Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Volvlogia (talk | contribs) at 00:55, 24 January 2018 (→Post-Diatribe Pow wow). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Template hijacking

    A template (not sure which one) has been vandalized to redirect clicks anywhere on certain article pages that use it to a Youtube live feed ([1]). One of the affected articles is Barack Obama. To demonstrate the issue, navigate to that page, then attempt to click on any blue link (or even in the white space of the page, as the exploit actually uses a transparent overlay). General Ization Talk 04:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't seem to reproduce it on mobile ... maybe fixed already? Or just not working on my browser? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently not working on your mobile browser. General Ization Talk 04:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't work on my desktop either.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This was fixed; see the VPT thread. {{Excessive citations inline}} had a overlay element added to it. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently fixed now -- either undone by the initiator of the hijacking or corrected by someone else. General Ization Talk 04:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    See my recent contribs. -- zzuuzz (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen this same exploit before (redirecting clicks, as I recall, to the same webcast). I won't say more because last time it was all revdel'd so as not to give anyone ideas (WP:BEANS). General Ization Talk 04:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Spam blacklisted. SQLQuery me! 04:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed a few templates in my watchlist getting protected the other day; apparently this process needs to be speeded up. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    One of these templates had 8 transclusions. Whatever standards are applied, a template like that is probably not going to be automatically protected, and even if it was there'll probably appear an autoconfirmed sock. However feel free to join the discussion at WP:VPR. -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Aww, dang it... I've been meaning to pull a list of our templates with the highest translusion count and make sure that any high risk or highly visible ones are protected. I'll put that back on my to-do list... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    MusikAnimal has done a lot of work to list and protect templates and modules. See the recent User talk:MusikAnimal#List request from Primefac. Johnuniq (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfect! This is exactly what we need to be doing so we can reduce the risk of major template vandalism that would impact many pages. Thanks for letting me know that this is a currently in-progress task; I'll see what I can do to help (if it's needed). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Primefac protected a boat load from a report I gave him (which I agree with, for the record :). I'm not sure how much further we should go without broader support, but anyway I have a script that I can run anytime you need me to. A bot task used solely for reporting is probably a bad idea, per WP:BEANS. I suspect however that at least one of the vandals we're dealing with is running their own queries. — MusikAnimal talk 18:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be possible to protect all redirects to such protected templates too? Don't know how worthwhile it'd be, but I remember a while back people were hitting template redirects too. ansh666 04:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We're just talking about redirects, right? Not any pages that reference them? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, like how Template:Info box redirects to Template:Infobox. (Perhaps a bad example, since thankfully the former isn't used at all.) ansh666 01:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I got'cha. I don't think there's an automated way to do that (or at least easily). Cascading protection only protects subpages of a page, but what you're asking for sounds to be almost the same thing (except... with redirects). You'd have to find each one and do it one-by-one if it can't be done with automation... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the case, we'll need to stay a step ahead and do this ourselves. I agree that having a bot report these things is not a good idea. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah: Is diff an attempt for something similar? Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnuniq: I'm no admin, so I can't comment on the previous, but yes, it looks like the idea is similar. Easy enough to turn into a transparent redirect. See User:Bellezzasolo/sandbox. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Another: Template:Delink question hyphen-minus + user. Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Handled by NeilN. The take-home message is that this is not going to stop. Johnuniq (talk) 07:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The only real solution to this is to apply (as a minimum) extended confirmed protection to all templates, and template editor protection/full protection to the high-risk ones (which are mostly all done anyway). fish&karate 10:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dilpa kaur

    Could an admin take a look at the contribs of this WP:SPA account, especially these diffs here which clearly show that this account is engaged in meat puppetry. —MBL Talk 08:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes it's a disruptive meat puppet. See [2] filed a report just after JosephusOfJerusalem (another SPA) had his report rejected.[3] On report he writes, "Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#India-Pakistan_2: A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block."[4] Same green font and sentence that JosephusOfJerusalem had applied, "Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#India-Pakistan_2: A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block."[5]
    Few things are clear here, they both are obsessively trying hard to get me blocked/banned, and using same templates/style/words and they are edit warring in tandem. Such deception needs to be dealt with indef block, because these accounts are WP:NOTHERE, all they care about is their disruptive ethnic agenda. Anmolbhat (talk) 08:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @MBlaze Lightning and Anmolbhat:--Hmm..Some similarity at the AE report but I ain't seeing much meat-puppetryin light of Ammarpad's evidence, the overlap looks to be strong except the hazy overlaps which is not uncommon, given the highly polarised editing atmosphere at your main-space overlaps with Dilpa.You can file a detailed SPI report, including relevant diffs etc.And, Anmol, it's best to comment on content and not on contributors, at article talk-pages.Winged BladesGodric 08:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @WBG: I don't think it is ripe for SPI but I believe the above report is beyond talkpage comments. Do you think this is also mere happenstance? Dilpa kaur (talk · contribs) removed content with claim of MOS violation. Reverted by Raymond3023. See the next edit –Ammarpad (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I ran Interwine but missed the diff.Thanks:)Winged BladesGodric 09:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Saving a template from the preceding report, working on it when the reported person displays more bad behaviour, as is the case here with Anmolbhat, is not meatpuppetry. Your other diffs [6] are a misrepresentation, sometimes i struggle with making my pre-planned edits on my mobile because it gets frozen and goes haywire and copying from my phone notes and pasting and saving becomes a hassle. This[7] was a temporary notice on my part on the page to underline the issues with the text I was trying to remove, until I could fix the text properly when my phone improved, which I did within 5 minutes[8]. This seems like a detraction from the current AE case against MBlaze Lightning's friend Anmolbhat who has just broken the civility restriction. My guess is that when I by mistake pasted my report on Anmolbhat by mistake in the wrong place and came back to insert it in the right place later, during that time MBlaze Lightning started planning a diversion from the AE case against Anmolbhat. What should be looked into is the long-term tag-teaming between MBlaze Lightning, Anmolbhat, Capitals00, Kautilya and some others. Dilpa kaur (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    You can make up whatever you want to but we have already understood that you and other disruptive SPAs are meat puppets, with nothing to do here except edit warring in tandem and pushing your disruptive ethnic agenda. According to you, we should investigate long term editors like Mblaze, Kautilya3, Capitals00 so that your meat puppetry can be justified. You make no sense. Anmolbhat (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a comment from somebody who has closely watched this go down for the last few weeks but has mostly been a bystander. I have not directly interacted with Dilpa kaur (talk · contribs) or JosephusOfJerusalem (talk · contribs) but have noticed their edits and their editing behavior so far has not been typical of a Wikipedia editor and raised some doubts in my mind. There was a RfC at Talk:Kashmir conflict recently and there seemed to be a Wikipedia:Vote stacking on that page. Now this might seem typical of India-Pakistan pages given the different views. But quite a bit of editors participated in that RfC with little or no edits on the actual page. What was even more concerning was the fact that many of these editors had been dormant for quite some time before the RfC, commented on the RfC and went back to their dormant selves. This behavior clubbed with the behavior on recent articles like Kashmiris, Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, 1947 Poonch Rebellion, Violence against women during the partition of India is concerning. In these cases editors have been recently created (past 1-2 months) accounts who have very little editing history on Wikipedia and most of it resolves around a limited set (4-5) of India-Pakistan pages and seems to be pushing a certain POV. An editor was recently blocked for a week for violating the 1RR block for their edits which they falsely claimed were copy-right violations. In my opinion, the administrators need to have a closer look at this since there seems to be something more than what meets the eye. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Adamgerber80's uninvolved observer comments are exactly accurate. I couldn't have said it better myself. There is serious tag teaming/meatpuppetry going on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I am happy and satisfied reading Dilpa kaur (talk · contribs)'s explanation of the diffs. I don't see any evidence of meat puppetry. I have in the past been falsely accused of socking by MBL and I would encourage people to take into consideration just how many of these accusations he throws around. --Xinjao (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Why you bothered to come back to Wikipedia 29 days only for supporting such nonsensical "explanation"? You can describe though if they are any sensible. Capitals00 (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) I'm finding it quite difficult to reconcile Dilpa kaur and JosephusOfJerusalem's ostensible identities with their actual editing activity. Dilpa professes (by their username and on their user page) to be "Khalistani" (and hence by implication associated with Indian Punjab), and Josephus claims to be a "Jewish historian, academic and foodie". Yet their editing patterns, by the way very similar to those of KA$HMIR, show an almost exclusive focus on several very niche Kashmiri topics that are contested between India and Pakistan, and they've both shown a detailed knowledge of the specific literature, a very strong pro-Pakistan slant and a keen interest in the related meta-discussions (ANI and AE threads etc.). – Uanfala (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    JosephusOfJerusalem has contributed to several other articles, related to ancient and Jewish history, so your argument falls flat while I am a long time (dynamic) IP editor. My IPs' which I edited from while mistakenly logged out, after I had registered this account, are visible for all to see[9][10] geolocation [11][12] shows clearly I come from the Indian Punjab. How is it possible that an Indian like me can collaborate to produce a pro-Pakistan slant? But yes it is true that there is a strong pro-Indian and anti-Pakistan bias across the articles in the Indo-Pakistan topic area, which several neutral senior editors such as Fowler&fowler have pointed out.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bride_burning#Request_for_Comment) As a responsible citizen I am committed to removing this imbalance and would not be surprised if neutral editors from non-subcontinental backgrounds, such as Fowler and Josephus, have also observed this imbalance and taken it upon themselves to fix it.
    I am more interested in how you turned up on a RfC to support Kautilya3's vote,(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kashmir_conflict#Comments) even though you yourself admitted you were not well acquainted with the topic? You even argued that those opposed to the sections up for deletion had not made a case for removing them, even though Winged Blades of Godric said good points were made. What's going on between you and Kautilya3 in the emails? Dilpa kaur (talk) 10:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Filer's tag-teaming and harassment

    The filer has been part of several spurious and failed attempts at getting blocked the users he disagrees with. Just last month on here MBlaze Lightning created a report against Dilpa kaur so ridiculous (he could not differentiate between the different IPs of @Dilpa kaur: and @Danish.mehraj26:) that he had to revert himself [13]. He also paarticipated against me and @Danish.mehraj26:/@JosephusOfJerusalem: in a frivolous SPI which ended up confirming our innocence. The question is why is the filer so desperately making multiple attempts to get others blocked (his own block log is hardly one to envy)?

    And what was happening in the middle of all of this? Two IPs,[14][15] located in two different [16][17] Indian cities, turn up to frame me and @Owais Khursheed: for meatpuppetry. Both IPs were had knowledge of a user known as @Kautilya3:, which indicates they were old users IP socking to frame me and Owais. The different locations of the IPs suggest collaboration between multiple old users is happening on IP levels, and even worse is happening through the accounts where they are using hook and crook methods to get opposing editors blocked.

    Senior editor @Mar4d: is had also complained of this trend of a group of editors close to @Kautilya3: wreaking POV havoc across articles in the India-Pakistan topic area.

    MBlaze Lightning, Capitals00, Adamgerber80, D4iNa4 and Kautilya3 have an extensive record of tag teaming and supporting each other on articles, often where they have had minimal or negligible contribution to article content or discussion on the talkpages.

    For example the senior editor @NadirAli: observed on Talk:Violence against women during the partition of India that Kautilya3 suddenly arrived on a talkpage discussion for an article he had no contribution to. Even more interestingly, MBlaze Lightning turned up on the same page to do a revert[18] to ensure the page looked the way Kautilya3 wanted [19]. This despite MBlaze Lightning not contributing much to the article either.

    Another example is Talk:Annexation_of_Junagadh#MBlaze_Lightning_cuts where Kautilya3 turns up, after a long absence from contributing to the article, to support MBlaze Lightning's POV.

    And even more. During extensive discussions on Talk:Kashmir_conflict#KA$HMIR_revert_justifications between me, @NadirAli:, @Kautilya3: and @Mar4d:, MBlaze Lightning is absent. He then suddenly turns up only to agree with Kautilya3 and Capitals00 here Talk:Kashmir_conflict#NadirAli_edits, though again this contribution is no more than a line. Despite having no contribution worth the name to the discussion he then reverts to Kautilya3's preferred version.

    And then comes in Adamgerber80, who had no contribution to the discussion, to restore MBlaze Lightning and Kautilya3's preferred version during the edit war [20]. Note his edit summary ad then check how much he has contributed to the discussions on talk.

    Just recently, MBlaze Lightning again proved to be part of a tag team. Until now he has had no major contribution to the discussion on Talk:Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus except for one vague statement (and no response thereafter when he was questioned) in support of Anmolbhat and Kautilya3's POV [21]. He then did a disruptive revert on the article [22]. Fortunately the edit war has been ended graciously by the admins who have locked the page now so MBlaze Lightning and Anmolbhat can no longer break WP:NOCON and do disruptive reverts.

    Then there is Capitals00. In an extensive discussion on sourcing between Kautilya3 and JosephusOfJerusalem Capitals00 turns up to make vitriolic comments,[23] with no other contribution to the discussion, and does a revert [24] to Kautilya3's preferred version while there is still discussion going on on the talkpage.

    I do not believe for an instant that we can ignore all this collaboration as a coincidence. KA$HMIR (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    • But they are years old accounts with thousands of edits. That's why the actual issue here is with the disruptive tagteaming/meat-puppetry involving you and other very new accounts with no edits outside this subject (WP:SPA). Also you have selectively canvassed only those editors in your message that push same POV as yours. Anmolbhat (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am adding to my comment since I have been accused of "tag-teaming" by KA$HMIR. I do have all these pages on my Watchlist for quite sometime including the ones I have mentioned. Even though I have no edits on them, I still keep track of all the discussions on their talk pages and additions by other users. I only interject when I feel the need to. This was the very reason that I had reverted some edits of your earlier username on a different page. My edit comments on that revert was out of the fact that the page was turning into state of constant reverts and it was me who requested the full protection of the page to ensure a proper discussion took place. I reverted those edits to a point in the page which was before the edits by NadirAli since they were the topic of discussion on the Talk page to maintain STATUSQUO. Lastly, I do not believe in Vote-stacking and unnecessary "show of support comments" as was on display during that RfC. Other editors had raised valid points and continue to raise valid points in the on-going discussion and I have not felt the need to interject so far. And as a matter of fact I have add disagreements with Kautilya3 and MBlaze Lightning on different topics in the past so your accusation of "tag-teaming" seems pre-mature and ill-thought. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, let us see KA$HMIR. Here are your edits intertwined with Dilpa kaur's (who is supposedly a Punjabi and Khalistani), and your edits intertwined with Danish.mehraj26, and your edits intertwined with Josephus (who is a Jewish historian no doubt).
    On the the other hand, here are the filer's edits intertwined with mine, those intertwined with Capitals00 and those intertwined with Adamgerber80.
    Do you see the difference? I doubt you would. So let me spell it out for you. We all watch whatever pages interest us, and we jump in when we see the need. In contrast, your troops show up wherever you go. No matter what their professed interests are. That is what we are talking about. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Intertwined contributions only display the ″last 1000 cumulated contributions of the two users″. It does not show intersections. To check intersections you need to use this tool [25]. The tool shows that Dilpa kaur and I have only edited in 4 same places,[26] of which only 2 are talkpages and the remaining two are ANI and AE boards, likely not even on the same threads. JosephusOfJerusalem intersects with Dilpa on 6 pages,[27] of which 1 is the article you mysteriously turned up to 'uninvited' and only 2 are talkpages. His intersections with me are also only in 6 places.[28] JosephusOfJerusalem has contributed to several places [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] where I and Dilpa have not and similarly Dilpa[39] and I[40][41][42][43][44] have contributed where each other has not.

    The same is not true for your friends. The tool shows you and MBlaze Lightning intersecting on 404 pages,[45] many of them talkpages. You intersect with Capitals00 on 404 pages too.[46] All three of you intersect in 103 places,[47] many of them talkpages, whereas I, Dilpa and Josephus intersect only on 2 places[48], 1 of them an AE board. Whatever you say now does not wipe the proof I have provided of obvious tag teaming between your meat puppets. I would even request admins to check your emails. Do you really think you can get away with all the tag-teaming without the rest of us knowing that all this is not a coincidence? KA$HMIR (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    That is bogus logic. A sample has to be fair for it to have any validity. The size of the intersection doesn't mean a thing. The longer people are here, the more pages they watch, and the more they watch, the more they will intersect with the others. The intertwine results show a fair simple, and they are showing for you and your friends, people moving into pages they never visited before and siding with one another. This confirms Adamgerber80 observed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Its very curious isn't it how you all end up reverting to each other's versions, even if your meatpuppets such as MBlaze Lightning and Capitals00 have had scant input on the discussion talkpages/article content. The tool for catching the socks and meats is intersection tool. The intertwined contributions show nothing except the last 1000 cumulated edits. The intertwined tool, unlike the intersection tool, is not useful for showing overlaps and tag-teamers supporting each other. KA$HMIR (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    MBL is not helping himself by persistently throwing accusations of sock puppetry, meat puppetry or single purpose accounts. He has been doing this for months, perhaps years; only recently accusing me of sockpuppeterring. He is offending numerous people with such accusations. If he continues, he should be topic banned from filing any ANIs and SPIs or at the least strictly warned. This is becoming too much.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) It's probably worth noting that User:NadirAli has edited ANI 48 times in the last eleven years: 46 of those were to a single thread about him last July, one more was this, and then there was the above. Posting comments like the above about an editor one doesn't like to threads in which one is not involved is generally seen as a form of hounding. Even if one was ping-canvassed. The good faith way of responding to canvassing like KA$HMIR's above would be to tell them to buzz off. I know nothing about this dispute, but interactions like this make me really, really think that the various editors not on MBL's "side" should be at the very least cautioned. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri, it's almost as if you've missed the fact that MBL filed an SPI against me despite having almost no prior interaction with me. He has been doing that numerous times. Given all this, are you still sure it's me who's doing the "hounding". Forgive me but your comment is indeed humerus, even if not intended to be so.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is having prior interactions with someone a prerequisite to opening an SPI? I would think most SPIs are opened to report accounts one has not interacted with before. Anyway, I didn't miss anything -- you showed up on an ANI involving a user you had conflicted with some months ago (at which time said user had managed to convince a quite conservative CU-enabled user to perform a check on you), and, as a former (repeat) victim of hounding that looked very similar to this, I decided to call it what it was. It seems like MBL opened only one SPI on you, so it's really unclear what you mean by He has been doing that numerous times. [...] it's [not] me who's doing the "hounding" -- are you accusing MBL of hounding you? If so, I would encourage you to present evidence or read WP:KETTLE and retract that baseless accusation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    PS, your comment about my ANI edits are incorrect. I have edited more ANI threads than that in the past 11 years, with only two being directly against me and one indirectly against me and another group of Pakistanis.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, did you do so under an alternate account or something? I did a pretty thorough check, and it wasn't hard (you've made less than 500 WP-space edits in that time). Are you being pedantic and saying that technically February 12, 2007 was less than 11 years ago? If that's the case then let's just say 10 years, 11 months and 5 days. I was rounding up. The above 2014 diff is the only edit your current account made to ANI between February 12, 2007 and your above off-topic remark MBL, whose edit summary did not include Tendentious editing by NadirAli across Multiple Articles. Ctrl+F "Incidents" and that section title yourself here if you don't believe me -- the former brings up 48 results, the latter 46. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Geogene

    For this comment in response to my prior. At what point does such suppression warrant a topic ban? Can someone kindly evaluate? Humanengr (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    "Suppression"? And no, one comment observing that apparent endless sealioning of an issue "looks like trolling" is not ever going to "warrant a topic ban," so I'm not sure what you're proposing to accomplish here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, Humanengr has been aggressively using article and user talk pages to promote personal (non-mainstream/fringe) beliefs and Original Research, and he has persisted without acknowledging the good faith responses of other users. In particular, instead of building on other editors' responses to try to reach synthesis or common ground that might result in article improvement, he responds with leading questions that unilaterally attribute POV to other editors with whom he disagrees. This pattern of interaction is unproductive and provocative and in my opinion, yes, it's what we call "trolling". And far from "suppressing" Humanengr, the editors on American Politics articles have bent over backwards to AGF and try, in vain, to explain basic WP policy and guidelines. If anyone has the energy to document OP's behavior in detail, we could consider some restriction on him to end the huge waste of time and attention he brings with him to these difficult topics. SPECIFICO talk 17:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I was going to point out that Humanengr has, since March 2017, made over 500 edits to Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, but in that same time, only 21 edits to the article itself. I'm not going to dive into that pool of edits to evaluate their quality, but, at least on the surface, it does seems as if Humanengr may be attempting to dominate the discussion by volume of edits, Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken, But the article edits are key framing edits as noted in my comment below; to which I’ll add my cleanup of cites for the lede para to provide better temporal ordering. Thoughts, given those additional details? Humanengr (talk) 09:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm looking at the WP:CPUSH essay, checking off how many of these things describe what Humanengr has been doing in the Russian interference article every day for months.

    * They often edit primarily or entirely on one topic or theme.
    * They attempt to water down language, unreasonably exclude, marginalize or push views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV, or give undue weight to fringe theories – pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, marginal nationalist or historic viewpoints, and the like. Like trying over and over again to put "alleged" in front of "Russian interference".
    * They frivolously request citations for obvious or well known information. Like they were doing immediately before I called them out on trolling.
    * They argue endlessly about the neutral-point-of-view policy and particularly try to undermine the undue weight clause. They try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that "it is verifiable, so it should be in."
    * They repeatedly use the talk page for soapboxing, and/or to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times.
    * They hang around forever, wearing down more serious editors and become an expert in an odd kind of way on their niche POV. They outlast their competitors because they're more invested in their point of view.
    * They often make a series of frivolous and time-wasting requests for comment, mediation or arbitration, again in an attempt to wear down other editors.
    These behaviors would be considered "trolling" pretty much anywhere. Geogene (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not sure if Humanengr is trolling or just a POV pusher, But I have not been impressed with some of Geogene styles of attack either. Both users I think have issues with NPOV.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Slatersteven: I'd like to see some examples of my "issues" with NPOV. Thanks. Geogene (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    [49] is a dismissive comment that implies you accept there was interference we we should accept there was (As no RS does explicitly say there was interference). It is certainly POV pushing as much as the OP is a troll. This can also be seen as POV pushing as you clearly comment on another users motives [50], with this added for good measure[51]. This is (of course) borderline and not actionable, but then neither is the Trolling accusation. But what many of them are (including) the trolling accusations are disruptive in that they make article talk pages about users, not the article. As you say about the IP's here [52] these posts are a huge time sink, and wastes everyones time.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Slatersteven, you claim it's "POV pushing" when I told somebody to quit casting aspersions? [53]. Also, you just accused me of violating NPOV because I accept that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Are you serious? Geogene (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I said "This can also be seen as POV pushing as you clearly comment on another users motives", as I also went on to say "This is (of course) borderline and not actionable, but then neither is the Trolling accusation.". My point is that (yes) if you want to assume bad faith and read the worst possible motive into a users comments yours can be seen as POV pushing (and how about the first link, are there any RS that say unreservedly that Russia interfered?). No I did not say you violated POV because you accept that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election (which is by the way a POV, one you claim you were saying in an article talk page). I said you claimed RS agreed.Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me ask another question. Do you have any sort of positive doubt that Russia was involved in some way in Donald Trump's election? Are you trying to influence the article in that direction? Geogene (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not about my views (or me). Oh and this can also be read as POV pushing, it does not matter what you or I think, what matters is what RS say. Anything else is POV pushing "it did happen and our article must not be allowed to imply otherwise) is POV pushing.Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slatersteven: this is about you, since you're deeply involved there, and since you have found your way into this thread and begun to throw accusations. And, where are those sources that say it didn't happen? I'm assuming you must have them. Geogene (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Found my way? [54]. You cannot prove a negative, but you can prove a positive. I do not need a source saying "it did not happen", as that is not the basis of an argument I am making, but you have claimed RS have said something. It is thus down to you to either provide that source or admit there is not one.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Slatersteven: That link shows a straightforward summary of the problems with Humanengr's longstanding behavior wrt American Politics. Personally, I would characterize Humanengr as a user who does not understand site policy about due weight and original research, but it's been explained over and over and other editors have concluded his behavior is not constructive and have lost all patience with him. SPECIFICO talk 19:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I said he has issues, I do not agree he is a troll.Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And if you want to wikilawyer this, I didn't say they were a troll. I said they were trolling.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geogene (talk • contribs) 19:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is the same thing, and you know it. But agreeing he has issues, but not the one he had been accused of is not.Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't agree that it is. And I think you should be introduced to WP:SPADE. Geogene (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)I think both Geogene and Slatersteven are great collegial editors who've made lots of article improvements. "You're a troll" is a personal remark and cannot be evaluated. "You're trolling" describes a specific action and is readily verified or falsified. Humanengr often trolls, according to the definition of that behavior we commonly understand around here. Geogene did not label him a troll, which would be an hurtful personal remark, especially where the problem arises from incompetence rather than ill will or malevolent intention. The two statements are formally and substantively dissimilar. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is wikilawyering in a nut shell "ahh I did not say he was a "X", I said he wrote like one". As I said I agree that Humanengr has series issues that should have been reported here a while ago. But I do not accept that saying someone is trolling is not calling them a troll, after all are you not what you do?Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Helpful guidelines - Fair enough. Let's not get sidetracked, however. Here is guidance we can use to consider Humanengr's behavior:
    It seems from the above that SPECIFICO agrees with Slatersteven that Geogene called me a troll? Do I read that correctly? Can some more neutral party pls weigh in on this point in isolation? Tia, Humanengr (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Humanengt I went out of my way to defuse the label "troll", which I said is not useful and could be a hurtful label, and to concentrate on your behavior, which is what Geogene did. So as I have explained at too much length already above, I do not think it's useful to accuse Geogene of something he did not say. SPECIFICO talk 23:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, SPECIFICO, the issue is not what you said but what Geogene said. [Cont’d below in response to Geogene.] Humanengr (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You want someone to weigh in on that point in isolation? Isolation from what? The question of whether or not you were trolling at the time? Why would you want to separate those two issues? I was pinged again. Geogene (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ll broaden the issue. Can an admin please weigh in here regarding the issue of verb vs noun (saying someone is ‘trolling’ vs calling them a ‘troll’)? That would be informative. Thx in advance, Humanengr (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note also here that I credited you specifically for a compromise re ‘concluded’ and ‘high confidence’ in the lede. And this is how you repay? Humanengr (talk) 07:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    Agreed. I've noticed a tendency to not learn from RS, but to constantly push views that can only come from fringe and unreliable ones. This creates endless circular discussions with no progress. This makes them a time sink, where we cover the same stuff again and again. No positive learning curve shown by abandonment of debunked views and adoption of newer and improved ways of seeing things. An inability to see the difference between a RS and an unreliable one gets right to the heart of WP:COMPETENCE. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @BullRangifer, re ‘views’: cites pls for where am I pushing ‘views’. Humanengr (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can see how that comment could look like trolling (I can't imagine a person who follows this issue would actually need a citation for that), but I don't think that it was trolling. A number of points could be made by first asking for a citation, and then responding when such is given.
    I can't speak to the disruption caused by either party on that page as I've not been paying close attention to it lately, but I will say that I've seen both editors contribute positively to discussions in the past, and haven't seen either behave in an over-the-top partisan manner, or engage in disruptive behavior before. One or both may well have become disruptive in the past few months, but given my experience with them, I'd need to see some pretty clear evidence before accepting it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, Have you taken into consideration this post? Are you of the opinion that all know the trend in “the general public’s sense of ‘interference’ as being ‘allegations’ was becoming weaker”. (I, for one, have not seen polling data either way.) Thx, Humanengr (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Denial of the Russian interference went from plausible ignorance to fringe conspiracy theory nonsense over the past +/- 2 years. Of course that could change when the 400 pound basement Hackensack hacker is apprehended. In the meanwhile however, for Humanengr and a collection of IPs to bring up a continuous unfocused stream of carping complaints without the remotest suggestion of workable edit improvements is unacceptable. It doesn't matter whether it's called trolling, it should be prevented and as long as we're here we have the opportunity to craft a fair and constructive restriction on this kind of disruption. SPECIFICO talk 19:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    My focus all along has been the framing of this article. Toward that end, it was

    1. This exchange between JFG and myself that led to the insertion of “is highly confident” (later helpfully further changed by The Diaz to “with high confidence”, a direct quote from the PS) in the lede sentence.
    2. The effort starting here, progressing through this and ending here that led to 3 words of context in a navbox at the bottom.

    The lede sentence and the bottom navbox; the former to start the body with an accurate statement of what the ODNI did find and the latter to show any such alleged activity is not unique.

    But I failed on one issue that Slatersteven captures perfectly when he says: “no RS does explicitly say there was interference.” Note that Geogene misinterprets by responding “where are those sources that say it didn't happen?”.

    And the title presents ‘interference’ as fact.

    I regret my failure to correct the top of the frame. Apologies for that.

    I believe if you look at the record, you will see that the frame has been my focus.

    I will comment further anon as necessary, Humanengr (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    no RS explicitly state there was such interference that is such spectacular bullshit [55], [56], [57]. You have a bizarre POV that's at odds with reality. Worse, you're perpetually trying to Debate Club it into the article. You never let anything go. You were just now complaining about the article's title. You're still trying to plant "allegedly" in there to cast aspersions on the mainstream view. People have been trying that since December 2016. It never goes anywhere. The reality of Russian interference, per sourcing, never goes away. You know the former, you must surely be aware of the latter, yet you keep bringing it up. This is unacceptable. Geogene (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And I can't remember exactly what Slatersteven said earlier. If you quoted them correctly, then shame on them, they should be embarrassed for such an absurd falsehood. But--this is a key thing--they're not tendentiously trying to wear everyone down with endless argumentation to change the article to reflect their (alleged) POV. In fact, their lashing out at me here earlier is probably the first time I've seen them cause any problems. Geogene (talk) 07:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slatersteven, are the links provided by Geogene in the preceding para sufficient to change your view expressed above that “no RS does explicitly say there was interference”? thx, Humanengr (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slatersteven, Care to comment? I’m getting a better handle on our differences but think we are in sync on this. I await your take here given your exchange with Geogene above. Humanengr (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well people need to read more then the headline "– a security research firm said that the same Russian hacking group" "and should largely be considered an arm of Russian intelligence as they attack American institutions." "The hackers, said to have links to Russia’s GRU military intelligence unit" "The intelligence community concluded last year that Russian hackers probed election systems". So in fact they seems to be very careful to attribute or caveat the accusations whilst saying it happened. As I said we need a source that unequivocally says it happened.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Examples - It's in the nature of this kind of behavior that single diffs don't readily convey the extent of the problem. So I am linking a few threads. These are just from the current talk page. This has been going on for a long time. Other editors may have further examples. There is a long history of the same behavior at article talk and elsewhere. Keep in mind, the concern is what Geogene correctly described as trolling. It's not overt incivility, personal attacks, etc.
    There's_still_little_evidence_that_Russia's_2016_social_media_efforts_did_much_of_anything[58] [59] [60] Then after that long first thread went nowhere, he reopens the issue again here: Recapping from above § on WaPo’s Philip Bump on social media SPECIFICO talk 14:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is a diff from December, 2017. Humanengr gained no support in a long thread rehashing a previously settled issue on the article talk page, but he continued to press a pointless and circular discussion of the question. So @MrX: launched an RfC to definitively settle the issue. The link shows some of Humanengr's engagement at the RfC. Note that he mass-pings @MrX, Neutrality, Geogene, O3000, SPECIFICO, My very best wishes, Slatersteven, Fyddlestix, Casprings, Gouncbeatduke, and ValarianB:, which can only be expected further to prolong the repetitive discussion. SPECIFICO talk 14:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose TBAN from Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

    Let's see where we stand on this. Per MVBW above, please indicate your views on a TBAN of @Humanengr: from this article and related topics, broadly construed. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Standard Wikipedia definition for TBANs -- just means that the user could not go to an article on the CIA, e.g. and remove a reference to the report on Russian hacking. Unless others have a better definition for this case, I think using the common framework makes it easier to deal with. SPECIFICO talk 00:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Has he been warned before (I am not sure this has been raised here before). If the answer is yes I support a TBAN, if the answer is no then he should be warned that his actions are unacceptable and that if he continues he will get TBAN (with maybe a small temporary sanction at this stage).Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose – Humanengr has been engaging in polite dialogue and careful editing of the contents (as noted above, he made many more edits to the talk page than to the article itself). I understand that he can be criticized for verbosity and insistence, but that's a far cry from "trolling". Most of his contributions and questions are designed to try and improve the article. Sure, some editors disagree with his POV, and this is why we have talk pages. In my view, neither Humanengr's nor Geogene's behaviour are actionable. They should go back to the talk page, mutually AGF, and strive to reach consensus. (Full disclosure: I'm one of the "regulars" at that article, so I'm well-versed in the events reported, their history, the evolution of the article, and the perennial disputes about it.) — JFG talk 12:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a serious issue with him raising the same damn thing 15 times worded slightly differently whenever he does not get consensus (over, if I recall rightly, over multiple forums). But without kind of community Waring it seems unfair to ban him over this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would add I find it very odd that no one deemed his actions report worthy, until he reported another user, and then they leaped straight for the TBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    When someone is just being disruptive with WP:ICANTHEARYOU, it is not an easy case to bring, and even harder to get action on, from what I've seen. Most editor don't want to risk WP:BOOMERANG and gain nothing. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Humanenegr has been warned more than once by Admins, and numerous times by civilian editors, on talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So now admins have been militarized? EEng 16:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Cf. GorillaWarfare, NuclearWarfare and Bongwarrior. - MrX 🖋 17:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention D'Armies. EEng 01:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    EEng, why are you dragging me into this? What topic ban am I getting? I'm militarized? Y'all heard I got a Daisy Red Rider for Xmas? Drmies (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Procedural comment – SPECIFICO is under an April 2017 sanction enjoining her to refrain from requesting sanctions against her fellow editors, except via the WP:AE process or an uninvolved admin's talk page. Her public call in this thread for a boomerang against Humanengr appears to be a violation of her own AE sanction, which arose due to similar inappropriate behaviour in the past. Pinging NeilN for comments, as the administrator who imposed the sanction on SPECIFICO. — JFG talk 12:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @JFG: I agree that input from NeilN would be helpful here, but this discussion could at least be argued to be about community sanctions, not discretionary sanctions, which would therefore fall outside SPECIFICO's sanction. Of course an admin could unilaterally impose a TBAN as a result of this discussion and then who knows where we'd be? GoldenRing (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @JFG and GoldenRing: While the wording of my sanction restricted SPECIFICO to those two specific places, the purpose of the sanction was to stop SPECIFICO's practice of calling for sanctions on article talk pages and user talk pages. Requesting sanctions on an admin-geared noticeboard is not disruptive and does not go against the purpose of the editing restrictions I placed on them. --NeilN talk to me 13:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose – It seems almost prejudicial to "see where we stand" on a topic ban on an editor without a proposal for the topic ban which has been backed up with accusations of bad behaviour supported by diffs. This proposal lacks such evidenced accusations, and cites this post by My very best wishes which neither proposes a topic ban, nor contains supported accusations. Cjhard (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Links are provided in upper section. SPECIFICO talk 17:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I think that comments by Humanengr do not help to improve this page, but result in significant waste of time by other contributors. However, this should be up to contributors who frequently edit this page. If they want to debate these issues with Humanengr to infinity, this is their business. My personal inclination, as an occasional participant of this page, would be to support this proposal. If there is a clear violation of anything (I do not really know), this should be reported to WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, seems like much of this is a difference of opinion rather than actual disruption. And jumping straight to a topic ban is a step too far. fish&karate 15:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's certainly way beyond a difference of opinion. A TBAN or page ban seems less restrictive than a block, but if you feel there should be, say, a 6-month time span set for the TBAN that would be less of a restriction than a TBAN that would need additional community process in order to lift it. SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments like that on article talk page can be viewed as an WP:NPA problem. When repeated multiple times, this is a WP:TE pattern. Hence my vote above. My very best wishes (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per previous comments by SPECIFICO, Geogene, Bullrangifer, and Beyond My Ken. This user is congenial, but their many voluminous posts are a time sink and a net negative in this subject area. Volunteers should not have to waste hours upon hours of their unpaid time swatting at every oddball theory this user comes up with. Several attempts have been made to get Humanengr to alter their approach, to no avail. They show a lack of understanding and inability to grok our core policies like WP:NPOV and WP:OR. - MrX 🖋 16:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering the obvious contentiousness that led to this, I could get behind a 1 week TBAN for one or both parties. Note that this is exceedingly short on purpose: I've seen them both engage productively, so I know they can. But apparently tempers have been rising, based on the discussion here, so maybe doing something to cool them down would help. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a one-month topic ban on Humanengr, for all things Russia/Putin. Now that I'm aware they've been arguing "nationalist bias" over at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. [61]. I guess if they can't cast doubt on whether Russia interfered, next best thing is to say America does the same thing. This is obviously tendentious. Geogene (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite topic ban from Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Time-sink, tendentious, POV pushing. Needs to stop. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Geogene. This is a specious, other things argument. Yes, America does interfere in the politics of other nations, and has done it for generations, BUT that's not the subject here. For me, the tipping point is the continued pushing of doubts about whether Russia interfered in the election. To me, competence as an editor is intimately related to a positive learning curve. We should learn from RS, and trust them in the same way we should place our trust in scientific research. For scientifically falsifiable "facts", the best we can do is trust good research and place it above our own opinions. The same applies here. We should place our trust in RS, and change our minds, giving up the opinions which differ from them. We can "have our own opinions, but not our own facts" (Moynihan). It's not imperfect, but science and RS are self-correcting, unlike erroneous opinions.
    Until Humanengr starts openly admitting that Russia interfered (and is still interfering in US politics) in the election, I will not totally trust their competence. A month-long topic ban seems appropriate, and I think we have a right to expect evidence that the topic ban has effected a change of their opinions on the matter. Otherwise, in the future, I'll support a much longer, and wider, topic ban. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Et tu? Let’s start here: “Yes, America does interfere in the politics of other nations, and has done it for generations”. How many of those were reported unequivocally (Slatersteven’s term above) as “America interfered …” (your terms) by your vaunted RS news media? Tia, Humanengr (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not the subject of discussion. This is about Russian interference, not American. That's for a different article. Bringing up American interference is a red herring to change the subject. It doesn't help you. This diversionary tactic is also an example of the tu quoque fallacy. Just because America interferes does not justify Russian interference, and in this article we're only dealing with Russian interference. United States involvement in regime change is thataway >>>>>. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The subject of discussion is the standard you offered to judge one’s behavior: “We should learn from RS, and trust them in the same way we should place our trust in scientific research. Etc., etc.” I offered a test of that standard by applying it to a different sample set. In response, rather than admit you can’t provide data to validate your proposed standard, you improperly accuse me of tu quoque:

    Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:

    1. Person A makes claim X.
    2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
    3. Therefore X is false.

    I do not claim Russia did not interfere. I dispute the unequivocal claim that they did.

    As Slatersteven noted, no RS news media source makes that unequivocal claim.

    The issue is not my competence but, judging by your own criteria, yours and Geogene’s and SPECIFICO’s in reading RS news media as stating unequivocally that Russia interfered. Humanengr (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    You are ascribing statements and views to other editors that you can not document with diffs. SPECIFICO talk 03:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You, here:

    Oh. Glad to try to explain my view. The article is about the interference in the election. Some aspects of interference were first reported in the press around March 2016 I believe, then in subsequent reports in various media throughout the balance of the campaign. Then after the election we had official confirmation that the intelligence community had been tracking this and then we had the so-called JAR in early January, 2017. Now I think it is important to differentiate between the events themselves and the sources and reporting that revealed those events. Obviously the process of investigation and revelation is ongoing and we do not yet have a full accounting of all of the various modes of interference and their extent and effects. So, whatever was in the JAR was placed there by its authors to balance two sometimes conflicting needs. By the way this is true of any revealed national intelligence estimate. The goal is to give the public as much information as possible about the interference while not revealing our intelligence sources and methods. Given that constraint, the information in the JAR was incomplete. The information available to officials with security clearance was far more extensive and detailed. That's still the case today.

    After the JAR came out, we started to get various editors who claimed, because the JAR could not reveal those still-classified details, that the conclusions in the report are incorrect. We initially had many such editors. Now we're down to a small few. They cite marginal sources for this fringe viewpoint, and are quite adamant about their POV. They are attaching great significance to the level of detail in the JAR because they seem to feel it casts doubt on whether the Russians were involved in any cyberwarfare against the US. But this is nonsense. The report is just one account of part of the story. The story itself is the interference itself. That was my point -- that this fetish about the report itself is off-target.

    Thank you again for explaining your position. Humanengr (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    1. That blockquote is from 3 months ago. 2. It is from your personal talk page, when I went there hoping that you could refocus your participation on sources and article content. 3. It doesn't document the political stance you ascribe to me above. You will never be able to document that, because I have not said it. 4. This shows (more clearly than anyone else could ever hope to explain} why the TBAN is necessary. And, to update my view: I think it should not have an end date. It could, of course, be lifted according to standard policy. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did I ascribe a political stance to you? The boldface terms in the above simply show your use of the term ‘interference’ without qualifier. For an example of ascribing political stance, see what Geogene ascribed to me. Humanengr (talk) 11:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This is a helpful example of what attempting discussion with Humanengr is actually like: Endless sealioning, Whataboutism, and a tendentious pro-Russian POV. This is why they need a TBAN, because they're still not getting it. Geogene (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Pls provide a specific cite for “pro-Russian POV”. Thx Humanengr (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say Humanengr you are not doing your case any good here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    • Oppose I followed this article and participated in talk page discussions for quite some time. I don't remember Humanengr edit warring or otherwise forcing text on the article against consensus. Their worst crime seems to be insistence in arguing for their position on the talk page. This editor is clearly making an attempt to improve the article through collaboration with other editors, otherwise they wouldn't spend so much time and energy trying to convince people. That might get tedious if the same points are repeated, but it doesn't seem deserving of a ban. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lean Support. I can see why this topic ban might be deserved now, especially given behavior in this thread. Dschslava Δx parlez moi 17:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Once again, a proposal to block someone for courteously maintaining their position on the talk page: a position in this case consistent with the editorial line of the BBC (that Russia may have attempted to interfere in the election, but that this is not established as a fact). Someone should give Humanengr a medal for maintaining their cool in the middle of all this nonsense. -Darouet (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Darouet:, when did the BBC say that this "is not an established fact"? Geogene (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Geogene: As I've pointed out on a number of occasions, e.g. here [62] or here [63]. Last I checked their editorial policy remained the same. -Darouet (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any copies of the BBC's editorial policies in those links. All I see is a couple of editors repetitively and tendentiously trying to cast doubt on the mainstream viewpoint. Here's a recent (last month) AP source that explicitly makes the connection between the Kremlin and the DNC hackers. [64]. It's not controversial. It's not even in serious dispute, outside of the RT/Sputnik News orbit. Thank you for the timely reminder that this is not the first time TBANs have been discussed for disruptive editors in this topic area. It makes Humanengr's conduct harder to understand. Geogene (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So what do the MAJORITY of RS say? We can find one or two sources that say it did happen, that does not make it "mainstream". Also what do you think "mainstream means"?Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That it happened, obviously. When Twitter is contacting users to tell them they were in contact with Russian propagandists, the debate is pretty much over. [65]. That said, it's not my job, or any other editor's job, to inform you about things that you should be able to figure out on your own. It's absurd that you seem to think that it is. At this point, if you're having trouble understanding that your own apparent views are not in the mainstream, then you're a net negative to that page. Read a newspaper. Geogene (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Darouet:, "courtesy" and "cool" are not at issue here. There's plenty of documentation been cited regarding competence, tendentious refusal to get the point, and other disruptive behaviors that are not rebutted by kudos for courtesy. If you have substantive rebuttals to the concerns that have been documented here, that would be helpful. SPECIFICO talk 23:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @SPECIFICO: All you've documented is that Humanengr has routinely disagreed with you, Geogene and MrX. That's not enough to have someone banned. -Darouet (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, that is something I have neither mentioned nor documented, nor do I know whether it's true. The fact is I have no opinions about politics and the like and I have no idea whether the many other editors who favor a TBAN have any such opinions. I have opinions only about article content and conforming it to reliable sources, as I stated to Humanengr in his talkpage thread he linked. Frankly Darouet, your snide dismissal and personalization of this long ANI thread is a stain upon the page. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not impressed I managed to do all that in so few words? -Darouet (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jusdafax: Whatever happened to lance the boil? Geogene (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I certainly hope the new norm is not relentless topic bans of the opposition simply because they view an article from a different perspective and have sources to support their views. We're supposed to be abiding by NPOV which means all views should be included if properly sourced. Of course there are going to be pods of editors with like views that will dominate local consensus - if there's a challenge, call an RfC and resolve the issue fairly. There will always be situations wherein an opposing view or challenged edit falls in the minority - that doesn't automatically make it wrong. Opposing views are how we reach NPOV, otherwise our political articles would appear as though they were written by the same political party which is of far greater concern. Discuss, discuss, and discuss a bit more and if you feel you've lost patience, take a break, but let the discussion continue until an agreement is reached. My suggestion here is to issue some trout slaps, and recommend a trout Self-whale... for when a trout just isn't enough or two but please, can we move away from always wanting to TB the opposition so the dominant POV can have free reign over an article. Atsme📞📧 12:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    For editors who are not familiar with the history of this article, I think it is grossly misleading that a small number of editors should come here -- editors who deny the overwhelming mainstream RS consensus that Russia interfered in the 2016 US elections -- and pretend that this is a simple content dispute, that WP should "compromise" with their fringe POV, that there's no such thing as civil but disruptive interaction. I was struck that @Darouet: went to the trouble of providing links in his/er comment above [66] or here [67] that show Darouet is one of those who refuses to get the point and drop the stick. In fact, the "highly motivated" editors who reject mainstream RS are begging the question of disruptive editing, which is the only issue that's been put on the table here and which is sufficient to require a preventive TBAN. Just so you don't think this is a sneaky sidewinder stab at Darouet or others, look here -- this is from Admin @Neutrality: seven months ago in the very thread Darouet apparently thinks supports hiser view: [68]. Darouet's other link shows himer arguing (two months earlier) against the result of an RfC that had just concluded by continuing to harangue the article talk page rather than as other suggest to him, challenging the close of the RfC according to process. Frankly, the only reason Darouet has not been propopsed for a similar TBAN is that shehe is not nearly as energetic as others who've already been banned. The significant point is that several editors have appeared here to raise straw man arguments and other deflections without addressing the clearly presented concern about civil but egregiously disruptive editing. And no it's not about AGF, either. It's more likely an issue of competence and ignoring our basic editing policies. SPECIFICO talk 20:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    What do "hiser" and "himer" mean? -Darouet (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are widely mooted gender-neutral English neologims [69], so that be you! 👌 SPECIFICO talk

    TenPoundHammer

    There's an ongoing situation which does not appear to be getting any better. TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs)

    Hammer, as is his habit, and his right, has been busy AfDing articles. A typical example (no involvement of mine) would be Education in Moldova / Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education in Moldova as "Meandering mess with no central topic, no sources, no notability. If there is a topic here, then WP:TNT and start over. This has been sitting to rot for over 10 years and no one will even so much as look at it. "

    It's not the AfD that's the issue here, it's the attitude. There is no way "Education in Nambia" is going anywhere, so just what is this AfD expected to achieve - other than an opportunity to slag off editors in general? TNT is not policy (I'm one of those who's long advocated it). There is a stream of those, all of much the same "How about fixing it instead of sitting on your fucking hands?" attitude.

    I got involved here: WikiProject Automobiles#Bandini deletions where 18 articles were blanked as redirects in 5 minutes flat, their category speedy deleted as WP:CSD#G6 for being empty (a technically invalid CSD anyway, see WT:Criteria for speedy deletion#G6 on "empty" categories?) and the related category and template XfDed at CfD:Bandini Automobili / TfD:Bandini Automobili. These deletions were robustly opposed. I also warned Hammer that this was heading ANI-wards.

    There's plenty more of the same - AfD:List of ecclesiastical abbreviations AfD:Petroleum politics for just a couple.

    At AfD:History of Oldham Athletic A.F.C. we see another where there is no chance of that topic being deleted. Closed as an unsurprising speedy keep. After which all of the keep !voters were then boilerplated with "So are you going to fix History of Oldham Athletic A.F.C. with the sourcing that supposedly exists, or are you going to just let it stink up the wiki forever?! "

    Given that I'd just removed his prod of Sterilant gas monitoring and fixed up the issues involved, I do not need or deserve this sort of abuse.

    It is not acceptable to stalk opposing !votes like this. Certainly not in this continuing context. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    No, you are lying here. RetiredDuke gave you six sources for it, right in that AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify my own position here, I would like to delete it per IDONTLIKEIT. It is sports content, I have zero interest in it being here (and I'm also the last person able to expand it). But that is not policy, so it doesn't count for anything. The topic, given its significance, is a shoo-in for GNG and (as confirmed by the sources given) there will be sources around for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) See also this very recent thread at WT:MILHIST; TPH has been on something of a spree lately of nominating obviously-notable topics on the basis that he hasn't heard of them or doesn't like the sourcing. This isn't a new issue—TPH has been doing it for close to a decade—but the problem seems to have significantly intensified recently; as well as the AFD activities Andy Dingley raises above, I'd estimate that whenever I clear out CAT:EX at least 50% of the WP:PROD nominations I decline as inappropriate turn out to have been nominated by TPH when I check the history. ‑ Iridescent 21:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Check out for Articles_for_deletion/Cliff_Padgett as well; there is a series for false claims about inability to source. (The fellow shows up, in context, in good sources, from a simple Google search.) Before that, it was PRODed] with a rather low-key edit summary. Anmccaff (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest making a list of editors who post the most PRODs that are declined, double check to make sure that it isn't one admin doing all the declining, then topic banning the editors on the top of the list from PRODing articles.
    This is getting a little meta-, but I'd suggest doing no such thing unless you also checked it against AfDs, too. Anmccaff (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't check PRODs at all, because they can be removed for any, and indeed spurious, reasons. AfDs would be the only metric to use here. Black Kite (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh. There's guaranteed to be someone at the top of the list regardless, so that's not automatically evidence of a problem. Reyk YO! 08:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Most of this was me trying to clean out the backlog at Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field. Most of the articles I found were in such dire shape that I felt WP:TNT was the only way to treat them. And it infuriates me when people scream for a "keep" in an AFD but are utterly unwilling to do the legwork to unfuck the article. So it gets stuck in an endless loop of "Keep, it's notable, here are sources." -> no one adds sources -> Article looks like trash -> Gets nominated for AFD for looking like trash -> "Keep, it's notable, here are sources." -> no one adds sources, on and on and on. It wouldn't get under my skin so much if the people who are clamoring for the sources they find would add them to the article because it's really not that fucking hard.
    That said, I'm going to be less deletion crazy next time I attempt to plow through a backlog that big. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is, you either did not bother to check for sources, or you checked and lied about it. That's not a minor error. Anmccaff (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ATD is policy, TPH. Trying to use AfD to clear a cleanup backlog is inappropriate, disruptive and, as you surely must have noticed by now, futile. We don't delete articles for fixable content problems and editors who !vote to keep an article because they think it is fixable are under no obligation to work on it. It's not a case of "being less deletion happy", it's paying attention to what deletion is actually for and doing your due diligence so that you're not wasting others' time. – Joe (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a point, or are you just shit-stirring? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Charming. But, yeah, the somewhat obvious point would be that if you're going to remove a PROD from something, it might be a good idea to actually check it for obvious issues, but perhaps that's just me. Black Kite (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No action: I don't see trolling here. Just a deletionism-inclusionism dispute that's boiled over to a noticeboard. When someone holds a belief that's different from yours as to policy and practice, it's entirely possible for that belief to be held sincerely, and for those actions to be taken in good faith. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you read the comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles#Bandini_deletions? Bulk-blanking 18 articles in 5 minutes (so no actual review of each) with descriptions of "not notable", "all technical garbage", "redundant and all technical crap" and "unsourced fanwank" is not a valid attempt to clean up anything, it's an excuse to slag other editors. Then boilerplating the keep !voters [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] is not any part of the AfD process that I recognise. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What's bold redirects have to do with this? Redirecting poorly-sourced small articles containing primarily technical details to a master article is good practice. Frankly, all those articles should be merged and redirected to something like List of Bandini Automobili vehicles, and all the cruft should be removed. As to the talk page messages, they may be a bit confrontational, but again, this is WikiPolitics: deletion vs. inclusion. It's not trolling, let alone sanctionable. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And here[76] is another case of inadequate prod summaries. There is clearly an abuse of procedure here. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    And this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detrended correspondence analysis had plenty of sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    Just stumbled over that. Got my goat too. This reminds me of someone angrily lashing out at things that don't fall into their personal area of interest or understanding. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    See also this one. Same "no sourcing found". The sourcing is not terrific, but there is certainly some "out there", and in the article as well.198.58.168.40 (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I don't think it's "trolling", per se, but the fact of the matter is that when I first became an admin back in the halcyon days of 2011, I quickly noticed that, WP:HAMMER-subjects aside, TPH's nominations at xFD were...we'll call them spotty at best, and they have not improved - if anything, they've gotten worse, with nominations that indicate a complete failure of WP:BEFORE (for instance the nomination of {{Petty family}} for deletion, which was refuted with five seconds at Google - and, some times, the distinct impression the subject being nominated wasn't even read. I'm not sure what can be done here, procedurally, as TPH does do good work, but he needs at least to spend more time researching topics before nominating, as this is a continuing behavorial issue. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest a week's ban on prods and AfDs, to be extended for a further period if behavior does not improve. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    • Diff – "You just admitted there is no sourcing, yet it's notable anyway? On what planet do you live?"
    • Diff – "You seem lost. Sources go in the article, not in the AFD. Try again."
    • Diff – "So are you going to fix it, or are you going to just let the article fester and rot forever?"
    • Diff – "You seem to have confused the AFD for the article. IF you find sources, put them in the article, not in the AFD. Try again."
    • Diff – "And saying that there are sources = adding them to the article right? If there are souces, WHERE THE FUCKING FUCK ARE THEY and why are they not in the article? Don't say there are sources unless you can fucking prove it yourself, mmkay? Otherwise, I could say there are sources out there on my own ass, and it could have a fucking article."
    • Diff – "And that means the article is now automatically FA right? No one ever needs to do anything to it again? It's notable, it's the best thing ever on this goddamn wiki? How about fixing it instead of sitting on your fucking hands?"
    • Diff – "So trivial that you didn't even add them to the article. Because you clearly believe that saying "I found sources" is the same thing as adding them to the article right? They will just magically add themselves."
    • Diff – "Again, finding the source means it automatically adds itself to the article, right? Nothing more has to be done here? It's automatically turned into an FA just because you found that? If you're going to argue notability and dig up sources, then how much harder is it to fucking add them? I see this all the time: people scream their heads off that it's notable, argue that it be kept, but no one ever adds the sources, so 10 years later the article is still an unsourced trainwreck."
    • Diff – "What's stopping you from adding them? AGain, are you expecting the article to magically turn into an FA overnight just because you said keep? If you're gonna talk the talk, walk the walk. Not that fucking hard."
    • Comment This user, in addition to clearly working against WP:CIVILITY, does not often reference proper deletion policy, acknowledge WP:GNG, and their WP:BEFORE checks have been incredibly insufficient (if they are even performed). It took me 20 seconds to find that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel Asajile Mwambulukutu fulfilled WP:NPOL. I've suggested to them that if they are really oh so bothered by the poor quality of certain articles, they ought to make the fixes themselves (curiously, they did not respond). These accusations that other users do all the work are rather hypocritical. After all, if it's "not that fucking hard" for someone else to add cited info with new sources, then surely TPH can do it themselves, "fixing it instead of sitting on [their] fucking hands". I don't consider this trolling; TPH isn't disrupting the system for the sake of disruption. They just want to get rid of things because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This user has been around too long to be unaware of the criteria for deletion and ignorant of how to conduct a proper BEFORE (aka Google search and clicking). They should know better. I for one would like to see them topic banned from AfD until they demonstrate some civility and an understanding of deletion policy and BEFORE. Otherwise they are just wasting more of our time with Deletion nominations that should never have been thrown into the queue in the first place. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- This looks like TPH making a bunch of ill-advised deletion nominations and exasperated comments at how crappy some sections of Wikipedia are, but not trolling. Reyk YO! 08:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe not for the PRODs and AfDs, but when it comes to these, after the AfD has closed, [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] I find it hard to think of any other term for it. It's a closed AfD, even though he then re-filed it immediately afterwards (and then thought better of it) so just what are these comments intended for, or likely to have the effect of? They won't change the article, all they're going to achieve is to gratuitously piss off a bunch of editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Being exasperated and annoyed with editors who don't fix things is not trolling. Accusing someone of trolling is essentially the same as accusing him of vandalism except in talk or user talk space, that is, editing in talk spaces to undermine the community deliberately. I don't think what TPH is doing there is deliberately aimed at undermining the community, but at pushing for responsibility. And I really don't think it even has a negative effect other than getting people's attention. This is one of those situations where someone does something I wouldn't do, but that I wouldn't do it doesn't make it sanctionable. Andy, I expect better proof of misconduct from someone of your expertise. In particular, the discussion you cite above at WT:CARS draws more attention to your own reactions than anything else. I seriously fail to see why you felt the need to rush to ANI over a bunch of bold redirects. That you are Tired of this guy is hardly relevant, and I am really surprised at your response to an honest commment from TPH, that him saying there was nothing worth keeping in the redirected articles should bring the case even closer to ANI. Andy, disagreeing with you is not cause to bring someone to ANI. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I share Hammer's exasperation at article quality, but as I've already said, it's the way he goes about it, not the issue that has brought him here. His attitude was heading that way already (and not for the first time) and I made that very clear. Blanking a whole set of articles is wrong (they're hard to source in detail, not unsourceable - Bandini are listed in all of my "complete encyclopedia of" books, just not in much detail) - but to disparage the articles as "unsourced fanwank" is tantamount to disparaging the editors in that area as unsourcing wanker fanboys. You do not get to slate other peoples' interest groups like this, any more than I get to delete Oldham Athletic because I've no interest in footie. For him to then start harassing his opposers at the Oldham AfD has gone beyond exasperation to trolling of individuals, and that's when this went to ANI. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - this will go around in circles until TenPoundHammer gets a topic ban from the deletion process. fish&karate 09:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand his frustration. There are a number of articles - a very large number in fact - whose current content fails core policy, but whose subjects are asserted to be notable and thus they are defended. This is an existential conflict between "the subject is notable, therefore the article must exist and it's not my job to render it compliant with policy" and "the article is not compliant with policy so should be nuked regardless of the importance of the subject" (ake WP:TNT). This struggle is as old as Wikipedia and will never go away. My suggestion to TPH is to try stubbing them instead. Just nuke the no-compliant content and recognise that any article that is part of Wikipedia's international directory of education topics will never be deleted. We don't need to re-fight the school wars. Guy (Help!) 11:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • ​The thing is, he's not restricting himself to pages whose current content fails core policy, and it's fairly clear from his deletion rationales that he's not actually reading the articles either; he's just slapping deletion tags on anything he doesn't like the sound of. As a very recent example, this is what Chad–Sudan relations looked like at the moment he tagged it for deletion with a rationale of No basis for an article. Like most X-Y relations articles, this is just a random slapdash collection with no focus; for the benefit of those who aren't aware, the borderland between Chad and Sudan is better known in the west as Darfur and the uneasy relationship between the two countries is one of the most significant in Africa, and if TPH had even performed a 30-second skim-read he'd have been aware of this. This isn't a one-off but a consistent pattern; as well as the assorted examples given in the OP and the claim that the Battle of Pęcice must have been a hoax because he'd never heard of it and his lying about there being "no sources" when I pointed out that I'd found multiple RSs within two minutes, we have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latin house, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petroleum politics, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public domain film just from a dip-sample in the last few days. ‑ Iridescent 16:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm. Most of this bilateral relations articles are either a series of news stories or blatant OR, but I take the point. However, I also share TPH's frustration with people who !vote Keep, assert that there are sources, and leave an article unsourced or otherwise crappy. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two points of concern here:
    • There is clearly no attempt to follow WP:BEFORE here. While a one-off AFD nomination without BEFORE could be understood, and a few of these look obvious that BEFORE wouldn't have helped, most show that the AFD nominator should have done work ahead of time to better justify the reason to AFD the articles. AFD is not cleanup. The AFD process is geared to put the onus on those deleting, though if the issue is something completely unsourced, then yes, those !voting keep need to be doing some legwork to avoid deletion via WP:V.
    • WP:FAIT is also appropriate here. While the breadth of the articles do not necessary impact one set of editors too much, still nominating this many articles at one time is flooding the system (particularly admins and regular AFD editors). This FAIT point would likely be less of an issue if the first point about BEFORE had been followed, but this still should be kept in mind.
    Why we ask these is not something well documented in policy so I can fully see TPH's argument that they were using tools available to do necessary cleanup work. That's a reasonable AGF argument, but that's why TPH should be well aware now that this is not the approach to take in the future. --Masem (t) 16:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- I am not an admin, and am currently mainly patrolling CFD and the AFD lists for History and Christianity, which is as much as I currently have time for. Most of my time is devoted to editing a book on the history of the iron industry, which often contains research based on primary sources. If I come across blatant mistakes I correct them: in one recent case I was mistaken and my edit was very properly reverted. The problem as I see it is that certain editors are nominating articles for AFD, because they lack (or have inadequate) in-line references. However WP:V requires that content should be verifiable, not that it should be verified by in-line references. A distinction needs to be drawn between articles that are not credible and are probably WP:OR and those which may be correct, but lack references. Some of these will require research in secondary (or even primary) sources, because relevant and credible material (WP:RS) is not available on-line. The right answer in such cases is to tag the article for its defects, in the hope that some one will fix them. As far as I am aware there is no time limit for this. TenPoundHammer's fault seems to applying a time limit, rather than devoting his time to fixing those defects that he can fix. Some of these may require the editor to have access to a library or even primary (archival) sources, but not every book is available in every library, and archives (unless digitised or filmed) are generally only available in a single repository. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • TPH needs to be topic-banned from all deletion-related activities. His nominations are often wilfully incompetent and his attitude stinks. It has always been thus, and it's time he was prevented from wasting so much of other editors' time. --Michig (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't have agreed to this, and I'm the OP.
    But then I was reminded of this, from 2012: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TenPoundHammer
    There has been no change in six years. Same old problems. So yes, "topic-banned from all deletion-related activities". Andy Dingley (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical marine climate looks germane to this discussion. XOR'easter (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly he wasn't in the same O level geography classes I sat through... 8-(
    To continue with this crusade of badly thought out AfDs, even whilst ignoring an ANI thread on the same topic is indicative of the underlying attitude problem here. Topic ban. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alternate suggestion. We've got a couple of problems here. First, we've got a lot of well-intentioned but abandoned crap articles. Lots of those have been tagged for cleanup without a reason given (probably out of desperation), and so contribute to an appalling backlog of 9200+ articles in that cleanup "category", some of them there now for nearly 10 years. Doubtless various people have wanted to address that backlog before, but have been cowed after poking around and finding themselves somewhere between confused, lost, and disinterested. So I emphathize with TPH for advocating a "blow it up" solution to cut the Gordian knot. I also emphathize with those pushing back, saying notability is there, sources exist, the article can at some point be improved by someone (just not them!) and so policy says don't delete.
    To TPH: You're definitely not trolling, you're trying to improve the encyclopedia. But you are being disruptive, because your approach is not achieving its objective, namely improved or deleted articles, because in your end-justifies-the-means approach you're making too many factual errors about the existence of sources, and because you're unproductively annoying other people who could be on your side. Rather than a formal TBAN from deletion processes (which is gaining traction here out of frustration, may lower collective blood pressure, but won't solve the underlying issue) could you make a voluntary commitment to not PROD or AFD articles explicitly or implicitly based on WP:TNT until/unless it becomes accepted policy, to not assert lack of sources in a deletion discussion unless you have taken real time to check, and to not argue with others about whose responsibility is it to fix an article. Instead harness that energy to propose and help enshrine into policy a better solution for abandoned crap articles. I could see WP:TNT, or some version thereof, becoming policy, now that we're a lot more mature than 10 years ago. Or if not, a solution with a template saying something like "This article has been abandoned for many years, in a state a far cry from what we aspire to. If it's a topic of interest, please help us improve it" bot-added to any article that's been in cleanup-tag purgatory for 3+ (or whatever) years. The details need fleshing out, but I think people could get their heads around something; and it will have much more positive impact than frustrated AFD nominations, speedy keeps, recriminations, and unchanged articles. Martinp (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I noted above, I support no action here because I see no misconduct on TPH's part. I also see no disruption, contrary to what Martinp asserts above me. The incident that appears to have triggered this report, a thread at WT:CARS, is not even related to deletion, but to boldly redirecting old unreferenced articles. That TPH has a history with deletion is true, but we aren't here to discuss past conduct, we're here to discuss whether TPH has done wrong. Focusing on past conduct is prejudicial and only really relevant to remedies. That is, we are putting the cart before the horse. Again, TPH has not been shown to have done anything wrong, and talk of sanctions—whether or not they're disguised as voluntary restrictions—is both premature and inappropriate. There is no consensus that TPH has done wrong. So let's slow the hell down. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you consider it appropriate to blank an entire series of articles with no discussion and no attempt to add references? –dlthewave ☎ 03:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I went through some of TPH's recent AfD nominations and I agree with those who find them to be inappropriate and disruptive. While TPH may be frustrated with articles that need better sourcing, AfD policy does not support that as a deletion rationale if sources exist and can be found. And TPH is aware of this. So bringing articles to AfD and then harassing participants in the discussion who point out existing sources is disruptive and inappropriate conduct. And this has been going on (possibly on and off) for years. Rlendog (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dlthewave: He didn't blank anything. He redirected unsourced articles that had sat unsourced for ages. This is a perennial problem in the deletionist-inclusionist debate, the matter of WP:BOLD merge/redirect actions. We do not have a functional process for this, so the usual method is to be bold. So, responding to your actual question, whether BOLDly redirecting unacceptable articles to a master article is appropriate, my answer is that it is entirely appropriate. Taking someone to ANI for being "tired" of him, as Andy said at WT:CARS, is the inappropriate action taking place here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't consider dropping the F-bomb because other users won't adhere to your demands to be in line with WP:CIVILITY policy ([83])([84])([85]). And same with repeatedly nominating things for AfD without citing proper deletion criteria outlined in the deletion policy after years of working in AfD (these aren't just mistakes). -Indy beetle (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ArbCom would tend to disagree with you, that swearing on-wiki in the midst of a dispute is inappropriate, let alone uncivil. Fairly recently, I recall someone telling another to "fuck off" was not a civility violation. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it ought to be. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    Agreed (both). I seem to remember that this would have been a CIVIL breach (and rightly so), but clearly not of late. I think it ought to be. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I still think it's absolutely frustrating that people say "Keep, it's notable, see, here are sources" but never add them, so five years later, the article looks like absolute shit. How hard is it to just add it yourself? We've been around this block so many times -- people have questioned my civility in this, but no one has ever agreed to do anything about it. I would think that if I were being disruptive enough to cause a problem, that something would've been done years ago. So why don't we just drop the stick and walk away from what's left of the horse? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ...we seem to be getting around to doing something about it, bide a while... regarding "no one ever adds sources", that's just a vast crock. I don't hang out at AfDs much (more so recently due to NPP drive), but in a couple months I've seen a least a dozen that came out of the discussion with "Keep" due to refs having been improved by participants. Which is still not a requirement. Consequently your approach of bombing AfD with sloppy nomations to coerce people into cleanup clearly strikes many as disruptive. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    On that point, I move to close. The above comment, which is pretty representative of the other complaints in this thread, deals entirely with disputes over Wikipedia policy and simply couches those complaints in behavioral dispute language. TPH is absolutely right that these sorts of AfD outcomes happen, and in my opinion is absolutely right to call people out on them. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, but it is not an indefinite webhost of materials that violate core policies. We need to find the balance between WP:TIND and WP:NOT, and bootstrapping an ANI thread in order to silence people with whom you disagree is not how we develop policy on Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ​But again, materials that violate core policies isn't the issue here; the issue is that TPH is arbitrarily tagging pages for deletion based on the fact that he hasn't heard of the topic (typically using the edit summary of "add", presumably in the hope that watchers will be less likely to spot the deletion tag being added), and lying about claiming to have searched for sources when it's clear he hasn't. Which "core policies" are you suggesting Chad–Sudan relations, Tropical marine climate or Battle of Pęcice are breaching? ‑ Iridescent 09:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think TPH and Melndaliv are right that it's unhelpful to just dump a list of purported sources on the discussions and walk away (or worse, simply assert there must be sources out there somewhere and then walk away) without any thought of actually bringing the article up to a minimal standard. But a bunch of ill-advised AfD nominations is not a useful way of dealing with the problem (though on many of them a good dose of TNT is exactly what's needed). And if TPH is using misleading edit summaries then that is a problem, more so than just getting grouchy about a lot of shitty, never-to-be-improved articles. Reyk YO! 09:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Dumping a list of sources but not adding to the article (whether at the talk page or the AFD page) is helpful, but practice has evolved that as long as those sources are identified and linked in a common sense place to the article (eg the talk page, the AFD header that should be on a talk page after it closes, etc.) then for purposes of sourcing, we are supposed to treat the article as if those sources were included. This can lead to sloppy articles, no question, but I also agree that as long as we have no deadline and the location of those sources are obvious, using AFD to force cleanup just because those sources aren't in the article is very much against the spirit of WP. Tag with a maintenance tag instead. (The other issue of simply asserting there are sources but not supplying anything close to a proper WP:V link, that's different, and needs to be stopped). --Masem (t) 16:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iridescent: I'm not talking about those articles, and nobody else in this thread seems to be talking about those articles either. In fact, you bring up the other problem with this thread, that it's like a shifting sand dune. There's no actual substance or consensus to any of the complaints here, just a bunch of people with different problems or different complaints airing them. This isn't a proper use of ANI, and there's no administrative action that could possibly lie to address the myriad minor complaints that have been brought up. It's time to nip this thread in the bud and close it now. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    How about no. There's a large of number of statements here that TPH's behaviour is experienced as disruptive and they should change it. Your inability to understand the issue if it's not presented in a two-sentence executive summary is not a reason to shut down the discussion. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1. We are constituted that articles don't need to be sourced to pass AfD, they need to demonstrate an ability to be sourceable. TNT is not policy. You are right that articles are poor and that they ought to be better, but it's not policy to use AfD to delete them when they aren't. Either accept that or get out of AfD.
    2. How about you doing some of this? - a serious invitation. Rather than PRODing "sterilant gas monitoring" as "no sources", do what I did and add some. Takes longer, but it achieves more than a handful of snowball AfDs being thrown right back.
    3. This cleanup relies on other editors, not just one brave hero and his flaming hammer o'justice. So starting out by pissing off all the likely editors is no way to encourage anything useful to happen. I got as far as taking the Bandini books down off the shelf but still haven't worked on the articles (and chances are probably won't) because having articles continually described as you have been (which is just plain unacceptable anyway) is no way to motivate any efforts to improve them. Bandini only built something like 70-odd cars (cars, not models) and we have 18 articles. Are they really all separate notable models? But at present no-one is really looking, because you've entrenched an opposition from the cars project who have taken the entirely expected line that the only way to defend against your bulk actions is with a bulk defence. Maybe the 1963 750bis belongs as a section in with the 1962 750, not separate, but your attitude has completely shut down any such discussion. You are acting against your own supposed goal of encouraging cleanup. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban proposal

    How about a 3 month total ban from PRODs but not AFD's. If at the end of that time TPH's AFD hit rate doesn't start to improve (at least 70% ending in delete/merge/redirect) then a total ban from deletion? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose: There's no consensus that misconduct has occurred, let alone that sanctions are required. Let somebody lay out a coherent case that there's misconduct first. Everything thus far has been disjointed and vague waves to a long history of problems. This kind of thread is how ANI gets its "pitchforks and torches" reputation. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think there is no problem after reading all of the above, looking at their PROD/AFD history and the various comments linked by editors above, then short of eating a baby I doubt there is anything that would convince you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, there is no coherent case of specific misconduct anywhere above or below. All that's happened is a bunch of people have come out of the woodwork to air assorted, unconnected grievances against TPH. Many of the complaints aired in this thread have nothing whatsoever to do with deletion and would not be addressed by this preposterous topic ban. Similarly, most of the arguments above and below do not support a single, coherent sanction, but just a mishmash of "topic ban from all deletion" or "topic ban from AfD" or a bunch of other things that aren't even related or supported by any evidence. If this discussion results in any sort of topic ban, I would counsel TPH to appeal it to the Arbitration Committee immediately, because there is simply no coherent consensus emerging here, let alone discussion among the complainants. There's just a bunch of angry people saying angry people things into a wall of text. This is not discussion, let alone deliberation. This is simply another case of ANI bringing out the pitchforks and torches because someone unpopular pissed him off. Unpopularity is not and has never been cause for sanctioning or punishment, and couching someone's unpopularity in terms of him being "disruptive" or in terms of "protecting the project" does not mask the odious nature of this sanction. I am appalled. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No coherent? Unconnected? Not supported by evidence? Editors have provided multiple diffs showing where TPH has clearly not done the basic groundwork to nominate an article for deletion. Multiple diffs over an extended period have shown this behaviour to be disruptive to a wide range of editors. Your post above has no basis in reality and is verging on outright fabrication. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Supportindefinite topic ban from all deletion related areas I agree with some of my fellow editors above that TPH, for all his probably good intentions and all justified frustration with WP:Somebody else's problem mentality, has not yet grasped (and apparently is unwilling to ever grasp) that policies and guidelines apply to him as well and that just nominating stuff for deletion is neither helpful nor allowed by policy. If he were to invest all that time and energy into acutally fixing the articles he finds problematic, the project would be better off and banning him from deletion might achieve just that.

      In addition to the examples provided above (the most fragrant of which is imho trying to use the "uncontroversial maintenance" G6 criterion to get rid of things he does not like (and, unfortunately, suceeding)), there was recently a slew of A7 mistaggings and misleading and incorrect statements regarding his edits and those of others. Examples:

    Even though RFA#7 was nine years ago, all the concerns that were raised back then about his approach to deletion still appear to be well-founded today and I'm sure TPH knows that his approach is not correct but still he persists time and time again. I think after 14 years, we should honestly consider whether his approach and the drama it causes again are really worth his participation in deletion related areas, especially also considering the valid points NA1000 makes about his civility in such discussions. Regards SoWhy 10:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef topic ban from all deletion related areas - per North America’s diffs, as noted by Softlavender, and subsequent discussion and diffs. This person is an abusive bully of the type who the community needs to sanction. Actually I’m in favor of an indef block from the project until some genuine contrition and commitment to complete change is expressed. I thank Andy for standing up and speaking out. Jusdafax (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose- I definitely do not approve of the less-than-informative edit summaries, and it would be hypocritical of me to try to excuse it when I have previously criticised others for lying in edit summaries. On the other hand, what's happened in the past when someone on the inclusionist side has used inaccurate edit summaries to obscure what they were really doing was to smile benevolently and pat them on the back. It won't do for the community to mete out punishment and praise for the same behaviour depending on wikipolitical affiliation. Futhermore, the preceding debate looks more like a mish-mash of unrelated gripes and grumbles. Let there be a coherently set out case against TPH first. I don't approve of the misfire AfDs but, since the articles are getting kept mostly, it's hard to see any major disruption. Reyk YO! 11:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure I follow: If the nominator knows that the AFDs will be kept mostly because he is deliberately ignoring WP:NOTCLEANUP, how is continuing to nominate such articles that not a major disruption? And if an editor persists in using false edit summaries after multiple people asked them to stop, including pointing out that several policies in fact require that they use informative edit summaries, how is that not disruptive? Just saying "Well, when editor X did that, he was not sanctioned", is not really a strong argument, because you admit that TPH is doing something wrong, you just don't feel like it's fair to sanction them for it when others weren't. For the record, I think anyone trying to obscure their edits in edit summaries should be sanctioned, not just "deletionists". Regards SoWhy 11:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support a topic ban for all deletion related areas at very the least. After reading through all the above it seems clear that TPH's presence in the project is disruptive and a massive time sink for other editors. I think an indefinite block would actually be the most appropriate action until and unless TPH can demonstrate a genuine understanding of why his/her activities are problematic and can provide a convincing argument that it will not happen again. - Nick Thorne talk 12:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.--IndyNotes (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hammer, 03:35, 20 January 2018 (above): " I have stopped "stealth prodding""
    Hammer, 06:48, 20 January 2018: "add" of a PROD on cine film. Followed by an AfD:Cine film on 22nd.
    This is why I support an indef topic ban. If you can't even stop this during an ANI topic ban discussion, and after you've just claimed you have done, you are totally refusing to engage with the views of other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Hysterical overreaction. --Calton | Talk 03:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from all forms of deletion nominations. Aside from the useless comment directly above, the opposition has been reasonable, but I respectfully disagree. TPH has made numerous problematic nominations and has compounded the problem by berating those who disagree with him. If TPH is so concerned about having someone add the sources to the articles, why doesn't he do it himself? If editors step away from the work they were doing to fix the articles he nominates for deletion, is there really any net gain? Also, despite TPH's argument that "if my AFDs were that problematic, then clearly something would've been done by now", we can see from Iridescent's evidence that TPH has found himself in hot water over and over and over. It is time to stop kicking the can down the road. Lepricavark (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a temporary topic ban, which seems like the only reasonable incremental step to take. TPH does a lot of valuable work, but, having read through this entire thread, there's clearly a refusal to go along with standard operating procedure and inappropriate remarks when asked to. It should be said that the examples here are a handful of a very high number of edits -- TPH is prolific, to be sure. My hope would be that being required to take a break from the activity would show that there isn't a perpetual lack of consensus about his/her editing such that it can continue indefinitely. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from all forms of deletion nominations. I came here after seeing another of his bad nominations for AfD that lacked any effort to WP:BEFORE. I see he's been warned for years and years and years to change. Now is the time to topic ban.198.58.168.40 (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support temporary topic ban from AfD nominations. I would have thought that the above expressions of concern might make the point without the need of enforcement. But since TPH seems to feel that they are doing just dandy and everyone else is blowing bubbles for the fun of it (that repeated insistence that "if my AFDs were that problematic, then clearly something would've been done by now" is really... oblivious), maybe some formal prod IS necessary. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite I hadn't commented, because I was far from convinced. However new comments (above) like, "I think it's pretty clear that there is an absolute lack of consensus here." show that Hammer still has such a total lack of insight into the problem that nothing will happen otherwise. I'm against a temporary ban, because this has gone on for years without improvement already and Hammer can't say that he wasn't made aware of this before. "Again, if my AFDs were that problematic, then clearly something would've been done by now. " seems to be a recognition that a topic ban is warranted.
    As to, "I have stopped "stealth prodding"" (presumably referring to PRODing articles with the edit summary "add") then I'm glad to hear it. That behaviour of itself is a reason for a sanction. What possible GF reason is there for a "stealth prod"? Similarly deleting categories by using WP:CSD#G6. Right or wrong, we do not get to bend the rules like this because "we are in the right". Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support But would prefer a throttle to an outright ban. TPH'es approach overwhelms the community of editors. We can't fix everything, right now, and that's more or less his demand. If he were limited to a small number per time period, the quality of his nominations would probably improve. In any case, with a smaller article count, the community could focus more on fixing rather than merely defending. But if we continue to get this flood of nominations, it only feeds a cycle. It only takes a couple of seconds for one editor to take an article to AfD, but countless editors read through them, do searches, evaluate, etc. just to assert notability, no time is left to improve articles. This disruption needs to stop.Jacona (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    TPH'es behavior in the course of this discussion, concerning his having stopped stealth prodding while continuing to do so (See Andy Dingley's earlier comments), shows contempt and complete disrespect for policy, for consensus, and for all of us who participate here. They cannot be trusted to do the right thing on their own.Jacona (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Many editors agree that TPH does a lot of good clean-up work, but he does a lot of bad clean-up work too. That is what is needed to be stopped. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    I guess the question becomes, "How do you encourage the good cleanup while stopping the bad?" You can't topic ban someone from making bad decisions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's necessarily correct. If the bad decisions are all made in a certain area - here it's deletion - then topic banning someone from this area means they cannot make those bad decisions anymore (at least without risking a site-ban). Regards SoWhy 08:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Overreaction. This is an indisputable shot across the bow; provide a warning or admonishment from the consensus in this thread and consider a topic ban if, and only if, the behaviour continues. --Jack Frost (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As other editors have pointed out, warnings have been provided multiple times in the past. The behavior has continued for years. –dlthewave ☎ 02:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Iridescent pointed out above that TPH created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felipe Cardeña while this "indisputable shot across the bow" discussion was in full swing (and he created AFDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical marine climate after he was brought here for creating such AFDs). As multiple people pointed out, this behavior has been warned against many times in the past, including seven RFAs that failed and an RFC/U. I wonder when you think it's been enough if 10 years of people cautioning him to not behave this way was not. Regards SoWhy 09:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose A topic ban would be bad for the reliability and an award for those editors who try to keep articles by promising sources and/or editing but fail to deliver on that. In fact, those guys use fake arguments to keep articles. Especially regarding SPAM, that behaviour is seriously undermining policies. The Banner talk 18:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Those guys use fake arguments to keep articles"- really?! That sounds like a serious allegation. Which really means it should be backed by diffs (assuming, of couse, that they're accurate enough to avoid being personal attacks) or withdrawn as unsubstantiable. Just sayin'  :) >SerialNumber54129...speculates 19:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This issue has nothing to do with editors using 'fake arguments' to keep articles. No evidence has been provided to suggest that has happened at all. --Michig (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of Hammer's AfDs are for spammy articles or those with a real problem (i.e. those about the topic, not just the article) - and for those, he's had support to delete them. This isn't about excusing spam, it's about over-zealous reactions to problems. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support TPH's long-term pattern of nominating well-sourced and notable articles for AfD, accompanied by harassment of editors who step forward to provide sources (or simply point out sources that are already in the article), is counterproductive and contrary to policy. The time wasted by the editors who deal with these shenanigans could be better spent improving the articles or having a civil, productive AfD discussion. I understand the frustration of seeing bad articles kept without being improved, but that is no excuse for TPH's behavior. –dlthewave ☎ 19:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support Strong support for an indefinite topic ban on deletion-related aspects of Wikipedia or a !HERE block In fact he can be blocked with WP:!HERE with the right circumstances. All of the evidences that were presented here showed that he was like a naughty bully who would go on and wreck a lego structure built painstakenly by a weak child. I think the topic ban could serve as a lesson or warning for those reckless editors out there to not sumitomo a house while it's being built that make the editing community more toxic & unwelcoming; Deutschland Wikipedia had became a boring pit just precisely because of tendentious people like him which we called löschtrolls (purging trolls). At the moment I'd recommend "In Defense of Inclusionism" reading for your perusal; much thanks to User:Andy Dingley for standing up for the community benefit. 14.192.208.84 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have slightly modified my vote to include a "not here on wikipedia" block as TPH's level of disruption is astounding. At last some interesting rebuttals from meta:Inclusionism against their line of thinking:

    Deletions and deletionism goes against the entire basic premise of Wikipedia: Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. — Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia.

    One argument for deletion is, "Deletion solves all problems. No article, no problem." That's like beheading someone to cure brain cancer. It gets rid of the cancer, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

    Another argument for deletion is, "Inclusionism is for lazy fatwads." What kind of an argument is that? That they've resorted to name-calling reflects very poorly on them.

    Referring to Wikipedia as an "all-knowing junk heap" is POV; one person's junk heap is another person's treasure trove.

    Sometimes, articles are deleted after not being improved for one year or something. Sorry, but unlike Super Mario Bros., Wikipedia has no time that can run out! We're no video game, and we don't run of time. The point with Wikipedia is that improving an article is never too late, no matter if it's 10 minutes after article creation, or 10 years later!

    Deletions and deletionism may cause disappointed contributors to leave the project. It has already occurred several times. Fun?

    His thinking is seriously flawed but I'll play a bit of devil's advocate. Why don't get a job as Britannica editor if that's his obsession to rid mediocre or perhaps obscure articles? For me the zeal of their ilk to bring Wikipedia to the par of good old printed encyclopedias is no different than bringing us back to the time where I have to spend quite an amount of tram fees just to go to nearest library. Auf Wiedersehen! 14.192.208.84 (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again I modified my vote to explicitly calling for an indefinite tban. Cheers! 14.192.208.84 (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban for PROD or AFD nominations as per iridescent, for six months or so, but not indefinitely. No topic ban for actually participating in AFD discussions - I think it might do them some good to listen to others, and they could make some improvements by adding those sources they keep moaning aren't present, or that no one puts in (judging from the comments above). I have just reverted a note I left on TenPoundHammer's talk page about my own frustrations at his poor quality deletion work as I wasn't (at the time of posting) aware of the discussion going on here. It would seem like 'pile on' to have left it there, so have come here instead. I'm fairly new to AFD, don't have any history of interactions with TPH, nor do I own a pitchfork. But I have found TPH's grounds for many PRODs and AFDs to be seriously flawed on a number of occasions recently (I understand the editor's desire to improve articles, but competency really is required.) PRODing Tanzania's former Ambassador to South Africa, or the Battle of Pęcice, or Tropical marine climate whilst failing to do WP:BEFORE to check either out is not constructive, and must either be incompetence or intentional disruption. I doubt the latter. AFD-ing dozens of articles that they don't want to clean up themselves, but leaving every one else to scurry around trying to check and work to keep them might seem like one way of improving the encyclopaedia. But I believe it is highly disruptive to the work of other editors and, having now read this discussion, appreciate it has been going on for years. I am concerned that many other notable, but poorly written or poorly sourced topics that TPH hasn't liked have probably already slipped through the net and been deleted. That disruption needs to stop. TPH needs to cease nominating content for deletion, and needs encouragement to contribute in other areas. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban for nominations for any form of deletion, I would say indefinite with appeals allowed after 3 months. I'm a deletionist but as others have said TNT should be used sparingly. Likewise some effort should be put into finding sources especially when it should be obvious that there could be sources. Even a deletionist should want to keep notable content, so if sources have been found, ultimately anyone including those who supported deleted should be trying to add them. Weak support for topic from any form of deletion, again I'd recommend indefinite with appeals allowed after 3 months. The badgering and ignoring evidence presented is enough concern for me to feel that way but it seems far less of a problem since ultimately if the evidence is already presented TPH's comments can just be ignored. Nil Einne (talk) 07:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @Nick Moyes: If you fear that many other notable, poorly written or poorly sourced topics that TPH hasn't liked have probably already slipped through the net and been deleted, shouldn't you support a topic ban from speedy deletion as well? After all, that's the area where a single admin can decide and might have been fooled into making such deletions more easily than at AFD (just see the G6 debacle mentioned above by the OP). Regards SoWhy 08:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You may well be correct, I don't know. My experience of TPH's work only extends to what I've personally seen at AFD recently. It would be very unfair of me to support extending a ban into an area where I've absolutely no experience of seeing the quality of his work. I suspect poor CSD performance by one editor might actually be spotted and addressed more readily by our admins. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef TBAN from PROD and AfD -- given too many warnings, too many chances. Per evidence given above, TenPoundHammer shows that he continues to file frivolous deletion discussions. AfD is not a place to say 'hey, this article needs cleanup!'. !dave 09:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wholeheartedly agreed. In the face of mountanous evidence presented here all the "knee jerk overreaction" opposing comments seemed like a cop-out at mininum. Even if the not here block is not taken at least the topic ban would serve as a stern reminder for those löschtrolls out there. 14.192.208.84 (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support temporary ban from deletion process, I think indefinite is excessive, and here's why. TPH clearly cares about making Wikipedia better, I don't think anyone can dispute that. Perhaps he cares too much. A month or two off from the deletion process would give him an opportunity to (re)discover the joys of making articles better himself, instead of using deletion - or the threat thereof - as a sweary lever to get other people to do it. Alternatively, I suggest a quid pro quo arrangement where he has to improve/fix one article for every one article he nominates for deletion, and a breach of that will result in the aforementioned indefinite topic ban. I'm sure we can find some admins who'd be willing to monitor that (I for one would be happy to do that). fish&karate 09:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    He could simply be a part of so-called "editcountitis" syndrome which beleanguers many shenanigans. Board member Dariusz Jemielniak is spot-on in this; he told that deletion processes are one of the easiest to score brownies in terms of edit counts. As the OP of a previous RFC on "10 pound hammer" hinted, the faulty system that gave more incentives to deletions instead of creating and fixing, must be reformed. ArbComm must take note of this. Cheers! 14.192.208.84 (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification Presumably such a tban being discussed here would include both PROD nominations, CSD nominations and XfD nominations. To clarify, are those discussing it still happy to permit XfD discussion on XfDs which have been nominated by others? Personally I'd see this as a reasonable opportunity for Hammer. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I think it would be best for TPH if he just stayed away from deletion in general because even when he just comments, those comments don't inspire a lot of faith (see [87] for example). A clean break from those areas would allow him to focus on fixing articles instead, so I would argue for a complete topic ban from all deletion related areas, at least temporary. We can always consider allowing discussion participation once it's clear that he has (hopefully) understood why the ban was instituted. Regards SoWhy 15:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's huge overreach. The problem is bad nominations... Carrite (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not only bad nominations. The problem far exceeds that and extend to his mostly bad faith and sophistic replies to those who challenge his nominations. I have to say I agree with SoWhy completely. Only indefinite and complete TBAN will likely be effective here given the above telling evidence presented above by several users with differing viewpoints. For classic example of where his problem extend to discussion see this open AFD where he exhibited crass bad faith by thinking that editor with 12-year tenure and more than 20K edits to be sockpuppet of someone. I believe there are tens of that examples spanning years back and some are even in the above diffs. Indefinite is not infinite and is meant to give him time to have a reflection and perhaps find another area for editing especially by fixing the subpar articles instead of indirectly asking others to do that in AfD. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ammarpad: The accusation of him being a sock of Kmweber was intended as a joke. Kmweber was notorious for screaming "Speedy keep, it clearly exists, nothing else matters" and other invalid "keep" rationales in AFD, so I was making a joke off that. It clearly didn't come across as such. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe you. But that's clearly "expensive joke". And having some time off such discussions will surely benefit you, in my view. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever your intention is, it was taken by most of us here as a personal attack rather than "a joke". Poe's law dictated that without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers or viewers as a sincere expression of the parodied views. What a bad juju. 14.192.208.84 (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I disagree. The problem is a lack of understanding what constitutes a reason for deletion and what doesn't. Said problem is seen best in AFD nominations and PROD/CSD taggings but not limited to cases where TPH is the one starting the discussion. His comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of out-of-town shopping centres in the United Kingdom (3rd nomination) (see above) is a good example for this. Another editor had pointed out that there are plenty of GBooks hits exactly about this topic (including this book that explicitly makes this distinction) and all he wrote is no evidence that this is a notable distinction for a list without even addressing those results. Regards SoWhy 16:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore there is a case 7 years ago where User:Wuhwuzdat was topic banned from nominating AfDs by the community because he abused the process like TPH did now. After all there are far too many disruptive users like him than you think, some worse or proceeded with impunity. For the last time I'm reiterating my opinion that a topic ban or a "not here to build the encyclopedia" block will serve a cautionary example against that kind of disruptive phenomenon. 14.192.208.84 (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wuhwuzdat was explicitly "not banned from participating in deletion debates that have been launched by somebody else".
    I have no optimism that Hammer's XfD comments will suddenly improve. However they will be less disruptive than the creation of whole new XfDs etc. As such, we can probably manage with them. It also gives Hammer an opportunity to demonstrate (or not) a bit better judgement on the subject in the future. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If Hammer wasted the chance then WP:ROPE applies. 14.192.208.84 (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Andy Dingley Furthermore Mr Hammer is still on old tracks. Time for a "WP:NOTHERE" ban proposal? 14.192.208.84 (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I think we can allow him AfD:Majestic Tree Hound as a valid AfD. There's a serious question of existence and notability over the topic, and it's fair to ask.
    That said, raising more AfDs whilst you're at ANI like this - I really can't see that as a wise move. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm no expert here, but I've seen enough of the AfD from this user to be inclined to agree with Andy Dingley.--IndyNotes (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am convinced that @Andy Dingley: has a vendetta against me. In this AFD, I explained clearly that I was unable to find any sources despite checking several pages of Google and Google Books. I explained that the prod was overturned because of foreign-language versions of the article, but I also explained that the Spanish and French language articles appear to be about different topics entirely -- or at least different enough to warrant a second glance. But Andy still came in instantly, screaming for a snow-keep and topic-ban without giving any reason why. I would think in that nomination, it was clear that I was sending it to AFD more for a second opinion against the prod than anything else. If I'm making what's obviously a good faith nomination, explaining myself clearly, and people are still wanting my head on a platter, then maybe it's not me. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have withdrawn the "Cine film" AFD. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Awesome, although given your track record the rest of us believe that you need to take a break off your overzealous absurdities and have a time of self-reflection. As a starting point encyclopedic knowledges are not meant to be treated for granted no matter how obscure or insignificant it is. You really need to learn to think from other's shoes and get the full view, not just yours. 14.192.208.84 (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad it's withdrawn but it was a bad nomination to begin with. Cine film, simply put, is film manufactured for use in movie cameras. There are/were multiple huge industries devoted to making, using, and processing it. A case could possibly be made for calling the article something different (WP:RM), but it would be dumb for Wikipedia to not have an article about it at all. In the context of the rest of this thread, nominating it for deletion showed persistent lousy judgment about what constitutes an encyclopedic topic, Google Books notwithstanding. Working in other areas may be the best solution. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Added: Another idea might be a content merge to Film stock and/or Color motion picture film. Again deletion is obviously the wrong choice. Regarding Google Books, I'd expect books on cinematography to have tons of material about film selection, characteristics, etc. so that's where I'd look. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef topic ban from all deletion related areas - per North America’s diffs - This Hammer character has a long history of ignoring WP:BEFORE and disrupting the project never mind driving away newbies. Careless [88];[89] and disingenuous nominations [90] ; [91] are second nature to him. I have lost all faith and confidence in his contributions.Senegambianamestudy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • AfD:History of Ghana (1966–79) is just why we're here. That should never have gone near AfD. It's an obviously notable topic, it's an obvious historical subsection within a broader history article. This should (if anyone wished) have been a merge discussion on the parent article talk page, no more. Hammer's continual whining, "why only these years? " just shows how little he's bothered with BEFORE, and how little respect he has for subject knowledge, over being the Mighty Hammer of Righteousness. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Andy Dingley: The Ghana one stuck out to me because there were no other "History of Ghana (year to year)" articles like it, so even after reading the parent topic, I saw no reason why that particular span of years should have its own article when no other spans of years did. The surrounding evidence made it seem absolutely arbitrary. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • From one coup to another coup is not arbitrary!
    There are plenty of areas for debate around this article, including merging it. But none of those belonged at AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per comments by Carrite. Cards84664 (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As the target, I would not be opposed to a temporary ban or throttle on AFDs, but I think a permanent one is too extreme no matter the circumstances. If I were constantly doing it solely to disrupt the project, then that'd be another issue. But every AFD I've ever made has been in good faith, I've just had the misfortune of extremely poor Google-fu and some confirmation bias to seem way more destructive than I am. I think even the people who are in biggest support of blocking me from AFD should realize that I am doing every single one in good faith. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef topic ban from all deletion related areas - In every deletion area TPH has acted appallingly. Frivolous AfD nominations, abusive behaviour in AfD discussions, and misleading edit summaries when PRODing articles. The ongoing nature of TPH's behaviour (since at least 2008) shows that this behaviour is unlikely to change. Cjhard (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from TPH

    Okay, look. This all came about because I was trying to plow through a backlog in Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field. As I said, some of the articles were in such dire shape that I could barely even tell what some of them were about. One of my biggest frustrations in XFD is when people say "Keep, it's notable, here are sources" but never add the sources to the article, so the article is still in dire shape years and years later. And then they say there is no deadline as an excuse for not adding the sources instantly. So lather rinse repeat.

    I admit that my frustration over such has gotten me to say far more toxic things than I would normally. I would like to think that in AFDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoopfest that I have shown a more measured approach in explaining my rationales clearly. And in my attemps to plow through the "Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field" backlog, I have been focusing far more on replacing the often uninformative {{Cleanup}} with a more valid tag (or removing it entirely if I don't think the article is in desperate need of fixing).

    Have some of my AFD nominations been problematic over the years? Yes. But many have gone through flawlessly. Many others were made in good faith but closed as a "keep" anyway. I think it's clear there's some confirmation bias here, that people are only focusing on the wrongheaded ones and ignoring the ones made in good faith. If all of my AFDs were in bad faith or done out of retaliation, then I think there would be more of an issue. Not that my wrongheaded ones aren't an issue -- just that it seems like people are overfocusing on the bad. Still, it's clear from the sheer volume of nominations recently that I'm making more errors in judgment than usual. Which is why I've decided to focus more on replacing/removing unwanted cleanup tags instead.

    tl;dr: I think a topic ban is way too extreme, but I will concede that maybe I do need to step away from AFD/speedy for a bit. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    And here you are four hours after the above comment with another questionable AfD.198.58.168.40 (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that questionable, I had to research a bit to decide which way to vote myself. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That one seemed like a slam dunk to me. I got only 130 hits on Google, and the first few pages of books that I looked at had only one-sentence passing mentions at best or false positives. At least I withdrew that one once I was proven wrong, and at least the people who proved me wrong added the sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Frustration with WP:SEP behaviour is understandable (heck, I wrote that essay!) but your actions in the last weeks have imho crossed the line into WP:POINT territory. And those problems with deletion are nothing new (see Iridescent's links above). They have been mentioned time and time again, in most of your RFAs and your RFC/U as well as multiple discussions here and elsewhere. And every time you say you need to change your approach and be more careful and every time we end up here or some other noticeboard a short while later. The community has (rightly) lost faith in your ability to discipline yourself when it comes to deletion (after 14 years) or to actually realize that you are not as qualified in this area as you might believe; for example, many of your AFDs did not go through flawlessly, in fact only half of your last 439 AFD !votes were in line with consensus (including 153 delete !votes and nominations that were (speedy) kept). We have believed your assurances that you were just sloppy and will be more careful for years now, without any fundamental change, so I, for one, will continue to argue that a topic ban is not extreme but rather the only way to ensure that you will actually follow through this time. And as I said above, I maintain that this is also in your best interest. Regards SoWhy 18:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's one part of the problem: you were plowing too fast. There was one minute when you had three automated AfD nominations and another couple minutes where you had two. It takes time to do a legit BEFORE investigation, and it also takes more time than zero minutes to do a half-assed BEFORE investigation. As you have known for a decade, AfD can be contentious; you clearly forgot that. Carrite (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This comment merely establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that TPH completely lacks insight into why he has been brought here. They seem to not have the vaguest clue as to how their activities are disruptive. This has been going on long enough. They have been given more than enough rope and all they have done with it is form a noose and put it over their head. With this comment they are kicking the trapdoor release lever. Time to end it. - Nick Thorne talk 13:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes and yes and yes. The "shoot first ask latter" kultur that enabled many reckless deletionists like him must be tackled too; they caused countless editors to leave the project, both German and English. 14.192.208.93 (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My underlying IP has been automatically changed by the router of my hotel's public Wi-Fi that I'm using now. Hope you're remain unconfused with it. :) 14.192.208.93 (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    s/reckless deletionists/people who actually give a fuck about crappy articles that nobody ever fixes/ Guy (Help!) 14:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah but that's because most of us are caught up with these and those hamster wheels from like him which indeed became a self perpetuating cycle! Which in turn caused by the craze that more edit counts = more powerful he appears. That craze which made deletions inadvertently easier than fixing must be tackled as well. 14.192.208.93 (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary break

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medicine Trails. Done entirely in good faith, thoroughly explained my searching and why I nominated it. Someone prove me wrong on this one, I dare you. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    "I dare you" is the attitude why I will welcome your impending tban. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    One good faith AfD, that's nice. Is it supposed to make us forget everything else? Shouldn't all of them be done in good faith?Jacona (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyrighted material hosted on a personal webpage

    At the Danny! biography, a couple of Atlanta-based IPs have been edit-warring with me, returning eight "references" to the article, the references being copyrighted material from news and entertainment sources, all of it hosted on dannyswain.com, Danny's own webpage. Am I interpreting the rules right in removing these? Or are they okay to keep in the article? Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    No they should be removed obviously, Using that subjects is fine providing the content is in their own words - If it's been nicked from various places and dumped on their site then no their site shouldn't be used and I would go as far as to say it should be added the spam blacklist. –Davey2010Talk 21:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hold on. More discretion is called for here. We do link to sites using fair use materials. So if the clips are a few seconds they should be okay from a copyvio point of view. Links to lengthier clips fall afoul of our linking policy but be sure these clips are not embeds from properly licensed sources. If they are, link to the official source. --NeilN talk to me 21:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I assumed they meant the text was being copied from news sources and pasted on their website, If we're talking about clips then I don't really think that's problematic. –Davey2010Talk 21:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there is absolutely no text being copied from news sources. 2601:C6:8480:11:8099:3893:E66B:EACC (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    With the exception of maybe one cited link, which again includes original music composed and performed by the subject, any content (all created by the subject) seems to be less than a minute long. The edits seemed very impulsive as we have seen other articles linked identically. 2601:C6:8480:11:8099:3893:E66B:EACC (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you are linking to entire talk show performances and commercials "nicked" without the permission of the copyright holder. --NeilN talk to me 21:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, this is the one "more than a minute" clip I was referring to. Anything else related to works-for-hire (commercials, songs) by the subject does deem copyright, and I'm having a hard time understanding otherwise. 2601:C6:8480:11:8099:3893:E66B:EACC (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject does not own copyright over work-for-hire projects like commercials. --NeilN talk to me 21:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't any content being "nicked" or "dumped" anywhere, the sources in questions lead to work created by the artist and hosted on his personal webpage as a source. Please enlighten me, genuinely as this does not seem to be in any violation, what the issue is. 2601:C6:8480:11:8099:3893:E66B:EACC (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no violation, no admin issue. Discussion of relevent external links belongs on Talk:Danny!, obviously. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Your posts here are getting less and less helpful... --NeilN talk to me 22:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Now the Atlanta person has passed 3RR with this reversion. Binksternet (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

    Yes, despite what 86. says, there are violations of our linking policy. I've reverted and semied the page. --NeilN talk to me 22:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I missing something? I don't see any material hosted on dannyswain.com. There are several links to videos on dannyswain.com but these aren't hosted on dannyswain.com. They are embedded from other websites, either Vimeo or Youtube. It may or may not be better to link to the videos on the source site. In cases where the site the content is embedded has no relevance to the content or article subject, it's clearly not appropriate to link to some random page the video is embedded, for reasons unrelated to copyright. In cases where the site is directly related to the article subject and may provide additional context for the video, there are probably good points for both options all unrelated to copyright, and this should be discussed on the talk page. But embedding should not count as a copyvio, it's an accepted part of how the internet works and the owner of the channel is free to disable embedding if they don't wish this to happen. So what really matters is whether the original channels can be trusted. One of them is from Sesame Street's official channel [92] [93]. There's zero reason to think it should be considered copyvio. All of the other ones seem to be on Vimeo on the channel of StarTower Music, Ltd. [94]. These may be more questionable and probably should be discussed in an appropriate place. (Although remember that besides fair use, the hoster of the channel could have obtained appropriate permissions.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: I looked into that yesterday and it seems StarTower Music is Danny Swain. I'm not comfortable in saying the appropriate permissions were obtained from the copyright holders. --NeilN talk to me 05:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Am I missing something? I don't see any material hosted on dannyswain.com. There are several links to videos on dannyswain.com but these aren't hosted on dannyswain.com. They are embedded from other websites, either Vimeo or Youtube. It may or may not be better to link to the videos on the source site. In cases where the site the content is embedded has no relevance to the content or article subject, it's clearly not appropriate to link to some random page the video is embedded, for reasons unrelated to copyright. In cases where the site is directly related to the article subject and may provide additional context for the video, there are probably good points for both options all unrelated to copyright, and this should be discussed on the talk page.

    But embedding particularly of videos from sites like Youtube or Vimeo should not count as a copyvio, it's an accepted part of how the internet works, viewers still see any advertising and can also access the original channel and the owner of the channel is free to disable embedding if they don't wish this to happen. (There may be legitimate disputes when it's more akin to Hotlinking and the site owner may not really wish it but hasn't restricted it due to the complexities.

    So what really matters is whether the original channels can be trusted. One of them is from Sesame Street's official channel [95] [96]. There's zero reason to think it should be considered copyvio. (And again, whether it would be better to link to the video directly on Youtube or embedded on dannyswain.com should be discussed if necessary but the decision should come down to reasons besides copyrights.) All of the other ones seem to be on Vimeo on the channel of StarTower Music, Ltd. [97]. These may be more questionable and probably should be discussed in an appropriate place. (Although remember that besides fair use, the hoster of the channel could have obtained appropriate permissions.)

    Nil Einne (talk) 05:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The videos themselves aren't being used as sources. Each reference links to a page that has a few paragraphs of promotional/press release style text, which is the actual source material for the article, accompanied by a video. I wouldn't say that the video itself is the source. –dlthewave ☎ 17:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    My, oh my

    Can I please have an administrator look into the contributions of this seemingly combative, aggressive editor who is refusing to get the point? It seems they get into the same old, same old arguments on current event portals, as well as displaying frighteningly incompetent behavior. Their contribution history should suffice to display they are single-purpose only. Thank you. Boomer VialBe ready to fight the horde! • Contribs 02:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It is almost certainly the same person as this person who made the same poor edits to 'current events' and refused to communicate other than agressive edit descriptions claiming everyone was a 'troll' or 'sockpuppet'. Murchison-Eye (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm and to think that I "dude"d them in October. Blocked for 31 hours. Keep an eye on this--I'm sure they will return. If they come by to chat, that's great. If they keep this "you're a troll" bullshit up, we'll look into rangeblocks. PS MURCHISON-EYES YOURE JUST A TROLL HERE WITH YOUR OBVIOUS BIAS, maybe? ;) Drmies (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: See Special:Contributions/2600:8800:ff0e:1200:38cb:9114:760:e5f1/64, this is their range. I was dealing with them in October. Home Lander (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Home Lander. I have never seen a range that was so truly home to one editor. The only thing that is stopping me from blocking the entire range for a few months is the good article edits they make, and the fact that one should never block before breakfast. I am interested in the opinion of some other admins. And in coffee. Drmies (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Drmies: The disruptive Portal edits seems to have a political agenda - recent ones [98] [99], and one where they edit warred with me and several others last year [100]. What would be great is a software change so you could block someone by namespace, in this case, disallow Portal edits from this range. Home Lander (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    What a great idea. The Moose 06:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe this is one of the things that was proposed in that discussion about improving/adjusting our blocking tools--I think there's notification from Sydney on my talk page about that discussion. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: - he's back at it - Special:Contributions/2600:8800:ff0e:1200:38cb:9114:760:e5f1/64. Home Lander (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Query regarding IBAN's

    Entire thread has now degenerated into mostly bickering. To reiterate Cyberpower678: C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs) and Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) are hereby banned from interacting with each other. This includes, stalking, getting in conflicts on the pages they edit, warring over the content, editing each other's userspace, or mentioning the other user. Additionally, both users are prohibited from editing any page and its corresponding talk page if the other user has edited either within the last thirty (30) days. It is not considered a violation if the other party is being correctly reported for violating the interaction ban or other valid sanctions. It is recommended both parties permanently step away from any articles they have both edited recently. --NeilN talk to me 21:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    When in an IBAN, is the other person able to follow me all over the fucking shop? Cos I'm getting massively pissed off by this shit now, Darkness Shines (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the incidents board. If you’re complaining about an incident, spell it out, with diffs. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a query Darkness Shines (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Yes. There is nothing in WP:IBAN that would prevent that. On the other hand, WP:HARASS may apply if it's obvious that someone is following you to multiple articles to cause distress.- MrX 🖋 19:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sound diffs forthcoming Darkness Shines (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would remind you of your own IBAn, and the fact that it says "Limit IBAN vio reports to blatant violations." As well as saying much the same about harassment and stalking, If this is not blatant there would be a danger that it could boomerang, so be very sure there is some blatant examples of (whoever this user might be) following you to pages.Slatersteven (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    17:45, 17 August 2017 My first edit to Antifa. 17:18, 2 November 2017 Gilmore's first edit to Antifa.

    Paul Pelosi Jr. I AFD'd this he appeared on the article.

    Highland clearances my first edit here, 4 November 2017 Gilmore first edit, 9 January 2018 to my mind this was done so his name would pop up on my watchlist. Proud Boys, my first edit 5 January 2018 Gilmore first edit 9 January 2018 I'm discussing The Root as a source, 6 January 2018 Gilmore posts about it on another editor talk who I'm in disagreement with regarding the source 6 January 2018 Sea lioning I AFD it 10 January 2018 Gilmore appears at the discussion 13 January 2018 For which he was blocked. Pacific war 17 October 2017 (Not my first edit here, this is about Mexican involvement) Gilmore 22 October 2017appears wars against three users and gets blocked for 3RR. Rose City Antifa I created this article and the edited on 24 November 2017 Gilmore appears on 26 November 2017 He has followed me to Antisemitism in the United Kingdom my first edit, 9 October 2017 Gilmore 25 November 2017 I created Antisemitism in the Labour Party Gilmore appears here as well. There are more but this is enough to show that since the TBAN was placed he has been following me around Darkness Shines (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    That's an astonishingly poor way to begin. Might be worth rephrasing, if you haven't already torpedoed yourself. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Never been so pissed off you no longer give a shite i guess? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    About Wikipedia? No, I have not had that experience. You're free to do as you will, just trying to point out repercussions. Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say this is not the clear cut kind of case you were told you needed. He may well be trying to wind you up, but frankly editing pages (for example) you are not even editing is not stalking, even if he thinks you are watching it. In the case of the others, well it's not exactly a lot is it, and not even the pages you are currently very active on (the last appears to have been 2 days ago, on one of the articles). The other you have not edited for a month. Sorry this looks like just the kind of spurious fishing for ban you were warned not to do.Slatersteven (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    For everyone unaware, I have been trying to mediate this interaction ban via email for the past week. I had a soft agreement to not bring things to ANI without getting outside input as the last one did not go so well. I wish my advice had been heeded. So now, it needs to be discussed publicly before I give up on both of you. @Darkness Shines: I explicitly told you that you should avoid bringing things to ANI as your last report was not received well. I told you to give me the information of any violation and that I would report it for you if I believed a violation took place. Why did you ignore that? I did ask C. W. Gilmore to not edit any page that you have edited within the last 30 days, so that advice was also ignored; however, it isn't necessarily a violation of the IBAN (just stupid and ill-advised). If either one of you want to avoid being blocked again, I strongly suggest you let me continue mediating the both of you and that you both listen and dial it back quickly before you do something you can't recover from. I know both of you are passionate about editing, but this is not the way to go about it. Nihlus 20:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    No, either he stops following me or fucking indef me, I do not need this shit Darkness Shines (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef him then with this attitude ohh and.
    Donald Trump on social media, No edits by Gilmore
    Fake News Awards, No edits by Darkenss
    Rohingya persecution in Myanmar (2016–present), no edits by Darnkess for over 30 days, then Gilmore edits, then Darkness edits.
    Talk:1576 Cocoliztli epidemic, yep, gilmore did breach his agreement.
    So not a lot here really.Slatersteven (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The way I read that first diff is: On the Trump page, Darkness refers to the Fake News Awards on the 18th. Gilmore edits the Fake News Awards on the 19th.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why I agree that Gilmore is pushing it a bit. But it is a stretch to call this stalking. Yes Gilmore is playing silly buggers, and needs a warning. But by the same token this is Darkness fishing for a ban on Gilmore on some shaky grounds. In essence he is saying that Gilmnore cannot edit any pages he has any link due, not matter how tenuous.Slatersteven (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    By what standard is this phony "Fake News Awards" notable for inclusion? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - I followed Volunteer Marek to that article [101] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No idea, I have not be party to, or following, the merger discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the thing, the merge discussion was on another page, that I know nothing about. It took me a while to even understand what everyone was talking about. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    While the phrasing of the report is poor, I find the diffs persuasive. It seems a pretty clear case of Gilmore following Darkness on multiple pages. For tolerably obvious reasons, I'm not going to place a block myself, but I think someone should. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @SarekOfVulcan: I'm not sure your trigger happy touch is needed at this time. Your previous blocks only served to drive this mess further than it needed to be. Nihlus 20:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Slater you are an idiot, I did a rm on that page last week, the persecution one, seriously learn to actually look at shit Darkness Shines (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So the date of that edit?Slatersteven (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment @ Sarek, I stay off pages for 5days so as to avoid any interaction, if others from the IBAN show up, I finish what I'm doing and stay off that page for 5days. There are articles such as US politics, world news and events were are interest overlap, so I set the 5day rule to avoid interaction. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @C. W. Gilmore: I suggested that you stay off those pages for a month. Why do you think five days was a reasonable compromise? Nihlus 20:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nihlus: - I can look back 5days and be pretty sure I don't miss anything, 30dys on something like a Trump page is not manageable. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @C. W. Gilmore: It's not unreasonable at all since there are tools for this. Nihlus 20:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly Gilmore I am almost as unimpressed with you as I am with Darkness , you know full well you are pushing the envelope, and I have said this to you before. The moist likely result is that the pair of you will be indef. Trying to wind him up by sneaking "half violations" is not going to sit well, and we are not all so stupid as to not be aware of what you are doing.Slatersteven (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Again we go back to the only way to prevent this just being brought up once a week is a total ban on each user editing pages the other edits, yes it will create a race to claim pages. But that might cause less disruption then this constant bickering and needlaing.Slatersteven (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I would only support this if it was limited to 30 or 60 days; however, something needs to be community enforced as they are not really listening to me. Nihlus 20:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think a limited time offer will have any effect. But would give it a goSlatersteven (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It will allow them to edit a page that the other maybe edited a year ago. It will allow us to avoid wikilawyering. Nihlus 20:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And CW edited the Rohingya persecution in Myanmar (2016–present) a day before that [102]. Besides (as has been said) Gilmore has not been banned from editing pages, and if you look at this [103]I see a ton of pages Gilmore has not fetched up on. So this is not stalking.Slatersteven (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ohh I see, sorry I misunderstood, I thought you meant it would only last that long. I agree there has to be a non grandfather clause. yep edited within the last 30 days seems fine.Slatersteven (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment There are multiple pages where all parties to the IBAN have edited, that's why I set the 5day rule for myself, to keep distance. It's because of overlapping interests and intersecting edits. Also, I can check 5dys with certainty. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a problem, you did fetch up on pages you have never edited before. To be fair you also did not edit a lot of pages he does.Slatersteven (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We seem to overlap because of some of the editors we follow. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That is possible, which is why I did warn Darkenss to be careful before launching this ANI (and got told top fuck off for my trouble).Slatersteven (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't like me, that's grand but stop being a dick. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is best if I do not respond to you anymore, as all you seem to do is react aggressively. I have no wish to be accused of badgering a user.Slatersteven (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The OP here just talked himself off a 2-week block after a couple of days, and it's only taken a couple more days to pick up where he left off. If he won't listen to good advice from others, maybe that block should be reinstated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the constant abuse I have been subjected to for sustaining this ANI was not a good idea, yes it should be.Slatersteven (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note I stay off whatever article or talking page is not clear for 5dys. If 5dys is not long enough then give us both the same time frame to work with and I will comply. If posting on a Talking page while the other is on the article is not allowed, then say so; I'm getting tired of being dragged to AN/I every week. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is total bullshit. There is no time limit on how long you should avoid pages where your opponent has been active. The rule is simple: stop following DS around. You had an opportunity to demonstrate that DS's edits needed your attention and that argument was not accepted. An interaction ban means that interaction is banned. Stop looking at your opponent's contributions and talk page and do not edit pages where they have been active. Johnuniq (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it is the truth, I followed Volunteer Marek to that Trump page and found it clear of any IBAN[104]. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've moved onto editing other areas due to the frustration of dealing with Gilmore. And now I seem to be running into some of the same issues of him following my contributions for seemingly unencyclopedic reasons. I admit I have assumed bad faith on one occasion, but interacting with this editor can be truly infuriating, especially after being borderline canvassed by him on Jefferson Davis Park. Honestly before I even saw this report today I was thinking of how I might get rid of the feeling that he's trying to crawl up into my asshole and set up shop. Anyway, just my thoughts on the matter. Gabriel syme (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Gabriel, making fun of suicide is not a 'joke' I appreciate, it brings back too many memories. Please don't do it again. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What?Slatersteven (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I suspect this illustrates a fundamental problem here; CWG appears to honestly believe that his wishes and beliefs have power over other writers, the rules of Wikipedia, and factual questions; the problems with DS and others are symptoms, not the root cause. This is not a problem likely to fix itself in a week of sulking. Anmccaff (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there's a couple problems there. I didn't make the joke, I posted onto another editors page referring back to their use of it. You make it incredibly hard to assume good faith when you show up in places you have no encyclopedic reason for being to throw your two cents into a conversation where your name was not even mentioned. Kindly fuck off. Gabriel syme (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They should compromise in the state of Washington, that bastion of Confederateness: Leave the portrait of Jeff Davis, but paint a dress on him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Misogynist. Anmccaff (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No. You must be unaware of the legend (true or not) that when the Union arrested him, he had been trying to evade capture by dressing as a woman. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, and no. Its was just a poke at the way so many conversations connected with CWG get hijacked, For great social justice. All of your threads are belong to us. Anmccaff (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, jokes about suicide are not acceptable, even worse when they are made at another editor's expense [105] and picked up and repeated [106], even if my uncle had not committed suicide, it would still not be appropriate. And before you go saying it was just a joke, suicide by hammer is not [107] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Jokes aside, I see that you have in no way offered any sort of defense of the other conduct issues I brought up, but you seem to be doing a fine job hanging yourself on your owngetting yourself blocked. Did not intend hanging comment to be humorous but quickly saw that it could be taken that way, apologies. Gabriel syme (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Gonna have to agree with Gilmore here. Gabriel, that was incredibly uncalled for. I suggest you stop now or I will pursue sanctions for this. Don't joke about suicide. --Tarage (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate that suicide is not something to joke about. I didn't. I did refer to another editor's joke about suicide when posting on their talk page, and that was perhaps off color. What I don't see is how Gilmore even became involved in me posting a barnstar to another editors page. It's tough to AGF there, which is why I decided to comment in the first place. Gabriel syme (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    off topic discussion
    May you never, ever lose someone close to you from suicide. It hurts like hell. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I find your offhand assumption that I haven't to be pretty goddam offensive, but I do agree that it is incredibly painful. Gonna throw a hat on this as off topic. Gabriel syme (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Can we just block both of them and be done with it? Yes, their contributions may have been worth something in the past, but this has become a net drain of many administrators time, and we end up here every week. At some point, this has got to stop, and since it seems like both parties are too stubborn to figure out how badly they are behaving maybe we should have a break from both... --Tarage (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And the two of you can go do something use full for once Ya. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You continue to defy your IBAN. How useful is that? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggestion: Both editors are banned from editing any page the other has edited within the last 30 days, any and all pages --Originally posted by Slatersteven but modified to be a suggestion rather than a topic header by Tarage (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I will be fine with that, however, something like that Trump thing could happen again as they pages are not connected, in fact I didn't know there was talk of merging until this AN/I came up. 30dys, clear on All pages (article and TP), can be done. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite frankly you are in no position to bargain right now. I suggest you stop. --Tarage (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tarage, that was not me bargaining. I was agreeing to it, sorry if it came off badly. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, the above section header was actually added by Slatersteven [108]. Lepricavark (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry is that not permitted?Slatersteven (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Think about readability for a second. 1. It doesn't even say who posted it. It's just a header. 2. The super bold text implies perhaps that an administrator has made it fact, rather than a suggestion. Either way, I've modified it so that it's less confusing. Feel free to fix it how you see fit, but just a section header is not a good way to make an argument. --Tarage (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • (1) Click on "view history". (2) Click on "Edits by user". (3) Enter the username in the field provided, and submit. (4) All edits by that user on that page will be displayed, with the most recent on top. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, and it looks like I have to do it for the article and TP separately. One question for you, Diannaa, is there a way to avoid something like the Trump article issue brought up? I had no idea what was happening on the other pages when I followed Marek to the one I commented on. As I never went to the other page, how was I to avoid this happening again? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I don't understand the question. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    He is being reported because he went to page A (which DS has never edited) and this is stalking because there is a discussion on page B about a merge. He is asking how he avoids editing pages that have not be edited by DS, but just mentioned by him elsewhere.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The connection could have been discovered by investigating the merge proposal at the top of the article. However if this example was the only one in the other party's report it's unlikely sanctions would be the result, as the connection is a little tenuous. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    To be clear, DS has added additional diffs to an existing post, and most of those seem to be before the IBAN. \It is in fact old material that has already been dealt with.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    No, quite a few are since the IBAN, they also show this shite had been on going for a while Darkness Shines (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Most" and "quite a few" are not mutually exclusive, and for that last comment alone (calling another user a shit head) you should get a block. Why is this even being tolerated?Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What was the date of the IBAn, by the way?Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I never called anyone a shithead, that's a missed space, fixed Darkness Shines (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    C. W. Gilmore/Darkness Shines IBAN Revision

    IBAN REVISED
    There is sufficient support to implement this revised version of the IBAN.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Per the above discussion and my own experience in trying to mediate the two, I recommend we as a community formally alter their current restriction.

    Current

    C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs) and Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) are hereby banned from interacting with each other. This includes, stalking, getting in conflicts on the pages they edit, warring over the content, editing each other's userspace, or mentioning the other user. It is not considered a violation if the other party is being correctly reported for violating the interaction ban or other valid sanctions. It is recommended both parties permanently step away from any article's they have both edited recently.

    Proposed

    C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs) and Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) are hereby banned from interacting with each other. This includes, stalking, getting in conflicts on the pages they edit, warring over the content, editing each other's userspace, or mentioning the other user. Additionally, both users are prohibited from editing any page and its corresponding talk page if the other user has edited either within the last thirty (30) days. It is not considered a violation if the other party is being correctly reported for violating the interaction ban or other valid sanctions. It is recommended both parties permanently step away from any article's they have both edited recently.

    I don't think exceptions should be considered otherwise we will most likely end up back here soon. I consider this to be a last chance for both of them. Nihlus 23:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as proposer. Nihlus 23:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose because this last chance business hasn't worked any of the previous times it has been applied. We're at the point where we need blocks to prevent further time being wasted on this. --Tarage (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Tarage: I would personally be against blocking them currently given my discussions with them (I have hope I can get through to them), but I wouldn't fight it if the community wished it. However, I would be against an administrator blocking them without community sanction. So, feel free to propose it if you believe that it is the best solution. Nihlus 23:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I'll do just that. --Tarage (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support With the understanding that this is an absolute final chance. I know it is not my place, but if it were up to me if either of them breach this the offending party would get an IBAN (and yes that would include frivolous reporting), automatically no ANI notice or discusion.Slatersteven (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment ANIs like this one are a waste of resources and a drain on our community. I think we should add a requirement, that, if either user feels the other has violoated the IBAN, the user must first privately discuss the violation with an admin of the user’s choosing. If, upon review, the admin found that the complaint was non-frivolous, the admin would open an ANI on behalf of the reporting user. Billhpike (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah good luck with that. I brought up that very point with DS the last time this occurred and he told me he doesn't trust any of them. So there's that. --Tarage (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree with the 30-day clause, but how about they are banned from reporting each other? This is getting ridiculous. If there's a violation, then someone else will notice it. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 03:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose: The administration of this would be intolerable or impossible, and the additional workload involved in making any edits for both editors would be, in my view, unacceptable. If editors can't manage freely roaming about the Wiki on their own, they don't belong here. Just from the thread above, I'm instantly of the opinion that Darkness Shines is too combative to remain here. CWG is less combative but I see some really hard to believe claims being stated, and I take the other discussants at their word that dealing with CWG is also impossible. I see this additional hurdle as something futile that'll be violated within days, bringing the aggrieved party crowing back to ANI claiming victory. I see no reason to reward one of these characters just because the other manages to slip up first. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as an option. This would keep them out of each other's hair. (Of course, if either of them start to game the system by pre-emptive posting on articles just to claim them, then it's indef block for that editor.) And of course if this new version of the IBAN were to prove just as useless, then it's a three-month block for both of them, no appeals possible. Softlavender (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support and I would also add a clause about being banned from reporting each other at drama boards. They can report any issues to a trusted administrator and they can make a decision on it. Black Kite (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support with the added proviso (per Black Kite, Billhpike, and A lad insane) that neither editor can report the other for anything, but that they can notify an admin. If the admin declines to act, it's over. If this fails to resolve the conflict, I would support escalating blocks starting at six months duration, with no ability to appeal.- MrX 🖋 13:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I can support this as a temporary fix, but I have to say I do not see this as a bilateral problem. One of the two parties here has been, shall I say, very difficult for everyone who has interacted with him to deal with. Most editors, like myself, have just stepped back and minimized their dealings with him. Some, such as DS, are not able to, as he is involved in the same areas day in and day out. Frankly, it may be better just to topic ban (post 1932 American politics) both for a limited time (6 months) and step back and see who is still standing after that. John from Idegon (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support with the inclusion of being banned from reporting each other on any noticeboard. ansh666 20:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose as impossible to enforce and easy to break unintentionally. This would be a even bigger mess than the current one. Imagine if this was on a highly active page? They could reasonably be expected to have no clue they broke this IBAN and then the other uses it to get them block. No, too complex and the poor admin who actually has to enforce it will have any enforcement action overturned within 72 hours. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly right, and I am glad someone else has hit on the same thing that I discussed above. At some point, ratcheting up the complexity of sanctions is not the answer. Sure, you'll get the block you're expecting at some point, but it won't be for the reason you supported the upgraded sanction. What I find even more astounding is the argument that this should be unappealable, or that blocks handed out under this sanction should be unappealable. A narrow ANI discussion cannot change the rules applying to UTRS or the Arbitration Committee, nor can it make a final determination as to its own validity. If this sanction passes, I would not only expect, but I would encourage either or both to go to the Arbitration Committee immediately to have it overturned as unworkable (though it is also pretty likely that one or both would also draw sitebans). Just issue blocks and let them plead for the Standard Offer in six months. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @TonyBallioni: I fail to see how this is impossible to enforce or easy to break. We have tools that can be used for this very purpose. Nihlus 15:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Nihlus: it's unenforceable because no admin in their right mind will sanction a user for a violation of the additional restrictions given the history here: it would lead to an instant appeal that in all likelihood would be granted because the restriction is so broad as to lead to a guaranteed unintentional violation by one of the parties.
          As written, if one of them edited RFPP, the other couldn't for 30 days. If one of them edited ANI, the other couldn't for 30 days. They would be forbidden from nominating AfDs on the same day, etc.
          If we want to go into article space only, I still think it is a horrible idea because on highly active pages, no one knows who edited something 22 days ago (and people should not be forced to use special tools to see if they are violating a sanction). This could turn a perfectly innocent mistake (Editor A copyedits a page Editor B added a reference to 27 days and 123 edits ago) into a ban violation, that brings us back to my first point: any sanction under the additional restrictions would be all but guaranteed to be overturned on appeal: there are simply too many ways to say the ban was impossible to follow and I honestly didn't realize I was breaching it because it was so broadly worded that any edit I made could be an unintentional violation. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support and also support neither side reporting violations except privately to an admin. If either party doesn't trust admins, well tough cookies since we got here largely because of their behaviour and in addition, no action is likely without either an admin acting unilaterally or a discussion in which a fair few admins participate. I'm not as convinced that there is definite evidence of stalking here. But I have seen enough to know neither side seems able to properly respect the i-ban e.g. completely ignore the other editor as if they and anything they said or did doesn't exist. This seems to be the last chance to make it work before we end up with something like the proposal below. I think I said a few days ago I hoped to never see anything about either editor on ANI. However I didn't expect this would actually be the case and sure enough we're here. 04:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk)
    • Oppose - I'm becoming more convinced that iBans and Topic Bans may cause more disruption to the project than they resolve. They also appear to be a form of censorship. Perhaps "disruption" needs to be better defined so we can focus more on a collegial environment instead of grade school. Atsme📞📧 12:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Atsme You wrote " iBans and Topic Bans may cause more disruption" That's a reasonable point, but short term blocks are not working and apparently another editor has tried to mediate whatever the underlying dispute is. Do you have any alternative practical ideas about how to resolve this? - MrX 🖋 18:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Tell Gilmore to stop following me would be a good start Darkness Shines (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Quit looking over your shoulder.- MrX 🖋 19:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    MrX, I'm actually working on a few intermediate solutions that focus on clarification of ambiguities in our PAGs. I see the latter as a major contributor to the types of content disputes that typically result in blocks, TBs and problematic interactions between editors. An idea that just now hit me as an interim remedy would be an extention of the mentor program with a probationary period for each editor, so in essence, instead of having a mentor, it would be more like a monitor, and for those who follow David Icke, it would a monitor lizard.[FBDB] While on probation, the two editors will be required to first review the page they intend to edit to see if the other editor is involved. If not, make the edit. If arriving 2nd to the other editor, then the 2nd editor must obtain approval from their assigned mentor/monitor (whichever term fits best) before making an edit to that page. The 1st editor would have to follow suit after the 2nd editor has edited. The result is a slowed down process using a two-heads are better than one approach which serves as a deterrent to making hasty mistakes and improper interactions. It also encourages collaboration and reduces friction, and the project maintains its editors and benefits by their edits. In the interim, I intend to continue working on some of the problematic ambiguities in PAGs, which is why I've started spending a bit more time at the dramah boards. Atsme📞📧 19:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Atsme: Excuse me if I find your opposition perplexing and inconsistent. These two editors are already subject to an IBAN, so opposing will not remove the IBAN as this is not what this is about. Additionally, your oppose in the section below leads me to believe you are not looking for a solution; however, I then read your comment immediately above which goes completely against your initial oppose of not believing IBANs are helpful. You say they are disruptive and "grade school", but your suggestion is an IBAN itself and more "grade school" than my proposal. Please clarify. Nihlus 00:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Nihlus - I'll try to clarify:
    1. This section proposes a revision to the current iBan, specifically Additionally, both users are prohibited from editing any page and its corresponding talk page if the other user has edited either within the last thirty (30) days. I opposed and expressed my feelings about the dramah we experience overall from having to deal with these matters at AN/I and AE as a result of iBans and DS, not unlike the time we're spending on it right now. My position is that we need to cure the disease of ambiguity in our PAGs that cause the content disputes and edit disruption instead of continuously treating the symptoms. It may not be the complete answer but it's a start worthy of review.
    2. It is not at all unusual for 2 editors to edit war over a content dispute and be called to "the principal's office" (grade school resolution being the whole AN/I experience) because of something as simple as a misinterpretation of an iBan, TB, DS, or PAGs. It's a recurring problem and a huge time sink for our admins when they could be devoting more of their time to fighting vandals, socks and trolls where there's real disruption.
    3. Blocks, iBans and TBs do not help editor retention as far as I can tell. Think of it as you would a cost-benefit analysis - how many editors & admins are involved here now and how much time is spent VS the "disruption" caused by 2 editors in a content dispute? Why not simply fix the content problem and move on? How about a procedure that involves an automatic cease & desist order for the edit warriors until the content admins review and fix the content issue instead of focusing only on the behavior? That's why I said, ...iBans and Topic Bans may cause more disruption to the project than they resolve. They also appear to be a form of censorship. Perhaps "disruption" needs to be better defined so we can focus more on a collegial environment instead of grade school. Again, grade school being the whole AN/I experience - editors being chastised, reprimanded, and/or punished like children, and what happens in the end? We lose good editors when we probably could have deployed a slightly different approach from bans and blocks.
    4. I opposed the proposal to indef block both editors in the section below, stating quite unambiguously that I favor editor retention and quite frankly, if our community has gotten to the point that we have to indef block 2 editors because they don't like each other, we need to dig deeper into the cause rather than focus only on the effect. My comments are not only consistent, each supports the other. Hope that helps clarify. Atsme📞📧 02:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So, what's your approach to solve this mess? Or by move on, do you feel that there is none and the general community ought to be greeted at regular intervals with this drama-fest involving none but these two.If you have some grand plans, take the two under your fold and execute them so that we may never again see the n-th battleground litigation of these two-way issues on the same locus.Winged BladesGodric 03:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Struck the parts, since you hae elaborated on a approach.Missed that:)[reply]
    Winged Blades of Godric, having made the recent mistake of imposing a special ban that was meant to fit the circumstances, I'll speak for myself and not Atsme, that this IBAN would actually be much more likely to cause disruption than it would be to solve them. Engineered bans tend to do that. They're difficult to follow and even more difficult to enforce. Sarek tried to enforce a normal one in good faith recently, and the drama it caused took up more community time than it was worth. This sanction, which is worded so that it is all but guaranteed to be violated by one of the parties, will be next to impossible to enforce, and if it is enforced, will be either be overturned by the community quickly or will lead to an ArbCom case. That is much more disruption than what we would have if we simply closed this with a warning to both parties to stay well clear of the other and that any future IBAN violations will likely lead to a lengthy block. If this IBAN passes, I'm confident we will be back here or at ArbCom very soon. It looks like it is going to pass, but I really hope it doesn't: the mess that would be caused by attempting to enforce it will be very bad for the community. So if you want my proposed action: final warning. Leave it at that, and next time, deal with it in a way that won't cause a case request. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree on the part of difficulty in enforcing these engineered I-Bans and hence am not supporting it.Also, ....if we simply closed this with a warning to both parties to stay well clear of the other and that any future IBAN violations will likely lead to a lengthy block.... is not beneficial.There shall be some upper bound on the number of warnings.It's just plainly stupid to watch these two pop up with their regular barrage of complaints (each primarily targeting none but the other), every alternate week or so at either AN/ANI.On a related note, I'm quite optimistic about the prospects of this leading to the near-inevitable Arb-Case.Winged BladesGodric 04:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a pragmatist: the block below is not going to pass, and I think this sanction would be a negative. No need to waste more time figuring out a new sanction. I agree on an upper limit on warnings, but I think in this specific case, it's the least bad option. Either that, or one of the parties files a case request, which I doubt either of them want to do. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @TonyBallioni: I cannot for the life of me understand why you are propagating the notion that this would be impossible to enforce. As someone who has already been mediating the dispute between the two editors, I feel this is exactly what should be done given my private discussions with them. You even have one side agreeing to it himself. The issues are DS filing multiple ANI reports and CW seemingly following DS around. Nip those in the bud, and you have a viable solution. Don't mistake your unwillingness or inability to enforce the restriction as a reason to oppose it. Nihlus 15:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    C. W. Gilmore/Darkness Shines Indefinite Block

    NO CONSENSUS
    There is no consensus to block both users indefinitely.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Look at the above sections. Look at the absolute mess it is. We have two editors who, for whatever reason, are incapable of leaving things well enough alone. Look at their block logs. Look at how much time and energy has been wasted on this. Time that could be spent actually building an encyclopedia. Between Gilmore's toeing of the line at every chance he can get and DS's inability to be civil for more than 5 seconds, we have a net loss to the project. Perhaps removing one would solve the problem, but they are both so stubborn that it doesn't matter anymore. It's time for this to stop. We can amend IBAN restrictions till we're blue in the face. Just end it. Block them both until they understand.

    This sounds most unhygienic. EEng 06:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait what? I'm trying to back out of a place in no way belong. Is it not good practice to strike remarks that you find to be mistakes? Gabriel syme (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't take anything EEng says seriously. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm deadly serious. Suppose Gabe here offered you some home-made cornbread. Would you eat it? Be honest. EEng 07:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok I missed the joke yall can be delightfully infuriating! You've reduced me to using this abhorrent symbol ;-) Gabriel syme (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I expect that you mean well, but that kind of remark is not helpful. These editors have both contributed a great deal to Wikipedia over the years, and while I believe the indefs are necessary at this point, there is no need to insult them on the way out. Lepricavark (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That is noted, struck, and thanks for your cooler head than mine taking a hand in this dispute. Uh, it's apparent to me that I'm really not ready to be involved in discussions here, I'd just had a real difficult time with one of the involved editors. Stepping off this now as yall seem to have things well in hand. Gabriel syme (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for responding graciously and striking the remark. You're still fairly new and have plenty to learn (not that any of us ever stop learning), but your ability to admit your mistakes will serve you well. You've earned my respect. Lepricavark (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This is becoming ridiculous. !dave 08:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support two-month blocks for each. Although they both have lengthy block logs, I don't think we've reached the indef point for either editor. I think an unappealable two-month vacation for each will help each of them decide whether Wikipedia is a project they value enough to edit constructively and civilly and while acting within its guidelines and their editing restrictions. If either or them continue stalking or disruptive or uncivil editing/behavior after the two-month block, then that editor gets indeffed. Softlavender (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a long block for both, per "what part of IBAN did you not understand?", relentless gaming and sniping - and it's time to find a proper redirect target for WP:ENOUGHALREADY. Couple of months is good. Guy (Help!) 08:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The discussion above does not seem to indicate DS is breaching the IBAN. In fact, the discussion seems to indicate he has a reasonable complaint. The solution isn't "both sides bad" if there is merit to the complaint. DS appears angry but thats understandandable considering that the people discussing it are also just as perturbed. --DHeyward (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose DS is certainly wrong to have allowed himself to be provoked and overreacted as he has. However, this is by no means a case of "both as bad as each other". The only time I seem to ever see Gilmore's name is in the context of stirring up trouble and the same cannot be said for DS, who is a valuable contributor until his short fuse burns out. He should get himself a longer fuse, and not rise to provocation so easily in future, but treating this as two people equally to blame is not correct. -- Begoon 09:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose –This will be purely punitive and plain cool down block against policy. There's not even clear evidence that one of them has breached the topic ban, talk less of all of them. If there's, then the appropriate sanction should apply to the breaching party. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @My name is not dave: Blocking is used to stop ongoing or prevent imminent disruption not past disruption which is not even laid out here clearly. I actually never crossed path with either but my thought was clear; they are under active IBAN, if one party breaches it, sanction the party. But to block them under vague term "that till they understand" is not the right thing here. Do you have evidence of any active disruption that blocking both indefinitely will prevent? –Ammarpad (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - We have been down this road far too many times; I appreciate some editors' willingness to offer these two (another) chance. There comes a time, however, when you must cut your losses, knowing you lived up to your pledge of good-faith and did the best you could.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just how many times had DS had blocks that have been overturned (including Indefs)? If DS is blocked and then reinstated Gilmore has to be as well, DS cannot learn that all he has to do to get another user blocked indefinably is just to get himself a block he knows will be over turned.Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Give the updated IBAN proposed above a chance. If that doesn't work, then fine. Black Kite (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose overreaction. However it does appear from above that Gilmore is not able to stop following DS and is likely headed for an indef. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose in favor of giving the previous revision a chance. If that fails, then sure. (hope I'm not close-paraphrasing Black Kite!) ansh666 20:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose a resolution that prevents at least one serious content-contributor from seriously contributing content. From what I've glanced at, DS's complaint has merit. If you disagree, it would be easy to ignore it too. No one is forced to spend time here. (At the same time, I'd advise you not to insult editors who, previously, hadn't been part of anything annoying, DS. There are better ways of expressing the strength of your frustration, and written dialogue at least gives us a better chance of waiting to respond until we've regained our cool (unless duty calls, of course)). I guess I wouldn't oppose a more immersive or extensive interaction ban here, but to block them won't improve the encyclopedia. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I favor editor retention and quite frankly, if our community has gotten to the point that we have to indef block 2 editors because they don't like each other, we need to dig deeper into the cause rather than focus only on the effect. Atsme📞📧 12:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as per above - We need to give the revision a chance however if DS or GW fuck this up then I would start supporting blocks (indefs if need be)- This is a lifeline for both of you so I would strongly suggest you take this lifeline and obviously would suggest you both stay away from each other, I think it's fair to say at this point the communities patience is wearing thin. –Davey2010Talk 20:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I oppose this proposal. Both editors have been around for quite a while and made helpful contributions to Wikipedia. Some kind of temporary interaction ban might be best to let them cool off a while. -Darouet (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support If these two can't act like civilized people then they can fuck off down the road. --Adamfinmo (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Third option

    Once again, ANI fails to resolve a complex user conduct issue. An admin blocks a productive editor for violating an I-ban or a policy; another admin comes along to unblocks the same editor and claims that the blocking admin was too hasty/carries a grudge/is involved. Proposals are made to resolve the conflict, but editors with diverse opinions oppose and the proposals never get off the ground. Lather, rinse, repeat. Everyone loses.

    This simply needs to go to Arbcom to be resolved. It's their job to step in where the community has failed to resolve an editor conduct matter. Since both editors obviously have a role in perpetuating the dispute, this could possibly even be handled by a motion.- MrX 🖋 18:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe. I was thinking about this earlier. !dave 19:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Read my proposal above first...Atsme📞📧 20:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not feel like dragging this to Arbcom as I believe this is something I can mediate if given the tools with my proposal above. Many of you are too quick to block or call for an escalation in the process, and that is not something we should be doing. Nihlus 00:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it's not clear to me that the first option has failed yet. If you don't believe it will work and feel it should go to arbcom as some other editors have said, or believe one of the editors will appeal to arbcom the moment it passes, that's fine. But I don't see the point in kicking something to arbcom solely because the community has failed to offer a solution when one of the proposed solutions (regardless of whether it's going to work) still has a fair chance of passing. Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well yes, wait until this thread is ripe for closure at least. !dave 09:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • ANI cannot kick something to the committee: the committee would intervene when previous dispute resolution methods have failed, and someone asks them to take a case. If this ANI results in no consensus overall (which sadly, I think at this point might be the best option), then that might be grounds for ArbCom to accept a case request. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope that you don't think that I was suggesting that ANI can kick something to Arbcom, or that it requires a consensus to take it to Arbcom. I was merely suggesting that in lieu of consensus for other proposed solutions, that may be the only remaining option.- MrX 🖋 14:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I was more making a general statement influenced by Mendaliv's support above, because I could see this becoming a straw poll on the ArbCom issue, which I don't think would be good. I do think you make a valid point, however, and I think that AC is where this is going to end up quickly if the super-IBAN above passes. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    -Well considering that I was only recently taken off the Watchlist[109], despite an IBAN, I do wonder how this will go... I really had hopes for a clean separation. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Three month block for C. W. Gilmore

    C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for three months for harassment and Wikistalking in defiance of an interaction ban.

    • Support as proposer. I have spent some time looking through the contributions of both. Though there is undoubtedly some fault on both sides, the event that caused this report was transparent Wikistalking, and while Darkness Shines is a highly productive editor, C. W. Gilmore is much less so - only 800 main space edits in something over six years, nowhere near enough to buy the goodwill necessary to offset harassment of an editor with way over ten times the contributions to the project. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - this is basically the point I was trying to make in my "oppose" in the above "joint block" section, so I won't repeat my reasoning here. -- Begoon 13:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment from one involved I'm not the one coming to AN/I ever week, in fact I have never initiated a case on my own. So even though I've been stalked and hounded, [110][111][112][113], I go to an Admin to ask that I stop being followed. It took a month of asking before cyberpower678 finally got me taken off their Watchlist. I'm bringing this up only to say that blocking me for 3mos will not mean less AN/I complaints brought by another party. I will respect whatever decision you impose. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive972#Being followed by IBAN this wan't you then? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    -That was at the direction of SarekOfVulcan when I can to them asking for help[114], it was not of my own doing. I came to that Admin asking that I stop being followed, instead it turned into a big mess. Also note, that my concerns about being followed were correct[115], It would take another month after going to Sarek before I was taken off their Watchlist. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. I just vaguely remembered that and had lost the context. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No Problem, and my only point in bring it up is that as the AN/I logs show, blocking me will not be the end of the other party showing up at AN/I in the future. I accept whatever consensus outcome there is and will work with it. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Closing Comment?

    An enhanced IBAN has been implemented, in such a way that each user creates a navigation wake behind them that the other is to avoid. I suggest that this entire thread now be closed with a reminder to both editors that the next step, if necessary, will be that either the community here at WP:ANI or the ArbCom will block one or both of them for at least 30 days or decide that the price for letting them contribute positive content is outweighed by their baggage and requires a ban. Maybe an administrator can close this now. Maybe they will both learn to avoid their wakes. If not, not. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Which I'm not standing for, I have had nought but shite from this account, which is fucking obvious so I'm going to arbcom Darkness Shines (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you so desperate to commit suicide-by-arbcom?--Jorm (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not, I just don't believe I ought to be sanctioned over an obvious harassment account Darkness Shines (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Well there's a chance arbcom will look at all the facts once they're laid out, starting from before the IBAN was put into place up to where we are now. If, as DS seems to think, CWG is stalking him then arbcom will ban CWG. If DS is wrong he'll get banned. DS thinks he is right, and based on my review of the situation, I'm inclined to believe him. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering this [116], I would stop poking the sleeping bear. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, if Arbcom didn't take that tack, it wouldn't be DS who was committing suicide (by hammer?), but Wiki itself. We have a long-term productive editor vs. someone whose editing history strongly suggests "sleeper sock"; someone whose managed to work in the messier interface with recent politics fairly well for many years vs...well, Gilmore. The idea that this is a matter where each are equally worthwhile, and equally to blame, is laughable, and I suspect Arbcom will see that. Anmccaff (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrelevant maudlin passive aggression
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. 
    ::::: May you never lose someone close to you from suicide, as I have, Anmccaff.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support blocking CWG for the above comment. CWG should know that he shouldn't be looking at DS's talk page and looking for opportunities to call DS names. Billhpike (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree here. Even after all this discussion about how they should avoid each other, CWG links to a post on DS talk page? We should really have given JzG's block proposal above more consideration. I would also note that CWG's comment came well after he received notice from Cyberpower678 of his revised Iban. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment from involved party - I only pointed out that I was the one being stalked for the past 6 weeks and that it was confirmed by the stalker. It was Nil Einne doing edits to a page I was watching at the time that alerted me that I was still on a Watchlist. "His talk page has been on my watchlist since I first ran into him, and a post titled ANI made me curious, kinda simple really. [117] (talk) 04:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)" I was not the one stalking. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    If I get accused of stalking one more time, when it is so patently false I'm going to fucking lose it, I swear to God, enough is fucking enough Darkness Shines (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Darkness Shines: Aren't you banned from interacting with each other? —DIYeditor (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ya, best block me for defending myself against bollocks accusations Darkness Shines (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've blocked CWG 2 weeks for a really clear violation of the iban, in a thread about the iban, after being warned by several people just today. I haven't blocked DS for reacting here, because I can understand the frustration, but you really, really, really need to stop talking about each other. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    New editor Catfurball and article move

    User:Catfurball moved the Bariloche article to San Carlos de Bariloche without explanation or consensus. Bariloche is the WP:COMMONNAME, San Carlos de Bariloche is the formal name. I set up a discussion topic on the talk page, waited a day with no response, so I moved it back to the original. My move brought it back to the article title that it was moved to in 2015. Catfurball moved the article yet again to San Carlos de Bariloche. So I asked them on their talk page to please discuss on the article talk page. The user then removed my comment and continued editing. I noticed they did this with another editor earlier here. As Catfurball does not seem interested in discussing the topic, what can be done? Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bahooka: I've moved back the article and move protected it. Catfurball needs to read and follow Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_controversial_and_potentially_controversial_moves before they are blocked for move warring. --NeilN talk to me 20:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your assistance, NeilN. Bahooka (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Important note (reverting good-faith admin close). Catfurball's 2,100 edits are genuinely problematical across the board: [118]. They are completely edit-summary-free, and also completely citation-free, even though they are important substantive changes to existing text. The editor also removes important messages from their talkpage rather than responding to them: [119]. I'm thinking this person needs to respond, cite, and explain, or they may need one of those qualm-free blocks NeilN is famous for. I would like some more investigation of, and opinions on, their edits please. Softlavender (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've dropped them a note asking them to respond here. I don't particularly like doing these kinds of blocks but if editors don't communicate and collaborate with each other we might as well turn into the new Knol. --NeilN talk to me 05:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I changed Bariloche to San Carlos de Bariloche, because of Google Earth; Rand McNally; World Book Encyclopedia & Encyclopedia Britannica. At the time that people were try to talk to me I didn't know how to use the talk page. The instructions for Wikipedia are still very confusing. May I suggest that someone make easier insructions for editing for people who find these insructions confusing. Somethings I had to make wild guesses. Sorry. Add to just let you know that I fixed some mistakes that some people made. Somethings were repeated twice, not anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catfurball (talk • contribs)

    False Allegations by Unscintillating

    User:Unscintillating has repeatedly disrupted Afd discussions to accuse me of outing another editor. The most recent accusation occurs here: [120] This comes after I left a message on his talk page asking him to stop making such accusations, which he completely ignored, here [121]. Other times he made the same allegations are: [122] [123] [124] and [125] Besides the fact the allegations are false, deletion discussions are not the proper venue to bring such claims.

    The outing allegation actually originates from User:Alansohn here: [126] [127] & [128] I pointed out the obvious reason I could not possibly have outed Alansohn [129], Alansohn has not made that claim again, but Unscintillating continues to do so. The reason Alansohn could not have been outed by me is because he clearly stated on his talk page his name (as if you couldn't have guessed) and town where he lives here [130], which only now has been removed (you can check the deletion log on that).

    As per Wikipedia:Harassment, "It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly." Based on this I believe Unscintillating is actually engaging in harassment himself. Also looking at his edit history over the past week, he has almost exclusively only participated in discussions that I have which borderlines on WP:STALKING--Rusf10 (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Unscintillating: I don't think these outing accusations are valid. In fact, they seem rather bizarre. WP:OUTING is meant to prevent and protect against the accidental or intentional leaking of personal information that a person does not want on-wiki. It was almost comical for Alan to warn someone for outing when they literally referred to him by the name provided by his own username, and stranger still for you to be citing such a warning in an unrelated forum, in order to generally discredit the user who was incorrectly warned to begin with. Look, if you have a case to make that this user actually has some sort of "anti-New Jersey" bias, now's the time to make it. But otherwise the personal commentary against them is, obviously, going to have to stop. Swarm ♠ 06:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Swarm:Opps, I think you just outed alansohn now (don't ever use his first name). But seriously, can it be made clear to Unscintillating that if he does this just one more time, there is going to be consequences. If nothing else, it is completely disruptive.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    • It was high-time someone reported Unscintillating for his behavior at AFD because he is an absolute time-sink. Whenever his odd assessments are wrong (which is often) he makes non-sequitar or extraneous arguments simply for the sake of arguing. Editors like Bearcat have tried to explain the proper approach to him but he has a bad case of WP:IDHT. Here are some AFDs that display his behavior: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and the list goes on. But the anatagonizing does not end there; after the AFDs are closed not in his favor (which, again, is far too often) he'll usually question the competence of admins at their talk page.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Unscintillating: There is a procedure to follow in the case of outing. It does not involve bringing it up repeatedly at AFD. This has already been explained to you, here among other places. I presume here that your motivations are good, but for the avoidance of doubt, I am asking you now to engage with the functionaries if you think someone is engage in malicious outing, and to stop making off-topic accusations about the same during deletion discussions. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

    • Lankiveil, In the terms used by WP:OUTING, an editor's "legal name" is "Personal information".  I provided a diff to the functionary list in December, with a 2016 edit comment that included the word "redact".  So even though they knew that the editor's personal name was protected by OUTING, they didn't take action, because the information Rusf10 posted to Teaneck, NJ in December was sourced public information, not an alleged personal name of a Wikipedia editor.
      Nonetheless, Rusf10 has used the alleged personal name in multiple other edits, and retains one such instance openly on [his/her talk page even now].  He/she generally is opposed to mayors and lower offices being used in Wikipedia articles, so why does he/she make an isolated exception for Teaneck, with a name that coincidentally matches the alleged name he/she is posting?  And then on 11 January he/she AfDs an article that discusses Gallucci, "a former township councilman in Teaneck, New Jersey".  And, "The case promised to affect how the law views anonymous Internet postings and the liability and obligations of companies who facilitate those postings." 
      As for my !vote, bad faith nominations are on-topic as per WP:DGFA.
      Rusf10 claims that I've made "false allegations" in my !vote, but so far he/she only disputes one specific set of details, which he/she is defending by conflating the issue of his target's city of residence with his target's alleged personal name.  IMO, hyperbole is common in Rusf10's rebuttals.  This ANI post is an attempt to disenfranchise my AfD !vote, a !vote which seeks to improve the quality of AfD nominations.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Unscintillating: I didn't see that message to the functionaries list, but if you can contact me privately by email with the subject line of that email I'll look into it for you. Dealing with outing is serious, I agree. But AFD is not the place to do it; it is akin to complaining to a library clerk that your house is on fire. If the fire department have concluded that your house is not on fire, then the guy checking books out at the library is unlikely to be able to assist you. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    @Unscintillating: You just don't get it do you? Multiple uninvolved people (not just myself) have now told you there was no outing. It is impossible to out an editor's name when he uses his real name as his username. How many more people have to tell you this? Nearly all of your AfD votes (including those in discussions I have no involvement with) are non-sequiturs that are completely irrelevant to the discussion. In addition to the examples that User:TheGracefulSlick posted here are some discussions where you have disrupted the process with irrelevant comments, including your favorite "this !vote is disputed" (every singles time someone disagrees with you) and nothing can be deleted because WP:ATD prevails: [131] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turing College, Kent [132] [133] [134] That's just a sampling, I could keep going. And how about this one where you are arguing with a admin about your bizarre view that nothing can be deleted due to WP:ATD: [135] Maybe the only solution is to ban you from commenting at AfD. I don't know.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And please learn to archive your talk page. It's longer than the only talk page visible from space. GoldenRing (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    XfD Topic ban proposal

    • Every time I see Unscintillating around he's wikilawyering endlessly, antagonising people, and incorrectly accusing them of all sorts of things. I was the target of his harassment campaigns for a while; back then the issue was whether or not you should go back and strike through peoples' votes on closed AfDs if it later turns out they were a sock. Most people thought that was a bad idea, but he got so upset over being told to stop it that he spent the next year accusing me of "undermining and sabotaging" the banning policy, bringing the issue up in a lot of unrelated places. Much the same as he's doing with Rusf10 now. This nonsense, and these two threads are typical of his antics. Elsewhere, he got so upset over the Wikipedia:Article_Incubator getting shut down despite Unscintillating's bizarre attempts to reanimate its corpse that he went to ANI to call User:Beeblebrox, then an arbitrator, "objectively delusional" and demanding he be removed from the (nonexistent) "oversight committee". Now he's hanging around AfD making a lot of "wrong venue" and "procedural keep" votes on perfectly legitimate nominations, wrongly claiming they're invalid in some way, and only to annoy the nominators. He's been carrying on like this since he registered here; the only thing that changes is the topic he's wikilawyering about and the target of his harassment. I support a topic ban from XfD on the grounds that competence is required and trolls most certainly are not. Reyk YO! 19:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite topic ban from XfD - Mainly per my above comment. If that, and Reyk's even more revealing evidence, isn't enough, I can also dig through Unscintillating's AFD contributions to find the comment where he stated anyone who agrees with Bearcat, a highly respected contributor to AFDs, suffer from a "personality disorder". Unscintillating tactics at AFD range from harassing well-informed editors to "procedural keep" and "wrong venue" !votes which never stick; I am on the verge of proposing a CIR block but we will give this a try first.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban - Concur with Reyk above that Unscintillating has some kind of problem and it may be competency related - hard to believe it is willful trolling, perhaps an issue with logic/fairness/rules. After marginal edit warring themselves at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Second effort for a nutshell they were determined to convict only Rhododendrites of it despite it being pointed out that they had both made two countable reverts and had equivalent behavior. And they would not let it go and even brought it up again in a subsequent section. Not sure what all the history is here but that encounter was enough to convince me that there was some kind of fundamental problem. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC) Edited 23:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an active AfD closer, I agree that many of Unscintillating's contributions there are unhelpful at best and frequently hostile as per Slick and Reyk, but most seem to be in good faith. I'm still neutral on a total XfD ban, but I can be convinced either way. ansh666 20:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, there's this argument where he's clearly playing "I know you are but what am I?". It's a little while ago now but it definitely shows his habit of trying to infuriate other AfD participants. Reyk YO! 20:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I've seen enough of Unscintillating's AfD contributions from my normal activity. What I want to see is their response to this criticism (about general AfD contributions). I'm pretty sure what I know it'll be, but just in case. ansh666 20:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @Ansh666:I know you're trying to be neutral here to be fair to everyone, but how can an edit like this [136] possibly have been made in good faith?--Rusf10 (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      That's cute, especially "The nominator has gotten an editor from a topic related to New Jersey indeffed for being an AfD meatpuppet", but I think the question is whether this is more pervasive than one instance... Which it does sound like. Fresh examples would be helpful. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      What Unscintillating was referring to was this [137] There was clear meat/sockpupperty and I simply reported it, so I don't see what the issue was. Of course, Unscintillating attempted to take the SPI way off course by attacking me, those comments were deleted, but can be seen here [138]--Rusf10 (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Changing to support for an indefinite topic ban on XfD in general (i.e. "broadly construed") given the lack of response from Unscintillating, plus the wide support from other editors. ansh666 20:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is unsurprising to me to see this report. We haven’t butted heads in a long time, but it is clear to me that nothing has changed. This is a user who, when they have no real argument or their points have been refuted, will change their arguemtnt to something new whether it makes any sense or not. The day of the radical inclusionist is long over, people who still behave like this need a topic ban at the very least. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic banning Unscintillating from all deletion discussions and processes, broadly construed (including voting at AfD, commenting in AfDs, adding prods, removing prods, any CSD work, replying in policy discussions at WP:VPP that concern deletion policy, etc). This has been a long-term problem. Unscintillating somehow combines misunderstanding policy with aggressive wikilawyering, making this editor an unpleasant time sink in this topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from XfD; the comment about editors suffering from personality challenges at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert A. Nulman is beyond the pale. WP:CIR issues are also apparent in the editor's AfD contributions; please see sample: "Groundless discounting of a source". There's distinct lack of a learning curve, with the same issues being discussed with them year over year, as can be seen here: "Bloomberg News vs S&P Market Intelligence". K.e.coffman (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose a deletion topic ban in light of NeilN's final warning below. In light of what's been discussed above, Unscintillating is at the end of his or her rope and is not long for this project. I'm all for hastening this process, and I think a deletion topic ban will just slow the inevitable and provide more wiggle room for wikilawyering and driving off other editors. When the bull has already rampaged through the china shop, there's no sense in risking life and limb trying to lasso it while it's still in there. Set up a line of pikes and the bull will probably come charging out into them. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support blanket deletion process topic ban in the event the standards laid out by NeilN are followed. Even if they manage to not hit those tripwires, they still need to stop their specious and tendentious AfD activity. In the Gallucci case AfD Rusf10 mentions above, they informed me I was "supporting outing" by contributing a Delete !vote and they have rather bizarrely taken to using WP:DGFA as a Keep rationale with no reasoning (here and here) They have in the past similarly demanded a WP:BEFORE or WP:ATD analysis from nominators. Its clear that any time they use a policy or guideline shortcut it's merely an attempt to disrupt the discussion and not an honest attempt at achieving a consensus. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eggishorn: Just to clarify, did you mean "in the event the standards [...] are not followed"? Because if the standards are not met the next step is already spelled out as a block. In other words are you supporting an immediate topic ban? —DIYeditor (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @DIYeditor: the second possibility: and immediate and indefinite topic ban whatever the outcome of their compliance with the conditions spelled out below. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • SupportComment Hopefully the below will sort out the major issues. I would however suggest that bullet point 2 apply anywhere on the project, rather than just "deletion discussions". AfD is not the only place the editor has done this. Yeah well, that didn't work, no response, sod it. Black Kite (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support XFD and prod topic ban - The continuous outing claims at various AFDs honestly make no sense at all .... The wikilawyering thing has been an issue for as long as I can remember - Unscintillating is correct and we're all wrong or atleast that's the impression I've got with him, Anyway he's just one huge timesink to the AFD process and is obviously more of a hindrance than of help, AFD's pretty much better off without him and his constant wikilawyering. –Davey2010Talk 02:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support deletion-related topic ban. Based on this thread and what I've seen over the years, Unscintillating adds more heat than light to deletion discussions, seemingly more interested in wikilawyering, gaming, ad hominem, and rhetorical time sinks than applying principles that have very broad consensus. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support for AfD ban. Not that this should surprise anyone, but I just want to make my position clear. Unscintillating almost never adds anything of value to an AfD discussion.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support for AFD/XFD topic-ban.The topic ban should be from all deletion-related pages and discussions, broadly construed.I can pull out a bunch of diffs at ease and he is one of the most troublesome and disruptive wikilawyers, I've ever seen.I've slowly come to appreciate Drmies' advice to stonewall him but a TBan is surely better.Winged BladesGodric 05:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Winged Blades of Godric, I'm not sure if, when, and where I said that, but it does sound like something I could have said in this context, having had many fruitless and frustrating interactions with Unscintillating in AfDs. I think a topic ban is warranted--while I appreciate Unscintillating's zeal, they are really, really hard to deal with in AfDs. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support AFD/XFD topic ban. This disruptive behavior has gone on far too long and the repeated ugly attacks on other editors seal the deal. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per WP:POT. The OP seems to be engaged in a vexatious deletion spree and his vision seems to be that, instead of having a series of stubs about public parks, we should instead have a series of AFD pages filled with rancour and wikilawyering. This would be not an improvement and there's no consensus for it – see Webb Mountain Park, for example. This activity is unproductive and could be avoided by following the good advice at WP:BEFORE which encourages us to seek alternatives to deletion. That's long-standing policy and so it is good that we are reminded of it when the occasion arises. Unscintillating is therefore right to do so. If there is a tiresome, repetitive aspect to this then this arises from the tiresome and repetitive nature of the nominations. If editors tax our patience with excessive zeal then they should be advised and then restrained. That's what's happening to TenPoundHammer above and this case seems quite similar. Andrew D. (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrew Davidson: If the only thing Unscintillating was doing was suggesting ATD at discussions, we wouldn't be here now. Your just upset because I called you out. First because you DeWP:PRODed multiple articles without explanation. While you are not required to provide an explanation, it is strongly encouraged. When I asked for an explanation on your talk page, you yourself engaged in wikilawyering, see User_talk:Andrew_Davidson#DePRODing. So in a way you forced the AfD because I had no way of knowing what you were thinking. Then when you came to AfD you've claimed articles have sources without actually producing them as here: [139] [140] [141] Claiming you have sources without actually adding them to the article or at the very least linking to them in the discussion is not helpful at all.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this seems like a personality clash between Rusf10 and Unscintillating, both of whom can be acerbic and a bit of a trial; for whatever reason the disagreement has led to prospect of a one-sided and seemingly quite unfair sanction here. Carrite (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @E.M.Gregory and Carrite: Because Unscintillating's behavior extends far beyond their interactions with Rusf10. ansh666 19:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @E.M.Gregory and Carrite:, this is not a Rusf10/Unscintillating personality conflict. It is a long-term radical inclusionist pattern of behavior with specious or poorly-supported arguments by Unscintillating where Rusf10 is one of many who has been annoyed or attacked. None of these examples below involve Rusf10:
    There are other examples of obstructive behavior that are not evidence of a personality conflict but I think 5 recent examples are enough. None of these were closed as "Keep" by the way (although Jesse Rice is still open it doesn't look like a convincing Keep at this point). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are good examples, Eggishorn, but another piece of ruleslawyering (?) from Unscintillating that literally made me reel, just a month ago, was this comment in favor of keeping an article: "This nomination is not for notability. Since notability is not questioned, it is inappropriate to assess notability." (I suppose he meant the nominator, a competent editor, hadn't actually used the word notable/notability in the perfectly good nomination.) That's not a clash of personalities, it's either cluelessness or trolling. I'm sorry, but it just is. I still feel a little dizzy from it.[143] Bishonen | talk 20:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    Amend: Reversed the names as I typed , sorry: Oh I acknowledge that Rusf10's Unscintillating's "pattern of behavior with specious or poorly-supported arguments" does not always involve Unscintillating Rusf10, but it is equally true that Rusf10's behavior is so frequently tendentious, specious or poorly-supported that it is simple to adduce examples of articles that he brings to AfD - often doubling down on a challenged Prod - with so little evidence of having looked for sourcing or of familiarity with the subject that it truly verges on disrupt (and then BLUDGEONS editors who disagree.) AfDs like: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas R. Amato, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Reformed Church Hackensack, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bo Sullivan (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellsworth Jones. I think that both editors should be warned to rethink their poorly-researched comments and BATTLEGROUND attitude, and that Rusf10 should be more selective about PRODding and bringing articles to AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC) I add that I do not mean to defenc Unscintillating, only to point out that Rusf10's behavior is so problematic in its own right that he amazes me by coming here to call other WP:POTS black.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @E.M.Gregory:, I think you may have misread my statement exactly backwards - I was not saying that Rusf10 had such a pattern, but that Unscintillating had a pattern of such arguments. This proposal wasn't started by Rusf10 or TheGracefulSlick or even myself or anyone else that has a record of having "...tangled with Unscintillating..." as you said. It was proposed by Reyk and I'm not aware that the latter has any reason to have unjustified personal animosity towards Unscintillating. Even then, whatever the failings of Rusf10's behavior you think exist, for Unscintillating to state that topics on Wikipedia do not require notability or that it is inappropriate to assess notability in AfD discussions is either trolling or an inexplicable lack of understanding about standards and practices. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Amended per correction above@E.M.Gregory:, Thank you for your correction, I've struck the relevant sentence above and I recognize the issue you raised. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @E.M.Gregory:, I really hate to do this, but since you won't back off of it, you leave me no choice. It is extremely hypocritical of you to accuse me of WP:BLUDGEON when others have pointed out this is exactly what you do at AfD. Here's just one of many ANI's relating to that [144] Just putting it out there, anyone who wants to look at it can judge for themselves. And you want to talk about WP:POT?--Rusf10 (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of you have given excellent examples to show its not just a problem I'm having. And @E.M.Gregory:, I'd be very careful with the WP:POT accusations if I were you, since we know your behavior at AfD has been the subject of multiple ANI/arbitration cases.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, per Bishonen, Cullen and others. The topic ban should be from all deletion-related pages and discussions, broadly construed. For just one example of relentless, disruptive wikilawyering way past any sense of reality see [145] and the 3 sections which follow it. Unscintillating's approach in this, and many other cases, is correctly described by Bishonen as "nonsense wikilawyering". It's also persistent and creates numerous time-sinks. As is often the case it has taken too long for this to be addressed, but there is no doubt in my mind that their contributions in deletion related areas are a significant net-negative for the encyclopedia. Cries of pot/kettle are irrelevant. There is a genuine pattern of behaviour here which needs to be addressed. If there are also problems elsewhere, then address them too in a separate discussion. -- Begoon 08:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • + per below, clarifying that my support is for an indefinite topic ban. I don't see this as something that will just magically go away after an arbitrary period expires, rather that the community will need to be convinced that Unscintillating understands the issues and is both able and willing to correct them. This could be a couple of weeks, a month, a year - it's impossible to know - which is why an indefinite ban seems the best workable solution. I'm not sure I'd prohibit the first appeal for 6 months, but certainly if appeals became too frequent or tendentious without real progress then there would be a need to limit them. -- Begoon 11:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see it, Guy, since the problem has been so long-running and persistent, and such a negative for discussions at AfD. I assumed Reyk's proposal of a "a topic ban from XfDs and deletion processes, broadly construed", without specifying any length, meant an indefinite topic ban, and I think that's what most people above have been addressing. Just looking at the things they say, I'm fairly sure of it. Anyway, I believe it should be an indefinite ban with the option to appeal in six months. When you say "taking things a little too personally", do you mean merely that he hasn't edited for 36 hours? Bishonen | talk 11:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    Indefinite with an appeal allowed in a few months works fine for me, I am just a bit nervous of a permanent ban for someone who is, over all, a good faith contributor to content. By taking things too personally, I mean that he seems to be investing too much, emotionally, in the outcomes of these debates. This can be a failing in both inclusionists and deletionists, in which I explicitly do count myself. So: I don't see this as evil, but as an excess of zeal. I feel empathy. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Just a quick comment: I don't really see this as "my" proposal because there was talk of a topic ban by Rusf10 and TheGracefulSlick prior to my first comment. It's just happenstance that my comment has had the topic ban heading plopped in front of it. Anyway, I didn't mention a time span but assumed that it would default to indefinite. I'd agree with that length anyway since IMO Unscintillating does what he does primarily to annoy people. Others may interpret his antics as mere incompetence, stubbornness, and IDHT, but I believe most of what he does is calculated to get on peoples' nerves- so a longer rather than a shorter sanction is appropriate in my view. Reyk YO! 12:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really bothered how many months before an appeal, but I do think it's quite important that there is an appeal, and that it shows some understanding of the issues. (No, I'm not looking for the famous "grovelling".) A bad scenario, by contrast, would be one where Unscintillating simply waits out a set number of months and then returns to business as usual at the deletion noticeboards. Bishonen | talk 15:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

    Specific note to Unscintillating

    Unscintillating, irrespective of what the community decides above, the following will result in a block from me or another admin:

    • Any further accusations of outing anywhere on the project. If you think outing has occurred, email Arbcom.
    • Personally attacking or disparaging another editor in deletion discussions or discussions about deletions. This is not supposed to occur anywhere on the project but leeway is given for the minor day to day stuff. However you've reached the end of your rope.
    • Sidetracking discussions like this. If you think an editor hasn't performed a WP:BEFORE you are welcome to add a normal deletion !vote with diffs showing sources the nominator should have found. If a specific editor is consistently nominating articles that obviously should be kept then open a thread here and let the community decide what to do.

    In short, cut out the disruption, and comment on the deletion nomination, not the nominator. --NeilN talk to me 22:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @NeilN: Does this qualify as a violation?[146]--Rusf10 (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rusf10: The first two comments in response to your !vote seem to be valid and then we get into sidetracked territory. --NeilN talk to me 03:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @NeilN:- Right, I was only referring to that diff though since it was the only one posted after your notice above. In other words, he was trying again to engage me in an irrelevant discussion there after he should have seen your notice.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rusf10: I've dropped a note on their page linking to this subsection. It may be a good idea to disengage with Unscintillating for about a day or so to let things cool down and see how the above discussion plays out. If there is consensus for a deletion discussion ban then point three becomes moot. --NeilN talk to me 03:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, we'll see what happens.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mate4Malta

    I have been contacted Mate4Malta 11 times between July 2017 and Jan 2018, with no responses and the issues not addressed, although the editor has continued to editor. The concern is the lack of communication and the repeated creation of unreferenced articles.

    I have repeatedly pointed them to WP:Communication is required, WP:BURDEN and WP:V - no response. Below is a list of creations which are tagged for serious issues, many for being unreferenced. Most of the articles have neither sources nor external links. I have spent hours of my time cleaning up these articles and messaging Mate4Malta to try to resolve the situation, but have got nowhere, they will not communicate or add the sources. They do know how to edit talk pages, as they have edited their page several times, but not in the past year.

    Mate4Malta has edited since this ANI was opened, but hasn't communicated here or on their talk page. Boleyn (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Embedded inappropriate image in article

    Re Rita Crocker Clements. The article pulled up for me today with an embedded image, porn I think, at the bottom. Really large image that I couldn't see all of. It seemed to have been embedded in the last edit before my current revert on the article. Yet, there is nothing that I could see in that edit that had an image in it. When I tried to simply delete the edit, I got a message that it could not be deleted. The revert seems to have worked in removing the image. Looks like now I can't even see the image by pulling up the previous version. Has anyone ever seem embedded porn in an article? Really strange. — Maile (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Once or twice. There was some template vandalism earlier today. It's been fixed so it looks like you briefly caught a cached version. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Maile66 (and others), if you can't find anything obviously wrong with the prior version please try a purge instead of a revert. --NeilN talk to me 16:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Legalize the purge! Guy (Help!) 19:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the info @NeilN:, just had a smilair experience. I understood, when searching, that the image had to be embedded in the template, still when looking through the 2-3 templates involoved, still I couldnt see the image, but the image disapeared when I removed the entire template from the page. Good to finally get an explanation here. Dan Koehl (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit-warring, deletion of headed content and references, censorship of wikipedia, WP:NPOV

    I have been three times reverted (one del and twice rev) by This is Paul at Ben Bradley (politician) where a not-insignificant UK news semi-scandal story had broken nationally, in the wider recent context of exposing/embarassing UK politicians. All 'secondary' reporting quoted was/is based on intial release by BuzzFeed, so due regard to possible WP:CITEKILL. There were 18 separate edits before my arrival (and more since my forced departure after This is Paul's pathetic level 1 warning). S/he has chosen AN/I at Talk:Ben Bradley (politician)#Deletion of sub-heading Ben Bradley (politician)#Brexit and contents including references, expecting y'all to flame me . This is more than just RS, 3RR or BLP - it's editor behaviour/would-be control/WP:OWNership, so this board. All of my changes have been sourced, NPOV, and on-topic.

    • 2a. All content was deleted (Heading, old, new, maintenance tag, +refs), the first full reversion "reverting again"

    Wikipedia needs to be uncensored, NPOV; This is Paul has summarily, unilaterally decided that sourced content is unsourced, and that some secondaries are better than others when all are based on the same press release. All sources are based on BuzzFeed, although Wikipedia may prefer Reuters, it is what it is and BBC News, The Times, Telegraph, NHS, (all from this post-deletion permalink), Bradley's district newspaper and county newspaper don't care where they get copy from, but apparently Wikipedia/This is Paul has decreed that Daily Express is not allowed as not encyclopedic? How about adding a hatnote??

    This is Paul has made some 'interesting'(?) remarks "If you throw your toys out of the pram and start screaming about censorship, Knee jerk reactions, the metropolitan liberal elite,({{what}}) and so on, then there is a problem", but has not targeted anyone else, fixated on controlling me and censoring Wikipedia. The latest development is internet trolling of the 'wrong' Ben Bradley, an American TV newsanchor. Suggest this should be added as a test edit, anyone unconnected, for This is Paul to revert you?

    AFAIK non of my contributions were unencyclopedic (whatever that's interpreted to mean), off topic, biased, or unsourced. Apologies for the polemic rant, it's as concise as possible. Thanks.-Semperito (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I have told Semperito there is no problem with this information being added as long as it is sourced correctly, which it was not. Publications such as the Daily Express, Brexit Central and Buzz Feed were being used to support statements, publications which are not regarded as reliable sources for biographies of living people. I asked Semperito to provide better sources for the information, removing it until this could be done, but instead of looking for references he/she started whingeing about bias and censorship, and threatening to open a discussion here. I believe I acted correctly in removing these badly sourced statements, but I suppose it's always possible I could have used different language, been less acerbic, and pointed Semperito to WP:RS (maybe also WP:DAILYMAIL as it and the Express seem to be similar in nature). As far as I can see the Nottingham Post source included above was not used to source this information. Had it been used then that would have been fine. This is Paul (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment / elucidation The IP-added prose sourced from Daily Express was extant when I added the Brexit Central link (with explanatory edit summary) in October (I would have looked for other sources back then - anything later - now - could be WP:CIRCULAR) - no other objections at all until along comes This is Paul, not having contributed previously: "...so if nobody else has done so already, I'm going to revert you again". (emphasis added by Semperito) - abandon GF and twist the knife. Brexit Central is not a crowd-sourced message board or non-entity blog; in Ben Bradley's own 'hand' and 'voice', his piece is neutral, free from self-promotion, propaganda and puffery, informative and confirms the electorate's 72% 'leave' decision, and Bradley's considerations - to summarize, encylopedic, NPOV, good, interesting WP prose, now denied to the readership, as is the source.

      The initial deletion at 1,098 bytes went to two reversions at 2,306 bytes each. I should have made it clearer that the Nottingham Post link is placed after the permalink, deliberately shown as separated from it, + the Chad = Johnston Press. The 'world' at large is admittedly sourcing from BuzzFeed (hence WP:CITEKILL acknowledgement - they're all 'singing from the same hymn sheet') and the clickable embedded link proves the 2012 content, which Bradley cannot refute - why have a WP BuzzFeed article if we can't refer to it, and internally link, to explain to the readership? I have not editorialized, and have expressed no opinion about Ben Bradley's debacle, or the morals of BuzzFeed. As editors it is incumbent on us to provide any wider view available, and not to be elective-deletionists. Again, this is censorship dictated by one editor's subjective dislike(s).-Semperito (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This is my most recent reversion of Semperito's text. There is no Nottingham Post or Mansfield and Ashby Chad sources included here. The section concerned the subject's support of Brexit which, as Semperito has stated themselves, can be sourced from elsewhere – crucially from at least two sources that would be acceptable. If there are concerns about circular referencing, then it's best left out until such time as they become available. With regard to Bradley's article at Brexit Central, perhaps checking out Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources is also advisable. I would personally avoid sites like Brexit Central, which I would argue falls into the same camp as sites such as Wings Over Scotland, which are basically pushing an agenda. Now this is an issue being blown out of all proportion by Semperito, and the debate over the reliability of such sites should be for some other place. This is Paul (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The reliable sources noticeboard would be the place. Or you could try the BLP notice board as well. --Malerooster (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I'll take a look in the morning and start a discussion. This is Paul (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion now open at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability of Daily Express, Brexit Central and BuzzFeed. Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG - needs must when reversionists rule - where do ya think I learned it from? I always try to be tactful, collegial and helpful, but the capitalized link above is recent from a long series of IP fan/family cruft changes that I reverted initially, but went back to ensure all 'reasonable' content was included - you neglected to notice/mention that? I don't expect IPs to be cognisant with AGF, but it wears thin. This is Paul has admitted to being "ascerbic", so I will try to use more decorous terms. That's why I didn't file the AN/I for many hours, incidentally. Regarding BLP PRIMARY, I am aware but these are British public documents relating to business, not any actual personal, non-public aspects, so non-scandalous and non-controversial, and the author had stated a British-registered business was American with the wrong formation date from somewhere (probably a press release for the film), repeatedly removing refs without any edit summary. Do ya want WP to be accurate? What do ya want from me - a 24-hour self-imposed abstinence as penance?-Semperito (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    See m:MPOV. No, needs mustn't. The rule is bold, revert, discuss - you seem to prefer revert revert revert WITH ALL CAPS EDIT SUMMARY, forum shop. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG As I have stated at RSN, I have not been notified of any policy breaches. I correctly started the talk page discussion at Talk:Ben Bradley (politician)#Deletion of sub-heading Ben Bradley (politician)#Brexit and contents including references before the continued reversions - again you've ignored this. I've no idea what that link above is supposed to be - an essay? Haven't time now, need to prioritise, but I only know perhaps 10% of what you've had to learn in earning sysop - unlike those 'gifted' minor tools. I am aware of BITE, but cannot discuss anything with an IP (range) that fails to respond to talk page messages offering help, and continues to over-embellish (probably his own) article, overlinking, double whitelinespacing paragraph breaks and adding repetitious trivial unsorced content into the lead and sections. I expect you will spin this as over-zealousness WP:IDONTKNOWWHATITSCALLED. Also same range and this Cape Town IP, presumably where they were filming. I have tried to clean up the Johnny Harris article, but no longer, it's off my Watchlist.-Semperito (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CHR52

    The user CHR52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly attacked/accused me of being racist for no good reason ([147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152]) despite informative replies and several warning templates. In their own userpage, they wrote "Never come here, Please. Mr. racist." after the {{Uw-npa2}} I put.

    --Phonet (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment)I have left the user with a clear final warning to stop calling other editors racist, I do also think there is a CIR problem as well. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) It looks like we're all racists unless we contribute to Japanese Wikipedia. SMH.... BytEfLUSh Talk 04:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked 48 hours. Though now I'm hungry for a pear... --NeilN talk to me 04:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Japanese or Korean? BytEfLUSh Talk 04:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    More deception from ShaneFilaner

    ShaneFilaner (talk · contribs · count) is known for often (not always but on many instances) making problematic sales changes within articles as noted on WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive969#Ongoing disruptions from ShaneFilaner. Source quality not withstanding, this user frequently makes thinly veiled attempts to hide his fancruft via misleading edit summaries. He has been blocked more than once for such issues. A more recent issue coming up since his latest block is trying to trick readers into thinking they'll get a listing from Official Charts Company (the authoritative publication for UK charts and sales) when it's actually from a forum called Buzzjack (which is definitely below reference standards for Wikipedia). I've told Shane that attempting to deceive others on Wikipedia won't go undetected, and thought maybe a more recent warning would help him improve his behavior, though it clearly didn't as he evidently doesn't care about notices or past blocks at this point and should be blocked again for blatant WP:IDHT behavior (probably indefinitely this time). Enough is enough. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked 31h, this can go to escalating blocks from here on in. The user has no excuse for not understanding that those links are inappropriate given your explanations. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User Crayaran Vandalism

    Archive. El_C 00:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can we get a block for Crayaran (talk · contribs)? Yeah, this is AIV stuff, it's there twice, but the user doesn't give up. Sorry if this is inappropriate (crossposting in multiple admin boards). I will take the trout if needed. =) BytEfLUSh Talk 05:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. El_C 06:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Dab page needed at salted title Sudheer

    Disambiguated (disambiguation). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

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

    We now have Sudheer (Malayalam actor) and Sudheer (Kannada actor) so need a dab page at the salted title Sudheer. Could an admin please create it? And then presumably protect the page again. Thanks. PamD 10:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Unprotected so you or anyone else can create/maintain the dab. Page was protected presumably due to the activity of a user who has not edited in six years. The round of unprotection in 2012 was the result of a well-meaning admin's failed proposal but didn't relate to this page specifically (read through links in the protection log for details). This sort of request is normally handled by contacting the protecting admin (though I can't tell who it was in this case) or at WP:RFPP. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivanvector: Thanks - dab page now created. PamD 12:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Vandalism, blanking of content, and removal without proper sourcing on ToonHeads

    Having problems with a series of unregistered IPs (all from the same town in Florida), who keep reverting info on the ToonHeads article, without sources to back up his/her claim. Every couple of days I have to go back and revert the edits, which is becoming a pain to do. I'm requesting admin help. I also request that a sockpuppet investogation be launched as I'm pretty sure they're all the same person (I geolocated them all to Blountstown and Bristol, Florida.)

    Dpm12 (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a content dispute and generally content disputes don't go on ANI. However having looked at this you’re very definitely edit warring. What’s worse is the ip is at least removing unreferenced content. You are the one edit warring to add in unreferenced content. Don’t add it back unless you can reference it. And stop edit warring. Canterbury Tail talk 19:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    COI, warring, WP:OR Michael Dourson

    Michael Dourson is being edited blog-post style by TERAitTeam in a second almost identical edit in an hour [153]. The editor has been warned on the user talk page and the article talk page. Request a week's block on the userid. Rhadow (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    COI Replay WP:OR TERAitTeam Michael Dourson ==

    Michael Dourson is being edited by TERAitTeam If you click on this link you will notice that my name is not listed on the [http://tera.org/Staff/index.html TERA Website. I am a note an employee of that company. I think WP:OR is trying to keep the facts from coming out in favor of Micheal Dourson. What I am placing on the site is the facts based in years of research. If that is an issue then I will be glad to change my id. As for editing it twice. I am legally blind and I did not think the first edit took. —Preceding undated comment added 02:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

    It doesn't matter whether you are or not; your username is utterly unacceptable because it implies a promotional and/or role account. Such accounts are generally blocked until a name change is requested, not for a week as Rhadow is asking. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 03:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Username blocked. --NeilN talk to me 04:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Saiph121: Take 4

    Saiph121 is not getting it. I have left a warning, and if the edits are repeated then it's a block for disruption. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi all. Fourth posting regarding Saiph121's inability to to hear/understand/follow a clear consensus. Most recent posting is here.

    The consensus at Talk:Beauty and the Beast (2017 film) was that only blue-link, non-redirect notable awards should be listed. Saiph121 ignored the discussion, restored the disputed awards and eventually came to the talk page. The consensus widened, again to included only notable awards.[154] They disagreed, of course, and went back to DRN. The volunteers there found that a) no one really felt there was anything to discuss (other than Saiph121) and 2) that it essentially was one-against-consensus.[155]

    I thought they might have given up/understood and agreed to follow the consensus.[156]

    I was wrong.[157]

    I know there is a language issue at work, though they have strongly denied there is a problem. In any case, their postings are often hard to understand. Bottom line: More than enough rope has been played out here. I am requesting either an extensive block and/or editing restrictions on film articles. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    As Saiph121 frequently edits both logged in and under their IP, in addition to notifying them on their user page, I have also notified them on their current IP, User_talk:49.145.173.9. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    SummerPhDv2.0 has been totally wrong. His insistence that these disputed awards are "non-notable" are totally incorrect as I have been stating that these awards are considered notable and had Wikipedia articles with WP:MOSFILM to prove with. Yet, he still considers these awards as "Non-notable awards" and always reverted these awards from being included with consensus that he created was totally incorrect and biased. Futhermore, I've also request the help of Brojam to help mediate this current situation as he has somehow restored partially of the awards based on WP:MOSFILM ruling. I am requesting to strongly deny SummerPhDv2.0's request to an extensive block and/or editing restrictions on film articles, as his current actions against me was truly reckless as I was only doing the job of restoring these notable and credible awards that have Wikipedia articles. Saiph121 (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, your choice of pronouns is incorrect; SummerPhDv2.0's user page should clear up any confusion. Second, I think there's a certain gray area involved in requesting assistance. Sometimes people get stuck and want help mediating a dispute or clarifying a policy. However, outright asking someone to help you "deal with" another editor is clearly canvassing. When consensus is against you, the solution isn't to recruit more allies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've not looked at the article or talkpage, but as long as the award has its own article, then it's classed as being notable. This is set out in the Film MOS and was agreed with the Film Project some time ago. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That is exactly what Saiph121 either does not understand or will not follow. This edit adds/restores numerous awards that do not have articles. The edit summary, however, says they do. Reviewing their talk pages and the article talk pages, the difference between having an article, having a redirect and having a piped link fromt the award to the organization has been explained repeatedly. Yet here we are. - SummerPhDv2.0 12:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, SummerPhDv2.0 has totally made a lot of absurdity of these This edit in which he stated that these numerous awards do not have Wikipedia articles. In fact, he's completely wrong and what i am saying is that these awards had articles that really existed. Saiph121 (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you seem to not understand what we have been repeatedly saying: Many of those organizations are notable, but the awards are not.
    From that edit I see: Casting Society of America, Chicago Film Critics Association, Hollywood Post Alliance, Houston Film Critics Society, Make-Up Artists and Hair Stylists Guild, Seattle Film Critics Society and Women Film Critics Circle. These are all organizations not awards.
    Your repeated responses to this have been that the awards are notable, contrary to the consensus, that the awards are "important" to the film or that deleting them puts the film at a "disadvantage".
    Whether you repeatedly do not understand the discussions and the resulting consensuses or simply do not intend to follow them is now immaterial. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ahmed Lutfe Inam removing db-repost and recreating MFD'd promotional user page

    Ahmed Lutfe Inam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Following the block of his friend Siddiqsazzad001 he has over and over removed db-repost from his user page and recreated the promotional content that was deleted at MFD. He has been warned over and over[158][159][160][161][162][163] about these things and persists. He posted[164] to the MFD so he knows this has been going on, and he understands how to use templates and what they mean (within the limits of his poor understanding of English). He does this "trick" where he blanks the deletion templates, removes the offending content (he knows what it is), db-authors the page, then recreates it, apparently seeking to "hack" or circumvent the system. He has does this over and over, please see logs (dating back to when MFD notice was there). This user has either been screwing around intentionally or is grossly incompetent and this is closely linked to similar behaviors from Siddiqsazzad001. Trying not to bite the newbie but this has wasted considerable time already. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    For what it's worth, he's also taken to editing his blocked friend's userpage[165]. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleting admin here. I have reconsidered my decision to WP:SALT this editor's userpage, and I am sure that I have made the right decision.
    Technically, it was a WP:G4 deletion: see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ahmed Lutfe Inam.
    Much more important: content obviously inappropriate.
    I am obliged not to discuss this further in any publicly accessible page.
    Questions? Email me.
    Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Cross-wiki vandalism

    I refer to edits by Rndhnr, IP 60.152.122.245  HistoriedeFrance who left a message in my talk page. They (probably one and the same) insist on adding a false title-holder in the article Duke of Gandía. Have done this in the following wikis: Russian; French; Italian; Spanish; and, English. In the Spanish and English wikis I added source from the Spanish Ministry of Justice on the new titleholder as of Sept. 2016 following the death of the previous titleholder. All titles, new, inherited, etc. must be published in the Boletín Oficial del Estado (Spanish State Gazette) by the Ministry of Justice. The above-mentioned Ips and users keep removing the actual and referenced titleholder and adding someone who does not hold that title without providing any proof whatsoever. Don't know what I can do to prevent them from messing with other wikis other than this one and the Spanish one because I don't speak those languages. They should be blocked or, at least warned, that they cannot add false, unreferenced information. This happens often when it comes to nobility titles. Many thanks and regards, Maragm (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    You can ask for a global block of the offending user at meta:SRG as a last resort. 14.192.208.84 (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I contacted a steward that I know and will take it from there. Maragm (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks by User:DCGeist and User:DocKino

    Users blocked, nothing else to do here. (non-admin closure) Excelse (talk) 06:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Two Elvis Presley fans User:DCGeist, User:DocKino at the List of best-selling music artists who initially started edit-warring are now dropping uncivil remarks on my own talk page including Tell me more about being civil, cunt. Teach me by User:DocKino, and Oh, wow. You put a template on my page too. I rolled that sucker back, you bitch by User:DCGeist, as well as You are a joke. No one takes you seriously anymore and Clearly, the claimed sources field makes you fucking miserable on the list's talk page.

    There an established consensus amongst the main editors at the list of best-selling music artists that inflated sales figures for all artists should be left out, that the list should only use those claimed figures which are published by reliable sources but closer to artist' certified ales. While I tried to point out the Definitions on the main page which clearly states This list uses claimed figures that are closest to artists' available certified units: inflated claimed figures that meet the required certified units amount but are unrealistically high, are not used, the edit warring still continued by both User:DCGeist and User:DocKino with incivility.--Harout72 (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Speaking of artists' certified ales... EEng 19:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely unacceptable. Both blocked 72 hours for personal attacks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you.--Harout72 (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And the link they were arguing about in List of best-selling music artists that they claimed was from 'some suburban newspaper'? It was an AP story merely being hosted by said paper. I've clarified the link (and changed it to the original story posted by the originating paper) and mentioned as such on the article talk page. Nate • (chatter) 14:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec x2)I see NinjaRobotPirate has blocked both users for 72 hours. I'd been tossing up between doing the same and asking them to retract it first, but it's hard to argue the block was unwarranted. GoldenRing (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Both accounts edited until July 2012, then both stopped editing entirely, then both resumed in January 2018. That seems like an unlikely coincidence. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 12:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a place for discussing such matters with evidence. You should avoid casually making sockpuppet allegations without evidence and when the involved parties are unable to defend themselves. --Laser brain (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I was about to go here and report them myself. I've got List of best-selling music artists on my watchlist, banning them necessary as they don't seem to be interested on gaining consensus only going full throttle attacks and edit warring. While I have sympathy with some of the poor choice of source(s) on this page as I have changed some of them myself, the behaviour of both was uncalled for. Mattg82 (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I've long been concerned about the "List of best selling x..." pages, with their often questionable sources and long lists of locally created "rules" for doing strange and arcane calculations based on "claimed" sales and "certified" sales dependent on some oddly specified judgements about whether something is "inflated" or not, enforced by a few "gatekeepers". It feels uncomfortably like original research at times. But that doesn't excuse rudeness or attacks, and is a conversation for another time and place, I guess. -- Begoon 13:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I was involved with some of the creation of these rules some time ago (6-7 years ago i think) though it looks like some of them have mutated in my absence (long wikibreak). But without these some of these rules I fear the list will descend back into the chaos it was before these rules were made (See talk archives and page history). It was even up for deletion 3 times. As you say though the discussion of such rules is for elsewhere. Mattg82 (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, sorry for the off-topic sidestep - I'm sure everyone is doing their best - seeing the topic just reminded me of some (unvoiced) concerns I'd had about these pages over the years. I'll give it some more thought, and if those thoughts crystallise into something more specific I'll discuss it in the right place. Cheers. -- Begoon 14:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Finlay McWalter Thanks for noticing that User:DCGeist and User:DocKino could be the same person. I opened up a Sock puppetry investigation, surely enough they turned out to be the same person. They're blocked now indefinitely.--Harout72 (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And to think, they might have gotten away with it if they had just taken three seconds to see that it was an AP story you sourced and calmed down rather than going off about you sourcing to The Daily Herald of Arlington Heights (and nobody has ever called it that, ever). Sometimes the socks just dirty themselves. 🙃 Nate • (chatter) 03:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Bad faith?

    I'll leave it with you. I have more important matters to attend to. If this is how "experienced editors" behave then the site has big problems. Ziggy (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure about experienced editors, but it's certainly how sockpuppets behave. Guy (Help!) 13:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't the drive-by complaint aisle. If you can't be bothered to discuss it, you shouldn't post here. Acroterion (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sigurd Hring: This edit is kind of confusing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Inclined to agree with Lugnuts here; a 300-edit account nominating 29 cricket articles for deletion without WP:BEFORE done rings alarm bells, along with a drive-by 'hey, read this, I won't elaborate' ANI mention. Nate • (chatter) 13:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    OP was indef blocked in the last hour for, go on, take a guess - for being a sock! What are the odds? On a serious note, I don't know what the process is for a live AfD started by a sock, so I'd be grateful if an admin could take a look. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lugnuts: If you're thinking the AfD is subject to WP:CSD#G5, it's not. A comment to the closing admin might be appropriate, though. Speaking of which, one of your comments says "Futher admin comment"; I assume you meant something like "Further comment to admin"? I think you should fix that.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying - I'll fix that note too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Since there is still a comment by a GF editor advocating deletion, WP:SK does not apply either. Regards SoWhy 15:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Wasn't sure, as I belive articles created by socks get deleted, so thought I'd check on other namespaces. Cheers. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm, I have a vague recollection of another new editor who also made a big noise around cricket articles for a couple of weeks and then retired. I can't find those discussions now though. It would have been two or three months ago IIRC. Maybe unrelated but my spidey sense is tingling. Reyk YO! 17:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe we are thinking of the same editor, and they were blocked as a sock of this same puppet master. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes, now I see. Sad and pathetic when someone gets so protective of their crap articles that they need to start a false flag campaign aimed at making the other side look silly. Reyk YO! 18:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Something we both agree on! Very odd and puzzling behaviour. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Siredejoinville and Ruiz Mariño again...

    I reported this user in April 2016. In talk page, you can see the many warnings that he has received and his blocks.  He continues to add false information, see Francisco Mariño y Soler. He added titles that do not exist and were previously erased here, these two, for example, which he created: Marquisate of Santa Rosa and County of San Juan.  One of the references that he added in this article is  geneanet a personal gen site that anyone can edit. The author of that page on Francisco Mariño y Soler in that website is the same person as Siredejoinville as can be checked here and the reference that he uses there is the article in en.wiki (a rather circular way of adding refs). This user should be blocked, expelled or, at the very least, banned from editing the article on Francisco Mariño Soler. Maragm (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • After checking their contributions both here and on other language versions of WP, including the Spanish language one, I have posted a final warning for creating blatant hoaxes, and repeatedly recreating some of them after they have been speedied as CSD-G3 (see messages on their talk page), on Siredejoinville's user talk. Their contributions clearly show that they're not here to create a neutral and well sourced encyclopaedia, only to create a false, and much glorified, history for a family in Colombia, through creating Wikipedia articles about false titles etc etc, even adding false information to articles about other people to make them fit into the false history of the family they're promoting. Making them a good candidate for an indefinite block, either per WP:NOTHERE or for vandalism (creating hoaxes). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can add that User:Siredejoinville was blocked twice for persistent addition of unsourced material in 2016, with the latest one being a 3-month block, and has also been socking (User:Ruiz-Mariño, the same name as the person who created the false family history at Geneanet, was blocked as a sock of Siredejoinville in 2015), so they've been going at it for a long time... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 00:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User Siredejoinville left a message (erasing a previous one that I had written a couple of years ago) in the talk page of the article. As you can see, it is Siredejoinville who leaves the message but adds the name of Jorge Reinaldo Ruiz-Mariño, thereby confirming that both are the same person. All his edits are non-constructive, in other articles he had added himself as the holder of several titles which he invented. He messed up all the articles on the Borgia/Borja. All his edits must be monitored. It is a waste of time and very disruptive. I don't think that his intentions are to contribute positively to the project since his only objective seems to be to aggrandize his alleged ancestors. Maragm (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • A brief synopsis for those who haven't looked into the mess: it's a user in Colombia who for several years now has been trying to glorify their own family history on multiple language versions of Wikipedia, in essence trying to turn a turd into a truffle, by claiming false titles (including repeatedly creating hoax articles about those false/non-existant titles, and false/non-existant fiefs connected to those titles), and rewriting articles about real historical people (primarily the Borgia family) in order to be able to claim descent from a saint and a pope, and through them also be able to claim to be related to several royal families in Europe. So we're not talking about a small number of random unsourced edits, but a person engaging in a multi-year systematic attempt to add false/hoax material in order to glorify/promote themself. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 08:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There are quite a few edits from this account. Are you sufficiently familiar to be able to clean them up? If you could review, say, Duke of Valentinois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which has many of the red flags you mention, and e could compare the before and after, I would be happy to move to discuss a ban for hoaxing. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    More than cleaning it up, I would go back to the oldest version before he started to edit it and then, bit by bit, find sources for referencing and expanding. Another example is Prince of Squillace, where he added himself as the heir to the title. Other users, including me, fixed it up and added references. Another case is Count of Mayalde, again, user is the heir to the title. I think there are more cases when he did this and had he been stopped a couple of years ago, we wouldn't have wasted so much time. Maragm (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Rangeblock for Meg Maheu?

    Someone identifying herself as Meg Maheu[166] was blocked three times in December (by Widr,[167] Jauerback[168] and Ferret[169]) for promotion of herself and her boyfriend Brent Alden who is in the band False Alarm. Because of continued disruption, I reported her at COIN a week later, but nothing happened. The problem is that the range she is using is wide, and a block on Special:Contributions/2600:1:B14D:FC8C:0:0:0:0/43 will have collateral damage. The issue has arisen again with a bunch of disruptive, promotional edits by Special:Contributions/2600:1:B14D:FC8C:5655:AE81:76D4:BE44 showing up today. What can we do? I think a rangeblock is indicated, and we should incur the collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    While I was typing this up, NeilN blocked today's IP address.[170] I still think a rangeblock is necessary. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Rangeblocked for a month. While going through the contribs I saw the aforementioned disruption, a lot of unsourced trivia and BLP additions, some outright vandalism, and precious few good edits. --NeilN talk to me 16:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the blocks. Yeah, the contributions from the range are largely poor quality. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking again at the affected articles, it appears the range Special:Contributions/2600:1:B11F:DC:0:0:0:0/43 was also involved. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Binksternet: Also blocked a month. --NeilN talk to me 17:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Long standing copyvio may need revdel

    585 revisions deleted and copyvio removed. –Davey2010Talk 21:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Back in June, 2013, this edit was made by Shane492. The trouble is, that it is a direct copy of this article published in May, 2011. It has been on Wikipedia now for over 4-1/2 years, and revdel might seriously mess with the article history - I leave this for administrators to make a decision in that regard. Thanks for your time and attention. Scr★pIronIV 19:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    nude picture on Udayadityavarman II

    Any further discussion can continue in previous thread. --NeilN talk to me 01:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Because of an OTRS report id 10543438 reg vandalizing of Udayadityavarman II I went to the page, but couldnt find the picture, in the end, I figured out that the picture (File:Backtowel.jpg) must be hidden in the Succession box template, which I dont have access to, so I removed the entire succession template markup. Please checkup whats wrong, and how a protected template could be vandalized? Dan Koehl (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dan Koehl: Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Embedded_inappropriate_image_in_article --NeilN talk to me 21:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there something we can do to prevent these templates from being vandalized? This seems to be a thing that is happening all the time now. --Tarage (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tarage and Dan Koehl: Not really. Will explain elsewhere. --NeilN talk to me 22:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Blatant Racism at

    I support the enhanced indef. I should have looked more closely, sorry about that. El_C 01:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please rev del this comment and I think this is blatant and completely enough that the editor should be blocked for it [[171]] - Turkroaches is not an ok thing to say in an edit summary, this article is currently on the main page and this has been going on for at least three hours with no objections. If it was "jew roaches" I'm sure it wouldn't be allowed. Seraphim System (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. The qualification (with the lower case "jew") was unnecessary. El_C 23:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There might be some username issues there, too. Anmccaff (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There might be some other issues, too, looking at contribs. I would have indeffed here. @El C:? Black Kite (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't get a chance to look beyond that one diff. Feel free to up the block to indef. El_C 23:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Trolling user

    Troll indeffed. –Davey2010Talk 18:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    With only 10 -useless- edits as all contributions, Bae Hye Jeong had the time to troll and threaten to death a user. Vandal to block indefinite. --87.3.19.81 (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP editor is correct, "Snowflake91, YOU ARE DEAD" is a indef-blockable offense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally yes, but the edit in question happened in early November, and Bae Hye Jeong hasn't edited since then. Should we really block someone over a two-month-old edit who hasn't edited since? (I'm not against a block, just raising a concern of sorts). SkyWarrior 03:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please notify users you report by adding {{subst:ANI-notice}} to their talk pages. This is required when using this page. I've done it for you this time. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 03:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked the editor. The amount of time that passed doesn't matter to me. SQLQuery me! 03:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    I agree with SQL. When the offense is so egregious, the passage of roughly two months is of little relevance. This is a good block. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Solitaire rock has posted what I would consider to be a legal threat on my talk page, in relation to edits I have made on a pair of articles he has created. Greyjoy talk 07:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Purely promotional/COI account.[173] —DIYeditor (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not an expert on Pankaj Gupta (Investor) but this article looks like a classic example of a LinkedIn profile dressed up as a Wikipedia article. And it wouldn't be surprising to find out who created and wrote most of it.-08:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
    Since every source in the article is about his company, not him, I have redirected his article there. Black Kite (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And since it wasn't IMO quite a legal threat, I have final-warned the editor. Anyone else is welcome to NLT them if they think I've been too lenient. Black Kite (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an edge case in my view, based on the changes in community standards for NLT blocks in recent years. Nowadays, NLT isn't supposed to get invoked unless there's a specific threat that the editor is going to take legal action against another editor. In this case, it's a bit of a conditional threat. Solitaire rock complains that Greyjoy has been editing the information that Solitaire rock contributed, asks to Greyjoy to explain it and asks if it's for personal grudges, asserts that Solitaire rock's contributions are authentic and include proof, and demands Greyjoy give a detailed explanation before Solitaire rock takes legal action.
      On the other hand, I think there are grounds for sanctions for blatant promotional editing. At the very least, a topic ban on Oxxy and all associated persons. One of the contribs Solitaire rock made to the Pankaj Gupta (Investor) appeared to be copied and pasted from an e-mail that was to Solitaire rock, from the article subject himself, and included the e-mail headers... which indicated that Solitaire rock is Sheetal Kapoor, who is another person associated with Oxxy. Note that Solitaire rock created all of the articles here. Considering the Sheetal Kapoor article (before it became a redirect) claimed Kapoor is a "qualified brand evangelist", I think we should be concerned with what's going on in these articles, and trips to AfD should be considered. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oxxy is now deleted (it's an Indian health care company). Before any of this is recreated, it should meet WP:GNG and not be edited by users with a clear conflict of interest.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

    Help. He is constantly deleting my posts. Please someone stop him now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaac Mak (talk • contribs) 08:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    From a brief sample, your contributions were rightly removed from the articles. The only reason I hesitate to use the word 'vandalism' is that they were not actively attempting to make the articles worse. They certainly did not improve them in any way. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The bot is working properly. Your edits, while not actively harmful, were correctly identified as unconstructive. Acroterion (talk) 12:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ummm, who's the LTA who periodically pops up here to complain about Cluebot deleting their posts? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This sleeper wasn't hard to spot.
    It's WikiVandal. I'll open an SPI to check for sleepers. Home Lander (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The CUs/clerks don't believe there's enough behaviorally to run a CU, but see [174]. Pinging above users Beyond My Ken, Acroterion, Only in death. Home Lander (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-stop vandalism from an IP

    Can an admin look into this IP? 94.109.22.116. Lots of vandalism and WP:NOTHERE. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    IP's been blocked. See WP:WARN and use WP:AIV for routine vandalism like this in the future, please. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Gaming, or maybe just failure to comprehend, by User:Dilidor

    I spend a good deal of my editing improving details in articles, i.e. copyediting them, which is encouraged in WP:Copyedit. Some of my changes include adding the missing comma as specified in WP:Copyedit#Punctuation. Almost all of this goes unchallenged. Recently, I copyedited two articles:

    Dilidor (talk · contribs) then reverted both articles, citing "added much misplaced punctuation--other changes were good, just don't insert all those wrong commas" and "again--wrong punctuation" respectively.

    I notified Dilidor of the relevant MOS guideline (above), after which I assumed this would be the end of it, and thus re-reverted, indicating the guideline in the edit summary too ("please see WP:Copyedit#Punctuation"). Dilidor, apparently without reading my notification on his talkpage, at least without reading the guideline, then re-re-reverted, with the ridiculous comment "do not begin a revert war; take it to talk". I just started a discussion on his GD talkpage!

    I then started a discussion on both articles' talkpages, and eventually Dilidor responded on one. From his response ("Your punctuation changes were wrong. I reverted them. What part of this do you wish to discuss?"), it's obvious that he has not understood that part of the MOS, as he claims that those commas are misplaced, when they are in fact required. I asked him to point out the details that he thought was wrong, which he tried to do. I then explained in detail how the guideline applies, even stripping out "extraneous info" (year and state respectively), and adding them back, one at a time, including the commas.

    There was no response, despite pinging. Finally, I asked him on his talkpage if we were now in agreement ("Since you have edited since my last post on Talk:First Continental Congress#Punctuation, and since I last pinged you, can I assume that you have recognized your mistake?"). He responded "I responded to you on the appropriate talk page. Alas, you could not comprehend my point, and I don't have enough interest in this silly debate to rewrite it in words of fewer syllables. So please: assume whatever you like. Elsewhere.".

    Naturally, I assumed that this was his way of admitting that he was wrong, and went ahead re-re-re-reverting both articles. I even thanked him on his talkpage.

    And what happens? He re-re-re-re-reverts both articles ("HandsomeFella engaging in revert war")! And then he has the nerve to template me about unconstructive editing!

    I may have made mistakes in assuming that he realized that he was wrong, and re-reverted too early, but they were honest mistakes. I have now had it with Dilidor's gaming, and am reporting him for disruptive editing.

    HandsomeFella (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Commas are so small, though, HandsomeFella..! But I agree Dilidor's uncooperative demeanour and edit warring aren't really small things. They're convinced they're right and our guidelines are wrong, I discovered here. I've given them a pretty sharp warning, and explained that if they really think so, they need to work to get the guidelines changed, rather than warring with everybody who follows them. Bishonen | talk 16:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC). P.S. Dilidor's talk about 'rewriting in words of fewer syllables', so that you may comprehend, is pretty offensive, too. Bishonen | talk 16:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    • Um, Bish? I don't mean to rush you, but you used the past tense (I've given them a pretty sharp warning"), but I don't see any such warning. Did that get lost in the ether somehow, or are you still crafting the response and I should just shut up and be more patient? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Funny, that, Floq, I was peacefully reading WaPo online (new hobby) and just now caught sight of a Wikipedia tab with unsaved changes. Bah. No, I was all crafted out and thought I had posted the warning. Now I have. The question is, I guess, if I'm careful enough to meddle with tiny stuff like commas. Bishonen | talk 17:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

    South Australian car sales

    Really. Could somebody here keep an eye on (the oddly similar) User:MaddieSmoker and User:NickSmokerAdel? Thanks. (It's past my bedtime.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked both for WP:NOTHERE. The edits they made are a borderline BLP violation to begin with, and it's rather clear sockpuppetry between the accounts. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also User:NickSmokerSA that posted the same thing on the same pages, but hasn't edited since the 8th. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now blocked that account too. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you both, RickinBaltimore and Ed. You've done just what I would have done if I'd been sufficiently awake at the time to think straight. -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Gamblers' Fallacy

    Gamblers' Fallacy: I inserted an additional section dealing with a recently published scholarly article that gives a new statistical view on the fallacy entitled: "When the Fallacy Becomes Rational". The article was published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Gambling Business & Economics and in the Social Science Research Network. Two editors continue to delete my insertion because they disagree with the conclusions of the article and do not consider the journals credible enough. I submit such is not a proper basis for editing what is a new perspective on an old problem and is a violation of Wikepedia's editing guidelines. Readers should be entitled to read the article on their own and reach their own conclusions of agreement or disagreement with its conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valerianodiviacchi (talk • contribs) 14:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    You are discussing a content issue which is not something handled by this forum. I see that you have opened a discussion on the article talk page, which is the correct location for the discussion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    IP address: 114.125.xx.xx

    A user under this IP address range is persistently removing text from List of awards and nominations received by Wanna One despite multiple warnings and a block.[175]

    All the same disruptive editing done by the user these past two days:

    And also another identical one done by a newly registered user:

    114.125.0.0/18 blocked a week. --NeilN talk to me 19:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    For reference, the user on blocked range looks like the indef blocked user Bae Hye Jeong. Blackmane (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing

    User 153.215.42.57 (also logged in as IP user: 153.203.70.40, 153.218.168.168, 153.204.243.107, 153.205.132.229, 153.214.243.10) engaging in disruptive, tendentious editing disrupting good-faith edits and progress toward improving Bowery Electric article. Example here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bowery_Electric&diff=821990166&oldid=821951129 90.254.63.236 (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    153's editing seems pretty constructive. Not sure about yours. --NeilN talk to me 21:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    OP is blocked as a sock of Minimalone. --NeilN talk to me 21:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sosnowiec article fiction

    User:Poeticbent is forcing fiction in article Sosnowiec even though declares knowledge of polish language and should obviously know information from pl.wiki: [181] [182] [183] and other sources: [184], [185], [186]. User:EdJohnston blocked editing of Sosnowiec article exclusively and User:Poeticbent continues forcing fiction: [187] covering it up with minor stylistical changes. Also see talk page: Talk:Sosnowiec#Silesian_Metropolis--83.10.5.144 (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Poeticbent_reported_by_User:83.29.46.96_(Result:_Semi)_<--this_isn't_everything,_see_below --83.10.5.144 (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests. This is a content dispute. --NeilN talk to me 22:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The toxicity of Cassianto and his bullying tactics

    For a while nows, I've been ready a lot of the archived discussion regarding the Great Infobox wars on pages such as Frank Sinatra, Stanley Kubrick, and Mary Shelley, and never in my years in Wikipedia have I seen a user be as consistently aggressive, bullying, dismissive and unprofessional as the anti-infobox Cassianto. I haven't put my pro-infobox sentiment into any of these discussions (because frankly I'm scared of the vitriol he might spew at me) but I'm reporting him on behalf of everyone he's bullied, something has to be done about his behavior. It's not a matter of our disagreement, it's his shocking and abusive behavior during discussion. Full context can be found on the talk page and does not dispute my point.

    Exhibit A: Kubrick

    Some highlights from the Kubrick talk page: "If you're offering the choice, then we'll leave them. Thanks", immediately dismissing a discussion (not that bad on it's own, but indicative. "Enough of this fucking bullshit. I've reported this to WP:AN and have asked that this latest disruptive thread be archived." Cassianto swearing at people because they disagree with him. "idiotbox" Cassianto being dismissive and insulting "I got as far as your first line and then couldn't be bothered to read the rest. The fact you call it a "userbox" suggests to me that everything else you've written is rubbish. Thank you for your contributions; they are invaluable." Cassionto using ad hominem once again "An RfC won't stop anything. Nobody seems to give a flying toss, as proved at AN. ARBCOM need to get their shit together and stop all this disruption." "Thank you, Alex Shih. I think the problem here is the obvious abuse of the "consensus can change" policy by those who cannot stand the idea that people may have differing opinions to them." Cassianto ranting and strawman-ing (hypocritically, in my view)

    Exhibit B: Mary Shelley

    Here's more Cassianto Classics "There was a consensus not to include an infobox in 2010 and Wadewitz, the late author of this fine article, decided she did not want an infobox. Let's not do her the disservice by shoehorning in a rather stupid infobox and making this article look silly and amateurish." Cassianto manipulatively citing somebody's actual death in an infobox discussion, as if those who support them are insulting here memory (I mean seriously... that's messed up.) And while Cassianto often claims people are simply drudging up the infobox argument because of their perosnal feelings of aesthetics, he consistently asserts his own views as relevant:

    • "Visual degradation: The way this infobox squashes the text to the left, particularly on smaller screens, and restrict the sizing of the lead picture."
    • Prefabrication: The prefabricated feel this infobox gives to this article: "here's quick and dirty info if you can't be bothered to read on—the very name of the box" says it all."

    Examples once more of Cassianto being rude and personally insulting, attacking a person not their argument. Pure ad hominem.

    • "Again, your problem. Hardly "work" copy and pasting a bunch of code from one article to another. I suggest you get over yourself."
    • "I'm asserting nothing. I'm telling you they do make articles look childish and amateurish. If you find that insulting, that's your problem." (also once more hypocritically asserting his opinion as relevant while discounting others)
    • "Here's an idea: instead of trying to take ownership of the top, right hand side of this article, go away, buy some books on a subject you find interesting, sit down over the course of a few weeks, and at all times of the day, and write, in your own words, a stunningly beautiful article the likes of which you see here. Oh, and talking of "insults", do you know how insulting it is to spend a small fortune and copious amounts of time writing an article like this only to have a drive by editor come along and force an infobox on it?" Example of Cassianto's practical messiah complex and self-aggrandizement, while implicitly admitting to personally insulting editors

    Exhibit C: Ol' Blue Eyes

    Two examples of Cassianto strawman-ing condescendingly

    • "What, tapping on a collapse button is beyond a readers capabilities?"
    • "So what's the benefit of having a birth and death date next to the, er, birth and death date? Are some readers unable to look left a little bit?"

    "Oh dear, the first sign of someone losing an argument is when they trot out that old chestnut, WP:OWN. Frankly, you're boring Calvin999 and your time is better spent elsewhere." Cassianto being dismissive and rude "I don't see anyone refering [sic] to it as an "idiot box" here. CassiantoTalk 21:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)" Cassianto, in 2016, seemingly agreeing with me that it would be improper to use the term "idiotbox" "Came here tonight with my kids looking for info on Frank Sinatra. First time ever on this article. Was disappointed there is no infobox, as we couldn't quickly get the information we needed. Not interested in reading the entire article when looking for simple stuff like birthday, age, years active, etc. Why in the world would you remove the infobox from someone's page? --Stéphane Charette", a parent on the Sinatra talk page proving a point that Cassianto often claims is moot, that people often want quick and fast info[reply]

      • Proof: The failure of anyone who promotes infoboxes like this to explain how they are read. (Do readers look at them first, before embarking on the lead? Does the existence of infoboxes encourage readers not to absorb the main text? Do readers hop from article to article looking only at infoboxes—an argument I've heard put for retaining blue-carpeted linking practices within infoboxes? Do readers just glance quickly at the infobox and then read the article proper—in which case, what is the relationship between the infobox and the rest, and does the former reduce the impact of the latter through pre-empting basic information that the reader will encounter in the running prose? What functionality is missing when an article does not have an infobox?)

    Further evidence

    The abusive behavior has gone on for years, with examples given in 2016-18, and going as far back as 2012-13

    • "Thankfully I don't share this distorted view and would request that you don't start the same monotonous thread seen on so many articles so many times.".From Talk:Joseph_Grimaldi#Infoboxes

    Ian Fleming (including archives)

    • "Yawn. There are over 5 million articles on WP, and most of those are in need of improvement. Might I suggest investing your efforts on those rather than dragging this bloody argument up again" from [[Talk:Ian Fleming#Infobox?, Cassianto being dismissive and rude
    • "this is how you ping someone, just so you know; your little attempt failed. As for your desire to put a Swan Vesta to yet another a can of Super Unleaded, I think it's pathetic really. I have no desire to discuss this matter with you"
    • "Infoboxes seem to pander to the lowest concentration span." Condescention
    • "Those who are pushing the project to accept this cancer everywhere would do better to put their energy into creating more lists." Describing infobox as cancer, which he does often.
    • "I'm wholly surprised you havent added what his favorite colour was, if he was a fan of marmite or not and when was the last time he caught a bus. That is the kind of complete rubbish an infobox contains. A lot of time and effort has been made by SchroCat who has researched constructed and maintained a full biographical account of this writers life to a very high standard. A person of this standing cannot be summed up in a stupid box which looks thoroughly ugly! This is what I am trying to tell you, it is either a repeat of what is in the lead (which is far more important by the way) or completely redundant as its neither important nor interesting. This kind of minuscule and unintelligible information should not be the first thing a reader sees." Dismissive, strawman-ing, hypocritically emphasizing his aesthetic preferences

    Conclusion (TL;DR)

    This is not about the infoboxes. It's about principle and a constructive and civil editing environment. One instance of someone showing insulting, dismissive, and rude behavior can be a fluke or a moment of hotheadedness, an exception to otherwise normal behavior. But when the I-word is mentioned, this toxic behavior is not Cassianto's exception, it's his rule. For years, more than half a decade (at least, who knows what other evidence of abuse is surely out there) Cassianto has shown a consistent and clear pattern of abusive language, dismissive and ad hominem debate tactics, personal attacks, grandstanding, using strawman arguments, and simply being a rude and unpleasant bully on a what should be a collaborative wiki. I don't know what the solution should be to solve the problem, that's up to you, the admins, but I can't stay quiet any more about the disgusting and disheartening behavior of Cassianto. --Volvlogia (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Post-Diatribe Pow wow

    Volvlogia, you should probably read WP:TLDR. The importance of your message is not proportionate to its length, which is not to diminish the worthyness of what you are posting about. Simply, no one will take the time to read it. John from Idegon (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    John from Idegon, thank you for you message. I altered it slightly to indicate the conclusion as a TL;DR. I wanted to put all the evidence out there to prevent Cassianto from dismissing it out of hand, as he so often does. I'm nervous writing this, I anticipate retribution and/or vitriol based on observed behavior. --Volvlogia (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know your what your objective is in dragging up posts going back to 2012; insinuating that I am causing you "fear"; for reporting me for never actually interacting with you (it was Ian Rose who reverted you on Kubrick), but it's perhaps not a good idea to lay on with a trowel how you feel victimised by me, and then counter my comments with a personal attack by saying things like "that's a first" in response to my shock and awe at such a bullshit report. It does, tend, to undermine your whole argument, somewhat. Nevermind, it won't be long until this closes, so make the most of it. CassiantoTalk 00:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Here's the number of times the two editors have been at the same page and length of time between edits. Sounds like a box crusade as the last edit before this was at Kubrick "(Compromise based off of minimalist Beethoven infobox. He deserves an infobox like almost literally everyone else on the pedia.}" Why not bring in the editor who reverted it and the main editor of the Kubrick article who chose NOT to have an infobox? We hope (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no issue with Ian or the Kubrick editor. Or not having infoboxes in general, besides a simple difference of opinion. Cassianto's toxic rudeness and incivility is my issue. --Volvlogia (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Will someone please remove the copy of this missive from the user's User page? We hope (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Volvlogia On your post here you signed it with John from Idegon's name. Probably a cut and paste error. Please fix it to avoid confusion. MarnetteD|Talk 23:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Volvlogia, there's no reason to fear any editor here. There is no possibility that they can do you any harm. And keep in mind that Wikipedia exists for its editors, not for its readers. Hence the war on infoboxes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't fear personal harm, but he's shown consistent bullying and grandstanding that I don't look forward to. --Volvlogia (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What the fuck! Harm? Fear? What on Earth is going on here? Do you know how fucking offensive it is to even hint that I'm here to do anyone physical harm? CassiantoTalk 00:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They can't even really claim that WP if for the editors, see: WP:RF. --Volvlogia (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    He can't bully you or anyone else. He wins through persistence, counting on draining the energy of the opposition. That's how fanatics work, ya know. Other than that, he has no power. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate that. Luckily, I've been known to be quite persistent as well. --Volvlogia (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Again the first interaction between you both was this ANI report. You've been here long enough to know you can't post material like that on your user page. User:Baseball Bugs- if you'll remove the "fanatic" personal attack, calling yopu a pest. We hope (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    WH posted on my talk page, don't know why he was too scared to say it here, but here's the exchange.

    If you alter my ANI comments again, you'll be at 3RR-Do not alter others' comments. We hope (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

    You are a hypocrite. --Volvlogia (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

    Hypocrisy on so many fronts. --Volvlogia (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Collapsed infobox

    Y'all should adopt my compromise. Go with collapsed infoboxes & all will be fine. GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=822032921"