn't an argument often accepted here in a case like this, because there actually is a policy against it (no matter what "it" or "[x]" is, in narrow terms of a specific type of action) when it becomes disruptive. And ANI decisions are not [usually, and we hope] based on lawyering over the exact wording of policies anyway, but an assessment of whether the reported party is exhibiting at least a baseline of competence in collaborative editing.

So, it has nothing to do with whether James500 is entitled to an opinion about how good our notability guidelines are, but whether we're going to be really rudely brow-beaten with it until the end of time. Anyway, going round and round in argument with you isn't my intent. I do understand your take on the matter more clearly now, though still find myself disagreeing with it, mainly because the "certain isolated behaviours" are not isolated, but part of a general pattern of anti-notability grandstanding. As you suggest, he may be unlikely to actually remove himself from notability discussions despite saying he would. But, worse can happen than having to re-examine the same and additional evidence at a later ANI if the pattern resumes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Did you mean XfD or AfD instead of ANI in these cases "thwart them at ANI" and "an ANI fixture"? Nil Einne (talk) 09:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and will blame lack of coffee. I fixed that in the original post (and fixed lack of coffee in mah belleh).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Close

• Close I believe there has been overwhelming evidence that James has been regularly disruptive in the past (even the very recent past). However, in the troubling areas he has already taken aboard the criticism before this ANI filing or agreed to work on them as this discussion has proceeded. Specifically the promises James has made I would hope to see noted in a close would be: avoiding walls of text (especially in notability discussion), following indenting conventions, appropriately formatting XfD !votes, and that he will not engage in tendentious discussions and labeling of other editors. I don't blame SmCCandlish and Rhododendrites for reaching their wits end. Were James not willing to make what I think are credible promises of change some measure of sanction would be appropriate. Instead we should see if he can live by his promises; if he can't something more than the tbans being discussed would strike mas appropriate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I basically agree with the above, although I'm perhaps a bit more skeptical than Barkeep about whether the promises made by James in this thread will be kept in the long term: my first interaction with him in April ended with him saying I will refrain from making comments about types of behaviour or points of view in order to make you happy. I apologise unreservedly if my comments appeared to anyone to refer to editors, as that was certainly not my intention. Clearly, I should have worded them far more carefully., my second interaction with him consisted of him comparing AFD nominators to vandals, and my third consisted (summary diff; click all the diffs inside the diff for the actual evidence) of him following me to a bunch of discussions while hypocritically accusing me, about a half-dozen times, of hounding him, so I'm naturally loath to believe him when he issues essentially the same contrite-seeming apology and promise to do better again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's more "on the record" this time. Anyway, I'm okay with Barkeep49's draft close of sorts. And even if it should turn sour, I'd be fine with "something more than the tbans being discussed" not being what we leap to; we typically use escalating sanctions, and a topic ban is often very effective at both preventing the disruption while retaining the editor and (less often) reforming the editor's behavior and permitting an eventual return to the topic. PS: I think Rhodo and Hijiri may have been at wit's end from long interaction with James500 that I wasn't aware of. For my part, this was a routine civility-and-soapboxing-I-see-right-now ANI. My personal history with James500 doesn't go back more than one recent thread at at WT:NBOOK.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd support such a closure. (No preference whether this or my earlier support.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• I've requested closure at WP:ANRFC since this is clearly "talked out" at this point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• I also support such a closure. As I've noted, James500 does do a good job finding sources on book-related AfDs, and he was very helpful during a bad bulk AfD nomination on a number of foreign language articles. Problems exist, but they're fixable, and my hope going forward is all of James' !votes at AfD will be strong and meaningful (and, to be clear, I'm specifically referring to the !votes which cite incorrect notability guidelines, or ones which are overly wikilawyered as noted above, without commenting on sourcing). SportingFlyer talk 00:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: By a bad bulk AfD nomination on a number of foreign language articles, you wouldn't be referring to Tyw7 (talk · contribs)'s Shadowowl (talk · contribs)'s (good-faith, controversial at worst, per the lengthy discussion that took place on this page at the time) nomination earlier this year of a bunch of shitty one-sentence non-articles created by Starzynka (talk · contribs)? I found James's conduct there to be pretty poor: the actual reason virtually all of the pages needed to be redirected/deleted (I recently explained why the latter may be preferable in some cases) had nothing to do with notability, and so James's gathering of sources, where he did as much, was not helpful unless he actually expanded the article into something meaningful, which he has done from time to time but certainly a lot less than simply showing up to the AFD and !voting "keep" without consideration of our deletion policy and what will be best for readers. If you were referring to that incident, I think you should probably strike it, and if you were not you should probably clarify, since it certainly looks like you are. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC) (mod. 08:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC) )

@Hijiri88: I'm not familiar with that particular incident, or it's long forgotten. I was thinking more along the lines of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Družba Pere Kvržice and a whole boatload of other articles, particularly foreign language articles, that were nominated nearly in bulk without a WP:BEFORE search earlier this year. SportingFlyer talk 08:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: Sorry, that was what I meant. I commented in a few of them, but forgot the name of the nominator; the one that sticks in my mind more than the others is In der Falle, which Shadowowl initially nominated but botched and withdrew -- when I checked the one I commented on now it was the one that was re-nominated by another editor. The "BEFORE search" you refer to doesn't apply to one-sentence content-forks where notability is not the issue, as it was not with any of the 100+ articles Shadowowl nominated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I stand by my comments about those nominations. I also have no idea why a WP:BEFORE search wouldn't apply in this situation, because a lot of the foreign language articles were nominated on failing SNG and GNG indicators. A large number of these passed notability guidelines, but in different languages, and I remember James500 being helpful in saving them. SportingFlyer talk 09:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I criticized ShadowOwl at the time for the awkward wording of the nominations, but it was clear enough to anyone who really cared enough to look that "notability" (let alone specifics of GNG or SNG) was not the reason for nominating. "Notability" is just so prevalent a concept that the word gets bandied about where it doesn't really belong. An argument could easily be made that what he actually meant was "This subject is not notable enough that in the decade or so this article has been on Wikipedia anyone has bothered to come by and write anything about it" (and I'm pretty sure when I did make this argument at the previous ANI on him he agreed with me), and that's a simple truism, regardless of whether this or that topic actually meets GNG, so your continuing to refuse to drop the stick on it strikes me as a little odd. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realise I was holding a stick, to be honest. I'm just glad a number of notable foreign language stubs weren't deleted, and I'm trying to draw attention to the fact the Keep votes James made which discuss certain articles passing WP:NBOOK are good !votes, even if those books were in different langauges. SportingFlyer talk 22:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

James's !votes in those AFDs did not help improve the encyclopedia, and those among the Starzynka-created non-articles that were kept as opposed to redirected despite nothing being done to fix them are now something of a blotch on the encyclopedia. Yes, James is not the worst offender when it comes to auto-!voting keep in AFDs and then (at best) not lifting a finger to improve the articles or (at worst) actively hindering their improvement (that honour belongs to Andrew, IMO), but every single one of those AFDs where he !voted keep without himself doing any of the heavy lifting to fix the article and make it not a content-fork was ... well, I wouldn't call for him to be sanctioned just for making some disruptive !votes, but you can hardly use them to defend him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

My entire point has been James500 has been capable of making good AfD votes, and I hope all of them are good going forward as a result of this ANI. I obviously still disagree with you on the notability of those articles and you're taking me to task for having a perfectly valid opinion just because you disagree with it. Let's please move on. SportingFlyer talk 07:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I obviously still disagree with you on the notability of those articles and you're taking me to task for having a perfectly valid opinion just because you disagree with it. You can't be serious. Did you read anything I wrote above? Where did I say "the articles (sic) aren't notable"? Or anything approaching that? You should strike the above comment, lest your competence to continue editing this encyclopedia be brought into question. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not striking the comment, and I'm shocked you're suggesting competency issues based off of this exchange, and I still have no idea why you have decided to turn into an argument. I remember this situation as a user bulk nominating articles for AfD, mostly foreign language stubs, basically as fast as you could refresh the page and without doing any semblance of a WP:BEFORE search. At no point during the AfD process was it clear that the "crappy bot article" the nominator discussed was created by the same user and needed to be deleted en masse. Unfortunately, a number of those stubs were indeed notable, including several articles for notable Croatian books and films which are in the national Croatian archives. I specifically remember James500 making helpful keep votes during this discussion, citing NBOOK for books on different languages, which are valid !keep votes and demonstrates that James500 can in fact make positive contributions to AfD. I mentioned this in order to colour my comments above where I was generally in favour of a ban with the general understanding there was a problem here. Also there's no policy I've seen that says keep !voters must expand the articles they !vote keep on, nor do I think these articles are generally a "scourge" on the encyclopedia, as the Croatian ones which were nominated were clearly notable and just needed someone to add references showing they passed WP:GNG. While I am making the assumption that other languages which were nominated would have the same problem as the one I'm most familiar with, and maybe the entire remainder of the bot articles are a "scourge," I don't remember that to be the case. SportingFlyer talk 09:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I remember this situation as a user bulk nominating articles for AfD, mostly foreign language stubs, basically as fast as you could refresh the page and without doing any semblance of a WP:BEFORE search. Your memory is faulty. None of them were "foreign language", all of them were stubs (technically WP:SUBSTUBs), and BEFORE (at least in terms of "searching" for sources) didn't apply because the actual deletion criterion they met was that they were content forks with no value in their current form: some editors, apparently including you, read the issue as being about notability, and while the nominator's initial, clumsy, wording supported this interpretation, later clarifications, including the lengthy ANI discussion, did not. The fact that you apparently read something in my above messages to you as implying I shared your belief that the issue was one of "notability", but that I thought the topics were not notable, does indeed bring your competence into question, as I have been clear throughout that that is not the case, and your refusal to retract or apologize for this despite your being wrong having been thoroughly demonstrated makes me seriously question your good faith. I have no idea why you have turned this into an argument, honestly; you could have just accepted that you and I have different memories of the event (you seem to have only commented twice in the ANI discussions, so I wouldn't blame you for having had a completely different perspective of the whole affair) and moved on, but you seem intent on trying to get under my skin with this IDHT "You think the topics aren't notable" act. (BTW, this comment would appear to put you on a fairly remote fringe of the community when it comes to handling nonsense one-sentence non-articles: these articles should be kept as they pass notability guidelines is completely out of line with policy; the standard view, if there is one, is these topics might merit articles that should be kept, as they pass notability guidelines, but these "articles" should not be kept as they contain less information than our readers could get from a single word in a list embedded in a larger article.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I'm not trying to get under your skin. You asked me to strike my initial response, which I don't think is a reasonable request based on my participation. It's now clear we have very different memories of what happened. In one of my three diffs you've posted, I link to a number of articles which were nominated for deletion by ShadowOwl which were NOT Starzynka-created bot articles. All of these were notable and I believe all of these were kept. It looks like Ellis Coliseum is still a single-sentence article though, I'll work on that one. And by "foreign language" I mean the primary language of the film or book isn't English where notability is a little bit harder to establish. (I'm clearly not suggesting we keep non-English pages on the English encyclopedia, nor have I ever suggested - or at least remember suggesting - we bulk-keep a bunch of stub articles.) My role in this event was trying to save the articles which were actually notable. I don't appreciate being labeled as being on a "fairly remote fringe of the community" when my posts on the ANI thread are in line with the other users who opened the thread, both of whom I respect. SportingFlyer talk 11:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

You listed five articles, out of well over a hundred, and what I wrote above applied, at the time of nomination, at least two of them (one of which you only now, four months later, expanded beyond a single sentence [yes, it was technically three sentences, but would have been better written if the three were one]); of the other three, one has since been redirected (read: what I said should have been the short-term measure even if the topics were notable was actually implemented) and the last consisted exclusively (and still largely consists) of unsourced BLP. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

You were right, one was redirected at the AfD I linked. But both of the stadiums - the three sentence articles - didn't receive a single delete !vote at AfD apart from ShadowOwl, and a number of the other nominations weren't good nominations. And none of this actually matters for the point I was originally trying to make. Let's please leave it here. SportingFlyer talk 12:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Word count

• The issue here is being prolix, right? So far, this section is over 130Kb – over 20,000 words of verbiage. Please see WP:POT, WP:SAUCE and WP:NOTFORUM, which states "Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia." Andrew D. (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  No, the issues are being uncivil, derailing discussions with off-topic rants (some of which are long, but that's beside the point), and lobbying against consensus-accepted guidelines. You would know that if you'd skimmed even the original post, instead of deciding it would be clever (it's not) to vent about the length of the discussion because you think it's ironic that anyone early on mentioned post length in some context or another. What you've done here is an example of WP:NOTFORUM; this page doesn't exist for you to impress people with your jokey wit.

  Please see also WP:CHUNK in particular: If a noticeboard action, proposal, or other bunch of process requires lengthy discussion, then it does, and that isn't wrong. This is a process page, not an article or its talk page. ANI in particular is not about the task of creating an encyclopedia, it's a meta-process for deciding whether certain editors and/or their behavior are impeding that goal, and if so then what to do about it. And the length of this discussion was quite productive; what probably would have resulted in sanctions like a topic-ban (if this had been tersely listed diffs followed by knee-jerk one-liner !votes) instead looks likely to result in a negotiated agreement to desist from certain unconstructive habits. That's a good thing for all concerned. In short, if you don't like long ANI threads, don't read them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Andrew, I hardly think it's fair to tell the winner of WAM 2017 that he is not "staying on the task of creating an encyclopedia" when he is unable to participate in WAM 2018 to the same degree due to his being too busy IRL (I told SMcC on my talk page, but ... translating 100,000 Japanese characters, in essentially three weeks, while also working another full-time job: I'd like to see you do that) and only participated in this thread (and the other one on you a couple weeks back) because of (a) a sense of obligation to the project and (b) other people having opened them without consulting me. The fact that someone, quite possibly you or James (you have a demonstrable history of "good hand / bad hand" sockpuppetry and James is ... everything said above), chose the other day to log out of their account and post a harassing message about me that creeped me the fuck out would honestly be enough of an excuse never to edit Wikipedia again, and it's not even the worst I've seen this year. So don't ever talk down to me like that again. EVER. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: I'm still waiting for an apology for the above harassing, off-topic message from you. You should consider yourself extremely lucky I didn't immediately open another thread on you as soon as you posted it, instead choosing to give you a chance to apologize; your refusing to do so despite continuing to make disruptive auto-keep !votes on AFDs despite copyright problems having already been demonstrated is ... well, it should not be allowed. If you are not going to own up to and apologize for your disruptive edits, you should leave the project, not just go somewhere else and make more disruptive edits there. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

And FWIW, I'm increasingly certain that the IP was neither you nor James, but actually the last disruptive editor both of you showed up to defend because, as far as both of you are concerned, an "inclusionist" editor fights with a "deletionist" editor, the former is right no matter what else they do, and the latter is in the wrong. Yeah, anyone could show up on his talk page and pretend to be him, but how many would know about his penchant for calling me a self-proclaimed "japanese expert"? You have not apologized for your defense of that toxic editor who made building the encyclopedia a hellish experience for me for months, nor for your current defense of this toxic editor, and you dare tell me that I'm not focused enough on building the encyclopedia? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I have experienced eleven days of degrading public humiliation and behaviour that I find wholly unbearable here. There are a number of things that I should probably say, but I am not in any condition to say them now as a result of what I have experienced here. In fact I am finding it incredibly difficult to edit at all. I do not know if I will be able to continue to contribute to Wikipedia at all after what has taken place here and the effect it has had on me. James500 (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I have experienced eleven days of degrading public humiliation and behaviour that I find wholly unbearable here. Believe me: as someone who's gone through all of this and much, much more, I can tell you with confidence that what JoshuSasori (talk · contribs) subjected me to both on-wiki and in real life dwarfs even the worst of that, while the lightest of that was far worse than what you've been subjected to (note that that thread was several thousand bytes longer than this one, despite having been open for only six days and involved only one of the project's most verbose users -- me -- as opposed to this threads four -- SMcC, you, Snow Rise and me), and you chose to belittle/dismiss my experience with that editor for no reason other than to get under my skin and only backed down when I asked an admin to tell you off for it. You can't go around abusing and harassing anyone you don't like, then the moment they make even a tiny attempt to call you out on it cry foul. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

James500, let's not be hyperbolic and theatrical. If you weren't being a WP:JERK to people, regularly, and disrupting normal Wikipedian business by defying its policies and guidelines over and over and over again, then we wouldn't be here at ANI about it. Complaints of being embarrassed and bummed out are not some kind of Get Out of Jail Free card (not in real life, and not here). Your own actions are what led here. No one is going to buy into any kind of "being criticized is intolerable so I'm going to quit in a huff" act. Your antics were begging for attention, and have received it. Let this be an object lesson in the principle that trying to force Wikipedia to focus on you and your hard-pushed viewpoint is something to pursue at your own peril. PS: I have no idea why this is still open.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

This and the IQ125 sections make me wonder whether there's consensus over when {{DNAU}} should be used in ANI threads rather than bumping or having to unarchive if it's autoarchived... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

There's an argument to be made for that, I think. There was another discussion closed yesterday, which a party tried to re-open, only to be reverted by an admin, despite a live !vote on conduct which seemed to have reached a consensus, albeit with a limited-to-moedrate number of participants. Now, my intent here is not to encourage that discussion be resurrected--the revert was by an admin (and a fairly respected one) in good faith, and it was arguably the appropriate action, all context considered. But it does raise the conundrum you tangentially allude to there: if parties anxious to see a formal close (or, looking to less good faith side of things, eager to preserve the battleground) become obsessive about thwarting the autoarchive function, they will begin to make additional (and generally discursively counter-productive) little "observations"--or outright accusations, or new evidence, whatever they need to do in order to rationalize an action that is really about bumping the thread. That would not be healthy for the readability and tone of our discussions here. Or, "is not healthy", I should say, since I have enough faith in the perceptiveness of my fellow contributors here to assume that we all notice that this happens here quite a bit already, even though traditionally we do allow un-archiving in many contexts.

Anyway, the place to discuss your tag proposal would be Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. You'd have to get the admin corps (or at least the greater portion that volunteers here) on board though, since they will ultimately be the ones who would have to enforce the standard in cases of dispute. I expect some will be instantly against it because it will be likely to draw discussions out uselessly, more often than not. That's a reasonable concern and something the specifics of your proposal should strive to address. But both options have their weaknesses, and I think there is even less support for the third of the obvious alternative approaches, setting a default number of days. I think it would be difficult to find consensus for your proposed change (there's a strong trend towards maintenance of the status quo in how ANI operates, because of the extreme plurality of voices, often attached to very tightly held positions) but not impossible. Food for thought, anyway. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a good point about the potentially undesirable effect of continuing to add as a way of bumping. I don't think that every thread should have a DNAU, but when formal closure is requested and it's clearly a thread that can be closed (and would cause more disruption to rehash it than to close it), it seems like a really obvious measure. We'll see what happens, I guess. I added it. If this is controversial, someone can remove it (hopefully with reasoning, since I cannot think of one). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I have experienced a deterioration in my health during and because of this ANI case. I must therefore protest at the use of DNUA to keep this thread open till at least the 3rd of January without regard for the effect this will have on me (and presumably the next step will be to extend that deadline ad infinitum). I can see no reason to assume this thread will be closed in a reasonable time or at all (the admins have already had more than a reasonable time), and it cannot remain open forever. James500 (talk) 07:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Kiran Ashraff

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

---

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

---

• Kiran Ashraff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Any administrator here may wish to revoke talk page access, as this user continues to make disruptive edits after being blocked. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Already done. Fish+Karate 15:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

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

A range block is likely required, as individual has returned with 'new' registered account. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The account in question seems to be Head Of Prime Minister. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 15:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed & he'll likely keep creating new ones, until he's range blocked. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Kdn66n2

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

---

• Kdn66n2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It’s been a few weeks since this user was unblocked and they continue to add unsourced content to articles. See [232], [233], and [234]. 66.87.149.196 (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

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

IP Rangeblock

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

---

Hi. With feelings of Groundhog Day, I'm back to request another rangeblock. The 39.44 range I reported earlier was blocked for two weeks, erm, two week ago. True to form, they are back, this time 39.44.229.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This is part of some (very) long-term abuse. As you can see from that link their antics at 39.57 have been blocked for 3 months. I'd be grateful if this could be done for this range, and ideally, a bit longer to save everyone a bit of time. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Range blocked for a month this time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks NRP! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

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

RefDesk regular giving unsourced (and incorrect) answers

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

I would have tested the waters at the RefDesk talk page first, but something similar was shut down a couple months ago, so here goes. Before arguments along the lines of "the RefDesk is an unmanageable mess, the only fix is killing it with fire, and it is unfair to single one editor out" come out, I would like to point out that a previous RefDesk case lead to a topic ban that, IMO, greatly improved the refdesk atmosphere (StuRat was infinitely worse than Kharon is though).

Kharon's contributions on the science Ref Desk have been mildly disruptive. Their answers are overwhelmingly their own speculation with no reference provided. Because they clearly have some scientific knowledge, they often make useful contributions, but when that mode of operation goes wrong they confidently assert complete bollocks. Since in many (all?) cases it would take about 10s of reading the relevant Wikipedia article to check, they certainly can improve. I believe they can be a great asset to the RefDesk, but they need to amend their behavior. They have been told by multiple RefDesk regulars that some of their answers were not useful, yet have not measurably changed. I am looking for (in decreasing order of preference) one of:

1. a formal warning to base their answers off reliable sources
2. a formal restriction on posting unsourced stuff; for instance Kharon must not post on the ref desk anything else than (1) direct answers to questions with a relevant source attached, (2) clarification of previous answers (their own or others'), or (3) requests for clarification of the question.
3. a very short, shot across the bow TBAN from refdesk.

Onto evidence. You could peruse their contributions on RefDesk to get a feel, but here are permalinks to their last 10 substantial RefDesk contribs with my analysis; from my experience the average worth of contributions is the same it has been in recent months. In the interest of transparency, I have locked horns with them in that thread (which IMO is a good example of their tendency to confidently assert complete bollocks based on a superficial understanding but I would not expect someone unfamiliar with graduate-level knowledge of thermodynamics to understand why).

1. [235] is OK-ish: "walking on Mars is impossible because radiation" is quite a strong interpretation of the question and sources, but it is based on an article they cite.
2. [236] is not OK: they contradict our referenced article, that previous posters have linked to before, with zero argument or reference.
3. [237] Their first contribution here is absolutely not OK (speculation without source, and wrong speculation to boot), but at least they apologized for it later
4. [238] That is not OK: the claim that shampoos cause allergies, at the very least, needs a ref; plus, advising someone to make their own shampoo by diluting formic acid is not a good idea.
5. [239] That is OK (could use a reference, but well)
6. [240] I guess that xenophobic cliché is an attempt at humour, so meh
7. [241] Not OK: speculation without a source. Maybe it is correct speculation; I do not know, but I do not care. Artillery is mostly used against soft target at least needs a source.
8. [242] Not OK. The first paragraph is meh but the second is irresponsible. Yeah, germs are everywhere, but you will still get sick(er) by eating feces; so don't say stuff like this to internet randos without qualifying the statement.
9. [243] Clearly they made zero research or googling before typing, but the result turns out to be fairly good.
10. [244] Arguably off-topic but decent information to give.

That's 3-4 good ones out of 10. Maybe the minimum acceptable good-to-bad ratio is lower on the RefDesk than elsewhere but I do not think it should be below 90%. (Also, on a side note, all those were marked as WP:MINOR when they clearly are not, but Kharon has not been specifically warned about RefDesk posts marked minor and it is not a huge problem either, so I doubt it warrants any sanction.)

I will be leaving notices to their TP and the RefDesk TP soon. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Why is ref desk trying to be Yahoo Answers? If people want randomly bad answers to burning questions there are plenty of places to ask. We should be just letting them search Wikipedia or the web generally. Legacypac (talk) 10:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed. This is always a problem around Kharon. Another: [245] Andy Dingley (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• BTW, what are we meaning by "source" here? As imposing restrictions about it ought to be clear. Wikilink, or off-wiki source, or robust WP:RS-compliant-only source? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• For the purpose of a Ref Desk answer, generally "show us where we can read more about this" is good enough. WP:RS is best, but links to Wikipedia articles which themselves are reliably sourced are good too, but something is better than nothing. --Jayron32 16:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

No, something is not better than nothing - if people restricted their answers to areas they have specific expertise in things would go much better. Refdesk should not be an exercise in trying to be a human Google result repeater. Legacypac (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

In case you missed it, "something is better than nothing" means a shaky source is better than no source, even if no answer might be better than either. The gradation goes something like: batshit crazy website < crazy website < no answer < amateur blog on the topic < newspaper/main press article < WP article on connected areas < WP article or RS addressing directly the point. Being able to Google the correct keywords is all the "specific expertise" needed to get an answer superior to no answer for some RefDesk questions. (On the other hand, answering off the top of your head because you feel you're qualified on the topic is a recipe for disaster - I am pretty sure StuRat was extremely qualified in their own mind for everything they answered.)

If you want the RefDesk to be wiped off WP, that's your prerogative, but please do not hijack this thread. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, just to clarify "some source is better than no source" is what I meant. Also "A source with no answer" is FAR better than "An answer with no source". Indeed, a source without any additional information is often the best way we can help people: After all, we're doing exactly what the Ref Desk is for: Directing people to references. An answer with no source is at best worthless and potentially misleading. I can see where people will provide synopses of sources, or clarify what they mean, or ask clarifying questions, but earnest answers should always reference a source, and the best answer is often merely directing someone to an expert themselves rather than merely saying stuff we think we know. When I have to link to a "less than reliable source", I'll always say so, things like 'Here's IMDB for a reference; I know it isn't a reliable source, but the credits match what the film does" or "I know this is a forum thread and doesn't really qualify as reliable, but the discussion itself does reference reliable sources, and is a good start for your research". What I try not to do is just answer from my experience. I'm nobody important. --Jayron32 19:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• So we have a RefDesk response telling people to use formic acid as shampoo. Great. Grandpallama (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Have you checked google? I once knew a girl who always had the most amazing long brown shiny hair and some day, just by chance overheard another girl ask her about her secret. She said ant acid. I have seen her every weekday for years. Should i have kept that a secret? Anyway if you find that amusing, thats totally ok. Guess you have to see it in real to stop laughing. --Kharon (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

How dare you give advice that can be even remotely seen as medical ? </rant> - FlightTime (open channel) 16:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't care what you found on Google; Flighttime is rightly chastising you. Formic acid is the same stuff found in bee venom. While it is a component of various skin and hair products, where other ingredients neutralize its negative effects, it is a skin irritant. Telling people to add formic acid to water to make their own shampoo, at the RefDesk, is one of the most irresponsible things I've seen on Wikipedia in a long time. Grandpallama (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Is this a bad joke?

1. 1"..answers are overwhelmingly their own speculation with no reference provided."

I use more references and links to articles that 95% of all other refdesk participants.

1. 2 "Kharon's contributions on the science Ref Desk have been mildly disruptive."

I dont get it. I seem to be magnetic to specific characters who turn to insults and personal attacks. I never insult anyone or question their professional suitability. WHY THE **** AM I SUDDENLY THE DISRUPTIVE ONE in some long ago conflict cases you dug out?

Also, why dont you simply google "shampoo allergy" for a try? It is a sad surprise to blame me without any (counter)-evidence. Additionaly this is a TRIVIAL fact which by our rules dont need to be referenced with a reputable scientific source. It seems you where just searching samples you could frame up very very week as rule violation and then make your argument by mass instead by quality. Your own

Besides, i also add more references in my answers than User:Andy Dingley and he has build a history of attacking me frequent with insulting ad hominem instead of constructive arguments (So no surprise to find his comments here again with some old claims). --Kharon (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kharon: Be aware that "I know I'm right. Just google it yourself and you'll see!" did not save StuRat from his ban, and it won't save you. "I understand what I am doing wrong, and I will strive to not do it again in the future" and then following through with that promise will. Just letting you know so you can't claim you were not informed down the road, when and if such a ban does happen. --Jayron32 17:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• why don't you simply google... That's the problem, Kharon. If you give a RefDesk answer relying on information you found somewhere on Google, link to it.

If you ask a real-life reference desk librarian some question, they will not answer "yes" or "no" then go back to whatever you were doing, they will tell you to go fetch such-and-such book. In the process, you get not only the information, but a whole lot of contextually-important knowledge. If, as you say, you use more references and links to articles that 95% of all other refdesk participants, then give them with your answers; because from an external point of view, the amount of searching you did before participating in each of the ten threads above was zero. Maybe I am in the top 5% of RefDesk respondents but I strive to give one article or external link for each claim I make.

As for your comparison to Andy Dingley: see WP:OSE. I do wish Andy Dingley would put references with their posts. Yet every one of AD's posts that I had the knowledge to evaluate for technical claims was on-point. If I had caught AD saying something wrong and doubling and tripling and quadrupling down when pointed out that it was wrong, I would have brought him here (or somewhere else). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

External references are important. Thus we learn that John Deere, the 19th century US farm equipment maker, was the inventor of the early medieval mouldboard plough. References are good, but they're no excuse for just being wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• I have two thing 1) Unambiguously, Kharon needs to stop the sort of problematic answers, or at least strive to find and summarize sources rather than spout off answers with no effort to find references for the OPs of the questions he answers. 2) in kind, but not in magnitude, this was what StuRat was banned for. Keep in mind, however, that interventions short of banning were attempted for years with StuRat. I don't think this deserves any admin attention or ban discussion as yet since we have not attempted to manage this with less drastic measures. Perhaps Kharon does not know the problems they are creating because no one has made it clear to them. I hope this discussion acts to make it so we don't have to. --Jayron32 16:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  I don't think this deserves any admin attention or ban discussion as yet since we have not attempted to manage this with less drastic measures. But what are those less drastic measures? Other RefDesk respondents have told him that their answers were unsatisfactory: Dmacks here, an IP here, an IP's "you're off-topic" here, and that includes the above 10 threads only. Off the top of my head, there is also the encounter with me and this uncivil post by Doroletho (I get why one would ignore the latter, but I do believe I was polite enough in the former); I remember yet more, will dig for diffs if needed. At some point I think we need to get the outside community involved, and I do not know any less worse forum than ANI for that kind of conduct issues: the WP:DR stuff is tailored for content disputes. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah, but there's also a big difference in "one person at a time saying "cut it out" an a group discussion where consensus makes it clear that there is a problem. If it's just one editor giving a warning, it's easy to dismiss. A single discussion that establishes that yes there is a problem is, to me, always a good step in the path of reform. Unless we've had that group discussion, I'm leary to drop the banhammer right away for matters such as this. Kharon, is after all, acting in good faith. They believe they are being useful. This sort of discussion is a better way of making it clear that they are not being useful. If they still continue to ignore this advice, by all means, lets have that discussion. But lets give this sort of intervention the chance to work. --Jayron32 19:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  Agree with Jayron in principle, but will note that in all my years on the RD, I don't think I ever saw a problematic editor "come to Jesus" due to discussion on the talk page. If individual notes don't do the trick, ganging up on them on the talk page doesn't seem to either. Discussion there tends to harden the target editor's resolve as they get "confirmation" that the nay-sayers were just out to get them. Matt Deres (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  More cynically, it checks off all of the "pre-ban boxes". If we can prove that, as a community, we've bent over backwards to avoid banning someone, then the ban has that much more power. If we banned at the first complaint, people can simply claim "Honest, I didn't know what I was doing was all that wrong". It's inoculation against claims of innocence as much as anything. --Jayron32 20:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  A single discussion that establishes that yes there is a problem is, to me, always a good step in the path of reform. I am OK with that, but again, where? I would have tried the ref desk TP first but a previous attempt was shut down on what I believe are reasonable grounds. WT:RD is already enough of an unofficial "drama board" as it stands (search the archives for "medical advice"), plus I would rather wash the dirty laundry in public. If you know of a better place than WP:ANI (with less sanction connotations), I will gladly ask to withdraw the present thread and move it there, but I simply did not find a better fit. User TP are not neutral grounds, and none of the dispute resolution processes really work. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

At Refdesk, any editor who responds to multiple questions on a regular basis, is bound to start getting on other editors raw nerve. Just like in real life, if you're considered a 'know it all', people will find you to be annoying. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The way to avoid that is to not know things. Instead, provide people with things to read (links to other websites, titles of books or articles in journals, Wikipedia articles that are well-written and referenced, etc.) and that generally avoids complaints like this. --Jayron32 16:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kharon:, have you considered answering questions on Quora instead? Adding external links or sources to answers is actually frowned upon there. They consider it spam.[246] [247]--Auric talk 19:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

On a side-note: I think Kharon is over-using the 'minor edit' button, in all his contribs. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to be fast and honest admitting if i am/was wrong and i am also always open to discussions on my talk page, unless they violate a basic civil language and seem to miss a constructive aim. I am not perfect nor always right, just like anyone contributing here.

I will try to add more scientific reference in future answers and copy this whole section to my talk page when it is archived or closed so i can review all the arguments anytime later. --Kharon (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

You need to stop trying all together and go do something else. Edit an article maybe. It's very clear the refdesk is not where you should be editing at all. --Tarage (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Stop answering questions about which you don't have any knowledge. Google doesn't replace actual knowledge of a subject, and in at least one place, you offered advice that presents a low-level danger to anyone who follows it without checking how accurate your response was. Stick to what you know. Grandpallama (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Kharon has given some annoyingly poor answers there, but we have to look at this in context. A combination of mechanized trolling, over-the-top "troll hunters" scaring off or disgusting regulars, general blocks on new contributors from asking questions, and general nastiness in interactions has driven off a lot of the best talent. The Refdesk is, at least for now, not going to live up to the expectations of high quality questions and answers we had in the past. Posters like StuRat and Kharon should have a place in our ecosystem; they are part of an ecological succession, and eventually should be inhibited not by admin action but by the quick on-topic responses of more talented -- or at least, more careful -- participants. Wnt (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Per my original post: StuRat being shown the door made the refdesk a far better place than it was. If we excuse terrible behavior because the general level is bad, we will never improve. I would be glad if we got to a point where posts such as this (from me) would be criticized for being off-topic.

It is also absolutely nonsensical to suggest that bad replies should be left alone and just corrected by better replies. Everywhere else on Wikipedia, people who add inaccurate information in good faith get criticized and banned if necessary. We do not have to provide everyone a place in "our ecosystem". Sure, let's try other options than the banhammer - but the current "wait until something happens" has failed. (Kharon indicated a willingness to change above, so maybe opening that thread was all it took.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

User:StuRat was banned from the Refdesks in November 2017. [248] If I look at the WP:Reference desk/Science now, versus October,September, August, do I see an improvement? Not nearly. Now do note that here I am not looking to relitigate StuRat's case or file some kind of surprise ban appeal on his behalf, so I don't want to argue about any contributions of his from that period in detail again. I just want to be clear that the Refdesk is not a "far better place" because of his ban or any other reason.

I should also note that I had 18 messages about multiple failed login attempts to my account in the past 24 hours, so contributors here should be warned to set secure passwords NOW. With all the incredibly draconian anti-hacking laws out there (and the criminal networks those make possible) I should consider the possibility that there must be real money to be made in disrupting the Refdesk; I wonder if the same is happening in similar locations. I wonder if there is some company that wants to charge in money, privacy, and passwords to bank accounts for participating in the kind of conversation we offer here, and I would like to see them lose their entire investment plus. Wnt (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Just got 15 more "multiple failed attempts" notifications messages. I have no idea if "multiple" is 5 or 5 million; the help page makes me somewhat hope the former but it says you get a notification that says "5", not "multiple". Wnt (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, refdesk sci is substantially less stupid than it was, since StuRat got the arse. If we could get stop people writing cute gags in small fonts, and oh so witty asides, then that would be a further big step forward. Personally I think this ANI is a bit unnecessary, what we should do is police the refdesk directly at an editor level and call out poor answers. Greglocock (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Hanover Research is still disrupting political topics

Relative to the previous case archived here, we still have long-term abuse from the range Special:Contributions/2601:140:8B00:1300:0:0:0:0/64 and IP Special:Contributions/64.132.42.50, both of which geolocate to Arlington, Virginia, part of Metro Washington DC. IP 64.132.42.50 is registered to Hanover Research Council, a public relations firm. The IP6 range and the static IP have been doing the same things, which in the last month involves removing instances of recent Democratic voter wins.[249][250][251] Can we get a good long block on this POV ugliness? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Do we typically put the results of elections in township articles? Not saying the IP shouldn't be blocked. I'm wondering why political nonsense makes its way into every possible scope it barely pertains to.--v/r - TP 01:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

You're derailing the question here, which is "can somebody rangeblock Special:Contributions/2601:140:8B00:1300:0:0:0:0/64 for a long time?" Binksternet (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Have to agree that the first one seems way too much detail for the lead especially since it is only one election cycle and House election cycles are so insanely short in the US. It may belong if it was better integrated with the previous sentence (has there been a gradual change? was this a major sudden change that shocked everyone?) but at it stands, it just seems a fairly random recentism factoid. I don't know the history of the IPs here, if they are engaged in undisclosed paid editing and have refused to identify themselves then they should be blocked but it's a bad sign when UPE editors are actually improving articles! Nil Einne (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I mean, I don't want to see WP:PAID used as a weapon in a content dispute. I think we're on the same page here. UPE should be blocked if demonstrated. But, after the block, was this an appropriate edit?--v/r - TP 17:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support - The edits by these IPs do not seem at all beneficial. There is a lot of content blanking and adding of promotionally-toned content, all without edit summaries. The IP4 is blocked for 6 months. A similar block (or longer) should be applied to the appropriate IP6 range.- MrX 🖋 13:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Doncram, 2018-11-28

• Doncram (talk · contribs)
• Previous ANI report (1 month ago)

Concerning the header of this section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

This ANI was opened with what I perceive as a prejudicial title "Doncram, 2018-11-2018", and I changed it to Nyttend vs. Doncram, 2018-11-28, which was reverted in this edit by User:Winged Blades of Godric with edit summary "Do not alter section headers and remove stuff by others....". Obviously section headers can be prejudicial. I object to this header being named after myself, based on past experience and very substantial supporting evidence about how naming of ANI proceedings and/or arbitrations is indeed and obviously prejudicial. For one thing, the naming obviously attracts any "enemies" of the named person, and fails to attract "enemies" of other parties involved in a dispute. In the 2012 arbitration proceeding named in my own honor, I had the absurd experience of several arbitrators asserting that the process would not be prejudiced by the naming, which was, from social science research, completely absurd. I would appreciate if anyone else would please rename this to something neutral. --Doncram (talk) 04:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC) The ANI is about your behavior, and section headers on ANI and AN (unlike those on article talk pages) can reference the individual who is the subject of the report. "Doncram, 2018-11-28" is in no way prejudicial, and, in fact, is a studiously neutral title. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC) I disagree. "Nyttend vs. Doncram: for one option, would in my opinion be far better, because it could attract "enemies" of both parties rather than just one. Anchoring is Wikipedia's article about the obvious biasing of humans to the first aspect that they are brought to. A neutral option would be to rename this to "Dispute about disambiguation for NRHP-listed courthouse". Why on earth not use that, User:Beyond My Ken? Sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, pretty much everyone who writes articles about US county courthouses uses the title "COUNTYNAME Courthouse (STATENAME)" when merely "COUNTYNAME Courthouse" would be ambiguous. It's a longstanding practice that has been enforced with pagemoves when necessary, e.g. [252], [253], and [254]. However, User:Doncram has decided to disagree with this practice and engages in aggressive moving: in addition to moving articles in spite of the convention (click the diffs and see the page histories), he sometimes proceeds to demand a halt by those who conform with this convention. Tonight, I found a collection of articles and moved them to the appropriate places, only to see some reverted (see [255], [256], and [257]) and to get this note at my talk: You know that there is longstanding disagreement about naming of NRHP-listed courthouses, i.e. whether to use (City, State) disambiguation as is used for all other places, or to use (State) for courthouses because they are special...Any new moves have been reversed, comparable to similar notes left for other editors that I know, e.g. [258] and [259]. Tonight's rationale for moves includes outright demands: Abide by agreement not to implement new moves and No moves. Um, WP:OWN anyone? It's time to put a stop to this, since he won't stop himself.

Doncram needs no warning: his tendentious editing previously produced an arbitration case and discussions like this one that resulted in a three-month block. He's received ten significant blocks over the years (twelve total blocks, minus two that were quickly removed) amounting to more than ten months of blocked time — personal attacks (2), edit-warring (6), and general disruptive editing (2). And yet he persists in tendentious editing: different actions, not quite the same, but Doncram has on many occasions been uncivil. He has repeatedly made accusations of harassment or misbehavior on the part of other editors without attempting to seek proper dispute resolution or disengage from interaction with those editors (arbitration quote) applies here, where he's simultaneously being uncivil and making accusations of misbehavior without attempting to seek dispute resolution, and he's compounding it with WP:OWN. So now it's time to shut down disruptive editing for the eleventh time. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me"; why should we believe that his actions will improve after eleven blocks? When you have a history of edit-warring, incivility, personal attacks, and lots of blocks for them, and you add to it with WP:OWN, it's time to make this final. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Doncram seems to want an RFC on this naming. Unless there's some policy/guideline that makes it clear that the current standard is to not include cities in these names, why not have one? Special:PrefixIndex/Washington_County_Courthouse and Special:PrefixIndex/Jefferson_County_Courthouse suggest that current usage is not unanimous; many of those pages have a move history. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

But it is literally unanimous except for Doncram. Every one of the articles at those two links that uses Courthouse (City, State) was either created by Doncram or moved to the longer name by Doncram. Station1 (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

(ec)Nonsense about this being an ANI issue. There is a content disagreement about how to disambiguate courthouse articles, whether to use (City, State) disambiguation as used in every other type of place listed on the NRHP (fire stations, city halls, bridges, whatever) vs. to use (State) which is preferred by some for county courthouses. I can/will provide diffs/links to some discussions about this, including a number of editors agreeing to disagree about how the disambiguation should be done, but agreeing to not engage in move wars and to accept reversals of any new moves. There has been peace about this.

My user page reflects my learning and dislike about bullying in Wikipedia, stemming from what I experienced as horrible harassment/bullying during 2011 to 2012. Administrator User:Nyttend, who has their own history of controversy, was one figure in that. The 2012 arbitration proceeding they link to was precipitated by their edits falsely alleging copyright or plagiarism violations (if I recall correctly, or it was something similarly bogus), in fact, and they were a named party then were dropped because it was too much to explain. One of the horrible bullying tactics was to name multiple ANI proceedings with prejudicing, blaming titles like "doncram at it again". The eventual arbitration noted, saliently, that there was no resolution about creation of relatively short NRHP articles (which seemed to be what some wished to complain about), remanding it to the community, and there was never any community decision, and since 2012 I made it a point to revisit every short (NRIS-only) article I had ever created and to expand them. Great, glad to know that other anger is still there 6 years later, and to see similar tactics. There is apparently long-running ill-will, but ANI is not the place to have it all out right now, and there is a simple content disagreement here which is not appropriate for ANI. At User talk:Nyttend I offered to have out the RFC about article name disambiguation if they want it. They reply by opening this ANI, which is not right. --Doncram (talk) 04:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The RfC has been started. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

To try to make something productive about this, I wonder if anyone viewing this with experience in running big RFCs could help to compose an RFC about this issue. Or could others nominate some editor(s) skilled in running big RFCs? It is unfortunate in my opinion that WikiProject NRHP has not included editors/administrators skilled in running consensus development processes and/or there has been unwillingness to participate in discussion and to abide by "decisions" at the wikiproject's talk page. There have been long-running disputes about several matters which would likely appear minor to outsiders. I have taken notes about this issue over a fairly long time period, with summaries of arguments both ways, and links to arguments on each side, which I would dig out. I would be very glad to have the help of someone skilled in consensus-building and not having any perceived involvement in the dispute to date. --Doncram (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC) I don't understand the need for an RfC. Generally, disambiguators should be as short as possible, just enough information to dispel any ambiguity between articles which would otherwise have the same name. If "COUNTYNAME Courthouse" is ambiguous, then "COUNTYNAME Courthouse, STATENAME" or "COUNTYNAME Courthouse (STATENAME)" clears up any possible confusion, as no state will have two counties with the same name. I don't see any valid argument for requiring "(City, State)" to be used, especially when it's the state which dispels the ambiguity, and not the city. So, where's the pressing need to plunge into a "big RfC"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Side discussion about the header, again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The ANI section header is prejudicial in my opinion. I changed it to neutral-ish "Nyttend vs. Doncram" and Winged Blades of Godric reverted that, then I objected, and then Beyond My Ken collapsed my objection above, which I uncollapsed with explanation. Obviously a section header naming me might tend attract "enemies" of me (not saying that has happened yet) but it will obviously not tend to attract "enemies" of the opposing party. I also linked to the Wikipedia article about human bias, Anchoring. Then another editor reversed my uncollapsing of the section naming dispute. These actions on the name of this ANI section are, in my opinion, well, prejudicial. For the record, I'm the editor that removed the user links to Nyttend, my rational for doing so is Nyttend's talk page or contibs have nothing to do with this discussion. As Beyond My Ken states The ANI is about your behavior, and section headers on ANI and AN (unlike those on article talk pages) can reference the individual who is the subject of the report. - FlightTime (open channel) 06:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

To respond to BYK's latest comment, well, that is a content argument. There has been huge long argument by disambiguation-interested parties about wp:USPLACE naming, which I think mostly resolved in favor of "City, State" rather than "City" or "State" except for about 20 cities covered in an exception based on usage in Associated Press or some other major news agency's usage. I happen to agree that in the U.S. that (City. State) type disambiguation is very good for conveying that the disambiguation is merely about a place in a very background, neutral way, as opposed to unduly involving readers into undue consideration about this being the only place ever of that name within the city or the state, and is consistent with the wp:USPLACE guideline. I believe that Wikipedia readers generally are very unaware about U.S. counties, so the usage of name "WHICHEVER County Courthouse" does not convey very much at all about location, hence disambiguating by (City, State) rather than (State) or (City) is appropriate. I tend to think that Nyttend and some other editors based in Ohio, Indiana and some other states have a mistakent impression of the general readership's knowledge about counties. I sincerely believe that (City, State) is very innocuous and just conveys that the disambiguation is about a place location, rather than raising issues like "Wikipedia readers should know in advance what are county seats of every county in the U.S." or whatever. BYK may happen to be on the other side of major content disagreement about this. --Doncram (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

If it's a "content argument", it's one that you opened: "To try to make something productive about this, I wonder if anyone viewing this with experience in running big RFCs could help to compose an RFC about this issue." My response was that an RfC is not necessary -- and it's not.

What's really necessary here is for you to stop making irrelevant comments, stop fussing about the perfectly non-prejudicial section header, and start explaining your behavior, or else Tarage's sanction -- or something like it -- is going to come crashing down on you. So far, you have explained nothing whatsoever, just waved your hands a lot, perhaps in the hope that it will all go away. Well, it didn't go away at ArbCom, and it's not going to go away now unless you start explaining why you are doing what you are doing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

• Support block of 6 months based on everything above (including nitpicking over the fucking TITLE OF THE FUCKING SECTION) and their history argumentative, abrasive, wikilawyering, nonsensical bullshit. --Tarage (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes; that was rather...illuminating. ——SerialNumber54129 10:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support block of 6 months with a potential' to be site-banned if behavior continues after block per Tarage and WP:ROPE. Especially the part where he nitpicked over the section title of this thread. Enough is enough. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 11:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose a lengthy block. Yeah, the quibbling over the section title and some of the lawyering is a bit much, but the complaint just seems to boil down to 'Doncram undid some of my moves, and I didn't like the note he left on my talk page...oh, and there's all this bad stuff from the past'. Common edit summaries like "take to talk page" often come across as demanding, but they happen. Nyttend hasn't pointed at any attempt at trying to resolve the naming dispute before starting this thread. So since there's disagreement over naming conventions, and Doncram is suggesting an RFC to settle it, why not just have one and close this? If it doesn't go his way and he refuses to abide by it, then there's something that can be done about that. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose a block, speaking as an admin, not an arb. Blocks are intended as preventative. The way to prevent conflict on this is to settle the content question. The question is a real one--a good argument could be made that for country courthouses the name of the city is redundant, and also a good argument could be made that it should follow the ordinary pattern, especially as in many cases people are more likely to know the name of the city. This applies to thousands of articles and potential articles, so it needs an RfC. DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose block, support RfC Seems reasonable a question to RfC over. Yes, Doncram has a long history of blocks, but that doesn't automatically make him blockable whenever anyone complains about anything, the specific complaint needs to be the issue. Quibbling over the title of this section may seen nitpicking, but considering that title is his username, I can imagine it might touch a sore point, so, again, is hardly blockworthy. --GRuban (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose block, support straw poll However, it seems a bit silly to have an RFC over whether or not to include the city in the title. And that's the core problem. I don't know what it takes to get it into Doncram's head that he frequently falls on his sword over silly nonsense, but this isn't the hill to die on. I support a straw poll just to formalize an already existing informal consensus.--v/r - TP 19:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Regarding the call for an RfC, there is already a very strong consensus for the more concise titles per WP:AT. Numerous editors have asked Doncram, on his talk page, not to move these articles. I recall at least three discussions there, as well as one started by Doncram on my talk page recently. More importantly, the vast majority of such articles are titled with simply the state. If you see one using City, State there's an extremely high probability it was put at that title by Doncram. My hope is that Doncram would agree not to move any county courthouse articles. Station1 (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Regarding the locus of dispute (Doncram), there have been multiple and varied strategies for attempting to prevent disruption to Wikipedia while allowing the user in question to contribute positively. I reiterate my assertion from the last case (Historic Railroad bridges), Doncram should be blocked (starting with a 3 month block) for repeated failures to adhere to the standard operating procedure of wikipedia (WP:BRD, WP:FAIT, WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL, and many more). WP:ROPE was used up and burned long ago (especially in light of a previous NRHP community voted topic ban from NRHP topics). Hasteur (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Excerpts from the Doncram arbitration case (2013):

• Uncollegial behavior: Doncram has on many occasions been uncivil. He has repeatedly made accusations of harassment or misbehavior on the part of other editors without attempting to seek proper dispute resolution or disengage from interaction with those editors. He has also continued to make such statements after dispute resolution fora have concluded otherwise.

• Move warring: Doncram has repeatedly attempted to impose his point of view as to the proper title of an article without first seeking consensus in the usual manner.

So, what, exactly, has changed? And why should the community not take action by sanctioning Doncram for the exact same behavior that got him sanctioned by ArbCom five years ago? As Hasteur said above ROPE has totally run out, and AGF is no longer existant. I am unconvinced that Doncram is fundamentally capable of changing his behavior over the long term, nor do the arguments for not sanctioning him come close to approaching a solution for the problem, which emanates entirely from Doncram, and not from the editors he interacts with, or from any specific content dispute.

Therefore, I support a block of a minimum of 3 months, escalating from there, with the proviso that especially egregious behavior will skip ahead to an indefinite block, after which the community can consider a site ban. I don't believe the community needs to put up with Doncram's behavior any more, and that he has become, overall, a net negative to the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not married to 6 months. I'm just one of those provocative assholes who gets the ball rolling, because this is some bullshit right here. --Tarage (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• RFC Started I've started an RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Style guide to amend that page's language; I can't find anything on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) which is relevant to this dispute so have not started the RFC on that page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• I still don't think an RfC was necessary, but since you've started one, we'll see what the results are. In the meantime, the existence of the RfC is irrelevant to the behavioral problems shown by Doncram, which is what this thread is actually about. The RfC addresses the underlying content dispute, this discussion addresses Doncram's behavior, and whether he should be sanctioned for, basically, not changing his pattern since he was dinged by ArbCom five years ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Doncram has periods of clarity, civility, reasonableness, and collaboration. But the periods of the opposite of that are becoming longer and more frequent. The ridiculous warring over the title of this thread, in addition to warring over the page names, means we're in a period of darkness. Therefore I support a block of whatever length is determined by consensus, per the facts placed in evidence by Hasteur and BMK. Maybe by the time the block is over the period of darkness will be over as well. Softlavender (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose block. I've worked with Doncram on articles many times over the years. My contact with Doncram has been been consistently positive. Maybe some sort of warning is needed, but a block on an editor who I run into when he's sourcing and expanding dusty, poorly sourced articles about historic buildings, and who has created many hundreds of valuable pages on historic buildings and districts seems counterproductive. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• It's good that your experiences with Doncram have all been positive, but do you believe that holds for all his interactions? Was the ArbCom sanction not justified, and is the evidence presented here wrong? I'm not attempting to change your !vote, you have every right to your opinion based on your experiences, I just would like to establish if you think other editors are misperceiving or misconstruing or dissembling in some way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions, the Arbcom case is old history and there is an element of settling very old scores. The RFC should end the content dispute finally and should be accepted by all sides and if so that is the end of the problem. Doncram is a valued content creator and improver and is not abusive and will take on board the criticism here, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• I would agree that the 5-year-old ArbCom case was "old history", if Doncram wasn't exhibitng the same behavior now. That makes it relevant as a standard for comparison, not as a reason to sanction in and of itself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment As a close observer of the original Arbitration case and the years of bickering that led up to it, I am concerned that we are repeating the patterns that led us there. From my POV, the run-up to the case went something like this: Doncram would do something idiosyncratic that other regulars at WP:NRHP would disagree with. People would attempt to explain to him that there was a consensus to do it another way. Doncram would work on something else for a while, and then continue repeating his original behavior. Someone would get irritated and revert him. Doncram would sometimes drop the point, and sometimes revert back. Eventually, someone would complain about him here or at another noticeboard. Drive-by commenters would look at a few of Doncram's contributions, see that they weren't obvious vandalism or spam, and decide he was an Innocent Content Creator who was being terribly maligned by people nitpicking for no reason. The thread would sputter out with no consensus, and the cycle would repeat again. The lack of effective intervention during this process allowed the antagonism between Doncram and other members of the project to escalate, until the disruption detailed in the Arbcom case occurred.

I bit my tongue when he was brought to this noticeboard last month, because I think his behavior has improved significantly since the Arbitration case: his articles are better written and sourced, and he seems more willing to discuss reasoning for his actions. On the other hand, in the three incidents that have cropped up since October (sparring over the railroad bridge article, getting blocked after re-creating one of his deleted categories, and the current one), I see two troubling tendencies. The first is a persistent inability to distinguish between his own preferences and what other editors actually support. e.g., given that the RfC on the current subject (courthouse naming) is currently running in 8–0 against his position, the supposed "number of editors agreeing to disagree about how the disambiguation should be done" appears to be largely his own imagination. (This nine-year-old discussion is the closest match I've found to his description, and I'd hardly describe it as establishing a strong minority opinion, much less a consensus in favor of his preferred style.) The second is that ever since the Arbitration case, Doncram has used accusations of "bullying" to avoid responding to criticism. I don't think that's an unfair description of the condition of things when they went to Arbitration—he was subject to edit-warring and personal abuse motivated by a dislike of him—but I don't see that he's ever acknowledged the role of his own behavior in generating that animus. These accusations are not limited to parties from the Arbitration case, and are ongoing. To give two recent examples, involving parties not involved in that dispute: on October 17, after Magicpiano asks him to fix broken links after page moves, Doncram tells him [260] "don't try to evoke and invoke bullying/shitty tactics that were long used against me in the past." and [261] "in general an approach to try to denigrate / run down an editor by creating a false narrative about how horrible they are, by repeated jabs, would indeed be bullying and shitty behavior." On November 5, he tells Mackensen that opening a report here after a protracted dispute created a [262] "perception of bullying-type behavior", and shortly thereafter [263], "I do perceive that you, Pi.1415926535, wish to shut me up". And I now see that he's spent the past few months working on Wikipedia:How to be a bully in wikipedia.

My original purpose in writing this lengthy post was to suggest a middle course of action. I can certainly understand a reluctance to impose a block on Doncram, given his prolific construction of short, but informative and properly-sourced NRHP articles. At the same time, the number of conflicts he's gotten into with entirely separate people over the past two months suggest that something needs to be done to break the cycle I described, wherein mutual antagonism grows between Doncram and other editors until multiple parties have engaged in block-worthy behavior. I'm not sure exactly how to frame it, but I think a topic ban on page moves and some restrictions on talk pages would work—the idea being to direct him toward article creation, which he does well, and away from trying to argue his own interpretations of policy and consensus, which he does badly.

However, after reviewing the relevant finding of fact in the Arbitration case, "Doncram has on many occasions been uncivil. He has repeatedly made accusations of harassment or misbehavior on the part of other editors without attempting to seek proper dispute resolution or disengage from interaction with those editors. He has also continued to make such statements after dispute resolution fora have concluded otherwise." and seeing just how readily he's used his "perception of bullying" to try to turn discussions his own way, I am unfortunately compelled to support block, although I would strongly recommend trying to frame a restriction if there's no consensus for this approach. I think Doncram's statements are sincere—I'm sure he does perceive himself as being bullied when he gets taken to AN/I—but that finding of fact is a clear signal that constantly declaring these perceptions is not acceptable conduct. Choess (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• That comment is extremely perceptive and exactly right. I agree completely. Station1 (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - I oppose any type of block or ban of Doncram. Bringing up an ArbCom case from SIX years ago shows that there is some kind of resentment on the behalf of those who don't like his/her/their editing now. Also, there is a massive lack of diffs and I don't see Doncram given any opportunity to respond to all these accusations. I am also influenced by the language that some editors use in this discussion. I ignore and will never be persuaded by the use of strong words to make a point. Doncram seems to be an excellent editor who does the opposite of what he/she/they is being accused of, instead of disrupting the encyclopedia it is being improved by this editor. I have seen content creators often bludgeoned by those who sit in judgement of their work and like the power they have in ANI discussions. Also, I would like to see Doncram propose something that he/she/they will do to help de-escalate this situation or self-impose a course of action that will help diffuse these disagreements. It is time that we act like adults and help editors resolve their differences. We should always take a long pause before banning or blocking a long time editor. I am an uninvolved editor and do not know almost all of those who are participating in this discussion. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 13:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• I don't understand your comment "I don't see Doncram given any opportunity to respond to all these accusations". As far as I know, Doncram is not prevented in any way from responding here in this discussion. He's not blocked or topic banned from doing so, and contributed to the discussion up until the point where a concrete proposal was posted. He has had, in fact, unlimited opportunities to respond, as long as he doesn't attempt to WP:BLUDGEON the conversation, so his lack of participation is a choice on his part, and certainly shouldn't be factored into to any comment, support or oppose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Try to respond to each and every undiffed statement in this discussion and you will find just how impossible it is to challenge, clarify, identity generalizations and hyperbole. If there are no diffs, I don't read the comment of others. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 15:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Barbara (WVS): Your concern in this regard is noted and reasonable. Below, in my statement, I link an ANI report I filed one month ago with describes the exact same behavior complained of here. That report contains numerous diffs documenting Doncram's behavior and I would appreciate your feedback. Mackensen (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Because it apparently needs saying, I refer to WP:VESTED and the "Super Mario Problem". If a relatively unknown user displayed this kind of disruption, we'd indef block them in a heartbeat, but because Doncram is a user with significant history behind them we're less willing to take action on them or apply sanctions that are less than what we would have applied elsewhere. I would note that Doncram has discussed/refuted previous sanction proposals into "No Consensus" billings. I would also note that (as of this posting) Doncram has not edited since shortly after this thread started up (ANI-Flu?). I would have expected Doncram to have defended themselves vigorously against the editors proposing sanctions, and I perceive an attempt to try and let the furor around this root cause die down and then proceed to resume activities. I would also note that because they have not participated in the naming RFC, so that suggests (in my mind) a "I didn't know about it" or "I didn't get a chance to make my case" excuse for why they chose not to respect the consensus decision. Hasteur (talk) 13:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. As others have noted, the behavior described here is exactly the behavior I brought here about a month ago, right down to Doncram edit-warring over the section header. No action was taken at that time, and here we are again. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, but a block might serve notice that Doncram should stop doing the thing that got him blocked. I don't oppose a block, but I think restricting him from page moves might be a more fruitful avenue. Mackensen (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed for block evasion

• Special:Contributions/96.66.44.150
• 2601:400:8000:ABA0:0:0:0:0/64

Both IPs geolocate to Ann Arbor, MI, and both add unsourced content to cartoon characters' descriptions which alter or add ages and heights. The IPv4 is blocked for 3 months for DE, but the IPv6 is not. They are rather clearly related:

• IPv4 [264] [265] [266] [267]
• IPv6 [268] [269] [270] [271]

Requesting rangeblock for DE and block evasion EvergreenFir (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Note that 2600:1007:B000:0:0:0:0:0/42 was blocked as well and used to engage in the same behavior and also geolocates to Michigan. Same with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:400:C001:87D2:E165:AC6C:6A8A:AFF1. This has been going on for months apparently. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

2601:400:8000:ABA0::/64 blocked for a month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:RFPP backlog

A couple of requests have been there for a while. IWI (chat) 01:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm on it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Oreratile1207 disruptive edits and promises to revert any changes

Oreratile1207 is very clearly WP:NOTHERE. Has been warned many MANY times to not add unsourced content yet continues to do so. In these diffs: [272], [273], [274] said they would revert any edits made by Sam Sailor who tried to help multiple times. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about NOTHERE, but they are disruptive and their attitude could be more positive. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
• Very young user judging from his user page. He did not actually go and undo any edits, and he did say he was sorry for threatening to do so. Nobody has posted him a welcome message in the three weeks he has been here, so I have done that and gave him a TWA invitation. If he's willing to listen and learn, I'm willing to mentor. @Oreratile1207, don't be afraid to chime in here. Sam Sailor 13:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• You might ask them why they stopped editing with Oreratile46 (talk · contribs · count)?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

More promises to revert all changes by other editors: [275]. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor for disruptive editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal - Stew jones

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

---

I have serious concerns about Stew jones (talk · contribs)'s general competence (WP:CIR), especially given how long they have been editing, but particularly their understanding of notability guidelines. Largely BLPs, but a history of other articles as well. A quick look at their deleted contribs shows they have had numerous articles deleted for being non-notable. At two recent AFDs (here and here) they couldn't understand, despite the comments of numerous editors, why the pages they had created were non-notable. In retaliation (WP:POINT) for those AFDs, they then nominated a notable article for deletion - the AFD was closed as 'speedy keep' by @Fenix down:. They have been recently blocked for disruptive editing by @Oshwah:. They are also suspected (WP:DUCK) of editing from an IP, which they basically admit to here.

Proposal - that Stew jones (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from creating any articles in any location other than draftspace. They are also indefinitely banned from moving any articles from draftspace to mainspace.

• Support as proposer. GiantSnowman 09:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• Question - Us regular editors can't see the deleted content, so it's near impossible to judge competence. I see that the editor has been pretty uncooperative when you tried to discuss these concerns with him. My question is, why haven't other admins and editors raised these concerns on Stew Jones talk page? It seems like you are the only one who has dealt with this for more than two years.- MrX 🖋 12:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• @MrX: in relation to deleted content, there are over 1,000 entries going back to 2006. In relation to concerns, you are correct that I recently raised concerns with him - which he dismissed. Other editors have commented on his editing over the years, see this and this and this. Simply look at the number of warnings and notices on his talk page. GiantSnowman 12:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• There are lots of deleted edits, yes, but they're mostly multiple edits to a much smaller number of articles. For example, he created 2013–14 Tamworth F.C. season in 2013 and it was not deleted until 2016 after a total of 399 edits (not all his), so I think the 1,000 deleted edits figure can be misleading when there are often dozens of edits (or more) to his name per individual deleted article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Yes, I see that, but you seem to have placed a substantial number of those warnings yourself. Can we have a look at a few recent sample articles that would convince us that this editor should be banned from creating articles in mainspace? Can you undelete a few for discussion purposes? - MrX 🖋 12:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• There are only two, the two whose AFD's are linked (here and here). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Actually a number of editors have placed numerous warnings (eg @Mattythewhite: a number of times in 2013/2014, but even as far back as 2007). And no, I won't be undeleting NN articles for the purpose of this discussion. Why on earth would we do that? GiantSnowman 12:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that there's no need to undelete any, as the content itself is not the issue - it's the notability of the subjects, and the AFDs got it right. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• We don't ban editors for creating a couple of non-notable articles.- MrX 🖋 12:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• This is a proposal for a topic ban, not a ban - and this editor has had dozens of non-notable articles deleted over the years. GiantSnowman 13:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• It's not actually a topic ban either; it's an article creation in main space and moving from draft space ban, thus my shorthanded "ban".- MrX 🖋 13:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, at least for now. I'm only seeing two articles deleted in recent years, the two whose AFDs are linked above. Prior to those, the most recent deleted article appears to have been created in 2014. Those prior ones were mostly football club seasons, but they were not deleted until 2016 with "Expired PROD, concern was: Fails WP:NSEASONS. Recent AfDs have resulted in these articles being deleted." If it took several years for anyone to pick up on them (and it looks like a number of other similar articles by different writers were dealt with around the same period), I think we should forgive him for perhaps not being aware of that particular notability guideline. There's earlier stuff too, but we were far less focused on picking up notability issues back then, and I think some sort of informal statute of limitations should apply. So, I think we can only fairly evaluate this on the recent non-notable articles, and only two of them does not strike me as sufficient disruption for a topic ban right now. I suggest Stew jones (talk · contribs) should take this as a heads-up, and we should only consider sanctions if it becomes a continuing current problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Boing! said Zebedee: fair point, but what about the AFD he nominated that resulted in 'speedy keep'? Not only WP:POINT but shows he learnt nothing from the AFD of his own two articles. This is not a new editor - he's been here 12/13 years! The fact he still doesn't know about notability is extremely concerning to me... GiantSnowman 12:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, that was definitely pointy and definitely bad form. But I don't think it calls for any more than a heads-up warning at this point, and coming from an ANI discussion could make it sink in better. Should we see more non-notable creations after this, I could then support a topic ban and a requirement to use AFC. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Taking into consideration the OP's assertions and having reviewed Stew jones' talk page and some of their recent contributions, there seems to be little evidence that this editor has disruptively created articles to the extent that would justify such a draconian removal of his editing privileges.- MrX 🖋 12:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - I appreciate the support from others on here, I made two articles, Regan Upton and Anthony Breslin, both are football players who played in the EFL Trophy, my argument was other players have only played in the competition, but have articles, I’m told that under 23 teams don’t count, however my argument is the competition is a professional one, now regardless of this the articles were deleted, with GiantSnowman very much at the forefront of making this happen, frustrating, but that’s life, so I came across an article for Tom Fielding a footballer who has never made a professional apparance, an article created by GiantSnowman, but seen as this doesn’t meet the criteria, I put up a notice for deletion, and then a few days later I am being put up for ban by GiantSnowman, as you can all see I have been improving the non league football scene for some time now, but I have clearly been targeted here, on the whole most of the admins and users on here are quite pleasant, but I’m sorry to say that there is a bit of a bully boy culture here and I feel victimised by this user GiantSnowman who is constantly checking everything I do and trying to essentially find a way to get me some type of permanent ban from improving Wikipedia, seems unbelievably harsh to me Stew jones (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

When an editor finds another editor doing things that they have concerns with, it is not unusual to look deeper into their history. This is what admins are expected to do. It's being diligent in the role that they've been tasked with. If another editor was doing it without justification then that could be considered hounding, but not in this case. --Blackmane (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Stew jones: While I oppose a sanction at this time, I do think there are valid concerns with your understanding of specific notability guidelines - and I know how complicated they can be, so you have my sympathy. I also do not see any bullying or victimization here, and there's definitely no wish to ban you from improving Wikipedia - I see GiantSnowman as someone who genuinely wants to help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose not seeing near enough problemsto justfy an editing restrictio. I have thousamds of deleted contributions - it depends on what you work on. Legacypac (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: I do see signs of problems relating to this user's facility with basic editorial procedures, but I must join others who have commented here in saying that a couple of poorly sources articles is not near the level of disruption I'd need to see before considering any sanction, let alone a TBAN as broad as the one proposed. Frankly, our sports SNGS are probably the single most subjective and idiosyncratic bit of policy in the entire rules framework of this project; I think they are desperately in need of reform, often being the result of discussions between relatively small groups of hyper-zealatous fans who decide on their own what makes a figure in that particular sport "important enough" to warrant mention, rather than using an objective test like GNG which does not hinge on inviting in the personal opinions and biases of a group of editors who often anything but neutral on the subject. This is a major issue with all of our SNGs, but the problem is (if you'll forgive the pun) on steroids with regard to the various subdivisions of NSPORTS. If ever there was an environment on this project wherein I would be inclined to cut an editor some slack for failing to understand why their own internal logic is any more subjective than the policy standards they are expected to use instead, this is surely it. All that said, I am concerned that Stew went after one of Snowman's articles following those AfDs, and by hints of a WP:Battlefield mentality in comments above. But on the basis of what has occurred so far, I can't support a sanction. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: There could be a hint of escalating a potentially serious issue in the wrong direction. I haven't looked into this but "IF" one editor goes after another, as retribution creating a battlefield arena (per comments above), an ANI for stalking for disruption or related violations (incivility such as an attack or being uncooperative, especially where there would be availability of warnings) would certainly be warranted and appropriate. If this is shown I would hope swift to stop because this would be an egregious form of personal attack as well as concerns of harm to Wikipedia. Sanctions for a "crime committed" seems more appropriate than what could be considered as a "back door" solution. Since I am sure the editor was issued notification of this thread hopefully this alone might be cause for consideration of actions (comments above of possible hounding, being inconsiderate, possible concerns of not intending to build an encyclopedia) that could (very likely) result in future sanctions. Otr500 (talk) 10:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - @Stew jones: I know you think I am "after you" - I assure you I am not. As stated above, I am merely exercising my role as an administrator. If you won't listen to me about the numerous problems with your editing, I suggest you listen to the wise advice of the other admins above. GiantSnowman 11:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: I am probably not considered particularly wise, or an admin, but hopefully gave advice deserving reflection. I am not a fan of any project that allows for "exemptions" that actually run counter of policies and guidelines and when concerns are raised should be considered. There also has to be consideration such as above if an editor is violating policy or just pushing the boundaries given by projects. All project directives, opinions, and editing "advice" are still subjected to the more broad community consensus. Disruptions and attacks are serious. I have seen admins get attacked and transparency such as this is good, not only to document there are potential issues, but ensuring there is not a possible boomerang. Otr500 (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

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

2602:30a:c0f1:e8a0:dc24:cda1:35d0:21e8 & SSROnTop

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

---

This user has been repeatedly vandalizing SSR under his IP account and was given three warnings. He makes a new account under the name "SSROnTop" and continues to vandalize with that account. CrispyCream27 • talk • user page 04:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

IP and account blocked for promotion. Acroterion (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

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

MarnetteD

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

---

• MarnetteD (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

My edtis at [276] [277] [278] and [279] were reverted by MarnetteD. Please report him to Administrators and don't let revert or rollback my edits. Thanks. 36.83.67.115 (talk) 07:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Your changes all appear to be unsourced, refer to WP:V and WP:RS. Secondly, your changes were reverted, so accoring to WP:BRD you should now be trying to discuss these matters on the article talk pages. This is not matter for AN/I at this time. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

And you forgot to notify MarnetteD about this thread. I've done that for you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

But I mean, MarnetteD is a furious user who reverts my edits in 5 pages. So I have revert MarnetteD's edits in 4 pages. 36.83.67.115 (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

(EC) If you're confessing to retaliatory reverting another editor when there was no actual problem with their edits, you should expect a WP:boomerang block per WP:point especially since you don't even have an actual worthwhile point. Nil Einne (talk) 08:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Drmargi

• Drmargi (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Same as MarnetteD, Drmargi also undoing my edits in 4 pages. 36.83.67.115 (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I've converted this to a subthread of the previous discussion. You just told us you didn't actually have a reason to make those reverts, so reverting you was quite proper and I was planning to do the same. Nil Einne (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Editor reverted again so I reverted and was going to report but already blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 09:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

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

116.97.246.210

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

---

Suspected sock of Albertpda is edit warring a request that was declined from his old account. A block is needed; they are obviously a sock. IWI (chat) 13:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:AIV Backlog

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

---

Good few IWI (chat) 11:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be backlogged currently. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

You’re only here 3 hours later lol. IWI (chat) 14:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Waenceslaus

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

---

I have blocked Waenceslaus for one week for violation of topic ban on longevity imposed here on ANI in 2015 for their creation of Maria Roszak and edit related to it. Three edits since unblock by ArbCom, and all three are in violation of their topic ban. -- KTC (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• We'll all be supercentenarians before we're rid of the plague of longevity crazies. Consider this snippet from three years ago [280]:

This is to inform you that, as per the consensus in the ANI thread referred to above, you are now indefinitely topic-banned from all edits related to longevity, including (but not limited to) all edits at WP:WikiProject World's Oldest People and discussions about it, as well as articles in its scope. This sanction will be listed at WP:RESTRICT and can be appealed as outlined there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

So you went right ahead and broke the topic ban with this [281] edit? I won't block you for this one just yet, but do take this as a final warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

After that came the sockpuppetry, the further topic-ban violations, and the indef. There is no case on record of this longevity mania being cured, ever. Why, please, are we not now back at indef? EEng 13:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm...it appears we now have EEng's Law - also known as the Supercentenarians Law of Longevity Crazies. It was first proposed by Wikipedian EEng on November 30, 2018 at the height of an English dramafest and was carefully crafted to state the inevitable: After that came the sockpuppetry, the further topic-ban violations, and the indef. There is no case on record of this longevity mania being cured, ever. And so it was written of record in the anals of ANI with no right to ever be forgotten. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 05:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Good thing you put anals in italics because otherwise we might not have noticed the joke. EEng 07:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

_{Has anyone else noticed the longevity of the of this editor's issue with longevity? Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 15:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)}

• I appreciate the quick block, but I also wonder, given they violated their topic ban right after it was imposed and right after the block was lift by ArbComm after an email appeal, why we have ANY thought they will not be back on creating pages about old people in a week? Legacypac (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• In my opinion, an indefinite block would be warranted which could be appealed back to the community. Personally, I have been willing to grant unblocks to individuals who (1) express an understanding of what they did wrong and (2) make a commitment to not repeat those actions again. Waenceslaus met these criteria in speaking with the committee and they were given a second chance on good faith with editing restrictions put in place. Waenceslaus immediately violated their unblock conditions and editing restrictions as supercentenarian topics were a problem for them before and led to community sanctions. This demonstrates to me they have used up their second chance and are not ready to return. Mkdw ^talk 17:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• Re-indef this “editor”. What on Earth was Arbcom thinking with this unblock? They certainly got played for fools, no need to waste any more time when he does it again in a week’s time. Courcelles (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yeah, really ... I said at the current ArbCom case that the unblocking of the editor discussed there was one of the worst I'd seen ... but this might actually be worse. You've got an editor that was a 95% SPA on longevity issues, who insisted that longevity WikiProject was the sole arbiter of all such article, and also socked as an IP to "back up" his cases; who deliberately ignored the result of an RfC (and even asked for the desysop of admins who stopped him doing it), who was then topic-banned from longevity subjects, socked again with a named account to get round that ban, and was then indeffed. What exactly did ArbCom expect was going to happen when he was unblocked? He was a massive timesink for various people the first time, let's ensure he isn't this time. A week is pointless - just re-indef, please. Black Kite (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• I'm fine with the one-week, if it's clear the next block will be an indef. This is so blatant a violation that there's not much time being wasted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comments: WOW! I hope others see that Wikipedia editors, admins, and apparently ArbCom, can seemingly bend over backwards to be lenient, to the extent of stretching second chances (3rd through 6th or more) in a effort to keep editors. I am not sure if the "Look, we are going to slap your hand for the umpteenth time" practice works but eventually, when enough rope is given, the end results have been consistent. I am just examining this in wonderment.

Using a WikiProject as an umbrella: I have seen several instances concerning editors operating within projects and claiming project superiority of "law". I didn't even know there was a "longevity WikiProject" (Looks newer and a stated replacement project for WikiProject World's Oldest People) but note there are notability and sourcing criteria consistent with policies and guidelines. I am a member of several WikiProjects but anytime I see evidence of an editor or a particular project operating on principles not accepted by the more broad community I have to interject. Anything "allowed" (wikilawyered etc...) by silence can effectively ignore the "rules" (subjected to clear Wikipedia improvement as well as consensus), but does not change or over-ride community accepted policies and guidelines. Any editors actions, wrongly, under a misguided assumption, or apparent unclear project recommendations or mandates, just creates community confusion and disruption.

Concerning this editor: It just seems that if an editor exhibits evidence, by multiple violations clearly indicating they are "not ready to return", then we are just giving them the extra-extra rope out of consideration? I guess that is not a bad thing but seems a waste if they keep throwing it down and are given another in a repeated cycle. Maybe we should examine advocating for a clear 3rd and last chance (as opposed to a 2nd chance times up to 6). Leniency here would be the third chance accounting for the community or ArbCom stepping in then realizing: It is possible to admit someone has jumped off a cliff without a parachute and that throwing them feathers won't stop the inevitable. Anyone caught using a sock should be indef'ed so that is certainly a monumental oops on ArbCom.

When you add all the above up, including the 2nd sock, attacking the admin, continuing with no apparent plans to change (a good title for an essay "How to get away with it on Wikipedia") and others, I just wonder. Do editors get this much leniency when making attacks (especially egregious personal ones) or harassment towards others? If so then no wonder there are civility issues on Wikipedia. That would also seem to mean that before we even start we are ignoring WP:5P4 that can be an eventual detriment to Wikipedia.

I am not considered a betting person but would wager this editor likely has more socks in the drawer, any takers? If the above scenario plays out, yet another indef, an appeal to the community, I would hope it is not violating canvassing for someone to let me know. I would love to see how many feathers are tossed trying to stop a fall. Otr500 (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I nodded off there. You were saying? EEng 05:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Sleeping a lot helps you live past 110, maybe, hopefully, except a lot of people die in bed so maybe not. Legacypac (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, he needs to stop getting his nods off here - this is not the place for it. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 06:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• There not here to build a meaningful encyclopedia so just indef them. All they’re going to do after the week is carry on so what’s the point? IWI (chat)
• Arbcom un-bans the editor-in-question, then he/she immediately breaches his conditionally imposed topic ban? This appears to be a WP:CIR situation. GoodDay (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
• Reinstating the indefinite block has to be the way to go here. I do understand giving another chance but Waenceslaus clearly has no interest and isn't going to be editing outside of longevity. Since the topic ban was imposed back in 2015 Waenceslaus has made one single edit anywhere else. While making the single edit he was also running around with a second account trying to dodge the topic ban. Three years later and he's unblocked and what does he do? Violates the topic ban. He's too high risk to only give him a week long block since it's extremely likely we'll be back here in a week or so's time dealing with another edit he shouldn't be doing. CommanderLinx (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
• I support reinstating the indef block. The topic ban violations are a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 00:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• I fully support reinstating the indef block as the topic ban violations are a clear case of WP:NOTHERE and it is clear this editor is never going to change their ways. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Site ban?

• Comment Rather than dilly dallying with an indefinite block, just go straight for a site ban. --Blackmane (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Given the subject matter and how thoroughly predictable this was, I feel no compunction about posting the following:

The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Site ban per WP:NOTHERE and WP:I FOOLED THE ARBS, BWAHAHA. — JFG ^talk 11:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban obviously. EEng 12:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban for sure. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban for using meatpuppet(s) Legacypac (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support ban per my commentary in the section above. Courcelles (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban per above. Comes right off an unblock by ArbCom after three years—only to return by violating their topic ban. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 17:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban. Nothing else to say. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 19:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban. It's quite evident he isn't actually here to build an encyclopaedia, just spread his views. Wikipedia can do with far less partisans in EVERY single topic area. The fact that he didn't even bother trying to adhere to the topic ban suggests that he didn't think there were any repercussions for violating it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban. Not here to build an encyclopedia; end of. IWI (chat) 21:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban. Clearly, I support a site ban, with an indef block to make it work. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban per my comments above. Mkdw ^talk 21:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support the Site ban for my reasons above. Too high risk he'll break his topic ban again and clearly has no interest editing outside longevity. CommanderLinx (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban per my and others' comments above. They clearly will only continue to disrupt Wikipedia and had enough chances to prove otherwise. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW support for siteban. Frankly, I'm just plain blown away by the ballsiness here. This editor is lucky enough to have their unblock request granted by ArbCom, who go out of their way to point out that their topic ban is still in place, and the very first edits said editor makes are to exactly the topic area covered by the TBAN, when socking in relation to that ban was the reason they were indeffed in the first place? Honestly, one is left with the inescapable conclusion that ArbCom and the community at large are being trolled here. The only other possibility is the world's biggest case of WP:IDHT. Either way, I am in agreement with the clear consensus here that this user is WP:NOTHERE in the remotest sense. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Possible sock? (More WP:MEAT)

User:Wenzeslaus M.D. appears connected as the creator of List of Polish supercentenarians which this account edited, and name similarity. Now User:A massive zebra just came off a 6 year break to vote Keep on the Polish article. The zebra knows a lot of Wikijargon considering their editing history and wants me topic banned. Perhaps unhappy I CSD'd the page on a Polish supercenturian they created right after Arbcomm lifted their block. Makes one wonder if the blocked user is socking again. Ping User:KTC Legacypac (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Past behavior, points to more socking. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Wenzeslaus M.D. and User:Waenceslaus don't overlap; the latter only started editing after the former stopped. They are probably the same person, but this looks more like someone forgetting their password and starting a new account. Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure that Waenceslaus and User:A massive zebra aren't the same person - someone in a current AfD mentioned this longevity forum, and there are clearly two users there, in different countries, called Waenceslaus and A massive zebra. Obviously that doesn't mean that there couldn't have been off-wiki canvassing, as they probably know each other from this forum. Black Kite (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

That would not be surprising. The 110 club forum has a very long history of off-Wiki canvassing. CommanderLinx (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

See Courcelles' comment at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Waenceslaus_unblocked_following_successful_appeal. Your ping didn't work by the way. -- KTC (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe Waenceslaus and Zebra are the same person but at the very least he might be a meat puppet from the 110 club. CommanderLinx (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes I posted about possible socking here before info about the forum and locations came up. I believe this is more likely off wiki canvassing, as it is pretty unlikely an account dormant for 6 years that has never been to AfD just happened to find this AfD. Pretty clear the similarly named accounts are the same user but they are not socks. Legacypac (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Ling.Nut

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

---

• Ling.Nut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lingzhi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Axylus.arisbe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Reflets.dans.l'eau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These clean-start (although it's not a secret) accounts belong to the same person, who told me here that they plan to use more accounts in the future. This is not a clear violation of WP:BADSOCK, so I'm asking here because I don't believe this behavior falls under WP:VALIDALT. The problematic thing here is the fact that this editor doesn't like the FA process, and has participated in a RfC with the newest account, and the RfC was about the FA process. Reading WP:CLEANSTART, I see that it is unacceptable to deceive users in controversial areas. This editor is probably aware of all of our policies, as s/he has run for adminship in 2010. If this is deemed unacceptable, I propose banning the editor from using more than one account, and blocking the accounts older than the most recent one indefinitely. wumbolo ^^^ 14:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• I would say "Wake me up when this is done" but no need. I don't care about any rules cited. I don't care about rules in WP on any context. I am not disruptive. So your best bet is "Nothing to see here, move along". [OH PS Ling.Nut is password scrambled... Lingzhi is scrambled... axylus.arisbe is scrambled... But....actually IIRC I think this one is scrambled too, but I haven't logged out yet.. so... whatever.]Reflets.dans.l'eau (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Ling.Nut is a long time and respect editor who is now disillusioned with the project after a few fairly major set backs on an article he poured his heart and soul into and hoped to get to FAC, but was met with a lot of varied resistance that had the accumulated effect of total and utter disenchantment. For each of the incarnations, its pretty clear who it is, and he is very open; by habit and nature. I dont see any need for possible sanction, though I would like my old friend to return to the familiar Lingzhi account...he last edited as Ling.Nut in 2011!!! ps, far as I know accounts can be unscrambled...or effectively usurped...didn't we do this for Giano? Rather than harass valued editors with silly rule waving, we should be reaching out to restore thie faith and place in the community. Ceoil (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• This seems like awfully WP:POINTy behavior, whatever its cause; disillusionment is no excuse for disruptive behavior, and " I don't care about any rules cited. I don't care about rules in WP on any context" is a clear indication of the editor's willful disinclination to follow community rules and norms. I would support requiring the editor to pick one of their accounts and stick to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• Just incase anyone was confused and/or cares, this account has nothing to do with me. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

  ​ lol I was just about to comment with a ping to you. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ling, while I don't think it was either disruptive or deceptive, the combination of "a new username every month" and "I don't care about rules" is inevitably going to awaken unhappy memories in some of the honest people still left at FAC. Disillusionment hasn't made you less intelligent or insightful, and if you want to limit your activity to being a very occasional voice of institutional memory, I think that's a perfectly respectable and healthy thing for you to do. Creating a new account whenever the spirit moves you is just going to encourage pointless drama by the rules-minded. Why feed it? Choess (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• You cannot be serious with this. Read the goddamn box at the top of this page: This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. This is none of those things; if it is even a thing, it is the smallest of things. Fatuous is quite right. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

If for nothing else, I hope to be remembered for fashioning that phrase. EEng 07:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

In fact, I thought you did fashion it, oh great one, because at first glance, my mind, in its oft rather bizarre workings, homonymously saw flatulence ...ahhh, the things we see during Happy Hour.🧚🏻‍♀️🙈🐘 ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 15:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Please report to the repair bay for adjustments to your positronic brain. EEng 07:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC) P.S. The phrase was urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems

• @Mr rnddude:I agree with you, this discussion fits in with what the regular AN Main noticeboard is for. I think the user who initiated this section should move this to the Main AN. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• This is both a chronic and an intractable problem. wumbolo ^^^ 12:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Since there are multiple instances of the behavior described, and since the editor involved has disclaimed any inclination to adhere to Wikipedia's rules, I agree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• The multiple, chronic, intractable problems are: 1) Creates a new account, leaves a few comments, promptly abandons the account. Rinse and repeat. And 2) Issued a proclamation of, I paraphrase, "fuck the police, coming straight from the underground", and then promptly left. I repeat: if, if this is even a thing, it is the smallest of things. This is in combination with not even a hint of account misuse (except the creating of accounts apparently), or of disruption. Let me know when this thread succeeds in either a) protecting the encyclopedia, or b) improving it. My money is on never. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Sansonic's unsourced additions (again)

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

---

Following a recent report here, Sansonic was blocked for a week for persistently ignoring warnings about unsourced additions. The block has now expired and Sansonic is adding unsourced POV material again. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked for a month this time. Courcelles (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban

I'd like to formally propose a topic ban for Sansonic from all pages about Pakistanis in Britain, broadly construed. Courcelles (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Courcelles (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• I'd support that, and suggest adding British politics to the scope. Sansonic appears to be pursuing a political agenda, for example replacing a photo of a very prominent Labour politician with a much less prominent one, adding an irrelevant image accompanied by a trivial fact about a Conservative politician, adding unsourced material critical of the Labour Party and adding unsourced positive material about the Conservatives. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. There's some ridiculous nonsense here that has to stop. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

  I support a wider tban too, as suggested below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Broadly construing an intersection of topics ("Pakistanis in Britain") seems like a recipe for trouble. Suggest expanding it to anything related to Pakistan or Britain; that leaves plenty. The idea is to steer well away from temptation. EEng 21:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd also support that, but I don't feel comfortable changing the original proposal after there are support !votes... Courcelles (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support or something to its effect ^ IWI (chat) 21:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support I concur with the proposal above in extending the topic-ban to Pakistan-related articles.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support EEng's version His idea is better, since the disruption could likely extend to either one. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 01:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support, and more British politics in India should be in the block as well. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 02:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support' EEng's version. Just looking at their recent edits, I'm seeing some quite trouble signs. And the historic stuff is just as bad. Nil Einne (talk) 05:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support' EEng's version. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Closing comment - there's clearly consensus for the ban as amended and so I have enacted it. Since this is a very broad ban, I looked for myself to see what kind of edits Sansonic has made outside of the ban scope, and it's not promising. There aren't many, but the few that I came across are very often adding unsourced commentary, much of it negative. Examples: [282], [283], [284], [285], [286]. There's also the downright strange, like adding a see-also link to British Pakistanis from Mexican Americans, and these edits changing the caption on an image of a Banksy artwork on the Israel-Palestine border wall to say it was an image of the Indian border with Pakistan, which stayed in the article until I reverted it just now. This editor is on course for a site ban and picking up speed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

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

• Just to be abundantly clear: [(Britain) or (Pakistan)] is the TB, not [Britain and Pakistan], yes? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Malcolm Kendrick canvassing

Issues of canvassing and socking on Malcolm Kendrick's deletion discussion since he advertised it on his [287].

Please see Malcolm Kendrick deletion talk, there are twelve accounts there, and others on the deletion discussion. Yet no admin has taken action. Absolute madness. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't panic, the closing admin will see through all that. It might be useful, though, for someone to volunteer to oversee the discussion starting now -- it really is a doozy. EEng 05:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

My eyes are bleeding from that... wow, at a very minimum someone with a bit of subject knowledge should make liberal use of collapse boxes there. Ouch. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The canvassing suggest to me like it's probably meatpuppetry rather than socking. I do have concerns about the sentiments in this edit which seem to suggest the editor may try and engage in a WP:OUTING attempt [288] although the statement itself is confusing since it first says ask the readers of your blog if they can throw light on who is trying to unwrite you from history ..... His sole interest in the matter is who you are but then says No-one is trying to find out who you are. Nil Einne (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I declined a protection request at RFPP for Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Malcolm_Kendrick, because in my view as long as the IPs keep civil it isn't hurting anyone if they want to post messages there. If someone else disagrees feel free to protect the talk page. As far as the AFD itself goes, the meatpuppetry header says all are welcome to state their views. The closing admin will sift through all the gubbins. Fish+Karate 14:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Reading more carefully it sounds like the editor is suggesting the subject of the article wanted that, but no one including them is trying to do it. I don't understand how they can say it's 'not unethical' if they seem to recognise that canvassing to out someone are in fact viewed far more harshly and 'unethical' than ordinary canvassing here regardless of whether the people canvassed follow the call or instead just !vote on the AFD. But whatever I guess. Nil Einne (talk) 10:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Buried in the "Dr. K" blog (linked by the OP at the very beginning of this thread) is an exhortation to "closely monitor appropriate articles and make sure the alternative story gets out there", listing these:
  • Lipid_hypothesis
  • Statin

Editors with an interest in this kind of thing may wish to watchlist. EEng 01:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Problematic username

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

---

I've just blocked I want to fucking end it all (talk · contribs). I doubt whether this is a serious threat of anything, and very likely an LTA at work; however, I'm just noting this here, in case it needs reporting further. -- The Anome (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The Anome Threats of harm (whether self-harm or against someone else) should be sent to emergency@ per the instructions at the top of this page and in the pink edit box. The folks there can judge the credibility of the claim.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Terryfirut

• Terryfirut (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

The user disrupt Wikipedia by making a lot of edits in a short period of time, and those edits were reverted by others. Pinging @Ad Orientem: as the admin has followed this user.--158.182.174.219 (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

User notified. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed Very likely some specie of socking/block evasion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Taking a closer look, their editing history is odd and indicative of someone with experience but there may be other explanations. I am going to err on the side of caution and unblock pending input from Bbb23 who handled a recent SPI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Other than their blocked so-called Alt account, I don't see any evidence of socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest / Sockpuppet

• Crisis Group (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Msunnucks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dear admins, I believe this requires an urgent case of attention, namely because it deals with an issue of COI, as well as possible sockpuppetry.

On the article: International Crisis Group, on 14 June 2018, there was an edit by a username Crisis Group.[289] It was subsequently banned by Alexf

However, looking through the edit history, I've noticed another user by the name of Msunnucks in 21 June 2018 editing the article, who, as part of his uncited updates also happened to purge the article of criticism (citations including Human Rights Watch, CFR, etc).[290] I'm surprised this was overlooked and not reverted. This looks like a pretty bad case of conflict-of-interest and outside censorship. –DA1 (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

User should be blocked with the same criteria as Crisis Group, with SPI needed. Both are same person, probably. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 05:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Even though they've not edited since June, Msunnucks is still entitled to be notified of this thread. I've gone ahead and done that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

P.S. a coupla people have done some cleanup on the article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Gross incivility from Filipjako

I did not particularly enjoy being profiled by Filipjako, nor did I appreciate his conclusion that my supposed ethnicity, which he somehow inferred from my user page (?), prevented me from properly contributing to Wikipedia.[291] My initial attempt to bring WP:PA policy to his or her attention was met with the conclusion that I have "a lack of historical knowledge and abundance of ignorance and stubbornness". I do not recall the last time I started a thread here, if ever, but I cannot help feeling that this behavior will persist, and I am rather disgusted by it. Surtsicna (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I also think this qualifies as a personal attack so a block will be needed IMO. IWI (chat) 22:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Admins this is getting a little urgent now; they won't listen. IWI (chat) 22:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out why you think you're immune from an edit warring block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• I've protected the page for 3 hours to allow for people to calm down. In the mean time, @Filipjako:, you have to stop with the edit warring and the name calling now, or you will be blocked from editing for a long time. @ImprovedWikiImprovment: you are edit warring too, stop it. Conversation thru edit summary needs to stop, conversation on the talk page needs to start. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The formatting was wrong against guidelines; it's not just me who reverted them, although I can see a WP:BOOMERANG coming my way. I'm no threat to this project; they are. I, despite what I thought, didn't break WP:3RR either. I will now back off now that admins are aware. IWI (chat) 22:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

If you do not think that you broke 3RR, then you are not clueful enough to be inserting yourself into other people's conflicts. Your presence here made the situation worse. Please find something else to do, besides finding conflicts at ANI you can wade into. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Understood. I'm out. IWI (chat) 22:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Dr Silverstein

User:Dr Silverstein is sending emails to admins mentioning serious issues on Wikipedia. Then does not react to returned emails. See user's talk page for a few reported cases. Olivier (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

One of the users is not an admin. I don't think, as Olivier suspects, that the e-mail are "bogus". The user has some very strange ideas. I've received two e-mail from them (see "my" section on the user's talk page). It would help if the editors who received the e-mail disclosed the contents. I don't see how they can be considered private at this point, but if you prefer, you can forward me the e-mail.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I have replied to Olivier. I prefer to make sure that an admin is interested in hearing me out before I write up my thoughts to them. Sorry if it has inconvenienced the administration. Thanks. Dr Silverstein (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I have replied to User:Dr Silverstein and suggested them to report issues on this noticeboard or refer to Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm if the issue they are referring to (but not detailed) is really serious. Olivier (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Might need Revdel

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

---

The edit in question is this one here on a WP:BLP: [292], the busker specifically asked to remain anonymous per WP:HARM. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

There were two edits made. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Admitted block evasion

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

---

NoUsername2018 (talk · contribs)

Admitted block evasion on talk page. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite: I was going to post I thought it was a sock of Keditz, but I didn't remember any edits to sports figures. Thanks, - FlightTime (open channel) 16:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Aankan Das

I am just letting you know that the user had repeatedly uploading images that's is clearly a copyright infringement, having look at upload log as all I see is deleted per F9, apart from one which is going through Files whenever would be deleted which I vote for Speedy Delete anyway. Not only he uploading copyvio images, he has a history of disrputive editing, especially violating WP:BLP, which he was blocked one for 31 hours back in September, and again week later for copyvio for 2 weeks, all by the same admin. Sheldybett (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's see if the simple fact that you've brought this to ANI is enough to stop the problematic uploads. @Aankan Das: You have had many warnings, any further dubious uploads will likely result in you being indefinitely blocked. Fish+Karate 09:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

195.77.253.82

195.77.253.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Shared IP that has engaged in repeated disruptive editing and vandalism despite several warnings. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• The user has two edits today and has been warned once. If they continue, please file a report at WP:AIV. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Shirley49 legal threat

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

---

@Shirley49: has made a legal threat in this edit. I have advised them of the issue and suggested that they redact the comment. Strikerforce^Talk 15:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Strikerforce, you may want to clarify the warning on the AfD, as it looks like you've asked EEng to redact. Bradv🍁 15:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bradv: Thanks for catching that. I'd placed my comments in the wrong spot in the thread. I have corrected the placement. Strikerforce^Talk 15:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• They really should retract, but I'm going to say that's not a legal threat under the WP:NLT policy. Shirley49 is not directly threatening to sue anyone, they've just observed that a statement may be libellous, and that is allowed. It's an edge case, though, some other admin might disagree with me and decide to block and I wouldn't object. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd disagree. I would've blocked if I didn't see you here already. But the point of WP:NLT is twofold: 1) To keep legal issues in legal channels, and 2) to avoid the chilling affect of legal threats on NPOV. I believe that even if it's not a direct legal threat, it's purpose was to cause a chilling effect and should still earn a block.--v/r - TP 21:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
• Shirley you can't be serious? Guy (Help!) 21:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• Not looking at the context of the argument, I focused only on what was actually said by the user...I agree with Ivanvector. We spent some time back in February 2018 trying to iron out some of the wrinkles in the wording at NLT. I'll just say 2 things about policy and how it applies to the diff provided (my bold emph is what I feel distinguishes it as not a threat): (1) A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal, and (2) per subsection Defamation: A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat, and finally (3) under the section Perceived legal threats it states: Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention, if there is any doubt. From my perspective, the user was discussing libel, doubted any action would be taken by the person, and 100% dismissed themselves from even the thought of it by referring to it as an insult. Again - I did not research the topic (and hope to hell it wasn't anywhere close to AP2) - my focus is on the wording of the policy only. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 22:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• Legal threat aside, admins keeping an eye on this discussion would be a good thing. Kendrick essentially called for the doxing of Skeptic from Britain on his blog post that summoned all the meatpuppets, and some of those meatpuppets have echoed that language in their "contributions." Grandpallama (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Request for undeletion

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

---

RHaworth has just mistakenly deleted Module:RexxS - there was a genuine csd request for Module:RexxS/doc, which had been created by a Google Code-In student by mistake, but the actual module (not the documentation page) is in use in multiple places - not least in some of the the GCI tasks that are now causing problems because the module is missing.

Could an admin, as a matter of urgency, please restore Module:RexxS. Thanks in advance. --RexxS (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• @RexxS: Done. Enjoy! --Deskana (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Many thanks, Deskana. I'll let the students know that it's working again now. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Could an admin recover a URL from a file's Talk page recently deleted by RHaworth for me?

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

---

RHaworth accidentally speedy deleted a PD image that was unambiguously a work of a US government employee done in the performance of his/her official duties [293]. In my contesting of the deletion on the file's Talk page I pointed out a URL at a .mil website that contained the image in its original format and credited to a US Air Force combat camera operator. Unfortunately, I didn't make an offline note of it and that URL was, therefore, lost when the file was accidentally deleted by RHaworth. Would it be possible for an admin to check the deleted Talk page associated with that file and recover the URL for me so I could re-upload the image (or, honestly, even just undelete the file which would be easier for all involved)? I think the deleting admin has been offline for awhile as my direct request didn't produce any response and/or they may have a backlog of recent complaints regarding file and page deletions. Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Is this the link? [294] BOZ (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

or Is this the link? —kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, kelapstick, that's it - many thanks! Chetsford (talk) 05:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I was able to re-upload it here: [295]. Thanks, again, for your fast assistance, kelapstick. Chetsford (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Chetsford, why have you uploaded it here instead of to the Commons? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any policy that requires images to be uploaded to Commons rather than locally. Fish+Karate 11:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no policy, however usually (unless there is a personal preference not to) it would be uploaded to commons. I suspect a bot will eventually transfer it over there eventually. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Correct. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Help

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

---

Help with vandal - FlightTime (open channel) 17:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Gilliam for all your help :) - FlightTime (open channel) 20:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

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

85.190.76.192

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

---

Special:Contributions/85.190.76.192 Repeated vandalism / removal of content plus referring to moderators as homophobic slurs. CrispyCream27 • talk • user page 22:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

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

User redirecting pages for no apparent reason, abusing sandbox

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

---

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

Today he redirected the sandbox [296] and the article Taki Taki (song) [297] without providing any reason why. And as many of you know the sandbox should never be redirected. He also seriously misused the sandbox long before, including inserting offensive material and user warnings [298]. Looking at his talk page, he has gotten many warnings in the past, but has either not adressed them or gave some vague response (like to my warning [299]), violating WP:COMMUNICATE. funplussmart (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Saying “excuse me” is violating communication rules? Where are you when I keep replying to your warnings on my talk page? And what was the reason for opening a discussion about this.. Sidetosice (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Sidetosice: Even if you receive a warning for disruptive editing, and respond with "excuse me", you should try to do as the warning says, and not just continue. The discussion was started because funplussmart's attempts to stop your disruption failed. See WP:IDHT and WP:CIR. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 01:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I mean I do understand but I didn’t edit anything else after I got the warning Sidetosice (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sidetosice: I think funplussmart wasn't very clear in referencing that there is a history of disruptive editing, and not just those warnings today. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 01:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Well I mentioned how his talk page has a long history of warnings he seemed to have ignored, and I may not have made that clear enough in the original comment, but that is my major concern about this user. funplussmart (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps give a few more diffs of disruptive editing. I have more important things to do in life, I've said all I have to say. I'll just let others comment on this. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 01:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't normally comment here, I like to avoid Wiki drama, but I am willing to comment about Sidetosice as I have experienced their disurptive editing. For example, when the page Lati K was going to be deleted (which they created), they repeatedly blanked the page (as you can see from the 3 2 warnings on their talk page) and after it was deleted did this to the AfD for some reason... I do see this leading to WP:IDHT and WP:CIR but I don't know if all this is warranted for an ANI. I guess I'm a pacifist in that sense but I can vouch for funplussmart. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: Acroterion has blocked Sidetosice. [300] funplussmart (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Azerbaijani POV pushers and WP:NOTHERE

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

---

Bahruz Aghalarov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In the area of Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, which is unfortunately severely understaffed, we got two new POV pushers today. I blocked one, Nargiz.ahmadzada, indef per WP:NOTHERE, and I believe this block is completely uncontroversial, and I was in no way involved before I noticed the edits of this user. All of their edits were reverted (mostly not by me), and the profile is clear. However, I am in doubt concerning the other one, Bahruz Aghalarov. Most of their edits were reverted as well, but they also made a couple of edits which in principle could survive. By a very strict reading of the policies I am involved since I reverted their edits previously (though I did not remember this, and only discovered it when I started to go through their contributions). Therefore I will appreciate if an administrator could have a look at their couple of dozens of edits and decide whether the user should be blocked indef or given some rope (though so far they never made any edits outside of the article space).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I concur that Bahruz Aghalarov (talk · contribs) should be indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE. This is nationalist POV-pushing of the kind that might be handled more slowly at AE. See this diff, which adds 'aggressor Armenia' and 'barbarian occupational policy of Armenia' to the text of the encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I checked their recent edits, all of which are anti-Armenian POV pushing. I gave them an indefinite block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Sarah 2019 (talk · contribs) has been doing the same thing; again WP:NOTHERE. IWI (chat) 20:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you EdJohnston and Cullen328. I also blocked Sarah 2019, I have never seen this user before and I am not involved in any way.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

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

TravellingMike

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

---

This user seems to have created an account just to leave a comment[301] on Jytdog's talk page. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Not to be too flippant but what do you want to see done? He expressed his opinion in a coherent way just like most others did. spryde | talk 15:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I don't really see an issue here. I mean while yes, WP:ILLEGIT forbids the use of undisclosed alternative accounts for discussions internal to the project, the applicability of that is questionable here. It's not like it's the arbcom case or some other similar discussion on our policies and guidelines or sanction proposals or anything else where the it may have an effect on wikipedia as a while.. Nil Einne (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I just posted this so you would see it incase this was a sock you would recognize or something, I know Jytdog gets a lot of trolling, so an account that is created just to comment (in a rather critical fashion) on his talk page seemed odd, but I don't think the comment itself was bad(I actually agree with much of what was said). Tornado chaser (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Daiyusha and CSDs

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

---

Hi all,

I'm afraid I've got a problem with Daiyusha (talk · contribs). He's got the New Page Patrol bug and has been helping out at the backlog, but has made too many incorrect calls on CSDs. A more comprehensive list is available on his talk page, but in a brief summary, I can see notifications of declined speedies on Christopher T. Adams, Sid Saab, Spencer Zimmerman, Edificio del Seguro Médico, Havana, Wolfgang Glöde, Sunil Kalda, Angry Ferret, Jora.com, Sejal Kumar, Draft:Dewan Singh (with a rationale of "fails BIO1E" which isn't a CSD criteria) and Stafford Crossman in a little over two weeks. Given that since WP:ACPERM we get far less legitimate CSD A7 candidates these days, this is a significant number in my view. Despite giving him a clear heads up to stop it and getting an assurance that they would, I still see notifications of declined speedies. So, I'm asking the community if it's time to think about some sort of sanction, such as a topic ban or restriction from CSD tagging. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

You could try a 'final' warning on their talk page. Explain to them as clearly as you can why what they are doing is not right, using the examples you've mentioned here. They clearly want to help so we should be trying to guide the user, not topic-banning them. It may be worth suggesting they move to AFD work for a while, that often gives people a clearer understanding of deletion policy. Fish+Karate 11:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, Christopher T. Adams and Sid Saab indicate they have not even understood WP:NPOL which both clearly meet as elected members of a notable parliamen and Edificio del Seguro Médico, Havana was extremely hasty in violation of WP:A3's waiting period, so that's certainly bad. That said, I think a topic ban is not (yet!) required since they seem to have slowed down now, although they should be advised to take their time when making such edits. If the problems reappear, we can and should consider a ban from deletion tagging. Regards SoWhy 11:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I've left a message on their talk page to try and help. Fish+Karate 11:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay , I'll only tag super obvious CSDs, or else i'll ignore them, have been ignoring many such articles for a while now, I am tagging about 4-5 articles a day, you can see that I have clearly decreased the number of CSD decline notices have decreased from 2 a day to about 1 every 3 days. As per your advice, i'll stop my CSD tagging for a while unless its super obvious, and proceed with PROD and AfD tags then. Daiyusha (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I would take Fish&Karate's advice and switch your focus to AfD. You'll get experience in what the community considers an acceptable article for the project, and by the time you've got some experience there, you'll find your CSD tagging should improve. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Daiyusha: The whole point of CSDs is that it must be super obvious. Speedy criteria allows any 1 sysop to delete an article without a discussion first. Since we do everything by consensus, the only way a sysop is allowed to do that is by utilizing the prior consensus at WP:CSD. However, that prior consensus covers very strict criteria. Any deviation from that strict criteria, and there is no consensus to delete which means we must PROD or AFD the article instead. Keep in mind, too, that notability is not the threshold for CSD:A7. Claim of notability is. That's a much lower threshold. "I'm a badass Wikipedian and I've been mentioned in two news articles" is a claim of notability. The fact that it were a mere mention and not even by name and I'm not really that important is what we discuss in an AFD.--v/r - TP 15:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Surely you mean "indication of significance or importance"? But yeah, TParis is right when he points out that only clear-cut cases should be tagged for speedy deletion. Basically, if the article contains any claim that might constitute a credible reason why this subject might stand out from the crowd, no matter how slightly, use PROD or AFD instead. Regards SoWhy 16:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And this compounds a problem, which is not your fault Daiyusha, that some admins see a CSD-tagged page and immediately delete it without checking that the tag is valid. I echo the recommendation to build some experience in one of the participatory discussion venues (WP:AFD, WP:CFD, WP:RFD, WP:MFD, etc) where over time you'll see how speedy tags interact with our content policies. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Daiyusha: to repeat the point several other editors have made: I'll only tag super obvious CSDs is the right option. If it isn't super-obvious, use AFD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

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

User:2601:191:8402:5f89:252d:bf9e:6a07:fc26

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

---

User with dynamic IP. 2601:191:8402:5f89:252d:bf9e:6a07:fc26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Edit warring:

• [302], [303]
• [304], [305], [306]

Rough and abusive personal attacks: learn the difference or f* off

Suspects on block evasion: "Ukrainophobic dogwhistle" in the description of edits:

• 73.16.107.72: [307]
• 2601:191:8402:5f89:252d:bf9e:6a07:fc26: [308] [309]

And in general, the style is very similar to a row of blocked POV-pushers.--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

2601:191:8402:5F89::/64 range blocked for three months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

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

IP and BLP issues/block evasion

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

---

Hi. I previously reported 103.60.175.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was evading a block for BLP issues (amongst other things). They were blocked again last month with all their edits rolled back. They have returned as 45.120.114.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), editing in the same subject area (cricket biographies and sports templates, for the main). Def. the same editor - IP 103.60, IP 45.120). I'd be grateful if this account was blocked and their edits rolled back again. Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Please can you go to WP:SPI to gain clarification on whether it's block evasion, because I can't see any problematic edits from this IP, just lots of gnoming; and adding one category the same isn't really enough justification to block the IP and nuke all their contributions. Are the edits they are making problematic? Fish+Karate 10:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked 45.120.114.144 as obvious block evasion by whoever is behind 103.60.175.85. If the individual behind the IP wants to continue editing here they need to address the reasons for their original block, not simply hop to another IP via the same ISP to evade it.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Seeing as they have/had the same editing pattern, it was obvious it was the same editor, and the SPI backlog can take an age to get a result. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Need help with IP vandal, please

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

---

Brand-new IP user 58.93.178.18 submitted a half dozen rapid changes which were either nonconstructive or unnecessary. I reverted these and posted on the user's talk page. The user has since reverted my changes, and told me I'm a vandal. I would appreciate some help with this. Thank you. Jessicapierce (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Jessicapierce - I've blocked the IP user for 36 hours for the repeated disruptive edits. Minus the actual content involved, this user is clearly edit warring on Jewish population by country and making mass-reverts without explanation or discussion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Gaming of autoconfirmed status by User:IAFIS

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

---

This new user created their account on November 6, [310] then waited 10 days before editing. On November 16 they proceeded to make 10 trivial edits, ending on December 6, 30 days after they created their account. [311]

I don't believe that it is a coincidence that 10 edits in 30 days are the usual markers for becoming WP:Autoconfirmed.

On the 30th day, they started editing a controversial article, Gavin McInnes, and continue to do so.

I believe that they deliberately gamed the system to become autoconfirmed in order to edit other controversial edits which are or may become semi-protected. I ask that an admin look into this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a smear made by Beyond My Ken without any evidence being used to intimidate. I am new to wikipedia, should I report him for this to an admin or possibly the proper section of ANI? Like other users stated the McInnes page wasn't even protected when I first edited it so the complaint BeyondMyKen is making here makes no sense. Just joined last month and all of my edits so far have nothing to do with alt-right or white supremacist figures (like Beyond My Ken has tried to imply) except the Gavin McInnes page (who isn't even a white nationalist, he seems to identify as more of a libertarian or "new right"). All of a sudden two editors Calton and Beyond My Ken jump all over me accusing me of being a sock based on zero evidence. I believe what is going on is these two users have political agendas and are trying to smear me as a "sock" to prevent me from contributing and editing on Wikipedia. IAFIS (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

No evidence? The evidence is clearly stated above. You can disagree with it, you can say it's not adequate or convincing, you can say that there's no violation, but you can't say that I didn't present any evidence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Not only no evidence but you appear to be trying to manipulate admins to look into me because you have some sort of political agenda. I made two legitimate edits that you didn't like to the McInnes page and you immediately began proclaiming I was possibly a nazi alt-right sock (again, based on zero evidence). Like several other users here have already stated, you also made up stuff like autoconfirm status needs 30 days when it's only 4 days. You also lied about the Mcinnes article being protected when it wasn't. So your whole premise that I planned on editing the locked McInnes article by making exactly 10 edits is complete B.S. Like I asked you to do on your talk page, please leave me alone and stop harassing me on wikipedia. By the way, is this how wikipedia is supposed to work for new users? Are editors who have political agendas supposed to try and silence other users?

P.S. I actually made 11 or 12 edits (including creating my userpage) when I first edited the McInnes article not 10, and if anything the Neil Degrasse article (which was actually protected) would be what I was trying to contribute to. IAFIS (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

You made 10 article edits. The rest of what you said is hooey. I lied about nothing. I was honestly mistaken about 30 days, and I never said that Gavin McInnis was protected. What I said, precisely, was:I believe that they deliberately gamed the system to become autoconfirmed in order to edit other controversial edits [typo for "articles"], which are or may become semi-protected.

Clear? As for your question "is this how Wikipedia is supposed to work?" You really don't need an answer to that, do you, because you've had plenty of past experience with how Wikipedia works, haven't you?

And "manipulating admins"? That's a pretty low opinion you have about the intelligence of our admins, isn't it? What you'll find -- or what you already know -- is that admins, for the most part, follow the rules very precisely as they understand them. They may see what's happening, but decide that the circumstances don't exactly fit the letter of the policy, and therefore they don't act. That can be frustrating, but I understand it. It doesn't mean that they don't recognize the nature of the problem, it just means that they hold tightly to their responsibilities -- after all, they are accountable for their actions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't claim to have made 10 edits (you did), I said I made 11 or 12 (not including my userpage) so what you are saying is "hooey". You have repeatedly lied once again smearing me (I think this is the FIFTH time you have smeared or attacked me for no reason in the past 24 hrs. Apparently you seem to be a political activist smear/attack/try to silence others type of editor not an honest wikipedia editor. You again insinuated above that I am a previous user or a sock who has plenty of past experience. Why has this user BeyondMyKen not been penalized yet for this abuse by a neutral and honest admin?? IAFIS (talk) 07:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

You seem to have some difficulty comprehending the written word, so I'll pass on any further discussion with you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't change your comments after others have responded to them, it's dishonest. See WP:TPO. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't accuse others of having changed their comments when they haven't, it's dishonest. Just like you have been dishonest throughout this whole process, beginning with lying about how autoconfirm status works to make it seem like I was a previous banned user or sock. 07:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, sweet Jesus, don't you realize that everything's in the history?:

• At 2:39 [312], in response to your comment beginning "I didn't claim to have made 10 edits...", I posted the comment beginning "You seem to have some difficulty..."
• At 2:40, 1 minute later [313], you posted a 13-byte change to the comment I had already responded to.

Therefore, you changed your comment after I had already replied to it. Please don't do this again. And kindly stop accusing me of lying when you have presented no evidence of such. All you have shown is that I was wrong, something I had already admitted to below, two hours earlier. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia (despite your harassing accusations) so please forgive me if I made a mistake above, I didn't know I was doing anything wrong by simply tweaking my comments. I can't read your mind but it seems pretty obvious to me (and other users) that you are acting in bad faith and operate on wikipedia with a clear political agenda on top of that. Besides several users pointing out how the Mcinnes article wasnt locked so there was no reason for me to "game" the system, an admin below named Oshwah pointed out my initial edits were not trivial, and besides I didn't join wikipedia in the first place to make "trivial" edits, I joined because I have been a reader of the site for about 7 years and wanted to contribute myself. I never thought people like you (who apparently are protected by like-minded admins who share your politics) would jump all over me after just a few weeks of editing and accuse me of being a nazi sock. I just hope a fair-minded admin (seems like there aren't many according to what an IP user said on my talk page) penalizes you, and other users who misuse this encyclopedia in similar ways, have a good day. IAFIS (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

10'edits in only 4 days => autoconfirmed, a stupid low bar for page creation. There is no rule against this. Legacypac (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, Gavin McInnes isn't protected anyway (or hasn't been since 30 November, when it was fully protected), so it doesn't actually matter if they were autoconfirmed or not. Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is a ridiculously low bar, and yes, I know that that particular article isn't semi-protected, but this behavior is nevertheless gaming the system, making precisely the right amount of edits in exactly the correct amount of days to be autoconfirmed -- if autoconfirmation is supposed to be the "first line of defense" against people who are only here to harm the encyclopedia, then we ought not to make light of those who manipulate things to get that status. I suggest their auto-confirmed status be revoked, but if no one is willing to help defend the project by doing that, at the very least this editor's behavior needs to be kept an eye on, as their editing on Gavin McInnes is verging on disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to call the user's edits "trivial" by this definition, or an attempt to make edits to Wikipedia with the sole intent of gaining the autoconfirmed status and by gaming the system. I've seen and put a kibosh to many abusive accounts that have done this, and the edits they make are much more obvious and put much less of an effort into making good-faith changes to articles compared to this user. The accounts I've seen that actually game the system (usually LTA socks or those wanting to disrupt the project) will just edit their own sandbox or other page in their user space and just repeatedly add and remove a single character until they hit the edit count needed (10 edits for 'confirmed', 500 edits for 'extended confirmed'). As pointed out above, the article in question (Gavin McInnes) isn't and wasn't under any kind of protection; if the user's intent was solely to edit disruptively and cause bad-faith damage to the project and the article, they could have just done so immediately. I'll acknowledge that the user's edits are interesting in that they make nine edits back in November, then later jump straight into editing a controversial topic. I don't blame editors for being suspicious and keeping an extra eye on IAFIS because of this. However, I can't take any administrative action against someone solely based off of "suspicions" like this - especially when (minus the suspicions) the edits appear to be made in good faith. Editors can keep an eye on things if they feel that it's necessary (it's not a wrong thing to do), and we should hold this user to the same level of accountability and treat them like we would anybody else. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

This is absurd. It isn't 30 days to become auto-confirmed, and the article being edited isn't semi-protected. There's absolutely no auto-confirmed gaming to be worried about. There's nothing that possibly could or should be done here, other than a fish dinner for BMK. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Only slightly absurd, actually. I was wrong about 30 days (Four days to be autoconfirmed? Really!? What's the point, it's a joke. Why do we even bother waiting, just hand out autoconfirmation as soon as they sign in!!), but I am right about IAFIS bearing watching, and will gladly lay odds on that.

As for the fish dinner, fine with me, as long as you cut the head off and serve it in Memisen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes 4 days, but that little cooling off period for WP:ACREQ has dramatically reduced crap page creation. Anyway 30 days is not a factor here so no gaming. No opinion on the user's edits. Legacypac (talk) 05:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Reporting BeyondMyKen for harassment

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

---

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

---

The above section has been closed. I began typing my response around 8:50 but had to stop to take a phone call, and then finished up and posted it 12 mins later but it was closed by then. So I am posting it here below and also reporting BeyondMyKen:

I am new to wikipedia (despite your harassing accusations) so please forgive me if I made a mistake above, I didn't know I was doing anything wrong by simply tweaking my comments. I can't read your mind but it seems pretty obvious to me (and other users) that you are acting in bad faith (and operate on wikipedia with a political agenda on top of that). Besides several users pointing out how the McInnes article wasnt locked so there was no reason for me to "game" the system, an admin below named Oshwah pointed out my initial edits were not trivial, and besides I didn't join wikipedia in the first place to make "trivial" edits, I joined because I have been a reader of the site for about 7 years and wanted to contribute myself. I never thought people like you (who apparently are protected by like-minded admins who share your politics) would jump all over me after just a few weeks of editing and accuse me of being a nazi sock. I just hope a fair-minded admin (seems like there aren't many according to what an IP user said on my talk page) penalizes you, and other users who misuse this encyclopedia in similar ways. IAFIS (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Can a neutral admin please penalize Beyond My Ken in some way? If you check his and my talk pages (and other pages) you will see he has accused and harassed me on at least five occasions (possibly six), doing all sorts of things like accusing me of being a sock based on zero evidence, insulted me (called me "ultra stupid"), and also accused me of "gaming" so I can edit a locked article (again based on zero evidence). Several other users agreed with me on the AN/I section that his accusations were baseless, yet he continued to attack me. On the McInnes article he also claimed there was "clear consensus at WP:RSN" for something that was not true, and appears to be a blatant lie.

For the record another user named Calton also accused me (without any evidence) of being a sock and and an alt-right nazi, although they didn't continue to attack and smear in the manner BeyondMyKen did. IAFIS (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

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

^^ ^^

Ymblanter please explain how I was "problematic", and why was the above section closed after just 15 minutes? Can a neutral fair-minded admin please help out here, is this how Wikipedia works? Thanks -- IAFIS (talk) 10:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Go make some productive edits and stay of the Admin board. Legacypac (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

You got into a scrap with another editor. That scrap was brought here, and no action was determined to be necessary at this time. Continuing this further will almost certainly result in sanctions. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest that a neutral admin indeed looks at this and blocks IAFIS for disruption. They wasted already enough of community time.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken disrupted and wasted community time, I'm only defending myself. Thanks Mr rnddude, I got it, I won't post anything else on this page unless another user smears me again and accuses me w/o evidence of being a sockpuppet, or an alt-right neonazi white nationalist, or "ultra stupid". BeyondMyKen was the initiator of the conflict and the clear aggressor and should have been sanctioned, but I guess Wikipedia doesn't work that way -- IAFIS (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I think WP:HERRING may be somewhat useful here. By preliminary checks, that first question by BMK is a question, and no warnings or harrasment have been spotted. Also, it seems that you are not listening to outcomes made here on ANI. This ain't the first time you've tried to get BMK blocked. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 12:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Where have I tried to get BMK blocked? You just made that up, I never once asked that he be blocked, I asked that he be penalized or sanctioned for his obvious harassment and intimidation tactics that he used against me. Unlike other users here who appear to have political agendas, I don't want to permanently block people from editing wikipedia.--IAFIS (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@IAFIS: What I found spot checking your edits are statements falsely attributed to the group's lawyer that is significant language directly copied and pasted from the article and the opinion of no one other then the author, Arun Gupta.[314] So, yes, there are significant problems with these edits of a sort I personally don't have much sympathy for, however, I think you will find this community is very patient...Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Nothing was falsely attributed, please re-read the article again. The group says it is anti ILLEGAL immigrant(good IMHO) and anti-muslim(not good and stupid) and that it has members of all races and backgrounds so how can it be considered "white nationalist"? For the record I have no sympathy for white nationalists or racists, it just seems like a lot of people here have political agendas where they want to quickly smear and label certain people in certain ways so they can shut down any debate, even though this is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia for all. IAFIS (talk) 12:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

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

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

---

• Ivanvector, Bbb23, this person, who runs dozens of socks, harasses one of our editors by way of ANI, and appears to be essentially a POV editor who claims they're just here to add balance, gets only two weeks? Did I miss any extenuating circumstances? I'm going to have to eat a chocolate croissant to get over this surprise. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Drmies: See my comments at User talk:Enjois.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Two weeks is standard for a sockmaster's first block, and I'm not sure it's been established that any of the user's edits from any of their accounts (or taken as a whole) would warrant longer. None of the accounts have been blocked, none appear to have tag-teamed on any articles or vote-stacked any discussions, but they have definitely been avoiding scrutiny. I of course don't object if someone decides to lengthen this, the diatribe on the master's talk page is not promising considering the topics they edit in. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• I disagree that there is any "standard". I recognize I'm more likely to indef a master on a first offense than others, but the length of the master's block is discretionary, and, in my view, with this master I wouldn't have spent more than about 10 seconds thinking about it before doing so. At the same time, I rarely override another member of the SPI team, and even with your permission, I would be reluctant to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

In this case, when I said "I don't object", I was kinda hoping one of you folk would pull the trigger. They've talked themselves into it with TPA revoked anyway. At least one of their socks has been warned about DS in AP2, and this has gone on plenty long enough. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Sorry I didn't get that. Sometimes you need to hit me over the head with a hammer. I obviously endorse your indefinite block. It is a CU block, isn't it? So much verbiage in the block entry I can't tell for sure.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Definitely a CU block, plus all the other stuff. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

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