Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Incivility at Talk: Ajax (play)

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

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

Reading the conversation you are rather pedantic. That's not really an excuse though I do understand their response to you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Essentially you sealioned someone over a basic (as in, taught in secondary/high school) grammar issue which is already covered by the MOS. That someone was incivil to you is a result of you not dropping the stick and backing away from the horse... Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you'd better check your definition of sealioning. As the talk page shows, I was the one who started the thread by asking for information. The user in question responded with a vague statement about what's "standard in most literature", apparently[19][20] using a duplicate account. When pressed for details, the user provided a link that didn't actually substantiate the claim. When this was challenged, the user got irritable and very quickly moved to condescension and insults. Also, what MOS says was made clear early in the discussion – this was a question about verifiability as much as punctuation. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You asked a question and I answered it. I wasn't aware I was signed in on that account at the time. You persisted, so I provided a link that answered exactly what you'd asked (the very first result of the search demonstrates it) and I invited you to do the work of satisying your curiousity about the absolutely minor and inconsequential point yourself, having seen how you'd wasted other editors' time previously. You insisted I do the searching for you. I wasn't prepared to do so, for the same reason. Verifiability doesn't apply for such an issue since no source is likely to be found for the question you were raising (it being so inconsequential). As explained on the talk page. At increasing length. As per your behaviour with the other unfortunate editors of that page. I suggest you review your posts to that page for the last couple of months and reassess the manner in which you attempt to resolve problems identified. It's not the responsibility of other editors to explain things to you that you can so easily confirm for yourself.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 04:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Actually, it's not necessary for both sides to walk away. But whichever one does walk away, allowing the other side to have its way on this meaningless question, will be the better editor -- and others will know it. EEng 05:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Please, let’s not pretend that this is a single incident that stands alone — it is a larger problem. (As has been indicated above in this discussion.) Coconutporkpie has opened multiple discussions on the Ajax (play) talk page alone. They are equally a waste of time. Then he discusses related issues on other talk pages elsewhere on Wikipedia, similarly wasting other editor’s time in the midsts of long grindingly inane discussions. (An example is buried somewhere in a discussion on Template talk:According to whom. DP at one point (earlier on the Ajax page) stepped in and helped to resolve one of these inane things, and deserves credit. You can’t really fault an editor for answering a question on a talk page, and then another, and another, but at a certain point you begin to realize you have been drawn in, and you are trapped into being impolite yourself by ignoring him — and then he hounds you with accusations for ignoring him. (As he did to me earlier on the Ajax (play) talk page.) He is devoted to wasting the time of many editors who are, after all, volunteers and could be doing other things. He is a form of troll known as a sea lion. Many editors, myself included, are guilty of taking the bait. Clockchime (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Clockchime, but I'm not buying your speculation that this is an attempt at trolling and deliberate disruption. Looking at both the Ajax talk discussions and the additional template discussion you provide above, they look like fairly garden variety content disputes to me. That is, they (unfortunately) seem fairly reflective of how such disagreements often play out these days between parties who are certain that their approach is best and fight tooth-and-nail over ever little particular, rather than looking for reasonable compromise approaches that might serve the project and the content best. CPP is certainly opinionated, and if there is anything that discussion you linked proves, it's that he certainly seems to have a selective valuation of WP:Civility, based on whether he wants to apply it to his own behaviour or that of his "opposition", but I see absolutely nothing to suggest that he is arguing those points out of any other purpose than to see things done his way. Indeed, that seems to be the very heart of the disagreement here. So, though his behaviour is arguably problematic, you're going to have to present much more explicit evidence of trolling than that he seems to be acting in an obtuse manner to you; otherwise these observations just looks like a refusal to WP:AGF.

I'm not saying you and others aren't right to be frustrated here (I reserve comment on that, beyond what I've observed above), but trolling is bad-faith behaviour on an entirely different level, and those kinds of accusations need to be substantiated by more than "He's got it so wrong and has missed the point so many times, he must be playing with us". People make bad calls and fail to accept consensus all day every day across this project, while still mostly operating in good faith and from a perspective that their approach would benefit the encyclopedia. I respectfully suggest that all evidence here seems to suggest the exact opposite of what you seem to feel that you see; that is to say, CPP is not someone who is here to deliberately derail the project for kicks, but rather someone who feels very passionately about improving it, but fails to see when it is time to let go of their idiosyncratic approaches. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding due diligence, what MoS actually says, and which I referenced with a link early in the discussion,[21] is that there were two possible style alternatives. My comments on Talk: Ajax (play) were directed at establishing which of the two alternatives was favored by the majority of sources. I don't see it as redundant to ask an editor to justify their statements, when each of their comments contains new, unverified assertions.[22][23][24][25]

According to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, RFC and third opinion are for content disputes. There was no more content dispute in this case, because several sources in the article turned out to support the existing wording, as I mentioned on the article talk page[26] (I found none that used the alternative). This was after I had already been insulted several times. I brought the issue to this page because of a user's incivility, not to continue a dispute over content.

Vague accusations such as "fails to see when it is time to let go of their idiosyncratic approaches" and "seems to have a selective valuation of WP:Civility" are of course easy to make and impossible to refute, since they are directed at deal with assumptions about a person's mental state, rather than the evidence of their actions. Also, inventing nicknames or abbreviations for other users ("Coconut", "CPP") strikes me as a very passive-aggressive form of belittling or condescension, which itself is considered to be uncivil. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The answer to your question as to which of the two MoS possibilities was answered in the first and the second (and every subsequent) message. You misrepresent the issue -- it is not nor never was a question of 'most sources'. As the MoS makes clear, it's the way it's usually said out loud. Hence, "Sophocles' tragedy," but "Faustus's damnation." The problem that I and other editors have identified with your manner is that having had the question answered for you, given sources supporting it, you insisted on dragging out a completely minor and inconsequential point long after it had been addressed to the fullest extent imaginable. A simple google books search answered it immediately. You did a similar thing over the all-too-easily-fixed issue of an "immature" work in the wording of the same article. All it took was the smallest active edit and the tinest amount of searching through/for the sources. I wasn't involved in that discussion at all. I encountered it and saw how ridiculous it was. I committed hours of time to improving the article, checking sources, cleaning up citation style, etc., precisely to bring those interminable and pointless dilations on the talk page to a ineluctable conclusion. One day later, you were at it again, about a point with even less merit.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 02:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

"You misrepresent the issue – it is not nor never was a question of 'most sources'" – in fact it was User:DoctorMabuse/User:DionysosProteus who stated that the disputed material was "standard in most literature".[27] But in any case giving due weight requires articles to account for how material is presented by the majority of reliable sources (also covered at Wikipedia:Verifiability). I was not very clear in articulating this on the article talk page, but I think the policy is clear enough on its own. In asking for more complete verification, I was following recommended practice per Wikipedia's talk page guidelines: "The talk page is the ideal place for issues relating to verification, such as asking for help finding sources [...] Asking for a verifiable reference supporting a statement is often better than arguing against it". —Coconutporkpie (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It may be the opinion of some users that the topic in question is "a completely minor and inconsequential point" and without "merit", but the fact is that different people edit Wikipedia for different reasons. Some people are interested in basic copyediting, which includes punctuation. Others are less interested in these things, but such differences of Interest or opinion should not be an excuse for incivility. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Wow, you do realize that I was the only editor involved in this discussion who was defending you to some extent and making an effort to point out that your dispute with Dionysos seemed to have been a two-way street? For no other reason than because I wanted to make sure unfair assumptions about your "mental state" state were not made, I just went to considerable lengths to challenge the emerging view that you are just here to troll the community. And rather than view those efforts as the only thing standing between you and the big ol' WP:BOOMERANG about to smack you in the forehead, you chose to try to parse my comments to find excuses to see insults that were never there.

I'm not going to engage with you on the content issue, because this is not the place for that discussion, but I'll say as much as this; I agree with everyone else here (and everyone on that talk page), that you've got the wrong of the policy argument and that it's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. But then again, frankly at this point I'm beginning to re-assess my perspective now and question whether everyone else who has brought their experience with you here was right and you are in fact just here to stir things up. It seems to be either that or that you are possessed of such a WP:Battleground mentality that you can't even see the level of disruption you cause by blowing up an entire talk page over a few apostrophes. I'm also not going to get drawn in to discussing your one-sided perspective on editor behaviour, except to say that your pretext that you opened this thread because of you are not being treated in a civil fashion is hard to take seriously when you will happily call your opposition's posts "incoherent rambling" when your own ire is raised. I stand by my observations as an uninvolved party here, except to say that I am no longer 100% certain that the other contributors here were not right all along, regarding the good faith/bad faith interpretation of your behaviour. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Tu quoque – but "Wow, you do realize that I was the only editor involved in this discussion who was defending you to some extent [...]?" I can do without that sort of defending, thank you very much. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Friend, I am happy to let you have it that way, where that is concerned. Good luck. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Recommend this be closed before the OP gets hit with a boomerang for this massive waste of time. Softlavender (talk) 08:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Coconutporkpie, I'm afraid that you can't cherry-pick the guidelines to evade the most obvious point, which is that you received an answer, sourced, and many, many subsequent explanations for the standard usage, and still you insisted on wasting our time, as you had done with others before, and there seems to be no sign that you are prepared to amend this behaviour. Your attempts to imply I was acting as a sockpuppet are part of the same pattern. It is unsurprising, then, to see you bandy around "Tu quoque" -- it's the catchphrase of a fool. Thomas Greene, however, at least had the virtue of being entertaining.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 15:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The Frankfurt School section "Cultural Marxism"

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

Comment

1. It seems you read my mind. I was just about to report you. You accuse me of a possible 3RR violation. I suspected a WP:TAGTEAM ( [32] [33] [34] [35]) between you and User:Ian.thomson yesterday but didn't report it because I forced myself to assume WP:GOODFAITH.

2. People are free to look at the discussion and RfC over at Talk:Frankfurt School. The page is absolutely plastered with long-winded comments by Jobrot which fail to address my original question.

3. Jobrot consistently reverted the NPOV template on flimsy reasons and by claiming a fictitious three editor consensus when most comments on the RfC there were votes without any substantive discussion.

4. Looks like Jobrot believes he owns the article, and content added using reliable sources that do not support his bias look like disruptive editing to him.

5. It looks like this issue was not urgent enough to be reported. Jobrot spent a better part of half an hour [36] leaving replies to comments not addressed to him before deciding to revert my reliably sourced "disruptive edit."

6. This is what Jobrot considers to be a disruptive edit: [37]. Well-sourced quotes and statements backed by reliable sources. Last Contrarian (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

This is pretty common for the article: someone comes in, claims that we're relying too much on "leftist" sources that that Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory, further evidence is provided that it is a conspiracy theory, those sources are rejected as "leftist," and no counter sources are ever provided to show that anyone outside of the far-right regards it as a reality. However, it's usually new and/or anon editors who don't know how (or don't care) to nominally go through process. We have an editor going through the process, consensus isn't going his way, but there's one editor who is continually countering his arguments so that must be the problem. Seriously, though, is Jobrot handling things perfectly? No. But is he the one ignoring consensus here? Not that I'm seeing...

@Last Contrarian: I've only ever encountered Jobrot on this site, I've only ever really crossed paths with him at The Frankfurt School article and talk page, and his talk page isn't even on my watchlist -- so accusations of tag teaming would indeed go against WP:AGF. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Does the absence of a consensus mean I stay away from the article altogether (Barring substantive discussion from commenting editors, I still consider it to be a majority vote)? Have I added any batshit crazy stuff to the section to your knowledge?

Once the NPOV tag was reverted by Jobrot's and your actions, I continued discussions on the talk page. After discovering a WP:RS source (Gottfried) who had an opinion on the theory, I first added him to the discussion and then decided to improve the article by adding his views on the matter. If this is what you guys consider disruptive editing, the only conclusion I can draw from this is that you assert ownership over the section and only certain wording and certain kinds of sources are allowed. And anyone displeasing you guys will be sent to the principal's office. Last Contrarian (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

--

I still consider the lede to be a case of WP:SYNTHESIS. I didn't touch it though, when I edited the section. My plan was to eventually involve some unbiased editors. When three different sources (one of them an admin) have noticed biased editing on the article over the last two years, who am I to claim otherwise:

• http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/misadventuring-on-wikipedia/
• http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wikipedia_editing_disputes_the_crowdsourced_encyclopedia_has_become_a_rancorous.html
• https://theconversation.com/cultural-marxism-and-our-current-culture-wars-part-1-45299 Last Contrarian (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

As I'd mentioned on the talk page, and as can be found in the talk page archives - Gottfried is WP:UNDUE as he holds a tiny minority opinion (and especially can't be used for Lind's views), his inclusion in the lead violates WP:LEADCITE and you're only trying to include it there to further violate the strong editorial consensus produced by your own RfC that the mainstream view is that Cultural Marxism is a CONSPIRACY THEORY. Making the section subject to WP:FRINGE:

Main page: WP:FRINGE

"A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight"

Also; if I want to spend half an hour on Wikipedia refuting your claims via proper policy, editorial consensus and quality sourcing in line with policy, that's up to me. --Jobrot (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Several mainstream sources were provided on the talk page that referred to the idea as a conspiracy theory. You didn't accept them. You were asked for counter sources that demonstrate that any moderates or leftists regard it as a reality. You've previously refused to even acknowledge the request beyond claiming that it's "proving a negative", but I will note that you have just now cited a Slate article written by someone who has WP:HOUNDed Arbcom, called an admin a "capo" on Twitter, and generally not behaved reasonably toward anyone affiliated with this site over something a single (and now topic-banned) editor did years ago. You have instead called for treating something that only the fringe right regards as reality as equally plausible as the mainstream assessment of it. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not a Wikipedia scholar. I don't spend my days and nights following news about who attack Wikipedia and for what reason. That the "Cultural Marxism" article has seen heavily biased editing is a known thing. The New York Times may not care enough to write articles about it, but the fact than we are here (and someone like me who has spent 8 years on wikipedia without ever encountering an admin) is here and the pages and pages of debate pretty much proves it.

You keep bringing up WP:GEVAL as if it means something in this context. When you label a political belief a conspiracy theory, you need to provide evidence from sources other than their opponents. The section is a case of WP:NPOV violation and the lede is a case of WP:SYNTHESIS based on the views of purely left-wing sources. Left-wing academics and left-wing op-ed writers for left-wing newspapers might believe Cultural Marxism to be a conspiracy theory, but it doesn't become one simply on their say so. There are right-wing sources that use the phrase in a non-ironic fasion all the time. There is an exceedingly well-known philosopher like Gottfried who has written a book on the Frankfurt school and who actually claims that Lind does not believe in the conspiracy theory but Jobrot is trying to have him excluded using WP:DUE in spite of him being a WP:RS. Last Contrarian (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

As shown 2 comments above, WP:FRINGE requires independent reliable sources; I'd hardly call an article from The American Conservative in which the author specifically says he's friends with William S. Lind and is specifically attacking Wikipedia (albeit a 2 year old article on the topic that no longer exists); independent. Apart from that, you should be using Gottfried's book, but even then he is WP:UNDUE and including him in the lead violates WP:CITELEAD (as stated above WP:LISTEN).

There's no reason to include Gottfried's minority opinion, and nowhere in the article does it claim that Lind says Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory; it in fact says he's a proponent of the theory. And as I've stated on the talk page Lind repeatedly talks of unmasking the hidden agenda of the left to reveal old Karl Marx himself. Proponents of the moon landing hoax or NWO conspiracy theory ALSO don't state that they're conspiracy theorists. So no; WP:UNDUE opinions will not be included in the lead, and you WILL respect the consensus of your fellow editors. --Jobrot (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

For people who would not bother to wade through the wall of text, this is what Paul Gottfried says [38]:

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

So, Gottfried is not claiming that Lind is not a conspiracy theorist, only that Lind does not believe that a conspiracy exists, which is the exact opposite of what Wikipedia is claiming. Quoting Gottfried weakens the current lead paragraph. Perhaps that's why Jobrot doesn't want it there. Last Contrarian (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

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

• Comment The depth, breadth and unanimous consensus formed in the very long and conclusive discussion on the talk page makes this a WP:DEADHORSE and WP:LISTEN issue, in which Last Contrarian is failing to regard policy or their fellow Wikipedia editors with any respect. Violating several policies and ignoring WP:GOODFAITH multiple times in the discussion. They've claimed that rabid left-wing editors are stopping them from resurrecting the previous article (which in fact was salted WP:SALT as part of closing the AfD to prevent this exact type of behavior), and they've also claimed they wish users to come away with a positive interpretation of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory.

From the talk page: "This is pure WP:OR and you cannot finish reading the article and still end up with a positive interpretation of "Cultural Marxism." If that were not the case, one should be able to resurrect the article on Cultural Marxism easily without being attacked by rabid left-wing editors."

In short they're not WP:HERE for the right reasons, and instead seek to use Wikipedia as a personal political WP:SOAPBOX --Jobrot (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hang on a second Last Contrarian the accusations you've made against Ian.thomson seem to lack evidence. I know I've seen editors blocked for such accusations against other editors in the past with out diff's to support the accusation per WP:NPA. Your lack of WP:AGF and automatically accusing another editor of something else in an attempt to deflect scrutiny from yourself is inappropriate. Regardless you do appear to be edit warring based on the diffs provided You also need to begin to follow what the WP:CONSENSUS is at the article. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

accusations you've made against Ian.thomson seem to lack evidence. I don't care about thomson. He didn't revert my reliably sourced edit for being disruptive. The problem is Jobrot who is guarding the article like Cerberus guarding the Underworld.

You also need to begin to follow what the WP:CONSENSUS is at the article. Do you notice a consensus there? There are a couple of discussions. Everything else is a vote. All you see there are comments primarily by Jobrot that evade my questions, ignore propositional logic (thereby constructing ledes based on false syllogisms) and replies that are a wall of text to drown out any adventuring editor. Further, what does following the consensus mean? That I cannot add any matter to the article even if reliably sourced if it happens to go against the articles current statement? Last Contrarian (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

As stated above multiple times, as well as on the talk page; it's not reliably sourced as per WP:FRINGE, WP:DUE and WP:CITELEAD (WP:LISTEN, WP:DEADHORSE). "what does following the consensus mean? That I cannot add any matter to the article even if reliably sourced"; in this case the consensus means you should acknowledge that MOST PEOPLE don't hold your views, so you should check your edits against the consensus that Cultural Marxism is in fact; a conspiracy theory (regardless of the claims of proponents). If you'd wished to include Gottfried, you'd need something more independent than right-wing political websites (he has a book you know), and even then it's not WP:DUE and obviously it cannot be put in the lead WP:CITELEAD. You should have respected the WP:CONSENSUS you've brought upon yourself via your own RfC. --Jobrot (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

1. Claim that Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory using purely left-wing sources.

2. Obtain a consensus using 1. Make things impossible so that Wikipedia admins have a massive headache and give up. Things deteriorate so much that new mdia across the political spectrum write articles on it.

3. Use consensus obtained above to bar reliable right-wing sources from supporting statements against the so-called "common" mainstream view by claiming they are not independent.

You think that convinces anybody? And you think you're not biased at all. Last Contrarian (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban, this has gone on far too long and the article is a honeypot for ideologues even without this. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Ideologues on both both sides. I'd like you to take a look at Jobrot's history and the history of the present conflict before coming to a conclusion. I know people don't have the time to do this, but this is how bias grows, by refusing to consider the possibility that the status quo is wrong. Last Contrarian (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM. Oh, and law of holes. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

This road has been trodden before by SecondDark, Kaffeburk, Achinoam, Ideloctober and various IP users. There's a reason decisions go against people who approach the article from a political perspective and violate WP:consensus. It isn't due to a conspiracy, admins being brainwashed, or other editors being rabid left-wing shills: It's due to the fact that The Frankfurt School were interested in analyzing Culture; not in taking it over. They'd seen the rise of Nazism in their own country; a force they had to flee from. They were anti-fascists more than anything else; not communists and not plotting the downfall of America - in fact members wrote AGAINST Soviet Marxism, they even helped determine the protocols at the Nuremberg Trials and worked for the OSS during the war. They even advised the US government during the Cold War. Their aim wasn't to take over or destroy; their aim was to teach what they'd learned from having to flee fascism; in order to IMPROVE democracy, not destroy it. Blaming modern progressive politics on The Frankfurt School makes no more sense than blaming it on Hitler. The whole world has changed since then - especially since the fall of the USSR. Politics needs to move on too. --Jobrot (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Well I support a page ban. At this point the editor isn't listening. They've had enough ROPE and seem to be talking them selves into a page ban. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is my edit history: [40]. Do you see anything there that supports a ban? Or, does every single person who opposes Jobrot's stranglehold on the article (the guy has more edits [41] on the article than the next three editors combined, all of whom are inactive since forever) get banned even if reliable sources are used to provide a balance to the slanted claims? They way things stand at present, unless ten people gang up together (an unlikely event) to form a consensus in the opposite direction, Jobrot's version of events will be the de facto Wikipedia version as he seems to be omnipresent on Wikipedia. Anyone going against the status quo will be crushed by the consensus of 2 editors and 4 voters, reliable sources be damned. Last Contrarian (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, your edit history is why people are going for a page/topic ban instead of a block: you do have a lot of good edits to stuff relating to India and Indian entertainment, but your foray into American politics has been problematic. In fact, the two year gap between your diverse Indian edits to your rather sudden and singular interest in this topic, combined with the drastic increase in loquaciousness, almost looks like a WP:COMPROMISED account. Were it not for this and this, I'd've called for a block on those grounds instead of explaining this. Your edit history does show that you've had almost no practice in forming consensus or collaborating as well, which means you should stay away from contentious topics until you've learned to do so. You say you've been here "without ever encountering an admin" like that's a bad thing. That means you haven't engaged the community here, and it shows. While you appear to have done good work with India related topics, you've accomplished about as much in eight years as many editors accomplish in their first year and what some regulars accomplish in a month -- and that's in total, not taking into account that you've barely interacted with the community at all before this. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

the two year gap between your diverse Indian edits to your rather sudden and singular interest in this topic Every major article I have involved myself in is due to a singular interest in the subject matter. The articles on Satya (film), Chanakya (TV series) and Anurag Kashyap needed a lot of improvement. The one on the Tata Tapes controversy didn't exist till I created it.

While you appear to have done good work with India related topics, you've accomplished about as much in eight years as many editors accomplish in their first year and what some regulars accomplish in a month I guess you are used to articles and editors for which sources are available quite easily. The articles I worked on are India-specific and the number of easily accessible digital sources on the subject matter and time period (1980s-1990s) are very few. The only way you could perhaps make them better is by visiting newspaper morgues in some of the major Indian cities.

rather sudden and singular interest in this topic Not sudden at all. Here's my user page from 2008: [42]:

• atheist
• libertarian
• interested in politics
• believes in logic
• is opposed to online censorship

So my "suddenly" visiting the Cultural Marxism page should make sense given the context.

drastic increase in loquaciousness On Wikipedia, sure. Doesn't mean this is the only handle I use on the internet. Further, technical subjects or subjects with some basis to them don't require long-winded discussions. Only politics and philosophy do.

Your edit history does show that you've had almost no practice in forming consensus or collaborating as well, Consensus and collaboration work when the differences between editors are such that an agreement is possible. In case of controversial topics, they might work if others are willing to at least listen to you. I don't see it happening when it comes to this topic. When I raise a question regarding sentence construction, propositional logic and citations, and the only replies I get are those influenced by previous controversies or those simply voting for a position, what are the chances that a consensus based on substantive discussion would be arrived at?

In this instance, it's very easy to change the lede by using WP:INTEXT. But some editors seem to believe that the conspiracy theoretic position is so common, that in-text attribution is something that should be absolutely avoided. Last Contrarian (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:INTEXT argues against you; sighting this as an example of what not to do: "Charles Darwin says that human beings evolved through natural selection, but John Smith writes that we arrived here in pods from Mars." - that's EXACTLY what you attempted with the lead: "Cultural Marxism in mainstream parlance is considered a conspiracy theory; but <insert name here> doesn't think it is!" WP:GEVAL WP:DEADHORSE WP:LISTEN WP:CONSENSUS. --Jobrot (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if you misread my comments unintentionally or on purpose. This is what I said FOUR days back (see the talkpage):

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

If I had done that myself, you would have still called it disruptive editing—or by claiming that WP:INTEXT is not necessary as the conspiracy theoretic view is universal—because you don't want the section's basic claim to change. I began adding Gottfried's claims BECAUSE the entire section is based on left-wing name-calling with right-wing primary sources only being used for WP:SYNTHESIS.

Your verbose comments don't lead anywhere, and are often designed to tire the reader, or worse, change the focus away from a particular topic. Your actions seem to be designed to push away editors who don't share your bias or world view. This makes it impossible for anyone to significantly edit the article without being obstructed by you. Anyone who doesn't enter the fray with preconceived notions will find the state of the article and your behavior unacceptable to say the very least. Here's User:N-HH (see talk page) who thinks the section suffers from lack of balance and misdirected emphasis. saying he's unwilling to enter the trenches:

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

That's on you, and editors like you who are unable to tolerate an NPOV tag on an obviously controversial section. Last Contrarian (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I've already explained multiple times that it's a) a conspiracy theory to relevant sources cited in the section, b) a theory about a conspiracy to the paleoconservative minority viewpoint, c) that the sighted source for the statement is talking about the mainstream/common usage as being a conspiracy theory and d) that there are multiple examples of it being talked about as a conspiracy theory in the mainstream media:

 The Guardian [43], Al Jazeera [44], Salon [45], Fair Observer [46], The New Matilda [47], ArtNet [48], Buzzfeed [49], The Huffington Post [50].

These reoccurring discussions you wish to have will always illicit this same response from me, each and every time, and User:N-HH was saying there wasn't enough left-wing ACADEMIC coverage of the original meaning; the polar opposite of your claim that there isn't enough paleoconservative coverage (even though it already makes up a substantial chunk of the current section); and User:N-HH was quickly able to understand that the section was specifically for the conspiracy theory version of the term (as is explained on the talk page) and to ascertain that I wasn't there to push a political agenda. Unlike yourself versus those horrible rabid left-wing editors. You're grasping at straws here and showing off your failure to WP:LISTEN. --Jobrot (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support Topic/Page ban. Topic ban from Cultural Marxism would be the easiest to manage. I find specific page bans tend to lead to the editor having the same dispute about markedly similar content on a different page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

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

I'd tag you as an SPA, but it seems more obvious that you're a sock of some editor who didn't get his way. Also, pretending for a moment you're not just WP:HOUNDing Jobrot over some past grievance, recommending that two administrators who've each been here a decade be topic banned from the very broad field of American politics would require some serious evidence of serious misbehavior all around that field. Assuming you're not just trolling or socking around some sort of ban yourself, either you're totally unaware of process here or you're throwing a politically motivated tantrum. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• oppose page ban User:Last Contrarian is a long-standing Wiki editor since 2008. He arrived at the Cultural Marxism just a few days ago, made obviously good faith edits, and appropriately withdrew to an RFC when it became clear that his edits were opposed by two editors. Jobrot is too quick to declare consensus on that RFC, it's only been open three days. There is also an interesting discussion developing at Fringe theories noticeboard. Jobrot argues for guilt by association: i.e. other editors have 'been down this path' (whatever that means), therefore Lost Contrarian must be stopped now? Doesn't make sense. Nothing about his behavior would merit any sort of ban. Also oppose any boomerang, Jobrot's expertise is much appreciated. JerryRussell (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your support re: a boomerang. On that note; I hadn't seen the discussion on the fringe theories board (so thank you for bringing it to my attention) and I've actually now gone to the user page of the one descenting opinion and tried to clarify Marcuses meaning in Repressive Tolerance; as I believe their personal opinion of what he was saying is most certainly a misreading of his actual statements.

As for User:Last Contrarian "withdrawing" to an RfC; expanding to an RfC would be more accurate; and given that they're now repeating the discussion here, and continue to repeat their arguments only to find the same counter-points; I'd hardly say they're a bastion of self-control or having a good editorial nature. Especially considering their numerous violations of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:GOODFAITH on top of the standard failure to WP:LISTEN. As I stated earlier; something must be done. Otherwise this repetitive discussion (which he's now continuing directly above us with me pasting the mainstream media links I already have for the third time now) will simply never ever end. Wikipedia is WP:NOTFORUM, editors have to be WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia on WP:CONSENSUS and not to WP:SOAPBOX without evidence or the capacity to WP:LISTEN to others; as I believe is the case with Last Contrarian. --Jobrot (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban from Cultural Marxism. Being competent and experienced means you have the common sense to read the archives on controversial articles and to be in dialogue with the work the community has already done; this exact point has been gone over zillions of times in that article already. Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Editor behaviour is not the primary issue here, the odd set-up of the content is (there was a brief bit of edit-warring, but that seems to be done now). Criticism of this user on the basis that lots of people have gone down "this road" before rather suggests there is a problem with it, doesn't it? As I noted on the talk page after seeing this thread here, it's frankly bizarre that there is no standalone page for a widely referenced concept such as "Cultural Marxism". That would focus on the original, primary use – and the one most commonly encountered in academic and book sources – to describe a trend in Marxist studies to focus on cultural issues as much as economic ones (in part associated with the Frankurt school, but not exclusively so) but also note the modern use of it as a pejorative in some US right-wing circles. I struggle to understand why the original article on the concept was deleted, and why anyone searching for the term on WP (whether they wish to understand more about arcane mid-20th century Marxist theories or uncover more about the pernicious influence of political correctness) instead now ends up on a subsection of the Frankfurt School page debating alleged conspiracy theories. N-HH talk/edits 09:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support page ban. Editor behaviour is most definitely the issue in this case (that's why we're here). Anyone whose seen how often things need to be repeated to Last Contrarian (WP:LISTEN), or noticed their violations of the strong WP:CONSENSUS to refer to Cultural Marxism as a conspiracy theory (reflecting the sources used and mainstream media coverage discussed on the talk page), or who has noted Last Contrarian's description of rabid left wing editors for anyone who disagrees with them in violation of WP:GOODFAITH, or their specific desire to have the audience come away with a positive interpretation of the conspiracy theory (violating WP:NPOV and WP:GEVAL) can clearly see that behaviour is most definitely the issue here. User:N-HH as I stated to you on the talk page; you're welcome to pursue the recreation of the previous page (which had all of 3 sources using the term explicitly) by the usual means but this is not the place to do so. Finally I'd like to note that Culture War topics, as well as Conspiracy Theories attract a higher amount of disruptive editing; this case is no exception; and is most definitely a behavior problem of an editor who is WP:NOTGETTINGIT. --Jobrot (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

...and you should really read WP:NOTGETTINGIT, as it describes this situation perfectly. Hence the blow out of text here and on the talk page; which prior to Last Contrarian's involvement had become relatively sedate and inactive (a 3 month period of relative quiet on the matter dating back to the last Split Proposal in May). --Jobrot (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't deny there might be an issue with editor behaviour, I just said it's not the primary one. The point is any such problems often relate to underlying content problems, especially when that content is an unhappy compromise which people are nonetheless overly invested in, having been immersed in the debate for so long. We're now stuck at "This is what one or two of us have agreed, and we spent ages doing it, so that's that" rather than asking what actually has been agreed and whether it's the right decision (and relying on WP:NOTGETTINGIT to rebut questions can compound this kind of problem). There's also the problem, which afflicts most of WP's politics pages, that people seem more interested in scoring political points than presenting information. Here, we have people who want the page (or rather the section, currently) to go into great detail about how "godless Marxists are taking over" and others, who may indeed currently represent the consensus view, who want it to say "this is all a nutty right-wing conspiracy theory". Some of us just want a clear page explaining Marxist cultural theories and the subsequent polemical use of the term, without judgment and without the topic being buried in modern-day, real-world culture wars. But that's not for ANI of course. N-HH talk/edits 10:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

To clarify; on the talk page currently there is (by my count) an 8 vs 2 consensus in favor of the current section title and lead, and only Last Contrarian is WP:NOTGETTINGIT. That's why I'm here. --Jobrot (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, there's no law against questioning a dubious position that happens to be held by eight random, anonymous WP contributors even if it does amount to a temporary consensus (and let's not forget that the consensus for about eight years previously was to have a separate Cultural Marxism page of the sort I would favour, until all this oddness started a couple of years ago). As I've said, I think the current structure and content is terrible, even if maybe for different reasons to Last Contrarian. Anyway, just as ANI is not the venue for my opinions above about broader problems with WP politics pages, nor should it be a place to get a longstanding editor barred from a page for being on the "wrong" side of a content dispute, absent genuine disruption, abuse or continued edit-warring. N-HH talk/edits 12:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

ANI is the venue to have administrative experts decide on these matters; and I've highlighted the genuine disruptions, bad behavior and violations of policy above. FYI the oddness started around the time that GamerGate (its self a topic that's attracted a large amount of ArbCom sanctions) brought the Culture War to the AfD as "Cultural Marxism" was a favoured explanation of theirs for why feminism had brainwashed society into allowing women to comment on video games. Don't mistake the popularity of the topic outside of Wikipedia for something caused by Wikipedians; if a topic gets attention in the public - it will get attention on Wikipedia. But thank you for clarifying "the law" and that you're "just asking questions". Albeit in the wrong venue as you keep saying; perhaps you should find the right venue. --Jobrot (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you may be missing N-HH's central point here which, if I am reading him correctly, is that we should not put the cart before the horse here. Having looked at the section, the talk page discussion and the history a bit here, I'm inclined to agree that LC may very well be WP:NOTHERE (he's certainly at the least inclined to view both the sources and the editorial decisions of those who oppose his approach through a highly politicized lens). But there are larger issues here, issues which must be resolved on the talk page or other content-oriented areas ultimately, but which are difficult to disentangle from the issues being examined here. To second N-HH's observations and to just be blunt, that section is absolutely awful. The first paragraph is just atrocious, frankly--it's a dense mat of nearly un-parseable academese that is virtually useless to our average reader and seems like it is lifted from someone's (poorly written) personal essay for an undergrad sociology course, in blatant violation of WP:NOTJARGON/WP:NOTESSAY, MOS:JARGON, and just the basic principle of encyclopedic tone. The language then becomes more plain as the section proceeds, but degenerates into a poorly organized and confused narrative of events and perspectives that have impacted the reception of the term.

Now, I don't know how the apparently long-standing independent article looked, but I'm inclined to agree with N-HH on another point--given the breadth of the topic, the multiple over-lapping definitions and usages, and the fact that is not, in even the remotest sense, particular to the Frankfurt School alone in it's relevance, there really should be an independent article. And any content on the subject absolutely must be written in plain, encyclopedic language, not the kind of obtuse sociological idiolect/argot that dominates the early part of the section and reduces it (for all intents and purposes of readers not steeped in that academic culture and its many idioms and idiosyncrasies) to near gibberish. Whatever consensus the regular editors of that article come to regarding what the weight of reliable sources say about the topic--valid cultural term or hyperbolic ultra-con rhetoric, it has to be presented in a better way than it is now. So sure, we could just address the strong and/or outright disruptive outlook of one editor and the potentially polemic nature of the content he wants to add. But what's the point in sorting that out if we are still left with a chunk of prose that still falls well below our quality standards, and is shoe-horned into another article in such a manner as to almost certainly guarantee further arguments on the topic? Snow ^{let's rap} 23:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

If you have looked at the talk page you might note that I've already had this discussion with User:N-HH there, in which I've referred them to previous discussions involving editors sympathetic to your cause; I would suggest that gives you both ample opportunity to collaborate on a draft or other means of achieving your goal should you wish to do so. But as I've stated above (and perhaps you've missed my point here) this is not the venue for that discussion. --Jobrot (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

If we have the time for that. Not everyone does, and as noted it will probably all end up buried anyway under renewed spats involving people obsessed with what they read last week online and wanting to use WP to carry on those fights rather than wanting to understand, let alone explain factually and soberly, the actual history and context of a term and topic. Anyway, I acknowledged that much of this has got beyond the remit of ANI and relates to pretty much insoluble problems with WP, which no venue exists for. Given that, and given that I was also simply trying to point out what ANI is here for and what you or anyone else is likely to get help with, I don't quite see the need for some of the snarkier comments in your previous post. N-HH talk/edits 09:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

It's frustrating to see everyone agreeing that this isn't the appropriate place for this discussion; only to continue the discussion regardless (albeit whilst reminding everyone this isn't the right place). I've made my purpose here clear, and I don't desire to use this ANI as a WP:FORUM. My understanding is that the appropriate place for such discussions would be on talk:Frankfurt School, within a Wikipedia talk:Deletion review or by following the advice given at WP:SALT (ie. speaking to an appropriate admin). But to continue to comment with the protective caveat of "I know this isn't the right place but..." is inappropriate, and as we all agree; falls outside of the scope of this discussion. Frankly the repetition did get to me; so I apologize for any snarkiness in my previous comments. I probably don't need to repeat this again, but just to be absolutely clear; this isn't the right venue and my issue here is with Last Contrarian's behavior, attitude and policy violations on talk:Frankfurt School. --Jobrot (talk) 10:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Well yes, but the point of my acknowledging the discussion had gone off on a bit of a tangent (while nonetheless providing some context to the problem) was precisely to put an end to it, not to be cover for continuing it regardless or to elicit yet more responses in turn. And it takes two to continue a discussion of course. Anyway, any admin reviewing this can probably stop half-way down this thread, review your evidence against LC and make a decision either way about what to do with them. They don't seem to have edited for a few days now anyway. N-HH talk/edits 10:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Jobrot, just because the content issues are ultimately likely to be addressed in talk space does not mean that some discussion of those issues is not necessary for establishing and considering the relevant behavioural issues here--please keep that in mind. Nobody is suggesting ironing the content issues out here, longform, not that I've seen anyway. Nor is anyone suggesting creating a consensus to supplant that generated on the talk page. There's nothing "inappropriate" in the least in referencing the content dispute here to understand the matter better, or even to provide insight that may help the parties sort their differences or consider a compromise solution that will stand them in better and more productive relation to eachother. This just isn't the place where the ultimate consensus needs to be formed and confirmed. But I think everyone presently participating in the discussion is experienced enough to understand that nuance. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Rhoark, thanks for this very perceptive comment. I hadn't seen WP:POV_RAILROAD before, and it seems very apropos. I was rather stunned above when, in response to my defense of Last Contrarian, Jobrot piled on with more unmerited accusations of bad faith against LC, and then he went to your talk page to have that 'nice conversation' with you!! I stand by my point, though, that Wiki needs Jobrot's obvious expertise. The essay on POV_RAILROAD pointed to another essay I hadn't seen, as the best answer to a railroad: WP:WIKILOVE, "a term that refers to a general spirit of collegiality and mutual understanding among wikiusers.... if we concentrate on achieving a neutral point of view even when it is difficult, and if we try to actually understand what the other side has to say, then we can reach the state of "WikiLove". JerryRussell (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - On the Frankfurt School talk page Last Contrarian has accused editors of blindly supporting me, and has accused me of making content-less and unmerited replies and of having extreme bias for not supporting the conspiracy theory viewpoint, they've also suggested I was one of the rabid left-wing editors conducting rabid left-wing activity by preventing them from being able to resurrect the article (even though that was an administrative action I'm not capable of), as well as having blamed the current section on stupid editors. All of this is on the talk page should you wish to search it, and is on top of our discussions having been extremely repetitive (due to WP:LISTEN issues). That should go some way to explaining why I'm making the above request for administrative action, and why I'm able to be WP:CIVIL with other editors (as all Wikipedians should be). Even within this AN/I Last Contrarian has accused me of the egregious crime of spending the better part of half an hour [55] leaving replies to comments not addressed to me. I hope this clears up who here is employing the bullying tactics mentioned in WP:POV_RAILROAD, and illustrates that Last Contrarian is not WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia based on WP:CONSENSUS or WP:GOODFAITH. --Jobrot (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jobrot, of course you're right that LC's comments were not perfectly WP:CIVIL. I hope he'll reconsider and apologize. But, his point was logically valid about mainstream right-wing views of CM, and I had to do quite a bit of searching before coming down on the other side of that question. You could easily make a case that there are enough mainstream mentions of CM in a favorable context, to justify his view. I thought the discussion was not so much repetitive, as it was a continuing exploration of the issue. And, a lack of optimum civility is not evidence of lack of good faith, or lack of willingness to respect consensus. You also mentioned that although LC has been around Wiki a long time, he hasn't done so much editing around highly controversial topics. So, perhaps 'keep experienced editors' and 'don't bite the newbies' would both apply?

I'm not that much of an old hand around here, either. This is the first time I've participated in one of these ANI discussions. What sort of ban would be typical? Are we talking about just a few days, a month, a year, forever? JerryRussell (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Personally I'd say their attitude towards other users is endemic of having bad faith, and that their stated desire to give the audience a positive interpretation of the conspiracy theory version of Cultural Marxism is WP:NPOV and seeks to go against WP:CONSENSUS. Given they only sporadically edit wikipedia (with 1 and 2 year gaps in their history); I'd say a page ban would probably benefit the community without hindering Last Contrarian's efforts elsewhere. The duration is at the discretion of the admins, I just feel it's necessary due to the volume and spread of their comments and actions (with Last Contrarian having made derogatory comments to all editors and not just myself). --Jobrot (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• Findings: (1) This is a content dispute. (2) The RfC was only started on 16 August, only two days prior to the filing of this ANI. (3) Edit-warring is dealt with at WP:ANEW, not at ANI. Please let the RfC run its full 30 days, and then have an uninvolved admin close it. Simple. Now can an admin close this thread before it grows another 60,000 bytes? -- Softlavender (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The consensus here (Guy, Cameron11598, Only in death does duty end, Jytdog and myself all supporting a page ban) goes against your "findings"; also I put in a request for admin closure days ago (on the required noticeboard). Replying to this thread after 2 days of quiet is not likely to make it shorter or quieter. --Jobrot (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

To repeat, the RfC was opened 16 August, and needs to run the full 30 days. It's not a clear-cut issue and there should not be an assessment or declaration of "consensus" until that 30-day period is complete. An ANI should not have been opened while an RfC is running, much less after it has only been open 2 days. If anyone is edit-warring on the article, that should be dealt with at WP:ANEW. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

30 days is the maximum default time frame for an RfC due to bot-intervention; it's not a required time frame (see WP:RFCEND). Anyone (admin or user) can close the RfC (due to overwhelming consensus in favor of keep) and then an admin can close the ANI. --Jobrot (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: RfCs usually run for 30 days. There's no need to hurry. Wait for people to weigh in. All other drama is beside the point. While the RfC is going on, the article must stay in the prior stable version: edit-warring isn't permitted. WP:EW noticeboard handles requests which fall short of violating WP:3RR as well. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

1. Jobrot slyly called Last Contrarian a Nazi

Above where Jobrot threatens to have Last Contrarian banned, he says "This road has been trodden before by SecondDark, Kaffeburk, Achinoam, Ideloctober and various IP users." Achinoam has not participated in the Cultural Marxism dispute. Achinoam has participated in the subjects of Stormfront, David Duke, and Jewish Bolshevism. By including Achinoam in that list, Jobrot implies that Last Contrarian and the others are Nazis. This is the propaganda method of association.

Jobrot did not participate in the Achinoam ANI thread. That thread was started by Dave Dial who also appeared at Jobrot's last ANI thread to support Jobrot's call to ban Second Dark and to accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist. This suggests offsite tag-teaming. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is Achinoam disputing your claim [51]. --Jobrot (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

2. Jobrot is here to fight a Gamergate war and not to build an encyclopedia

In the last thread I noted that the changes to the Cultural Marxism page were so bad they made the news. Jobrot responded by describing the news article's author David Auerbach as a "GamerGate" conspiracy theorist. I have also been told that the changes to the Cultural Marxism article began after Alexander Macris, editor of The Escapist, described a political tactic used in GamerGate as "Cultural Marxism" and cited sources to support his position.

Information which has been brought to my attention, which I will not link to due to the outing policy, connects Jobrot to an offsite account that participates in the anti-GamerGate community "GamerGhazi" and has a history of trolling the GamerGate community "KotakuInAction" and trolling people in other forums who use the phrase "Cultural Marxism" as if he searches the site for anyone using the term so that he can troll them.

Between this and the attempt to merge Cultural Marxism with Cultural Bolshevism it is clear that Jobrot is here on a political mission to make Wikipedia redefine Cultural Marxism as "a conspiracy theory used by Nazis" so as to prematurely discredit anyone who discusses the use of the tactic. He came here, or was brought here, because of Gamergate. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Every single one of those sources has been addressed on the talk page/archives and in the AfD. In summary; Weiner states he's sighting people who "fall ideologically outside the cultural Marxism movement" - Dennis Dworkin states that his "…account is the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual discipline" - the Jameson source doesn't use the term "Cultural Marxism" at all except for in the title. Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome states on the cover "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia"… besides which the current section already covers the academic sense of the term and is (as the title suggests) dedicated to the conspiracy theory version of the term. If you want to re-create the old article; you should do that through the usual means. But yes; "Cultural Marxism" was an informal WP:UNDUE term that pre-dated the Culture War usage as described here and in the current section. Pointing to Area 51 does not prove Roswell aliens exist. Pointing to the existence of the World Trade Center doesn't prove the New World Order exists. If you really want to know what the Frankfurt School were about; I recommend this 8 part series by Peter Thompson: [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59]. But you won't find anything about them being responsible for modern politics, taking over Hollywood and the media or trying to dominate the world written in there. They were in fact; individual anti-fascist Cultural Theorists from the 1960s. Nothing more, nothing less, and definitely not a communist nor feminist plot to bring down western society as the conspiracy theory or GamerGate claims. --Jobrot (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

3. Jobrot lies about everything

• "unambiguous" - wrong
• "uninvolved" - wrong
• "consensus" - wrong
• "personal viewpoint" - wrong
• "disruptive" - wrong

Jobrot proves the lack of consensus with his own list of editors he had banned or scared away. The opening paragraph to this section looks a lot different if you read it as "There is longstanding support for Last Contrarian's position and a wide variety of sources supporting him but I had my friends ban everyone who said so by claiming they were Nazis." 71.198.247.231 (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

4. Ian Thomson refuses to listen

Above, Ian Thomson says "no counter sources are ever provided to show that anyone outside of the far-right regards it as a reality." Anyone reading the discussions from afd onward can see that at least a dozen sources have been provided from across the political spectrum. The entire edit war began after Macris gave a list of sources. Rhoark posted ten sources on the Fringe Theories noticeboard. I have given a source from the 1950s which said that the same tactic we call Cultural Marxism today was well known and hardly needed an introduction and gave an example of its use in Eastern Europe. Several people said that their political science classes covered it. This is neither fringe nor far-right. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Rhoark pasted 10 links with an WP:OR claim attached, the issue was later discussed and clarified on their user talk page. --Jobrot (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

5. Ian Thomson is Jobrot's meatpuppet

Have another look at the Kaffeburk and Ideloctober threads. After Kaffeburk and Ideloctober explain how Jobrot is violating policy, Ian Thomson jumps in to accuse them of a lack of competence and not being here to build the encyclopedia. These personal attacks from an admin heavily taint the discussions against these users. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh look, this thread has been posted on an outside GamerGate related forum: [60]. --Jobrot (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikihounding/harassment by User:Drmargi

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

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

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

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

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

This editor has a vivid imagination, a battleground approach to editing, and a tendency to exaggerate the actions of others. Moreover, his abuse of the term vandalism is becoming increasingly problematic (see User talk:KrakatoaKatie#Clarification and Shaunae Miller as two examples). He's going to attract the attention of other editors who are interested in the pages his patrols from what I'm guessing is the new edits list, particularly given his tendency assume the worst in other editors, throw around template warnings like Mardi Gras beads, and generally act like a Wikipedia hall monitor. He is currently at 4RR at Shaunae Miller, an article I was looking at this morning following the subject's race with Allyson Felix and the somewhat controversial outcome. He can flatter himself that I'm following him if he cares to, but frankly, it doesn't make it so. --Drmargi (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

"if it's a good-faith edit, repeated reverts of it constitute vandalism" - absolutely incorrect and you are dangerously close to being blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: To be clear: this edit is not vandalism given its summary? You're looking at the contentious prose change, the blatantly dishonest edit summary, and that doesn't pass the definition of vandalism for you? RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Contentious = not vandalism (actually, it matches the source headline). Edit summary = not vandalism (it's just a default mobile interface edit summary) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: I never said contentious edits constitute vandalism. Feel free to strike the implication that I did.

The edit summary was a falsehood that came after it was explained to SirBartleMerryworth why his previous edits weren't going to stand and why their summaries showed he was violating policy. You're taking AGF awfully far, given that the editor repeatedly (and, because of a bad lock on the page, successfully) inserted the false claim that Miller dove. RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not vandalism. You need to learn what constitutes vandalism here and only call edits vandalism that meet that definition. -- GB fan 17:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@GB fan: You aren't the first to see the edit, see its contentious nature, see its blatantly false explanation, then, instead of reacting to my assertion that contentiously editing while using a false, insidious summary and refusing to discuss is vandalizing, just demand I learn what vandalism is. I haven't gotten a single person to react in any substantial way to this.

I'm asking again: The user is edit-warring. (So am I! I've explained how my edits are different! One example would be that I don't lie in my edit summaries!) The user re-inserted a contentious edit. The user declined, not for the first time, to discuss anything. The user used an edit summary that included a blatant falsehood. What are you thinking is going on here? He doesn't know what the word "typo" means? Why are we extending WP:AGF to a user who has spent days showing he's editing in bad faith? If you're going to respond to this, please do so with more than this sort of tossed-off response because it's not showing me how I'm wrong. RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, let me be clear. The user was not editing in bad faith and their edits were not vandalism. Continuing to call them vandalism is going to get you blocked. Relying on the 3RR exemption for vandalism for that kind of edit is going to get you blocked. I'm saying this to you as an admin. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that your edits are not different. You both think you are improving the article and neither one of you is backing down or discussing it on the article talk page. The major concern here it's that you did not seen realize that the edits were not vandalism and continued to treat them as if they were. That is why you need to go back and learn what we call vandalism and then apply it. -- GB fan 19:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

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

@RunnyAmiga: What you're missing is WP:NOTVAND: "Disruptive editing or stubbornness", "Edit summary omission". Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to deface the encyclopedia. Attempting to change content so it matches the source is far, far from that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: Okay. I'll use this as a resource for how I should react to iffy editing from now on. Although I'm sincerely worried. Since we're talking about a combination of four distinct problems and NOTVAND doesn't address two, I can tell you that it won't be easy for me to let users ignore repeated efforts to discuss or lie in edit summaries. I hope my reactions to editors displaying behaviors like this doesn't end up getting me blocked but I have no issue with anybody monitoring me. (Well, except Drmargi. I kind of wish she'd leave me alone.) RunnyAmiga (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

You're under no obligation to respond to other people's behaviour, good or bad, or refute lies. Check this out: User:Dweller/Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values — Diannaa (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

RunnyAmiga, NOTVAND provides you with a list of points to help you decide if an edit is a deliberate attempt to deface the encyclopedia. "A deliberate attempt to deface the encyclopedia" is the key. You are not a pre-programmed robot. You are capable of reason and making logical deductions. We get thousands of edits with no or incorrect edit summaries per day. Some are good, some are not so good, and some are outright vandalism. If you want to judge these edits you're going to have to engage the reasoning skills you possess and look at the edit. In this case, it should have taken you about five seconds to see the replacement word matched the word in the source link. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

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

There's not much to the accusation, I think. And even if Drmargi looked at RunnyAmiga's edits in the future, I believe it would be justified to make sure RunnyAmiga isn't incorrectly calling valid edits vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand RunnyAmga's concerns - especially when it comes to Drmargi suddenly showing up out of the blue to revert or voice opposition for apparently no good reason. It's happened to me with the same editor and soon after disagreeing with them or calling them out on a behavior that was non-productive. I see a similarity and that's what brought me here to comment. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN, Winkelvi, and Drmargi: It's not an issue that she appears out of nowhere. I do that all the time via, you guessed it, the recent changes page. (Also the pending changes page.) A bunch of people appeared out of nowhere in this very thread. The issue I had was that she appears out of nowhere specifically to confront me and undo my edits, doesn't walk back attacks she made (in, you guessed it, edit summaries) when I conclusively prove her wrong like at Lisa Murkowski, and categorically refuses to respond to anything I say, whether it's by reverting my attempts to discuss issues at her talk page or by just ignoring my entreaties to discuss things elsewhere. It's strange: her first reply in this thread, under my edit that started it, isn't a reply to me. It's a reply to the admins who hadn't even said anything yet.

I said on my talk that I encourage attempts to rein me in if anybody with more knowledge or experience than me thinks I'm getting out of line, but NeilN could have concluded my "accusation" didn't have much substance only by not reviewing the various times she's showed up out of the blue to confront. The Murkowski thing should have been the dealbreaker and I'm still owed an apology for how badly she behaved there. Instead, when I cooled off, re-worked the sentence with the third editor, and finalized the prose that solved every issue that all three of us had raised, she vanished. So yeah: if you have more knowledge than me about things, correct me when I'm wrong. That includes almost everybody in this thread but based on behavior and errors, it obviously excludes one person. And before anybody starts talking about years at Murkowski's page or whether I'm allowed to remove borderline-vandal reports at AIV, please know that this is regarding behavior, not content. It's interesting that she can repeatedly ignore at least a half dozen attempts to discuss and collaborate and fix things but when I mention that she does that, it's an "accusation" and "[t]here's not much to" it. RunnyAmiga (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You know, Winklevi, you have a habit of turning up any time something like this happens or when there's a contentious discussion that I'm party to, to grind some imaginary ax. Meanwhile, I prefer to avoid you like the plague. So, who's hounding whom? I'm done with this nonsense. --Drmargi (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Here's a problem: This is a rollbacker that apparently doesn't understand what rollback is for. RunnyAmiga was granted rollback less than a week ago and has used it multiple times in ways other than to revert clear vandalism. His contributions are littered with it. I believed I was clear on what vandalism is in that discussion on my talk page, but I guess I wasn't since Neil had to explain it again. I'd like to know why I shouldn't remove the rollback privilege right .now. Katie^talk 21:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support revocation of Rollback due to repeated instances in which the user has demonstrated that they do not understand what the privilege is for. Good call, KrakatoaKatie. As far as I can see there is no real "hounding" issue here at all, so once the right is revoked per WP:BOOMERANG this thread can be closed. Zero^talk 09:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support giving people an opportunity to rectify errors. I also support young, ambitious editors like Patient Zero not jumping on noticeboard bandwagons as they pass by in order to lead a song of "punity". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

My age does not in any way affect my judgement, Winkelvi. Besides, this is a preventative measure as it prevents further misuse of a tool. Zero^talk 16:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as your age: If you say so. As far as your concept of Wiki-prevention: So can talking to someone and asking them to be more careful. As far as you missing the point, here's my final comment on it in this thread: I find your recent zeal to immediately take the extreme route with certain editors disturbing, to say the least. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

And yet we both reached the same conclusion re Hawkeye75 Winkelvi. When Widr granted RunnyAmiga the privilege he clearly outlined the policy page on what it is not to be used for; that to me is enough with regards to an explanation of the tool. There is also enough evidence for me to decide that this user cannot be trusted. And no, I am not disturbed, although thank you for your concern. Zero^talk 16:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

"I am not disturbed, although thank you for your concern." I hope you will re-read what I wrote (a little slower this time and without defensive glasses on) and realize that isn't what I said at all. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I've re-read your comment, and I do acknowledge I have mis-read it - if you are disturbed by my recent actions feel free to discuss them with me either on my talk page, or my email if you so wish. Admins, hat this exhange if needed. (Also, note I was mature enough to not make a joke about taking my actual glasses off in order to read that.) Zero^talk 17:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

"feel free to discuss them with me either on my talk page, or my email" I have discussed it with you at your talk page. More than once over the last couple of months. Apparently, to no avail. And no, I will not take this to email. I think at this point, transparency is needed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, Winkelvi, all I'm going to say is, I had it in my head you were willing to take the "agree to disagree" route. We discussed that on my talk page too. Zero^talk 17:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

On that issue, yes. But, as I stated above, I'm disturbed that you are continuing to take such a harsh approach with so many editors of late. Not just at noticeboards but at their talkpages, as well. That approach, in my opinion, does look like you go first for punitive over preventative. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Might I ask how revocation of Rollback would be punitive given the circumstances? Also are you referring to the Michael Hardy case? Read into that a bit more if you wish to comment on that, please. That was an admin who failed WP:ADMINCOND and resorted to personal attacks on the ArbCom case. My comments there were in order. Zero^talk 17:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

"Might I ask how revocation of Rollback would be punitive given the circumstances?" Allow me to request you recall previous discussions you've read and have been a part of in the past where a black mark on someone's Wikipedia editing career was talked about and how it affects an editor and how other editors treat them going forward. Actions in Wikipedia are rarely just in the here-and-now, rather, said actions have long-lasting consequences. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

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

• Support I thought we were done with that edit from a month ago; I issued a friendly clarification to the originating editor, asked the other editor why, didn't get a response and moved on, but RA is still harassing Drmargi about this? Meanwhile, the edit made to Shaunae Miller is clearly just two people trying to work out the wording and not even anywhere near the neighborhood of vandalism. I have people following my edits (based on topic areas and the like) and sometimes they run into conflicts with me but I'm not going to fly off because of that; RunnyAmiga needs to learn to work with others here and learn to realize that they must do so. Going through some of their edits there's no indication they know how to use rollback, and going by the responses on their user talk page they really need to build up their composure; responding to anyone like this, even someone likely trolling until the block applied is completely uncalled for. Nate • (chatter) 11:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Weak support: I agree with those comments above, but I don't think that the admins can rekove RunnyAmiga's rollback rights, I think that he needs attending at WP:CVUA to understand what vandalism is, and when to use rollback. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 17:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• KGirlTrucker81, admins can certainly revoke rollback (and other) rights. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: (edit conflict) I know that NeilN, but just in my own opinion. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 18:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Allow the editor to process what vandalism is and isn't, issue a warning regarding rollback misuse and go forward from there. If they didn't get the message after acknowledging the warning and this discussion, then rollback should be removed - but not before. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support There is nothing punitive about removing Rollback in this instance; it is a privilege, not a right. This editor has been registered since May, has yet to contribute original content, and is a self-appointed hall monitor and fixer. He is sarcastic and demeaning with other editors as is readily apparent when scanning his edit summaries. He's proven he does not have the appropriate understanding of EnWP policy, given the repeated issues with abuse of vandalism. He has also demonstrated a tendency toward drama, a failure to WP:AGF (he's literally declared me his mortal enemy for a very mundane revert and post on his talk page!) and a battleground approach to editing. Mentoring is all well and good when an editor is receptive, but we've seen rollback rights removed for far, far less. Until he demonstrates the temperament needed to work in an open, collaborative environment, his user rights should be very limited and highly scrutinized, particularly given his declaration that he wants to collect the icons on his user page. Troubling... --Drmargi (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Drmargi: We all know that rollback as a privilege here, but first time misuse of rollback should been a warning and a reminider of WP:NOTVAND. Second offense, that's all rollback rights revoked. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 22:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support removal of rollback. The user has abandoned this thread and hasn't given the slightest indication that they understand what vandalism is or what they did wrong with rollback. I don't know who granted the rollback rights, but granting it to someone with such a low edit count was a mistake in the first place, in my opinion. Rollback is for experienced trusted users who know what they are doing. Remove the right and let the user learn about Wikipedia policies, guidelines, etc. Let them humbly learn from experienced editors instead of thinking they know everything. Softlavender (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm going to AGF and make one last attempt to get RunnyAmiga to tell me why I shouldn't remove rollback. I've looked over his edit history and I see some improvement – at least he's undoing some edits rather than simply hitting the rollback button – but I want a clear articulation from him about what is and isn't vandalism, with some examples from his edit history. Otherwise, and particularly if he doesn't participate here further (in a thread he started), I'll remove it, as I have not been assured he will use it correctly once the spotlight is dimmed. Alerting Widr since he granted the privilege. Katie^talk 20:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• I've given RunnyAmiga more than 24 hours since this warning, during which he has been editing and ignoring this thread. Since he has not responded, I have removed rollback from his account. If he demonstrates clear understanding of WP:VANDAL, an administrator can restore it. I doubt that administrator will be me, but you never know. Katie^talk 00:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

OK thanks Katie. Are we done here (or is there some further sort of "boomerang" sanction)? If so, I think someone can close this thread. Softlavender (talk) 10:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

TeeTylerToe

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

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

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

On July 4 2016, TTT added a requested comments from other editors for this discussion on the History and geography project [61] the only editor to respond User:Skyring who created an WP:RFC Was the StG-44 the first assault rifle, designed and employed as such? Skyring then completely rebuffed TTTs position. TTT did not listen.

TTT then began to forum shop for the first time at the Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities [62] Which resulted in only one referenced being added to the article. And, that reference completely refuted his position. [63] TTT did not listen.

Then he forum shopped for the second time at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard [64] TTT was again rebuffed. [65] TTT did not listen.

He then began to edit the article again to match his POV. However, none of his edits to the article included the info discussed on the talk page (that the "Burton Balloon Buster" was the first assault rifle) and were unreferenced, TTT also removed references that were added to the article as a result of his forum shopping at the Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities. [66] As a result these edits were again reverted by myself and other editors. TTT did not listen.

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

TTT then started to add random tags to the assault rifle article. Which were again reverted. And, he forum shopped for the forth time at the Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard [67] Where User:Scoobydunk told him..."Whatever you do, don't edit war to get the tag put in." And, User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris told him..."Most of the time it means that you should accept that you are wrong, and should retire with grace. See WP:1AM (which has nothing to do with late-night hours)." Again TTT did not listen.

TTT continued to add random tags to the article which were reverted by myself and other editors. User:Skyring then filed an complaint at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Which resulted in TTT being blocked for two weeks. [68] Once again TTT did not listen.

In fact during discussions on User talk:TeeTylerToe regarding the block not only did TTT continue his tenacious editing he again refuse to listen, resulting in a lost of his talk page access. He also, admitted that he was trying to trick his fellow editors into and edit war. To quote the discussion..."@Boing! said Zebedee: Not only was TeeTylerToe edit warring...If you read in between the lines of his own statements, he was trying to trick is fellow Users into an edit war. And, then claim that, "I wasn't edit warring, I was just adding tags to the article. Its those meat puppets that are edit warring by removing the tags." This behavior is intolerable on Wiki and I recommend a permanent block.--RAF910 (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)...Thanks for explaining that.TeeTylerToe (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)" [69] Again TTT did not listen.

TTT then manage to get User:Huon to lift the block. However, Huon maintained a two week topic ban on the assault rifle page. [70] TTT continued his tenacious editing and spent that two weeks accusing his fellow editors of wrongdoing, socking, meat puppetry, etc. Until Huon had enough and told him ..."I see no point in continuing this discussion. If you do not want to take my advice and drop the stick, bring it up at WP:AN and see what the wider community thinks of this issue. If I see another post like the above on my talk page without evidence in the forms of diffs backing it up, I'll re-block you for personal attacks. Huon (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)" This time TTT listened, for a very short time.

After his two week topic ban was lifted. TTT return to tenacious editing this time on the StG 44 page where he again claimed that the StG 44 is not assault rifle and again made unreferenced edits to that article. Those edits were again reverted by myself and other editors. On that article talk page discussion once again he accused and tried to trick a fellow editor into an edit war. Another editor told him..."Very well colleague, I will cut to the chase. You have just come off a two week block for tendentious editing on this very subject. Now you are straight back. The issue here is not how this bloody chunk of metal was used, but your behaviour pattern. Drop it. Irondome (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)" [71] This time he listened perhaps realizing that he could not win this fight, so soon off a two week block.

TTT then move on to the Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16 where he again tried add unreferenced info claiming that the StG 44 was not the first assault rifle, which I again reverted. [72] Then he did it again [73] Also see talk page [74] Then he tried something different. He took an existing reference in the article and cherry picked a quote out of that reference. He then altered the quote to fit his needs. He also took another reference and took a quote from that article that repeated info that was already mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. I was then forced to revert his edit add the full quote to the article once again refuting his position. [75]

TTT has now moved onto the Colt AR-15 where he insists that the Colt AR-15 has select fire versions. Which any knowledgeable person knows is not true. Where he claims that the Colt AR-15 is "A minor product line in the civilian ar-15 ecosystem." Even tough it was the first and only AR-type rifle for decades. And, by his own admission he was completely unaware that the Colt AR-15, Sporter, and SP-1 are the same semi-automatic rifle. [76] Also, he is again forum shopping this time on the Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team trying to get a consensus delete the article altogether or combine it with the M16 rifle page instead of the articles talk page where he knows he will lose. title=Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team&action=history He clearly believes that the ArmaLite AR-15, the Colt AR-15 and the M16 rifle are the same and again refuses to listen.

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

TTT has displayed this behavior on almost every article and User talk page that he edits. He has generally annoys and vexes every editor that he has makes contact with. He likes writing walls text where he asks multiple repetitive questions for which the answers are obvious.[77] And, which make it difficult for other editors to understand what he is talking about.[78] He comments on talk pages frequently go off topic. He demands that others answer his questions which he has no intention of listening to, causing others to waste their time and effort.[79] He make no effort to gain real consensus, he simply bulldozers the conversation until other editors give up.[80] He accuses other of wrongdoing when they disagree with him.[81] He refuses to accept any reference but his own.[82] Yet, he rarely includes references with his own edits. He dares and tricks others into edit warring.[83] He is not here to help, he is here to push his POV at all costs.

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

WP:TLDR. Can you say in one paragraph, with five key diffs, what TTT has done, and what you think should be done about it? EEng 05:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you cite a case where one paragraph and five key diffs resulted in action? I don't recall seeing one, but I miss a lot on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Are there anymore people that you think don't like TTT that you would like to invite to the conversation?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE--Savonneux (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

If the complainant's prose is as poor in articles as it is here, he ought not be editing either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed.--Savonneux (talk) 07:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

If someone wants the cliff notes from an unbiased third party maybe ask huon for a quick summary, also, skyring, a member of that dispute was blocked subsequently for socking, although that does appear to have been unrelated. And on a side note, Is calling me "incompetent" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=735647383&oldid=735643460 a personal attack? I note raf910's comment "I believe TeeTylerToe is a troll." What about that?

The Assault Rifle article is, imo, a cesspit of pop history apocrypha, and the first Colt AR-15s sold were fully automatic and they were sold to the federation of Malay. I don't care if a strawberry danish was the first assault rifle, but I have 14 sources including an NRA journal (they're all just fart jokes /s) a published book, and popular mechanics that say that the 1917 winchester/burton was the first assault rifle. So... there's that. "he again claimed that the StG 44 is not assault rifle" I don't think I did that, but I have been trying to point out that the StG 44's primary mode of operation was semi-automatic. In effect, it was a semi-automatic rifle. German doctrine was to use the stg firing bursts only in emergencies. I of course have sources.

The AR-15 article was moved to "colt ar-15", and radically changed. What had been sort of a overview article for one of the most popular rifles in history was changed by raf910. Now it doesn't focus on any non-colt ar-15. It doesn't focus on any military colt AR-15. It doesn't focus on any law enforcement colt AR-15. It just focuses on the one ar-15 manufacturer's civilian sales who was AFAIK the only ar-15 manufacturer whose sales were so poor they drove the company to bankruptcy. So, as you can see in the talk page, I noted that with RAF910's changes, project assessments should be redone. the 1.0 editorial board should choose a different AR-15 article, I'd say the M-16 article as the armalite ar-15 article is a little threadbare atm. Also the firearms project should reassess, and it probably doesn't belong under military project anymore, although I suppose it could. I'm not trying to get the 1.0 editorial team to delete the article.

Roughly 5 million civilian AR-15s have been sold by pretty much anybody with a drill press. In the sea of the 5 million AR-15s sold by roughly 6 million different companies, colt's civilian product line is a drop in the bucket.

But yes. I did it in the solarium with the candlestick. And I would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those meddling kids!TeeTylerToe (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Paragraphs--Savonneux (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

If you have a source which tells you it was first sold to the "Kingdom of Malay" you probably should throw in in the rubbish bin. There were things 100+ years ago which may sometimes be called Malay Kingdoms, but I don't think any of them are ever really called Kingdom of Malay. Malaya and Malaysia were/are constitutional monarchies, but they're not "Kingdom of Malay" any more than the United States of America is the "Republic of Americas". Nil Einne (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

It might have been federation of Malay, as this was in 1959. Here's one reference.TeeTylerToe (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

References

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

Oh, by all means, let's discount the actual complaint because we don't like the prose.

TeeTylerToe is a serial edit warrior with an extensive block log. I think he feels strongly about the articles in which he's interested but can't seem to collaborate. I don't think he's a troll necessarily; he just wants to push his changes because he's right and everyone else is wrong.

If he's causing problems again after Huon unblocked him, maybe it's time for a topic ban. Katie^talk 13:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

You were the one that blocked me? How exactly do you figure that I'm a "serial edit warrior"? What edit warring did I do from '13 through, say, june this year? Or before '12? I demonstrably can collaborate. It's overly simplistic and wrong to just label me as someone who thinks I'm always right and other people are always wrong.

• I concur with KrakatoaKatie. The OP was a bit of an effort to get through, but it does outline a pattern of serious behavior including edit warring and refusal to listen to other people or back down once it's clear they are in the wrong. I'd support a topic ban from firearms, broadly construed. --Laser brain (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Do I have to go through all of that? I can go point by point if you like. From what I've seen, and as I tried to demonstrate it's quite divorced from reality. I mean, by the end it's gone completely off the rails. He accuses me of asking the wikipedia 1.0 editors to delete articles? "The AR-15 article was in, I think v0.8 and was reviewed for v1.0. Maybe change it to the m-16 article?" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team&diff=prev&oldid=735435756 You tell me. How is that asking the 1.0 editors or whatever that group is to delete an article.TeeTylerToe (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• 3? blocks in 800ish article space edits and back at ANI. Even if they are technically correct shows a lack of ability to interact constructively.--Savonneux (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

With short 4 year stretches with no incidents.TeeTylerToe (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• So is the problem narrowly focused to Assault Rifles or guns in general?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: This is far too big of a rap sheet and block log for someone who has only made less than 800 article-space edits. The amount of damage wreaked (including on his talk page after his many blocks), indicate to me this user lacks the competence to edit Wikipedia productively over time. Talk page iterations reveal a mind-numbing array of problems for such a low edit count: [84], [85], [86], [87], [88]. I'd send him back to indef-land. At the very least a very broad permanent topic ban. Softlavender (talk) 08:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you post diffs to make it clear what you're talking about? It looks like one of those is raising the dire, and ever-present threat of rhetorical questions that wikipedia has been facing for years that RAF910 brings up in this incident as well. Before now I didn't realize quite how serious the threat of posing rhetorical questions on wikipedia was. Also it seems like you're digging up stuff from 2012. I don't mind, because if that's the incident I remember from ~ 4 years ago it was a case of basically me saying "same to you." and at the time, as you can see, nothing came of it, for either side. Would you like me to just post a diff of every warning ever posted to my talk page?TeeTylerToe (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Agreed with Softlavender; they've had multiple chances. (non-admin) jcc (tea and biscuits) 09:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:GOODFAITHTeeTylerToe (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC); edited 10:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact--Savonneux (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• RAF910 needs to learn that it's a violation of WP:CANVASS to only inform editors who might agree with him. The ping list that started this thread didn't include many of those who've had interactions with TTT. Felsic2 (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Most of his problems seem to ceter on the issue of the history of "Assault rifle" as a concept. Maybe the problem could be solved by a topic ban covering that article. Felsic2 (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• RAF910, WP:PINGs don't work unless you type four tildes at the same time you post them. I'm certainly no advocate of canvassing, but this editor's rap sheet is so alarming that I think it worthwhile to have the other editors weigh in. So I'm repeating your ping list of "editors that have had to deal with TeeTylerToe recently": @Ohnoitsjamie:, @Thomas.W:, @Kudpung:, @KrakatoaKatie:, @Skyring:, @Scoobydunk:, @Shock Brigade Harvester Boris:, @TransporterMan:, @OuroborosCobra:, @Erpert:, @BilCat:, @Mike Searson:, @Starke Hathaway:, @Irondome:, @Herr Gruber:, @Huon:. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It may be difficult to find any editor who has been able to work constructively with TTT. I was called to the Assault Rifle article by an RfC, as were many other editors, none of whom agreed with TTT's position. We are a society that works constructively, although recognising differences, and our procedures demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach. TTT doesn't play well with others; that's the guts of it, and his staunchly defended positions are fringe. His proposal that a massive First World War anti-aircraft gun was the first infantry assault rifle speaks for itself. Time for a topic ban, I think. --Pete (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Comment: Since I've now been pinged twice, I suppose I have to say something. Well, FWIW, after an hour of checking this saga out, TTT's editing history, his contribs, his block log, and my earlier interventions, I regretfully come to the conclusion that no amount of advice is going to improve his collaborative skills. I recommend a 6-month block with TPA revoked, no UTRS appeals during this time, and to come back on a further 6-month probation with one single mishap causing an indef requring no ANI discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung, can you clarify? With or without TPA? Or is "with TPA" admin jargon meaning "TPA revoked"? A little confusing there. Softlavender (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant TPA revoked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• (ec) Support as the block sounds nuanced enough to cover the issues, and a 6 month probabation is fair. There is no compromise with this editor, which make collaboration impossible at this stage in the editors development here. I think Kudpung means talk page revoked b.t.w. as the editor tends to use those forums as continuations of endless dreary pointless argumentation. Irondome (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• I prefer to avoid ANI, but since I was pinged... my experience of working with TTT is that s/he is absolutely convinced of the correctness of whatever position s/he takes and is completely unmoved by contrary facts or arguments from Wikipedia policy. I have also noticed a tendency for her/him to simply drop lengthy copy-paste quotes from sources into arbitrary parts of articles (includingthe lede) without regard for whether the content of these quotes fits or the negative impact on readability. I have tried to compromise with TTT, most notably at StG-44, but s/he tends to respond to even the slightest disagreement with increasingly wordy and shrill talk page screeds. TTT is very difficult to work with, and I find myself avoiding pages where s/he is active. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support Kudpung's suggestion of 6-month block with TPA revoked and no UTRS recourse followed by a 6-month probation in which any mishap would result in an automatic indef. Softlavender (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support Makes sense. With a block log like that, something harsher is needed. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Is there any scope or room for mentoring here? Irondome (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Already attempted, back in January 2013 with Hasteur: [89], as a condition of his unblock appeal here: [90]. Didn't take or we wouldn't be here again. In fact Huon told him after his unblock a month ago that his next block would be indefinite: [91] -- Softlavender (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC); edited 16:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• I do not know if he or she is a POV pusher, I tried to work with him and he seemed to get it, but he did display a definite lack of knowledge about some very basic things concerning the Colt AR-15. He thought all pre-1986 rifles were select fire (they were not) and made the claim that Colt did not use the term AR-15 until recently when in fact the opposite was true (every Colt rifle of that type was marked AR-15 until around 2005 when it was replaced by the term M4 in order to circumvent state laws that banned the rifle by name as AR-15). I did not find the editor that difficult to work with, just not educated about the topic.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Here's a small point I'd like to clarify. Why does this: "His proposal that a massive First World War anti-aircraft gun was the first infantry assault rifle speaks for itself" trump 14 sources including an academic journal, a published book, and popular mechanics? Another thing I'm having trouble with is block policy. The letter of block policy, and the spirit of block policy both rule out both punitive blocks as well as "cooling off" blocks. Not to mention that this whole blocking because they were blocked before seems a little circular. And on that subject, glass houses. Starke? I quote a lot because, particularly on that page, some editors have trouble arguing against direct quotes from their own references. If there is any specific issues with my contributions or conduct I'd be perfectly happy to discuss it, although I can't say I'd be able to do the same if I were in other people's shoes. For some reason I don't think I'd get away with calling people trolls. And I have no trouble discussing and forming consensus with people like Herr Gruber, or Mike Searson, or countless others. People who don't counter 14 references with "but I think it looks too big" though can make forming consensus difficult. If nobody brings up anything specific I guess I can write a point by point response to raf910. And Softlavender, maybe don't take so many liberties? What Huon said was "the next block is likely to be indefinite." and the context was "If the issues that led to this block recur, and I'm more concerned about the forum shopping and accusations of bad faith than about the edit warring itself", so maybe let me know how that applies? Have I been accusing people in bad faith? Have I been forum shopping? Let me know.TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is Huon's unblock statement, from 20 July 2016: "Following a discussion with TeeTylerToe on the #wikipedia-en-unblock I will unblock him per WP:ROPE, with a topic ban for the Assault rifle article and definitions of "assault rifle", including talk page discussions, for two weeks from now (by then the block would have run out anyway). I also strongly encourage TeeTylerToe to drop the stick, accept that there is no consensus for his proposed changes to that article, and find another topic entirely. If the issues that led to this block recur, and I'm more concerned about the forum shopping and accusations of bad faith than about the edit warring itself, the next block is likely to be indefinite.": [92]. How you have continued to cause problems since that 20 July unblock has been detailed in the OP. -- Softlavender (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

And for instance see the two relevant threads (#7 and #9) on Huon's talk page: [93]. -- Softlavender (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• RAF910, can you please fix your diffs in the last paragraph of your OP (the one beginning "TTT has displayed this behavior on almost every article and User talk page that he edits"?) All but two don't make any sense. Plus you need to link to diffs, not edit histories. Softlavender (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Raf910's OP. At first glance the entire first paragraph is wrong. On para 2, the edits were thoroughly referenced and the edit summary pointed to the talk page for summary of changes. Para 3 is false. Para 4 is false. Para 5 is false. Para 6, I don't think any uninvolved editor commented on the npov board, or at least not through 21 july. Para 7 is false. Para 9 is false. Para 10 is false. Para 11 is false. I could argue para 12 is false. Para 13 is false. Para 14 is debatable. Para 15 is false. Para 16 is false. Para 17 is false. If you want to throw around 6 month or indef blocks, maybe put a little more time into the due diligence.TeeTylerToe (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support block. TeeTylerToe is clearly suffering from competency issues. Huon's unblock warning spoke of an indefinite block if TTT went back to his/her bad habits; I think an indef block is justified here. -- llywrch (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly what behavior are you talking about specifically?TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Does policy require you to include diffs with comments like that? Is there an exception for an/i and similar venues? Particularly considering your position?TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Update...TTT is once again forum shopping. Again he is not listening and trying to game the system. This time at the Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee [94]. Where he is "Asking for a friend" and is trying to overcome the inevitable block that will be imposed here. Enough is enough, I recommend an indefinite block, TPA revoked and no UTRS recourse. If not we will be back here again in short order, if he gets the block lifted.--RAF910 (talk) 10:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Has this all been a joke? Come on. You can tell me. I won't be mad. Has this all been a joke? Is this what AN/I does for fun on slow days?TeeTylerToe (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a little too extreme. I propose a 2 year block with TPA revoked and no UTRS recourse no UTRS recourse for 6 months ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support block - both parties have called on me to comment; sorry for not doing so earlier. In my opinion TeeTylerToe finds it extremely difficult to acknowledge that he might not be getting his way, or that he might be wrong. When several others disagree with him, that's a conspiracy. When I unblocked him, the problems concerned a single issue, and so imposing a topic ban instead of the block served to stop the disruption quite as efficiently. However, TeeTylerToe spent most of those two weeks arguing on my talk page about the other editors. He has since brought the case to the ArbCom talk page and asked about his problems in the current RfA. He has also expanded the scope of his campaign to downplay the role of the StG 44 to various related articles. I do not see that the problematic behaviour would stop for anything short of a topic ban or a block, and I fully expect that if TeeTylerToe were to switch to some other topics, the same issues would recur there. Thus I unfortunately have to support a block. I wouldn't mind a "no appeals for six months" rule, but I don't think this requires abandoning all hope of him ever becoming a valuable contributor. Huon (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you remind me? When did I ask you to comment? Have you looked at the arbcom talk page? I'm just asking about how, if I were to be blocked with the proviso that it couldn't be appealed at utrs, on my talk page, or, presumably, on irc, how I would be able to appeal it. And I don't really think that the harmless, and perfectly appropriate questions that I asked on the rfa quite justify a 2 year block. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm not quite sure what you mean by a 'campaign to downplay the role of the stg 44'. I did have a problem with "Unlike previous rifle designs, it introduced an over-the-barrel gas system, straight stock and pistol grip to reduce recoil and improve handling characteristics." which popped up on two or three pages, partly because, iirc, that reference doesn't support that assertion, and partly because, at best, I think it's worded in a way that wrongly implies that the stg-44 introduced any of those things, not to mention the debate on how unique or revolutionary a modified version of the winner of the machine carbine 42 competition was. You may notice that it's been weeks since I've edited about the stg 44 iirc, so maybe the threat may not be quite so dire. "When several others disagree with him, that's a conspiracy." that's a little reductionist, and I also think it's flat out wrong, but we've discussed that before and I guess I'm not going to change your mind.TeeTylerToe (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not the place to argue the details of weapon systems. These things may be discussed in other, more appropriate places. What bothers me is your behaviour, where you seem unwilling to acknowledge the views of others, unless they are in exact accordance with your own. No expressions of regret for the disruption, no promises of better behaviour in future. We have to work together, and to treat each other with some degree of respect. There is no one source on which we rely; instead it is the richness and diversity of contributions that has made Wikipedia so valuable a resource, including the internal processes such as this page. If you think the facts are entirely on your side, then present them, and allow other editors to make up their own minds. I'm just not seeing acknowledgement of the rightness of any views other than your own, and in order to avoid continued disruption, you really should consider other activities for a while. --Pete (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

So I assume you've just done a 180 and have a newfound willingness to acknowledge things supported by 14 sources including an academic journal, a published book, and popular mechanics, even if the view presented by those 14 sources isn't in exact accordance with your view? You've decided to allow for the possibility of compromise? To respect well supported views that might not fully support your views? That maybe one or two sources supporting one rifle might not be the last word on the subject, and, instead, might only represent one view, and that the article should reflect these different views? You've decided that, as I have always been willing to accept the presentation of your point of view, as well as the sources supporting it on the article, now you've realized that you should do the same? You've accepted that even if you think that facts are entirely on your side that you've realized that the article can present both views as they both have support, they're both notable and verifiable?

I guess now, once we've put that all behind us, I guess now it's time for you to realize that while you and others have categorically refused to allow any view that you don't support to be mentioned in any way, and that while you and others have categorically refused to even allow tags that show that your views are in question. Refusing even to allow tags which suggest that your views could be, in any way assailable. The next step, as you so eloquently argued, that you should acknowledge the rightness of any views other than your own, and in order to avoid continued disruption, you should really consider other activities for a while. Particularly considering your immediate past history. Especially considering the tone of this incident discussion.TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

TTT, with respect, the difference between us is that I always like to get more eyes on a question, and if the wider community takes a different position than my own, I'll accept that with as good a grace as I can muster. It's always good to bring out fresh sources, but those sources aren't writing Wikipedia; we are, and we do it through consensus. --Pete (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Is that why you suppressed the tags with the instructions "Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met." that would bring more eyes onto the question? Why do you ignore the consensus I developed with Herr Gruber? Why do you ignore when Herr Gruber said "I've said several times that I don't approve of the current article implying that there was no history of development of similar weapons prior to the StG"?TeeTylerToe (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I direct any inquiry to the article talk page rather than rehash the discussion here. Incidentally, TTT, I suggest that you re-read Help:Minor_edit before marking substantial edits as minor.[95][96][97][98] --Pete (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It was already brought up on the talk page, bringing it up again would serve no purpose. It would be pointless. As this is a talk page edit rather than articlespace, and as I was editing a comment, rather than adding a new comment, I used minor edit per Help:Minor_edit.TeeTylerToe (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You wrote above: "If someone wants the cliff notes from an unbiased third party maybe ask huon for a quick summary". Sorry that quick summary turned out to not be to your liking. At this point you should have noticed that your behaviour seriously taxes the community's patience, and the way I read the ArbCom talk page, you are already preparing to appeal what seems the likely outcome of this thread in another venue despite rather strong suggestions that a timeout, without appeal, may be a good thing. Or to be more blunt: When this is decided, people don't want to re-argue it all over again. You may want to read WP:Standard offer, particularly the part about "six months". Huon (talk) 09:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I should probably start with this. On the topic of arbcom, from my point of view, the only things I really have to work with are things brought up by other users, e.g. the charges raf910 made against me. I'd hope you'd be in the best position to understand that a lot of the accusations raf910 make against me are unequivocally false. Overall, from my point of view, few tangible things have been brought up against me. But I had hoped that you would understand that, faced with the accusations leveled against me by raf910, I would obviously expect that if I were blocked, that I would immediately appeal and have every reason to believe that my appeal would be successful and that I would be unblocked without delay. In actuality, though, particularly due to my recent experiences, I expect my chances of arbcom taking up my appeal to be slim to none, and the chance that they would unblock me would be astronomical. But again, RAF910's accusations are like a ridiculous elephant standing in the middle of the room, demanding attention. And they've only gotten more ridiculous. Honestly, isn't someone going to bring that up? Even if I don't understand your objection though, I don't know why it bothers you. I never thought there was the tiniest chance they'd even take up the appeal in the first place. And it doesn't matter, but my intention there was making it a little easier to settle questions of fact, as raf910 had raised several points. I guess the best argument I have now is that other than bugging you on your talk page, I don't really see anything I've done since I was unblocked as damaging wikipedia or raising any significant issues. Maybe that's not a good argument, maybe I'm wrong, and I have been doing things that would merit an indef block. Looking at the standard offer, I don't see what would change 6 months hence, and why don't you put yourself in my shoes and imagine what I would think about waiting 6 months and starting another thread like this. And ignore the waiting six months bit. Imagine what you'd think, if you were in my shoes, if the standard offer was wait 1 day and start a thread in ani asking to be unblocked. And I can't really say that I've seen any diffs that indicate where and how I've taxed the community's patience. What is being made painfully clear to me, is that, from my point of view, that of someone not familiar with ani, there seems to be a strangely insistent group of people who seem to be trying to make sure that I'm blocked for 6 months with absolutely no chance whatsoever of getting unblocked, but it's also quite clear to me that, after, I think this ani incident has been up for roughly a week, they categorically seem to refuse to provide convincing diffs. Or even unconvincing diffs besides raf910, and raf910's accusations are just getting more and more ridiculous. Another thing that's obvious is that nobody seems willing to submit these proceedings to appeal. That's what it looks like from my point of view. Maybe it's because I'm unfamiliar with some sort of tradition of 6 month blocks for when admins get fed up and just want a problem to go away or something. But again, all I have to work with are RAF910's accusations and a smattering of "You're guilty because you're guilty." I guess this can't really hurt a case that never had a chance to begin with.TeeTylerToe (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support 6 month block with appeal avenues restricted. Otherwise, we will just get six months of argument about the injustice of it all and the behaviour of other editors. --Pete (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block with TPA revoked and no appeal until after 12 months per WP:CIR, WP:IDHT and many others. TTT never listens to other editors, doesn't respect that others don't share his very fringe opinions (such as insisting that a big heavy totally unknown weapon designed only to fire slow heavy indenciary bullets at World War I observation balloons was the first assault rifle...), lacks the competence needed to work on a collaborative project and is just a huge time sink for other editors. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Tnguyen4321's vandalism

user:Tnguyen4321 is conducting vandalism (or at least disruptive editing) on the talk page of Battle of Ia Drang by reverting a well-ended RfC here.[99] Besides, he's also conducting intentional edit warring on the article.[100]. Dino nam (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You really must notify an editor when you report them. I have done it for you [101]. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not really a closure - but a comment. SQL^{Query me!} 02:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Happysquirrel: @SQL: Fixed. I hope no one minds. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Argh! Sorry about that and thanks Hijiri88. Happy Squirrel (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

1. This is not vandalism. It is questionably disruptive talk page editing. WP:VANDALISM has a very specific meaning, and hardly ever occurs on talk pages.
2. The RFC question was in violation of WP:RFC (it was the OP's opinion, not a neutrally worded question). The same OP had previously done the same thing one month earlier.[102] Dino nam should explain their actions.
3. The RFC was very poorly formatted, with a bunch of extra sections added outside of the original RFC section when they should have been subsections. This makes me wonder whether AustralianRupert had actually noticed that the vast majority of the discussion was not where it should have been before analyzing what the consensus should be.
4. If what Tnguyen says is right, and the closer actually had misinterpreted the consensus, then what should be done is described at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE; reopening a closed RFC by replacing the template with a new date is not the right way to go.
5. The fact that the original disruption here appears to have been caused by Dino nam's repeated biased RFC questions, and Dino nam has now opened an ANI thread accusing another user of "vandalism" when vandalism is clearly not what is happening here, and failed to inform the accused party, makes me wonder if a WP:BOOMERANG is in order.

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

• Agree that some words might have been fixed with that RfC. Thanks for elaborating my mistakes with it; many other admins haven't done that.
• I must also remind you that all of the relevant sections you're talking about are created by user:Tnguyen4321 himself (e.g this section [103]).
• According to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE:"For other procedures, whether formal RFCs or less formal ones such as merging or splitting, contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard." Therefore, user:Tnguyen4321 still failed to follow the procedures; instead he conducted disruptive editing and this should be stopped.
• Sorry for forgeting to remind the user about the issue on this noticeboard, but I have clearly stated in my allegation above that there is possibility that this could be disruptive editing instead of vandalism. Therefore, your boomerang accusation is not quite appropriate. Dino nam (talk) 03:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but if no one else told you that both of your RFC questions were in violation, then they may also be at fault. However, the onus is on you to make sure you have read and understood WP:RFC before you open your first RFC, and let alone your second.
• Again, I agree that Tnguyen's actions were not in line with CLOSECHALLENGE: I clearly read that page before you did, and you only noticed it when I pointed it out to you. However, your actions have been at least as out of line in this case, going back at least two months -- Tnguyen's not acting in accord with CLOSECHALLENGE is, as far as I can see, a minor infraction by comparison.
• My BOOMERANG proposal is based on your repeated disruptive abuse of the RFC process, and has very little to do with your failing to properly notify Tnguyen. The main concern about your failure to notify Tnguyen is that, like with your repeated RFC mess-ups and your repeated misrepresentations of the policies and guidelines you are quoting, you appear to have either not read or not understood the guidelines for using this noticeboard before using it. This kind of behaviour is understandable from a new editor (which arguably covers Tnguyen, whose first edit was last year), but you have been here since 2011.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

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

You are starting to act like another user who recently got blocked for constantly citing policies and guidelines that he had apparently not understood. Vandalism must, by definition, be "a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia"; if someone reverts an RFC close because they legitimately believe the closer made the wrong decision, that is not vandalism, even if it is disruptive. You are honing in on a minor technicality that in reverting the close, he also removed the closer's consensus statement that in a manner of speaking kinda-sorta qualifies as "other users' comments"; this is what is called wikilawyering. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I think you should probably revert your mentioning of another editor above. It is unfair, too say the least, as he cannot answer here, and it is also unhelpful, as everyone's case can be different. Drawing parallels like that is misleading. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 05:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Done and done. I thought the parallel was apt, and the case is not that much different, but I see your overall point. And I hope you don't mind my moving your comment to directly below the comment you were talking about. Your comment doesn't seem to have anything to do with the proposed TBAN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• I've protected the page for two weeks since there is definitely disruptive editing in the history page. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, I have to say I have real concerns about Tnguyen4321's edits here. Firstly, the editor attempts to close the RFC himself despite being involved [104] but then when I closed it they reverted citing no consensus [105]. That does not seem consistent with someone who is participating in an RFC in the spirit with which it is intended. I'm now involved so I will leave it up to others to make a decision. I wouldn't classify Tnguyen's edits as "vandalism", but frankly I feel that their edits here deserve closer scrutiny. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: You may be right, and I appreciate your drawing attention to Tnguyen's having previously tried to close the RFC himself; Dino nam should have done this earlier. However, given the bad RFC question (the second by the same user) I think it's unsurprising that no one was able to gauge a fair consensus and give a decent close until after the template had been removed by the bot. The biased question invalidated the RFC from the beginning, so it was at best a talk page section that should not be treated like a bona fide RFC, and at worst a form of canvassing and forum-shopping by Dino nam. Assuming the former, it's my impression that closing off an expired talk page section, as long as one is not trying to make one's own "consensus" statement, is usually considered acceptable even for involved users. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Tnguyen4321 did previously attempt to close off the RfC with his own consensus statement (which, BTW, struck me at the time as wikilawyering) [106]. I also don't see any vandalism here. Difficult editor to work with, based on my first encounters, but not a vandal. FactotEm (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Precisely. Tnguyen4321 had tried to close the RFC themselves which I reverted. Involved users should never close a contentious RFC. I then requested AustralianRupert (who was uninvolved) to close the discussion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: TBAN Dino nam from opening RFCs

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

• Support as nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Dino nam might perhaps benefit from reading up on procedure, but banning them from opening RfCs seems a little harsh, especially when it would appear that there might be a case to be answered for less than perfect sourcing by Tnguyen4321. A little WP:AGF and patience might be the way forward here. FactotEm (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose One does not expect an editor to improve their skills by barring them from what they're weak at. Additionally, a topic ban would be reasonable only if an extensive history of poorly framed RFC's was evident. As it is, there is only one incidence of this. However, I would support a requirement that Dino nam seek a second opinion on any new RFC they intend to raise. Blackmane (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Oranjelo100

• Oranjelo100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

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

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

-- turdas^talk 13:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

A block under WP:Competence is required is certainly something to consider. There was a a previous discussion at Talk:Racism in Poland#Numerous references for various incidents. it was suggested there by User:Poeticbent that Oranjelo100's fragmentary contributions are due to use of machine translation to make his comments: "A quick look at his contributions shows that Oranjelo100 does not edit in full sentences and relies on Google translate for everything." The user has been warned numerous times on his talk, but until yesterday had never used his own talk page. They seldom use any talk page. I suggest that, since this might be considered to be a pattern of disruption, we might allow notification of people who have left warnings for Oranjelo100 in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oh dear. I just reverted on Ethnic groups; Turdas, you may need to have a look to see if I undid your work. Ed has a good point: poor writing, incommunicado--and then the 4chan link and other general problems... Drmies (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Support. WP:CIR applicable policies include virtually every category:

1. Language difficulty
2. Editing beyond their means
3. Lack of technical expertise
4. Grudges
5. Inability to talk about incremental changes

The bottom line

(direct quote, could not say it better myself): At the end of the day, it doesn't matter much whether someone's disruption is due to mischief or incompetence. There's no point trying to distinguish between fake or real incompetence—disruption is disruption, and it needs to be prevented. Poeticbent talk 17:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Your comments here are a stark difference to your history. I'm not saying that as a bad thing, as they have changed at least my opinion on the matter slightly, and I'm sure some of the admins would agree as well. That doesn't unfortunately change any of the issues already pointed out here. As another editor so eloquently put it on your talk page:

"The onus is upon you, to stop writing broken English and generally unreadable prose, and stop citing non-WP:RSes. Stop citing weblogs, spreadsheets, and other random stuff. Stop making tons of little edits, incomplete edits, and edits without comprehensively justifying descriptions. Stop doing these things, ever, under any circumstances. This is all I've ever seen you do for years, and it's totally unencyclopedic."

If you can improve on all of the issues other editors have been bugging you about on your talk page for years, then I think you can still make a good editor. When an experienced editor tells you something, even if they seem harsh, it's usually a good idea to listen. Your talk page is littered with criticism, often good criticism with pointers on how to improve, dating all the way back to 2013. Some have been less than tactful, but you have to understand that Wikipedia has no shortage of disruptive editors. That is what you have come across as to those people, and they have better things to do than to coach people on the very basic fundamentals, especially when there's a good chance their coaching would fall on deaf ears.

If you wish to keep editing, please start by (re)familiarizing yourself with the basics. If you are in doubt about how to write, consult the Manual of Style. Familiarize yourself with what constitutes reliable sources, and if you're still in doubt, ask the reliable sources noticeboard. Learn to use the preview button when editing so that you can avoid making dozens of tiny edits; it's still alright to make multiple edits in succession, but when your consecutive edits fill up an entire page in the edit history you've gone way overboard. If your computer has issues freezing during editing, you should sort that out: the Wikipedia editor (especially the old wikitext one) is not very heavy at all and even my dad's 8-year-old Celeron laptop can run it with no problems. And most importantly, listen to what other editors tell you, and reply to them if you disagree. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and the only way it can work is by discussing issues with other editors.

I would also tell you to use common sense, but I'm aware that not all people are very good at that, and most people who are would probably already have figured out by themselves to use it.

-- turdas^talk 14:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Blacklist request for Domenick Nati (again)

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

---

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

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

Regex looks good to me, though the .*'s are a little greedy. \bdom.*?\bnatt?i\b will probably suffice, as it'll catch your above test cases (and a couple I've tested) -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 17:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: Some of the past titles JellyfishFilms has used include Domenick Nati Jr and Domenick Nati II, so it'd probably be best to keep the .* on the end. I guess the one at the front could be removed for now, though I wouldn't be too surprised if we see a "Mr. Domenick Nati" article created after that. -IagoQnsi (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I would urge you to make a spam blacklist request in the appropriate place as it will at least temporarily disrupt JellyfishFilms and the link is not in legitimate use on WP. I'll leave more expert people to discuss precise titleblacklist regexes. BethNaught (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#naticelebs.com -IagoQnsi (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Title blacklist adjusted. The website has been blacklisted. MER-C 05:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@MER-C: Thanks, but it looks like you removed the word boundaries (\b) from the regex. This makes the pattern really over-reaching -- currently, you cannot use the word "domination" in a page title. Could you please change it to .*\bdom.*?\bnatt?i\b.*? Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. MER-C 00:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@MER-C: Hey uh, it looks like you only added one of the word boundaries instead of all three of them -- words like "domination" will still be blocked by that. Could you change it to exactly what I put in my previous note? Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Black Kite (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Ownership behaviour at Amway

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

RIR was blocked, not banned. That was also six years ago. You should also provide diffs of problematic behavior to support the claim that things haven't changed since then. clpo13_(talk) 18:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: This report originated here, until I closed it for being in the wrong place. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 19:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You have not provided any evidence that RIR is being disruptive. To me this looks like a content dispute. You want to add content and RIR does not believe it belongs. Please read WP:BRD. You took the Bold action of adding new content that you feel improved the article. RIR then Reverted you with the opinion the content does not belong in the article. This should have initiated the Discuss portion of Bold Revert Discuss. Then when there is consensus to include the information it is readded. Instead you discuss and revert the removal at the same time. Two editors have removed the content saying it does not belong in the article and you are the only one arguing that it belongs. If you believe you need help resolving this content dispute, you can use one of the dispute resolution options that are available, if you do you will need to convince editors that the information belongs in the article. -- GB fan 19:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Linguist111, I've re-opened this thread since there are several other options beyond the mere two you posted, and you (WP:BOLDly) closed it before it had been open even six hours, and you are not (as you noted) an administrator, and nothing had been resolved or even discussed. The OP made claims that the problem existed across several articles and that the user in question had been warned by certain other editors, and that the issue is behavioral rather than strictly content related. Talk-page discussion was already proceeding, and DRN had already been initiated at least once for this article, in March. I think it will be instructional for the OP to let this thread run its course. The OP has been requested to show diffs. Softlavender (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Historik75, you absolutely need to provide WP:DIFFs of the problematic behaviors you claim in your OP, or else this thread is going nowhere. Also provide diffs of the warnings from other editors. Also, bear in mind the fact that as someone with a conflict of interest, and as a single-purpose account, your behavior will come under scrutiny here as well (so you may want to withdraw this ANI filing before proceeding further). Softlavender (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Additional comments: I'm going to ping Collect, who appears to be a neutral occasional editor at that article (at least I see that he has participated on the talk page). I'm also going to mention that if it is eventually generally determined that this is indeed mainly a content dispute, that Historik75 should note that there are many options available at WP:DR (in other words, not just DRN). Softlavender (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Softlavender, for providing me with details of what I exactly need to do. As I am relatively new to Wikipedia, I do not know all the rules and routines. I am just trying to use common sense and learn on the way. Right now I am busy and I will get to this discussion later. I will provide detailed information about the behaviour (diffs) of RIR in the next 24 hours. And yes, I have a conflict of interest and I am, for the present, an SPA (as virtually every newcomer I believe is), but I believe I have information that could improve the article. I am not trying to hide anything, I just want to present both sides of the stories, not just half-truths and twisted information. Best regards, --Historik75 (talk) 09:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No, "virtually every newcomer" is most decidedly not an SPA, especially not for 300+ edits across seven months. Softlavender (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I don't have the exact statistics. What I'm trying to say is that RIR started the same way, editing only Juice Plus (MLM company) article for 10 months before he has moved to article about Oxidative stress (and I believe it was only because oxidative stress was mentioned on Juice Plus page). Every newcomer choses the first article he/she starts to edit. When he/she experiences the same kind of behaviour I have experienced (and this is I assume most of the time in the case of controversial topics), then it is only logical that he/she becomes discouraged (which makes him an SPA) and finally disappears. It happened to other users such as for example User:Icerat. I now have more duties but I will get back later and will provide the requested details. Best regards, --Historik75 (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

You're making nonsensical claims and conclusions based on two users' edit histories, apparently to deflect from your COI. Most new users do not have a COI and are not SPAs. I wouldn't continue in this vein if you want this ANI case to hold much water. Softlavender (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

So, Collect, instead of commenting on the issue at hand – which boils down to a content dispute (misdirected as a baseless WP:OWN complaint) from an SPA with an undisclosed COI – you opine that you don’t like the article and that because I have shown interest in it, I should take a vacation? That convoluted logic reminds me of the kind of editing disputes we had when locking horns over the Melaleuca article (an important detail which you inexplicably failed to mention). Not impressed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that Historik, while definitely an SPA, does not appear to be a "newcomer" at all based on their editing history -- i.e., from their first edit showing a fairly deep understanding of WP policy and procedure well beyond what would be expected of a true newcomer.[107] I ain't buying this "newcomer" angle. Seems a lot more like a WP:SOCK.[108] Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Have you raised your sockpuppet concerns at WP:SPI? This isn't the place to raise sockpuppet concerns. Unsupported allegations of sockpuppetry are a personal attack, and, in my view, one warranting a block. So take the sock concerns to SPI, or drop them, and stop using them as aspersions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't intend it to be an aspersion. I felt that it was no less important than the concerns that others on this thread raised about WP:COI and WP:SPA with this user. Nonetheless, I will take up the issue at the noticeboard rather than continuing to mention it here. I ask you to show the same level of concern about Historik's personal attacks, like mis-characterizing the reversion of his edits by consensus as WP:OWN or when he digs through my edit history in an attempt to besmirch my reputation and makes a false claim that I was banned 6 years ago. These personal attacks offend me deeply. In fact, the entire basis of Historik's complaint has been nothing more than a content dispute masquerading as a series of personal attacks. Thanks in advance for providing equal protection. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I would point out that the place to voice accusations of socking is at WP:SPI and not here. In fact, one might be sanctioned for making such a deliberate accusation on this noticeboard in this manner. Collect (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I already obviously know where to raise concerns about socking, since it was me who filed the sock report that uncovered a disturbing pattern suggestive of sockpuppetry (although the outcome was ultimately inconclusive due to steps taken by the SPA accounts in question to mask their IP addresses). There is nothing unreasonable about casually mentioning WP:SOCK as I did, just as it wasn't unreasonable when other editors raised concerns on this thread about WP:SPA and WP:COI, especially in the midst of these wildly off-base accusations about WP:OWN flying around. Sanctions? That's a pretty ridiculous thing to say over such an innocuous remark -- it borders on concern trolling. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, where should I start?

First, let me tell something about continuing personal attacks from RIR. I was labeled by him as a WP:SOCK here and elsewhere. This is simply not true. I don't know how to provide differential edit for archived page, but read the Ivanvector's conclusion here.[109] Despite the outcome, I am still accused of being WP:SOCK. It is sad that this type of behaviour on RIR's part still continues after more than 3 months from the day the investigation was closed. However, I am not surprised, because I have found that similar unfounded claims were made by RIR about other users too. Again, it is an archived page and I don't know how to provide differential edits, but you can read the paragraph. It seems to be RIR's way of trying to discredit editors and it continues to these days. Other editors had problems with RIR too in the past, which was the reason why he was blocked [110] (sorry for that ban accusation, I didn't know there is a difference between the two terms).

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

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

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

RIR has been repeatedly reverting sourced statements that I and other editor put there not even trying to improve the text. Just reverted it using always the same claim: unjustified, irrelevant, whitewashing, etc. When asked to answer the question, he does not do so. Let me remind you that the whole debate started over this recommendation by User:Arthur Rubin here [111]:

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

RIR immediately agreed with this unsourced statement and this resulted in the removal of FTC case from the leading paragraph keeping only the accusation and not the outcome. RIR simply didn't answer the question and pushed the POV to the lead. I repeatedly asked (the last time here: [112]) whether there is one court decision proving that Amway was a pyramid scheme to justify the overall tone of the first paragraph which only cites the charges and not the outcomes or the court decisions. No answer. When we started to have an NPOV dispute, RIR even removed the POV template from the page that I had put in [113]. The tag was re-added by another editor [114], but was again immediately removed again by RIR [115] and it stayed removed even when the NPOV dispute was running.

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

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

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

Historik, the fact is that this is simply an editorial dispute over content and not even remotely an issue of WP:OWN. Several editors looked into the disputed edits and agreed that the content you were trying to insert did not improve the article, and they raised concerns about your conflict of interest. This includes Grayfell[116] and Richard Keatinge[117], and Lemongirl942 who said: “you seem to have a conflict of interest here and you are clearly not able to edit neutrally.”[118] Noq reverted your edit as well.[119] Softlavendar said: “You're making nonsensical claims and conclusions based on two users' edit histories, apparently to deflect from your COI.”[120] GBFan said: “Two editors have removed the content saying it does not belong in the article and you are the only one arguing that it belongs.”.[121]

So clearly, there is a consensus weighing against your edits and raising concerns about your COI, yet you persist in misrepresenting the situation as an issue of WP:OWN on my part when it is in fact an issue of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on yours. When you continue making this accusation when it is so wildly off-base it becomes a personal attack. As for your status as an WP:SPA, bringing that up is a legitimate concern in line with WP policy, as were the concerns raised about apparent sockpuppetry. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I will comment. The dispute over Amway has gone on a long time. A request was made by User:Historik75 in March 2016 for moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard, which is where I became involved. I soon concluded that there were issues about the wording of the lede paragraph, and no compromise. The next step was a Request for Comments. The Request for Comments was just as inconclusive as prior discussion, and was closed with No Consensus in May 2016. I tried to be neutral and will continue to try to be neutral. I agree that the article is a mess, as are many articles about contentious topics. The most common reason for messy articles on contentious topics is the repeated addition and removal of slanted content; I haven’t studied the history. Yes, TNT refers to a high explosive, sometimes used to demolish ugly buildings, and means to blow the article up and start it over. I wouldn’t recommend that an editor whose first language is not English take the lead in blowing up an article and starting it over. This dispute is fundamentally a content dispute. I would suggest either that the editors agree on who will take the lead on the article, or that the editors request formal mediation, in which case a reworking can be done with a neutral mediator. (I am not a member of the mediation committee and don’t do formal mediation.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Robert, I am totally OK with formal mediation if need be. It will allow us to bypass all petty squawking and focus dispassionately on content. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, just to clarify - I meant moderated dispute resolution when I said that you had helped with mediation. Still learning the terms used on Wikipedia. --Historik75 (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

RIR, You constantly call me WP:SOCK even when the investigation was closed 3 months ago with no result that would support your opinion. Do you find it necessary to continue in these personal attacks? I remember that User:Icerat admitted that he stopped editing Wikipedia mainly because of you. If anybody can ping User:Icerat (don't know if and how I can ping him from here) I would be glad if shares his opinion here. The problem is much wider than just recent few edits. The problems arose in March and they continue to this day. You are not allowing anybody to edit the article unless they agree with your negative POV pushing campaign. However, when they do, then you quickly agree even with unsourced statements.[122] How you can agree with unsourced statement that Amway was found to be a pyramid scheme when there is not a single court decision which would prove that is really beyond me. Is this what you call a consensus? How many times I have challenged you to back it up with a source? The last time here.[123] No answer. Isn't this called WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? And when I question the argument and put an NPOV template you simply remove it? Isn't that at least a sign that you are not so unbiased as you try to present yourself to be? This is not a content dispute, this is about your behaviour and as User:Collect says you "contributed to rancor in discussions" which is a statement I fully agree with. I don't know why you do it, but you do it. Again I repeat that I agree with both User:Collect and User:Robert McClenon that the article is a mess and from my point of view you have contributed to that more than anyone else with your one-sided view of the whole MLM industry. --Historik75 (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not the article is a mess, as you allege, is irrelevant to your wild accusation of WP:OWN and inane request to have me banned, which was the sole basis of the ANI you filed. If we are going to reach a resolution, then the onus is on you to admit that the accusation was misplaced and that what we were really dealing was a refusal on your part to accept that the changes you proposed making were negated by consensus. If you can admit that, then we can move past the pettiness and discuss, in good faith, the larger issue of overall article quality, which is much broader than the narrow issue we were dealing with from the outset (i.e., your reverted edits on Amway India). Content disputes should not be personal, yet you made it so with your baseless accusation of WP:OWN. Recant and move on. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

RIR, you again completely fail to address the behavioural issues. Instead you focus on the last couple of edits. How can you talk about consensus? RfC was closed with no consensus at all. Yet, you pushed your unfounded and unsourced WP:POV version to Wikipedia and didn't provide a single document which would prove the edit was justified. You completely skipped all the points I made towards you, such as if you find it necessary to call me WP:SOCK, or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it comes to answering my and Icerat's questions, or your removal of POV template and your apparent unwillingness to let others edit the article unless they agree with your negative opinion (again, this is not a matter of recent edits only - it spans over a long period of time). It may seem funny to other editors that you call my request to be "inane" but it doesn't seem funny to me. After several months, my patience has come to an end when it comes to personal attacks made by you. Some may consider it a compliment to hear from you that from the first edit they "show a fairly deep understanding of WP policy and procedure well beyond what would be expected of a true newcomer", but not me. Just because I can read and understand a written text doesn't mean I have to be a WP:SOCK. I consider this as a personal attack because in other words you are saying that I lie about myself. Perhaps to block you from editing the article would solve the problem and will save much frustration to other editors. After reading some of the discussions between you and other editors, I can only tell that even though several years have passed since then, nothing has changed in the way how you interact with others. So, let others decide if a complete ban or at least a block is necessary, but in my opinion you deserve it.--Historik75 (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as WP:OWNBEHAVIOR is concerned here are just few examples of RIR's behaviour:

• On March 8, 2016 17:15 I re-added the FTC case into the leading paragraph because the previous deletion was based upon a false argument - immediately reverted by RIR without proving that the basis for the original edit (removal of FTC case) was substantiated. In this case, shouldn't we revert to the original edit (before the edit based on a false argument took place)?

• On March 10, 2016 16:42 I have added POV template - immediately removed by RIR; User:Icerat re-added it and RIR again removed it. NPOV dispute was running, still the POV template remained removed. Is this acceptable?

• On March 12, 2016 14:44 User:Icerat removed claim not supported by supplied sources and updated the text with the latest court decision - immediately reverted by RIR.

• On March 12, 2016 15:09 User:Icerat added a sourced text about a class action case in Canada. It was again removed by RIR. Later, User:Icerat re-added it after the sources were found to be acceptable on RSN which makes RIR's original reversion unjustified.

These are just 4 examples from 5 initial days of our interaction but I could go on and on. Basically, almost every edit I or User:Icerat made and backed it up with RS has been immediately reverted by RIR. One of the weirdest claims by RIR was made on March 25, 2016 15:22 when he removed my edit on the basis that www.quixtarresponse.com site "is not registered to Amway or any of its affiliates" which, of course, was later proven not to be true. This is not a simple content dispute, it is a pattern of behaviour - immediately remove all the information RIR disagrees with not taking into account the sources. However, RIR at the same time accepts the unfounded and unsourced claim that Amway was found to be a pyramid scheme and "justifies" the removal of FTC case from the lead making the lead biased, unbalanced and WP:POV. WP:OWNERSHIP says:

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

If this is not a classic example of WP:OWNERSHIP, then what is? --Historik75 (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Now you are simply grasping at straws. The simple fact is that the dispute in question that led to you bringing us all here pertained to the Amway India section of the article, and the reversion of your edits by two different editors (myself and Noq). There must be at least half a dozen experienced editors that have now told you that your edits were inappropriate, and yet you persist with this canard of a WP:OWN accusation, even though the feedback you have received is loudly telling you that you are off base.

Rather than admitting that your accusation was unfounded, you are now trying to support your ongoing accusations by flailing around complaining that a few edits on Amway by a WP:SPA/WP:SLEEPER were reverted 6 months ago, even though that has nothing to do the reversion of your edits about Amway India that enraged you so much and led to us all being dragged here in the first place. That’s highly disingenuous to say the least, not to mention counterproductive. Going through pointless fire drills like this every time you don’t get your way is a colossal waste of time and resources. To make matters worse, even your latest attempt to re-litigate innocuous edits from 6 months ago is purposely deceptive, as you failed to mention that those very same edits you are now complaining about were reverted at that time by two other editors.[124][125] Even the removal of the drive-by POV tag that the SPA/sleeper added, which you complained about in your most recent comment above, was reverted by another editor.[126] In other words, none of the mud you are slinging even vaguely supports your accusations of WP:OWN.

I’m OK with any kind of informal or formal dispute resolution to settle disagreements about content, as it brings more uninvolved editors to the article (rather than the narrowly focused SPA/COI types that have been weighing in so far) and that’s a good thing. What I am not OK with is your persistence in making this baseless WP:OWN a personal attack. I am asking you now, nicely, to stop. So stop.

As WP:NPA policy states, “comment on content, not on the contributor”. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I would add that I and User:Icerat were not the only ones who challenged RIR to prove there is a decision which would rule against Amway regarding the pyramid issue. User:Robert McClenon challenged him on DRN here as well. No answer. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? Perhaps, but not on my part. As far as I know, RIR still has not provide one such case. However, all the time he insists that the change was justified. Is this the way how consensus should be used? Not taking into the account the reliability of source(s)? Just gather one or two other people with apparent POV that "agree" regardless of sources and it's done - we will revert everyone who disagrees with us regardless of sources he/she provides. As I said, I am a newcomer to Wikipedia but I certainly hope this is not the way it works. I believe I have read somewhere that revert should be the last option and the first option should be tp improve the added text. It clearly didn't work here that way.

I would stress that above were only few examples and certainly not a complete list. I don't know how many examples I have to bring here, so if somebody finds it necessary, please let me know. I can provide more examples of the same pattern of behaviour.

While looking for the User:Icerat's reaction, I have found his diff where he provides another example of RIR's behaviour:

The two "opposing" users here are reverting virtually every edit I do, no matter how well sourced or "balanced". I replaced a section that was using a Sri Lanken newspaper opinion column with one using a published trade magazine and a John Wiley book, and it was all reverted.

I suppose I do not have to specify that RIR was one of the "two opposing users". User:Icerat also admits here that he quit editing Wikipedia for 2 years because of "constant battling to make any contribution done with tag team reversions (clearly to avoid 3RR) by users who don't like the edits".

In other words, he had experienced the same kind of behaviour as I did in the past several months.

The last thing, as I am trying to address behavioural issues of a certain editor, not content issues, I assume I can tell something about the editor's behaviour. It is surely not meant as a personal attack, it just doesn't make sense to me to comment on content when trying to address the behavioural issues. As far as WP:OWN is concerned - it doesn't make a sense to me to retract the case. After all, we are here to find out whether RIR was or wasn't involved in WP:OWN or disruptive editing and I think that's on others to decide. Again, it is not meant as a personal attack. --Historik75 (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Editing other editors' Talk comments

DHeyward has objected to my use of the words "conspiracy theory" and "hoax" to describe the conspiracy theory/hoax about Hillary Clinton's health (here) and has blanked that section. (according to him [127], because "we make our coverage of it pretty shitty when we label it a conspiracy theory"). Which I guess is an edit dispute; whatever. However, he's more recently taken to blanking my Talk page comments, specifically this RfC I just opened (original section: [128] / diff of blanking: [129]) to seek third-party input. Per WP:TPO, I think there's a fairly high bar to edit or delete another user's Talk comments and I'm not quite sure it has been met in this case. If it is, I'm hoping someone could notify me for my edification; if not, I'm hoping someone could notify DHeyward for his.
This may come down to a conflict of vision or perception of reality; looking at DHeyward's edit history he's advocated heavily that blogs like Breitbart, etc. are RS [130], [131] (and these outlets are largely behind pushing the Clinton health hoax), he's whitewashed Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge to replace the RS-used term "militant" with "protester" [132], etc. I guess, in a way, I understand why he wants to edit / delete my Talk page comments, I just really wish he wouldn't. Doesn't seem chill, you know? LavaBaron (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• LavaBaron, are you not looking for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement? Drmies (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Drmies Maybe? I don't think there's any active arbitration measures that have been violated here, but I could be mistaken? I was under the impression that there was a general proscription against editing others comments. If possible I'd like to avoid the intensity of Arbitration enforcement; just trying to find a quick solution to stop my comments from being edited and RfCs blanked. Once we start editing and deleting each others Talk comments it kinda grinds everything to a halt. LavaBaron (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• There is a fairly high bar, and in this case much of it will stand or fall with the BLP argument that DHeyward invoked. But you were also pointing, or hinting at topics (including, obviously, the one in your first link) that fall under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Whether AE is more "intense" I cannot tell, and I'm about to sign off so I won't be digging into the argument DHeyward made for removing that RfC right now. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

[ec] Got it, thanks. Just to be clear and to keep this concise and focused, DHeyward's position appears to be that the content was a BLP violation of the tabloid TV doctor "Dr Drew" as, by putting Dr. Drew's conspiracy chatter about Clinton's health in an article titled "conspiracy theories" it "goes the extra mile to diparage him [Dr. Drew]" [133]. I think that's a real stretch as it sourced to RS [134] but, the content question aside, "Dr. Drew" was not actually mentioned in the active RfC he blanked. [135] This appears to be a rather transparent, though impressively bold, attempt to delete content that refutes the Alex Jones/Healther conspiracy theory and to stop the intervention of other editors by deleting RfCs before they're picked-up by the Feedback Request Service.

General note: Not sure if my comments here will be seen by anyone or if they'll be deleted / edited by DHeyward first, so please check the log before replying to verify accuracy. LavaBaron (talk) 04:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• First let's clear up some of the aspersions. Above you accused me of "whitewashing" by using "protester" instead of "militant." The first source in the diff you provided is here. Did you read it? There is no whitewashing and "protester" is both used in RS's and neutral. Second, the drive-by accusation that I "advocated heavily" for categorically including Breitbart as a reliable source: that is false. Your diffs even show that the reference is to specific articles by specific people that are accurate and backed up by other sources. WP:RS has many facets and encourages all sources to be evaluated on a case by case basis. All sources have been inaccurate and unreliable for different topics and the purpose of WP:RS is to make sure we are using reliable sources for every claim. Third, your RfC was out of process. It was created after the same material was deleted in an AfD of an article you also created. Your circular argument that the BLP violating material should stay while the RfC is in place belies your intent to drag out process when the process had already determined it should be deleted (not merged). You were the only one that had participated in the RfC. End runs around AfD should be dealt with swiftly as we are not a bureaucracy. Fourth, you double down on BLP violations above with choice phrases such as "tabloid TV doctor" and then calling his views "conspiracy chatter." those opinions belong in your blog. As I said on the talk page, we normally wouldn't give voice to what Pinsky said since we are not news. Candidate health is a topic that comes up in every election. Heck, Bob Dole is still alive and the talk in 1996 was whether he'd survive the year. The problem with the "Conspiracy theories..." article is that it's a shit magnet and both campaigns exaggerate so we have one side that says any health concern is a whacky conspiracy theory and downplays every medical event and the other side says all health concerns are legitimate and likely. We can't solve it here and each side spins up a new expert every 24 hours. Candidate health is covered in the candidate bios (I re-wrote some of Clinton's since you seem to be digging). The topic cannot be covered, though, with such a presumptive title because it puts living people, including experts, into a BLP violating "conspiracy theorist" box just as you did above. You should probably sit out the rest of the election if this article (and the recent article you created that was deleted) is the type of content you plan on creating and developing. It's not encyclopedic. --DHeyward (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• This is the correct page. The issue appears to concern a massive BLP violation disguised as a "conspiracy theory" which DHeyward removed. The removed section can be seen in this permalink. Unfortunately Sandstein closed the deletion discussion as "no consensus" and that decision could be defended at a review. However, the article was created to subvert this AfD on Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor. The media has to feed the 24×7 news frenzy, and throw-away attacks are described in detail. However, Wikipedia should not contain such attacks except with an after-the-fact encyclopedic treatment based on secondary sources with an analysis of the long-term effects of the attacks. A discussion here needs to decide whether it's-in-the-news cancels normal BLP standards. Johnuniq (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about editing my comments per WP:TPO - let's keep it focused there or this will get out of control. Editing other peoples comments is a fairly clear bright line, otherwise I would delete everything you just wrote (j/k).

On the larger issue, it's confusing because we have two opposing sides that are equally intent on deleting content: (a) people who think including any information about the anti-Clinton hoax violates Clinton's BLP, (b) people who think that including information that rebuts the anti-Clinton hoax violates the BLP of the conspiracy theorists. DHeyward appears to be in Group B and contends it violates Dr. Drew's BLP (see above) because it doesn't take Drew's conspiracy theory about Clinton seriously. That appears to be why he blanked the RfC which tries to get a consensus to include the mainstream view that rebuts the conspiracy theory. [see: [136]. This seems to be his M.O., similar to his previous attempts to whitewash the Malheur siege article [137] or to insert Breitbart [138] [139] as a source, etc. LavaBaron (talk) 04:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -- I'm with Johnuniq that this content removed was a subversion of the previous AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor), and that this material should stay out. I have pointed out so to the OP on the article's Talk page Recent edit thread, in which the OP repeatedly dodged the question whether the material removed was previously deleted at AfD, and then claimed that the section in question was "vaguely similar" memory loss. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

So as DHeyward's co-editor on this article, do you also support Breitbart as RS? And a RfC can't violate a AfD, that doesn't make sense. As for me "claiming memory loss" I really hope you have a diff.

It's pretty simple, man: we don't modify other editors Talk page comments. That's a big no no. We also don't make false allegations about other editors like that they "claimed memory loss" [sic]. You two need to cool your jets or go back to Conservapedia. LavaBaron (talk) 05:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

In my comment above, I was referring to these two diffs that the OP edit warred over:

• revert #1 at 05:25, 24 August 2016
• reverrt #2 at 00:43, 25 August 2016.

On inability to answer my question (reposted from Recent edit thread (edited for concision):

Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Me: I'm still curious if this was part of the content deleted at previous AfD. Was it? LavaBaron: No idea. I'm still curious why you want to delete/hide content from the Washington Post that undermines a conspiracy theory. Are you a Healther? Me: [answer LB's question]. As someone with intimate knowledge of the deleted article, how come you cannot elucidate on what was in it? LavaBaron: Can you please clarify why you want to remove content that notes pro-conspiracy videos were manipulated to falsely make it look like Clinton was ill? Third request. Me: [answer LB's question]. Back to my question, was the material in the diff a part of the content that was deleted at the AfD above? Third request :-) LavaBaron: I'm busy dealing with this type of nonsense at Frank Gaffney and don't have time to do it here on top of it. (...) Me: Could you help me understand if the material being discussed in the diff above was part of the content removed at the prior AfD? It's a simple yes / no answer, so hopefully won't take up much of your time. I would really appreciate it. LavaBaron: I don't have access to deleted articles, I can't help you. Sorry. Me: Just to be clear, as an editor/creator of the deleted article, you do not recall if the section "Specific claims" was included in the "Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor" article. Is that correct? Another editor (helpfully): I don't have access to deleted articles either, but I certainly do have a memory and would be glad to help you - the answer to your question is yes - the section "Specific claims" was included in the "Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor" article. It was copied/pasted (along with some of the other content) into this article as can be seen here in this diff. LavaBaron: Thanks for providing. Looks like a vaguely similar section, though some glaring differences as well.

I've found the above exchange interesting. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you going to provide a diff to support your claim that I said I had "memory loss" [140] or are you just going to copy-paste random (and heavily edited, BTW - the hole you two are digging just keeps getting deeper) WP:WALLOFTEXT from other discussions to obfuscate your attack? Second request. (Also, per Bishonen's advice here [141]: don't copypaste text from elsewhere in Wikipedia, use links, to avoid bloating up the noticeboard.) LavaBaron (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's the diff: "Looks like a vaguely similar section...", and that's after five attempts to receive an answer from the OP and an intervention by other editors. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Here are some diffs of aspersions and personal attacks:

• Not sure WP may be a good fit for you (maybe try Conservepedia?);
• Are you a Healther?;
• Following is the content "K.e. coffman" (and probably Alex Jones, too) wants deleted (...) Coffman - no one is going to let you turn this article into a platform to spout conspiracy theories (...);
• Cute but I'm not going to revert and turn this into a pro-conspiracy rant no matter how much you ask
• So as DHeyward's co-editor on this article, do you also support Breitbart as RS?
• You two either need to cool your jets or go back to Conservapedia .

K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• LavaBaron has a most disconcerting habit of attributing disagreement with him to political motives -- e.g. here [142] where he called me a Trump supporter. What nonsense. (The ANEW outcome was No violation, for those who are wondering.) 06:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Article subject to enforcement restrictions e.g. 1RR?

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

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

Recent Behavior by Parsley Man

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

---

Recently, Parsley Man opened the AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Pennsylvania State Police Barracks attack seeking for it to be deleted. I !voted keep, and engaged in discussion, to be responded to multiple times in what I would consider an uncivil tone. I noticed that this diff [143] looked like a logged out IP address given that one of the two other edits the IP address had was also on a contentious AfD that Parsley Man was a part of in April [144], and reported it here at SPI. I notified him on his talk page of this and he admitted to the sock puppetry while accusing me of POV pushing [145]. After that he posted on my talk page saying "Hope your happy" [146] and then asking for me not to have him banned and to remove the SPI entry [147]. Additionally, he has changed his comments on the SPI investigation to remove the somewhat uncivil initial comment, and apologize and ask not to be banned again [148]

In addition to this, he has asked for the AfD to be closed, but went ahead and merged/redirected one of the pages involved in the AfD discussion to the other [149] [150]. While this had been mentioned as a possible outcome in the AfD, consensus was not clear on this, and not letting the AfD run its course to achieve consensus around the issue appears to be disruptive to me,

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

No comment on the sockpuppetry or other issues, but I noticed that what TonyBallioni calls "uncivil" (per his own initial response) appears to be this. That doesn't look especially uncivil to me, nor do any of the other "multiple times" that were taken as being uncivil. I'd hate to think what would happen if someone who thinks using the words "plagiarized", "superfluous" and "unacceptable" is a violation of WP:CIVIL tried wading into a legitimately controversial topic are like films based on American comic books or the Israel/Palestine dispute. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, and certainly agree that all the terms you used are acceptable. I wasn't talking about the plagiarism or other legitimate concerns about the article but rather the tone of being told "Please review" X twice in short responses. That came off as a condescending tone to me, with the implication being that because my views on wP:ONEEVENT were different than his, I hadn't read it. That along with being accused on POV pushing for asking what he later admitted was a sock to be looked into, and the use of ":P " and having a post on my talkpage that says "Happy now" "Hope you're happy" with a crying emoticon only, to me comes off as disrespectful and just further trying to escalate the situation. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Meh. People say "please review X" to me all the time, and I usually take it as a sincere request that I review X. In fact, WP:AGF requires me to take it like that in most circumstances. And I don't see anything in the above-linked AFD to indicate that this is not one of those circumstances.

That said, double-dipping on logging out to "double-vote" in an AFD is a pretty serious offense. Since the damage is done and since PM has indicated that he will not do so again, I am not sure exactly how to deal with this. A final warning? "If you ever log out in order to cast two !votes in a discussion again, you will be site-banned"-kinda thing?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed on the AGF point. I typically try to do this, and where I have fallen short here, I apologize. The civility discussion was not my main concern here, as much as the behavior after he admitted to using the IP to double-vote. At the time, it seemed at best erratic, and looking back it still comes off to me in that way. Probably caused out of fear of being banned, which is not something I am advocating. The premature redirect and merge [151] [152], was my biggest concern and I wanted an admin who was not involved to review it so it didn't evolve into some version of an edit war. Someone elase has already reverted those edits. My suggestion would be a final warning type-thing that you suggested, and also a request/warning that there be no disruptive editting at the pages involved at this AfD until it is closed by an administrator. Again, thanks for your help and sorry for any AGF issues on my end. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

No, in the earlier AFD he was not the nominator, but cast two !votes, one[153] logged in and one[154] logged out. It seems pretty obvious that he intended to the same thing again, but was found out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Missed it. Good catch. TimothyJosephWood 13:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Note that I've closed the SPI with a one week block for Parsley Man.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Per PM's block and his interaction on his talk page seeming to be okay with cooling down, I'm fine with closing this. Like I said above, my main concern about opening it was that there was a premature redirect in merge befor AfD could play out, and since the issue seems to have been resolved, I don't think anything else is neccesary. Thanks to all for their help. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Uncivil behavior by 23 editor

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

What can I say? Double standards and lame excuses are nothing short of pathetic. Pointing out double standards and lame excuses is not, despite teetering on the edges of WP:CIV. I stand by that. 23 editor (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Whilst 23 editor is definitely skirting the edges of civility, I do need to ask, Crovata; on that talk page, why have you removed the sections sourced to the three sources mentioned? Why do you believe they are not reliable? Just saying "they are" is insufficient. I am unsurprised that you have received so much antagonism when you don't appear to have done that anywhere. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Black Kite there is no hypocrisy and excusing from my part - that are 23 editor's unjustified accusations, and instead to accept he was wrong or to move on, he called me a chauvinist. You don't understand the complex situation about the biography of Branimir Štulić, neither the political-nationalist pretentions about his ethnic-national origin or identity (and going into detail about that is not the point of the report), and 23 editor who generally edits Serbian or former-Yugoslavian articles should know that. I already explained, in the Serbian Glas Javnosti and Politika is claimed that it's "well-known that his father is a Serb from Niš, Dalmatian Zagora" (it's not a well-known fact, actually there only 2-3 sources to claim his Serbian ethnicity; his family is not from Dalmatian Zagora, neither in Dalmatian Zagora exist a settlement with that name), and that his father is a "Serb by origin from Nin near Zadar" (his family is from Nin, but father's ethnicity is unverified and non-factual information by the journalist with the only intention to reclaim Branimir's national identity, the news article is even pathetically titled "Kidnapping of Johnny"), as for the Croatian Index.hr (actually Bosnian-Herzegovinian Dnevni Avaz) it is claimed that allegedly told the journalist (but here can be seen that on the question "Do you write in Croatian language?" he replied "It is not Croatian language, it is literary Serbian language"). These claims like [155] ("I have not one Croatian blood cell nor am I a child Croatian-Serbian marriage") or Slobodna Dalmacija ("Croats do not exist at least 600 years") compared to the opposite claims (there is no need to source and cite everything here) where reliable sources confirm the genealogy of his family ("Croatian family Štulić lives in Nin for at least 500 years"), show his Yugoslavian-socialist point of view on ethnicity and nationality, rebellion against not what he is not (of Serbian origin, neither he or his cousins claimed any Serbian origin, actually noted there exist "strange statements, unverified information, all sorts of stupid caption" related to Branimir Štulić), but against what he is and where he comes from (the Croatian origin, Croatia), the history, the identity-crisis ("My family members are from Nin, Croats", "I am a Turk, and I am a Turk for myself, not for you, also I am a Macedonian", he is in Serbo-Croatian "anacionalan", meaning "nationally uncommitted"), to belong to nobody and nowhere, and so on. His father's ethnic origin, or Branimir's controversial (subjective) personal considerations, are out of scope for an encylopedic article on an artist. And like in the case of 23 editor's link, where IP said "content is dubious only for a Croat", the IP was warned by K.e.coffman that "calling out an editor's nationality in an edit summary is inappropriate", only that 23 editor is not an IP, but a Veteran Editor II level contributor who must know that. --Crovata (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Just a summary of that case which is virtually the same. Removing valid sources and making personal attacks [156] [157]. Requesting CU with intent to fish for users with the same ISP [158]. Opposing the sources material with no basis in sources of his own, he simply claims the only posted source is wrong [159], funny for someone that has the following stated on his user page:"This user believes in using Reliable Sources.". His opinion must be more reliable that a published source. He and several other users exhibit the same disruptive behavior. I made a record of that here 141.138.54.39 (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The only similarity with this case is the saying by 23 editor that ethnicity "it's irrelevant" or "The genealogical lineage is completely irrelevant" (which is generally not true), but that's a totally different article and talk page discussion, don't relate them.--Crovata (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

What about this "where you edit-warred with a host of IPs and sock-puppets pushing the opposite agenda" and this "Suzichi, don't resort to sockpuppets; I *will* report you".--141.138.54.39 (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The only IPs involved were 178.222.51.163, 212.200.247.167, and 79.101.66.244 and they were from Belgrade, Serbia. Whether those IPs were sock-puppets it's his conclusion, but it is obviously not related with the case of Suzichi. Please, don't relate the cases.--Crovata (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The similarity is in the behavior. 89.164.174.221 (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

You are being reported for such behavior and in this very own report you are repeating the very things you are being reported for? Strange thing to do. Bold, some may say, but it depends on which terms you are with admins. It's easy to attack an ip, but I didn't report you did I? I find your behavior generally disruptive because you think that your opinion is more important than sources and when someone questions that you personally attack him. I've tried to engage you in the discussion about sources in the talk page but you have just personally attacked me. I'm not interested in your personal attacks. If you don't want to discuss sources I will open a RfC. 89.164.174.221 (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, 23 editor, but as you continue to falsely accuse me I won't accept your apology. You crossed any measure of common sense. It is incredible that you're again openly lying - where is the evidence for my "troubling tendency... to conform own POV... on BLP articles"? It's incredible that you're still considering that, and not only that, but that mine edits were done because of Anti-Serb sentiment? Are you at all aware of what you say? Suddenly he became so interested about the proper "ethnical background", only that he finds it "irrelevant", and yet he continues to ignore the fact those claims are simply not true and never discussed both the information and sources "reliability", even "neutrality" - of course, how could I forget, because that is not even the "point" (his saying) of the whole talk page discussion - it is to discriminate other editor on the false grounds of "nationalism", "chauvinism" and "hypocrisy". You tried to make your intention to look like it's only about "reliable" sources, which you did not discuss, but you were a little too hasty and showed your transparent intentions.--Crovata (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep, he pretty much does that in every discussion where he can't beat the sources. He goes into personal accusations of nationalism and sock accusations with newer editors by fishing for isp with multiple cu requests.213.202.111.130 (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

I'm not a sock and among your edits on Novak Djokovic there's a clear personal attack against me. This isn't a random report but a report on your behavior that you also exhibit on the page where I'm involved. You are also pow pushing, by saying that all posted sources are wrong and that your opinion that isn't backed up by any source is right. You had also tried to remove the most valuable source posted there. When I saw you are being reported for virtually the same behavior by another user I had to mention that I had experienced the same behavior from you on another page. Stop calling me a sock,stop pow pushing and I won't have "vendetta" against you. Fishing for ISP providers to block other users is very disruptive and against rules [160]. Of course that you can find 2 editors with ips from the same block when you fish with cu requests. 213.202.111.130 (talk) 10:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

João Vale e Azevedo

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

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

IP madness at Katie and Orbie

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Single purpose account continually recreating deleted article

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

---

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

Orangemike deleted and salted the article in question. Unless there's further disruption, it looks like we're done here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The Afd discussion did not end with a clear consensus. Reyk lied through the whole undelete procedure. I have also contributed to another page, so this is moot. Just Reyk lying again. Filmfan655321 (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editor

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

---

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

@Eik Corell: Did you make a mistake while providing links? The editor has not edited any of the Articles you have mentioned Bentogoa (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's a couple examples for different articles: [161], [162]. Honestly this looks more like a vandal-only account, especially given the language on the talk page. I've reported to AIV. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

And they have since been blocked by UltraExactzz. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

139.0.120.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) changed the diffs I provided, no wonder you guys were confused. Eik Corell (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Tricky IP that one. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Range block please

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

---

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

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

I really love that movie, especially when her head spins around and the green vomit splashes on the priest. EEng 17:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

And a huge, smelly trout to Izno for making a non-issue into an issue and wasting even more editor time.--Laser brain (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

(twice edit-conflicted): The last thing we need is a further bone of contention and acrimony on the Holst talkpage. Rather than taking the ANI route, I think this can be resolved informally. I archived discussions which I considered were inactive as they had been dormant for some time. However, I accept that in view of their contentious nature, it is reasonable that closure should be on the decision of an uninvolved editor or administrator. I acted in good faith, as I assume did Izno and User:Cassianto, but in the circumstances I will restore the discussions to the talkpage, and will seek closure advice from an uninvolved editor. Brianboulton (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

If it was just a discussion that might have worked. However once a discussion has been set up as formal RFC with support/opposes etc, it generally needs to run the full length of time and be closed formally by an uninvolved party. Since there has been no real additions in the last 8 days, closing early is not an issue, but it does need a formal close by someone uninvolved. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Izno was uninvolved and could've archived it. But they chose not to, for whatever reason. Clearly, they enjoy the dramah and thought there were at least a few more weeks worth of entertainment left to be had. Cassianto^Talk 14:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal Threat on my talk page

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

---

See here: [163]. User has been notified. I'm sure this is a kid who is upset I tagged their page for deletion, but per WP:NLT bringing it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RickinBaltimore (talk • contribs)

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

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

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

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

---

This user has indulged in multiple violations, so I thought it will be better to report it here. On User:Mehmedsons's talk page he baselessly blames Mehmedsons for being biased towards the PKK because after he edited to show multiple settlements under SDF control on Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. PKK is a Kurdish militant organisation and Turkey which is helping the FSA sees the Kurdish YPG which dominates the SDF as an affiliate of PKK. Here's the diff of Mozad655's comment where he attacks Mehmedsons: [164]

Not only that, he also baselessly alleged me to be biased in favour of the PKK. This happened when I tried to question him about his claims for Amarinah and not properly sourcing his edits as he never provided a link to the map he used as source in his edits on the module. In addition he baselessly alleges I'm trying to find a pretext for personally attacking him even though I never personally attacked him once. Here's the diff for his comment where he attacked me: [165]

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

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

• [166]
• [167]
• [168]
• [169]
• [170]
• [171]

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

I have no idea what he is talking about. I was having a conversation with User:Mehmedsons on that users' private talk page. Out of nowhere this random guy who I had never spoken to before jumps in uninvited and starts arguing with me long after my discussion with User:Mehmedsons had ended and we had gone our ways. I find it very strange that he would interfere in a conversation that doesn't concern him and was already over.

I'll adress the points he made:

1) It was my impression that User:Mehmedsons's edits were biased because he used a map to edit pro-SDF gains while ignoring that very same map in towns that were shown as under OPP. I believe I had more than enough reason to think he was biased and I told him that quite frankly without any cursing or personal attacks. Why this second user then jumps in and interferes in a conversation he was not part of is unknown to me. I can only assume that it is because he himself is also biased and is defending his fellow pro-PKK editor. Otherwise why would he interfere in a closed conversation that he was not part of anyways on a private talk page of another user?

2) I did provide a link to the map he mentions above. A link that I copied directly from the adress bar of the twitter page belonging to the neutral map-maker. I specifically referred to the latest map on that persons twitter page. There was no direct adress for the map itself as adress bar does not change when you open an image on twitter. At least not on my monitor.

3) As can be seen on User:Mehmedsons's talk page, above user clearly wanted confrontation critisizing every word I wrote, like when I was explaining that the conversation no longer mattered because I had been informed by respected users on my own talk page that maps were not allowed as source (much of the discussion was based on a map), hence why my initial conversation with User:Mehmedsons had ended before this guy jumped in to escalate and restart. This constant criticism of everything and anything I said I interpreted as a personal attack on me, not on what I said but me personally, as I was referring to rules that were clear and out of discussion and that I myself had been informed of around the same time (see my talk page). Yet user would still try to argue.

4) As for my edits. I am not aware of making multiple reverts in the period of 24 hours. I always try to avoid that. It is possible that I may have edited something someone else before prior to my arrival had changed hours before my arrival and without me being aware of such previous edits. I don't know if this counts as reverting others people's edits. I won't bother look in to the above persons history for breakage of rules as I am not interested in personal attacks and don't really care if he is around or not.

Conclusion: Bottom line is that my intial discussion with User:Mehmedsons was over by the time above user arrived out of nowhere and restarted a conversation that he was not part of to begin with. I tried to end the conversation like I had with the first one, and consistently asked him to stop arguing as there was no point to it any longer. By then I had been informed by respected users that maps were not allowed anyways as source for edits. But this guy wanted to even argue over that. It is my impression that he is trying to get rid of objective editors so he can make pro-PKK edits without anyone checking up on it. I have been around for years and asking someone to be banned for a simple discussion with another user is just nonsence. Mozad655 (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll address all your claims, here's the actual reasons truth:

1) You cannot simply call someone biased to SDF because you think they showed some territories under SDF control. That is assuming bad faith. There might be conflicting reports and you might think it is not true. But you had absolutely no reason for saying they are "pro-PKK" simply over a disagreement. You had absolutely no evidence, simply saying they showed some territories under a faction isn't an evidence.

2) You didn't copy a link to the map you were claiming about. All you did was provide a link to the Twitter profile which you claimed had the map "Yusuf Bayk under SDF - acc. to latest map from https://twitter.com/ArtRosinski". In actual you can find a different adress bar for posts. How do you think people source Twitter posts directly? They post the direct link to that post. And how are we supposed to know what latest map are you talking about? Posts can keep changing, so can the "latest maps" change. Alternatively you could have just opened the image in a new tab and copied its link. Your edits were unsourced, but this is about your behavior.

3) In actual, it was you who started showing a confrontational attitude. I never tried to have any confrontation with you. All I did was tried to find out out whether your claims were right or wrong and you didn't properly source your edits. Reliablity in an article has to be maintained. And how did you respond? You said I'm biased in favour of my "PKK-buddies". Now even if you think I was being confrontational, how come you are baselessly accusing me of bias? Gain you are assuming bad faith over shortcomings of your own edits.

4) Not only that you claimed I was tryibg to find a "pretext for personally attacking you". However, I never even attacked you once. It was you who started personally attacking me ust because I questioned and raised serious doubts about your claims and edits. Again you've shown presumption of bad faiths. I told you not to attack other editors yet you do it again. This shows that you do not care about Wikipedia's rules which your comments seriously breach.

5) You claim you are not aware of making multiple reverts in a period of 24 hours. However I have posted differences which clearly show you reverting atleast 6 times in less than 24 hours. Your claim is not even possible.

6) Why do you keep saying "pro-PKK" especially? PKK is seen as a terrorist group by some and Turkey is seen as an affiliate by Turkey. Your choice clarly indicates you are biased. You do not say "pro-SDF", "pro-Kurd" or "pro-YPG"

7) The reality is that you didn't bother to claim maps can't be used as sources until I was discussing with you. Here's your last comment directed to Mehmedsons: [172]. Here you accuse him of bad faith just like you did me without any real evidence. And you accuse me here as well.

Not only that you falsely, baselessly and ridiculously claim I'm trying to get rid of objective editors. That is another assumption of bad faith and a personal attack. You have violated Wikipedia's policies many times within 2 days. It is clear that it is you who did not like others making edits other than what you believe in, and started edit-warring, personally attacking and falsely accusing others. A person like you who so blatantly violates the rules and attacks others must be blocked. I request the administrators to block him. Newsboy39 (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Newsboy39 and Mozad655: As an outside third party, I don't see any clear cut policy violation here, although it is definitely worth both users to review WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Additionally, over the content dispute, I'd suggest using dispute resolution. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Newsboy39 I'm sorry you still don't understand my point of view. I'm not going to argue with you again. I've read everything you wrote and its my impression that you have a very distorted perception of both the initial conversation (which you weren't part of) and the second (which you started long after initial had ended). Frankly I don't always understand what you write. Maybe some language problems on your part or maybe I'm not expressing myself clear enough in my responses. Still disappointed though that you would react by attempting to get another user blocked for a simple discussion covering a few lines. Decision has been made. I will move on and so should you. I'm out. Mozad655 (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Mozad, I have every right to question your claims and so dies everyone else. It's me who doesn't understand how you claim others are "pro-PKK" and blame othets. Besides your discussion with Mehmedsons was very uncivil. As I already proved, your last message was a personal attack on him. Instead of blaming others and being uncivil, you should have either tried to address any problems others had pounted out. Your have attacked me multiple times. I don't see how there is any reason you can continue editing here. Newsboy39 (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Dane2007 I was never uncivil to him and even Mozad655 accepted he was wrong when questioned about some of his claims. In all my comments I was always well-behaved towards him and assumed good faith. However he didn't like me questioning what he claimed. Claiming that I was uninvited or anything else doesn't excuse him. I do not see how someone who has edit-warred, made personal attacks and baselessly accused others of bad faith should continue here. Newsboy39 (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Newsboy39: You're correct, you weren't uncivil to him. The reason I stated you should review both policies is because WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are closely related and might help you understand why I am saying I don't see the clear cut policy violation. The diff you cited for the personal attack was definitely firm and potentially uncivil, but in this case it was not a personal attack. As you stated, all editors are invited and encouraged to participate in the encyclopedia, so claiming you are uninvited is irrelevant in his argument against you. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

WarMachineWildThing Since being warned about 1RR by EkoGraf, I haven't violated it neither anyone accused me of it. And I only made 2 reverts. From thereon out, I have always tried to discuss something wrong in others' edits, however Mozad655 got angry about this. He seems to have known it all along and claims he didn't make multiple reverts in a day, even though he made 6 of them. Another thing is I wasn't being "uncivil" to EkoGraf, I truly did feel he was threarning me. But we solved the situation amicably and in a civil manner on Battle of Sirte (2016). And all of it was days ago. No such attempt made by Mozad655, only false accusations of bias and personal attacks. I don't think trying to find faults in both over one reason or another will do any good. Newsboy39 (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh no please do not mistake my statement,I never said you had done it since, But it had been done. There was nothing threatening about those warnings, typical warnings I've issued many myself, I've seen alot worse. But I digress, Back to the matter at hand, I just checked the refrences again to make sure I didn't miss something. I see 1 revert and the rest are just edits. As Dane said above you both should review both policies WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA as I see no clear cut policy violation either.Chris"WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 22:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

WarMachineWildThing I understand what you're saying completely. I and EkoGraf had our disagreements many times, but never once I made any baseless allegations against him or accuse him of bias. And in the end we did manage to put our disagreements aside and solve the issue amicably on Talk:Battle of Sirte (2016). I do believe that Mozad655's actions are far more serious than anything I might have done some days ago. Problem with Mozad655 is instead of showing improvement, he blames others. I seriously doubt he should continue here. Newsboy39 (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Dane2007 WarMachineWildThing I've checked WarMachineWildThing's claim and properly investigated all the diffs, however most of the diffs are still reverts. It might not be clearly visible, but I checked the previous edits for verification that they are reverts. In his edits Mozad655 has changed content back to as it was before others made an edit on it. Here are the reverts:

• Revert no. 1 is a revert of Skyline12399's edit

• Revert No. 2 is another revert of Skyline12399's edit

• Revert no. 3 is a revert of Pbfreespace3's edit

• Revert no. 4 is a revert of Ahmedo Semsurî's edit.

• Revert No. 5 is again a revert of Skyline12399's edit

Mozad655 has made 5 reverts in one day. He should be blocked immediately. Newsboy39 (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

It would also appear that Skyline12399 in addition to Mozad655 has also violated WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR. I have issued single-issue warnings to both users and notated the sanction violation. Any determination regarding blocking must be handled by an administrator. -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Both blocked for 72 hours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal threat against User:NgYShung and User:Anna Frodesiak

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

---

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

Already blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Now that's a legal threat! EEng 01:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Either the threats are bollocks, or the Malaysian police have way too much time on their hands. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    • If 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal is any indication… Airplaneman ✈ 02:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

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

There is a site called Chilling Effects ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Bizarrely, the IP is British. Black Kite (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Urgent block needed to stop WP:SPA page mover

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

---

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

Notified him of the discussion and reverted a personal attack. Katie^talk 02:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Disruptive editing by LackofMeNecktar

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

---

LackofMeNecktar has made numerous disruptive and/or unconstructive edits recently, including impersonating an administrator, [173] and creating a hoax article (The Greeny Channel) from which he then removed the speedy template. There are other relatively minor unconstructive edits in his history (e.g. this one), all of which I think amounts to sufficient reason for an indef block. However, I welcome not just admins actually blocking him, but also other opinions as to whether this is the best way to handle this situation. Everymorning (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Disruptive promotional user

Kamalikachanda has created her auto-biography. After I nominated the article for AFD. She repeatedly calling me stupid, idiot joker on my talk page and Marchjuly's talk page. She is removing AFD template and also disrupting the AFD page. I am exhausted with her behaviour. The article was tagged by Jim carter, when she removed the tag, the edit showed on Huggle.

I had given her welcome message few hours ago, which she has blanked from her talk page. I am exhausted with her. I request Administrators to take suitable actions. Now after final warning about personal attacks, this is the reaction --Marvellous Spider-Man 09:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I would request indefinite not 72 hours for this. --Marvellous Spider-Man 09:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Though a personal attack was made, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marvellous_Spider-Man&diff=736414193&oldid=736413628 thing you are requesting indefinite for appears legit. Kamalika Chanda starred in Miss Teacher according to the article and the xvideos link they added to your talk page is to that (going by the URL, haven't actually visited it), presumably in an attempt to show notability. Please don't overreact. BethNaught (talk) 09:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Overreact!!! How many times before that she called me stupid, idiot, joker, before those comments. Xvideos is a porn site and the section heading was "notable breasts of Kamalika Chanda" Marvellous Spider-Man 09:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like one of those Neelix redirects. EEng 14:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

So she got pissed you AFDd her article and made personal attacks against you. Fine, they got a 72h block. But trying to prove a porn actor is notable by linking to porn is not indef-worthy. BethNaught (talk) 10:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Bethnaught, the article is not about a porn actress, it's mentioned "erotic drama". Something like a low budget "Basic Instinct" without any X rated scenes. Marvellous Spider-Man 10:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand your frustation Marvellous Spider-Man and think you warning this editor was appropriate. At the same time, I think what BethNaught is trying to say is that this is a new editor and sometimes new editors do things they shouldn't. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out, but sometimes a little tact is needed as explained in WP:BITE. Removing notability templates is not always a bad thing, and it seems from this edit sum that Kamaikachada felt the sources were sufficient and the tag unnecessary. Maybe at this point it would have been best to try and discuss things on the article talk page instead. As for the article being an auto-biography, Kamalikachanda posted on your user talk that they are not Kamalika Chanda. Of course, we cannot know that for sure, but we need to take them at their word for the time being. If they are telling the truth, then their choice of username is problematic WP:IMPERSONATE which actually can lead to an indefinite block. FWIW, this could just be an overzealous fan who just does not understand what Wikipedia is about. That doesn't excuse the PAs they made against you, but they have been blocked appropriately for those. If they continue this type of behavior after they are unblocked, then some administrator will step in and block them for even longer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: check this welcome message and this and then you will know why it was not WP:BITE. And the welcome message was given before all this drama. Marvellous Spider-Man 10:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

And the first warning was level 1 warning. Marvellous Spider-Man 10:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

If you are checking her every edit on my talk page, how did you miss that she admitted on my talk page that she is editing for 3 years ? Marvellous Spider-Man 10:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I guess I missed that because you yourself removed it from your talk page with this edit. You also removed the previous discusion between you two from your user talk so I didn't notice them too. There's nothing wrong with any of that, but I didn't check your user talk's edit history as carefully as I should've so sorry for that. Anyway, I had your page on my watchlist because of my earlier post to you regarding something else, so I noticed this post. I then checked the other editor's talk page because of their user name and posted a username warning there. I then checked their edit history and noticed they had removed the AfD template from the article. I re-added the template and then posted something at the AfD about removing templates and personal attacks. Kamalikachanda posted on my user talk, and I advised them to to stop removing template and stop the personal attacks. I have Jo-Jo Eumerus's user talk on my watchlist because I often post there about image files. I noticed that Jo-Jo reverted the Kamalikachanda's blanking of the AfD and then saw your post on Jo-Jo's user talk; so, I commented there. I was informed about this AN by RainFall who responded to my post at User talk:Widr#User Kamalikachanda. I think that pretty much covers the extent of my invovement in this up until now.

FWIW, the fact the this person has been editing as an IP for three years does not mean they might not still be a "newbie" in some sense. Moreover, what is written in WP:BITE#How to avoid being a "biter" does not lose its relevance just because someone has been editing for a certain period of time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I repeat again, I welcomed the user with welcome message (before she started her personal attacks) and the first warning I gave on her talk page was automated huggle warning for removing a template added by User:Jim Carter, which was a level 1 warning. And I am not going to waste my time anymore, discussing about this user. ThanksMarvellous Spider-Man 11:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, she moved her name well up in the billing for the two films she was in that were wikilinked. I've reverted that, and whatever the outcome, we don't allow autobiography on Wikipedia. MSJapan (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The editor has been indefinitely blocked for a username violation.. So, when their block for personal attacks is up, they can request a username change and return to editing if they wish to do so.

Finally, just for reference, they have stated they are not Kamalaki Chanda here. In the same post, however, they also wrote Even if you delete it I will again create it with the "it" being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamalika Chanda, which is not a good thing. It's not certain whether they are trying to write an autobio; They could be a fan, relative, manager, etc. Moreover, even if it was an autobio, the statement "we don't allow autobiography on Wikipedia" is not correct per WP:AUTOBIO. Like COI editing, autobios are very strongly discouraged by Wikipedia, but they are not expressly prohibited. A person could try to write an article about themselves, but we would encourage them to do so via WP:AfC so that it could be reviewed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Administrators Nyttend and Jehochman

• Nyttend (talk · contribs)
• Jehochman (talk · contribs)

Administrator Jehochman (Or JHM for brevity) redacted[174] part of a comment I made at RFA after Nyttend came to his talk page[175]. Nyttend came to JHM seeking a block of me on basis of this[176] from November of last year. In it JHM wrote 'I could indef block your account right now'. Before that, JHM cited these two examples- [177][178].

An indefinite block for telling Nyttend not to violate WP:NPA after Nyttend called me[179] a stalker. That seems more than a little extreme.

Let's examine the more recent post first.

Nyttend wrote- "He's even attacked me at an RFA page over an incident more than a year ago. When you're demonstrably holding grudges over a period of years, attacking others' actions as "colossal failures" for no good reason, it's beyond time for assumptions of good faith, beyond time for additional warnings."

Nyttend blocked 20 accounts by his own admission for sockpuppetry that proved to be wrong. That's a failure all right. My post to the RFA didn't just single out Nyttend but another administrator also who I thought overstepped.

Where is it said at RFA you can't criticize anyone? JHM writes at his talk page- 'That RFA isn't the place to rehash an old incident.' Old incidents are rehashed at RFA every time once of these comes up.

Nyttend has a long history of not taking criticism of any type well. He actually gave me a uw-npa3 once for personal attacks over this[180]. Was anything I wrote in that thread a violation of NPA? He's accusing me of harboring grudges but his behavior (and I can give more examples. Like his going off wiki[181] to seek a block of me and using his backup account another time[182] for the same purpose where moments later he was back in his main account, plus his threat[183] to seek sanctions against me for something he in his own words to not occur[184].) can be called questionable. The two cases I cite above may or may not constitute administrator shopping especially after his categorical dismissal at Commons and his citing it when using it in his backup account post.

In a recent ANI thread here[185] Nyttend was told to drop the stick.

JHM seems on the verge of taking action against me. See edit summary here[186].He told me not to follow Nyttend. I haven't and Nyttend has supplied no proof of such. I, like all wikipedia users, get notified of RFAs. I have participated there before on at least one occasion. Nyttend and my paths cross sometimes but like here[187] he said it was coincidence. A threat of an indefinite block for trivial actions seems like administrator overstep. Nyttend's persistence to get me blocked needs to be examined. Nothing I've done at RFA constitutes a violation of any warning given to me....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of this thread and will not be taking any actions other than to say that William's comment speaks for itself. Jehochman ^Talk 14:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

JHM here[188] says I'm wiki lawyering based on my request of proof I did something wrong at RFA. Ironically in that RFA thread I had an administrator asking me to cite WP policy to justify why I said something was wrong....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Please note Both Nyttend and JHM were notified of this thread. JHM subsequently deleted[189] my notification of him....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Question @WilliamJE: do you read ANI threads that you have started? Vis-à-vis, Jehochman acknowledged your notice by commenting above. It looks rather as if you wish to portray his every edit to be either at fault or a personal attack. As a seasoned user, you know that editors are allowed to remove (almost) whatever they like from their own talk pages. FYI. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

First, your RFA comment was redacted because it was completely off-topic and way out of line. You discuss the behavior of the candidate at RFA, not the behavior of a third party. You found an excuse to criticize Nyttend and took it. If you think the candidate is somehow soft on sockpuppetry or too hard on it, say so, but leave others out of it. Second, I take that ANI thread as telling both of you to drop the stick. You picked it up again, not Nyttend. I'm not going to block you because I'm the co-nom on that RFA and I think it would be improper, but I certainly think you deserve it. Katie^talk 15:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

And how is not Nyttend not picking up the stick by going to JHM and trying to get me blocked? Nyttend didn't cite the ANI thread but something else. My being critical of administrators around here has a long history and in a recent case[190] justified....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I put the 'please note' in to make sure people know I did notify JHM as required. It was done innocently. He had the right to remove it, I wanted to prevent my being accused of not informing him. How about showing WP:AGF?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

If he hadn't posted here immediately above you, then it would be a valid point. But he did, so it isn't. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Not this again ... This is an attempt to reinvigorate WilliamJE's long-term grudge-farming against Nyttend, which I had hoped had subsided. William really should know better. Acroterion (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Unrelated to most of the issues concerning Nyttend and WilliamJE's bad blood, but to chime in if I may, but keeping old grudges fresh goes directly in contravention of our principles against personal attacks and battleground conduct. Whatever the history between Nyttend and WilliamJe, that is absolutely zero excuse to bring up Nyttend into unrelated venues. What does Nyttend have to do with Oshwah's RFA. There was entirely no constructive purpose in WilliamJE's comments and a good move on Jehochman's part for redacting that comment. One shouldn't be going out of their way to criticize an editor whom they have a "history" with, whatever their reasons might be. I think the core difference here is WilliamJE brought it back up, not Nyttend. This thread is an attack on both Nyttend and Jehochman for calling out his behavior. I would strongly suggest WilliamJE to cease commenting on Nyttend ever again and to go find something else to do. This has gone on long enough. —Mythdon 17:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• William has spent years demonstrating that he will not drop this grudge. When his attacks are reverted, he restores them. Why do we permit this person to remain a member of the community? PS, just to ward off any accusations to the contrary: I'm not following William. I voted in the RFA, and someone else pinged me, so I went back and searched for my username and found this attack by coincidence. Had he left it after I went to look at the ping, I doubt that I would have ever noticed. Nyttend (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Then he should receive a block on both the grounds of edit warring and for restoration of the gratuitous comments. I haven't followed up on all of the history, but judging from the diffs, its blatantly clear that WilliamJE is just not going to drop the stick. His editing demonstrates a fascination with the edits of another user (in this case, with yours), following you around. I can't fathom how he's been allowed to do this for years. I've seen less severe cases in the past and those editors had already gotten interaction banned or indeffed for doing far less severe cases of harassment and personal attacks. —Mythdon 23:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

WilliamJE editing restriction

• Propose swift and short WP:BOOMERANG block against the filer: having been advised repeatedly to drop the stick, deliberately does not wish to WP:GETOVERIT. _Muffled ^Pocketed 07:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

  I oppose a block. I think WilliamJE should be restricted from interacting with or talking about (directly or indirectly) Nyttend, with the usual exception that if Nyttend mentions WilliamJE, then WilliamJE is allowed to respond, or request assistance. Jehochman ^Talk 14:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Community ban for Maayan pandithevan

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

---

I request that Maayan pandithevan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be community banned per Wikipedia policy. While this user is technically too new to be banned, this user has also heavily disrupted wikipedia and used multiple sockpuppets, yet he isn't even blocked. This user has repeatedly been told to reference his sources, yet he still uses original research and random "according to"s on pages. His only sources are unreliable, and he always has an edit war over them. Yet, he is saying that the great old writers such as Ramanujacharya, Madhwacharya, Alwars, Iskcon Sampradayaas, Sangam Pulavars, and Valmiki are 100% reliable and that not using their sources would be ignoring them. But the part I think makes him worthy of a ban is that he is doing all of this after repeated warning, and has even used multiple accounts to evade his block. If you support or oppose, please post below. 96.237.27.174 (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

To further my evidence: Judging by his name and the old writers' names, he may also be an SPA. 96.237.27.174 (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe community bans are dealt with an WP:AN not AN/I. Correct me if I am mistaken. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

You've got six edits. If you expect this complaint to be taken seriously, you should post under your registered user ID. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

And by the way, he was already blocked before you filed this complaint, but not indef. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Murder of Seth Rich

The page protection came off of Murder of Seth Rich and they went right back to edit warring. As before, no one individual has so far reverted too many times, but we have a lot of individuals who have shown themselves to be willing to revert rather than discuss.

Clearly page protection won't work unless it is made permanent (or at least until the election). Could we possibly try issuing warnings to each edit warrior as he/she reverts? Better to have an uninvolved admin do that, not an involved editor such as myself. Would 1RR help? Related question: would this be under the American Politics discretionary sanctions? If so, could we tag the talk page and send DS notices to the participants? Again, best done by an uninvolved admin.

Full disclosure: I have taken a position regarding the content dispute behind this and there are some interesting interpretations of BLP policy regarding material that only implies something forbidden by BLP that may be worth admin scrutiny, but the edit warring is a separate issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

More edit warring, ignoring warnings

More edit warring[191] and we now have someone who is participating in the edit war (still no individual making too many reverts, just what looks like a restart of the previous bunch of people reverting), and doing it after being warned not to edit war.[192][193][194][195][196] This would be a good place to apply an admin warning. I don't see a need for stronger sanctions unless he repeats the behavior after the warning. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• I locked the page for four days back on August 22. I see that hasn't helped matters much, though there is an RFC now. I have no opinion on the inclusion or exclusion of the material, and I only edit politics articles in an administrative capacity.

Here's the way I see this. If you don't include the Wikileaks stuff, it's not an ARBAP2 issue – it's another unsolved crime where the victim was employed by a political group. If you do include it, it is an ARBAP2 issue because you've brought the email leak into it, and discretionary sanctions apply. That may be overly simplistic, but that's the way it appears to me. Katie^talk 21:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks! What if we only include the bare fact that Wikileaks offered a reward, with no mention of any of the email leak or any of the other online speculation concerning Seth Rich? Would just the bare mention of the reward being offered make it an ARBAP2 issue? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but yes, because that brings American politics into it. Does Wikileaks offer rewards for other unsolved murders? Nope, and they have only one reason to do so here. Others may have differing opinions, though. Katie^talk 02:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. It seems like a reasonable interpretation of policy.

(change of subject) I may have been unclear that I was asking specifically about ARBAP2 and that the page is already under NEWBLPBAN discretionary sanctions. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

This complaint seems to be weasel-worded aspersions and battleground ruminations from one of the very few editors on this page who has taken an aggressive, hostile, or argumentative stance. e.g. [197] [198] [199] The editing process was going reasonably well and the page did not require protection. The protection request and PP were precipitous. OP's recent actions are blockable per AEBAP2 and WP:NEWBLPBAN, but in lieu of enforcement, I suggest OP withdraw this and stand away from the article and the other editors for a week or so. Nothing more than semi-protection should be reinstated. Steve Quinn was not edit-warring. He undid a one-edit IP's drive-by. If semi-protection had been in place, we would not be here. SPECIFICO talk 22:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

What you are saying is simply not true. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Re: "OP's recent actions are blockable" I have made one edit to the article, over a week ago.[200] Please note that "weasel-worded aspersions and battleground ruminations" SPECIFICO was advised of the possibility of WP:BOOMERANG.[201] --Guy Macon (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Katie, thanks for weighing in. Two things. First, there are clearly BLP issues, so BLP DS are applicable (it is within the scope authorized by Arbcom). Secondly, one of the key points of contention at the article is exactly whether or not to include the Wikileaks content, so it seems to me that the DS for American politics are also at play (it is within the scope authorized by Arbcom) as long as that is an issue (and as long as the article exists, I reckon that will remain an issue). The only question is whether the subject matter of the article and discussion about it falls within the scope authorized by Arbcom, and for this article we have both. No DS have been applied by an admin (no editing restrictions like "1 revert per day per editor") and no one has yet been brought to AE over this; the only question The only question here (and it is not really a question to me) is clarifying that the subject matter is within the authorized scopes of two DS. Do you disagree that it is within the scope and if so why? And if you agree would you please confirm? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Okay. Guy asked if it fell under ARBAP2, and I gave my opinion. The BLP question wasn't posed. Since you have now asked, yes, this is absolutely a BLP.

SPECIFICO, we're not going to semi-protect a page that's undergoing a content dispute. I can put a 1RR on it under BLPDS. I'd rather not since I already locked the page once but hey, I don't flex the DS muscle very often. It feels like it could be stretched. Is it warranted right now? You guys tell me. Katie^talk 03:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Katie, I did not understand why the article was put under PP, since there was discussion on the talk page. Editors for the most part were disciplined and there was not edit-warring on the article page. In my opinion, the editor who requested PP was overreaching. The reason I raised semi-protection was simply that the edit which apparently prompted this complaint was Steve Quinn's undo of IP vandalism, an edit that I do not believe any of the registered editors would have made and which was a clear BLP violation that needed to be undone. I don't think any form of protection is warranted, especially now that editors can no longer deny that the two Arbcom remedies apply to this article. SPECIFICO talk 04:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Everything seems to be calm, so I don't think it is necessary for 1RR at this time. That is just imho. Steve Quinn (talk)

Genre warring and blanking

There's been a disruptive IP editor blanking content, mostly in film-related articles. I first noticed this in late July, when 187.205.65.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) engaged in a spree of disruptive genre warring by way of blanking Category:Slasher films from several dozen film articles. I reverted the ones that were sourced, added a few sources to obvious examples, and just left the rest alone. I'm not interested in genre warring over whether something is a slasher film, just reverting IP editors who blank content. In August, I noticed the same editor has been blanking more content, mostly from infoboxes:

• 187.205.34.241: [202]
• 187.205.38.181: [203], [204], [205]
• 187.205.43.192: [206], [207]
• 187.205.43.108: [208], [209], [210]
• 187.205.52.47: [211]
• 187.205.62.201: [212]
• 187.205.73.16: [213]
• 187.205.95.112: [214]
• 187.205.128.12: [215], [216]
• 187.205.124.142: [217], [218], [219]

Note that this comprises the majority of edits made from this range in the past four weeks. If there's essentially nobody else editing, and there's extensive, ongoing blanking, I think a really wide range block might be warranted; there's virtually no collateral damage even on a /16. If that's not possible, I guess maybe semi-protection for Hellbound: Hellraiser II and Tintorera might suffice, as those are the most commonly targeted articles. However, it won't stop the ongoing genre warring and blanking in other articles. I guess I can keep checking the range contribs every few days, but it's a tedious time sink. On the positive side, I rediscovered an article I wrote three years ago that I never put my on my watchlist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Second try here, re: long term unsourced edits

Last week I reported user 174.105.181.77 (talk · contribs) both here and at AIV, and neither report was deemed actionable, with the explanation that I hadn't provided diffs. Since then the account has continued unabated, despite accruing more warnings and being reported again tonight at AIV. I'm bringing this here again not so much to request a block--if we're still functioning at all, and working by the basic guidelines, that's inevitable, if long overdue. What I'm requesting is a review of all edits, not some half-dozen cherry-picked diffs. This is a textbook example of an account adding trivia anywhere and at random, without regard to scholarship or sources. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• For instance, some already rolled back: [220]; [221]; [222]; [223]; [224]; [225]; [226]. Some of hundreds of such nuisance edits. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It is supposedly a dynamic IP. What would you have done? A sampling of their edits indicate that the things they are adding are not particularly contentious nor do they appear to be incorrect. Provide an indication of what you feel should be done. Other than that, you always have the option of citing the material yourself. This really doesn't seem like a matter for this board. If it really bugs you warn then incrementally and after 4 in one day report them to AIV. Or better yet, start a dialog with them to encourage them to do better.John from Idegon (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Then I give up. Thanks. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Failure or refusal to "get the point" leading to Distructive, Tendentious, Edit warring, Accidental / Misinformation and Vandalism!

The user Kintetsubuffalo started a page called Boy Scout of Nigeria on November 28, 2005‎, though such organisation never existed in Nigeria as at that time. It took 10 years or constant edit for the user Kintetsubuffalo to know the name is not existing and it must be changed.

The History It was registered as Boy Scout Association of Nigeria in 1942. So, the name Boy Scout of Nigeria (BSN) was last used in was 1942. In 1999, Boy Scout Association of Nigeria was changed to The Scout Association of Nigeria, so as to accommodate all Genders both Boys, Girls, Men and Women.

Knowing fully that such name never existed in Nigeria again, In October 2007 I tried to start a page called The Scout Association of Nigeria but was nominated for deletion by the user Kintetsubuffalo, since I don't know how to argue or protest it, I let go.

Ever since then, I always try my best to correct the information available on Boy Scout of Nigeria (BSN). I added references and some notable facts but he (Kintetsubuffalo) will always undo it and add an insulting phrase under (Briefly describe your changes). Each time I try to ignore it.

Recently, I wrote a paper about scouting in Nigeria because I am a dual citizen, a Nigeria and a member of the association (a National Officer) and also an American, also a volunteer with BSA. Though I am living and working in the USA but I know 100% about scouting in Nigeria because I am still a trainer there. After written the paper and was delivered in Nigeria, people talked about Wikipedia and wrong information it has about scouting in Nigeria.

I was thinking I could correct some of those information but user Kintetsubuffalo will not allow it. Then I decided to re-started "The Scout Association of Nigeria" and I wrote true information about scouting in Nigeria with references, while I was waiting for more information and edit from those that know the history of scouting in Nigeria, Kintetsubuffalo nominated the article for deletion and also motivated speedy deletion. He achieves his aim only to use those information to form a new page but it was done wrongly. Two good heads are better than one but he believes more in lone input which is not Wikipedia policy. The policy of Wikipedia is "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practices, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopaedia."

I contacted him to let him know my mission which was to only to pass true information about the association but he preferred to use bad words on "Briefly describe your changes" against me. I don't exchange words with people when I am educating because that will show to the world that I don't know what I was doing. I am a new and young editor and I have seen a lot of old editors encouraging people like me, correcting references / put it in order when it is added wrongly but Kintetsubuffalo prefers to discourage people instead of correcting.

The user Kintetsubuffalo claimed to know more about scouting worldwide "I am one of the founders of Scouting WikiProject" but that does not mean you know Bible than Pope. I was only trying to correct the accidental or Misinformation of 10 years he added on Wikipedia about Scouting In Nigeria and I was not doing it rudely. 90% of African scouting stories are not correct and new editors would be frustrated day in day out.

Even though he would not accept the correction but today, he has decided to form "Scout Association of Nigeria" with old Boy Scout of Nigeria story, he copied some of the stories on the page he nominated for deletion "The Scout Association of Nigeria" and redirect the page "The Scout Association of Nigeria" to "Scout Association of Nigeria". That shows that he did not even know about the association he was writing about. I don't know why he chose to be a sole editor or final decision maker for Wikipedia on scouting matters and he does the wrong things with impunity. He deleted the right name to form a new wrong name, the "The" has a meaning in the association name, but for a reason known to him, he would not let it be.

The questions are:- Does he want to form Scout Association of Nigeria or what association was he writing about? Why can't he edit the page "The Scout Association of Nigeria" rather than forming a new page? Was Wikipedia integrity upheld? Was the deletion of "The Scout Association of Nigeria" made in good faith?

Today, he has formed another wrong association on paper "Scout Association of Nigeria" and this may go for another 10 years. Does that promote Wikipedia in a good manner? What does it say about the editors and writers?

By these, I see Kintetsubuffalo action as:- Distructive, Tendentious, Failure or refusal to "get the point", Vandalism: Writing wrong stories about an organisation. Edit warring, Accidental or Misinformation.

I hereby appeal that "The Scout Association of Nigeria" should be made available to the public (recall back from deletion) and the wrong information or name about scouting in Nigeria should be deleted. Wikicontrol 07:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, could I as another member of the WikiProject Scouting try to calm this down a bit. The reason why the article was deleted is that there was already an article on the same association. We do not start new articles on the same topic. If the name is wrong, we move the article to the new name thus preserving all the history of the article. That has now been done and the name is Scout Association of Nigeria. Whether that title is preceded by a "The" or not is not really that important, but I think you will find that the "The" is not normally used in the title even if it is part of the official title of the organisation. So, the material in Scout Association of Nigeria is not going to be discarded, but the article can now be edited to correct any errors and add new material. In that way the history will be retained. So I suggest that you add to Talk: Scout Association of Nigeria any changes that you would like to be made and any new additions. The problem with your earlier edits was also that they were not really in an encyclopedic language, or they were too verbose or they were not supported by references. So put you ideas on the talk page and I will suggest what you should add to or change in the article. We will try to help you. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Bduke for the response. I did not start new article on the same association. His article was on "Boy Scout of Nigeria", mine was on "The Scout Association of Nigeria" but he deleted it on August 24th 2016 and started "Scout Association of Nigeria" on August 25th 2016 and directed the page I wrote to the new page he wrote. Lastly, I supported all my writings with references, I provided all those references in those page, some of those books where written by me. Wikicontrol 07:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

If there's no such thing as Boy Scout of Nigeria and the article was intended to be on the same organisation you were writing about then yes, it is the same thing. It's unfortunate the article was wrongly name but the correct course of action is to ask for a rename of the article supported by references not to start another article on the same organisation. If you believe there is still useful info on the organisation in the article you created, you can ask for the article you created to be undeleted to aide in recovery of that information and to preserve the edit history. Note you will need to appropriately transfer the info to the existing article which will still be the main article. Note also that provided your article is deleted, no one except you (for any parts you wrote by yourself) should copy any part of it to the existing article. It's possible for information or references to be taken provided it's not sufficient to be a copyright violation although even then it's IMO far better to keep the edit history to avoid doubt. Alternatively since the article you created is 9 years old, it may be simply better for you to rewrite any important parts, especially if what you wrote had the same problems highlighted by Bduke above. Nil Einne (talk) 07:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Scout Association of Nigeria, it's clear Wikicontrol is quite knowledgeable about the subject, but just as clear that he has no idea what is appropriate for Wikipedia. I started the original article, as I did about 80% of the national Scout organizations, over 10 years ago, but it is not a subject I care anything about nor is it on my watchlist. The only reason it came to my attention was because of Wikicontrol's persistent and insistent vanity additions to List of Scouts. I went down the list to see what else Wikicontrol had edited, and cleaned them up. The Scout Association of Nigeria was poorly written, and filled with hyperbole, honorifics, trivia and anachronisms (as is the rant about me above putting words in my mouth and skewering the chronology, which he has now plastered on a dozen admins' pages). I moved the parent article to the 1999-changed name Scout Association of Nigeria, and salvaged all relevant, verifiable, non-vanity information from the article being discussed. I further fact-tagged and inline-tagged it, the research is there but it is not added in where it should go. All other information must be left out. Wikicontrol's self-bio vanity article Soneye Philip was deleted as non-notable and should in no way be recreated.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

(EC) Looking a bit more, you already recreated the article here [227] a fewy days ago. That article has not been deleted, the edit history is still there. If you still think there is something in the 2007 article worth salvaging or if you believe that the may be other editors involved in the 2007 article then it could be undeleted as well, but otherwise I don't see any reason. As said above, any info in the 2016 article needs to be integrated into our existing article appropriately, your article will remain an undeleted redirect. Nil Einne (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you Nil Einne, yes I re-wrote it 4 days ago (not 9 years ago) with the correct name "The Scout Association of Nigeria" when he would not want the name on the old page (Boy Scout of Nigeria) to be changed. So, I wrote the new one on August 24th 2016 only for him to copy part of my writings and added it to the old page. He then change the name of the old page to "Scout Association of Nigeria" after he has deleted the one I created and also directed the page I created to the old one. Wikicontrol 08:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oh! fine Kintetsubuffalo, I understood the issue you have now, I was only writing latest information as per the organisation. I wrote about Bennet B. Shotade, Gabriel Ofotokun-Goodwill and Soneye Philip because they are missing in your 10 years article. Scouting in Nigeria has made history with references. Please, care to read those attached references/document before removing them and also try to respect other people hard work and contributions, we are in 2016 not 2005 for Christ sake. Even what you wrote 10 years ago was wrong about Nigeria, the name was wrong, the story was wrong,..yet, you don't like to be corrected. The trio I mentioned served in Nigeria and in the USA with award and history of Nigeria scouting will not be completed without them, even without their names, let us write true story about scouting in Nigeria not just formulated stories. Mr Kintetsubuffalo, you wrote wrong article 10 years ago and you still don't want people to correct the errors you made 10 years after. It will be wrong of you to think you can write scouting stories in about 160 countries without help from their NSO. Wikicontrol 08:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicontrol001 (talk • contribs)

Editor not here to build an encyclopedia

• Part (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I have concerns about the conduct of an editor, Part, regarding claims that they have made about conducting research with a team on systemic bias on Wikipedia. While there is no problem on conducting research about Wikipedia, I believe they have crossed several serious ethical lines which had led to a significant disruption. Part has seemingly made these claims after they became involved in an edit war with other editors. In fact they have been blocked as recently as June 2016 for edit warring. Most troubling, every time an editor has engaged this editor over the current disputed content, Part has made comments like "thank you for participating" ([228] [229] [230] [231]) implicating their "research". I have followed the discussion as it has unfolded and I believe, along with several others, that these statements are actually being said to discourage them from participating in the discussion; threatening the use their usernames, comments, and other information without their consent in this so called "study": [232][233] [234] [235]. Part has alluded that they are apart of a "research group": [236]. Some editors have expressed they do not want to participate and other concerns have been brought up: [237] [238].

• Part initially disclosing they're collecting information on editors for their "research": [239].
• Part reiterating their research on systemic bias: [240]
• Part has on several occasions copied and pasted entire discussions from all over Wikipedia to Talk:Nelson Mandela -- sometimes not even in their entirety [241], [242]. In many of these cases, they have been done without the approval of the editors whom commented. I believe this misrepresents the context of some of these conversations which took place on user talk pages and away from the article Nelson Mandela.
• Part has adopted an attitude of WP:IDHT since coming off their last block. This is demonstrated by raising issues and then saying it's for the purposes of the study.

I'm concerned that this so called "research study", whether legitimate or not (as I'm also skeptical like Katie), is interfering with the process of building an encyclopedia. Their actions seem to be solely based upon the purposes of the study. As a result, it's causing distress to the other editors who are actually here to improve the article; while I don't believe Part is here to build an encyclopedia. Moreover, I believe we have a responsibility to the other editors to protect their privacy and protect their ability to work and discuss the article without being inhibited by being studied expressly against their will -- and certainly not by someone involved in the content dispute.

I'm asking the community to endorse an indefinite block. If this "research group" does indeed exist, they can request an unblock to which I would strongly urge them to consult with the community as to how this can be done if they're planning on being involved in the content and direction of an article. Additionally, as an ethical guideline, they should seek the consent of editors before their information and words are used in their study. Mkdw^talk 06:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, fabulous, just what we need -- another idiot "researcher". EEng 06:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• I highly doubt that there is any "research" occurring, in any real sense. What we have is an editor whose edits have been rejected on numerous occasions, and because it cannot possibly be him who is wrong it must be everyone else - therefore "systemic bias". From his talk page: This is real Ian.thomson, at some point I realized this is a good opportunity to study the dynamics and get some insights. It didn't start out as such but rich data has been generated. As pointed out above, any references to "research" only began after their edits had been rejected and the edit-warring had begun. Subsequent references to the "study" are little more than an attempt to say to editors who disagree with him: "I've got a little list, and you are going on it." Pure disruption, and I support the block proposal. --Begoon ^talk 07:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I was going to say all that, but too pooped. Agree. EEng 07:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• If Part is actually doing research without the consent of the users in question, then that is unethical and worthy of an indefinite block. If they are not actually doing research but are saying they are with the intent of intimidating the editors they are in a dispute with, then that is indefinite block worthy. Blackmane (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support block; on the grounds that threatening to put editors on lists* is clearly intended to displace discussion and have a chilling effect.

*...do they think they're Nixon or something?!_Muffled ^Pocketed 08:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Some action must be taken because Part's comments are outrageously inappropriate (suggesting that opponents have a systemic bias that Part will document off-wiki—see Talk:Nelson Mandela#Ancestry section and user's talk and the diffs in the OP). I have not checked the user's other contributions but imagine there is evidence that WP:NOTHERE does not apply, so an indefinite block may be a little extreme. Perhaps a six-month topic ban from all articles and talk pages that directly relate to Mandela, and an indefinite topic ban from mentioning any claimed research or anything else that may have a chilling effect, on any page including user pages? In case anyone wonders why I joined in, I have been following the article for a long time (example from December 2014). Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

  Except it isn't just the Mandela page. The "systemic bias" and "research" nonsense began in October 2015, and related to edit-warring and a block on the Philip Baker (obstetrician) article.[243] Part has continued to use the tactic in subsequent content disputes - "systemic bias" has become their standard explanation for why they are right and everyone else is wrong, and adding editors to the "research" the standard attempt to chill discussion. Further down that talk page, in a dispute over Jamie Vardy, they say, in an unblock request: Although technically I violated the three-revert rule, I was using the - "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.". This is part of my ongoing research (see above) to document systemic bias and how editors including administrators are involved in its perpetuation. Qed237, The Almightey Drill, Slakr. and I of course did not expect to be unblocked. I am collecting data Boing! said Zebedee and Ian.thomson. It's nothing more than disruption, and I don't see the circumstances being different in other areas unless Part can understand why the behaviour is unacceptable and convincingly undertake to desist. An indef block could be lifted in that eventuality. --Begoon ^talk 10:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks All for the comments. I along with a research group are indeed conducting a genuine study on systemic bias. Anonymity and confidentiality are guaranteed. Text as you know on Wikipedia is released under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license, we thus plan to conduct thematic analysis within the strict limitations of this license adhering to research ethics guidelines. I am here to build an encyclopedia. Part (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

No, dual claims of being here conducting a genuine study on systemic bias and to build an encyclopedia are dichotomous. Even if it were possible to achieve both, you seem unable to do so without threatening editors. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• In view of the above failure to grasp what other editors have said, I support an indefinite block. Johnuniq (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support block as per everyone above. If Part is genuinely trying to conduct a systemic bias survey by engaging furtively in editing/discussion on-wiki and then reporting it off-wiki, that is unethical and should be stopped. If it's genuine, they need to present their credentials and seek permission in advance (I confess I have no idea where, but I'm sure someone else can help with that). If it isn't genuine research, it's dishonesty and still warrants a block. Anyone is, of course, welcome to analyze Wikipedia's content any way they please off-wiki, but the CC BY-SA 3.0 license does not grant permission to make active edits in the course of research. Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

  This comment by User:Hpesoj00 captures the issue well. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I apologise on my own behalf and the research group for unforeseen unintended consequences. Unfortunately it is a weekend and I do not have immediate access to research group members. All I can say is that a genuine study was being conducted and we tried to give advance notice of this. We will have more information during the working week. Part (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Note Thank you for your confirmation of organised WP:MEAT. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support block. I answered an {{admin-help}} yesterday at Talk:Nelson Mandela that wasn't so much a request for help as it was a request to fix all his problems. Then I got pinged back to ask about "possible abusive corruption of (his) username," which had been misspelled 'Prat' by another editor. (I was admittedly a bit snarky in my reply.) Part isn't here to build an encyclopedia; he's here to promote an agenda. I don't know what that agenda is, but the researchers I know don't call their data 'fodder' and don't insert themselves into the study by arguing with the participants. Katie^talk 13:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I have managed to get hold of the protocol-chair. The study has been stopped with immediate effect. We apologise unreservedly for these unforeseen and unintended consequences and we would like to reiterate that confidentiality and anonymity were key aspects in the study's design. Part (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Why should we believe you? BethNaught (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

My instinctive question too. I think we would also need to know who the other members of this 'research group' (and / or 'Protocol chair'??) are on WP. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

We have done what we can to rectify our mistakes. We accept the consequences. Part (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you enlighten us as to precisely what you "have done ... to rectify [y]our mistakes" (apart from your extremely dubious post about the alleged "study" being allegedly "stopped")? Just for the cynical, like me, who don't believe a single word of this. --Begoon ^talk 13:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Part I suggest you email arbcom - arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org - with details of your study and how to contact your protocol-chair if you wish to repair your credibility. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Part, it's important to note that it is your conduct here on Wikipedia that is being discussed here. As far back as October 2015, in your several unblock requests that were reviewed by JamesBWatson, you stated "Thank you Huon, Ian.thomson, Nomoskedasticity, JamesBWatson and Erpert for participating in a Wikipedia experiment whose results will appear next year". You were in fact warned by Huon about WP:NOTHERE in that discussion. I see this latest series of behaviour in a long pattern of disruption. There is a unanimous consensus here for an indefinite block. All blocks can be appealed through unblock requests though I am going to mirror NeilN's advice that you should email arbcom about this situation if you wish to return to regular editing. Mkdw^talk 14:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto: incivility and rejecting community input at Talk:Noël Coward

There has been an RfC running at Talk:Noël Coward on whether the article should include an infobox. Cassianto (talk · contribs), who opposes inclusion, has been bludgeoning the process by making personal attacks against third-party editors !voting for inclusion, using WP:Uncivil language in violation of WP:5P4:

• Are you even bothering to read that arguments?
• Quit your bullshit snark
• What an immature, offensive, and down-right moronic thing to say. It's ironic that you should then predict that people may call you an idiot; with comments like that, "idiot" is certainly a word I'd use to describe you in the absence of there being a more suitable word elsewhere. Show some fucking respect!

I had no previous interactions with Cassianto [244], although I'd noticed and admired his content contributions. I saw the RfC and !voted for inclusion, and also objected to this language (without naming Cassianto),[245] as did others.[246][247] Cassianto responded, unbelievably, by asserting his opposition to the WP:Consensus and WP:Own policies:

• The main authors who took this to FAC should be the ones to have the last say on this; not a load of nobodies
• What gives the "community" the fucking right to enforce a piece of vandalism onto this article?
• After I reminded him that Consensus and Own are policies: I'm past caring what you think.

WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #5 states A disruptive editor is an editor who...rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment. Cassianto's behavior violates this guideline; the Civility, Ownership, and Consensus policies; and the Fourth Pillar. I suggest he be forbidden to edit Talk:Noël Coward until this RfC has been closed, with the ban to be enforced by short blocks if necessary. FourViolas (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• If FourViolas knows that infobox wars have raged for years they should not frame this report in the simplistic manner shown above. There is a long timeline from which people can cherrypick incidents to show their opponents are truly dreadful. However, it is actually the whole situation that is dreadful, not occasional lapses under siege. There is nothing ANI can/will do about the mess, but picking off content builders who become frustrated when the usual suspects descend on featured articles is not helpful for the encyclopedia. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Infobox warring for an example of how entrenched are the positions, and how unwilling are participants to compromise. One side acts as if they OWN a particular article, while the other side acts as if they OWN the whole encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Indeed. AN/I is not another weapon in an arsenal to 'win' a dispute- or, for that matter, an arena in which to do so. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Why is this infobox issue so contentious? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

To quote Laser brain: This is a stupid waste of time and there is obviously no consensus for such a silly restriction. Infoboxes have already been through ArbCom and the war is still going. At this point the only way forward is to file an amendment request authorizing Discretionary Sanctions in this topic area. Please stop opening ANI threads about it. I think, in the interests of energy saving we should recyle his close. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I honestly do not care about infoboxes, and I"m not trying to win a content dispute. As the diffs show, Cassianto has been shockingly uncivil and disrespectful to third-party editors at this page; the editor being called an "idiot" noted that they have never engaged in the infobox wars, and so like me is hardly a "usual suspect". I've presented clear evidence of a conduct problem that clearly meets the definition of disruptive editing and violates three conduct policies; Cassianto has expressed no remorse or intention to desist from his disruptive behavior. That is precisely what AN/I is for: reporting incidents that are disrupting the encyclopedia and require admin action to resolve. FourViolas (talk) 11:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I am undoing Jaguar's hatting of this thread, as Infobox discussions are the sublect of an active Arbcom restriction, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Decorum, which reads in part "Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited." Also, Jaguar has participated in the discussion at Talk:Noël Coward, and is not an uninvolved person here — Diannaa (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

New user copies my userpage, name and all

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

---

I was kindly alerted by Kansas Bear that a new user has copied my userpage including real-world name, location, etc., and I would like to bring this to the notice of administrators so that appropriate actions can be undertaken. Constantine ✍ 07:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I think there's a guide on not impersonating someone else, and their edit history would lean towards WP:NOTHERE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. The account works in tandem with a two IPs to close the controversial Talk:Abkhazia#RfC on Infobox. I have reverted their latest attempt and contemplate drastic measures. Favonian (talk) 08:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

With an editing history that includes gems such as [248] and [249], suggest that contemplation morphs into action ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Civility issue / personal attacks

In the following comment User:SPACKlick stated "Did the word some hurt you as a child Quack because you have an unhealthy aversion to it I feel would benefit from discussion with a professional. Learn to English"

I consider this comment to be inappropriate and block worthy. Wondering other peoples thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm certainly surprised that the editor felt he had the high ground in telling people to learn English... But it seems intemperate rather than actually rude. _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict): Absolutely it was a petty comment. But no pettier than Quack's insistence across several articles that source phrasing like "there are bar like ones, and one's with lounges" cannot be paraphrased, as has been stable for months as "some are bar like and some have lounges". Across three articles Quack marked several instances of the word Some with failed verification and called it weasel words without ever being able to articulate a problem with the meaning of the word or showing any understanding of the meaning of the sentence. He posts discussions of these in talk page sections where he doesn't say which parts of the article or which sources he's talking about. Those commenting on this should be aware that the e-cigarettes area is subject to discretionary sanctions in which Quack was specifically warned about his pattern of editing being disruptive. So yeah, I snapped at Quack, after years of his bullshit editing, he's back to his old tricks.

As for the poor grammar, it's a common meme among language teachers I know used sarcastically to disparage.SPACKlick (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Right... So you intended 'sarcastically to disparage' that editor? In the vernacular, that's called Taking the piss (We even have an article on it...) and, honestly, doesn't particularly improve your case. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I see little point in denying that I was grumpily sarcastic at Quack when it's plain on the face of it that I was grumpy and sarcastic at him. If it's block worthy, it's block worthy. I'm not going to waste someone's time by pretending I didn't do what I plainly did. SPACKlick (talk) 09:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I heartily deny its block-worthiness. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

And we appear to have a history of similar comments such as It's soul destroying reading Quack's gibberish. for which this user has been previously warned [250] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Stalking

WP:Wikihounding is:

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

Here's a textbook case:

1. User:Travelmite opened an account in January 2015, making 92 edits, mostly on two days, where he added articles to a category using an existing list, and shuffled text around in an article. See [251] and [252] for examples, here for the complete list.
2. At the end of January 2016, this account's behaviour abruptly changed from making trivial edits to actively targeting two editors: myself and User:Miesianiacal, whom he attempted to WP:OUT, claiming a conflict of interest here.
3. In February 2016, Travelmite made 246 edits, some aimed at Miesianiacal, but most (198) directed against me via the Australian head of state dispute article, which I created in 2011 and has a handful of regular editors on this rather specialised topic. Examples of his behaviour here, here, here, here and many others. Only a few edits during this time were on other matters, such as support for Brianhe's failed admin request here and some triva concerning Ugg boots here.
4. In March 2016, all of this account's 101 edits were aimed at me via the head of state and related articles, continuing the previous month's behaviour.
5. This account quietened down during April, May and June, apart from two edits at Talk:Panini, taking a predictably opposite position to mine. I had been called there via an RfC request. Travelmite simply followed me there.
6. In July 2016, out of 52 edits, 49 were again directed at me via the School of Economic Science article, which has been a subject of some interest to me. Travelmite again caused disruption, mainly via another WP:COIN topic here.
7. In August 2016, after I attempted to raise this matter discreetly in other forums, the account's behaviour abruptly changed, with edits after 16 August moving away from me.

Out of 569 edits made by the Travelmite account in 2016, 393 (or 69%) were directed against me via articles I edit, or through various other harassments, such as the WP:COIN issue. Fot most of 2016, this account has followed me around Wikipedia for the purposes of harassment, making few edits that were not connected to me in one way or another. Looking at this account's edits, I think that the charge of WP:Wikihounding is clearly demonstrated. Again, I quote:

The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

This account edits via Chinese proxies (apparently accidentally revealed here, and here, and here among others). It is apparently not connected with any other Wikipedia account, as determined by discreet Checkuser requests. (The requests were made discreetly for legitimate reasons I am unable to disclose here.)

I suspect that this account is fraudulent, based on the fact that its behaviour changed abruptly in late January 2016 from making a few sparse innocuous edits to being concerned almost exclusively with myself and Miesianiacal, disputing over various articles, talk pages and noticeboards day after day. This is not the usual manner in which editors begin their service here.

In late January 2016, there was some discussion here about an interaction ban involving four editors, one of whom was myself. I opposed the application of an IBAN then, but I am seeking one now, between myself and Travelmite. I don't mind if Travelmite makes constructive edits (and he shows a good deal of familiarity with wikipractice), but I do find the continued stalking offensive and disruptive.

I request the attention of other editors here to consider my request for an interction ban. --Pete (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Definitely a reasonable request. Until an IBAN can be implemented, I recommended you try and WP:SHUN the user for now. Better yet, I think this long-term wikihounding warrants a block. I haven't observed this user's contributions closely, but from what you've written, and from the diffs, there is a possibility of a WP:NOTHERE case. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 14:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)