Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive968

IP user repeatedly posting a piece of personal information

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/203.30.136.34

Highly suspicious edits are being made by an IP editor, who has continually posted similar name and address of what appears to be a private individual and/or company name （in both talk pages and in edit summaries). I'm not sure what the correct procedure is in this case and I lack the rights or the time to be able to revert each individual entry. Would an administrator take the time to look at this case. Thank you. Edaham (talk) 07:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• I wrote to oversight@ . Next time, don't post pointers to private stuff like that here. Email as instructed in the edit notice that pops up when you edit this page. EEng 07:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Understood, and apologies, I' didn't notice the red box info and scrolled straight down to the text box. I was in a bit of a rush - Do I need to delete any of the info I posted (i.e. the ANI notice at the IP's talk page)? I'm reading that message about privacy related matters and kicking myself a bit now. Thanks so much for taking the time to email the correct channel. Much appreciated. Edaham (talk) 08:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Someday, we are going to turn this into a proper structured page. When you go to edit you are presented with a menu. If you click the box indicating you need revision deletion or oversight, it doesn't post here but takes you to the right place. If you want to report some vandalism, it let you do so, but it automatically brings you to AIV. If you want to report something that belongs here, it asks you who is involved, and when you add the names, it automatically notifies them for you. If you really know what you are doing, you can opt out of the menu.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of seeing oversight request after oversight request after oversight request. We tell him they aren't supposed to do with that, but that may sink into the person that made this request — it is in reaching the person who's going to make the next requests had no equally will ignore the big red warning.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd not heard of an oversight request till this morning. Frankly, here's a biscuit and a pat on the back to get you through the lonely nights you are going to spend coding a more explanatory page. I didn't notice the red warning box partly because I was lazily clicking and didn't look, but also partly because I have my monitor set to display everything in an energy and eye saving gun metal grey color - so some radio buttons and check boxes would be lovely, thanks. Much love. Edaham (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I have to say that I think edit-notices are essentially useless. I certainly don't read them and so I don't expect anyone else does, either. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred you don't need to read what's above the edit box and so you just get used to not reading it, even when it's a big red warning. Would it be worth attempting an edit filter to catch reports that should go to oversight? GoldenRing (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

It's true, no one reads the edit notices -- they're just part of the blur. I've often had a similar idea to S Philbrick's of a menu or something. In the meantime we just muddle on. EEng 17:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

If someone wants to try an edit filter more power to them but it sounds difficult to me. Not every edit containing the word "oversight" ought to be stopped (for example this one), and not every request will use the word "oversight". It might say something like, "someone needs to look at and arrange for removal of this edit…" Plus, doesn't an edit filter simply reject the edit without telling you what you should do? As an reason, oversight request aren't the only misplaced posts here although perhaps they are the most egregious. We often see request for protection or AIV or user bans, which belong elsewhere.

I fully understand that a structured response option would drive some editors crazy, but there's a simple solution. Create a user right, call it "exempt from ANI structured posting" and handed out freely to anyone who requests it, with the caveat that if they break the rules they lose the right. If you have this user right, attempting to post it and I would look exactly the same as it does now so it would be hard for anyone to complain. For other editors, they would be presented with some options, some of which would result in posting to the correct venue, and in the case it does belong at ANI, could automatically do the notification so we would stop the repeated complaints that the relevant parties have not been notified.

As a bonus, a structured data it could help us analyze what types of queries we get at and I without having to do it manually.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the structured post questionnaire is a good idea. A menu reading:

• are you here to
  • a)report vandalism
  • b)report a user who is posting defamatory material
  • c)etc...

Would be a good way of taking users to relevant noticeboards or having them deliver private messages where appropriate. It's not outside the realm of possibility that a bot like cluebot could be configured to make the reports or even target and remove a percentage of the undesirable edits. I alerted the developers of this bot to this issue (but not this thread) on my talk page Edaham (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I'm no expert, but I'm fairly sure that you can make edit filters give a warning and require confirmation that the edit is what you intend rather than just blocking the edit - the same as what happens when you place a DS notice on a user talk page. But I agree that creating an edit filter to be reasonably accurate would likely be difficult. GoldenRing (talk) 07:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Wiki-linking to a section in an article, with the title of the section and article suppressed

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

---

Can someone help me with this small problem?

I have been frequently using the pipe to force my terminology in a link to another Wikipedia article. For example:

"These locomotives haul bottom-dump hopper cars"

to render as: "These locomotives haul bottom-dump hopper cars."

In this case, however, I don’t want the link just to go to the article "Rotary car dumper" because most of that article describes a different technology. The technology my article is discussing is located in a section titled "Alternatives".

I would therefore like to link to the section titled "Alternatives" within the article titled "Rotary car dumper" but to render as "These locomotives haul bottom-dump hopper cars."

Is this going to be possible? Your advice will be appreciated.SCHolar44 (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I changed the link above for you to read "Rotary car dumper#Alternatives" from "Rotary car dumper". That points to the section you were looking for. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, Rick! Marvellous! (PS: Apologies for hitting the Save button twice with my original post.)SCHolar44 (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem, if you ever need to do this for a link in the future, just add the # sign and the section title after the name of the article prior to the pipe character. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Abuse of rollback and warning template, edit war by User:Optakeover

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

---

• Optakeover (talk · contribs)
• matthew_hk (talk · contribs)
• 2601:541:4304:E6B0:218:8BFF:FE74:FE4F (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Lotte Hotels & Resorts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Svetlana Forsova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The first principle of wikipedia is assume good faith, an ip user was trying to edit [[Russian]], [[South Korean]] (disambiguation pages) to [[Russia]]n, [[South Korea]]n (link to the country) was given a level 3 and 4 warning, while i revert his edit, was given a level 2 and 3 warning, and refuse to reply me. Matthew_hk tc 18:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like his warnings have already been struck, and an explanation (confusion) provided. Not sure if there's anything to do here. Home Lander (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Primefac. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 18:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It did not struck on the ip user. It looks not assume good faith and abuse new user to me. Matthew_hk tc 18:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm somewhat INVOLVED so I won't go closing this, but I think it was just a bit of a misunderstanding. I think it's been cleared up now and I don't think any action needs to be taken. Primefac (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• But should an editor who misunderstands something so basic be entrusted with the rollback tool? Surely that tool should only be available to someone who demonstrates understanding? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• It was a mistake. I wasn't aware of the technicalities that Primefac explained in User talk:Primefac#Regarding Lotte Hotels .26 Resorts. I initially reverted [1] because I felt "[[South Korean]]" being edited to "[[South Korea]]n" didn't make sense, because it appeared like a bad faith edit to a link. I now understand I was wrong, because Primefac has explained this technicality to me. However, at that point of time because it appeared to me as an unconstructive edit, so I reverted it. After Matthew hk reverted my repeated reversions at the article, I thought he was socking at anon, so I reported them both to AIV, and then immediately took them down when I was alerted to his protest, including comments from RickinBaltimore (no ping) and Primefac via edit summary. I had no intention of purposefully edit-warring with Matthew hk or reporting him in maleficence. I sincerely apologise for all my mistakes and for my oversight on this understanding of Wikipedia technicality. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 19:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm willing to say this was a big misunderstanding and that Optakeover meant no ill will towards your Matthew hk, and that this is a learning experience. Optakeover, please just be a bit more careful when templating users, caution is the best method to use here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore:, he just removed my message without adding to his talk archive, i would say it is a bad behavior (neither moved to my talk page). All i want to say that Optakeover should send warning message carefully, neither easily put the name to AIV and assume good faith. Matthew_hk tc 19:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, and I am very sorry for my mistakes Matthew hk. By the way, I am allowed to remove anything I want from my own talk page as stated at WP:OWNTALK. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 19:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, it look misfired everywhere:

• List of suicides in the 21st century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 110.93.236.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) This edit was totally good faith and have a level 4 warning. Matthew_hk tc 19:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• The editor already expressed his realization at [2]. I made the revert at that point of time because he edited an access date of a source, which doesn't make sense, unless there is a clear reason to do so. I understand you would have wanted me to explain it to him, but I was extremely busy at that time and unfortunately I simply couldn't allocate the time to explain it to him. I am not beyond reason, and since he messaged me on my talk page he decided to explain himself fully, and I didn't object to his further explanations. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 19:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• In any case I fully acknowledge every single mistake pointed out, and I have tried to make amends wherever possible. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 19:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

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

WP:NPA

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

---

I really should not have to deal with having edits reverted because of my national origin, I want admins to make it clear that these comments are not acceptable on Wikipedia. [3] Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The editor you're accusing of insulting your national origin appears to be Turkish themselves (this in particular) and seems to have been insulted by your insinuation that people are only looking at the Turkey article to plan a holiday. Number 57 20:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Most visitors to this page are probably trying to plan a family vacation is a particularly stupid comment even by the standard of the kind of thing that gets brought to ANI. Do you really want to be drawing attention to your edits on a page that's notorious for WP:BOOMERANGs? ‑ Iridescent 20:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The editor clearly wasn't insulting your national origin because, from the edit summary, they clearly don't know what your national origin is. Capeo (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim System's edit is of... questionable value, that's true. But JimPody is calling editors fools in edit summaries. That is not acceptable. A Train^talk 20:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG for to Seraphim System for - undoing racist revert outside 3RR exception and it seems racism is not within our 3RR exceptions so I will settle for the NPA complaint at ANI In which they call Jim Pody's actions racist, which is definitely a personal attack. Jim Pody is a new account, and he has some issues (and "fool" was directed against Khirurg). Seraphim System should know better.Icewhiz (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• I've seen some dumb edit summaries in my time, but insulting an entire nation by saying "most visitors to this page are probably trying to plan a family vacation" and not expecting any comeback is, well, naive at best. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a pretty dumb thing to say but it's well-meaning and I think the idea that it's an insult to Turkey is a bit of a stretch. On the other hand, JimPody is calling people fools, which is just a straight up ad hominem. Seraphim System should be directed to Talk:Turkey where he will be talked out of a bad idea. JimPody needs to be whacked with a trout and reminded of WP:NPA. People are so quick to call for boomerangs these days. A Train^talk 21:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I think Jim Pody refered Khirurg in their edit summary, but reverted Seraphim by mistake. 174.3.236.27 (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

How is that insulting an entire nation? I have no reason to believe that he is Turkish, as he has not disclosed and admins should not be guessing about his undisclosed national origins on ANI. I have disclosed here and on the article talk page. We are supposed to add content that we think our readers want to access, not some polemic about Turkish history which is the majority of the content in the lede. Apparently, our admins feel they are an authority on what our readers want to read, but I am entitled to my own opinion when making constructive edits - the lede could also use additions based on the other sections like music, literature, dance, architecture. Readers looking for information on the Genocide are more likely to directly visit the Armenian Genocide article, but our admins are the last people who should be starting a content dispute at ANI. This is all basic common sense stuff. Even if he is Turkish referring to my national origin, which has been publicly disclosed (including on the talk page of the article) is not acceptable, just as it would not be acceptable to revert someone because they were a "Self-hating Jew" - a little analogous reasoning would help a lot here. If he explains what he meant, I will withdraw the complaint, but he has not. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't this indicate he's Turkish? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

No, he doesn't have to be Turkish to have an opinion about the Republican reforms and certainly, if he has not disclosed no one should assume that he is. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with any individual's nationality - your edit summary gave the impression of dismissing Turkey as just a vacation destination for Americans or other English speakers. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but can you really not see how it can come across like that? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Uh, Seraphim System, I was trying to defend you but this is an ill-considered post. Consider taking a break from digging. A Train^talk 21:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying now that you mention it, and it was not meant that way. I genuinely want to add content to the lede that would benefit those who are visiting and direct them to articles they want to see, this is my understand of how to improve articles. I also think that even if it not worthy of a sanction, that the comment of "especially considering wherever the hell youre from" should be explained, and a warning should be given to not make comments about national origin that could be seen as discriminatory (would it be less insulting if I was from somewhere else, or is it more insulting because I am from "wherever"?). I would never make an edit summary reverting a good faith addition with an explanation that the edit was especially offensive coming from someone who identifies as "Israeli" or "Jewish" and not doing this is pretty common sense, I am entitled to the same courtesy I show others. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Why is it that your dubious accusations of racism need to involve comparisons with Jews/Israel? Number 57 22:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

As you already know, I edit in ARBPIA. I'm not active in any other politics areas, but if I can think of another analogy ... let me see, I would not go into an article on the American South and revert with a summary that "This is insulting because you are from America", either way. You can fill in the blank with whatever you want. I can't really think of any other good analogies, sorry. I did not realize he was a new editor, and if he is the emphasis should probably be on explaining what he did wrong instead of turning this into another discussion about ARBPIA. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• If anyone added content or something on London and stated "most visitors to this page are probably trying to plan a family vacation" then I myself would be pretty fucked off ... As noted above you've just insulted an entire nation so ofcourse you're going to be insulted!, I would strongly suggest this gets closed before finds someone blocks per BOOMERANG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm noting that the London article does have a list of World Heritage sites, which were probably added because someone editing it thought that would be information that visitors were looking for. That was what was removed from the lede on Turkey. I personally would not be offended by this because it would indicate to me an editor was actually thinking about who was visiting the page and what they wanted, instead of turning articles into WP:BATTLEGROUNDS. I can not think of a good justification to remove it, but I certainly did not mean to insult an entire nation and if anyone did feel insulted by this, please know that I sincerely regret any discomfort that may have been caused by these words. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• The OP wasn't ANI-worthy but I think we're some way from boomerang block territory, too. How about everyone takes a deep breath and gets on with life? GoldenRing (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Chris troutman

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

---

Over the last couple years, I've been continually reminded of Chris troutman's recurring and disturbing patterns of interaction on Wikipedia.

Most recently, Chris commented last Friday on long-time editors Montanabw and Atsme. In an edit that he summarized as "maybe you both should rethink your involvement in Wikipedia," he said:

Comments from Atsme like this and this (among others) seem to reveal some sort of persecution complex tending toward BATTLEFIELD-view problems. Clearly this AfD has brought out the worst in her. I think the both of you would do well to seek counseling and reexamine your choices.

He later said that these words—which, let's be clear, told two editors that they should retire from Wikipedia and seek professional help—were "carefully" chosen. He also declined to strike them.

Moreover, in the last couple months, Chris has:

• Called a new editor "illiterate," continuing "Reading is such a key skill on Wikipedia. I'd go back to those institutes and get your money back."
• Threatened Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) earlier this month that "You would do well not to tilt at windmills" (over a redirect discussion, of all things).
• Told Widefox, around the same time, that "The last editor I saw with this sort of WP:IDHT behavior ended up blocked ... It's ok. I forgive your inability."
  • On these most recent two, Chris was given a warning.
• Just yesterday, Chris told TonyBallioni in an edit summary that "your editing is unwelcome," continuing in the actual edit with "You are headed the wrong direction. Nobody asked for your grandstanding. Do not become another new admin that gets desysopped for cause." This virulent response came after Tony kindly told a prospective RfA candidate that they could email him for a private analysis, rather than piling on with additional public shaming. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm all too aware that our civility policies are very unevenly enforced—but if Chris' comments aren't out of line, I'd be hard placed to find what does.

I propose that Chris be admonished for his careless use of invective language, and warned that the use of such language in the future will result in blocks. I'm interested to see what others have to say. Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

References

I'm adding the diff links to what Ed was talking about: 1, 2, 3, 4. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support nothing less than admonishment. That comment at the Chris Sherwin AfD was outrageous. Less than a week ago, a different editor was blocked at ANI for calling another person "schizophrenic" and essentially instructing that person to get help, and then refusing to strike or redact on the grounds that the statement was factually correct. It boggled the mind there, and it boggles the mind here. The other diffs are also outrageous. At the very least, Chris Troutman needs a final warning. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support admonishment, and recommends short-term block if the comments are not struck. I have never interacted with Chris, but observing from distance, the use of illiterate is seemingly not an isolated case ([4]). I find it puzzling that the editor is suggesting other editors of battleground behavior when themselves demonstrate aspects of such behavior on more frequent basis, such as the very comment at Chris Sherwin, which is in no way acceptable. Even if something is allegedly "factually correct" (completely irrelevant; the general approach of this editor can be seen from this stale example), direct personal attacks that goes beyond the scope of Wikipedia should never be an option. I find this to be a persistent behaviour, reflected in a quote from Chris: I have no political friends; I stand alone on policy, guidelines, and essays ([5]). The recent strings of questionable DRV filings (October 2, October 20) suggests that the editor should perhaps think again about their view on policy, guidelines and essays, as some of these views are evidently (including the AfD that initiated this report) being possibly against the consensus. Alex Shih (talk) 05:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support admonishment. Maybe we could even give him some fish? I'm generally on the side of giving our constructive users lots of rope prior to harsher measures like wrist-slappings etc, but that's not the same as letting them get away with this kind of behavior completely unchecked. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support admonishment. The diffs above show a disconcerting pattern of incivility and the recent attack on two experienced editors is not acceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support admonishment. Chris troutman - I'm not gonna lie, man... the evidence presented clearly shows that you have temperament issues that you need to improve. Regardless of the outcome of this ANI thread, I hope that you take this as a positive wake-up call and that you turn this around. If you want to grow and become an experienced editor who's trusted, respected, and looked upon as an example of who we should all be like - having an approachable attitude and demonstrating a solid and professional temperament at all times is a hurdle that you must clear. I really want to see you succeed. Please take time and reflect on the concerns expressed here and work on how you're going to address and resolve them moving forward. I wish you well and all the best with this. My talk page is always open to you if you over need input, help, or just someone to talk to. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support- he's told me too that I shouldn't be editing Wikipedia, and I don't think that's fair. Reyk _YO! 08:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support admonishment of some kind, though trouting is too severe, perhaps consider guppying?. -Roxy the dog. bark 08:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • C'mon dude, look at his screename. Softlavender (talk) 08:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I know, maybe Tadpoleing then, per my previous edsum? -Roxy the dog. bark 08:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC
    • Softlavender - This isn't the time or place to be making fun of someone's username, please. If we want Chris troutman to improve himself and grow as an editor, we need to take this admonishment seriously. This isn't a comment that will help nor encourage him to do so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I'm not making fun of someone's username. Softlavender (talk) 08:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Softlavender - I apologize if I misinterpreted your response. I don't understand what you meant when you said, "C'mon dude, look at his screename." Am I missing something? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
          • I was teasing Roxy the dog. Softlavender (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

My apologies. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support given the OP's diffs, except for "You would do well not to tilt at windmills", which in my opinion is not problematical, much less invective or uncivil. I think Chris needs to understand at the very least that these kinds of interaction are counterproductive and do not achieve the ends that he would prefer them to, and that at the worst he could be headed for an incivility block(s) or eventually even a CIR ban. Softlavender (talk) 08:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• I noticed the comments at the AFD and felt that they were uncalled-for. As this seems to be consistent behaviour and the subject is recalcitrant, an appropriate remedy would be removal of the WP:NPR right. Per WP:BITE, new editors should not be greeted with such personal attacks. Andrew D. (talk) 08:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • A quick check of CT's page curation log entries does show a bit of bite, so maybe this is a good idea. Some summaries: Clearly you put no thought into this. (From Oct. 12th [6]) This is a poor-attempt at an article. (From Oct. 16th [7]). That said, I'm not finding a whole lot further back. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Very weakly support. I see no problem at all with "You would do well not to tilt at windmills", and the Chris Sherwin AFD was a unique and unlikely to be repeated set of circumstances. (For those unaware of the back-story, Sherwin had been a long-term Wikipedia editor who had a broad circle of on-wiki friends but also had a lengthy history of disruption and of attacks on other editors, so it's understandable that tempers on both sides of the debate would be more frayed than usual.) Some kind of "please tone it down, remember that Wikipedia contributors come from a broad range of backgrounds and have different attitudes towards where the line between robust debate and offensive personal commentary lies" would hopefully be all that's required. ‑ Iridescent 08:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I'd normally agree with the assessment of the Sherwin AfD given how hot under the collar we tend to get about mainspace articles on our own, but I think the diffs in the OP itself kind of go to show that stuff of similar severity isn't exactly unusual. The case of calling another editor an illiterate is pretty bad. Telling off TonyBalloni wasn't good either, and in fact, goes a good way towards rebutting the argument that we should consider the Sherwin AfD comment exceptional circumstances unlikely to be repeated. The TonyBalloni comment came in response to a longstanding frustration with the ORCP process on Tony's part. So it's another case of a deep-seated behind-the-scenes dispute where CT doesn't exercise good self-control. Fact of the matter is that we have lots of standing disputes and lots of areas where people have strong opinions. I hope CT understands how serious this is. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
    • "Friends" is a stretch. "Editors who collaborated well with him" is far more accurate, but neither should be used to excuse disruptive behavior, being bitey or throwing tantrums. I've not seen this side of CT in the past, although I have known him to be outspoken. I just hope that whatever may be troubling him gets resolved soon. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support--Something along the line of Iridescent's phrasing coupled with an advice about dropping the stick, assuming AGF and a gentle reminder to shun battleground mentality would be quite warranted.Also, see User talk:Kudpung/Archive Oct 2017#DR.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Some of those diffs above are really shocking. An example of Chris troutman's incivility and unilateral actions is this, when he archived a customised and relevant collaboration invitation posted to a Wikiproject talkpage within less than half-an-hour of its posting. When questioned he used an edit summary which said "reply to Another Believer, who seems to think people that vote right wing also smoke dope" - displaying a total lack of understanding of the purpose of Wikiprojects and instead seeing Wikipedia as a partisan political battleground. AusLondonder (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support admonishment. These comments ain't nice. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 10:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support per basically everyone. Such behaviour towards others creates what is termed in labour law "a hostile work environment". Nobody should have to put up with this. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support on behaviour. Judgement on the issues I looked into was also wide of the mark. Widefox; talk 10:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support, the windmill comment is not objectionable, but the others demonstrate an extremely poor choice of language. I hope that given Chris' other useful contributions that they'll take this admonishment on board in a constructive spirit. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC).
• Support The diffs provided clearly show behavior issues. Admonishment is necessary, and a short-term block may be needed. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that blocks are not punitive. What valid purpose would a block serve? A Train^talk 13:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support Administrators should be able to have a good rapport with the editorship of the project at large. It is important for all editors to be civil but in the case of people given admin duties, reasonable congeniality is conducive to being both approachable and welcomed in issues requiring mediation and administrative intervention. A lack thereof, besides being distasteful, serves to further burden an administrator with the additional task of having to overcome interpersonal issues before being able to address the problems at hand. While I do not support any specific reprimand in this case, after having recently found myself getting up some people's noses, my time spent here became much easier after I sent some conciliatory messages to the persons I had had difficulties with and made an effort to collaborate with them in a more positive spirit. It wouldn't be at all bad in this case if the editor being discussed were advised to do the same. Edaham (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Edaham: Since the editor under discussion is not an administrator, I am afraid that leaves a quantity of your comment making little or less sense  :) sorry. — fortunavelut luna 12:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh I see! well never mind, I checked the editor's user page, saw the admin's news letter posted there and assumed! Not to worry, although mildly embarrassing. I will leave my post as it stands so that people can remind me of what I said if I am ever uncivil when I become an administrator. Edaham (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support admonishment - The windmill comment I don't see an issue with but the rest I obviously do - Telling 2 established editors "they need to seek counselling" is not on and should've been struck when asked, Anyway if those sort of comments don't stop I'd support blocks but for now admonishment is the best and most sensible option. –Davey2010^Talk 13:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support and suggest snow close. Chris is a good editor with years of positive contributions to the project under his belt. He will no doubt take this criticism in its intended constructive spirit, but there's little point in leaving this open for additional pile-ons. A Train^talk 13:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Observation I'm sure Chris has seen this by now. Let's come back to it if it persists despite that. We don't always need a pound of flesh. -- Begoon 13:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

We've collected at least eight ounces already. A Train^talk 13:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah.Chris has seen it.Let's close this.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

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

• I object to the flesh tribute being expressed only in pounds and ounces. Conversion to kilos and grams should be provided in the spirit of internationalism. EEng 17:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

  EEng It is nought.23kg and 226.8g respectively. Do you want it in kilo-smoots as well? L3X1 (distænt write) 17:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

  I don't want to hear what it's not, I want to hear what it is. Jeesh. EEng 18:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory's behavior at AfDs....again.

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

---

It is less than 2 months since User:E.M.Gregory behaviour at AfD was brought up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive962#E.M.Gregory.27s_behavior_at_AfDs

Some people just can't help themselves, I guess. I just pointed out to him, that in view of the above AN/I report, then having 19 comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Dijon attack was a bit excessive.

Alas, that didn't help. Presently he has 21 comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Dijon attack. I suggest the implementation of the following solution (which has been earlier suggested, but was not implemented): let EMG make !votes on AfDs, but forbid any follow-ups. Huldra (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment he has edited 2014 Dijon attack about 70 times since the AfD started, and contributed to the article before the AfD as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes power~enwiki that is true but several editors at the AFD discussion told Gregory his recent additions are highly misleading and grossly inaccurate. Note also another AFD discussion following the first ANI thread where Gregory excessively commented. Personally, I am more concerned about his compentency issues with sourcing but the AFD behavior is problematic and ongoing as well.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Note that since starting this discussion, TheGracefulSlick has racked up 20 edits at yet another terrorism-related AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Reuven Shmerling; yet another WP:POINTy AfD she started.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Note that on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Tel Aviv nightclub attack brought up by TheGracefulSlick, Gregory made 15 edits to TheGracefulSlick's 21 (including some repititions of arguements by TheGracefulSlick). Gregory actually added sources to the article, added text, and demonstrated SIGCOV on the AFD discussion.Icewhiz (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yesterday Huldra came to my talk page to threaten to start this discussion. We have met from time to time, most recently, as far as I can recall, at a perfectly ghastly AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis. Here is the response I made on my talk page yesterday: I have participated in a couple of dozen AfD discussions today alone, searching, bringing sources to the discussion, sourcing poorly sourced pages. I have no idea of how many AfD discussions I take part in in a typical month, but it's a lot. I do know that I spend more time on these discussions than many editors do; I invest time and effort into seeking out sources to make fair assessments on a range of topics. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Dijon attack is an unusual AfD; notice that the Nom has made 14 comments, as has an editor named Pincrete who wants to delete this terrorist attack. And also note that I have made 99 edits to the page 2014 Dijon attack. I don't just opine; I expand and source the articles I find at AfD. Many pages where I make multiple edits are collaborative efforts; recent examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notable Orthodox Churches North America, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buzz Patterson, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American King James Version and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Heywood. But, yes, as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Anderson (journalist) I do tend to double back and make multiple comments as I find time to revisit specific AfDs and search for sources, or as some aspect of a recent AfD that bears looking into occurs to me. I believe that my work at AfD will hold up to scrutiny, but it will never satisfy you because you and I differ on the question of whether ideologically motivated attacks on civilians (terrorism) is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• E.M.Gregory yes I have commented 14 times but I asked you if we could mutually agree to step away from the AFD. Ironically, you replied simply with "WP:BLUDGEON" and preceded to bludgeon the discussion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• At the point when you made that suggestion, I had responded to your latest reiterated assertion that "there was no in-depth analysis" of the 2014 Dijon attack by bringing a list of 7 WP:INDEPTH articles from major international media. My earlier comments had included discussions of academic articles discussing this attack, two requests that your restore someone's keep iVote that you had deleted, and, swhen you ignored that, restoration of the keep iVote that you had deleted. The reason that I did not agree, however, was that I did not wish to endorse the wording of your "request" which was, "You give wall of text a new meaning E.M.Gregory. Can others be allowed to comment here without you trying to mislead them? You have already inserted your inaccuracies into the "article" (a fringe piece at this point) and I think the AFD should be spared these long lists and replies." I do not think that adding a list of INDEPTH articles is the equivalent of the comments you made on the page, accusations that I was "manipulating the sources," and, as I was sourcing and expanding the article, teh assertion that, "Even now, with the recent "expansion" (as it will soon be claimed) by Gregory, the article has been bombarded by fragmented quotes and half-truths to create the illusion of ongoing coverage. Gregory has even attempted to frame this as a terror attack despite no evidence in reliable sources. Shameful and shady." I do realize that you are attempting to make me lose my cool, and that you and Huldra are attempting to vote me off the island because I think many low-casualty terrorist attacks are notable and you disagree.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• You make it sounds as a conspiracy. Just for the record, I have no knowledge of work of TheGracefulSlick, nor for that matter, of Pincrete. E.M.Gregory: ok, just my 2 cents: if several editors find your work troublesome, it might, just might be because, eh, it is troublesome? And not because there is a vast conspiracy against you...Huldra (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Pincrete and Drmies have also noted the inaccuracies and misuse of sources so I am not the only one [8][9][10][11]. "I do realize that you are attempting to make me lose my cool, and that you and Huldra are attempting to vote me off the island" is a clear sign that you think this is some sort of of contest or battle and I would ask you to retract such a baseless statement but I doubt you will. Window dressing the article is not helpful, especially when your additions to do not reflect upon the very sources you use. I apologize but I consider that a serious matter and I -- and others -- had to call you out on it several times.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Courtesy ping for Pincrete since his actions are being scrutinized by Gregory with being informed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• The above, like the AfD, is tl;dr. That's a heated AfD, as all AfDs on this general subject matter tend to be, and I don't think it's fair to single out EM Gregory when the atmosphere in general has been as heated as it has been. Trying to load it all on EMG seems a bit disingenuous. Coretheapple (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

EMG's misrepresentation of sources on and during AfD's is commonly SO extensive, that if I did not credit EMG with more intelligence, I would have to question his competency. This is an enormous time-waster and I disagree with Coretheapple to the extent that personally I don't care tuppence whether these articles survive or not, but I do care, that discussions are 'poisoned' by misleading or false information being presented, to skew discussion. EMG behaviour IMO is a very long way from his claim above to be "improving sources". I was unaware of this ANI, and thus unprepared, however I will attempt to put together some diffs in the next 48hrs to illustrate. Pincrete (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. I went there to !vote (having read about it here, as I have not edited that article) and I was immediately subjected to polite but intense badgering. Let's close this out. Coretheapple (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

No, this has turned into a compentency issue. Misleading a discussion with false information is a serious charge and I am interested in the evidence Pincrete will surely provide within the timeframe he noted. Closing this out prematurely would only encourage the behavior.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Please could you explain what part of that essay opinion-piece is relevant with regard to User:E.M.Gregory ? MPS1992 (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Certainly MPS1992. Gregory has demonstrated he either does not have the competency to represent sources in an accurate way or he is purposefully adding false information to, as Pincrete says, skew discussions. One can only hope it is not the latter because that would be significantly worse than an editor who perhaps does not understand why including their own flair to content is a problem.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I see. Well, the essay WP:CIR that you mention, discusses competency issues that would render an editor incapable of contributing constructively. If an editor with proven ability to use the English language and proven ability in rational argument -- evidenced for example by "winning" many of these AfD disputes in which he seems to engage -- merely had a little difficulty in accurately representing sources, then there would still be reasonable hope that he could be taught how to do so. (For example by explaining to them that adding "their own flair to content" is a problem.) Therefore the essay would not apply. If someone is repeatedly misrepresenting sources then we don't need to start discussing opinion-piece essays about competence, we instead need to discuss whether steps need to be taken to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. MPS1992 (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

And I certainly agree. This is not a secluded incident where Gregory mistakenly misinterpreted some sources. For months, Pincrete has had the thankless job of cleaning up articles Gregory has grossly misrepresented -- and I highly commend Pincrete for remaining diligent. That is why, and I think you will agree, we need to stay tuned until Pincrete gathers all the diffs illustrating this behavior. The community will need to discuss serious preventive measures to protect the encyclopedia from any more damage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

By chance, I will have little time/internet acces over next two days. I will attempt to put together diffs, but cannot guarantee to do so, Pincrete (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

That's an absurd argument, MPS1992. Since "no consensus" defaults to keep, one can keep a shitty article and "win" by creating enough smoke to prevent a consensus from developing. Not from being competent in accurately representing what one's sources say. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that a "smokescreen" approach has been deliberately adopted and repeatedly successful, that actually supports the point being made. Regardless, decisions here need to be made based on policy, not by making vague gestures to an essay that discusses an entirely different issue. MPS1992 (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources either deliberately or by editor incompetence falls under WP:V. The information (it is claimed) Gregory is providing is not verifiable. For continually (either deliberately or through incompetence) violating a core policy its perfectly reasonable to restrict an editor from doing so. (edited to point out I have not actually vetted Gregory's contributions) Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Gregory is not (at least usually per my impression) misrepresenting sources. Other editors in this discussion do however ignore or try to disregard sources who treat the subject matter (i.e. a classification of terror) in a viewpoint that does not agree with them - and not on marginal sources - on good strong RS. They also, instead of relying of SIGCOV to determine notability (assessing amount of sources, strength, persistence, diversity, etc.), tend to apply personal value judgement - e.g. by claiming events are "run of the mill" ROUTINE.Icewhiz (talk) 09:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not omniscient, but my conversations with User:Pincrete at Talk:2014 Dijon attack#Describing the UCL academic article, and Talk:2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson#ISIS involvement do, I think, show good faith on my part and the difficulty of working with User:Pincrete who often makes assertions without having read the material under discussion and without having knowledge of the topic. In the case of the 2014 Dijon attacker, he omitted the lede sentence of the segment of an academic article that we had come to the talk page to discuss: ""In many other cases, when confirmed diagnosis were present, there was a tendency to try to dismiss the possibility of terrorism altogether. For example, on December 21, 2014, an unarmed 40-year-old ran over....", then argued that there was nothing in the academic article beyond a mere rehearsal of news reports, a disingenuous way of failing to acknowledge the point about the mental illness/terroism nexus issue by these two scholars of terrorism. It then got worse. Pincrete made a number of sweeping claims about the insanity defense that are not specific to the French legal standards of insanity; fail to acknowledge that legal standards vary across borders; and conflate the status of this patient with the assertion that "beyond a certain point, the mentally ill are not legally culpable." He then continues by accusing the scholars who wrote the article and me of "seeking to imply is that they/you know more about the threshold of criminal culpability than medical experts who actually examined the individual." This, of course, goes beyond what the authors of the article I was citing, or I actually said, but, more importantly, it reveals Pincrete's ignorance of the fact that it is not the medical experts who decide whether to investigate a case as terrorism. 1.) This, and not the mental status of the attacker, is what is under discussion, and, 2.) under French law whether to investigate as terrorism or not is the decision of the public prosecutor, not the examining psychiatrists. (see:Terrorism in France#Terrorism and mental illness for sources on this. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/in-france-the-murder-of-a-jewish-woman-ignites-a-debate-over-terrorism/2017/07/23/4c79fe28-6bb9-11e7-abbc-a53480672286_story.html?utm_term=.5dc004846f3d this 2017 Washington Post article makes it clear that the decision to investigate crimes in France for as terrorism or hate crimes - or not, is a fundamentally political decision). None of us can know everything, but Pincrete's tendency to boldly wade into deep waters and topics he knows little about, aggressively delete and then endlessly argue at talk pages about sources he has not read related to complex topics with which he is not familiar is very troubling.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

In the last ANI there was no consensus that Gregory comments on AFD are excessive, nothing has changed so I don't understand why bring this issue again and waste everyone time.--Shrike (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Shrike, that isn't the whole story. At the last ANI, one of the conclusions was that "The editor in question has acknowledged the valid concerns raised against his AfD participation, and has agreed to keep his commenting in the future "strictly on point". When I started this ANI, Gregory had made 21 comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Dijon attack, presently he has made 25!! He simply cannot stop himself. Oh, and many of this comments have been, frankly, completely useless, like pointing to essays like WP:BLUDGEON. Huldra (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

EMG, I made a single error on a fairly minor detail IRO the 'Malmo' source, when it was pointed out to me (by you), I immediately apologised to you. Your many factually incorrect and largely SYNTHed claims about that source dominated the AfD about that article, you continued on an RSN to defend ALL those factually incorrect claims. NO 'new' eyes in either discussion supported your interpretation.

Regarding the 'Dijon' "was it insanity or terrorism" argument, I think it reasonable to ask of any 'academics' that before they advance an opinion on this subject (and I am not persuaded that they DO advance any opinion, rather than YOU selectively quoting an "implied opinion" about this based on half a sentence) that they should have actually inspected the medical records of the accused person and have some knowledge of psychiatry - neither of which is true AFAIK.

Implying that Fr authorities, for political reasons, designated someone as 'criminally insane' and therefore not culpable for a terrorist offence is an extraordinary claim, it needs more than a single ambiguous half sentence to support it. You actively prefer 'headline-y' half sentences that imply much but fall to pieces as soon as one asks what they actually mean. I prefer clear, RS'd neutrally phrased facts. I'm not 'on a mission' to 'nail' every instance which could possibly have an 'Islamist terrorist' element, AFAI can see that is your sole purpose on these articles and in these AfD's. Pincrete (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's go back to to that 2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson. Soon after I created the article in July 2017, it was taken to AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Malmö ISIS-related arson where I presume you found it. It looked like this when you arrived: [12]. Whether you failed to read the sources or thought that the New York Times was lying, you reacted by deleting terrorism related categories from the page [13]. It was not a long page; the basic plot was that there was an arson fire at a Shia community center, a suspect was identified, tried and adjudicated not guilty. About a month after the trial concluded, the German police arrested a dude who was editing ISIS's Amaq News Agency website from Germany. I read the most astonishing story in the New York Times, describing how this ISIS editor was actually fomenting terrorist attacks; and the Malmo arson attack on the Shia mosque/community center was described in great detail. I wrote a BASIC aritcle. You began deleting swaths of solidly-sourced material. Removed the descriptor "Shia" [14] with edit summary "the relevance of this is not established." Removed terrorism categories again [15], this time with edit summary "Which bit of "the accused was acquitted of all charges at trial and the fire was deemed not to be terrorism-related" is difficult to understand?). I replaced them with edit summary "Undid revision 790082120 by Pincrete (talk) the part where the German police verify that this was an ISIS attack. You are verging on WP:DISRUPT]" You removed a sentence reading: " however, the subsequent arrest of an Amaq News Agency operative in Germany demonstrated that the attack was directed by the Islamic State."[16] with edit summary: "Report me .... BLP trumps anything and the source does not say this ... moving other quote". And so it went. I can only assume that you failed to read teh sources on which the article was based. Certainly, it was irresponsible, disruptive edit warring. And it all took place during a July 2017 AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Malmö ISIS-related arson where you made 17 comments and I made 7. (Note that the July AfD was started by new User: CrispyGlover.) You made a series of similarly disruptive edits during the August 2017 AfD started by TheGraceful Slick Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson, where Slick and I each made 12 edits. Both AfDs closed as Keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Whoa. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson. Editors who want the short course should skip the above and just read this AfD. It demonstrates the extent to which TheGracefulSlick and her sidekick Pincrete are so cocksure of their righteousness that they edit aggressively, but without encountering the sources they dismiss, delete, and mis-cite.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you need to calm down and remind yourself to remain WP:CIVIL. At this rate, we won't even need Pincrete's diffs to demonstrate your disruptive behavior.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that this entire discussion is an ideologically-tainted WP:BATTLEFIELD mess. One editor creates articles that raise the hackles of another editor or group of editors who seek to delete them. Rinse, repeat. Happens over and over again. The combatants come here, slug it out. Enough. Coretheapple (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I created only few of the many articles on terror attacks that User:Huldra, and User:The Graceful Slick, (together with User:Sport and politics who has moved on to editing other topics) have recently sought to delete in recent months. The articles these editors have tried to delete were created by many different editors over many years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

EMG, I don't intend to reply in detail about Malmo, relevant discussion is at the AfD and at article talk. However which bit of "German police have accused" entitles you here, in the article and at AfD to turn that into a "guilty verdict"? I believe I am correct when I say that German police did not even accuse the 'German' person of 'directing' any attack, they simply accuse of 'contacting' perp and reporting to Amaq. It is not up to German police, nor the NYT, nor you or me to decide guilt of a person in Sweden, and certainly not to expand an accusation of 'contacting and reporting' on behalf of Amaq, into one of 'directing by Isis'. The Swedish court's reasons, (if I remember correctly) for NOT charging with 'terrorist' offences were because under Swedish law, the incident was too trivial to be treated as 'terrorism', so the accused was tried for arson, and found not guilty. He was also, I believe ordered to be deported. So, even if the court had known about the German arrest, they would still probably have tried for arson, since they would still probably think the incident too trivial under their law. In spite of this you claimed repeatedly in the AfD that a new trial was going to happen in Sweden, a source was asked for, but never provided. Innumerable similar claims about the significance of the 'new German' arrest are in your imagination only. The NYT and other articles make no bigger claims than that the German arrest might provide clues as to how Amaq sometimes gets its info. The trial in Germany might uncover many things, but we wait for that to happen not write up the speculations of individual editors as fact. Pincrete (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry few diffs. Mainly for time reasons, despite me 'promising' them above. Besides I don't think anyone has any appetite for them and they mainly relate to the Malmo AfD and article talk. I stand by every assertion I have made here about the misrepresentation of sources in that article and at that AfD. Whatever EMG's motives may have been, the effect was to create a huge smokescreen of misinformation during that AfD, but that whole subject is now 'water under the bridge'. Specific diffs will be provided by me to back up any assertion above if requested.

However, since EMG is still criticising my contribution on that article, and that AfD, EMG could earn himself a moral victory (and an apology from me) if he could point me to where in this source there is reference to "However, new evidence showing that he had committed the attack on behalf of ISIS caused the acquitted man to be arrested and charged anew in late June 2017" text which he inserted in the article here, which was still in the article when I first edited it and which he repeated (as I recall) 3 times in the AfD discussion, to emphasise the 'ongoing significance' of the Malmo event. I can see no mention in the source of a Swedish re-arrest nor re-trial and the charging of a man in Germany with 'working on behalf of the ISIS news agency',by contacting the Swedish accused cannot be turned into "showing he had committed the attack on behalf of ISIS" without bucketloads of SYNTH and without completely ignoring BLP (even Islamists get a trial, last time I checked!) I've been asking for the source for the 'Swedish re-arrest and retrial' since the Malmo AfD, AFAIK the Swedish man is, and has always since his trial been, scheduled for deportation. I don't need 1000-word essays, simply where the source supports any of these assertions.

EMG, as I said above I made a single error on a fairly minor detail IRO the 'Malmo' source, when it was pointed out to me, I immediately apologised to you … you continue to defend ALL these factually incorrect claims, and are happy to use them as arguments at AfD (and here), to "get off the hook". Earn yourself an apology from me, and if you can't please stop repeating that I failed in some sense to correctly read the Malmo source, I'm tired of reading it, and one day soon others are going to get tired also. Pincrete (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• The first trial, the one where he was acquitted in April/May 2017, got a lot of coverage, I have just added material form 2 English sources showing that when he was acquitted he was immediately transferred to custody of Säpo so that they could start a new set of legal procedures (may be a "hearing", not a "trial" - most sources are in Swedish and I am not a Swedish barrister) to deport him. I'm unclear why you state that he was in Sweden illegally; he seems pretty clearly to have been a legal resident. What the New YOrk Tiems article states is: "The statement from the prosecutor explains that Mohammad G. had been communicating via social media with a man who went on to carry out a 2016 arson in Sweden."'.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

EMG, precisely as I have always claimed, no trial. No relationship claimed by source between the Swedish re-arrest (for deportation) and the German arrest, the Swedish deportation is going to be decided by its 'Migration Agency'. I didn't mention anyone's presence in Sweden being illegal (he was asylum-seeker I believe).

If I really believed you could not understand why accusations of "communicating on social media" with someone in order to feed back info to Amaq, was synonomous with "directing the same someone on behalf of Isis" ......! No apology for you then. I've long since abandoned any hope of ever receiving one myself. Pincrete (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The organized deletion of information on terrorist attacks is now so bad that editors are being muzzled and threatened just for trying to stop the afd wikicide against coverage of obvious terrorist attacks. I've been threatened just for complaining about whitewashing of terrorism and advocating that any terrorist attack is notable and non-routine and rules for notnews and routine need to be revised to stop disruptive prods and afds Bachcell (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

If an administrator were to grow a pair of gonads, enforce policy, and muzzle you, I would hold a parade in her or his honor. Sadly, it will never happen. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I tried bringing Bachcell's behavior to the community's attention (again) Malik Shabazz but apparently the new diffs and months of others from the prior thread is "not actionable" so I closed it before I could somehow be landed with a block. I'm afraid Gregory's behavior is just going to be left unnoticed as well.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Indeed, it does seem possible that repeatedly dragging editors who disagree with you to ANI could land GracefulSlick or other editors with a block. Some editors might think that such behavior was WP:DISRUPT for WP:POINTy reasons.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Double agree with MS and TGS, if something is an "obvious terrorist attacks", why do editors have such difficulty finding sources that say that? Actually this is an area of WP where editors regularly ignore BLP, PoV and V with impunity, frequently imagining that poor coverage of terrorist articles is somehow magically going to do something to stop these incidents. It ain't I'm afraid. Pincrete (talk) 09:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment just pointing out that this seems to be a recurring topic at ANI that the community is unable to solve, and one that I suspect will be back here again if this ANI closes without any resolution. If this is the case, the likely next step would be ArbCom, which also has the benefit of having a structured format. I'd suggest to all editors involved that it might be best to come to some sort of agreement on a mutually amicable way to settle this, otherwise I see this headed to a case request sometime in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • It further points to the rising conflict that I've been trying to resolve in P&G between WP:NOT#NEWS and articles rushed to creation on current events, which unfortunately the community seems very divided on, making any type of movement to resolve it (either direction) impossible, include clarification of supposed practice into policy & guidelines. That itself is slowly building to a head (this above issue just one extension of it) and it's going to get worse before it gets better. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I've been involved in several non-news related AfDs where the same behavioral concerns occurred. I hate ANI worse than I hate contentious AfDs, so I've never brought them here, but I think there is likely merit on the bludgeoning issue with this complaint that is unrelated to the NOTNEWS issue. I'm not familiar enough with what has transpired since the last ANI to give any thoughts as to an ANI resolution, but I would encourage E.M. Gregory to limit themselves to the minimum necessary comments at an AfD to get their point across. Short of that, unless this ANI closes with a specific resolution (which I don't think will happen), this is headed for an ArbCom case, which is even less fun than ANI. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• TonyBallioni and I clashed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salvation bracelet, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Andre Sawyer Jr., on the question of when a Christian newspaper or book is primary if used to source Christianity-related article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'd actually consider it to be more about when local sources count towards the GNG, but thats a side issue. I didn't try to have you sanctioned either time, and nor do I seek it now because I really don't like the idea of restricting the ability of someone to comment in a discussion. My comment here was simply noting that this is an issue that several editors have brought up, and since we're getting specific, has been discussed at ANI at least five different times.
  Yes, I'm aware of the issue of the sock and that you've never been sanctioned in this regard, but especially after the last ANI closed There is consensus on the editing behaviour of E.M.Gregory in AfD discussions being very concerning, in particular the inability to keep arguments "concise"., I think you would be wise to follow that advice. A long trend of ANIs that close as no consensus or no action but advice to do avoid doing something is, IMO, the definition of an issue the community is unable to solve, and that is the purpose of ArbCom. I'll repeat again that there is no attempt by me to get a sanction or weigh in on the situation since August, but simply to urge everyone here to find some amicable solution, because the next time an issue is raised, I suspect it will be as a case request. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

I do not want to see this go to Arbcom -- too much work for the same result. I propose what was actually a remedy from another ANI thread. From the previous discussion, There is consensus on the editing behaviour of E.M.Gregory in AfD discussions being very concerning, in particular the inability to keep arguments "concise". Despite his promise to address this concern, Gregory has either unknowingly or willfully continued to engage in this behavior. And, considering how he has reacted towards others at AFD and here, treats this as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. He should be limited to three comments per AFD for six months and can appeal the restriction after that time. The three comments allow him to !vote, respond to a critique of his !vote, and/or reply to another editor's !vote but it is up to him on how he will distribute his opportunities.

Unfortunately, this does not address his intentional misrepresentation of sources. To me, that should result in a topic ban on terrorism-related articles but I will not propose that at this time. Anyone else may do so if they find it appropriate.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

User E.M.Gregory stands accused, repeatedly, on this thread, of misrepresentation of sources, yet no diffs are provided. I am of the opinion someone should look into the behaviour of his accusers. Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 05:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Diffs have been provided. If you know anything wrongly done by me, you are welcome to bring it to the attention of ANI.Pincrete (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Note that User:TheGracefulSlick is a highly unreliable editor on the topic of terrorism. She was deliberately misleading in her AfD nominaiton of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Reuven Shmerling (a discussion she BLUDGEONed with 20 comments). In her nomination for deletion TheGraceful Slick states: " This incident was in the news, mostly regional, for about four days because it was called suspected terrorism. However, it appears to have been a monetary dispute." [17]." This Nominating statement was posted on 18 October, and the linked article dated 6 October was from the first round of news coverage. However, by 8 October [18] the AP was reporting that "Israel’s domestic security agency says it has arrested two Palestinians suspected of killing an Israeli man found dead last week, in what it says was a 'terror attack.' " [19], and reports asserting that it was a "monetary dispute" has ceased. This is disingenuous BATTLEGROUND editing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Probably not a good idea to accuse me of being disingenuous when it has already been proven you deliberately misrepresented sources on seperate occasions even as experienced editors pointed it out to you several times. I read a source for what it literally said. Perhaps if I did not have to depend on unreliable news sources, such a mistake would not occur.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Err ... perhaps if the news sources are unreliable, you should consider not depending on them? Ravenswing 08:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ravenswing you missed the point. It was breaking news coverage and it all tends to be unreliable. It is not something I prefer to do but when the subject is not covered by anything else, I do not have much choice. That was one of the points I made at the AFD; I do not want to re-open that discussion here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• I didn't "miss the point" at all; I made the point I wanted to make. As far as not having much choice, of course you have a choice: no one compelled you to make any edits with unreliable sources. We are not in a race here, this isn't a contest, and Wikipedia doesn't hand out any prizes for being first out of the blocks with an edit. We can always (and should always) wait for events to be reported in reliable sources before making edits on breaking events. Ravenswing 04:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Ravenswing you do realize I never edited an article with an unreliable source, correct? I was not "first out of the blocks" with an edit because I never touched the article and I never do touch an article on a breaking news event. I wait a few weeks before I even consider doing that. So, I apologize, but I think you did miss some of the point if you thought I was editing with unreliable sources when, in fact, I wasn't editing at all on the page in question.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose any action This nomination seems to be driven by a desire to force editors to stop participating in discussions about deleting certain articles. We need more detachment in AfD, and less people trying to hound a particular point. However this will not be brought about by hounding people you disagree with, but by showing some civility, and speaking kind words to those you disagree with, as well as trying to understand their point of view.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you, Johnpacklambert. I see this whole discussion as WP:POINTy. The complaint is that I make too many edits. But discussions in which editors make multiple comments are not at all unusual: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalan supremacism. Long discussions can end productively and with collegiality: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presidential Village, Maynard, Massachusetts. However, TheGracefulSlick has brought our difference of opinion over the interpretation of WP:GNG to this board in a WP:BATTLEGROUND effort to "win" the AfDs she constantly starts on terrorist attacks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Johnpacklambert notice how my proposal never mentioned forcing anyone out of discussing. For months Gregory has hounded editors he has disagreed with at AFD, commenting over and over to provoke a response. The problem has never been "understanding" Gregory's POV -- he has made it abundantly clear.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• That is highly creative inversion. I ranan editor interaction analyzer, and it clearly shows that I look regularly at the list of terrorism-related articles for deletino, and edit most of them, including the ones that TheGracefulSlick starts. It also shows that TheGracefulSlick goes through lists of terrorism related articles, so that while the analyzer may show that she edited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Paris attacks or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Hurghada attack, the fact is that these are articles that I created I began editing years ago. I am not accusing her of hounding me, only of having a different interpretation of notability and combing through old articles that I started or edited while searching terrorism articles to delete. Then, because so few of them are deleted, of dragging me here. This discussion really should be closed as POV/BATTLEGROUND aggression by TheGracefulSlick, and a handful of editors who share her BATTLEGROUND style and POV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• You do realize I didn't open this thread? Huldra did. How could I have been the one who "dragged" you here? And I don't "comb" through articles that you edit. I look at the several lists devoted to terror attacks. You just so happen to edit them but I couldn't care less if you did or didn't touch them. You are just throwing mud and hoping something sticks. It's getting old.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Editor Pincrete says that he has provided the diffs which prove misrepresentation of sources by EM Gregrory. I don't see any on this thread. I think unfair accusations of misrepresentation of sources should be looked into. XavierItzm (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• I wonder if a hard cap on EMG's participation at AFD is what is called for: Say a limit of 250 words for a main argument and no more than two responses of 50 words or fewer per deletion nomination. It seems that "wall of text" and badgering seem to be the main complaints voiced. Carrite (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Carrite great condition to add to the proposal. But unless I am directly mentioned or pinged, I will step away from the discussion. I think it would be better for uninvolved editors like you to deliberate on the nature of a hard cap of some sort.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• I stand corrected. You dragged me here in August, Huldra dragged me back here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 2

E.M.Gregory is hereby limited to 250 words for any nomination or initial comment relating to a nomination for deletion at AfD. In addition, E.M Gregory is limited to no more than two follow up comments to any nomination, with these follow up comments each not to exceed 50 words. This restriction to remain in effect for 12 months from the date of implementation of this sanction. — (This hopefully fixes the problem without robbing AfD of EMG's valuable participation.) Carrite (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Carrite has urged that low-casualty terrorist attacks be merged to lists or deleted: [20], [21], [22]. I found these by checking our editor interactions =, which were always civil and on a very wide range of articles; what I did not find was that we had interacted at terrorism related discussions where he had iVoted to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support, 1st choice. If you cannot express your opinion in a vote, plus two follow up comments, then you are suffering from what we in my country call "mouth diarrhoea". Enough. Huldra (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• To see the essentially BATTLEGROUND nature of Huldra's attitude at AfD, consider the tone of her nominations: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bloody Day in Jaffa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian stone-throwing, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Sergeant Almog Shiloni, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Ibolya Ryan.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

AfD shouldn't be a battleground, I think we all can agree. This remedy should allow you enough space to weigh in while putting up a first barrier to the sort of dysfunctional back-and-forth that can sometimes result when people get worked up over controversial topics. Other people might need to be reined in at the same time, I can't speak to that. Carrite (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• If you think my edits are problematic, feel free to open a new AN/I proposal about them. We are here because of your extreme "word diarrhoea" resulting, e.g., in 25 comments (!) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Dijon attack. As I said above: Enough. Huldra (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you might consider the term "Verbal Diarrhoea", or perhaps "Word Vomit". "Mouth Diarrhoea" summons a unpleasant messy image to mind. Blackmane (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I forgot to mention this. And considering Gregory's battleground mentality and general dishonesty at AFDs, here, and elsewhere, he is getting off extremely light; unfortunately, this will probably not change his attitude. He has put editors he disagrees with or doesn't like in a basket of deplorables and claims they are all coordinating a POV-pushing effort. If so, Pincrete, K.e.coffman, AusLondoner, Kingsidian, Huldra, Sport and Politics, Malik Shabazz, Nishidiani, and me -- literally everyone he argues with -- needs to be brought here and tbanned. Here is something to contemplate: if I pinged these editors (and more) they could all share an account where Gregory disrupted a discussion, pushed a POV, and/or misrepresented sources. Are they all part of the conspiracy? Or is it just a case of an editor who did not listen and blamed everyone else?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Like it was mentioned before I don't see any problem with EMG behaivour and no real proof of any wrong doing was provided.If someone don't want to read his comments he can just skip it.--Shrike (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Gregory stands accused of misuse of sources, yet the diff refs cited are clearly not misuse of sources at all! Read the full discussions and refutations : in the first two diffs, Gregory was correct and the other editor was unable to interpret a complex research paper. In the second two diffs, both IceWhiz and Gregory effectively refuted the objections raised. In any event, deficient misreading of sources by others does not make Gregory guilty of the very serious accusation of misuse of sources.
  Furthermore Gregory stands accused of misrepresentation of sources, w/o diffs provided. If anything, there should be WP:boomerang on the discussions on this Notice. XavierItzm (talk) 10:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see no problem whatever with EM Gregory's behavior, certainly in terms of use or misuse of sources. He posts a lot in AfDs but these are heated AfDs on difficult subjects, in which such behavior is common and acceptable. One-sided ANI actions by content opponents is untoward, and this definitely falls in that category. Coretheapple (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC) I agree with the boomerang suggestion below. Coretheapple (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Coretheapple and Xavier, and I think I might agree with the Boomerang. This does seem to be ideological and not behavioral. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Gregory has been perfectly reasonable in AfDs in recent months, and has been providing important sourcing. If at all we have seen a problem with spurious terror related AFDs (this bunch by Sport and Politics comes to mind - but this hasn't been the only one).Icewhiz (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support No one editor should have a de facto veto on deletion discussions. It is not reasonable by any standards to make close to 30 comments on one AfD as seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Dijon attack (where he accused another editor of bludgeon!). This took place just a matter of days ago, for those who suggest this is not a recurring problem. E.M.Gregory adopts this tactic as a way of destroying discussions with a wall of text and ensuring they close as no consensus. The fact that so many editors of good-standing have raised concerns time and time again suggests this is a problem that is not getting better. This proposal is a very light restriction and I am baffled that anyone would suggest otherwise. How hard is it to limit yourself to 250 words and two follow-up comments? I am also concerned about the editorial dishonesty displayed by E.M.Gregory which includes misrepresentation of sources, conduct which misleads less experienced and drive-by editors at AfD discussions. E.M.Gregory's conduct is a classic violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND - "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals". I am surprised this behaviour has escaped any sanction as of yet. AusLondonder (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support -- E.M.Gregory tends to dominate the discussions on a few select topics. This potentially has a chilling effect on other participants. Two additional comments is plenty and will help the AfD process to be more efficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - There's a leap between a limit on the number of comments that can be made and a limit on the number of words in a comment to be made. The only place that I know of that has this sort of restriction is ARBCOM with a 500 word limit. I practically never make AfD !votes that are less than 400 words and replies of fifty words?!?! This comment here is longer than 50 words. So... hell no. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• support this is a reasonable solution to a problem. I used to see EM Gregory as a high quality editor but something has happened, and now they have started to dig in irrationally and make terrible arguments to save articles. I was building an SPI case which led me to the terrible article Scholars for Peace in the Middle East - a sea of name-dropping, did a BEFORE and found a bunch of passing mentions, and AfDed it. I have been really surprised by the low quality arguments being made there, particularly by EM Gregory, whose original vote! was:

"Take a look at this [23] search on Inside Higher Ed, or this [24] one in the Chronicle of Higher Education, or this [25] one at Haaretz. Solid sources on the page and out there in all the places where you would expect to find them.

(the links are to raw search results... always a bad sign).... and has made several terrible arguments following that, and generally has has come loaded for bear, making personalized remarks like this. EM Gregory you probably should give yourself a timeout from AfD but if you won't, Carrite's proposal is a reasonable step. I don't know what happened with you but am not happy to see it. Jytdog (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

There is some serious GANG/BATTLEGOUND going on here. Woke up this morning to the bottom three items on my Talk page and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Jytdog. Good morning! Or as they say in the south, good night. Jytdog (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Break

I read this, and sigh and go "again". I have personally chosen very deliberately not to get involved. I have though seen this go on and on, and feel that I cannot stay quiet anymore. I used to edit on terrorism articles, and made some good faith if ill judged AfD's. I though by the end gave up on any interactions where E.M.Gregory is present.

E.M. Gregory has been on different noticeboards multiple times; multiple different issues, and multiple different users. Some of the time E.M. Gregory is on the receiving end, and sometimes E.M. Gregory is the person dishing it out. The discussions are all enormous, and all volumous. The question I have to ask the community is when does the editing style, AfD contributions, and BLP style become such that the project is being disrupted? It is a forgone conclusion that Afd's will end in no consensus unless E.M. Gregory view is accepted. As it stands AfD's on anything related to terrorism, are not able to take place. Previously it was some BLP articles.

There needs to be a looking at the whole contribution of E.M. Gregory. Is E.M. Gregory's current way of engaging allowing the project to function?

The fact E.M. Gregory is both on the receiving end of negative behaviour, as well as being reported for their behaviour, must indicate a problem with the users conduct. It shows, they rub people up the wrong way and incite poor behaviour, and respond in kind. The wider E.M. Gregory user profile needs looking at. Looking at each incident and report as it arrives in isolation, will never solve the behaviour issues on both sides which seem to be stuck like super glue on E.M. Gregory.

I expect E.M. Gregory to attack me, as they have already previously mentioned me negatively in this discussion. I would though say that is indicative of the issues with E.M.Gregory, they are antagonistic and confrontational.

I can provide a compiled list of all the reports to all noticeboards if that is requested. E.M. Gregory is though now taking up so much time, of so many users on certain topics and noticeboards. It is getting to the point of disrupting the ability for Wikipedia to function properly in some areas; namely AfD's on terrorism articles. Sport and politics (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• User:Sport and Politics, and I met when he started a series of AfDs in August and September. I guess there were ~ 20, almost all with the same copy-paste nomination rationale. Here is an example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Magnanville stabbing. I opposed probably all of the deletions he nominated. I believe that they were all kept, many were speedy kept. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• The expected Ad Homenim, as forecast. E.M. Gregory just doesn't seem to get it. This will in all likelihood be going to ArbCom. E.M. Gregory has to respond to everything, and bears a WP:grudge against everyone they have interacted with who they disagree with. This goes against WP:consensus and goes against trying to act in the best interests of Wikipedia as a project to build an encyclopedia. E.M.Gregory treats Wikipeidia as a battleground no better than a mudslinging set of attacks, designed to veto anything they disapprove of. The community needs to take action, or decent users, here to further the cause of building an encyclopedia will simply take one look at interactions with users who are allowed carte blanche to behave badly, and simply leave. Sport and politics (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Where is the ad hominem? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm waiting for there to be a dispute at Talk:Homonym so we can have a thread headed Ad hominem at Homonym. EEng 03:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I completely agree with and endorse this. In my opinion, having participated in several AfD's and discussions involving E.M.Gregory, their actions amount to gaming the system. They effectively have a one-user veto over the deletion of any article on the project; that is unacceptable and is driving away other constructive editors. Another thing that I am always astounded by is their blatant, unapologetic dishonesty every time they participate in a discussion. E.M.Gregory sees Wikipedia as purely an ideological battleground and is willing to cynically engage in whatever dishonest tactic necessary (whether personal attacks or outright lies) to achieve their political goals. I, frankly, cannot understand how E.M.Gregory has got to this point without people raising serious concerns about WP:NOTHERE. The problem here is, just like at the AfDs, admins can't be arsed to properly read and go through all this (I don't blame them) and take the action we desperately need. AusLondonder (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• AusLondonder and I met at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palagonia double homicide and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Paros (Greece) rape (linked with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waqas Ahmed). I was still wet-behind-the-ears and that pair of discussions with his gonzo editing style was my baptism-by-fire, a new editor hit by someone who knew all the rules. It was memorable. I should perhaps add that yesterday, I followed an editor to Auslondonder talk page, was surprised by the comment that editor had made, so I weighed in [26]. i fear that my comment may have provoked AusLondonder to come here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The biggest thing shown by E.M.Gregory's comments are they believe every user has an axe to grind. The thing I am seeing here is the users who keep on reporting E.M.Gregory here simply want to move the project forward. E.M.Greogry is welcome to come along, as can been seen by the multiple proposals put forward to allow everyone to try and get along. E.M.Gregory it would seem does not want to get along with others as proposed, and by extension is not putting the Wikipedia project at the centre of their editing on Wikipedia. Sport and politics (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

You already said your piece, and you made sure to do it in a new section so everyone can see it. Your bias is showing, same as many of the support votes. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Call it bias, call it looking to put the project first, either way This and all the other reports surrounding E.M.Gregory are taking up way too much time here on Wikipedia from a pure procedural point of view. AfD's are so volumous, they are unworkable. I do not understand how this simply trying to put the project first is playing second fiddle to all of the other ephemera. Sport and politics (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• E.M.Gregory's comments above are just another confirmation of the big problem we have on our hands here. E.M.Gregory is a compulsive liar. E.M.Gregory has suggested they were a new, innocent "wet-behind-the-ears" editor who was attacked by a rabid policy genius. By the time of the AfD mentioned E.M.Gregory had been editing for more than six months longer than me! E.M.Gregory said they were "a new editor hit by someone who knew all the rules" - how strange then that my arguments did not succeed at the AfD and E.M.Gregory's did. I encourage everyone to read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Paros (Greece) rape. You will be astounded by the blatant, cynical and totally dishonest misrepresentation of the discussion now by E.M.Gregory. Just remember, E.M.Gregory says my editing at that AfD was "gonzo" and "baptism-by-fire" of them. All this is nothing new, though. This is a long-running pattern of editorial dishonesty, smears and mud-slinging that makes it impossible to collaborate with E.M.Gregory. AusLondonder (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• AFD Stats Just for the record, he has a 77% match rate with the close of the AFD. Just thought that should be pointed out. [27] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

What a foolish comment! No one is disputing E.M.Gregory is enormously successful at rigging AFDs in their favour. AusLondonder (talk) 09:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, you must mean then that the admins are dumb? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Boomerang Proposal

There are now three 'Support votes for boomerang. I propose a formal boomerang and admonishment regarding future ANI complaints. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Sir Joseph on who and on what grounds? Carrite for writing a proposal based on the discussion? Huldra for filing a complaint based on behavior Gregory said he would improve upon but didn't? Me, because...why not? The oppose !votes are hardly from a group of neutral peers: all of them regularly take part in, or defend Gregory's actions at AFD. Of course they would oppose, he is the main advocate for their POV. And of course they would think he is reasonable in disrupting discussions and misrepresenting sources if it in the end it kept an article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Eh, that's not exactly correct. I've sided with him in AfDs but haven't been gushing with support for his verbosity. You all are guilty of that, if "guilty" is the correct word as a tendency to over-post is endemic in such AfDs. What I do believe, however, is that those who oppose him in content disputes and AfDs have knives out for him, and are seeking to "criminalize" his behavior so to speak. Therefore I support a boomerang as that needs to stop. Coretheapple (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Very serious concerns have been raised about E.M.Gregory's unacceptable behaviour. This includes constantly disrupting AfD's with close to 30 comments. E.M.Gregory cynically uses that tactic to overwhelm and derail a discussion to ensure they have a one-user veto on all deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory is constantly and incredibly dishonest and their comments at AfD's (and elsewhere) are misleading, deceptive and deceitful. E.M.Gregory exhibits constant battleground behaviour and a refusal to engage constructively with other editors. The level of dishonestly makes it very difficult to work with E.M.Gregory in good faith. The fact that so many editors of good standing, such as Carrite and Huldra have raised concerns suggests this "proposal" is nothing more than another shameless diversionary tactic from E.M.Gregory's fellow political warriors. AusLondonder (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• I guess if we disagree with you, we must be a political warrior? You need to AGF. It would indeed help your cause if those who support sanctions against EMG were not all of the same political ideology. As it stands now, it's just a diversion and one side of the viewpoint trying to silence a different side. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Your comment serves as an admission you are here to defend E.M.Gregory not on policy grounds but because he is your political ally. That is utterly shameful and violates WP:BATTLEGROUND ("Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals"). I reject your assertion that I have displayed any political biases. I don't care about E.M.Gregory's personal views, I care about the disruption of AfDs, constant blatant dishonesty and battleground behaviour. AusLondonder (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Have you not read your comments? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment. Anyone who can say the 2012 Paros beating and rape had no lasting significance in an AFD should be very, very careful about accusing anyone else of disingenuousness. Anmccaff (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for using another one of E.M.Gregory's tried-and-tested tactics, mud-slinging! How about we talk about how many comments I made at that AfD? Was it 30? AusLondonder (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

There's no mudslinging involved there; you opened an AfD on a premise that is completely, and patently untrue. Whether that is because of ignorance of the circumstances, or simple dishonesty is a question, but either suggests that it might not be Mr. Gregory who needs a little extra scrutiny here. I haven't read much of the background to this filing (yet), but if this is a typical example of what you are complaining about you need a WP:BOOMERANG, with serrated edges. Anmccaff (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

If, as you admit yourself, you haven't read much of what is above should you really be opening your mouth? And just to be clear, I didn't start this ANI thread, I purely commented on my own experiences. Your criticism of my editorial judgement at that AfD is especially ironic given E.M.Gregory is actually accusing me of being too clever and well-informed. So I am both "ignorant" and too well-informed. We are really entering fantasy-land now, aren't we? AusLondonder (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Since my writing was conditional - if this is a typical example of what you are complaining about - damn right I can. This is a blatant example of either ignorant or tendentious use of AfD, and, if it's typical of what is being discussed, then a WP:BOOMERANG is clearly in order. So, is this a typical example? Anmccaff (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose they are both good faith proposals, undertaken after multiple ANIs in an attempt of finding a resolution short of ArbCom. I'm not commenting on them, because my preference is still for an amicable way of working this out, but a boomerang would not be appropriate here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment - This is a Carte Blanch proposal to prevent any complaints being made. This is a chilling effect proposal.

a formal boomerang and admonishment regarding future ANI complaints

Complaints are viewed on their merit and stating future complaints are to be admonished, is making one user untouchable and god like. This cannot be allowed. The user proposing this should themselves be admonished for such an outlandish proposal. Sport and politics (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• No, the way it works at ANI is that if you continuously bring bad faith complaints, you do indeed face a boomerang. Trying to game the system and have someone blocked or banned for being on the other side is not what ANI is for. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Well E.M.Gregory has pretty much become the untouchable God of Wikipedia through unrelenting battleground editing, and doesn't he know it. We may as well make it official. AusLondonder (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Why don't we save ourselves an awful lot of time and effort and just exempt E.M.Gregory from all accepted standards of behaviour now? AusLondonder (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Why are we allowing him to game AFD? Heck, it gets so bad he literally opened an AFD to write a rationale for keeping and get it on terrorism-alert list where editors who support his POV would see it. This, after I proposed a merge that was gaining support. Another "no consensus" and you wonder why. It certainly wasn't because everyone followed standard procedures.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Propose BOOMERANG for USER:Huldra. Although Huldra is not a frequent contributor to deletion discussions, these diffs are limited to her contributions at AfD.
• Although AfD is supposed to be a discussion, Huldra's typical iVote at a terrorism-related AfD is: "'Delete, pr nom" [28], [29] or Delete pr WP:NOTNEWS: [30]
• Huldra flings assertions that other editors are biased against Muslims: Here: "there are some editors on Wikipedia who thinks that each and every murder committed by a Muslim (the vast majority of Somalis are Muslims, after all) is notable", [31]; and here: "Delete per Malik Shabazz. Seriously; if this had´t come in the "a Muslim did something very bad"-category; who would ever have thought of making an article about it?" [32]
• She disparages the process and fellow editors with comments like, "'the usual suspects' will all vote keep" [33].
• She provides political commentary in her iVotes: [34], and here:[35] There are many of Palestinians killed, just in the last couple of weeks. Like 22-year-old Kheir Hamdan, in Galilee, or 21-year-old Mohammad Imad Jawabra . None of these are given a Wikipedia article, so why one for Almog Shiloni? Are all Jewish victims notable, while Palestinian victims are non-notable?"
• However, the great problem with Huldra at AfD is that she has starts discussions with wildly POV / BATTLEGROUND nominations:
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian stone-throwing, Huldra's nomination statement: "This is simply a neologisms, just a collection of random sources. We could just as well have an article on Israeli child killing, Huldra
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis, Huldra's nomination statement: '"Mr Tsibouktzakis is not known for anything, AFAIK, except his murder. Compare him with, say Bassem Abu Rahmeh of Bil'in (who was internationally known at the time of his murder), then wonder why one has a Wikipedia article, why the other one doesn't?" The AfD was a doozy. I made 58 edits, Huldra made 14, and many other editors made multiple edits and "revisited" to affirm their keep votes as the weeks went by. The tone of Huldra's edits was problematic. In response to an assertion of "ongoing attention" in sources, she wrote "Yeah...ongoing attention ...... by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel. While for Bassem Abu Rahmeh, the Israeli court conveniently looses all the evidence. Oh, and I forgot, who told us that we should be the parrots of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel?" [36]

*I propose a 3 month ban from joining AdD discussions for Huldra, who, when she comes to AfD is WP:NOTHERE but build an encyclopedia, but to score some sort of political points with BATTLEGROUND editing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC) Crossing that out, I don't edit this board often, perhaps I should just leave the diffs and let other editors weigh in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Strong oppose this retaliatory proposal which is largely based on Huldra calling a spade a spade. Cjhard (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comments, heh, when it quacks like a duck, walk like a duck, look like a duck, well, then I am in the terrible habit of calling it a duck. Sigh, I suppose this is heading for arb.com (And no: E.M.Gregory, that is not a threat, that is a promise.) This madness has to end. Huldra (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Huldra set up the Arbcom case and I'll gladly contribute to the evidence phase; long has this gotten out of hand. Every editor here who hasn't outright ignored Gregory's behavior -- you, me, AusLondoner, Pincrete, TonyBallinoni, Sport and Politics, etc. -- have had an immediate response from Gregory, which can be whittled down to "it's not me, it's them". I am dissappointed, but not terribly shocked, that editors ignoring the glaring evidence have tried to twist this into a disagreement over content -- it never was about that. No one here cared that Gregory disagreed with them at AFD but we are rightly concerned with an editor who misrepresents sources, bludgeons discussions, and throws a bunch of smoke in the air to taint any chance of a consensus that isn't on their exact terms.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose -- these were good faith proposals; they aim to address an on-going concern that has been previously discussed here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support The strong impression left is this filing is an attempt to use ANI sanctions as a bludgeon to push a POV, although the sheer volumes of words from EMG have me hearing "the long and the short and the tall" in the back of my mind.

Very Loudly. Anmccaff (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• given that the "boomerang" proposal has no object (who is being proposed to boomerang on?) the support and oppose votes are ... baffling. This subthread is kinda ANI at its, well.... lamest. Jytdog (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The filer, by definition. That's what a (metaphorical) boomerang does, you know, returns to the thrower...and frankly, the restriction on verbosity looks appropriate enough on some of the supporters of this filing, as well. Anmccaff (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Anmccaff actually in Sir Joseph's original proposal I was the subject of the proposal. So the direction of the boomerang was questionable until Gregory created a seperate proposal. A good-faith filing by Huldra, however, is hardly worth a boomerang. It's just a diversion from Gregory's behavioral issues.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

...but he did create it, and only withdrew, by striking, part of it, and SJ's stands. I think it has more merit than anything else proposed here, albeit not by much. A "formal boomerang" is about the filer, for reasons etymological and ontological, despite the dif you kindly provided....although that dif obviously says a great deal about how poisoned this well is. Anmccaff (talk) 03:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Propose BOOMERANG for User:TheGracefulSlick
• We met, best as I can recall, this past spring when she began weighing in at I/P related AfDs on terrorist attacks with accusationsof ethnic bias on the part of fellow editors "unfortunately bias exists here where any attack on a non-Arab by an Arab is considered notable" [37], (April)

• She made some hasty, ill-considered nominations such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Paris attacks (April), but she and I agree that articles on minor news events should be deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Munich shooting, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Avignon shooting, or redirected, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/July 2017 Petah Tikva attack. However, even in an uncontroversial deletion of such an event, TheGracefulSlick's CRUSADE to enforce her personal interpretation of NOTNEWS leads to uncollegial remarks, "Probably going to be kept because enough editors fall for sensationalism over recent events" [38].

• GracefulSlick can be a highly unreliable editor on the topic of terrorism. For example, she was disingenuous and misleading in her AfD nominaiton of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Reuven Shmerling (October, simultaneous with this discussion.) In her nomination for deletion TheGraceful Slick states: " This incident was in the news, mostly regional, for about four days because it was called suspected terrorism. However, it appears to have been a monetary dispute." [39]." This Nominating statement was posted on 18 October, and the linked article dated 6 October was from the first round of news coverage. However, by 8 October [40] the AP was reporting that "Israel’s domestic security agency says it has arrested two Palestinians suspected of killing an Israeli man found dead last week, in what it says was a 'terror attack.' " , and reports asserting that it was a "monetary dispute" has ceased. This is disingenuous BATTLEGROUND editing. Slick BLUDGEONED the page with 20 editors (no other editor came close.) There was police press gag in place, and editors were arguing that page should be kept at least until the press gag was lifted.) Here: [41] she asserts that official finding of terrorism "has no bearing on notability," here: [42]. In particular, she BLUDGEONed each editor who is an occassional at AfDs on I/P or on terrorism, and when called out for BLUGDGEONing not only here but at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapuah Junction stabbing (2010) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Yavneh attack (2nd nomination) , responded [43] by attacking both me and the editor who had called her out.

• Some of the many AfDs that she has nominated in recent months closed as keep, some were deleted, many closed as no consensus. She appears to have begun nomination non-terrorism pages for deletion as NOTNEWS, perhaps to "prove" her point about how this guideline should be interpreted. Her nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Arkema plant explosion illustrates the WP:DISRUPT impact of her NOTNEWS crusade. This story about a significant event at a Houston chemical plant during Hurricane Harvey certainly looked significant to me at the time, and recent coverage upholds that view. GracefulSlick's nomination, which echoes her usual arguments for deleting terrorist attacks "Wikipedia is not news. There were -- thankfully -- no significant deaths or injuries from this incident." appears to be a WP:POINTy continuation of her NOTNEWS crusade. And, as with her other AfDs, she BLUDGEONed editors who dared disagree with her, "Ugh, what an utterly pointless comment on your part." [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2017_Arkema_plant_explosion&diff=799325922&oldid=799324667] ans with a typical Graceful assertion of her personal infallibility "My nomination still proves the subject is not notable for a standalone article" [44] and admonishing long time administrators like User:Bearian. Then, when User:power~enwiki closed the discussion as keep, GracefulSlick scolded him.

• WP:FORUMSHOPing

• After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Dijon attack, Graceful Slick asked User:Sandstein to revise his closing opinion, arguing that fellow editors had made "false claims on coverage and impact; worst still, participates realized this but you appear to still be giving equal weight to those arguments." [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&diff=806355177&oldid=806345306] and " the answer seems obvious to me. That is why I'll need to take this to DR later today unless I have broken through to you. In my experience however, I've only ever done that a handful of times with admins." [45], before taking it to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 October 21.

• Forum Shop by merge discussion without and RfC: Rather than take 2017 Orly Airport attack to AfD, GracefulSlick shose to start a Merge discussion on the talk page, but stubbornly resisted suggestions form other editors that she should make the discussion an RfC. (I was reprimanded for calling it "a sort of stealth delete." [46].) As GracefulSlick BLUDGEONed her way down the page, an administrator began to lose patience with her editing style: [47], [48], [49] , finally saying "I don't consider this to be a valid or appropriate use of merging. " and "recommend(ing) one last time that you start the RfC" [50].

• Forum shopping WP:FORUMSHOP, by starting two discussions at The Village Pump [Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)[# Small addition to WP:NOTNEWS]] and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WP:NOTNEWS (Part II):

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#WP:NOTNEWS_.28Part_II.29 advocating changes to make it easier to delete articles on recent events.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Closure request and forward to ArbCom

This is going absolutely nowhere. It is clear An/I is not going to sort out this issue and the only place left take this is ArbCom. The An/I needs to be able to get back to being able to functioning for its purpose, and keeping this going is preventing that from really happening. I mean the discussion has devolved into the definition of a boomerang. This shows there is no hope of finding a solution here. ArbCom, is the only place left. Sport and politics (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Forward what to ArbCom? We have a proposal to limit EMG to votes but no followup, by Huldra, which generated a great deal of heat, but no visible light: no one supported it save them.

Then we saw a proposal that EMG be limited to three comments per AFD for six months and can appeal the restriction after that time. The three comments allow him to !vote, respond to a critique of his !vote, and/or reply to another editor's !vote but it is up to him on how he will distribute his opportunities. by TGS, which saw only one comment, by JPL, Oppos[ing] any action

This was followed by TD's E.M.Gregory is hereby limited to 250 words for any nomination or initial comment relating to a nomination for deletion at AfD. In addition, E.M Gregory is limited to no more than two follow up comments to any nomination, with these follow up comments each not to exceed 50 words. This restriction to remain in effect for 12 months from the date of implementation of this sanction. — (This hopefully fixes the problem without robbing AfD of EMG's valuable participation.) which got 5 supports, 6 opposes.

The somewhat amorphous suggestions of a boomerang, on the other hand, seem to be running five to three....

Seriously, what is there to bring forward to ArbCom, aside from two schools of WP:IDLI? Anmccaff (talk) 04:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Support Closure and Oppose forward to ArbCom. There are clearly no consensus on anything in this discussion if someone want to file ARBCOM case it their right of course.--Shrike (talk) 07:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment This is likely the only course of action available to us. E.M.Gregory has a fan-club of terrorism/Israel battleground pov-pushers who recognise EMG is their most valuable asset, despite having much less experience and service than them. They know E.M.Gregory is such an important asset not because of a deep understanding of policy or because of enormous intelligence but because of the unrelenting disruption and dishonesty pursued in advancement of their shared cause. They will always go anywhere in numbers to defend EMG. But their mistake is believing Wikipedia is a popularity contest. Voting is no substitute for policy-based consensus. AusLondonder (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You'd think that closing admins who frequently see E.M.Gregory at AfD (as he is a quite regular participant in several topic areas - terror included) - would be able to see through any such alleged disruption and dishonesty if it is a recurring pattern, no?Icewhiz (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • It's always funny how the "other side" is always the battleground pushers. AusLondonder, you do realize you are doing the same thing. Huldra, you, TGS, etc. aren't all tag-teaming here and in AFD's? But God forbid someone be against terror or pro-Israel and suddenly that's a violation of Wiki policies? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Abuse of admin authority by User:NinjaRobotPirate

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

---

NinjaRobotPirate, an admin, reverted my edits on Scott Glenn. I added a birth date, I then sourced the information. He reverted and then threatened to block me if I persisted. He then toned down his threat, but that is still, as far as I am concerned, intimidation. I believe the proper behaviour is to completely recuse himself EITHER from editing the article or making complaints about me OR ELSE forego any and all use of admin privileges in any dispute over this article. I would also want an apology for having abused his authority (but I won't hold my breath)

Links to article diffs:

• My first edit.
• His revert.
• My revert with a second source, IMBD.
• His second revert.
• Revert by an unidentified user.
• His third revert.
• My second revert.
• His fourth revert.
• His message on my talk page.
• Protection of Scott Glen page

Links to article talk page diffs:

• My comment.
• His comment.

Links to my talk page diffs:

• His message on my talk page.
• MAIN COMPLAINT IS HERE Abusive use of his authority.
• His toning down of said abuse.

Thank you.Vincent (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I have just notified NinjaRobotPirate of my complaint. Vincent (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Good work NRP, thanks. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

You attempted to use 2 unreliable sources (imdb and something called "myhowbook.com") to cite a claim about a d.o.b. in a biographical article. Worse than unreliable, those two sites accept material from anyone who submits it. Add edit-warring to the mix and I would not be surprised to see sanctions come your way. ValarianB (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Vfp15: I recommend you withdraw this report, as all it will do is attract attention to your editng there. I think you were probably rather lucky that the same uninvolved admin whom your edit-warring forced to protect the page did not issue you with a block. Either way, as Roxy indicaes above, this is only likely to be endorsed by the community, and as Valarian makes clear, BLP violations are about as gregarious an offence in an article as is possible. Just FYI, of course. — fortunavelut luna 17:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not in any way an abuse of admin authority. Vfp15, you've been here nearly 14 years, someone ought to have told you by now that we require high-quality, reliable sources for all information about living persons. The two sites you used, myhowbook.com and imdb.com, are both sites which freely host user-submitted content with no editorial oversight whatsoever; they are inappropriate to use as sources here. The burden of evidence is on the editor wishing to add information, not the other way around, and improperly sourced information on living persons is required by policy to be removed immediately. NinjaRobotPirate was right to revert your additions. You then edit-warred to restore the poorly sourced information, leading a different administrator to protect the page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Sigh. Since Ivanvector is being too polite to say it, I'll do so; Seriously, you need to chill and accept the concept of best available source goes completely against Wikipedia policy, and given that you've been on Wikipedia even longer than me you don't get to claim the "I wasn't aware of Wikipedia's core policies" defense. If you continue to add information to biographies of living people without a reliable source as we define it, not as you define it, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 17:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Undeclared COI editor constantly adding their website to article

Maceddy (talk · contribs)

Above user clearly has a conflict of interest on Sharon Rich and has now repeatedly readded a link to their website even after I left them a notice on their talk page regarding COI as well as a link to WP:ELNO in one of my edit summaries. They don't seem to understand why that is a bad thing and regardless of my attempts it doesn't seem like they are getting the point as to why that is not acceptable. They also have not declared their obvious conflict of interest. Requesting administrator assistance in this matter. --Majora (talk) 05:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

You're probably right that some of the content is not OK, and I think there may be a notability problem here, but what tells you there's a COI? EEng 05:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Their username matches the website they keep trying to insert. Which, generally, would be enough for an advertising block (at least in past experience). Ms. Rich is also the President of the Mac/Eddy Club, the official website of which is the same website that the account keeps trying to add.

As for notability there already was an AfD. I have been trying to find sourcing when this whole thing came up. --Majora (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Got it. I'd like others to look at the sources listed in AfD and opine on notability. I think this is superficial coverage. EEng 06:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Rich (2nd nomination) Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible copyright violating links issue

I noticed Nemo bis has been inserting many links to zenodo.org e.g.[51] which appears to host user-uploaded copies of journal articles which may be violating publishers' copyright, as it appears to in the link I noticed. In exchanges on their talk page, Nemo bis seems to think there is no problem. Would be grateful if an IPR-savvy colleague could take a look. Alexbrn (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

See below for more context, but Zenodo.org is a legitimate cross-institutional repository for legally depositing papers. Zenodo is not inherently legal for all papers or version of a paper; that determination varies on a paper-by-paper basis depending on the contract, author, institution, journal, date of publication, and version of paper. These rights are nuanced, but generally captured well at Sherpa/Romeo, which indexes precisely this information. Cheers, Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

This thread is about the approach being taken by Nemo bis which has not been appropriate - I share Alexbrn's concern. Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ocaasi (WMF): The question is not whether zenodo.org is legitimate, but hinges on the fact that it (no doubt unwittingly) seems to host a lot of illicit copyrighted content alongside properly permitted content. If Wikipedia links to copyrighted content it gets into the area of risking contributory infringement, which is why policy prohibits it. Is this not an issue? Alexbrn (talk) 05:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

If the site is primarily a repository for legally-uploaded material, as Jake indicates it is above, then we should assume that links are OK unless links to apparently illicit uploads are discovered, in which case they should be removed on a case-by-case basis. Carrite (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

No, people need to use the tool responsibly all that OABOT does is suggest links and it is up to the user to confirm that the suggested link is OK. Zenodo takes no responsibility either. Nobody should assume anything. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• User:Nemo_bis just did it again, in this diff. The link there is to the final published version, and the journal does not permit those to be archived. This person needs a block. We do not make "assumptions" about copyright. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

This led me to go through all their edits adding putatively OA links today

not OK - WP:COPYLINK violations

• diff, added link to final published version of article hosted at Zenodo, not Ok per this
• diff, added link to final published version of article hosted at Zenodo, not Ok per this
• diff, added link to final published version of article hosted at university website, not OK per this
• diff, added link to final published version of article hosted at PACEA (scientific org), not OK per this
• diff, added link to final published version of article hosted at Zenodo, not OK per this
• diff, added link to final published version of article hosted at Zenodo, not OK per this
• diff, added link to final published version of article hosted at Zenodo, not OK per this
• diff, added link to final published version of article hosted at Zenodo, not OK per this and this
• diff, added link to final published version of article hosted at Zenodo, not OK per this and this
• diff and diff added link to final published version of article hosted at Zenodo, not OK per this and this

ok

• diff link to Zenodo that is a manuscript
• diff link to Zenodo that is a manuscript
• diff link to Zenodo that is a manuscript
• diff link to Zenodo that is a manuscript
• diff link to Zenodo that is a manuscript
• diff link to Zenodo that is a manuscript
• diff link to author's website that is a manuscript
• diff link to Zenodo that is OA paper per this
• diff link to Zenodo that is OA paper per this
• diff link to Zenodo that is a manuscript
• diff and diff links to Zenodo that is OA paper per this
• diff and diff links to Zenodo that is a manuscript
• diff and diff links to final published version, OK per sherpa, confirmed at journal) (surprising in light of this)
• diff, link to final proof at Zenodo. probably not OK per this (is not author's last version prior to journal working on it, but meh)

What is that, about 40% policy violations. Not OK, is it. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Vnonymous

Hi, I recently came accross Design Village, I checked the edit history and sources, and concluded the main editor, User:Vnonymous may have been a coi editor. The article which was created in one go, contains a detailed "getting here" section, and borderline promotional claims.

Vnonymous

I tagged it with notabilty and coi tags, these were swiftly reverted.

Most worrying is vnonymous's repeated reverts of any edit to the article.

Please look into this, I am certain anything I do to the article will likely be reverted, and I don't want to edit war over it. Dysklyver 23:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I cut out a large portion of the article and made it into a stub. I don't think Vnonymous looks like a SPA paid editor, but they could be covering paid editing activity with legitimate edits. It's worth an explanation about why they are so protective of that article.--v/r - TP 00:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is another article with questionable content and purpose. See the "pricing" section.--v/r - TP 00:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Another article. This honestly looks like an overly enthusiastic and eager novice editor without refinement from experience in widely trafficked topics trying to get as much information as possible into their new articles.--v/r - TP 00:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The signature issue that they were told about in July needs to be addressed. Vnonymous, please get your signature corrected per WP:SIGLINK. Thank you.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Related to the above, but OABOT more broadly

This is open access week, and lots of people have been using WP:OABOT to add links to putatively open access versions of papers to articles. LOTS.

I keep finding ELNEVER links being inserted.

I understand that some people are very passionate about OA, and that is fine, but copyright is copyright and WP:COPYLINK/WP:ELNEVER is what it is, which is policy with legal considerations.

Many journals allow authors to post pre-prints but unless an article was published OA, journals do not allow the final, published version to be posted.

Examples of such policies are

• Science's, here which says ... 6) Post a copy of the "Accepted Version" of the Work (the version of the paper accepted for publication by AAAS including changes resulting from peer review but prior to AAAS’s copy editing and production) on the Author's personal website or in his/her Institution’s archival database repository, provided a hyperlink to the Work on the Science website is included and provided the "Accepted Version" is marked with the following notice: "This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of the AAAS for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Science Journal Title {VOL#, (DATE)}, doi: {doi number for your manuscript}"
  • Just now someone did this, adding a link to a final, published paper hosted at an academic lab.

• A different AAAS journal, Science Signaling has a similar policy (pre-prints OK, final published version not OK, see here.
  • here someone links to a copy of the final published paper at Zenodo, a repository that puts the onus on uploaders to ensure the copyright is clear per its its terms of use.

• Liebert's policy is here and says authors can post preprints but says in bold: "The final published article (version of record) can never be archived in a repository, preprint server, or research network." The link there is to the final published article.
  • See this followed this, hosted at author's faculty website. (someone re-added the link, after I removed it the first time)

I have reverted maybe 15 of these in the past couple of days and have not checked all these edits that appeared on my watchlist. I don't have time to review every one of those OA bot edits but am concerned.

Should WP:OABOT be paused until it can be tweaked to better prevent the addition of WP:COPYLINK/ WP:ELNEVER links, or better instructions given to make people double check its suggestions before implementing them? Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for raising reasonable questions about copyright, Jytdog. The OAwiki campaign (oawiki.org, links to Meta) uses OAbot (oabot.org) to present readers with a "best guess" at a legal, free-to-read version of a paywalled citation.

The tool then lets an individual, logged-in editor add the link after they deterimine: 1) the existing citation is indeed closed access; 2) the suggested link is actually free-to-read and functional; 3) the two sources match; and 4) the suggested link is likely copyright compliant. Those instructions are on every OAbot page where a suggestion is presented, and links directly to our guidance on determining copyright ([oawiki.org/copyright oawiki.org/copyright], links to Meta).

Each paper has to be determined on a case-by-case basis by a human (otherwise it would just be an actual bot), because determining licensing involves variables related to the institution, author, journal, date of publication, and version of an article. The way editors can best assess copyright compliance is with Sherpa/Romeo, a website that indexes these fine-grained re-publication rights: http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/index.php. That link is front and center in the oawiki.org/copyright instructions linked on every page of OAbot.

I hope this helps explain what is going on. This open access week event is nearing a close and editing activity has slowed down dramatically. With all the usage of the tool, we have a new list of features we want to implement over the next year, and are happy to work with any editor on implementing them! Cheers, Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your work on these edits. I run this tool and am happy to collaborate on tweaking the instructions given to its users. We can surely pause OAbot, but it is currently running out of candidate edits anyway (so I suspect we will not make than a few more hundreds of edits for this campaign, reaching about 2000 edits). Pinging Ocaasi (WMF) and Lauren maggio who are involved in the project. Cheers. − Pintoch (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

In short no. The bot does its job, and it does it well [tweaks are always possible, however]. If people abuse the bot, it's people who need to be educated about not abusing it. Also, as I've mentioned previously, author's personal pages are not repositories, preprint servers, or research networks, and fall well within fair use. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd quibble with that. Each edit is made by an individual editor and it is their job to determine copyright compliance as best they can. That doesn't mean OAbot is absolved of responsibility; we should be doing as good a job as possible to present good suggestions in the tool, and to help editors make a smart judgement.

You're right that author webpages differ at times from repositories, but they are no different in being inherently "fair use" (a term which couldn't automatically override ELNEVER). Author webpage republishing rights is also something indexed precisely in Sherpa/Romeo, which again we link to in the instructions on every page of OAbot where you can make an edit. The bot does do its job well, but this is a good time to figure out how it can be made even better. Cheers, Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Right, so in the instance mentioned here in the section above, the placement of final-form copies of articles from the journal Bioethics is a copyright violation,[52] and Nemo bis linking to these uploads is a no-no - and the flippant disregard for the issue they show on their use Talk page compounds the problem. Digging a little deeper, it appears WMF Italy may have been encouraging authors into incautious uploads of copyrighted content[53] which might have been at least, unwise. Alexbrn (talk) 07:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Alexbrn, calling that "encouraging authors into incautious uploads of copyrighted content" is inaccurate as the authors were encouraged to respect the publisher's self-archiving policy. Of course it is possible that some authors disregarded or misunderstood this, so it is totally possible that some uploads have issues. Cheers. − Pintoch (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Pintoch I don't see that at all. From the blog post I link: "the message thanked them for contributing sources to Wikipedia, presented them with the dilemma of a simple volunteer editor who wants to link an open access copy for all Wikipedia users to see, and asked to check the publication on Dissemin to read more about its legal status and to deposit it." [my bold]. My first check on Dissemin was the bioethics article I mentioned and the record[54] is wrong (or circularly points to the zenodo copy for a kind of copyright-laundering). As to "it is possible that some authors disregarded or misunderstood this" - it takes two to communicate and all I am seeing from the enablers of this problem is arrogant brush offs and protestations it's nothing to do with them. We have a situation where copyright violating links are now in place. What do we do? Does WP take this seriously, or does it just shrug? Alexbrn (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Alexbrn First, the reason why the author was encouraged to deposit their paper is that the publisher's policy allows this, for some version of the paper (preprint, and postprint after an 2 years embargo period). So, it is absolutely fine to encourage a deposit in general: it would only be wrong to encourage depositing the published version (whose self-archival seems prohibited indeed). The message did mention that the user should take into account the publisher's policy (legal status). So, based on this account of the email at least, I don't see anything wrong. Then, can you tell me exactly what is wrong with https://dissem.in/p/90867516/homeopathy-is-unscientific-and-unethical-homeopathy-is-unscientific-and-unethical ? It does point to the Zenodo copy, because the article is indeed available there now that the article has been deposited via Dissemin to Zenodo. That is totally intended: Dissemin tries to assess the availability of this article on the web, so if it knows about a copy, it displays it (and that is by no means an assessment of the copyright status of this copy - I don't really understand why you consider it to be a kind of copyright-laundering). When the user has used Dissemin to deposit the paper, of course this link was not there (because the paper had not been deposited yet) and the publisher's policy was displayed to them (pretty much like https://dissem.in/b/7/wiley, you can try for yourself by attempting to deposit this paper yourself), and they have had to select which of the three versions they were depositing. Most major scholarly repositories are much less explicit about publisher policies than that. So, I really do not see where we have failed to communicate here. If you have any concrete suggestions of changes of wording in the emails or the interface of Dissemin, we can discuss them. Sorry if these explanations read like an arrogaant brush off, that is totally not my intention: I am just trying to help you narrow down your accusation to a concrete breach on our side, so that we can identify it and do better next time. Cheers − Pintoch (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you're giving an arrogant brush off, but that's what I got when I raised the issue (see section above). I don't know what's in the emails so I can't propose wording - all I know is what is reported in that blog post, which seems - as I said - incautious. I can also see what, in reality, has happened. The breach here is because the journal Bioethics does not allow re-distribution of final-form published articles, but that is what apparently has been done. It is a kind of copyright-laundering because as a result of this apparent breach, the Dissemin site is now saying that PDF is available as a "green" open resource. This is just one example. What's to be done? Alexbrn (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you please point me to any indication that Dissemin claims anything about the legal status of the PDF files it points to? It's easy to add a section in the FAQ to clarify that if you want. Do you also accuse search engines like Google Scholar or BASE to do some "copyright laundering" by pointing to the files they index? Also, I don't think this discussion really belongs here as Wikipedia administrators don't have much to do with Dissemin itself (but OAbot yes of course). − Pintoch (talk) 09:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The indication comes from having a green icon (which colour is associated with free usage) and a download button which gets you the PDF for free (apparently a copyvio). If authors are directed to dissemin to find out about a document's legal status, what do you think they would conclude from the way the article download is presented in this case? Alexbrn (talk) 10:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• The problem here is that the tool (it is a tool) can be used with care or carelessly. My take is that Pintoch and Ocasi are being pretty reasonable and they are saying that they have tried to make it as easy as possible to use with care, but nobody can help it if somebody buys a hammer and smashes someone's head in with it. Or, "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

I encourage people to check out OABOT - it is here.

a) the tool appears to be built to encourage rapid processing of opportunities, and not to build in caution. I think more caution should be built in.

b) for example, there is no warning on the bot working page, that adding a link to an unauthorized version is a violation of WP:COPYLINK, and that adding such links can lead to a block of the user - that the user is responsible for their use of the tool

c) there should also be a warning that it is not common for the published version to be open access, and users should check carefully to ensure that if the bot suggests a link to the final published versions, that the user should check to make sure it is OK.

d) the link to "sherpa" is not right there on the working page. Instead, a link to sherpa is provided in this page that is linked-to from the bot page. That does not encourage use of sherpa. (is it possible for the sherpa results to be presented on the bot working page?)

-- Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this constructive feedback! Most of this can be done (including presenting sherpa results on the tool itself), with some work. I will see what I can do. − Pintoch (talk) 09:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

On my talk page by User:Saluspopuli  (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) here Saluspopuli removed appearanlty sourced content which I restored here and then I got that notice. It does appear there is considerable BLP issues on the article. Jim1138 (talk) 11:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Another by the same author here Jim1138 (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 11:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Gross incivility

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

---

See User talk:MjolnirPants#Abusive, Mean and Petty. This incident started with MjolnirPants (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverting the implementation of several deletion discussions, each time ((1, 2 and 3) with a comment of "fuck the (category) police".

I attempted to engage MjolnirPants and to offer an alternative solution, but he did not respond for a week while obviously continuing to monitor his user talk page and continuing to revert. I thought the initial "fuck the (category) police" comments, though technically condescending and disparaging, were supposed to be a play on words (see Fuck tha Police) and not directed to anyone in particular, and so I did not caution the user for incivility at the time. However, I was wrong, and today he told me and two other users to "fuck right off", and after I tried again to start a conversation and cautioned him about civility, to "Fuck. Off.".

The user's behavior is aggressive, condescending and disrespectful, and he clearly feels unconstrained by a need to be civil or to engage in any sort of meaningful conversation. As I could now be considered "involved" in the dispute (the last "fuck off" was directed at me), I am asking for an uninvolved admin to intervene. I am also pinging User:Marcocapelle and User:VegaDark, who were the first users told to "fuck off". Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps MjolnirPants could be topic banned from using the word "fuck", which might motivate the editor to actually communicate with their fellow editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Many good editors find user categories to be an amusing distraction that helps bond the community in a harmless way. Others take a more formal view, namely that categories serve a higher purpose and must not be used for anything other than useful navigation. I think people enforcing the rules about categories should cut the other side a lot of slack—when it boils down to it, a few misplaced user categories have no negative effect on the encyclopedia. On the other hand, forcing good editors to submit (and submit now) over trivia is harmful for a collegial community. Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MP, the Category Police should leave peoples user pages alone. What they are doing is abusive, mean and petty, and they should do their fiddling about elsewhere. Telling them to fuck right off seems to be the only way to stop them. -Roxy the dog. bark 07:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Though I agree that the Category Police should cease the annoying and unproductive meddling, I don't think screaming obscenities at people is a good response. Reyk _YO! 07:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure, many feel that way, but I think what is happening is the opposite of screaming. -Roxy the dog. bark 07:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Nominating categories for deletion based on a guideline that received consensus, receiving consensus to delete that category, and following through with the deletion is abusive? I suppose it's not abuse when you implied we should be murdered though, right? VegaDark (talk) 08:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

"Implied we should be murdered"? You can either provide a diff for that immediately (and something stronger than We need a Judge Dredd type to go and sort out those fiddlers) or retract it with an appropriate apology, or I'll have no hesitation in blocking you—you don't make an allegation like that without evidence, especially on a highly-watched page like ANI. ‑ Iridescent 08:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

when I said Judge Dredd type, I meant "OrangeMike" -Roxy the dog. bark 08:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

If that's the case, you should have been much more clear. I have absolutely no frame of reference for what you were/are referring to other than knowing OrangeMike is a Wikipedia user. VegaDark (talk) 08:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, how else was I supposed to interpret that? Judge Dredd goes out and "Judges" people and then executes them. Is Judge Dredd known for something other than that that I'm not aware of? VegaDark (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Ending mutant apartheid. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. And to Dredd at least, the crime isn't life... — fortunavelut luna 09:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It's still early in the day (here) and we've already reached peak ANI for the day! Alexbrn (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• I think it's important to highlight there are two different issues here that should not be conflated. The issue that brought this to AN/I is MjolnirPants' gross incivility and reverts on his talk page of anyone trying to discuss the issue civilly. The second issue is regarding if it is appropriate to be re-adding himself to user categories that have been deleted by consensus. No matter how you feel about the second issue, I hope nobody would excuse MjolnirPants's obviously inappropriate response to the good faith concerns brought up on his talk page, which I think should be the primary thing discussed here. It would be my position that he needs to be blocked should he continue to act uncivilly and refuse to even discuss the issue in good faith. VegaDark (talk) 08:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• A third issue is which causes more damage to the encyclopedia—a few categories on the pages of good editors, or forcing such editors to submit, and submit now. Johnuniq (talk) 08:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Well, we had a well participated RfC on user categories pretty recently, which ended in no consensus to change the existing guideline. So I guess our choices are to enforce the guideline or not. I choose to help enforce the guideline as it is my honest belief that doing so helps improve the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 08:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Da category police, at the scene of the latest fun-crime -- Begoon

• Category police should fuck right off. Essentially this is a problem entirely of the gnomes own making, user lists joke red-linked category on their userpage, it shows up on a list that the gnomes like to see empty (because, you know, gnomes), so they either create the category or bitch about it until the user removes it. When the category is created (either directly or as a redirect by the gnome due to the user not playing their silly games), another gnome with too much time on their hands comes along and nominates it for deletion. Cycle continues. So frankly, fuck da category police. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Tell me about it. I'm something of a gnome myself, but all of my gnomery is in the mainspace and improves articles. I don't get up in peoples' business and neither should the User Space Cops. Reyk _YO! 08:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I was hoping that some script kiddie would do one of those pic comparisons between Dredd and Orange Mike with the captions swapped. Would anybody notice? -Roxy the dog. bark 09:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• MP's use of language here is clearly not against current community standards. Some of us may consider that to be regrettable. But it's not the place of an action against one specific editor to address that. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

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

AnonMoos doesn't have to follow the policies

Despite different editors having asked for reliable sources at Talk:Ophidiophobia for fictional additions, one editor, AnonMoos has persistently reverted and *NOT* given any reason founded in policy or guideline but would rather just debate. After I removed the uncited material and pointed out WP:BURDEN, I was told that I had given a tirade that was filled with original research and he repeatedly reverts. The editor seems to have serious issues and I would appreciate more eyes on this. Multiple requests for these sources have occurred in different threads on the talk page but the most pertinent begins here. WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS need enforcement. And from what I've read, AnonMoos doesn't belong on article talk pages "helping" at this point.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Berean_Hunter is playing an unhelpful role on this article, launching into an inaccurate and shallow ranting tirade filled with non-factual information and original research on the article talk page, and claiming that as a basis for removing material from the article. He's already declared in advance that he will completely disregard any sources that conflict with his inaccurate personal opinions (see this edit), so I really don't know why I should exert myself trying to find any on that basis.

The basic fact is that Indiana Jones is the fictional poster-boy for Ophidiophobia in the same way that Dr. Strangelove is for Alien hand syndrome ("hence the condition's common association with the character"), and anyone with a real interest in improving the Ophidiophobia article would be trying to support the fact, not remove it... AnonMoos (talk) 03:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

This is an editing dispute that doesn't need ANI intervention. Indiana Jones' dislike of snakes is well-known, but asking for a reference isn't unreasonable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

No. Policy has been violated...WP:BURDEN. I have asked for admin enforcement of that policy and since it is frowned upon when admins engage in self-help, this is the right place. After multiple requests, this needs to be met. "Indiana Jones' dislike of snakes is well-known" means that you haven't realized that this isn't the right article for that claim...and haven't read or understood the threads.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Power~enwiki -- inserting a "citation needed" tag (something that no one has actually done) would be perfectly reasonable, but deleting the mention from the article borders on the unreasonable, and deleting the mention from the article based on Berean_Hunter's inaccurate personal opinions is pretty close to nonsensical. AnonMoos (talk) 03:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Your response to another editor's continued polite requests for sources was met with this condescension, "Unfortunately, your abstract metaphysical devotion to the theoretical Platonic idea of exalted Wikipedia sourcing ideals, combined with your complete and utter ignorance of what is actually being discussed, is what I find to be somewhat off-putting (it certainly does not practically move things along in a constructive direction that will clearly lead to the real world improvement of the article)..."

This is a behavioral issue if you refuse to follow policies and just revert.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

You've already declared in advance that you'll completely disregard any sources which disagree with your inaccurate personal opinions, so that sure doesn't provide me with any incentive to find such. The Ophidiophobia of Indiana Jones isn't quite in WP:BLUE territory, but it's clearly verging towards it -- many tens of millions of ordinary viewers of the movies are clear that the character fears snakes, yet people come along on the Ophidiophobia page and don't add a "citation needed" tag, but rather create unnecessary antagonism by insisting on completely deleting any mention of this from the article. AnonMoos (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

This is, of course, primarily a content dispute that should be resolved by more collaborative talk page discussion, an RfC, or other forms of dispute resolution. That being said, it is really quite remarkable that AnonMoos has spent nearly eight years defending an unsourced psychiatric diagnosis of a fictional character in an article about a phobia. Berean Hunter criticizes this content quite calmly and reasonably, and AnonMoos responds by calling their argument a "ranting tirade" and "semi-incoherent". Am I alone in perceiving that assessment as just plain wrong and excessively hostile? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Bingo. That is why there are CIR issues that I'm hoping others figure out. I haven't looked at his other interactions but I really hope he isn't like this elsewhere. I've realized that talking to him is fruitless and that is why I'm here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328 -- if you consider Berean_Hunter's article talk page comments "calm and reasonable", then your perception of reality would appear to have few points of contact with mine (I would consider them condescending and error-filled). However, I'm not a psychologist, and I'm not pretending to offer a professional diagnosis -- just stating the fact (which seems extremely obvious to me, and probably millions of others) than the Indiana Jones movies clearly convey the message that the character hates and fears snakes. Deleting material from the article based on ignoring this obvious fact does not seem like a constructive move to me. AnonMoos (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

No, AnonMoos. No. Core content policy requires that a factual assertion which has been challenged must be backed by a reference to a reliable source, and in an article about a medical topic, that needs to be an impeccably reliable source. So, I suggest that you either provide such a source post haste or step aside. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

(ec) "you'll completely disregard any sources which disagree with your inaccurate personal opinions"...nope, that is being done to make sure that the sources are quality and not some forum, movie critic or imdb page. Fancruft really works to undermine an article that is supposed to be on a serious subject. However, if you could find a quality source then we should be able to agree collectively. Right now, you have been a consensus of one that has reverted multiple editors who have a collective consensus which is already backed in policy.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

There's been other stuff on the article from time to time which could be called fancruft, but Indiana Jones is not "fancruft", since it's the well-known single phobia of an otherwise almost fearless character who is the main title character of one the biggest-grossing movie series of all time... AnonMoos (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I suggested a couple of sources at the talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• My 2¢ Pretty much what Cullen wrote ^^^^^. This is not rocket science or something that requires a degree in wiki-law. Any claim of fact that is not obviously non-controversial requires a citation to a reliable source. If a claim of fact that is not cited is challenged then a citation must be added before it can be re-added to the article. End of story. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Random people coming along and deleting random passages from an article does not necessarily create a "controversy" when there is no actual controversy in the real world outside Wikipedia. Look at WP:BLUE... AnonMoos (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Persistent edit warring and blatant BLP violation

Can someone please (a) fix the article move (from Laura Skandera Trombley to WrinklesTheDog and her amazing adventures) and (b) block Biomimix who initiated this move and has persistently edited this article with a clear POV without any participation in Talk and using multiple obvious sockpuppets (e.g., User:Windwillows, User:FrankDelanor)? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I have already tagged Laura Skandera Trombley for G6 speedy. According to the user's contribs, they appear to be a single-purpose account whose only contributions are in this article. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 21:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Page moved back to original name, editor blocked 3 days. Considered indef'ing as NOTHERE but didn't. If another admin feels more is warranted, go for it. No comment on the possible socking. -- ferret (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Ferret, I think your block duration is fine. If the user continues the behavior, it's very easy to re-instate a longer / indefinite block. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring to reinsert promotional linkspam

Over the past several days, User:7dcf has been on a linkspam campaign that inserted between 40 and 45 links to film reviews by James Berardinelli of ReelViews. These apparently promotional links — virtually the only edits he made — were reverted and a message was placed on his talk page advising him that these edits were inappropriate. Two more editors commenting on his talk page told him likewise. He responded at 21:22 and 22:51, 27 October 2017‎, and seemed to indicate he understood — yet within five minutes, began edit-warring to restore those same roughly 43 edits.

Not only that, but after having said, "I promise I won't add any new [Bernardinelli] reviews anymore," he did so again here and here here!

Even if his edits were not intended to be promotional, they still wildly violate WP:LINKSPAM. Since he's choosing to ignore not one but three editors, and to both edit-war and break a promise to discontinue his inappropriate edits, I believe it's necessary to ask for admin intervention before this editor creates more unnecessary work to undo promotional links. I thank you for any help.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to wait for 7dcf to respond here before I decide on the appropriate action that should be taken. This obviously isn't meant to prevent any other admin from taking action if they feel waiting isn't needed, but I'd like to wait and give the user the opportunity to respond here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

StuRat's behaviour on the Reference Desks (again)

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

---

The recent RFC at the Village Pump (moved from ANI) is depicted as a problem with the Reference Desks themselves, rather than a problem that could be solved by "silencing one or the other side". I would argue however that this is exactly the solution, and that it has been for several years at least: ban StuRat (talk · contribs) from the Reference Desks.

Complaints against StuRat date back to 2006, when the Reference Desks were indeed what people accuse them of being now, just a random place where people gave random answers and treated it like a personal forum. Back in those days some editors turned it into a useful Reference Desk with referenced answers, and StuRat was opposed and has been opposed ever since - Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/StuRat

A second RFC was created along the same lines in 2007, when StuRat was mentioned as particularly disruptive - Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/StuRat 2

(A 3rd request for comment in 2007 was started and deleted.)

Last year there was a proposal for sanctions against StuRat here on ANI - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive283#Proposed_sanctions_against_StuRat

One recent example of unhelpful answers: [55]

I knew that was utter nonsense, easily solved even with a cursory search of information available on Wikipedia, nevermind outside references. This is just one thing that I happen to be familiar with and StuRat is not; other users can point out where he makes obvious mistakes in their own areas of expertise. (But this is in fact the problem – when he responds to everything, there’s no way to know if he’s being helpful or not.)

If we attempt to discuss this with StuRat, he believes that he is being unfairly attacked. Telling him that he is wrong or doesn’t know what he’s talking about are seen as “incivility”. Calling him out on the Reference Desk is seen as “arguing in front of the OP”, which is apparently a great sin to be avoided. As a result it is impossible to discuss the issue with him in public or in private. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support Strong support (see below) a topic ban from the reference desks, unsurprisingly. StuRat's incompetence and refusal to admit that there's any topic in which he's not an expert, coupled with his obsessively single-minded focus on the reference desks (this year alone he has roughly 5000 edits to the RDs and 500 edits to all the rest of Wikipedia combined) are in my opinion the primary driver of the RDs' reputation as a hive of trolls and incompetents. (I honestly don't even need to provide diffs to support this claim; just pick diffs at random from his contribution history at the RDs.) Given that he's had a decade to do so, I think we've long since passed the point of hoping that he will develop competence over time. Bluntly, if things continue on their present course the Reference Desks will be shut down or moved off-wiki in the relatively near future; without their most disruptive element present, they at least have a chance of becoming the valuable resource they ought to be. ‑ Iridescent 18:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Having now seen the comment pointed out below by MarnetteD, changing to "strong support" for a total ban from the RDs at minimum, and I wouldn't be averse to a complete site ban. "Attitude problem" doesn't begin to cover it; if you really see Wikipedia as a "skirmish" in which your task is to defeat "opponents" you're not welcome here, and if you haven't figured this out for yourself after a decade you're never going to. ‑ Iridescent 09:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I think the reference to "skirmish" is minimally problematic if problematic at all. Sorry but I think you and MarnetteD have got this wrong. Bus stop (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• " the RDs' reputation as a hive of trolls and incompetents." {{cn}}

I've no disagreement as to StuRat. However do the RefDesks really have such a reputation? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Certainly, at least among some. While I opposed WP:VPP#RfC: Should the Reference Desks be closed?, the comments of those arguing in support of shutting it down altogether as beyond salvation—and the not insignificant additional support for allowing it to continue to exist but kicking it off Wikipedia—shouldn't be dismissed. ‑ Iridescent 18:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. The need to "score points" in regard to a deceased Wikipedian here Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Passing of a great contributor just exacerbates the concerns mentioned above. MarnetteD|Talk 18:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised by your saying "score points". You are misreading the comment containing the reference to "skirmish". Human interaction is often adversarial. Honesty and forthrightness with a tinge of sadness is what I read into StuRat's reference to "skirmish". I think StuRat is bemoaning the fact that someone he once argued with is no longer on this plane of existence. I think you've got to cut someone some slack when you encounter a colloquialism in their speech. Bus stop (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Or "perhaps" I'm reading it correctly. You are free to "cut some slack" or put Lipstick on a pig regarding that post. I, and others, are also free to see it as offensive and note it as such in this thread. MarnetteD|Talk 17:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I said he "will be missed", it was Adam's response to mine that was an attempt to "score points" by baiting me into an argument, but I refused to engage in an argument there. StuRat (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Offensive, or in poor taste? In poor taste or clumsy? Bus stop (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
          • Or just accurate. MarnetteD|Talk 17:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
            • No, it is inaccurate. One cannot score points with a deceased person. This is axiomatic. Bus stop (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
              • I should have mentioned that your pointing out that StuRat treats the R/Ds as "adversarial" and a place to "skirmish" is a good reason that he should be topic banned from posting on them. That is also a good argument for closing them as that is not what they are for. MarnetteD|Talk 18:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• The process of proposing answers, supporting them, and refuting others is necessarily somewhat adversarial. I, unlike many others, do at least attempt to keep it civil. Compare it to a trial, where each side provides evidence, but neither is allowed to insult the other side. That's the best we can hope for. Incidentally, articles are similar, with a somewhat adversarial atmosphere on their talk pages. Again, the best we can hope for is that everybody keeps it civil. StuRat (talk) 04:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I've gotta say, the complaint rings true. I only drop in at the ref desk once a year if that. About a month ago I popped in at Ref Desk/Mathematics and sure enough, here's StuRat answering a question (one that should probably not have been answered at all) with complete nonsense on something he obviously knows nothing about [56] – obvious to everyone but him, it seems. [57] EEng 18:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I've sampled StuRat's other contributions and it's true – it's mostly more of the same. It's amazing how free he feels to just spout off whatever pops into his head (sometimes preceded by "I'm just guessing...", but usually not). A particularly amazing example:

What did the Nazis do to people who were ethnically non-Jewish but who converted to Judaism at some point in their lives? Were they killed immediately, were they forced to do hard labor, or were they allowed to denounce their Jewish religion in exchange for getting their lives spared? I know that ethnicity was the main benchmark that Nazis used to determine Jews, rather than religion. Thus people like Edith Stein and Irene Nemirovsky were killed despite being Christians by religion. Futurist110 (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that "Aryan" converts would be treated as "traitors to their race", so just as badly. StuRat (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

To be blunt, who the fuck cares what StuRat "suspects"? What in the world use does he think his lame-brained armchair guess is? In a later rehash of this elsewhere he asserts

My answer is probably right. If somebody finds a source which says that the Nazis treated those who converted to Judaism significantly differently, then fine, but, failing that, my answer is a good best guess. As such, it's better than no answer at all.

No, see, it's not. His speculations are an embarrassent to the whole project. EEng 22:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Did you really need to go back over 5 years to find something I said you disagreed with so strongly ? And that "rehash elsewhere" was on my Talk Page, which is the correct place for this type of thing. StuRat (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

That's what so sad about it. I picked a random complaint from your talk page, and that egregious example was it. The fact is, everywhere I look in your contributions and talk page it's always the same. Elsewhere in the thread you refer to the various times you didn't just make something up, but that doesn't help. "Your Honor, in response to the allegation that I'm a terrible doctor who just gives patients random advice, here's a list of some patients I didn't kill." EEng 03:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, that would be a great defense. If a doctor is accused of killing 5 patients, and he only had 10 patients, that's pretty bad. But, if he had 10,000 patients, and only 5 died, that's not so bad, especially if they were very difficult cases to deal with. Ideally, we'd have stats about exactly how many OP's were happy with my answers, but we don't gather such stats, unfortunately. (There is the "thanks" feature added recently, but I doubt if most Ref Desk posters even know it's there, much less how to use it.) And note that most mistakes don't involve "killing the patient", or, in Ref Desk terms, convincing the OP to never use Wikipedia again. A typical doctor's mistake, like writing a prescription nobody can read, would be corrected by others asking for a clarification, and nobody dies. Same at the Ref Desk. StuRat (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Stu - look up QED. -- Begoon 15:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

StuRat, To expand on what Begoon's saying, the confusion in your answer is itself evidence of your failure to get what's wrong after all these years. The appropriate analogy is that you're doctor with 10,000 patients; an attempt to sample various patients' records show that in almost every case looked at your advice is incoherent, outside your specialty, and/or downright dangerous; and in response you list 50 patients who received competent care. So no, that's not a good defense. EEng 18:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

If it was truly a random sampling, perhaps (but even then you'd need a large enough sample to avoid sampling errors, which is typically somewhere around 1100, not 5). But, I see no reason to think that any of this is random sampling. Take the diffs from 5 years ago involving NAZIs, am I supposed to think that was just a dart thrown at a board ? No, it's not, it's cherry-picking from a very large base, which can be used to support pretty much any position you want. StuRat (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I have a degree in statistics, so you can save your amateur ideas about sampling, given that you were able to assert (as I linked above) that statistics is a "field where you can just memorize formulas and apply them". The significance of the Nazi episode, as with the here's-some-career-advice-though-I-haven't-the-foggiest-clue-what-I'm-talking-about incident, is that even now you haven't the sense to say, "Yeah, I guess I was way off base with those." No sampling is needed to conclude from that that (a) you don't know your own limitations and (b) you just don't learn. EEng 20:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Was that an invitation to go backwards from the last week and onwards, in order to find similar but more recent issues? That may not have been a wise move. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. I share EEng's observations. StuRat tends to talk a lot of crap on the RDs, to our detriment. That's damaging, and a topic ban might prevent it. -- Begoon 19:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support, with slight reluctance. The thread EEng links to just above is a doozy, and it's not the only one. My slight reluctance arises from the opinion that a greater problem is a few individuals whose dominant activity on en:wp is asking inane questions on the ref desks (I'm thinking especially of one registered user and one IP). But the proposed topic ban would at least be a start at improving the SNR at the ref desks. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Support. I really didn't want to end up supporting this, but Iridescent seems to have it just right here. Looking at the recent history of several of the ref desks, I see them swamped by StuRat, answering everything in sight with little competence in the actual subjects of the questions. I also see personal opinions, speculation, off-topic rambling - and even offering nonsensical life advice to someone he doesn't know concerning a subject in which he is clearly not an expert! It's like he's treating the ref desks as his own personal Agony aunt column. I'm sad to say it, but I think the ref desks would be better with not so much StuRat in them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

  I just want to add a few thoughts, partly based on comments from User:Baseball Bugs, below. At the village pump discussion on whether to close the ref desks, I commented on what I saw as a similar situation. User:Jayron32 then made the good point that what we're really talking about is moderation, and that's something that's most likely impossible using a community consensus model - a consensus-seeking discussion over the appropriateness of each specific question and answer isn't going to be effective, and I can't see how attempts to reform the way inappropriate contributions are handled as achieving anything other than constant arguing and even edit warring. To get to Bugs' comments, I also strongly dislike the idea of excluding editors from parts of the project - and I'm aware of the fact that many of us here don't contribute at the ref desks and so the view that we shouldn't be telling ref desk people what to do is a reasonable one (though I don't agree with it). The problem I see is that, without the ability to formally moderate the desks, all we have (other than closing the desks) is the very blunt tool of excluding problematic contributors (as identified by community consensus). And as the only real tool we have, I think the only hope for the long-term survival of the ref desks is to use it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

  PS: I've updated my support to a strong one, after seeing this update from User:Iridescent and reading the linked interaction. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support. My opinion has not changed since my WP:AN report from last year (linked by the OP), and this is one positive step we can make towards making the reference desks salvageable. Hopefully the first of many such steps? Tevildo (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. StuRat's contributions to the math reference desk (the only part I frequent) are frequently either wrong or vacuous; misunderstanding the question and providing rambling non-answers after someone else has provided a correct, concise answer with references are common. (Diffs available on request of any administrator.) There's lots of crap behavior on the refdesk, but the sheer volume and consistent poorness of StuRat's contributions makes him an unusually problematic contributor. Also, as several people have noted, he is completely hostile to any attempts to change his behavior. Banning him would certainly be a major improvement. --JBL (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose a topic ban. StuRat does seem compelled to answer every question, no matter how inappropriate, posted at the ref desks, but he's not malicious, and he has the ability to contribute constructively when he puts the effort in. He's certainly not alone in the answer every question/tolerate all nonsense crowd, and when these questions are closed, he's not the only one to insist on re-opening them. I'd much rather see an admin close/delete the nonsense threads that he chooses to entertain than punish him for good-faith if over-eager contributions, which can also be handled on an as necessary ad hoc manner. Nothing more than admonishment and supervision is called for. A topic ban means admins have allowed the matter of nonsense questions to fester too long, and reflect poorly on the overseers as much as the bait-takers. μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Noting Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Straw poll: Topic ban for Medeis / μηδείς for context. — fortunavelut luna 21:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

What is the point of your innuendo? You'll notice that the complaint there (closed) was that I remove too much stuff. Does that somehow preclude me from saying admins should be closing nonsense rather than topic banning just a single user who entertains such threads? If anything, the fact that StuRat even voted in favor of banning me from closing nonsense threads (i.e., we are in strong disagreement, not allies supporting each other) would give added weight to my argument that topic banning him is not the proper solution. μηδείς (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, the problem (which does exist, it's not just StuRat here, most editors there include myself are contributing to the problem to some degree) is caused by the way the Ref Desk is set up, which invites forum like discussions. So, what is happening is to be expected. People who have the time to invest a lot of time in the Ref Desk will end up giving their opinions more. If we take a look at the StackExchange website, you see that the format chosen there works better to address this problem. Comments are separated from answers, answers are judged by a voting system and the OP can choose the best answer. Answerers gain reputation points based on the points they get for their answers. What makes the Ref Desk particularly vulnerable to this problem is the fact that there aren't a lot of questions asked compared to the number of contributors. This makes each new question a de-facto new forum topic for the regulars to start posting on. Perhaps we can do one simple thing to improve things, if all Ref Deskers also start to contribute to StackExchange like I've been doing, then that may change the way answers are given in general. At least that's my personal experience. Count Iblis (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems worth noting that so far both oppose votes appear to agree entirely with the substantive analysis of StuRat's behavior, they just think disruptive behavior shouldn't be sanctionable. --JBL (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

yeah, that's kinda where I stand, but I'm starting to wonder ... Stu: being familiar with your hyperactivity at the desks for over ten years now, and being familiar with criticism of your tendency to shoot from the lip for an equal period of time ... I've hardly seen any acknowledgement, let alone change of behavior on your part. At the same time, I've seen you give correct and referenced replies. If you agreed to henceforth think and research before you post (which we cannot check) and include references (which we can), or not post at all when you're unable to do either, I would oppose banning you from the desks. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Look, if someone, say me, is posting something on the Ref Desk that is disruptive, then the first line of action should be to remove those disruptive contributions. If this behavior by me would persist, then it would be a simple straightforward AN/I discussion that would lead to a ban. So, the solution is to intervene on the basis of clear red lines that are based on truly disruptive behavior. Now, StuRat's behavior is, I think, more about him not sticking to informal rules regarding references the other regulars want to stick to, it's not like his behavior is chasing away the OPs who actually ask questions there. The last time I looked as his talk page I saw a huge amount of positive feedback from such OPs. Should StuRat slow a bit down, especially on topics he's not an expert on? Absolutely, but as long as his contributions are not causing problems, and OPs are able to skip what he's writing if they want references and he's not giving any, then why bother? Count Iblis (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the a huge amount of positive feedback on his talkpage, check the timestamps as he keeps anything vaguely complimentary on the page forever. As best I can tell working up from the bottom, the most recent post on his talkpage that isn't a complaint about his conduct was from you in December 2016, and the most recent post that could be construed as positive feedback is from April 2016. And no, the issue isn't his failure to reference, it's that if he doesn't know the answer to a question he just makes stuff up and then becomes aggressive if anyone points out that he's wrong. ‑ Iridescent 21:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

That's not quite an accurate description of my opinion, JBL. I believe the disruption is at root the allowance of nonsense questions (does this suit make me look overdressed?) and requests for advice (how do I open a business?) that should be referred to lawyers and accountants. If such questions were removed, they wouldn't have answers. And currently when such questions are removed, StuRat is far from the only user who will restore them. If Stu gives an off-topic or non-responsive answer, it can be hatted or maybe even, with consensus, be removed on that basis. But the main problem is IP's and newly created accounts adding bullshit to the desks with no oversight. I thing a pending edit system for IP's and new accounts would go a long way to solving a much bigger problem. If trolls couldn't post without review of their questions, we'd have a lot fewer occasions for this behavior. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

An alternative to removing a question is to give a curt but well thought out reply. "How do I open a business?" Response: In the USA you might start at the U.S. Small Business Association website. A google search for "How do I open a business?" reveals several other approaches. End of story. No drama. No need to even hat the question. This requires a behavioral change in those fielding questions at the Reference desks. We should take the blabber out of Reference desk threads. We are not Quora. Our Reference desks are an active extension of the encyclopedia. We should be thinking of ourselves that way. Bus stop (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support and I look forward to seeing a few other RD regulars removed too as there is far too much social media chit-chat, original thought, and nothing like a real reference desk where responses to questions should always contain links to Wikipedia articles and/or reliable third-party sources. The ref desks have long been a refuge for users who wish to just give opinion, precisely opposite to what an encyclopedia should be doing. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support If the refdesks were a separate project, it would be fine for them to adopt whatever procedures work. However, as things stand there are too many refdesk enthusiasts for any reform to be possible and removing particularly troublesome contributors is the only solution available. Wikipedia is not the place to pursue liberty or to express the human right of spouting an opinion for every occasion. Johnuniq (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support, as User:The Rambling Man correctly points out, answers on the refdesk should be directly related to Wikipedia, and supported by sources or at the least other WP articles. I've just done a spot check of some of StuRat's contribs and while what he says isn't totally unreasonable, most of it is personal opinion that has no real value in building this project. That being said, removing this one editor shouldn't stop us from removing other editors that may be problematic at the reference desk. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC).
• Survey continues at "Resume !voting", below.

StuRat's response

1) You start !voting before I even have a chance to make a statement ? Is this proper procedure ? Or are you just ignoring all rules ?

2) My account statistics: [58]: First edit: 2005-08-05 (so I've been here over 12 years) Live edits: 87,634 (of which something like 70,000 are Ref Desk edits)

My point is, with this many edits, a few are bound to contain mistakes. When I spot them, I try to fix them (I delete them if nobody has yet responded to them or strike them out and post the correction if they have). However, I'm sure those who want me blocked will cherry-pick my 12 years of contributions to find what they consider my worst answers. To counter that, here's a few of my good answers:

Science Math Computers and Electronics Miscellaneous Humanities Language Entertainment (Note that I provide the entire Q and all answers, not just a single diff, to avoid having one edit be taken out of context, like if the word "not" is initially missed, then added a second later. I wish everyone would do the same.)

As you see, those cover a fairly narrow range in time, as I only collected a list of my good answers for a short time, or this list would be far longer.

3) I believe in a collaborative approach to answering Ref Desk Q's. That is, one response need not be comprehensive. One person may ask for a clarification of the Q, another may suggest a few possible answers, others may look up sources to support or disqualify those answers, etc. If you disagree with a particular answer, say why, and offer sources to support your view, remaining civil at all times. In the end, we often get to the correct answer, with good refs. I may contribute at any of these steps, depending on the Q. BTW, I often contribute refs which others have missed, such as here: [59].

4) I do, however, believe that attacking other editors does not belong on the Ref Desk. Take that the the Ref Desk talk page or to the editor's talk page. That doesn't help to answer the Q in any way. And, civility is important, although I've noticed a great deal of incivility is tolerated, as long as it comes from Admins, but normal users can be blocked for it. So, leave the swearing and insults at home. StuRat (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Howdy StuRat. I peaked at your editing pie chart & my goodness, you need to spend way more time on 'main space' editing. Too much participation in any forms of discussions on Wikipedia, is not a good thing. GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The pie chart shouldn't matter. He has more mainspace edits than the vast majority of users, and plenty of people contribute to the project in ways that don't happen in mainspace. The issue is treating the Reference Desk like Yahoo Answers, which is an issue with StuRat on the Reference Desk rather than StuRat on Wikipedia... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

" a few are bound to contain mistakes." - so show us the good stuff. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I did, under item 2. Are you actually going to look at any of them ? StuRat (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Resume !voting

• Oppose my block, obviously, for the reasons stated, or am I not allowed to !vote ? StuRat (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The crux of the problem is not individual editors. The Reference desks should be thought of as an active extension of the encyclopedia. If such a standard were truly applied many more editors would fall short of it. We have not articulated and broadly promulgated guidelines on how questions are to be fielded on our Reference desks aside from a few suggestions. Doing that would be the first order of business, before we go willy-nilly topic-banning editors. StuRat edits in good faith when he fields questions on the Reference desk and some of his responses display great knowledgeability of a topic. And he edits without a trace of meanness. Bus stop (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Um, there are Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines.--Wikimedes (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - My rationale for opposing: 1) StuRat's main interest on en-Wikipedia appears to be the refdesks. If their behavior is so problematic, a total block+ban would be appropriate. I suppose that some could suggest a NOTHERE (to build the encyclopedia) ban, that'd be another discussion. 2) The reference desks are traditionally and de-facto more free than other talk pages and articles. Other comments can correct wrong answers or expand on them and some may be hatted by other editors. 3) I evaluated some of StuRat's comments as intelligent and informative, others were more speculative or unnecessary. People have opinions and make mistakes. 4) Other regulars display similar behavior. Attempting to reform the refdesks may be more constructive than to ban select editors. Clear policy-based reasons could then apply if effecting reverts, hattings or bans. On the other hand, it's possible that an overly rigid environment would ruin the welcoming atmosphere of the desks (for posting requests and/or answering them)... In any case, I don't find that StuRat's presence makes it any harder to ask questions or post answers. —PaleoNeonate – 03:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

You can't hat topics at the RefDesk. The number of wrong and pointless responses from StuRat is the problem here. Others are to blame for their own actions and we can deal with them as required. Legacypac (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as nothing but the periodic scapegoating that certain ref desk editors attempt. I've had some issues with StuRat's approach, but I take those issues to his talk page. Too many editors feel free to attack StuRat in front of the OP's, and that is not kosher. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I prefer to see this as a first step to cleaning up the reference desk yuk yuk comedy club. Let's just "scapegoat" each and every funster out the door, starting with this one, and see what we have left. Carrite (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Support--Per TRM and Iridescent.And as Lankiveil says, removing this one editor shouldn't stop us from removing other editors who are problematic at the reference desk.Let the reformation begin with his t-ban!Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 06:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Once you've gotten rid of anybody who's not in the clique, who will you go after then? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
    • @Baseball Bugs:--Are you willing to clarify what you exactly refer to by the use of the word clique?Regards:)And, I am not going after anybody.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
      • The ones who have decided that they own the ref desks. They attack other editors in front of the OP and condemn attempts to rein in BLP violations and the giving out of professional advice. And every few months, they try to get somebody they don't like banned. This is one of those times. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
        • I don't believe any-body who is supporting here believes themselves to be the owner of Ref-Desk.This thread is purely about StuRat's frequently-incompetent-mass-answering at RefDesks.And, please don't post random accusations without corresponding diffs.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
          • That's funny. Well, let's start with Kudpung's attack on StuRat in front of the OP, and your defense of that attack.[60] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
            • Lovely! Any prize(s) for being the owner of the ref-desk? Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
              • Yes. As a ref desk owner, you get to violate the rules. Tell me what Kudpung's shot at StuRat has to do with answering the OP's question. Wait, I'll tell you: Nothing. So how does he get away with it? Because his name isn't StuRat. That's how. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, you don't even have the common decency to ping me when you are PA'ing me behind my back. So you finally admit that as a ref desk owner you are entitled to violate the rules. That's really all we need to know.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I just assumed you had this on your watch list - and the last time I pinged someone I got yelled at for it. No, I do not own the ref desks. I am not part of the clique. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

No one owns the Reference Desk and there is no clique, but this reflexive assumption that you are being oppressed by a devious cabal is part of the problem. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

No one is oppressing me in particular. But the clique raises this red flag every few months, in an attempt to get rid of users they don't like. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I've never looked at the RefDesk until this thread and yet you User:BaseballBugs have turned to making false statements about how I was allegedly almost site banned in retaliation for me suggesting you are part of the problem. This is not a war by one group of users against another - it is various disinterested users who have looked at the policy violating mess a small group of users have created at the refdesk. Legacypac (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Support, per Boing! said Zebedee and others. Before I voted on the RfC, I went to the RD because I had I never been there before. Frankly I was appalled with what I found. Apart from a few intelligent answers from a few genuine subject specialists - that also were not to appropriate questions either - what stood out more than anything else were Stu Rat's incessant chiming in wherever he could just to get his name on the thread. His pie chart clearly demonstrates that he has very little interest in building this encyclopedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support I was looking into the RefDesk futher after seeing the RFC on closing it when I observed StuRat’s random advice and opinions. I see this is a long term problem, and that he also abuses the refdesk to ask for shopping advice [61]. The fact other editors abuse the ref desk as a forum is not a valid excuse to not deal with a specific user that prolifically posts on topics they know nothing about. Based on the ownership behavior immediately above, we should look at User:Baseball Bugs’s for the next topic ban. Legacypac (talk) 10:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac:, you've linked to an indefinitely blocked impersonator, giving the impression that User:Baseball Bugs has been banned, when it is the troll User:Baseball Bug that is banned. Please correct this. μηδείς (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank-you. I’ve fixed the link Legacypac (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• In fairness, I think (Baseball Bugs, correct me if I'm wrong) that what Bugs is saying is that those supporting a ban on StuRat are trying to take ownership of the ref desk, not that he's the owner of the RD so should have final say over to whom and when the rules apply, although I agree the wording is ambiguous. Assuming the former is what was meant, that's a legitimate point of view ("why do all these outsiders think they know better about how to solve the problems than someone like me who's spent a lot of time there and is more familiar with it?"), even if it's a view with which I disagree in this case. ‑ Iridescent 10:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• I don't know what Legacypac is talking about, although he himself is demonstrating some ownership just within the last hour or two: This, [62] for one; and also this, [63] which was reverted by an admin. I don't own the ref desks by any stretch. I am not part of the clique. When the subject of whether to close the ref desks came up, I gave it a "soft support" on the theory that closing it down would at least remove the recurring scapegoating that goes on there (and here too, at present). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I woudn't personally use the fact that they were "closed by an admin" as particularly proof-laden; it was a poor series of reverts, and rather embarassing, frankly, from one with advanced permissions. But I get your general drift. — fortunavelut luna 12:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is par for the course. What starts as a small request (get Medeis to stop closing Ref Desk threads for reasons like "this doesn't need to be archived"), spins completely out of control into attempts to close down the entire Ref Desk, and now ban particular users. Asking Admins for help is like summoning a Golem, they end up just trying to destroy everything. This has happened before. And the reason to mention that it was reverted by an Admin is that these reverts will likely stand, while if a normal user dared to revert him, they might get blocked for it. StuRat (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support Mainly per Boing! and Iredescent, whose collective reasoning I find wholly convincing. I note too that the opposes are more opposing action against the ref desks as a whole rather than a specific editor; they are not therefore opposing the actual question. StuRat is unfortunately- but clearly- as an editor, one the RefDesks will find themselves the better off without. There are of course others, of a similar vintage- some of whom have commented in these proceedings- and I have no doubt that similar concerns will be raised regarding them in the future. That way, perhaps the desks will remain open and actually contribute to the encyclopaedia. Iridecnt, I think you are correct in your reading of BB's comment- to those remarks I find myself tempted to answer that if those who have been there such a long time haven't yet managed to solve the issues, then they probably never will! — fortunavelut luna 11:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support Too many problems. Paul August ☎ 12:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Wikipedia is not Yahoo Answers. Many people have tried many times to reason with StuRat to stop shooting from the hip to answer as many questions as possible, but to no avail, and this is where things are now. Sadly, I think that StuRat means well and I don't doubt that there are some people he has helped, but he's shown no interest in changing his guesswork approach to the desks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - It's time to clean up the reference desk. I took a quick, random spin through some of StuRat's edit history and saw lots of personal opinions offered to trivia questions, which might be an entertaining pursuit but which certainly doesn't help build an encyclopedia. I also found THIS, in which when someone attempted to remove a thread started by a troll about whether someone can "burn their own fluff with a blowtorch." StuRat reinstalled the garbage with a call for a topic ban for the remover. Well, the shoe's on the other foot now. Let's get this guy out of that section as a first step to cleaning up the shop for what it is supposed to be for — a venue for legitimate questions to be asked and factually answered. Carrite (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support TBAN as per above. A reasonable approach to improve the signal-to-noise ratio, and necessary as no lesser remedy is likely to be effective. Procedurally, indef with a 6 month wait before an appeal sounds right. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support TBAN. From the diffs below and the comments here, it is clear that StuRat has exhausted the community's patience over many years. Ultimately, his approach to this project and RD suggests that he's WP:NOTHERE, but I'd prefer to give him rope. No reason to ban him from non-RD pages unless he causes disruption there. agtx 18:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support temporary ban from the refdesks. One of the reasons StuRat continues to disrupt the RefDesks with wild guessing and providing factually incorrect information is that the community as a whole has never told him that he can’t. Many editors have asked him many times to stop, but he also has his supporters. If the community as a whole finally decides that StuRat needs to reform his RefDesk behavior, he should be given the opportunity to do so.

It should be clear to anyone looking at StuRat’s talk page that there is a problem, but often a problem is brought (inappropriately) to StuRat’s attention in RefDesk mainspace rather than on his talk page, and often his bad answers are simply ignored, so one must go to the RefDesk to really appreciate the scale of the problem. Here’s a recent example of a wild guess that turned out to be wrong [64]. See the hatted portion of full thread for the disruption that it caused.

While many editors have expressed dismay at StuRat’s wild guessing and incorrect answers, few point out exactly which guidelines are being violated. (To their credit, the RefDesk regulars do not seem to be a particularly litigious bunch, or maybe I just don’t frequent the right drama boards). From the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines: “We expect responses that not only answer the question, but are also factually correct, and to refrain from responding with answers that are based on guesswork.” Everyone is entitled to get an answer wrong once in a while, and even the occasional speculation can be useful. StuRat takes a more extreme position and actively defends his right to throw out wild guesses. Amongst the myriad complaints about StuRat’s RefDesk behavior, try to find him acknowledging that he has some responsibility for the quality of his own answers.

This is already too long to read. More diffs on request.--Wikimedes (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

If you have any suggestions for any way to get StuRat to understand what just about everyone here is telling him and to get some commitment to change his ways, I'd love to hear it (and if I thought it was realistic, I'd support it enthusiastically). But every response I've seen so far from him is "I'm right, you're all wrong". You can't get someone to change their ways if they won't even consider that they might be doing something badly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't have much to add. I agree that StuRat's inability to admit that he is doing anything wrong is a huge problem. But sometimes people can do what they have to do, even if they don't like it. I don't think anything less than a temporary TBAN will get him to reform, and it will probably take a long one. But as far as I know, in StuRat's decade of problematic behavior at the RefDesk, this obvious solution has never been applied. This is largely due to StuRat's resistance to even the suggestion that a change is needed, but I think the TBAN does need to be given an opportunity to work the first time it is tried.--Wikimedes (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I recognise the problem, for sure. However the ref desks are clearly close to StuRat's heart and I'm unwilling to call for a topic ban on such as yet. Instead I'd like to see some sort of formal advice to StuRat, with their agreement, that they would only respond appropriately to refdesk questions, adding material where they can contribute positively with some degree of accuracy, and/or where they can be this by reliance on external material (either WP or off WP). No specific restriction on asking questions.

If that doesn't work, revisit the issue here after a while, and I'l support a TBAN. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• OK, on the basis of the section and my comment below, I think this is unworkable and so I'd now support a TBAN. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• • Comment I would support such a proposal (a form of editing restriction rather than an outright TBAN), provided it was clear that any significant violation would lead swiftly to a TBAN without having to go through this sort of discussion again, and, more importantly, that StuRat acknowledges his behaviour is unacceptable. I don't see him doing that in his current contributions to the discussion, or any previous discussions of the same issue. Tevildo (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban and StuRat can appeal after six months. If he shows that he has been answering questions appropriately with references at other venues then this would go a long way in convincing the community that he has reformed and could return to the RefDesks without returning to the old behavior. Other venues where he could help include the teahouse, the resource exchange (great place to supply answers that have been looked up) or the help desk if he stays focused on helpful answers without excess commentary. There are plenty of other places to help and folks here might be willing to provide more suggestions. Some have called for the RefDesks to be shut down and others have opposed them but even they call for reform. If the RefDesks mean that much to him, he should be willing to step away from it for its own best interests. In six months time, if there are still problems at the RefDesks no one will be able to blame him for those.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• For those keeping score at home: so far there are 0 people who have stepped forward to defend StuRat's edits as a net positive for Wikipedia. --JBL (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • To do this right, you'd need to look at all of StuRat's edits for some interval, such as the last few weeks. Then look at the edits of other users for the same interval. Then see what percentage of each user's edits actually help lead the OP to the right answer, assuming there is a right answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I am of much the same opinion as Andy Dingley. I will note that sturat does have quite a collection of barnstars and thankyous for answering questions, so certainly he gets a good answer in there sometimes. However there are also several barnstars for humor. So it would be good if the large number of unhelpful answers are avoided, and answers are only given where he really has a good answer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

  As I suggested to someone else, if you have any practical suggestions for how to actually get him to avoid all the unhelpful answers and only reply when he has a good answer, let's hear them - I'll support you if you can come up with something feasible. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support temporary topic ban: I believe in a collaborative approach to answering Ref Desk Q's (StuRat, above). That means you acknowledge the existence of a Ref Desk community. Nobody can remain a member of any community with impunity from its norms, protocols, procedures, policies, practices, laws or guidelines. Yet your behaviour time and time again puts you in the spotlight of criticism. Yet you always defend yourself.
  I have never seen you say: Hmm, maybe you guys actually have a point. Maybe I could take a look at my modus operandi and see where I could modify it, so that I won't forever be having to defend myself from the complaints of my colleagues.
  If all the critics don't actually have a point, what are their criticisms actually all about? Personal dislike of you? someone they've never met and will probably never meet? Hardly. What else could it be? You tell me.
  But then, maybe you like being in the spotlight of criticism. Some people are like that. They have a deficit need, and will accept - nay, go out of their way to attract - any attention, no matter how adverse, as long as the focus is on them. To prolong the spotlight, they will argue for as long as there is breath in their body, never giving an inch. I suspect that this is the case with you. But whether that's the case or not, one thing is sure: You have to change. If a topic ban is what it takes to get you to see this, then so be it. I don't believe I've ever voted to ban anyone from Wikipedia before. There's a first time for everything, I guess. I do this reluctantly, because you do often play by the rules. But a murderer cannot be excused from the weight of the law by arguing they've been kind to countless little old ladies. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, I do take advice from others, as I just did here, striking my comments from Baseball Bugs' talk page: [65]. Note that the editor I took the advice from was actually civil, making it far easier to listen. StuRat (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yet you always defend yourself. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• When you're attacked, do you defend yourself? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Not when I realize I'm in the wrong. EEng 07:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• The form of defence I'm talking about is complete denial. If 50 editors told me that over a period of 10 or more years I have consistently violated the acceptable practices of the Ref Desk, my response would not be "I'm the only one in step". That is, effectively, StuRat's response to all such claims. We never get to first base with him. We never hear from him that there are things he needs to take responsibility for. He will happily pull out numerous examples of where he has done something other than what is being claimed about him, but that still leaves the multiple cases where the claims are accurate, yet he never accepts any criticism of his behaviour in relation to those instances. It's "I'm right when I don't do X, and I'm right when I do do X". The remainder of the Ref Desk community has a different view.-- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• This sort of argy-bargy, where someone points out in some detail exactly, precisely what is wrong with Stu's posts, and receives a tsunami of denial-based arguments in response from him, has been going on for at least a decade. Here is an exchange from 2012 that shows nothing has changed since then. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - RD responders should not draw primarily from personal experience and knowledge. You won't find those words in the RD guidelines, but they clearly can be inferred from those guidelines, the massive amount of discussion over the years, and common sense (i.e. personal "knowledge" is too often incorrect). This has been stated countless times, but some editors either can't grasp the concept or don't care about it for reasons I won't speculate on here. StuRat debatably has been the most "prolific" in that regard (I'm not going to debate that), and his responses here demonstrate that he still can't grasp the concept or doesn't care about it for reasons I won't speculate on here. I stayed out of this until I saw that. This TBAN is an important first step toward reforming the desks that the community, at WP:VPP, has decided we must keep and reform. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Mandruss the guidelines may not have those exact words, but they do have "Do not offer answers on topics on which you are not qualified. If you are unfamiliar with a topic, it's recommended to stay out of the discussion, unless you are posting directly factual information such as link to a Reliable source confirming details previously posted by others. Opinions should generally be avoided unless justified in response to sourced material, or quoted (with appropriate citation) from them". They also have "Our standards on verifiability, neutral point of view, or no original research should be kept in mind on the Reference Desk, as well as the rest of the project … answers should be verifiable, that is, to the extent the questioner wishes to verify that the answer is not fabricated, there should exist a reliable source (or sources) that would give the same answer". If you look back to when those guidelines were written, you'll see StuRat edit-warring to try to remove the prohibition on personal speculation and the requirement for answers to be based on referenced sources (see here for one of many examples), so he can hardly claim he's unaware of what the guidelines say. ‑ Iridescent 22:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Wow, you had to go back 10 years to find those. I deny your characterization of that as edit-warring. We were all modifying the guidelines at that time, as we were developing them. StuRat (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• StuRat demonstrates the uselessness of "Do not offer answers on topics on which you are not qualified", which presumes that one always knows whether they are "qualified" on a certain topic. "Opinions should generally be avoided" similarly presumes that one can distinguish between their opinions and fact (in my opinion, such a person is in the minority among the general population). But we are in agreement that the words "clearly can be inferred", and that StuRat should have long ago inferred them. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban preventing StuRat from participating at RefDesk. As well, the RefDesk procedures should be changed so that throwaway (non-)answers can be suppressed in some fashion, for instance by voting positively on the good answers. Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Iridescent, TRM, Boing! etc and StuRat's very behaviour in this thread. I have no idea how many flying insects may have died as I have researched this issue but I may have been responsible for a few as I've sat here open-mouthed with amazement. - Sitush (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Carrite and the diff provided. If you can't tell that a discussion about lighting up your own flatulence, or any other bodily excretions/accumulations, isn't the purpose of an encyclopaedia (or a refdesk), then you have absolutely no business being here (or there). It's a shame the RfC to get rid of the RefDesks isn't going to pass. I am aware that not everything contributes to the construction of the encyclopaedia, ahem, we are here after all. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral - Since it is apparently the consensus of the Wikipedia community that we need Reference Desks, as the RFC to close them down is failing, removing one editor who responds too often when the whole Reference Desk concept doesn't work is an inadequate answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon: Of course it's inadequate; I don't think anybody has said StuRat is the only problem with RD, or even the only editor who misuses the desks in that way. Just try to imagine the "fix all RD problems" package proposal. Better yet, just try to put one together. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Now perhaps some editors who strongly opposed closing the Reference Desks see why some editors favor closing them down. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Baby ——— Bathwater. Carrite (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - The baby is deformed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Diffs are concerning to say the least. The behavior around the ref desks (pointless speculation, disparaging comments, etc.) seem rather out of place when put into the context of the rest of the wiki and the policies which apply to them. Stikkyy t/c 04:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Although I supported closing the reference desks, there is no consensus for that. It is quite clear, though, that there is widespread concern about how the reference desks have been run, and a desire for reform if they are to be kept. A key aspect of reform, in my opinion, is removing all of the highly problematic "regulars" from the reference desks. This discussion has shown a problematic and troubling pattern of behavior from StuRat going back a decade. I actually like the guy and find some of his speculations amusing and thought provoking. But Wikipedia does not need and should not allow speculation. StuRat just doesn't get this, so I have concluded that he should be topic banned from the reference desks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose with reservations I don't want Stu to take this as thinking that I approve of his style on the refdesks in general. As others have noted, he seems to feel compelled to answer almost any question, whether he has anything worthwhile to say about it or not. This can be really pretty annoying. He actually does know quite a lot about a wide range of topics, and if he would limit himself to answering only questions where he does have special expertise, I think he would still get to contribute a fair amount, and would be a genuine asset. It's his signal/noise ratio that's way too low. But that's pretty squishy grounds for a topic ban. --Trovatore (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Reluctant Support at this point, because User:StuRat is just digging himself a hole. I have seen this too many times, where a user was brought to a drama board and made the case against themselves. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • That's why Galileo was banned, he kept digging when the Church said he was wrong. Count Iblis (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support StuRat's behavior in this very thread tells the whole story. EEng 19:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, with no opinion about the duration between a month and indef, as a way to (1) prevent immediate problems and (2) allow constructive editing of WP. If nothing else, for the exchange with yours truly at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2017 April 13#Laser pointer reflected light harmful to eyes in close proximity.3F that starts with Maybe you can tape some red plastic sheets to your safety goggle to reduce the amount of red getting through, where it is no exaggeration to say that their advice could get someone blinded.

Their suggestion was based on armchair speculation, which is not great, but is on par for lower half of RefDesk responses; it turned out that it was a very dangerous course to follow, but that cannot be known beforehand (of course, it is still a problem if done repeatedly, but again this can be passed off as "RefDesk tradition" though it is not). The big problem in that exchange is that when told the suggestion was inefficient, dangerous, and that laser safety was a dangerous subject to make uninformed suggestions on, they doubled down on their position.If you know a thing about laser safety, you know who was in the right in that exchange; and if you do not, put yourself in StuRat's shoes when being told that your advice was disastrous with an explanation and links: what would be your reaction? If they cannot admit they did something not only stupid but dangerous, they will keep being a danger to people who ask questions on the RefDesk. This is orders of magnitude worse than just being unpleasant background noise or unhelpful cluttering of the page. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 20:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Below, I had offered some meh support for StuRat's proposal, in the belief that their drafting of the proposal showed a welcome though late illumination in an editor whose ability to admit mistakes was very low. I see from every other answer since that it is not actually the case, and feel mildly stupid/naive for having assumed this was a real turning point no matter how late. Hence I reaffirm my support for a TBan. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Holy shit. I just read the "advice" that StuRat posted in Tigraan's link above. As someone who has spent over 15 years working with lasers, especially high power ones and 6 of them spent with pulsed lasers with average powers between 20 and 100W, 3 years as a laser safety officer StuRat's responses made me shudder and would have had me immediately revoking his access to all of the labs that I managed. I would also like to state that quite a few of the answers in that thread are actually plain wrong. If this is characteristic of his responses on the Ref Desk, then I support the topic ban. Blackmane (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Changing to Strong support after reading Jack of Oz's diff. Also, following the concerns that I voiced in my vote above and after an anon messaged me, I've taken the liberty of hatting the discussion in the archive. Blackmane (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban especially in the light (no pun intended) of the utter irresponsibility of StuRat's 'advice' on laser safety, but mainly for so many diffs others have presented showing their RefDesk responses are mostly WP:OPINION and Wikipedia:Complete bollocks. These inputs would NEVER be accepted in any Wikipedia article, yet so much boyish/laddish chit-chat on the RefDesk on matters of serious concern ought to worry everyone who cares for the reputation of Wikipedia. Propose indefinite topic ban, or at least until such time as the Reference Desk is itself reviewed by ArbComm and run akin to all other Wiki Projects, with proper checks, balances and tests of competency and appropriate support and administrative sanctions. That wouldn't be bureaucracy - just common sense. Maybe then StuRat could be a useful contributor once more. Nick Moyes (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. StuRat's presence at the refdesks has been ten years of aggressively defending his entitlement to fill the desks with unprincipled, ignorant and unhelpful ramblings. Enough is enough. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support as a co-initiator of the 2006 and 2007 attempts to fix the refdesks, 10 years is long enough. Hipocrite (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Indefinite, with permission to appeal after 1 year. Enough is enough. Based on the links provided, StuRat's presence in the ref desks is not a net positive. Neutrality^talk 01:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support Ten years of this. Ten. Years. There are times when WP's desire to be forgiving and assume the best of editors is stretched well beyond reasonable limits, and this is one. Grandpallama (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Diffs linked to in this discussion show that competency, providing sources, and avoiding wild speculation has been a longstanding issue with StuRat's contributions the Ref Desks. If StuRat can show that he can contribute and be a net positive to Wikipedia off the RDs, then an appeal could be successful in the future (e.g. 6 months, a year, etc.). A ban would also allow us to assess the RDs without StuRat, to see if they would still need change.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Points of Order

1. Where are the diffs? This discussion was started with links to previous discussions, but not a single diff pointing to disruptive behavior. Afterwards, we get a link to a 5+ year-old comment offering speculation about Nazi treatment of converts to Judaism which StuRat openly admits is speculation (i.e., he doesn't make a bad-faith claim as if it were fact) and a perhaps tastelessly worded but still admiring comment about a deceased editor. There's even a link giving the appearance of evidence offered if you don't follow the link to see it is to the same editor's previous comment. This is hardly conclusive evidence of disruption.
2. Define "disruption". We have a score of assertions above calling StuRat disruptive. Disruption is normally taken to mean edit-warring, vandalism, changing or deleting other's comments in bad faith, deliberately posting off topic, false, or inflammatory comments. StuRat has been accused of none of this.
3. RfC? This is not being conducted as a proper RfC. If this is not a kangaroo court (and plenty of people above have admitted they have their knives out) we should start over with a properly formulated RfC with notifications and so forth, not just a piling on of editors who state their agreement with the opening, not-supported-by-diff assertion that StuRat is disruptive.

μηδείς (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Err. No-one says it is a RfC. Some previous RfCs have been mentioned, but this appears to be an ordinary, run-off-the mill report to AN/I in which the usual procedure is report>bollocking>sanction. Which may or may not be the outcome here I hasten to add. Afterall, since when did we prejudge AN/I reports. Hope this helps! — fortunavelut luna 15:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

If this is just a normal case, then where are the recent warnings, and where is the escalating series of blocks? What we are looking at here are calls for an indefinite topic ban without any intermediate steps. Again, we need the diffs of the disruption, and to follow the forms, not a pile-on with knives drawn. μηδείς (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a normal case, rather, a normal report. I.e., not a RfC. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 16:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any policy requirements for there to be any recent warnings or escalating blocks before the community is allowed to discuss a proposal for a topic ban - but the OP did list some previous discussions of the alleged disruption. Also, there actually are some diffs offered in various places here, but the general consensus so far seems to be that so many of StuRat's ref desk responses are problematic that there's no need to list them separately. Having said that, I'll have a look through his recent ref desk posts and I'll find some for you - I'll post them below, shortly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I refuse to believe that you (Medeis) are actually unaware of his issues, but for the benefit of the tape here's a bunch of diffs of him spouting shit of various kinds or talking purely to hear his own voice, taken from dip-sampling his contributions over a randomly-chosen two day period: [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78]. (All from 10–11 October; chosen to be recent enough to demonstrate that this is a current issue, but prior to the recent ANI and VPP threads in case those were either causing him to be on best behavior or to double down on his disruption in order to try to prove some kind of point.) You'll get roughly the same signal-to-noise ratio from his contributions over any random period over the past decade. This isn't a case of a single, unambiguously terrible comment that demands immediate action; this is about the cumulative impact of what's literally a decade of inappropriate comments, incorrect answers, and generally treating Wikipedia as his personal blog. ‑ Iridescent 16:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I did not in any way claim to be unaware of Stu's infuriating, juvenile, POV-laden, obsessive behavior, Iridescent; only to be of the opinion that those raising charges have to provide the evidence.

That being said, with this diff reverting @Legacypac:'s archival of a WP:NOTAHOWTO violating thread, I am disinclined to defend Stu any further. I still oppose an outright topic ban, but some sort of shot across the bow is called for.

Yet the underlying problem remains the inaction by admins and the failure to delete and salt this trolling by IP and newbie SPI's. μηδείς (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

You can't just provide diffs, you need to explain exactly what Wikipedia policy each of those violates. Some were jokes, do you oppose all humor on Wikipedia talk pages, or just all humor on the Ref Desk ? Is there a Wikipedia policy which supports this ? (I believe we did decide to wait for serious answers first, before adding jokes.) Most were serious answers. For example, one person wanted to update Wikipedia to add the term "nose blindness" to it, since they saw that term used in TV ads. I explained why we can't allow TV advertisers to define the names of Wikipedia articles, with examples. What policy does this violate ? I could go on to defend the rest of those diffs, if I knew what you were actually complaining about in each case. StuRat (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

And that answer illustrates your lack of self-awareness better than any diff ever could. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

This isn't an RFC, it is an AN/I complaint. A righteous one. Carrite (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

An attempt to WP:CANVASS has been posted here. The wording is non-neutral. That could be changed of course. MarnetteD|Talk 17:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I have changed it so. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Boing! said Zebedee. MarnetteD|Talk 18:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't an attempt at canvassing, I didn't say "please !vote for me". It was a notification, and I welcomed them to !vote either way. And why exactly didn't you people think the Ref Desk should be notified, anyway ? StuRat (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

If after 12 years you still cannot see why that message was inappropriate, the likelihood is that you should not be editing anywhere on WP, not merely facing a topic ban. - Sitush (talk)

Diffs? try this thread: WP:Reference desk/Science#Hydraulic motors Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, you don't say what you found wrong with it, and I said I agreed with you that hydraulic cars are not going to happen. Do you disagree that one of the disadvantages of hydraulics is that they are temperature sensitive, so commonly require a warm up period prior to use ? StuRat (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

This is insane. You seem completely oblivious to what people are telling you, and just keep digging and digging and digging. EEng 19:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not insane because there are two separate issues when examples like that are raised. Normally at AN/I the focus is on behavioral issues, but the problem now is that the examples are StuRat's answers to RefDesk questions and that brings in the baggages about whether he was correct to answer that question in the way he did, you can't just say that he was wrong. The argument that a someone is wrong because many people say so doesn't hold water in science. So, the core problem with this whole AN/I case is that we're not dealing with the usual behavioral case like someone throwing insults all the time, or reverting too often etc.. Count Iblis (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Good point. One cannot fault someone for responding with great frequency if there is a high level of quality in the responses overall. Bus stop (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Luckily this hypothetical situation is not relevant to the present case. --JBL (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Some examples and diffs

As some people have asked for specific diffs, I've been through some of StuRat's very recent contributions to the ref desks and here are a few, with my opinion on what's wrong with them. I'm offering actual threads in addition to specific diffs - as StuRat himself rightly said, context is important:

1. Here we have a first response that is not remotely close to an answer to the question asked, and then a response to a request to get back to the question which simply offers his own personal speculation.
2. Here the question is "Is there any research on the cognitive abilities of seagulls?", and we get this reply which answers a completely different question, and then after further non-answer general discussion it ends up with stuff like this.
3. Here someone asked a very specific question, and we get anecdote about his own PC followed by off-topic discussion that does not address the OP's question.
4. Here we have someone asking of numbers of flying insects are declining, and StuRat pops in to tell us "I've personally killed some 500 box elder bugs in my house this fall". Who cares?
5. Simple question, yet we get this personal rambling that in no way helps to answer the question, followed by this hatting when someone else suggests that his personal speculation is not useful - ironically saying "Meanwhile, we are drifting farther from the OP with such discussions" while excluding his own off-topic chat from the hat and so showing little sign of self-awareness.
6. Here I don't have the faintest idea what the question means, but User:Joel B. Lewis seems to think StuRat's answer is a bad one, and then StuRat gets the last word in while hatting the objection, again hiding criticism of one of his answers. And ironically again, only seeing any off-topic nature in other people's contributions but never his own.
7. This one is more indicative of the problems generally with the ref desks, in that it would have been easy to use weight/calorie calculators to estimate the likely stable weight of someone consuming 3,800 kcals per say at the usual specified levels of activity. Sadly nobody did this, but we also have the unsourced (and highly contentious) claim by StuRat that "all calories aren't the same" - and the "Your best approach might..." does not even attempt to answer the question.

I could go on, but I've no doubt I'd just find more and more of the same stuff. Now, none of the above is, in itself, anything especially egregious - and I'm happy to say that StuRat has provided some good answers too. But the problem is that StuRat's contributions, whether he knows the answer or not, are unrelenting. His approach reminds me of the 'know-it-all' that everyone tries to avoid at the pub (or bar) who cannot resist interjecting themself with unjustified authority into every conversation. Even that wouldn't be too bad if StuRat could listen to others and accept constructive criticism, but he can't - criticism of his answers is "off-topic" and quickly hatted, while he can't see the off-topic nature of many of his own contributions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm just going to add this, uncovered by User:Carrite above, which reverts the removal of blatant trolling and shows arrogant ownership of the ref desks = from en editor who regularly hides criticism of his own edits. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• I'm also copying to here the selection of diffs found by User:Iridescent, which cover the single 2-day period of October 10/11 - [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91].

  Please, don't anyone complain that you have not been given enough diffs now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• As I mentioned there (and you failed to copy here), diffs with no explanation as to what Wikipedia policy has been violated are meaningless. As for reverting deletions, everyone is allowed to do that, it doesn't imply ownership.
• Now for those listed above:
• 1) The OP contained a suspect assumption, that all servicemen and women attempt to pronounce foreign names correctly. I showed that this is not always the case.
• 2) The mirror test is one way to gauge animal intelligence. Once they had that term, they can use it in their searches to see if it has been applied by researchers to seagulls. The funny aside at the end is in small text, showing it's not meant to be an answer to the Q. I added this after serious answers, including mine, had been supplied, in accordance with Ref Desk policy.
• 3) This was a serious response about how using a PC to time events on that PC may not be as reliable as using an external timer.
• 4) This is an example of how human population growth can affect flying insect numbers. Multiply the effect each person has on flying insect numbers by world population, and the effect may become significant.
• 5) The OP may have started with the assumption that all, or most, Muslims speak Arabic. I corrected that assumption. My point 2, specifically, was repeated by Jayron later in the thread, because it had been hatted by then. I hatted only the part of the discussion that seemed to be leading off into unrelated territory, namely Bible translations.
• 6) You really shouldn't produce a diff as evidence of something when you admit you have no idea what it means. The issue was whether to provide only an analytic answer to a math problem, or also propose the numeric methods solution. While the OP did request the analytic solution, that doesn't mean they wanted to exclude the numeric solution. I asked him after, on his talk page, and he said they had no objection to my answer. As for hatting, this type of attacking other editors doesn't belong on the Ref Desk at all, but I left it there, hatted, precisely so I wouldn't "delete criticism" of myself.
• 7) The crux of my argument was that trying to determine what people's weight should be, based on calorie count alone, is a faulty method. I listed several reason for this, as did others. So, this Q can not be answered. Here's a source from Harvard saying that not all calories are equal: [92]. I'm going to add it the that Ref Desk Q now, too. (Too late, it's already been archived, so I put it on the talk page of the person who requested the source, instead.) BTW, you seem to suffer from the same error as the OP, in assuming that a given caloric intake will inevitable produce a given, stable weight. There's simply no evidence to support this. Weight is based on many factors, and calorie intake is just one among them. To come up with such an answer would require faulty assumptions. See spherical cow. Now some might argue, that if it's unanswerable, it should just be deleted. I disagree. We should explain precisely why it is unanswerable, instead, so the OP learns something. StuRat (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Rather a specific- not to say massy- discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs) 09:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The stable weight of a person's body is based solely on mass/energy in and mass/energy out, regardless of any fad bullshit unless you know how to break the laws of physics (and you have completely misunderstood the science behind that article). And it would have been very easy to provide average expectations of stable weight based on a given daily calorific input and various general levels of output. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC) That's just the type of answer we don't want to give, and if I gave such an answer, people would use it here as a prime example of why I should be blocked. (MASS IN) MINUS (MASS OUT) isn't quite a correct way to calculate current mass, since the initial mass would also need to be considered. But, the Q was about a constant amount of calories in, not mass, so that's all quite irrelevant. Next, if everyone had very similar levels of calorie expenditure each year, then it might be reasonable to assume some average figure. But the calories burned by each person vary dramatically, and even vary with weight (it takes more calories to do many things when obese), so such as assumption is in the spherical cow range of unreliability, and any answer we came up with would be in the wild-assed guess (WAG) range. StuRat (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Oh, come on Stu, you are completely misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I said. I did not say "(MASS IN) MINUS (MASS OUT)". I used "mass/energy", and a steady rate of "mass/energy" in and "mass/energy" out will result in a steady body weight. If in is greater than out, weight will increase until basal metabolic rate increases sufficiently to utilize all of the ingested kcals. Similarly, if out is greater than in then weight will fall until a new equilibrium is reached. And in both cases, we come to reasonably accurate generalizations that form the basis of those weight/kcal calculators. You suggest you are sensitive to the possibility that "if I gave such an answer, people would use it here as a prime example of why I should be blocked" - can you really not deduce from that that when you have no idea what you're talking about you should possibly just shut up? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC) You're still using "mass/energy", as if we somehow need to consider the conversion of mass to energy and vice-versa here. There are no nuclear reactions in the human body having a significant effect on weight, and your use of that term makes it look like you really don't know what you're talking about and should take your own advice. StuRat (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC) No, I'm not talking of nuclear reactions at all, I'm simply including all of the mass and the calorific value of food. Food goes in (it has mass and calorific value), and mass (poo, CO2, liquid waste) comes out and energy is burned. The net result is what changes body weight. As for not knowing what I'm talking about, what is your expertise in the subject? This is not an 'argument from authority' thing, but I do have a BSc in Biochemistry. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC) But, again, this Q has absolutely nothing to do with how much mass is consumed, and you don't seem to understand this simple fact. You could drink a huge mass of water and not gain weight. This is why the OP didn't ask anything about mass consumed. I am rather suspect that you have such a degree, or you should know this. And you stating that your info is more reliable because you have a degree in the field is precisely an argument from authority. StuRat (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Yes, obviously, because you would pee that water out again and the net in/out balance would be zero - duh! But over any studied period, *all* inputs and *all* outputs need to be considered to assess net effect on weight. Please stop embarrassing yourself by exhibiting your ignorance, because it's getting painful to watch - and having said that, I'm going to stop watching and go to bed, good night. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC) One possible way to calculate current mass would be to look at masses in and out, but, again, THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS Q. This Q is about calories in, not mass in or out. StuRat (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Sigh, yes, but the point that you are still failing/refusing to understand is that once a mass in/out equilibrium is established (ie when catabolism matches anabolism), a weight equilibrium will also be established, and it will be reasonably close to what the standard kcal/body weight calculators say - and an answer along those lines would be a reasonably factual answer to give. As an aside, have you looked to see how your performance here is affecting the !voting? You should. And that really is goodnight. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC) But, yet again, this all depends on calories burnt, and the OP provided no way to even estimate this. Thus you are left with a WAG. StuRat (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC) An actual and correct answer would be: E.g. a 25 year old male of 5'10" with a 3800 Calories/day intake could weight about 619.3 pounds taking only the BMR (basal metabolic rate) into account.--TMCk (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Exactly, and other variations could have been offered for folks of different dimensions, ages and activity levels. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC) And how would you justify ignoring all other metabolic processes ? StuRat (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC) FGS! Click on the fucking link and calculate it by yourself.--TMCk (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Then I'd need to make the same highly suspect assumptions you made, or different highly suspect assumptions. Garbage in, garbage out. Just having a button to run a calculation doesn't make the underlying assumptions any more reliable. StuRat (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC) One thousand and one face palms.--TMCk (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Depending on what assumptions were used, you would get wildly different answers, and none of them would be of any use to anyone. This is why neither I, nor the others who responded, attempted such a thing. We understand the futility of trying to provide a numeric answer to such an open-ended Q. StuRat (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Can I ask you what is the basis for your understanding of "metabolic processes"? Do you have any educational qualifications in biochemistry? Any professional experience in such a field? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Actually, no, never mind. All of your answers are unequivocally demonstrating the problems that others are seeing in your misplaced sense of infallibility and your inability or unwillingness to listen - I could not possibly support my case for a topic ban better than you are doing for me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC) (I already wrote my reply before you struck it out.) What about your qualifications ? You are making all sorts of arguments on how that Q can be answered, but do you have any qualifications to do so ? From the quality of your answers, I'd wager the answer is no. But, Wikipedia doesn't actually require any given degrees to contribute to articles, since when they tried such an approach, it failed miserable. I believe the same policy applies at the Ref Desk. StuRat (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC) BSc Biochemistry, MA Philosophy. Yours? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC) See my response above. StuRat (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Ouch, StuRat, that's a boomerang moment. Many of us are qualified beyond standard university degrees, we don't need to prove it to you, because we use articles and links to substantiate our responses. You don't. Your OR is actually what we should be avoiding at the ref desk. Once again I support this motion, and I also support the idea that a few other OR-respondents at the ref desks should be subject to the same sanctions. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Re: (4). Are the Ref Desks somehow exempt from WP:OR? They shouldn't be. - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Certainly not in asides, like that was. You need to be able to distinguish between the main answers and when people just add something amusing at the end. Do none of you ever say anything funny, as an aside, ever ? Typically we use small text to show that this isn't the main answer. StuRat (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC) I could speculate that the more people there are, the more shit we produce, and therefore the more flies there are - but I'm not going to try to answer a factual question by extrapolating from the weight of my own shit and counting how many flies I kill. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC) If you had measured an actual increase in their numbers as a result of, say, using an open sewage ditch, and had a number to report, then you something useful to contribute. Of course, in that case they may have just been drawn from other areas, too, so that doesn't automatically mean their numbers increase, while the flying insects I killed aren't going anywhere, so their numbers definitely went down. StuRat (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC) So you killed 500 bugs, and you think that is in any way statistically significant when according to some there are an estimated 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 insects on the planet? That the biomass of ants alone exceeds that of all the humans that have ever lived? That there are more insects in one square mile of empty field than there are people in the world? (source = quick Google search). Get a grip. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC) First, we aren't concerned with all insects, only the flying kinds. Next, people are very unevenly distributed on the planet, as are insects. So, human populations likely have very little effect on insects populations in unpopulated regions of the Amazon, but major impacts in cites. Since this Q was about people noticing a lack of flying insects, and most people live in cities, that's the most relevant place to look at effects of human activity on flying insect populations. Bees, in particular, seem to be having problems, and not just near cities. See colony collapse disorder. StuRat (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC) "Most people live in cities" - really? When > 70 per cent of India's 1.2bn population are rural and urban does not necessarily mean city etc, I think even that statement might need a source. - Sitush (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC) [93]. (And that's 3 years old, and the world is steadily becoming more urbanized.) StuRat (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

With respect to point (6), the issue with StuRat's answer is that it is not in any sense an answer to the question asked, something he appears not to understand even at this late date. For the non-mathematical, one way to see this is to note the words "implicit curve" and "partial derivative" appear in the question but not in the pseudo-answer. (Separately, I have changed the reference above to point to my actual username (which is different from my sig, sorry of the confusion).) --JBL (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

As you suggested, I asked him if he was dissappointed or angry at my answer. He said he was not, and welcomes all attempts at answers. It's not for you to now go and try to override his response because you didn't like it. I did as you suggest, now accept what he said. (I haven't linked to his response because he really doesn't want to get dragged into all this unpleasantness, but you've already seen it and responded to it.) StuRat (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

So, in the last diff everyone acted like StuRat but... "but we also have the unsourced (and highly contentious) claim by StuRat that "all calories aren't the same"". But that's a correct statement that can be easily cited from the literature. The attitude taken by other posters when they see an unsourced statement is see if they can cite it themselves for the sake of providing refs, even if they happen to have a different view about the subject, and if they really care about sources, instead of wanting to use lack of sources as a stick to fight out disputes. Count Iblis (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Source. Count Iblis (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• On the basis of this last section, TBAN. This was a chance for StuRat to recognise that there was a problem here and to offer some insight into it, with maybe an agreement to observe the stated constraints of the RefDesks in the future. Instead we get a displacement into arguing over calories and a further attempt to demonstrate that his approach of finger-in-the-air WP:OR is right after all.

StuRat, you are not right here. Your approach is not welcome here and will no longer be tolerated. Either it goes, or you do, and from this thread it doesn't seem that you're able to drop the vague unsupportable handwaves. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

But his approach did yield the most accurate answer, i.e. all calories are indeed not the same, that's actually highly relevant to the question asked and it can be sourced from a large number of sources. If you get most of your calories from fat then you're going to struggle to maintain your weight if you eat a lot. If you get most of your calories from whole grains, you can eat your stomach full every day and you'll not get overweight. The reason is that a high carb low fat diet will contain much more nutrients that your body needs for metabolism, you'll find it a lot easier to exercise thereby burning a lot more energy. Fat is more difficult to burn for the body, it can get into muscle cells and there it will cause the mitochondria to become less active and you'll also lose some of them. So, your metabolism will actually slow down if you increase the fat content of your diet. This is all well known stuff that doesn't need to be cited, and certainly not overruled based on the simplistic "calories in - calories out = weight gain" idea that is not even wrong, and arguably is the cause of the obesity epidemic where you have all these fat Americans who get ever fatter as a result of calorie counting and eliminating carbs from their diets. Count Iblis (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Source. Count Iblis (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, and if a high fat diet lowers your metabolism, that means it reduces the calories burned over any comparable period. It lowers the "calories out" part of the equation and "calories in minus calories out" still holds. Similarly, if someone is getting most of their calories from whole grains, and they eat their stomach full every day and don't get overweight, that's because they're reducing the calories in, and again "calories in minus calories out" still holds. It can't work any other way, because energy can not be created or destroyed - if it goes in the body and does not come out, what happens to it? Yes, different diets are better for losing weight than others, but that wasn't the question. The question asked what weight people would be if their daily kcal intake was 3,800, and for a person who is at a stable weight at that calorific intake it is possible to work out an approximate estimate of that weight - which is what those calculators can do. And what specific foods they are eating does not make a lot of difference - for a person of stable weight, they are burning all 3,800 kcals regardless of the source. Of course, if the person is in a weight-gain or weight-loss phase, all bets are off, but at least the "stable weight" example would have been a helpful answer - and is probably what the OP wanted anyway. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to see a source supporting the idea that a constant amount of calories in will lead to a stable weight. This would require that the individual burn the same number of calories each day, which is a highly suspect assumption, considering how activity levels often change on weekends, on vacations, and in winter, when cold weather forces us to burn more calories to stay warm. The more reasonable assumption is that these increased activities do burn more calories, and that people who manage to maintain a stable weight do so by modifying their caloric intake. That is, just as people get thirsty after sweating a lot, they get hungry, and specifically for high-calorie foods, after periods of high activity. Also, you don't seem to have considered that food can pass through partially undigested, so the "energy in" part is thrown off. And, also, digestion itself uses lots of energy, with some foods requiring a substantial portion of their energy to digest. See negative-calorie food (that name may be overstating the case, but there definitely is an effect of a larger portion of the calories from some foods being used in digestion than others). Also see specific dynamic action. So, again, it's an enormously complex system, and you can't just say if you consume 3800 calories your weight will be X. StuRat (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

A double wammy of inaccuracy by StuRat [94]. Problem #1 Asserting commissioned salespeople are not reliable sources of information is dead wrong. While StuRat appears to think he is an expert on every topic with no evident advanced expertise in most topics, I have extensive experience in several areas. I was a realtor working on commission and I always provided the very best info I could dig up. As a developer I bought hundreds of millions of dollars of real estate, goods and services. Nearly every commissioned salesperson I’ve dealt with provided the best advice and info they could, and the better job they did the more likely I was to order. Problem #2 a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia project pages including the RefDesk. This is typical of his inappropriate posts at RefDesk, and instead of falling into policy he doubles down. Legacypac (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

So you use OR instead of refs to refute my claim, which referenced our conflict of interest article ? Why am I not surprised. And, just to clarify, just because a conflict of interest exists in that they make more money if they sell you additional stuff you don't need, that doesn't always mean they will act on that conflict of interest. But it does mean you should treat their advice more suspiciously than those who won't make a profit from giving you bad advice. StuRat (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not answering any question, I'm pointing out StuRat's is giving worthless incorrect advice on who to listen to. This should not be tolerated. He needs to be stopped by Tbanning. Legacypac (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Who's going to stop you, though? Are you still banned from creating articles? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Stay on topic

It's important that this discussion remains focused, StuRat has made thousands of edits to the ref desks, and it's fair to say that most of them are without encyclopedic foundation or verifiable reference. The Ref Desks need a serious shakedown, it's been true for years now, and it has to start with those who use them as social media, or personal opinion galleries. Wikipedia should strive to provide answers to real questions at the ref desks with links to Wikipedia articles or, worst case, external links. We should avoid personal opinions, that's not what encyclopedias are about. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Ideally, every response should have a reference. But what does one do with questions that are either too vague or are unable to be referenced? Delete them? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, stay on topic. That's not pertinent to this current issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

You brought it up: "Wikipedia should strive to provide answers to real questions at the ref desks with links to Wikipedia articles or, worst case, external links." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: "it's fair to say that most of them are without encyclopedic foundation or verifiable reference." No, it's not. Prove it, or don't make such a claim. StuRat (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

You summarily fail to provide either links to Wikipedia articles or links to reliable sources. That's precisely the problem. If you did, this ANI thread wouldn't exist. Simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

No, I regularly provide those, you just conveniently cherry-pick those cases where I didn't. You claimed that MOST of the time I don't, so either prove it or retract the statement. StuRat (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• So, show some counter-examples.

• I already did, in my response section. Those good answers don't necessarily all reference Wikipedia articles, as some Q's, like finding a math error, don't require refs. But many of them do have good refs. If you want something more recent, we have this: [95]. StuRat (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bugs / TRM, what one does with vague questions is to give the best answers possible within a vague scope. But that is a long way from the blanket "I must answer something" woffle from StuRat. They are miles apart. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Or not answer at all. But just like in real life, if someone asks you a question, you have an innate desire to try to answer it. Maybe StuRat more than some others. From time to time, we see arguments that only answers with citations should be given. But that is insufficient. For example, on the entertainment desk just today, someone asked about umpires overturning reviewed calls. One editor gave a referenced answer, but it was only partial information. I posted the arithmetic which led to the OP thanking the both of us. However, the OP is a ref desk regular, so it's not surprising he gave feedback. If a question is vague, it should be hatted. And then the hatter will get yelled it. It's an endless cycle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

And it won't likely be the OP doing the yelling, since he couldn't care less. It will be those who fancy themselves the ref desk owners - the clique. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

If vague we can ask the OP to clarify, then hat if they don't respond. StuRat (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

A good idea, and probably something the clique wouldn't stand for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The question is how bad that really is in the larger scheme of things. The complaints about not sticking to the fine print of Wiki-rules are coming from mostly outsiders and some Ref Desk contributors who are known to be very strict with the rules and for calling out others when their very strict red lines are infinitesimally breached. I've experienced how forums like e.g. Physicsforums went down the drain precisely because the mods and contributors started to fight each other about such issues when there was no real issue w.r.t. the answers to questions given, other than "the rules". Other websites where they take more relaxed attitude w.r.t. to "the rules" became the prominent websites of today, e.g. StackExchange, Quora, Yahoo Answers etc.. Now, we can say that we're not StackExchange, we're not Quora, we're going to stick to our holy rules. But given that the OPs who ask questions at the Ref Deak can just as well go to the other websites, that's a bit like the East German politburo worrying about people not sticking to communist doctrine when the wall has been breached. They took the decision to disband their State, so I think we should just go about the business of answering questions in a more relaxed way as they do everywhere else.

If StuRat behaves in a disruptive way as judged from the perspective of OPs who don't care about the small details pf the rules we have, then that's a problem we do need to deal with. But otherwise, we should calm down and focus on giving good answers. We should not sit in judgment ourselves of what is a good or bad answer, let the OPs decide and listen to their feedback. Count Iblis (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

If any. Too often, the OP's provide no feedback at all, leaving it to responders to try to figure out what the OP is asking for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thats true. Perhaps if the "Thanks" button was part of each signature instead of having to go to the edit history to find it, we might get more feedback that way. StuRat (talk) 02:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

We should never try to figure out what the person is asking. That is guessing what the question is. Better to ask a question in return. Brevity is also important, in my opinion. I don't think a troll likes a curt answer. A carefully chosen source provided for the potential troll is also a good idea. In my opinion—and I know some will think I'm crazy for suggesting this—but I think we should in essence troll the troll. Turn the tables, at least provisionally, on a suspected prankster. There are problems associated with hatting and deleting a question. I think we need to hone the art of properly fielding all questions. We should only hat or delete when it is utterly clear that there is nothing useful in the inquiry. Even when the question is not a trolling question—and we often don't know from the outset—all benefit from clarifying the question. Bus stop (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

If there's a small number of things they could mean, we could answer them all. For example, in this Q, they asked about the "largest" snake species, which could either mean longest or heaviest, so I listed both, with sources: [96]. Of course, if each answer is very long, then we probably don't want to take this approach. StuRat (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

That is true. Bus stop (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• A corollary of being limited to ten posts a week with a ref for each is that Stu would be prohibited from unhatting hatted discussions, since the act of unhatting does not inherently come with a ref. Are you prepared to accept that implication StuRat? μηδείς (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

StuRat's Proposal

I'd think we could come up with some form of "voluntary probation", with rules for me to follow, such as:

1) Provide at least one relevant reference (inside Wikipedia or outside) to each Ref Desk Q to which I respond. (Note that many Q's only need one ref, to the relevant Wikipedia article.)

2) Limit responses to 10 Q's per week.

I'd like to hear other suggestions, but it should be something measurable, like number of refs, to avoid endless bickering over matters of opinion. Also, I'd like to hear time length proposals for this period. StuRat (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

StuRat, that's a great pair of suggestions. I'd much prefer you to implement your suggested rule (1) and if you did so, I wouldn't worry at all about rule (2) because your productivity and usefulness would excel, far beyond many of the ref desk regulars. If I had my way, rule (1) would be indoctrinated into ref desk behavioural guidelines so voluntarily adopting it would be an excellent start. Perhaps this could be adopted and the impending Arbcom case could be delayed while we give it, say, a month's trial. If we do adopt rule (1) either just for you or across the Ref Desk as a whole, we should also mandate reliable sources be used, because this is an encyclopedia and we should work hard to avoid giving our readers incorrect information, which I have personally witnessed, horribly, many times in a single response (not from you StuRat, but another Ref Desk regular to which this kind of restriction ought to apply). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

3) Stick to facts. Never give your opinion. Just like on a Wikipedia article. I'm not sure a voluntary solution is going to fly with all the support for a topic ban already in place though. Legacypac (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep, while the above two suggestions are welcomed, I'd want to see that too - a major part of the problem is personal opinions, guesswork, speculations and irrelevancies. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Doing 1) will go a long way toward 2) because by looking things up instead of immediately writing up a response from memory, you're going to be slowed down. Count Iblis (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• IMO no, it shouldn't be something measurable; I can't believe that despite the wall of text above you still can't see that the issue isn't the number of comments you make but the number of inappropriate comments you make. Either you're following Wikipedia's rules or you're not; we don't issue quotas for disruption. This proposal as it stands would give you a blank check to continue your speculation, joking and off-topic chatting provided you make one referenced statement somewhere in your response. At minimum, I'd expect I will not make any statement at any page with the prefix Wikipedia:Reference desk/ that is not referenced to an existing Wikipedia article or an external reliable source as defined by WP:RS. (Feel free to play around with the wording; Any statement I make at any page with the prefix Wikipedia:Reference desk/ will either be a quote or paraphrase of an existing and linked Wikipedia article, or will be written and referenced to the same standard to which the same statement would be held were it to be included in a Wikipedia article might also be a workable wording.) If I had my way some variant of this would apply to everyone at the RDs, but baby steps.

  I'd also expect any proposal to make it clear that this is a genuine last-chance offer, not a voluntary agreement which you're free to disregard; I'd suggest either Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place: revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project (which is the exact wording Arbcom would almost certainly place on you were this escalated there), or Failure to abide by this restriction will result in 24 hour blocks, escalating to lengthier blocks if the violations continue which is a fairly standard wording for community-imposed restrictions, although In the event of a breach of these rules any uninvolved administrator can unilaterally issue a topic ban of up to one year from any or all Reference desks or some variant would also be workable. ‑ Iridescent 20:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Strong support This is a very encouraging step on your part Stu. I would strongly suggest we take the approach (in this whole issue) that The Rambling Man (talk) advocates in his post above, coupled with Iridescent's proposals we may be on the way to a solution. I would however, strongly suggest that you adhere to Iridescents' strong and precise caveats and accept them. We may be on the road to a solution not just for you StuRat, but the wider RD issue. Irondome (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Moved to Oppose based on Stu's continuation of behaviours which has brought us here in the first place, and what appears to be a 'reluctance' to take on Iridescent's proposals in their entirety. I thought this whole re-opening was predicated on that..Irondome (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• I can see that working (with the above wording for infractions), but with both restrictions, not only #1.

The problem is that while the spirit of #1 is sufficient, what can be enforced is its letter, which will be satisfied with wikilinking the first noun of every post. Now, of course, this is not what is intended. But the problem is not StuRat being an evil genius who devised a fantastic self-restriction proposal in the knowledge that only the toothless part will be applied; the problem is StuRat being a human who cannot help but give speculative answers without searching. So I am fairly sure that if only #1 is applied, after a couple of weeks/months of good RefDesk behavior, they will slip into their old habits again, though obeying the letter of the restriction.

Adding #2 will break the "post first, search later" habit because if StuRat keeps doing it, it will be the end of their weekly posting after one hour, and both consciously and unconsciously this will be felt as undesirable. The 10/week threshold may be a tad low, but it must not be much higher either - it must have tooth to prevent the current modus operandi from kicking back in. Maybe it won't work because StuRat will just reduce their presence here and slip back into old habits as I described - but it is certainly worth a try. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 21:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Note that I did suggest "relevant" references for part 1, so that would preclude linking to the first noun (unless that happened to be relevant). StuRat (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that, but it is not really enforceable. Here's an over-the-top example:

Imagined exchange with a "relevant" link that does not solve the issue at all.
Newspapers say the Sun will be obscured by the Moon next day. What will I see? --Questioner This phenomenon is an eclipse. If you put sunglasses on, you will be able to look at it and see a ring of light around the Moon's shadow. It is quite beautiful actually. --StuRat <angry uncivil rant about how looking at the eclipse without eclipse-approved glasses will get you retina damage> --Tigraan

The link is absolutely relevant: it provides information the OP probably did not have. The problem is that the part of the answer that really, really needed research is unlinked, so the link is not relevant in the sense that matters. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 22:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Having thought a little about this, I think it suffers from the big flaw that StuRat has really still not accepted or addressed the actual problems raised with his ref desk contributions, and has not accepted a single error in any of the examples shown - the complaints really aren't about the lack of sourcing. And the new proposal would still allow him to continue providing opinion, speculation, guesswork, providing he can find a source (and you can probably find a source for just about any opinion out there with a very quick Google search). Again, Iridescent has nailed it pretty well, and his strict interpretation is, I think, the only approach that has a chance of working. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

  I need to just add that understanding and accepting the problems is key here - if StuRat goes back to the ref desks actually still thinking that everything he had been doing has actually been fine, we'll be back here quickly (even under this proposal) because nothing fundamental will have changed - and if that happens, there surely won't be a last last chance (but there will be a lot more drama). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

In that section StuRat proposed to take on fairly stringent restrictions. Maybe I am naive about their motivations, but I think they heard the sound of pitchforks. Yes, in an ideal world they would admit their mistakes more directly, but I am not sure that forcing a public confession is really productive, especially if (armchair psychology alert) they are too proud to do it and would rather vanish from the project altogether. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 22:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you mean, and I agree with your point about public confessions. But my fear is that through all of this, I've not seen even the smallest hint of any actual understanding. But maybe it is actually there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• While I still think your examples weren't very good, in particular #7, I do occasionally misread a Q, and thus answer a Q that wasn't asked. This can particularly be a problem when there's a huge volume of responses to the Q already, which got offtrack, and by the time I get through all of that I should reread the original Q to get back on track. (This can be easy to do, as you yourself got offtrack, talking about mass in and out, when that had nothing to do with the Q.)
• I occasionally reply on topics I'm unfamiliar with. This isn't always a problem though, such as if I just provide a link to our Wikipedia article on that topic and ask if that answers their Q.
• I do occasionally add jokes. Whether this should be allowed is an item of dispute, with some apparently thinking there should be absolutely no jokes on the Ref Desk ever, and others allowing it. I particularly think it's useful if the joke/adage relates to the answer, such as "Don't ask the barber if you need a haircut", instead of a rather dry discussion of the conflict of interest involved in doing so.
• I do occasionally add OR/anecdotes, as do others. Seems like it does have it's place, though, such as "I've found PubMed to be a useful source for such info, so you might want to look there".

However, I do always attempt to be helpful, and remain civil, even when others are uncivil towards me. Incivility on the Ref Desk, and in Wikipedia in general, seems to be widespread and widely accepted. That I don't agree with. StuRat (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, I was wrong. You really haven't a clue, or are pretending, or have some mild form of autism (but WP:THERAPY), all of which lead to the same conclusion. I withdraw the weak support I had for your proposal, and go back to supporting a full TBan. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I.m.o., StuRat should seriously consider contributing to other sites like StackExchange, Quora etc., doing so will automatically cause him to spend less time here, also the feedback he'll get at these other more prominent sites will come from a much larger group of people. Part of the problem at the Ref Desks is that because it's typically the same few people who are arguing, one tends to ignore that feedback. You get disputes there for the same reason why people at e.g. a base in Antarctica will get into disputes after a few months there. The discussion here at AN/I isn't all that helpful either, while people who are hauled to AN/I for disruptive behavior do get feedback from a larger group, in this particular case the larger group aren't his peers as they're not Ref Desk regulars and the issue isn't the typical sort of misbehavior that's usually discussed here. Count Iblis (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - When so many editors are peeved with one's participation in any given area? it's best that that individual stay away from the area-in-question. It's not a matter of who's right or wrong. It's a matter of there's a lot of angry editors. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Worst-case scenario would be the problem we face everywhere else on Wikipedia: the notion that any source is better than none, and that whatever source the editor randomly picks up is the best and greatest source, even if they have no idea what they're doing or how to distinguish a good source from a bad source. Then Stu will think his job is done, he's provided a source of whatever dubious relevance, and we'll have endless bickering about why he's still giving bad answers to everything and no recognition from Stu that he's done anything wrong, because surely we can all agree he followed his own proposed solution...I'm speculating and predicting the future of course, but can you really imagine it going any better than this? Adam Bishop (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm sorry. The time for StuRat's change-of-heart was years ago—before a whole lot of disruption on the desks, before there was a widely-held sentiment to shut down the desks in part because of StuRat's behavior, before it became a TBAN proposal at ANI, before that TBAN was a near-certainty. It's not in the community's interest to encourage editors to ride the system until reasonableness is the only remaining choice, consuming an enormous amount of community time in the process. My Support for the TBAN stands, and I think we would have to get a re-vote from every one of the participants to date, or a similar degree of participation and consensus from others. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I'm sorry. This is not a penal institution. I commend StuRat's ability to suggest his own limitations. I like to give credit where credit is due. I think many of his posts on the Reference desks were at least acceptable. And I think there is a dearth of guidance on how we are to react under a variety of circumstances concerning types of questions that come our way on the Reference desks. StuRat is one aspect of multi-problematic area of editing just as the whole (successful) encyclopedia is riddled with problems. We succeed by addressing problems and resolving to do things differently in the future. Bus stop (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Boing! said Zebedee, Tigraan, and Mandruss. StuRat has still not admitted that he's in the wrong, and the proposal would, IMO, openly invite finding loopholes in the restriction - we don't want to get into a Jonathan Wild / Brian Haw situation here, where we try and craft a rule that circumlocutes around "Do not behave like StuRat" and only then ban StuRat for violating it. If this proposal had been made five years ago, then perhaps it would have worked, but that point has long been passed. At best, we'll be back here in a month or two arguing about the precise wording of the restriction; I think we should cut the knot now. Tevildo (talk) 07:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment While this is a step in the right direction, it does not address the core problems of guessing, speculation, lack of factual correctness, and sharing irrelevant ideas. A rough idea of how to address most of this is:

StuRat

1) will not guess or speculate on the RefDesk.

2) will ensure that his posts are factually correct.

3) will provide a reference or references that clearly show that his posts are factually correct, with the usual exceptions for WP:SKYISBLUE, but be cautious.

4) StuRat’s posts will answer the OP’s question. (StuRat may ask the OP for clarification. StuRat may provide a reference that answers the OP’s question without answering the question himself.)

5) limit his responses to 10 Questions per week.

StuRat’s proposal to limit the number of questions he answers is a good one since it will cause him to spend more time on each question, and (one hopes) give a better answer.--Wikimedes (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support StuRat's proposal, and also Wikimedes just above, Though if the other restrictions are followed the 10 per week limit need not apply. However 10 per week limit will also give enough time to research better answers! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett:, literally nothing has been preventing StuRat from better researching answers and generally not posting low-quality nonsense before now. --JBL (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

So it would be good for StuRat to start following his proposal right now, or even better Wikimedes's inclusion of no speculation or guessing. It could give a chance to avoid a topic ban. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose this proposal, support full topic ban as proposed earlier. StuRat's promise to include "at least one reference" is invalidated by the proven fact that he doesn't know (or pretends not to know) what a reference is. I've seen him aggressively defending postings of his that were (as usual) crammed full of personal opinion and speculation, on the specious argument that somewhere in there he had included a wikilink, which he thought constituted a "reference". As long as he shows no understanding that references need to be supportive of the substance of the actual answer as related to the question, not just supportive of some tangentially related factoid that his flight of fancy came up with, this proposal will only lead to continuous testing of boundaries. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support, the problem with StuRat is analogous to the Atheist who lives in a deeply religious village and who has insulted people because he doesn't bother to go to Church on Sunday. A proposal to kick him out of the village has gotten massive support, but the Atheist has made a compromise proposal, he says he's going to attend church every Sunday. As we can see in this section many people agree that this is good enough but some are saying that since he doesn't really believe in God, he shouldn't be allowed to stay. Count Iblis (talk) 09:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Count Iblis, your comparison is puzzling on multiple levels. Do you actually intend to imply that StuRat's entitlement to behave on the refdesk in any way he damn well pleases is comparable to the upholding of freedom of religion, and that people's attempts to stop him from doing this are comparable to religious persecution and bigotry? And are you implying that an offer to make a show of honoring the letter but not the spirit of a sourcing rule should be taken as satisfactory just like honoring church just for show should be enough to placate the bigots? You've got some explaining to do here, mate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
    • StuRat did not say or imply that he has an "entitlement to behave on the refdesk in any way he damn well pleases". Nor did he say he would only honor "the letter but not the spirit of a sourcing rule". StuRat referred to his proposal as "voluntary probation". Our article on Probation says that "During the period of probation an offender faces the threat of being incarcerated if found breaking the rules set by the court or probation officer." He suggested "rules" that he will follow during a period of "probation". We can't misconstrue his suggestion to mean that he will do as he "damn well pleases" or that he will honor "the letter but not the spirit of a sourcing rule" because if that proved to be the case then he would fail probation.
      What some are failing to understand is that proper functioning on the Reference desks is not a cut-and-dried, formulaic thing. In my opinion this happens to be constantly open to interpretation. That means that anyone fielding questions is on "probation". That is not something to be afraid of. A person's "answers" are open to review. Clearly there is an upswell of critical opinion being expressed of StuRat's functioning on the Reference desks. But the way forward should not be to topic ban him. That is a recipe for our own ignorance. We need to hone our critical abilities as concerns the assessment of responses on the Reference desks. We've got to cut him some slack and use the Wikipedia talk:Reference desk Talk page if further problems are identified. Bus stop (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
    • read this and take the example of someone who wants to be nude in public. That person may well be right but society will likely think otherwise. The nudist then makes the proposal to wear clothes, but some in society don't think that's good enough because he still holds on to his belief that there is nothing wrong in being nude. Count Iblis (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

In the church example you suggest that the atheist could solve the problem by paying lip-service to the community's rules while really continuing to disobey by any meaningful standard.

That may make sense when the rule itself is bigoted. But Wikipedia's rules are more like traffic rules. They're rules that everyone follows to ensure the smooth operation of a shared resource. It's true that many people think that they don't need to follow those rules, or that paying lip-service to them is sufficient, but in this case, that's not a good thing.

I think you've damned StuRat by this analogy, not praised him. ApLundell (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose StuRat’s proposal as insufficient. Paul August ☎ 10:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Future Perfect at Sunrise, Paul August. I could maybe be moved to support if Stu incorporated Iridescent's wording in his voluntary proposal, but all of it, not just a "cherry-pick" of the bits he thinks will leave him more free to post his unsupported opinions and generally irrelevant chatter on the RefDesks. Otherwise that just needs to be imposed. I also note he's still posting irrelevant, speculative blather there, even as this conversation continues. What Stu thinks about how the future of space probe costs will unfold is not anywhere near an RD answer to the question currently asked, it's just self-indulgent forum-like chatter. Looking at that thread does remind me though, that Stu is not the only problem. Iri's "baby-steps" could profitably be speeded up. -- Begoon 11:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Begoon's diff which indicate StuRat may not actually understand what is happening here: to carry on with precisely the same behaviour during the course of a discussion as the behaviour that initiated that very discussion is, to be charitable, rather ill-considered, and gives no guarantees that SR will be able to abide by his own proposal. Sorry, — fortunavelut luna 12:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as a waste of everyone's time. Even though StuRat has seen the way this discussion is going, he still keeps speculating. agtx 14:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It's rather difficult for me to follow rules, in the interim, which haven't been agreed to yet, until there is some consensus for what they should be, so I think I'd better just stop contributing to the Ref Desk altogether until we get this worked out. I haven't heard many suggestions for length or probation. The one I saw said something like "a bit more than 10 weeks". So, 12 weeks maybe ? More ? Less ? What does everyone think is fair ? As for what to include, we have my 2, an additional #3, then 5 more, and Iri's text. Do we want all that, or is some of it redundant or unneeded ? StuRat (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The message seems quite clear to me. The vast majority want you to stay away from the RefDesks. Likely a good idea, to follow that request. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, what is wrong with you? You're already supposed to know not to speculate, to be sure your posts are factual, to provide references, and to answer the questioner's actual question. You shouldn't need to wait for those things to be specially repeated just for you. And no, not for 12 weeks; FOREVER. Why are you wasting scores of editors' time clinging to your personal hobby of goofing around the RefDesk babbling whatever pops into your head EEng 15:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Boing! said Zebedee, Tigraan, and Mandruss. This is just an attempt to WP:GAME the system. I note that there is no mention of consequences for violating the restrictions. Unless there are blocks of increasing lengths (including an eventual indef) for violations - this is meaningless. Also six months away from the R/Ds is the only way to begin any solution to this. MarnetteD|Talk 18:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per others. Stikkyy t/c 18:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - @StuRat: I started my TBAN !vote with the statement, RD responders should not draw primarily from personal experience and knowledge. You did not dispute that. To my mind, the statement applies to each individual comment in an RD thread, not only to one's treatment of the entire thread. If a comment draws primarily from personal experience and knowledge, you don't make it. Do you now agree with this and agree to abide by it? Are you prepared to make that dramatic change to how you participate on the desks? Do you honestly think you're capable of doing so? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed. Is that one of the terms already listed, or do we need to add it to the list ? StuRat (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• The whole “I can change myself” facade isn’t really convincing considering that you were previously continuing your behavior when you knew that there was a case building against you. Stikkyy t/c 18:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• It's certainly not in the list with that degree of clarity. I think this would exclude about 95% of your comments on the desks; if you disagree, you're not getting the gist. I would like to wait and see whether others think it needs even more clarity, and how many think it's too late for such concessions. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• I've noted that a lot of the objection to your participation is not that you draw from personal experience and knowledge, but that you're too often incorrect when you do so. I should stress that I disagree with that approach. I wouldn't want Stephen Hawking himself to draw primarily from personal and experience and knowledge in any comment in an RD question about astrophysics. The other approach requires you to know what you don't know, and that is virtually impossible to achieve. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, as from his subsequent responses StuRat is clearly not willing to accept the conditions I earlier said would be the minimum I'd be willing to accept (no unreferenced statements except statements so obvious they wouldn't require a reference if in article space; sanctions either in the form of blocks or of an automatic ban from the reference desks should the probation be breached), and is instead trying to haggle about time limits (something which as best I can tell nobody but StuRat himself supports), all while still posting unreferenced speculation at the reference desks. It's becoming obvious there's no potential for a negotiated continued presence at the RDs, as it's now apparent that StuRat doesn't even understand what the issue is. Unless StuRat is willing to accept a ban on commentary, speculation and chatter, enforced by sanctions, the only thing up for discussion is whether there are any circumstances in which a complete topic ban from the Reference Desk could subsequently be lifted. ‑ Iridescent 18:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per everyone else. --JBL (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I tried to make better contributions, like this one: [97] but it's tough, not knowing what the eventual restrictions would be. That does contain some OR, as I do work with the blind. Instead, I've decided to halt my contributions on the Ref Desk proper and strike out my current contributions. (We aren't supposed to delete them, in case others have read and/or responded to them, but this gets the point across that "you need not pay attention to this post".) I'm now thinking you want just links, and no commentary whatsoever, as in here: [98]. StuRat (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I've tried to help you, but you refuse to listen. Again, stay away from the RefDesk for at least six months. Otherwise, you're only going to peeve folks off even more & end up getting blocks. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

So, I think we're up to this:

1) Provide at least one relevant reference (inside Wikipedia or outside) to each Ref Desk Q to which I respond. (Note that many Q's only need one ref, to the relevant Wikipedia article.)

2) Limit responses to 10 Q's per week.

3) Stick to facts. Never give opinion. Just like on a Wikipedia article.

4) Will ensure that posts are factually correct.

5) Will provide a reference or references that clearly show that his posts are factually correct, with the usual exceptions for WP:SKYISBLUE, but be cautious.

6) Will answer the OP’s question. (I may ask the OP for clarification. I may provide a reference that answers the OP’s question without answering the question himself.)

7) I will not make any statement at any page with the prefix Wikipedia:Reference desk/ that is not referenced to an existing Wikipedia article or an external reliable source as defined by WP:RS.

8) Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place: revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project

9) Failure to abide by this restriction will result in 24 hour blocks, escalating to lengthier blocks if the violations continue which is a fairly standard wording for community-imposed restrictions, although in the event of a breach of these rules any uninvolved administrator can unilaterally issue a topic ban of up to one year from any or all Reference desks.

Let me know if I missed anything. Now, as for the probation duration, I proposed 12 weeks and haven't had any feedback. Is this sufficient ? I can also reduce the 10 Q threads per week number, if anybody thinks that is needed. Are we ready to !vote ?

StuRat (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Stu, the basic takeaway here is that you should only answer questions that you have a good or excellent knowledge of, and provide relevant and strong sources to back up your answers. Just don't bullshit the punters. Its not hard. Irondome (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed, but we need to get this proposal rolling and !vote on it. Is there another point you wish to add to the list ? StuRat (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Um, you made your proposal and we're already !voting on it. I understand that you've added some additional proposed restrictions, but that doesn't call for a whole new !vote. The oppose comments above appear to be largely agnostic to what the probation proposal is—they're generally opposed to any such proposal. agtx 20:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Re Now, as for the probation duration, I proposed 12 weeks and haven't had any feedback. Is this sufficient ?, are you insane? You've had plenty of feedback on this particular proposal, all of it negative. Any plan that allows you to continue contributing won't be a temporary restriction after which you'll be free to resume disruption; it will be a permanent obligation to do what you should have already been doing. ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

You know what, StuRat? I'm thiiisss close to proposing an indefinite block for you, simply because there seems to be no limit to how much editor time you're willing to waste. Get a clue, will you? EEng 20:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, a great deal of the feedback on this proposal has been positive. User:Tigraan is the one who proposed a bit more than 10 weeks. Permanent probation seems like a contradiction in terms. Of course, after the probation period ends, all the same restrictions that apply to everyone else will apply to me, just not the special restrictions, so accidentally editing 11 Q threads in a week won't get me banned. StuRat (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• At no point has Tigraan proposed anything of the sort as far as I can see (I think we've established by now that the concept of "source" appears to be alien to you; if Tigraan did say this anywhere then provide a diff of it), and the only person suggesting "probation" is you; the only question is what the terms of your permanent restriction will be. I'm done wasting my time trying to find a workable mechanism for you to return to the RDs; as far as I'm concerned the only issue up for debate now is whether you're just restricted from the Reference Desk or are banned from Wikipedia outright. ‑ Iridescent 21:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe I misread: "The 10/week threshold may be a tad low, but it must not be much higher either - it must have tooth to prevent the current modus operandi from kicking back in." - Tigraan, 21:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC). StuRat (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• There is no maybe about it. Talk about digging a hole for oneself ... - Sitush (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• That was about the limit of ten answers per week you proposed, not about the duration. I would have thought this was obvious from the context. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - these proposals are just going to muddy the waters and we will end up back here in a very short space of time due to the potential for lawyering etc. StuRat just isn't understanding what is wrong, so forcing limitations like this are bound to result in some overstepping. For what it is worth, I think answers on RD should almost always be in the form of "see our article on name of article" except where two articles contradict each other. In the event that the articles do not address the question, fix the article if the change would be encyclopaedic, and reject the question if it is not. Any fixing should be per our standard policies and guidelines. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I think answers on RD should almost always be in the form of "see our article on name of article" except where two articles contradict each other. – I think that's brilliant. After this circus is over that should be the next step in reforming RefDesk (though it's not quite that simple, of course). EEng 20:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

That would exclude things like this, which was not only a legitimate use of the desk but a model response (Medeis linked to a wiki article, but the actual source was off-wiki and accessible via the small icon immediately preceding that link). Answer the question and out, no follow-on discussion about how that looks just like a bug one saw five years ago in France, the range of swallowtail butterflies, the fact that those spots are not really eyes, and whatever other tangents can be explored without limit until everybody is tired and moves on to the next such discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, let's not get into this discussion here and now, but like I said, it's not as simple as always just pointing to an article. But it's a great first approximation, IMO. EEng 20:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

That actually shows a photo from Commons and links to the article Papilio glaucus which shows the same photo, so I'd say it is effectively a "See this Wikipedia content" answer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, and as noted above I'm close to proposing an indefinite block just because he's wasting so much of everyone's time. It's outrageous. EEng 20:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose any "probation". The reference desks need a complete reform, and StuRat should be completely uninvolved during that process, which may be a lengthy one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328—is there any mechanism in place for that "complete reform"? You say that "StuRat should be completely uninvolved during that process, which may be a lengthy one". Let us assume for a moment that StuRat is topic banned from participation at the Reference desks for that lengthy period of time. Aren't you saying that there will be oversight and scrutiny of all other editors fielding questions on the Reference desks? If so, who is going to provide such oversight and scrutiny? To my understanding no mechanism is in place for critiquing the responses that anyone provides on the Reference desks. And if I am mistaken about that, and indeed there is one or more people who accept the responsibility to scrutinise the responses provided on the Reference desks, then of course they could also oversee the responses of StuRat. My main question is: by what means will there be a "complete reform" of the Reference desks? Bus stop (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Bus stop, I expressed my opinion that the reference desks need a complete reform but that is no guarantee that it will happen, although I think it is clear that many editors share my sentiment. This is neither the time nor the place for a detailed discussion of how that reform might happen but rather a discussion of whether StuRat should be participating there now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is an attempt at misdirection to avoid an inevitable and deserved topic ban.--WaltCip (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment this is approaching WP:SNOW territory. I feel the initial proposal (a requirement to include 1 reference and a cap on posts per week) was an alternative to a TBAN that could address the problem, but that doesn't seem to have gotten significant support. I don't feel any of the more complicated proposals are worth discussing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as insufficient, per Adam Bishop and the others. Neutrality^talk 01:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing I could add hasn't already been said by those before me. Blackmane (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - the cliquey, unfunny, ill-informed nonsense on the Reference Desks is the reason I haven't gone near them for years. Looking at the diffs in this thread reminded me of that, and for that at least I am grateful. StuRat needs to stay away from them entirely, forever. fish&karate 12:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose None of this addresses the core issue, none of it is as sufficient and effective as the topic ban. Grandpallama (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Insufficient to address the core issues at hand. A topic ban would also allow us to observe how the RDs function without StuRat and give us a better understanding of what changes, if any are needed. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Again, reluctantly, but given that this whole topic is a set piece in how not to demonstrate insight into an issue, I have no choice. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - (a) The time for this was a long time ago, not as a last desperate move, to say "ok, I don't think I'm doing anything wrong (i.e. the whole thread up to this proposal), but since I might be getting topic banned, maybe I'll say I'll do some of the things people have tried to get me to do for years on end." (b) given how visible/prolific a figure StuRat is on the refdesk, it seems like an important move to understand the character and function of the refdesk in his absence. (c) For the record, after a break of maybe 6 months, I would almost certainly support a measured proposal along these lines, so long as it showed a good grasp of the issues. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. At this late date StuRat still does not understand the issue. Understanding and change will only come slowly. He needs some time away from the RefDesk to figure things out.--Wikimedes (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm piling on to encourage someone to close this. No benefit has come from the time wasted discussing the underlying issue over the last few years, and none would come from encouraging the idea that Wikipedia is a great place to express liberty and do your own thing. Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

How to appeal?

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

---

I would like to appeal this decision. We were making good progress towards writing up a proposal but this was halted in the middle. What is the process to appeal ? StuRat (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I was also about to strike out all my current Ref Desk contributions as a show of good faith, but I don't know if this is allowed now. StuRat (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

You've just been restricted from the RefDesks & have been given (at your talkpage) instructions (including timetable) on how to appeal. Best you follow those instructions. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

We are talking about different things. I am asking about an immediate appeal that the correct process was not followed, and the consensus was not reached, not an appeal 6 months from now. StuRat (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Yo, if you want to appeal, then as GoldenRing has said on your page, the correct place to appeal- whenever you choose to do so- is WP:AN, rather than here. But he also gives you excellent advice: don't. Appealing so soon will probably just reinforce any suspicion that the process was not fully understood by you, if there are such suspicions. Good luck! — fortunavelut luna 17:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@StuRat: If I've understood your intentions correctly, that you think my close of this discussion was improper, probably the best way is to request closure review at WP:AN. However, I do urge you to listen to my advice at your talk page and that of editors immediately above. GoldenRing (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

StuRat, I really really don't think appealing is a good idea. I would like to see you concentrating for three months or so on content creation and maintenance, because that's what we are here for. I would gladly assist you. It would help your cause greatly. Irondome (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I did appeal, and the link is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review request for .22StuRat.27s behaviour on the Reference Desks .28again.29.22. Maybe the deck is stacked against me, but I still have to try my best. I'm not quite sure what to do about notifications, though. I will notify the closing Admin, but I sure don't want to have to notify everybody in this entire thread. Is this required ? StuRat (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Your inability to take advice, StuRat, is almost as strong as your inability to recognise a consensus! The thing is, making all those people effectivey relitigate the case (or be seen to be trying to) will not help your case at all. Why not let it go for a bit? — fortunavelut luna 17:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Close reverted

I have reverted the close, as StuRat's own proposal was allowed less than 24 hours (although the close was clearly done in good faith). Whether it was likely to be accepted or not was not for the closing admin to decide, and it deserves to run for longer than that - at least long enough for all interested parties to have a chance to examine it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Someone close this ...

PLEASE!

–EEng

...please. Paul August ☎ 23:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. The proposal is just an end run around around a topic ban that was about to be enacted. In fact it was enacted before it was appealed and the thread reopened. Legacypac (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• I reverted the first close purely because StuRat's proposal hadn't really been given enough time for people to evaluate it. Even if some might see it as an attempted "end run", I think closing it without enough time for a meaningful consensus would still be a mistake. I think it's better to spend a little more time on it now to be certain of consensus, rather than leaving it open to an early appeal on the grounds that the proposal wasn't given a proper hearing - the latter would surely take up more time overall. Having said that, now that a clearer consensus does seem to be emerging, I would not object to a new close. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Since I commented at AN regarding the close and I cant work out where in the mess above to put it, just going to add it here: Support complete topic ban from ref desks for StuRat. Oppose any lesser sanction. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Agreed this needs closing. I won't attempt it again to avoid any possibility of the closer being a problem, but if that's not a clear consensus then I don't know what is. GoldenRing (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

  I'd see no problem if you did - the only previous issue was asking for a bit more time to be sure of the consensus, and as you say it looks clear now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

  Well if it's still open in the morning, I'll have another think about it. GoldenRing (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• The Numbers: +/- a couple perhaps, as it is a quagmire. But roughly, the figures are as follows: Regarding the tobic ban, 39 supporting, 8 opposing, and, for StuRat's proposal, 3 supporting, 21 opposing. — fortunavelut luna 13:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Is there any relationship between the thread at "Village pump policy" called "RfC: Should the Reference Desks be closed?" and the now contemplated banning of StuRat from the Reference desks? I am just asking this as a simple, straightforward question. Bus stop (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

  Other than that the second one you mentioned has also run long enough, and could be closed as well? --Jayron32 14:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) The connection is really just "There's something wrong with the Ref Desks, so what should we do?", and they're examining two different possible solutions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Mild Support for Stu's 9 point probation, with someone like sunrise or jaryron or other experienced ref desk admin as someone who will keep an eye out, and can hand out 24 hr topic bans if necessary. Rationale: He is infuriating, and frequently talks out of his ass. I'm sure many people see his responses and conclude our desks are utter crap. Few of you understand this as well as me, trust me. However, exclusion os not really the wiki way, and as maddening as his behavior is, I do believe that a) he sincerely wants to help (unlike some other regular ref deskers) and b) he will take this probation seriously, especially with a warden, if anyone would volunteer for that task. Basically, I'd much rather see Stu become a much better version of himself and stay around, rather than be gone forever. If the ban does go through (likely), I encourage him to ask for lifting in 3-6 months, and follow his plan then. I will also volunteer to mentor Stu and review his potential responses, if he would like to post them on my talk page while he is banned. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

  Don't bring me into this mess... --Jayron32 15:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I just meant to use you as an example of an admin with relevant experience that I would trust. And you've already commented here on your own. I in no way said you could or would do anything. I completely understand if you want no part of keeping Stu in line, but I stand by my belief that Stu can and might do better if he knew someone with the power to block had an eye on him. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I would trust Cullen328 to oversee the Reference desks. Perhaps he could pick individuals to oversee individual "desks"—one per desk. We should try to come up with a tentative plan. And StuRat should be permitted to field questions under the watchful eye(s) of such people. They should probably all be administrators. And they should each have expertise in the subject matter of the given "desk". Bus stop (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Er, you did see what Cullen said above, didn't you? The reference desks need a complete reform, and StuRat should be completely uninvolved during that process, which may be a lengthy one. - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It's probably worth exploring exploring such remedies, but the details need a lot of discussion and they are outside the scope of this proposal. If any remedies are in order, they should be in place within a couple of months and then StuRat can decide whether he can work within the new world order at RD. If he believes he can, he can wait a few more months and then ask the community if they are willing to let him try. This proposal needs to close now. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Picking RefDesk czars is straying pretty far afield of this discussion. Especially as there are threads currently running elsewhere about reform. ApLundell (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Sitush properly identifies the biggest of many problems with your suggestion, Bus stop. Since I have called for the reference desks to be closed down, I am clearly not the right person to wrangle the regulars. I am busy with several other things on the project such as learning how to be a more effective administrator and do not want to oversee anything. The designation "czar" leaves me cold, and I agree with ApLundell that reform must be discussed elsewhere. Thanks anyway. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Why talk yourself out of a job, Cullen328? Trump's got someone who wants the EPA shut down in charge of the EPA, someone who wants public education eliminated in charge of education, someone who hates immigrants in charge of immigration, and so on. So why not someone who thinks the RefDesk should be axed in charge of the RefDesk? EEng 01:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, I get it, Cullen328, you don't like the designation czar. Bus stop (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

You are quite amusing, as usual, EEng. My response would have been almost the same if no one had used the word "czar", Bus stop. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Should the votes of people with no recent involvement in the Ref Desks be disregarded?

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

---

The vast majority of the votes to ban StuRat are given by people who express the general view about the Ref Desk not sticking to the sourcing requirement rules the rest of Wikipedia operates under, but they then attribute that problem to StuRat, because the way the complaint is presented against him makes it looks like he is the evil genius when it's a fair fraction of everyone involved there. While there are some issues to address with the way StuRat and others go about contributing to the Ref Desks, I think it's just not possible for outsiders here on AN/I to judge this properly in the way they normally judge misbehavior.

The fundamental difference between this case and the typical case of someone hauled to AN/I, is that typically you'll get someone here who shows behavior that's not acceptable anywhere, such as insulting people, engaging in edit wars etc., and and yo then don't need to be a regular on the affected page to pass the judgment that this is unacceptable behavior and there is then no problem with passing sanctions on that particular editor regardless of what other editors have been doing (they can always be sanctioned later). Count Iblis (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I am beginning to query your cluefulness after this thread, also. Since when have discussions been limited to, say, project members. And since when has the wider opinion of the community been disregarded in favour of a clique. Honestly, you, Bus stop and one or two others need to tread carefully because you're not doing yourselves any favours in this discussion. - Sitush (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can have an opinion on the matter after reviewing the evidence provided in the diffs. This is an open forum, open to all members of the project. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Basically, no, the opinions and arguments of editors who contribute elsewhere on Wikipedia should not be ignored. The Ref Desks are not a walled garden where a few editors can behave however they want to without being subject to the scrutiny of the wider community. Attempts to prevent such scrutiny is harmful both to the wider project and to the Ref Desks in particular.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but we're not investigating the Ref Desk here, just one editor. The fact that the Ref Desk, like it or not, has de-facto become a walled garden, means that you can't pick one editor and judge his conduct there using the rules that apply on Wikipedia generally. As I explained above, it's also because he's not accused of the usual things editors get scrutinized for here. The only way to properly go about this is to examine the situation at the Ref Desk in its totality e.g. in an ArbCom case. Count Iblis (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The universal "rule" that StuRat persistently violated is: If your behavior is highly controversial, stop it until you can get a consensus for it. It's that simple. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

But I think you have for years proclaimed on your user pages that ArbCom should be disbanded and that its rulings are irrelevant. Are you cherry-picking or what? - Sitush (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Good grief; why are we even having this discussion? Count Iblis, if you don't want Wikipedia's rules to apply to your pet project then pick one of these fine alternative providers and move over there. As long as you're being hosted on our website, you're subject to our policies and you don't get to cherry-pick which parts you agree with, and one of those policies is "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale". Our purpose is to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally, not to act as the webhost of a chatroom for you and your friends. ‑ Iridescent 20:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• • See my reply to Nigel Ish above. Count Iblis (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. Unless AfD discussions are limited to people who have edited the article. In the last year. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

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

TBAN scope

I think it's going to be important for whoever closes this discussion to word the TBAN such that it achieves what the community intends. The reason I'm concerned is this edit, which is a response to this discussion. Even as this is going on and even as StuRat has stricken a bunch of his recent RefDesk comments, he still can't help but use Wikipedia as a discussion platform for his speculation. That appears to be what the community is opposed to, and StuRat's behavior makes me concerned that he'll use whatever loophole he can to keep doing it. agtx 03:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Um. I don't think there's much question that a TBAN would say, in effect: Do not edit the Reference Desks. What is your concern exactly? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

That he's answering RefDesk questions in the same objectionable way, just moving his answers to users' talk pages. agtx 03:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I missed the page name. I agree that the TBAN would have to explicitly prohibit responses related to RD threads on any page. But what about email? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

And what's wrong with "Consult your nutritionist and/or doctor"? That's per guidelines. And the first part of his comment appears to be correct.[99] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Who cares? It doesn't matter. This is about ban evasion, not about the content of the post. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The ban was imposed, then lifted, then imposed again, so I don't know if that item was technically a violation or not. But StuRat says he's going away anyway. So you and the rest of your clique have won. You don't need to rub it in further. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

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

ITN discussion is getting a bit heated

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

---

Extra eyes from available admins would be appreciated. I think we are reaching a point where some of the comments are pushing the envelope. I am INVOLVED (though I did revdel one really egregious insult) so I can't do much. See the discussion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

As usual, a side argument about the ease of getting guns in America. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I hatted the discussion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

May be worth recalling that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control authorizes discretionary sanctions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Somewhat bizarre that these editors are bickering about guns when the lethal weapon in this case was a rented Home Depot pickup truck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

You're right, the guy's only weapon was a truck[100] - just like they do in Europe. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, do car deaths outnumber gun deaths in the US? Wouldn't that make it even less notable... I'll get my flame-proof coat... Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Running over people purposely, and claiming to be acting on the behalf of ISIS, is not an everyday occurrence, at least not in America. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it results in an insufficient body-count I'd imagine. — fortunavelut luna 19:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

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

More Just Dance vandalism (rangeblock needed)

Resolved, NAC SwisterTwister talk 02:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Can someone block 2001:8003:6499:A500:0:0:0:0/64? This is a problematic IP range that subtly vandalizes dancing video game pages. It has been blocked before, and it is continuing still. Thanks. Nihlus 22:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I blocked the range for a month. If the problem returns after that, please feel free to let me know or re-report here. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

---

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

IP editor repeatedly disrupting talk page

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

---

An IP editor has been disrupting the Stormfront talk page by removing his IP address from his auto-signed comments and, lately, replacing his IP address with 123.45.678.910, as in this latest edit. The IP address was last blocked for a short time on 27 October. Since then, 3 different editors (including me) have appealed to him on the IP talk page to stop, but those requests have been ignored. Request a longer block, as it appears no one else has been editing anonymously from that IP except for this guy for last few months. Rockypedia (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

this, in spite of the fact that the IP's edit proposal was at least in part addressed and accepted - by myself and RP above. The ensuing commentary is bucket loads of forum chat. Edaham (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked x 2 weeks. (school block). -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Copyvio - depriving of attribution by deletion and then recreation

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

---

Talk:Overseas possession says

This redirect was accepted on 25 October 2017 by reviewer Sakura Cartelet

But https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overseas_possession&action=history only gives

06:26, 27 October 2017‎ Callanecc

So, user:Callanecc deleted a page and then recreated it, so it now looks as if he was the "inventor". Is that the new style of certain admins? 78.55.168.111 (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Seems more like a plain mistake to me. Or not, seeing as the previous redirect pointed to a different page. I've restored the history anyway, though, it didn't contain much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• The redirect in question originally pointed to an article that was speedied by Callanec per CSD:G5 (i.e. created by a banned or blocked user in violation of their ban/block, in this case User:Tobias Conradi), along with the redirect. Making me wonder what connection there is between 78.55.168.111 and Conradi. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • User:Thomas.W Hello Newbie! A connection is, that both find removal of attribution disgusting. 92.227.228.201 (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• A redirect is not copyrightable under the laws of the United States, which are the basis of our copyright policy. Attribution does not matter here. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • User:TonyBallioni - of course it does. Callanecc will pose as page creator in page history simply by deleting a page and then recreate it. Disgusting to deprive editors of the honour to appear in the edit history. 92.227.228.201 (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Copyvio at E-commerce

Please note this diff: [101] Prior versions contain a copyvio and I'm not sure how far back it goes, the page history is quite messy. Looks like quite a few revisions will need rev-del. Home Lander (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

This could be reverse copyvio: from what I can tell, most of the content was added with this edit in May 2015. An October 2016 version of the page where the claimed copyvio came from had a lorem ipsum as the sole text of the page [102]. The first version of the claimed source that I can find that has the text I can find is in 2017 [103]. I'd like someone else who works in copyright to check my work, but right now, I'm leaning towards this being a copyright violation against Wikipedia contributors. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It’s possible of course that it is the statgur.com website that has copied Wikipedia. The first paragraph that has been removed was introduced into the article in July 2010. The second paragraph was introduced in January 2014 by a different editor. The third paragraph was introduced in May 2015 by another editor. Most of the text was properly cited. In other words, it was not lifted wholesale from another website. Plus, a glance through the Wayback Machine suggests that the statgur.com page was created between October 2016 and June 2017. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC) P.S. I agree with TonyBallioni. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@TonyBallioni: @Malcolmxl5: Bummer. Upon reviewing this, I originally tagged the above user's sandbox for deletion and warned her regarding copying from another site to there. It was the same content, and she then removed it from the article. If this was actually an internal copy (which it appears it was), and turns out to be a reverse copyvio, I suppose the sandbox content could be restored with attribution to the article. Home Lander (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thejoebloggsblog behaviour at Port Adelaide Football Club

This is a bit two fold, but it is basically a combination of @Thejoebloggsblog: edit warring and acting in an uncivil manner towards another user. I'm also going to ping @TripleRoryFan: and @Jono52795: as they have been involved too.

This issue started in September when Thejoebloggsblog removed content added by Jono52795 without an edit summary. There was then a few days of back and forth [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109]. I came across the issue when Thejoebloggsblog used the edit summary "All necessary information included. No need for a crows fan in 'TripleRoryFan' to start an edit war" (to give a bit of a back story for those who may not know, the Adelaide Football Club and Port Adelaide Football Club are rivals in the league). I felt this was an unnecessary edit summary and not assuming WP:good faith, so I left a comment on Thejoebloggsblog's talk page about assuming good faith. Jono52795 started a discussion at Talk:Port Adelaide Football Club#SANFL presence post AFL entry, which TripleRoryFan joined in but Thejoebloggsblog did not.

Fast forward to yesterday, Thejoebloggsblog removed the content again [110] without an edit summary or any discussion at the talk page. There were then a few attempts to try and get Thejoebloggsblog to discuss the issue at the talk page [111], [112] (with notification at user talk page about edit warring), [113] (with talkback template at user talk page). Attempts to get Thejoebloggsblog to discuss were answered with edit summaries questioning TripleRoryFan and my motives and once again not assuming good faith towards TripleRoryFan with the edit summary "reversing edit of known Crows fan who is starting an edit war. He should be blocked from editing page". Since TripleRoryFan pinged Thejoebloggsblog at the talkpage and used a talkback on the user talkpage, Thejoebloggsblog has continued to edit the section, so I'd say it's pretty safe to say Thejoebloggsblog has ignored this and is not willing to engage in any discussion to try and reach a resolution.

Apart from the blatant edit warring by Thejoebloggsblog by reverting with either no edit summary or baseless edit summaries, and refusing to engage in any sort of discussion, I thought I'd report the issue here rather than Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring due to the edit summaries towards TripleRoryFan. I feel that these are in violation of WP:Civil as there has been zero evidence that TripleRoryFan has ulterior motives and I don't think I've ever seen them edit in a way that could be construed as vandalism, in addition, they have even done a good job of creating a season page for Port Adelaide at 2017 Port Adelaide Football Club season so it doesn't make sense they'd vandalise the main page. I feel Thejoebloggsblog edit summaries border on WP:personal attack towards TripleRoryFan and are nonsensical, because supporting an opposition team does not mean an editor is going to vandalise/disrupt club pages. In addition, the assertion that I "only ever revert [Thejoebloggsblog] edits" is a bit of a stretch, yes I've had disagreements with this user in the past, but nothing more than I've had with any other user and have actually managed to reach a resolution with other users as they've been willing to have an open discussion.

Thejoebloggsblog has been a long term user on Wikipedia, and I feel that this sort of behaviour should not be done by a long-term user. There's been long time issues whereby when something is challenged in relation to the Port Adelaide Football Club that Thejoebloggsblog doesn't agree with, there is nearly never a resolution as Thejoebloggsblog either refuses to engage in any conversation or the discussion starts to become illogical (Talk:Port Adelaide Football Club#Logo is a classic example). It has become nearly impossible for other editors to try and improve the page and no one is suggesting that Thejoebloggsblog can't disagree that an edit by another user is not actually an improvement, but in doing so, there can't be just a revert with no explanation or a failure to engage in discussion. I don't know how many times myself and other users have tried to get Thejoebloggsblog to engage in discussion in the past, but considering this behaviour is still going on for someone who has been on Wikipedia for nearly seven years, I feel that Administrators involvement is needed. Flickerd (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

This has been a long-term problem and it's disappointing to see that it's still going on. The most concerning part for me is his tendency to edit war to the threshold of 3RR, see that there is a clear consensus against him and instead of at least accepting that, he will try to make the same edits again a few months down the track in the hope that no one will notice. It's a frustrating situation because Thejoebloggsblog is I think sincere in really wanting to improve the coverage of PAFC-related articles, but Wikipedia is a collaborative project and it is necessary to be able to work with, rather than against, fellow editors. As can be seen by his talk page or a couple of the other trips to various noticeboards this is unfortunately not a one off situation. What should be done about it though? I'm not sure to be honest. I was thinking about suggesting a 1RR restriction but I'm not sure that would achieve anything because I think you'd still have the same behaviour where contentious or outright rejected edits try to get snuck in months later. Jenks24 (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The way he's going about it is quite frustrating. I got involved when I saw he'd deleted a chunk of sourced prose without an explanation and wanted to know why he did it, but it felt like the only reasoning he ever gave to me was directed at the fact I'm a Crows fan, which I think is a bit ridiculous given I've made an effort to improve articles about players from rival teams and, as you said, created an article specifically about Port Adelaide (though it's still a very low quality article). As far as I can tell he still hasn't given a reason why he prefers one revision over another, which is all I wanted him to do to begin with. TripleRoryFan (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Slow motion edit warring is still edit warring and should attract blocks as normal. On a side note, AFL rivalry attracts the same level of bitterness as English Premier League rivalry, such as Liverpool vs Manchester or Manchester City vs Manchester United just without the whole attempting to burn each others' cities to the ground and street fights. (Personally, I think rivalry is healthy, but rivalry to the point that it ignites this madness rises to near nationalist levels.) Blackmane (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

While it's true that the Crows and Port do have a very strong rivalry I don't think that should have any bearing on whether or not someone is allowed to edit a wikipedia article, especially when I'm just one of three or four people all disagreeing with Thejoebloggsblog's edits. TripleRoryFan (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Tending to agree that although the SA rivalry is strong between the two teams, it should have no bearing on whether someone is allowed to edit a Wikipedia page or not unless there is strong evidence that an editor is purposely vandalising a page out of spite/rivalry, which is not the case for TripleRoryFan. In my opinion, Thejoebloggsblog should receive a temporary block per what Blackmane has said regarding slow edit wars. If admins agree, then hopefully it will lead to Thejoebloggsblog ceasing future edit wars and engaging in discussions to reach a resolution. In addition to actually using edit summaries when reverting people's edits. Flickerd (talk) 08:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Much to my surprise, it appears User:Thejoebloggsblog has made some edits lately which have gone some way to restoring my original edits which outlined, very briefly, the club's history at the SANFL level since 1997. Though his refusal to even engage in any dialogue either here or on the article's talk page is baffling. There does still appear to be a slow-burn edit war going on though, as evidenced by the most recent revert b/w him and User:Jenks24 on 31 Oct, which Joe is again at fault for in my view. Jono52795 (talk) 04:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The issue is more about his tendency not to use edit summaries and the fact that he hasn't really responded at all to any attempts to communicate with him. The info he's now put in still doesn't have any of the original prose though it is better than nothing, and even then he's never explained why he didn't approve of the original text. Seeing as he never uses edit summaries (except to complaing about people reverting the edits he makes without summaries) or responds on talk pages you can only speculate what his reasons are. TripleRoryFan (talk) 06:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

In fairness to User:Jenks24 I didn't realise at first he had standardised all clubs. I am fine with this edit. Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 07:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Problematic long-term IP editor

This IP editor has a history of problems going back at least 3 years. For the last 1.5 years, his edits have mainly been confined to the IP range 2602:302:D1A2:C740:*. You can see his full contributions here if you have the "CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions" gadget enabled.

His edits are mostly mildly constructive or neutral, but are frequently peppered with adding unsourced/incorrect/speculative information, POV pushing, name calling, and occasionally outright vandalism. He has received at least 9 blocks and dozens of warnings, but mostly he skates by because his problematic history isn't readily apparent because of his ever-changing IP address.

Some of his problematic edits in the last two weeks: Outright vandalism: [114] Adding wrong and unsourced information: [115] [116] [117] [118] Adding unsourced info: [119] [120] POV pushing: [121] Edit warring: [122]

I linked to more details over at this SPI report, including links to his previous IP's, block history, previous ANI threads, talk page warnings, and some of the behavioral traits that make it apparent that all of the edits under this range (as well as the previous IP's I listed) are the same person.

I would propose a rangeblock on 2602:302:d1a2:c740:*

Toohool (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I blocked this IP back in January 2017 (log). I see that the diffs provided span from today and go back about a week. This IP's contributions include a huge number of edits made today - are these problematic? Or are they good edits? I want to consider the evidence, logs, and history carefully if this IP is making positive contributions as well... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The edits from today are harmless as far as I can see, except for this vandalism. It's all the same guy, college football is one of his areas of interest. Toohool (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

This range comes back as an AT&T internet connection located in the US. I do see vandalism and disruption by this IP and by this IP within the /64 range on October 30th. I'll also note that, up until just a few hours prior to these edits, the IP range was contributing to articles on the different Notre Dame Fighting Irish football seasons. Only just a few minutes after these disruptive edits were made, the editing resumed on the Notre Dame Fighting Irish football articles and under a different IP under that range. Standard IPv6 subnetting aside, this timeline fits in-line with being controlled by one person. Since this range hasn't caused additional disruption like this since, I'm going to hold off on taking action until they do. However, I'll say that this person is well past their final warnings, as many have been left on different IPs in this range. This range will be blocked without warning if it causes any more disruption like this. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Red accounts on econ-related pages

On econ-related Wikipedia pages (e.g. Protectionism, Free Trade, Balance of trade), a "red" account pops up on regular intervals, only to edit war all kinds of fringe text into the articles (serious violations of WP:FRINGE and misrepresentation of sources). The content is always the same poorly sourced and pro-mercantilist nonsense. The text tends to be written extremely poorly, usually with grammatical and spelling errors. The red accounts appear to be from France (judging by the google.fr and blogspot.fr links). These make the same errors and then play coy on talk pages when other editors point out these errors. They never follow the rules laid out by WP:BRD and make econ-related pages a temporary mess for one-two weeks: bad content is repeatedly forced into Wikipedia pages because other editors are constrained by the WP:3RR rule while these accounts keep restoring the bad text. The user is either unable or unwilling to understand what others are saying on talk pages and either unable or unwilling to understand Wikipedia policy. The users always force content in and then say that "consensus" is required to remove the content. These are the weird accounts:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Shharp
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nebere
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/James_4
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Espe9

I don't honestly understand what motivates this user to switch accounts, but using new accounts seems like a good way to evade warnings and bans that veteran accounts would face if they engaged in this type of behavior. I'm not sure what Wikipedia rules are in place for this kind of behavior, but this is just so extremely frustrating that I wanted to get your take on it. I apologize of this is the wrong board for this. Let me know if there is a better venue for this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: Submit a report at WP:SPI and this can be looked into by a clerk. Using multiple accounts on the same pages is a violation of WP:SOCK. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, what BU Rob13 said above. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks. 14:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HS_Produkt_VHS and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HS2000

edit war

Both articles have been protected by User:Ivanvector- possibly from you?- but in any case, edit warring should be reported there. Incidentally, if that was you, Zagreb IP, edit-summaries such as this will lead to blanket blocks for personal attacks. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 15:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

OP is a long-term sockpuppet. See User:Ivanvector/Serbian Army vandal. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the gen Ivanvector. Oh no. In my haste to reply, I hope I haven't completely refactored some sock trolling. Cheers! — fortunavelut luna 16:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz deletion spree

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

---

User Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is deleting a lot of pictures with fair-use rationals (they are eventually removed from Commons after becoming orphaned). I think this is very harmful to Wikipedia and has to be stopped. --Conte di Cavour (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

What on earth did you hope to accomplish with these comments? GAB^gab 01:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I've looked through Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's non-free image editing and every single one that I've looked at so far is completely in line with our non-free image policy. So no, it won't be stopped. However I'd very strongly suggest that you stop what you're doing; referring to people as "imbeciles" and "idiotic", and canvassing other editors [123] are both against policy. Black Kite (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I've examined a few recent removals of non-free images from articles, and all appeared to be in line with policy to me too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Re the closing summary: I really want to urge everyone to not slip into legalistic talk about "plaintiffs" and "defendants" and "respondents" and so on. EEng 04:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Objection! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I'd suggest "Dude1", "Dude2", etc. Couldn't be any more confusing than some of the discussions I've been trying to parse lately. John from Idegon (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Does Commons host fair-use images? I thought they only hosted free images. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

  They weren't actually on Commons, they were on en.wiki. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

  And the answer is no, they don't. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Group of vandalism accounts

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

---

Today a group of vandalism accounts have been created and have been engaging in similar behaviors. None have exceeded a level 4 warning, but it is blatantly obvious they are not here to contribute to building an encyclopedia. The accounts have similar names and are very likely sockpuppets of each other, or perhaps a group of friends engaged together in tomfoolery that is not conducive to the project:

• User:Aazer-Baser
• User:Affdul-baser
• User:Abdul-baser

I believe all three accounts should be blocked with ACB. All three accounts have been notified. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I WP:VOA-blocked all of three. DMacks (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

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

New sockpuppet of G1234~eswiki

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

---

The user Ihaveseenthewritingonthewall is a sockpuppet of G1234~eswiki, blocked here in 2015 for harrassment behavior.

Yesterday send me strange messages in my discussion and also he wrote in Spanish about his behaviour, but he continues in attack the es.wikipedia sysops calling mafia, insulted an user as damned ("maldita") and him last words are an insult to Spanish sysops ("que les jodan", fuck them). --Taichi (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked this account. The user page makes this case an obvious one... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

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

NLT

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

---

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

Sorry, but this seems to be going nowhere fast. GMG^talk 17:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah. See also c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dapper Day Fall 2015 all women.jpg, which is relevant, and is also going nowhere. GMG^talk 17:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I realize the IP is making it really difficult to sympathize, but any chance we could ignore the fact she's wrong about copyright; ignore the fact she's wrong about making legal threats; ignore the fact she's being snotty and rude, and just remove it from the article because it doesn't really improve the article too much, and is causing her grief? I'm confident she'll never get satisfaction at Commons, but we can act like decent normal humans here, at least. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Clearly a legal threat, but I agree that it doesn't add much to the article - and what about the folks in the pictures? Do they want their mugs all over the internet? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

You beat me by 30 seconds, Floq, although we shouldn't ignore the NLT violation. We should remove it from the article as no value and then require her to remove the legal threats and block her if she refuses to do so. That's not a negotiable policy in my experience. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I have been bold, and done so; agree re, NLT, but a group of people dressed to the nines could have been any where... — fortunavelut luna 17:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't really have a strong opinion either way. I'm not a terribly big fan of folks making legal threats at the Teahouse, especially when many of our hosts use their real images in their host profiles and reveal their real names on their userpages. GMG^talk 17:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What they said. That Commons has more than its fair share of sanctimonious dickheads doesn't mean we have to engage in the same level of neener-neener-the-law-is-on-our-side obnoxiousness to someone who's clearly upset. @Mandruss, I am not going to put a long-term block on an IP unless we have clear evidence that it's not dynamic, and a one-day block is just going to inflame the situation even more. ‑ Iridescent 17:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I see, so possibly-dynamic IPs get a pass on NLT. I wasn't aware of that. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Is it causing grief? Or just someone who "wants their way"? Remove it from the article, sure, but it's not like this is the photo of a crime victim or something. Its existence does not appear to be causing harm. This is a clear legal threat (which the user explicitly refused to retract) and warrants a block. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

This has happened before. If you release something with a CC license, you can't change your mind afterwards. That's the way it works.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, they could always use the Xanderliptak approach and make a phony claim which forces the WMF to take the image down. Now, in theory, Wikibicki (talk · contribs) could ask for it to be deleted once it's no longer in any articles, right? However, he only made 3 edits, uploading these images, 2 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, we have the MediaWiki:Bad image list as a tool to prevent people from using an image on enwiki. So if we want to disallow the use of this or other photos we can post it on that page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't support that approach in this case. There's nothing wrong with the image (not abusive in content or likely use-case), it's just someone mad that she can't revoke a binding license statement and now wants to control something without actually having any right to do so. DMacks (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Photographs of identifiable people is a more applicable policy here. Maybe someone doesn't like being in the photo, this is a more promising angle for getting rid of the image. Personally, I'm not a fan of importing images from Flickr to Commons anyway.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

If someone doesn't like being in the image then it can be cropped with revisions deleted. –Davey2010^Talk 17:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Supposing they even know about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't think of a policy or guideline that would support that rev-del. DMacks (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The Commons deletion request refers to two separate images, with different people in each, so it doesn't seem to be a question of the subjects not liking being in the photo. It's purely a matter of the photographer changing her mind and not understanding the concept of an irrevocable licence. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I blocked a week. The editor was repeatedly advised not to make legal threats, and the editor re-iterated that the legal threat would stand. No, that's not how it works here. DMacks (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Much appreciated. GMG^talk 17:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the inclusion of the image in the article, the question- not for here- is to what extent it "increase[s] readers' understanding of the article's subject matter," per WP:IU.— fortunavelut luna 18:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

... and with regard to the block, why should she care, she isn't here to contribute to the project, only to recover some picture rights and perhaps profit that she gave away a couple of years ago. Nothing left to see here, not even a pic. -Roxy the dog. bark 18:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

IP on their talk page has now stated " wish i could go and delete what I had said but since i am blocked i cannot" which, in a liberal interpretation, could be a retraction. Yes? No? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed; as an acknowledgment of one's own "wrongdoing" it could hardly be clearer, and, after all, it's not as if we have ever actually codified a form of words with which to make such retractions, is it...? — fortunavelut luna 18:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

They don't have to delete what they said, they merely have to disavow it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

As they have clearly stated "I take it back" on their talk page, I have unblocked. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. So long as we know we're not going to have hosts getting cease and desist letters in all caps. I wonder if it wouldn't be helpful to track down this email they purportedly sent. Unfortunately I'm not the most experienced person on OTRS. GMG^talk 18:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• It's pretty easy (and it used to be easier!) to put a wrong license on a Flickr image, not realising that it means it can be scraped by Commons and kept there for eternity. Whilst it is completely predictable that Commons will just dance around proclaiming "irrevocable license, ha ha!!", unless the image is genuinely historic and/or irreplaceable we should just stop using it, as we have. Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

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

New editor and mass COI accusations

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

---

I just found this in my watchlist. The user only has 6 edits which are all of this type. I do not see any proofs in what they write. I would normally block them per WP:NOTTHERE, however, a consequence would likely be accusations that I use my tools to cover COI editors, I request more opinions. I will now inform the user of this topic.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Looks like a self-declared WP:NOTHERE to me: [124]. He/she could even be right about the COIs, but being on WP for the sole purpose of COI outing isn't a legitimate account, especially when one is offering no evidence.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Probably worth investigating their claims, though. And, an SPI may be necessary, since I strongly doubt they are a newbie. –Sb2001 21:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) They have been CU-blocked now, so I guess that sorts it... –FlyingAce^✈hello 23:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate pages by Abdulsidahmed2016

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

---

Abdulsidahmed2016 has been repeatedly creating inappropriate pages today. He recreated the page C4 Headline after it was previously PRODed and deleted. His user talk page is full of warnings for inappropriate pages. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Probably merits a block but he/she hasn't created any new inappropriate pages since the final warning. I would normally say just to send to AIV if the conduct is repeated once more, provided of course the pages are blatantly inappropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Report.

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

---

I would like to report Sportsfan 1234. He has been ignoring me countless times, and he has been harassing me. I had told him countless times to stop removing sponsor tables from sport pages, but he has ignored me and continued with that. Please block him for a long time. Thank you. From: Josh0108 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh0108 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Possible attack pages

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

---

Hi, could an admin with knowledge of attack pages and such, kindly review Special:Contributions/Mapokapo, this user has constructed a set of elaborate pages which I think are to 'attack' a forum user of the same name (but probably a different person). I am not really sure enough to CSD tag them and would appreciate a second opinion.

The pages in question are:

• User:Mapokapo/maxxy
• User:Mapokapo/BETF
• User:Mapokapo/edups
• User:Mapokapo/lvl3
• User:Mapokapo
• User:Mapokapo/edupslvl3

> Thanks. Dysklyver 21:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

All deleted, editor blocked (deleted text made it clear this is not a user who will contribute productively here, and that they knew they were vandalizing). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Pekojima on Deaths in 2017

User:Pekojima is a frequent editor of the page Deaths in 2017. When doing so, he/she doesn't always add entries in alphabetical order, despite being warned about this multiple times. Here are some examples: 1. [125] 2. [126] 3. [127] 4. [128] 5. [129]

Also, he/she also has a habit of sometimes adding the next day too early, i.e. before the LINT time passes midnight. Examples: Too early addition of 1 November: [130] (not reverted since I only spotted it after 1 November started) Too early addition of 21 September: [131] Too early addition of 15 September: [132]

The user has been warned on his/her talkpage but doesn't seem to respond. It is similar to a user I reported a couple of weeks ago, with a username of only Chinese characters. --Marbe166 (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Why are you warning him for vandalism if the issue is completely content-related and about alphabetization and timing? I understand that this is becoming a big nuisance for you (and from the looks of it, for quite some time now) and how this can become quite disruptive, but this is not vandalism. I know there may be some communication issues with this user, but leaving him these kinds of warnings isn't going to encourage him to respond or discuss this... especially if earlier attempts have been made before. Have you reached out to him on the article's talk page and started a discussion there? I will note and acknowledge that this user has a history of warnings on their talk page regarding this article that spans back as far as April; they certainly show that this conflict is not recent, and this user has been talked to many times on their talk page. But we should attempt to discuss these matters personally; dropping vandalism warning templates on their talk page for edits that involve content isn't exactly going to evoke a happy dialogue ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

As this is user-specific I took it to the user's talk page. It might not be obvious, but the vandalism warnings were not the first attempts to address the issue, I've always started with a normal message on the talkpage (and explainations in edit summaries when reverting). It's only after recurring mistakes by the same user after my previous addressing of the issue that I have given vandalism warnings, as it then becomes, in my eyes, vandalism. --Marbe166 (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive page move during on-going move discussion

Disrupting proper procedures:

• 08:32, 29 October 2017 move request on talk page [133]
• 08:45, 29 October 2017 notification on article page [134]

On the article page it now says "Do not move the page until the discussion has reached consensus for the change and is closed."

• 17:48, 29 October 2017 page is moved to the requested target name. [135]

There may be valid reasons to move the page to the French-based terminology but circumenventing an on-going move discussion causes only more discussions and disrupts the process of finding the article title that best fits with WP:AT. 77.180.2.218 (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

2018 AFC Champions League

User:ThailandFootball wrote teams which did not quailify on this article. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Content dispute. But it seems a bit ridiculous to edit war over the provisional/potential qualification of a team when the article section has a big note at the top saying NOTE: The following list of participating teams is provisional. The final list of participating teams will be confirmed by the AFC by December 2017, based on the slot allocation finalised by the AFC Competitions Committee and the list of teams passing the club licensing requirements.. So really, all the teams listed so far are only provisional/potential qualifiers. Gricehead (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Chiangrai United F.C. is 4th now in 2017 Thai League, Thai Cup is ongoing. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Shanghai SIPG F.C. is guaranteed 2nd in 2017 Chinese Super League.

In case continuous edit warring, I filed the report, and how we deal with? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

You are both edit warring. Any WP:ANEW report would likely see you both suffer the same fate. I understand what you are saying above, but according to the note on the article section neither team is qualified until the AFC say they are in December. Gricehead (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I've placed a gold lock on the front gate. The article's talk page is this way; please come to a consensus and sort this dispute out properly. I wish you well with your discussion and a happy resolution to the issues at-hand. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Okay, thanks for locking. But yesterday, I have already filed a decision on talk page, and User:ThailandFootball has no reply to me. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

BrightR

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

User:BrightR doesn't want to resolve a dispute in a peaceful way. Every time a consensus is attempted, they just roll back the edits, without any proper discussion done. In their rollbacks they apply the tactic of rolling back everything to the latest revision they find acceptable, ignoring any feedback.

While some of their rollbacks might be correct, they do not want to discuss anything, rolling back attempts to remove unverified sources, grammatical and spelling errors. A few attempts were made to discuss this with a third editor, and the issue was escalated to DRN. The user ignored the rules set by mediator and rolled everything back again without any discussion made.

The ignorance and abuse user shows is in clear violation of the Wikipedia:Five pillars#WP:5P4, addressed towards several other editors, at his point. Farcaller (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I can confirm this. I recently became interested in editing the article in question, and had all my edits reverted without explanation. They constantly argue that sources are illegitimate when they aren't, and raise WP:fringe concerns that don't exist. Even going so far as to start a dispute resolution process to prove all us other editors wrong, then declare the process failed when things don't go according to plan. Tulpabug (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi fellas! When making AN/I complaints, it is customary to provide diffs! Let's provide some!

• The dispute started over what I considered POV edits, spending a paragraph emphasizing tulpa practitioners' POV, giving it undue weight.
• A third opinion agreed it was undue weight.

Three (or four?) more editors joined in, adding frivolous sources and using weasel-words to make claims that are not attributable to the provided source:

• Using an undergrad paper published in a predatory journal as a source (see "Uncertain that the journal's predatory" for predatory journal info)
• Presenting an internet survey about the social composition of tulpa practitioner communities as A study on the subject of tulpas conducted in 2015 classified them as "imaginary companions who are said to have achieved full sentience after being conjured through ‘thought-form’ meditative practice". This unattributed claim is indeed quoted verbatim from the survey, however it's still unattributed and, more importantly, the survey itself is not a scientific study on the "classification" of tulpas, it's a survey of the population of some online communities, nor is the quoted material a classification or conclusion made by the study. It's simply an unattributed claim in the introduction.
• Synthesis (read more on Wakefield section)
• Using social media references for original research purposes.

And that doesn't even take into account trying to pass off a work of fiction as a non-fiction autobiography. At first I assumed good faith, but as more and more frivolous edits accumulated, it became clear that there's POV-pushing going on here. Mistaking a work of fiction for non-fiction? Could happen... Using a social network as a reference? Let's link to WP:PRIMARY and move on. Referencing a paper by an undergrad in a predatory journal? Oh well, mistakes happen... Synthesis? Let's link to WP:SYNTHESIS now... Are we done yet? No? Using weasel words to incorporate unattributed information from an online survey, and skew a paragraph or two towards the tulpa practitioners' POV? Not going to assume good faith any more, this is POV-pushing. Bright☀ 19:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

And, specifically addressing Tulpabug's complaints (for which they didn't provide diffs!), the dispute resolution failed because, while it was still going on, the editors reintroduced the references to social media and misattributed claims with weasel words. From the closing comment:

Closed as failed. Participation here is voluntary, and if an editor says that it has failed, it has failed. Resume discussion at the article talk page. Do not edit-war. Do not use unreliable sources such as Reddit and blogs. If discussion at the article talk page is inconclusive, the editors may make one more try at compromise via a request for formal moderation with a more experienced moderator, or may bring any specific issue to the reliable source noticeboard or the neutral point of view noticeboard. Disruptive editing may be reported at WP:ANI or the edit-warring noticeboard, but that will eliminate any possibility of friendly or neutral resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Note that the closer specifically asked not to use social media as sources. When using them as sources failed, one of the editors decided to add them as external links instead. This might be a good place to note that external links are excluded by default, and that the article had issues before with repeated attempts to insert external links to tulpa websites... Bright☀ 19:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

As an added bonus, I'm being told there's consensus to add external links a few seconds after removing them and asking for consensus to be formed... all the while a POV dispute relating to these very links is going on and even being discussed on AN/I. Bright☀ 19:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Almost forgot! I was accused of "shaming a murder victim" because I wrote Must be hard to review "scientific" papers posthumously. Bright☀ 19:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

On prompting by BrightR, I went to the history page only to find the diffs buried behind another literal massive edit war with a fourth editor. There are so many revisions. Edit: format error, sorry. Tulpabug (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• Farcaller and Tulpabug, you need to provide WP:DIFFs to prove your assertions. otherwise this ANI report is going nowhere. You haven't even linked or even named the article(s) in question. Softlavender (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, got sidetracked. I've never done this before. Lots of reading. I'm not the primary editor in this dispute, so I am not familiar with the vast history of POV conflict being engaged here. This: [136]] is the one which took out all my edits, and also several discreet edits by Farcaller. The edit reason is also offensive. article: Tulpa Tulpabug (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to respond to some of what BrightR wrote, as it was presented out of order. First, The moderator of the dispute resolution told us to edit the article. He made a special exemption, saying we should edit boldly, to fix the deficiencies in the article. But explicitly forbade pure reverts. Second, we did so, believing that we were told to do so. Third BrightR did a pure revert, with a rude edit message. Fourth, BrightR declared the dispute resolution a failure. Fifth, the dispute resolution was closed. Tulpabug (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

There was a DRN case at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Tulpa#Usage of references to reddit and social networks which was closed by the moderator as Failed at 16:25 on 22 October. Since that time it appears that User:Seteleechete has been edit warring to add an external link to reddit.com and a link to tulpa.io. It may be time to apply full protection to Tulpa, since people are not waiting for consensus on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The moderator suggested bold editing, to which I responded This will bias the edits completely in the direction of unreliable sources. The mediation has failed. Same when one mediator suggested incorporating the social media sites in external links; consensus should be formed on whether the external links should be added. A suggestion is not the same as a blanket approval, just like not disqualifying a source by WP:PRIMARY doesn't automatically qualify it for inclusion in the article. As for the edit reason being "offensive", it's in bad faith to incorporate disputed material in the middle of a dispute. Stop and wait for a resolution. Bright☀ 08:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I seriously advise you to read things more carefully. Why can't you just follow the rules? The article is being choked to death. I wish everyone would just take a break. Tulpabug (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I reverted synthesis, original research, claims sourced to predatory journals and social media, and POV-pushing. I discuss and cite the relevant policies. Then I get accused that I "never commented on" those changes or that I'm "shaming a murder victim"; the person who added a work of fiction as a biography is accusing me of removing material "without making any proper research themselves"... An IP-address-editor claiming to be you tried to justify using an undergrad paper published in a predatory journal. Seems like I'm playing whack-a-mole; whenever one frivolous source is removed, another is added. When one policy is explained, another is tested. Bright☀ 09:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

My concern rises up from the following issue: the user in question tends to rollback edits disregarding any reasoning on them. E.g. this edit rolled back the change to the first paragraph, that BrightR commented on as being unfit, but also, rolled back other edits that BrightR never comments on: this edit by Tulpabug (no comment was ever given), this edit by myself (previously removed by BrightR as irrelevant, after their editing removed the actual citation), this edit by myself (after thorough discussion in the Talk page and quoting the exact parts of the cited article to show it's irrelevant, and bringing this issue up to DRN, BrightR keeps reverting this edit with no comments), this edit by Tulpabug (again, never commented on). It is impossible to discuss anything with said user as they choose to reply to only those parts of the statements they like, if though I made specific attempt to raise these issues in dedicated sections of talk page.

Another example of blanket rollback can be seen here, including statements coming from a research paper, typographical fixes.

My overall concern with this user is that while they are fast to blame other editors (including myself) in the POV-pushing, their actions fall under the exact same concern. All the recent reverts were done without any proper discussion done in the talk page, and were pushing the article back to the state which they only find acceptable; rolling back not only attempts to add new content (which is discussable), but rolling back existing statements that do not belong to the article, without making any proper research themselves. Farcaller (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

There were reasons given, and the talk page is littered with them:

• Wakefield was removed because of WP:SYNTHESIS, see talk page. Seems incredibly in-bad-faith to claim I "never commented on" that.
• Dalai Lama was also discussed on the talk page, you sure I "never commented on" it? You were part of both discussions; the information is sourced, but, as I said in the talk page you take the words sprul-pa and tulku, which three sources in the article say were translated into "tulpa", and you refuse to acknowledge this. Note that the synthesis isn't done by me, it's by a reliable source cited in the article.
• Moving on, this is unsourced information. See "Original research and POV". Just because that particular piece of unsourced information was never discussed doesn't mean it's inappropriate to remove it. In fact it's the opposite; it's inappropriate to include it. The rest of the edit was exactly the kind of POV that's under discussion, and you should wait for the discussion to conclude.
• Isler is not a reliable source. Discussed on the talk page again and again. It's a paper by an undergrad published in a predatory journal.

So what are we left with? "blanket rollback" of "typographical fixes" that were reverted in the course of removing the Isler paper? I apologize your typographical fixes were removed, however did you notice the large amount of discussion about each and every revert? Your claim that I rollback edits disregarding any reasoning seems to be in very bad faith. Continuing to pursue these changes while they're under discussion is a huge problem. Bright☀ 09:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Look, the issue is not that they weren't discussed. The issue is that the discussions were post-hoc, which is in violation of general guidelines, and you are actively barring us from reimplementing changes to the article that you are unable to give sufficient reason for excluding within those discussions. One editor against several, and somehow the one is getting control of how the article looks and stays. That's the definition of disruptive editing. Tulpabug (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Look, the issue is not that they weren't discussed don't speak for Farcaller, he just said "All the recent reverts were done without any proper discussion done in the talk page." The issue is that the discussions were post-hoc That cuts both ways. You are suggesting that you should have discussed the changes before implementing them. In that case, see WP:BURDEN, the onus for consensus is on including disputed content. you are unable to give sufficient reason For which one? The Isler source? The synthesis? The Dalai Lama? The POV which was agreed on by a third party? The "typographical fixes" which are extremely minor and irrelevant to this discussion? One editor against several - see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Just because the three (four?) of you agree that the Isler paper is fine and dandy, doesn't mean your consensus overrides Wikipedia policy. Additionally no such consensus was reached because you were quick to make bold edits while the mediation process was still going on! Same with the external links, as soon as someone merely suggested they're okay, someone else claimed consensus and pushed them back in the article.

If you want consensus, please wait for the consensus process to be over, before making further changes to the article. Bright☀ 10:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand why the content is disputed. I removed disputed content with the edit you used as an example because it is a controversial claim considered offensive by some and I couldn't keep staring at it in the introductory paragraph. I replaced the controversial claim with a more generic statement. This generic statement contained no controversial claims at all, consisting of generally known facts about the tulpamancy community. I was rather careful to include no extraordinary claims at all. So you removed no disputed content when you did that revert. I can cite all sorts of documents that support the claims made there, because practically all of them state the same thing. Trigger happy editing kills articles. You should have added a citation needed tag if you thought the statement needed support. (edit: oops forgot signature) Tulpabug (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Finally we are getting to specifics. I take it you mean this edit? (Please supply diffs so I can know exactly what you're talking about.) The claim Parallels can be found in the related concepts of spirit possession and multiplicity (psychology) is original research; the other information is exactly the disputed POV information which was removed previously from further down the article. Both were removed, discussed, and before any consensus could be formed you reintroduced them, worded slightly differently. Local consensus cannot "validate" the quoted original research. Broader consensus might suggest the rest is not undue weight, but for the time being, in the middle of a POV/undue-weight dispute, it's in bad faith to restore disputed material. Bright☀ 11:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Unrelated, but I do agree with the original research. The tulpa phenomenon shares much with automatic writing or spirit possession, but this cannot be incorporated into the article without a reliable source. Bright☀ 11:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

You are very hard to argue with. I give you credit, you are a good debater. I was worried about that part, yes. Those are generally accepted claims, but not in most of the sources. I take it back. The earlier sentences were the ones I was confident about. As to the earlier sentences, are you seriously saying that you believe that modern tulpamancers have not formed an internet subculture, the concept has not evolved considerably over time, and that modern practitioners tend to spiritual interpretations of the phenomenon?

Anyhow, I know how the administrators like rules. So I'll just list a blatant rules violation:

"19:29, 22 October 2017‎ BrightR (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,625 bytes) (-111)‎ . . (Undid revision 806551313",

"19:25, 22 October 2017‎ BrightR (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,625 bytes) (-111)‎ . . (Undid revision 806550859",

"18:43, 22 October 2017‎ BrightR (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,625 bytes) (-111)‎ . . (Undid revision 806536404",

"10:26, 22 October 2017‎ BrightR (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,536 bytes) (-3,343)‎ . . (reverting bad faith edits."

This fall foul of the three reverts rule. Tulpabug (talk) 12:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

are you seriously saying that you believe No. I'm saying that the article is in a POV dispute and making bold edits while the issue is being discussed is in bad faith, the same way it's bad faith for reporting me for WP:3RR for reverting the bold edits that were made during the dispute resolution process. Bright☀ 13:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

What. WP:AssumeGoodFaith Tulpabug (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I did. You can see that Farcaller and I were getting along fine despite his unusual edits like treating a work of fiction as non-fiction and using reddit.com and tulpa.io for their original research (twice). After these misapplications and misrepresentations of references, Seteleechete expanded the article in a way that I thought was WP:UNDUE. A third opinion agreed that it's undue weight. After that, when the POV editing and bad-source referencing continued—in particular, CliffracerX and yourself saying I'm "shaming a murder victim" and arguing for the Isler paper despite links showing that the journal is predatory (and Isler being an undergrad); Farcaller introducing their own synthesis; the reintroduction of the POV that was recently found by the third opinion to be WP:UNDUE; and the use of weasel words—I sought mediation, and while both sides were participating in mediation, you and Farcaller reintroduced the bold edits; it's considered in bad faith to restore disputed content while dispute resolution is in progress. Were these all innocent mistakes and misunderstandings? I don't think so. Bright☀ 06:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It also appears that Farcaller's edits were reverted for using self-published sources and social media posts as a reference even before I explained to them that such self-published works cannot be used as a source for those claims. So Farcaller used self-published sources, were reverted by Jeraphine Gryphon with "needs more legit sources", "self-published book", "WP:OR"; Farcaller used self-published sources again, they were reverted and had the issue explained to them in the talk page; Farcaller used self-published sources again, and restored their synthesis, while dispute resolution was in progress. Hardly good-faith edits.

Regardless, I didn't think any of that merits a discussion on AN/I. When mediation failed, I suggested reliable source noticeboard or the neutral point of view noticeboard, because the issue is of reliable sources and undue weight:

• The reddit tulpa sex survey cannot be used as a source
• The reddit tulpa FAQ or tulpa.io FAQ cannot be used as a source
• Isler cannot be used as a source (undergrad paper published in predatory journal)
• Synthesis of several sources cannot be used to make claims that do not appear in the sources
• Weasel words cannot be used to attribute unsourced statements from Veissière's study to the study itself, nor present them as conclusions or assertions made by the study
• Examples in popular culture need sources that discuss why that particular example is important
• Obviously, a work of fiction cannot be referenced as non-fiction
• The article in its current state cannot emphasize any further the tulpa practitioners' view on tulpas. When the article is expanded with more reliable sources, the POV of tulpa practitioners can be expanded upon.

That last point should be discussed on the NPOV noticeboard; the other points really don't need to be discussed, but could, on the RS noticeboard.

Outside of that, there's a dispute on the proper translation of "tulpa" and a wish to split the article on that basis, as well as the removal of reliable sources that connect the concepts in order to support the split. From Mikles, which is cited in the article: Nawang Thokmey, archivist for the University of Virginia Tibetan manuscript collection, elaborated on the equivalence of sprul pa and sprul sku, confirming that both words indicate an enlightened being’s manifestation. While the modern usage of "tulpa" is distinct from the Buddhist usage, in the Buddhist usage there is no distinction between "tulku", "sprul pa", or "nirmanakaya" and they are more or less interchangeable. There are other sources that equivocate those terms with the phrase "emenation body", all of which were translated as "tulpa" by theosophists. The Wikipedia article does not claim that the Dalai Lama is a tulpa in the modern sense, only in the Buddhist sense, and the word "tulpa" was removed at Farcaller's insistence despite being used in that context in a reliable source. It's true that "tulpa" is mostly used in the West while Buddhists use "sprul pa" or "tulku", but that is a semantic difference which is explained in the sources.

These disputes all lead to the same POV, and several of them lead to the reddit tulpa forum (sex survey, FAQ, Isler). The rush to reintroduce them, while the dispute resolution process is ongoing, is suspect. Bright☀ 08:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggest closure as a content dispute, off-topic for this board. Or, if we insist on discussing user conduct, I think the discussion should focus on the users pushing suspect sources, not on BrightR's good work keeping such sources out of the encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It's definitely not a content dispute. I feel BrightR is making it look like a content dispute through guiding the conversation. However: Suggest closure with no action taken. I believe that Farcaller has taken a vacation from the wiki due to stress, as he told me he wanted to. And I cannot provide strong evidence of wrongdoing. Tulpabug (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment. While this stems from a content dispute, the initial complaint by Farcaller is: "User:BrightR doesn't want to resolve a dispute in a peaceful way." Farcaller also complains of:

2) "roll[ing] back the edits without any proper discussion done";

3) "they do not want to discuss anything";

4) "The user ignored the rules set by mediator" (at DRN);

5) "ignorance and abuse"; and

6) "in clear violation of the Wikipedia:Five pillars#WP:5P4".

To which complaint user Tulpabug immediately chimed in with "I can confirm this", and an additional complaint that BrightR was trying "to prove all us other editors wrong".

What is here is not a content dispute, but matters of behavior. And it gets deeper. E.g., Farcaller says the "clear violation" of civility was "addressed towards several other editors." Which, on its face, suggests that the issue is about a single misbehaving editor versus all the other editors. But take a closer look at Tulpabug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). That account was created two days after the DRN was opened; it appears to be either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. CliffracerX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (involved at the DRN) is odd, and though activated two days before the DRN opened, it seems very similar to Tulpabug, and indeed, even Farcaller. All three of those users are effectively single-user accounts (on Tulpa, the DRN, and here). A closer look is very much in order. And action should be taken: to deter bad behavior. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I've got pulled in back in this discussion after being quoted the above statement. As for the original issue we are discussing here, I feel I don't care anymore. I have good faith in that the sources and references that I've provided for the article do have enough credibility to be quoted. I also believe that sources BrightR is using are inappropriate. For one, his quote above saying that "tulpa" and "tulku" are effectively a same thing goes against the primary historical source of the article itself, also "tulku" article has a different definition and is, overall, sourced properly. Still, I don't feel like discussing a neutral point if all my edits are being reverted with no discussion and discussion is sidetracked. I still think that BrightR oversteps his authority in an attempt to enforce their own POV.

As for Tulpabug being a sockpuppet of myself, I won't even discuss that point; while I can confirm that I have discussed the edits with Tulpabug off the wikipedia, I did the same with a bunch of other wiki editors I know. I won't comment on their involvement more than stating that I think it was incorrect and abusive for BrightR to revert simple contextual edits they made to the article in question. Farcaller (talk) 08:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If you had truly quit this discussion then you should have said so, struck your complaint(s), and perhaps apologized for wasting everyone's time. (If you're feeling stressed, as your buddy Tulpabug has related, then perhaps you can feel for BrightR, who has been very patiently dealing with your pettifoggery.) As it is, slinking away when the light is shined on you does not get you a pass on your own behavior, or your associate's. You accused another editor of violating incivility, which is itself incivility.

The timing of Tulpabug's appearance (just after the DNR started) and behavior and pov (mirroring your own) certainly suggests sockpuppetry. While I would accept your denial of that – which, curiously, you have not done – your self-admitted communication with Tulpabug establishes a case for meatpuppetry. That (and other points) shows that you are not here with "clean hands", and all of your comments (here, at the DRN, and on Talk) are thereby questionable. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I was commented on. I was thinking the same thing. My timing of showing up was odd looking. However, I actually showed up a few days before, rather than after the DRN. The claim of sock puppetry is incorrect. However, the claim of meat puppetry actually is not necessarily false. (full disclosure) Some of us shared an offsite chat together, though, I would not call Farcaller's complaining a breach of the canvassing rules. I usually edit anonymously, but it seemed inappropriate as I was invidted to a dispute resolution process.

After having had several days to reflect on this situation, I actually want to retract everything I said about BrightR. I can totally accept that the minor breaches of guidelines were the result of aggravation more than anything else. Sorry. Tulpabug (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

It would greatly clarify matters if you would strike through (not delete!) everything you are retracting. And perhaps add a short explanatory note at the top of this discussion so that anyone reviewing this can see at the start how matters now stand. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I wasted anyone's time, because I still stand by my claim that BrightR's behavior is incorrect. Yet, as they noted, ANI might not be the best place for this particular dispute (I'm not used to sorting out WP dispute politics).

That said, I think I won't interact with BrightR much outside of the scope of one particular article, and I don't have any incentive to work on said article anymore. I hope we won't get into another edit war soon.

"all of your comments are thereby questionable" I stay behind all the points I made here, on DRN, and Talk pages. While I've been discussing this issue with a wider community, I'm not going to take the blame for other people (and definitely not brigading). If you look through the talk page, you can see that I did everything possible to discuss all the raised concerns in a calm and distinct manner, although later BrightR accused me of stalling things due to spreading discussion to numerous sections. I don't believe that it's correct behavior on BrightR side, but that point was already discussed as part of DRN.

"which, curiously, you have not done". I need to note that explicitly? Yes, I don't own Tulpabug's account. Farcaller (talk) 07:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. When there is reasonable showing of a possible problem you do need to address it explicitly. Otherwise there is a distinct sense of trying to avoid the point, which is (at the least) in indication of an unwillingness to resolve the matter.

I do not see that you "did everything possible" to resolve this matter. While the talk page interactions seem (to me at least) fairly calm, the real issue was in the article edit-warring. And here you missed a really important option: just stop. Yes, it is really difficult to let stand what you think are bad edits (and for as little as I know, perhaps they really were "bad" edits), but there is pretty much nothing done in article space that can't be undone. Reverting others' edits just raises the temperature, impairing discussion and delaying resolution. As to "spreading discussion to numerous sections", that is a common problem (even with experienced editors), so BrightR's request that you not do that is quite reasonable (not "incorrect"). And you are pretty thin-skinned to take offense at that.

However, what brings me here is, first, your initial statement that "User:BrightR doesn't want to resolve a dispute in a peaceful way." I find it hard to believe that you actually know what BrightR (or any other editor) really wants. That is your interpretation of his behavior. Likewise with "ignorance and abuse" and "clear violation": you provided no basis for these characterizations. (And likewise for Tulpabug's imputation of trying to "prove all us other editors wrong".) Your assertion of bad behavior or hurt feelings carries very little weight. You need to show (as BrightR kindly demonstrated) actual statements or behavior.

Second, some of your statements here are, well, let's just call them unfortunate. (E.g.: accusing others of a "clear violation" of civility without providing evidence of same, which is itself uncivil.) And of course there is the apparent meatpuppetry, though perhaps this has been mitigated.

You say you are "not used" to this. Yes, that is evident. Perhaps the best outcome for all of this is for you to recognize your inexperience in Wikipedia process and standards, and be less quick to assume you have the right end of the stick. And certainly not blame others for your own missteps.

Interacting with BrightR might actually be good, but only if you are less confrontational, and willing to try embracing what he is trying to tell you. Alternately, you might look for mentoring on how to resolve these kinds of matters. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, late as this post is, I've had this account for about a year, maybe a year and a half at this point, but never used it until recently. I'd been watching the debate between Farcaller & BrightR on how best to handle the article for a while before stepping in, as I'm hoping to see it improved for the average reader - e.g, someone who just wants to know what Modern Tulpas are so they have some idea what, say, a close friend has suddenly started going on about. I believe it's already been stated, but Tulpabug was the IP editor in the discussion, they just made an account when BrightR added them to the Dispute Resolution.

While most of my accusations about BrightR's 4th-pillar violations fall apart if, indeed, his violations were a side-effect of frustration (which has clearly been common in this dispute anyway), I will stand by my accusation that he's not acted in good faith on several occasions.

On at least one occasion, he's seemingly pivoted away from legitimate arguments raised against him; for proof, I'd point to this talk page section, in which Farcaller raises a legitimate concern that BrightR seems to have fabricated a research author's name, and BrightR pivots to accusing Farcaller of using "weasel words", which, far as I can tell, doesn't nullify the argument leveled against him. On another occasion, when I raised concerns about his generally-disrespectful attitude towards Farcaller & co, alongside a few others about his arguments against their edits, he didn't acknowledge his behavioral problems, only defended his arguments.

Furthermore, I will also stand by my accusation that BrightR has not been pushing a neutral point of view, but a "scientific" PoV that he uses to discredit the community, which is...insidious, to say the least. Unfortunately, that same science-centric PoV is shared by a majority of Wikipedians, so it might appear to legitimately be neutral to many of them - I hate to admit it, but if I were a new guy on the sidelines who had no idea what was going on, I'd have probably sided with him, as he does a really good job of LOOKING neutral, even if he's not.

On that note, I'm done reiterating my arguments - I would rather not try and continue participating in this dispute, because, frankly, it's exhausting, and it took me over two days just to find a good time/place/way to respond to the apparent request for comment - I don't wanna deal with this any more, on that front, BrightR wins. My final case is this: Wikipedia disputes are not binary; even though BrightR's arguments against the article/editors are legitimate, it does not automatically nullify arguments leveled against him - if you want to "take action to deter bad behaviour", then you may need to figure out something for BrightR, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CliffracerX (talk • contribs) 09:09, October 28, 2017 (UTC)

• fabricated a research author's name I got the name wrong and fixed it as soon as it was pointed out to me. This is about on par with my "blanket rollback" of "typographical fixes". What is with these accusations?
• pivots There was no pivot; Farcaller said I was "trying to nitpick on [their] grammar". I explained that attributing an unattributed statement to a "classification" in a "study" is weasel-words.
• generally-disrespectful attitude I extended a lot of good will. Note, for example, how another editor reverted with "needs more legit sources", "self-published book", and "WP:OR". They didn't bother discussing anything because these reverts should be uncontroversial and obvious. On the other hand, I went to the trouble to explain every revert in the talk page.
• discredit the community I'm not discrediting the community, I'm discrediting the sources you provided. They cannot be used to make those claims on Wikipedia. With that in mind, having a paragraph or three on the community's view on tulpas amounts to WP:UNDUE in the article's current state.

This is all unrelated to whether tulpas are neurological, spiritual, iatrogenic, an exercise in creative writing, or internet mass hysteria. Bright☀ 13:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Alright, it's on me for not digging deep enough to see that you did fix your mistake - I'll admit I was too quick on the draw for that. Frankly, I'd have still put something in the talk page response for clarification (e.g, "thanks for letting me know, I've fixed it") before targeting Farcaller's issues - without it, it does legitimately read as though you ignored the problems raised, and pivoted straight to accusations of the problem-raiser.

I wasn't referring to your willingness to discuss edits (which you do, thankfully), but rather the tone in which you explained those edits. "sigh. I'll say it again because you missed it the first time" is, simply put, rude. However, I'm willing to let it go now, as I'll take your "too annoyed to edit civilly" response on good faith. At the time, however, it was something I was concerned about, and when I confronted you about it, you did choose not to discuss it - which seemed suspiciously like a pivot.

All that being said, I'm willing to drop my accusations of pivots; there's more info that got buried, and having seen it, I'm willing to let go of the topic, as...frankly, some of it can probably just be traced to blindness on my part, and the general overload of emotions tied up in the topic.

Moving onwards, your actions do seem to suggest wanting to discredit the community (e.g, "Tulpas are a form of imaginary friend"), even if that's not actually your intention. As it stands right now, there's only one sentence I can see with user-friendly info in the entire section; it's currently almost all information on the history of the concept, and on Vessiere's paper, which, while useful, isn't terribly informative to the average reader.

Unfortunately, most editors seem to fall in the "it's mass hysteria" category, likely due to the strong western stigma against plurality at large, and because of it, the acceptable NPoV for the article seems to lean towards "they're just imaginary friends for adults".

All of that being said, I suppose I'm willing to drop the POV issue as well, because it's probably not appropriate for the admin noticeboard; what is or is not neutral is subjective, a matter of opinion, and the admins really don't need to be a part of that. CliffracerX (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

In your last paragraph you have grasped a key aspect of all this: in the end POV is (nearly always) subjective. Which is not to say it can't be resolved, but it takes a more nuanced approach than bashing one another with "facts". And to the extent that the issues at Tulpa are about content (including POV aspects), you are right: not an appropriate topic for this noticeboard.

I think what brought Farcaller here was his frustration boiling over. And I think that the frustration all of you have felt arises from not knowing how to handle conflict. That the three of you have closely aligned and self-reinforcing views practically guarantees a conflict with any differing POV. That the three of you are basically inexperienced and unskilled in the standards and ways of Wikipedia only makes it harder, for yourselves and for the rest of us, to resolve this. All three of you might consider that you are not wholly aware of how frustrating, and even exasperating, your behavior is for more experienced editors. (We've seen too much of it.) This is why I recommend mentoring – it's the quickest way of moving past the kind of stuff you will later find embarassing.

If Farcaller would allow that he may have over-reacted (with regrets), and perhaps Tulpabug would strike-through what he has retracted, I think we could close this as an unfortunate but forgiveable incident. And perhaps you all could strive to be little more accomodating, even forgiving, in working these matters out at Talk:Tupa? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer broadening discussion to reliable source noticeboard or the neutral point of view noticeboard where other editors can explain, for example, why a self-published survey is not a reliable source, or why focusing on how the tulpa community perceives tulpas is WP:UNDUE with the current state of the article. Compare "demonic possession § In the Christian Bible" which I edited: before and after. A demonologist might claim I'm POVing the article and removing the demonologists' perspective. What I see is removing excessive reliance on primary sources, and separating the original research from the information found in the sources. Bright☀ 09:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

More discussion about RS and NPOV is certainly needed, but not, I think, at the level requiring intervention of administrators. (Unless things get out of hand.) I believe the problems (and frustration) here arise from your colleauges blundering about because they are unfamiliar with the principles, standards, process, etc., for which mentoring would be more suitable. To immerse them in a NPOV contest when they don't know the "rules" (like how to use diffs) would be rather unfair (and from their pov, particularly unfair when they can't get satisfaction), and waste a lot of time chasing all over the landscape. By all means continue a discussion, but: not here, and not on the noticeboards. (I suggest Talk:Tulpa, as the substance of your differences is, mostly, related to content.)

And find someone willing to be present as a moderator. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tulpabug: you said that you want "to retract everything I said about BrightR." Actually doing so would help resolve this incident, so once again I suggest: "strike-through" all of the comments you want to retract. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

You are correct. After reading several policy pages and stuff, I had to conclude that although minor policy violations happened, they happened on both sides. Too minor a matter for discussion for the administrator's noticeboard. I want to edit this page in question, at some point in the future, so I'm staying out of this conflict. I don't even know which side has the better ideas for how the article looks yet. As to striking what I wrote, I am not aware of policy or guidelines on that. But I do ask the administrators to close this discussion. Let's return to discussing article content. Tulpabug (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tulpabug: You are involved in "this conflict", with your edits at Tulpa, your participation at the DRN, and your very first words here ("I can confirm [Farcaller's claims]"). And thus you need to be involved in restoring a harmonious working environment at Tulpa.

Where you made comments, in this discussion, that might be deemed "unfortunate" for being unwarranted, uncivil, and even incorrect, and that you have indicated a willingness to retract: you should retract them. Which is done by bracketing them with <s> and </s>, to create: struck-through text being retracted. (This is a standard, well-known Wikipedia practice; see WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL and WP:REDACT for details.) Doing so is a gracious gesture towards healing the relationship with your colleagues; failing to do so would suggest that you don't really mean what you say. And you should retract soon, as once this discussion is closed your remarks will stand as they are. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Farcaller: I hope that by now you have some inkling in how your comments here were inadvisable. (Note that I am saying nothing about the underlying content disputes; I am talking about the mode and form of interaction, etc.) In the interest of proceeding to a productive discussion of the editing at Tulpa, and restoration of a harmonious editing environment, would you care to generally withdraw the claims you have made here? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that BrightR's idea to move this over to the reliable source noticeboard or the neutral point of view noticeboard is good. It makes no sense to continue this on ANI, as I overreacted seeing BrightR's response to BrightR-suggested dispute on DRN. In the light of the discussion made above, I'm withdrawing my claims. Farcaller (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very gracious. I would caution against going to the other noticeboards as you all really don't know "the ropes" yet, and it might be just more frustration. I do urge mentoring. Or even another go at DRN. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Some lines redacted. The rules posted are unclear on procedure. Tulpabug (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry about the details. The key thing is the demonstration of good intent. With this I think we are done here. After 72 hours of no activity this will magically disappear into the archives. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

No sources or response to messages

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

Dimitrije jankovski has created many articles without references and has not responded to messages about this, just continued with the same behaviour. Examples include Diagnosis: Murder (season 8) and Silvia Veleva. I have sent five messages to user talk:Dimitrije jankovski since April but none have been responded to, and I'm not the only editor to have raised these concerns. This editor creates quite a lot of pages. I would like Dimitrije jankovski to stop creating unreferenced articles, add references to the already created unreferenced articles and start responding to messages. Boleyn (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm unsure what the best course of action to fix this is but if it helps I agree the articles being created are problematic and the lack of communication is not helping... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 03:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Spam link and user conduct problems

Darius robin (talk · contribs · logs)

This user has been continuously adding external links to JerryRigEverything videos and Android Authority articles to articles without any obvious consensus to do so. Multiple users have approached them about this and the edits are still happening. I have contacted them about this and they basically have ignored it... There are links to everything below. The user also seems to have some issues with edit warring over these links and biting newcomers, all explained below. For full disclosure, I have had previous disagreements with this user (see Talk:iPhone 8 if you are interested, but I admit I was wrong in that and that issue is over). This is a concern over spam links, the user is selectively choosing to add JerryRig and AA links to the bottom of basically every tech article they edit and I'm concerned about bias, spam and the users refusal to listen to other editors. In some situations after "losing" an edit war trying to add links, Darius returned over a month later and added the links again, completely ignoring other users and without trying to gain consensus.

• Nokia 3, 2nd try 6 September adding JerryRig links, reverted then re-added
• Nokia 6 7 September adding JerryRig links
• Nokia 3310 7 September adding JerryRig links
• BlackBerry DTEK 50 7 September adding AA and JerryRig links
• BlackBerry KEYone 6 September adding JerryRig and AA links
• LG G6 7 September adding JerryRig links and AA links, later reverted
• LG G6 13 October re-adding JerryRig links
• Moto G5 7 September adding JerryRig and AA links
• iPhone 1 7 September adding JerryRig

• edit warring on iPhone 1 11 September adding JerryRig
• more iPhone 1 EW adding JerryRig
• some more edit war adding JerryRig

• Essential Phone adding JerryRig, reverted

• Edit war Essential Phone adding JerryRig, reverted
• continuing EW adding JerryRig, reverted
• Essential Phone adding AA about JerryRig, reverted
• Essential Phone AA re-adding a month later after war died down

• COMES BACK to Essential Phone 31 October re-adding AA articles abput JerryRig
• Galaxy S7 8 September adding JerryRig, reverted

• 2nd try Galaxy S7 re-adding JerryRig, reverted again

• Galaxy S6 adding JerryRig and AA, reverted

• 2nd try GS6 re-adding JerryRig and AA, later partially reverted

• Note 8 adding JerryRig links

• Note 8 pt 2 adding AA article links

• LG V30 23 October adding JerryRig links
• LG V30 25 September adding JerryRig links
• Pixel 2 24 October adding JerryRig to main article text
• Moto Z2 adding AA links

Serious edit warring at Galaxy Note 8

Attempt at discussion, 6 September, an editor repeatedly warned Darius against adding external links to JerryRig, Darius ignored and continued to add them.

At Talk:Pixel 2, I brought up the issues of external links being added, at the time not realising the scope and number of links added... This is an expanded version of that complaint.

Darius also seems to have issues with biting newcomers, going straight to a level 4 im warning for a new user who was making test edits and linking incorrectly. Darius made no attempt to explain the issue, instead just reverted the edits with the non-AGF rollback and gave out a level 4 im spam warning, the editor has not edited since. Have approached Darius about this on their talk page where they said they should've used a level 3 as their first warning instead... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@EoRdE6: See, I WAS adding those links, after I was warned, I stopped. Then after that, I asked some people like Emir of Wikipedia if I could add links to publications instead (not YouTube links), which everyone agreed with. Then what’s your problem?

About that "biting" thing, I gave that editor a lv4im warning, then realized that it was harsh. I thought of removing that and adding a lv2-3 warning, but you came in from nowhere and gave a lv1. Did you even know how many articles he was spamming. And it’s none of my problem that he has not returned, he may have only created the account to spam articles and promote his site. You never know!

PS. You don’t need to add URLs to link to pages within Wikipedia. Follow this [[Special:Diff/<The diff number at the end of the URL>]]. You should be knowing that by now.

Please remove whatever is in your sandbox, or I’m complaining here. Darius robin (talk) 07:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I did not tell anyone to use publications instead of YouTube, but as some concerns were raised I compromised and accepted the publication as an alternative. This issue is not a spam link issue but an external links issue. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: I know, but what’s wrong in using a link from a publication, Wikipedia:Further reading has no problem. It was even fine with Guysayshi. While adding the direct YouTube links, people didn’t accept it, I understand, but no one raised an issues with the publication thing, until now, when EoRdE6 suddenly popped up. Darius robin (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong with it is simple, there is no community consensus for the additions and preliminarily looking at Talk:Pixel 2 it appears to be leaning towards having consensus to remove the links. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 17:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

You were warned on the 6 of September, links were still being added all the way up until the 31st of October, in fact you still added one today. You seem to be incapable of listening to other editors opinions and that's why I brought this to ANI. And I am not removing anything from my sandbox because well... as you said it's my sandbox and as long as there is nothing attacking in there it's fine. it was a draft of this post, stop hounding my edits please, and feel free to complain all you want about it. Not "everyone agreed" you could add links, in fact Talk:Pixel 2 shows everyone agrees you should NOT add links if I am not mistaken, you are just ignoring it. And yes I am well aware of how to link on Wikipedia but even experienced editors link the way I do sometimes because when preparing a long list of diffs it can just be quicker, there are no requirements for how to link on talk pages so chill with the talking down to me thanks... And about the biting, as you said yourself "You never know!" that's the point exactly, until you DO know you assume good faith, you do NOT assume they are here to spam unless it is obvious they are. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 17:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@EoRdE6: Ok, I’m going forward and removing only my name from your sandbox, now that you’ve finished copying it here. I don’t want it there, and that’s it. As Bassmadrigal said, the further reading section is only present in 3% of article, how does it become an offense to expand that number if there are no rules on that? On that "everyone agreed" part, I meant it at that time, when the Pixel 2 article wasn’t even created! Link however you want, it was just my advice to link that way. How do you know that they are not here to spam? It was clearly obvious, all their edits were spam, spam and spam. "You never know!".

BTW, Please ping me whenever you’ve got a message. I’m not gonna be visiting and checking for replies every now and then. Darius robin (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Darius robin: just a notice that you are mis formatting your talk posts so your pings don't go through anyway. And it "becomes an offense to expand that number" when other users disagree you seem to be completely and absolutely missing the point of this discussion. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Let me just highlight what you are clearly missing. Editors have told you to stop adding the further information section. See "I agree with EoRdE6 and Galatz that the links don't belong in the Further Information section." "In my opinion, no, I don't think it belongs. I don't know if there is any policy backing my opinion (there are far too many policies and I am just a casual editor), but, to me, this shows bias towards Android Central." "I dont see any reason to have these. They would be much better suited as an RS within the article itself." "please stop adding these links and articulate why you think they are appropriate in the context of the WP:EL policy. It's best to have a discussion around this instead of forging on regardless. If you continue to add them despite the concerns raised the edits may become disruptive." You have completely ignored 5 editors objecting to your additions and show no signs of stopping... Community consensus over-rules guidelines remember. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@EoRdE6: We’re here to ask for admin advice, but there’s no admin for two full days. Darius robin (talk) 10:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

To editor Darius robin: No, "this page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors" In other words, here, the specific role of admins is to take a decision when a consensus is reached. Moreover, if an admin participates to the discussion, it must not close the discussion himself. So, do not complain that admins that are aware of the discussion do not post here: if they would, another admin would have to wast his time for reading your numerous posts and your disputed edit. --D.Lazard (talk • contribs) 11:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

NPA, unblock conditions @ Patriot Prayer

I’m asking the community to evaluate behaviour of Darkness Shines (D.S. for short) on the article Patriot Prayer and its talk page.

• Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Patriot Prayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The concerns pertain to recent edits by D.S. as part of a disagreement over the article’s lead. D.S. has performed a series of edits, both formatting- and content-related. For background, D.S. posted on TP that changes were “all formatting”: permalink. D.S. defended his removal of sources and changes in wording, while others pointed out this inconsistency; sample comments by other editors: [137] and [138].

For background, the lead was extensively discussed in the past (Cleaning up the lead), with editors specifically rejecting D.S.’s wording: D.S. lead proposal. The lead revisions were thus against consensus. D.S. also stated that revert eliminated “hours of work”, which I do not think is accurate. The lead contains 10 references so I don’t believe it’s possible that converting 10 citations to sfn style takes “hours”. In my post I specifically indicated that I did not touch the formatting changes in the body; see:Lead and body changes. When I asked him to undo his wording changes in the lead, the response was: do it yourself “ffs”.

The WP:NPA comments and uncivil language on the talk page include:

• [139], with edit summary “Fuck you” and post “First you call me a liar and now incompetent, go fuck yourself.”
• [140], post: “I have explained every fucking efit in the sections above, and I will be reverting again, this petty bulkshite has to stop.”

Separately, D.S. performed two reverts in 24 hours on an article under 1RR:

• He'll no, I am not having hours of formating destroyed just change the fucking text you disagree with
• Breaking 1RR, I will not have hours of work reverted out of petty spite, feel free to block me.

The article is currently under full protection, but I have concerns that D.S. would resume similar behaviour when the protection expires. The article was recently discussed at ANI (Violation of unblock civility restriction), with another editor ending up topic banned: Proposal for topic ban. In evaluating the situation, editors had expressed an opinion that D.S. rudeness and frustration were in response to that particular editor. However, I don’t believe this to be the case, as D.S. engages in the same type of behaviour against other contributors, as shown above.

D.S. is currently under restrictions; he explicitly agreed to abide by 1RR and remain civil with other users as conditions of their account block being lifted in May 2017: Unblock request. The civility restriction was as follows: “You agree to remain civil when communicating with other users, and report them or seek WP:3O or WP:DR as needed” (diff for unblock conditions.

The user’s actions have created an atmosphere of hostility at Patriot Prayer. The on-going violations of unblock conditions are also of concern. I’m asking the community to evaluate the situation. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

No strong opinions but by bizarre coincidence I notice a section a couple above has just been closed with Whatever your view on Civility, it has been pretty well established by previous cases that people do not get sanctioned for saying "fuck", so I'm closing this William M. Connolley (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

No strong opinions either, but if you tell a long-term editor that they're incompetent at editing Wikipedia I would not be completely shocked if you got told to "go fuck yourself". I'd be tempted myself. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I watchlisted that page after the previous ANI, and it still seems to me that there is a lot of BAITing going on, as before. Arkon (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

While DS violated the condition of his unblock restrictions, he also seems to be getting subjected to more push back than any other editor would get. His violation ended with a warning, officially. I'm seeing some drive-by reverting being done to his edits, and I see DS trying to discuss every time he gets reverted. No comment on whether or not the edits have consensus, but they do appear to be formatting changes. From what I'm seeing, he's just moving the references around.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 20:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I've been watching this page for a few months, and it's obvious from the talk page that, like all of us, Darkness Shines has a certain amount of bias, especially about contentious topics like Patriot Prayer. That being said, it's seemed to me that most of his edits to the page itself have been largely constructive. As mentioned above, he gets an inordinate amount of pushback, sometimes pretty incoherent. I'll admit that I don't find profanity to add much discourse but I don't find it all that offensive, either. Gabriel syme (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• I completely disagree with the idea that DS has been subjected to inordinate or undue pushback (maybe with the exception of the last section on the TP, though I admittedly haven't completely read both archives and don't know if there's prior history playing into that section). See this discussion, where others also agreed there is a problem with his edit summaries. I'm not sure how one could take a hard look at the TP at Patriot Prayer and come away with the idea that he's actually participating in consensus building. I'm not advocating calling him a liar, but when asked about the core of the content issues labeled with the erroneous edit summary by three separate editors (Tornado Chaser, Ke Coffman, and myself) DS's answer has almost always been some version of "my way or the highway" followed by some of the incivility Ke Coffman has highlighted here (all of which is unfortunately part of a pattern). It's tiring. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Here's a sample of Talk page discussions that D.S. opens:

• What the fucking fuck is wrong with this?

They are not productive and potentially drive away other contributors. More recently, he posted to the TP that he planned to restore his recent changes, over the objection of several editors: permalink. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• DS is mostly concerned with pushing their view onto the page, regardless of consensus, and has done so in disingenuous ways. This is the source of objections to their contributions: they are often misleading. Given the frequency in which they are misleading, it's difficult to assume good faith. They are very clear in their statements about how they will ignore consensus and push their own point of view.--Jorm (talk) 06:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• This is getting upsetting, DS is now being disruptive on Antifa (United States) and undoing my revert of the lede as per the Talk page.[141][142] I had been working to change the order of a few words, and tried it out. I was asked to revert it and when I did; DS came in out of nowhere and undid it. This was all under discussion on the Talk page and he knows better, but it's like I have a stocker following me. I've asked DS to stay away from me, as DS has been abusive and insulting and disruptive; and now it's moved on to other articles.[143] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• 17:45, 17 August 2017 My first edit to Antifa. 17:18, 2 November 2017 Gilmore's first edit to Antifa. How is that stalking? Retract your ridiculous accusation. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• My revert to the earlier version, at 11:53; DS undo of my revert 11:54 [144] that is very fast, like DS is tracking my every move. After snooping through my sandbox, and posting on my Talk page after ordering to leave not to contact; this is all coming up as just too much of a coincidence, give DS's history. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Persistent removal of CC licenced image by IP user

I have revert an edit by User:86.53.6.107 seveal times & don't want to break the 3RR rule. They have repeatedly removed File:Camerton Court, from lawn.jpg from Camerton Court. I have raised this on their talk page without response. The initial edit summary was "I have removed the image used for Camerton Court as the photo is of a private house and has been used without permission". I believe that under UK copyright law (freedom of panorama) this image is suitably licenced (but I'm not a lawyer). Could someone advise and perhaps try further to engage with IP user please.— Rod ^talk 10:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The UK has particularly generous freedom of panorama unless something has recently changed. GMG^talk 13:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

And looks like we've been done the favor of a revert and a EW notice. Probably not terribly much more to do here. GMG^talk 14:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The IP has been warned on their user talk page and informed of Wikipedia's policies on edit warring, but hasn't edited since the warning was left. At this moment in time (until something changes), the ball looks to be in their court; hopefully we'll see the result that's desired and that (s)he'll communicate and reach out, but if (s)he chooses not to do so and instead continues to be disruptive on that article, a 3RR block will come knocking. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Also note that there are people on the lawn. At full resolution, they would probably be recognizable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what the laws are in regard to that but if it's an issue a simple blurring of faces since it is CC licensed would be preferable to deleting the image imo... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 03:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Honestly that's more of a Commons issue anyway. I'm not sure it's an issue for us at all insofar as the use in an article is of a reduced resolution thumbnail. If there are privacy concerns, the usual resolution involves tagging the image with an appropriate template regarding privacy rights. If there are serious concerns regarding privacy or embarrassing the subject of a photo, blurring has been done, but I don't see that here. I'd be hard pressed to recognize any of the people in the image at full resolution, honestly. It doesn't look like the photo was taken during a trespass either, even if there was no permission granted by the property owner to photograph the residence. I think this is something that should be handed off to WMF legal if we're concerned that there might be an issue of UK legalities, but unless there's a legal barrier to its use, I don't see any principled reason to exclude this image. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

As the photographer a few comments. There is a public right of way that runs along the bottom of the garden of Camerton Court,[145] and I took this photo during a walk that included this public footpath. I took this photo 7 years ago, and cannot remember the details of it. There are some very small images of people sitting in the garden in the photo, one of which shows a small face front, but I think these are too indistinct to give reasonable personality rights issues IMO. To allay any possible concerns I wonder if I should do this walk again during the next few weeks and take another photo from the public footpath, ensuring no people are visible, and replace this photo. Rwendland (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

More photos are always a good thing, in my humble opinion. :) Thanks for chiming in here! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• And this trivial content dispute is here at ANI because why? EEng 01:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Persistent removal of maintenance templates

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

---

User:WyndingHeadland has persisted in removing maintenance templates relating to factually questionable material at the Scots Gaels article (an article of their own creation): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

The article talk page details my attempts to engage on the matter. A "Removal of maintenance template" warning was issued on their talk page and reliable sources for the disputed material was repeatedly requested. The user actively refused to provide RSs, the blanked maintenance tags were restored but immediately blanked again.

(Incidentally, I strongly suspect this user previously edited under another identity, as User:Baglessingazump.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Would appreciate the reading of the talk page, and the edit summaries, and the changing templates. It's a simple case of refusing WP:BRD repeatedly. The user's latter statement is indicative of his aggressive attitude.WyndingHeadland (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Please see previous ANI.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

This article now has a gold lock on the front gate. The discussion on the article's talk page and this discussion here need to come to a resolution. This will hopefully encourage all parties to discuss the disputes and seek consensus. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Per the talk page discussion, WyndingHeadland flatly refuses to discuss the specific points or provide specific citations to support them, so that simply isn't going to happen. They have repeatedly blanked the unresolved maintenance tags; disruptive behaviour which is surely not acceptable. Nobody reading the article can be made aware that the passages are in question or that the discussion even exists. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

As there has been no further response can I please specify that I'm at a loss, so require guidance, as to how to proceed. Yes, of course the "discussion(s) ... need to come to a resolution" but as, per above, the article creator refuses to meaningfully engage so there's no point posing my questions yet again. Yes they are writing stuff on the talk page but it's all vague diversionary rambling and riddles and incorrectly applied wikilawyering about WP:BRD and WP:3RR (in fact drawing attention to their own breach of both). "Attributable doesn't necessitate it is attributed. The user has been given enough information so that they can verify it is attributable."?!

If it is accepted that the blanking of maintenance templates is disruptive, can they be restored to the Scots Gaels article by an admin please?

Better still, as the editor clearly is refusing to specify supporting citations for their their contentions that the term "Highlander" is synonymous with "Scots Gael" or that "Albannaich" means "Scottish Gael", can an admin remove these from the article please?

FYI, WyndingHeadland is being similarly evasive in regard to their editing of Highland Clearances under two different user identities, discussed here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Answer the questions on the talk page please. Changing templates from dubious to a citation request then not accepting the difference is causing the user grief. Please stop calling the creation of an article an edit. Common translations and common facts needn't be attributed. Wikipedia practice is being ignored for translations, especially of demonyms, from a user who is demonstrating for two of three templates only that inability. The third template the user relates to facts that are both commonly accepted and in the source given. It is a straw man argument from a user who is citing past disputes with an inactive account. They are looking for a fight. WyndingHeadland (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

If anyone can understand the bulk of the above, good luck to them, but: that the term "Highlander" is supposedly synonymous with "Scots Gael" or that "Albannaich" supposedly means "Scottish Gael" are certainly not "facts that are... commonly accepted" and the sources you have vaguely alluded to are this one, which doesn't discuss Gaels let alone the two specific points in dispute, the Wikipedia Gàidhealtachd and Scottish Highlands articles, which do not remotely touch on the matter as far as I can see (and you refuse to indicate such a passage if it exists) plus, bizarrely, "Any geographical book that translates the Gaelic language" and "The Ordnance Survey"?! Yet you repeatedly blank maintenance tags you refuse to address?

Is your reference to your "inactive account" finally an admittance that you have edited at the Highland Clearances article under two different user identities, on the same topics, without disclosing the connection? Well that doesn't pass muster versus WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

lt isn't luck, it's the ability to read words. The source wasn't alluded to, it says above, "both commonly accepted and in the source given". The article is on an ethnolinguistic group, and the proportion of it's population in regions of the world, the last given source relates to this: "The Highlands themselves now have a population density of about 9 persons per square kilometre in comparison with an EU average of 116 per square kilometre, which is on a par with the northern parts of Finland and Sweden" [146]

Two questions put to you multiple times, first: what is the commonly accepted translation of the Gaelic for the Highlands of Scotland.

Second, what is the Scots Gaels demonym for themselves in their own language, as per wikipedia practice of non-English denonyms for groups such as the Dutch people or Germans? The translation of Gael has it's own article, Gaels don't have translation of Scot because it is a Latin derived term not used in Gaelic. The demonym is very simply, Albannaich, it is a common fact. WyndingHeadland (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I can confirm that it is very difficult to engage with - or even understand - WyndingHeadland. And if he is indeed the same user as User:Baglessingazump, which seems very likely, that should be taken into consideration. A lot of people spent a lot a time in the past defending the integrity of the Highland Clearances page against User:Baglessingazump. We should not have to go through all that again just because the user has surfaced with a new name. Can someone with the capability do a check whether the two users are in fact the same person. Camerojo (talk) 06:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

It's an inactive account. What is the overlap between the accounts? What offence of sockpuppetry can be determined to exist between the two accounts? How can dialogue be proof of sockpuppetry? The user should specify what the offence is or assume good faith as per the guidelines. WyndingHeadland (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

If you believe yourself to be justified in editing the same article and its talk pages under different identities, please specify which of these legitimate uses applies to you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The third time of saying this: that's an inactive account. The accusation is of impropriety. There hasn't been any. WyndingHeadland (talk) 09:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

So if there has been no impropriety, one of the legitimate uses will apply. Fantastic. Which? Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Good. So it wasn't improper. Don't need spelling it out. WyndingHeadland (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh very much do. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

As the user said, which is it? WyndingHeadland (talk) 11:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a typically surrealistically imbecilic exchange with this user which will go on for ever if they have their way, as anyone who has had the misfortune to attempt to engage with them will know. They claim that their socking was not improper but refuse to specify which legitimate use they ere employing and are now confessing that there isn't one, having the gall to ask us to stipulate one for them, after all the preceding time-wasting pantomime. This user is either WP:NOTHERE or not WP:COMPETENT and their drain on the resources of other editors should not be endured. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

If there is going to be a formal sock investigation, it would be worth checking this IP edit. It may just have arrived coincidentally, but the absence of talk page comment, the timing and the subject matter is indicative of Baglessingazump/WyndingHeadland editing style and would, if born out by investigation, be a clear example of sockpuppetry as an attempt to influence discussion.

We should not forget that there is now a substantial case for disruptive editing. It may be regarded as inflammatory to list/relist it all here, but if an admin asks for it, this can be done.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Do so. It hasn't got anything to do with me. WyndingHeadland (talk) 09:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

In this instance, I believe the edit in question is a coincidence. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Block requested by User:Margolis-Marmite

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

---

My knowledge of the Alt-Right language is poor, but I believe that "I love the way you dismiss the importance of ethnicity to millions of ethnic English people. Im guessing you'd never do this to a Jew." translates to "Please indef me" in English. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I think a more accurate translation is "Hello, I am waving a red flag, inviting you to review all my contributions in greater detail". When I take him up on this suggestion, I see that we do, indeed, have yet another racist and anti-Semite on our hands. Indef'ed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Is there a... Wiki policy against being alt-right? EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 21:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

No. Please try harder to think clearly, and rephrase your question if this block still confuses you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a wiki policy against being bigoted and uncivil. You can have whatever political alignment you want so long as you aren't a dick about it. --Tarage (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Which is basically the same thing as having a policy against being alt-right 71.183.236.103 (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Racism is not exclusive to the alt-right, but they're a major proponent of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry EoRdE6, I should not have been flippant - there is no policy banning the Alt-Right from Wikipedia. In this particular case, the user is Alt-Right, but that's not why they were blocked. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: A one-edit IP showing up here? I think I smell someone's sock that got left in the dryer. Home Lander (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

That seems a little too suspicious. Not that you're definitely wrong, but it could just be an IP editor on a dynamic IP (explaining the one edit). If actual disruption occurs, that's another matter, but one harmless comment at ANI isn't going to cut it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• We don't block people because of their politics or any other personal opinions. We only block based on behavior, and then only if it has become disruptive to the project. On a side note and speaking as one whose politics are well to the right of... probably everyone here, I find racialism to be symptomatic of bonecrushing ignorance. And in my experience, antisemitism has in recent years become much more common, even mainstream, on the political left. Especially on college campuses where anti-Israeli sentiment seems to have become the cause de jure for young leftists. But yes, it certainly exists in the darker corners of the far right. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• My complaint was quite simply centered around Floquenbeams written block reason which seemed a bit much and just wrong... You can't be blocked for being racist, you can be blocked for being disruptive... Aka I agree with the block but am being picky about the rationale chosen which is unnecessarily divisive and accusatory. And Floquenbeam that reply was bordering being a personal attack that wasn't necessary come on... Aren't we all supposed to be working together or some shit EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 23:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I block people for being racist and anti-Semitic all the time (well, technically, for demonstrating a racist/anti-Semitic POV in their edits, but only because otherwise there's no way to tell). No one has objected yet. Your question, as asked, was stupid. it isn't a personal attack to point that out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Well now I have objected so yes someone has objected. And thanks, I expect more from another established user. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 23:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I too would expect better from an admin. This is ANI and admins telling editors that their questions are stupid is borderline rude, and it doesn't surprise me if people would say that it is not even showing general human niceness. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Floquenbeam: Please be bothered to at least treat others with the respect due a coworker, even when they're wrong. GMG^talk 23:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

well, technically, for demonstrating a racist/anti-Semitic POV in their edits, but only because otherwise there's no way to tell I think that's the point EoRdE6 is trying to make; that because the reason for the block is disruptive conduct, the block message should focus on the disruptive conduct and not the beliefs that led to that editor behaving in that way. That said, I think you did just fine with the block message, "racism and anti-semitism". Had it been "racist and anti-semite", I might agree with the criticism. Hopefully that explains EoRdE6's position a bit better. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much all of this editor's contributions consisted of tagging various American political figures as Jews in the article leads without any regard to whether or not these people's notability has anything to do with Judaism, plus arguing with increasing belligerence that a comedian born and raised in London cannot possibly be English because of his Norwegian/Nigerian ancestry. Their edits were based entirely on racialism and the theory that ethnicity is all important and is also entirely genetic. This type of POV pushing is pernicious and quibbling about the wording of a necessary block seems a trifle pedantic to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Repeated violations of WP:BLP and WP:V by User:Mam1984

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

---

• Mam1984 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries)

Mam1984 has been editing since June. She or he is primarily interested in articles about pornographic actresses. Unfortunately, Mam1984 is under the (mis)impression that the Internet Adult Film Database (IAFD) is a reliable source. Like the IMDb, the IAFD's content is user-generated, making it unreliable as a source, especially for BLPs.

I first became aware of Mam1984 about two weeks ago, when she or he added some material sourced to the IAFD to a BLP on my watchlist. I reverted, explaining in my edit summary that "the IAFD is not a reliable source for date and place of birth, or height and weight". (I see now that Mam1984 had added the material in September, and I removed it then with the same explanation, but I hadn't made the connection until now.) The following day, Mam1984 restored the information, so I reverted it and left a message on her or his talk page. Mam1984 did not reply. (In fact, she or he has never made an edit outside mainspace.)

Since then, Mam1984 has continued to add or restore material sourced to the IAFD to at least five other articles on at least a dozen occasions. I left her or him a warning about what she or he was doing, and another warning. The warnings have had no effect. Mam1984 has not responded anywhere, nor has she or he stopped adding or restoring material sourced to the IAFD.

I believe Mam1984 has been adequately warned and should be blocked. If necessary, I will give her or him a notice about the sanctions that apply to the editing of BLPs and take this matter to WP:A/E, but I don't think that should be necessary for a first block. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked the editor for 48 hours, which should be long enough to get their attention. Please let me know if they resume use of sources that do not comply with RS and BLP policy, Malik Shabazz, and I will block for longer periods as needed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen328. Will do. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

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

I found an IP, an anonymous series of edits, that was close to vandalising

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

---

Ok, I do not know much about how to do this b/c not a big wikipedia person. I found edits to the page Palawan_people that were suspicious, made by not a user but an anonymous (it lists an IP). I cannot therefore warn the person or debate them about this. I suggest their IP be blocked b/c it is pretty close to vandalism what they did. So, there was a sentance saying something like, 'these people are being exploited by activists', with a ref (#4 in the artivle) to Survival International webpage about them. I was pretty weirded out by that so i checked the reference, and Survival page referenced says they are being PROTECTED by activists from mining companies' exploitation. I reviewed edit histories and found that an older version of article has the same reference, but reads like, 'this people is being protected from exploitation by mining companies, by activists'... so this IP pretty well changed the thing to mean the opposite of what the reference says, without changing the reference page either, called it a minor edit, didn't leave anything on the talk page. The creator of the article probably referenced Survival as a well known knowledgeable source on indigineous peoples, the troll here knows didly about palawans and is trying to troll politically. Anyways if you want to change what the sentance says, you have to change the ref, and discuss oon talk, and should have a username. The person is editing other pages with the IP, I think they should be banned or something. As long as the IP isn't a library or whatever. IP is: 112.200.104.86 , suspicious edit made: 10:00, 5 October 2017‎ . I am putting this here b/c I do not know where to report. It isn't a 'vandal', technically, tho a lot of little nasty edits by same anon IP you may expect in the future, they cost 60 seconds to make, it isn't really content dispute in how anonymously and casually it was done, and I can't talk to them about it b/c they're anon. So I post this here, maybe admin will know what to do. Nathanielfirst (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so the IP in question is 112.200.104.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and this user did indeed reverse the meaning of the sentence, and I believe it is vandalism. I warned the IP. I don't think a block is needed because there's not ongoing vandalism. The IP is not editing other articles at all. I also restored the article prior to that IP's vandalism, some of which wasn't reverted. In the future, you can just warn vandal IPs. As far as I can tell, there's no action that needs to be taken by admins here. I don't think we need to bother notifying the IP about this discussion given it's just a basic question of warning an IP about vandalism. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Sourcing concerns and refusal to communicate

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

---

Sangkaburi Gallery regularly creates articles. I have sent several messages which have gone unanswered, because these have an empty references section. I have stressed the importance of creating articles with references and also that WP:Communication is required. I have asked if perhaps the external links are the sources, although external links are usually friendly suggestion, but have had no response. I assume they are not the sources, as the editor is creating two sections, References and External Links, separately. Examples are Tinyu Ridge and Paya-thonzu Taung. Editors cannot create daily articles that are unreferenced and ignore other editors trying to help them solve the issue. 1 or 2 articles like this wouldn't be such an issue, but this editor has created 6 unreferenced articles today (so far!) Sangkaburi Gallery, how do you suggest we move forward? Please engage in this conversation. Boleyn (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

This isn't my area at all, but there's something very odd about these articles, which this editor is creating at a rapid pace. Take a look at the last 4 created:

• Selaung Taung
• Tinyu Ridge
• Pokabo Cho
• Khao Mamuang Sam Muen

They all have the exactly same set of external links (right down to their access dates from over a year ago), all of which are completely generic and do not link to the specific location of the article subject. Where did all the detailed "facts" and "figures" in the articles come from? Voceditenore (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I now see where they came from. They are all copy pasted from the equivalent Swedish and/or Cebuano Wikipedia articles, all of which were created by a bot (Lsjbot). The bot's sources are exactly the same and equally opaque. Voceditenore (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Even murkier. Boleyn, have you noticed that there is another editor Somohto (talk · contribs) with exactly the same modus operandi as Sangkaburi Gallery (talk · contribs), who was also rapidly creating articles on Myanmar geography with the same generic links and who also pastes drafts on their user and talk pages. That account was created on 12 September, the day after a load of socks who exclusively edited Myanmar geography articles were blocked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eh Doh/Archive. Somohto's last edit was on 25 October. Sangkaburi Gallery's account was created on 23 October. Paging GeneralizationsAreBad and KrakatoaKatie, the admins who dealt with the most recent version of that SPI. Voceditenore (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Both Sangkaburi Gallery and Somohto have just been indef blocked by Bbb23 as socks of Eh Doh. Something tells me we haven't seen the last of him however. It might be a good idea for a few people to put their frequent targets, Tagundaing (Kayin State) and List of mountains in Myanmar, on their watchlists. Voceditenore (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

 DoneJoefromrandb (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Voceditenore, I had sent several warnings to both without spotting the similarities, thank you. Thanks, Joefromrandb for handling this. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome, but Bbb23 is the one who handled it. I just added the articles to my list. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Resumed editing

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

---

Further to a previous ANI thread I’ve re-started editing at an article that I voluntarily took a break from, as noted here. This FYI is just for full transparency, not because I’m looking for applause and adoration. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Forgive me then, but I applaud you anyway, AYW. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Unsourced additions, then blanking by User:Dravrah2012

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

---

Can someone please revert unexplained page blanking by Dravrah2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Curtis J. Raynold (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? I've already hit my 3 reverts on the page per WP:3RR, but it's starting to look like the user is WP:NOTHERE. The blanking started after I reverted unsourced additions by the user and subsequent warnings. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted them again and left a warning on their TP. If they do it again, they should be reported to ANEW. Blackmane (talk) 05:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Spammer, please block now

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

---

Shamonioli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) nothing but spam ☆ Bri (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Three were a couple of iffy edits now reverted- but were they really spamming on behalf of the The Motor Ombudsman?! Doesn't seem a partcularly profitable exercise. — fortunavelut luna 14:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not sure if it's a spammer, or just someone who's overly enthusiastic with at least a touch of COI. Anyone want to try to see if there's a solution short of blocking that will work? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverted a couple more of their edits and left a warning; everything's now been undone so we can see where they go from here. Home Lander (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Time for an indef (or Topic Ban?) for editor?

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

---

Hello while patrolling recent changed I noticed that Sfsound (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was removing content from the It's a Beautiful Day article. At first I didn't think too much of it, but after looking at their talk page it became clear that this has been an issue in the past and they have been blocked more than once for it. Could an admin (or admins) check this out and see whether we need to impose sanctions on the listed user. Sakura Cartelet ^Talk 04:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed. Clear case of NOTHERE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Might consider some level of protection on the page. The history shows that Sfsounds isn't very competent with Wiki and has inadvertently edited while logged out. Blackmane (talk) 05:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Published plagiarism of one of our articles

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

---

Can I ask what can be done (or who I should contact) about the plagiarism of one of our articles in a recently published book. The book, Tottenham Outrage (published in 2017) has used much of the text from the Siege of Sidney Street article. A sample can be seen in the last two paragraphs on page 18, compared to the second and third paras at Siege_of_Sidney_Street#Immigration_and_demographics_in_London. There is further plagiarism on the following few pages of the book. There is no attribution anywhere in the book (including in the sources) to show that the text came from Wikipedia. I appreciate that this may not be the right forum, but does anyone know if WMF take action on this sort of thing, and if so, who should I contact. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd email legal@wikimedia.org. Katie^talk 13:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• The WMF cannot take action as they do not own the copyright: individual Wikipedians own the copyright for every word they contribute and they license it under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL. If the terms of the licensing are not met, individuals who are contributors to the content that is being used are the only people who have standing to take action. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Realistically, no one's going to take any meaningful action. If someone wanted to take symbolic action, they could drop a letter detailing the plagiarism to the publisher and hope that they slap their author with a wet salmon. - Nunh-huh 13:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

That's kind of along the lines of what I'm thinking...in my opinion, the best person to do so would be the actual author, but anyone could. Shearonink (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I have emailed legal. Crafting an effective strategy for dealing with trivial, minor, and major instances of copyright violation is their task. If it worthwhile in this instance to enforce the copyright, one of the authors can be recruited as a plaintiff. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if the legal people at the WMF replied with anything other than a statement that it's up to the copyright holders to enforce copyright if they wish to do so. There would need to be a large expensive team of lawyers at the WMF if they were to get involved in every case of copying Wikipedia content without attribution - for every case that is noticed and brought to people's attention here there are probably hundreds of others. The only thing anyone else can do is to inform the publishers who will take whatever action they deem necessary to protect their reputation. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

SchroCat has 3/4 of the article and would thus have the rights to send a complaint or even a takedown request. Only the copyright holders can do that and editors retain copyright to the text they contribute. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Wellll... any interested person anywhere could notify the publisher, a company known as a publisher of criminal justice and related matters, whose mission statement is: "Putting justice into words". This publisher might be interested in knowing that they either 1)paid an author for material that was plagiarized without attribution from another source or that 2)a writer who stole writing and words is associated with their imprint (since the business is both a standard publishing house and a "joint-venture publishing" house and I am unclear as to what this particular author's association is with the publisher).

It really gets me - all the CC-By-SA 3.0 asks for...all Wikimedia/Wikipedia asks for, is attribution. It's ok, take the words, we'll give them away for free! Just let the world know that someone else wrote it. But so many can't seem to be bothered. Ugh. Shearonink (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

They may or may not have paid the author; the publisher also provides self-publishing services and joint publishing ventures. In other words, the author may have paid them. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, and that's what I posted above Nat (joint-venture etc). But even if they didn't pay him...if they were informed about this plagiarism, the company not want the book to be associated with their company anymore, especially considering that they are a publishing house that specializes in criminal justice matters. Shearonink (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that that's the best approach to take. There's no evidence that anyone other than the author knew about this plagiarism/copyright violation, and any damages involved would be very small in comparison to the potential cost of taking legal action, with the risk that when such action found against the author he might not be able to pay the costs. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

At least SchroCat can tell people they're a published author now  ;) — fortunavelut luna 16:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

From the Amazon "About the Author" section on this book: Geoff Barton is a skilled 'thief taker'. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

No-one is allowed to say "Takes one to know one" at that, please.... — fortunavelut luna 16:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: An important note about CC-By-SA—attribution is necessary, but not sufficient. (That's the 'By' part.) It also requires that derivative works be licensed under the same CC-By-SA license: 'Share Alike', or 'SA'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

True. Without getting in to the depths of copyright & trademark law etc, I bet that the author's "book" is copyrighted and if someone turned around and lifted entire passages out of it the author and/or the publisher would not hesitate to sue. Shearonink (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I have tagged the article with backward copy. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

This stuff happens all the time. I read an article on a subject I've written on and I see "my" words staring back at me. Even when they are kind enough to muddle with the text, it often still has the "look and feel" of the Wiki article. Attribution would be nice but in general, I just take it as a compliment and let it go.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Ha! I see this every few months in connection with my favorite article, Phineas Gage. Most recently, in the episode described here [147], one of the characters speaks whole phrases that I wrote in the article. I'm a ghostwriter for a popular TV series! EEng 19:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Mmmhmmm. Any of the roiling "news"-sites do this all the time - "Top Ten [whatevers]" or "Strange legends about [whatever]" etc. I am always presently surprised when I see attribution, I just wish people weren't so lazy and quick to grab the credit for the work that we all do here. I don't mind sharing, just tell folks where you got it from. Would be nice. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: I know that the case of Stranger Things is off topic to this specific discussion, but I feel this is the most appropriate place to comment. My suggestion is that you view the full credits of the episode, as stuff is often hidden in those long credits. If you find that no attribution has been provided I suggest you contact them. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I checked the credits and sure enough, there's a bit near the end that says, "Additional dialogue by Wikipedia editor EEng." Just kidding. You weren't serious, were you? EEng 21:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I weren't joking. You might be able to get some financial compensation, or at least being able to officially and undisputedly claim that you wrote that. Completely your choice if you choose to purse this. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• There seems to be a lot of editors commenting here but none doing anything about the issue, so I have sent an email to the publisher with the text:

It has been noticed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Published_plagiarism_of_one_of_our_articles that the book "The Tottenham Outrage and Walthamstow Tram Chase" by Geoffrey Barton violates the copyright of Wikipedia editors on page 18 onwards. I would hope that, as a reputable publisher, you would take the appropriate action to rectify this.

86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

If that's all you said, you should expect little in return. When one requests administrative action (even in othr spheres), one must establish one's case. That particular email fails to do so. What gives? — fortunavelut luna 20:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

As you said in your edit summary, that's bs. Give the publisher, who was almost certainly not aware of the copyright violation, the chance to do the right thing. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

A more effective strategy might be publicity and ridicule. Interest a journalist.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Or better yet, declare all text on Wikipedia to be public domain. If the WMF doesn't care, why should we? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Great point. When dealing with others within Wikipedia, assume good faith and be civil. When dealing with outsiders, go straight to ridicule and canvassing. EEng 21:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Spam-only account

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

---

Would an admin please put a stop to this spam-only account:

Bubbly1558 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He has done nothing but repeatedly spam various Wikipedia articles with his own non-notable books. He has received usertalk warnings to stop, including a final warning, but persists in re-adding the material.

Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I was meanwhile reporting at WP:COIN but self-reverted when I noticed this report (some diffs in that post). (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) —PaleoNeonate – 00:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

This editor is spamming unreferenced mentions of his recent self-published novels which are for sale on Amazon for Kindle for 99 cents each. I searched on Google and could find no independent reviews of these books. Mentioning these novels adds nothing of value to the encyclopedia and is a glaring conflict of interest. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Bonnie Blondell

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

---

Disruptively editing Naparima College by repeatedly adding content about a non-notable volleyball player named Marc Anthony Honore. This user has no other edit history. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I was about to leave a warning for repeatedly adding this entry when I saw the notice for this ANI. Since the user has never been notified about the usual rules for adding alumni I think this ANI is premature. I'll leave her a notice and pointers to the appropriate guidelines. Meters (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Point taken. Therefore I'll withdraw this notice unless the issue arises again. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

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

New Eh Doh sock

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

---

• Mam1984 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries)

Resolved

 – Blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Back again with yet another sock created shortly after yesterday's blocks. (See the discussion above Sourcing concerns and refusal to communicate.) Modus operandi is blindingly obvious. Bbb23 and GeneralizationsAreBad, do I need to start an SPI? Or can he just be checkusered and zapped?

For reference: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eh Doh/Archive

Voceditenore (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• It looks like another editor opened an SPI shortly after I wrote the above. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eh Doh. Voceditenore (talk) 10:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

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

request review of block

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

---

Requesting a review of my block of AZOperator (talk · contribs). The discussions are spread over multiple talk pages:

• Talk:Hamilton High School (Chandler, Arizona)#Recent edits August 2017
• User talk:Donner60#Hamilton Hazing Allegations
• User talk:Barek#Hamilton High School
• User talk:Kudpung#Appeal to Common Sense
• User talk:John from Idegon#Warnings
• User talk:AZOperator

I had at one point done one revert of the user at Hamilton High School (Chandler, Arizona), and had no intent to use admin abilities related to the article content. However, the disruptive behavior by the user over the past twelve hours on their own talk page, as well as the talk page for John from Idegon, more than justified a block on WP:HARASS, WP:BATTLEFIELD, and WP:NOTHERE grounds. However, due to the initial revert, I still wanted to request additional review of the block. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Looks fine to me. I think your revert wasn't enough to make you involved anyway as there were pretty serious BLP issues with the edits you reverted, even if you couched them as being WP:WEIGHT-based. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• I have been watching this, and the only problem that I have with this block is that it's not long enough. With the humor aside, the block looks fine to me too. Alex Shih (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Having read through the links. I too endorse this block. Blackmane (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Frankly, I'm not surprised. I have given them plenty of informal warnings already and on my talk page. Barek has only done what I should probably have done already. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC).

• Yes, good block. As seriously as I feel WP:INVOLVED needs to be rigorously abided, WP:BLP trumps all. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Nastiness

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

---

here on a user Talk page needs admin attention. I will now inform the user concerned. Roxy the dog. bark 21:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Informed. -Roxy the dog. bark 21:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

You're letting obvious antisemites like Malik and Ivar (who literally called us trolls and racists for objecting to their biased edits) run around, and I'm the nasty one? OK2601:84:4502:61EA:65A6:1187:CF1C:195C (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The IP troll initially wrote, then removed, "I hope you get shot in the head". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

You just did it again. And it shouldn't take a genius to see that I wrote that out of frustration and anger. Who *wouldn't* lose their temper dealing with a bigot like you? You should have had your account axed long ago2601:84:4502:61EA:65A6:1187:CF1C:195C (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

See! -Roxy the dog. bark 21:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

In case it isn't obvious to you, I don't care anymore. This site has long since lost any credibility it once had. No professor worth their salt takes this site seriously. People like you are the reason why.2601:84:4502:61EA:65A6:1187:CF1C:195C (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Your not-caring remains well concealed when you keep posting, but grave accusations of other editors being antisemites require diffs. Please do keep caring, and provide diffs showing that the editing of Malik Shabazz and Ivar the Boneful is that of antisemites. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Nazi trash[148] Can we just get 48 hours for egregious redundancy and call it a day? GMG^talk 21:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked for continuing personal attacks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

  And tpa revoked for continuing personal attacks on talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

  Perhaps revdel the edits with PA as well? Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 21:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

  I second the revdel suggestion. Nobody needs to see that.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 22:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

  I've rev-deleted their edits on their talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Actress Devin Kelley

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

---

Can someone please lock this, as a matter of urgency: or would you rather be sued for gross libel? 86.131.45.165 (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected for two days. It’s unfortunate that the lady shares her name with the Sutherland Springs gunman. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Sutherland Springs church shooting fyi. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

In which things take a jump to the left, a step to the right. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I see the OP has been blocked for making legal threats. I don't think this qualifies as a legal threat. Grossly overreactive, but not a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC) You think that trying to stop an actress from repeatedly being described as a mass murderer is 'overreactive'? Interesting... 86.191.147.56 (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC) That's not what Baseball Bugs is describing as an "overreaction"; what they are describing as being overreacting is the block for the legal threat above. SkyWarrior 01:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC) I hope you are right, though if that is the case, I have to suggest that Bugs tries to write a little more clearly. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.147.56 (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC) I was going to suggest that Orange Mike be asked to account for his actions, but since it appears from his contribution history that he habitually blocks new accounts rather than actually dealing with underlying issues, I can only assume this is considered acceptable behaviour here. 86.191.147.56 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC) If anyone is interested (which seems unlikely) it appears that Orange Mike insists on being right, even when he knows he is wrong: [149] Of course, since he is an admin, he must be right... 86.191.147.56 (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC) What I meant was that the OP grossly overreacted in making his original post. But he's been re-blocked for abuse, and his sock soon will be also. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Some one trying to delete following afd discussion page and try to save article

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

---

Is it correct way to delete discussion page with out finessing of discussion?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jan_Romar#:Jan_Romare

(Privldieu (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC))

The deleted page was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Romare. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

So a page move happened because the AfD nominator got the name of the article wrong. The AfD is still going on - I see no issues here. Marianna251TALK 15:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

This account is clearly a sock of User:Nsmutte. Home Lander (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

SPI opened, if a CU could swing by, we've had at least two accounts and one IP so far, so I'm thinking a sleeper check and/or rangeblock would help here. Home Lander (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

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

• I have struck out my comment above because a sock of this sock tagged me when they brought this up again ([150] [151]). Now that I know this was a sockpuppet, my attempt at WP:AGF is clearly no longer relevant. Marianna251TALK 21:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Annoying speedy deletion

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

---

User talk:RHaworth deleted an article I just started today on Christine Hogarth which already had 3 reliable sources and there was no valid reason whatsoever to speedy delete it. I am pretty new on Wikipedia but I thought you'd want to encourage new editors and valid content Please rectify asap. Magicmondays (talk) 03:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It was deleted as promotion. Perhaps you can write a version that doesn't read as a campaign advertisement, assuming the subject is notable for something beyond being a candidate for office. Acroterion (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Have you looked at it? No way is it promotional or read as a campaign advertisement. Magicmondays (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It should have also been deleted as G12 as you've just lifted phrases and sentences from the sources. —SpacemanSpiff 04:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It's just a collection of campaign material. By definition, promotional in nature and clearly WP:CSD#G11. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia. It is not a webhost, a soapbox, or a stump. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Blatant electoral campaign spam. AFAICR, it doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN either. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

1: Look at the rule you are supposed to adhere to, I think. "Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation." at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. That is something that is not subjective, a specific time frame, unless you think less than 1 day is not too soon. Before you pile on with lots of other subjective criticism, please tell me why you think there is justification for that rule being disregarded? If you look at my edits as they occurred you'll see how I was steadily including more info, from additional reliable newspapers, even some about about how she lost her job. None of the content is from any campaign material because I have never even seen any !

2: Can you guys see and read the article that was deleted? I can not and why not? IF I am going to reasonably defend the article I need to see it.

3: I know myself and my motives and I know there was no attempt on my part to promote or advertise anyone. My only motive is that since an important election is coming up I think at least the 2 strongest candidates , if possible, should have a Wikipedia page for the benefit of the voters. Her chief opponent, Peter Milczyn who has been in politics a long time, has a well developed Wikipedia page and it only seems fair to the voters and our readers that she, as his only real competition, should have a page too. This is a very important position just to be a candidate in this election.

4:Dlohcierekim, I take strong exceptiuon to your false allegation. I'm calling your bluff. Please show us where the material I used is from any campaign material. Every single word I used was from the 3 different newspaper sources I referenced. Also your "soapbox" accusation is completely without merit....so I think you should apologise for that. Magicmondays (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

5:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง spam? how so? Magicmondays (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

To answer some of your questions:

1: Speedy deletion is "speedy" for a reason; as a *general* rule, we do not leave clearly inappropriate pages up for 24 hours at a time. An hour or two is more the mark; the five-ish hours that this article was live doesn't seem all that unreasonable. For future reference, this is why writing drafts in draft- or userspace and only moving to main article space when complete is recommended.

2:Administrators can see deleted articles, yes; this lets us vet deleted material in response to questions like this one.

3:While I can respect your motives, that is not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a voter resource. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Magicmondays, you've told us yourself that it is electoral promotion: I think at least the 2 strongest candidates , if possible, should have a Wikipedia page for the benefit of the voters. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

What a bunch of jobsworths. Restored to Draft:Christine Hogarth (and copyvio removed) so you can at least access the text. To forestall a few follow-up questions: drafts are not indexed so they don't turn up in a Google search, we're not short of disk space, I'm not going to do this for every single article I delete for all time, I don't think it meets the notability criteria either but there's no need to be so bitey about it. @Magicmondays: If you have trouble with a biography of a woman, contact Rosiestep or Megalibrarygirl - they won't necessarily be able to rescue it, but you'll probably get a less frosty reception than the one you got here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ritchie333. Magicmondays (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

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

User:EchoUSA

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

---

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

---

EchoUSA (talk · contribs)

This editor states on his user page that his goal is to "rid the world of Marxism and international Jewery." He endorses several contemporary Nazi groups, including those who explicitly call for the murder of Jews. Since I reverted one of his edits before reading his user page, I would appreciate another administrator taking appropriate action. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

We don't need this kind of editor here. I call for an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the display of right-winf fascist hate group symbols from their user page, per WP:POLEMIC and WP:PROMO. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The editor restored my removals, so I'm taking the page to MfD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, he says I used to work for a group called the Social Force, which was a internet leftist group. I worked as a website designer for about a month before the group shut down, and I switched from being apart of the left to a more right-wing political stand point. After the United States 2016 Presidential Election, I began to read and learn more about far-right political ideologies. I become a fascist back in February and March, after reading many books from George Lincoln Rockwell and James Mason so maybe if we just wait a few months his tiny brain will vibrate again and he'll switch to Quakerism or vegetarianism or something harmless like that. Note the infobox listing an alternative account. EEng 06:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

That account, "Echo", appears to be non-existent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Unless this editor is directly espousing the sort of rhetoric that the alt right is infamous for, I would instead counsel that an eye be kept on their edits. At this point, they haven't, strictly speaking, grossly violated any policies that would call for an indef block. While I find their user page distasteful, that is being rightly dealt with elsewhere. Simply blocking them because they're of the alt right is basically giving the alt right to bash WP as being leftist, or at least anti-alt right. Blackmane (talk) 06:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

So Blackmane, openly stating his desire to "rid the world of Marxism and international Jewery" does not meet your personal standard for a gross violation? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I would say that any editor who announces on their user page that they want to "rid the world" of any group of people because of their ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, religion, or other beliefs, has absolutely no place here, and cannot possible be here to improve the encycylopedia -- making them automatically WP:NOTHERE, no matter how many useful edits they may happen to make. We cannot see inside the minds of other editors, but when they present their own hate-filled agenda, we have a duty to act, and not simply contemplate our navels. An indef block is really the only reasonable response to this editor's spew. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to rid the world (figuratively speaking) of Trump and his family and their circus of incompetents and misfit hanger-on poseurs because of their beliefs, if only we could figure out what their beliefs are, or even determine they actually have beliefs. Anyway, I hope you're not planning to block me. EEng 07:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

No, because all you want, I believe, is to remove Trump from office, a legitimate political goal, not to literally "rid the world" of he and his family. However, if your talk page was full of anti-Trump polemics, it would probably be nominated for deletion, and rightfully so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Besides, you're too much fun to have around. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Request - Would someone more familiar with MfD than I am please fix my nomination of the page "User:EchoUSA", which I managed to screw up somehow. I'd appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment -- there were some very fine people, on many sides ... on many sides. But seriously, how does the desire to "rid the world of Marxism and international Jewery" create a collegial atmosphere?

Upon registering and creating a user page chock-full of neo-Nazi iconography, including a swastika-adorned self-portrait, the user then proceeded to edit the page of Vanguard America, a neo-Nazi group. He states that he's a former member of the group: diff.

It's as if having neo-Nazi groups on one's user page is a totally normal thing, as in: "These are my favorite and relatable political organizations by nation" (see User:EchoUSA#Political Organizations). The odd thing is that the user appears sincere, rather than trolling, which is bizarre. Perhaps the user page should be kept, instead of deleted, as an exhibit in the Wiki Museum of Neo-Nazism. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 06:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• How come racist idiots can never spell? It's Jewry. EEng 07:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

EEng , it is something like Emily Litella rambling on about "Soviet jewelry" on Saturday Night Live back in the 1970s. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. EEng 07:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Indef User for hate speech and creating an attack page for their userpage

• Support as proposer. Clearly WP:NOTHERE Legacypac (talk) 07:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Okay, we are seriously going to do this, so that we don't come across as too anti-racist / anti-Nazi? Just in case, I support indef block. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 07:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support just as I would if a Marxist-Leninist editor was advocating for the capitalists to be butchered. To state the obvious, you cannot both openly advocate mass murder of the Jews and contribute to a project where the neutral point of view is a core content policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Exactly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• support -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support First thing I looked at was their edit history. Pretty much all of their sparse editing has been to build their userpage. If (and it's a big if) they'd been active in the topic area(s) they are interested in AND had been building good content in a neutral way, then there would be a case to remove or blank parts of their userpage, but allow them to continue their work. But this isn't one of those cases. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support - As per my comments above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support (non-admin opinion). In addition to the NPOV content problems Cullen mentions, it's also a matter of not having an editor who is openly hostile to other editors to the point of wanting to remove them from the face of the earth. --bonadea contributions talk 08:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked and page deleted. —SpacemanSpiff 08:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

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

• A note that EchoUSA's previous account was User:GrahamHughey, who was indef blocked in May, and whose user page was almost exactly the same as that of the now deleted page User:EchoUSA. On that basis, I have stripped the page of everything but its categories. An admin might like to delete it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• SpacemanSpiff has done the necessary. GoldenRing (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, SpacemanSpiff deleted the page User:EchoUSA, I was referring to the possible deletion of the page User:GrahamHughey. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Also, User:GrahamHughey/sandbox. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• I've deleted them both on the grounds that they serve no purpose beyond being inflammatory, especially at this point. It might be a stretch of the 'attack page' bit of G10, but WP:IAR. (And honestly, I get a sense overall that this whole thing had trolling involved somewhere in its genesis, but that's neither here nor there either way). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• I was wondering about that as well: the Marxist to Fascist storyline -- while creditable, since it's happened in the real world -- seemed a bit too pat to me. In any case thanks for deleting the pages. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Just to note that I've dosed myself with some seafood for not doing my due diligence. Blackmane (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• For a minute there, I thought perhaps you were allergic to seafood, and had eaten some as penance, and I thought that went a little far as a token of self-flagellation - then I moved my cursor over the link. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Page not online / redirection issue

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

---

Hello,

I created an article page for the artist Lady Bee. Unfortunately even thought I can still see the article in my profile, it never appeared online. Last Friday I found out that the page has been redirected. Following the instruction I cancelled the redirection today but I still cannot see the article online.

I tried first to redirect to the page Lady Bee: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lady_Bee&oldid=808980758 and after as was saying this was wrong I blanked the redirection instruction.

I really appreciate your kind help to sort out this matter.

Thank you

Best regards

Stephanie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie McGuire (talk • contribs) 12:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I've examined the history of Lady Bee, and it had been a redirect to Mad Decent ever since March 11, 2017 (and it has been restored that way now). The history (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lady_Bee&action=history) shows no version with any content other than a redirect. Also, looking at your own edit history at Special:Contributions/Stephanie McGuire, there's no creation of any article content at Lady Bee to be seen. I've also checked for any edits you might have made that were deleted (which only admins can see) and there aren't any. The only thing I can really suggest is that maybe you didn't actually hit the "Save changes" button after editing the article? If that's what happened, there's nothing we can do, sorry. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

How about this page: Lady B - any connection? Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, Lady Bee has now been rewritten by someone else in a blatantly promotional style, and very possibly containing copyright violations too - I have to go out now and don't have time to investigate, so I've just tagged it with G11 speedy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• I've deleted as G11 then restored the original version, a redirect to Mad Decent which seems reasonable enough. The accounts involved in recent edits probably bear more looking into by someone with more of a clue about sockpuppetry than me. GoldenRing (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• And User talk:StrassEdit recreated the same blatantly promotional article again, so I've deleted it and restored the original redirect again, and I've blocked StrassEdit as a promotion-only account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• I'm going to ask Stephanie McGuire on her talk page if she has a professional (or other) relationship with Lady Bee (and I'm fairly sure I already know the answer). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Hesselp again

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

---

This user has been banned from editing Series (mathematics) and its talk page (see [152]. He has formally respected the ban, but has continued his disrupting behavior on several talk pages where series are discussed (WT:WPM#User:Hesselp again and Talk:Cesàro summation#The series corresponding with a given sequence?). I suggest to enforce the ban to everything that is about some kind of series, and to extend the duration of the ban. D.Lazard (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

D. Lazard noticed 'disrupting behavior' on two talk pages: On Talk:Cesàro summation my last edit was on 18 Oct. 2017.
And on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics a new section 'User:Hesselp again' started 15 Oct. 2017. After 10 edits by 6 users, I reacted three times: 22, 24, 30 Oct.
Lacking is any indication of which of this recent edits are seen as disrupting (more disrupting than other edits), and for what reasons. Is it really enough for an extended ban? -- Hesselp (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Using WT:WPM as a forum, despite having your additions removed by four different editors, then edit warring to restore these comments: [153], [154][155]. This disruption actually occurred since you asked for examples of disruption. Note, however, that this is quite reminiscent to your earlier behavior at Talk:Series, where you pasted in the ANI thread to the talk page, and edit-warred to have it included: [156], [157], [158], [159]. This is exactly the same behavior that led to your initial topic ban. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

A. What's wrong/disrupting with restoring comments on a talk page?  It's more wrong/disrupting to delete them. B. Since May 2017 I haven't pasted anything. -- Hesselp (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

See WP:EW. Paul August ☎ 20:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support- I wasn't involved with the original ban discussion but, having read Hesselp's long-winded ramblings at WT:WPM, I can see that this user's obsessive behaviour will not benefit the encyclopedia but will continue to waste the time of those who do. Hesselp really needs to drop the stick but will never do so voluntarily. Reyk _YO! 18:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Obvious crank is obvious. WP:DENY, etc. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support This is becoming tiresome. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support only here to push his agenda. --Salix alba (talk): 23:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support This is a very circumscribed measure against someone who is no help at all to the project. It seems that in the months since the topic ban started, all of this user's edits have remained on that precise topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support He fails to understand that his competence in the history of mathematics and the pedagogy of mathematics does not compensate for his lack of competence in (the theory of) mathematics. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 10:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Per all of the above. Paul August ☎ 18:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support -- in Hesselp's response to me here, Hesselp makes clear that all his or her editing is indeed focused on the single topic/article to which the ban was applied. --JBL (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

1. You are right.  2. So what? I cannot see it as an argument to support a suggested ban. -- Hesselp (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

See WP:SPA. Paul August ☎ 20:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

In WP:SPA I see distinguished: "well-intentioned editors" versus "favored-point-of-view-promoting editors".  Via the link labelled 'which is not allowed" I reach a section titled "WP is not a soapbox or means of promotion" with five 'not-allowed' categories.  No one of this five, as far as I can see, has to do with my intentions.
That is: via analysing and comparing the merits of different attempts to describe the meaning of the mathematical notion mostly called 'series', reach as goal a situation without simultanuous non-equivalent (conflicting) descriptions of this notion in WP-articles (I noticed five different ones on the moment).
Here the force of clear sources and of logic reigns, not the force of promoting an a priori favorite. (At least: as long as no parts of the discussion are deleted from WP:WPM; recently here: [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165]). -- Hesselp (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Per comments by everyone else. –Miles Edgeworth ^Talk 01:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Per all of the above. The problem is not just the crankiness (Wikipedia is not the place to initially prove an argument), but the disruption on the talk pages drown other issues. Limit-theorem (talk) 11:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support extension of this topic ban. The talk page contributions are not helpful, and this has become a circular activity that helps no-one. -- The Anome (talk) 12:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Neutral   I'll not appeal against a temporary ban on attempts to remove conflicting (non-equivalent) 'descriptions' of the notion usually called series from WP-articles. Or attempts to comment on this situation at least, e.g. in "Series (mathematics)". (Operation? Description of an operation? Expression? Infinite sum? Pair of related sequences? Undefined notion, requiring some mathematical maturity? Sequence that can be written as sum sequence?).
  I didn't succeed in convincing the majority, that Cauchy's suite indéfinie de nombres réelles comes closest to the way this notion is used by mathematicians in practice.  With his convergente read as 'having a sum' / 'summable',  converger des termes as 'having a limit' / 'tending to a limit' / ('limitable')  and nombres réelles as 'addable terms'.
  I'm going to look for more/better sources and arguments. -- Hesselp (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Someone please close this

Based on the above consensus, this should be closed with the scope and time period for the existing topic ban extended. Paul August ☎ 17:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

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

---

Just a question. At the top of the talk page is a Dicretionary Sanctions notice that says "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article." Does the 1RR apply to the talk page as well? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

No.- MrX 18:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Even if it doesn't what are you reverting on a talkpage anyway. BLP or copyright violations? Because they are exempt from 1RR are they not. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Neither BLP or copyright. Please see recent talk page history. Also note that I reverted MrX after reading MrX's above comment. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually @MrX: I believe that @MelanieN: advised us earlier this year that 1RR does apply on talk pages of these DS articles. I forget when. btw: @SMcCandlish: also commented elsewhere. SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Hrmmm. That doesn't seem to make sense based on the Arbcom case and the fact that the word "article" is specified in the DS restriction edit notice. Perhaps MelanieN can share her perspective here.- MrX 19:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe the Arbcom ruling refers to "all pages"... And surely this unhatting is exactly the kind of disruption that ARBAP2 was intended to prevent. SPECIFICO talk 20:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The specific wording on the DS notice (non-case-specific) is ...users who edit pages related to all edits about, and all pages related to..., which would indicate that, yes, the talk pages are included in the 1RR restriction. ansh666 20:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC) Orrrr...on closer reading, not. ansh666 20:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• If 1RR is being applied to a talk page of an article subject to WP:ACDS, which is not an automatic, then it should have its own edit notice alerting editors whenever they click on the edit button. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

This kind of discussion belongs at Arbitration clarification and amendment. However per editors' remarks on the article talk page and Jimbo's talk and per Jimbo's own comment, the thread had more than run its course so, in the alternative, we could consider the whole matter here for just garden variety disruption if that's what it takes to put an end to it. SPECIFICO talk 20:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• The only time that I'm aware of a talk page of a page under DS being under similar restrictions was with GamerGate, due to massive external factors. I don't think this directly applies to the post-1932 US politics DS, but that said, continued behavior problems on a talk page is something to be considered actionable under the DS. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Does it bother anyone else that we're treating this sentence as if it was in coherent English? "The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, including this article." [italics mine]. I tried to fix it, but it seems to be a template nested in a template nested in a template, and I couldn't figure out how to fix it without messing everything up. But the part in italics really needs to go. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I boldly tried to fix it in this edit: [166]. Seems to have worked. Revert and let me know if I broke something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

  Bad grammar aside, the meaning is actually clear. The presence of "all edits about, and all pages related to" this topic, means the talk page is, in fact, covered by the DS. We don't know if this first read "impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to [topic]" or "apply sanctions to all edits about and all pages related to [topic]", before they were incompletely merged, so it is not at all clear that the part you've italicized is the iffy bit; it's just as likely that this was the later revision. PS: We're not permitted to edit those things; only Arbs and ArbCom clerks can do it. Which is lame, but it is what it is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

  I don't think the meaning is clear, considering that there are multiple opinions about what it means on this very page. My edit messed up {{ds/alert}}, so I reverted myself, but I think the poor wording muddies the waters. Further discussion probably better at Template talk:Ds, where I started a thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

  I think you're confusing discretionary sanctions authorized by Arbcom and the actual restrictions placed by an admin on an article (or editor) at their discretion. In this case, the admin did not include any such reversion restriction for the talk page.- MrX 02:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Disclosure: I am WP:INVOLVED at that article. To the original question here, I note that there is no DS warning when you start to edit that talk page, so that would suggest the DS have not been applied to it. What this whole thing is about: There has been a long discussion on that talk page about whether to add material to the article about "public" vs. "non-public" evidence for Russian interference. The question raised here relates to some back-and-forth editing today about whether to close that discussion. It was closed by User:SMcCandlish; the close reverted by User:Bob K31416 with reluctant permission from SMcCandlish; the close reinstated by User:MrX; the closure reverted again by Bob K31416. SPECIFICO then told Bob K31416 that he had violated 1RR, and Bob K31416 came here to ask about it. Further discussion about it is here, and that's where we stand. --MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Concur with SPECIFICO. I have no connection to the topic, I just noticed a post at User talk:Jimbo Wales in which one of the parties, Nocturnalnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had posted a "halp, someone wants to hat muh thread" kind of thing, claiming "censorship" [insert dramatic musical cue here]. Everyone (with one exception) who responded, including Jimbo hisself, along with multiple parties at the original talk page, agreed it should be hatted [167], as a big pile of conspiracy theory original research, tinged with WP:CRYSTAL / WP:TOOSOON concerns, and WP:SOAPBOXING ones. A previous closure of this thread by Geogene [168] had been reverted per WP:ILIKEIT for then-unclear reasons [169] by MelanieN.

  Based on the strength of multiple participants' desires to see it closed, a clear pattern of nonsense followed by policy arguments followed by nonsense, and the failed "appeal to Jimbo", I hatted it (non-admin closure), with a detailed rationale for the hatting [170]. This was reverted by Bob K31416 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – the one editor at Jimbo talk who agreed with Nocturnalnow – with a disingenuous edit summary suggesting I "gave permission" to revert it [171] (I actually discouraged unhatting, as likely to lead to continued disruption, but conceded that I could be reverted [172] – I am, after all not an admin much less acting in an admin capacity.) It's been re-explained on the reverter's talk page why that discussion should be remain closed, but the response has been more litigation about why it wasn't against the letter of ARBCOM law to revert it (see WP:SANCTIONGAMING); the obvious real point was why it was a bad idea to revert it, and that it should be re-hatted [173].

  This is a bunch of failure to drop the stick and a WP:ICANTHEARYOU pattern. I haven't pored over every detail of the still-growing thread, but it appears to me that Nocturnalnow and Bob_K31416 are in WP:1AM territory, except the 1 is a 2. I don't care at all that I was reverted, as some kind of pride thing; it's more that the discussion is a WP:NOT#FORUM problem among all the rest of the policy shortcuts above, and is not constructive. Hatting it was the correct action for any editor to take. If this topic is under DS, it's probably worth seeing who's received a {{Ds/alert}} for it, and taking steps accordingly (including deliver of that template if one has not been received within the year). My concern right now would be that the closure will be reinstated then the same parties will just open another thread and continue with the same stuff. At very least this could be administratively closed with an admonition to stop bring up pet, unsourceable hypotheses, or engaging in activism against our core content policies to add impermissible primary-sourced and unsourced hypotheses (about the events or about the evidence) so this just goes away. PS: For all I know there may be 3+ people trying to use the page to host and to endlessly discuss and promote the ideas they can't get into the article; I'm just aware of the two at this stage.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

  PS: I see from MelanieN's post, with which I edit-conflicted, that even more editors want this hatted, and the same party Bob_K31416 is revert-warring unilaterally against all comers. I think this can end now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I had completely forgotten I unhatted this five days ago; thanks for the reminder. However, my unhat wasn't per ILIKEIT; I hadn't actually participated in the discussion at all at that point. I just thought that closing the discussion when it had been open less than 24 8 hours was inappropriate. I should have made that clearer in my edit summary. At this point, there are many people who want the discussion closed, and one or two who are fighting to keep it open. I would welcome any uninvolved closer to take a look at the discussion and decide if it has run its course and is ready to close - or to archive without an actual closure. --MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Noted! I retracted that. It was meant in a wry way, but in retrospect it probably came off as excessively critical of a vague edit summary.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

There's an actual conversation about substantive changes to the article going on, with people weighing in with different views, and no clear consensus yet. Just because some editors dislike the discussion or disagree with some of the suggestions made in it doesn't mean it should be shut down. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

What I recommended was that anything of actual productive substance [probably already material that's right near the bottom anyway] be refactored into a new thread.[174] This advice was ignored, and revert-warring ensued, so here we are. The fact that the overall thread is a trainwreck doesn't besmirch the intentions of all participants, or preclude sensible discussion from resuming about improving the article in policy-compliant ways.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Don;t let anyone accuse you of personalizing this editing dispute. Nobody except Thucydides411 is trying to do that, as far as i can tell. Aspersions like that don't need a reply. It only makes things worse, and nobody takes them seriously. [175] [176]. SPECIFICO talk 02:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• I came here for clarification of an ArbCom message on the article talk page before I made a revert of MrX's edit there, I got it, and I'm satisfied. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, that comes off as a fairly feeble attempt at forum-shopping. Doesn't seem entirely credible to me. What was your rush? You already knew about several editors who did not want it unhatted. Then you get one OK and you're done? Are you familiar with how ANI threads generally develop? Folks say all kinds of things and almost any opinion could be supported by one post or another on a typical thread here. SPECIFICO talk 22:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

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

SPSKachhwaha

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

---

SPSKachhwaha was recently blocked by RickinBaltimore. They clearly aren't here to contribute to the encyclopedia, can an admin please revoke talk page access or caution them about the proper use of their talk page while blocked? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I've removed their talk page rights. While yes, blocked editors have a bit of leeway in venting about a block, and posting a gripe, they were continuing to use their talk page as a platform to continuing their disruptive editing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

As a note as I close this, SPSKachhawa has submitted a UTRS request for unblocking, which I suspect will lead to dissapointing results for them, based on a look at things... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Social Repose

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

---

Starting thread here without apology. Article has been bombed by angry fans for days, with hundreds of edits adding defamatory and WP:BLP violation content. Insufficient action at the protection noticeboard has left numerous articles open to persistent vandalism; this is one of the more egregious examples, right now. Help, please. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Seems a textbook case for page protection. WP:RFPP. Kleuske (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

It was already there Klueske, and I've semi'd it a week. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, RickinBaltimore. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Editwarring, incivility, etc. by FleetCommand

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

---

FleetCommand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been disruptive, incivil, and WP:ASPERSIONS-casting, without evidence, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.

• [177] FC Attempted to hide my rebuttal of an argument he offered; he provided a bogus rationale: "You are not here to satisfy me. Hence, you are off topic."
• [178] Did it again, with aspersions: "obsessive, compulsive"
• [179] Did it again, with an incivil edit summary of "Reverted edit by an editor who is going to be Microsoft's bitch!"
• [180] Did it again (with a false accusation of personal attack), after I demanded that he stop per WP:TPG [181]
• [182], [183], [184] Spammed my user talk page with a pile of reundant edit-warring templates, for daring to object to him screwing around with my posts.
• [185] False accusation against multiple editors: "You people are just labeling he who disagrees with you as non-native speaker." But "non-native speaker" doesn't appear anywhere in the discussion but his own post.
• [186] Did that again, after it was pointed out to him [187] that his accusation is false.
• [188] Restated the same incivility: "Repeat: You're gonna be Microsoft bitch! Ha ha!"
• [189] Disrupted ongoing RfC (which he opposes) with an off-topic wall of text, which includes more "the bitch of publishers such as Apple and Microsoft" stuff, a false accusation that I have "attacked the editors opposing" me (I simply described his position as prescriptive grammar which he explicitly conceded is true [190]), and worst of all accuses all his opponents of "a racist act" and "evil" for not giving him his way (this, after he suggested that widely source-attested usage he doesn't like may be due to "writing by underpaid Chinese employees, which are pervasively hired"[191], plus all that "bitch" talk, which is widely regarded as sexist).
• [192] Disruptive, borderline vandalistic, and certainly WP:POINTy alteration of the proposed text that is the subject of the RfC, with more "Microsoft and Apple's bitch" stuff.
• [193] False accusation of ad hominem (pointing out that an administrative action was taken in response to editwarring about the same matter only a few hours earlier is not an ad hominem attack, it's an observation of relevant fact). Ironically, this post included another WP:ASPERSIONS attack by FleetCommand: "you have ... no respect for WP:CIVIL" (i.e., it's another false accusation that it's me attacking him).
• [194] False accusation of lying about him. I received no response to a request to back up this accusation [195], nor has any evidence been provided for any of his other bad-faith-assumptive and incivil claims.
• I could go on, but that's probably enough for the main issue.

There are other sorts of problems in this editor's posts and behavior at the same locus and at WP:MOSCOMP, where this started (and, I'm told, elsewhere, but I'll just address what's going on today, in this discussion), including:

• Really strange prescriptivistic (i.e. WP:SOAPBOX) original research and PoV-pushing, e.g. stating that Microsoft is "wrong" in how they choose to write about their own products and "must" do it some other way (already diffed above, [196]).
• When confronted with the fact that Microsoft's own documentation didn't agree with him that "the" cannot be used before ".NET Framework", he literally lobbied Microsoft to change it [197]. This is part of what appears to be a WP:TRUTH / WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:ADVOCACY problem, evident across all the diffs provided: FleetCommand is convinced that usage he doesn't like is wrong and must be eliminated. These antics won't have any effect on the RfC (other than drowning it in noise), because it's based on general usage in reliable sources (e.g. this pile o' books [198]), and isn't about .NET or Microsoft in particular anyway. The fact that the Microsoft page in question is one that the company permits outside users to edit (subject to staff review) makes it WP:UGC, so it's not even relevant anyway.

Background: The ultimate source of the whole mess is MOS:COMP, an essay FleetCommand created [199]. Much of MOS:COMP's content is problematic, and it was labeled a guideline rather than an essay [200] without any WP:PROPOSAL process, as far as I can tell. Among its problems is an attempt to ban the use of the word "the" before the name of any software product or service, except in constructions where the name is used as a modifier (e.g., it declares "the Mac App Store" to be "incorrect"). Seeing that MOS:COMP is primarily edited by only a handful of people, has had virtually no input from MoS regulars, conflicts with the site-wide MoS, on this "the" point in particular has been subject to previous dispute on its own talk page recently, and led to an editwar a day or two ago at an article, I opened a revision proposal about its "Definite article" section (for starters) at the main MoS talk page, then FleetCommand showed up and did all the above. As a side matter, I had recently also WP:BRDed two undiscussed additions of entire sections of new "rules" to that "guideline", and opened talk page threads about them. Those additions had been made by FleetCommand, and this may have triggered the hostility documented above, though I can't say for sure. Another factor appears to have been an argument with one of FleetCommand's buddies about the same stuff, in user talk [201].

Discretionary sanctions, in particular for civility, apply to WT:MOS (per WP:ARBATC). However, FleetCommand had not received the {{Ds/alert}} template within the alotted year (Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log). This has been rectified [202].

I leave it up to editorial consensus here what remedy or remedies should be applied. User has a long block log, mostly for incivility and disruptive editing, the most recent earlier this year.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• I remember FleetCommand being told off back in September over personal attacks, wherein he called someone one of our most stupid editors and said of this editor When he dies, I will certainly celebrate. (diff; ANI thread) Even if the outcome of that thread was a bit of a boomerang, it was clear from the discussion that FleetCommand was warned about incivility. I think we're definitely to the point that sanctions are necessary, though I am not sure what those sanctions should be. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

  I would suggest a short-term block. Maybe a week. Then it might be a good idea to IBAN them for a further few days. –Sb2001 21:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

  IBANs generally don't do anything useful, unless they're long-term and in response to long-term interpersonal problems that can't be resolved any other way. AFAIK, I've never interacted with this editor before. I think this is more of 1) a temperament/competence matter, given the exact nature and length of the block log and the failure of the behavior to change after years of blocks for the same stuff; 2) a topical matter of style "rules" about computing; and 3) a related SOAPBOX matter of forcing WP (and the rest of the world, if possible) to accept style-trivia pronouncements that the editor insists "must" be done versus are "wrong".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

  I would also be opposed to an IBAN, if only because there's no clear "focus" of FleetCommand's incivility here. Rather, FleetCommand's problem appears to be with many others. I agree that a block may be appropriate. Going forward, I think this case is a candidate for a civility restriction, as described at WP:EDR. I don't really have a comment on the MOS behavior, other than that it does look like misbehavior. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• And woah, hold on a second, I took a closer look at SMcCandlish's diffs above... is FleetCommand calling SMcCandlish a racist here? What the hell is up with that? Or at least that prescriptive grammar is racist and evil... which is flat out wrong, though a common enough misconception. Prescriptivism is just another linguistic phenomenon which descriptivism itself would seek to describe, rather than supplant. I mean, a manual of style is inherently prescriptive: It prescribes certain usage as being "correct" and to be preferred over other usage. At any rate, I think the spurious accusation of racism or of furthering a racist cause, insofar as establishing or maintaining a manual of style for Wikipedia could be considered a racist cause, is enough on its own to merit sanctions, whether on its own merits or under the discretionary sanctions authorized by ArbCom. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

  Note the "evil" dig in the same post.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Update: Aside from the above-proposed civility EDR, I'm thinking at this point that (inspired by a recent close above), FleetCommand should be topic-banned from MoS for a stretch. A new development is that an increasing number of respondents to the RfC propose that his pet pseudo-guideline MOS:COMP be merged (to the extent any of it is salvageable) into MOS:COMPSCI – or just be outright deleted. It's unlikely that he wouldn't resist this with an escalation of the same sort of pattern, since he totally blew his stack over a minor clarification proposal to just one section of "his" page. This is a classic case for "sanctions are meant to be preventative not punitive". (I'm skeptical that a block will be useful, since it hasn't been with him to date.) The "must" and "wrong" WP:TRUTH PoV he tries to impose on the English language, in the face of all evidence against his preferences, is fundamentally incompatible with MoS-editing, anyway. There's a clear precedent (see [203] and related noticeboard actions about that other user right before and after that action) for an MoS TBAN for this sort of thing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support a MoS TBAN for FleetCommand. FleetCommand's rhetoric as discussed in the diffs above is unacceptable and will only inflame what is already a perennially tense situation in MoS discussions. We don't need people throwing around baseless accusations of racism or of being evil, or saying that the other side's preferred outcome would make Wikipedia or the editors on that side someone's "bitch". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• I would not be heartbroken to see FleetCommand receive a substantial block for all these continuing personal attacks, but for now I Support a topic ban from anything related to MOS (and so allow a more collegial discussion on the fate of MOS:COMP). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comments by involved editor, User:Codename Lisa. One hour ago, not knowing this case was open, I filed an ANI case against SMcCandlish, for exactly the same charges: Being disruptive, incivil, and aspersions-casting, without evidence, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. However, in my own ANI case against SMcCandlish, I mercilessly ranked FleetCommand as an equivalent disruptor to SMcCandlish. They both engaged in disruption, non-collegial actions and poisoning the atmosphere of the aforementioned discussion. If I am asked to say which one is the worse, I refrain from replying directly and instead mention a fact:

FleetCommand is a reactive offender while SMcCandlish is a proactive offender. During 2012 and 2013, I endured 6 admin investigations, 2 CheckUser investigations and 1 Commons CheckUser investigation of whether FC is my sockpuppet. One of the reasons that made more sense than the rest of the nonsensical ones was "FleetCommand has never attacked me." (It was of course, not strictly true.) But the reason was simpler than being the socks of each other: I never insulted FleetCommand; he never insulted back. Even during this whole dispute, it was SMcCandlish who started uncivility preemptively. FleetCommand's initial response was cheery and civil: Revision 808212623 through 808215743.

I am not defending reactive incivility. Incivility is wrong. Incivility is a cancer. Nobody deserves incivility, not even FleetCommand or SMcCandlish. And incivil people must not be held to double standards: Even in the other ANI case, which Mendaliv mentioned, I both mentioned that the reporting user was guitly of baiting incivility and that both behavior from either of them is unacceptable.

I say the same thing again: Incivility is unacceptable; both SMcCandlish and FleetCommand must behave themselves. Any sanction against either must be enacted against the other too. The fact that if we keep SMcCandlish in check, FleetCommand is less likely to be uncivil is just a convenient tool for us and does not entirely absolve FleetCommand from his responsibility. Right now, SMcCandlish has harassed me worst than everyone else in my entire Wikipedia career combined. Nevertheless, I reiterate you must not think in terms of who has been uncivil more often, longer, more severely, or more proactively. Instead, think to the treatment that participants of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style derserve: a clean, collegial atmosphere. We have no such policy as (pardon my language) Wikipedia:Be the lesser jerk! Our policies are Wikipedia:Civility and Meta:Don't be a jerk.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

This sounds like a very unfair false equivalence to me. What I'm seeing is FleetCommand over-reacting to perceived slights (even where there really aren't any) with massively escalating personal attacks - while refusing to listen to reasonable discussion. Your "they're as bad as each other" angle is simply not supported by the evidence. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

This appears to have started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Bring MOS:COMPUTING back into line with MoS and reality. I see nothing uncivil in SMcCandlish's proposal or the way it is worded, but can you see where the first incivility comes in? To me it looks like "I question the motivation of the nominator ... Is the nominator truly here for a tangible improvement and a change with benefit, or because he wants to get back at Codename Lisa with whom he had a nasty argument earlier today? Are you going to make life a living hell for the future generation of editors just because an editor hurt your pride by contesting your change with a reversion?" from FleetCommand, which is blatant ad hominem personal attack. Had I seen it at the time, I would have redacted the attack and issued a stern warning - and I would have blocked FleetCommand had the attacks escalated in the way they actually have. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Further, I'll quote one complaint from you (now in the subsection below)...

Sometimes, the comments are pure mocking or perjorative.

• "[...] when are you going to schedule a meeting with Bill Gates & co. to "correct" their grammar about their own product? [...]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  18:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)"

  Outcome worth the attention: [204]

• "Thanks for making it clear (so I don't have to try to prove it) that your position is a prescriptive grammar one (which WP generally doesn't entertain, per WP:NOT#SOAPBOX). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  18:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)"

That was a direct response to the above personal attacks, yet you make no mention of that whatsoever! A massive breach of WP:NPA by FleetCommand gets not even a hint of disapproval from you, yet a very restrained response that contains perhaps just a bit of mild sarcasm at most is worthy of your censure and your demands for sanctions! I'm truly astonished. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

FleetCommand was not the subject of that ANI case from which you are extracting this. And I have already said — repeatedly, in boldface — that I don't approve of FC's action. Furthermore, I do not care if it was direct response or not; we don't have a Wikipedia:No personal attack, unless it is a retaliation of a personal attack policy. (Of course, if we had, I'd have taken into consideration that the first personal attack came from SMcC.) —Codename Lisa (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I know you have since said you disapprove of FleetCommand's action. But the point is that FleetCommand launched a gross personal attack on SMcCandlish, SMcCandlish responded in a really pretty measured manner, yet at the time of your complaint you cherry-picked SMcCandlish's response in order to make accusations against him while ignoring the attack to which he was responding. You were trying to show SMcCandlish in the worst possible light you could rather than trying to be fair and balanced. That's hypocrisy and dishonesty, and I'm appalled - so please forgive me if I don't bother listening or responding to you any more. Oh, and kep your "jokes" away from my talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Am not supposed to do exactly that? In the "SMcCandlish" heading, I restrict my discussion to myself (plaintiff) and SMcCandlish (defendant) and in the "Editwarring, incivility, etc. by FleetCommand", I restrict my discussion to SMcCandlish (plaintiff) and FleetCommand (defendant). In one of them, I am a plaintiff, and in another I am a collateral damage. It is called being on-topic.

"You were trying to show SMcCandlish in the worst possible light you could rather than trying to be fair and balanced. That's hypocrisy and dishonesty". Is anyone here under the impression that SMcCandlish's openning complaint above is not trying to show FleetCommand in the worst light possible? It is not hypocrisy. It is called having a complaint.

Indeed, has anyone here ever opened an ANI complaint in which he or she has written equal measures of praise and complaint, not just about the subject of the complaint but also about the uninvolved third parties that does not concern him?

Please, my fellow Wikipedians, refrain from name-calling. You do not agree with me, and it is quite likely that I am in the wrong and you in the right. (I am not ruling it out.) But calling your fellow editors hypocrite just because they have filed a complain (perhaps in error) is beneath you.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• This text-wall by Codename Lisa is rehash of the separate ANI that editor opened about me below, which was headed for a WP:BOOMERANG until withdrawn. [Material removed; will reuse it in a moment in a separate place.] I was actually preparing an ANI about Codename Lisa when the disruption by FleetCommand began; this thread is about FC not CL only because FC suddenly overtook CL in incivility about the exact same matter and became more pressing to address.

  I'll ignore the bulk of what CL wrote above, but address one bit: "If we keep SMcCandlish in check, FleetCommand is less likely to be uncivil" makes no sense at all (aside from the fact that there's no demonstration of wrongdoing on my part); I have no interaction history with FleetCommand, who has had civility and disruption issues that go back a decade and which never change. It's a bit like saying, "If you kick your neighbor's dog, then cod populations in the Atlantic will magically recover more quickly."
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC). Trimmed: 04:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• First time I have looked at MOS:COMP. Needs to be delisted as a guideline - not fit for purpose. Probably should have started with that rather than get bogged down in arguments over specifics of it. If any of it can be salvaged it can be re-listed as a guideline once its been pruned. It current has 4, 5? direct conflicts with the wider MOS, as well as a number of issues that are not explicit but done differently anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

  It seems to have been unilaterally promoted from Essay to MOS Guideline here, and I can't find any consensus to do that, which suggests that "It is a generally accepted standard" is perhaps not true. Unless there is such a consensus that I have not seen, I'd say any editor who disputes that move can demote it again and require an actual consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't have an issue with that, except it happened in 2012. Its a bit late for 'seek consensus' for a change when no one has complained for 5 years. It is the defacto standard, even if I suspect like myself, no one has paid attention to it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee and Only in death: Just for the record, I objected to to it. Well, not by a reversion, because one of the rights and responsibilities of admins is to detect consensus. And Ruud Koot was well within his rights to do it. I only asked if he had though it through. And he said yes. (Oh, oh! I was supposed to not come here. Well, technically it is a different discussion.) —Codename Lisa (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

There's no need to ping me every time, thanks, as I'm keeping an eye on the discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, I expect the MOS discussions will sort it out. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm copying the following two comments from the closed section below (which was previously a sub-section of this one), as they are clearly part of this discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)...

• I've read the statements above and a fair chunk of the discussion at WT:MOS and come to essentially the same conclusion as User:Boing! said Zebedee above; SMcCandlish's "well-meaning but excessively bold (and long-winded, typo-filled, opinionated, redundant-with-other-guidelines) changes to the guideline" is not full of praise for another's work but it is not uncivil. Moreover, he then took a civil, reasonable proposal for how to move forward to the talk page. This was met with stonking assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks (point 3 of this comment is totally inappropriate). I propose a 3 month topic ban from MOS, broadly construed for FleetCommand. If he'd had a DS notification earlier in the process, I'd seriously consider just imposing it myself. GoldenRing (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ooh, I learned a new word. I'm definitely adopting stonking.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

This Australianist could probably use a good shed too. Before his bath he really stonk.

–EEng

• An Australianism which, ten years later, I'm yet to shed. GoldenRing (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Repeating what I said above, I support a topic ban for FleetCommand from all MOS issues. However I oppose any topic ban for SMcCandlish, whose patience I find to have been admirable in this case in light of all the baiting that FleetCommand has been doing. This is even in light of all the diffs Codename Lisa provides above. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Request or admin closure: I think this has run is commentary course. FleetCommand has refused to participate, and the responses seem to consistently favor a clear outcome here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  14:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

SMcCandlish

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

---

Hello

On 1 November 2017, I had a little dispute with SMcCandlish (talk · contribs). It is said that one must not read too much into the bitterness of discussion and instead, take some distance from it. Doing so defuses the situation. So, on 2 November 2017, I stayed away from the discussion entirely, having no exchanges with this person, implict or explicit. Proof: Literally, nothing on 2 November 2017 on the whole "Wikipedia talk:Namespace", not just the heated discussion.

What happened in return? 20 hours and 19 minutes after our last interaction, he launched a preemtive strike: In revision 808421381, he implied that I am engaged in "Making false accusations of personal attacks", which "definitely qualifies under the civility breaches subject to [discretionary sanctions]."

So, what has happened between us?

• On 1 November 2017, in revision 808052437 (and two subsequent revisions) pertaining to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Computing, he used unnecessarily harsh language to chastise a fellow editor's action, for which there is no evidence of being done in bad faith. "Rundancy" and "personal opinion" are quite enough. But "hand-waving" (a perjorative word), "rambling" and "magically special" are definitely uncivil. What's worse is that the chastised editor is none other than the notorious FleetCommand. (See sidenote 1.) Sensing a storm coming, I supported SMcCandlish's right to revert but not his harshness. But he assumed the worst in me, misinterpretted the concept of due respect (a requirement of civility) with endorsing ownership or Wikipedia and vested interest.

Sidenote 1

FleetCommand is notorious for sub-optimal civility, but he has never been uncivil to me. This has elluded no one's attention, causing no less then six admins and two CheckUsers in Wikipedia, and one CheckUser in Commons, to check whether he and I are sockpuppets. The reason is far simpler: FleetCommand responds uncivility with uncivility. (It is wrong; I know. Not defending it.) I was never uncivil to him; he was never uncivil to me.

• SMcCandlish started the User talk:Codename Lisa § MOS:COMP discussion. From the very beginning, the experssion "pot calling the kettle black" came to my mind. He is chastising me for starting a preemptive attack on him, but in reality, it was he who made the first uncivil comment. To my surprise, he has used WP:KETTLE in his message to premptively defuse my use of it. He accuses me of being in a bad mood that day, while it is him who is overreacting and assuming bad faith.

In the end, I told him that I will disengage from the whole dispute; in return, he must not come to my talk page for 24 hours. (I hoped he would calm down and stop antagonizing me if we are not in touch.) Guess what he did? He sent me an email, effectively keeping in touch to escalate the situation, without technically coming to my talk page.

• With a direct and explicit invitation from SMcCandlish, I participated in the discussion of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. In my comment, I talked of unneccessary compliance with the rest of the world, unneccessary complexity, and the benefit of a rule-based system over an indecisionate one. He responded with the first clear-cut personal attack; instead of commenting on complexity, lack of necessity, and benefit of a rule-based system, he called me an edit warrior. He said an admin has protected the page only to stop me. (In reality, admins block the user for that purpose. If both editors are suspected of edit warring, both are blocked. Page protection is for more benign case)
• Finally, there is the templating I mentioned above.

Q: "Codename Lisa, don't you think you are reading too much into bengign behavior and it is you who is assuming bad faith? For all we know, all of this could be simple overreactions. Are there complementary evidences?"

Indeed there are. SMcCandlish and FleetCommand are poisoning the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Bring MOS:COMPUTING back into line with MoS and reality with immature and less-than-collegial behavior. It is not just me saying it; other editors are saying it too (permanent link):

• "Could we please talk TO each other, and stop talking ABOUT each other. Blueboar (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)"
• "I completely understand what you are saying, FleetCommand. SMcCandlish does have a tendancy to respond badly when people do not agree with him. He is passionate about what he is saying, and considers it very carefully. He told me, also, that I must be a non-native speaker of English, and that I push for prescriptive grammar. [...] –Sb2001 19:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)"

SMcCandlish is resorting to the deceitful tactic of words in another editor's mouth. Examples for permanent link:

• "Re: Codename Lisa's redundant request for sourcing, I'll just copy-paste my response to FleetCommand, above: 'Of course we have proof that the "the" you don't like is used regularly in English, and you've already been provided with it; here it is again: [43][44] Please see WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:FILIBUSTER."

  I certainly didn't ask anything that those links show; I was not even talking to him. Another editor said something about a certain grammar rule for which I asked for a source.

• "Repeat: No one said "non-native speaker" other than you. See straw man."

  It was implied, through the use of "native speaker". See:

  • "Nothing is simpler or more practical than using English the way native speakers of it use it in fairly formal writing. [...] — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  19:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "[...] as any native speaker of the language would expect. [...] Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)"
• "I didn't use the term festival [...]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  20:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)".

  What the original author had said was: "Please cut the peacock term festival". The noun phrase "peacok term festival" is metaphor for "over use of peacock terms".

• "No one I'm aware of said FleetCommand is a non-native speaker. No one in this discussion did so; he just made that up."

  FleetCommand didn't make anything up.

• "Forgot a bit: Of course we have proof that the "the" you don't like is used regularly in English, and you've already been provided with it; here it is again: [39][40] Please see WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:FILIBUSTER. [...]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  16:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)"

  The author to which this reply posted never asked for a proof that it is "regularly used", nor said that it is not so. As he/she says in the subsequent reply: "Oh, I hear you quite well. I just think we must do the opposite. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 17:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)"

Sometimes, the comments are pure mocking or perjorative.

• "[...] when are you going to schedule a meeting with Bill Gates & co. to "correct" their grammar about their own product? [...]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  18:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)"

  Outcome worth the attention: [205]

• "Thanks for making it clear (so I don't have to try to prove it) that your position is a prescriptive grammar one (which WP generally doesn't entertain, per WP:NOT#SOAPBOX). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  18:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)"

  Name calling.

  In linguistics, "prescriptive grammar" has become a perjorative term for sour-faced linguistic conservative that hampered evolution. Something akin to "deletionist" in Wikipedia.

  Also, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX forbids no such thing.

• "More fringe prescriptivist OR. I don't think we need to entertain this any further. [...]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  15:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)"

  Well, no one forced him to reply to everything, and certainly not with name calling.

Summary: I am not saying that my fellow SMcCandlish is a devil incarnate or something equivalent. But I am saying that he dangerously wandered off the path of collegiality, civility and cooperative editing, and must be stopped, even with a block if needs be.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Short version I WP:BRDed two undiscussed additions of entire sections of new PoV-laden "rules" (by FleetCommand) to a guideline page, and I opened discussions about them. Codename Lisa few off the handle about it, made various accusations and uncivil comments, all on the pretext of claiming I was being uncivil (sound familiar? See ANI about FleetCommand above; these two engage in the same tactics and come to each others' defense when challenged). Then CL played the "I'm not attacking you when I make unsupported accusations, you're attacking me and my tagteam buddy when you say anything I don't like"-style victim game. Then encouraged a dispute between FleetCommand and me while pretending to do the opposite. And editwarred on a WP:CONLEVEL-violating basis (article got full-protected to put a stop to it), and even tried to "ban" me from leaving required user-talk notices like {{uw-3rr}}. Etc. Most of the diffs above do not actually show what CL says they do, and CL seems to (or more likely pretends to) have difficulty distinguishing between criticism of edits, arguments, sourcing, actions, and policy interpretations, versus criticism of an editor's person, mentality, or motives; I do the former, CL does the latter. It's my bed time now; I'll address all this with another diff pile in the morning. If this is even still open. As with FleetCommand, above, I have no history of dispute or even any real contact with this editor before yesterday; the dispute with FC and with CL are in fact the same dispute.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  09:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Very interesting comment:

    Codename Lisa few off the handle about it, made various accusations and uncivil comments.

    Throughout the whole 1 November 2017 hoopla, when he felt most strongly about my actions, he never said such a thing, i.e. he never labeled what I wrote as "accusations" and "uncivil comments". The worst thing he said was "Trying to personalize this matter" and "WP doesn't need you or anyone else to act as the self-appointed Editing Police". (Revision 808194151) So, it seems while I have been away, something has demonized me. (Or, SMcCandlish had some semblances of honor and civility, which are now lost in the poisonous atmosphere of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and now he is used to outright deceit such as this.) —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• I've examined the first few accusations and I see no substance in them, and I'm not going to waste any time on the remainder of this. I'm also seeing personal attacks in this complaint that could quickly trigger a boomerang effect (eg the "SMcCandlish had some semblances of honor and civility, which are now lost in the poisonous atmosphere of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and now he is used to outright deceit such as this" comment). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Boing! said Zebedee: As much as I hate using the word "lie" (both because it is uncivil and because it always upsets the discussion against me), it is now an elephant in the room.

However, I implore you to see the picture in whole. You can never see a jungle if you focus on seeing one of its frail trees. The reason you didn't see any substance in it is that I wrote them in chronological order and things get worse as you reach the bottom.

Thanks for your time.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Nope, after checking out some more of your claims (and having examined the MOS dispute), I'm still not seeing it. What I'm seeing is fairly reasonable responses to an extremely tendentious battleground approach from another editor which includes repeated personal attacks - and I'm surprised that you appear to be seeing it as one-sided from the opposite side. I also suggest someone should merge the two sections as this one is just a continuation of the discussion above (I won't do it myself as I have already commented here). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

FWIW I started at the bottom as they appeared to contain direct quotes, and what I found was someone repeatedly trying to get it into another editors head that Wikipedia does it the Wikipedia way. Not any other. Also sarcasm is not an actionable issue. If it was, we would have maybe 3 admins left.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee and Only in death: I see. That is very interesting. Your assessment, I mean. FC and SMcC both violated WP:NPA but are treated much differently owning to use of the word "bitch", which is childish. So, incivility and disruption is allowed, if it has a more mature tone? Gross insult is not allowed but pestering is? Or is there something in the history of FC that has aggrevated both of you?

Of course, one of the most persistent criticsms of Wikipedia is that it generously allows harassment and even encourages it, and that its administrators have become apathetic, not feel bad behavior anymore and must resort to blind computer-like heuristics.

One thing is certain. Double standards are being used here. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Curly Turkey has just used the term "fuck" against me. Is he going to be treat like FC? ([206]) —Codename Lisa (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Assuming this is the diff you intended to use, then no, I'm not going to take the slightest action against Curly Turkey for it since "did you just fucking write that?" is an entirely understandable response to your WP:IDHT claims. Wikipedia is written in English as it's actually used, not as you wish it were used if you could rewrite the rules of grammar. ‑ Iridescent 12:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Indeed that's what I assume to be the correct action. Also, in regard to FC using the term "bitch" and SMcC not using any profanity at all.

Althogh, just a clarification, I am not engaged in IDHT. I have provided evidence recently the English is actually used differently. I am sorry to see that you assume bad faith in me and purpose. I blame no one but myself. Perhaps I have done something wrong.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Codename Lisa, I don't know why this got split out again after having been merged, but I responded to your comment in the thread above. All I'll say here is that your inability to see any wrong in FleetCommand's appalling behaviour while looking for fault in every word SMcCandlish says is so staggeringly biased that I'm sure everyone can see it for themselves. But one thing I do agree with is that double standards are being employed here - is that a plank I see in your eye? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: I see apalling amount of wrong and fault in FC's part. I have explicitly said that. Repeatedly. But I am also seeing equally or more amount of fault in SMcC. —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I'll just add that your dismissal of the use of "bitch" is both disingenuous and transparent, as context always matters and it is not just the use of the word itself. The full context is seen in these, quoted directly from FleetCommand, which I reproduce here so others can see how deceptively selective you are being:

1. "Reverted edit by an editor who is going to be Microsoft's bitch! " [207]
2. "It seems one way or another, you are not going to be able to put "the" before ".NET Framework", regardless of whether or not your proposal for Wikipedia to be Microsoft's bitch passes consensus." [208]
3. "Repeat: You're gonna be Microsoft bitch! Ha ha! Unless Wikipedia shoots down your proposal." [209]
4. "makes Wikipedia the bitch of publishers such as Apple and Microsoft" [210]

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I would like to offer my sincerest appology for unwittingly having undone your move. I clearly didn't handle the edit conflict as I must have. It appears my conduct here has caused you, Iridescent and Boing! said Zebedee to look at me as "just another combatant". For that I am very sorry.

As a way of appology, I will leave ANI and won't return. Again, I am sorry. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• I'll re-merge this section back again, as its splitting out again seems to have been accidental - please give me a moment or two to do that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC) Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• I've read the statements above and a fair chunk of the discussion at WT:MOS and come to essentially the same conclusion as User:Boing! said Zebedee above; SMcCandlish's "well-meaning but excessively bold (and long-winded, typo-filled, opinionated, redundant-with-other-guidelines) changes to the guideline" is not full of praise for another's work but it is not uncivil. Moreover, he then took a civil, reasonable proposal for how to move forward to the talk page. This was met with stonking assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks (point 3 of this comment is totally inappropriate). I propose a 3 month topic ban from MOS, broadly construed for FleetCommand. If he'd had a DS notification earlier in the process, I'd seriously consider just imposing it myself. GoldenRing (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Repeating what I said above, I support a topic ban for FleetCommand from all MOS issues. However I oppose any topic ban for SMcCandlish, whose patience I find to have been admirable in this case in light of all the baiting that FleetCommand has been doing. This is even in light of all the diffs Codename Lisa provides above. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Codename Lisa

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

---

details ...

The diff pile I promised yesterday. Background I WP:BRDed two undiscussed additions of entire sections of new PoV-laden "rules" (by FleetCommand) to a guideline page, and I opened discussions about them [211]. Codename Lisa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – hereafter CL – reacted to this completely routine action with unreasonable and escalating hostility and off-topic nonsense, such that I was already preparing this ANI two days ago, until FleetCommand (FC) ramped it up so much I ended up addressing FC here first. Since then, CL has perpetuated the same problems, including here at ANI, so we might as well get into the details now. As with FC, I have no prior history I can recall with CL. This is not a "this editor and that one simply can't get along" matter. Disruption at WT:MOSCOMP Diffs Codename Lisa (CL) leapt to the defense of FleetCommand (FC), as usual, in ad hominem terms that have nothing to do with the proposed material [212], including an accusation of "abusing" FleetCommand, and off-topic digressions into CL's opinion of FC). Argued for WP:OWN / WP:VESTED deference to FC as the author of the original essay behind MOS:COMP. Maked false claim that I reverted material without opening a discussion about it. Did a tit-for-tat revert of completely unrelated material, and tried to shoe-horn that into the discussion [213] I corrected the false claim about not opening a discussion, and objected to CL's personalization of the matter and injection of off-topic material; I asked for a return to discussion of the substance of the proposed guideline material. [214] CL instead does all following in one post [215]: Makes a false claim that doing a BRD revert is WP:VANDALISM Blatant personal attack: "I will let your coup d'tat [sic] of taking over the ownership of this page to proceed as planned." Repeats the accusation of reverting without discussion after already being pointed to the discussion – WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Returns to emotive accusations in defense of FC ("You just used three-blue links as a mace to beat them away"). Explicitly refuses to get back on-topic "No. I was not here to talk about the substance in the first place." Directly tries to foment a dispute between me and FC, yet claims to be trying to prevent one. There was no disputation before CL created one; even FC did not object to the BRD revert, just to not being pinged [216]. So, this is all pointed manufacture by CL of WP:DRAMA for its own sake. Engaged in weird histrionics: "Clearly I failed and probably lost a friend too ... Heartbroken." See also this pseudo-selfdeprecating edit [217] This appears to be a CYA game; see more on this pattern below. All because I BRDed undiscussed major changes to a guideline by CL's buddy, a perfectly normal thing for anyone to do. Unjustified editwarring at .NET Framework Diffs I replaced telegraphic writing at the article with normal English [218]. CL reverted with a doubly bogus rationale [219], claiming that the change was "deliberate grammar violations" and "violation of MOS:COMPUTING". I put back a slightly different version, pointing out that MOS:COMPUTING didn't address this but that the rest of MoS does, in favor of my edit. [220]. I then tried a compromise edit that might should have resolved the matter CL reverted again, on the same basis (but without the "grammar" claim) [221]. I re-reverted (my first actual revert), pointing both to actual guidelines, and already-provided proof that CL's assertions were incorrect, plus a discussion demand.[222] CL reverted again (3rd), this time with just a WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationale. I reverted (2nd), pointing to two open discussions at which CL could make her (already disproved) case. I then asked for page protection at WP:RFPP, and left a 3RR warning for CL. In true TAGTEAM style, TC (not CL) left me an incorrect, tit-for-tat 3RR warning [223], and acted as CL's proxy to do a 4th revert [224], again with the bogus "grammatical mistake" claim. I just left it as-is; I don't need to "claim my third revert". The page was fully protected (belatedly) in response to my RFPP request. More incivility and drama-mongering in user talk Diffs I took it to CL's user talk [225] with a request for explanation. CL's response is (get ready for this) to shift blame onto me for not helping CL "to dissuade FleetCommand from personal attacks". This is followed by another false claim that I attacked FC, and the theory that "we are all uncivil people who use a link to WP:CIVIL as a stick to beat each other". [226]. I certainly don't see it that way, and said so. I addressed CL's civility/attack accusations, and asked them to stop. The short version: "You're mistaking specific criticisms of content for some kind of personal animosity (and not even about your person)." [227] CL's behavior in ANI yesterday/today indicates this was ignored, since CL repeated the same accusations and ramped them up further. More ICANTHEARYOU. CL's response? "Oh, you are the one picking the fight. I was trying to prevent it." Followed by another attempt to actually generate a dispute between FC and me: "I will leave you and FleetCommand to kill each other". There was no dispute between FC and me up to that point. One started at WT:MOS shortly thereafter, so mission accomplished. CL claimed I needed a 24-hour cooling down period, which appears to be projection. [228] This is a return to the "I'm being so reasonable, everyone else is the problem, woe is me, it's the end of the world" pattern used at WT:MOSCOMP. I left the required {{uw-3RR}} in response to the editwarring at the article [229]; CL falsely claimed I was not permitted to leave it [230]; a similar bogus objection was made here in ANI later about the {{Ds/alert}}, another prescribed template. I informed CL (via e-mail) that "I don't want you on my talk page" sentiments cannot be used to evade mandatory templates, per WP:TPG. I also offered a conciliatory desire to end the disputation. CL is free to post that message here in full (without e-mail addresses). CL has twice falsely claimed this is WP:Harassment [231], [232]. Editors cannot completely evade normal inter-editor communication, and the above attempts to do so appeared to be a buying-time mechanism, to prepare the ANI CL posted yesterday. My intent was dispute resolution; last I looked, that's why we have user talk. Later problems, at WT:MOS Diffs Describes observable, provable English usage as "madness" that we're here to prescriptively "defy" with "principle-based grammar" [233] (i.e., principles CL and FC are inventing, and to which others are consistently objecting. I've yet to see a single other editor agree with them. Edited someone else's most (in a sarcastic way not permitted by WP:TPG) [234]. Accuses someone of "inventing a rule", when the entire thread provides enormous amounts of evidence for it. So, both aspersions and more ICANTHEARYOU. [235]. Takes the opportunity to make that dig even worse rather than retracting it [236]. Weird misdirection: claims that MOS:COMPSCI, the page to which MOS:COMP (the focus of all this dispute) has been proposed to be merged (in part, and the rest deleted) doesn't even exist any more, when of course it does [237]. This fits the pattern of several prevoiusly diffed CL posts on this page being a bunch of odd hand-waving that do not substantively address the discussion, same as at the WT:MOSCOMP thread. I and other editors [238],[239][240][241] have repeatedly explained why CL and FC's position is defying reliable sources, is OR, and a straw man (going back to at least May, I've discovered [242]), but these two just will not hear it. The self-declared mission to correct the world's "madness" and "defy" it by having MoS imposing CL- and FC-created "principle-based grammar" pseudo-rules is a clear indication this person needs to be kept out of MoS-related editing. Especially since the majority of this person's edits of any serious length that I've seen so far are littered with grammatical errors. This was also pointed out others in the ongoing WT:MOS discussion. Civility problems in CL's ANI against me This (since retracted) included various uncivil aspersions not supported by the diffs provided (which often contradict what CL is saying), many were not diffs but links to entire pages, and others just had no alleged evidence: Diffs "he launched a preemtive [sic] strike ... [243]" – mischaracterization of delivery of the {{Ds/alert}} template required by ArbCom; we're not even allowed to edit it, only add a note (e.g. about why we think the editor may be unaware that DS applies to the topic.) "he used unnecessarily harsh language to chastise a fellow editor's action ... definitely uncivil" – unsupported supposition of motive, and false claim of incivility, later repeated: "it was he who made the first uncivil comment". "he assumed the worst in me" – unsupported accusation of WP:AGF breach. Did it again: "it is him who is overreacting and assuming bad faith". "clear-cut personal attack" – false WP:NPA accusation, which didn't even come with a diff at all, much less one with proof. "he called me an edit warrior" – I did not; I said "edit warring", filed a WP:RFPP, and the responding admin agreed. "resorting to the deceitful tactic of putting words in another editor's mouth" – false claim; the "evidence" provided has nothing to do with such a claim, and support nothing but that the sources I provided allegedly don't address CL's concerns. Me: "[FC's] position is a prescriptive grammar one". CL: "Name calling ... perjorative [sic]". Just patently false; an editor is not the argument they have presented. Nothing about the term is pejorative, just distinct from linguistic description, the opposite of prescription. False accusation of harassment (repeated here) CL withdrew the ANI against me, which was headed for a WP:BOOMERANG, and included a statement that CL would "make amends" [244]. CL also stated at 12:33 UTC that they'd drop the stick [245] Instead, CL kept at it: 13:18 [246], 13:24 [247], and 18:15 [248]). Boomerang should thus be considered back on the table. It's disingenuous WP:SANCTIONGAMING to pretend to retract to avoid a boomerang, then continue making or defending the same rejected aspersions in another thread. That this is gaming is essentially self-admitted: "Oh, oh! I was supposed to not come here. Well, technically it is a different discussion."[249] (Except it's not, as it was merged at 11:40 [250]). Strong evidence of a civility problem (even one that someone takes pains to disguise) is inability to avoid engaging in incivility in a noticeboard where one's own behavior is going to be examined. Tagteaming Codename Lisa and FleetCommand are a classic WP:TAGTEAM. I was not aware of this until two days ago, when someone warned me in e-mail (by which point it was too late.) Details Comparing their contributions pages side-by-side shows an almost unbelievable level of overlap and mutual backup, including tag-team editwarring (as at .NET Framework the other day, where FC got "meta:The Right Version", moments before the page was edit-protected, by acting as CL's 3RR proxy). This behavior is consistent over time, especially at software and computer articles and at MOS:COMP. See also the (slow) Editor Interaction Analyzer results [251]. These two engage in the same tactics (other than FC tends to be directly hostile while CL plays pseudo-civility games) and come to each others' defense when challenged. Their hostility is frequent, but they exempt each other from it. As Codename Lisa put it, strangely drawing attention to the concerns: "This has elluded [sic] no one's attention, causing no less then [sic] six admins and two CheckUsers in Wikipedia, and one CheckUser in Commons, to check whether [FC] and I are sockpuppets." [252] And: "During 2012 and 2013, I endured 6 admin investigations, 2 CheckUser investigations and 1 Commons CheckUser investigation of whether FC is my sockpuppet." [253] CL's claim that all this happened simply because CL and FC don't attack each other is absurd on its face (and "not strictly true", says CL, anyway). Thousands of editors do not attack each other, yet no one is convinced they're sockpuppets. That happens when two accounts make the same pattern of edits, against opposition, and defend each other habitually and unreasonably. Since it's been proven these two are not socks, that only leaves TAGTEAM. Any dispute involving one of this pair tends to involve both of them, in lock-step, and proxying for each other. See previous noticeboard disputes and editing patterns at computing-related pages, plus the current ANI threads involving both of them, and their talk page histories, and .... Other examples of anti-collaborative histrionics and faux-civility Diffs "he dangerously wandered off the path [of] collegiality, civility and cooperative editing, and must be stopped" [254] "our esteemed colleague SMcCandlish", after verbally attacking me on multiple pages. "My sincerest apologies! ... Please forgive me" over a very trivial matter [255] – but never when it might count. CL does this frequently. "With all due respect sir, .... Thanks in advance." No question or request was made to which "Thanks in advance" could apply, making me wonder if these are being copy-pasted from a file of random platitudes. I saw another one recently, something like "crushed" or "devastated" in response to some minor argument, but I've misplaced the diff for it. I haven't trawled CL's editing history, but have a strong suspicion these behaviors are habitual. The dual effect of this pattern is 1) CYA smoke-screening (as in "See, I'm always so nice, so it must be you who drove me to do something inappropriate"); and 2) increasing the heat and length of dispute, through hyperbolic mischaracterization of trivia as things that make CL or FC a victim. See also previous diffs: "a mace to beat FC away", "taking over the ownership" (which sounds rather like an admission of current WP:OWNership), "preem[p]tive strike", "harassing", etc. Conclusion The content dispute is basically a WP:1AM matter (except the "1" is "2"). Both CL and FC insist that, e.g., Apple and Microsoft are "committing a mistake" (CL [256]) and "wrong" (FC, diffed earlier) when they write "the Mac Apple Store" or "the .Net Framework". Yes, this whole kerfuffle is, almost unbelievably, just about trying tell the entire world that "the" somehow cannot be used here. I couldn't make this up. It's WP:GREATWRONGS, WP:TRUTH, WP:POV, WP:SOAPBOX on steroids. And CL at least has declared a mission to impose this idiolect by "defying" the "madness" of real English. For this reason, and because MoS is already under WP:AC/DS for civility in particular, and because of tagteam/proxy behavior, I propose that Codename Lisa should be WP:TBANned from MoS for the same period as FleetCommand, and subject to the same likely WP:EDR civility restriction. It is not okay for this editor to continue to dive into gross incivility, behind a smoke-screen of the pretense of excessive politeness, as a tool for disrupting consensus discussions at guideline talk pages. Especially over trivial style demands that have no sourceable basis, and which have already been disproved by multiple editors. This is a case where WP:LAME style disputation has fused with WP:FRINGE. I don't think a block is warranted, because it probably won't work, and CL, like FC, is generally productive when they stick to content work.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  05:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC) Update To the editor's credit, Codename Lisa posted this on my talk page while I was writing this ANI, and I didn't notice it until after the ANI was opened. It's a nice gesture (and I think CL struck some stuff here and elsewhere, too, though I haven't gone diff-digging for it – I thought it more important to post this positive bit immediately). That said, my concerns remain about the editing patterns; this ANI isn't at all about whether I felt personally offended by something. (People say uncivil and off-base things about me all the time.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  05:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC) Hello, SMcCandlish Hello, my fellow Wikipedians Thanks SMcCandlish for adding the update above. If you hadn't seen my apology message for nine hours, then you must been working on this ANI for that long. I am very sorry to put you through this. Please allow me to be frank and truthful here. Frank truth hurts, because it is frank and not embelished with pleasantries. But I think you will want the truth here, not feigned softness for politeness. (Note: The so-called "joke" in a certain admin's talk page was actually a complaint with feigned softness for politeness.) My initial reaction (emphasis: initial) was (emphasis: was; no more) that everything you did was hostile, rude, battlefield-minded and retaliatory. When no less than five people tell me things that can be interpretted as "Codename Lisa, you are wrong!", I can do two things: (This part is going to hurt. But it is the truth.) Not listen; refute them, defensively hold up magazines and newspapers that blame the environment of Wikipedia as hostile and shout to myself "These are the people these articles are talking about! Corrupt admins, uncivil editors! I am a Roman stuck among Barbarians." Consider that they could be right after all. What is the chance of the whole world suddenly backing you up when there is no benefit in it for them? It must be me! I chose the latter. And it seems the Wikipedia reacted positively. I have received "Thanks" singals on my notification board from people who indicated to have been disgusted with me. (Ok, well, not disgusted; it is a strong word... I don't know. They clearly didn't approve.) Two of them have actually written them in words to which we can link. (I am not going to; it would be total hubris on my part.) I am not boasting; logically speaking, these are signals that I am in the right dirction... at least I hope. So, I now know what I must do, I think: I have to clear my head. I have to take a vacation. Then I have to carefully analyze our interactions and find out why and how I have been so wrong about you. I have one request though. I will want you to write another complaint; but not to ANI this time. For me. It is going to be simpler, with less diffs, and focus on the crux of the matter. I want to improve myself. In IATF, we have a saying: Problem is a good thing; when there are none, there won't be any improvemnts. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC) Nine hours? No, just doing other stuff. I have an enormous monitor, so the "you have new alerts" icon is a little blip in the corner, and sometimes I ignore it all day (usually it's just some mention or revert; I try to stay focused on a task at a time). I understand your bullet list above; have been through the same sort of thing, and took a near-total wikibreak for about a year (I thought I was actually retiring from editing). The time provided a lot of perspective. I think you got the ideas about me that you did because of random human differences in communication style. I'm a tell-it-like-it-is [in my perception] sort of person, but I mean what I say rather literally (unless I'm being obviously arch, like "Call Bill Gates and get him to change his mind" jokes). If I say a draft guideline addition seems ranty and rambling, this not some kind of catty code for "you are an anger-fueled polemicist, and cannot focus and produce tight prose, so get lost". I mean that I reverted it because it's not guideline-worthy in that state and needs tone and focus work (often hard work). I explained that in more detail on your talk page but you persisted in accusing me of having made personal attacks when I just did a routine BRD; trying to extract a confession of wrongdoing from me appeared to be more important than getting back to what we're here for. [I am sometimes an ass; little pressure is needed to get me to say so. But I won't concede to an accusation that isn't accurate.] I suspect another factor (judging by the amount of intense argument against your and FC's "the" stuff at MOS:COMP#Definite article), is the I-feel-put-upon effect of weathering a long string of opposition to something one feels strongly about. It makes every new critic of the same idea appear to be part of a conspiracy, but it's one that doesn't really exist. As for this ANI: Per AGF, we should all presume every editor we encounter is here to improve the encyclopedia and has the skills to do it (not always in the same areas and ways), besides obvious WP:SPADE / WP:DUCK stuff. However, we can't indefinitely presume someone is suited for a particular focus if what they're doing and saying indicates otherwise. There are various red flags that someone's temporarily lost perspective or has a topical neutrality problem (dismissal of evidence without actually refuting it, dwelling on interpersonal matters instead of the content and the work the page is about, advancing of preferences/beliefs as if universal truth, etc.). People usually mean really well when doing such things, but it's still not productive. Yet very common; we're kind of defying human nature in making this project work. This is why I so often oppose blocks (the go-to remedy) at ANI, and instead suggest temporary topic bans. Taking a voluntary wikibreak should have the same distance-and-perspective effect, so I have no issue with closing this ANI, as you requested in user talk. When ANI works, it's about solving a problem, changing a behavior, not about punishment or winning.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  11:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Topic ban proposed regarding User:The C of E's quest to repeat a racial slur on the main page

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

---

User:The C of E has been pushing an effort to put the "N" word on the main page through Template:Did you know nominations/Tawhai Hill, Kānuka Hills, Pūkio Stream, for which he created three articles that barely scrape by notability so that he could propose a hook (which would appear in the DYK section of the main page) repeating the slur three times. This provocation predictably led to a fairly swift consensus against including the slur in the hook, but he continues to advocate for including it against this consensus. On this matter, I am calling a duck a duck and proposing that the The C of E's entire course of action here appears to be a WP:POINTy effort to troll Wikipedia with a sophomoric stunt to get a racial slur on the main page. If this effort is not malicious, then it still evidences such astoundingly poor judgment and disregard for the welfare of this project that this editor should no longer be allowed within a mile of the main page. I therefore propose that The C of E should be indef topic banned from participating in DYK. bd2412 T 16:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• I completely refute that. I wrote these hooks with the intent of getting them views with the potential that they may be improved as a result and I felt that using their controversial original names would be a good way to do that. I will say that as a regular contributor to DYK with over 340 DYKs I find it a bit of an overreaction to have me banned because I edit in a controversial topic area. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • If you did this because you "felt that using their controversial original names would be a good way" to get page views for these utterly marginal topics, then that would be exactly the kind of astoundingly poor judgment and disregard for the welfare of this project to which I referred above. bd2412 T 17:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia is not censored, this includes the word "nigger" so long as it is not being used in a personal attack. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The question is not whether the word should be used when it needs to be, but whether we should use it as advertising. - Nunh-huh 17:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, unless there's long-term evidence not presented here for disruption of DYK. One could argue that greater visibility for these name changes would lead to similar changes in the future. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm not seeing a pattern of repeated TROLLy behavior here. It's just one nomination and it looks like The C of E won't get his way. It certainly does not call for an indef. Also, that's an improper application of the WP:DUCK test.--WaltCip (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I see no reason that the normal DYK processes can't handle this; all the actions are in the course of a single proposal. If a wider discussion of how DYK functions is necessary, it should probably be at the Village Pump, not here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Collapsing as slightly off-topic. Alex Shih (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations to The C of E. He says he's trying to add the word "nigger" (three times!) to the main page as a great way to get page views for his articles; anyone who has so much clueless privilege that this seems like a good idea is a lucky, lucky man. Congratulations on being born a white male, C of E! That's quite an accomplishment! --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC) The troll here is you. Natureium (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC) What triggered you? The word "privilege", I'm guessing? That seems to throw a certain type of person into a tizzy. (So does the word "trigger"; I'll admit that using that was kind of trolling on my part.) It's fascinating that a certain type of person is upset by the use of the word "privilege" but not "nigger". --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC) This is the definition of personal attacks. You, as an admin, know better. Trying to provoke other editors is harassment. Natureium (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC) @Natureium: Nice try, but you don't get to start a discussion by calling someone a troll and then claim that they're personally attacking you :D — fortunavelut luna 18:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Nice try on your part. He admitted to trolling, and continues acting rudely in response to another comment below. Natureium (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC) I am sorry that you do not understand; F. admitted solely to "Kind of" trolling; whereas as you made an outright personal attack. So you see, the attempts you made to equate their subsequent behaviour with yours originally, whilst not being "nice" was certainly a try. A try which failed. And I have tried- nothing. Happy editing! — fortunavelut luna 20:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Your comment seemed very trollish and nonproductive to me as well, Floquen, and I'm not even slightly bothered by accusations of white privilege (which I admit I have) or by seeing the word "nigger" on the front page. Abyssal (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC) On the contrary, I'm finding it very productive; it's helping me understand two three people I have not had previous interactions with, and knowing the kind of person I might have to interact with in the future (or choose not to interact with in the future) is nearly always useful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC) I wasn't going to mention that's I'm not white because I didn't think that was relevant, but I'm seeing that people assume your race based on their own expectations. Natureium (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Yeah, no, Floquenbeam, I'm a bit shocked and dissapointed at seeing this sort of behavior from you. Trolling is trolling no matter the reason. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not sure what good they thought they might achieve by doing this as it certainly looks a lot like a blatant trolling attempt on the face of it: I think any further questionable edits by this editor will resolve the issue of whether we can WP:AGF any further. -- The Anome (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Related query: does User:The C of E have a history of racially charged editing? Abyssal (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• @WaltCip, where are you getting I'm not seeing a pattern of repeated TROLLy behavior here from? This editor has been playing this particular "let's see how many inflammatory terms I can slip onto the main page" game for the better part of a decade—see Template:Did you know nominations/Sheep shagger, Template:Did you know nominations/Shyte Brook, Template:Did you know nominations/Fucking sign, Template:Did you know nominations/Little Cockup, Template:Did you know nominations/The Winker's Song (Misprint), Template:Did you know nominations/Top Totty, Template:Did you know nominations/Woman card, Template:Did you know nominations/Segar Bastard, Template:Did you know nominations/Fugging, Template:Did you know nominations/Fucking Hell, Template:Did you know nominations/Two World Wars and One World Cup, Template:Did you know nominations/He Bowls To The Left, Template:Did you know nominations/You're Gonna Get Your Fucking Head Kicked In… ‑ Iridescent 18:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Iridescent, at least two of those links above are specificially tagged for April Fool's Day. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
    • What, and our policies are magically suspended on 1 April? Despite the number of people who appear to believe otherwise, the only difference in the rules for main page content on April 1 is that people are allowed to use incorrect capitalization in DYK and OTD for the purposes of misdirection (TFA and ITN don't participate in April Fools), but even in DYK and OTD the hooks still have to comply with policy. ‑ Iridescent 18:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Iridescent I appreciate you providing the above DYK diffs. They were sorely missing from the original complaint.--WaltCip (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
    • And speaking of April Fools, this is the same editor who wanted to run an article about marital rape on AFD for comedy value. ‑ Iridescent 18:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
      • There is a significant difference between the sort of "tit, bum, willy, poo, wank" hooks and puns that are appropriate for All Fools' Day, and the shoe-horning in of a word onto the front page that is redolent of extreme racist abuse. DuncanHill (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • This reassures me a lot. It looks like he's been actively advocating for content that might otherwise be censored or treated with prejudice rather than having some kind of ideologically racist axe to grind. Abyssal (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
    • All I had been doing was creating content in controversial areas that not many people wanted to go to as I felt there is still encyclopedic merit in those areas, even if they may make some people uncomfortable. Indeed I created the article on the flag of apartheid South Africa because I thought it is a controversial topic that has double-meanings and should have its own page for further discussion and for those who wanted to find out the history behind it. The work I do, I try to do for the benefit of Wikipedia and if that means i have to lean on NOTCENSORED from time to time to improve it, it is sometimes necessary. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Seems more like a campaign in the spirit of Banned Books Week than disruption. Looking at their editing history, these types of articles are a low percentage of their work overall. If it was just these types of articles I can see your point. However, these articles have been kept and deemed encyclopedic. Even these articles need love too. 129.9.75.194 (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose No, he doesn't have a history of racially charged editing, but he does have a history of creating articles which might have naughty words or things in them for kicks. It's mostly harmless, but at times a little childlish, not bannable though, though I agree the N word thing is inappropriate..♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Blofeld; we block and ban for behaviour that is disruptive, not foolish. — fortunavelut luna 18:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• An unfortunate Freudian slip under the circumstances? ‑ Iridescent 18:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose It looks like this potentially racially offensive DYK nomination is part of a long-running campaign to promote content that might otherwise be censored. I find such a campaign commendable and noble however necessarily distasteful it will seem at times. Abyssal (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • There is a right way and a wrong way to go about that. Using the low-context environment of a DYK hook to throw up seemingly gratuitous repetition of racial slurs is definitely the wrong way. I also notice that none of these potentially censored content relates to slurs directed against Caucasians. bd2412 T 18:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
    • @BD2412: I agree that the repetition was gratuitous. Abyssal (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• BD2412, if you mean my list, Two World Wars and One World Cup is a racist chant directed at Germans, who are as white as they come, and there are others like Template:Did you know nominations/Billy Boys which is an anti-Irish/anti-Catholic term. (My list was a quick dip-sample, not an exhaustive list of CoE's contributions.) FWIW I don't believe that CoE is being intentionally racist; I suspect he (I think we can safely assume this is a he) is very young and gets a kick out of upsetting people by whatever means come to hand, rather than being actively driven by specific prejudice. ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Per all of the above. –Miles Edgeworth ^Talk 19:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose while seconding Mendaliv's comment below. I don't see any long-term issue. But C of E should be trouted for the proposed hook in my opinion. NOTCENSORED is not a license to plaster slurs on the front page. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose while The C of E should have used better sense in this instance, a full-fledged topic ban is extremely excessive. Lepricavark (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

In light of Iridescent's findings, I would like to propose a narrower alternative. I think The C of E has already enjoyed a lifetime's worth of pushing dirty words and shocking hooks onto the main page. I therefore propose that he be banned from participating in any future DYK that would involve placing racial slurs on the main page. bd2412 T 18:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose again. This is a solution in search of a problem - I don't see any other racial slurs in Iridescent's list. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Why does it matter if there are other racial slurs in the list? There is one repeated three times in the primary objection. Should we give provocateurs free license to perpetuate the image of Wikipedia as a place that is unfriendly to racial minorities? bd2412 T 18:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
    • "Repeated three times" -- um, that's because there were three locations that used the offensive name, and they were all combined into the same DYK nomination. Hmmm, wonder if I should go expand Big Moose Mountain.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
      • The DYK nomination was still gratuitously and unnecessarily worded to repeat the term three times. bd2412 T 19:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose One little thing out of over 340+ and you want me topic banned? Despite the fact that the community with the admins believe that is not appropriate on this, you still want to push a topic-ban-lite on me? Might I humbly suggest WP:STICK might apply here? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • You should not be !voting on your own potential topic ban. A narrower proposition is entirely appropriate in light of additional commentary developed during the discussion. Let me ask you directly, will you in the future try to get racial slurs on the main page through DYK? bd2412 T 19:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
    • A) It's never been against WP practice not to vote on your own sanctions, and 2) Stop badgering. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Fine, I am stepping away from the discussion. bd2412 T 19:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose but I think if there's an actual practice at DYK to disfavor slurs in hooks it ought to be codified in guidelines or policies. But, no, I don't think C of E merits a TBAN of any sort. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment: I think the proposals here are misguided. I am not sure why Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 142#Using the "N" word multiple times in a hook doesn't seem to be linked anywhere in this thread. I invite interested parties to take a look at the arguments presented in that discussion, and then re-visit the list presented by Iridescent. The core issue here from my perspective was highlighted in this edit: persistent disregard of clear consensus and misuse of community time/DYK process to push for personal preference after their justification have already been refuted by multiple editors over a month. It was never about abuse/censorship. Alex Shih (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Thanks for the links. That does show a bit more than a single instance of judgment error. I'm wondering if this is long-term though. I would be not think a TBAN appropriate unless the disruption is a trend, even if the user dug a deep deep hole in this one case. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Ed Westwick

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

---

Another article inundated with BLP violations. Subject has been accused of criminal activity, and the bile is unrelenting. This needs immediate protection and probably some attention thereafter for content. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Has been protected. Thanks. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• I've removed the Controversy section because the supplied link did not work - anyone can reinstate it with a working reliable source. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

  Section has been reinstated with a working source, and I've rev-deleted the BLP violations - I think I've got them all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

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

My dynamic IP address is blocked from editing

My TMobile smartphone's dynamic IP address is being blocked from editing (as anonymous), for "disruptive behavior" (had to look up what that was) by user Graham87, I don't know when.

The max extent of my edits is typos, and occasionally turning plain text to a hyperlink - so I'm confident I'm not the source of the disruptive behavior.

The pop-up that informed me of that, was not formatted (visible formatting symbols) on my Samsung 7 Android phone (default browser), and doesn't stay up long enough - ideally it would stay up until I clicked OK.

Here's my IP info - I'm editing now by connecting via WiFi (different IP), but I hate to think others will be blocked when they are assigned this address: 66.249.79.90 2607:fb90:2928:e8fe:4d16:35c7:d6bf:cd63

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.198.147 (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Most T-Mobile ranges are blocked as collateral damage from a long-term abuse account. You won't be able to edit from your phone unless you're connected to WiFi. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It's this LTA case. If you create an account, you should still be able to edit. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I changed the block reason to {{rangeblock}}, which gives people a better explanation of why they can't edit and how to request an account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Question

Is it really true that "most T-Mobile ranges are blocked" as mentioned above. ~70 million T-Mobile subscribers are prevented from editing Wikipedia in order to stop one person? Deli nk (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

To my understanding, you can get around an IP range block by registering. Gabriel syme (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

No. A few small ranges are blocked, but the vast majority are not. Black Kite (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

A few small ranges, including 2607:FB90::/32, which is assigned to pretty much all LTE users with iOS and Android phones. It's probably worthwhile given the severity of the LTA, but it's a much bigger deal than you're making it sound like. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• It is an anon-only block which means you can edit WP by creating an account. 75.139.181.181 (talk) 07:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

No, account creation is blocked as well. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 07:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, in that case, find an IP adress that can create an account. There shouldn't be a login block. TomBarker23 (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

CSD tag removed mutliple times from page's creator

Sumair1981 has removed the speedy deletion tag four times from Muhammad Sumair Kaleem's page [257], [258], [259], and [260] and has been warned both in edit summaries and on his talk page. To prevent edit warring, I'm taking the issue here. Meatsgains (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

And before anyone says this isn't the right board (which it might be? It might not be? I don't know), maybe a passing administrator could, in the spirit of whatever ANI is, delete the article. CityOfSilver 02:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Per his stated on talk page intent of creating a promo page, deleted per A7 and G11. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Per his sandbox it's blatant selfpromotion by an editor who took the wrong turn and ended up here instead of at LinkedIn, so you might want to delete his sandbox too (per CSD:U5, blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host), to make it a little bit harder for him the next time he decides to recreate his CV here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: You might want to tag for g11. You'll get a quicker response. I'm off today. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Investigation into the behaviour of User:Chas._Caltrop

• Chas. Caltrop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm writing to clarify the validity of the edit history of this user User:Chas._Caltrop. This user has a very strange style of editing and interacting with others. Their edit summaries are extremely uniform (mostly "CE; completed the sentence"), they seem to have little use for consensus or civility, and appear to have been re-structuring articles to their liking since April 2016 (they may have been confirmed too early, without developing the proper skills).

They've recently blown up at me personally; pasting as if from another user (on my talk page, and The Frankfurt School talk page). I've discussed and confirmed this with that user here. This strange overreaction by User:Chas._Caltrop appears to be in response to my politely warning them on their talk page that they should form a consensus before making drastic changes to The Frankfurt School page (due to its controversial nature). I believe this editor is attempting to intimidate me, and that their longer term behaviour may be detrimental to Wikipedia's cultivation of long standing content.

At the very least, they've failed to come to terms with WP:TPG, WP:CIVIL or WP:CONSENSUS.

This user has come to my attention due to their edits on the Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory page. Where they've broken the section anchor a few times, at one point had multiple "Cultural Marxism" headings, and would prefer the section contain difficult to decipher sentences like:

Proponents of conspiracy-theory Cultural Marxism claim that the existence of liberal social-ideologies — such as feminism, anti-white racism, and sexualization — are real-world negative consequences of critical-theory, despite such unresolved social problems dating from the 1920s.

...as you can see, they're also including some strange political terms, eg. anti-white racism and claiming it is a liberal social-ideology?

Anyways, their political language and editing style is strange, as is their failure to use talk pages correctly or respect consensus. They seem completely incongruous with Wikipedia's general ethos. I would like to see them banned from further editing The Frankfurt School page, and request they be investigated further (by someone more skilled and responsible than myself) for WP:Tendentious editing. Particularly if they are doing so in partisan 'teams', as this note on their talk page suggests.

Thank you for any help you can render with this strange issue (I've certainly not seen anything like this before). --Jobrot (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

It appears other users have also had simmilar issues: 1, 2, 3. --Jobrot (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: It seems this user has now started causing similar issues on the Critical theory page, edit warring, inserting their subjective viewpoint, and malforming copy (see the edit summaries here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Critical_theory&action=history). Indeed, on the related talk page they appear to be trying to provoke other users as well.

I suspect this user is very gently trying to vandalize Wikipedia over a long period of time with a somewhat political motive. It's an ongoing problem which has effected multiple users, and who knows how many pages. It will continue on this way without intervention or a remedy of some sort. I personally would ban them for violating WP:VANDALISM, WP:EDITWARRING WP:CIVIL, WP:TPG, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:TEND, but I am not an admin. --Jobrot (talk) 07:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with the articles cited above, but this same user embarked on a fundamental and unconstructive rewrite of McCarthyism, adding 26,000 characters, which is about 6,000 words, without word one on the talk page with the exception of a smarmy response to a note from me on the page. It required considerable time and trouble to undo his general cluelessness, in particular an RfC in which the unanimous verdict was that his rewrite stank. (See this section and the one following it.) He has a complete contempt for other editors, as evidenced by his condescending posts and failure to participate in discussions. He didn't even deign to speak up in favor of his own rewrite. I think that Caltrop is not here to edit constructively but seems to have his own personal vision that he attempts to advance. I recommend a good long hiatus from the project, perhaps permanent, as he is a net negative. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 02:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

he is a net negative. - agreed. A copy editor who introduces obvious mistakes in grammar and flow (whilst claiming to be improving those things), is a very strange phenomena. There's a lot of this sort of thing (the bold text being what Chas. Caltrops introduced): "The critical theory school of thought was established by primarily by..." - "Max Horkheimer said that a theory as critical insofar as it..." ...and then there are the more political edits, such as changing "Concern for social "base and superstructure" is one of the remaining Marxist philosophical concepts in much of contemporary critical theory." to "Despite such intellectual evolution, contemporary critical theory retains the social concerns of Marxist philosophy, with the base and superstructure of society.[4]" (inverting the meaning almost entirely). Also there's the ironically fact they've deleted headings of the Anti-intellectualism article to serve their own politics (removing much of the left liberal perspective).

Still, very early on in their edit history they greatly expanded the plot summary of The Turner Diaries! Interesting that they've gone from that, to plying their deletism to left-wing articles and perspectives. --Jobrot (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh wait, my mistake, they're not entirely deletionist, here they've introduced famed libertarian economist Murray Rothbard's opinion as an expert on the socialist Sino-Soviet split. This editor is WP:NOTHERE for the right reasons - and hence needs to be banned permanently (WP:SOAP, WP:NOTHERE). --Jobrot (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Now we have a rewrite in progress, for no apparent reason and not a word on the talk page, at Sino-Soviet split. See [261]. I do not see these edits improving the encyclopedia. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I am familiar with Chas. Caltrop's behavior. The way in which this user interacts with other users is definitely irritating, but at the same time, it wasn't so bad that I thought there would be any point in complaining about it. The main problem I can see with his edits is the insistence on using vague, generalized edit summaries such as "grammar, flow, npov", no matter what article he is editing, and no matter what the changes that he is making. The vague edit summaries don't justify or explain those changes, and they make it that much more difficult to see what is really being done to the articles concerned. The user could at least be encouraged to use more informative edit summaries. I have noticed that his changes at at least one article (on The Turner Diaries) introduced outright factual errors, but I have not followed his editing closely enough to see whether that is typical or not. Looking at some of his edits, I have the impression (which may or may not be accurate) that some of his changes are semi-random in nature and are being made simply for the sake of changing the article in some way, rather than being properly thought-through improvements. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, here we are. Short of arbcom, there is no other place in Wikipedia where one can raise issues of this kind. I am in agreement that complaining about such users rarely results in any positive outcome, but fortunately someone stick their neck out and did so. Clearly this user has created headaches at multiple articles. We can kick the can down the road or not. The user in question has been notified of this discussion and has been active while it is pending, indicating to me that he would consent to whatever action is taken. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about this editor. An indef block would be ideal, but failing that, he could be limited to adding new sourced material, with an accurate edit summary, and prohibited from copy-editing or removing other editors' work without first gaining talk page consensus, for a period of say 6 months. This would give him the opportunity to improve his editing skills while protecting the encyclopedia, and avoiding wasting other editors' time. zzz (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I would definitely be in favor of a requirement that Chas. Caltrop use accurate and informative edit summaries. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Being Attacked by 4TheWynne

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

---

I AM BEING BULLIED BY 4TheWynne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiromi kirishima (talk • contribs) 00:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be a reaction to a report filed at WP:ANEW. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Speedily deletion tag removed multiple times from KSBK

Huerfanoedits has removed the speedy deletion tag multiple times [262], [263], and [264] from KSBK, a page which this user created, without providing explanation. In my edit summaries, which restored the tag, I notified the user that the notice should not removed from pages that they have created themselves. This warning was ignored. Rather than edit war, I wanted to take the issue here. 17:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

This station is a Broadcast relay station which duplicates the programming of KSPK-FM, so I created a redirect as a better alternative to deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I suggested a merge on the KSBK's talk page but a redirect works as well, thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Can someone with more knowledge of the subject than me look at KSPK-LP, from the same author, as well? The leading sentence ("KSPK-DT is...") doesn't even match. Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I had a look at the sources. There are two things I should point out: KSPK-DT is a sister station, so it's probably just a mistake, and the article is fine otherwise, if a bit short. I will go and sort the title out. TomBarker23 (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)