Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

BrightR

• Tulpa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:BrightR doesn't want to resolve a dispute in a peaceful way. Every time a consensus is attempted, they just roll back the edits, without any proper discussion done. In their rollbacks they apply the tactic of rolling back everything to the latest revision they find acceptable, ignoring any feedback.

While some of their rollbacks might be correct, they do not want to discuss anything, rolling back attempts to remove unverified sources, grammatical and spelling errors. A few attempts were made to discuss this with a third editor, and the issue was escalated to DRN. The user ignored the rules set by mediator and rolled everything back again without any discussion made.

The ignorance and abuse user shows is in clear violation of the Wikipedia:Five pillars#WP:5P4, addressed towards several other editors, at his point. Farcaller (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I can confirm this. I recently became interested in editing the article in question, and had all my edits reverted without explanation. They constantly argue that sources are illegitimate when they aren't, and raise WP:fringe concerns that don't exist. Even going so far as to start a dispute resolution process to prove all us other editors wrong, then declare the process failed when things don't go according to plan. Tulpabug (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi fellas! When making AN/I complaints, it is customary to provide diffs! Let's provide some!

• The dispute started over what I considered POV edits, spending a paragraph emphasizing tulpa practitioners' POV, giving it undue weight.
• A third opinion agreed it was undue weight.

Three (or four?) more editors joined in, adding frivolous sources and using weasel-words to make claims that are not attributable to the provided source:

• Using an undergrad paper published in a predatory journal as a source (see "Uncertain that the journal's predatory" for predatory journal info)
• Presenting an internet survey about the social composition of tulpa practitioner communities as A study on the subject of tulpas conducted in 2015 classified them as "imaginary companions who are said to have achieved full sentience after being conjured through ‘thought-form’ meditative practice". This unattributed claim is indeed quoted verbatim from the survey, however it's still unattributed and, more importantly, the survey itself is not a scientific study on the "classification" of tulpas, it's a survey of the population of some online communities, nor is the quoted material a classification or conclusion made by the study. It's simply an unattributed claim in the introduction.
• Synthesis (read more on Wakefield section)
• Using social media references for original research purposes.

And that doesn't even take into account trying to pass off a work of fiction as a non-fiction autobiography. At first I assumed good faith, but as more and more frivolous edits accumulated, it became clear that there's POV-pushing going on here. Mistaking a work of fiction for non-fiction? Could happen... Using a social network as a reference? Let's link to WP:PRIMARY and move on. Referencing a paper by an undergrad in a predatory journal? Oh well, mistakes happen... Synthesis? Let's link to WP:SYNTHESIS now... Are we done yet? No? Using weasel words to incorporate unattributed information from an online survey, and skew a paragraph or two towards the tulpa practitioners' POV? Not going to assume good faith any more, this is POV-pushing. Bright☀ 19:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

And, specifically addressing Tulpabug's complaints (for which they didn't provide diffs!), the dispute resolution failed because, while it was still going on, the editors reintroduced the references to social media and misattributed claims with weasel words. From the closing comment:

Closed as failed. Participation here is voluntary, and if an editor says that it has failed, it has failed. Resume discussion at the article talk page. Do not edit-war. Do not use unreliable sources such as Reddit and blogs. If discussion at the article talk page is inconclusive, the editors may make one more try at compromise via a request for formal moderation with a more experienced moderator, or may bring any specific issue to the reliable source noticeboard or the neutral point of view noticeboard. Disruptive editing may be reported at WP:ANI or the edit-warring noticeboard, but that will eliminate any possibility of friendly or neutral resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Note that the closer specifically asked not to use social media as sources. When using them as sources failed, one of the editors decided to add them as external links instead. This might be a good place to note that external links are excluded by default, and that the article had issues before with repeated attempts to insert external links to tulpa websites... Bright☀ 19:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

As an added bonus, I'm being told there's consensus to add external links a few seconds after removing them and asking for consensus to be formed... all the while a POV dispute relating to these very links is going on and even being discussed on AN/I. Bright☀ 19:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Almost forgot! I was accused of "shaming a murder victim" because I wrote Must be hard to review "scientific" papers posthumously. Bright☀ 19:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

On prompting by BrightR, I went to the history page only to find the diffs buried behind another literal massive edit war with a fourth editor. There are so many revisions. Edit: format error, sorry. Tulpabug (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• Farcaller and Tulpabug, you need to provide WP:DIFFs to prove your assertions. otherwise this ANI report is going nowhere. You haven't even linked or even named the article(s) in question. Softlavender (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, got sidetracked. I've never done this before. Lots of reading. I'm not the primary editor in this dispute, so I am not familiar with the vast history of POV conflict being engaged here. This: [1]] is the one which took out all my edits, and also several discreet edits by Farcaller. The edit reason is also offensive. article: Tulpa Tulpabug (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to respond to some of what BrightR wrote, as it was presented out of order. First, The moderator of the dispute resolution told us to edit the article. He made a special exemption, saying we should edit boldly, to fix the deficiencies in the article. But explicitly forbade pure reverts. Second, we did so, believing that we were told to do so. Third BrightR did a pure revert, with a rude edit message. Fourth, BrightR declared the dispute resolution a failure. Fifth, the dispute resolution was closed. Tulpabug (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

There was a DRN case at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Tulpa#Usage of references to reddit and social networks which was closed by the moderator as Failed at 16:25 on 22 October. Since that time it appears that User:Seteleechete has been edit warring to add an external link to reddit.com and a link to tulpa.io. It may be time to apply full protection to Tulpa, since people are not waiting for consensus on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The moderator suggested bold editing, to which I responded This will bias the edits completely in the direction of unreliable sources. The mediation has failed. Same when one mediator suggested incorporating the social media sites in external links; consensus should be formed on whether the external links should be added. A suggestion is not the same as a blanket approval, just like not disqualifying a source by WP:PRIMARY doesn't automatically qualify it for inclusion in the article. As for the edit reason being "offensive", it's in bad faith to incorporate disputed material in the middle of a dispute. Stop and wait for a resolution. Bright☀ 08:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I seriously advise you to read things more carefully. Why can't you just follow the rules? The article is being choked to death. I wish everyone would just take a break. Tulpabug (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I reverted synthesis, original research, claims sourced to predatory journals and social media, and POV-pushing. I discuss and cite the relevant policies. Then I get accused that I "never commented on" those changes or that I'm "shaming a murder victim"; the person who added a work of fiction as a biography is accusing me of removing material "without making any proper research themselves"... An IP-address-editor claiming to be you tried to justify using an undergrad paper published in a predatory journal. Seems like I'm playing whack-a-mole; whenever one frivolous source is removed, another is added. When one policy is explained, another is tested. Bright☀ 09:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

My concern rises up from the following issue: the user in question tends to rollback edits disregarding any reasoning on them. E.g. this edit rolled back the change to the first paragraph, that BrightR commented on as being unfit, but also, rolled back other edits that BrightR never comments on: this edit by Tulpabug (no comment was ever given), this edit by myself (previously removed by BrightR as irrelevant, after their editing removed the actual citation), this edit by myself (after thorough discussion in the Talk page and quoting the exact parts of the cited article to show it's irrelevant, and bringing this issue up to DRN, BrightR keeps reverting this edit with no comments), this edit by Tulpabug (again, never commented on). It is impossible to discuss anything with said user as they choose to reply to only those parts of the statements they like, if though I made specific attempt to raise these issues in dedicated sections of talk page.

Another example of blanket rollback can be seen here, including statements coming from a research paper, typographical fixes.

My overall concern with this user is that while they are fast to blame other editors (including myself) in the POV-pushing, their actions fall under the exact same concern. All the recent reverts were done without any proper discussion done in the talk page, and were pushing the article back to the state which they only find acceptable; rolling back not only attempts to add new content (which is discussable), but rolling back existing statements that do not belong to the article, without making any proper research themselves. Farcaller (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

There were reasons given, and the talk page is littered with them:

• Wakefield was removed because of WP:SYNTHESIS, see talk page. Seems incredibly in-bad-faith to claim I "never commented on" that.
• Dalai Lama was also discussed on the talk page, you sure I "never commented on" it? You were part of both discussions; the information is sourced, but, as I said in the talk page you take the words sprul-pa and tulku, which three sources in the article say were translated into "tulpa", and you refuse to acknowledge this. Note that the synthesis isn't done by me, it's by a reliable source cited in the article.
• Moving on, this is unsourced information. See "Original research and POV". Just because that particular piece of unsourced information was never discussed doesn't mean it's inappropriate to remove it. In fact it's the opposite; it's inappropriate to include it. The rest of the edit was exactly the kind of POV that's under discussion, and you should wait for the discussion to conclude.
• Isler is not a reliable source. Discussed on the talk page again and again. It's a paper by an undergrad published in a predatory journal.

So what are we left with? "blanket rollback" of "typographical fixes" that were reverted in the course of removing the Isler paper? I apologize your typographical fixes were removed, however did you notice the large amount of discussion about each and every revert? Your claim that I rollback edits disregarding any reasoning seems to be in very bad faith. Continuing to pursue these changes while they're under discussion is a huge problem. Bright☀ 09:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Look, the issue is not that they weren't discussed. The issue is that the discussions were post-hoc, which is in violation of general guidelines, and you are actively barring us from reimplementing changes to the article that you are unable to give sufficient reason for excluding within those discussions. One editor against several, and somehow the one is getting control of how the article looks and stays. That's the definition of disruptive editing. Tulpabug (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Look, the issue is not that they weren't discussed don't speak for Farcaller, he just said "All the recent reverts were done without any proper discussion done in the talk page." The issue is that the discussions were post-hoc That cuts both ways. You are suggesting that you should have discussed the changes before implementing them. In that case, see WP:BURDEN, the onus for consensus is on including disputed content. you are unable to give sufficient reason For which one? The Isler source? The synthesis? The Dalai Lama? The POV which was agreed on by a third party? The "typographical fixes" which are extremely minor and irrelevant to this discussion? One editor against several - see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Just because the three (four?) of you agree that the Isler paper is fine and dandy, doesn't mean your consensus overrides Wikipedia policy. Additionally no such consensus was reached because you were quick to make bold edits while the mediation process was still going on! Same with the external links, as soon as someone merely suggested they're okay, someone else claimed consensus and pushed them back in the article.

If you want consensus, please wait for the consensus process to be over, before making further changes to the article. Bright☀ 10:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand why the content is disputed. I removed disputed content with the edit you used as an example because it is a controversial claim considered offensive by some and I couldn't keep staring at it in the introductory paragraph. I replaced the controversial claim with a more generic statement. This generic statement contained no controversial claims at all, consisting of generally known facts about the tulpamancy community. I was rather careful to include no extraordinary claims at all. So you removed no disputed content when you did that revert. I can cite all sorts of documents that support the claims made there, because practically all of them state the same thing. Trigger happy editing kills articles. You should have added a citation needed tag if you thought the statement needed support. (edit: oops forgot signature) Tulpabug (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Finally we are getting to specifics. I take it you mean this edit? (Please supply diffs so I can know exactly what you're talking about.) The claim Parallels can be found in the related concepts of spirit possession and multiplicity (psychology) is original research; the other information is exactly the disputed POV information which was removed previously from further down the article. Both were removed, discussed, and before any consensus could be formed you reintroduced them, worded slightly differently. Local consensus cannot "validate" the quoted original research. Broader consensus might suggest the rest is not undue weight, but for the time being, in the middle of a POV/undue-weight dispute, it's in bad faith to restore disputed material. Bright☀ 11:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Unrelated, but I do agree with the original research. The tulpa phenomenon shares much with automatic writing or spirit possession, but this cannot be incorporated into the article without a reliable source. Bright☀ 11:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

You are very hard to argue with. I give you credit, you are a good debater. I was worried about that part, yes. Those are generally accepted claims, but not in most of the sources. I take it back. The earlier sentences were the ones I was confident about. As to the earlier sentences, are you seriously saying that you believe that modern tulpamancers have not formed an internet subculture, the concept has not evolved considerably over time, and that modern practitioners tend to spiritual interpretations of the phenomenon?

Anyhow, I know how the administrators like rules. So I'll just list a blatant rules violation:

"19:29, 22 October 2017‎ BrightR (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,625 bytes) (-111)‎ . . (Undid revision 806551313",

"19:25, 22 October 2017‎ BrightR (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,625 bytes) (-111)‎ . . (Undid revision 806550859",

"18:43, 22 October 2017‎ BrightR (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,625 bytes) (-111)‎ . . (Undid revision 806536404",

"10:26, 22 October 2017‎ BrightR (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,536 bytes) (-3,343)‎ . . (reverting bad faith edits."

This fall foul of the three reverts rule. Tulpabug (talk) 12:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

are you seriously saying that you believe No. I'm saying that the article is in a POV dispute and making bold edits while the issue is being discussed is in bad faith, the same way it's bad faith for reporting me for WP:3RR for reverting the bold edits that were made during the dispute resolution process. Bright☀ 13:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

What. WP:AssumeGoodFaith Tulpabug (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I did. You can see that Farcaller and I were getting along fine despite his unusual edits like treating a work of fiction as non-fiction and using reddit.com and tulpa.io for their original research (twice). After these misapplications and misrepresentations of references, Seteleechete expanded the article in a way that I thought was WP:UNDUE. A third opinion agreed that it's undue weight. After that, when the POV editing and bad-source referencing continued—in particular, CliffracerX and yourself saying I'm "shaming a murder victim" and arguing for the Isler paper despite links showing that the journal is predatory (and Isler being an undergrad); Farcaller introducing their own synthesis; the reintroduction of the POV that was recently found by the third opinion to be WP:UNDUE; and the use of weasel words—I sought mediation, and while both sides were participating in mediation, you and Farcaller reintroduced the bold edits; it's considered in bad faith to restore disputed content while dispute resolution is in progress. Were these all innocent mistakes and misunderstandings? I don't think so. Bright☀ 06:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It also appears that Farcaller's edits were reverted for using self-published sources and social media posts as a reference even before I explained to them that such self-published works cannot be used as a source for those claims. So Farcaller used self-published sources, were reverted by Jeraphine Gryphon with "needs more legit sources", "self-published book", "WP:OR"; Farcaller used self-published sources again, they were reverted and had the issue explained to them in the talk page; Farcaller used self-published sources again, and restored their synthesis, while dispute resolution was in progress. Hardly good-faith edits.

Regardless, I didn't think any of that merits a discussion on AN/I. When mediation failed, I suggested reliable source noticeboard or the neutral point of view noticeboard, because the issue is of reliable sources and undue weight:

• The reddit tulpa sex survey cannot be used as a source
• The reddit tulpa FAQ or tulpa.io FAQ cannot be used as a source
• Isler cannot be used as a source (undergrad paper published in predatory journal)
• Synthesis of several sources cannot be used to make claims that do not appear in the sources
• Weasel words cannot be used to attribute unsourced statements from Veissière's study to the study itself, nor present them as conclusions or assertions made by the study
• Examples in popular culture need sources that discuss why that particular example is important
• Obviously, a work of fiction cannot be referenced as non-fiction
• The article in its current state cannot emphasize any further the tulpa practitioners' view on tulpas. When the article is expanded with more reliable sources, the POV of tulpa practitioners can be expanded upon.

That last point should be discussed on the NPOV noticeboard; the other points really don't need to be discussed, but could, on the RS noticeboard.

Outside of that, there's a dispute on the proper translation of "tulpa" and a wish to split the article on that basis, as well as the removal of reliable sources that connect the concepts in order to support the split. From Mikles, which is cited in the article: Nawang Thokmey, archivist for the University of Virginia Tibetan manuscript collection, elaborated on the equivalence of sprul pa and sprul sku, confirming that both words indicate an enlightened being’s manifestation. While the modern usage of "tulpa" is distinct from the Buddhist usage, in the Buddhist usage there is no distinction between "tulku", "sprul pa", or "nirmanakaya" and they are more or less interchangeable. There are other sources that equivocate those terms with the phrase "emenation body", all of which were translated as "tulpa" by theosophists. The Wikipedia article does not claim that the Dalai Lama is a tulpa in the modern sense, only in the Buddhist sense, and the word "tulpa" was removed at Farcaller's insistence despite being used in that context in a reliable source. It's true that "tulpa" is mostly used in the West while Buddhists use "sprul pa" or "tulku", but that is a semantic difference which is explained in the sources.

These disputes all lead to the same POV, and several of them lead to the reddit tulpa forum (sex survey, FAQ, Isler). The rush to reintroduce them, while the dispute resolution process is ongoing, is suspect. Bright☀ 08:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggest closure as a content dispute, off-topic for this board. Or, if we insist on discussing user conduct, I think the discussion should focus on the users pushing suspect sources, not on BrightR's good work keeping such sources out of the encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It's definitely not a content dispute. I feel BrightR is making it look like a content dispute through guiding the conversation. However: Suggest closure with no action taken. I believe that Farcaller has taken a vacation from the wiki due to stress, as he told me he wanted to. And I cannot provide strong evidence of wrongdoing. Tulpabug (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment. While this stems from a content dispute, the initial complaint by Farcaller is: "User:BrightR doesn't want to resolve a dispute in a peaceful way." Farcaller also complains of:

2) "roll[ing] back the edits without any proper discussion done";

3) "they do not want to discuss anything";

4) "The user ignored the rules set by mediator" (at DRN);

5) "ignorance and abuse"; and

6) "in clear violation of the Wikipedia:Five pillars#WP:5P4".

To which complaint user Tulpabug immediately chimed in with "I can confirm this", and an additional complaint that BrightR was trying "to prove all us other editors wrong".

What is here is not a content dispute, but matters of behavior. And it gets deeper. E.g., Farcaller says the "clear violation" of civility was "addressed towards several other editors." Which, on its face, suggests that the issue is about a single misbehaving editor versus all the other editors. But take a closer look at Tulpabug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). That account was created two days after the DRN was opened; it appears to be either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. CliffracerX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (involved at the DRN) is odd, and though activated two days before the DRN opened, it seems very similar to Tulpabug, and indeed, even Farcaller. All three of those users are effectively single-user accounts (on Tulpa, the DRN, and here). A closer look is very much in order. And action should be taken: to deter bad behavior. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I've got pulled in back in this discussion after being quoted the above statement. As for the original issue we are discussing here, I feel I don't care anymore. I have good faith in that the sources and references that I've provided for the article do have enough credibility to be quoted. I also believe that sources BrightR is using are inappropriate. For one, his quote above saying that "tulpa" and "tulku" are effectively a same thing goes against the primary historical source of the article itself, also "tulku" article has a different definition and is, overall, sourced properly. Still, I don't feel like discussing a neutral point if all my edits are being reverted with no discussion and discussion is sidetracked. I still think that BrightR oversteps his authority in an attempt to enforce their own POV.

As for Tulpabug being a sockpuppet of myself, I won't even discuss that point; while I can confirm that I have discussed the edits with Tulpabug off the wikipedia, I did the same with a bunch of other wiki editors I know. I won't comment on their involvement more than stating that I think it was incorrect and abusive for BrightR to revert simple contextual edits they made to the article in question. Farcaller (talk) 08:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If you had truly quit this discussion then you should have said so, struck your complaint(s), and perhaps apologized for wasting everyone's time. (If you're feeling stressed, as your buddy Tulpabug has related, then perhaps you can feel for BrightR, who has been very patiently dealing with your pettifoggery.) As it is, slinking away when the light is shined on you does not get you a pass on your own behavior, or your associate's. You accused another editor of violating incivility, which is itself incivility.

The timing of Tulpabug's appearance (just after the DNR started) and behavior and pov (mirroring your own) certainly suggests sockpuppetry. While I would accept your denial of that – which, curiously, you have not done – your self-admitted communication with Tulpabug establishes a case for meatpuppetry. That (and other points) shows that you are not here with "clean hands", and all of your comments (here, at the DRN, and on Talk) are thereby questionable. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I was commented on. I was thinking the same thing. My timing of showing up was odd looking. However, I actually showed up a few days before, rather than after the DRN. The claim of sock puppetry is incorrect. However, the claim of meat puppetry actually is not necessarily false. (full disclosure) Some of us shared an offsite chat together, though, I would not call Farcaller's complaining a breach of the canvassing rules. I usually edit anonymously, but it seemed inappropriate as I was invidted to a dispute resolution process.

After having had several days to reflect on this situation, I actually want to retract everything I said about BrightR. I can totally accept that the minor breaches of guidelines were the result of aggravation more than anything else. Sorry. Tulpabug (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

It would greatly clarify matters if you would strike through (not delete!) everything you are retracting. And perhaps add a short explanatory note at the top of this discussion so that anyone reviewing this can see at the start how matters now stand. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I wasted anyone's time, because I still stand by my claim that BrightR's behavior is incorrect. Yet, as they noted, ANI might not be the best place for this particular dispute (I'm not used to sorting out WP dispute politics).

That said, I think I won't interact with BrightR much outside of the scope of one particular article, and I don't have any incentive to work on said article anymore. I hope we won't get into another edit war soon.

"all of your comments are thereby questionable" I stay behind all the points I made here, on DRN, and Talk pages. While I've been discussing this issue with a wider community, I'm not going to take the blame for other people (and definitely not brigading). If you look through the talk page, you can see that I did everything possible to discuss all the raised concerns in a calm and distinct manner, although later BrightR accused me of stalling things due to spreading discussion to numerous sections. I don't believe that it's correct behavior on BrightR side, but that point was already discussed as part of DRN.

"which, curiously, you have not done". I need to note that explicitly? Yes, I don't own Tulpabug's account. Farcaller (talk) 07:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. When there is reasonable showing of a possible problem you do need to address it explicitly. Otherwise there is a distinct sense of trying to avoid the point, which is (at the least) in indication of an unwillingness to resolve the matter.

I do not see that you "did everything possible" to resolve this matter. While the talk page interactions seem (to me at least) fairly calm, the real issue was in the article edit-warring. And here you missed a really important option: just stop. Yes, it is really difficult to let stand what you think are bad edits (and for as little as I know, perhaps they really were "bad" edits), but there is pretty much nothing done in article space that can't be undone. Reverting others' edits just raises the temperature, impairing discussion and delaying resolution. As to "spreading discussion to numerous sections", that is a common problem (even with experienced editors), so BrightR's request that you not do that is quite reasonable (not "incorrect"). And you are pretty thin-skinned to take offense at that.

However, what brings me here is, first, your initial statement that "User:BrightR doesn't want to resolve a dispute in a peaceful way." I find it hard to believe that you actually know what BrightR (or any other editor) really wants. That is your interpretation of his behavior. Likewise with "ignorance and abuse" and "clear violation": you provided no basis for these characterizations. (And likewise for Tulpabug's imputation of trying to "prove all us other editors wrong".) Your assertion of bad behavior or hurt feelings carries very little weight. You need to show (as BrightR kindly demonstrated) actual statements or behavior.

Second, some of your statements here are, well, let's just call them unfortunate. (E.g.: accusing others of a "clear violation" of civility without providing evidence of same, which is itself uncivil.) And of course there is the apparent meatpuppetry, though perhaps this has been mitigated.

You say you are "not used" to this. Yes, that is evident. Perhaps the best outcome for all of this is for you to recognize your inexperience in Wikipedia process and standards, and be less quick to assume you have the right end of the stick. And certainly not blame others for your own missteps.

Interacting with BrightR might actually be good, but only if you are less confrontational, and willing to try embracing what he is trying to tell you. Alternately, you might look for mentoring on how to resolve these kinds of matters. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, late as this post is, I've had this account for about a year, maybe a year and a half at this point, but never used it until recently. I'd been watching the debate between Farcaller & BrightR on how best to handle the article for a while before stepping in, as I'm hoping to see it improved for the average reader - e.g, someone who just wants to know what Modern Tulpas are so they have some idea what, say, a close friend has suddenly started going on about. I believe it's already been stated, but Tulpabug was the IP editor in the discussion, they just made an account when BrightR added them to the Dispute Resolution.

While most of my accusations about BrightR's 4th-pillar violations fall apart if, indeed, his violations were a side-effect of frustration (which has clearly been common in this dispute anyway), I will stand by my accusation that he's not acted in good faith on several occasions.

On at least one occasion, he's seemingly pivoted away from legitimate arguments raised against him; for proof, I'd point to this talk page section, in which Farcaller raises a legitimate concern that BrightR seems to have fabricated a research author's name, and BrightR pivots to accusing Farcaller of using "weasel words", which, far as I can tell, doesn't nullify the argument leveled against him. On another occasion, when I raised concerns about his generally-disrespectful attitude towards Farcaller & co, alongside a few others about his arguments against their edits, he didn't acknowledge his behavioral problems, only defended his arguments.

Furthermore, I will also stand by my accusation that BrightR has not been pushing a neutral point of view, but a "scientific" PoV that he uses to discredit the community, which is...insidious, to say the least. Unfortunately, that same science-centric PoV is shared by a majority of Wikipedians, so it might appear to legitimately be neutral to many of them - I hate to admit it, but if I were a new guy on the sidelines who had no idea what was going on, I'd have probably sided with him, as he does a really good job of LOOKING neutral, even if he's not.

On that note, I'm done reiterating my arguments - I would rather not try and continue participating in this dispute, because, frankly, it's exhausting, and it took me over two days just to find a good time/place/way to respond to the apparent request for comment - I don't wanna deal with this any more, on that front, BrightR wins. My final case is this: Wikipedia disputes are not binary; even though BrightR's arguments against the article/editors are legitimate, it does not automatically nullify arguments leveled against him - if you want to "take action to deter bad behaviour", then you may need to figure out something for BrightR, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CliffracerX (talk • contribs) 09:09, October 28, 2017 (UTC)

• fabricated a research author's name I got the name wrong and fixed it as soon as it was pointed out to me. This is about on par with my "blanket rollback" of "typographical fixes". What is with these accusations?
• pivots There was no pivot; Farcaller said I was "trying to nitpick on [their] grammar". I explained that attributing an unattributed statement to a "classification" in a "study" is weasel-words.
• generally-disrespectful attitude I extended a lot of good will. Note, for example, how another editor reverted with "needs more legit sources", "self-published book", and "WP:OR". They didn't bother discussing anything because these reverts should be uncontroversial and obvious. On the other hand, I went to the trouble to explain every revert in the talk page.
• discredit the community I'm not discrediting the community, I'm discrediting the sources you provided. They cannot be used to make those claims on Wikipedia. With that in mind, having a paragraph or three on the community's view on tulpas amounts to WP:UNDUE in the article's current state.

This is all unrelated to whether tulpas are neurological, spiritual, iatrogenic, an exercise in creative writing, or internet mass hysteria. Bright☀ 13:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Alright, it's on me for not digging deep enough to see that you did fix your mistake - I'll admit I was too quick on the draw for that. Frankly, I'd have still put something in the talk page response for clarification (e.g, "thanks for letting me know, I've fixed it") before targeting Farcaller's issues - without it, it does legitimately read as though you ignored the problems raised, and pivoted straight to accusations of the problem-raiser.

I wasn't referring to your willingness to discuss edits (which you do, thankfully), but rather the tone in which you explained those edits. "sigh. I'll say it again because you missed it the first time" is, simply put, rude. However, I'm willing to let it go now, as I'll take your "too annoyed to edit civilly" response on good faith. At the time, however, it was something I was concerned about, and when I confronted you about it, you did choose not to discuss it - which seemed suspiciously like a pivot.

All that being said, I'm willing to drop my accusations of pivots; there's more info that got buried, and having seen it, I'm willing to let go of the topic, as...frankly, some of it can probably just be traced to blindness on my part, and the general overload of emotions tied up in the topic.

Moving onwards, your actions do seem to suggest wanting to discredit the community (e.g, "Tulpas are a form of imaginary friend"), even if that's not actually your intention. As it stands right now, there's only one sentence I can see with user-friendly info in the entire section; it's currently almost all information on the history of the concept, and on Vessiere's paper, which, while useful, isn't terribly informative to the average reader.

Unfortunately, most editors seem to fall in the "it's mass hysteria" category, likely due to the strong western stigma against plurality at large, and because of it, the acceptable NPoV for the article seems to lean towards "they're just imaginary friends for adults".

All of that being said, I suppose I'm willing to drop the POV issue as well, because it's probably not appropriate for the admin noticeboard; what is or is not neutral is subjective, a matter of opinion, and the admins really don't need to be a part of that. CliffracerX (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

In your last paragraph you have grasped a key aspect of all this: in the end POV is (nearly always) subjective. Which is not to say it can't be resolved, but it takes a more nuanced approach than bashing one another with "facts". And to the extent that the issues at Tulpa are about content (including POV aspects), you are right: not an appropriate topic for this noticeboard.

I think what brought Farcaller here was his frustration boiling over. And I think that the frustration all of you have felt arises from not knowing how to handle conflict. That the three of you have closely aligned and self-reinforcing views practically guarantees a conflict with any differing POV. That the three of you are basically inexperienced and unskilled in the standards and ways of Wikipedia only makes it harder, for yourselves and for the rest of us, to resolve this. All three of you might consider that you are not wholly aware of how frustrating, and even exasperating, your behavior is for more experienced editors. (We've seen too much of it.) This is why I recommend mentoring – it's the quickest way of moving past the kind of stuff you will later find embarassing.

If Farcaller would allow that he may have over-reacted (with regrets), and perhaps Tulpabug would strike-through what he has retracted, I think we could close this as an unfortunate but forgiveable incident. And perhaps you all could strive to be little more accomodating, even forgiving, in working these matters out at Talk:Tupa? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer broadening discussion to reliable source noticeboard or the neutral point of view noticeboard where other editors can explain, for example, why a self-published survey is not a reliable source, or why focusing on how the tulpa community perceives tulpas is WP:UNDUE with the current state of the article. Compare "demonic possession § In the Christian Bible" which I edited: before and after. A demonologist might claim I'm POVing the article and removing the demonologists' perspective. What I see is removing excessive reliance on primary sources, and separating the original research from the information found in the sources. Bright☀ 09:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

More discussion about RS and NPOV is certainly needed, but not, I think, at the level requiring intervention of administrators. (Unless things get out of hand.) I believe the problems (and frustration) here arise from your colleauges blundering about because they are unfamiliar with the principles, standards, process, etc., for which mentoring would be more suitable. To immerse them in a NPOV contest when they don't know the "rules" (like how to use diffs) would be rather unfair (and from their pov, particularly unfair when they can't get satisfaction), and waste a lot of time chasing all over the landscape. By all means continue a discussion, but: not here, and not on the noticeboards. (I suggest Talk:Tulpa, as the substance of your differences is, mostly, related to content.)

And find someone willing to be present as a moderator. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tulpabug: you said that you want "to retract everything I said about BrightR." Actually doing so would help resolve this incident, so once again I suggest: "strike-through" all of the comments you want to retract. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

You are correct. After reading several policy pages and stuff, I had to conclude that although minor policy violations happened, they happened on both sides. Too minor a matter for discussion for the administrator's noticeboard. I want to edit this page in question, at some point in the future, so I'm staying out of this conflict. I don't even know which side has the better ideas for how the article looks yet. As to striking what I wrote, I am not aware of policy or guidelines on that. But I do ask the administrators to close this discussion. Let's return to discussing article content. Tulpabug (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tulpabug: You are involved in "this conflict", with your edits at Tulpa, your participation at the DRN, and your very first words here ("I can confirm [Farcaller's claims]"). And thus you need to be involved in restoring a harmonious working environment at Tulpa.

Where you made comments, in this discussion, that might be deemed "unfortunate" for being unwarranted, uncivil, and even incorrect, and that you have indicated a willingness to retract: you should retract them. Which is done by bracketing them with <s> and </s>, to create: struck-through text being retracted. (This is a standard, well-known Wikipedia practice; see WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL and WP:REDACT for details.) Doing so is a gracious gesture towards healing the relationship with your colleagues; failing to do so would suggest that you don't really mean what you say. And you should retract soon, as once this discussion is closed your remarks will stand as they are. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Farcaller: I hope that by now you have some inkling in how your comments here were inadvisable. (Note that I am saying nothing about the underlying content disputes; I am talking about the mode and form of interaction, etc.) In the interest of proceeding to a productive discussion of the editing at Tulpa, and restoration of a harmonious editing environment, would you care to generally withdraw the claims you have made here? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that BrightR's idea to move this over to the reliable source noticeboard or the neutral point of view noticeboard is good. It makes no sense to continue this on ANI, as I overreacted seeing BrightR's response to BrightR-suggested dispute on DRN. In the light of the discussion made above, I'm withdrawing my claims. Farcaller (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

User RAF910

To the administrator, If you agree, could you please apply the appropriate sanctions to user RAF910 for what I consider non-collaboration, incivility, personal attacks, harassment, supposition and aspersions.

I requested the user assume good faith, stated to the user twice, I consider the user's statements personal attacks and harassments, but they continued.

Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Difference files showing the user statements, please click on the link then read the right side.

1. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles&diff=next&oldid=741118844

"I given you my answer, if you don't like, then find something else to do with your free time".--RAF910 (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)"

1. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ruger_Mini-14&diff=next&oldid=741209444

"I given you my answer, if you don't like, then find something else to do with your free time" RAF910|talk]]) 16:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)"

1. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ruger_Mini-14&diff=next&oldid=742239645

"Who knows, like a Pokémon Go player, maybe you just got caught or carried away in the moment and you don't realize that you've crossed the line."--RAF910|talk 14:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)"

1. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ruger_Mini-14&diff=next&oldid=742344735

my error, a repeat

1. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms&diff=prev&oldid=792120156

… "CuriousMind01 has a habit of endlessly arguing his position, Wikilawyering and ignoring consensus that opposes his position. So, it will most likely be reverted again." RAF910|talk 17:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

"As predicted Curiousmind is ignoring consensus and reverted the changes to the Bushmaster XM15 page, as well as the SIG MCX. He clearly does not care what any of us think, and is pretending that this discussion where an overwhelming majority of his fellow editors disagree with him is meaningless. And as usual, he is trying to intimidate anyone who opposes him by accusing them "personal attack and harassment." " RAF910 Revision as of 11:55, 24 July 2017

1. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms&diff=prev&oldid=804529223

"CuriousMind01 attempting the change the rules in order to override consensus at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council page

My fellow editors CuriousMind01 is at it again this time at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council page, where he is attempting the change the rules in order to override consensus and make the Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms meaningless. So that he can add "Criminal use" sections to as many firearm pages as he can get away with. I encourage my fellow editor to comment there" --RAF910|talk) 16:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

1. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council&diff=next&oldid=804562757

"*OPPOSE CuriousMind01 is a tenacious edit warrior obsessed with adding "Criminal use" sections to firearm articles despite massive opposition. About two months ago he lost a discussion on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms by a 10 to 1 margin. Unfortunately, he has a win at all cost mentality. So, now in typical fashion he's ignoring consensus, forum shopping, wikilawyering, and gaming the system. He even attempted to unilaterally make this change himself, because he believes that silence equals consensus. He will most likely accuse me of personal attacks and harassment again for daring oppose him and pointing at his questionable behavior, a normal intimidation tactic of his. I will inform my fellow Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms members that he attempting to override consensus and make the Project meaningless." --RAF910 (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Another editor comment to the above:

Please don't inject personality-based criticism and supposition/prediction; it's not helpful... See WP:ASPERSIONS. …. SMcCandlish 9 October 2017 (UTC)

User notified https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RAF910&diff=prev&oldid=806595798 CuriousMind01 (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Most of these are a year old. I don't see harassment or personal attacks. I'm curious to hear if RAF910 has anything to offer here. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, could you please see recheck, I showed the text below the above links, which I consider rudeness and false aspersions: like obsession, edit warring, ignoring consensus, wikilayering,forum shopping, etc. The statements are all in the past 13 months. Please allow me several days to respond to the comments below. Many result from levels of consensus and local consensus does not override community consensus. (sorry, add the text lost the numbering) Thank you.CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh...I forgot to mention that he is incredibly argumentative and constantly Wikilawyering. See above statement.--RAF910 (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

This is nothing more than a case of sour grapes. CuriousMind01 is obsessed with adding "Criminal use" sections to Firearms articles, against massive opposition. He is also very upset that I’ve pointed out that he ignoring consensus and that he is continuously forum shopping.

His most recent activity’s, started in July of this year, when he lost a discussion on the “Criminal use” topic at the WikiProject firearms talk page by a 10 to 1 margin. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms&oldid=803378307

On August 15th, he started forum shopping at the WikiProject council talk page with this edit https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Council&type=revision&diff=795679904&oldid=793877524. His intention is to overturn the 10 to 1 consensus against him on the WikiProject firearms talk page.

However, nobody thought enough about it to even respond. So, on September 27th he unilaterally made the change himself, with this edit, https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide&diff=prev&oldid=802568241 which I reverted.

On October 9th he continued forum shopping and started a new and separate RFC discussion at the WikiProject council talk page on the very same subject. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Council&type=revision&diff=804434393&oldid=803706627

He also went forum shopping at the Wikipedia Village pump page with this edit. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=prev&oldid=804435002

Please note, that he is currently losing the RFC discussion at the WikiProject council talk page, again by a 10 to 1 margin.

I am not the only one to question his behavior. Other editors, have also pointed out that CuriousMind01 is ignoring consensus and forum shopping at the WikiProject council talk page discussion.

• ”Oppose this end run around the consensus at the project. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)”
• ”Oppose This is a perfect example of forum shopping. What’s next an appeal to Jimbo? --Limpscash (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)”

CuriousMind01 has an a agenda. If he cannot respect two separate discussions, with 10 to 1 consensuses against him, then he doesn’t belong here. Therefore, I recommend that he be indefinitely blocked. If not, he will waste more of our time on another page.--RAF910 (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• RAF, this is helpful (though please use fewer paragraphs), but we need more, from more editors, to issue a block per NOTHERE or whatever. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• CuriousMinds has battled this issue of including criminal use many times, refusing to accept consensus. Like this RfC result (which had quite a few participants) [2], then again in another discussion at the same article [3]. Continually forum shopping. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:57, 23 October

• If you review User:CuriousMind01 edit history, he seems obsessed with adding "Criminal use" sections to Firearms, Automotive, and other articles. As other editors have noted, he is a very aggressive editor and will endlessly argue his position against overwhelming consensus. I agree with RAF, that he is ignoring consensus and WP:Forum shopping. He is also WP:edit-warring on the Bushmaster XM15 article, with these edits [4][5][6]. He is also Wikilawyering with these edits [7][8], where he basically claims that his fellow editors cannot make changes to the Bushmaster XM15 article. In essence, that he is right and everybody else is wrong. He has launched personal attack with this edit [9]. My experience with User:CuriousMind01 left such a bad taste in my mouth that I stopped editing. Please see "Advice" discussion [10] at User talk:AmaryllisGardener. I also recommend that he be indefinitely blocked.--Limpscash (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Drmies in brief response: I think the comments above may originate from users not knowing some Wikipedia rules.

Like the Recent Example cited above: WikiProjects Firearm project took an internal vote to remove criminal use from gun articles then amended their advice page. I voted no as a violation of WP:NPOV. Then users RAF910 and Limpscash twice tried to delete community/RFC consensus, criminal use text from 2 articles 1, 2, which I and another editor twice restored, trying to explain in edit summaries and project that "local consensus" is not binding.

Having seen wikiprojects incorrectly try to impose their criteria on articles, I thought it would be helpful to add an additional criteria educational example to the Wikiproject "such as" examples, not a rule change. Using proper WP steps, talk page, be bold, RFC, commenters explained my example was not needed, because wikiproject rules already exist, like:

• “WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations, nor can they assert ownership of articles within a specific topic area. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles.”
• "Advice pages: "projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope,". "and that other editors..get no say.."because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay."
• [[Local consensus]] "among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. ...WikiProject advice pages,...have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay."

Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Wait--if all else fails you claim the others don't know policy? :::I did not mean it that way, sorry if the words read that way.

BTW all y'all REALLY need to learn how to do proper indentation and paragraphing--these sections are clear as mud, esp. when editors start citing other editors. Anyway, I wish y'all had pinged me when that proposal came up (and RAF, I see 8 to 2, not 10 to 1--ansh666 was also an "oppose", and I see only 8 "support"s, but that's by the by. Again, anyway, CuriousMind, "Local consensus" etc, sure, but if you're the only one adding some section that others oppose, you're still guilty of editing against consensus. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Drmies it is the opposite, I and another editor were restoring the community+RFC consensus, I was not adding any section, and have never added anything against consensus. My understanding of Wikiprojects policy wording is local consensus is equal to a single editor opinion not a group of persons, and local consensus cannot override community consensus like 2 RFCs, if editors wish to change community consensus, they can through community processes, but not just by an internal wikiproject vote unknown to the community, and then try to change community articles. Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a far more than local consensus. Wikipedia articles about things generally do not center on, or even touch much on, the externalities of their use or abuse. Anmccaff (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thejoebloggsblog behaviour at Port Adelaide Football Club

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

This issue started in September when Thejoebloggsblog removed content added by Jono52795 without an edit summary. There was then a few days of back and forth [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. I came across the issue when Thejoebloggsblog used the edit summary "All necessary information included. No need for a crows fan in 'TripleRoryFan' to start an edit war" (to give a bit of a back story for those who may not know, the Adelaide Football Club and Port Adelaide Football Club are rivals in the league). I felt this was an unnecessary edit summary and not assuming WP:good faith, so I left a comment on Thejoebloggsblog's talk page about assuming good faith. Jono52795 started a discussion at Talk:Port Adelaide Football Club#SANFL presence post AFL entry, which TripleRoryFan joined in but Thejoebloggsblog did not.

Fast forward to yesterday, Thejoebloggsblog removed the content again [17] without an edit summary or any discussion at the talk page. There were then a few attempts to try and get Thejoebloggsblog to discuss the issue at the talk page [18], [19] (with notification at user talk page about edit warring), [20] (with talkback template at user talk page). Attempts to get Thejoebloggsblog to discuss were answered with edit summaries questioning TripleRoryFan and my motives and once again not assuming good faith towards TripleRoryFan with the edit summary "reversing edit of known Crows fan who is starting an edit war. He should be blocked from editing page". Since TripleRoryFan pinged Thejoebloggsblog at the talkpage and used a talkback on the user talkpage, Thejoebloggsblog has continued to edit the section, so I'd say it's pretty safe to say Thejoebloggsblog has ignored this and is not willing to engage in any discussion to try and reach a resolution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Akocsg: Ethnic/nationalistic POV pushing, edit warring and IP-hopping

• Akocsg (talk · contribs) and block log
• Blocked on German Wikipedia [21] (Ethno-POV-Account on a mission)

This user removes the contents which he does not like and replace them with his own personal opinions. He always uses misleading and false edit summaries.

• I mention some of his edits for the comparison:
  • WP:BATTLEGROUND and misrepresentation of sources[22][23]
  • Removing sourced text and replace it with his own POV[24]
  • POV and labeling his edit as minor[25][26]
  • Removing any non-Turkic info which are based on the sources[27][28][29]
  • Disruptive edits like[30]
• The recent issues:
  • Ashina Removed sourced content of article by providing a misleading edit summary,[31] then started edit warring and inserted his personal opinions.[32][33][34]. Then switched to IP-hopping.[35][36] That IP-range is from Germany and since this user was active on German Wikipedia, then I'm sure it's him. IP's edit pattern and edit summaries matches with him too. IP targeted related articles[37][38][39][40][41][42] and finally wrote a personal attack on my talk page.[43]
  • Baghatur Repeated his old way: Removed the content which he does not like and replaced it with a random non-English citation.[44] Then after 2 month, he repeated it again (non-English sources).[45] And this one.[46]

It's a nationalistic mission/quest by him on English Wikipedia just like German Wiki. Is it necessary to provide more evidences? --Wario-Man (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I would first like to state how surprised and astonished I am by this deceptive behaviour of this user. None of his accusations are true whatsoever. If you check his recent repeated edit diff in the article Baghatur you can see how he simply deleted a statement which was provided with three different academic sources. They simply got deleted by him with the excuse that they are not English and hence not reliable! That's cherry-picking. And not constructive behaviour at all.

The very same case can be seen in the article Ashina, where again a poorly written and unsourced passage was improved and corrected by me backed with sources. He simply reverted them all with the accuse that it's POV, which is the main accusation based on the same examples here! The result was that my objection got a result and the passage was finally removed after an input by another neutral user in the talk page. See here: diff2, the adding of sources by me: diff, then he does it himself what I said should be done, deletes the whole passage: diff3. As you can see, what he first accused me of turned out to be right.

And those older edits, which I mostly can't even remember anymore, where mostly backed by sources back then. Most of them are minor edits anyway, and not destructive in any way. They were definitely not POV pushing or a "nationalistic mission" or whatsoever. This user apparently wants to simply get me blocked because of personal reasons, it seems. See the Baghatur article, where sources simply get deleted on his whim... If you check my personal histoy here in the English Wikipedia, you will see that I made at least thousand edits and created/wrote many new articles. Most of them in the field of sports. Based on this fact alone one can see that I am not a POV-pushing User on a mission, like this user wants to make you believe.

But this part of his report is the best. Please do check this out, it's important and shows how he is trying to manipulate you (if he is aware that it's not me):

"...and finally wrote a personal attack on my talk page. 23"

That was made by some totally different user. By this one: User:2003:6:212f:ef43:40f0:fbd0:1966:e577 You can confirm that by checking the history in his talk page. That was not by me! But it is simply reported by him as if it was me. This is a serious accusation!

And that IP user is not me nor does not have anything to do with me. Please do an IP check or whatever is necessary to clarify this case. And as a major part of his accusations are based on that dubious IP account, one can see how this reporting is based on practically no consistent foundation. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller and EdJohnston: Would you (or other admins) please look at this report? 72H has passed and I see no replies from the admins. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Can the admins please make it clear that comments like "What is it with Turks and their extreme nationalism?" are not acceptable - since when is it ok for IP editors to post racist comments on ANI? I'm not involved in this content dispute but a comment that all Turks are extreme nationalists easily fits the dictionary definition of racism, canard, racial stereotyping, etc. If someone wrote "What is it with the Jews and their shystyness" I imagine there would be a round of objections. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the comment in question. To be clear: No, comments like these are not helpful to resolving a discussion and they not acceptable to make. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I would like to point out once again that all the accusations in the passage "the recent issues" of Wario-Man are from that already blocked IP account (2003:6:212f:ef43:40f0:fbd0:1966:e577) mentioned above. They have nothing to do with me. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

StuRat's behaviour on the Reference Desks (again)

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

One recent example of unhelpful answers: [47]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment I've gotta say, the complaint rings true. I only drop in at the ref desk once a year if that. About a month ago I popped in at Ref Desk/Mathematics and sure enough, here's StuRat answering a question (one that should probably not have been answered at all) with complete nonsense on something he obviously knows nothing about [48] – obvious to everyone but him, it seems. [49] EEng 18:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

StuRat's response

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

2) My account statistics: [50]: First edit: 2005-08-05 (so I've been here over 12 years) Live edits: 87,634 (of which something like 70,000 are Ref Desk edits)

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

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

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

3) I believe in a collaborative approach to answering Ref Desk Q's. That is, one response need not be comprehensive. One person may ask for a clarification of the Q, another may suggest a few possible answers, others may look up sources to support or disqualify those answers, etc. If you disagree with a particular answer, say why, and offer sources to support your view, remaining civil at all times. In the end, we often get to the correct answer, with good refs. I may contribute at any of these steps, depending on the Q. BTW, I often contribute refs which others have missed, such as here: [51].

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

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

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

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

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

Resume !voting

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Strong Support--Per TRM and Iridescent.And as Lankiveil says, removing this one editor shouldn't stop us from removing other editors who are problematic at the reference desk.Let the reformation begin with his t-ban!Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 06:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Once you've gotten rid of anybody who's not in the clique, who will you go after then? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
    • @Baseball Bugs:--Are you willing to clarify what you exactly refer to by the use of the word clique?Regards:)And, I am not going after anybody.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
      • The ones who have decided that they own the ref desks. They attack other editors in front of the OP and condemn attempts to rein in BLP violations and the giving out of professional advice. And every few months, they try to get somebody they don't like banned. This is one of those times. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
        • I don't believe any-body who is supporting here believes themselves to be the owner of Ref-Desk.This thread is purely about StuRat's frequently-incompetent-mass-answering at RefDesks.And, please don't post random accusations without corresponding diffs.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
          • That's funny. Well, let's start with Kudpung's attack on StuRat in front of the OP, and your defense of that attack.[52] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
            • Lovely! Any prize(s) for being the owner of the ref-desk? Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
              • Yes. As a ref desk owner, you get to violate the rules. Tell me what Kudpung's shot at StuRat has to do with answering the OP's question. Wait, I'll tell you: Nothing. So how does he get away with it? Because his name isn't StuRat. That's how. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support I was looking into the RefDesk futher after seeing the RFC on closing it when I observed StuRat’s random advice and opinions. I see this is a long term problem, and that he also abuses the refdesk to ask for shopping advice [53]. The fact other editors abuse the ref desk as a forum is not a valid excuse to not deal with a specific user that prolifically posts on topics they know nothing about. Based on the ownership behavior immediately above, we should look at User:Baseball Bugs’s for the next topic ban. Legacypac (talk) 10:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

• I don't know what Legacypac is talking about, although he himself is demonstrating some ownership just within the last hour or two: This, [54] for one; and also this, [55] which was reverted by an admin. I don't own the ref desks by any stretch. I am not part of the clique. When the subject of whether to close the ref desks came up, I gave it a "soft support" on the theory that closing it down would at least remove the recurring scapegoating that goes on there (and here too, at present). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

It should be clear to anyone looking at StuRat’s talk page that there is a problem, but often a problem is brought (inappropriately) to StuRat’s attention in RefDesk mainspace rather than on his talk page, and often his bad answers are simply ignored, so one must go to the RefDesk to really appreciate the scale of the problem. Here’s a recent example of a wild guess that turned out to be wrong [56]. See the hatted portion of full thread for the disruption that it caused.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Actually, I do take advice from others, as I just did here, striking my comments from Baseball Bugs' talk page: [57]. Note that the editor I took the advice from was actually civil, making it far easier to listen. StuRat (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment - The baby is deformed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Diffs are concerning to say the least. The behavior around the ref desks (pointless speculation, disparaging comments, etc.) seem rather out of place when put into the context of the rest of the wiki and the policies which apply to them. Stikkyy t/c 04:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Although I supported closing the reference desks, there is no consensus for that. It is quite clear, though, that there is widespread concern about how the reference desks have been run, and a desire for reform if they are to be kept. A key aspect of reform, in my opinion, is removing all of the highly problematic "regulars" from the reference desks. This discussion has shown a problematic and troubling pattern of behavior from StuRat going back a decade. I actually like the guy and find some of his speculations amusing and thought provoking. But Wikipedia does not need and should not allow speculation. StuRat just doesn't get this, so I have concluded that he should be topic banned from the reference desks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose with reservations I don't want Stu to take this as thinking that I approve of his style on the refdesks in general. As others have noted, he seems to feel compelled to answer almost any question, whether he has anything worthwhile to say about it or not. This can be really pretty annoying. He actually does know quite a lot about a wide range of topics, and if he would limit himself to answering only questions where he does have special expertise, I think he would still get to contribute a fair amount, and would be a genuine asset. It's his signal/noise ratio that's way too low. But that's pretty squishy grounds for a topic ban. --Trovatore (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Reluctant Support at this point, because User:StuRat is just digging himself a hole. I have seen this too many times, where a user was brought to a drama board and made the case against themselves. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • That's why Galileo was banned, he kept digging when the Church said he was wrong. Count Iblis (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support StuRat's behavior in this very thread tells the whole story. EEng 19:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, with no opinion about the duration between a month and indef, as a way to (1) prevent immediate problems and (2) allow constructive editing of WP. If nothing else, for the exchange with yours truly at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2017_April_13#Laser_pointer_reflected_light_harmful_to_eyes_in_close_proximity.3F that starts with Maybe you can tape some red plastic sheets to your safety goggle to reduce the amount of red getting through, where it is no exaggeration to say that their advice could get someone blinded.

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

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

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

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

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

Points of Order

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

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

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

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

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

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

I refuse to believe that you (Medeis) are actually unaware of his issues, but for the benefit of the tape here's a bunch of diffs of him spouting shit of various kinds or talking purely to hear his own voice, taken from dip-sampling his contributions over a randomly-chosen two day period: [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70]. (All from 10–11 October; chosen to be recent enough to demonstrate that this is a current issue, but prior to the recent ANI and VPP threads in case those were either causing him to be on best behavior or to double down on his disruption in order to try to prove some kind of point.) You'll get roughly the same signal-to-noise ratio from his contributions over any random period over the past decade. This isn't a case of a single, unambiguously terrible comment that demands immediate action; this is about the cumulative impact of what's literally a decade of inappropriate comments, incorrect answers, and generally treating Wikipedia as his personal blog. ‑ Iridescent 16:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some examples and diffs

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

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

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

• I'm just going to add this, uncovered by User:Carrite above, which reverts the removal of blatant trolling and shows arrogant ownership of the ref desks = from en editor who regularly hides criticism of his own edits. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• I'm also copying to here the selection of diffs found by User:Iridescent, which cover the single 2-day period of October 10/11 - [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83].

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

• As I mentioned there (and you failed to copy here), diffs with no explanation as to what Wikipedia policy has been violated are meaningless. As for reverting deletions, everyone is allowed to do that, it doesn't imply ownership.
• Now for those listed above:
• 1) The OP contained a suspect assumption, that all servicemen and women attempt to pronounce foreign names correctly. I showed that this is not always the case.
• 2) The mirror test is one way to gauge animal intelligence. Once they had that term, they can use it in their searches to see if it has been applied by researchers to seagulls. The funny aside at the end is in small text, showing it's not meant to be an answer to the Q. I added this after serious answers, including mine, had been supplied, in accordance with Ref Desk policy.
• 3) This was a serious response about how using a PC to time events on that PC may not be as reliable as using an external timer.
• 4) This is an example of how human population growth can affect flying insect numbers. Multiply the effect each person has on flying insect numbers by world population, and the effect may become significant.
• 5) The OP may have started with the assumption that all, or most, Muslims speak Arabic. I corrected that assumption. My point 2, specifically, was repeated by Jayron later in the thread, because it had been hatted by then. I hatted only the part of the discussion that seemed to be leading off into unrelated territory, namely Bible translations.
• 6) You really shouldn't produce a diff as evidence of something when you admit you have no idea what it means. The issue was whether to provide only an analytic answer to a math problem, or also propose the numeric methods solution. While the OP did request the analytic solution, that doesn't mean they wanted to exclude the numeric solution. I asked him after, on his talk page, and he said they had no objection to my answer. As for hatting, this type of attacking other editors doesn't belong on the Ref Desk at all, but I left it there, hatted, precisely so I wouldn't "delete criticism" of myself.
• 7) The crux of my argument was that trying to determine what people's weight should be, based on calorie count alone, is a faulty method. I listed several reason for this, as did others. So, this Q can not be answered. Here's a source from Harvard saying that not all calories are equal: [84]. I'm going to add it the that Ref Desk Q now, too. (Too late, it's already been archived, so I put it on the talk page of the person who requested the source, instead.) BTW, you seem to suffer from the same error as the OP, in assuming that a given caloric intake will inevitable produce a given, stable weight. There's simply no evidence to support this. Weight is based on many factors, and calorie intake is just one among them. To come up with such an answer would require faulty assumptions. See spherical cow. Now some might argue, that if it's unanswerable, it should just be deleted. I disagree. We should explain precisely why it is unanswerable, instead, so the OP learns something. StuRat (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Rather a specific- not to say massy- discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs) 09:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The stable weight of a person's body is based solely on mass/energy in and mass/energy out, regardless of any fad bullshit unless you know how to break the laws of physics (and you have completely misunderstood the science behind that article). And it would have been very easy to provide average expectations of stable weight based on a given daily calorific input and various general levels of output. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC) That's just the type of answer we don't want to give, and if I gave such an answer, people would use it here as a prime example of why I should be blocked. (MASS IN) MINUS (MASS OUT) isn't quite a correct way to calculate current mass, since the initial mass would also need to be considered. But, the Q was about a constant amount of calories in, not mass, so that's all quite irrelevant. Next, if everyone had very similar levels of calorie expenditure each year, then it might be reasonable to assume some average figure. But the calories burned by each person vary dramatically, and even vary with weight (it takes more calories to do many things when obese), so such as assumption is in the spherical cow range of unreliability, and any answer we came up with would be in the wild-assed guess (WAG) range. StuRat (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Oh, come on Stu, you are completely misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I said. I did not say "(MASS IN) MINUS (MASS OUT)". I used "mass/energy", and a steady rate of "mass/energy" in and "mass/energy" out will result in a steady body weight. If in is greater than out, weight will increase until basal metabolic rate increases sufficiently to utilize all of the ingested kcals. Similarly, if out is greater than in then weight will fall until a new equilibrium is reached. And in both cases, we come to reasonably accurate generalizations that form the basis of those weight/kcal calculators. You suggest you are sensitive to the possibility that "if I gave such an answer, people would use it here as a prime example of why I should be blocked" - can you really not deduce from that that when you have no idea what you're talking about you should possibly just shut up? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC) You're still using "mass/energy", as if we somehow need to consider the conversion of mass to energy and vice-versa here. There are no nuclear reactions in the human body having a significant effect on weight, and your use of that term makes it look like you really don't know what you're talking about and should take your own advice. StuRat (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC) No, I'm not talking of nuclear reactions at all, I'm simply including all of the mass and the calorific value of food. Food goes in (it has mass and calorific value), and mass (poo, CO2, liquid waste) comes out and energy is burned. The net result is what changes body weight. As for not knowing what I'm talking about, what is your expertise in the subject? This is not an 'argument from authority' thing, but I do have a BSc in Biochemistry. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC) But, again, this Q has absolutely nothing to do with how much mass is consumed, and you don't seem to understand this simple fact. You could drink a huge mass of water and not gain weight. This is why the OP didn't ask anything about mass consumed. I am rather suspect that you have such a degree, or you should know this. And you stating that your info is more reliable because you have a degree in the field is precisely an argument from authority. StuRat (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Yes, obviously, because you would pee that water out again and the net in/out balance would be zero - duh! But over any studied period, *all* inputs and *all* outputs need to be considered to assess net effect on weight. Please stop embarrassing yourself by exhibiting your ignorance, because it's getting painful to watch - and having said that, I'm going to stop watching and go to bed, good night. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC) One possible way to calculate current mass would be to look at masses in and out, but, again, THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS Q. This Q is about calories in, not mass in or out. StuRat (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Sigh, yes, but the point that you are still failing/refusing to understand is that once a mass in/out equilibrium is established (ie when catabolism matches anabolism), a weight equilibrium will also be established, and it will be reasonably close to what the standard kcal/body weight calculators say - and an answer along those lines would be a reasonably factual answer to give. As an aside, have you looked to see how your performance here is affecting the !voting? You should. And that really is goodnight. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC) But, yet again, this all depends on calories burnt, and the OP provided no way to even estimate this. Thus you are left with a WAG. StuRat (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC) An actual and correct answer would be: E.g. a 25 year old male of 5'10" with a 3800 Calories/day intake could weight about 619.3 pounds taking only the BMR (basal metabolic rate) into account.--TMCk (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Exactly, and other variations could have been offered for folks of different dimensions, ages and activity levels. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC) And how would you justify ignoring all other metabolic processes ? StuRat (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC) FGS! Click on the fucking link and calculate it by yourself.--TMCk (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Then I'd need to make the same highly suspect assumptions you made, or different highly suspect assumptions. Garbage in, garbage out. Just having a button to run a calculation doesn't make the underlying assumptions any more reliable. StuRat (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC) One thousand and one face palms.--TMCk (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Depending on what assumptions were used, you would get wildly different answers, and none of them would be of any use to anyone. This is why neither I, nor the others who responded, attempted such a thing. We understand the futility of trying to provide a numeric answer to such an open-ended Q. StuRat (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Can I ask you what is the basis for your understanding of "metabolic processes"? Do you have any educational qualifications in biochemistry? Any professional experience in such a field? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Actually, no, never mind. All of your answers are unequivocally demonstrating the problems that others are seeing in your misplaced sense of infallibility and your inability or unwillingness to listen - I could not possibly support my case for a topic ban better than you are doing for me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC) (I already wrote my reply before you struck it out.) What about your qualifications ? You are making all sorts of arguments on how that Q can be answered, but do you have any qualifications to do so ? From the quality of your answers, I'd wager the answer is no. But, Wikipedia doesn't actually require any given degrees to contribute to articles, since when they tried such an approach, it failed miserable. I believe the same policy applies at the Ref Desk. StuRat (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC) BSc Biochemistry, MA Philosophy. Yours? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC) See my response above. StuRat (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Ouch, StuRat, that's a boomerang moment. Many of us are qualified beyond standard university degrees, we don't need to prove it to you, because we use articles and links to substantiate our responses. You don't. Your OR is actually what we should be avoiding at the ref desk. Once again I support this motion, and I also support the idea that a few other OR-respondents at the ref desks should be subject to the same sanctions. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Re: (4). Are the Ref Desks somehow exempt from WP:OR? They shouldn't be. - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Certainly not in asides, like that was. You need to be able to distinguish between the main answers and when people just add something amusing at the end. Do none of you ever say anything funny, as an aside, ever ? Typically we use small text to show that this isn't the main answer. StuRat (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC) I could speculate that the more people there are, the more shit we produce, and therefore the more flies there are - but I'm not going to try to answer a factual question by extrapolating from the weight of my own shit and counting how many flies I kill. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC) If you had measured an actual increase in their numbers as a result of, say, using an open sewage ditch, and had a number to report, then you something useful to contribute. Of course, in that case they may have just been drawn from other areas, too, so that doesn't automatically mean their numbers increase, while the flying insects I killed aren't going anywhere, so their numbers definitely went down. StuRat (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC) So you killed 500 bugs, and you think that is in any way statistically significant when according to some there are an estimated 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 insects on the planet? That the biomass of ants alone exceeds that of all the humans that have ever lived? That there are more insects in one square mile of empty field than there are people in the world? (source = quick Google search). Get a grip. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC) First, we aren't concerned with all insects, only the flying kinds. Next, people are very unevenly distributed on the planet, as are insects. So, human populations likely have very little effect on insects populations in unpopulated regions of the Amazon, but major impacts in cites. Since this Q was about people noticing a lack of flying insects, and most people live in cities, that's the most relevant place to look at effects of human activity on flying insect populations. Bees, in particular, seem to be having problems, and not just near cities. See colony collapse disorder. StuRat (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC) "Most people live in cities" - really? When > 70 per cent of India's 1.2bn population are rural and urban does not necessarily mean city etc, I think even that statement might need a source. - Sitush (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC) [85]. (And that's 3 years old, and the world is steadily becoming more urbanized.) StuRat (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A double wammy of inaccuracy by StuRat [86]. Problem #1 Asserting commissioned salespeople are not reliable sources of information is dead wrong. While StuRat appears to think he is an expert on every topic with no evident advanced expertise in most topics, I have extensive experience in several areas. I was a realtor working on commission and I always provided the very best info I could dig up. As a developer I bought hundreds of millions of dollars of real estate, goods and services. Nearly every commissioned salesperson I’ve dealt with provided the best advice and info they could, and the better job they did the more likely I was to order. Problem #2 a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia project pages including the RefDesk. This is typical of his inappropriate posts at RefDesk, and instead of falling into policy he doubles down. Legacypac (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Stay on topic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• So, show some counter-examples.

• I already did, in my response section. Those good answers don't necessarily all reference Wikipedia articles, as some Q's, like finding a math error, don't require refs. But many of them do have good refs. If you want something more recent, we have this: [87]. StuRat (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If there's a small number of things they could mean, we could answer them all. For example, in this Q, they asked about the "largest" snake species, which could either mean longest or heaviest, so I listed both, with sources: [88]. Of course, if each answer is very long, then we probably don't want to take this approach. StuRat (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

StuRat's Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

StuRat

1) will not guess or speculate on the RefDesk.

2) will ensure that his posts are factually correct.

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

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

5) limit his responses to 10 Questions per week.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I tried to make better contributions, like this one: [89] but it's tough, not knowing what the eventual restrictions would be. That does contain some OR, as I do work with the blind. Instead, I've decided to halt my contributions on the Ref Desk proper and strike out my current contributions. (We aren't supposed to delete them, in case others have read and/or responded to them, but this gets the point across that "you need not pay attention to this post".) I'm now thinking you want just links, and no commentary whatsoever, as in here: [90]. StuRat (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

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

So, I think we're up to this:

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

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

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

4) Will ensure that posts are factually correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to appeal?

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Close reverted

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

Someone close this ...

PLEASE!

–EEng

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TBAN scope

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

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

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

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

And what's wrong with "Consult your nutritionist and/or doctor"? That's per guidelines. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Possible copyright violating links issue

I noticed Nemo bis has been inserting many links to zenodo.org e.g.[91] which appears to host user-uploaded copies of journal articles which may be violating publishers' copyright, as it appears to in the link I noticed. In exchanges on their talk page, Nemo bis seems to think there is no problem. Would be grateful if an IPR-savvy colleague could take a look. Alexbrn (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

not OK - WP:COPYLINK violations

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

ok

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

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

Related to the above, but OABOT more broadly

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

I keep finding ELNEVER links being inserted.

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

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

Examples of such policies are

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right, so in the instance mentioned here in the section above, the placement of final-form copies of articles from the journal Bioethics is a copyright violation,[92] and Nemo bis linking to these uploads is a no-no - and the flippant disregard for the issue they show on their use Talk page compounds the problem. Digging a little deeper, it appears WMF Italy may have been encouraging authors into incautious uploads of copyrighted content[93] which might have been at least, unwise. Alexbrn (talk) 07:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Pintoch I don't see that at all. From the blog post I link: "the message thanked them for contributing sources to Wikipedia, presented them with the dilemma of a simple volunteer editor who wants to link an open access copy for all Wikipedia users to see, and asked to check the publication on Dissemin to read more about its legal status and to deposit it." [my bold]. My first check on Dissemin was the bioethics article I mentioned and the record[94] is wrong (or circularly points to the zenodo copy for a kind of copyright-laundering). As to "it is possible that some authors disregarded or misunderstood this" - it takes two to communicate and all I am seeing from the enablers of this problem is arrogant brush offs and protestations it's nothing to do with them. We have a situation where copyright violating links are now in place. What do we do? Does WP take this seriously, or does it just shrug? Alexbrn (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Undeclared COI editor constantly adding their website to article

Maceddy (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Red accounts on econ-related pages

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

• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Shharp
• https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nebere
• https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/James_4
• https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Espe9

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

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

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

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

Investigation into the behaviour of User:Chas._Caltrop

• Chas. Caltrop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm writing to clarify the validity of the edit history of this user User:Chas._Caltrop. This user has a very strange style of editing and interacting with others. Their edit summaries are extremely uniform (mostly "CE; completed the sentence"), they seem to have little use for consensus or civility, and appear to have been re-structuring articles to their liking since April 2016 (they may have been confirmed too early, without developing the proper skills).

They've recently blown up at me personally; pasting as if from another user (on my talk page, and The Frankfurt School talk page). I've discussed and confirmed this with that user here. This strange overreaction by User:Chas._Caltrop appears to be in response to my politely warning them on their talk page that they should form a consensus before making drastic changes to The Frankfurt School page (due to its controversial nature). I believe this editor is attempting to intimidate me, and that their longer term behaviour may be detrimental to Wikipedia's cultivation of long standing content.

At the very least, they've failed to come to terms with WP:TPG, WP:CIVIL or WP:CONSENSUS.

This user has come to my attention due to their edits on the Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory page. Where they've broken the section anchor a few times, at one point had multiple "Cultural Marxism" headings, and would prefer the section contain difficult to decipher sentences like:

Proponents of conspiracy-theory Cultural Marxism claim that the existence of liberal social-ideologies — such as feminism, anti-white racism, and sexualization — are real-world negative consequences of critical-theory, despite such unresolved social problems dating from the 1920s.

...as you can see, they're also including some strange political terms, eg. anti-white racism and claiming it is a liberal social-ideology?

Anyways, their political language and editing style is strange, as is their failure to use talk pages correctly or respect consensus. They seem completely incongruous with Wikipedia's general ethos. I would like to see them banned from further editing The Frankfurt School page, and request they be investigated further (by someone more skilled and responsible than myself) for WP:Tendentious editing. Particularly if they are doing so in partisan 'teams', as this note on their talk page suggests.

Thank you for any help you can render with this strange issue (I've certainly not seen anything like this before). --Jobrot (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

It appears other users have also had simmilar issues: 1, 2, 3. --Jobrot (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: It seems this user has now started causing similar issues on the Critical theory page, edit warring, inserting their subjective viewpoint, and malforming copy (see the edit summaries here: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Critical_theory&action=history). Indeed, on the related talk page they appear to be trying to provoke other users as well.

I suspect this user is very gently trying to vandalize Wikipedia over a long period of time with a somewhat political motive. It's an ongoing problem which has effected multiple users, and who knows how many pages. It will continue on this way without intervention or a remedy of some sort. I personally would ban them for violating WP:VANDALISM, WP:EDITWARRING WP:CIVIL, WP:TPG, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:TEND, but I am not an admin. --Jobrot (talk) 07:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with the articles cited above, but this same user embarked on a fundamental and unconstructive rewrite of McCarthyism, adding 26,000 characters, which is about 6,000 words, without word one on the talk page with the exception of a smarmy response to a note from me on the page. It required considerable time and trouble to undo his general cluelessness, in particular an RfC in which the unanimous verdict was that his rewrite stank. (See this section and the one following it.) He has a complete contempt for other editors, as evidenced by his condescending posts and failure to participate in discussions. He didn't even deign to speak up in favor of his own rewrite. I think that Caltrop is not here to edit constructively but seems to have his own personal vision that he attempts to advance. I recommend a good long hiatus from the project, perhaps permanent, as he is a net negative. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 02:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

he is a net negative. - agreed. A copy editor who introduces obvious mistakes in grammar and flow (whilst claiming to be improving those things), is a very strange phenomena. There's a lot of this sort of thing (the bold text being what Chas. Caltrops introduced): "The critical theory school of thought was established by primarily by..." - "Max Horkheimer said that a theory as critical insofar as it..." ...and then there are the more political edits, such as changing "Concern for social "base and superstructure" is one of the remaining Marxist philosophical concepts in much of contemporary critical theory." to "Despite such intellectual evolution, contemporary critical theory retains the social concerns of Marxist philosophy, with the base and superstructure of society.[4]" (inverting the meaning almost entirely). Also there's the ironically fact they've deleted headings of the Anti-intellectualism article to serve their own politics (removing much of the left liberal perspective).

Still, they've greatly expanded the plot summary of The Turner Diaries! Interesting that they've gone from that, to plying their deletism to left-wing articles and perspectives. --Jobrot (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh wait, my mistake, they're not entirely deletionist, here they've introduced famed libertarian economist Murray Rothbard's opinion as an expert on the socialist Sino-Soviet split. This editor is WP:NOTHERE for the right reasons - and hence needs to be banned permanently. --Jobrot (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring to reinsert promotional linkspam

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

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

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

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

Persistent edit warring and blatant BLP violation

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

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

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

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

Vnonymous

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

Vnonymous

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AnonMoos doesn't have to follow the policies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Hesselp again

This user has been banned from editing Series (mathematics) and its talk page (see [95]. He has formally respected the ban, but has continued his disrupting behavior on several talk pages where series are discussed (WT:WPM#User:Hesselp again and Talk:Cesàro summation#The series corresponding with a given sequence?). I suggest to enforce the ban to everything that is about some kind of series, and to extend the duration of the ban. D.Lazard (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

D. Lazard noticed 'disrupting behavior' on two talk pages: On Talk:Cesàro summation my last edit was on 18 Oct. 2017.
And on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics a new section 'User:Hesselp again' started 15 Oct. 2017. After 10 edits by 6 users, I reacted three times: 22, 24, 30 Oct.
Lacking is any indication of which of this recent edits are seen as disrupting (more disrupting than other edits), and for what reasons. Is it really enough for an extended ban? -- Hesselp (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support- I wasn't involved with the original ban discussion but, having read Hesselp's long-winded ramblings at WT:WPM, I can see that this user's obsessive behaviour will not benefit the encyclopedia but will continue to waste the time of those who do. Hesselp really needs to drop the stick but will never do so voluntarily. Reyk _YO! 18:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Obvious crank is obvious. WP:DENY, etc. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support This is becoming tiresome. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support only here to push his agenda. --Salix alba (talk): 23:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support This is a very circumscribed measure against someone who is no help at all to the project. It seems that in the months since the topic ban started, all of this user's edits have remained on that precise topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support He fails to understand that his competence in the history of mathematics and the pedagogy of mathematics does not compensate for his lack of competence in (the theory of) mathematics. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 10:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Per all of the above. Paul August ☎ 18:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Problematic long-term IP editor

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

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

Some of his problematic edits in the last two weeks: Outright vandalism: [96] Adding wrong and unsourced information: [97] [98] [99] [100] Adding unsourced info: [101] [102] POV pushing: [103] Edit warring: [104]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyvio at E-commerce

Please note this diff: [105] Prior versions contain a copyvio and I'm not sure how far back it goes, the page history is quite messy. Looks like quite a few revisions will need rev-del. Home Lander (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

This could be reverse copyvio: from what I can tell, most of the content was added with this edit in May 2015. An October 2016 version of the page where the claimed copyvio came from had a lorem ipsum as the sole text of the page [106]. The first version of the claimed source that I can find that has the text I can find is in 2017 [107]. I'd like someone else who works in copyright to check my work, but right now, I'm leaning towards this being a copyright violation against Wikipedia contributors. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Group of vandalism accounts

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

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

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

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

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/HS_Produkt_VHS and https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/HS2000

edit war

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

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

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

User:Pekojima on Deaths in 2017

User:Pekojima is a frequent editor of the page Deaths in 2017. When doing so, he/she doesn't always add entries in alphabetical order, despite being warned about this multiple times. Here are some examples: 1. [108] 2. [109] 3. [110] 4. [111] 5. [112]

Also, he/she also has a habit of sometimes adding the next day too early, i.e. before the LINT time passes midnight. Examples: Too early addition of 1 November: [113] (not reverted since I only spotted it after 1 November started) Too early addition of 21 September: [114] Too early addition of 15 September: [115]

The user has been warned on his/her talkpage but doesn't seem to respond. It is similar to a user I reported a couple of weeks ago, with a username of only Chinese characters. --Marbe166 (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Why are you warning him for vandalism if the issue is completely content-related and about alphabetization and timing? I understand that this is becoming a big nuisance for you (and from the looks of it, for quite some time now) and how this can become quite disruptive, but this is not vandalism. I know there may be some communication issues with this user, but leaving him these kinds of warnings isn't going to encourage him to respond or discuss this... especially if earlier attempts have been made before. Have you reached out to him on the article's talk page and started a discussion there? I will note and acknowledge that this user has a history of warnings on their talk page regarding this article that spans back as far as April; they certainly show that this conflict is not recent, and this user has been talked to many times on their talk page. But we should attempt to discuss these matters personally; dropping vandalism warning templates on their talk page for edits that involve content isn't exactly going to evoke a happy dialogue ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

As this is user-specific I took it to the user's talk page. It might not be obvious, but the vandalism warnings were not the first attempts to address the issue, I've always started with a normal message on the talkpage (and explainations in edit summaries when reverting). It's only after recurring mistakes by the same user after my previous addressing of the issue that I have given vandalism warnings, as it then becomes, in my eyes, vandalism. --Marbe166 (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Persistent removal of maintenance templates

User:WyndingHeadland has persisted in removing maintenance templates relating to factually questionable material at the Scots Gaels article (an article of their own creation): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

The article talk page details my attempts to engage on the matter. A "Removal of maintenance template" warning was issued on their talk page and reliable sources for the disputed material was repeatedly requested. The user actively refused to provide RSs, the blanked maintenance tags were restored but immediately blanked again.

(Incidentally, I strongly suspect this user previously edited under another identity, as User:Baglessingazump.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Would appreciate the reading of the talk page, and the edit summaries, and the changing templates. It's a simple case of refusing WP:BRD repeatedly. The user's latter statement is indicative of his aggressive attitude.WyndingHeadland (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Please see previous ANI.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

This article now has a gold lock on the front gate. The discussion on the article's talk page and this discussion here need to come to a resolution. This will hopefully encourage all parties to discuss the disputes and seek consensus. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Per the talk page discussion, WyndingHeadland flatly refuses to discuss the specific points or provide specific citations to support them, so that simply isn't going to happen. They have repeatedly blanked the unresolved maintenance tags; disruptive behaviour which is surely not acceptable. Nobody reading the article can be made aware that the passages are in question or that the discussion even exists. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

My dynamic IP address is blocked from editing

My TMobile smartphone's dynamic IP address is being blocked from editing (as anonymous), for "disruptive behavior" (had to look up what that was) by user Graham87, I don't know when.

The max extent of my edits is typos, and occasionally turning plain text to a hyperlink - so I'm confident I'm not the source of the disruptive behavior.

The pop-up that informed me of that, was not formatted (visible formatting symbols) on my Samsung 7 Android phone (default browser), and doesn't stay up long enough - ideally it would stay up until I clicked OK.

Here's my IP info - I'm editing now by connecting via WiFi (different IP), but I hate to think others will be blocked when they are assigned this address: 66.249.79.90 2607:fb90:2928:e8fe:4d16:35c7:d6bf:cd63

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.198.147 (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Most T-Mobile ranges are blocked as collateral damage from a long-term abuse account. You won't be able to edit from your phone unless you're connected to WiFi. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It's this LTA case. If you create an account, you should still be able to edit. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I changed the block reason to {{rangeblock}}, which gives people a better explanation of why they can't edit and how to request an account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Question

Is it really true that "most T-Mobile ranges are blocked" as mentioned above. ~70 million T-Mobile subscribers are prevented from editing Wikipedia in order to stop one person? Deli nk (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

To my understanding, you can get around an IP range block by registering. Gabriel syme (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

ITN discussion is getting a bit heated

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

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

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

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

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

You're right, the guy's only weapon was a truck[116] - just like they do in Europe. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Gross incivility

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal threat

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

---

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

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

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

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

Spammer, please block now

Shamonioli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) nothing but spam ☆ Bri (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Three were a couple of iffy edits now reverted- but were they really spamming on behalf of the The Motor Ombudsman?! Doesn't seem a partcularly profitable exercise. — fortunavelut luna 14:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not sure if it's a spammer, or just someone who's overly enthusiastic with at least a touch of COI. Anyone want to try to see if there's a solution short of blocking that will work? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverted a couple more of their edits and left a warning; everything's now been undone so we can see where they go from here. Home Lander (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

NPA, unblock conditions @ Patriot Prayer

I’m asking the community to evaluate behaviour of Darkness Shines (D.S. for short) on the article Patriot Prayer and its talk page.

• Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Patriot Prayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The concerns pertain to recent edits by D.S. as part of a disagreement over the article’s lead. D.S. has performed a series of edits, both formatting- and content-related. For background, D.S. posted on TP that changes were “all formatting”: permalink. D.S. defended his removal of sources and changes in wording, while others pointed out this inconsistency; sample comments by other editors: [117] and [118].

For background, the lead was extensively discussed in the past (Cleaning up the lead), with editors specifically rejecting D.S.’s wording: D.S. lead proposal. The lead revisions were thus against consensus. D.S. also stated that revert eliminated “hours of work”, which I do not think is accurate. The lead contains 10 references so I don’t believe it’s possible that converting 10 citations to sfn style takes “hours”. In my post I specifically indicated that I did not touch the formatting changes in the body; see:Lead and body changes. When I asked him to undo his wording changes in the lead, the response was: do it yourself “ffs”.

The WP:NPA comments and uncivil language on the talk page include:

• [119], with edit summary “Fuck you” and post “First you call me a liar and now incompetent, go fuck yourself.”
• [120], post: “I have explained every fucking efit in the sections above, and I will be reverting again, this petty bulkshite has to stop.”

Separately, D.S. performed two reverts in 24 hours on an article under 1RR:

• He'll no, I am not having hours of formating destroyed just change the fucking text you disagree with
• Breaking 1RR, I will not have hours of work reverted out of petty spite, feel free to block me.

The article is currently under full protection, but I have concerns that D.S. would resume similar behaviour when the protection expires. The article was recently discussed at ANI (Violation of unblock civility restriction), with another editor ending up topic banned: Proposal for topic ban. In evaluating the situation, editors had expressed an opinion that D.S. rudeness and frustration were in response to that particular editor. However, I don’t believe this to be the case, as D.S. engages in the same type of behaviour against other contributors, as shown above.

D.S. is currently under restrictions; he explicitly agreed to abide by 1RR and remain civil with other users as conditions of their account block being lifted in May 2017: Unblock request. The civility restriction was as follows: “You agree to remain civil when communicating with other users, and report them or seek WP:3O or WP:DR as needed” (diff for unblock conditions.

The user’s actions have created an atmosphere of hostility at Patriot Prayer. The on-going violations of unblock conditions are also of concern. I’m asking the community to evaluate the situation. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

No strong opinions but by bizarre coincidence I notice a section a couple above has just been closed with Whatever your view on Civility, it has been pretty well established by previous cases that people do not get sanctioned for saying "fuck", so I'm closing this William M. Connolley (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

No strong opinions either, but if you tell a long-term editor that they're incompetent at editing Wikipedia I would not be completely shocked if you got told to "go fuck yourself". I'd be tempted myself. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I watchlisted that page after the previous ANI, and it still seems to me that there is a lot of BAITing going on, as before. Arkon (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

While DS violated the condition of his unblock restrictions, he also seems to be getting subjected to more push back than any other editor would get. His violation ended with a warning, officially. I'm seeing some drive-by reverting being done to his edits, and I see DS trying to discuss every time he gets reverted. No comment on whether or not the edits have consensus, but they do appear to be formatting changes. From what I'm seeing, he's just moving the references around.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 20:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Spam link and user conduct problems

Darius robin (talk · contribs · logs)

This user has been continuously adding external links to JerryRigEverything videos and Android Authority articles to articles without any obvious consensus to do so. Multiple users have approached them about this and the edits are still happening. I have contacted them about this and they basically have ignored it... There are links to everything below. The user also seems to have some issues with edit warring over these links and biting newcomers, all explained below. For full disclosure, I have had previous disagreements with this user (see Talk:iPhone 8 if you are interested, but I admit I was wrong in that and that issue is over). This is a concern over spam links, the user is selectively choosing to add JerryRig and AA links to the bottom of basically every tech article they edit and I'm concerned about bias, spam and the users refusal to listen to other editors. In some situations after "losing" an edit war trying to add links, Darius returned over a month later and added the links again, completely ignoring other users and without trying to gain consensus.

• Nokia 3, 2nd try 6 September adding JerryRig links, reverted then re-added
• Nokia 6 7 September adding JerryRig links
• Nokia 3310 7 September adding JerryRig links
• BlackBerry DTEK 50 7 September adding AA and JerryRig links
• BlackBerry KEYone 6 September adding JerryRig and AA links
• LG G6 7 September adding JerryRig links and AA links, later reverted
• LG G6 13 October re-adding JerryRig links
• Moto G5 7 September adding JerryRig and AA links
• iPhone 1 7 September adding JerryRig

• edit warring on iPhone 1 11 September adding JerryRig
• more iPhone 1 EW adding JerryRig
• some more edit war adding JerryRig

• Essential Phone adding JerryRig, reverted

• Edit war Essential Phone adding JerryRig, reverted
• continuing EW adding JerryRig, reverted
• Essential Phone adding AA about JerryRig, reverted
• Essential Phone AA re-adding a month later after war died down

• COMES BACK to Essential Phone 31 October re-adding AA articles abput JerryRig
• Galaxy S7 8 September adding JerryRig, reverted

• 2nd try Galaxy S7 re-adding JerryRig, reverted again

• Galaxy S6 adding JerryRig and AA, reverted

• 2nd try GS6 re-adding JerryRig and AA, later partially reverted

• Note 8 adding JerryRig links

• Note 8 pt 2 adding AA article links

• LG V30 23 October adding JerryRig links
• LG V30 25 September adding JerryRig links
• Pixel 2 24 October adding JerryRig to main article text
• Moto Z2 adding AA links

Serious edit warring at Galaxy Note 8

Attempt at discussion, 6 September, an editor repeatedly warned Darius against adding external links to JerryRig, Darius ignored and continued to add them.

At Talk:Pixel 2, I brought up the issues of external links being added, at the time not realising the scope and number of links added... This is an expanded version of that complaint.

Darius also seems to have issues with biting newcomers, going straight to a level 4 im warning for a new user who was making test edits and linking incorrectly. Darius made no attempt to explain the issue, instead just reverted the edits with the non-AGF rollback and gave out a level 4 im spam warning, the editor has not edited since. Have approached Darius about this on their talk page where they said they should've used a level 3 as their first warning instead... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

No sources or response to messages

Dimitrije jankovski has created many articles without references and has not responded to messages about this, just continued with the same behaviour. Examples include Diagnosis: Murder (season 8) and Silvia Veleva. I have sent five messages to user talk:Dimitrije jankovski since April but none have been responded to, and I'm not the only editor to have raised these concerns. This editor creates quite a lot of pages. I would like Dimitrije jankovski to stop creating unreferenced articles, add references to the already created unreferenced articles and start responding to messages. Boleyn (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

More Just Dance vandalism (rangeblock needed)

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

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

---

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

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

---

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