Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Meatpuppetry/tagteaming/POV pushing/filibustering at Singapore

• Wrigleygum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shiok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Warpslider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There are a bunch of accounts of dubious origin who are constantly tag-team filibustering any change to Singapore and are intent on keeping a puffed up version of the article which somehow magnifies the good but hides anything negative about Singapore and the government. It has been going on for months and I am very suspicious that these are meatpuppets/sockpuppets. However, the main problem here is the Status quo stonewalling and tag team edit warring to preserve their version of the article. I have been trying to deal with by opening RfCs. But I cannot open an RFC for every single sentence or phrase. At this point, these accounts (which are almost SPAs) are essentially treading WP:NOTHERE territory and are wasting a lot of time.

Possible sock/meatpuppetry/SPA activity

I first became aware of this at this RFC I started. I noticed that 2 accounts User:Panacealin and User:Warpslider

• User:Panacealin newly registered account whose first edit was to vote on the RFC
• User:Warpslider After an edit on 29 June 2010, their next edit was on 11 July 2016 where they voted on this RFC at Singapore. Someone came out of hibernation after 6 years to vote at an RFC? They also followed me to another page where they had no prior edits.

Socking/Tag Teaming

User:Shiok has previously edited Singapore (a few edits) and User:Wrigleygum was the one who originally added all the puffery. Today this sequence happened.

• by Wrigleygum 16:19, 13 November 2016
• I revert 16:21, 13 November 2016
• Wrigleygum reverts 16:28, 13 November 2016
• I revert 16:29, 13 November 2016
• Shiok reverts 16:36, 13 November 2016

I am very curious that Shiok came up all of a sudden to revert me, within a span of a few minutes? (Not sure if there is some offline collusion going on)

It is also worth looking at the this diff where Wrigleygum says here are 3 editors here who do not share your POV. Discuss or just bring it to ANI (emphasis mine). I'm not sure who are the 3 editors. At the point of revert, the discussion for this issue was going on here and at no point were there 3 editors not sharing my POV. I wonder whether this was a mistake or were there actually 3 editors? Note that, Shiok's revert happened after this and Shiok had not commented on the talk page either. I wonder where did 3 editors come from and how did Wrigleygum know there were 3 editors? Offline?

All of these accounts have a strong tendency to support each other's ideas. For example, in this current RFC Shiok posted a link and later Warpslider replied I spent some time listening to the 'Collapse of Trust in Government' video link by Shiok. It is a panel discussion at a conference on Challenges in Government. As an example of countries with high Trust by citizens, Singapore was the first country mentioned by the panel and a number of times in the discussion. This is a clear endorsement for the country and there was certainly no Singaporeans on the panel or audience.

Note that I'm not the only one who suspects socking/meatpuppetry. User:Nick-D suspected the same here on my talk page.

I had previously brought this issue to ANI. See User:Wrigleygum and issues at Singapore, although the thread was archived. I was also myself brought to ANI by another suspicious account which suddenly woke up from hibernation.

Based on the above, I am seeking a PBAN as the first step for dealing with these accounts. If these accounts are really sincere about contributing to the encyclopaedia, then it is time for them to demonstrate good faith by sticking to the talk page and not editing the article itself. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Curious? -> On Sunday, I had edited Singapore's lead earlier in the day so I saw that you had deleted the nicknames, wavered on reverting but stayed logged on, did other work. Previously (25-Sept-2016), I had stated my views to keep the nicknames. I was alerted when Wrigleygum posted his reply after midnight, just like you but your reaction was just 2 mins on both your reverts. So despite keeping a low profile, I took a stand. Shiok (talk) 04:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

At the Nickname discussion section, there is Wrigleygum and the IP editor arguing with you. The third editor referred to by Wrigley is probably myself - but if he is referring to another person, that will be 4 editors against your POV to remove. I stated here - "The nicknames should stay as it's written up in the media on a regular even daily basis and readers may wonder why our country is known by that." -Shiok (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

By posting this malice, my guess that she has exhausted her arguments at the [City-Country Nicknames debate], since she did this ANI shortly after, rather than spending her time discussing content. It expose her true character under stress. I won't spend more time than needed. Each time she plot similar stunts, I will repeat paste what I wrote at SG talk previously:

• "Lemongirl942, none of what you said above to "sow the seeds of doubt" bear witness and repetition does not make it so. Especially for WP:Consensus, you have been contradictory and bending it to suit your purpose. I think the few contributors here has actually been accommodating, or maybe intimidated. You have been talking about your experience over other editors, maybe too much it makes one feel invincible, and occasionally you should re-read Wiki principles: [Experience] - "No editor has more authority than any other, regardless of prior experience. Edit count and length of time that has passed since your first edit are only numbers"

Also, what you said recently in talk and edit summaries (I only checked for last few days) - "Stop your POV pushing, or I will make sure you get blocked", "Consider this a warning..you are pushing yourself towards a block" - sounds exactly like the examples quoted at WP:THREATEN - "On Wikipedia, personal attacks are not tolerated. In particular, it is unacceptable to threaten another that some form of action that cannot or will not likely be taken will occur. When editors make threats like these, and the environment becomes hostile, the victims, especially those who are new are scared away from Wikipedia altogether. (Note: posted at Talk:Singapore by Warpslider on 13:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC) ).

—Warpslider (talk) 06:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

You are POV pushing and edit warring. You are an SPA with very few contributions. You do not understand the policies. You removed the tag but didn't justify why. All of this is disruptive. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

This is what an established editor said to you:

"Leaving the POV tag on the article permanently is not an option. See Template:POV#When_to_remove. William Avery (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)"

The Template use says: When to remove

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

1.There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.

2.It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.

3.In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

It could have been removed with condition (3). When you put up the tag, one whole month passed without further discussion, and you continued to block all editors trying to remove it. I would say that's malicious. Wrigleygum (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

When you put up the tag, one whole month passed without further discussion, and you continued to block all editors trying to remove it. Really? That's a pretty serious allegation. Are you claiming that I didn't attempt to discuss? Are you claiming that there was no discussion on the talk page when the tag was removed? Really? I mean I see this and this RFC going on. On what grounds are you and your fellow SPAs justifying the removal? Please show your diffs. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

This tag was for the Step-1 section. It should have been removed after a month without discussion, else you go to the 2nd, 3rd.. points with no ending. Every article will be forever changing, you can't justify having a TAG on the article forever.Wrigleygum (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia. The POV tag is about the disputed neutrality of the lead. It is supposed to stay until the lead becomes neutral. Now you said When you put up the tag, one whole month passed without further discussion, and you continued to block all editors trying to remove it Please provide diffs to support your allegation, particularly about how I continued to blocked all editors. Please also provide proof to show that I didn't attempt to discuss and that there was no discussion on the talk page relevant to the neutrality of the lead when the tag was removed? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Just spending another minute to say it's TGIF and I won't be back till much later. No worries, you have the crown for filibustering. Wrigleygum (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The irony is strong here. Nice try diverting the issue Wrigleygum. I will once again request you to answer the question. You said When you put up the tag, one whole month passed without further discussion, and you continued to block all editors trying to remove it Please provide diffs to support your allegation, particularly about how I continued to block all editors. Please also provide proof to show that I didn't attempt to discuss and that there was no discussion on the talk page relevant to the neutrality of the lead at the time when the tag was removed? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I see that you couldn't answer the question. That should probably tell you stuff. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

No, you have plenty of time, I don't. I will certainly look to document the events, wastes time to do such things but if this thread continues... I will set aside time for it. Wrigleygum (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, you do not have diffs to support your accusations. Precisely because I did no such thing as you have accused. Now would be a good time to admit that you were wrong. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Timeline

• 1st RFC about Lead Section closed with a general statement - "..broad though not unanimous consensus that the lead needs to be trimmed". There was no specifics mentioned. --01:06, 25 August 2016
• LG starts POV & undue and places POV Tag - 03:26, 24 September 2016‎
• Last comment in section (only 2 editors responded) on 02:51, 25 September 2016
• Between 25 Sept — 23 Oct - no further response by editors, dormant

Note: At this point, if this was a regular RFC, the POV Tag could have been removed by reason of Template:POV#When_to_remove (see below)

• 16:08, 25 October 2016---[Avery responded on the thread] that "Leaving the POV tag on the article permanently is not an option. See Template:POV#When_to_remove."
• 05:29, 26 October 2016---Warpsider responded to Avery, citing the Template mentioned

"When to remove

- You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:..

3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant."

and proceeded to remove the Tag - (See Talk.)

• (break, to continue...)

- Wrigleygum (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Continued edit warring to remove the POV tag about the lead

Warpslider and Wrigleygum are now edit warring to remove the POV tag (diff1, diff2) which I placed because the parts of the lead are undue. This is precisely editing against consensus. This is despite a previous RFC was closed by Drmies as There is broad though not unanimous consensus that the lead needs to be trimmed, and that the statistics are overdone. and also a current RFC where apart from the above 3 SPAs and a dubious IP, every single experienced editor has agreed that parts of the lead were undue. I am seeing a behavioural problem here, so I am strongly suggesting a page ban. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Great, it continues. Now a couple of the SPAs are tag teaming to remove it. See diff. Can someone please do something? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You are refusing to discuss with 3 editors who are against you putting up the Tag, violating WP:Consensus.

Yes, the RFC closing summary reads "There is broad though not unanimous consensus that the lead needs to be trimmed, and that the statistics are overdone". What to trim? It will be by Consensus correct? Does trimming refer to just the stats or everything? One editor does not determine that. Certainly not by yourself alone Wrigleygum (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am sick and tired of discussing with a bunch of SPAs. Did you look at Template:POV#When_to_remove? Can you honestly justify any reason for removing the tag? There is already consensus that stuff in the lead is undue. Which is why I have tagged the article. Why do you continue to tag team and remove it? This is status quo stonewalling. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Shall we agree you are not the only one to determine what to remove? Wrigleygum (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am not the only one to determine that the POV tag has to be removed. It requires a consensus of editors. Please note that 3 SPAs with very limited experience, doesn't equate to consensus - it's not a vote. Get the support of experienced editors who actually understand policy. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

It's three editors against you. So tell us about this experience you harp about. The word "Experience" does not occur a single time on WP:Consensus - do paste the relevant quote from policy that describe it here. Shiok (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

We require editors to understand consensus. It's not a vote. Consensus works on arguments based on policies and guidelines - it's not a vote. The fact that 3 SPAs (with no understand of how Wikipedia works) were opposing me, doesn't make it right. The RFC shows that there were NPOV problems in the lead. You cannot remove tags until they are fixed. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The word "Experience" does not occur a single time on WP:Consensus - do paste the relevant quote from policy that describe it here. - Do this first, just paste the policy here, instead of making up something yourself, else you are called out as lying. Wrigleygum (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Huh? Let me explain properly. Consensus is not a vote. Nobody agrees with your view that removing the POV tags was justified at that time. I asked you to get an experienced editor to support you. You couldn't. And you are still having the same belligerent attitude. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

She makes up some personal 'policy' that only 'experienced' editors can have a consensus to overcome her. I note that Shiok ask her to quote a WP principle stating 'experience needed' - The word "Experience" does not occur a single time on WP:Consensus - do paste the relevant quote from policy that describe it here. No answer, yet she continues.. Wrigleygum (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• Update: Warpslider blocked for edit warring on Singapore --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems @Warpslider: is no longer around, did not even attend court. Wrigleygum (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Continuous POV pushing and adding of WP:UNDUE content

Please see this edit. Wrigleygum is continuously adding undue content to the article. And refusing to drop the stick. I do not see any indication that Wrigleygum is here to improve the encyclopaedia. As such, I would recommend and indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Admins, there are a number of issues this editor is trying to lump together as edit-warring, including:

• POV tags
• removal of Educational Rankings since has been in the Singapore article for a year

She is using all manners of Notices to justify raising her malicious ANIs. Please have a read on the Talk:Singapore as a start. Will add more explanation later Wrigleygum (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

She is using all manners of Notices to justify raising her malicious ANIs. Great, continue to cast aspersions. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding points to above by wrigleygum:

• removal of any lead content which were part of 1st RFC and still in on-going discussion
• currently in 2nd RFC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiok (talk • contribs) 04:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Shiok: Do not alter other people's posts. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes you are right, apologies, I just mentioned that myself. Shiok (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, then it is a combination of tag teaming, edit warring, POV pushing and general filibustering by SPAs. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

No teams here. I see plenty of tag-teaming on her part on the other hand, or like just waiting in the wings to jump in when other 'buddies' are around - then taking the oppotunity to remove/edit other positive ones in the Singapore article. SPA? seems I am "almost" one in recent times, with 90% time spent engaging her nonsense, reverts, ANIs, Notices etc.

Admins, I'm avoiding exchanges with this person because it can be endless, with her regurgitating stuff that makes my eyes roll. Unless very necessary like in here.. otherwise I may end saying things that gets me banned! I think some of us likely had similar occasions. Wrigleygum (talk) 05:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Competence issues, refactoring other's talk page comments and misuse of templates by Shiok

SPA Shiok just left this message saying that I "harassed" (and apparently threatened) them by leaving a template "even when the original tag editor has not done so". Here's what happened. Shiok who is an SPA, was tagged as an SPA by another editor. But Shiok decided to remove it themself - which is not supposed to be done. I warned them on their talk page and the editor reinstated the tag. Oh and Shiok was actually warned by the editor, though they removed the warning as I had already given one. Considering that Shiok has been warned multiple times not to refactor others' comments, I am not sure if this is a competence issue and an action based on WP:CIR may be required. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed PBAN for the above mentioned accounts at Singapore

• Support as proposer. This has been going on for too long, almost 5 months now. I didn't want to do this, but a PBAN works well here. If they are serious about improving, then they can still propose changes on the talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Ltbuni repeatedly, blatantly canvassing

On four pages related to far-right Hungarian politics, Ferenc Szaniszló, Romani people in Hungary, Magyar Hírlap and the Petra László tripping incident, Ltbuni has posted on Norden1990's or Koertefa's talk pages requesting help in conflicts, and often received the help they've requested:

• Yesterday, on 13 November, Ltbuni posted on Norden's talk page asking for help at two pages, Ferenc Szaniszló and the Petra László tripping incident. Norden promptly came to Ltbuni's aid at Ferenc Szaniszló.

• On 25 October, Ltbuni requests that Koertefa help them at Petra László tripping incident stating, "I don't want to start an edit war." This is practically indistinguishable from asking, "will you please edit war for me so that I can have my way without breaking 3RR.”

• 21 August, Ltbuni requests Norden's help at Magyar Hírlap, writing "Look at the controversy section?" Norden promptly replies that they will, and does. Ltbuni also posts at Koertefa's talk page, requesting help on this and another article, and complaining about me and Der Spiegel. Koertefa promptly replies favorably, and gets involved as well. The unsourced and offensive WP:OR about Roma immigrants that they added, basically a long excuse for hate speech that can be found nowhere in reliable sources, remains in that article.

I first encountered this particular Hungarian editing crowd after I wrote the wiki article on Szaniszló, where I wrote a meticulous survey of news coverage on him at the Talk Page. Eventually we had a dispute resolution, found here DRN, which also includes a very long review of RS coverage. The article remained stable for over three years, until Ltbuni removed the description of Roma as “discriminated against” (following "ostracized" of The Independent and The New York Times), calling this language "malicious" and false.

Content issues aside, I’m shocked at the brazen character of Ltbuni’s WP:CANVASSING, and also surprised that Norden and Koertefa indulge it (they don’t always help edit war, but they also never warn Ltbuni to stop). I have a suspicion there may be much more of this going on for many Hungarian political topics, but these recent incidents are clear enough. After Thucydides411 warned Ltbuni above canvassing, their response was unapologetic: more or less "bring it on." I think all of them should be warned, and Ltbuni deserves some sanction - they’ve been around since 2011 and should definitely know better. Lastly, Ltbuni has repeatedly declared that the international media is unreliable and instead favors their own interpretation of reliable sources [1][2][3][4][5] (all diffs from the last couple days), and this strongly suggests they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. -Darouet (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Update - this has been going on far longer, as I note in my reply to Koertefa below -Darouet (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@Darouet: Some of the diffs you given above are not in English. Has this editor been informed of WP:SPEAKENGLISH. Can you provide a translation for what is being posted since you seem to be able to understand Hungarian (I am assuming that is the language being used)? It might make it easier for others to determine if any action needs to be taken if they knew what was being posted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly:I had already translated them on my Talk PAge, in response to M. Darouet's friend, Thucydides411 - th hey work together, (s)he simply did not want to present it to You. Nota Bene, Darouet knows that they are on my Talk Page, since (s)he posted below it...I wrote: Could You please take a look at this or that TALK page - I find it biased etc. What is Your opinion? or something like that. LOL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ltbuni#Canvassing --Ltbuni (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I don't speak Hungarian. In this case the talk section titles, references to me or the sources I've used, and immediate follow-up editing, all make the general gist of the canvassing obvious, though I've used google translate to try as best possible to follow. I can post google translate links tomorrow if that's helpful. -Darouet (talk) 05:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It appears from User talk:Ltbuni#Canvassing that Ltbuni is more than capable of discussing things in English, so perhaps he/she will comment here and explain the posts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but as I know WP:SPEAKENGLISH does not apply to personal pages. There are some non-English text even on you page. Bye, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I need some time to refresh my memories. First, I find it malicious what Darouet is doing: one sided edits. I have already translated and explained what I wrote on the Talk page of the Articles, and on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ltbuni#Canvassing. He is always sensible to sources, why did not he link it? Second: I offered him dipute resolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ferenc_Szaniszl%C3%B3#Dispute_resolution - which he refused, and denounced me.

Regarding Ferenc Szaniszló: The whole article was a Political Soapboxing. It gave undue weight to a specific event (Mr. Szaniszló was given a medal, then he gave it back), and its only aim was pushing a certain political view of his, proving that the conservative Fidesz-gvmnt has close links to "neonazi Jobbik". Under the pretext of collecting Reliable sources, Darouet has now a list of links on the Talk Page, to promote his view, that the Jobbik party is neonaczi. Apart from the fact, that He can not speak Hungarian, so he must rely on the judgements of those journalists, who can't speak it either, we must keep in mind, that the article itself deals with Mr Szaniszló. Darouet added the story of a rock singer, some archeologist, long contemplation over the nature of Fidesz, its close links to radical Jobbik, the sufferings of Roma, the uproar of the US -Embassy. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferenc_Szaniszl%C3%B3&diff=566210814&oldid=566210742 As You can see on the Talk Page, I was constructive, tried to upgrade the article. His responses were mostly political manifestos. BTW, as I have already explained it on my Talk page, Norden1990 and I were not on the same side regarding this article, I deleted his edit, he reverted it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferenc_Szaniszl%C3%B3&diff=735470868&oldid=735469085 Strange, that Darouet did not mention it in his "indictment", because I have already explained it to him on my Talk page days ago.... The tip of the iceberg where this whole "administrative" issue began, was the point when I linked the Romani People in Hungary article, which deals with the WHOLE situation of the Romani, and I removed the "who facing discrimination" half-sentence from the Ferenc Szaniszló article.

And as I have already explained it at least two times to Darouet, not the language ("they are discriminated") was malicious, but the whole context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ferenc_Szaniszl%C3%B3#.22Discrimination.22_a_.22malicious.22_term.3F. Strange enough, that wherever Darouet is in trouble, Thucydides411 turns up, uses the same language, , accusation etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltbuni (talk • contribs) 10:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

To be continued...

Petra László tripping incident - Yeah, there was a debate over she tripped or not. Since the mainstream media was biased, as I proved, and she now has an OFFICIAL document, (proving that she did not) from the Hungarian Judicial System, I found that strange that in the lead we claim that she tripped, referring to CNN and other stuff, which "somehow" forgeted to report with what she was indicted, and also omitted the facts which ruin the picture of an innocent refugee (He was fired from his job!), so I took a look at the Talk Page, and found that only THREE persons were interested: Amin, Norden1990, Ltbuni. Since Norden had some administrative something with Amin, I guess he was blocked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Norden1990#3RR_.40_Petra_L.C3.A1szl.C3.B3_tripping_incident I found it appropriate to call Norden's attention, that he/she could come back. No one else was interested in this article. Neither Darouet, nor Thucydides411. Only three of us, one is blocked or something. Whom on Earth should have I notified?

And I can not follow the argumentation of Darouet. International media can not be wrong? So it is a crime to add other point of views? They finally got those Weapon of Mass Destruction in Iraq? Darouet suggests that "there is something going on in the Hungarian Politics-articles", and Ltbuni is a "promoter of hate speech", is "canvassing" - Are these the manifestations of the Good Faith? Or simple libelling? Which of my edits was not underpinned with data, heh? What is more, we have an edit war in the article Romani People in Hungary. From the "Edit History" it is clear, that the eager-beaver editor, who happens to share my oppinion is User: Borsoka. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romani_people_in_Hungary&action=history Where did I ask Borsóka to help me, with the abovementionned articles? Remeber, I am blatantly etc canvassing!

The following problems occured in the Articles:

Petra László: She OFFICIALLY DID NOT TRIP, the lead was misleading, suggesting that she did - now, it is neutral. I brought up sources. Reliable ones. No one can deny that. I brought examples which proved media bias towards Hungary, as well

Ferenc Szaniszló: Why is it relevant in an article on a journalist, to add that the Romani people face discrimination - I deleted it, but also linked the whole article, dealing with Romani

Romani People in Hungary: is it appropriate to insert FACTS that lead to violence against Romani? Even the murderers of Romani kids confessed that they decided to kill Romani after the mentionned crimes Why on Earth is that irrelevant? So instead of deleting the content I disliked, I tried give neutral title to the content: Beforeward it was: Romani crimes against Hungarian and another one was Hungarian crimes against Romani or something like that. I proposed: Violence between the two population. Then I was accused of being some nazi shit. I offered dispute reolution, Darouet declined, and kept on insulting me--Ltbuni (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

And sorry to waste Your time, but I simply did not get answers on the Talk Page from Darouet, just insults, and Darouet refuses the Dispute Resolution with me as well... One must see this as well. And I refuse the canvassing thing: I could not be sure whether Norden1990 is on my side (we disagreed), and I did not invite someone, whom I should have (Borsoka), finally, I tried to reconcile the opponents. Take a look at the articles, please, and help to write them in a Neutral manner.--Ltbuni (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

And finally, we really had a dispute resolution - but not on this specific sentence I questioned.--Ltbuni (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents: the issue seems exaggerated to me. It looks like Darouet has some disagreement with Ltbuni (probably a content dispute) and (s)he wants to use this ANI discussion to put pressure on him/her. Even if Ltubi's behavior could be classified as canvassing, the right way should have been to point this out to him/her, and not to immediately run here in hope to get him/her punished. Darouet's bias is evident even from the way (s)he presented the issue. I agree that probably it would have been better if Ltubi launched an RfC instead of asking specific editors, but that better option should have been suggested to him/her. I deliberately don't talk about content related questions (like whether those articles really connected to far right or which sources are reliable), since those questions only obscure the situation and preferably belong to the related articles. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Koertefa: Why didn't you explain to Ltbuni that canvassing is prohibited? It actually appears you've been encouraging this behavior. Ltbuni asked for your help at Victor Orban in 2015, and while I don't think you helped him, you encouraged his behavior and made no mention of canvassing. KIENGIR (currently blocked) also asked for your help on an Austro-Hungarian page where he was edit warring with Hebel in 2015, and though it's hard to know exactly what you replied, you don't make a note about canvassing.

It looks like you've actually been encouraging this for a very long time. Your very first edit to the Szaniszló article immediately followed Ltbuni's request for your help at your talk page, and your favorable reply. Ltbuni canvassed you twice for three more articles that April and September (you encouraged him in one case, didn't respond in the other).

There are many more instances where Norden or Ltbuni ask for your input, and it's hard to know without deep research whether these are all instances of edit conflict, or if they are asking for your editorial advice in acceptable, non-conflict situations. However, it's clear that in the many instances I've detailed, Ltbuni came to you knowing that you might agree with them in an edit war. If you ever did respond you encouraged them, and sometimes you helped.

I don't edit on Hungarian topics daily. When I do, if encounter some conflict, I want to be sure that the conversation which evolves is not prejudiced by directed, non-neutral recruitment of nationalist editors. In this case, you have been encouraging blatant canvassing in the context of editing conflict over Hungaration nationalist topics. I think this is really harmful to Wikipedia and I wish I had the time to look more closely at the extent to which this is happening beyond Ltbuni. -Darouet (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I came across this editor yesterday at the László article following a related post at the Teahouse by Amin. At least in that instance, a lot of the problem was failure to WP:AGF, which led to a lot of frustration and killed compromise. We seem to have come to an amicable solution after a day or so and may actually be having productive discussion now.

Since this seems it may be a thing across articles and users, I would be in favor of a careful explanation of canvassing policy, and a warning to avoid the appearance of edit warring behavior for the foreseeable future.

Certainly it takes two to edit war, but Ltbuni seems to be the common thread, and they are an experienced user and should certainly know better after five years. TimothyJosephWood 13:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: see my reply to Koertefa above, and have a look at Koertefa's talk page. It seems there's a lot more of this that's gone on - more even than I can have time to fully investigate. -Darouet (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it's fairly well covered in a clear strong warning, with an understanding that future violations will almost certainly result in sanctions. TimothyJosephWood 17:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Did I call You names? (nationalist etc) like Darouet keeps doing with me? Was I ready to accept Your version? Did I brought up arguments? And, with all due respect, I think the common thread are Darouet and me - when he/she noticed I don't accept one of his/her edits, he/she intervened in articles which are - according to him/her - out of the focus of his/her interest ("I rarely edit Hungarian articles...")--Ltbuni (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

You've been openly canvassing for years, and there is still zero indication you understand that it's a problem. -Darouet (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

And we have this latest special for today... Since I have only some 300 edits in English Wikipedia, and I only edited some 6 or 7 articles, I think I am a bit far from being a nationalistic, hate-speech promoter as you kindly call me...--Ltbuni (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Your accusations are meaningless without diffs. -Darouet (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

QED --Ltbuni (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

My original posts have 26 diffs. -Darouet (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

My favorites quotes:

"Hungarian editing crowd",

"about Roma immigrants' (????) that they added, basically a long excuse for hate speech' that can be found nowhere in reliable sources, remains in that article. "

"calling this language "malicious" and false." - The context was that...

"I don't want to start an edit war." This is practically indistinguishable from asking, "will you please edit war for me so that I can have my way without breaking 3RR." - or simply it means that You have better command of English, and greater expertise on Neutral language...

"Repeated failure to understand something so simple - e.g. why a prominent media personality attacking a minority is related to discrimination, but not musical talent - strikes me as a major WP:COMPETENCE problem. Even if you didn't understand this yourself intuitively, newspapers, which are the basis of our content, are doing it for you, and even those have no impact on your understanding here." - woow, I've never been called stupid this kindly...

"I also believe it's not a coincidence that Norden and Ltbuni request the removal of the term because they don't believe the Roma are ostracized, and believe the media are wrong" - Yes, that's why we did NOT delete the discrimination section in the Romani People in Hungary. No, we don't think that media is wrong - we just say, that there is a phenomenon called media-bias. So just because it is on the net, it does not mean that it is true. Please, stop reading in my thoughts thnx!

" I don't edit on Hungarian topics daily. When I do, if encounter some conflict, I want to be sure that the conversation which evolves is not prejudiced by directed, non-neutral recruitment of nationalist editors. In this case, you have been encouraging blatant canvassing in the context of editing conflict over Hungaration nationalist topics." - You are my next hero, seriously!!!! I love You!!!--Ltbuni (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I said that you added hate speech (from a primary source) to Magyar Hirlap, and stand by that and all other statements you've quoted. -Darouet (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Getting back to the issue, because this not the place to hash our content disputes, Ltbuni, do you understand why policy forbids editors from purposefully recruiting others whom they have reason to believe will join a content dispute on their preferred side? Do you understand that this applies regardless of whether you are right and someone else is wrong? TimothyJosephWood 20:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes I do. But as I mentioned above, I dispute that I was canvassing. Why didn't I notify other editors (Borsoka), who was on my side, and had participated in the very same edit war? Borsoka could have strenghten my position! Why did I call Norden1990, who deleted my edits? Koertefa got a barnstar for being neutral in disputes, that's why I called his/her help, because with Darouet one can not talk calmly. Just look above, how he/she treats people who don't share his/her oppinion! And why did I drop both Borsoka's and Norden's version in the Romani people in Hungary article, if we were canvassing?--Ltbuni (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

So no, you don't understand what canvassing is, and still think it's OK. Koertefa does too, if the last three years of diffs on their talk page mean anything. -Darouet (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not talking with You, man. I am waiting for Timothy's answer. --Ltbuni (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Let me rephrase this, do you understand that, regardless of your intentions, notifying users with whom you have a history on contentious topics, appears to be a form of canvassing and is not permitted. Do you understand that from this point forward, having been notified of this in no uncertain terms, if there is a content dispute that requires outside opinion, you will seek that outside opinion, in the most neutral way possible, through one of the following methods:

• WP:Third opinion
• WP:Request for Comment
• Appropriate notice board such as WP:NPOV, WP:ORN, or WP:BLPN
• Or posting on related WikiProjects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Hungary

This is not a special sanction; this is the normal process that all editors, including myself, must seek input through from time to time. This is the way to do it correctly. This is the way you will do it from this point on. TimothyJosephWood 20:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

So, if I have a problem, and the other user keeps insulting me instead of responding, I can not ask for Dispute resolution, like I did? I read that it was appropriate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Ferenc_Szaniszl.25C3.25B3_discussion

And Where can I denounce Darouet, for insulting me, as Hate speech promoter/ nationalist editor crowd and other libelling stuff (see above)? This is totally NPOV, no good faith etc.--Ltbuni (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, is also a way of seeking outside opinion. However, DRN is also sometimes a cumbersome and lengthy process, and if another user declines to take part in that process, you have these other options of seeking outside input on the article talk. Again, these processes are in place because contacting editors with whom you have a history, especially on contentious topics, can be, or can be seen, as a form of canvassing, and are not conducive to resolving the disagreement. TimothyJosephWood 20:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

All involved can probably use a review of WP:CIVIL, a reminder to act like adults. Also, since this is apparently lost on everyone, accusing someone of hate speech (a crime in some areas), and libel (a form of litigation), may be construed as a legal threat, which is taken seriously. Please all review policy at Wikipedia:No legal threats, and consider this a warning to that effect. TimothyJosephWood 20:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: I apologize to all, especially Ltbuni, if I gave them the impression that Ltbuni personally had engaged in hate speech. I was referring to Ltbuni's addition of a long quote to Magyar Hírlap of text from Bayer that was universally condemned by global media outlets. I am not a lawyer, and I do not believe that a reasonable interpretation of my comment would be characterized as a legal threat. However, if I am wrong I will gladly eat humble pie and retract my use of that term, even to describe Bayer's text. -Darouet (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Please note that Bayer, whose text I described as hate speech, has caused his paper to be fined for hate speech in Hungary: BBC source. From the BBC: "Journalist and activist Zsolt Bayer is best known for his xenophobic views and close ties to the ruling party of Prime Minister Viktor Orban... He also writes a regular column for conservative pro-government newspaper Magyar Hirlap in which he frequently makes anti-Roma, anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim comments, often couched in extremely crude terms. The US Holocaust Museum says his statements are as extreme as those emanating from Hungary's racist, ultranationalist, and xenophobic Jobbik party. His newspaper has twice been fined by the state media authority for publishing articles deemed to constitute hate speech. In 2013 he wrote a vitriolic piece about Roma, and in 2015 he said all refugee boys over the age of 14 were "potential terrorists"." -Darouet (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

And how about the tone? I find Darouet's tone libelling, as it was libelling on the Talk Page, as demonstrated. What can I do? What if I see that he is doing POV pushing, and soapboxing, as he/she did so - lacking Good Faith?--Ltbuni (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I think, meanwhie You responded. So it seems to You, that I was canvassing?--Ltbuni (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that it is a bad practice because it results in exactly these types of situations. TimothyJosephWood 21:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

And how about Darouet, who accused me of criminal charges?--Ltbuni (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I think most, if not everyone involved has certainly violated WP:CIVIL, and probably said something that could be construed by a frisky admin as a legal threat, so it's probably in everyone's best interest if we move on with our lives.

I think it's also important to note that ANI is not in the business of taking sides in content disputes. So if anyone is hoping to get the other party blocked on a technicality so they can win an argument, they are going to be disappointing. TimothyJosephWood 21:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Ltbuni: of course, you can also ask for Dispute Resolution, but in general (contrary to what some editors might suggest) it is not prohibited to notify individual editors, e.g., if they have a known activity of the involved topics (e.g., who have made substantial edits to the article in question or to articles with similar topics), participated in similar discussions in the past, are experts of the fields, who directly asked you to inform them, etc. The important thing is that the editors should not be pre-selected based on their opinions. I assume that you contacted me because of the former points (e.g., that I have some knowledge about these topics, made several edits to related articles and explicitly asked you to notify me in controversial situations) and not because of the latter one, since you had no guarantee that I would agree with you. My comments to Darouet and Timothyjosephwood are that: please, assume some good faith: not everybody who contacts another editor is canvassing, not everybody who edits a Hungary related article is a nationalist, not everybody who edits the bio of a right-wing politician is a radical, etc., even if he/she does not agree with you. The important thing is to discuss the issues and seek a consensus. Let's try to be more open towards each others points of views. Ciao, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I don't feel that I made a mistake,or something.Thanks anyway. The bias and the tone of Darouet still shocks me. He floods now the Talk Page of Magyar Hirlap, with administrative rules, just to decontextualize an excerpt of a journalist, presenting him as a kind of monster. Yes, Mr. Zsolt Bayer is not a nice person. But even he does not deserve this treatment just because international media does not cover every word of his, and citing the whole citation gives "undue weight" and would be "original research" and so on. I don't edit Hungarian articles because I am a "nationalist-crowd :) or "hate-speech promoter" or whatever, but because I have extra knowledge on these topics. Mr. Darouet replaces the gaps in his knowledge with his conviction. And that is no good, he relies on his "international, reliable media" and sweep away the context, how things sounds and works here. Anyone, Timothy, just take a look at the Talk Page, and remove the content the way he proposes! Totally the opposite result!--Ltbuni (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I think that Timothyjosephwood is right that we should let it go. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 22:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Reading through this thread, I have to say that I do not see WP:CIVIL violations from all sides. I see most people behaving civilly, but I also see Ltbuni significantly overreacting to perceived slights and unwilling to acknowledge Wikipedia policy on canvassing. FWIW, I think Darouet's contributions to the relevant articles and on the talk pages are very constructive, consistently going back to the reliable sources and making an effort to reach compromise. I certainly don't have that level of patience when I wade into these sorts of contentious subjects, which is a reason for my contribution to Wikipedia not being greater than it is. I strongly believe that a warning to Ltbuni is required, and that if they continue to disregard canvassing policy afterwards, sanctions are issued. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

KIENGIR

Dear Darouet,

(1) You have to always inform the one you mention in ANI discussion, why didn't you warn me?

(2) What you wanted to express with this "currently blocked", what goal you serve with this? You want to influence the discussion? How does it come here (anyway, the case is disputed and controversial and is being investigated, but it is not the subject now.)

(3) Without any intention to involve in this discussion I am confident that KœrteFa {ταλκ} is a very important member of Wikipedia regarding also his contributions/work with also Hungary related matters, and in emerging issues with high importance or against anti-Hungarian vandalism attempt we also ask help editors with more experience

(4) The Austria/Hungary related debates were resolved near 3 months, since then with the user you mentioned we are correct partners in editing with mutual respect since finally we understood each other, an extraordinary troublesome modification happened and we always struggle for truthful and professionally historical content! Koertefa's reply became so late that I even noticed more months later, he seemed inactive in Wikipedia and he did not even involve himself to that "incident". I don't even know why he should inform me about any "canvassing", I know what it is, and noone then considered any canvassing regarding this then.

(5) Please do not involve me anymore unnotified in any incident that anyway I am not belonging to. You could have just present the diff you debate without mentioning anyone who does not belong to the current incident's topic thus you are unable misuse my name/situation to influence something I have no business with! Thank You!

PS: I did not even read what this incident/discussion is about, I just read those fragments where you mentioned me, nothing else I have reacted. Even better do not even answer to me here if you have any such intention, do it on my personal page!(KIENGIR (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: I didn't mention you in my original report, because I hadn't realized that you'd also (unsuccessfully) canvassed Koertefa. When I did mention you later, it was only once, and I tagged you so that you'd know you were mentioned. I assumed you would face no consequences for a single instance of canvassing. -Darouet (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

- I am sorry that you did not reply in my personal page, maybe I was not clear enough?

- Please avoid such statements that I would "canvass" Koertefa, that time the user I debated with expressed his concerns on possible canvassing, but what you refer was not regarded by anyone canvassing (not even a suspicion of that) and I did not wrote anything because I would be afraid of any consequence of that. Also in the future, if any i.e. troublesome edit would appear in an article, in case we may notify other users who have an expertise on the subject.

- Please be careful regarding relocating other user's comments. Thanks(KIENGIR (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC))

You wrote to Koertefa and to Fakirbakir asking to "PLEASE HELP" you at Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867), and 10 minutes later your edit to the article led to 11 reverts in 2 days (an edit war), where Fakirbakir helped you, until Ritchie333 protected the page. That is classic WP:CANVASSING in the service of an edit war. If you don't think that's canvassing, can you describe what canvassing is? -Darouet (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

(1) - Every complain that time was investigated, an noone were judged or found guilty of canvassing, or similar, everything was in the service of against a blatant disruption attempt. BTW If you have read what you refer of: Appropriate notification - Editors known for expertise in the field/Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article

(2) - I warn you again, stop involving solved happy end cases - I read the title, nothing more - that not any means belonging here

(3) - do not even answer to me here if you have any such intention, do it on my personal page! + I am sorry that you did not reply in my personal page, maybe I was not clear enough? -> Which of these two are not understood, as I see you are a first level English speaker, should I try French or you prefer other langauges? If you wish to communicate with me, feel free to wite on my personal page, there we may discuss and answer of all your questions, I am intending to finish here! Mercy!(KIENGIR (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

Actually it appears you canvassed 3 editors in that instance [6][7][8], and while Hebel complained, I am unable to find any investigation or judgement of any kind. Can you link that?

I understand your request for me to comment on your talk page only, but will continue to reply here: I think it's important to keep a record of the diffs in one place. But I will leave a note on your talk page about policy so that in the future, you can avoid canvassing, or solicitation that could lead others to suspect canvassing. -Darouet (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry that you did not understood - the 4th time - that I won't continue discussion with you here. I just repeat that you have failed to grasp unfortunately:

- Every complain that time was investigated, an noone were judged or found guilty of canvassing, or similar

- I warn you again, stop involving solved happy end cases - I read the title, nothing more - that not any means belonging here

Nota bene:

- "in the future, you can avoid canvassing" -> please stop defamation Appropriate notification - Editors known for expertise in the field/Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article

- It appears to be you are "canvassing" cases, users that have no connection to the subject here and with such you want influence your report on others that has not any connection with any good faith. Moreove, you can totally ignore anything regarding that Austria/Hungary related incident, since it is a closed case, in the approx. due three months everything was checked investigated, punished, sanctioned, consensused what was needed or possible and all participants since then with a good faith and mutual collaboration are developing articles, the best and most beautiful outcome after any incident possible.

- On my personal page we can continue discussion, there you may have more answers, but prepare if you still do not finish and continue here (or just you mention me again), I will regard it as a harassment and willfull personal persecution. I have no business or involvement with the current incident, moreover as you should know every incident has to be investigated on it's own, so you better concentrate on the current subject, not closed cases, not even the real life there is two trial on one case that has been already trialed, with such acts you are just enweakening your position and arguments here on the current case - I still did not read and I won't do that -, so finally leave me in peace out of this!(KIENGIR (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

There's really no point in these walls of text. I think the diffs speak for themselves: there's a group of editors who often notify one another when they get into content disputes, and then come to one another's aid. What we really need here is for an admin to evaluate the messages listed above, to evaluate whether or not they constitute canvassing, and to issue any appropriate warnings or sanctions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

No, there are more points that the other party does not get, he tries to involve and influence the subject with cases, editors that have not any connection to the current subject. Yes, admin's should evaluate, as in the "admin input" section it has been already requested, but not anything that has already been outdated and closed. Bye.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

I have the same experience. See e.g. diff ( google translated) or here. Ditinili (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Ditinili, the usual provocation, did someone invited you in this discussion? It is a healthy and constructive behavior to always check other user's contribution and persisting trolling? Why are you gluing on me, could not you let me in peace? Check WP:NOTHERE. Disruption attempts will be always discussed, much more if we are encountering provocation on a daily basis. Try to ignore me as much as it is possible and prove with this your claimed non-combattant&non-provocative attitude. Thank You!(KIENGIR (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC))

On 21 October 2016 (see diff above) I noticed that you use to contact a limited group of editors (some of them were mentioned in this discussion) with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way (see also this diff /translation/ or this diff /translation/). It seems that there are more editors who came to the similar conclusion. Ditinili (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Those editors have expertise in the field or belonging to relevant wikiprojects. There is no intention to influence something, I drawed the attention of relevant problem and I shared my concerns. I uphold what I have said about this earlier no need to repeat. Please do not commit the same mistake that you drag in something that not belongs here. I am not surprised you did not reacted to all of my questions, please prove your good faith aims, since encountering here has nothing to do with it. Write in my personal page if you want something, even answer there.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC))

It seems that it is not about "expertise", but a trial to organize a small working group at national level to defend "our cause" (in other words WP:CANVASSING). I am sure that you can find more experts on WP:WikiProjects, instead of contacting (repeatedly) a limited group of editors in your language. Ditinili (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree, it is again a defamation attempt I met countless times from you. "Our cause" is the valid, truthful, proper, accurate, etc. content. I think I have enough experience to decide who is an expert and the fact that you did not even take account my ask and note proves your bad faith approach and provocative manner. Simply choose another person to abuse, I will believe you if i.e. for the next three months you are not trolling or encountering me and your goal is really to build a good encyclopedia, instead of persisting a long-term personal persecution of another editor. If you have any reaction, post in my personal page, if you continue here, you just prove my point.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC))

Initially, I did not contribute to this discussion. However, somebody opened this issue and my comments + diffs are above. Ditinili (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, you proved my point unfortunately. You contributed although this incident has not any connection me, you did it just and only to persecute me, since again you analyze mainly other user's contributions instead of a much more valuable activity in Wikipedia and simply you were not able to resist to harass me again, as since ongoing already 4 months ago.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC))

I would appreciate input from admins who have actually looked at those canvassing diffs (last few months, and going back to 2013), and at Ltbuni's, KIENGIR's and Koertefa's continued insistence that canvassing was not, and is not a problem. -Darouet (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Darouet, so you did not understood finally that ignore me and don't draw in me to something I have no business with. So I uphold that you are willfully harassing me and you want to deteriorate the attention of the current subject of the incident with already closed cases. Shame on you!(KIENGIR (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC))

Solution?

Is there a WikiProject Hungary (or whatever would encompass these various topics that people are notifying each other about) that everyone could put on their watchlists? Then anyone who started an article talk-page discussion that was stymied or that needed outside input could post a (hopefully brief) notice on the talk-page of that project. That way, everyone would be on neutral footing, there would be no cherry-picking of users or selective canvassing, and WP:CONSENSUS would remain more neutral. This would solve the problem of like-minded editors acting in self-selected teams. PLEASE NOTE: Notices posted on WikiProject talk pages must be completely neutral, or else they will be regarded as canvassing as well. Softlavender (talk) 08:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, Wikiproject Hungary exists, i.e. due to weight sometimes finally we ended up there. However, in the future i'll mainly use in case a simple ping, w/o further details that anyway could be read in the relevant talk pages. However, whom I contacted are mainly members of that project, thus they would have been informed anyway. Personally, your note I'll take serious. I have to emphasize I just only reacted that may have any affiliation with me here, I was "involved" this incident having no business with it - I did not even read it in whole. Furthermore, in my particular case I just found finally and read WP:Harassment and I am the victim of this since 4 months. Softlavender, I've promised you last time if I face any personal attack, I'll immediately act but my good heart was again more tolerant, however as I experenced WP:NPA sanctions are also applied when it did not even fulfill it's details, I was a victim of that and I am still investigating it. But WP:HA is totally that wiki rule I've been searching for, and I will immediately act if I face such again. Regards(KIENGIR (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC))

KIENGIR, you still haven't acknowledged that what you did was canvassing. And when other editors confront you about your canvassing, you plead that it constitutes harassment. Being asked to follow Wikipedia's editing rules is not harassment. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thucydides411, yes, read back if it is still not clear why. Editor's does not confronted me because of any "canvassing", one just misused my name and situation to influence the discussion (although I have no business with this incident) here with closed cases where nothing of his claim found to be supported (and I told him if he does not stop harassing, defamating and involving me inproperly how I will regard this activity), the other user is fulfilling WP:Harassment since 4 months, that's why he trolled here unmentioned and uninvited. "Being asked to follow Wikipedia's editing rules" was not the main motivation of any of these, however it is funny to hear from those who did not follow these rules. Nevertheless, as I said, I'll give less chance to even be possible any accusation of "canvassing". Now I tell you, that if you have anything to say, head to my personal page, we should let already to have the main subject of this incident discussed regarding the involved ones.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: WP:HARASSMENT is a real thing. Stop accusing me of harassing you (6 times now). As WP:HA#NOT explains, harassment is not "tracking a user's contributions for policy violations; the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight... Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly." -Darouet (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

KIENGIR could you point to this supposed discussion that has taken place involving your canvassing actions? You claim that one has been held, yet nobody seems to know about it. The "accused" is also responsible for bringing evidence to the contrary. Otherwise, stop claiming WP:HARASS. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Mrrndude this isn't the time to pile on, though I appreciate your help. -Darouet (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC) Comment edited Darouet (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: thanks for your note. In this case, even posting at a larger forum like WikiProject Hungary could lead to accusations of canvassing, depending on the context. Consider that most problematic ARBEURO issues involve a dispute with nationalistic overtones between two or more nationalities/ethnicities. In that case, posting at one forum but not another will almost certainly bring editors supporting one side, but not the other: exactly the "problem of like-minded editors acting in self-selected teams." Posting on both would be a minimum requirement, but even then, in the context of a conflict this could potentially fuel, rather than resolve the dispute.

I would say that requesting feedback from a neutral body like WP:3O, WP:RFC or WP:NPOVN is the best way to go, escalating to WP:DRN only if these other options demonstrate it is necessary. Curious to know what you think, and anyone else who's seen many of these nationalistic disputes on Wikipedia (not just for Hungary or EE - they can occur in many places). -Darouet (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that DR is needed for every discussion, and there is no reason that a neutral posting on WikiProject Hungary could be construed as non-neutral or canvassing on articles that are Hungarian, as all of the articles mentioned so far on this thread are. That's what the WikiProjects exist for -- as a neutral place to gain input and assistance without the need to contact individual users directly. Softlavender (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Oh! I agree completely with respect to DR - that's why I wrote it should only be used as a last resort, if WP:3O, WP:RFC or WP:NPOVN failed. Do you have a concern about going to these general, non-nation-specific forums? However, please check my comment again re: Wikiprojects, as I'm not sure my concern came through? For instance, in this case the articles coming up relate to Hungary and the Roma, or Hungary and Austria, etc. If I chose to solicit opinions only from Wikiproject Romani, or Wikiproject Hungary, or WikiProject Slovenia, I would be certain to elicit vastly different responses. For example, here is an instance where someone was blocked, in part, for posting notice of discussion on some boards/projects, but not others, and where that choice could have conceivably prejudiced the outcome. Those distinctions would be far more subtle than posting at Wikiprojects for different nations. -Darouet (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

All of those links you posted are WP:DR, and are not necessary for every discussion. To repeat also what I said before, there is no reason that a neutral posting on WikiProject Hungary could be construed as non-neutral or canvassing on articles that are Hungarian, as all of the articles mentioned so far on this thread are. That's what the WikiProjects exist for -- as a neutral place to gain input and assistance without the need to contact individual users directly. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I slightly disagree. There are several articles (mentioned also in this thread) that are related to a common history of various nations and present-day countries. In this case, posting on WikiProject Country X and WikiProject Country Y is a more transparent and neutral way. Ditinili (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I see, I thought by DR you meant DRN. Sorry to belabor the point, but just to be clear, if there's a dispute between predominantly Polish and Ukrainian editors over Polish killing of Ukrainians in Ukraine, for instance, you wouldn't see Polish editors posting notice at Wikiproject Poland, but not Wikiproject Ukraine, as a problem, or vice versa? Just from a practical perspective of having seen these disputes in various iterations throughout the encyclopedia, I wish that would work, but I don't think it would. Actually I fear it could just inflame the situation by bringing more like-minded editors to the dispute. -Darouet (talk) 05:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion you are making non-relevant assumptions and analogies and I disagree with you about the current group of articles being discussed. Indeed any article under the banner of a specific WikiProject may consult that WikiProject for opinions and input -- that is what WikiProjects exist for. Therefore any article under the banner of WikiProject Hungary may consult WikiProject Hungary for input and opinions. I've said my peace and people can implement my advice or not, as they see fit. I won't prolong this discussion further. Softlavender (talk) 06:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Darouet, stop deteriorating, WP:Ha is mainly was not adressed to you, and again, ignore me and leave me in peace, I've explained more times my point, I am sorry I had to repeat because of an other user who still did not understood the case.

Mr rnddude, I have already pointed everything - see above - and I have no further intention to join/continue a discussion/incident I have no business with and were dragged improperly. WP:HA is valid regarding one of the users. Hopefully in the further participants will concentrate on the subject and the involved ones.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC))

And which user is WP:HARASS valid for? - Ditinili I'm guessing, as I recall you two have a history of conflict on Wikipedia. also I've been tracking this discussion for the entire week it has been up, I've read the comments above and you have only stated that it has been investigated - no evidence to support this though. Only, and only, because this has nothing to do with you have I not pressed you about some of your comments previously. Bringing up WP:HARASS for no obvious reason, however, crosses several borders of AGF and NPA. Any reasonable editor would expect a) evidence, and b) an explanation, for such a serious accusation. You may recuse yourself from further discussion if you wish, but, you can't expect to drop the harassment card and then be left alone. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

This whole discussion has run its course. I strongly disagree with Softlavender about the advisability of consulting only one national wikiproject in a dispute over two nationalities (for what I think are pretty obvious reasons), but nobody is going to get sanctioned by anyone. If anything, Softlavender is right about this: going to neutral boards is the best way to get outside feedback in a dispute. -Darouet (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, I have to inform you you were always correct and nice to me, I did not forget it! I have no intention to involve or mention anyone here since, I don't want to have things that are not belonging here, I think it is obvious in which case who I referred. I even won't make extra effort to search for near one year old things regarding closed and happy end cases, you have to expect in a case that has been resolved near 3 months with admin attendance and intervention (protection,3RR sanction, etc.) everything has been checked. Sometimes admins does not even start a discussion or they just act or don't act. Again, just for you, as I recall the user I had a debate on Austria/Hungary matters had a suspicion of canvassing and he notified an administrator. In the end not any decision or action/sanction had been taken, on the other hand, the complainant also did not debated any outcome of this, we misunderstood eahc other in many cases but finally we understood each other. About AGF and NPA, I am the victim of these, I never made any report although if I would be so sensitive like others I could have raised many incidents, frankly not my style, I am generally a very peaceful creature who dose not seek trouble where it is not necessary. In the end because of my ignorance and good faith, I am the one who is accused about these. The debate is still ongoing that if I describe a negative behavior of a user - and it is true i.e. - could be taken as a personal attack? Since not I am responsible for the negativity, etc., but it is again a longer subject. a, The accuser has to prove it's claim generally, but as you say the accused has to also defend himself, well I won't repeat more what I have already told, that is my defence (also described here above)! b, My reactions are full with explanations, and yes, I agree that "This whole discussion has run its course". Regarding WP:HA of the other user I could easily present approx. 50/100 diffs, but it does not belong here also. I am for peace and happy&accurate editing, me and other users get used to many times we became the target of alleged or hidden anti-Hungarian feelings, after a while it becomes clear unfortunately. I am even afraid to imagine what's the situation in Israel/Palestine or Ukranian/Russian, or Turkic/Iranian issues. So you may understand that after a long while of provocation I have the right to be also sensitive! Cheers(KIENGIR (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC))

Alright, KIENGIR I'll take all of the above at face value. As both you and the OP Darouet have no will to carry this discussion further I too will recuse myself from here on out. I assume that within a few days time this thread will be archived and the matter put to bed (unless somebody else wants to archive this first). I figured this was with reference to the threads I had been tangentially involved in a while ago. You'd be correct that this thread is not the place to start up a 100 diff discussion, that would be for another thread entirely. I wasn't asking for a hundred diffs either, you could have just pointed to a talk page and said "look through the archives" or some such. This is not necessary though. Right, carry on Mr rnddude (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Consequences?

So, are there going to be any consequences for Ltbuni's canvassing? Will there be any warning or sanction? Does an administrator want to weigh in on this? -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I no longer think that's necessary: Ltbuni, if not contrite, has edited productively since I brought this complaint. I am however disappointed that there's been almost zero response here. I've never seen such a blatant case, and the message left by silence is clear: canvassing is OK, and may continue in the future. -Darouet (talk) 04:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thucydides411, Darouet:

The purpose of this board is to help protect and improve the project. It is not here for "consequences" nor for legitimizing complaints. If the user has been to this thread, and has acted differently accordingly, there is no admin action necessary. Neither is a formal warning necessary, as this thread itself well serves as such. TimothyJosephWood 23:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Timothyjosephwood, after your response, it's not apparent to me what the purpose of this noticeboard is. Above, a pattern of repeated canvassing by certain editors is demonstrated. What's more: the editors involved continue to deny that there's anything wrong in that behavior. Yet the outcome of this discussion is -- what exactly? -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thucydides411: As far as I can tell, the purpose and scope of WP:CANVASSING has been laid out in no uncertain terms. Appropriate avenues for requesting outside input has been provided, including the DR process and contacting related WikiProjects. The original content disputes seem to have resolved themselves with good old fashioned discussion.

So, what exactly is the present disruption that these "consequences" are needed to prevent? TimothyJosephWood 14:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, the harm is that in every future conflict over a Hungarian-politics-related page, we can expect the same users to act in the same way -- to call the same circle of editors to help them edit-war. They don't acknowledge that this sort of behavior is wrong, so we can expect it to continue. So the next time they canvass, shall we come back here again? And what will the outcome be next time? If it's exactly the same as this time, then the canvassing will continue indefinitely. In other words, the canvassing policy is more of a suggestion than an actual policy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

By the way, Wikipedia:Canvassing#How_to_respond_to_inappropriate_canvassing states that blocking a user is an appropriate response to repeated canvassing, which is what we're discussing here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

And since the stakes are "every future conflict", I assume the only effective block would be indefinite? TimothyJosephWood 16:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

That's not a logical conclusion. One purpose of blocking a user is deterrence. If a user is temporarily blocked for canvassing, but continues to canvass, then a longer block might be warranted. Eventually, a user who consistently refuses to abide by Wikipedia policy might deserve an indefinite block. In this case, I can think of several appropriate responses to the history of canvassing demonstrated above, ranging from warnings to blocks. But what's certain is that if users are never sanctioned for canvassing, they'll continue to do it. Given that the editors involved continue to insist that there was nothing wrong with their canvassing, I think this is a near certainty in this case. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems fairly clear that the user has already been warned, which does not require an admin. The reported user and OP seem to be in a nice place about the ordeal. Your chances of gaining consensus for a block when there is no ongoing disruption are probably near zero. So, it's possible this is a deceased equine. TimothyJosephWood 18:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Apparent attempts at censorship

The user Xtremedood (talk · contribs) seems to be engaged in a long-term agenda to censor valid information about the prophet Mohammad, and just deleted/redirected an entire page filled with references:

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

[9] [10] [11]

[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

He has apparently also been blocked several times previously due to edit-warring. Help would be very appreciated. David A (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• I agree these are problematical edits -- driveby removals and re-removals made without the least bit of discussion and with inaccurate edit summaries. I also believe that Xtremedood is often a problem editor who is unable to edit collaboratively, particularly not on the subject of Islam, Mohammed, or related subjects. Softlavender (talk) 07:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Xtremedood's editing behaviour clearly demonstrates a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, making biased edits in favour of Islam and Pakistan. In just two recent scenarios, this user attempted to link a pornographic actress with Catholicism and attempted to state in an article that anyone else besides Muslims, such as Indian Hindus, use the term fakir erroneously. Digging through his contributions reveals more alarming edits. Does anyone oppose a topic ban for User:Xtremedood on articles related to religion in general, as well as articles covering India and Pakistan-related topics broadly construed? If not, he needs one, badly, as other editors are getting worn out with having to engage with this problematic editor. Jobas (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Resonating with what User:David_A mentioned above, User:Xtremedood just attempted to redirect a page about Muhammad to a distantly related article. Edits such as these are frustrating and harmful to the project. Jobas (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The criticism article is about other peoples perspectives on the issue, and has nothing to do with the objective analysis of Prophet Muhammad's ﷺ teachings about slavery. Xtremedood (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• I Weakly support a topic ban. There is some pretty obvious POV pushing, and the user has a slightly troubling habit of quickly erasing their talk page (or the section) whenever they are given advice, a warning or have had sanctions placed against them. However, it's not entirely clear to me that they're unable or unwilling to learn to play by the rules. However, I'm open to having my mind hardened. Once I started looking through their talk page history, there's a lot of indications of a battleground mentality. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:MjolnirPants, I do not believe that I have demonstrated WP:BATTLE as demonstrated by my statements below. I think it is important to get both sides of the picture prior to making a decision. Xtremedood (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban on articles relating to religion and India-Pakistan broadly construed. Despite the issues raised by User:David A in his OP, User:Xtremedood continues to edit war on these topic areas, e.g. Example One, Example Two. If this user is topic banned, their very recent history of using sockpuppets to edit war in these topic areas (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Xtremedood) should be taken into account and monitored. Given these facts, to respond kindly to User:MjolnirPants, it should be "entirely clear to me that they're unable or unwilling to learn to play by the rules" and should be topic banned in order to prevent further damage from being caused to the project. Jobas (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment - In reality, user:Jobas has an extremely pro-Christian bias. He deleted referenced materials [22], [23], [24], [25] which apparently shows a strong pro-Christian bias and which according to a consensus at the time [26], between Jobas, myself, and User:Sturmgewehr88 was considered to be a legitimate entry in the article at the time. Jobas alongside similar pro-Christian editors are far numerous on Wikipedia and their POV should not take precedence, just because they have more people. There is a clear denial of facts by Jobas and his supporters [27]. Mia Khalifa still identifies as a Catholic [28], whereas the current article makes it look as if she might have left Catholicism with ambiguous words such as "although is no longer practicing" [29].

My edits are based on fair, source-centric, and authentic information. Jobas on the other hand has committed himself to censoring sourced materials on the article List of converts to Islam from Christianity, over here [30][31], while on the other hand introducing questionable, or incorrectly sourced materials (including blogspot references) on the List of converts to Christianity from Islam, [32], [33], [34].

• As far as the Early Muslim-Meccan Conflict, I am correct in my edits as it consists of misattributed references, take a look at the references, the sources do not indicate as the author (user:Misconceptions2 states, who has a strong history of sockpuppetry and deception [35]. Also, literally zero sources refer to it by the non-NPOV name he allotted for it "Caravan Raids". I have attempted to engage in the users like David A who opposed my edit in dialogue, here [36], however they refuse to even try and validate the references and have not responded to my inquiries. The entire article is made up of misattributed sources, which do not say as Misconceptions2 states.

• As far as the Al Kudr Invasion, the article was created by the same user (user:Misconceptions2), who has the extreme history of deception and sockpuppetry. He misattributes the source, stating that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ kept the one-fifth to himself, whereas the Mubarakpuri reference does not say that. In reality, the one-fifth is in regards to a Quranic commandment, and the money was used for freeing slaves and helping orphans.

• As far as the History of Sufism is concerned. This was a disagreement between user:MezzoMezzo and I. We discussed it over here [37] like civilized people and came to a conclusion. I disagreed with the source being so old (from 1930) and how it contradicted recent studies like those of Carl Ernst and William Chittick. For example, Carl Ernst has gone as far as saying that Orientalist sources during this period (1930) should not be trusted on page 2 of [38]. Titus Burkchardt has also contradicted such data during this period in his book, Introduction to Sufi Doctrine, on page 4 [39].

• As far as the Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi Article is concerned, it was a similar disagreement with user:MezzoMezzo, where we discussed [40] like civilized people the nature of the source and came to the conclusion that the source was not about criticism. Which neither David A or Jobas participated in. The source does not state any criticisms and therefore is a misattributed source and should be deleted. See our discussion for further information on the matter.

User:David_A and user:Jobas have no foot to stand on, as Jobas's biased edits on the Mia Khalifa, List of converts to Islam from Christianity, and List of converts to Christianity from Islam shows a strong bias. Wikipedia should not be a place in which the more numerous Christian editors have say over others. Xtremedood (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

user:Jobas also never informed me that this discussion was going on. This is clearly an example of unfair editing and trying to censor my perspective. Xtremedood (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Support Topic ban--Yeah, you're not supposed to write about your perspective on Wikipedia. CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Xtremedood:Jobas also never informed me that this discussion was going on. This is clearly an example of unfair editing and trying to censor my perspective.

1. It was David A who opened this discussion.
2. He absolutely did notify you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. There is something wrong with my notifications, I have 21 of them and they are not going away. Xtremedood (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

So, in your defense against my statement that you show indications of a battleground mentality, you accused another user of being "unfair and trying to censor [your] perspective" based on zero evidence and zero effort to find said evidence? That's battleground behavior, right there. Indeed, your defense consists entirely of attacking another editor. If you're trying to convince me to change my weak support to a strong support, you're certainly on the right track. I'm not suggesting that Jobas' behavior is perfect (I haven't looked into their behavior yet), and it is possible that they may need to face sanctions as well, but that is an entirely separate issue from your own behavior.

By the way, there is a link at the top right of the notification drop-down that says "Mark all as read" which you can click on to dismiss your existing notifications. Furthermore (though it is sometimes buggy), clicking on an individual notification should mark it as read. Finally, if you have viewed all of your notifications (by opening the drop down), the icon will be grey, even as it shows the number of notifications, instead of red, which means you have new notifications. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe my record of attempting to engage in and engaging in dialogue for matters pertaining to misattributed sources shows that I am not operating upon such a mentality, but instead I am showing concern for the authenticity of the sources and the content in the sources. I have shown above that for all of the articles referenced by David A that I have a strong justification for the edits. I had invited David A to talk about the matters and for all of the links he has cited he was never a part of the dialogue.Xtremedood (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• I Support a ban, for much the same reasons as Jobas and MjolnirPants. The user appears completely unrepentant and relentless in pursuit of an agenda, with several past rule-violation incidents. David A (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I have invited you to discuss the issue [41], however, you never (not even once) have engaged in dialogue about the issue. We also had discussions about the other articles you have referenced [42], [43] and you have not even once joined in the conversation. Xtremedood (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Note to admins: As any decision-making body or person, whether in courts or in the legal field takes in to consideration the mental health of both the complainant and defendant, it should be noted that David A self-identifies as autistic, OCD and ADD on his profile [44]. Attention to the details is critical to this issue and while I have demonstrated sound rationale for my edits, citing clear misattribution of sources as the primary cause, I have not heard from any of the other editors about actually verifying what the sources say. Xtremedood (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I have not engaged in dialogue because I am not expertised regarding the subject matters, and am also technically on vacation at the moment. I have however, noticed repeated attempts to remove information, with highly similar patterns in terms of viewpoint-pushing.

As for the issues that you noted, they are not mental illnesses, just minor handicaps, and completely irrelevant to this case. They do not make me unstable or mentally defective. David A (talk) 12:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

To claim a user's ASD prevents them from making sound judgements is rather ridiculous. In fact, in most cases, the opposite is true (I too am autistic, and it is for me). Xtremedood is setting up a strawman's argument. Patient Zero^talk 12:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. The OP presented 13 very clear instances of blatant censorship and POV-pushing: article blanking, section blanking, and repeated undiscussed removal of cited material. This sort of behavior has been going on ever since he started editing a year and a half ago. I support a topic ban on articles relating to either religion or India-Pakistan, broadly construed. If admins do not wish or see their way to implementing this at present, I suggest a sanction in the form of a warning that if this behavior crops up again in any way, an immediate topic-ban or indefinite block will ensue. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I have discussed those edits as being justified in accordance with WP policies, see my above comment. In your most recent edit, of Al Kudr Invasion you have utilized a misappropriation of source. I have set up a conversation here [45] to discuss it. You have readded the following statement: "He also kept a fifth of the spoils." This is not an accurate portrayal of the instance, as the one-fifth that was taken was used in accordance with the Quranic commandment 8:41, [46] which states: "And know that anything you obtain of war booty - then indeed, for Allah is one fifth of it and for the Messenger and for [his] near relatives and the orphans, the needy, and the [stranded] traveler, if you have believed in Allah and in that which We sent down to Our Servant on the day of criterion - the day when the two armies met. And Allah , over all things, is competent." I find it strange that you want to include reference only to Prophet Muhammad ﷺ but not Allah (God), relatives, orphans, needy, and a stranded traveller? Any reason for such an edit? The Mubarakpuri source clearly states "he had set aside the usual one-fifth". Why is it that you want to mention only Prophet Muhammad ﷺ but not Allah (God), relatives, orphans, needy, and a stranded traveller of the one-fifth? Wikipedia should not be the place of such anti-Islamic bias. Xtremedood (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

So with 5 editors in support of a ban or permanent topic ban, will it be carried out? David A (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

WP consensus is not based on votes. As of now I have not seen any solid policy related arguments for a ban. The ban seems like true censorship. My edits are based on solid rationale and do not violate WP policy. With the extreme sock-puppetry and mass mis-attribution of sources involved by the article's creator (Misconceptions2), admins should not base their decisions on votes. Also, I am the only editor who has actually tried to start and engage in discussions over here for the articles you have referenced, whereas none of the other editors here have so far even engaged in 1 single dialogue about the articles you have referenced. Xtremedood (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Sk8erPrince not using edit summaries when nominating articles for deletion

Sk8erPrince (talk · contribs) very rarely uses edit summaries, including not using them when nominating articles for AFD. I've asked him to at least use them when nominating articles for deletion [47], but he has not responded to my comment and has continued to not usually use edit summaries, including when nominating articles for deletion [48] [49]. For full context, mandy people, including me, find his behavior hostile and uncooperative in general (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 November 20#Nanaho_Katsuragi for a recent example). My understanding is that using edit summaries when nominating an article for deletion is not optional (WP:AFDHOW says to give edit summaries, and I've seen people blocked before for not using them). I'm hoping an admin can get him to at the very least use edit summaries when nominating articles for AFD, if not be more cooperative in general. Calathan (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, first off: Is this merely about me not using edit summaries, or is it about me being "uncooperative" to a greater extent (I honestly don't see how I am uncooperative if I'm just following by the rules in pretty much every procedure I do)? WP:AFDHOW never once stated that not using edit summaries as an offense. If it did, I will be doing it. I have also deleted 29 articles thus far without using edit summaries, and nobody up until now has informed me that it is necessary... or is it? Until clarification on this so called matter (it's honestly so trivial that this discussion should be closed immediately) is addressed, I see no reason why I should be lectured by another non-admin level member. Also, I have the right to choose whether or not I'd like to reply when you post on my talk page, ie. my territory. Choosing to report me for such a teeny thing... you honestly have nothing better to do. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Sk8erPrince, not using edit summaries is in and of itself uncooperative. You also respond with hostility to any criticism (such as the long angry rant you gave at the deletion review I linked to). I don't see how that can be considered cooperative editing. You seem to care much more about bragging about how many articles you've gotten deleted than actually working constructively with anyone else, and basically seem to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude to everything you do here. While I particularly want you to start using edit summaries so I can tell when you've nominated a page on my watch list for deletion, I'd also really like you to just stop being so hostile in general. So I guess both are issues here. Calathan (talk) 08:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

While I particularly want you to start using edit summaries so I can tell when you've nominated a page on my watch list for deletion

*I see, so that's how it is... basically, you want me to start using edit summaries just to make it easier for you, for your own personal convenience. In other words, Idegon is right - it's not a matter of policy, it's about wanting me to make your life easier. Yeah, no. Overturned. I have no obligation to make life easy for you. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Calathan, there is absolutely nothing requiring the use of edit summaries at anytime, for anything. The only thing you've provided diffs for is not using edit summaries, which although certainly a great idea, are unambiguously not required. So if you're complaining about something else, please provide diffs. John from Idegon (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

There is indeed no policy requiring edit summaries for any edit. That said there is a clear consensus expressed in guidelines and how to documents that edit summaries should be used for some types of edit. One such category is nominations for deletion, as described at WP:AFDHOW. So no, Sk8erPrince doesn't have to do this, but yes he ought to do it anyway. Perhaps he could just agree to use edit summaries for future AFDs, and then we can all move on to something more interesting? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

+1 - Edit summaries aren't compulsory however one should be added after every edit you make otherwise you're more prone to being reverted quicker, But it's up to Sk8, I suggest this gets speedy closed as no admin intervention is needed. –Davey2010^Talk 11:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Good. Nice to see that I'm getting support. Though I must say - none of my edits have been reverted as a result of not putting in any edit summaries. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, I'd like to see Sk8er start using edit summaries for at the very least AfD. Though I am feeling that battleground mentality in Sk8er's comment. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jauerback and Sk8erPrince: I am not certain that I agree with closing the thread at this time. A request that experienced editors provide some form of edit summary for substantive edits is a reasonable one, which has been seconded by several people commenting here, and I see no meaningful explanation from Sk8erPrince for why he is declining to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Can we please move on? An admin has already stipulated that it is not compulsory. Given that is true, why are you still dwelling on it? Oh wait, you're an admin, too. Well, we're not gonna continue this discussion. The end. Stop bothering me about it. It's my choice whether or not I want to use edit summaries, and honestly, if I see one more person nag me about it again, I'm reporting y'all as harassment. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I for one agree with Newyorkbrad, this needs a bit more discussion. @Sk8erPrince: I'm entirely unsatisfied with your responses here: by not giving an edit summary mentioning nomination for deletion, you're hiding from those who have the article on their watchlist that the article has been put up for deletion, and you do actually have an obligation to edit collegially here; not doing so is called disruptive editing, and it's grounds for blocking. Your user page also displays a battleground attitude (although I was happy to note that you have not personally deleted any of the articles you claim there to have deleted, just "won" the deletion debate. Is there any way we can persuade you to use the edit summary box at least when nominating an article for deletion? Yngvadottir (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Sk8erPrince, please doublecheck where you are. This is ANI, a place where an editor comes here to complain about another editor for whatever reason. The OP and the reported user are both equally investigated in the complaint. If I were to complain about a user, my actions also come into question. To call it harrasment seriously shows that you need a refresh on policies and guidelines. Should a user question your editing, they are allowed to (re)open a discussion, whether you like it or not. It's not harrasment. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

This response wasn't really helpful and is bordering WP:IDHT. Our work here is to improve the encyclopaedia. Using edit summaries helps other editors to quickly get an idea about the edit, without a need to examine the edit itself. While not compulsory, it is considered good practice to leave an edit summary for each edit. I would urge you to take the advice which multiple editors are giving you here. I see that you do good work in AfDs and are a productive editor otherwise, so adding edit summaries should't hurt. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Edit summaries aren't always required, but no reason has been given why they aren't being added. Hobit (talk) 03:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Also agreed. Edit summaries are not currently required for all edits. However, we are all volunteers here, and as someone else mentioned, most/all of us lack the ability to read minds. An edit summary (even a quick one like "typo") can help enormously when an edit pops up on a watch list and doesn't seem to make sense at first glance. Knowing why someone made the edit can go a long way toward smoothing relationships on the site (including the avoidance of potential edit wars). Help:Edit summary clearly states that "it is good practice to fill in the Edit summary field, or add to it in the case of section editing, as this helps others to understand the intention of your edit." (emphasis added) ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I've undone my closure and I apologize for closing the thread as I didn't think it was going to lead to anything productive. Obviously, I was wrong in that assumption. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to require edit summaries

Propose that we add an editing restriction on Sk8erPrince. Specifically that he be required to use clear edit summaries that indicate what action is he is taking/proposing when initiating a deletion action. This includes but is not limited to PRODs, speedies, and AfD nominations.

Support

1. Support as nom It's at the point of being disruptive and he seems unwilling to do so on his own unless it's specifically required of him. Hobit (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
2. Support - Having read the discussion above what I didn't think about at the time of writing my comment was that the editor can easily AFD/CSD/PROD any article of their choosing and no one would ever know - That's disruptive on all forms, Although it isn't compulsory to use edit summaries it is extremely helpful and one should always be used when nominating/csding/proding any article, Unless the editor agrees to start using edit summaries for everything they do then they should be restricted for now. –Davey2010^Talk 03:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
3. Support - I definitely support this since Sk8erPrince seems unwilling to use edit summaries unless required to do so. I initially missed that he had nominated an article on my watch list for deletion, and only noticed that it was up for deletion because I was also watching a deletion sorting page where it got listed by someone else. Sk8erPrince, I still am completely baffled as to why you would think making things easier for other users is not a good enough reason to use edit summaries. Calathan (talk) 05:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
4. Support - if a vote will do anything to help. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Wikipedia relies on collaboration. Rules cannot impose common sense, but the community can recognize when a problem exists and require minimum standards. Johnuniq (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
6. Support WP:AFDHOWTO definitely instructs users to use edit summaries. While it never clarifies if this step is optional or not, the entire process seems pretty self-explanatory to me, and it doesn't seem to leave any room for people to regard certain instructions as optional. Parsley Man (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
7. Support - Sk8er has developed a battleground mentality, they talk down to other editors who disagree with their approach without actually listening. Perhaps enforcing an edit summary requirement for them at AfD, CSD and PROD will teach them to collaborate a little better and kill some of the attitude. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
8. Support To be honest I would actually prefer that Sk8er leave edit summaries for everything. Edit summaries are always helpful. Another reason for supporting this is that it will help remind Sk8er that we do stuff by consensus here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
9. Support A lack of edit summaries drives me up the wall. I am not a mind reader and cannot guess what the intent of people's edits are, and get annoyed at wasting time looking at the diffs to work it out. If I revert your edit with "not an improvement, no edit summary", it means I couldn't understand how you were trying to improve the encyclopedia, and is a cue to explain yourself more thoroughly next time. (As a bit of blatant advertising : support voters, consider adding {{User:Ritchie333/Userbox ES}} to your userpage :-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
10. Support - Per Ritchie333. People not using edit summaries also drives me up the wall and i often warn people for not using edit summaries when they need to. Class455 (talk) 11:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
11. Strong support per Mr rnddude and Ritchie. I might nick that userbox for my user page :D Patient Zero^talk 13:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
12. Conditional Support - Edit summaries are not always needed but are preferred. For minor edits (such as typos, adding commas or the like) we should give a pass, but for major edits (AfDs, adding/removing bulk/possibly disputed content) they should be added. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
13. Support for AFD - Speaking for myself I don't always leave an edit summary for trivial edits (unless it's to fix an issue I myself created such as broken syntax) but I think most people would be fine with that. For substantial edits like removing OR or for xdd/prods I think it's quite reasonable to request edit summaries. However I think the issue would be avoided if using the xFD tab to handle the nomination procedure as it will auto fill the summary and make the issue non existent - this may require the user to change their site optiionsSephyTheThird (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

    @SephyTheThird: Yep, but twinkle is required to do this but may change their preferences via Special:Preferences. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 19:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

14. Support: Almost everyday I see no edit summaries in my lifetime mostly by IPs, newbies and some inexperienced editors. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 19:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

    I think you may have misunderstood KGirlTrucker81. This restriction is only for this single editor as opposed to all editors. I do agree with you to a degree, in all fairness, but I will point out one flaw in your findings; a lot of experienced users don't use edit summaries all the time, especially when they're deemed unnecessary. I, for one, don't always use an ES when replying on a talk page, or my summaries are vague ("re" for reply, "ec" = edit conflict, "ce" = copyedit and so on and so forth). I don't think grouping IPs and new editors was a wise move on your part, either, as a lot of IP editors are experienced in editing. Patient Zero^talk 12:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

    Oh, I did misunderstood this a little hehehe :D KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 12:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

    Indeed - thanks for correcting my formatting, as well as responding in a civil and gracious manner. Patient Zero^talk 12:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

15. Support for any AFD, PROD, CSD, or related edit. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
16. Support. I use edit summaries for any of my edits unless it involves updating a show airing live. Even for minor typos or corrections, ce is the way for me. Any editing involving deletion or nomination should require the use of edit summaries. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
17. Support, because it makes all of our lives easier...TJH2018talk 21:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
18. Support. Good idea to impose edit summaries in special cases. Clearly improving cooperation. Polentarion Talk 22:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
19. Support. This statement, Yeah, no. Overturned. I have no obligation to make life easy for you, plus the fact that he talks about a "defeat" at AFD says volumes of Sk8rprince's battleground mentality. People have requested nicely that edit summaries be used and there's no real reason not to. The whole digging in of heels in refusing to use them is juvenile. We are not here to cajole you nor coddle you. If you don't like the consensus then you are free to leave. Blackmane (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
20. Support as a perfectly reasonable requirement for Sk8ter at this point. It would be asinine to force newbies to use edit summaries, but Sk8ter has 5 years and 1700 edits under his belt - this shouldn't be hard. And the restriction is appropriately narrowed to where the problem is - deletion proposals. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
21. Support as this is a reasonable request for nominations and there is no reason not to include a summary of what they did with their edits. The user also says they will be "less inclined to comply" if they are required to use edit summaries which seems to be fishing for a block. Competence is required. -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
22. Support. Given that highly disturbing "List of articles I have deleted" on his userpage, this user absolutely should have visible accountability for every even-remotely deletionist move that he makes. He's also probably gunning for a t-ban from deletions if deletion is his raison d'etre on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

    I second that, particularly since our Deletion policy (emphasis mine) states "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." His AfD stats are not too great, particularly all those "Delete (nom) / Keep" entries. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

    With a nomination success rate of under 50% [50] I would support a ban from nominating articles for deletion at all. (excepting the usual like attack pages etc.) Jbh^Talk 17:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

    Jbhunley, that stat really means nothing at all and you could say the same about me; if someone was in line with consensus all the time at AFD I'd assume they were playing the game of jumping on once the result was obvious to try to manipulate the statistics, since by definition if something is at AFD the result isn't a foregone conclusion and there's room for debate. ‑ Iridescent 17:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

    @Iridescent: "Not all the time" is very different from having 42% of your nominations fail. (Note, my link was to nom only not to all !votes) That says to me either the editor has a very poor understanding of WP:DEL/WP:N or that they do not do a WP:BEFORE or both. Every AfD takes considerable editor time to deal with and making consistently poor nominations is disruptive. Jbh^Talk 17:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC) Added wikilink to Generic you to make my statement excruciatingly clear. Jbh^Talk 14:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

    Jbhunley, if you have a problem with me you can fucking well start a stand-alone discussion about it laying out your evidence, not try to hijack a thread on a different topic to attack me for my "very poor understanding of WP:DEL/WP:N". I'll note that over a decade as admin, arb, CU. OS etc, every piece of mud that could be flung at me has been flung at me, and "lack of understanding of deletion" has never been among them, making me strongly suspect that the problem is with you, not me. ‑ Iridescent 19:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

    @Iridescent: cool your jets. I did not make any accusations against you - except now possibly a lack of reading comprehension. The subject under discussion is Sk8trPrince and unless you have a 42% miss rate on your AfD nominations is takes a massive lack of understanding of the English language to think that the subject switched from him to you. If I ever do have a problem with your editing, and I have never seen any reason to suspect I will, I will make it very clear to you. Jbh^Talk 19:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

23. Support This really should be a requirement for process-oriented edits such as AfD, etc. And it's just plain collegial and helpful. The user's only justification for refusing to be helpful and collegial in this way amounts to "nyaah, nyaah, nyaah, you can't make me," which makes one think there may be more trouble in his future. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
24. Support. It's too easy for other editors to miss deletion proposals when they are not marked. And it's also important for them to be clearly visible in the article history so that we can avoid prodding things that have already gone through a prod or afd process. But I think everyone should do this, not just Sk8er. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
25. Support Everyone should be doing this. This editor has been specificly asked to and refused even going so far as to say below "That honestly makes me even more inclined to not comply...". That is simply a crappy attitude and regardless of their "Fine, I concede. I'll use edit summaries when I'm noming and adding speedy tags, as well as big edits. Can we please end the discussion already??" above, I think they need an actual, enforceable sanction or else we will see this problem again. (see aforementioned crappy attitude) Jbh^Talk 17:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

    @JNH: How would you like it if I called you a piece of crap, huh? WP:PERSONALATTACK right there. Your vote should be dismissed immediately. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

    @Sk8erPrince: I said you have a crappy attitude and your willful misinterpretation and misrepresentation of my statement is, to me, a clear confirmation of my opinion. I make no representations about your quality as a human being because I neither know nor care about your existential value only about the way you have conducted yourself - and that has been, again in my opinion, poorly. Jbh^Talk 14:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

    He said you had "a crappy attitude". Next time, don't jump to conclusions. Your behaviour is just getting worse. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

    • Note Sk8rPrince has deleted their statement earlier in this thread wherein they agreed to make use of edit summaries [51]. Their original statement is quoted in green above. Jbh^Talk 23:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
26. Support to help give others a sense of what is being done within edits. I know this is just focused on one user, but do feel that a lack of edit summaries in general regardless of who doesn't use them can get really irritating. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
27. Support - I have been interacting with him for quite a while now and despite the project's best efforts it appears he cannot seem to shed his mentality that AFD is a battleground where more articles being nominated and deleted is a good thing. It doesn't help that he once nominated an article I created for deletion without even bothering to notify me (moot anyway since the AfD was quickly withdrawn). To be brutally honest, given his behavior at AfDs, I think a more appropriate action at this time is at least a temporary ban on AfD nominations. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
28. Support - The request for summaries advising of deletion nominations was reasonable; the response has been antagonistic and battlegroundy. "You're not the boss of me, there is no rule" really doesn't cut it for me. So let's make a specific rule to combat unreasonable, non-cooperative behavior. Carrite (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
29. Support - if guidelines don't already call for edit summaries when nominating an article, they should (with allowances for the occasional lapse, of course). Jonathunder (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose: Serious violation of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Previous discussion regarding the exact same concern has already been closed by Admin Jauerback, with the closing message being "Edit summaries would be nice, but they aren't required". You could try and encourage me to use them, but I could refuse on the grounds that it's not compulsory. So what I'm seeing here is y'all ganging up on me to force me to comply on something that isn't compulsory? That's WP:THREATEN right there. That honestly makes me even more inclined to not comply, more so than before, wherein I simply thought adding an edit summary is such a hassle. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

   Sk8erPrince, this is not a legal threat? so... WP:THREAT doesn't apply. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

   So what? I think assembling between 50-100 properly formatted citations to prepare an article through GAN is a "hassle" but I don't go onto WT:GAN decrying the process as a load of rubbish. Also, above you wrote "I have no obligation to make life easy for you" - be careful you don't get blocked, as somebody might fire that back at you as a response to your first unblock request! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

   Sk8erPrince, I suggest that you reread policies and guidelines. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

2. Oppose: On the grounds that this shouldn't be a special rule applied to one editor we don't like. This should either be made policy, or this particular WP:STICK should be dropped. 206.41.25.114 (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

   Editing restrictions are imposed on editors which have shown to be disruptive in certain areas. This is not because we don't like them, this is so editors can move on without worry of others. Restrictions can also always be removed at a later date by the community. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

3. Oppose: Everyone should leave meaningful edit summaries. It would be unfortunate if one editor suffers because this is a test case. An edit summary should anticipate the questions that subsequent editors will have. Edit summaries should make plain what you have done. If you have done very little, leave an edit summary that calls attention to the tweaking you have made. If you have made an edit that you can anticipate that others may object to in whole or in part, your edit summary should allude to the change you've made, as well as a brief argument or justification for why you think your edit is called for. It is not uncommon to see useless edit summaries or no edit summaries at all. But this should be addressed project-wide and not on the backs of individual editors who may come under fire. Bus stop (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
4. I honestly don't see how not using an edit summary here is disruptive. Very few editors (at least the ones nominating manually) actually use edit summaries when adding the AfD template. ansh666 21:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
   • To me, it's mainly that it's hard to look at one's watchlist and tell something has been nominated. Given that AfDs are about all he does, it seems reasonable to ask that he make it easy for others to figure out when things are being nominated for deletion. Hobit (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
5. Strong Oppose As others have said, there is no requirement on edit summaries for anything. As a result, in my view it is unreasonable to apply this as an edit restriction just on @Sk8erPrince:. If this is to be a requirement it needs to be passed as a requirement on all wikipedia editors. Also he can't be said to have violated anything retrospectively since there is no such rule in place and you can't be said to have violated a proposed future rule that has not yet been enacted.
   
   It sounds as if this may be an omission in the guidelines that needs to be rectified for the most significant edits such as nominated an article for deletion. But at the moment all that can be done is to ask him as a matter of courtesy if he would be so good as to leave edit summaries to help the rest of us. He has said also "Fine, I concede. I'll use edit summaries when I'm noming and adding speedy tags, as well as big edits. Can we please end the discussion already??". [52] What more is needed? If we take this further I think it should not be as an action against any individual editor but rather as an action to change the guidelines themselves. Then after the guidelines are changed, then editors could be required to follow them.
   
   As for other allegations against him, I suggest if anyone thinks there is anything of substance to be discussed they be raised as separate actions. Too many of these ANI cases become long discourses about all percieved flaws of the user concerned, and this is not the way to administer justice. It needs to be focused on some particular issue and on this particular issue "User:Sk8erPrince not using edit summaries when nominating articles for deletion" I think there is definitely no need at all for any sanction or further action according to the guidelines. He has been asked as a courtesy to provide the edit summaries from an article that he nominates for deletion, and has agreed to do so. Case over surely. Robert Walker (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
6. Oppose sets a slippery slope and bad precedent on "it's not a rule but because I think you're breaking an imaginary rule so you'll have to follow my imaginary rule". It cannot be enforced if the "rule" is broken in the future. Plus how do you determine if it's broken? Of all the years I spent here, I learned one thing and it is that you cannot please everyone and there will always be people who have an axe to grind and enforce a really strict rule on what is ok and what is not. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

   The proposal is not to enforce a rule, imaginary or otherwise. The OP provides examples of unhelpful behavior (it is unhelpful to nominate an article for deletion with no edit summary), together with polite requests to improve collaboration. The responses from Sk8erPrince above are what has prompted the proposal that the editor must use an edit summary for certain actions related to deletion. Collaboration is very important for the health of the community, and that is why there is strong support for the proposal. Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

   Exactly. 1RR is not a rule, it's a restriction to encourage collaboration. IBANs are not rules, they are restrictions to stop inherently negative interactions. TBANs/PBANs are not rules, they are restrictions to discourage persistent disruptive editing. Similarly, this proposal is not the enforcement of a rule, but a restriction to end disruptive editing (WP:DISRUPT) and encourage a collegiate/collaborative attitude (WP:EQ). Mr rnddude (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

7. Oppose - I had originally closed this thread because edit summaries aren't required, however others felt more discussion was necessary, so I reopened it. Needless to say, I'm kind of disappointed on what this is turning into. Sk8erPrince has definitely demonstrated some attitude and battleground issues in this thread alone, but requiring him to use edit summaries does not address any of those problems. This is an absurd restriction on one user as he could easily skirt it by leaving edit summaries that don't say much of anything and then here we are back again at ANI with a thread about his "poor edit summaries". I don't envy the new closing admin as most of the arguments above seem to be people's wishes towards a project-wide change, not in regards to one user. For the record, I believe that all users should use edit summaries, but requiring them isn't worth anyone's time enforcing. We all have better things to do. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

   I agree. The important distinction is not between leaving edit summaries and not leaving edit summaries but rather between leaving useless edit summaries and leaving meaningful edit summaries. Edit summaries are an important part of the project. Through edit summaries we have the potential to address some of the problems that plague the community. Edit summaries should be used properly. I am opposed to requiring Sk8erPrince to use edit summaries for the reasons you mention above. Bus stop (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

   Just noting that this only requires that he mark his edits that initiate a deletion action. He appears to be not doing so to make it harder for others that watch the page to notice that it is up for deletion. This is not a general requirement to use edit summaries in all cases, just where he has been disruptive by not using them. Hobit (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

8. Very strong oppose - edit summaries are not required. Trying to impose an editing convention on other users because it's convenient for you is especially poor form. If OP wants to see when a page in their watchlist is nominated for deletion, they can enable a script to do so and not badger other users. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
9. Prinicipled oppose- given that the community has previously smiled benevolently on inclusionists repeatedly lying in edit summaries, it boggles the mind that we are now considering punishing someone for merely omitting them. Reyk _YO! 14:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

   Say what? Can I ask for a bit of explanation of what this accusation of lying is based on? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

   Prominent Article Rescue Squadron celebrity caught repeatedly using edit summaries that deliberately obscured what he was actually doing, as well as misrepresenting the content of sources Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Colonel_Warden- nothing done about it of course. Same guy gets caught at it again Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive743#Colonel_Warden, and not only is it excused again with many smiles and pats on the back, but it's the one guy who tried to stop the misbehaviour that got kicked in the teeth. Since being purposely deceitful in edit summaries is OK, I don't think there's any call to punish someone for leaving no edit summary at all. Reyk _YO! 22:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

10. Strong Oppose, while I agree that not editing with a summary, especially after being asked to do so is not good, there is nothing against policy that was violated. If you feel that editing summaries should be required, or should be required for certain types of actions, then go to Village Pump Policy and request it. To do so here is punishing someone for something that is not wrong. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 16:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Is it mandatory now to use an edit summary when sending an article to AfD? I've never used one and never will. Pages of importance are on people's watchlists, plus the discussions are grouped by category at AfD for anyone interested in saving something (or backing up the deletion argument for that matter). Is this now a blockable offense? Does the AfD guidance trump WP:EDITSUMMARY? Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 11:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Some editors, such as Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) contribute enormously to the encyclopedia without leaving much in the way of edit summaries, but even then they leave one when necessary. Let me give you a typical example here. In this case, I assume the editor wanted to trim the sentence down and improve readability, but left it in a state of awkward grammar. Since I had no idea what their actual intent was, I was forced to revert. Perhaps with an edit summary, we could have worked out something else that was even better, but that was not to happen. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, WP:AFDHOWTO certainly seems to imply an edit summary is necessary. I've always followed the process to the last detail every time I nominate an article for deletion, and I certainly don't have any problems with it. Of course, this is a very subjective topic. I actually think it's a very interesting subject to raise at WP:VPP, since we're now talking about it. Parsley Man (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• Suggestion WP:TWINKLE can be turned on in preferences. It makes any XFD nomination extremely simple, all you have to do is type in your reasoning and it internally does everything else, create the page, add it to the log, inform the page creator, and yes, leave an edit summary. Why anyone wouldn't use it for nominations is beyond me. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that WP:TWINKLE is the simple solution here. To the people opposing the overwhelming WP:CONSENSUS for Sk8erPrince to use edit summaries, in my mind it's either that or a TBan on deletions (or both), because he's become that disruptive, as all of the WikiProject members have attested. Softlavender (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• Honestly, at this stage, whether you support or oppose, it does not matter anymore. I have already started using edit summaries for all the aforementioned categories, and also for expanding bios. However, I will say this: Any discussion that has nothing to do with edit summaries should be ceased immediately. Seriously, some of you even had the audacity to give me your unneeded comments on what I wrote on my profile. That's like, none of your beeswax. Maybe you should learn to mind your own business? And given that no consensus is needed for my willingness in using edit summaries when necessary, this discussion should also be closed down right now, given that any more comments and votes will prove to be completely substanceless. No, you didn't force me into submission; I myself have now seen the relevance in using edit summaries, and will use them appropriately, and when needed. If I'm willing to do it with my own free will, your so called restriction isn't going to affect me one bit~ --Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Here we go again with the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Good God. This message was so unnecessary and mounts to incivility. I second Knowledgekid87 as well that Sk8erPrince is agreeing just to please the community and get over with it. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Cool story, bro. I'm not doing it to please the community. I'm doing it because I see the necessity in doing so, so that my AFDs could progress faster. But none of you managed to forced me into submission; try to keep that in mind. Check my latest contributions for verification if you don't believe me. And you wanna know what's unnecessary? This entire discussion. Could you remind yourself what the proposal is even about again? OH RIGHT, it's about getting me to use edit summaries. Well, since I'm using them now, your unsizeable comments and borderline aggressions don't mean anything to me. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Takes petulance to a whole new level, doesn't it? However, the point does stand. Does a discussion concerning an editing restriction or sanction stay open if the editor in question has acquiesced, however petulantly or childishly, to abide by the community requirement that is under discussion? Blackmane (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Please do me a favor and stop bending around the facts. The FACT of the matter is, using edit summaries are not required. So what's this talk about abiding by "community requirements"? It's not even a requirement in the first place. As non-mandatory as it is, given that I now see how using them is speeding up my AFDs, I'm sure as hell gonna use them, of course. Also, I contest to your claim that I was "acquiesced" to the proposal. So you're saying y'all forced me into submmision? Blatant BS. Nobody could force me to do anything - not now, not ever. I'm doing it out of my own free will. Try to get that through your thick skull. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You are stating what people have been seeing though that you could care less about the community's opinion regarding your editing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

If the benefits of using edit summaries more often help meet my own ends, I don't see why I should be opposed to use them on the grounds that it's not mandatory. Is it really so hard for you to understand that I merely failed to see how it could benefit me before? People change, and for someone that's as flexible as me, changing sides and stances isn't hard at all. Again, we don't need this discussion to continue. It's absolutely pointless. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand some things. While Wikipedia has a lot of policies and guidelines which by and large every editor follows. There are also things, such as edit summaries, that are not explicitly laid out as being required. However, all of those can be trumped by a broad discussion by the wider community and whatever gains consensus, in effect, becomes a policy for that one editor. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit but that has not prevented the community from banning editors from editing particular articles, just do a search for "Topic ban", "sanctions" or "restrictions" in the AN and ANI archives. All of those can be, and have been, levied on a single or even a group of editors. Failing that, there is the Arbitration Committee who have much broader powers to act on particular areas. The edit summary guideline may state that a summary is not required, but consensus from a wider community discussion does have the power to place a requirement on an editor to use edit summaries. Failure to abide by community imposed sanctions have resulted in sanctions as light as an indefinite topic ban to indefinite blocks and site bans. On Wikipedia, consensus overrules all. Blackmane (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't give a flying dang whether or not you manage to impose this sanction or requirement or whatever the heck you wanna call it upon me. If the end result dictates that this whachamacallit is placed onto me, then so be it. I don't care. I'm already doing what the proposal states, so your POV on the matter is useless. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I am reaching up to here with your attitude and I have to get it off my chest. If I get warned for civility, so be it. Will you stop with your arrogant comments? "Cool story, bro" is the most insulting thing I have been told and I have been called Nazi names. I have had enough with your condescending comments and I am reaching my limit as you are disrespecting plenty of users besides myself. This discussion is still ongoing. If you don't care, why are you still here? What I see that you're just conceding to please the outcome. You didn't give a flapping duck before and now you're agreeing? Seems far fetched to me. I am done with your insulting comments. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Bite me then, Canadian. If you wanna ignore the facts, then so be it. It's a FACT that recently, I've been expanding on stub articles rather than just AFDing. It's a FACT that I've started using edit summaries. If it benefits me, I'll do it. You're not me; don't go and assume my intentions and motivations for wanting to do the right thing. I'm not doing it to please anyone. Never had, never will. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

This is a pattern, and the same WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that has dominated some of the AfD discussions that Prince has been involved in. Here are some edits that have raised red flags with me: [53], [54], [55], [56], [57]. It is not productive, it is not collaborative, and bridges have already been burnt with multiple editors. [58], [59]. Im not saying that all of his AfDs have been unjustified, but seriously he needs to tone it down. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

As a participant in WIkiProject Anime and manga, I have to second that Sk8erPrince is very disruptive to the project. Our deletion sorting list is overwhelmed with his nominations (and many renominations), where in many of the cases it doesn't even seem like they attempted sufficient prior research into notability, and their combative attitude turned me off from participating in any of the discussions. (they're strongly focused on deleting articles rather than helping to assert the notability of them or other improvements) They do not have a history of being willing to collaborate with other editors, very contrary to Wikipedia's nature, and have been brought to ANI in the past for personal attacks. I'd like to reiterate Knowledgekid87's statement that many experienced editors have tried to reach out to them (just look at their talk page history) but they have not been receptive at all. I personally feel that deleting articles on non-notable subjects is good for Wikipedia, but Sk8erPrince's aggressive AfD crusade is not the way to go about it. Opencooper (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I investigated the user a bit and he has displayed battleground tendacies quite often. He labels his works as victories or defeat, seems to hold a superior/inferior orientation, and I've seen him outright belittle people that disagree with him. As for what can change, the user needs to adopt a different kind of mentality when dealing with people. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 19:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

He has definitely been disruptive in many ways. I think he wants to contribute constructively to WP:ANIME and other areas, but he needs to tone down the combativeness. All of us likely have things here that irk us in one way or another, but we someone muddle through and are able to work together (mostly) peacefully. I know there are some policies and guidelines here that I think should be different, and I've participated in a number of discussions regarding them. However, in the end consensus decided how things are to be here (at least for now), and I go along with that. Sk8erPrince needs to learn to play in the great sandbox without constantly throwing sand in others' faces. Most or all of the issues could be addressed simply by extending a courteous attitude toward everyone else. Politeness goes a long way. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I should probably mention that earlier today I removed something from his userpage that I thought could be considered offensive; though I also decided if he reverted and kicked off at me for it, I would just take it on the chin. And while "This user is strictly, unquestionably, undeniably and exclusively heterosexual" isn't directly homophobic, it does leave me with unpleasant overtones of it (after all, if you're comfortable with your sexuality be it gay, straight, bi, asexual, not a clue etc, why would you need to assert it loudly?). And a section of "Pages I've deleted myself" (which is factually wrong as he has to ask an admin to do that) isn't really what Wikipedia is about (not to mention the polar opposite of User:Ritchie333/saves) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC) So my sexual orientation matters to the so called overall problem since when? This discussion should honestly be closed down. It's just WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Basically a closed discussion that is perpetuated. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC) Again throwing WP articles at people when you don't know what it actually means... Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 04:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC) Starting to reach levels of IDHT, more than 20 editors disagree with the close. That should tell you something. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC) It matters not to me, but it clearly matters to you as you have put it at the top of your userpage. I'll clarify that I find it offensive that you trivialise homosexuality into a bit of dodgy porn you like watching, and recommend reading Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing (both good articles, incidentally), from top to bottom to understand why I might feel that way. (I'd say "why don't we just discuss it over a pint?" but you don't appear to like those either). Anyway, bottom line is if you put right-wing views on your userpage, expect blowback. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC) if you put right-wing views on your userpage, expect blowback. - That is both dumb and bigoted. Right-wing does not equate to isms and phobes. Economic conservatism is a right-wing position, yet has nothing to do with intolerance. How absurd to clump in the economic right in to such a category. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "This user opposes smoking", "This user opposes gambling", "This user opposes alcoholism" "This user opposes drug abuse or recreational drug consumption", "This user dates for the very purpose of resulting in marriage" .... all that's missing is "This user believes the Daily Mail is the best newspaper in the world" - jeez. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC) What does that have to do with what is being discussed? Sounds like you're trying to antagonize a user who is already pretty riled up. Primergrey (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• Given the diffs and so forth, I agree there is a definite problem here with belligerence, hostility, failure to do WP:BEFORE, and general disruptiveness. I'd like to re-iterate my stance that a topic-ban on deletions may be in order here. Let's see if the user can edit productively and collaboratively outside of deletion issues. If he cannot, there may be an inherent attitude problem that is a CIR issue. Softlavender (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps too soon for a TBAN, but, I think this statement exemplifies the failure to comply with AfD procedures; The quality of the article DOES matter; how else would I know whether or not the subject is actually notable? - By doing your due diligence (in terms of a sort of Wiki-law) and researching the topic before nominating an article for deletion. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, if you look at his history, that's virtually all he's doing, and he's very belligerent and disruptive about it, and as Jbhunley notes far above, he has a very low success rate. At this point he does not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia, and a topic ban would allow him to demonstrate that he is, and would allow him to demonstrate that he can collaborate with other editors. Softlavender (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you - in fact I agree with you. What I think is that given the above proposal and the fact that it barely managed to budge the editor from their position, dropping a TBAN on them would just drive them away and confirm to them their prejudice that we're a bunch of witch hunters. Seriously, their comments already describe is in basically synonymous terms. If the above proposal were to pass then it might slowly drive the point home that their approach is not the right one - if not, TBAN away. Although, philosophically, being a deletionist by definition would make you "not here to build...", but rather, "here to demolish". Not necessarily a bad thing, given that bad articles on non-notable topics are like a fungus around here, just seemingly antithetical to the stated premise - i.e. "build". Mr rnddude (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

"Low success rate"

Did I just hear you right? So being able to get rid of 30 articles myself is equivalent to low success rate? Are you kidding me? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

You're proving everyone's point there -- bragging that you've "been able to get rid of" articles. That's the problem. You are fixated on destruction, belligerence, and hostility instead of collaboration, cooperation, and building an encyclopedia. That mindset has caused a lot of problems. (And by the way, in terms of "success rate": When at least half of your nominations don't end up getting deleted, that means you are nominating far far too many articles, far too easily and far too quickly.) Softlavender (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes it is. As comparison I have nominated nearly 200 articles and have a miss rate (either a keep outcome or withdrawing a nomination because people found sources I could not) of about 10% [60]. That, in my opinion, is right on the cusp of acceptability for a regular nominator and a 15% miss rate would indicate a need to reevaluate how one assesses an article for nomination. You have a miss rate of over 42% and a success rate of under 50% [61]. To me that says you do not have an adequate understanding of WP:DEL and WP:N, that you do not do a WP:BEFORE or both. An AfD takes considerable time to process and regularly making bad nominations is disruptive because of that. Before you nominate an article for AfD you should spend some effort to see if it can be saved or at least whether there are sources out there that would allow someone else to save it. Hell, just taking the time to run it through {{find sources}} will screen out many articles that are poor but should not be nominated.

Even if you are a hard core deletionist the goal is not to see how many articles you can delete but rather to identify articles which, be they non-notable, spam or whatever, do not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and nominate them while not nominating articles which do. Jbh^Talk 14:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not helpful to make a brag list of AFD's that ended up being deleted. Also it would be more helpful to learn how to use the delsort tools so that AFD's are properly categorized and Wikiprojects properly informed, as well as how to properly close a withdraw from nomination, as not following that process has caused a lot of extra work on us other editors. Also, give articles some notability tags first so people can react to that and work on them. Same with no/poor sources and cleanup-biography tags. Place those first. Let them sit for a while, and those that haven't been addressed in any timely manner (like over a year with no efforts) are more likely to get better consideration at AFD time. You can still AFD the egregious non-notables. I also agree find sources should be used a lot more as part of WP:BEFORE as well as looking at the JA wikipedia articles to see if it can be potentially transferred over if those are sourced better. Also add find sources and search under the Japanese names. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

What bothers me Angus is that Prince does not appear to be a new user [62]. While he only became confirmed in 2016 I see edits going back to 2012. [63] It is just hard to believe in all that time that he hasn't learned basic wiki etiquette. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Possible topic ban from nominating articles for deletion?

I absolutely hate saying this but after months of communicating with the user and despite threads of discussion over at WT:ANIME involving virtually every active member of the project, and despite occassional promises of reform, Sk8erPrince's behavior has not changed at all. The fact that he considers AfD as some kind of battleground or war where having more articles deleted is seen as a victory is contrary to Wikipedia culture. Despite our best efforts, he has simply not changed this mentality and has even reacted strongly against even good-faith attempts at reform. Having been a Wikipedia editor for more than eight years, most of which have (in addition to working on anime and manga-related articles) mostly involved new page patrolling and vandalism reversion, I understand that the deletion process is a complicated one that can take months or even years to fully comprehend, but his mentality is not appropriate at this time.

I hate that it has come to this, but I am proposing at least a temporary topic ban or restriction of some kind for Sk8erPrince for nominating articles for deletion. Reading the above discussion and having been involved in the previous discussions, I am aware that such a restriction has risks and that rather than discouraging him it might only make him feel that he is being discriminated against by the larger Wikipedia community. However, my feeling (which I have held for several months) is that such an action is ultimately necessary for the greater good of the encyclopedia. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I want to see if Prince can work with others to build an encyclopedia. There are hard core deletion editors out there on Wikipedia, but this case crosses the line into vindictiveness. Prince's attitude during this ANI discussion has also been of issue with the "I could really care less" attitude. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment @Narutolovehinata5: A "topic ban or restriction of some kind for Sk8erPrince for nominating articles for deletion" is not an enforceable sanction. If there is to be a sanction it should be either something like a) a ban on nominating any articles for deletion excepting attack pages and blatant vandalism. Appealable after 6 months or b) a ban on nominating articles for WP:AFD. Appealable after 6 months. Jbh^Talk 15:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Last edited: 16:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: I was vague about the possible kind of restriction because I was thinking exactly what kind of ban/restriction to be enforced would be discussed in this discussion. But your proposal seems reasonable, although what I had in mind is quite similar to yours (a temporary ban on nominating articles for deletion except for blatant cases). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Before people get too far into the support/oppose process I would suggest that you amend your proposal to include wording like in a or b above or something else specific which you think is appropriate. Based on the discussion and their nomination stats I would probably propose b if I were proposing something but you may have more experience with the editor which would lead you believe a broader restriction is needed.

In any case the proposed restriction needs to be spelled out clearly enough that people know what they are !voting for and so the closing admin knows what to implement. Jbh^Talk 22:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose- I have to agree with JbH here. A "restriction of some kind" is far too vague to be enforcable. What makes this even more irksome is that the user in question has been savagely attacked for following the rules as they're written (see recent business about NPASR) and now we're going to impose an extremely hand-wavey one? Nope. Reyk _YO! 15:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support until he's shown competence in the steps I've outlined above: tag notability/sources/cleanup-biography and assume good faith on editors, doing WP:BEFORE, and filing AFDs properly with a delsort, he should only AFD the egregious ones. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support: I was involved with a highly similar situation a few years back where we were dealing with a user who was simply ignoring policies and would not reply or even comment on their user talk page when approached by others to get them to comply. They weren't being disruptive, by the technical definition, they were simply operating by their own rules and then ignoring anyone who asked them to obey the rules, or least the etiquette, of this site. Such users can be extremely frustrating to deal with and usually need a bucket of cold water to knock them into seeing that their behavior needs to change. -O.R.^Comms 21:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from PROD, SPEEDY, and AFD. The editor just doesn't get it, and as is very clear on this ANI, still doesn't get it. Let's see if he can edit productively and collaboratively outside of those parameters. Softlavender (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, keep lying yourself and deny the facts all ya want, then. We can do this all day. I have been doing other sorts of editing besides AFDing, and that's a fact. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from PROD, SPEEDY, and AFD Though I'm now at the point I think a long-term block is a better choice, this is a good first step. The CIVIL violations found above (the struck text) combined with the text that he's just removed rather than struck make me believe this editor is a net negative. Hobit (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from PROD, SPEEDY, and AFD I also agree with Hobit that a long term block may be more appropriate. Based on the belligerence expressed by the editor throughout this ANI and the continuing "you can't make me do nothin'" attitude I expect we may very well be back here shortly discussing a long or indefinite block. I hope Sk8erPrince proves me wrong on this but right now they are following the common path to indef as if they were on rails. Jbh^Talk 20:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

After Jbhunley's comments

Update: Per Jbhunley's comments above, I am proposing specifically: 1. that Sk8erPrince is topic-banned from nominating any article for speedy deletion, PROD, or AfD for a period of one year, except for articles which constitute patent nonsense, vandalism, attack pages, and copyright infringing material. This ban cannot be appealed until after the sixth month; 2. that Sk8erPrince is to be mentored by one or more users regarding Wikipedia policies, guidelines and ettiqute, with the understanding that any unconstructive behavior could result in a block; while I understand that mentorship with these cases has a poor track record, it may be worth trying in this case.

The two proposals are to be voted on separately.

• Support for 1; weak support for 2 as proposer. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Why not just combine this with the section above? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Request to close

There are, I think, enough support/oppose opinions on the edit summary proposal for an uninvolved admin to determine consensus. If this continues much longer Sk8erPrince is, in my opinion, likely to talk themself into a self-inflicted indef with the battleground attitude so many editors have commented on. Maybe we will end up here again but we do a disservice to this editor by not closing this one way or the other, giving them time to take onboard the comments given here and hopefully allowing them to adjust their attitude without an open ended ANI hanging over them. Jbh^Talk 17:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this particular matter is essentially closed. For whatever reason they have now decided to use edit summaries and indeed this can be seen through recent edits. I still think Twinkle would make things easier but that is for them to decide to use or not. Any other issues not related to this matter should be handled separately, clearly it is not productive to deal with them together.SephyTheThird (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem I have is that it appears he isn't taking any of this seriously and it is all some kind of a game. With things like "No, you didn't force me into submission", and "your so called restriction isn't going to affect me one bit". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, I tend to agree but really, what will continuing this accomplish? I think there is a consensus to require he make use of edit summaries when nominating for deletion. Personally I do not think he should be doing deletion noms, at least AfDs, but that has not really gotten, and is not likely to get this late in the thread, much input from uninvolved editors. The attitude will either resolve itself once the pressure is off from this long ANI or it will not. If it does not then an ANI, with evidence of how his attitude is a continuous issue, can be opened and sanctions examined. Right now I do not think there is really enough to call for a NOTHERE some such block but if this continues I can see them truely loosing their composure and getting blocked for it to no real purpose since the issue this ANI was opened for can be addressed now. Jbh^Talk 17:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I just want to add this diff here: [64] one editor had asked him to use edit summaries. This wasn't enough, it took 20 something editors here before the message finally went through. I want this closed as well but not if nothing is learned from it or else this was a huge waste of all our time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I just figured that I start using edit summaries by seeing the benefits in using them before y'all can force me into doing something I don't wanna do. I have this ability that many of you don't have - switching perspectives and stances to suit whichever situation or environment I'm thrown in. I don't suppose you have a problem with that? For doing the right thing? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

If you're asking if he's learned how to properly AFD, no he hasn't: [65] [66] and [[67] which he did this morning, still required a second editor to delsort it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Delsorting is not required when you AfD. It is good to do but failing to do it is not disruptive. I have no opinion on the noms themselves since I do not know the standards for the topic. From what I see in the articles they do not seem to have enough independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG and I do not know if the roles pass WP:NACTOR so based on a very superficial look and no web searches, that these are not inappropriate nominations. Jbh^Talk 17:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

But the AFD nomination itself isn't even put in the most basic of categories like people or actors/filmmakers, causing a second editor or a bot to have to guess. I agree he's picking more egregious ones now, but a lot of the previous ones in the past month that generated this complaint in the first place were not well thought out. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC).

I join in asking that this thread be closed. All the points to be made have been made. The editor has started to use edit summaries for deletion noms, albeit minimally and grudgingly. Either he will take onboard the various other suggestions that have been made, or he won't—I hope he will—but repeating them any further isn't going to help. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Nah, you have the wrong idea. I'm not using edit summaries grudgingly. I'm doing them out of my own free will to benefit myself and my AFDs. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

There also seems to be an emerging consensus for a topic ban but will leave that up to the closing admin. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Brad, the editor's continued belligerence, battleground mentality, and obsession with deletion are still major problems. There are proposals now running to address those issues, so it would be premature to close this ANI at this time. Softlavender (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC).

• Support closing of this AN/I. At this point we're traversing across the line of punitives. The last three AfDs have demonstrated competence in that they are appropriate nominations. I dont think there is now a valid reason to continue pushing for sanctions. If there are new or further problems than I could support a TBAN. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, I submit that an editor who makes the following comments on this thread (in chronological order) is a highly uncooperative editor, and that that is a valid reason to continue to discuss possible further sanctions:

• I see, so this how it is... basically, you want me to start using edit summaries just to make it easier for you, for your own personal convenience. ... Yeah, no. Overturned. I have no obligation to make life easy for you.
• Well, we're not gonna continue this discussion. The end. Stop bothering me about it. It's my choice whether or not I want to use edit summaries, and honestly, if I see one more person nag me about it again, I'm reporting y'all as harassment.
• You could try and encourage me to use them, but I could refuse on the grounds that it's compulsory. So what I'm seeing here is y'all ganging up on me to force me to comply on something that isn't compulsory? That's WP:THREAT right there. That honestly makes me even more inclined to not comply, more so than before, wherein I simply thought adding an edit summary is such a hassle.
• No, you didn't force me into submission; I myself have now seen the relevance in using edit summaries, and will use them appropriately, and when needed. If I'm willing to do it with my own free will, your so called restriction isn't going to affect me one bit
• I'm not doing it to please the community. I'm doing it because I see the necessity in doing so, so that my AFDs could progress faster. But none of you managed to forced me into submission; try to keep that in mind.
• I contest to your claim that I was "acquiesced" to the proposal. So you're saying y'all forced to submit? Blatant BS. Nobody could force me to do anything - not now, not ever. I'm doing it out of my own free will. Try to get that through your thick skull.
• Is it really so hard for you to understand that I merely failed to see how it could benefit me?
• repeated here: [68]
• Bite me then, Canadian. .... I'm not doing it to please anyone. Never had, never will.
• y'all can['t] force me into doing something I don't wanna do.
• Ok, keep lying yourself and deny the facts all ya want, then. We can do this all day.

-- Softlavender (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender I understand exactly where you're coming from, and I myself am extending my good faith "to within a whisker of absurdity". I think that Sk8ers most recent edit to this page - striking all of their comments and backing off from the discussion - and their respectful response to my comment on their talk page are encouraging signs that they want to just let this go and move on. As I've said before, if disruption continues from here on out - act accordingly, but, let's give them a chance. They want to do AfD, fine no problem. They're finally willing to use edit summaries, good. They appear to be vetting their noms more thoroughly, excellent. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You missed where they're canvassing another admin to close this thread, here. Personally, I wouldn't be averse to this discussion being closed with no action taken. As Newyorkbrad has said above, the point of this thread was to get them to use edit summaries and the threat of a restriction seems to have done the trick. Placing that restriction on them now would be punitive. They have an attitude problem, that much is clear, but any number of editors have varying degrees of abrasiveness in their day to day interactions but their productivity and contributions generally outweigh their character traits. Blackmane (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose close. There is clearly an issue. They have a battleground mentality and they have an attitude problem as pointed by Blackmane. "Bite me then Canadian."??!!! How is this in any way appropriate? I'm nearing 18 years in age, and I don't act this way. Their constant arrogant and snarky comments have gotten me up here. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 14:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  @Callmemirela: It is clear he is trying to get under your skin, I would go with WP:DENY for those types of comments. Stay above the fray =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  @Knowledgekid87: I should have done that earlier, but oh well. Since my last reply to them, I have had no interest in communicating with them anymore. Thanks for the advice. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 14:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Semi-support close - I don't know what keeping this open much longer will do so at this point it might be for the best to wait and see. I saw that Prince struck his edits here but he has to know that he has angered a lot of editors. This is not good for the encyclopedia, and it goes against our collaborative goals. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Hobit below, keep the T-ban discussion open. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support I'd prefer the TBAN thing go a bit longer, but frankly it's a bit of a mess and so I'm fine with the whole thing closing if need be. Hobit (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Uncivil discourse by User:Elvey

When asked for sources here they respond Find someone else to harass, please. I've written a comment on the talk page. Which I don't need to quote sources to do. And you have no business demanding. Please go away. (Ditto? Willful blindness†)

When I commented "What you added does not belong in the section on "causes" and the HuffPo is not a very good source." the responded "You are being rude. "[69]

Claiming harassment were their is none IMO is not appropriate. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I have asked James to be civil - to answer several reasonable questions, but he thrice avoids answering them - three bright line violations of the WP:CIVIL policy. Instead he mines my edits for dirt, misquotes me, and brings it here to ANI. And yet I'm the one with the battleground mentality? Why the incivility, folks?

The fact is, I had already provided a source which even editor who made the comment I was responding to (Ronz) later said is high quality. From http://www.berkeleywellness.com/about-us:

Berkeley Wellness, in collaboration with the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health, is the leading online resource for evidence-based wellness information.

We rely on the expertise of top researchers at the University of California, as well as other physicians and scientists from around the world, to translate leading-edge research into practical advice for daily living.

The editors and editorial board of both the Wellness Letter and Berkeley Wellness review the latest research to clarify the often conflicting and superficial health information presented by the popular media. We don't promote faddish diets or other anecdote-based regimens. Nor do we repeat conventional medical advice from mainstream health organizations or pharmaceutical companies.

Again, I had already provided a source. I had started a section on a talk page specifically to engage collaboratively with other editors - to discuss a section that the subsequent discussion shows there is consensus for. I started a subsection, Talk:Dean_Ornish#What_to_call_it. Ronz often asks for sources. That's fine, if terse, when content is proposed and none has been offered or is evident as in that case. But that was not the case here. While Ronz should have noticed the source, I think I did overreact, and apologize. Given tenseness due to James' recent incivility, the election, etc, I ask for compassion and fairness. --Elvey^(t•c) 00:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I was going to say, mildly uncivil, then I scrolled up and saw this reply to Alexbrn's quite reasonable request: "You ignored my question‡, again. That is not being wp:civil. Well, at least we see in your comments consistent... willful ignorance, chronic incivility, and trolling. Obviously you're not here to build an encylopedia. I will thus ignore you. Go away, please. --Elvey(t•c) 08:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)". Apart from the blatant unjustified personal attacks, they did not seem to actually understand what Alexbrn asked for, despite a further explanation. Looks like a competance issue coupled with a basically uncivil approach to other people. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Likewise, I'd already provided sources, but Alexbrn is doing the same thing as Ronz: acting as if I haven't, and like James, acting as if WP:CIVIL doesn't apply to them. They violate WP:CIVIL, which states in part, "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, ... to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions." I wonder how much, uh, off-wiki communication there is among the crowd of editors who always seem to show up with the same unverifiable personal attacks/to defend each other. --Elvey^(t•c) 00:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Just because you do not like the answers you get is not a violation of WP:CIVIL which from going back over your contribution history over the years appears to be your 'go to' method of disregarding editors you are in conflict with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Please try not to beat up your spouse - Unless they are willing to commit to engaging in a civil manner, their editing privilidges may need to be removed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd already further explained and removed the comment and resolved the dispute before I ever even saw a notification of this thread. --Elvey^(t•c) 00:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Only in death, could you please adjust the quotation? Your message and the quote don't match up. Thanks. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 13:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Que? They do for me. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Lo siento. It didn't look like it to me. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 13:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah I think I know what you mean, no I wasnt linking to the specific section/comment position on the page, just the diff (as the comment can be seen at the top on the right). Regards, Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Of note: Elvey was community banned for 3 months beginning in February of this year for "promoting a battleground mentality" and for being "disruptive and needlessly aggressive". See discussion. Also note that Elvey has been blocked as far back as 2007 for creating a hostile editing environment, and blocked three other times for disruptive editing/personal attacks. See block log. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• FWIW, user also apparently has an unhelpful penchant for leaving lengthy custom warning templates: [70], [71]. TimothyJosephWood 17:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You violated BLP, so I warned you. I take copyright violations seriously. Snooganssnoogans repeatedly failed to, and had violated copyright. So a warning was warranted. You disagree. Why exactly? --Elvey^(t•c) 00:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

No one violated BLP. This was well resolved on the article talk, and amounted to a slight change of wording to be more in line with the source. The COPYVIO issue, while legitimate, was also well resolved on talk, and done so nearly a week prior to your leaving literally a page long warning for Snoogans. Neither was remotely necessary. TimothyJosephWood 01:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• There has also been a lot of recent stuff at WP:AE. I can confirm from my own personal experiences all of the concerns being expressed here: example. I think we may be at the point where a site-ban may be necessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I would urge administrators to enforce the section of WP:CIVIL which states, "Editors are expected ... to be responsive to good-faith questions," or remove it (or explain if I'm misunderstanding it). Either I'm mistaken or several of the diffs above show (me pointing out cases of) it being violated, frequently. It's not an essay or guideline. It's a core policy and the violations are blatant. Tryptofish has been trying to get me site-banned for ages, has their own problems, and is very closely associated with a site-banned sockpuppeteer who receives special treatment since retiring and a user who (again, violating WP:CIVIL) refused to answer when I asked him, "...Do you have any alternative accounts?" --Elvey^(t•c) 00:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and I smell bad, too.

Admins looking here should know that we are really dealing with much more than what Doc James called "uncivil discourse", although there is certainly plenty of that, too. There is a profound competence issue here (or could it somehow be very intense trolling?). What you see at the link I gave, to my talk page archive, as well as here in this ANI discussion, is Elvey consistently failing to have the slightest clue about why other editors have concerns about his editing, and then turning around and playing the victim, while accusing the other editors of pretty much what they said about him. If one looks at the details, Elvey's accusations always end up being meritless, to the point of being nonsensical. It's getting to be a time drain for the rest of us, and as I said above, we have gotten into site-ban territory. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Since Elvey just referred to me there, I'll make a statement. First, the subject matter here is content about industry corruption of medicine, which is a topic where Elvey kind of goes off the rails here in WP, and is directly related to their community-imposed extended block. The extended block was part of what triggered a reversal of Elvey's controversial/POINTy close on an RfC to change MEDRS.

Elvey's initial edit that this whole thing developed over, was on Oct 2, here, made to the Causes section of the Obesity article (a section for biomedical information). Their edit was about about the sugar industry paying for science that hid the cardiovascular damage that sugar does, and trying to turn attention away from contribution of sugar and diet to obesity through an academic organization called GEBN that solely emphasizes people exercising more.

On Oct 2, Doc James used the MEDRS-source from Elvey's edit elsewhere in the article in this dif, and after watching Elvey batter the talk page, on Oct 13 I implemented content about industry corruption with regard to obesity research based on Elvey's edit but with other refs in this dif in the "Society and culture" section, and added content to coronary heart disease article based on refs Elvey had brought in this dif.

I'll ask anybody to review what unfolded on the Talk page starting Oct 2 in this section: Talk:Obesity#More_diet_than_exercise.3F, with Elvey's battery/BLUDGEONing, with special mind to the following diffs: diff (with the one-word edit summary "adjusted" is inappropriate dismissive spraying of liquid. Would you be willing to give a shot at being more collaborative, Doc ?), diff (You say the refs are poor. Have you read them? Bloomberg? PBS? What are you on? AGAIN: I request that you stop removing content...), diff, and dif, with this weirdly repeated question throughout: The issue is clearly bigger than GEBN, as the disputed content shows-it's just the tip of the iceberg. Agreed?

Just today Elvey posted this proposal on Talk saying there was nothing about sugary drinks in the article, to which I responded here, providing the quote of the existing content covering that quite clearly.

There is a WP:CIR, bludgeoning thing going on here. Off the rails again with regard to industry corruption of medicine. Jytdog (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, so that's why you kept refusing to answer the question. You were setting a trap. Your ability to game the system is impressive. Well played, sir, well played. I mean getting that tban imposed and then claiming you've connected adding information about health effects of sugar to the article on Obesity and a tban on COI - really, masterful gamesmanship. You win. I retire. --Elvey^(t•c) 11:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

At the ANI that led to their TBAN and the ANI that led to the community imposed extended block, Elvey responded by vanishing for a while - described here at the last ANI. Will probably be true to form again this time. Jytdog (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Reliable Sources/Forum shopping

All three sources appear to be WP:MEDRS violations. There are reviews on the causes. QuackGuru (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru:The sources (PBS and Bloomberg News) are only backing statements about patients' beliefs, so they can't be violating MEDRS. Also, you're forum shopping: You are rehashing a discussion on the talk page, where I said:

content that complies with WP:MEDINDY/BIOMEDICAL, which, I remind you, states :"What is not biomedical information?": "Statements about patients' beliefs regarding a disease or treatment" "why people choose or reject a particular treatment" "information about disease awareness campaigns", and is very reliably sourced. So follow up on the article talk page, not here, please! --Elvey^(t•c) 01:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

What you added appears to be about medical content not patients' beliefs. The causes section is for medical content, anyhow. I'm note sure what you mean by "forum shopping". Since you replied here then I will reply here to keep the discussion together. QuackGuru (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Elvey, what is this about? QuackGuru (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposals

I would like to propose a WP:1RR for a year and a ban on comments on other editors motives broadly construed for User:Elvey. Others thoughts? User Elvey is also to be restricted to one account. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Doc, you are far too generous. We have an editor who has created numerous socks specifically to disrupt this Encyclopedia, been tbanned from COI and SPI, including numerous violations of those bans, and has been block numerous times for creating a contentious environment, including a recent 3 month break, for us, from their behavior. I think, at this point, enough is enough. We need to have a full on site ban. How much should the community have to endure out of this person?--Adam in MO Talk 03:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with AdaminMO. I'm tired of seeing his name at ANI and the complete lack of rehabilitation despite all of the previous discussions and sanctions. I think it's time for a site-ban, or at least an indef block. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to more restrictive measures if people feel this would not be enough. They have stated here that they are retired [72].Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

As is noted up above, Elvey's MO when faced with a sanction or Tban is to vanish for a while, so this may be more of the same (plus he hasn't posted any retired template on his account), so better to make it official I think. Softlavender (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

As per other editors, I believe the claim of retirement is meaningless, and I also believe that we have reached the point where enough is enough. I'm therefore making the following proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I just had a look through some of the diffs as someone not in any way involved in this dispute. Anyway the claim seems to be that he is being paid to edit from the University of California, San Francisco, a center of medical health care research. How is that at all credible? Surely universities don't pay their researchers to edit wikipedia. I don't see how it is a COI at all. It is also just an allegation. Nobody provided any concrete evidence at all that he is paid to edit wikipedia.

It seems to me well plausible that he is what he says he is, a retirement age medical chemist still working at his subject. There are many such. Many academics continue to work at their subject until they die well beyond retirement age. So the allegation of a COI seems far fetched to me, and I noticed that editors were divided in their opinion of whether it was a topic ban violation.

I can't see any discussion of him using socks, may have missed it but to edit from a university ip address doesn't make you a sock. And he has been a long term editor for over a decade.

The original complaint here was about uncivil discourse, and it doesn't seem right to me to relitigate past actions that have already been closed on the basis of uncivil discourse. The actual material mentioned here doesn't merit any kind of a ban I think, just a warning.

The discourse mentioned anyway in the statement of this case doesn't even seem particularly uncivil as things go here in wikipedia or indeed elsewhere too [73]. After all when someone spends a lot of time on wikipedia, it is natural for tempers to fray a bit at times. The only difference is that here every single word you say gets recorded for all time for posterity. I think we all need to develop a sense of perspective here and bit of tolerance not to jump on top of people whenever they show the slightest signs of irritation. Even if irritated frequently - it was only talk page activity and he got irritated because another editor asked him to provide a cite for something he said on a talk page. He is quite right that we don't have to provide cites for things we say on talk pages, only when added to the article. The way I read that encounter is that he knew that what he said was true, but to find the cites would involve him doing some minutes or hours of research to prove it to the other editor which he would of course do before adding to an article, but didn't feel he was required to do so on a talk page. It is understandable irritation in such a situation. I've seen far worse both on wikipedia and off wikipedia. I think that the most that's needed is a caution about uncivil behaviour. A site ban is way over excessive for uncivil behaviour in the form of momentary irritation during talk page discussions. If there is some other matter I think it needs to be brought up separately.

My main objection is that this seems to be an attempt to re-open discussions and decisions that have already been closed, and enforce stronger sanctions than were previously imposed, with nothing new added to them, all on the basis of a moment of temper on a talk page about an unrelated matter. Robert Walker (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Anyway the claim seems to be that he is being paid to edit from the University of California, San Francisco,...

Where would that be? On the Dean Ornish talk page, there's no mention I see of any such COI claim, nor even of UCSF itself -- unless you're confusing UCSF with UC Berkeley, which is an entirely separate institution with entirely different mission. And no mention of COI there, either.

So the allegation of a COI seems far fetched to me...

Unless there's an actual allegation of COI, this is, at best, irrelevant.

I can't see any discussion of him using socks...

Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Elvey and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Elvey/Archive. It took me twenty seconds, but then, I'm a slow typist.

My main objection is that this seems to be an attempt to re-open discussions and decisions that have already been closed..

You appear to have confused Wikipedia and its decisions with the workings of a court of law. "Double jeopardy" is not a rule here; "past behavior being repeated", however, is a standard guideline.

A little familiarization with things would be a good start before commenting. --Calton | Talk 06:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay thanks, those are only suspected sock puppets though. It is easy to get suspected sock puppets with rotating ip addresses. Yes past behaviour repeated - but he is not repeating past behaviour, unless you are saying it is a site ban offence to get irritated on a talk page. Sorry I have just looked again at the archives, I misread what they said about COI. Pages of very complex discussion which I don't have the time to read through. It seems that the topic ban was to prevent him from engaging in COI claims against other editors rather than a COI allegation against himself. I got it back to front. What I thought was a COI allegation against him was rather a COI allegation by him against another editor [74]. But whatever the merits or otherwise, a moment of irritation or several moments of irritation on a talk page is not a reason to re-open investigation of COI or sock puppets surely or to propose a site ban. For that reason I have registered a strong oppose since that seems to be the sole reason given for re-opening the case and proposing a site ban. Robert Walker (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay thanks, those are only suspected sock puppets though...

From "Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Elvey: "This category lists confirmed sock puppets of: Elvey"

and, from "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Elvey/Archive:

...so I stopped reading the rest of your contrarianism. If someone can't be bothered to read a very short text or if obviously misrepresent what's there, there's really no point. --Calton | Talk 13:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Well there is something strange going on there. How are these edits sock puppetry? [75] and [76] - the only two edits of BlackAsSoot (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) to take one example from that list. And even "confirmed sock puppets" are not necessarily really sock puppets. With rotating ip addresses and many people who share addresses, then sock puppet investigation is prone to errors. Robert Walker (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Unless a user is taking extraordinary lengths to conceal their tracks, CheckUsers are able to link accounts to one another. CheckUser is not just a user privilege, it's also a tool that grants CheckUser admins the technical ability to look beyond just the behavioural, but also the underlying IP of the accounts in question. Blackmane (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Your attempts to rewrite reality notwithstanding, your claims about there being "only suspected sock puppets" is flatly, objectively false. Which speaks to either extraordinary carelessness regarding basic facts or an attempt to mislead, either of which gives me a reason to question your judgement here. I could throw in your attempt (back when you said you saw no mention of sockpuppetry) at a fact-free rationalization of how the sockpuppetry you didn't see could be excused. --Calton | Talk 01:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed site ban

• I propose that Elvey be indefinitely site-banned by the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support This is a long time coming. --Adam in MO Talk 03:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support though sadly, his disruption extends to Meta and won't be affected by a site ban here. This user is unable to collaborate. --Rschen7754 03:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support per the above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I feel that Elvey has been given more than enough rope over a long period of time. Regardless of whether his input or substantive opinions have or had any merit, his inability to collaborate or be civil or act civilly is too much of a continued liability, and per WP:CIR he must be shown the door. Softlavender (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose This time around all he has been accused of is of getting irritated with another user in a talk page discussion. We need a sense of perspective here. He has not done anything that would lead to reopening of sock investigation (only suspected socks) or investigation of his tendency to engage in COI allegations against other editors. Getting irritated is not a site ban offence. I am not sure it even needs a caution, but if it does, that is all that is needed in my view (I say a bit more about this above). Robert Walker (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• Robert Walker, I've read your comments above, and I'd like to reply. I think that it's a good thing to make sure that we are not acting rashly, so thank you for that. However, I believe that you misunderstand the reasons behind this proposal. It's not about double-jeopardy, nor is it primarily about rehashing anything about socking or COI, or about simple annoyance. It's about a long history of refusing to work with consensus in any way that even approaches good faith or at least comprehension, and of creating huge time drains for the rest of the community. (By the way, I see from your talk page that you have had a history with some of the editors here, so you did not really come here as a totally uninvolved editor, as you said above.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• Okay - if that is the reason I think that needs to be made clear. I think myself that the way ANI is often run at present is very confusing. People come here posting a complaint about one thing, and it then evolves to a completely different issue and along the way other allegations are made which are not countered. Then you get votes in the middle of that. I think it is quite possible that some of those who voted to support the site ban are under the impression that the ban was proposed to deal with issues of sock puppetry and COI rather than because of time drains. I don't think myself that time drains are sufficient reason for a site ban. After all time drains like that can as often be due to the accusing editors as the ones brought here. In particular I think to bring an editor here for being momentarily angry on a talk page is a time drain, we should have a sense of perspective and not bring every moment of anger to ANI. Yes you are right, I have now discovered that I had a previous interaction with one of the editors who previously also interacted with @Elvey: but they are not involved in the present discussion as yet, and they are not the reason I commented here. It was not this topic or in any way connected with it. I found this discussion by reading the ANI board. I think ANI can benefit from more comments from uninvolved editors and so I picked a couple of cases for today where I have no connection with the editor or any of the editors bringing the case and commented on them. I plan to do this occasionally as a way to help have more uninvolved editors bring their eyes to the disputes and would encourage others to do the same - I think that may help a lot. Robert Walker (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

This proposal has absolutely nothing to do with "time drains". How anyone could characterize it as that is genuinely beyond me. Softlavender (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender I assume it's based on - in part - the response from the actual proposer; and of creating huge time drains Mr rnddude (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, I was speaking in terms of the same thing as when you said earlier: "I'm tired of seeing his name at ANI and the complete lack of rehabilitation despite all of the previous discussions and sanctions." --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well the fact that that's the sole way that Robert Walker is characterizing it proves that he knows nothing about the situation [77] and should bow out of the discussion. Cluttering up ANI with wall-of-text uninformed opinions is a huge waste of everyone's time -- a time drain if there ever was one. Softlavender (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, got it, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Part of my justification for supporting is I do not see User:Elvey here reassuring us that his past behavior will stop. Or even acknowledging the concerns people are raising. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, @Mr rnddude: thanks, I was just taking up @Tryptofish: there when they said: "It's not about double-jeopardy, nor is it primarily about rehashing anything about socking or COI, or about simple annoyance. It's about a long history of refusing to work with consensus in any way that even approaches good faith or at least comprehension, and of creating huge time drains for the rest of the community." - I was saying if that is what it is about, then strike COI and socking from the list of accusations before voting, as there has been nothing new since the last investigation. I think this should be started anew as a new ANI case if you think there is something to address. As it is now then people are voting here based on COI and sock allegations which are past closed cases here, and doing that on the basis of a user who got irritated on a talk page as the only new evidence brought to the case as a reason for a full site ban. This is not right. And as I said, time drains go both ways. The very act of bringing this user back to ANI just because they showed moments of irritation on a talk page is a time drain. If time drains should be disciplined then you need to look at the editors who bring trivial cases to ANI and discipline those if anything. Only after this habit of bringing trivial cases here then adding a string of allegations is dealt with, then we can see which editors are left that are brought here frequently with non trivial cases. You are trying to convince me to change my strong oppose vote, but sorry no you haven't convinced me at all. It remains as "strong oppose" Robert Walker (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: Unbolded double !vote. Softlavender (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support. As others have mentioned, Elvey has already been given tons of rope, but their behavior has not improved. The history of ANI's for Elvey detailed above show a pretty robust timesink at articles and at ANI with continued battleground behavior, WP:POINTY editing, edit warring, hounding, etc. It's fair to say we're long past the end of the rope here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I have no tolerance for sockpuppetry, certainly not on the part of a long-time editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon: do look at the sockpuppet claims - there is something very strange about them. Several of them have only two edits and hard to see how they can really be sock puppets. For instance these: [78] and [79] - are the only two edits of BlackAsSoot (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). How is that sock puppetry? Also note that they are old stale claims from cases long closed if I understand right. Those are edits one from 2013 and one from 2012. The only new evidence here is of moments of anger on a talk page, nothing to do with sock puppetry. Indeed I don't understand why it was reason to bring the user to ANI at all. Robert Walker (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Reply - I fail to see what is strange about the sockpuppet evidence. I do see that the sockpuppetry occurred in 2013, but I also see that the Checkuser results were in 2013 with fresh data. It is true that I don't see a recent case of sockpuppetry, but I do see a continuing case of disruptive editing. I have filed sockpuppet investigations on the basis of only a very small number of edits. Sockpuppetry is not permitted, and is evidence of contempt for the rules of Wikipedia. Disruptive editing in 2016 is one thing. Sockpuppetry in 213 is another thing. The combination is the combination. So, no, I don't see anything strange about the sockpuppet evidence, only something improper, the sockpuppetry and the disruption. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Robert Walker, evidently you do not know how WP:CHECKUSER works; these are all confirmed and definite sockpuppets -- there is no guesswork about it. As I mentioned above, your uninformed opinions cluttering up this ANI are not helpful, and are a waste of time bordering on disruptive editing. Softlavender (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Regretful support, which I may likely change to an oppose if the user could come back and explain what the problem is and how they will avoid it in the future. Unfortunately that seems unlikely. TimothyJosephWood 03:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Based on what I see this user either just doesn't get it, or gets it but isn't doing anything to fix the problems. I don't know if the community would be open to parole or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Indefinite ban is called for due to continued battleground behavior, WP:POINTY conduct, edit warring, hounding of editors, etc. Time to show this user the door. Neutrality^talk 02:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I think this is overdue. Elvey has been persistently disruptive and the length of time this has been ongoing indicates that behavior which is inconsistent with a collaborative editing environment is unlikely to change. Deli nk (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support - This editor's persistent battleground behavior and inability to work with others far outweighs any positive contributions he has made to this project. He's been given many chances to reform. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and BLP accusations with United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016

• United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article has had several persistent issues over the summer and continuing into this fall. On July 15th, 2016 an IP user appeared who added information about Kurt Evans to the article. ALPolitico, a highly experienced editor with political posts, cleaned up the content and made it conform more to the general style of these political encyclopedia entries. There was a lot of reverting back and forth between the various IP addresses (who identified themselves later as Kurt Evans) and ALPolitico from July 28th to August 5th. ALPolitico made another larger modification on August 11th, removing unnecessary information and adding information about Kurt Evans being a perennial candidate. The IP user reverted ALPoliticos edits stating he removed the information for an "Inadequate reason". The prior edit summary was "Cleanup; what he teaches doesn't matter; with that many previous bids, he is a perennial candidate.", which seems like an adequate reason for the changed information to me.

In Mid-August 2016 this article came to my attention during routine vandalism monitoring. I saw the large back and forth reverts going on and added the page to my watchlist. On that same day, Ymblanter semi-protected the page temporarily, which stopped the disruptive activity from the IP user directly editing the article. The IP user requested assistance at the talk page, which I answered and resolved at that time. Another request for assistance was made and an exchange continued between an outside editor and then ALPolitico, which was an unproductive exchange of accusations. A third request and a fourth request were posted. I responded to the fourth request, referring the IP to WP:OTRS at this point for a fresh take from a volunteer there to assist.

Temporary Semi-Protection was added by Ymblanter again on September 25th; CambridgeBayWeather on October 18th and temporary full protection was added as of November 22nd due to the disruptive editing after I requested indefinite semi protection. It is clear that the IP user just doesn't like what the article says about him, even though ALPolitico sourced the information that was added and maintained the general style used in these types of articles. Semi-protection has not worked because the IP comes back after it expires just to restart the dispute. I strongly believe the article should be indefinitely semi-protected and the talk page should be temporarily semi-protected for a long period of time as this activity is purely disruptive at this point.

The final talk page post before this AN/I by the IP was this. The user disagrees with the consensus formed by ALPolitico and myself about the content of the article and simply wants to keep claiming we are documenting his bid unfairly. After reviewing the sources and the edits again, I do not feel we have misweighed or misrepresented the subject in question. As the user is an IP user with changing IPs, I will leave notice of this discussion on the talk page and last used IP address. Thanks. -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

This is 2002 U.S. Senate candidate Kurt Evans. In South Dakota a candidate for statewide office "qualifies" by submitting a required number of petition signatures to the secretary of state's office. To note that someone didn't "qualify" means that he or she declared as a candidate but didn't submit the required signatures. This carries the strongly negative connotation of someone who neglected to count the cost of a campaign and raised expectations he or she couldn't meet. In nearly 30 years of political activism, I don't remember hearing any other usage of the word "qualify" in this context.

That's nearly the opposite of what happened in the case at hand. I very deliberately refrained from declaring as a candidate because I understood that I couldn't be legally recognized as such unless federal district judge Karen Schreier approved the state party's motion to allow a U.S. Senate candidacy. Schreier explicitly rejected two such motions and thereby explicitly prevented anyone from becoming a Constitution Party candidate for the U.S. Senate. Judge Schreier's final August 31 ruling is explained in considerable detail in one of the sources that "ALPolitico" and "Dane2007" have repeatedly removed for no stated reason.

I never declared as a Constitution Party candidate for this office, and I was never legally recognized as such. To say that I didn't "qualify" falsely suggests that it was possible for me to do so. In reality the Constitution Party was denied ballot access when Judge Schreier rejected the state party's motions to allow a U.S. Senate candidacy, as sourced in the Dakota Free Press articles from August 18 and September 8. "ALPolitico" and "Dane2007" have both refused to explain why they're so determined to conceal this information from Wikipedia's readers, and their actions have obviously been a huge inconvenience for me.

My IP address changes automatically, but I can be called back to this (or any other) discussion by an email to the address in the first paragraph at the top of the article's "Talk" page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.252.72 (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• FWIW, this user's IP range seems to be rather active on the related article since July 2016. See here. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

This is Kurt Evans, and I freely acknowledge that each of the edits from this IP range was mine. Initially I wasn't identifying myself or posting conflict-of-interest notices because I wasn't familiar with Wikipedia protocol and didn't expect my edits to be controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.255.25 (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The Constitution Party of South Dakota nominated Kurt Evans for the U.S. Senate on July 9, 2016, as can be seen at their website here. As can be seen here, they went to court in an attempt to get him on the ballot. A candidate does not have to qualify to be on the ballot in order to be nominated by a party; see a recent example here. I had suggested that a short section on the litigation might have be worthwhile. However, the IP user claiming to be Kurt Evans repeatedly undid perfectly reasonable edits because he did not like them, and also engaged in personal attacks against me, as can be seen on the article's talk page; this IP user is likely also him. ALPolitico (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

This is Kurt Evans. As I clearly explained on the article's "Talk" page on September 25, the state party nominated me to become its candidate in the event that federal district judge Karen Schreier approved its motion to allow a U.S. Senate candidacy. Judge Schreier explicitly rejected two such motions and thereby explicitly prevented anyone from becoming a Constitution Party candidate for the U.S. Senate. The edits "ALPolitico" describes as "perfectly reasonable" were actually false, misleading and possibly defamatory, but I was wrong to retaliate with personal attacks, and I apologize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.224.26 (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing false, misleading, or defamatory in any edit I have made, in this article or others. ALPolitico (talk) 07:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

It was probably wrong to call "ALPolitico" smug, obnoxious and egomaniacal, but claims like that one are the reason. —KE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.224.26 (talk) 08:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey Kurt, hi!

I've only been skimming the report here so I don't really know the full detail of what's going on here. But, 2016? Seems a little far away from 2002. You're telling us that you tried to run this year, right? Has anyone tried to explain to you how we operate here? If something is going into one of our articles, it needs to be backed up with a source that's considered Reliable. Have a read of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source for a bit more insight. If you can find a source (or sourcess) that we class as 'reliable', please, copy and paste it/them to here, and we'll see what we can do about putting in your info, otherwise, sorry man, but you're out of luck.

Collaborate with us, please? Be our companion, not our problem. (I apologise if that comes across as rude) MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 08:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying I tried to run this year. I made myself conditionally available to the state Constitution Party, but federal district judge Karen Schreier rejected its motions to allow a U.S. Senate candidacy. These are the sources I'd placed in the article. —KE

Heidelberger, Cory (August 18, 2016). "Constitution Party Still Fighting to Place Evans and Schmidt on Ballot". Dakota Free Press. Retrieved November 22, 2016. http://dakotafreepress.com/2016/08/18/constitution-party-still-fighting-to-place-evans-and-schmidt-on-ballot/

Heidelberger, Cory (September 8, 2016). "Constitution Party Definitely Not Getting Evans and Schmidt on Ballot". Dakota Free Press. Retrieved November 22, 2016. http://dakotafreepress.com/2016/09/08/constitution-party-definitely-not-getting-evans-and-schmidt-on-ballot/

For the record, I'm not sure why SineBot didn't sign the above comment. —KE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.253.233 (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Just awake and aware of this as I got the notification. If anybody feels the protection needs changing feel free to change it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I hate to be the WP:STICK guy, but, can someone at least point out what's wrong with his sources? MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 20:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with his sources...they just don't say what he's trying to argue while citing them. "Conditionally available" is not a term mentioned in either of those articles and the Independent Political Report has the official press release proving that Evans was the candidate for the Constitution Party. This source also has it. In the case of the sources he cites, they do prove that he failed to qualify due to the order from Judge Schreier. This did not remove him as the constitution party's candidate, however, which is why it is listed this way in the section he is contesting. Proper weight has been given to all sides of this story based on the sources available. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

To second this, the sources are fine, they just don't say anything about a "conditional nomination," which isn't even a legal thing. His sources even have links leading back to the press release on the Constitution Party of South Dakota's website, which I listed above. He was nominated by the party. He appears to be upset about the failure to qualify (although he was upset about not being listed as being a teacher, as well as being listed as a perennial candidate at first--which I acknowledged one could debate, even if I still do not agree, since his bids were spread out, hence why I did not put it back in), as he feels that it makes him look bad or something like that, which his statements on this page seem to enforce ("This [the listing] carries the strongly negative connotation of someone who neglected to count the cost of a campaign and raised expectations he or she couldn't meet." "'ALPolitico' and 'Dane2007' have both refused to explain why they're so determined to conceal this information from Wikipedia's readers, and their actions have obviously been a huge inconvenience for me." "It was probably wrong to call "ALPolitico" smug, obnoxious and egomaniacal, but claims like that one [my factual statement that I have never added false, misleading, or defamatory information to any article] are the reason." et al, as well as the legal threats directed at Ymblanter and other incidents of that nature). I reverted his edits, including the sources he added, because the previous sources were also fine, while the additional sources added nothing new. I later added the court ruling, which a friend from another website had found and sent to me, as an additional source showing the failure to qualify. ALPolitico (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

This is Kurt Evans. I know very little about Wikipedia protocol, but I'm glad "ALPolitico" and "Dane2007" are finally willing to have this conversation, and I'd like to ask for the discussion to be kept open at least until I have time to respond (hopefully by Saturday). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.248.237 (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

This is Kurt Evans again. I'm not sure what "Dane2007" means when he says my sources don't say what I'm trying to say. The Dakota Free Press articles from August 18 and September 8 show that my potential candidacy was dependent on the state party's ballot-access lawsuit and that the Constitution Party was denied ballot access when its motions to allow a U.S. Senate candidacy were rejected by federal district judge Karen Schreier. That's exactly what I'm trying to say. It's true that the party's July 11 release didn't mention the fact that my potential candidacy was dependent on the lawsuit. That was misleading, and it bothered me, but I'm not sure how it's relevant when "Dane2007" admits there's nothing wrong with the Dakota Free Press sources.

"Dane 2007" seems to be simply ignoring my comments about the meaning of the word "qualify" in this context. In South Dakota a candidate for statewide office "qualifies" by submitting a required number of petition signatures to the secretary of state's office. Saying someone didn't "qualify" means that he or she declared as a candidate but didn't submit the required signatures, which is nearly the opposite of what happened in the case at hand. Saying I didn't "qualify" also falsely suggests that it was possible for me to do so.

I'm not sure what "ALPolitico" is talking about when he says I was "upset about not being listed as being a teacher." I haven't taught since before I rejoined the Constitution Party, and considering that the motions to allow my candidacy were rejected, my occupation has little if any relevance to the article, but I'm far from upset about it. I'm also not sure what "ALPolitico is talking about when he mentions "legal threats directed at Ymblanter and other incidents of that nature."

The claim by "ALPolitico" that he repeatedly removed my sources because they "added nothing new" is absurd. The information in the Dakota Free Press article from September 8, for example, couldn't possibly have been available from any previous source. His claim that "a friend from another website" sent him the link to Judge Schreier's final August 31 ruling also strikes me as highly suspicious. I'm wondering how this friend supposedly knew "ALPolitico" would be interested in the the link, as well as how the link was supposedly sent. Those documents were actually purchased and uploaded by Cory Heidelberger to serve as a sub-link for the Dakota Free Press article, which "ALPolitico" refused to properly credit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.225.8 (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Allow me to refresh your memory regarding the legal threat on Ymblanter's talk page. In any case, I maintain that the sources do not show what Kurt is trying to argue and will leave it up to the closer to determine that. I still believe the diff as listed in dispute is the most appropriate version of the information. -- Dane2007 ^talk 23:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

My friend and I often talk about unusual people and situations on the internet, including situations such as this specific one, hence how he knew I would be interested. I do not know who Cory Heidlberger is, and do not recall seeing his name mentioned in the document. Regardless, none of these sources (nor South Dakota law) say what you are claiming. ALPolitico (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, listing someone as "Failed to Qualify" when he or she was unsuccessful in qualifying for an office, especially if he or she was nominated for said office, as Kurt Evans was, is standard. It appears in dozens, if not hundreds, of articles. ALPolitico (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

This is Kurt Evans. In the conversation with "Ymblanter" from September 25, I asked, "Do I have to file a defamation lawsuit against Wikipedia?" In my next comment I wrote, "Wikipedia is spreading lies about me. Do I have to file a defamation lawsuit to get those lies corrected?" In the comment after that I wrote, "I don't know how Wikipedia works, and I need someone who does know how it works to help me."

That wouldn't have been a threat against "Ymblanter" even if had been a legal threat. It would have been a threat against Wikipedia. Above "ALPolitico" accuses me of legal "threats" (plural) "directed at Ymblanter" and "other incidents of that nature." Thanks to "Dane2007" for the link, but I'm still not sure what "ALPolitico" is talking about when he makes these accusations.

The explanation for my October 17 edit said the direct link to Judge Schreier's final August 31 ruling (added as a source by "ALPolitico") was "an uncredited sub-link from the September 8 Dakota Free Press article I'd posted as a reference before, which ['ALPolitico' had] arbitrarily removed for no stated reason." Now he's suggesting he didn't know that, which raises the question of whether he was even bothering to read the explanations for my edits before he undid them.

There's nothing wrong with saying someone didn't "qualify" when he or she was unsuccessful in qualifying for an office, but there's something very wrong with suggesting someone was unsuccessful in qualifying for an office when he or she never attempted to qualify because circumstances beyond his or her control made doing so impossible. The assertion by "ALPolitico" that none of these sources say what I'm claiming is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.248.209 (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

At this point, it would be good to mention that I had to contact Wikimedia Legal and was advised not to communicate any further with any IP's who claim they are "Kurt Evans". All communication will be referred back to Wikimedia Legal. I also used to block all such IPs on the spot for legal threats and block evasion, but since apparently the IPs are dynamic only rangeblock would make sense.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia Legal probably gave "Ymblanter" good advice considering the way he's acted. Now if they'd just tell "ALPolitico" and "Dane2007" to stop smearing me. —KE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.227.15 (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Where do we go from here? Is it reasonable to restore the article and semi-protect indefinitely to prevent future disruptive activity? -- Dane2007 ^talk 14:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that a reasonable next step would be for "Dane2007" to explain why he insists on sourcing to an August 15 Ballot Access News article that contains outdated and misleading information rather than to the Dakota Free Press article from September 8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.226.58 (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

(The preceding comment is from me. —KE) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.226.58 (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

This is Kurt Evans again. By admitting that there's nothing wrong with the Dakota Free Press sources from August 18 and September 8, "Dane2007" and "ALPolitico" have implicitly admitted that the Ballot Access News article from August 15 contains outdated and misleading information. I know very little about Wikipedia protocol, but in view of the fact that "Dane 2007" and "ALPolitico" have yet to offer any explanation whatsoever of why they insist on sourcing to the Ballot Access News article, I'd like to request an additional week of temporary full protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.249.156 (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Protection has already been extended. As "ALPolitico" and I have repeatedly stated, your sources do not claim what you're trying to say in the article. Ultimately an administrator on this page will have to review and decide this as we are unable to come to a resolution on this issue and going back and forth on the same statements isn't going to get us there. -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This is Kurt Evans. The Dakota Free Press sources from August 18 and September 8 show that my potential candidacy was dependent on the state party's ballot-access lawsuit and that the Constitution Party was denied ballot access when its motions to allow a U.S. Senate candidacy were rejected by federal district judge Karen Schreier. That's exactly what I'm trying to say, but I'm not suggesting that we ought to go "back and forth on the same statements." I'm suggesting that "Dane2007" and "ALPolitico" ought to explain why they insist on sourcing to an August 15 Ballot Access News article that contains outdated and misleading information rather than to the Dakota Free Press article from September 8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.249.46 (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe the protection is about to expire, and "Dane2007" appears to be the only one who's responded to my request for an additional week of temporary full protection. As I've mentioned several times, I know very little about Wikipedia protocol, but I'm wondering whether the "closer" he mentioned on Friday would be willing to at least identify himself or herself. Thank you. —KE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.247.177 (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I just discovered the "Protection log" page, which seems to indicate that "CambridgeBayWeather" had extended temporary full protection to December 5 several hours before I requested the extension. I now realize that's probably what "Dane2007" meant when he wrote above that protection had already been extended. I apologize for my Wikipedilliteracy and ask everyone to disregard my previous comment. Thanks. —KE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.252.39 (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Good grief. It seems like the obvious solution here is to simply explain in greater detail why Kurt Evans was not on the ballot. "Failure to qualify" is clearly too vague of a term for some people to grasp - just put a sentence or two explaining why he wasn't allowed on the ballot, and decide what a good header for his subsection should be. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I had already suggested, back in August or September, that a subsection on the litigation (or a mention of it directly under the Constitution Party header) may have been worthwhile, not to mention that it would be consistent with the format of similar information in other articles. The IP user either did not like this or did not care. Regardless, there's still no such thin as a conditional nomination. ALPolitico (talk) 03:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: Both "ALPolitico" and I had agreement on what was in the article to match how this situation is typically presented, and early on I even made some collaborative changes with Kurt to clean up what he contributed. Here is an example of how it was originally listed. The headers, as they are in the disputed diff, reflect accurately what happened. If you review the desired modification by Kurt, he wants to modify the entire section to state things that are not stated (WP:SYNTH) from the later sources, which is what both ALPolitico and I object to. Throw in the fact that he has violated WP:LEGAL with Ymblanter and come extremely close to violating that with me, it's hard to have any collaboration. If theres another sentence to be added and it isn't WP:SYNTH, let's work that out in my opinion, but in this entire AN/I no such proposal has been made and the WP:SYNTH additions have been what he has been defending. I hope we can come to some sort of resolution on this. Indeed, I would agree to adding the sentence as follows without changing the headers: "He failed to qualify for the ballot after a ruling by federal district judge Karen Schreier ruled the party did not follow South Dakota's requirement for participating in the primary election." -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dane2007:, @ALPolitico:. Since Kurt's major problem seemed to be terminology, I found myself spending a stupid amount of time tonight reading South Dakota's election laws. OK, so please note that what follows is an attempt to follow Kurt's logic to the end, rather than to propose my personal reading of statute for inclusion in any article. The term "qualify" is not defined by South Dakota state law. The law seems to assume that anyone seeking to be a candidate, is indeed a candidate, whether or not they are on a ballot. A candidate who wishes to appear on a ballot must deliver a "certificate of nomination" to the appropriate office, which is then either certified or it is not. Candidates who appear on the ballot are "certified", not "qualified". So for all Kurt's talk of what he was or wasn't, it seems to be based in his own perceptions and expectations, rather than in any legal definitions. In other words, a newspaper article that says Kurt "was not qualified for the ballot" cannot be said to be making a factual error, because legally it doesn't mean anything! It thus appears to me entirely appropriate to just follow whatever wording that is used by reliable secondary sources, while of course explaining fully but succinctly the nuance of his situation. TLDR version: I agree with you two. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: Thanks for checking it out. Perhaps extended semi-protection or indef semi-protection on the page? -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

This is Kurt Evans. "ALPolitico" says he'd previously suggested that a subsection on the litigation may have been worthwhile. He doesn't mention that he "suggested" it in his explanation for an edit that removed any mention whatsoever of the litigation. He also keeps arguing about a "conditional nomination" as if I'd used that phrase myself. Regardless of how one labels what happened at the state party convention, federal district judge Karen Schreier explicitly ruled that no one would become a U.S. Senate candidate as a result.

Now "Dane2007" has introduced the new accusation that I'm attempting to synthesize from multiple sources. All I'm trying to say is that the Constitution Party was denied ballot access when the state party's motions to allow a U.S. Senate candidacy were rejected by Judge Schreier, which is clearly stated in the September 8 source alone (the source "Dane2007" has repeatedly removed for no stated reason). The sentence he suggests adding also misrepresents Judge Schreier's rationale for her ruling.

It still seems to me that a reasonable next step would be for "ALPolitico" and "Dane2007" to explain why they insist on sourcing to an August 15 Ballot Access News article that contains outdated and misleading information rather than to the Dakota Free Press article from September 8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.251.158 (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring, incivilty, block evades from an IP contributor

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

---

Per this discussion, an anonymous IP contributor is being abusive and is evading blocks. I propose to measure collateral damage and ban the whole subnet. I unfortunately am underinformed and can't provide a list of IPs blocked so far, but I believe this should be obtainable from the discussion linked. --Gryllida (talk) 06:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gryllida: Look at User talk:WarMachineWildThing's page history. That should give you some idea of the IP addresses. This has apparently been going on for five months. Harassment like this should never be allowed. — Gestrid (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

For starters:

2a02:c7f:8e43:2f00:48b7:54e6:693f:bf42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - The most recent known incarnation, just blocked today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe that is all the IPs that posted on the harassed user's wall, though I hear NeilN may have been harassed some by this user as well at one point. I realize many of these IPs are stale, but they all provide evidence, and I hope they'll also provide some technical help with this situation, too. The IPs are listed in reverse chronological order. As I said, this harassment has been going on for five months. This cannot be allowed to continue! — Gestrid (talk) 06:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps slapping indefinite semi protect on WarMarchineWildThing's talk page will do the trick. IP's cannot be blocked for extended periods of time unless it is very stable. A short term range block may be in order though. @KrakatoaKatie:, you've done a number of range blocks in your time, would you care to comment? From the looks of things, the range isn't huge and collateral damage may be limited, but I don't have access to the IP range contributions tool. Blackmane (talk) 07:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

One IP is all I found in NeilN's talk page history: 185.54.163.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There are also a couple other IPs that might be able to be listed here, but they're not in the same range as most of the ones above and the edits they made were removed from public view, so I can't be sure enough to list them here. — Gestrid (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• I've extended the block on the IPv6, and will leave blocks on the others to those who do range blocks - it looks to me like there's at least one small range there that can be blocked. I also have WarMarchineWildThing's talk page watched now and will revert/block/protect as seems necessary. If other admins watch and do the same, we should be able to deal with this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
• I've blocked 2A02:C7F:8E43:2F00::/64 for one month, which will get the rest of the IPv6 addresses currently allocated to this end user. That, with the ECP Oshwah placed, should stop this for a while. The IPv4 range is 185.54.163.0/24, but there are no edits from this user in that range since around the last week of September. I have trouble rangeblocking stale IPs, so I'm going to leave that one alone for now. If he returns, ping me and I'll whack him. :-) Katie^talk 11:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

As this is in regards to me I am going to respond. The IP user in question has been doing this for almost 5 months. The first time they almost got my blocked for edit warring, when that didn't work and they got themselves blocked they started jumping IPs and harrassing me through my talk page. When that got them blocked several times they jumped IPs again and went after others including the Admin who was doing the blocks NeilN. They have a tell that I normally can catch right away. They make an edit like last night of putting duplicate information in an article and when it's removed by another editor they put it back, when I remove the harassment starts and I'm suddenly and Vandal, OWNISH, and a bully to IPs. The IPs always Geolocate overseas to the same area. The comments are always the same towards me and thy always bring up the first interaction we had and all the harassing posts they made on my talk page. It is hard to avoid them because by the time I realize it's them again it's to late, and they never seem to get bored with it. I have placed myself on an Indef block for the time being and will not be editting as trying to revert IP vandals or any incorrect IP period is a little hard to do when any of them could be that IP user just waiting for me so this can start again. I appreciate each one of you who has taken steps to prevent this any further and reached out to me. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 17:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

After some calls to IT guys today I figured out how they keep coming back and changing locations. They are changing their IP manually. There are sites that show how to do this but I will not post them here, any ADMIN who wishes to see this can email me through my Wiki. Also I believe they are already back as I was notified today of a change on an article and it was done the exact same way they do. I know it sounds weird but after they reverted the revert of them by another user their comments to the user gave it away. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 00:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

That method of getting around blocks is already pretty well-known here. It's what usually leads to semi-protection of articles, user pages, etc.. As for the IP WarMachine is referring to, it's 188.116.6.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — Gestrid (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

And [here] is the edit warring, false accusing, IP we all know. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 05:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding 188.116.6.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as known sock. -- Dane2007 ^talk 05:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

188.116.6.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — Gestrid (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

188.116.6.0/24 has been rangeblocked by Oshwah for three days. — Gestrid (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

212.7.221.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 212.7.221.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — Gestrid (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there nothing more that we can do? Because something needs to be done. Now that WarMachine's talk page has been indefintely semi-protected, the IP has moved on to other targets, including Oshwah and Dane2007, and they just keep changing IPs manually. — Gestrid (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

See I'm not crazy and I have no agenda against IPs. They started just like always adding something that had been already removed per a talk and then quoted WP policy incorrectly making it seem like they were right and others were OWNISH and biased against IPs, in the end they always give themselves away though. I pretty much watched them all day, I have their tell signs noted. Gestrid the only thing that could be done is ban every IP from wiki and that clearly is not the right thing to do or possible nor would I want to see that happen. Vigilance is the only way to fight this and to make sure when it's seen now that everyone has seen their pattern to make sure that it isn't just 1 user fighting the battle alone. After some comments made on Dane2007's talk page tonight I think I know who it really is but I'm not ready to say I'm 100%. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 10:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@WarMachineWildThing: If you do know who they are in real life, don't tell us. Even vandals are allowed their privacy. See WP:OUTING. — Gestrid (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I meant their master.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 20:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@WarMachineWildThing: Oh, ok. You still shouldn't tell us, anyway, as that still falls under WP:OUTING. In any case, DeltaQuad, who is a CheckUser, has increased the block on 2a02:c7f:8e43:2f00::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from 1 month to 3 months using {{CheckUser block}}. — Gestrid (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@WarMachineWildThing and Gestrid: Has this activity stopped? Or is this continuing? I haven't seen anything stand out since the event a few days ago. -- Dane2007 ^talk 05:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dane2007: I haven't noticed anything, but I was never the IP user's main target. WarMachineWildThing may have noticed something that I haven't. As I said above, the range the IP used for the most part is blocked for three months with {{CheckUser block}}. It must've been a sockpuppet of a banned user. — Gestrid (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Fairly quiet last few days but that is part of the MO. With everyone watching now I think it's safe to close this. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 12:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Creation of multiple unsourced articles

Bruce hughes (talk · contribs) has a history of creating unacceptable articles, and in the last week has settled into a niche, starting multiple unsourced articles listing BeeGees concert tours from the 1970s. I find it difficult to dig up sources that confirm dates and places, and wonder if these are even notable. One could template the heck out of the articles and pile warnings on the account, and the situation would be static and likely sit indefinitely. Perhaps each article will need to go through AfD, but some input regarding the editor will be appreciated, too. This isn't a terribly constructive account, and seems to be looking for something to add, period. No edit summaries or interest in explaining rationale. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• I suspect we have block evasion. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PogiJmon/Archive for accounts with a similar interest in BeeGees arcana. Maybe Bbb23 can help, since you weighed in there. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63: - I looked over some of the contributions from the listed users and I don't think it's a sockpuppet. The Bruce user in question can barely format a bulleted list. They have also reverted a minor formatting change on one of the BeeGees tour pages -- so I feel it's clear they have no idea about formatting or the MOS. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 05:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• I PRODded a couple of them. In their current state they fail NTOUR spectacularly. I'm also worried about articles like The Bee Gees' concerts in 1967 and 1968. NTOUR is violated all over the wiki these days, with every popstar (not just K-pop) getting a list of tours, tour articles, etc., besides a separate discography, list of awards, and so on. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Drmies. I see you also nominated one of his articles at AfD. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

118.137.145.191, an uncivil and edit-warring user

Calvin Wisanto brought the incompetent behaviour of 118.137.145.191 (talk · contribs) to my attention. I think this page history best summarizes the IP's behaviour: adding information that failed verification, edit-warring over it and insulting/threatening others (the edit summary "Eh wisanto jgn sok tau ente blom pernah diciduk trus dibuang ke laut tinggal nama" translates to "Hey Wisanto, don't pretend to know it all; you have never been arrested and thrown into a to-be-specified sea"). Additionally, the IP has been repeatedly warned, but subsequently keeps blanking the user talk page. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Given the IP editor one final warning; any further misbehaviour (including removal of threads from this noticeboard or other people's talkpages) will result in an immediate block. Note, however, that I'd ask other users to refrain from edit-warring over the removal of warnings from the IP user's own talkpage in the future; the user is allowed by policy to remove such warnings from their own page if they choose to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

While I was writing this, some other admin beat me to blocking the IP; quite justifiably of course, as the IP kept edit-warring on this noticeboard trying to remove this thread. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The shared IP notice, on the other hand, cannot be removed. Amaury (talk | contribs) 10:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• Block expired and the edit warring continues at Sam Ratulangi International Airport. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

And he just blanked this discussion again. John from Idegon (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Requesting NPA block of IP user

• 184.189.217.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• User talk:BatteryIncluded (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:184.189.217.210 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Requesting a WP:NPA block for this IP user who's been on a series of rants today in which they've referred to me and other editors and our edits as "illogical nonsense", "people with poor reasoning skills", "cheap and lazy", "grossly incompetent", "completely incompetent", "involved users" with "political agendas", "certainly weren't competent", "utterly incompetent", and in summary "people like this should not be allowed anywhere near the moderation machinery of Wikipedia" and "do Wikipedia and its editors a favor and never ever involve yourself in a issue of sockpuppetry again, because you are no good at it." (all emphasis in original). None of these are particularly egregious on their own and I would applaud their use of a thesaurus, but it is a lengthy rant by a user who was warned recently about making personal attacks, and whose pattern of personal attacks was demonstrative in the sockpuppetry block they just came off (which was later shown to be erroneous and would have been lifted no doubt, had they not personally attacked the admin reviewing their unblock request). Considering their own political agenda and history of POV edits, it seems they don't have much interest in contributing constructively. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Have you considered the possibility that BatteryIncluded and the anon are not the same person? The whole issue seems to revolve around that accusation, which the IP vehemently denies and which was not backed up by a CU (CU denied twice), though the IP was blocked for it. If they are not the same peson, calling someone incompetent isn't nice, but a personal perception based on facts and sheer exasperation. Failing to doubt ones infallibility usually leads to no good, I know from personal experience.

Also, please provide examples of POV edits from which you conclude WP:NOTHERE. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Although I was attacked by this IP user, I agree with Kleuske here that a block is not necessary. This user was angry because of the sockpuppet accusation, I hope everything will be good when they calm down. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wrote above that their block was later shown to be erroneous, so yes, I've "considered it". There's a conversation on BatteryIncluded's talk page wherein a CheckUser confirmed that they are not related, in which I also explained why requests for CheckUser on an IP address are routinely declined. I'm not claiming infallibility but I made the only judgement I could make given the evidence that was available. When technical evidence that they are not the same user became available later (because a CheckUser elected to check, of his own accord) then it was shown that the block was wrong. BatteryIncluded's block was reset at that time and I'm not sure why the IP's wasn't lifted, but it seems that the reviewing administrator didn't consider their unblock request to be genuine.

Being frustrated about being on the wrong end of this error is entirely warranted: it's frustrating. And it's understandable from time to time a frustrated user blows off steam, and we usually ignore it. But this is not an outburst: it's a continuation of a pattern of abusive editing. You can see warnings on the IP's talk page for failing to assume good faith at Talk:Alicia Machado (presumably here) and for personal attacks apparently here. There are more personal attacks in edits here, here, and here, all of these occurring before there was a sockpuppet investigation. That pattern is part of a broader pattern of tendentious POV-pushing at Myron Ebell insisting that we must describe him as a "climate change skeptic" or "climate science denier" ([80], [81], [82]) against apparent consensus. Their comment that "Now that Trump has been elected, it doesn't much matter ... human civilization on this planet is soon over. I will still call out this sort of BS" doesn't sound a lot like an editor interested in a collaborative project based on consensus. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

This has to be one of the flimsier blocks for sockpuppetry I've seen. I'd be hard pressed to accept, based on the evidence at the SPI page, that the IP was BatteryIncluded. Having an extremem POV on climage change, regardless of whether one leans towards acceptance or denial, wouldn't be surprising and that the IP edited around the same time as BI certainly does raise eyebrows, but a comparison between the two editors' styles, at least in my mind, certainly did not say the IP is BI's sock. Blackmane (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, naturally. Certainly climate change is a topic on which many editors have strong opinions, myself included; two editors with a similar (even extreme) POV isn't unusual at all and in fact there are several other users arguing the same side of this debate. In addition to the narrative presented at SPI, what connected these two users in my mind was:

• their tendency to repeatedly refer to opposing viewpoints as "bullshit" or a "soapbox" and vowing not to spend any more time on them ([83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89])
• engaging in blatant ad hominems ([90] [91] [92] [93])
• using this debate to lament the recent American presidential election ([94] [95]) in a tone that suggests intent to right great wrongs
• gravedancing an enforcement sanction against Zigzig20s ([96] [97] [98])

As I said, there were (and are) several other users continuing this discussion at Talk:Myron Ebell, but only these two editors have participated in this debate in this same style, at reasonably nearly the same time, and with one continuing to do so while the other is blocked. That's a strong sockpuppetry case, in my opinion. Nevertheless, technical evidence obtained after the fact has shown that to be incorrect and I'm not arguing with that: the IP is not BatteryIncluded's sockpuppet, notwithstanding my prior conclusion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Ivanvector, I too am scratching my head at the behavior of this IP editor. Clone-like in tone to BatteryIncluded and angry at everyone, the IP made a few edits like a tornado in a trailer park, including vexatious edits towards those who had tussled with BatteryIncluded, and soon got blocked. Then a week later the IP heads to the alleged puppetmaster's talk page to introduce himself and commiserate about how they are both victims of an abusive Wikipedia administration, stating here "BTW, English isn't BI's native language, where as it's my only language -- anyone competent can tell the difference between us." How the heck do you know that? And here "if I were BatteryIncluded, it's unlikely that I would be posting this comment." Huh? Why would angry IP give a hoot about BatteryIncluded or righting a wrong on his talk page? I've never seen such a sense of justice from an ephemeral IP editor. Most just unplug their modem overnight and start fresh with a new IP in the morning. I've spent my share of time in Ducktown, Tennessee, and the quack is unmistakable. But if the glove doesn't fit, the glove doesn't fit. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

How the heck do you know that? -- By reading BatteryIncluded saying so; duh. Why would angry IP give a hoot about BatteryIncluded or righting a wrong on his talk page? -- Um, this really isn't hard to understand. I don't give a hoot about BI, but I do give a hoot about having been drawn into this, and about WP editors tossing around bogus charges based on flimsy evidence. I explained this in my "rants" at some length. And you completely missed the obvious point, which is that BI never would have posted a "series of rants" with an IP address on a page where he is being accused of using that IP address as a sockpuppet unless he wanted to be banned. My comments don't show giving a hoot about BI; quite the opposite. "I've never seen such a sense of justice from an ephemeral IP editor." -- Argumentum ad ignorantiam. And that's a ridiculous claim; ephemeral IP editors are just people ... there's no inverse correlation between using an IP address and having a sense of justice. The fact is that there are very few people with my sense of justice, so not having encountered one is irrelevant. And my sense of justice being strong and unique is another argument against my being BI, as he doesn't display it either. Only the most superficial sort of analysis -- seen both in your comment above and in the sockpuppetry "evidence" that you presented -- could make us out to be the same person. "the quack is unmistakable" -- you say, after having been proven mistaken. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, naturally. -- Eh? It was proven by a CheckUser that I am not a sockpuppet of BatteryIncluded and someone (you, perhaps?) thanked that CheckUser for setting them straight. It is amazing that you would continue to press this idea that we are sockpuppets after a CheckUser has shot down the claim and has severely criticized the original claim and the block based on it. You write "That's a strong sockpuppetry case, in my opinion" -- this is a serious logic failure when you have in hand hard evidence that we are not sockpuppets ... your "strong sockpuppetry case" is no such thing, it is merely a case of two different people having some things in common, which is vastly different from them being the same person. What we have here is a strong case that you don't understand what makes for a case for sockpuppetry -- that's a demonstrated fact, not a "personal attack". And that was the point of my "rant", which remains entirely valid by your own words and actions. Both you and Magnolia677, who presented the entirely bogus "evidence" of sockpuppetry, are way too personally involved. You are now advising blocking me based on political views that I have expressed. That is not the Wikipedia way. Follow the lead of sensible, disinterested people like Kleuske and Vanjagenije. Back away and drop this. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@184.189.217.210: I'm requesting that if you have something else to post, create a new post below your previous one. Going back and changing your already posted statements makes it hard for others to follow, as I have been trying the last few minutes. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 13:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Additional comments: . I will again note that, while English is not BatteryIncluded's first language, it is my only language and I am very fluent in it ... I don't need a thesaurus to write well. Ivanvector's "strong sockpuppetry case" totally ignores the significant stylistic differences between two users, while making far too much of irrelevant facts like both of us writing on the Myron Ebell talk page around the same time -- no surprise because it was within days of the U.S. election and Donald Trump's announcement that Ebell was in charge of the EPA transition team. I made these points in my "rant" but he has completely failed here to consider or present the argument made in my "rant". And Magnolia677, who presented the entirely bogus "evidence" of sockpuppetry while he himself was an active editor on the Myron Ebell page. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Anyone who considers this block request should read carefully the reasoning and points I presented in my "rants". while considering that it is now well known and has been acknowledged even by Ivanvector that I am not a sockpuppet of BatteryIncluded; that the charge was bogus, based on 'evidence" that did not remotely support it, and yet resulted in a six month ban for BatteryIncluded. As the CheckUser wrote, BatteryIncluded would have had to "acknowledge" the nonexistent sockpuppetry in order to have the ban lifted. Think for yourselves how you would characterize the people who placed that ban. Perhaps my "rant" wasn't so far off. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

whose pattern of personal attacks was demonstrative in the sockpuppetry block they just came off -- the block had nothing to do with "personal attacks", it was a block for evading a block ... based on a completely bogus charge, made by you. would have been lifted no doubt -- the block was "lifted" by expiring. had they not personally attacked the admin reviewing their unblock request -- this is a false charge, and there is no evidence whatsoever that the reviewing admin would have lifted the ban. The reviewing admin gave their reasons for not unblocking, and being personally attacked was not among them -- of course, because I had never addressed or even heard of them before their rejection of the unblock request. The claim that "no doubt" they would have lifted the ban is absurd, illogical, and has no basis in fact, like so many of your claims. And you can call that a "personal attack", but that too has no basis in logic or fact. OTOH, you have used my expressed political views as a basis for your argument for this ban, and that is a personal attack. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, the claim that I have made "POV edits" is nonsense ... in an attempt to improve the lede of the Myron Ebell article I changed text saying that he is a "climate change analyst" to saying that he is a climate change skeptic ... the latter is well supported by the cited sources, whereas the former is not. An edit isn't "POV" just because you have some other POV. The current lede, which does not contain anything I wrote, notes that he has been described as been described as a climate change skeptic, a climate contrarian, and a climate change denier. If you want to ban me for supposedly having a "political agenda", you had better ban everyone involved in writing that lede, and ban all those reliable sources as well. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• I think that most users will be able to see the multiple places (including in my original post and on BatteryIncluded's talk page) where I've acknowledged that this IP user is not BatteryIncluded's sockpuppet. I've said so explicitly twice (now thrice) just in this thread. Sometimes what looks and sounds like a duck turns out to be just some guy with a duck call and a feather hat. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

  Most users can see that I'm not a duck (BI-like) at all, that your "strong evidence" for that was nothing of the sort, and that your block request is baseless and ill-advised. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Blanking and synthesis

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

---

Joanpuig2001 (talk · contribs) has been engaging in unexplained blanking and synthesis despite repeated warnings and an attempt to discuss these issues. For example:

• Grown Ups (film): blanking a negative review
• Grown Ups 2: blanking an entire reception
• Independence Day: Resurgence: blanking box office data, blanking an entire reception section
• Gulliver's Travels (2010 film): synthesis, blanking, restoring synthesis
• Underdog (film): synthesis
• Scooby Doo (film): synthesis
• The Smurfs 2: synthesis and blanking

MOS:FILM#Critical response encourages sourced commentary about a film's reception, but there's consensus at WikiProject Film that unsourced interpretation of review aggregators is synthesis. This somewhat recent discussion at WT:FILM explains some of my concerns with putting too much emphasis on what review aggregators say and why we shouldn't depend on them for authoritative statements about reception. I previously left a message on Joanpuig2001's talk page, to no response. After someone else gave out a level four warning for blanking, more unexplained blanking continued, above in the last diff on The Smurfs 2. I would propose a short block for disruptive editing and refusing to explain why this blanking is on-going. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

It would appear that we may have a biased disruptive editor on the loose (and if the username is any indication, the user is probably very young, though that's speculation on my part).

As for the synthesis, I wish I could say that this is an isolated incident, but these types of synthesis are unfortunately very common in the Reception sections of film articles. It doesn't seem to be one editor, or even just a small group of offenders that is adding such original research, though Joanpuig2001 certainly appears to be one of them. Another common synthesis I see a lot is people listing reactions as "Mixed to negative" or "mixed to positive" in the reception, which directly goes against WP:VG/POV. DarkKnight2149 21:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Joanpuig2001 just blanked another review, this one from Roger Ebert, in a GA: [99]. Can someone please do something about this? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Can an administrator please deal with Joanpuig2001? The user's actions are clearly disruptive. DarkKnight2149 02:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I've just blocked Joan indefinitely, more for ignoring everyone who tried to point out problems with his/her edits, than for the edits themselves. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense, given their disregard for other editors. DarkKnight2149 02:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing of United States presidential election, 2016 article

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

---

There have been editors who have attempted to put in the article the incorrect notion that Voter Turnout for the 2016 Presidential Election was something like 53.7% or 53.9%. This number is not only wildly incorrect, but it is also based upon poor original research. And of course everyone knows this: Wikipedia:No original research. But that has not stopped caradhrasaiguo or gsonnenf from putting in the article the 53% numbers and then attributing these incorrect numbers to an well-known expert in the field, Dr. Michael McDonald, professor of Political science at the University of Florida. See his work website: Univ of Florida Political Science Dept, Dr. Michael McDonald. See also his Voter Turnout website: United States Elections Project.

Dr. Michael McDonald is the leading expert in this area and he has been talking openly in the media that he believes when the vote counting is done that the percentage will be about 58%--not the fake 53% that caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf keep putting in the article. This 5% difference is significant and it is NOT consistent with what the expert claims and therefore is not a "meaningful reflection of the sources."

The 5% difference is based upon the fact that the voting has not been completed. Various editors have been asking that Voter Turnout not be placed into the article until ALL of the votes have been counted because no one can determine Voter Turnout until all of the votes are counted. It is simple common sense. But common sense has not stopped the dynamic duo.

It needs to be removed until the votes are fully counted. It is as simple as that. It is false and it is not supported by a reliable source and caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf are falsely claiming that the number caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf are making up is supported by the leading expert in the field, when it isn't.

However since caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf have taken it upon themselves to decide the true number of votes and to decide the number of eligible voters and calculate the Voter Turnout on their own--even though they are merely Wikipedia editors and are not experts. This is original research. Especially since the people that specialize in it--such as Dr. Michael McDonald--say that it cannot be determined until all of the votes are counted and McDonald is estimating a different, much higher number.

caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf keep reverting other editors and jamming into the article's infobox his original research number. This violates Wikipedia in all kinds of ways. Caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf claim that their edits have the consensus of the talk page and that could not be further from the truth. There are various editor who do not agree with their false calculations.

caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf have edited article to state that Voting Turnout is 53.7%. You can see one of the edits here: Gsonnenf's false claim that U.S. Elections Project reports 53.7% Voter Turnout. The fact is that Dr. McDonald has claimed publicly that he believes the Voter Turnout is NOT finalized but it should be about 58%--not caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf's made up 53.7%. Please see Dr. McDonald's 58% Voter Turnout Estimate here: On November 14, 2016, Dr. Michael McDonald stated 58%--not the false number Gsonnenf uses

• On November 23, 2016, the New York Times quoted Dr. McDonald's estimate to be 58%. You can see that New York Times report here: Quealy, Kevin. Election Facts to Keep Handy for Thanksgiving Dinner Discussion, New York Times, November 23, 2016.
• PBS quotes 58% for Voter Turnout. See: "What does voter turnout tell us about the 2016 election?"
• A quote from the November 24th, 2016 Irish Times article: When the race was called, this maths problem yielded a rate that was, indeed, historically low. It was also wrong, for the same reason that Clinton trailed in the popular vote at that time: Not all the ballots had been counted. Because the denominator in this maths problem – the number of voting-eligible adults on election day – does not change, the turnout rate goes up every time ballots are counted. As they have come in, the turnout rate has risen to about 57.7 percent. Michael McDonald at the US Elections Project estimates that it will ultimately be closer to 58.4 percent, a bit lower than it was in 2012 and roughly comparable to most presidential elections in the past 100 years. "US election facts that may surprise", Irish Times, November 24, 2016.
• FiveThirtyEight blasts Caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf's extremely low 53% number out of the water here: Bialik, Carl. "No, Voter Turnout Wasn’t Way Down From 2012", FiveThirtyEight, November 15, 2016. In that article Carl Bialik quotes Dr. Michael McDonald's with an estimate of 58.1%.
• Washington Post's Phillip Bump quotes Dr. Michael McDonald that Voter Turnout will be about 58.1%. You can read that article here: Bump, Phillip. "More votes were cast in 2016 than in 2012 — but that doesn’t mean turnout was great", Washington Post, November 15, 2016.
• The Christian Post quoted Dr. McDonald that the Voter Turnout is 58%. See here: Blair, Leonardo. "97 Million Eligible Voters Did Not Vote in 2016 Election", The Christian Post, November 15, 2016.

When you compare caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf's made up number (and they are NOT experts, just a Wikipedia editors) with the number that has been posted by Dr. McDonald on his Twitter account (and quoted in the New York Times), you can easily see that caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf are engaging in original research--which is verifiably incorrect and caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf are flat out making up a number and then--to put the icing on the cake--they incorrectly claim that Dr. McDonald supports the false 53.7% number. Dr. McDonald does not support any such thing. He estimates 58% or more and the difference between caradhrasaiguo's and Gsonnenf's false number and McDonald's true number way, way, too large to state that the C&G number is a "meaningful reflection of the sources"--which is Wikipedia requires.

An example of the disruption and the refusal to discuss the topic on the talk page is here: False claim on consensus by Gsonnenf, Just removing the Voter Turnout number without discussion by caradhrasaiguo, Caradhrasaiguo just reverts without discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaverickLittle (talk • contribs) 22:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Short Summary: Two editors of the article are putting in the article a false number for Voter Turnout. They support their false number with a citation to the U.S. Elections Project. However, the Elections Project does not support their number. They are not providing a "meaningful reflection of the sources" that Wikipedia requires. They refuse to discuss it on the talk pages and they false claim there is a consensus to post the false number in the article. The number they post is original research.--ML (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Whoever posted the above needs to 1. sign it and 2. provide a brief summary of the above. In short, tl:dr. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

SUMMARY: We have been having trouble with MaverickLittle for sometime, I have been to busy with RL to file an ANI against him. The 53.X number represents the "Voting Age population" which is used in previous presidential election info boxes. Their was initial consensus, then Maverick Little starting reverting, we then re-established consensus [100] and MaverickLittle just ignored our post and reverts (as usual). He is sometimes incoherent in arguments (claiming everyone else is wrong and false repeatedly, posts weird emotional messages [101]. He has been very rude when I've tried to discuss being being civil on his talk page. I've tried to engage him in dispute resolution but he ignored the process [102]. He just seem to vigorously assert he has consensus and we don't, or harass and fight people until they leave the article. He has more time on his hands than us (he consistent edits for several hours nearly every day since his account creation), I think it is a a travesty that people get harassed off the article because of a more persistent professional wikipedia editor. Gsonnenf (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Please note that Gsonnenf did not respond to the substantive issues raised. He just personally attacked me. The number that he is posting in the article is a false number and it is not supported by the reliable source given. The reliable source given states a much higher number. This is substance and Gsonnenf refuses to address the substance.--ML (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

It is worth noting the above vitriol by MaverickLittle is merely a rehashing (I would think unproductive for AN/I), of Xer initial posting on the matter, which comes after Xer previous undiscussed reverts – undiscussed in the sense that (s)he persistently failed to discuss Turnout on said talk page until the aforementioned initial posting. It is also worth noting ML's lengthy block record as relating to Edit warring / Tendentious editing, and blatant assumptions of Ill faith. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

My brief reading of this suggests that this is a (more or less resolved) content dispute. There is certainly no original research, because simple calculations are exempt from that policy. I would advise Maverick Little to chill. I have not found any impropriety from Gsonnenf or CaradhrasAiguo after a brief inspection. In any case, this does not seem suitable for ANI except possibly as a WP:BOOMERANG.Tazerdadog (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The issue is one of original research. The number they are posting does not conform to the reliable source provided. Continuing to put a false number in the article is disruptive editing and it violates original research. So far all responses to this topic have refused to address the substantive issues raised here: (1) original research and (2) misrepresenting what the reliable source says. The reliable source says Voter Turnout is 58% and the two disruptive editors are 53%, which is wrong and does not conform to the reliable source.--ML (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Am I the only one who's seeing this response they left on my talk page filled with personal attacks? Also, I'd like to point out their attitude on my talk [103]. "You should be thanking me instead on making untrue statements about me." Seriously? WP:BOOMERANG please. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 13:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out more personal attacks by the OP. They were warned by an admin (on mobile, don't remember the name) and the OP removed it with a self-righteous attitude. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Once again, another response that does not, in any way, respond to the substative issues raised here. The two editors are engaging in: (1) original research and (2) misrepresenting the opinion of the reliable source. Once again, the reliable source has clearly stated that the Voter Turnout is about 58.1%, not 53% that the two editors keep jamming into the article. Is the reason that no one responses to the underlining substantive issues is because they don't have a leg to stand on? It seems that way to me. The two editors are just pulling a false number out of their hind quarters. It is as simple as that.--ML (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• After reviewing this thread, as well as related activity at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016, the cited user talk pages, and MaverickLittle's history on Wikipedia, I've blocked MaverickLittle indefinitely. He's repeatedly demonstrated a tendentious, battleground-style approach to editing, has refused to acknowledge or respect consensus, has repeatedly and combatively berated other editors with obnoxious personal attacks, and consistently lowers the standards and worsens the editing environment on articles where he is active. None of these are new behaviors and none have shown evidence of improvement since his previous two blocks for similar behavior. At some point, good-faith, constructive editors deserve protection from this sort of nonsense so that they can improve content in peace. We're well past that point, especially given that the American politics topic area needs all of the help it can get in terms of promoting a better editing environment. The block is of course open for review by any other admins who wish to do so. MastCell ^Talk 18:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Having reviewed the above (and having no knowledge of the editor), I'll just say that I'm surprised it took this long from them to actually reach an indef block. Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Request rangeblock of 185.69.144.0/25

I've noticed quite a bit of vandalism/personal attacks from this IP range (at least I think 185.69.144.0/25 is the right range) recently, so much so that I think a temporary block is warranted. Some examples: [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109]. If a block is not possible, then could an admin please keep an eye on the range for the time being? Sro23 (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked most of that range for 72 hours. Although I realize this is a mobile phone ISP and there is going to be some collateral damage, I think the nature of the personal attacks and the persistence of them, plus the additional disruption and edit warring, warrants the soft block. Not a long term solution, but hopefully it will help for now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it's your sad friend Cebr1979 getting all worked up again. Maybe your user and talk page needs ECP or semi prot. Blackmane (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Really? Is that them? I thought Cebr1979 was a human being. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• They've moved on to a new range (85.255.232.0/21). Diffs: [110][111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118]. Would another rangeblock be possible? Sro23 (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  @Sro23: I've conferred with a CheckUser, and unfortunately, there's too much collateral here to range block. I'll bop individual IPs as they pop up. Feel free to either report to WP:AIV or ping me as needed for this guy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Accidentally edited a page on id.wikipedia.org without logging from my account

I am an Autopatrolled and New Page Reviewer on English Wikipedia, I have accidentally edited a page on id.wikipedia.org (https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/TelkomTelstra) without logging from my account. Is there any way to avoid such incidents or whitelist my IP address or what is the best practice for it? Kavdiamanju (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean you don't want to edit as an IP user? If yes, then I don't really think there is any way for it, other than routinely checking you are logged in at the top-right corner. Normally when you edit as an IP user it should show something like "You are not logged in. Your IP will be publicly visible..." at the top so then you know that you are editing without logging in. NgYShung ^huh? 09:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Not a global solution unless you can implement a global stylesheet (which some browsers will allow you to do), but for easy recognition of when you're logged in (or not), add #wpSave{background-color:#00f} to Special:MyPage/common.css. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

If you're using your own laptop/computer or mobile to edit, you can enable the "Keep me logged in (365 days)" when logging in. You should that if you sign out, say, on a laptop and also using your mobile, you be logged off in mobile. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, Kavdiamanju, this question may perhaps be more appropriate for ID-wiki, since the interfaces could possibly be different. If you'd like to request WP:REVDEL so that your IP address in that edit would be invisible to others, please contact an administrator on that wiki (here: https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pengurus) rather than English wiki. An admin there can probably also more accurately answer your question about staying logged in and making sure you don't accidentally edit logged out. Softlavender (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Why the File that my own work that link to the living person in Thai wiki, wll be delete?

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

---

1 Three year agos Thita Manitkul creat account in her real name and to upload her own photo because she did not like the one they use .It was delete I donot know why ? 2 My father was her ex photog her ,driver,secretary ,every thing about politic so when she quit he loss his job 3 As you all know Thailand has been under military regime for all most three years My father want to be hire by her again 4 So we ask panda to creat account under his nick name and have him provide us and we use the account togather like 5 persons .The other two are mr.sukavich 'wife and his son (She have all kinds of old newspaper clips about the family in and put on the table like photo flame.i upload the one about the minister of Defence appoint spokesperson .it was already delete and it my own work.i use in Thai wiki when Thai saw they will know who he appoint and when it was. 5 the other newspaper clip still there i cut it that way because the other person involve .But what left is enough for people who understand thai to know what I wrote was true? ==User talk Thita manitkul==from 2013 was block with == User talk Panda Manitkul== because we try to upload the picture to that file name It is th:ฐิฏา มานิตกุล in her talk page It her real name , am I right?

it understandable then because he is the son. That they block his page.

Someone probably told her that that why she abondon her page Panda also thought that being son of subject doing harm more than good he told us to left him out We would not mine if you delete the other two account

My page was block by the same person as well because I uploads the same photo(it was the last election photo of her we still have it. 

I was block right after creat this account and upload her photo in her name What should I do. We are not sock it very rude word. I try to by polite but..... If the person have hard felling because of homosexual issue. I know it not true but can not find source yet .It probably one person lies that the family let it slip. If ladmc(Jubileeclipman)(talk)finish the article in English you will understand why it was slip . IT was one sentence man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22sep (talk • contribs) 12:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

To explain a little.

1. The files are all at Commons so nothing to do with admins here. I have asked an admin there to help out.
2. I am helping this editor to make the various articles—that he and others have created—acceptable. They are in (or have been returned to) draftspace.
3. The various parties now recognise the CoI issues and are happy for me to help them.
4. I will advise 22sep to stop contacting AN with these issues.

Sorry for any inconvenience. Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Um, Kudpung, can you figure this out? Evidently the article in question is Draft:Thita Manitkul. I don't understand what 22sep is trying to convey, but they need to understand that one Wikipedia account should not be used by more than one person. Each individual should have a separate account, and none of them should masquerade as someone else by using someone else's username or nickname. Softlavender (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Softlavender, no time right now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

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

God's Godzilla doesn't appear to have learned his lesson

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

---

God's Godzilla was blocked for one week for copyright violations for repeated additions of copyright violating external links after several warnings were given about this behavior. When his block expired, GG created at least one more such link (here) which required a revert. The prior ANI discussion regarding his behavior (here) also included notes about GG's fondness for extensive overlinking and inappropriate redirects, a behavior that has continued since the lifting of the block. I will admit that a great many of GG's edits are relatively harmless, but I don't see many (or any at all) that are actually helping the project in any meaningful way. GG's refusal to hear others' comments / advice regarding copyright violating external links and overlinking indicate that this user may not be willing to work collaboratively at Wikipedia, preferring rather to simply do their own thing with little regard to the rest of the community. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposal - indef block

• A quick review of some of God's Godzilla's recent edits [119][120][121][122][123] suggest that they have not taken the previous advice to heart, or there is a serious WP:CIR problem. At this point, they seem to be doing more harm than good, so I propose an Indefinite block.

A quick review of the five links that MrX posted above reveals that not one of them added any copyrighted material to Wikipedia. I am, of course, assuming here that neither "[[" nor "]]" are under copyright. Also the copyright violation notice added by another editor to GG's talk page refers to an edit that also did not add any copyrighted material to Wikipedia. WP:BOOMERANGs anyone? --Elektrik Fanne 16:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Since I said nothing about copyright, your comment is rather nonsensical. - MrX 16:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The links above are about the ongoing behaviour, which include overlinks, excessive redlinking, etc. The user has been warned frequently about these issues and continues unabated. Copyright is just one of the many offending violations.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 16:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Eletrik Fanne: This edit to Earth 2100 added a link to a Youtube video that was posted in clear violation of copyright. WP:COPYVIO covers both addition of copyrighted material to Wikipedia and linking to copyright violating content elsewhere. God's Godzilla was previously blocked exactly for this type of inappropriate external linking. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Advice to Elektrik Fanne; you're too quick to jump to conclusions, as evidenced by your near instant BOOMERANG suggestion. If a report leaves you without the impression that action is needed, the correct response is to ask for more information. If none is forthcoming then consider looking - briefly - for evidence yourself. If after that, you conclude that the initial report was baseless and vindictive, then ask for a BOOMERANG. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have actually looked at the material linked to. Linking to an infringing copy is not actually a copyright violation in itself because no further copy has been made. At least that is the position under UK law, but I know the Americans take a very different view. I have struck my post above. --Elektrik Fanne 17:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Has the editor in question been offered any form of mentorship yet? I think that would be reasonable before indef blocks are considered. John Carter (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with John Carter. On the other hand, God's Godzilla, it would be a really good idea if you joined the conversation. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Mentorship seems an unlikely path given this user's reluctance to engage in discussion of any type. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I Got it alright but my point is that I edit under the circumstance that people will review it...(not to much to ask), also if there's a Setting where I can make my edits subject to review that would be awesome, so None of Us have to go through with this back forth mediocrity. Also I (if your wondering) DO Know how to Sign my posts I always do, if your looking for the Talk button, Sorry (your out of luck) I don't Know How To Do That (Yet, Okay, No Offense?!) — God's Godzilla 20:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes I do understand if I Get Banned Okay, I just Want My Edits to Constructive That's All! — God's Godzilla 20:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@God's Godzilla: You said:

I edit under the circumstance that people will review it... (not to (sic) much to ask)

Actually, it is too much to ask that someone should be around to review every edit you make (especially considering how prolific you are). We all edit under the understanding that other editors may review our work and fix it. But there is no guarantee that such a review will occur. And no, there is no setting that will cause all of your edits to be "provisional" subject to the review of another editor. If you are not willing to take responsibility for your own edits, and are not willing to learn on your own how to avoid mistakes which are, at best, just annoying, and at worst, highly problematic (copyright violations), then perhaps you do not have the competence required to edit successfully at Wikipedia.

As for the signature issue, no one had brought that up at this particular report, but as you mention it, if you are using the four-tilde signature ('~~~~') and it is not automatically generating a signature that includes a link to your talk page, it is because you have created a custom signature on your Preferences page. You should delete the custom signature so that the default Wikipedia signature will be generated for you. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@God's Godzilla: Unfortunately, it really isn't anyone's obligation to review all edits made by other individuals in article space, and it seems to me that is exactly what you are requesting above. That seems more like making a request to change the content, and the appropriate place to do that sort of thing is on the article talk page, not in the article itself. If you want your edits to be constructive, as you say above, it seems to me that proposing them on the article talk page is more likely to get the results you seek. Also, so far as I can tell, you don't seem to have yet learned that typing four tildes, like ~~~~, is what I believe what was being referred to. Also, as you admit you don't know how to do something yet, then I strongly suggest that maybe you review the editor help pages, which should provide the information on how to do that. Unfortunately, it is incumbent on every editor to demonstrate that they are competent to edit, and it is often the case that editors who do not display that competence are sanctioned. I think on your user talk page you were given an invitation to the Wikipedia Teahouse. I very strongly urge you to maybe contact them for help in the matters you are not yet particularly competent at. John Carter (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: I was referring to the mode of Pending policy in the way of My Editing so that the edit can be reviewed before publication — God's Godzilla 20:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@John Carter: For that I don't understand what the Teahouse (more or less), thanks for the tip I'll consider checking it out, and I Will Probably Change My Signature Later... — God's Godzilla 20:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Note: Suspect God's little Godzilla signing their posts by typing name. Techie little users on ANI and on user's talkpage most likely fail to understand zillas' thought processes. bishzilla _ROARR!! 20:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC).

@Bishzilla: Yo Ya Forgot My First Name and This Godzilla is the Christ of Monsters (pun intended) — 21:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@God's Godzilla: The pending changes protection you mentioned is a protection that is applied to individual Wikipedia pages to prevent persistent vandalism. It is not a tool that can be applied to all edits made by a particular user. The process you are asking for does not exist and would require a programming change of the underlying Wiki software. Not impossible, but an unreasonable amount of work to request just so that you can have a safety net for your careless editing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: Okay, I get that and I Do My Best To Keep Me Edits to a Minimum (Say Please, Notify Me if This or a Similer Situation Happens Again, Okay, It's (Very Helpful) — 21:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@God's Godzilla: 1,150 edits in ~90 days: I'd say that's a bit more than "minimum". And it doesn't take all that many copyright violations to cause significant problems. So far, I have not seen anything from GG that indicates they have understood the problem and won't repeat it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Given God's Godzilla's editing pattern and unusual approach to interaction with other editors, I think at this point we should consider whether this is a WP:COMPETENCE issue, rather than a rule compliance issue. -- The Anome (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: A. One I'm One person, 2. I understand where your coming from with the Copyright Violations, I Didn't Realize It and in general All I Want To Do is Contribute, I Seriously Didn't Mean for This to happen. — 02:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@God's Godzilla: Saying "I didn't realize it" is disingenuous since you were already blocked once for this behavior. If the first block was insufficient to make you realize it, then a second block of longer (perhaps permanent) duration is required to prevent this mistake from happening again. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@The Anome: Thanks for Understanding and for Editors here I Think I'm Going to Take a Break for a While — 02:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that there is a pattern of poor editing here. As noted above it seems more likely a case of competence as opposed to deliberate disruptive editing. Also GG's comments suggest that English may not be his native language. To my mind some form of mentoring might be a constructive move. I note that there is little evidence of any malicious intent here. And Wikipedia is not exactly drowning in new editors. To my mind when you have someone who clearly wants to help, but probably doesn't know how, indefinitely blocking them seems perhaps a less than optimal recourse. At least it should not be undertaken until lesser correctives have been attempted. I am disheartened by the speed with which indefinite blocks are called for at ANI, often for situations which, at least IMO, don't justify such an extreme response. All of which said, some of GG's edits have been problematic. And he needs to step up and put in the effort to read the guidelines that have been linked in repeated messages in various talk pages. That means slowing down and being extra careful before making an edit. If there is any doubt he should ask for the opinion of a more experienced editor. I am a strong believer in going the extra mile to help new(ish) editors. But they have responsibilities too. The community cannot be taxed with following him or any other new editor around indefinitely with a mop bucket cleaning up their trail of bad edits. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Yes, English is My Native Language, and Yes I Agree Completely but it's up to I to Take That Responsibility Onto Myself. Also I Think It's About Time To CLOSE This Conversation (At Least For Now...) — 05:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Closure Reverted

On the best of days, it is inappropriate to close a discussion about yourself. SQL^{Query me!} 06:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@SQL: Well than will You Close It? — 06:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage. SQL^{Query me!} 06:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

If mentorship is an issue, I can volunteer for the part. God's Godzilla, however, needs to approach me first so I know he/she is willing to improve. I would take questions and point out ways to improve. I only ask that God's Godzilla brings me questions before going about their editting so there does not need to be big clean-ups.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: Yo Man Hay if that's Optional I Guess I'll Take it... (as long as it's Within the Confines of Wikipedia, I Guess) — 20:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

God's Godzilla okay, good. Let's see how other editors feel about my proposal before I can guarantee that is the outcome they want. It would be a good first step if you use the four tildes for properly signing your username. You have been asked quite a few times.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: About the Signature, any time I do it I Always get Ridiculed for It, Though...(Sorry) — 23:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept TGS as GG's mentor, but @TheGracefulSlick:, are you sure this is a task you want to take on? GG is not the kind of editor who comes in and makes 1 or 2 big edits a day for you to review. They make dozens of small, oftentimes meaningless edits every day, generally involving severely overlinking articles. For one mentor to review all of that work seems a daunting task. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: I Won't/Don't Nearly Do That Many Edits Per Day?! — 23:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiDan61 then I could educate him on linking practices if that's what he wants to do. If he shows no sign of progress from his next bunch of edits, we can take it here again and put an end to it. It would be more beneficial if God's Godzilla started editing the article's contents to familarize himself with basic editing. I first would like to see, however, GG take the small steps of signing his name properly. I have not seen anyone "ridicule" him for it, but rather encouraged it. Not to be disrespectful, but are you positive, GG, that English is your first language? You make several grammatical errors. Unless, maybe you are doing it intentionally? – TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: Yes, English is My First Language, and No I Don't Make Grammatical Errors on Purpose, and As You Can See I Try to Fix Them (sorry) — 23:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I have to say this. Please don't capitalize the first letter of every word in your sentences, even when in bold. English doesn't require you To Talk Like This. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Close Down

When Can I Close This Conversation?! — 23:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@God's Godzilla: You can't. This is a discussion about you – it will be up to someone else to close it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: Than Can You, Please? — 23:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion will be closed when the issues about your editing have been resolved. —Farix (t | c) 23:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@TheFarix: (Than) Who? — 23:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

A non-involved editor. But so long as you behave in a petulant manner, as you've done above, it is unlikely to be closed. Also will you actually sign your comments properly and knock it off with the random boldface? —Farix (t | c) 00:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

This editor is either willfully trolling us or grossly incompetent. It is probably both. So fair they have refused to address the community's concerns and they have disrupted this thread multiple times by closing the discussion and refusing to sign their posts. It is also worth noting they they barely have a rudimentary grasp of the language of this wiki. I think we have moved past civil appeals and right in to GTFO territory. --Adam in MO Talk 00:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Adamfinmo I am starting to think the same thing. I am willing to mentor him under the simple (I thought) requirement that they properly sign their name. I have not seen it, sadly. I hate to say it, but we may have a case of a user who is not here to build an encyclopedia. Everyone has given him a fair chance.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@God's Godzilla:, could you give us the least bit of confidence by actually signing your name with four tildes? Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick and Adamfinmo: All I'm trying to do is close this down and put this all behind us, Responsibility. — God's Roaring Godzilla 00:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Someguy1221 I think this is a lost cause. He is either ignoring requests or refusing to do something as simple as signing his username correctly.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Indef block of God's Godzilla Proposal

• Support Indef block with the standard offer and an admonishment to sign all talk page posts. Per this thread. --Adam in MO Talk 01:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Unfortnately, GG is just not complying with simple demands, and, if he is seemingly not able to sign his username correctly, how can we expect to trust him with other functions? If he somehow shapes up very soon, I will extend my offer again to mentor him, but I doubt it will happen.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral/Done (@TheGracefulSlick:) – 1. What does GG mean?, 2. I don't know how to Really modify it anyway, 3. I just frankly want to drop it — God's Roaring Godzilla 04:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• The fact that you still can't sign your name correctly doesn't bode well for the outcome of this proposal. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@God's Godzilla: GG is an abbreviation for your username. I'm really kind of shocked that I have to explain that. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support. This is either gross and irremediable incompetence, or deliberate trolling. And TGS is not qualified to mentor or keep a handle on such a prolifically incompetent user. Thus, mentorship is out, and since the user still can't be bothered to follow even the least sort of instructions (see their recent edits), or leave an edit summary, or even sign his name correctly after numerous requests and instructions (or check "Show preview" before posting), it seems to me we have no further option. Softlavender (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support I can't tell if GG is massively incompetent or just having a really good laugh at our expense, but in either case, I don't think the Wikipedia should put up with it any further. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 05:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support. This is either trolling or an unsolvable WP:CIR issue at this point, between the capitalization of Every Single Word, random bold text, repeated requests to close the discussion prematurely, and complete stone-walling of simple requests to sign their posts properly. TheGracefulSlick was incredibly generous with their offer of mentoring above. The sort of mentoring that would have been needed here is never particularly easy, but it becomes impossible when the editor being mentored is unwilling to listen to anything the mentor is saying. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support After all this to-ing and fro-ing, this appears to be a clear-cut WP:CIR issue, with GG's attempt to take charge of this discussion being the last straw. Indefinite blocking (with the standard offer) seems to be the only way to resolve this now. There seems to be consensus for the block here, so unless anyone disagrees in the next few minutes, I'll perform the block and close this discussion. -- The Anome (talk) 07:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - to give other editors a chance to weight in on a proposal thats been up for less than 24 hours. Anome, this is not yet a situation were a quick reaction is needed. Give it a couple days breathing room. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Insults and abuse

I was insulted and abused by @Cagwinn:, a blocked user who has also threatened to continue edit warring once he is unblocked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cagwinn UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

In the future, you need to provide evidence of the claims you are making. I did find one so far and it does seem like a personal attack. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cagwinn#November_2016 "You are a troll..", "You are mentally disturbed" there is no reason for those comments. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Cagwinn has clearly crossed a line by attacking UtherPendrogn personally. However, Uther has also crossed a line: once this report was filed, and he had informed Cagwinn of the report, he need not have further harassed Cagwinn on his user talk page. No discussion there is going to resolve the issue, so there is no point to further stir the pot. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe it's harassment, it's defending myself against his slander. Him pretending to be upset by writing in all caps is part of his victim-playing to try and pin the blame on me. Don't think for a second he actually feels he's been harassed, since all I've done is post my sources, defend my sources, notify him of my ANI, then defended myself against his repeated attacks after notifying him of the ANI, despite me stating I have no wish to talk to him. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

If you have no wish to talk to him, then don't. There are two issues here. Firstly, when he told you to stay off his page, then you should do so, and only post on his page required notices. Then there is the issue of the personal attacks. I think the issue of you "harassing" him can be dealt with with a warning, don't do it again. When someone gets the message, you don't need to keep on posting. His personal attacks should be dealt with by a block. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

But that isn't harassment. Perfectly innocuous messages defending my sources and against his slander aren't harassment, and by calling it that you've played right into his game. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Continuing to post on his talk page after he asked you not to is harassment. Keep the conversations with him on the article talk page. Stay off his page. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

All you needed to do was leave a single message informing him of this report. Continuing to berate him for his personal attack was not a good idea. DarkKnight2149 20:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I did not berate him, I defended myself against his slander and accusations and threats. HE had no reason to comment on MY report, so that's on him. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

You don't seem to get it. Once you posted the ANI notice, you should have STAYED OFF his page. I think an IBAN as proposed below may be in order. I also think the personal attacks need to be resolved as well. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - this sort of dispute has the potential to spiral out of control quickly, and both parties can make an argument that they were provoked by the other. Perhaps a 2-way interaction ban might be the best way to solve it? Maybe for a few months, until things calm down. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

An interaction ban is necessary I believe and the the behavior by UtherPendrogn during and after delivery of the AN/I notification was not civil. The stick should have been dropped as there was no reason to continue the back and forth on the talk page. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

How was it not civil? UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Your initial message was perfectly sufficient. And after you left it, he asked you to stay off of his Talk Page and yet you continued to go after him, shoving it in his face that he attacked you and accusing him of playing the "victim card". Those further messages weren't needed and do constitute harassment. And, with all due respect, what precisely were you defending yourself from? In those messages, all you did was accuse him of doing things. I'm not saying that he didn't do anything wrong, but your messages were excessive. DarkKnight2149 20:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

His vile behaviour demanded a lot of defending. Now he's accused me of vandalism (ask him for the diffs, I quite clearly haven't ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. I'm rather unconcerned by it, since I know my edits were sourced, in several other user's opinion correct, and only he is against them for no reason and edit warred over them. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the point is that you should have left it for an admin following the post of the AN/I notification. The continued debate after the fact has inflamed an already intense situation. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

A debate he started, with malicious intent. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM is worthy of a review based on that response (even though you're not blocked, it's a worthwhile read). I'm not excusing their behavior either, i'm just saying you didn't help the situation. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

A debate he started =/= "I'm blameless". UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Can we all say CANVAS, 1, 2, 3, 4 -- GB fan 21:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

CANVAS indeed. Why did you do that, UtherPendrogn? Just when the situation was seemingly wrapping, you unnecessarily made yourself look worse by breaking our policies. DarkKnight2149 21:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Huh? Look at the dates. At the time my AIV hadn't even gone noticed, and I though it was urgent given I was being threatened by Cagwinn. They stopped when I was asked to stop by Wordsmith and when I got the first reply here. I have no interest in influencing the discussion, and would like to stop contributing to it until Cagwinn gets his say and the opportunity to defend himself. UtherPendrogn (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

All of the messages were posted after you started this discussion, and the messages were not neutral at all. That's canvassing. DarkKnight2149 23:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

That's quite literally what I said. My AIV hadn't gone NOTICED, I didn't say I hadn't posted it. And they weren't canvassing. UtherPendrogn (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

If you don't consider this canvassing, what precisely would you call it? The simple fact that the messages weren't neutral violates WP:CANVAS. Not to mention that you posted them after you posted this discussion here (which the time stamps prove). And as numerous editors are pointing out, your decision to deny responsibility for your actions is becoming tedious and doesn't instill much confidence that you won't do it again in the future. DarkKnight2149 20:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

I offer the following proposal, an additional 24 hour block for Cagwinn for his multiple and vile personal attacks. I also offer a warning/admonishment to UtherPendrogn to stop the harassment and dropping the stick. Finally, as mentioned by The Wordsmith, a three month IBAN between Cagwinn and UtherPendrogn. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support as written by Sir Joseph. I think this is a reasonable resolution. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This is nonsense as can be seen by the multiple provocations on Cagwinn's talk. Yes, the user is unhappy, and yes, they should not have made those statements. However, UtherPendrogn is clearly poking an opponent and provoking a fight. It is UtherPendrogn who needs to be told to leave Cagwinn alone, and to stop posting at the latter's talk. This ANI report is about an underlying issue which no one here has investigated, but where we can see that UtherPendrogn has pushed someone who was already frustrated. The solution is for UtherPendrogn to stop. Johnuniq (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I was not poking him or inciting him to do anything, I posted sources. There is no underlying issue, this is regular behaviour for Cagwinn, which you can see by his talk page history, only a few posts above mine. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support: Per the discussion above. I'm not sure if the block is necessary if Personal Attacks aren't a regular thing with Cagwinn, given the ban (blocks are to protect Wikipedia, not to punish the user). But other than that, I agree with the proposal. DarkKnight2149 20:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

They are unfortunately a regular thing with him. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer (one of them, anyway). A very sensible solution to this issue, and hopefully in three months cooler heads will prevail. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support as an uninvolved third party. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support Iban and strong warning for Uther, as it's quite clear they're provoking Cagwinn. Cagwinn's comments are unacceptable, but again, Uther is engaging in provocation; a lengthened block would be punitive rather than preventative as Cagwinn's in no position to continue the dispute if Uther stays off their talk page. If either of them pursue the dispute after the remedy, block them then.Cúchullain ^t/c 21:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not provoking them. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@UtherPendrogn: You appear to have a fairly bad case of I didn't hear that. Multiple editors have observed the interaction between you and Cagwinn and determined that your actions constitute provocation. Your insistence that you are not provoking Cagwinn speaks to your inability to recognize the impact of your actions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I've heard it, but I don't agree. And several other editors have observed that it wasn't provocation. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Cagwinn has agreed to quit responding to Uther and being uncivil, and consents to abide by the proposed interaction ban.[124] At this point I don't see how an extension of the current block would be preventative.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and to the claim that Uther has not been provoking Cagwinn, in addition to the posts to Cagwinn's talk, they've also been going around making changes to articles Cagwinn frequents, often using quite provocative summaries. Cagwinn's responses aren't acceptable, but they're not coming in a vacuum either.[125][126][127][128][129][130] To Drmies's comment on topic bans below: I'd hate to see Cagwinn forced out of articles he's previously edited constructively based on this dispute.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

That's not at all provocation. UtherPendrogn (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Cúchullain, thank you for those links--if I had looked at them earlier I might have blocked already; we've had enough of these antics. Yes, they are provocative, yes, there are personal attacks in the edit summaries, and yes, you were correctly called out for canvassing in the section above. Enough already: you have run out of credit. It's pretty obvious you followed the other editor to Maelgwn Gwynedd to harass them and revert their edits--so besides canvassing and making harassing comments on their own talk page, we now have hounding as well. Drmies (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me?! I am interested in Celtic History, I took a random page and updated the incorrect, unsourced information on Maelgwn Gwynedd. I didn't know he was a "curator" of the page (which there aren't meant to be on this site, but whatever I suppose). I reverted his edits when they provoked ME and insulted ME and slandered ME by calling it OS nonsense, then calling ME an idiot. UtherPendrogn (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

UtherPendrogn: Your refusal to acknowledge your part in this only hurts your own case.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support the interaction ban, the extension of Cagwinn's block, and the reminder to UtherPendrogn to drop the stick much more quickly if they encounter a situation like this in the future. I disagree that UtherPendrogn's posts at Cagwinn's talk page were harassment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

  @UtherPendrogn: This discussion is overwhelmingly in support of an interaction ban, and people seem to agree that you needed to drop the stick and stop posting on Cagwinn's talk page even if you felt you were defending yourself or trying to fix the situation. With that in mind, I'm baffled that you decided to post there again (after saying you would stop), and now you've just posted again even though their reply to your apology clearly indicated that they do not want you posting on their talk page. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt before, that you were not intentionally provoking and badgering Cagwinn; I no longer do. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Although I do not think it neccessary to block Cagwinn as he already said he would accept the ban and stop being uncivil. UtherPendrogn's actions are also worrisome and how he/she handled this was poor. The fact that he/she has not even accepted their wrongdoing and canvassed is almost as bad as the personal attacks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

How can you even say that? I did nothing wrong except not dropping the stick (for two messages) after reporting him. I did not canvas, I was trying to get someone to react quickly since he sent me threats, and if you seriously think that's as bad as calling me insane, stupid, saying he hopes I get banned (something that isn't even done on this site), or that he hopes I get "dealt with", is the same as not dropping the stick for two messages and trying to get some assistance againstthreats... UtherPendrogn (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

UtherPendrogn sadly I see more administrative action in your future. I am not excusing the insults thrown at you, but you continuously deny any of your wrongdoings (hounding, canvassing, insulting-edit summaries) and, most recently, went after Drmies just for having his take on the issue. Are you with all honesty telling me everyone, with years of combine experience and know-how, are wrong in this case, something some deal with on a regular basis? Please, spare me. At least Cagwinn has the humility to admit his mistakes; you, on the other hand, show no signs of wanting to improve.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

He quite literally denied he did anything wrong in his apology. And I didn't "go after Drmies". I brought to attention the fact that deleting a post on another user's page would mean that user might commit the same error. They then removed my message saying they didn't understand, so I reverted it back. They reverted it again, so clearly they're not interested. I gave up. I can only hope the other user will be able to avoid making the same mistake again. UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• No. iBans suck; enforcing them is difficult. (And I do think Uther's continued posting on Cagwinn's talk page is harassment, and I warned them I would block if they do it again.) They're fighting over one issue in one article--so who gets it? Block Uther if they post on Cagwinn's talk page one more time, or insult them someplace else. Same with Cagwinn: one more stupid insult about mental situations and they get a seriously long block. As for the article they're fighting over, if y'all want an iBan, make that article off-limits to both of them. Topic bans are more easily enforced then iBans--we've all seen how people try to get around them. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm done with this Uther. They are disruptive, uncollaborative, and seem to want to tirritate others. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Why, because you deleted my posts that tried to help someone with contributing to Anglo-Saxon phonology in articles, which is something that really needs to be done? "And I didn't "go after Drmies". I brought to attention the fact that deleting a post on another user's page would mean that user might commit the same error. They then removed my message saying they didn't understand, so I reverted it back. They reverted it again, so clearly they're not interested. I gave up. I can only hope the other user will be able to avoid making the same mistake again." UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
      • You need to STOP already. You were "ahead" before and you were advised to quit then and you failed to listen. It most likely not end up the way you expected if you continue to harass people. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
        • He deleted help I was trying to provide to a user because it was "pointless needling", doubtless since I did ask for an apology, which I should not have done. I am not harassing him, and if he considers reverting an edit ONCE on his page harassment, then I apologise for that. UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
          • Oh Jesus Christ. The nonsense continues. This is not you helping someone, it's you being a totally patronizing asshole to someone seven and a half months after an edit was made. I encourage everyone in this thread to look at that talk page. You totally insulted the editor--I removed it, and the editor thanked me for it. And no, I don't consider you reinstating a message on my talk page to be harassment, because I got pretty thick skin and you can't touch this. I do consider it rude and ill-mannered--but nice non-apology apology, man. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
            • Unbelievable. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that he returned to Cagwinn's Talk Page, and now this? The user seems to expect everyone to apoligise to them without admitting any major wrongdoing themself. Uther seems to be holding grudges now. I'm slowly starting to consider proposing a block. DarkKnight2149 20:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
• Partial support I accept the blocks, but not the TBAN. Uther is still being disruptive, uncollaborative and tendentious with IDHT and possibly a touch of NOTTHERE. They are seriously shooting themselves in the foot. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 18:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I should have dropped the stick, but I wasn't harassing them. It ends there, really. UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

UtherPendrogn so you're kinda willing to accept you did something wrong when threatened with a boomerang? That is still not very encouraging. I really hope admins take a close look at your disruption too.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I accepted I did something wrong from the get-go. User:GorillaWarfare can testify to that. And it wasn't a threat, it was a link telling me to stop shooting myself in the foot, not a threat. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any point in continuing this. Overwhelming support has been given, and the situation can only aggravate from here, so might as well end it. Am I allowed to support? UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban, support lengthening blocks on both users if they can't learn to edit without fighting other editors. Cagwinn has been chronically engaging in ad hominem attacks on a handful of experienced Wikipedians, myself included, which is probably why Uther tried to canvass me. Cagwinn is very WP:OWNy about the articles he edits, and has vowed to edit war until he "wins". I actually briefly considered that Uther was a bad hand sock of Cagwinn, trying to entrap Cagwinn's targets into more drama. I think they are both headed for community bans if they don't shape up promptly. Personally, I'm doubtful Cagwinn is capable of it. I haven't seen enough of Uther to predict if he's capable of change. Both are wasting our time. Sorry to be so blunt, but this is ridiculous. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Cagwinn seems to believe that CorbieVreccan is holding a grudge against him for reverting one of their edits at Dôn ([131]). This claim might not hold any water, though. DarkKnight2149 22:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Cagwinn does tend to focus on those who set limits on him. He was blocked for edit-warring. I am one of the editors who reverted him during his spree. This is not the only article I've had to revert him on. See the discussion on Cuchullain's talk page, notably Cagwinn's personal attacks and vows to continue edit-warring on the 'pedia till he "wins". - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Dôn is an area where Cagwinn behaved deplorably, and it's the largest factor in the block he's currently faced with. However, it has little to do with the current dispute, except that it's another case where Uther inserted themselves to feud with Cagwinn,[132] and then antagonize him over.[133][134][135]--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Although he still doesn't seem to trust CorbieVreccan, the good news is that Cagwinn now hopes to silently wait for this discussion to play out ([136]). DarkKnight2149 22:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Cagwinn is currently on a 72 hour block I think. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 23:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support Like CorbieVreccan, I had a suspicion that Cagwinn and Uther were possibly playing a Good hand/Bad hand game because they both use the exact same justification for reverting (my sources are impeccable, yours are wrong) and a possibly deliberate inability to discern when they might have been at fault in interactions. I think it's unlikely but you never know. I support an iBAN but I have little faith in it with these two editors. Cagwinn immediately went back to reverting after the Dôn article released from 24 hour page protection [137]. His attitude remains that other editors are impediments to his infallible judgment. Incivility and ad hominem appears to be his default response. Uther is either unwilling or unable to back away from conflict or see the fault in his behaviour. Time will tell whether this is correctable. Extending their blocks is an option but I'm not sanguine about either of them reforming. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 23:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Here's to hoping that they don't continue the incivility here when the block expires. DarkKnight2149 23:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I hope not but I suspect the outlook is dismal. In the interests of transparency, I should mention that I was involved in a content dispute/edit war with Cagwinn on the Dôn article a few days ago. I'm not proud of it and I can't remember when I last made that mistake, probably back in the oughts. In my opinion above, I've tried to stick with an objective view based on my personal interactions and observations of both editors. YMMV. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 00:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I have looked into Cagwinn's claims of CorbieVreccan and Pigman holding grudges against him. Evidence says otherwise. CorbieVreccan seems to have been involved with the Don article for quite some time now. CorbieVreccan saw this thread either through one of the involved users' contributions or because they have ANI on their watchlist (it is an admin board). Pigman was notified of the situation by Uther, who tried to seek help from them. Pigman was perfectly reasonable and neutral in their messages. Uther then posted on Pigman's talk page again about Cagwinn "winning", which was again shot down by Pigman. CorbieVreccan then redirected Pigman to the ANI discussion. I fail to see the supposed grudges and canvassing. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry for not clarifying earlier, but I thought it was pretty clear. As far as I can recall, my first encounter with this Uther person was when they showed up on the Don page a few days ago. I looked at their talk page, saw they were already in fights with people, and backed away. Then they started posting on my talk page, which I ignored. I have ANI watchlisted, and noticed that folks I'd had recent interactions with were posting here a lot, so I came over to see what was up. When I saw that this diff mentioned me:[138] and then saw the weird charges from Cagwinn that I was somehow in a conspiracy with every random person who posts on my talk page, I decided to weigh in. I saw the canvassing diffs also mentioned Pigman, so I notified him:[139]. While a diff isn't precisely "Tell people you're discussing them at ANI" it's in the spirit of the thing, hence, the notice. Believe me, I was far from thrilled at Uther's attempts to drag me into this; and Cagwinn's immediate use of it to further attack me is what made me wonder if they are a particularly bizarre sock drawer. Best, - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 03:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support - the IBAN and warnings to both editors, Oppose the additional 24 hour block (unless applied to both editors). Cagwinn's comments were utterly unacceptable, and block worthy on their own, but, Uther's behaviour has been equally unimpressive. They have harassed Cagwinn on their talk page, even after filing this AN/I and being aware than an IBAN is on the table - which would make their comments a vio of the IBAN had it been in effect. They then (correction, they canvassed around the time of posting of the OP) canvassed both CorbieVreccan and Pigman with the intent of swinging the discussion in the opposite direction - though this has evidently failed, both Corbie and Pigman are clearly being impartial despite claims to the contrary by Cagwinn. I find this to be equally poor judgement and behaviour. Both editors refuse to properly acknowledge and accept their roles in this mess. Cagwinn has at least agreed to the IBAN but these[140][141] demonstrate that they're not really ready to let it go. Uther, as demonstrated by their continuous IDHT in the thread above, also believes themselves to be blameless in this issue. There needs to be some sticks dropped, one stick for Uther, and at least three for Cagwinn. I know IBAN's are just another problem, but, short of a TBAN on anything about Celtic Britain I really don't see this getting fixed up by blocks. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I did NOT canvas them afterwards but before, I posted non-neutral messages, though not out of malicious intent (what happened to everyone droning on about WP:Good Faith?). I posted those after the ANI but before a response got here and before WordSmith told me not to post after the ANI. "UtherPendrogn"

Those comments were not neutral, you did not go to the admins' talk pages and ask for input. You declared outright that you were blameless and asked for the admins to act as is required - it would have been neutral if you'd posted to the two admins with; Hey, there is an issue at AN/I in which you may be interested in. Your point-of-view - accurate or otherwise - immediately ended any neutrality in the comment. I was insulted and abused by User:Cagwinn, Despite him insulting me profusely and calling me insane and Cagwinn seems to have known Doug Weller would be biased towards me are not neutral statements, not in the least bit. Even though the first two are accurate, they are still not neutral. (Strike reason - unnecessary "berating" when fault has been admitted) You're correct about canvassing before going to Cagwinn's page, an error on my part - struck that part out. You're logged out btw - perhaps log in and resign the comment, but, that's up to you. Again, all you should do is drop the stick, and stay away from Cagwinn. Read up on WP:IBAN, so that you are aware of the actual restrictions imposed. Such as, you may not revert any of their edits - except blatant obvious vandalism (I highly recommend you don't try to do that either). Mr rnddude (talk) 13:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you reading my comments? I said they were non-neutral and have now said six or seven times that I should have dropped the stick. UtherPendrogn (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

UtherPendrogn, sorry I misread non-neutral as neutral. I've struck the part about neutrality out. When I've got five different things in front of me, I do occasionally make a mistake. Mea culpa. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

These are serious accusations, and that's two errors now. Yes, I asked for the admins to deal with the situation as is required, banning him or me, blocking him or me, warning him or me. I did not think to post a calm and neutral message since it was not a caln situation. As to the IBAN, I fully understand its implications. It's ridiculous to berate me for doing something that might be an offense in the future if the IBAN is established. You have also violated the future IBAN between you and me, for example. UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You might want to read out any of the aggressive tone you've read into my comments. I can understand why you might think it's there, but, it really isn't. I didn't point you towards IBAN to club you over the head with it, but, because there is more than just a user and user talk page ban involved. That said, my "serious" accusations are still accurate. I struck out the "berating" because you'd acknowledged it in the last comment - that goes nowhere to discredit the claim, only my reading of your comment. More importantly though, do you want to consider doing anything about your IP comment, those give away some level of privacy - geolocation for example. You don't have to, but, anybody can associate your IP, and thus your geo-location, with you now. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Is that a threat? "UtherPendrogn"

Sheesh. No. It's a reality. Now start signing in please. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment @UtherPendrogn: FYI... Drmies just did you a huge favor and saved you from possible WP:OUTING. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh Jesus Christ. The nonsense continues. This is not you helping someone, it's you being a totally patronizing asshole to someone seven and a half months after an edit was made. I encourage everyone in this thread to look at that talk page. You totally insulted the editor--I removed it, and the editor thanked me for it. And no, I don't consider you reinstating a message on my talk page to be harassment, because I got pretty thick skin and you can't touch this. I do consider it rude and ill-mannered--but nice non-apology apology, man. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC) UtherPendrogn (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor I cant think of any malice Drmies would have by hiding your IP address. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Uther, we might refer to IP users as "anonymous users", but you're actually more anonymous when your IP address isn't visible. I'd say he did you a favour. DarkKnight2149 19:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Uther, you were warned several times to drop the stick. It's reaching the point where my new proposal will include a block for you and not just a warning. I suggest you take a break and let things settle down and stay away from pages that get you into hot water. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Uther, you're welcome. I give up on you: you left a few more edits here and there from your IP address--perhaps another admin cares enough about you to remove mention of that IP. Now, I'm probably an asshole, but not yet a bitter one. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

If @Drmies: is an asshole, then I wonder whether the term is of any utility at all around here, as it would presumably be about as limiting as "living people." (Although, of course, any of you bots who feel slighted by that are free to respond.) I am beginning to think that the conversation here has spiralled completely out of control, and, supporting the original proposal, I also, regretfully, think Sir Joseph's last comment above might merit support if things don't improve soon. John Carter (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Personal attack/false accusation against me in an edit summary

User:Oncenawhile has been making non-stop personal attacks against me for years, culminating in now including one in an edit summary, where he accused me of WikiHouding him after another editor and I asked him to provide reliable sources for his edit. (The edit involved inventing his own classification system for ethnoreligious groups and arbitrarily placing different groups within his own made up categories.) He did not provide a link which supported these categorizations, instead he added one which described a different categorization system and wrote "reversion of Drsmoo wikihounding across unrelated articles." [[142]]. Per my understanding, this is explicitly forbidden Help:Edit_summary#What_to_avoid_in_edit_summaries It's just the latest in a string of uncivil personal attacks he's made against me and others, the other most recent one being when he posted on my talk page that my posting was reminiscent of a Milli Vanilli song, whatever that means. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drsmoo&diff=744867813&oldid=738479488 Drsmoo (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• New or innovative scholarship should not be cited to a dissertation--a dissertation might be acceptable, in certain circumstances, but I don't see those here yet. Oncenawhile, can you drop the snark? Drmies (talk) 03:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, the link was intended to point to the section in the dissertation which summarizes existing scholarship - it walks through in a methodical fashion the various scholars which have published classification systems. I was being lazy in not explaining this properly, and/or not pulling out the underlying sources. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I stand by my accusation of WikiHounding. The evidence is below:

• By number of all time edits: [143]: 35% of all his edits have been on pages which I have also edited within the prior 24 hours, and that figure goes up to 45% if you remove the time constraint
• By number of edits in 2016: [144]: 63% of all his edits have been on pages which I have also edited within the prior 24 hours, plus those on my talk page, and that figure goes up to 70% if you remove the time constraint
• Edit history analysis: We have had a very long running dispute on Southern Levant, ever since I reported Drsmoo for edit warring back in 2011. The dispute simmered for a long time, and began to get very heated from late April 2016, when Category:Southern_Levant was put up for deletion. Since then Drmsoo has become involved in numerous unrelated discussions across the encyclopaedia, each time his involvement came only after I had already made an edit or was involved in a discussion: [145]:

3 May 2016 joins a discussion in a thread I was involved in at Modern Hebrew, in combative opposition

10 June 2016 joins a discussion I was involved in on Zionism, in combative opposition

21 August 2016 reverts an edit of mine at Palestinians

28 August 2016 joins a discussion at Rachel's Tomb, in combative opposition, and later joins a similar discussion at Joseph's Tomb

16 October 2016 partial revert of my edits at L'Shana Haba'ah

30 October 2016 joins a discussion at Template:Graphical Overview of Jerusalem's Historical Periods, in combative opposition

19 November 2016 reverts my edit at Demographic history of Jerusalem

25 November 2016‎ partial revert of my edit at Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries

28 November 2016 reverts my edit at Ethnoreligious group

His intent is clear and it is making for a very difficult editing environment.

As an aside, and in the interest of transparency, please note that Drsmoo has opened four previous ANI claims against me: [146], [147], [148], [149]

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The above is complete and utter BS and the same percentages appear with others who frequently edit in the I/P field. It also includes places where I edited first, for example, my talk page. I have no special interest in Oncenawhile and regularly edit in the I/P field which involves disputes with multiple editors. In the last six months I've edited 63 articles and Oncenawhile has edited 157, there have been 14 overlaps, which is roughly the same ratio you'll find with anyone in the I/P field. However, essentially every time Oncenawhile is involved, he drags the discussion on into a long meaningless argument, usually filled with personal attacks (from him), endless "pinging" (from him) (a weird thing to do to someone you say is "hounding" you) and harassment (including on my talk page). This combined with the fact that I often make multiple grammar edits for every "contribution" due to not utilizing preview as often as I should leads to the BS above.

Meanwhile, Oncenawhile has been harassing me (and other editors), including on my talk page, incessantly. Including this, where when it was clear that he had no reliable sources to back up his/her edits, he started accusing me of "hounding".

Some recent examples:

• Tells me he will not assume good faith when editing

• Falsely accuses me of "plagiarizing a student website" even while my edit is fully sourced

• Posts on my talk page that my edit reminds him of "Milli Vanilli", whatever that means

• Says my policy based statements are "vacuous", and thus he will ignore them

• "you made a stupid revert about something totally irrelevant, and noone can be bothered to deal with it.”

• Calls me "pathetic"

• Accuses me of Islamophobia based on nothing

And some examples of his editing towards other editors

• "Telling NMMNG not to attack another editor is like telling a child they can't have cake. It only feeds his aggression. The best way to deal with editors like this is to ignore them."

• “I would note that the quality of your edits so far suggest you know very little about the city's history. You appear to be using this as a learning exercise, rather than a valid attempt to improve the encyclopaedia based on any pre-existing knowledge.”

• “I worry about people when they feel the need to project their own self-importance to unknown strangers. Numerous psychological studies have shown that such behaviour belies a deep lack of underlying self confidence. It probably goes without saying, but I am here for you if you ever need anyone to speak to.”

Feel free to look through my posting history or any of the examples he gave, I have never engaged in personal attacks and all my edits, including this most recent one, are policy based. Drsmoo (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

This user has been uploading unfree files and adding them to pages

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

---

Vuongtrang26011995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has uploaded many images pertaining to smartphones and other computers in a short period of time. Although the user has been dormant for a while, I would just want to make sure these files are indeed inappropriate for inclusion. Seeing that the user's talk page has indicated that several of his or her uploads have already been deleted, a mass deletion might be necessary to get rid of the remaining images, and then the user should be sternly warned. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Files were all copyvios and were all nuked by Oshwah. --Majora (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Unverified claims in Johor Bahru page

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

---

Johorean Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has posted that Iskandar Malaysia is the third largest metropolitan area in Malaysia, even though statistics show otherwise as it is the third largest, not second. Here is his version. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johor_Bahru&oldid=751950711 This user has reverted my revisions and even posted a crude nonsensical explanation on my talk page. Semi-auto (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, but this board is not for such issues. No admin intervention seems to be required here. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Semi-auto, the user has not posted anything on your talk page. Please discuss these content issues on the talk-page of the article, providing independent reliable-source citations. Softlavender (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Strange things with new editors

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

---

While patrolling recent changes, I noticed something a bit peculiar: several accounts have been made, all with a single edit and adding the same content to their userpage. See User:Mellere, User:Kasaad, User:CBrown2657, User:Sharon OH, User:M.Bursa07, and countless others (just look here and you'll see a pattern). I am sorry if this is the wrong place to put this, but it seems important to note. JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

You know, after looking closer at it, it just appears to be a school assignment thing. Sorry for this, but you do gotta admit some suspicion is warranted (of sorts). JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

That's remarkable User:JudgeRM! We are indeed a class, getting ready to attempt contribution on a range of articles to do with Oral Health and/or Dentistry. We're all sitting here now looking at your message, impressed with how quickly patrolling works in Wikipedia. Thanks for the demo :) Leighblackall (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Leighblackall: See WP:Education program. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Compromised account?

I've looked through Pm master's edits in the past. This leads me to believe the account is compromised. To wit:

• From 2007 - 2013 PM master made several thousand edits, all in the area of project management and related business organisational topics. Much of this was fighting spam links in business articles. They evidenced no interest in historical, Iranian, or Islamic topics.
• Yet the account became active again yesterday (after a 2 year hiatus), immediately undertook disputes in an entirely novel field, and claimed knowledge of editors and edits with which they have no prior interaction.
• The style of talk page postings in the earlier period and the recent days is entirely different.

It is clear that the person currently using the Pm master account is an experienced Wikipedian; but I do not believe it is the same person as used it until 2013.

Obviously the logs from 2013 are long gone, so a checkuser wouldn't be able to confirm this. I don't know what steps we can take. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that this warrants investigation. A checkuser may not yield any definitive results because, as you say, the logs from 2013 would have long since expired. However, it may be possible to discern the original Pm master's probable timezone by examining the time stamps on his pre-2013 edits. It would by no means prove anything on its own, but if there's been a radical enough change between then and now, it could go a long way in affirming the possibility of a compromised account. That's assuming there isn't any other more explicit indication of it in his contributions.

In any event, the communication style and primary areas of interest are divergent enough, coupled with the sudden return to active editing following a three-year hiatus, that a compromised account seems likely. I would not be opposed to an indefinite block of Pm master until we get to the bottom of this. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• I hesitate only because I've never dealt with a compromised account before. Maybe Stephen can have a go... Drmies (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks Drmies, I'm not an expert by any stretch - I only catch the obvious cases like Wales vandalizing the main page. However, a calm experienced editor with an interest in software development project management suddenly diving into middle-eastern matters and accusing an respected admin of sockpuppetry in his second edit in two years is indeed compromised. I've extended your block indefinitely until identity can be reestablished. Stephen 23:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oh that Jimbo Wales thing is TOTALLY NOT WHY I PINGED YOU STEPHAN but I appreciate the extra set of eyes--I think that makes five pairs by now. Also, I don't know if FPaS is "respected", though I appreciate their service, but you know, they've been here forever and that counts for something. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring at Liquid fluoride thorium reactor by IP user 71.195.221.79

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

---

IP user 71.195.221.79 keeps reinserting a TED video to the article in a really disruptive manner. He also violated the 3RR rule. Diffs: [150], [151], [152], [153], [154] -- CoolKoon (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It's edit warring (which is disruptive, granted), but we have a special noticeboard for that. I suggest you report him there. Kleuske (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocked the IP. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, good to know. Thanks. -- CoolKoon (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

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

User:JohnWilkinson

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

AIV got me nowhere with this a few weeks ago, so I'll try here now that it's come up again today. User:JohnWilkinson is a bizarre SPA who keeps parroting some nonsense about how the International Boxing Organization (IBO) does not belong in the lead sections of certain articles (mainly Gennady Golovkin, plus other articles involving the IBO), and keeps removing it after a series of ranting edit summaries. He also seems to have a presence outside of WP, promoting his agenda at forums and comment sections. Examples: 1, 2.

Several such edits have been made in the past few months; multiple warnings given; a previous account for the same thing earlier in the year; and his occasional rambling at my talk page (3, 4) is annoying as hell. Example quote from the latter:

"I am writing to you as your superior in this ONE FIELD."

I mean, seriously? Discussing the matter with him won't work, as I can't make heads nor tails of what he's going on about! What's clear is that he won't stop removing the IBO from articles, which is disruptive and basically vandalism by this point. Tempted to say NOTHERE, even though others might view his edits as "misguided but good faith". Regardless, he's an absolute nutjob. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything in either account's contribution history that is particularly out of bounds, like edit warring. There may be a WP:COI, since the user seems to have strong personal opinions about IBO. It seem like WP:DR is the best course of action. AIV is not the right venue because there's no indication that the edits were done with the intent to damage the encyclopedia.- MrX 19:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

He is edit warring, though, and disruptively so. Besides the continual rambling and nonsensical edit summaries, he has given no justifiable—or even decipherable—reasons to remove the IBO from those articles. More like WP:PN should apply here, as most of what he writes is the very definition of "Content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confusing that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it." WP:DR seems like a waste of time, since he only makes the edits every few weeks and is not a regular user. Perhaps WP:EWN instead? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

So that people trying to help you don't have to trudge exhaustively through two accounts' contributions, please provide diffs showing edit warring.- MrX 23:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of slow-edit warring at Gennady Golovkin:

• Current edition with stable lead, and IBO included: 1
• Lead with content (IBO) persistently removed by User:JohnWilkinson – 19 Oct, 29 Oct, 18 Nov.

Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

These edits, while repeated, aren't occurring at a high enough rate for me to justify this as active "edit warring" or that any administrative action is needed at this time. I think the best course of action is to inform the user that he needs to discuss his thoughts and rationale on the article's talk page and explain (with references and sources that support his argument) why he believes that his contributions are valid and the content modifications/removal he's been making are accurate improvements that are verifiable. He just needs to get affiliated with dispute resolution and understand the need to properly discuss disagreements like this on the article's talk page, that's all :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Heh, so I'm on my own with this one. Fine, but I'll say this outright—I dread being obligated to interact with him in any way. Any non-admin user who calls themselves my "superior" on WP, whilst touting a fictional organisation set out to "fix" boxing, and saying things like "I can assure you..I myself am one of the "greats" in understanding modern boxing at admin levels", or leaving their damn phone number at my talk page, is not worth my time.

Let alone the walls of text I would expect to receive, like these posts from him (under the same name) on boxing forums: 1, 2. Quote from the first one: "I am AT WAR against the IBO which is the FIRST &FOREMOST MAJOR DECEIVER!" That's what I'd be opening myself up to. Just sayin'. I don't believe this paragraph violates WP:OUTING, since he himself has repeatedly posted his own name and number on WP, which seems to be covered by this RfC: "Noting undeniably obvious cross-site identity". In fact, it looks to me like WP:SOAPBOX and WP:BADPOV are at hand here—by admission he is not posting as an individual, but as an "organization" with an agenda to push.

The only reason I brought it up here is because his agenda has been persistent enough and presented in such a bizarre manner throughout the year to warrant at least a mention to someone who would notice, and because a huge amount of boxing topics are on my watchlist. If the unlucky souls at WP:DR or WP:COI think they handle him, good luck to 'em. Advice appreciated nonetheless.. Close away. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Vandal only account with problematic username

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

---

I wasn't sure which venue to best submit this editor, Aryan.wikipedia (talk · contribs). The edit history is clearly that this is a vandal only account, however, the username also denotes a racist (or white supremacist) viewpoint. But I'm just not sure if it raises to the level of a WP:USERNAME level. —Farix (t | c) 14:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this user for the vandalism and WP:BLP violations. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

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

User randomly adding fictional characters to ethnic categories without any evidence from the articles or anywhere else that they're accurate additions.

Sorry if this is the wrong place. This is a new account, but I'm not new here and have been dealing with vandals since at least 2005. GoldenRainbow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), however, I have no idea how to deal with, and I can't tell if the person even is a vandal or actually believes his information is correct. What this person is doing is adding fictional characters to categories such as Category:Fictional American people of Maltese descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), but the problem is there's very little evidence that they belong there in many cases. I can provide more examples, but I think his history shows that he's been making a lot of edits like these. I can't go around checking all of his edits for accuracy and reverting the bad ones, so this is more to bring the edits to someones attention because he's been doing this unnoticed for some time now. Supergahd (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'm very sorry guys being so adding fictional characters to ethnic categories without evidence, I will remove some of my edits. I'm cleaning them. If I revert to nor don't remove my edits, then please take them with a grain of salt until I receive word from any studios. But still, please accept my apology. I promise that if I ever add them again, I will add an explaination to "take it with a grain of salt". I will focus on other stuff instead of TV shows and movies. This is more like a dispute than an incident. GoldenRainbow (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No, wait. The problem is that you're adding the items at all. If you don't have any evidence, don't add them. The information is supposed to be accurate to the best of knowledge. You're using this site, as well as other places, like IMDB and TV Tropes, to start your own "conspiracy theories" (which is what you've admitted on another site). Leaving edit reasons is not enough, because most people are not going to see it. Knowingly spreading false information is not okay. Supergahd (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Okay, I just saw his recent edits, and leaving reasons like "Take them with a grain of salt till conformation from Nelvana, his actor or the creator" shows that this guy has no clue how this is supposed to work. Someone needs to deal with him. Supergahd (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Indeed - this edit from today is worrying. GoldenRainbow had previously self-reverted by way of apology, and then made three edits including this one. Incidentally, I'm not as clueless as my IP status might suggest (I've been editing with various IPs for several years) but - categories on redirect pages, are they a thing? 84.93.51.170 (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
        • I'm cleaning them up. This time is for real. I'm also adding more accurate additions based on articles. GoldenRainbow (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

User Deleting Articles Without Discussion; Continuous Refusal to Even Slightly Try & Compromise W/ Others

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

---

C.Fred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The page Skippa da Flippa was deleted with little-to-no discussion, with the main concern being lack of notability. That alone is rather ridiculous because we have an entire page dedicated to a dance move created by the same artist, I looked past this & didn't let it bother me. I spent hours gathering sources to prove the artists notability, I gathered numerous sources that proved him the creator of the Dab (something nobody from WP had previously done) and on top of that had numerous sources referring to him as the "Hottest Rapper Out of Atlanta Today". I posted a total of twelve new sources to the deleting administrator's Talk page. The user replied in less than ten minutes, (showing not only he didn't read the sources) but acted as though he had read every single one of them and zero of them claimed notability. These actions have led me to file this report as it's entirely unacceptable when an Administrator ignores facts & credible sources and goes about making edits at their own discretion and refusing to cooperate/compromise with fellow editors. Not only did I spend days creating the page, but also spent hours gathering the sources that the Administrator in question claimed were important (that he couldn't even be troubled as to read). This has made me feel as though no matter how much hard work/dedication that I put into creating an article free of implicit bias, that an administrator can simply look at the article and permanently delete the entire thing based on their opinion alone. Cheetoburrito (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

You should read WP:SIGCOV. Mere mentions of a person are not enough to show notability. I would also encourage you to take C.Fred's advice and work on a draft article. Finally, please assume good faith in your dealings with other users. It doesn't take more than ten minutes to skim through a handful of articles to see if they're suitable. clpo13_(talk) 22:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• The admin didn't delete it through his opinion, he was required to by policy. This is because the article was deleted through a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skippa da Flippa, and if you try to re-create it in the same form, it will be speedy deleted through this speedy deletion criteria. It is probably not best for you to claim that "WP is a community effort and so long as you refuse to work cooperatively, this will be continuously re-added"; if you wanted the article re-creating, the venue is deletion review or trying to improve the article so that it meets our notability policies, not pointlessly re-creating the same thing. For what it's worth, the deletion was correct as the article was completely sourced to ITunes/Spinrilla, which merely proves that the artist's mixtapes exist and don't claim any notability for the person themselves. WP:BIO and more precisely WP:MUSICBIO will give you guidelines as to showing notability for musical artists. Black Kite (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• • This consistent refusal to actually READ sources and just check the headlines is exactly how I was forced into this situation, SIGCOV you did not read twelve articles in six minutes AND type your message. You aren't going to convince anyone of this, also the Administrator in question is the one not assuming good faith, your assumption that I am the one doing this is a personal attack. As for, Black Kite I would like to thank you because I did not realize that the two deleting Administrator's were different users, but am still unsure about which would be responsible for proper undeletion of the page. It's very possible this could be a moot argument if the original deleting administrator is capable of undeleting, as I'd be ecstatic at the opportunity to discuss. However your pointing out of the iTunes/Spinrilla argument makes me think you also aren't paying much attention to the issue, as I've found more than ten new sources, all from credibile publications, citing notability. Cheetoburrito (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    • @Cheetoburrito: You're not getting the main point here: the article was originally deleted based on a community discussion. According to WP:CSD#G4, if the article is recreated with substantially the same content as the version that was previously deleted, the article should be deleted because the community has already reached consensus that it does not belong. Continuing to argue here that the people who deleted it are acting in bad faith is not going to gain any traction. Take the advice the other editors here have already given you, and create a new, different article that does more to show how this artist is notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    • No, I got all of that, Black Kite already stated that literally right above you. Also literally right above you, I thanked him for pointing this out. My argument that the user acted in bad faith is still very much in tact, because as can be seen at their talk page, they pretended to read numerous sources that cite notability and attempted to discredit them for unknown but obviously biased reasons. I'll happily begin drafting a new page should an original copy of the page be delivered to my SandBox, so I can mend it accordingly. None of this changes the fact that the Admin in question has clearly abused their authority. Cheetoburrito (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
      • It is hardly abuse of authority to delete an article that is recreated, substantially identical to the article that was deleted after the AfD process, under CSD G4, as I did twice. If you really want to talk about bad-faith editing, let's consider Cheetoburrito's edit summaries when he recreated the article:
        • "Page was deleted without proper discussion, users intentionally closed discussion without letting those who disagree participate." [155]
        • "What do you know!! Deleted again without discussion taking place. WP is a community effort and so long as you refuse to work cooperatively, this will be continuously re-added." [156]

      Never mind that the first of those two recreations was after AfD ran for a week and that Cheetoburrito had participated in it. I think we're at the right outcome: working on the article in draft space. It would have been smoother if Cheetoburrito had followed the guidelines for contesting deletion from the getgo or just created a new article in draft space. —C.Fred (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

If you want to re-argue the AfD based on "new" sources, then you must go to deletion review instead to present the sources or create a draft of the article, then present the draft to deletion review. You claim that C.Fred acted in "bad faith" by not reviewing your sources, but it is not the place of an admin to unilaterally overturn the result of a deletion discussion. —Farix (t | c) 23:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It appears that Tokyogirl79 addressed these concerns after comments by Cheetoburrito at WP:REFUND: [157]. It's too bad Cheeto then deleted that comment with a perfunctory "No." IMO, there is nothing more to discuss here, unless Cheeto wants to account for their constant assumption of bad faith on the part of administrators following process (though I suspect this may play some part in it). clpo13_(talk) 23:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• OK. I have reviewed the sources that Cheetoburrito provided, and whilst a number of them are about the dance rather than the artist himself, who is just mentioned in passing, there are also a couple that may provide some possibility of notability. Therefore, I have restored the deleted article to Draft:Skippa da Flippa. Cheetoburrito, please work on the article there, and when you're done, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page to submit it to articles for creation. Black Kite (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Repeated cut & paste moves and edit warring at Vento Aureo/Golden Wind

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

---

User Dvexx (talk · contribs) has been engaged in a slow-motion cut & paste edit war at Vento Aureo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)/Golden Wind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).[158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167] Dvexx has been attempting to rename the article without engaging in the WP:RM process and change all incoming links to the new name. Because they are using a cut & paste method, several other editors have reverted the edits do to their inappropriate methods. Dvexx, has been warned once that cut and paste moves and not acceptable,[168] but they have so far ignored the warning. Despite a previous attempt to engaged the editor in a discussion,[169] the editor has not engage. —Farix (t | c) 02:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Dvexx is now blocked indefinitely until he can demonstrate an understanding of page moves and edit warring, or at least promise not to do them anymore. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock request

Might we have a rangeblock for repeated AfD notice deletions on:

• Pt. Om Prakash Mishra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

by

• 2405:204:a58a:cd5e:ac7f:2f3f:496c:654e (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff
• 2405:204:a58a:cd5e:92a7:d49e:ddad:456f (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff, diff
• 2405:204:a58a:cd5e:a0fb:e988:c002:f130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff, diff

all likely socks of Opmishra123 (talk · contribs). Presumed sockmaster was warned here. SPI has yet to bear fruit. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• I blocked the range to prevent the disruptive editing. Any admin is welcome to make a determination of whether this is sockpuppetry or not. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Definitely the same person to me. I've updated the SPI with a response and blocked the account for block evasion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Pizzagate and related pages

This BLPN discussion got my attention first. Relevant pages include:

• Pizzagate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• And any pages that link to those.

Long story short, a lot of overly-vocal conspiracy theorists with a large web presence are making all kinds of claims regarding a pizza place and associates of the Clinton campaign that go well against BLP (not to mention common decency or sanity). It'd be reeeaaaallly nice to have plenty more uninvolved admin eyes who are familiar with discretionary sanctions until it settles down and the true believers go away. I'm arguably involved by this point, having tried to fix the draft (even if it's something I'd rather not touch). Ian.thomson (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Some things needed: Multiple users in those talk pages could stand to be topic banned under discretionary sanctions. The draft will probably need page protection at some point, as this topic is going to attract some WP:SPA trolls (for example, User:PingPongIsChildRape) and sockpuppets. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Ugh. Can it just be MfDed or AfDed (or even SPEEDYed)? It's already a non-notable cooked-up nonsensical problem, and keeping it around or posting it live will only increase the problem. Softlavender (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I would've just deleted the draft if I could find a valid reason to, but having fixed it, I have to say that it does (unfortunately) meet WP:GNG (for now). That also doesn't resolve the problem of the disambiguation page. I can't figure any valid reason for deleting the disambiguation page, and that'd only feed the conspiracy theorists further at any rate. However, because it's a disambiguation page, we apparently aren't allowed to cite sources explaining that the conspiracy theory is debunked and founded in alt-right delusions, inviting Pizzagate believers to come in and argue that it's inappropriate to call it a conspiracy theory without a source. The course of action I'm seeing (though I'm open to suggestions) is that the draft will be tightened down to the strictest adherence to policy, put in to article space (link to that replacing the unsourced link in the disambig page), and then at least a few uninvolved admins keep eyes on it and remember to apply discretionary sanctions authorized by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Just as a heads up to uninvolved/non-local editors, the Pizzagate conspiracy theory is unrelated to the existing Pizzagate section, which is derived from an event in football in the UK in 2004. It might be worthwhile for an admin to protect that page to keep uninformed users from trying to tie those unrelated articles together because they happen to share the heading. Thanks! Alicb (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The draft needs to be deleted posthaste. It can't ever become an encyclopedic article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree, this isn't The Onion. I can think up WP:FRINGE, and WP:NOT off the top of my head on why this article would never make it into mainspace. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment An MfD discussion has been started here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Weird activity from Kacperf

Kacperf (talk · contribs)

This user's behaviour has me stumped. Most of it seems to be pretty benign, but some of them are pretty weird, especially interpreted in light of each other.[170][171][172][173] He also curiously thanked me for this edit.

Additionally, the first edit looks like they are also these IPs[174][175] which makes it difficult to interpret as a good-faith mistake the same user made three times, and if there aren't multiple IP trolls on WAM that makes it even worse.

Thoughts? I honestly have no idea.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The account is new, so I believe that trolling is a strong possibility. All of the users current contributions seem a bit strange, save for the sandbox edits. I also wouldn't rule this out as a new user simply edit testing, though it's odd that they thanked you for the warning. I don't think that there are enough contributions to determine if it's a compromised account or if multiple people are using it. DarkKnight2149 17:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits

GoldenGuy23 (talk · contribs) - This editor has made edits that appears to be disruptive, edits like this, this and this. These edits have go unnoticed by almost a month, and they don't appear to follow the guidelines, this editor has add sources that are unreliable. Another editor try to give advice about what not to do in Wikipedia, but ignore it by making these edits, it seems like this editor is not gonna follow the guidelines. This user also has made some edits just recently at the Late Registration article, after keep getting reverted by Dan56 for not following the guidelines. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Rangeblock for socks

Socks of Bigshowandkane (SPI linked) are continuously blanking the user pages of previous socks. Furthermore, one of the socks has left this message on my talk (in addition to this edit summary). The IPs (they are using two kinds) are all similar to each other, so would it be possible for a rangeblock? Both me and Sjones23 requested one at the SPI, but no one has responded, so I'm bringing it here for consideration (it's getting annoying and action needs to be taken of sorts). Pinging @Sro23 and Ebyabe as they are directly involved in this as well. Also to note that I will not be notifying this user since the IPs change constantly, making notification useless. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment: according to the edits presented at SPI the range is 2600:1000:b000::/42. It's part of a Verizon Wireless range. I expect there would be a lot of collateral damage on this range if it were blocked. BethNaught (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Persistent attempts at censorship, tag-teaming reverts, on page for 2014 Crimean Referendum by User:Volunteer Marek

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

Volunteer Marek keeps reverting content additions to the 2014 Crimean Referendum page, ignoring Wikipedia guidelines (particularly BRD), and presenting inane, hypocritical, and obviously-thin rationale for why they're removing content. Looking at the history of Volunteer Marek, and some of the administration discussions concerning this editor, it is clear that Volunteer Marek uses their editing to cultivate a dominant representation of their personal preference, while removing opposing information, regardless of how factual and thoroughly-substantiated the information they remove is, and they coat their edits with rationale that doesn't always hold up to basic common sense, or the Wikipedia guidelines.

In particular focus for this reporting, is Volunteer Marek's persistent reverting of this section, concerning GfK poll results taken from the Crimea region in January of 2015, and published in February of 2015:

GfK, a German pollster, and the 4th largest market research organization in the world, conducted a survey in the Crimean region by telephone from Ukraine between January 16 and 22, 2015, and published their results on Feb. 4, 2015. The survey's intention was to probe the satisfaction of Crimean residents in their decision to reunify with Russia, rather than re-identify with Ukraine, and was launched with support from the Canadian government's Canada Fund for Local Initiatives. The survey expected to find Crimean dissatisfaction with the 2014 Crimean referendum, but instead discovered that 82% of Crimeans "fully endorse" Crimea's secession from Ukraine and joining the Russian federation, and that 11% of Crimeans "mostly endorse" Crimea's secession from Ukraine and joining the Russian federation, while just 7% "disapprove" of Crimea's secession from Ukraine and joining the Russian federation. The results were a surprise to the poll-organizers, who had not even conducted any polling of Sevastopol, the most pro-Russia city in Crimea. The results of the GfK survey were reported by Bloomberg, Forbes, and many others. The GfK poll results are discussed in an online video, by the poll's organizer, political scientist and Ukrainian national, Taras Berezovets.

There are 3 total reverts of this section by Volunteer Marek, with each one restored, and then citations and content added to attempt to address Volunteer Marek's concerns. Each time, Volunteer Marek came up with a more flimsy rationalization for re-reverting the updated work: Volunteer Marek revert rationalization #1: '"newcoldwar.org" is not a reliable source, neither is an opinion piece' (The "opinion piece" is a Bloomberg article reporting on the GfK survey) Volunteer Marek revert rationalization #2 (after I added direct link to the full GfK PDF report, as well as a video with the poll-organizer discussing the results): "which is a primary source. Need reliable secondary sources" Volunteer Marek revert rationalization #3 (after I added citations to Forbes, WinnipegFreePress, The Oriental, all reporting the GfK survey discovery): "The bulk of this edit is still based on vkontakt and other non reliable sources."

None of these claimed-justifications for removing the content are solid, and all seem to rely on Volunteer Marek's opinion and personal preference in simply not wanting this information to be present on the Wikipedia page. Volunteer Marek has a history of editing the 2014 Crimean Referendum page, and also other pages, in a manner which keeps pulling it towards what I think is a one-sided presentation. There was a discussion on an administrator reporting page recently (I read about a week or so ago) about issues with Volunteer Marek's conduct, in which multiple people chimed in to mention issues with Volunteer Marek's editing conduct. I'm sorry that I don't know how to find that discussion, right now.

I have had similar issue with Volunteer Marek in the 2014 Crimean Referendum page, where Volunteer Marek use revert tag-teaming with Famspear in order to circumvent the 3RR rule, in violation of BRD, which states that a 3rd-party is forbidden to join in someone else's edit-warring. In that incident, BRD was cited as the justification for edit-reverting, insisting that discussion was required prior to making edits (despite no criticism of the edits having been brought up by those claiming BRD), and despite BRD saying many times over that "BRD is never a reason for reverting":

- "BRD is not a policy, though it is an oft-cited essay. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow."

- "BRD is never a reason for reverting"

- "Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work"

- "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones."

- "Before reverting, first consider whether the original text could have been better improved in a different way or if part of the edit can be fixed to preserve some of the edit, and whether you would like to make that bold edit instead."

- "If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle: If your reversion is reverted, then there may be a good reason for it."

- "Some editors may invoke this process by name in the edit summary; however, BRD is never a reason for reverting."

- "BRD is not a policy, though it is an oft-cited essay. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow."

- "Warning: engaging in similar behavior by reverting a contribution during an edit war could be seen as disruptive and may garner sanctions. Never continue an edit war as an uninvolved party."

- "No edit, regardless of how large it is, requires any prior discussion."

- "Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring"

Volunteer Marek appears to me to make a lot of political edits, with the edits all aiming to move the appearance of subject-presentation towards favouring a particular perspective. And in the case of the 2014 Crimean referendum, Volunteer Marek has repeatedly undone great swaths of work without raising valid justification, while veiling their rationalization for doing so as some small personal issue. And Volunteer Marek doesn't accept when their presented criticisms are addressed in an updated edits, and instead just shifts their criticism to something else, or to make up something obviously opinionated or baseless, to form an excuse to just revert the edited work.

I would very much appreciate a review of this section of the 2014 Crimean Referendum page, and hope for a resolution to this disruptive and anti-editor behaviour. Thanks!

BTW, I tried to post a mention of this on Volunteer Marek's Wikipedia page, but I can't access it right now. I just get a blank screen when I visit their Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Volunteer_Marek

A Registered Poster (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Not addressing the matter of Marek's conduct, for which I admittedly lazily invoke TL;DR, I think it might be worth noting that the original poster here has according to his history here only edited in two subject areas since the middle of the year, when the account was created, and a rather smallish number of edits in total. John Carter (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Editing behaviour of User:Spacecowboy420

• Spacecowboy420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. On the article Korean ethnic nationalism, the user set back several versions that I edited. I explained what has been removed on the talk page. The user demands me that I have to contact the authors who added the specific parts removed. Although, Spacecowboy420 never contacts any others when he removes large parts from articles. He does not give any arguments against my edits, he just says I would have to ask other users for permission.

Side note: I asked for a third opinion and mentioned in on WikiProject Sociology

Moreover, the user added knowingly false content. He added: "Even the United States, an ally of South Korea, has expressed concern over the harsh and ubiquitous nature of South Korean racism, with the [[United States Department of Education|U.S. Department of Education]] releasing a report on the matter in 2009.<ref name=PaulJambor/>" (diff)

However, it is not an official document of the United States. Paul Jambor is an English language instructor in Korea and the article expresses his opinion and not an official government opinion. Spacecowboy420 also knew about it, since he participated in a previous discussion where a user reported the problem with the source so that it had been removed (diff). Still, he describes his edit as "awesome".

2. The user claims other users to be sockpuppet accounts without any proves.

Diffs:

• [176]
• [177]
• [178]

The edits User:Teamupsmith made on the article China–South Korea Free Trade Agreement were correct and I told Spacecowboy420 on his talk page. Still, he thinks it was okay to undo it since the user would be a "sockpuppet".

This has been an issue before, but Spacecowboy420 never responded to it. Neither Teamupsmith nor AmericanExpat are banned or blocked. --Christian140 (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Rangeblock required

Hi. I noticed an IP vandalising User talk:GiantSnowman and realised that the same editor has been attacking other editors (for example User talk:Kelisi) and edited Margaret Rhodes, but they have been using different IP adresses. Could we have a rangeblock please? Qed237 (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You'd probably want at least 85.255.233/24 and 85.255.235/24. They're quite busy ranges and could only be blocked for a short time unless there's something seriously disruptive - IMO, semi-protection is a better option. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Okay, I dont know much about different ranges but since this was attacks against user talkpages I thought it was best with rangeblock so that other editors still can discuss. Qed237 (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)