Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Repeat topic ban violations by Instaurare

Instaurare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has again violated his topic ban from LGBT-related articles by nominating List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-LGBT hate groups for deletion and this edit. He has previous violated this topic ban, documented here and here. At some point, this topic ban needs to grow some teeth so that Instaurare will stop violating it.- MrX 03:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised you remembered these things from 4-5 years ago, because I didn't. Instaurare (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Bullshit.- MrX 03:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh? Instaurare (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Instaurare: Since the AfD is heading for keep, could you kindly to not comment any further, and file an official appeal for your topic ban at WP:AN, which is still being logged in place? Alex Shih^Talk 04:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I closed the AfD as "no action" since its initiation was improper from the start. Thought SNOW likely would have been the outcome given more time. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Someone violates a topic ban, and, instead of enforcing it, we recommend they file an appeal? That seems... out of place. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that, considering there have been previous violations, and I don't believe that the editor has forgotten about the ban (which is irrelevant anyway), I believe a block is in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but for a topic ban that was placed in 2012 and never officially enforced despite of previous possible violations in 2013 as indicated by the diffs here, I would like to stay put for the next move of this editor. In the meanwhile, pinging @HJ Mitchell: for more information. Alex Shih^Talk 05:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it was never enforced it should be enforced now dammit. --Tarage (talk) 06:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

One can't simply "wait out" an indefinite sanction until people forget about it. At the very least, unless you find out from HJM that the TB has been lifted or has run out, the editor should receive a reminder that it is still in effect, and a stern final warning that any future violation no matter how far in the future from now will be met with a substantial block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Fair enough, final warning has been issued. Alex Shih^Talk 07:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll just leave these here for further evaluation of the behavior patterns of this editor: SPI of NYyankees51 (his account before renaming, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion ("NYyankees has engaged in an exchange that suggests a battlefield mentality"). I don't think a warning is sufficient, but I'd like to see what Harry Mitchell says. Mojoworker (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Harry Mitchell EvergreenFir (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Pinging HJ Mitchell - I don't know if pinging a userpage redirect works; this is his actual account. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much light I can shed. My main involvement was five years ago and I don't think Instaurare and I have spoken recently. A warning and words of advice would have been reasonable in my opinion for the initial complaint since there doesn't seem to have been an upheld complaint since it was enacted, but I can't see any arguing against a block for another violation while the first one is being discussed at ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked - 4 days ago, Instaurare edited Mark Herring, the Virginia Attorney General who famously refused to defend the Virginia Marriage Amendment against same-sex marriage. It is my opinion that this edit falls within the "broadly construed" scope of the topic ban, which has been adequately explained in past discussions (in particular this one) and which Instaurare was warned about by Alex Shih less than two weeks ago (link above). While the edit was constructive, banned means banned, and editing within the scope of the restriction so soon after being both warned and given instructions to appeal is a flagrant violation. It's also neither their first warning, first advice to appeal, nor first violation. The community strongly expressed a desire for Instaurare to stay out of LGBT-related topics on Wikipedia no matter how tangentially related ("broadly construed") and there is no indication here that that sentiment has changed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:POINT violation at Povl Riis

User:Pigsonthewing is repeatedly reverting Povl Riis to a worse version because that version includes his pet template Template:Cite Q, a template which gets references straight from Wikidata instead of using the standard, local referencing.

He is changing from (my version)

Reynolds L A, Tansey E M. (eds) (2007) Medical ethics education in Britain, 1963–93, Wellcome Witnesses to Twentieth Century Medicine, vol. 31. p. 187 London: The Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL.ISBN 978-0-85484-113-4

to this

Lois Reynolds; Tilli Tansey, eds. (2007), Medical Ethics Education in Britain, 1963–1993, Wellcome Witnesses to Twentieth Century Medicine, History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group, p. 187, ISBN 978-0-85484-113-4, Wikidata Q29581753

(both versions have bluelinks and external links in them on the page), despite the fact that the source itself says:

Please cite as : Reynolds L A, Tansey E M. (eds) (2007) Medical Ethics Education in Britain, 1963-1993. Wellcome Witnesses to Twentieth Century Medicine, vol. 31. London: Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL.

Which also matches our standard sourcing systems much closer (e.g. the names of the authors). Apparently my version was "crud"[1].

The only reason why Pigsonthewing keeps reverting this superior cite to an inferior one is to keep his Wikidata template in the article. I started the discussion at the talk page of the article, but instead got reverted again without adressing the actual reasons why I found my version better than his version[2]. Fram (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The POINT editing is wholly Fram's; he only started to disrupt the use of Cite Q - and "repeatedly reverting" as he did so - after calling for its deletion in a tendentious discussion in which we were involved, on opposite sides, and in which he makes his antipathy to including almost anything from Wikidata clear. As my edit upon first reverting him showed, it's possible to do the kind of Wikipedia-over-Wikidata localisation he wants, using that template, and without throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. I now see that he had already been advised in that discussion, by another editor, that ""correct place to raise this discussion is on the talk page of the template", but has not done so. It also seems he's begun stalking my edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I noted at the Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs#UNREADABLE WIKIDATA REFS discussion (which I didn't start) that Povl Riis was an example of where this template gave wrong or problematic results. I corrected this. You then started reverting to your inferior version, while for some reason calling my version "crud". At the talk page discussion as well, you didn't address even one fundamental point about what was wrong with your preferred version, or indicated how mine was inferior. Starting or not starting a discussion about a template at the talk page of that template (only populated by pro-Wikidata editors in the first place) has no bearing on correcting an article. If I had replaced your version without making any improvements, you might have had a point. But reverting three times to re-insert your own inferior version with your own template is clear WP:OWN behaviour.

As for my "stalking" of your edits: I opened your contributions list, to see whether you pulled the same stunt elsewhere as well. I then accidentally misclicked (the diff you added), which I immediately, in the same minute, revertedthe diff you forgot to mention). And that's all there is to my "stalking" of your edits. Fram (talk) 11:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Presumably, WP:CITEVAR also applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. No idea why you would bring this up though, as your version didn't "defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page" but introduced a different style. Fram (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Only one of us has been changing a pre-existing reference from one style to another; it is not me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

...which is not what WP:CITEVAR is about. And which is not what my edit did: I changed an incorrect reference to a correct one, and at the same time made the style for the reader consistent with the other, older references, and with the style preferred by the authors of the source as well. You, on the other hand, not only initially added a reference which was inconsistent with the established style at the article, but which contained errors, but much worse reverted to your version after improvements had been made, only because they didn't match your preference, not because they didn't match the citation style of the article. You should really carefully read WP:CITEVAR before you proceed to us this as your defense. Fram (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Sigh, not Wikidata again? We shouldn't be using anything from there because it is even more like the Wild West than this place. My reading of CITEVAR aligns with that of Fram but I have seen people argue that the point is not which template is used but rather that there is a consistent output, ie: the visuals. - Sitush (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Fram is correct in his interpretation of citevar here. The relevant parts of WP:CITEVAR are: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference" and "it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it" - with the disclaimer I have not verified if this is the case here, I am assuming what Fram says is correct regarding the article's existing style. But this is beside the point however that we should not be deferring to information on wikidata if it needs correcting. No editor on ENWP should be required to visit another project in order to effect changes on a Wikipedia article if it requires improvement. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

No one is or was required to visit Wikidata. Like I said above: "As my edit upon first reverting him showed, it's possible to do the kind of Wikipedia-over-Wikidata localisation he wants, using that template, and without throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. " Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I've just done this to fix a rather ridiculous use of Cite Q at another article. Andy, really, why are you doing this? It didn't even need another source adding to the article - Sitush (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

If I have to add parameters to change the editors' names, change the title, change the link to the pdf, change the journal name, add the volume number, add the page number, and change the publisher's name (assuming all of these are even possible with the current template), then what is the actual use of the cite Q template? Fram (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Wrong venue for that discussion. Simple answer is "it makes re-using an already used citation much easier, the same as any template", but you need to take that to the deletion debate. --RexxS (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

What deletion debate? It appears to be a comment by one user, not an MfD or similar. If you could provide a link to a true deletion debate, that would be great. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

As for the issue at hand, I have a problem with this statement: "No one is or was required to visit Wikidata." What if an external link used in a cite to a Wikidata template goes dead? Then you would be required to go on Wikidata if you want to fix it. All in all, I can't say that I'm thrilled about the existence of this template. How many editors on here are going to have these templates on their watchlists, to ensure that they are not vandalized? It's just my opinion, but I fear that the Wikidata supporters are going to turn the Wikipedia community off with these features, to the point where there will be sniping between supporters of the various sites. Maybe that's what is happening here. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This short article has had several styles of referencing throughout its recent past. Both citation templates and hand-crafted citations have been present throughout most of its history, so there's no place for CITEVAR here. What has happened, though, is that Andy made 17 edits to the article on 26 June 2017, expanding it and increasing the number of sources from 3 to 5, as well as referencing more of the text. I can see no problem with those edits. Then on 12 September 2017, Fram made this edit: edit summary Correct source. What he actually did was replace the citation using {{citeQ}} with a hand crafted citation, accidentally removed the text about Riis' time at Herlev University Hospital, and labelled that as "Correct source". If he had summarised it as reversed forename/surname, one might have some sympathy with his intentions, but to be deliberately obtuse in this way is uncollegial; and to run to ANI over this feeble dispute is distinctly a case of playground mentality. If Fram wants to make the case for having "surname, forename" instead of "forename surname", or for linking to a pdf instead of a webpage, the place for that is on Talk:Povl Riis, where I observe nothing more than posturing instead of rational explanation. One style may well be "worse formatting of the authors" than another, but without a rationale, how can anyone expect to judge? And how on Earth anyone is expected to take seriously a complaint that the publisher's name is wrong, when one version links directly to History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group and the other version is piped to the same article ([[History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group|The Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL]]), is beyond me. --RexxS (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, Rexxs, another Wikidata defender with whom I just happened to have an earlier acruimonious conflict, coming to present his neutral, objective, and especially wrong version of the facts. This was my first edit to that page: I did not "accidentally removed the text about Riis' time at Herlev University Hospital", so please retract that false claim. Furthermore, I did not simply "reversed forename/surname", I corrected the name of the journal and the name of the publisher, and added the volume number.

Thanks for adding the personal attack "playground mentality" though. That you only observe "posturing" at the article talk pags is your problem, I can't help you with your observational skills. "without a rationale, how can anyone expect to judge?" is true. I invite everyone to see who did provide a rationale, and who didn't, at the article talk page. "how on Earth anyone is expected to take seriously a complaint that the publisher's name is wrong[...]": when a publisher or a journal) changes its name, but something is published under the old name, then we should use that name in our referencing as well. It's no coincidence that the actual journal uses that name in its own preferred "please cite this" statement. Again, that such a thing is beyond you can't be helped, but perhaps then leave this discussion to people who can accurately read a diff and can see the actual difference between two versions, instead of knee-jerk reacting. Fram (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

In which you again side-step the fact that the template can be made to display current, past or any other variant names for journal, publisher, article, or - as I have demonstrated - the series. No doubt "that such a thing is beyond you can't be helped, but perhaps then leave this discussion to people who can accurately read a diff and..." who have taken the time to develop and document the template, and who are wiling to work to continue to improve it as new use-cases emerge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It is utterly obscure, Andy. I don't see how it can be used without first going to Wikidata and trying to locate things there. Someone mentioned a deletion discussion above - do you know where it is? I understand the concept of standardisation and centralised templates but it isn't going to be much of a standard if it is going to be adjusted with multiple parameters. - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts too. I wouldn't trust Wikidata further than I can throw it, but we need an answer ... what is the advantage to using it over the standard, reliable, citation format? Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

For a citation that appears in exactly one Wikipedia article in exactly one Wikipedia language, not much advantage. For citations that are used repeatedly across Wikipedia, either by multiple articles or multiple translations of the same article, there is a big advantage in unifying the citation metadata so that corrections or improvements only need to be made in one place rather than piecemeal across the many copies of the citation. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I understand that. It doesn't answer the question and it doesn't resolve the problem. Mistype one digit (even assuming I can find the thing) and I'm citing The Beano rather than the OED. It's a grand idea but it won't work: people often struggle to use the cite templates that we have, and they're nothing like as obscure as q|123456 imported from some distant project that has bugger-all control over what happens there. - Sitush (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Pigsonthe wing, the question was not "can you change the template so that it eventually can do all these things", the question was "could the template, at the time of the editwar, present the reference like it should have done". And if the answer is "yes, by providing extra parameters for autorname, volume, page, publisher, article title, journal title, and correct url", then what is the actual benefit of using this template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 12:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I think there's going to be consensus that swapping templates falls under CITEVAR, though it seems more unclear whether CITEVAR should apply in at least one of the specific examples given. Doesn't seem like it's headed for admin action, though. I went to comment here but realized I was commenting on the underlying content/style/referencing dispute rather than the behavioral issues that are the subject of this thread. IMO it seems like it would be a lot more productive to close this particular thread and start an RfC on use of this template (and/or on the broader concept of "templates which pull citation data from wikidata"). Apologies if I've missed where there was one, but it's obviously contentious, and there are pretty good points on both sides. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

A broad RfC on Wikidata is urgently needed (but hard to set up correctly, "Wikidata: good or bad" is perhaps just too simplistic), but an MfD on this specific template may be warranted as well. Fram (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The MfD on the template is just a fait accompli where a small number of wikidata haters can destroy the possibility to use wikidata without a broader RfC. Such RfC will need to look at wider implications. For example do we want to keep our articles updated? Maybe not, as certainly we do not have the manpower to keep articles about subjects that are not located in the english-speaking realm up-to-date, while there are enaugh editors on the x-language edition of wikipedia who already do the the job there very well, and we would only need to piggyback on their efforts. Agathoclea (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Let me give a stern reminder that accusations of personal behavior that lack evidence are considered personal attacks, and this is definitely happening up above. Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Further pointy behaviour by Pigsonthewing

Long list of diffs between Fram and Andy

Pigsonthewing has now found it necessary to thrice redact a comment I made [3][4][5], despite my clear indication that this is not wanted after the first[6] and second time[7]. Due to the many small edits Pigsonthewing made, my second revert resulted in an edit conflict, which I indicated on the page. Pigsonthewing not only saw fit to warn me about being blocked on my talk page, but also removed my comment in retaliation as well. Can someone please put a stop to this behaviour. Fram (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC) It did not simply result in "an edit conflict", you removed one of my comments entirely, along with part of a second, for which I duly and correctly warned you that repeating such behaviour may lead to a block. Your response used the edit summary "Hahaha", so presumably you think such behaviour is funny. Your later edit summary F off, involves less humour. The third of my edits, quoted by you above, was a straightforward revert of that unacceptable removal. And your comment was not "redacted", its content was completely unchanged. I merely fixed the malformed list formatting, as I have already explained to you, which is explicitly acceptable under WP:TALKO: "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments... fixing list markup" (Although I wrote some of that, it's been in there for years, so clearly has community acceptance). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC) "F off" for an edit that removed a stray "f"[8]? Seems funny to me. And since when is using multiple paragraphs in a response a "list"? "Fixing list markup" is not changing a multi-paragraph response with a line break and a ":" to indicate the start of a new paragraph, with "br" which make the text much harder to edit. "The third of my edits, quoted by you above, was a straightforward revert of that unacceptable removal" and removed text added by me as well, so how is it any better? I'm not permitted to restore my text after you have twice changed it, but you are permitted to restore your text? Anyway, from WP:TALKO, "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection.". You edited, I asked you to stop, but you continued nevertheless. Doing this in general is frowned upon, doing this with someone you are already in conflict with is deliberate provocation. Fram (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC) "since when is using multiple paragraphs in a response a "list"?" Since MediaWIki started using : for marking up definition list items. I may be wrong (having only been around here since 2003), but I think that was 2002. HTH. And paragaphs are marked up with <P>, or by leaving a blank line. Again HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Meanwhile it is Fram who continues WP:POINTy behaviour, removing another instance of Cite Q, which displayed the source's correct date of publication (2002) and ISBN (9780415266062), per the publisher's own web page, claiming to "correct date and ISBN". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC) I invite everyone to compare the version by Pigsonthewing with my version. Make sure to follow the link to check the ISBN and date given there. If you link to a specific version of a book, it is best practice to use the same isbn and date of publication. Linking to one version (the 2003 e-book) which has one ISBN, while using the date and ISBN from another version (the printed book) is best avoided. There is nothing WP:POINTY in correcting such issues, but reverting to a worse version, like you did here (just like in the article which started this report) is indeed WP:POINT violating. I hoped that the fact that your edit there got reverted after my report here, and the fact that you got little to no support for your defenses (like incorrectly invoking CITEVAR) would have made you more cautious, but apparently not. Fram (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Fram is now edit warring at Moksha (Jainism). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Perhaps you can explain how your version, which had a.o. a link to a version of the book from a different year and with a different ISBN than the one template cite Q showed, is better than mine where this was corrected? (And of course, it takes at least two people to edit war). Fram (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC) I have edited the article precisely once; you have made the same edit, twice. Who, other than you, is edit warring? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC) You reverted, I rereverted. Mine improved, yours made worse. Anyway, from WP:EDITWAR: "An edit war (About this sound listen (help·info)) occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." and "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring". We have both overridden each other's contributions only once, we have both restored our preferred version only once, so technically no edit warring even happened here. So, again, before you make accusations, first read and understand the policy or guideline you are invoking. And before you do even that much, first see whether you are actually improving the result for our readers, or whether the edit you oppose is actually better. In both cases (the one that started this discussion, and this one), the version you reverted to was demonstrably worse (in content and layout) than the one you objected against. Fram (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Further examination shows Fram's claims in defence of his edits to Moksha (Jainism) to be false. The work linked to - as https://books.google.co.in/books?id=X8iAAgAAQBAJ - is not, as he claims, the eBook, but a digital copy of the 2002 paper edition carrying on its copyright page (unnumbered, but indexed as page iv by Google]) the ISBN (for the paperback) used by Cite Q (and that for the hardback - it's common practice for such works to be printed as one, and simply bound in different covers), but not the one inserted in his edit, that of the eBook. The version linked to by Cite Q also says, again on its copyright page "This edition published 2002 by Routledge", whereas the eBook was indeed published in 2003. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Cease and desist

ENOUGH. Fram and Andy, I respect you both, but your conduct here is not making either of your cases better. It was painfully obvious that you had a conflict after the first few posts, and continually bickering is pointless. I highly suggest that you a) cease changing/reverting/reversing each other's edits, and b) stop posting on this thread, until such time as allows for uninvolved editors to actually weigh in on the matter (i.e. "knock it off, both of you"). There is plenty of evidence for a decision of some manner to be made, and further back-and-forth is likely going to border on disruptive editing. Primefac (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hiding the evidence of the above section as "Pointless back-and-forth bickering between Fram and Andy" is not really helping though, it is not really a text inviting anyway to take a look at the repeated problematic behaviour by Pigsonthewing. Plus; in the first section he tried to invoke "citevar" as justification, only to get told by, well, everyone that citevar didn't support his position. Now he's trying the same with "editwar". Responding to such allegations may seem like "pointless back-and-forth bickering" to you, but spelling out the actual policy or guideline in reply to incorrect accusations seems hardly pointless to me. Fram (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Your point regarding my {{cot}} is noted, and I have amended the notice. My point is still valid, however - we all know there's an issue. Let us actually discuss it without either of you making it worse. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Fram (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Cite Q template deletion discussion

See: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_15#Template:Cite_Q

Multiple people above have asked if there is a deletion discussion. I'll provide an unbiased ping everyone in this discussion: User:Pigsonthewing User:Fram User:Sitush User:RexxS User:Only in death User:Giants2008 User:Black Kite User:David Eppstein User:Rhododendrites User:Agathoclea User:Nyttend Alsee (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I had a slow edit conflict with user:Primefac. Adding ping to avoid any appearance that I left them out of the pings above. Alsee (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Rockypedia

Comments include, "Why are you lying about that?" here; "your lies", "Your main motivation in this RfC ...", "If you had the balls to admit why you're really pushing this ...", all found in talk page here. Rockypedia has now said "So I'm going to bow out now and let someone else handle your lies ..." but I thought if someone in authority talkted to him it might do some good.

Context is a section in 2017 Berkeley protests about a lefty demonstrator woman who was punched out by a neo-nazi leader, whose supporters (the neo-nazi's) then doxxed her and revealed very personal information about her. Rockypedia seems to think I am in league with her right-wing supporters. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

BoogaLouie (talk) has persisted for the past few weeks in trying to add the name of a woman doxxed by white supremacists to the Berkeley protests article. Those edits are clear evidence that he's pushing a POV found only on alt-right and white supremacist blogs and forums, all while he feigns innocence and claims he's just trying to add relevant information to the article, even though numerous editors have warned him about his behavior. Per WP:DUCK, I make no apologies about clearly stating, in his latest attempt (an RfC), what his real motivations are, and I want everyone that sees his RfC to know it. There's no room here for insinuating good faith while his real objective is exactly the same as those of the white nationalists and white supremacists that have already doxxed that woman all over the Internet. That's all I have to say. Rockypedia (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure even if I am all these bad things it doesn't excuse personal attacks, but I will explain my case anyway:

While it is true I did include citations (I think 2) from sites doxxing her (my edit said that the sites were doxxing her and the cites were sources. None the personal information from the sites was included in my edit of the article), that I reverted a deletion of my edit once and the edit included her name and the cites, and that I got no support from editors in the talk page — some of these other claims are delusional. I am not attempting to push some alt-right and white supremacist POV, but pointing out that Snopes found their claims false. The woman's name can be found in a number of WP:RS sources. In any case I am doing a RfC on the issue of including her name and will abide by the results. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment Regardless of any rights or wrongs of this case, it does need to be stated that Rockypedia does not have a good history on Wikipedia. Reference should be made to his obscene comments to edits on the Ted Bundy article and his "contribution" history, some of which are correct - but made in entirely the wrong manner. Let's please contribute and comment constructively. David J Johnson (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a drive-by WP:BATTLEGROUND edit by David J Johnson. Notice that he's never edited the Berkeley protest article, but is apparently stalking me in retaliation for two RfC's that I started after he edit-warred on the Ted Bundy article. Note also that both RfC's did not come out the way he wanted them to, and he's apparently now seeking revenge by weighing in here in an attempt to smear me. Rockypedia (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

"an attempt to smear me" — now see, this is the problem. Personal attacks. They're not allowed in wikipedia. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

My contribution here was simply to alert the community to Rockypedia's previous attitude when "contributing" to the encyclopedia. I believe the WP:BATTLEGROUND tag is more appropriate to Rockypedia's history. Nor have I engaged in "edit warring". As for the accusation of "stalking", I have more important tasks than that, it is just that this page is on my personal Watchlist. This users comment is another of his(?) personal attacks on other editors. I have no further comment to make. David J Johnson (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Rockypedia: WP:DUCK is about behavioral evidence in sock puppetry cases. It doesn't give you the right to call someone a liar. If you think someone is behaving disruptively, file a complaint here (with evidence in the form of diffs). @BoogaLouie: don't link to attack sites. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • To further add to that second point: just because something is in WP:RS doesn't mean that we should include it, especially if it's something like the name of a private citizen who was doxxed. My take on BLP here is to use common sense and err on the side of non-inclusion. ansh666 21:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

So WP:DUCK only applies to sockpuppets, fine. What policy would you cite after you saw these edits? Five of them had to be redacted by admins - five! - and in this RfC, BoogaLouie is attempting to add the exact same information that was redacted, information that is currently only propogated by white supremacist blogs and forums. You tell me - what do you make of that? Does that look like editing in good faith to you? Rockypedia (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

This is not about personal attacks but I think I better defend myself:

• "Five of them had to be redacted by admins".

I made an edit, cleaned it up it, it was deleted. Made my case in the talk page and restored my edit, that was deleted (that's 3 redacted edits). On the talk page I think I added a proposed revision but I can't remember and now it's scrubbed. But in the two talk page edits I agreed to not include the cites attacking the unnamed woman that were in my earlier edits. (see here where I say: "While I think the two "unusable sources" that Grayfell opposes are legit , I propose eliminating them but leaving snopes, cbs, ny times and mother jones citations about the antifa girl." It's dated about the same time (around 23:00, 23 August 2017) as the scrubbed edits. The "unusable sources" are the rightwing sites attacking the antifa girl that -- I thought -- were legit as use for sources demonstrating that the antifa girl was being doxxed.) Why were these scrubbed? They mentioned the woman's name.

• "BoogaLouie is attempting to add the exact same information that was redacted, information that is currently only propogated by white supremacist blogs and forums",

this is simply not true! See for yourself in my RfC here. I include the white supremecist claim only along with the scopes article that rates it "not true". I have explained it to Rockypedia several times. such as here down the page a bunch of lines (".... I would further ask you how including the fact checking that debunks his defenders' claim that he was preventing the unnamed woman from throwing a deadly weapon would hurt the unnamed woman or help him in any way????")

IMHO I feel I have no choice but to keep replying to these accusations (which along with being untrue essentially accuse me of lying in the aid of neo-nazis) and it boarders on harassment. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

"along with being untrue" ?? Those edits were redacted because the woman's name was in them. You started an RfC with the purpose of adding the woman's name. You have a strange definition of "untrue". Rockypedia (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

This was "information that is currently only propogated by white supremacist blogs and forums"? The woman has given interviews and talked to New York Times, Mother Jones where her name was used. Here name is not "currently only propogated by white supremacist blogs and forums". This is what I mean by untrue. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a another distortion of the truth (also sometimes known as a "lie") - You know full well that those sources were discussed, and none of them talked about the context that you were trying to add; ie that Nathan Domigo punched a woman carrying an explosive in a bottle, which absolutely is only propogated by white supremacist blogs and forums. But we're going in circles; this was explained to you on the article talk page, multiple times, that's why your edits were redacted, and yet you still continue to press your POV-based edits with the current RfC. Rockypedia (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Further context BoogaLouie's doxxing-attempt RfC is currently running at 9 editors opposed to it, and 2 for it (including BoogaLouie himself). To quote Grayfell's excellent point in that RfC, "Your stated goal is exactly opposite to the end result of your actions, regardless of your true intentions." He's much more measured (and a lot smarter) than I am; regardless, I speak plainly and accurately when I describe what BoogaLouie is trying to do, and I'm basically saying the same thing, with less tact. Sorry for being so direct. Rockypedia (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Grayfell agrees with you. There's just the little matter of explaining how including the results of scopes fact checking would be bring an "end result" "exactly opposite" of my "stated goal". It makes no sense.--BoogaLouie (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, allow me to clarify:

Shoehorning in this Snopes article would be drawing attention to a flimsy theory fiercely championed by WP:FRINGE outlets, and tepidly rejected by everyone else. If BoogaLouie's intention is to debunk this theory, their actions significantly inflate its relative importance by drawing attention to a minor incident which led to sustained harassment. What, exactly, is this supposed to accomplish in an article about a series of protests in Berkeley, California? Playing WP:CIVILPOV games doesn't change that this is functionally abetting harassment.

I don't accept that BoogaLouie doesn't understand this, especially since multiple editors have spent weeks trying to explain it to them. It doesn't really matter, though. The end result is the same: BoogaLouie is attempting to draw dramatically more attention to a person who has been the target of a coordinated harassment campaign. This campaign started because she was punched by a white nationalist. The extremely unreliable attack sources BoogaLouie originally tried to add demonstrate a serious lapse in judgement to the point of undermining good faith. Grayfell (talk) 03:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:CIVILPOV, drawing attention to a flimsy theory fiercely championed by WP:FRINGE, making a serious lapse in judgement to the point of undermining good faith, ignoring the wisdom of multiple editors, playing stupid in the service of Nazis, etc. This has gotten way past complaining about a personal attack and is now a defense against charges of calculated dishonesty and Neo-Nazi sympathies. So would my proposed edit addition to the article have abetted harassment by drawing "attention to a flimsy theory"? or undermined it? Read it below and decide for yourself.

The proposed edit is similar to what I originally added to the article and the whole idea was recently voted down as a RfC. I think the no votes were in error but I'm not going to contest the decision. Now I'm just trying to defend my reputation against Grayfell and Rockpedia.

(note: the proposed edit adds to this April 15 section of 2017 Berkeley protests - article. Only two paragraphs -- "Within a short time after ..." and "Supporters of Nathan Damigo ..." -- posted below are proposed additions, the rest are already in the article)

During the event, Nathan Damigo—a 30-year-old California State University, Stanislaus student and the founder of the white supremacist group Identity Evropa—punched a woman in the face (later identified as[name deleted]) and then ran into the crowd. The attack was captured on video and prompted calls for Damigo's arrest or expulsion.

Within a short time after the attack [name deleted] was "doxxed" by supporters of Damigo and the rally who sent "more than 1,500" harassing or threatening messages to her and publicized her home address and her parents contact information.

Supporters of Nathan Damigo accused her of "holding an explosive device made from a glass bottle" and maintain Damigo prevented her from throwing it when she was punched, however Snopes factchecking site found [name deleted] was not arrested over the incident, that observers found no M80s being stuffed inside glass bottles at the rally, and that [name deleted]'s hands were empty at the time she was punched by Damigo in the publicized images, and no indication of anything in a bottle [name deleted] was holding when Damigo punched her earlier in the melee.

Cal State Stanislaus stated that that they would investigate Damigo.

References

Inclusion of this much on the incident in question strikes me as uncalled for and tangential. It seems kind of shoehorning in WP:BLP1E in to a more notable article. Inclusion of the name of the woman in question strikes me as vile. Dumuzid (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Rockypedia: Please read, understand and consider WP:AGF; @BoogaLouie: Please read, understand and consider WP:UNDUE. Paul August ☎ 18:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Articles copied from Wikia

I've been dealing with a certain sockmaster, Ctway, for a few years now. To give a brief summary, they create tons of low-quality, poorly sourced, and factually suspect articles about firearms and sometimes other military equipment. During the most recent round of emptying the sock drawer and AfDing their creations, Icewhiz found that several articles that I'd nominated were copied from a Wikia wiki. Investigating further, I found that Ctway's articles were often (but not always) created or greatly expanded by a user there named Cutaway (CuTaWAY) and then copied over nearly exactly (excluding images, which I now realize are often added as hyperlinks instead of a gallery) - or occasionally the other way around. For example, BSA Autorifle was worked on by Cutaway in 2016, then copied over verbatim to BSA Autorifle in one edit this year by a Ctway sock. I did a bit more digging, and the second article I looked at (Union Automatic Revolver) from the original sock report was created the same day on both wikis, with identical content: en-wiki and guns.wikia on 12 August 2010. Given that Cutaway was created on guns.wikia in 2008 and the first account mentioned in the SPI was created in 2009 though not blocked/confirmed for lack of CU data, the issues probably go back at least that far (and now I'm marvelling at how coincidental it is that Ctway was the account that the SPI was filed under, and wondering if the filer who is sadly now inactive knew about all of this at the time). Cutaway also has a comment on their Message Wall (aka talk page) from a guns.wikia admin reminding them to not copy articles from Wikipedia; that admin seems to have an active account here as well, Grunty89, so I'll invite him to comment too. It would probably also be nice if there was a way for Cutaway to participate in this discussion, but they probably don't have an active sock yet after the last batch was whacked, so meh.

So, after all that, the question is: is copying content from Wikia, which I believe shares the same CC-by-SA 3.0 license with Wikipedia, okay, or should it be treated as any other copyvio? Some of it seems to be copying their own work between wikis, so there isn't necessarily even an issue regarding maintaining attribution, but at the same time many of them have other contributors on Wikia or here. I wouldn't want to have to go through the probably thousands of articles these socks have created looking for possible copyvio to delete, but I feel like it may unfortunately be necessary. ansh666 08:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

My personal understanding is that it is kosher to copy/replicate one's own work (as the creator retains the copyright), but not kosher to copy someone else's (even on-wiki - you need a copy-right edit summary when copying substantial amounts of text between on-wiki articles). How you go about proving the sock's instance on Wikipedia is the same as on Wikia (though circumstantial evidence would seem to imply this at least for some of these copies) - is a different matter. Note that in some instances, e.g. BSA Autorifle - other users (in this case AugFC in 2015) - worked on the article in addition to Cutaway (so in this case, it is possibly a copyvio regarding content from AugFC if text survived). I do however, believe, that if it CC-by-SA-3.0 we don't have to blank - just attribute (e.g. dummy edit) - but not 100% sure.Icewhiz (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I think if you are not sure then it could be better to discuss at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

My fairly uninformed understanding is that if Wikia shares the same license as Wikipedia, then it's okay to copy as long as the original contribution is attributed, which can be done after the fact with a template on the article's talk page. Essentially follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Copying from other Wikimedia projects, except you'll probably have to replace any attribution templates with a simple link to the source edit on the Wikia project. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

What I normally do is add a blurb at the bottom like this example: Content in this article was copied from Simba the King Lion at Mondo World Wikia, which is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 (Unported) (CC-BY-SA 3.0) license. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hrm...that's good to know, though the thought of going through the hundreds if not thousands of these articles is...terrifying, to say the least. Though at least I think we've now found a potentially permanent point of contact with them; communication in the past has been fairly difficult because they tend to use so many throwaways. ansh666 09:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Can someone explain why it's not sufficient to simply name the CC-licensed source you're copying from in the edit summary as you bring the material in? EEng 11:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • You need to be more specific to link the revision and be clear somewhere where it can be seen (edit summ or a talk page template) that the material was copied from (url to diff at Wikia), but that's effectively it for CC-BY licensed material. --MASEM (t) 12:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • We do need to be careful with Wikia content. While the overwhelming majority of Wikia wikis are licensed under CC-BY-SA, there are some that have opted for different licensing (usually CC-BY-NC-SA), which I believe is incompatible with Wikipedia's license. If I am mistaken about that, please correct me, but [9] doesn't list either license as compatible with the other, so I am currently operating under the assumption that they are not. Cthomas3 (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Good to know. Lucky (or unlucky) for us, guns.wikia uses CC-BY-SA. ansh666 23:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

So this discussion leads me to another question: is WP:CCI a good place to go to get more eyes on and deal with this type of thing? Wikipedia:Copyright problems as Emir suggests seems to be for single articles. ansh666 23:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

A35821361 is NOTHERE

Hello, this is pretty much my first time posting at ANI. Basically, A35821361 seems to be only here to criticise the Baha'i Faith and to attack it. His response to being blocked for edit warring was to blame the "members of the Baha'i Faith" for it. He also complained about how "While 36 hours is a brief time to be banned, this complaint is a pattern of intimidation by members of the Bahá'í Faith on those who wish to shed light on historically accuracy, which is not always the narrative sanctioned by the Bahá'í Administrative Order" -- quote from the diff I've linked to, [10], I humbly submit this editor is clearly NOTHERE. I'm sorry for how poor my post looks...just not the best at this.79.66.4.79 (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, your diff doesn't work, and I can't figure out what you intended. Please create a diff the way it says here. Also, it might be useful to mention which article he was edit warring on. Bishonen | talk 20:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC).

Fixed the diff, and A35821361 was edit-warring on the Baha'i Faith page. 79.66.4.79 (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

A diff from May is not indicative of a current problem. However, poking into User:A35821361's contrib history, I'm not sure WP:NOTHERE is the right issue, but it does look like A35821361 is hostile to Baha'i, and is prone to edit-warring. I don't want to step into this mess, but think some admin or another should. They should probably also notify the user. Argyriou (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I would like to thank Argyriou (talk) for mentioning my username here, otherwise I would have no inkling that this discussion was underway. In any case, it is true that I frequently contribute to topics related to the Bahá'í Faith. As my contributions are sourced from objective, third-party references they are not always in concordance with the officially-sanctioned narrative of the Bahá'í Administrative Order. This has often led to the reversion of these contributions and allegations that they are somehow "hostile," when in fact they are unbiased. If you read the continuation of the quote which 79.66.4.79 (talk) has linked to above, it continues, "In fact, this intimidation has led several prominent academics to leave or be ex-communicated by the Bahá'í Administrative Order (see Juan Cole, Abbas Amanat, Denis MacEoin, and Ehsan Yarshater)." It saddens me that these tactics are now attempted in Wikipedia. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Not a wikipedia contributor, but just thought i'd chime in to say that some of your first contributions included an entirely uncited claim that Baha'u'llah sold slaves to pay off debts with zero sources, neutral or hostile, given. Getting better at finding citations to support an editorial agenda does not make that editorial agenda cease to exist. None of those academics was actually excommunicated or claimed to have been excommunicated, the closest thing would be Juan Cole claiming to have been threatened with excommunication (with the only source for that claim being Cole himself).UrielvIII (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

"Not a Wikipedia editor", indeed, considering that was your first edit. How did you find your way here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I lurk pages I'm interested in, (feel I don't have the writing/citing ability to contribute up to wiki standards though), user in question is a fairly active contributor in a lot of them so I've been lurking his contribution log as well (apologies if that's against wikipedia policy. Feel free to delete if it is).UrielvIII (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

A35 certainly seems to be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I have a theory as to why he so antagonistic to Baha'i, but that would be casting aspersions. Suggest a topic ban. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The IP you're using began editing today, but you've been around: you know about WP:casting aspersions, for instance. If you have an account your normally edit with, you should have filed this complaint with that account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Withdrawn. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I previously brought this up at the noticeboard here and got no response. I later tried more specific complaints about biographies of living persons here and here, also with no response. I think A35821361 was successful at scaring away any admins from looking past the surface by simply declaring himself to be unbiased. Anyone looking through edits and talk pages would recognize deception, but that takes time. The edit warring on biographies of living persons is still ongoing. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I would welcome anyone to look at my edit and contribution history to Wikipedia, and compare it to the edit and contribution history of other editors on the same articles. Aside from being sourced from objective, third party sources, my edits and contributions are entirely compliant with the guidelines of Wikipedia. On the other hand, one should consider what the objectives of some of the other editors are. For example, Cuñado ☼ - Talk has falsely accused me of sockpuppetry and called me a "deceitful attacker" on my talk page. More recently, there has been systematic reversions and deletions to the biographies of members of the Universal House of Justice, the supreme governing institution of the Bahá'í Faith whose decisions are deemed infallible by believers. The reason given for these reversions and deletions are that the members of the Universal House of Justice lack notability, when in fact in addition to their religious service to the Bahá'í Administrative Order many these individuals have led successful careers as academics, authors, artists, actors, and the heads of award-winning NGOs. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC).

This is comical. If there is an admin listening I'd be happy to lay out in detail why A35821361's last comment is deception (maybe delusion?) in line with how he has behaved for the last 9 months. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thornton Chase may be of interest. Smkolins (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, the article for Thornton Chase and the discussion for the AfD is demonstrative. Thornton Chase was an insurance salesman and is only covered in subjects relating to his position as the first convert to the Bahá’í Faith in the United States to have remained a Bahá’í. He does not pass any other notability guideline. None of the coverage is independent, as it all comes from Bahá’í sources, and priod to the AfD proposal almost entirely from one book written by a Bahá’í. This contrasts sharply with the articles of the members of Universal House of Justice members that have been systematically deleted, which were sourced from multiple different sources regarding various accomplishments of the individuals covered in their respective articles. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC).

Simply false. The biographies were stuffed with references that don't mention the person. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

A cursory look at Thornton Chase's article shows citations from a large number of independent newspapers. A skim of the contents of the article also shows that it covers his notable service in the Civil War. (although from the talk page these may have been added recently). By contrast the article for one House of Justice member, Stephen Birkland, contains citations exclusively from either Baha'i sources or Juan Cole, a former Baha'i who leveled accusations of misconduct against Birkland (the article that is not by a Baha'i or Cole only mentions Birkland by citing Cole's statements). Neither of those sources are neutral third parties. In any case the article only contains three paragraphs and could easily be merged into a larger article which is why I assume it would have been deleted (although I can't say that for certain) UrielvIII (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

To be fair the Chase article has been developed a ton since it was nominated. But A35821361's skills as a researcher and knowledge are far from mundane. I didn't have to look hard at all for many obvious third party sources. And that's aside from simply looking at the footnotes of Dr. Stockman's research. A35821361 didn't bother while he/she is perfectly willing to spend a great deal of time researching very obscure people for possible personal relationships to other things and beyond. In short he'd rather delete the article on Chase and work on some of these others even if many people agree that Chase is notable and the others several people have found unfounded. Smkolins (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

That's his prerogative to work on whatever he wants. There is nothing wrong with nominating for deletion. BTW, great job improving the article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've always tried to research up rather than dismiss down. It's odd to me that he creates the Robert Stockman article and then dismisses a key subject of Stockman's research for decades. Smkolins (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

For added context, it appears the user in question has posted to the following website accusing people of censoring him: https://bahaicensorship.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/bahai-faith-and-slavery-an-example-of-how-bahais-control-information-on-wikipedia/

The most obvious differences between the version of the article in the link and the current "censored" version on wikipedia are that the entirely unreferenced and unsupported claims that Baha'u'llah sold a slave to pay off debts and that attempts were made to have the book 'Black Pearls' suppressed have been removed.

My own thoughts from some browsing the talk pages of some of the more contentious Baha'i articles are that terms like 'official narrative' and 'excommunication' have been used which paints a picture of a point of view being oppressed and marginalized. However repeatedly editing pages to add content deleted/edited by others, dropping out of discussions on said edits/deletions rather than arguing ones point of view until an agreement is reached and adding inflammatory uncited information an is not a reasonable way to participate in a collaborative project.

To my knowledge Baha'is don't actually hold any positions of authority over wikipedia, with everyone being on more or less equal footing, making accusations of censorship and prosletyzing on a third party website seem counterproductive if the goal is to contribute to an unbiased tone on wikipedia. UrielvIII (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the first time I have heard of this web page. The content therein I had shared on Reddit, relating to a discussion on Bahá’í censorship and information control. The owner of the web site you linked to must have cut-and-paste the content from Reddit into his website. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks by Bobo192 at AfD discussions

Over the past couple of weeks, there have been a couple of articles about cricketers that have been taken to AfD; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Cranston and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Whitehead (MCC cricketer). During these, Bobo192 (hereafter referred to as Bobo, as displayed in signature) has repeatedly made assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks. First, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Cranston:

• Against Premeditated Chaos Bobo repeatedly called this user a "vandal". [11] [12]
• Kept commenting over and over with the same things and accusing others of acting like children, for merely opposing his point of view. [13]
• Then, across both AfDs harrassing Reyk, saying that their "opinion is invalidated" [14], that they were having a "childish temper tantrum" [15] and accusing Reyk of "baiting" people [16].
• At the second of these discussions, Bobo also interacted with BlackJack, making demeaning comments about the AfDs and the people taking part in them; "How long has this lasted without having been argued with on this petty a level?", "an article is therefore deleted based on undefined "rules of thumb" and the lack of "basic details" - when the article so painfully obviously passes WP:CRIN criteria", "Note how something as idiotically woolly and contradictory as WP:GNG didn't exist back then as an apparently legitimate delete vote criterion".

For the sake of clarity, I !voted against Bobo in one discussion, and with him in the other. I feel that in these AfDs, Bobo struggles to debate without resorting to personal attacks and demeaning comments. Harrias ^talk 18:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

As regards Whitehead, the nominator has admitted that he misunderstood the notability guideline and has removed his key reason (i.e., non-compliance) for raising the AfD. Bobo was certainly right to defend the guideline in that case because the subject is undeniably notable. Although I do not think Cranston should be deleted, I admit it is much more borderline. In my opinion, Bobo has been provoked by the attitude of Reyk whom I personally think crosses the WP:NOTHERE line – he was reported to ANI earlier this year, by Lugnuts for that very reason. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment- I agree that Bobo is not taking the existence of opposing views well at all. There's no doubt that he's been badgering participants in those AfD's and trying to bait me in particular into an outburst. I'm not sure why he's singled me out and, though I've made an effort to remain completely civil in the face of this provocation, I do not appreciate being called a liar and a hypocrite. As for an administrative remedy, I would suggest limiting this user to one !vote on individual cricket-related AfDs, and no replies, for a couple of months. It may be that his behaviour will improve once he's accepted that other opinions can legitimately exist. I suggest it's even time to examine WikiProject Cricket as a whole; it's easily the most toxic place on Wikipedia (at least since the ARS faded into obscurity), with a lot of OWNership issues and the same ultra-defensive rhetoric we've seen here. I can think of at least two editors of that WikiProject with the same behavioural issues. Reyk _YO! 19:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so you have a grudge against WP:CRIC which has been evident in comments made by you in at least three AfDs. Your opposition to WP:CRIN, our notability guideline which is part of WP:NSPORTS is worryingly unreasonable, given its wide acceptance by the vast majority of editors and administrators. This is why you are perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be NOTHERE – our impression is that you are trying to disrupt our project. Comments like "easily the most toxic place on Wikipedia" are bang out of order and I challenge you to provide a list of all the ownership issues you allege. Furthermore, who are the "at least two" CRIC members? Jack | ^{talk page} 19:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Respectfully asking the same question. Who are the "at least two" members with "behavioural issues"? I refuse to descend into namecalling but at the end of the day, if you make a claim and you can't back it up, then the claim is invalid. If you are unable to provide their names here and now, especially in a conversation where I am attempting to remain as rational as possible under questioning, then I suggest you remove this accusation. Bobo. 10:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The only person I can remember ever claiming I'm WP:NOTHERE to edit the encyclopedia is you. You've also previously called me a meatpuppet of User:StAnselm, round about the time you were vilifying his religion because he disagreed with you. And, of course, anyone looking at my edit history can see at a glance that the claim of being WP:NOTHERE is false. Reyk _YO! 19:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Vilifying his religion? That's a new one. Even I'm not aware that I did that... evidence please. Bobo. 20:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Here ya go: User_talk:StAnselm/2015b#Apology_demanded. Reyk _YO! 20:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought you were referring to me. Sorry. Bobo. 20:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with "opposing views". This is to do with randomly choosing a cricketer with a single first-class appearance, saying "I don't like", and immediately tagging an article which, somehow, has survived on the site for nine years, with an AfD notice. There are thousands of other WP:CRIC articles that any other user could tag for exactly the same reason. Every single similar AfD discussion since the writing of WP:CRIN has been an utter waste of time. Bobo. 20:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Where to start... ayyy caramba. From the top.

• Yes. As I stated on that page, the entry for Church of Jesus Christ Elvis looks like the kind of CSD G1 nonsense created by bored schoolchildren when their teacher's back is turned. I still don't believe this to be false, and I still cannot believe this is anything other than BJAODN vandalism. I considered the fact that this user even pointed out that they posted it on that very AfD discussion to be... to use a polite term, clumsy.
• My "treated like children" comment actually referred to my wish to ask genuine questions relating to notability criteria and people's continued unwillingness and/or inability to answer, having initially criticized my own judgment.
• Generally speaking, if someone has an opinion they stick to it. I was asking for genuine responses to genuine questions and didn't receive a single one. I endeavoured a courtesy ping to the person who asked the question to be the best way to get them to see the answer. Perhaps the need to ping didn't exist. I purely wanted to make sure that the page came up again when I visited. This was more for my own purposes so that I could follow my own comments on an AfD.
• If someone is against the idea of "a single game", then what is the alternate solution? "I find that this is a problem" is not a valid complaint. "I find that this is a problem and here is a solution I propose given my knowledge on the subject", is. The reason for my ping was more for my own benefit. If this was unnecessary, then I am genuinely sorry.
• If you say, "Please stop badgering!" then this feels like an affront to the user in question. And, by claiming themselves that I "may" [only have] "be[en] badgering", is a very embarrassing climbdown, having set out to make me feel two inches tall. Which was the original intent, I guess, so, job done. If the user in question had simply said, "Would you please consider rephrasing your comment?", I may have done so without a second thought.
• You and I both know that people have been sending articles similar to that of Tom Cranston to AfD without knowing the first thing about cricket, or the generally accepted notability guideline which has existed since I have been a Wikipedian, a single FC appearance is satisfactory. I always thought that as long as these criteria were met, then any complaints of the style, "but I disagree with the article because..." when it clearly meets WP guidelines, are not only unnecessary, but time-wasting.
• GNG was never cited as a deletion reasoning back when the S. Perera article was initially deleted. In that debate or any other. I still don't understand how an incredibly woolly-phrased guideline holds any sway when it is patently obvious that the article passes SNG requirements. Doesn't that make all the "Delete 'cuz GNG" comments look a tad suspicious? Bobo. 19:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer):

• "On the evidence we have access to online, the player does not meet GNG, as there is no significant coverage, what we have is purely statistical." (me)
• "Yes, I know at the end of the day WP:GNG trumps them all..." (you, Bobo)
• "This does not pass WP:NSPORT which clearly says "In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline."" (StAnselm)

• As you can see, GNG clearly was cited as deletion reasoning (even by yourself, a proponent of keeping the article) in the S. Perera AfD. But to be honest, that is beside the point anyway. Harrias ^talk 20:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• This is and will be the first and only ever time I will quote WP:GNG within a deletion discussion. I should have said, "I know that according to other people GNG trumps them all." Frankly I was unaware GNG even existed as an apparently valid reason for deletion until a week before this discussion, when people started quoting it willy-nilly... So, poor phrasing from me, I apologize. Bobo. 20:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The irony here is that I barely even contribute to AfD discussions regarding cricketers because I'm fairly sure that all parties involved are aware of the fact that we have very easy to understand criteria for article inclusion. Bobo. 20:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

---

I wish to make a collective apology to all in this conversation. My frustrations are being escalated by the fact that I am going through a crappy time healthwise, and the fact that I am not taking current personal life events very well. I never do. I have personal problems which cause me to escalate every single stupid little thing to a ridiculously large level. I make absolutely zero excuse for these - the fact that these two issues have coincided is, to me and, I'm sure to everyone reading this, simply an unfortunate coincidence, and, I'm sure you can understand from my point of view, a matter of infinite frustration.

I can do nothing more than promise that, as soon as these stupid petty issues have passed, I will be back to normal, strong and ready to go, ready to collaborate, fully, on a project which every single one of us has taken to so passionately over the last several years. Without meaning to deny anyone else equal credit, all of you know that I consider Jack to be a very close friend, who has helped me with so many things over the years, on and off Wiki.

I am sorry. I never meant for it to get this far. I never intended for my frustrations to manifest themselves in such an angry way. And if you choose to take this apology as plastic, then please do. But know that in spite of all this, I still feel we can collaborate strongly together on a project until we have reached every single one of our goals. Bobo. 21:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I would feel better about your apology if you would withdraw your accusations that I am a vandal with some kind of history of vandalizing Wikipedia, which I clearly am not. I fully agree that the article was stupid, but 2003 was a different, and much more stupid time. The article was still live at the time of my 2004 RfA, and no one at that time (or any other) ever accused me of vandalism for posting it, despite it being proudly listed on my then-live brag page for all to see. I mentioned it in an attempt at humor/sympathy and you used it to attack me, just as you have been attacking everyone in that AfD left right and center. Apologizing means nothing if your aggressive behavior remains the same. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

To be honest I was completely willing to forget that. It was only the fact that you actually pointed it out on the AfD that I had any idea it even existed... and as I say, I was completely willing to forget. I still am. Maybe this was the kind of thing that happened when we only had, what, 200,000 articles on the site? That was how many it was when I joined. Let's not forget WP:BJAODN was still rife (not that I'm connecting the two, just pointing out something which has been long forgotten in the mists of past). Times change, article notability criteria changes. Except, not for cricket articles! And it never has. Heck, I myself even created some Test cricketers, a subset of articles which we all finished rather quickly.

My point in this comment is merely to remind myself of the way things were when I first joined 13 years ago. Very different times. But I still believe I was doing nothing wrong in creating and defending these articles. The fact that I did so in such an angry way is honestly uncharacteristic. Bobo. 22:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're misremembering on purpose, but I brought it up on my talk page and only on my talk page. You are the one who accused me of having a history of vandalizing Wikipedia as a response. You are the one who then brought it up at AfD in an attempt to smear me. You are the one who was unwilling to forget it. You are the one who still has not struck the accusation on the AfD nor admitted that it was wrong here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Smear you? That's a teensy bit of an exaggeration. The fact that you willingly put your foot in it, quite another matter entirely. Bobo. 23:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, okay. So your "apology" above was just as worthless as you said it was and you don't actually care about being civil to other users. Good to know. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Nothing to do with my apology "being worthless". The fact is that in my 13 years on Wikipedia, sport inclusion criteria has moved on to a stage where we now have rules that are so easy to follow that a child can understand, and yet people going against those rules because the rules make them sad. Bobo. 07:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Not that I have the slightest impression that you're interested in actually reading anything anyone here has posted, but are you at all aware of the RfC on the NSPORTS issue from this June which closed with the conclusive statement that there is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion? You keep going on and on about everyone else refusing to follow consensus-based policy because we're either dumber than children or the rules make us sad or whatever ludicrous nonsense you decide to toss out next but as I've been saying all along, consensus disagrees with you. NSPORTS < GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:CRIN has always been the same and not a single person has ever rationally challenged it. Bobo. 09:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• I wish I could drop this but it would be hypocritical of me not to say this. Added a question above regarding the "at least two members with behavioural issues". Given that this entire thread is based on my individual frustrations, to call out "at least two" individuals to this extent and refuse to name them is cowardly. I'm sure Jack would appreciate this justification too. Let's face it, if I had made the same accusations, people would probably regard it as me getting on the offensive and making a personal attack.

Reyk, I am sad that I've had to ask this question because I really thought we had reached a point from which we could move on. It should be clear to you and PMC that I consider Jack to be one of my closest Wikipedia friends, a man who knows more about cricket than anyone else I know, and, as you have both seen, a person who is courteous to the level that he is willing to defend me much more readily than I am prepared to defend myself. Bobo. 10:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• comment- check out the last thread on WT:CRIC for a good example of why the wikiproject is toxic. Gossiping and badmouthing me by the three primary people making it a toxic place. Reyk _YO! 16:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The only thing that's toxic, are editors with little or no understanding of a subject area wasting everyone's time with frivolous deletion nominations. Maybe they could spend their time increasing their own knowledge-base, instead of assuming things are non-notable with their ignorance of the topic. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Not exactly, Lugnuts. The problem is with the users who agree with them, causing articles like S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) to be deleted - after six years as a Wikipedia article - and for two years' worth of shenanigans to follow. Everybody who knows the slightest thing about cricket knows that S. Perera is entitled to an article. Doesn't it seem weird that it took six years for someone - anyone - to say "no like, get rid"?

Anyone who knows anything about anything knows that an article will not last on Wikipedia for six years unless its subject warrants an article... we're talking basic common sense now... Bobo. 18:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - fixed the link for you Reyk otherwise people will be directed to a nonexistent page. Bobo. 16:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Please do not accuse the project of containing "at least two editors of that WikiProject with the same behavioural issues", if you are unwilling or unable to mention who these people are. We have been going around in circles for nearly 24 hours and haven't really gotten anywhere.

Please answer this question at the appropriate place, the statement beginning "Respectfully asking the same question." Otherwise the conversation will be fragmented. Bobo. 16:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Proposal for closing admin. I think User:Reyk has revealed himself for what he is and should be shown the door. He is in breach of WP:NOTHERE because he seeks to disrupt constructive effort on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. His approach is confrontational and his deletion rationales are designed to twist and mislead. There is an undeniable example of this in the Whitehead AfD. His reason for deletion is "biographical article about a non-notable sports person, based on bare statistical database entries and sources so meagre that the person's full name is not even known. I think it goes without saying that WP:CRIN is way too lax in its standards if it encourages the creation of a horde of contentless microstubs like this one". The article has been expanded since then but this is the version he calls a "microstub" about a "non-notable sports person". As anyone can see, the article was a stub with an infobox and a four-line paragraph which states that Whitehead was a patron as well as a player and that he played in fourteen first-class matches, so hardly "non-notable". The bibliography shows that there are several sources, though admittedly unused before the AfD was raised. As Lugnuts said above, Reyk displays complete ignorance when making his illogical and groundless assumptions. In addition to WP:NOTHERE, I would suggest there is a WP:CIR issue too. Finally, badmouthing an entire project because he does not like us disagreeing with him is a serious breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. WP:CRIC isn't perfect but it is constructive, positive and welcoming. It is no different to any other project, no better than and certainly no worse than. Anyone who condemns an entire project as "toxic" should be expelled. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I can do nothing but continue to make an honest apology. My frustration is purely down to current circumstance and I can only promise that given time, I will no longer cause the problems I have been causing. It's simply a shame that these two issues have come up at the same time that my frustrations have exacerbated themselves.

I don't think "expulsion" is the answer, Jack. There's a wonderful phrase on Wikipedia. "Drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass". I believe that anyone who mangles with inclusion criteria by openly admitting to be a deletionist and pushing their own agenda is in fear of ruining the project. There is zero logic for deletionism other than "Me no likey. Get rid. lol." Project criteria for cricket are identical to project criteria for every other competitive team sport on Wikipedia. Soccer, American football, baseball, ice hockey, basketball. Why should one article suffer for the sake of a project? There is no logical connection between believing in NPOV and believing in deletionism as a philosophy. Okay, in the deep dark mists of Wikipedia I added ECC cricketers. Austria, Belgium... I forget who else off hand.

The sad fact is that there is no logical solution to the S. Perera problem. If we are purely relying on secondary sources, the large part of me assumes that we have to treat S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) and Suresh Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) as two different cricketers. And I still believe that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) provides no valid consensus when you consider the source of the deletion votes.

1. Suspicious Delete 1: Me no likey. Get rid. lol. (IP address)
2. Suspicious Delete 2: Account for which we have zero reliable information of whether the user exists and whether the nonexistent account was ever renamed because it doesn't show up as a valid rename in the logs.

Personally I think this says it all. If two of the delete votes are "IP" and "as IP" (neither of which would hold sway in a normal AfD argument), then this invalidates the AfD conversation altogether, regardless of the addresses' opinions. Couple this with the fact that by listifying the cricketers by first-class team without providing links to articles about each player is a blatant violation of NPOV. Bobo. 23:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

What do we do about the fact that no matter what happens from now on, there will always be at least one Kurunegala YCC player missing? Well, there are 106 redlinks still on my players list page, let alone those who have appeared for the team since. By my reckoning, there are 29 players who have played for Kurunegala YCC who have a single first-class appearance, and 162 in total. I can update the master list if you like... sometime later, my brain is fried. Bobo. 00:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I would gladly ask that question to the other participants in this conversation as well as Jack. What shall we do about this blatant violation of NPOV, such that we are allowing some cricketers with a single first-class appearance and not others..? Bobo. 00:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Summary of AfD delete votes at Tom Cranston:

1. Gave him a go. Definitely notable. But get rid anyway. Even though he meets criteria, this is inconsequential.
2. This cricketer definitely passes NSPORTS. But get rid anyway.
3. Meets criteria, but "insignificant contribution".
4. A single game and a listing in a statistical database are insufficient to show notability. (No. This is precisely the point of WP:CRIN...) Bobo. 00:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Every single person reading this conversation can be certain of one thing. Regardless of your Wikipedia "philosophy", this and S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) will most likely end up being re-evaluated at some point in the future... Bobo. 00:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• Jack, as honest and long-term contributors to WP:CRIC, what's our next step? Bobo. 00:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• With respect, that is completely and utterly false and a complete failure to characterize anybody's !vote on that page accurately. The AfD in question is linked for your perusal here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Cranston. A far more accurate depiction of the delete !votes on that page would be that they summarily agree that the article might (barely) pass WP:CRIN or WP:NSPORTS - for examples; may scrape WP:CRIN on basis of the one match (User:Pharaoh of the Wizards) and [t]he reliable sources provided prove that the subject passes, narrowly, the requirements of WP:NSPORTS (User:Hack), but, all decidely also agree that the article does not meet WP:GNG and that the subject is non-notable - for examples; He comprehensively fails WP:GNG (User:Pharaoh of the Wizards) and fails WP:GNG, no evidence article subject has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources (User:Hack). So no, nobody is saying that he is [d]efinitely notable [b]ut get rid anyway. What utter tripe. On a less sharp note; it is highly inadviseable to try and summarize opposing viewpoints when you have a decidely obvious point of view. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Bingo. This is simply a case of some people not being able to accept the existence of contrary points of view and lashing out because of it. I think it goes without saying that the above "proposal" to ban me is ridiculous, and a perfect example of the poor behaviour on the part of WP:CRIC that I've been trying to draw attention to. I'm not sure if it is intended as a genuine request to have me blocked, or merely an attempt to provoke me. If the former, User:BlackJack should start a separate subsection to make that request. If the latter, well, I'm not going to get upset if someone wants to make my point for me. Reyk _YO! 04:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• There's a difference between contrary points of view and having had guidelines we've stuck to for nearly ten years which have done us absolutely zero harm up until now. So in other words, we will have a complete list of every single first-class cricketer... other than one which people disagreed with? How does that work? This isn't about "contrary points of view". This is about going against very easy to understand criteria which we have held to for many years.

The fact that all three of us are agreed that the article passes WP:CRIN is proof of the fact that it's not WP:CRIC members who are the ones trying to make a point. Bobo. 07:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Asking the same question down here for Reyk as I asked above. To cower away from an accusation like the fact that "at least two" WP:CRIC members have behavioural issues and to not have the cojones to tell us who they are is cowardice. Please justify this, otherwise we will slap a "citation needed" tag on it. Bobo. 07:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• I have already answered this question above. Please stop making personal attacks. If you haven't figured out yet that I won't be baited... Sorry, but I must now concentrate on BlackJack's ban request and preposterous false accusations against me. Reyk _YO! 07:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Reading the admin's closing rationale here is greatly amusing.

"Rules of thumb are precisely that and do not replace detailed examination of the article against wider inclusion criteria." (What "wider inclusion criteria"? Some kind of non-policy arguments relating to undefined personal opinions?)

"Since we do not have basic details like date of birth than it seems reasonable to give less weight to arguments for inherant notability than those arguing delete based on wider policy."

The article was deleted because we didn't know the subject's date of birth. Crazy. Bobo. 08:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Okay. This whole conversation has become a directionless mess. Summarizing my main questions so that I don't lose the points if people are willing to make them.

• If I were to add articles on the 29 Kurunegala YCC redlinks with a single first-class appearance, am I to assume they will all be deleted by people who, against years of collaboration by WP:CRIC, have suddenly decided that a single FC appearance isn't good enough?
• What is the solution to this problem if we are deciding that random cricketers with one first-class appearance will from now on be tagged willy-nilly?
• Where does WP:CRIC need to go as a project if we are forbidden from adding specific articles about specific cricketers, chosen at random, such that our main purpose of building an encyclopedia is invalidated? Bobo. 10:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Let's get back to the main point of this discussion without being distracted by the voluminous reams of red herrings above. The issue here is the behaviour of User:Bobo192 and, to a lesser extent, User:BlackJack and User:Lugnuts who have subjected me to a prolonged barrage of personal abuse for no other reason than that I disagree with WP:CRIC's standards for notability and inclusion. So far these three between them have called me a liar, an idiot, a hypocrite, a coward, disruptive, incompetent, and childish. I have been falsely accused of personal attacks, falsely accused of not being here to edit the encyclopedia, and threatened with blocks and bans. And this is after I after I attempted to withdraw from the argument, which WP:CRIC was apparently unwilling to permit. Let's not get drawn off track by the distraction of Bobo's (currently) irrelevant remarks about individual long-closed AfDs. The real questions that need to be considered are:

• Does the community accept Bobo, Lugnuts, and BlackJack as the sole arbiters of inclusion for cricket-related articles?
• Does the community accept a protracted campaign of personal abuse and harassment against me for disagreeing with those inclusion standards?

I don't accept either. Reyk _YO! 10:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. You claim that there is just one topic at hand, and then you switch it to a completely different topic. Oops.

Question 1: I, Jack, and Lugnuts all voted "keep" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Whitehead (MCC cricketer). But we are not the only contributors to the AfD conversation. So no, we are not the "sole arbiters", but the fact that we agree with each other is up to each one of us and to our own personal opinions based on long-established guidelines.

Question 2: In this AfD, you are in the minority. Your being in the minority and disagreeing with us is not the catalyst for a campaign of supposed "personal abuse and harassment". You are not against WP:CRIN for any sort of policy guidelines, just because of the fact that you "don't like" Microsoft Excel files converted to articles. Bobo. 10:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Now Reyk is throwing around his own red herring. There are no "sole arbiter", we use the long-established notability consensus. So you should make yourself familar with it to avoid further embarrassment to yourself and stop wasting everyone's time. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The fact that articles like S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) get deleted in spite of clearly passing guidelines is proof enough that it's not simply WP:CRIC members who are aware of long-established notability guidelines who contribute to cricket AfD discussions. I still maintain that I believe S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer)'s AfD discussion provided no consensus, especially as two of the delete !votes were provided by users who, a, would not usually be permitted to respond to AfDs, and b, belong to an untraceable account. Bobo. 11:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

If Bobo wishes to appeal the result of an AfD, the correct venue is WP:DRV. This discussion is about the repeated assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks on me by Bobo and others. I repeat: is it legitimate to subject me to a long-term barrage of abuse just because I disagree with WP:CRIC's interpretation of notability requirements? Let's have some input from someone other than Bobo. Reyk _YO! 14:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

No need to defend a broken project. If there was no such thing as "inclusionist"/"exclusionist" philosophy this wouldn't be a problem. The only problem would be when we had a bunch of new articles to add. As I say, I could write an article for any of the other 29 Kurunegala YCC players with a single first-class appearance. The hypocrisy of exclusionism is that, in spite of long-held guidelines, they would claim, "not enough"... when the article clearly passed guidelines. I'll find another team and work out stats to show that Kurunegala YCC isn't alone. Bobo. 16:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Lankan Cricket Club, 114 players, seven with a single first-class appearance, all redlinks.

• Nadun Anuradha
• Pasindu Bimsara
• Deshadi Perera
• Dimuthu Ellawala
• Charith Rajapakshe
• Indunil Kumara
• Tharaka Sampath Bobo. 16:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Can I please get an answer beyond reams and reams of off-topic commentary from Bobo? I feel as though my legitimate complaints are just being flooded out with this garbage. I repeat: is it legitimate to subject me to a relentless barrage of personal abuse simply because I disagree with WP:CRIC on inclusion and notability standards? Reyk _YO! 17:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

My comment was in no way irrelevant and for you to label it that way and collapse my comment is disgusting. The two questions you asked above, I answered. Straight on. Nine minutes after you asked them. Seven hours ago. Your entire rationale is that you disagree with guidelines for notability and inclusion, something that, for right or wrong, WP:CRIC have defended to the hilt. Just so that you remember, at the beginning of this section, you began to question my behaviour, claimed you were keeping on topic, and then veered off-topic claiming that three WP:CRIC members were the "sole arbiters" of inclusion. Bobo. 17:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it was completely' irrelevant. The purpose of the conversation is that you and your friends think it's acceptable to call people names for disagreeing with you and that you've singled me out for special abuse. It's a behavioural issue, and the behaviour of WP:CRIC has been atrocious:

• calling me childish
• and again
• calling me a liar
• calling me a coward
• calling me an idiot
• calling me NOTHERE, incompetent, dishonest, and threatening to get me blocked or banned.

Can we get someone other than Bobo to weigh in here? All that guy is going to do is continue to flood the conversation with irrelevant complaints about long-closed AfDs and lists of Sri Lankan cricketers to discourage anyone else from commenting. I still say I've done nothing to deserve this ongoing harassment. Reyk _YO! 17:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

"Irrelevant comments"? You know those two questions you asked? I answered them. Within nine minutes. Bobo. 18:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• As far as I can see the only person who is in danger of being sanctioned here is User:BlackJack. Jack, if you continue to spray PAs like NOTHERE and CIR (not to mention "idiot" and "ignorant") about against a long-term editor who as far as I can see has done nothing but disagree with a number of issues regarding notability, you will be blocked, that is certain. If I see you do it once more, I will perform that block myself. As regards the notability issue, that is not something that is going to be argued here. Unfortunately we do have a lot of issues with local notability guidelines which don't always mesh perfectly with the global ones, but throwing abuse at anyone who disagrees with your project is not the way to do it. Black Kite (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

  I hope you don't think I'm pushing the situation aside by saying that how this conversation is going is no longer the real problem. The real problem now is that WP:CRIC has taken a massive hit by this. Not least because no matter how many articles we create we will never be able to complete our true goal of having every cricketer bluelinked as no matter what happens to the Sri Lankan cricketers, S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer), which we are all treating as a different cricketer to Suresh Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) will never be created without someone slapping it with CSD G4. Someone other than me (conflict of interest and all) needs to take it to WP:RFU and point out that the player meets WP:CRIN. Bobo. 22:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

---

I think we all agree that this conversation has wandered from its original purpose into other subjects and topics - some of which is my fault and some not. As per a user talk page comment I plan to make to the closing admin, I am thinking of suggesting that I send S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) to deletion review based on the fact that the AfD discussion was controversial (based on guidelines) and consensus difficult to determine, and that the article passes generally accepted criteria. For which, of course, I sympathize.

What is the protocol here? Do I need to wait for a response from the closing admin before I go to DRV? Bobo. 03:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and made the suggestion here. Bobo. 03:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

---

UPDATE: I have sent this article to deletion review as Spartaz's suggestion. Bobo. 10:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

---

So finally we have an answer. According to the deletion review, the problem is with "inadequate sourcing". Which is an interesting one. Given that for a great deal of cricket-related Wikipedia articles, the "sourcing" is completely identical, does that mean every article is "inadequately sourced"? Bobo. 13:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I have followed links to this discussion from the deletion review which I !voted on. Now I am not a major cricket editor, but I follow enough articles and have been here long enough to have a general understanding of the project. It sucks when articles you have been working on have been deleted and there is generally a bit of leeway given as emotions do rise, but this has reached an untenable point. Any outsider who looks at this is going to take a dim view of WP:CRICKET, which would be unfair as there are many good editors involved in it. At the end of the day there is no bright line on notability and different editors hold different views on what makes something notable enough to include here. If you can't except that without resorting to the level of badgering and hostility displayed above and at the linked deletion discussions then you are not going to have an enjoyable time here. AIRcorn (talk) 07:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

This is so untrue it makes me wonder what the point is of any cricketing editor continuing to work on our project. One major cricketing appearance. Nothing could be more clear. Exactly the same guideline as every single other professional competitive sport. A guideline we've been following diligently for so long that I'm sure it's not just me who is questioning what the point is of defending guidelines any more. No guideline could be clearer. Bobo. 09:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

A guideline??? Really??? Where is my article? I've made one major cricketing appearance. -Roxy the dog. bark 09:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

---

• I respectfully suggest that we have moved so directionlessly on from questions about my conduct to that of cricket inclusion criteria that it is now the cricket project which is under more serious threat than me. There is no further point in me attempting to justify my wish to follow some of the most painfully explicit guidelines on the encyclopedia, and frankly I believe the same is true of my friends. And there is no further point in attempting to defend a project which, as is clear from recent debates, both open, dormant, closed, and thrashed like a dead horse, no longer serves its incredibly simple purpose of providing articles for every single first-class cricketer. And that couldn't be less to do with my personal conduct. Bobo. 09:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Procedure violation at WP:AFD/Iceland–Turkey_relations

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iceland–Turkey_relations should be closed on the basis that the nominee belives an previous decision Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambassador of Iceland to Turkey (2nd nomination) was wrongly kept. As per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_review, the correct procedure is to bring the issue up at deletion review. LibStar should not be allowed to create an new deletion discussion as he has done and LibStar should not be allowed to violate procedure like this.--Snaevar (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

That is pretty much untrue on all accounts. ansh666 01:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Could an admin put the "AfDs for this article:" box on the new AfD? Power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can do that, so I added it here. I hope I did it right. -- Begoon 03:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

User SupervladiTM making unfounded edits on "Steaua" disambiguation page

User:SupervladiTM seems to be involved in the latest rampage against "Steaua" / "FCSB" wikipedia pages (english version). He keeps altering the "Steaua" disambiguation page, providing personal input that has nothing to do with reality. He obviously has an agenda trying to imply that FCSB (former Steaua) has been stripped of its records and history. This statement is unsubstantiated. Lately he is reverting to providing references that can not be taken into account, i.e. announcements made by one of the parties involved. Please see the history at https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Steaua&action=history and also the talk page where I have made efforts to signal the problem and provided references that support my point of view.

I proposed restricting the respective page and imposing a consensus based mechanism before making any subsequent edits. No measure has been taken yet...

Please, let's put an end to this madness!

Taras bulba 47 (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Another thread on this??? This is why footy is on my list of topics we should just drop all coverage of as not worth the trouble. Really. Nobody cares about the Romanian football licensing procedures controversy. EEng 12:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

We do! The fact that you don't care about Romanian football does not justify allowing people to vandalize pages and write whatever they wish. Taras bulba 47 (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

We do what? Create a needless additional thread? EEng 22:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, this is me, User:SupervladiTM. All statements claimed to be unsubstantiated are provided with clear references and active links. Moreover, all these so-called statements are simply what has been decided by Law in Romania. The FCSB club referred to by Taras bulba 47 is no longer referred to as FC Steaua, as they have officially changed their name. If there is any agenda for this topic, it is definitely not mine - and I am referring to continuous vandalism by users which seem to be upset by the existence of a legitimate Wikipedia page, as well as by its legitimate content, sustained by the several references on this respective page. I have never vandalised any page - and moreover, even reverted some vandalism which had been going on on the FC Steaua București (or FCSB) page. Thank you. User:SupervladiTM 14:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

EEng: ...wait, I've got to take issue with that claim — I'm not familiar with the subject, but it being a "controversy" implies that *someone* cares about it enough to start stressing over it... Just saying. I mean, the article Deflategate is *massive*, and that (to my outsider eyes) even more so makes me tend to think, "really, who gives a fuck?". Just because something seems trivial/inane to us doesn't mean it's not important to people... —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 06:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Make no mistake, I think American football is the stupidest game ever (other than golf, of course) so I agree with you about Deflategate. But I'm sick of people importing their ethnic and nationalist disputes, over trivia only they see as cosmically significant, to the English Wikipedia. The Romanian football club licensing scandal can be sorted out on the Romanian Wikipedia (if there is such a thing). EEng 06:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I totally disagree: there really should be much more substantial coverage of things from non-English-majority countries, since notability isn't language-dependent, and the quantity and depth of non-English-majority content on enwp is lacking by comparison. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 06:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)(fixed link syntax —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 06:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC))

All other things being equal, sure. But not when we're just being used as a place for people to expand the attack front of whatever it is they're battling about. Because when that's what's going on, all you get is what we have here (in two simultaneous threads, in fact). EEng 06:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 06:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with nationalism or anything else. In fact, the matter has already been solved. A Romanian Court decided that the club now known as Fotbal Club Fcsb had been using the Steaua brand and name illegally. It forbade FC Fcsb from using them. However, some supporters of FC Fcsb choose to ignore the law and pretend that those rulings never occured and that FC Fcsb is still Steaua Bucharest. The real Steaua Bucharest team now plays in the Romanian fourth division. It has the Steaua brand, it's the only one with the Steaua name, and, of course, it has the Steaua records and history. We just want to tell the world the truth. - TPTB (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Sigh...

Apparently this is still a thing. They seem to have been on the same IP for at least a good seven hours. Blockity block block. Please and thank you. TJW^talk 15:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Dealt with, but see the "involved" thread below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Gaditano23, warranting blocking (or to the very least admonishment)

Good afternoon, I'd like to show some light on what I deem very tendentious editing on behalf of User:Gaditano23 in this discussion page about the 2017 Catalonia attacks and in the article itself. He (his user name is masculine) has erased a perfectly objective and referenced paragraph. He had posed no objection to it two weeks earlier, but I know he did focus his attention on it, because he had to be corrected (by me) on a major mistake he made then (visible in the discussion, see his paragraph signed 08:33, 5 September 2017).

What I want to impress upon anyone reading this, is that this user is using potentially confrontational language and heavy political editorializing: he labels other users' sentences "silly", calls a Guardian article "idiotic" and like I said, erases a whole paragraph for what I deem to be subjective political reasons. In contrast, my discussion with User:Pincrete is perfectly civilized as can be seen in the talk page. Please read the version dated before 15 September, 16:20 because I don't know what will happen to the talk page

Tensions around the Catalan referendum are VERY high, this was already predicted, by me among others in said discussion days ago, but we all need to make an effort to be objective. And I don't believe in my heart of hearts that Mr. Gaditano23 is here to build an encyclopedia. But I'd like to be proven wrong. I already have a couple referenced paragraphs prepared about this ([17]) and more recent news uncovered by these investigative journalists, but first, with all due respect, the Gaditano23 question needs to be dealt with. What I'm not going to do is start an edit war with someone who is simply distraught at recent news. I'm here to build Wikipedia. Thank you. CodeInconnu (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

CodeInconnu We have not even engaged in a discussion, let alone an edit war!! This is not how you use ANIs. Also you should warn me on my talk page! Another editor had to warn me about this. Not cool.Gaditano23 (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Well I did warn you on your talk page seconds after writing the above User_talk:Gaditano23#For_your_information... Not the best way to start this discussion Gaditano! CodeInconnu (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Gaditano has not done anything even REMOTELY sanctionable and this should be closed ASAP. Some non-Spanish/Catalan eyes (apart fom mine) would help as I think the 'Reactions' section of the article is in danger of going off-topic into matters of very marginal interest to non-local readers. I'm sure there are sources that praise the Catalan authorities and others that castigate them, I am not persuaded that there is any clear pattern yet as to which is going to prevail and whether it is going to influence the referendum AT ALL and how (if at all) that should be included in the 'attack article. Pincrete (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete, I mentioned you because you also appeared in that discussion but none of the relevant bits of THIS discussion involves you. Please let the administrators take care of this and refrain from chiming in and trying to divert their attention from the germane matters. Gaditano has used insulting language to refer to users' sentences and newspaper articles and it is clear to me and anyone reading his interventions that he was editorializing and using the talk page like a forum. Be thankful that I'm civil and I don't try to add that paragraph again to the main page until this is resolved, and please stay out of this. CodeInconnu (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• I see a content dispute, no conduct issues. @CodeInconnu:, except for very special cases one cannot dictate who may contribute to discussions here. Tiderolls 18:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• @Tide rolls:, calling paragraphs "silly" or references "idiotic" is as much of a conduct issue as it is content. Otherwise shall I start engaging in the same behaviour, see how that sits with Gaditano? CodeInconnu (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Your assessment is incorrect. Calling editors silly or idiotic is a conduct issue. One would hope for an explanation for how the edits are silly or idiotic; that would certainly help the discussion. Tiderolls 18:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

So are you telling me that I can start labeling editors' contributions and references silly or idiotic compulsively like there's no tomorrow, and not be admonished by anyone? Is that your intelligent contribution to this debate?

Concerning your last sentence, totally agreed. Said explanation hasn't come yet (other than a haphazard reference to a potential "battefield", but Gaditano is more than welcome to offer his intelligent reasons before I add that paragraph again. So far no intelligent reasons have been offered. He may be nervous with the international scrutiny on Spain and all, but we're her to be impartial... CodeInconnu (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

There's no debate; there has been no conduct displayed that requires admin attention. Tiderolls 18:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

CodeInconnu, I am involved both because you named me and because I am actively 'watching' the page. I believe you are abusing the ANI process in that you have not really engaged on talk but come here hoping to get admin support, it won't happen. I largely agree with Gaditano and think the whole 'Reactions' section is going increasingly off-topic, so you are in the minority. You are welcome to do an RfC and I have tried above to invite other editors' eyes. You are new here, and have made very few edits outside this topic area, I believe. Pincrete (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete, I don't think you've thought it carefully before writing this.

I didn't want to focus on you but now that you're begging for my attention, let me remind you that your entire discussion in that talk page was full of assumptions, weasel wording, opinions passed as facts and an intolerant adamancy that led me to believe that you either have a dog in this fight, or are not here to build an encyclopedia (neither is Gaditano). You're making assumptions here as well, e.g. presuming I'm here to curry favor (Tide Rolls says it's OK to label actions but not people, so I guess it's OK to label your assumption idiotic). Most importantly, you keep droning on about not mentioning the referendum but the one edit you left untouched was precisely the one referring to the referendum. Hence your edits have been not only disruptive, but also contradictory. And silly, idiotic, etc.

The fact I haven't made many edits outside of this topic could only be any of your business if I, or anyone else, owed you an explanation. Hang on, I don't. So there.

And finally, being new to a place is sometimes healthier than being old to/for it and losing perspective. When a person, generally speaking, mistakes a public domain for their own private fiefdom, it usually is a reflection of deeper issues that should be addressed face to face with people trained to deal with them. I'm not looking at anyone in particular. CodeInconnu (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

So now three editors today have agreed that this material is off-topic and removed it. All of them are wrong according to you! Possibly more should be removed about the Sp/Cat tensions. Pincrete (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

That's been put on hold until the current political situation takes some shape. Just find some help and stop using wiki as an ad-hoc therapy please. There's better entertainment you can find at the care home. CodeInconnu (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

INVOLVED block for legal threats

• 185.76.9.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Talk:Spartan Race (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

I've blocked this IP for making an explicit legal threat, as well as repeated personal attacks, and clearly being the same editor as Jkxyz who is already blocked for making similar legal threats on the same page. I've edited the page and participated in the dispute somewhat tangentially in the past, and was specifically named in the IP's legal threat, so per WP:INVOLVED I'm posting here for review. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I've now also blocked 185.212.170.103 and semiprotected the talk page for a few hours. The article already has long-term semiprotection (also by me, IIRC). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a pretty long term campaign, lasting more than a year if I'm not mistaken, and involving lord only knows how many blocks. If anybody's got a better solution I'm open to suggestions. TJW^talk 15:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support the block per WP:NLT and as a sock puppet of Jkxyz --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Range block?

Recently, 2602:306:33C5:1860:409:8219:47AC:C06D (talk · contribs), 2602:306:33C5:1860:F9D3:C1E1:ECA8:83F (talk · contribs), 2602:306:33C5:1860:D877:518F:F573:110D (talk · contribs), 2602:306:33C5:1860:4CEC:BD47:3AFB:629A (talk · contribs), and similar IPs beginning with 2602:306:33C5:1860 have been "spamming" gratutious mentions of a children's anthology called Sing a Song of Popcorn in a bunch of articles (as well as overlinking). It's pretty clear that all are the same person, and in some cases they have vioated 3RR. I know nothing about IP6s and little about range blocks, and I can't even figure out how to give a warning that would be seen. Would it be possible to block the person without undue collateral damage? Deor (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI recent edits by this range can be seen at Special:Contributions/2602:306:33C5:1860::/64. They seem mostly unhelpful, and they have been rangeblocked in the past [[18]]. A /64 rangeblock would seem appropriate, as anything else will likely be useless. See mw:Help:Range blocks/IPv6 for more information on this. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

He's been using 2602:306:33C5:1860::/64 all year.

Hoax pointed out by Binksternet after a final warning given by Apokryltaros on a previous day. There are other talk pages with warnings.

Binksternet warned him on a different range, 2602:306:33C5:2C90::/64 last year many times. Another example. Also, this looks interesting.

Binksternet, VCV comes to mind but you may recognize this as someone else?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Was checking a couple of things before blocking but Malcolmxl5 already indeffed for a week and that sounds like a good start.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed for a week?? Tornado chaser (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes! "...and I am unanimous in that..."
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for one week is what I imagine Berean Hunter meant to say. It's a step up from the 31 hour block in July but if the disruptive editing resumes, longer blocks may be warranted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I've dealt with (i.e., reverting all of its edits and warned) this vandal hoaxer before. I strongly agree with the recommendation of a range-block to stymie its efforts. At the very least, if an IP's edit history contains any mention of "yakety yak," REVERT EVERYTHING, REVERT EVERYTHING.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Would it be useful to design an edit filter to look for "yakety yak"? Tornado chaser (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't talk back. EEng 01:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The IP6 range under discussion certainly looks like a lot of it is the Voice Cast Vandal's handiwork. A week-long block is too short, in my opinion. In any case, the incorrigible person will find another inlet to continue the disruption here. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for looking. I also agree that a longer duration on the block is warranted. Judging by the anon contribs, it looks to be used fairly exclusively by him and no one else. Based on the length of time that he was at the last range and how long he has been at this one, I would expect his ISP to reassign him in early to mid January.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Accusation of bludgeoning. Article Plimpton 322

I have been accused of bludgeoning by David Eppstein on this page and as per advice raise a notice here. There is a dispute on this page. Recently an article about the subject of the page appeared in a prestigious academic journal to considerable publicity in 'quality' newspapers. Traffic to the page increased greatly. Some long term editors wish to exclude all mention of this article. This appears to be quite against the broad guidelines of wikipedia which says that all mainstream points of view must be represented. Various other editors have stated that the article should be mentioned. I requested comment some days ago but none has been forthcoming. 9and50swans (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify for anyone following along: Plimpton 322 is the article being discussed, not a username. (I have no other interest in this discussion beyond pointing that out).Alephb (talk) 07:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

For clarity I changed the title of this section 9and50swans (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• I have reviewed the article's talk page, and this thread simply constitutes yet more bludgeoning by the OP, who possibly deserves a b... a boo... a boom... I won't say it. EEng 12:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

A boom lowered on him? --(signed) Inquiring Editor

Maybe a booby prize? --Prize Patrol

Give him the boot? --Just for Kicks

Boom Bang-a-Bang? --Lulu

• as per advice raise a notice here - Where is this advice? I would be interested to see it, but just from what I see here it looks like bad advice. False accusations of bludgeoning are not actionable and may be shrugged off or resolved by respectful and civil discussion with the accuser. And this page is not for resolution of content disputes; see WP:DR. It's for actionable bad editor behavior. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing someone somewhere said the classic, "If you want to keep complaining, take it to ANI." Maybe we should have a rule against that, 'cause threads like this one are what it leads to. EEng 19:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, and we can bring people to ANI for violating that rule. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course not. We'll have a series of meta-ANIs (ANI², ANI³, etc.). See also User:EEng#A_rolling_stone_gathers_no_MOS. EEng 20:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_bludgeon_the_process#Dealing_with_being_accused_of_bludgeoning_the_process

If you think a policy is being transgressed, ask an uninvolved administrator for their opinion.

Without quoting chapter and verse Wikipedia is supposed to report all strands of mainstream opinion, and it is clearly not happening here. Mention of a recent article in a respected academic journal is being suppressed. I am rather surprised that this can happen on wikipedia. If there is no easy remedy I suggest that this brings wikipedia into some disrepute. Whatever the outcome on this I am grateful for the education in how wikipedia works, which I will pass on to others 9and50swans (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You really are, as you've been told before, bludgeoning. As far as I can tell you're not gaining an education in how Wikipedia works;; rather, the only thing you seem to be learning is that you're not getting what you want. EEng 20:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Areaseven

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

---

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

I don't know whether this noticeboard is pertinent to this matter. I saw this edit summary a few days ago, and I was shocked, becuase it seemed to be sarcastic. So I asked user Areaseven about it in user talk page. But user Areaseven was reverting back the before version to using the Rollbacker tool. I really want to know why user Areaseven said that, and I hope user Areaseven was suitably apologetic for comments in edit summary. So I asked user Areaseven again. In spite of Despite subsequent my requests, user Areaseven was reverting back the before version #1, #2 again to using the Rollbacker tool. In this situation, what can I do? Thanks. --Garam (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you're still making such a big deal out of this after so many days, to the point where you should apologize for harassing me over it. So let it go. - Areaseven (talk) 11:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Areaseven: If you apologized to me at first, I don't say to you for this matter again and again. But you did not apologize to me, until now. This is the key point. --Garam (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll tell you what - I'll apologize on the condition that you stop taking issues like this too personally. Deal? - Areaseven (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Areaseven: You think your attitude is really suited for this situation now? The matter (and your responses) is absolutely your fault. Don't you think so? I'm really uncomfortable now. :( --Garam (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This edit summary is a personal attack, or at least quite uncivil, telling others to shut up on wikipedia is not a good idea, neither is deleting comments on your talk page without answering them, although removal of comment from you own talk page IS allowed, Areaseven's pattern of ignoring massages is not good, but Garam's insistence on an apology is not really necessary.

I doubt there is much for an admin to do, as there don't seem to be any ongoing personal attacks, I suggest not arguing about a days old edit summary, that said, I am not in any way implying that "shut up" is acceptable in an edit summary. Tornado chaser (talk) 12:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I will admit that telling Garam to shut up was uncalled for, and I offered to apologize to him, but given his last reply, it appears that an apology is simply not enough. Like I said earlier, he's taken this issue way too personally. - Areaseven (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

If you are genuinely sorry you said something, then an apology for it should be unconditional - but if you are using an apology as a conditional bargaining tool, then it is not genuine and is worthless. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Although removing these links may have been the correct move, it should have been removed in the regular way and certainly not with a personal attack in the edit summary. Alex Shih^Talk 13:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

So... what do you want to come out of this situation? I've already admitted to my fault, yet people still want blood or something. And for the record, my "attack" was due to Garam's overzealous deletion of information. Sure, Namu Wiki is not a reputable reference (which, BTW, was not among my edits on the Tobot article), but removing all character information was completely unnecessary. So yes, I apologize for telling him to "shut up." Anything else we need to do to close this case? - Areaseven (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You attempt to justify a PA at the same time you apologize? you should probably familiarize yourself with WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I've found that John Scalzi's Apologies: What, When and How is a useful reference for figuring out when and how to make a meaningful apology. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Frustrated Wikicontrols makes legal threat out of ignorance

Wikicontrols seems to have made a legal threat. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed. Their other conduct (edit-warring, personal attacks) was bad, too. GAB^gab 15:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I've offered a comment correcting a couple of fundamental misunderstandings. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Something strange

Hello, folks. I'm not certain that this is the correct place to report this and feel free to direct me elsewhere. But there's something very strange going on at WP:MOSQUOTE. Looks like the page got hijacked in some fashion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looks like the CSS files could have been messed with, if so, this would be a hack, not just vandalistic editing, I suggest not clicking on the links in the messed up page in case they contain malware. Thanks for reporting this. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it's been fixed now. On a related point, is there a good way to tell which template text comes from? GoldenRing (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean? Tornado chaser (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I highly recommend this link which can be made on any Special:Contributions page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

So if I understand this correctly, someone changed the template "vanchor" into a brightly colored attack page which was then displayed on any page that used the template? Tornado chaser (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

So it seems. What I meant was that it would be useful to have a way to see what the wikitext would be if every template were substituted - with HTML comments showing which bits were from which templates. GoldenRing (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I am slowly but surely working on an off-site tool that would do that. Feel free to occasionally pester me to get back to work on it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Odd discussion at BLP noticeboard

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

---

This discussion [19] has gotten a bit strange, with speculation about the real life identities of a user, and another user talking about a phone call from a reporter related to there wiki edits and expressing fear in there personal life. It's a bit confusing and I think an admin should check it out. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

And now a server error is preventing me from getting to the BLP noticeboard to undo an outing attempt. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC) I was able to revert the outing by using the rollback button on my wachlist. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

server error fixed. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I want to know how it is that I made edits to Tara McDonald then a few days later get a call from (Redacted) from CBC.

As an investigator, i expect to get calls from the media, that's fine.

Had she not have mentioned McDonald, I wouldn't be worried at all.

I'm not trying to get summer's real life identity, but I just want to be sure that Summer is not (Redacted). I dno't care what Summer's real name is, but I need to know for the safety of me and my wife.

at the end of August my wife got her credit card number hacked by someone when she was buying stuff online. Hence why she put a VPN on our network, rerouting the IP to this one.

Seems to me like that's done nothing to stop (Redacted) from finding out that I made those edits.

What shuold I do?

Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2017‎ (UTC)

You have repeatedly said you do not want to disclose who I am, yet you've specifically asked on several pages (including this one) if I am one named individual, including the rather absurd claim that it's OK to use the specific person's name because they are a public figure (while reverting the redaction).[20] To not disclose who I am, not asking who I am would be a good start. Cleaning up what you've already done would, at this point, involve oversighting a dozen or more edits to multiple pages.

If you are trying to not disclose who you are, I'd suggest not signing your name (assuming it is your name) to your comments. Also on page one of "What not to do" would be discussing where you used to live, when you moved, where you moved to, your profession and your wife's name.[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Very strange case indeed. For the sake of everyone's sanity and for this gentleman's own protection, may I suggest he find a different outlet for his observations. None of which are conducive to the project or, judging by the comments on SummerPhD's Talk page, his own well-being. Karst (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind my invesigations will have quite an impact upon a plethora of Wikipedia articles.

Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

update

I contacted CBC, and spoke with Wendy myself, and it appears she was not on Wikipedia. As for her finding out about the Tara McDona d edits, she got an anonymous tip. I won't go after this anymore, I will leave it here .In the mean time, I Apolojize to Summer for believing they were Mesley. When you get a call like this, you tend to freak out. In 2020, a bunch of my investigations wil be published in a documentary, so look forward to that. In the mean time I'm sorry to all who had to respond to this, I'm glad I got this sorted out. thanks

Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Can someon eplease close this discussion and unredact Wendy Mesley's name since Summer is not her? thanks.

Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I think we can safely say that your unverified 'investigations' have no place here. Please refrain from adding them without a source. You were already warned and blocked for 36 hours by an administrator @Oshwah:, yet you continued. No only that, you seem to have n truck with our policies as they stand (as noted here). I have to say that I find that quite troublesome. Karst (talk) 09:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

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

The "In popular culture" wars apparently never ended

I feel as if I'm in a time warp. Years ago, some editors tried their damnedest to get "In popular culture" sections banned from en.Wiki, but they failed to do so. There has never been a community consensus to remove IPC sections wholesale, but apparently User:BrightR never got the memo, and his behavior on Nude swimming has become disruptive. Two editors (myself and User:ClemRutter) have disagreed with his removal of that article's IPC section, but BrightR continues to remove it. I've invited him on numerous occasions to discuss any specific issue he may have with specific entries, [31] but he refuses to do so, simply removing the entire section numerous times. Although this is, of course, a content dispute, the issue is being brought here because BrightR's behavior has gone well past the point of WP:Disruption and has become Tendentious.

I ask for no sanctions here, simply the BrightR be told that he must discuss the issues of the entries, and that there is no consensus for the wholesale removal of IPC sections without local consensus to do so, which he does not have. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Relevant RfCs and quotes from policy that Beyond My Ken is ignoring (all presented on the talk page of the article in question):

• RfC : in-popular-culture "self-sourcing" example - Beyond My Ken participated in this RfC and was pointed to it several times. The RfC provides almost-unanimous consensus that in-popular-culture examples cannot be sourced to themselves, and require sources that explain why they're "encyclopedic".
• WP:Local consensus - Beyond My Ken repeatedly assets local consensus (or the lack of it) in order to avoid broader consensus and Wikipedia policies, as the case here.
• Both WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS (sections of WP:V) put the onus to provide citations for restoring challenged material, not on removing it. The removed material was poorly sourced, and until it is properly sourced, Wikipedia policy and RfC consensus support its removal.
• Most recently Beyond My Ken complained that I removed the image gallery. This is a separate issue, but generally galleries should be carefully-selected and are subject to consensus, but again this is a minor issue that Beyond My Ken tacked on just now.

In general it appears that Beyond My Ken is attempting to bully his way out of Wikipedia policies and RfC consensus. Bright☀ 18:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Another little bullying trick that is specifically mentioned in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR that Beyond My Ken just used is "reverting to status quo" ("stable version") in order to avoid policy-backed or consensus-backed edits. Bright☀ 18:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

It's obvious that local consensus cannot override policy, and I've never claimed that it could. What I've claimed (pace the RfC, which was not, and can not be, binding, since it was never made part of the policy, therefore being completely advisory in nature) is that WP:V clearly says that unsourced material can (but not must be) deleted, but this IPC material is sourced by primary sources (not ideal, but acceptable nonetheless) and therefore is not in any practical sense "unsourced", since it can easily be verified by rference to the media material being cited, and therefore cannot be deleted in the manner that BrightR assumes it can.

In any case, however, AN/I is not the place for BrightR and I to repeat the same arguments we've had on the talk page. AN/I is not for the settling of content disputes, and that's not why I brought it here. The relevant question for admins and the community to consider is BrightR's behavior in continuing to remove material over the objections of two editors, without consideration that it might possibly be the case that their position is incorrect.

I have consistently said that I'm more than happy to engage BrightR's concerns about specific problems with specific items, and in that way remove any doubtful or trivial items from the list. I do this all the time, and I agree the IPC lists can grow like topsy if they're not carefully pruned on occasion. I think this is a perfectly reasonable position, but it's one that BrightR refuses to accept. I feel that we can work together, if only he would agree to actually work together and stop removing the section in toto. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal in toto

-EEng

• completely advisory in nature - the RfC represents consensus. Broad community consensus, by many community participants, with an almost unanimous consensus that in-popular-culture examples cannot be sourced to themselves or to passing mentions in secondary sources.
• remove material over the objections of two editors - again, local consensus does not override broader community consensus and policy.
• stop removing the section in toto - one item that was properly sourced remained. The rest are not properly sourced, and per consensus were removed. Your insistence on local consensus to override borader community consensus is the problem. Consensus is completely advisory in nature when it suits you... It's not. The issue here is your refusal to follow policy and consensus, which you have done again and again. Bright☀ 19:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• BMK: Most of that section is unsourced. Per WP:V (policy, not just local consensus), "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Please do not restore material such as this without satisfying that burden. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • (1) I'm sorry, but that is inaccurate. A primary source is still a source. It's not a preferred source, but it's still a source.
  • (2) That's a comment pertinent to the content dispute, which you're more than welcome to join at Talk:Nude swimming. AN/I is not for determining content disputes, so it's not relevant here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Your behavior in restoring material that has no footnotes at all, after their inclusion was disputed, is relevant here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm wondering why the paragraph that starts "I feel as if I'm in a time warp" was written. Has BrightR expressed opposition to IPC sections? 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:480B:1D12:4102:2962 (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment - EEng FTW with the Toto pic! Looks like something that should be mentioned in Ear#In_popular_culture. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment 7 reverts is quite a lot, BMK. Fully support removal of these unreferenced sections per WP:V, and editors warring to replace them should be sanctioned. WP:ONUS is worth a look here. --John (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Question I am often confronted with unsourced IPC sections with statements like "Toto was played by Pepe the Prawn in The Muppets' Wizard of Oz". You are not permitted to source them to the IMDb. The argument is that the film itself is a primary source for the statement, so it does not require an inline citation. My personal position is that unless the appearance is significant enough to warrant mention elsewhere, it is not worth mentioning in an IPC section. But what is the official position? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree with my colleagues immediately above. It's at least once a month that I see added to a serious biography on some obscure political figure a breathless in popular culture that he's mentioned in a video game. I won't go so far as to say that In Popular Culture sections are the worst plague we have at Wikipedia. But they at least get Honorable Mention.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I also generally require reliable secondary sourcing for such entries on the articles I've worked on (example: tesseract) not so much to verify that the concept makes an appearance, but to verify that it was central enough to whatever popcult thing it appeared in to be worthy of note. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

That's why we have WP:TRIVIA. IPC sections are magnets for truthful but random bits of information. If a secondary source has noted it, then inclusion is reasonable. --MASEM (t) 00:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I prefer to think of IPC sections as snapshots of the culture, which are of value to our readers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Such snapshots are of value only when reliable independent secondary sources take note of them, saying something like "gorgeous painting A and B movie B made significant contributions to the understanding of nude swimming in popular culture", Beyond My Ken. Otherwise, they are just poorly referenced and non encyclopedic "cruft", if you will excuse the term. Speaking personally, I find this type of content really irritating. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

How many pictures does it take to illustrate nude swimming?

People don't wait for anything on the internet - unless it's pictures of people in the nude

Are there adults here willing to trim the number of images used in this article? Fifteen images to illustrate the concept of nude swimming seems excessive. We wouldn't put up with this many images in most articles of this length, so why is it ok here? Why is it that anything to do with nudity seems to be controlled by adolescent boys? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

And as a further note, out of those fifteen pictures, there doesn't seem to be a single image showing an older person. There is one image out of fifteen which shows a person of color. Why have so many images of the same thing: young, white people swimming nude? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I have a different question: apart from posting on AN/I, how should an editor draw attention to a page like this? Neither WP:GA nor WP:AfD is the least bit appropriate for discussion. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I have went ahead and trimmed it down further. We did not need thirteen pictures on a relatively small article. I left the most notable piece of art, which was also a featured article. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored the images. If you wish to remove any particular image at that article, you need to reach consensus for that at Talk:Nude swimming. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Barring a second discussion starting about this, FreeKnowledgeCreator, is there something that fifteen images you re-added provide that the four images I left didn't provide about nude swimming? Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature, most of them appeared decorative, and distracting to the content of the article. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The images cannot be "distracting to the content of the article" when they are specifically about the article's topic. Perhaps some of those images could be removed, but as noted, it is up to you to discuss which images should be removed at Talk:Nude swimming and to gain consensus for removal of those images. Please start a discussion on the article's talk page. Further discussion here serves no purpose. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator: I'm not going to make any further comments or start any other discussion about this. It doesn't sound like you either hear me, or want to directly reply. So I'll leave this discussion following this post. However, "The images cannot be "distracting to the content of the article" when they are specifically about the article's topic." is inherently wrong. Staying on a similar topic, if I placed ten more images of random men and women masturbating on the Masturbation article, it is in the scope of the topic, but it's distracting and excessive. Neither this example or the nude swimming article provide enough content or context, especially for the images provided. It is true of any topic though, so just give it a go and attempt it on any other article. Most of the article images are of nude swimming art and there is minimal content, at best. One is a terrible image of a "world record" nude swimming event and it's relevant section is a couple lines. If we're in the business of taking mediocre articles and making them good or featured, then actually following the manual of style of articles that already meet that criteria would be a good start. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I think we should have a special Wikimania nude swimming gathering, but nobody would turn up because laptops aren't waterproof. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Ghana, dip anyone? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

says who? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

If you have one, take pictures. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Nude backstroke, nude freestyle, nude butterfly, and nude breaststroke. Count Iblis (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I find it distressing that we have no pictures of people engaging in nude underwater intercourse, which is an excellent nude swimming activity. Pandeist (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Only a few people can hold their breath for long enough. Count Iblis (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

People need to lay off and remember Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. WP:LAME much?--Certified Gangsta (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, an article on nude swimming might have an image of someone swimming nude. That's what WP:NOTCENSORED means. It doesn't mean that we should have fifteen images of people swimming nude. Reasonable people can see the difference between editorial commonsense and censorship. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

No offense but you don't get to unilaterally decide what is "reasonable" and what is not. Just so you know, your self-appointed status as the voice of "reasonable people" and "common sense" won't win you any brownie points. The community here will decide.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

You think I'm making a point about the sorry state of editorial oversight here in order to win Brownie points? That's cute. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Why do we even have a page on nude swimming. Is there a page on swimming in a bathing suit? Legacypac (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Swimming in a bathing suit is swimming. That's like asking why we have women's studies but not men's studies in college (hint: we do and it's called history) or why we have minority student unions but no white student unions (hint: we do and it's called fraternities) or MRA people drawing false equivalence between "men's rights" and "women's rights". The article belongs.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 03:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Humorless, much? EEng 04:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7915369.stm Count Iblis (talk) 05:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The Towel, and the Throwing Thereof

Towels waiting their turn to be thrown in

Well, clearly I ain't gonna prevail here, not when the anti-IPC editors come out in force, supplemented by those Wikipedians who avoid WP:COMMONSENSE whenever possible. It's a shame that Nude swimming will be degraded as an article, a real disservice to our readers, but such things can't be helped, I guess.

I withdraw the complaint, and BrightR can do whatever he likes with Nude swimming, at least as far as I'm concerned: I've taken the article off my watchlist, and I don't intend to edit it again.

I'll crawl back into my hovel, and begin the repeated ritual incantation of the twelfth canto of my "A personal prescription for surviving Wikipedia". Cheers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Folks, please do me a favor, I'm trying quite hard to not comment here, because it would inevitably descend into bludgeoning, since I understand your points quite well (really, I assure you that I'm not in any way intellectually disabled), but disagree with them almost entirely. I'm sure you all know that it's much harder to stay away from a place when you're repeatedly being pinged there. So, unless you're an admin who's admonishing or sanctioning me (and not simply expressing a personal editorial opinion) please avoid pinging me to this discussion. I really have nothing much more to say than I already have, and I feel certain that you don't want to hear that again anyway. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I acknowledge to the community at large that edit warring was a piss poor choice on my part to deal with the dispute with BrightR. I can plead frustration, but that's obviously never an acceptable excuse. I do realize that I'm lucky not to have been blocked, and thank those admins who may have considered it, but showed tolerance to both myself and BrightR.

My biggest regret about this whole sordid affair is that my lack of good judgment in this one incident will most likely be the only impediment to my becoming an admin in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Another question

Why are we in the business of hosting image of naked, identifiable, living children? One such image is still up on that page after the cull. The problems are so many that I don't know where to start. How would you feel if someone in your workplace pointed out that there was a photograph of you naked and ten years old on the sixth most visited site on the internet? A child is inherently incapable of giving consent in such an image in every jurisdiction I know of. GoldenRing (talk) 06:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I presume you mean File:Kids skinny dipping in India.jpg. Four of the five subjects are simply unidentifiable because of the directions of their head or because of the water. And even so that the fifth is facing the camera, it's safe to say a fair amount of adults do not look like they did when they were children. Anywho, the Commons is hosting the image, they have had a deletion discussion on this before in 2010, you can head there for more information or to discuss it yourself. Here is a relevant guideline to India-specific consent, because of where this photo was taken. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

GoldenRing, I'm sure you aren't the first person to ask that question. As Moe Epsilon points out the answer is "because we can". That seems to be good enough for Commons. The problem may be that, just like on the Nude swimming article, there is no one sensible keeping an eye on things. That's why you get images like File:Naturist girl.png (archive) and File:Naturist young girl.png (archive). Both of those were uploaded seven months ago. I don't even know if we can host those, but should we? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be of the only one who is facing the camera, you can see see about as much of the body as the infamous Virgin Killer album cover as featured in the Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia dispute. And both show less than the infamous Nevermind album cover. In neither of these cases are the people children anymore, but that wouldn't have stopped us. Actually we've even had an article on Spencer Elden since May 2005 [32] which if the DOB on the current article is correct, means since he was 14 years old. Nil Einne (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Moe Epsilon: yes, yes that is the image I was referring to. Even the guideline you cite says, publishing a photo in a manner that might be "embarrassing, mentally traumatic" or causing "a sense of insecurity about [depicted persons] activities" is illegal under the CoI article 21.. I think this image ought to fall foul of that guideline, for the reasons I gave above.

Whatever your opinion of the album covers mentioned, I think there is a clear difference between posing for the front cover of an album and having your picture taken by a stranger while swimming. My concern here is not so much people looking at pictures of naked boys, it is more in the spirit of our BLP policy of erring on the side of doing no harm to living people. The people in the photograph are presumably still living. At least one is identifiable; you might not have much luck trying to identify him from scratch, but people who know him will recognise him (and will then probably figure out who the others are easily enough). The photograph would be embarrassing to most people, I think. I certainly don't much fancy my childhood photos being posted online, much less ones of me naked. The deletion discussion at commons is pretty horrific; the idea that a child has consented to naked photographs because he appears to be smiling at the camera is wrong on so many levels that, again, I don't really know where to start. GoldenRing (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how a baby less than a year old has posed for anything. Clearly someone that young has no concept of consent or even photography whatsoever and can't understand the concept of posing. In other words, if your argument in that the subject although a child may have some slightly more understanding of the implications of the decision when it was a professional work done for an album cover than if it it was some random taking photos, this falls flat when we consider babies since clearly they don't understand more of what's going on whatever the work. Instead you're saying that the parents can make the decision which means you then get a lot of complications, especially in cases where the images were e.g. at a nudist beach or other such places. Nil Einne (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The wider issue of course is something you touched on. "The photograph would be embarrassing to most people, I think. I certainly don't much fancy my childhood photos being posted online, much less ones of me naked." Since it was an "I think", no real evidence was provided for the former especially if we are talking about the Western world (particularly parts of Europe). Personally I definitely don't want photos of me naked around although more so as an adult than as a child, but it's definitely far from a universal attitude for people to be embarassed by photos of them doing natural ordinary things like swimming as a child even if naked.

Which gets into your second point. Unless your advocating we remove all photos of children without explicitly consent then you're making a personal judgement about what sort of childhood photos are likely to be embarassing to someone.

I would hardly be surprised if some people are more embarassed by photos here Commons:Category:Street children, Commons:Category:Begging children for example. And I also wouldn't be surprised if for some 18 year olds they may be more embarassed by a photo of their mother or father kissing them as a child (the reverse but I suspect it'll be rare the person is identifiable without further information in that case) than one of them swimming. And I'm sure we have photos of children incidentally caught nose picking, we do have File:Oldwoman cry baby nakba.jpg for example. (Actually I found one which isn't incidental and probably should be deleted that even has the child's name.) I'm sure I could find other examples which someone may find more embarassing but I'm lazy to especially since if anything were to happen this conversation will need to take place somewhere else.

And that's only children. I'm assuming the argument is that a child is less able to understand the implications, such as the possibility of there being a permanent photographic record of it, of doing whatever they may find embarassing in the future in a public place. Still it's clearly not only children who may wish we aren't hosting images which feature them. For example some people may later regret appearing at a white supremecist rally or singing "no means yes, yes means anal" (okay we don't actually have anything from that AFAIK but I'm pretty sure that's primarily because of copyright reasons) or whatever else. Stuff which may have occured when they were young but considered adults, and in some cases possibly drunk. (Actually we do have a Commons:Category:Drunken people and some images I saw there or in subcats looked identifable.) Yet in at least some of these cases, I'm not sure we'd remove the images even if someone appearing in them asks, and even if they aren't iconic. (Well I'd like it like to think we'd always remove images of run of the mill drunk people if they ask, but I'm not sure if we'd do so for photos of a white supremacist rally. Likewise if one of the kids in any of the photos actually asks, I'm assuming we will delete it unless we have very good reason not to.)

Note that I'm explicitly not saying we shouldn't make such judgements, actually I'm pretty sure we and commons already does to a limited extent. I'm simply saying that if you did want to go about this, you'd need to carefully consider under what circumstances we make a value-judgement that a photo is potentially embarassing so should be deleted. That includes issues like what exactly is consent (including who provides it) and whether we only consider such issues for children, and how to handle cases where what's embarassing may be more incidental (e.g. picking the nose in a group photo). Also is this only about these images appearing in articles, because if it's the wider issue of hosting these images, that discussion would need to take place at commons unless you either plan to block these images from appearing on en.wikipedia, or try again to get the WMF so shut down common.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm still thinking through this a bit, but I was a bit surprised to even have to think through it.

I think the difference between an album cover and the photograph in question is that the album cover has been published in its own right and Wikipedia is using an image of a thing to describe that thing; if someone queries the use of a naked child on an album cover in a Wikipedia article, we can reasonably say that we have an article on that album and want to illustrate it; it's not like we could choose a different picture of the album cover which didn't have the naked child on it. The use of the image on an album cover also creates the reasonable assumption that someone consented to the image. It probably wasn't the child, but someone with responsibility for the child was almost certainly involved in the production of the image (and someone in such a position is usually able to give consent on a child's behalf to many things, though maybe we're nearing the edge of those limits here). The case of a just-starting-out freelance photographer who took a photograph of someone he happened to see somewhere and posted it on flickr under a license he later regretted is clearly different. Neither you nor I would ever have encountered that picture in the total obscurity of some Frenchman's flickr stream; the only prominence that image has, it has because it is used on Wikipedia.

I don't buy struck; see below a lot of your argument above; if I could paraphrase briefly, it seems to amount tothe portion of what you say that amounts to, "Some people will find anything embarrassing, while others aren't embarrassed by anything, so we should just throw our hands up and have no standards whatsoever." (I realise this is not what you're actually advocating.) Of course some people won't be embarrassed by nude child pictures of themselves, and of course some people will demand that any reference to them be removed; neither of these should determine our actions. The principle we work by is that of conservatively doing no harm to living people and only publishing things about them that are verifiable in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Why should that standard be different just because it's a picture of them, not words about them?

You briefly discuss the issue of children/adults in similar situations and actually I have many of the same concerns about other images used in that article; they are all of presumably-living people, many of them clearly identifiable to people who know them, and some of them in situations where they may well have a reasonable expectation of privacy. File:FYN 04.jpg, for instance, is an upload on commons by a user who ought to be blocked there for violating the username policy; they claim to represent Florida Young Naturists without, as far as I can tell, any evidence of it. Even if they do officially represent that organisation, I'd really like to see some sort of evidence that they have permission to post naked photos of members to heavily-trafficked websites. File:2014 WNBR Brighton beach.jpg is just about reasonable; these people are adults who've just participated in a naked run and if they didn't realise someone might take a photograph of them in the process then they should have. That kind of reasoning doesn't, as far as I can tell, hold for the other images discussed above. GoldenRing (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd planned to leave this discussion, but I need to reply since you made highly offensive comments about me. I never said anything remotely like "Some people will find anything embarrassing, while others aren't embarrassed by anything, so we should just throw our hands up and have no standards whatsoever". I explicitly noted that I am not saying so ("Note that I'm explicitly not saying we shouldn't make such judgements") precisely to avoid this but you ignored my comment and instead made offensive comments about me. Please do not make such highly offensive misleading statements about me ever again. I'm definitely done with this discussion now. Good luck ever getting anything changed when you make such highly offensive misleading claims about what people are saying. Just because people think stuff is complicated, and there are a lot of issues to consider and so we need to think long and hard about how, when and what we do rather so that we don't make sweeping judgements without strong evidence or only deal withone minor portion of a wider issue, doesn't mean they are saying that it should be ignored. It's barely tolerable to suggest they are saying so if the person didn't make it clear they are not say that. When I did make it clear? No fucking way. If you are unable of unwilling to look into the wider issues, that's you choice. If you think you can get stuff changed without looking into the wider issues, that's also you choice. But don't fault someone for bringing up some of the many wider issues. If you do want to consider the wider issues, I have no idea why you'd make such offensive comments about me just because I brought up a few of the wider issues. Nil Einne (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I am distraught to have caused someone such offence. This is genuinely something I'm trying to think through and I was trying to interact with some ideas you'd brought up; I clearly worded that very sloppily and didn't come across well. I apologise unreservedly. GoldenRing (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken wars against consensus - 1RR proposal

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

---

Now that we've established there's sweeping consensus not only in the WP:V RfC but also on AN/I, can we discuss the real issue here, Beyond My Ken repeatedly ignoring consensus, calling it completely advisory in nature when it suits him, ignores it otherwise, and in general employs the very tactics described in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR? He has been on AN/I, again and again, and RfCd at least twice, and generally fought in talk pages over and over due to his refusal to acknowledge that policy and RfC and talk page discussions are more binding than his personal preference or the "consensus" he and a single other editor achieve locally. This is followed (as it is here) with please avoid pinging me. This recurring behavioral problem (deny community consensus, claim local consensus, WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, "stop pinging me") is repeated throughout Beyond My Ken's contribution history. Can we please agree to a sanction that BMK should be subject to WP:1RR in any matter that is not obviously vandalism? Bright☀ 08:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

All I see is one user, with a deep knowledge of policy and procedure bulldozering his pet POV- without leaving sufficient time for anyone who is not permanently on line to make a comment. I would prefer to see that user to back off and do a week or so solid content creation before commenting further. --ClemRutter (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

without leaving sufficient time - A month is not sufficient time? How about five months? Six years? More? Community consensus (RfC) and repeated local talk-page consensus could not sway you or Beyond My Ken. An AN/I which he initiated could not sway him. Sanctions need to be put in place to affirm that consensus is not bulldozering [a] pet POV. Consensus is how Wikipedia works. Ignoring consensus is the problem here, not the alleged lack of sufficient time for anyone who is not permanently on line to make a comment. Bright☀ 09:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support proposal, as it is clear that BMK still does not "get" it. --John (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - BrightR is very lucky someone requested protection of the page before blocks could be dished out. I find the arguments presented here tenuous at best and incongruous at worst. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 10:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Elaborate? Bright☀ 10:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@BrightR: The information you presented here does not show a pattern of edit warring, and, looking at the block log, it's been years since a competent block has been placed on BMK. Going from that to a 1RR is nonsense. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, seems you are not aware of Beyond My Ken's history. I'll add an overview below in a little while. Bright☀ 15:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I just stated that I looked at it and familiarized myself with it before commenting. Please, do not assume opposition to your proposal stems from ignorance. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't get mad; you stated that you looked at his block history; I'm explaining that he successfully avoided sanctions (such as blocks) time and again, and will provide the history below. Bright☀ 16:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The earliest RfC is from 2008, where Beyond My Ken was requested to stop trying to override consensus with reverts to status quo (sounds familiar?). From minor issues like ignoring the MOS (which represents consensus) in 2012, to more serious issues like OWN, 3RR, and ignoring consensus in 2010-2015, to outright claiming clear talk page consensus where there wasn't any in 2016. If you follow these links you'll find that other than the AN/I and RfCs, there were plenty of other 3RR and talk-page discussions where BMK decided to ignore consensus or "revert to status quo" as he overrides broader consensus in favor of his personal opinion, each time avoiding sanctions and blocks. 17:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Both users are very lucky not to have been blocked for this disruptive edit-warring, but as far as I know only BMK has a years-long pattern of this behaviour. Am I wrong? --John (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@John: I am well aware that both should have been blocked, but only one of the editors has proposed ridiculous sanctions on another user. And you are wrong, see my response above. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

If you think they are ridiculous, it is for you to propose an alternative. Which response above? --John (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The alternative is to discuss the issue at hand, something that doesn't require proposing. My response sums it up: [I]t's been years since a competent block has been placed on BMK. Going from that to a 1RR is nonsense. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The content issue was resolved almost immediately and should have never been brought to AN/I, since AN/I isn't about content disputes. What remains is the behavior issue with Beyond My Ken, which has been languishing for years without sanctions. Bright☀ 17:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Someone involved in an edit war who reverted seven times and now wants to have their opponent hit with a 1RR restriction might want to consider than ANI discussions generally take all sides' editing into account when considering sanctions. Unless one editor's behaviour in this matter is particularly egregious (i.e. inserting BLP violations), which isn't the case here, it's both or neither. Black Kite (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment BrightR made an edit, which they discussed in talk. They were met there with statements like :"IPC information is sourced by primary sources: the pop cuklture items themselves. It it therefore not "unsourced" and therefore cannot be removed at will. Like any other disputed information, it must be discussed on the talk page, and a consensus reached. This is not a "tactic", this is following Wikipedia procedures, which I suggest you do as well.", and the edit-war ensued. BrightR made six (not seven) reverts; now, I know being "right" is no defence against edit-warring, but it might be helpful if some sort of sanction, or at very least an admonition, was given to BMK, as they need to know they are "wrong" on the interpretation of policy, and "wrong" to edit-war over it, and because I understand this is a pattern of problematic behaviour that has persisted for years. I'd have no problem with a similar admonition being given to BrightR. What we mustn't do here is nothing at all, or we'll be back talking about this every three months forever. --John (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per nihlus kryik and Black Kite. -- Begoon 11:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, but BMK does not seem to understand (or follow) the relevant policies and editorial consensus, and continued editing in this fashion may warrant some sort of future action. @Beyond My Ken: please be advised. Paul August ☎ 14:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Problem is, "for now" has been going on for about a decade... Each time BMK gets off sanction-free, "for now". Bright☀ 15:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per the reasoning of others here. And Bright needs to stop deleting stuff he doesn't like. This is just a glorified content dispute. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Despite my own view that IPC sections are at least 80-90% trivial crap and that on the whole we would be better off without them, I'm not seeing how BMK's conduct has been so egregious as to justify 1RR across the entirety of the project. A restriction more tightly focused on the problem area (IPC) could be more justifiable. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose BrightR looks to be trying to WP:GAME the system. MarnetteD|Talk 16:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose This clearly a political attempt for Bright to gain an upper hand in a content dispute. Perhaps he's the one who should be punished for gaming the system and wasting everybody's time. --Certified Gangsta (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Quite the accusation considering BMK brought the issue to AN/I, not me. You should consider his storied history of ignoring consensus in order to revert to his own version. Bright☀ 17:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a strange accusation, too, in that as far as the content dispute goes, there was almost wall-to-wall consensus here that BMK is in the wrong... on top of the previous RfCs and policies... Bright☀ 17:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as vindictive gamesmanship. This proposal borders on vexatious to the point that it may merit a WP:BOOMERANG. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose cynical gaming the system. and yes John, you are wrong. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Gaming how? I'm raising a behavior issue that has cropped up again and again and again... Bright☀ 17:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Perfectly willing to believe I am wrong, but I'm an evidence-based guy and I don't see evidence for that. Is there some? --John (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose a genuinely bad idea. BMK is hardly an edit warring user. If you have to bring up something from 2008 to support your case Bright, it means you have no case. Legacypac (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose 1RR bs, Support indeffing Bright for not being very bright. –Davey2010^Talk 18:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose After waiting to see some evidence that is relevant to more recent times, I'm not seeing enough to enforce a 1RR right now. 1RR would more plausible for IPC sections, specifically, but that is not what is being proposed. It's overkill to 1RR BMK for the whole project. BMK has also stated above that he was done engaging in this conversation, editing that article and making further reverts, and that was before this section was started. There is nothing to prevent. That being said, both Bright and BMK should both be admonished for repeated edit warring. Bright and John should also drop the stick and not reply nearly as much as they are here. Your positions on the matter here are understood. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 21:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - It is a bad idea. As Legacypac already said, having to bring up something from almost 10 years ago doesn't support your case at all. It almost looks like BrightR is trying to WP:GAME the system. Miles Edgeworth ^Objection! 21:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Weird JonBenet Ramsey vandalism?

I think there's some sort of template vandalism going on at Welcome to the N.H.K., but I can't tell where the problem is. Zagalejo^^^ 00:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. But here is some context. Zagalejo^^^ 00:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

There's your problem. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 03:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism and personal attacks by User:DonaldTonald3

• Special:Diff/801015007 | PlyrStar93 (talk · contribs)
• Special:Diff/801012652 | Theinstantmatrix (talk · contribs)
• Special:Diff/801012620 | Yexstorm2001 (talk · contribs)
• Special:Diff/801013714 | Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DonaldTonald

Note: There's already an WP:ANV report for this user, so I'll just link the personal attacks, alongside his edit on the sockpuppet investigation page.

Suspected sockpuppet user DonaldTonald3 (talk · contribs) kept making threatening edits on these user's talk pages, including mine, after we've reverted his edits constituting vandalism. As of right now, he's continues to vandalize articles and making threats on our talk pages (especially PlyrStar93) whenever we revert his edits as vandalism. Please block this user, and if applicable, hide his threatening edits he made on our talk pages. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

IMO a regular AIV case should get this sorted pretty well, it's just a little bit backlogged for the moment. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. 🖉←} 04:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

and user has been indef'ed. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. 🖉←} 04:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Pi page

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

---

I think the bot auto referenced the decimal conversion and it could be incorrect. Doing the calculation I get 3.1428 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.114.83 (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what specific content you're referring to. 3.1428 = 22/7, which is a well-known approximation of pi. Could you please expand on your comments at Talk:Pi, assuming you're referring to content on Pi? power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm also not sure of the context but 22/7 is 3.1429 not 3.1428 --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• I believe this discussion is outside the sphere of ANI. EEng 22:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

You mean outside the circle right? Legacypac (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It's just making me hungry. Mmmm, pi. John from Idegon (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Repetitive accusations of antisemitism and homophobia, and threats and personal attacks by XIIIfromTokyo

Dear administrators,

XIIIfromTOKYO has been accusing me of antisemitism, homophobia a bit everywhere since last year, and I cannot use a talk page without him going back to these outragious accusations. On top of that, he has been threatening me and constantly using an aggressive language.

ACCUSATIONS OF ANTISEMITISM

Original context

The first student association of Panthéon-Assas University is – at least on Facebook – a Jewish association, UEJF (Union des Étudiants Juifs de France) Assas. Because of that, someone tagged the door of this association office inside the university with a swastika, and the university and the student association asked the public prosecutor to bring charges.

XIII seems to have something against this university, so he is behaving aggressively to change the article, and another institution (this time in favor of it) because he considers they are rivals.

Among many misuse of sources, he gave many articles which related the swastika incident, and others (policemen had been put in the 1990s to protect the university from violent groups, like other Parisian universities). He was saying that it shows that the university has a tradition of antisemitism and racism and of beating (ratonnade) Jews and foreigners! I kindly explained, and wrote in particular: "What you are quoting (some fights sometimes near the university) is not at all what you are saying, ie foreigners and Jews being commonly beaten up in PA (ratonnades) or PA as an institution having or having the reputation to have an enduring tradition of racism and antisemitism!"[33] He was talking of beating people out of racism and antisemitism, so I said that it is absolutely false that foreigners and Jews are beaten up in one of the top institutions of France.

Accusation 1

He deformed what I said and answered:

Copy/pasted quoting
Why are you refering to jew students as "foreigners" ? World War II is over, and you can still be French and jew. You should start to really carefully care about the words you use. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC) I did not write that at all, what you are writing is absolutely outrageous! […] --Launebee (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I explained that I obviously did not write that, but he is continuing since then to write on different pages I intervene that I wrote anti-Semitic things, or to imply I am a neo-nazi, so that I continuously have to defend myself, and so that the wrong is already done with other users.

Accusation 2 [34]

Copy/pasted quoting

You have used to word "foreigners" to described thoses students, victims of racism and antisemitism. This kind of speech in France is deeply connected to far-right movements, and is considered as hate-speech. You say that you know a lot of things about France, so that's definitely something that you can't ignore. You are responsible for what you say. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC) I clearly did not describe Jews as foreigners. Your attack is absolutely despicable. --Launebee (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Accusation 3 [35]

Copy/pasted quoting
You are calmly describing victims of antisemitism and racism as "foreigners". […] Did I miss something ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Can someone do something about this user continuing to do outrageous statements about me ? […] --Launebee (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Accusation 4 [36]

Copy/pasted quoting

So now there is a strong Jewish community in this college. Do you have a reference to back that claim, or is that from your personnal experience or préjugés ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC) It is off-topic anyway, but you can see the Facebook page of Union des Étudiants Juifs de France Assas has a lot more likes and followers than UNEF Assas (twice less)(UNEF being historically the first student union of France) or UNI Assas (10 times less) (UNI being the first right-wing student union). --Launebee (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Launebee (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Accusation 5 [37]

Copy/pasted quoting

I have read with some supprise that, according to Launebee, this university has a strong jewish community . Is that again your point of view about jew students, or do you have serious references about that ? Needless to say that after your previous statement, and your rewritting of the article of a well-know "néo-nazi" association[38], you might need to start to carefully chose the words you use. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC) I already gave you the reference. It is simply the first student association on Facebook. Please stop these continuing outrageous accusations. --Launebee (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC) It is off-topic anyway, but you can see the Facebook page of Union des Étudiants Juifs de France Assas has a lot more likes and followers than UNEF Assas (twice less)(UNEF being historically the first student union of France) or UNI Assas (10 times less) (UNI being the first right-wing student union). --Launebee (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Accusation 6 [39]

Copy/pasted quoting

So again, you don't a reference to provide, and that's only your opinion that you are voicing about the jewish community. Refrain from that activity, and stick to the references. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC) It is not something written in the article. I was just answering you, since you implied outrageous things. Stop this disruptive activity. --Launebee (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I am personally an indirect victim of the Jewish genocide, and I repetitively have to deal with things linked to it in my life, I feel deeply outraged by these constant accusations.

I hope the severity of the sanction to XIII will show that Wikipedia is not taking antisemitism lightly, and that you cannot constantly attack the honour of a contributor by playing with this despicable thing.

ACCUSATIONS OF HOMOPHOBIA

The same system: he transformed something, put it everywhere so I constantly have to defend myself of this accusation.

Original context

Richard Descoings died in mysterious circumstances. He was homosexual and married, and it was controversial. Many newspapers, including gay community newspapers, talked about it.[40][41][42][43][44]) I used in the Sciences Po article the wording used in his article at that time [45], ie that he had a "controversial gay lifestyle", and for example anti-homophobic articles say it was, but it should not be. It was the beginning of constant accusations of homophobia by XIIIfromTokyo.

Accusation 1 [46]

Copy/pasted quoting

You made the choice to put homophobic slurs in the article. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC) You insisted I said antisemitic things, now you are saying I am writing homophobic things! There is nothink homophobic about saying his gay lifestyle is controvesial, on the contrary. See for example this newspaper article saying that his gay lifestyle was taboo and is denouncing the fact it had to be. Can someone stop these insults toward me? --Launebee (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Accusation 2 [47]

Copy/pasted quoting

You are calmly putting homophic slurs in {{Sciences Po]]' article. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Can someone do something about this user continuing to do outrageous statements about me ? […] --Launebee (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Homophobic slurs in the Sciences Po article? XIIIfromTOKYO, Launebee hasn't touched the Sciences Po article since September of this year. You're either referring to the talk page (in which case point me to the discussion/comment) or a very old edit to the article (in which case I'll need a diff please). The only other alternative is that you mean Pantheon-Assas' article or talk (in which case diff again please). Otherwise, the claim of homophobia is a brightline violation of NPA policy and I'm going to ask that you strike it. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

XIII never stroke his comment or answered this.

Bad "jokes" [48][49]

One resistant during WW2 accused Sciences Po to have been a place of Collaboration during WW2.

With no link, an article from the Independant says that the system in which is Sciences Po is a machine to produce a "blinkered, often arrogant and frequently incompetent ruling freemasonry".

XIII mixed these things, as such:

Copy/pasted quoting

So now we have to explain that this school is "nazi" and linked to "freemasonry", but was also ruled by a "gay" "junky" who used to hire toyboys. And could you remove the smileys? The nazi regime and the collaboration is something serious, not a joke! He obviously changes the meaning of the texts: freemasonery obviously means here a "cast", not actual freemasonery. --Launebee (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Copy/pasted quoting

As I have already mentioned, when I saw that this school was targeted because it was the lair "nazi" and linked to "freemasonry", but was also ruled by a "gay" "junky" who used to hire toyboys... well. Time for the arbcom to work ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC) The kind of criticism you are talking about is your invention. And If there are so many references, it is because you are denying the serious criticism. --Launebee (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Accusation 3 [50]

Copy/pasted quoting
Let me remind you that you wrote your opinion about Richard Descoing alleged homosexuality and drug usein the Sciences Po article : "an overdose linked to his controversial gay livestyle" [51]. None of what you wrote a few month ago was backed by the reference your provided back then [52]. I'm just trying to prevent and other accident.XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

THREATS

XIII wants me to stop editing, otherwise he is implying he could create a media turmoil with what he accused me in talk pages. Sometimes in French so that other users cannot understand.

Threat 1 [53]

Copy/pasted quoting
All the process is public, so your actions here […] will be available to anyone. Contributors, journalists... XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Threat 2 [54]

Copy/pasted quoting
Tu es bien conscient que tout es public, et que n'importe qui peut poster ça sur Twitter […] (avec tout le basard médiatique à prévoir vu certaines expressions utilisées en PDD ) ?

Translation: You are well aware that everything is public, and that anyone can post in on Twitter […] (with all the media fuss to come due to some expression used in talk page (PDD = page de discussion).

Those "expressions used" are obviously from him.

Threats 3 and 4 [55][56]

These threats are not necessarily directed to me, but I signal that, as EdJohnston pointed out[57], XIII is doing legal threats now, by calling someone a "criminal".

Copy/pasted quoting
The article has been protected. Sad to see that a criminal is using such a method to harrass an other contributors. Sad and disgusting. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Copy/pasted quoting

EdJohnston one contributor clearly wants to harrass other contributors, and went so far as using a lot of SPA in the past ; this week's use of no less than 4 IPs to revert templates saying that this article was written like an advert clearly shows that any method, including criminal ones can be used by this individual, on group of indivudials. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Your reference to 'criminal' behavior above sounds to me like making legal threats. You were previously blocked for edit warring in April 2017 which should have made you aware of the sort of behavior we consider problematic. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

CONSTANT ABUSIVE AND AGRESSIVE LANGUAGE

XIII has very often an abusive language toward me. I have been answering his repetitive personal attacks and repetitive arguments for more than a year, but even if I keep civil, he always turns it into personal attacks. I give just two examples among many.

Example 1: abusive language[58]

Copy/pasted quoting
[…] It is off-topic. We are talking about reputation here, and since the source was in French, I just explained. --Launebee (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC) […] You are lying to an other contributor just to try to gain some time. It's relevant because it shows that you know that you are lying when you write this article. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Example 2: repetitive claim I did a legal threat [59][[60]

Because I was discussing the fact saying PA has an racist tradition is libelous, which is not a legal threat according to Wikipedia policy ("A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat."[61] He has been reminded it is not a legal threat by other contributors but he continues to claim everywhere I did legal threat.

Copy/pasted quoting
That's clearly an intimidation attempt. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC) No it's not […]. Discussing or declaring something to be libelous is not in itself a legal threat. Not a legal threat; "This is libelous". […] Mr rnddude (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Copy/pasted quoting
I already had to face legal threat from this contributor, so any administrator has to be aware that it could accur to him or her as well. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

There are many examples.

GENERAL

This attitude does not seem to be new. XIIIfromTokyo has already been blocked in French Wikipedia three days for "personal attacks and insults" and two weeks for "intimidation attempt or harassment". [62]

There already has been requests here, but discussions were blurred in content discussion over Panthéon-Assas University and Sciences Po. Now, PA article has many sources, and Mr rnddude helped resolve the issues, and there has been a consensus on the lead of Sciences Po, with Robminchin helping. But XIII accusations are continuing, and it is becoming worse and worse.

Whatever the content dispute is, XIII is constant me insulting me by asserting or strongly implying that I am linked to antisemitism or neo-nazism. I repeat what I wrote: I am personally an indirect victim of the Jewish genocide, and I repetitively have to deal with things linked to it in my life, I feel deeply outraged by these constant accusations of antisemitism. I hope the severity of the sanction to XIII will show that Wikipedia is not taking antisemitism lightly, and that you cannot constantly attack the honour of a contributor by playing with this despicable thing.

To show the gravity of such accusations, I hope, on top of public apologies by him, at least a one-year ban will be decided (and a total ban if he does not apologise).

Regards,

--Launebee (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Purely for the administrative purpose of being able to parse out and read this thread (and hopefully to avoid some serious TLDR) I have removed all of the quotes, replacing them either the relevant diffs or links. I have also removed the silly number of subheaders. I took every effort to not actually remove any content added by Launebee. If someone feels this decision was improper they are welcome to replace it with the original content, which can be found here. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I kept the subheaders removed, but put back the quotes, because the sentences are to be found inside long texts, so specific quotes are needed. Your version without the quotes is to found here. Thanks for your help. --Launebee (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I've collapsed the quotes, since that's kind of the point of a collapse template. Primefac (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

If you want to point out the text, you could use the tq template. The tq template highlights quoted text in green, and looks like this: (text being quoted). This might be a better alternative to hatted boxes. Blackmane (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Noting that the reported user has been blocked for 72 hours for edit warring on the aforementioned article. ansh666 21:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• When a user has been advised repeatedly that he is making false accusations, and yet persists in repeating the accusations, we have a problem. The subject of this complaint hasn't made many contributions, but he has exacted long-term abuse against a good faith editor. Frankly, I don't see a convincing reason why we need to retain this editor as a member of our community. Lepricavark (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• To attempt to summarize the content: the ancient University of Paris ("The Sorbonne") was dissolved into smaller universities in 1970. Panthéon-Assas University was created as a successor school that included the law faculty. There appear to be multiple content disputes between the two editors discussed on the talk page. The fr:Université_Panthéon-Assas article may be useful as a reference. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

IranianNationalist

The user has kept on making accusations of bias (and other PA'sd long after being asked to stop), as well as other issues.

Accusation of censorhip [63] [64]and of being an agent of a government [65] and prejudice [66]

I asked him to stop

[67]

His response was

[68] and [69]

In addition (just a few more on other pages)

[70]

[71]

[72]

Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

There is more but I was letting it go a he clearly is not a native English speaker. The problem is this is over multiple pages and even though he now accepts the point is still accusing me of bias.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

And has now said that my posting of the alert for this ani is disruptive [73] followed up with this [74]Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

South Derry Republican, 190.52.205.69, Eireabu

Having had a notification seven days ago that someone tried to log into my account from a new device I am now being harrassed by a new editor Special:Contributions/South_Derry_Republican who is also clearly operating from the bare IP Special:Contributions/190.52.205.69 as well. They have also now engaged in edit-warring on my talk page [75] despite being reverted by myself and @Arjayay: and notified in my reverts of point three of the infobox at the top of my talk page which states: If I remove your comments, please don't restore them. The same for a discussion. Please respect and abide by Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. If I removed them I clearly don't want to engage in or continue the discussion. Restoring them repeatedly constitutes vandalism

There are two possibilities: a random editor of obvious strong Irish republican viewpoint takes offense to me as my views contrast to theirs; or secondly and most likely it is an existing user on Wikipedia. In this case I can assume it to be the user @Eireabu:, whose username as well as some of their comments to me in the past suggests they are also someone of Irish republican views. They are the only editor I can assume has a big enough grudge against me, in this case over the Red Hand of Ulster article where I completely shattered their viewpoint and arguments by sheer weight of historical and academic evidence as can be seen by a look at the references and bibliography of this edit of mine. Indeed after @Canterbury Tail: blocked the article for a month to prevent a full edit-war I posted quite a lot of reasonings and justifications for my edits and on the many issues in the article. I even copied the article into my sandbox and posted regular updates of work in progress for Eireabu to look at and comment on, and how I took their concerns into account, however they responded once and it was quite clear they had not bothered to look at any of the stuff I presented or said and was intent on carrying on as before. They had no clear intention of collaborating.

I also believe the harrassing [76] end comment to me backs up it is Eireabu: You say: The 'Gaelic' Ulster flag is actually the flag of the Hiberno-Norman Earldom of Ulster, ruled by the de Burgh family? Me say: False. It is the first recorded use, not the origin. The key bones of contention Eireabu seems to have had with my initial edits to the Red Hand article was over the first documented usage of the Red Hand symbol and the source used for it (slates source as POV as well as adding in their own SYN and OR, source as a unreliable "pamphlet" without any supporting evidence.) They also felt the edit "relegated" the Gaelic history of the Red Hand and implied it wasn't a Gaelic symbol. Whilst the IPs comment is factually flawed (the flags origin—not the Red Hand symbol on it—is de Burgh), it strongly looks like a continuation of Eireabu's viewpoint on the matter.

Whether Eireabu is indeed South Derry Republican and the IP is up for debate however both SDR and the IP are harrassing user accounts that should be blocked as they only seem to exist to harrass me. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not!! Nor do I condone such behaviour!! I've better things to do than to get myself involved in such stupid things and I sincerely hope the person detracts from it, I don't have any connections to Derry! Paranoia over myself is a little rash and unfair and an apology is in order. Eireabu (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

There are grounds for suspicion and I do not apologise for voicing them and I stated that it is up for debate not certifiable fact. You may very well be innocent but these things have only happened since our few interactions over the past couple of months and I can think of no other editor I've interacted with who has a reason to be peeved at me so it is reasonable and quite right to raise the possibility. But as stated it is not fact, just suspicion and suspicion especially raised by the coincidence pointed out above. Anyways the only action I've directly asked for is against SDR and the IP.

Also anyone can make up a username stating anything whether it is true or not, indeed as I enforce the WP:IMOS agreement on the county name it could easily be an intentional choice by someone to have a dig as you cannot enforce IMOS on a username. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Well as I have said on my user page, I hope they stop and I am with you in action against whomever it is. You have made an accusation, for which is wrong, I've better things to be doing than such nonsense!Eireabu (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

And as I have done at your user page, I thank you for your condemnation. Yet if there is reasonable suspicion it and the reason why must be mentioned whether it is misplaced or not I hope you understand. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I Don't necessarily understand in fairness, it's a big world out there with multiple people with viewpoints, similiar or not. I haven't even noticed the user till you raised it, linking my own username in the process above. Even the quoted point you made above from this user regarding the Ulster flag wasn't something I agree with!! It was always my assumption the flag was largely De Burgo in design and origin, with an O'Neill crest at the centre. Anyway no point crying over spilled milk and alas we must move on! Here's to contentious free contributions and editing here on in. You might have gathered I'm slow with any sort of contributions and quite the amateur, that will never change unfortunately ;) Eireabu (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Mabuska, it wouldn't have hurt to have explained to South Derry Republican on their page, before you took them to ANI, that they're not supposed to restore removed comments. New users — which we're supposed to start by assuming they are — don't know that, and most likely don't read edit summaries. Also, this is not the place to voice your suspicions of Eireabu. The way to do that is firstly to ask them, and secondly, if you think you have good evidence, to open an SPI. I agree it's hard to believe South Derry Republican is a bona fide new user — see them using the <blockquote> template a couple of hours after the account was created[77], though not using it very well — but it doesn't by any means have to be Eireabu. I've warned South Derry Republican about harassing you on your page, and about editing logged out. Bishonen | talk 16:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC).

@The_Discoverer reaches conclusions from newsarticles that are clearly not stated in those articles

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

---

Please look into @The_Discoverer who has reached conclusion on the page https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Sanatan_Sanstha that are not reported or implied in the news articles cited. The editor definitely shows an anti-Hindu slant, and clearly indicates that S/he is in favor of the Catholic Church in India. Everyone is free to pursue what they choose is appropriate, however when that choice colors their editing, then WIKI has to provide oversight. I am sure that you deal with this issue many times a day, everyday. Thank you172.125.126.89 (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) That's a content dispute. Take it to the talk page. Kleuske (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

These allegations are patent nonsense. I have not done a single edit related to Hinduism per se, leave alone having an anti-Hindu slant. All my edits are strongly supported by the cited reliable sources, for nearly every sentence. I challenge 172.125.126.89 to provide diffs to support his/her claims. Show us a single statement that is not directly supported by the sources. 04:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

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

User: 81.102.46.190

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

For the past week, 81.102.46.190 has been modifying dates in a couple few lists of historical monarchs, and on one king's page. The dates being inserted have no basis in the historical record, and no attempt is being made to provide verifiability. They have never explained any change, either in the edit summaries or on the relevant Talk pages. This behavior includes changes to multiple different dates and changes to the same dates multiple times. Equally troubling, the majority of these changes are disguised with edit summaries that read simply "Fixed typo". Rather than giving individual diffs, see history: [78] in which every single edit to date by this editor has been a date change (or a tweak to their own date change), most labelled 'Fixed typo', a few as 'Added content', which while not informative at least isn't deceptive. I warned them yesterday about the deceptive edit summaries [79], and later also provided a pointer to WP:BRD [80], but today found almost a dozen more 'Fixed typo' date change edits, including on a new page not previously affected, so I gave them a level three disruption warning [81], and within hours they made five more "Fixed typo" date changes, including to another new page. I would not characterize this as vandalism, because some of them are reasonable dates, just not supportable (or at least supported) ones, so I AGF here, but this can't continue and they show no signs of modifying their behavior. Page protection may help with the most-affected page, but as they keep going after additional pages, that may become a game of whack-a-mole, but they do appear to be using a stable IP. They have been notified [82]. Agricolae (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Censoring of diverse points of view on the Child Pornorgraphy Talk page

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

---

Hello.

I have had my opinion that there is a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:NPV, WP:POV, WP:NEUTRAL posted on the page's talk page removed by user "Flyer22_Reborn" I am asking for a temporarly ban for this user as it is against Wikipedia's policy to wantonly remove another user's discussion from the TALK page of an article that one does not agree with. This hurts wikipedia's foundations of transperency, honesty and inclusion of diverse view points.

"Your asinine ramblings are not WP:TALK material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)"

Thank you.

NPOVwarriorprincess (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

As seen here and here, I did indeed "censor" this WP:Sock/troll. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• A WP:BOOMERANG is definitely coming here. Please note, NPOVwarriorprincess, that it is not part of Wikipedia's mission to present "diverse view points". Undoubtedly, there are some people in the world who believe that it is the right of a parent to kill disobedient children, or that drinking bleach is healthy, or that the preemptive use of nuclear weapons against a disfavored ethnic group is a good idea. Wikipedia has no obligation to reflect such viewpoints in its own voice just because they can be proved to exist. bd2412 T 03:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

If you don't mind I'd like to know a bit more about parents' rights to kill disobedient children. Might be handy in future. EEng 04:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. -- Deuteronomy 21:18-21" One of the countless reasons why Biblical literalism is a bankrupt ideology, EEng. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems sensible to me. EEng 04:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You must be a parent. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank goodness you are not my dad, EEng. I would have been toast at age 19. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I eat guys like you for breakfast! EEng 12:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support RBI for OP per BD2412. Pretty sure WMF will be fine without her donations. John from Idegon (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Just because other countries of the world want to jump off a bridge doesn't make it right. That argument doesn't hold water, and NPOVwarriorprincess is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. --Tarage (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Sock puppetry...this is Boilingorangejuice. Indeffed.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

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

178.222.124.206

Please could someone block here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Request block of User:Johnvr4

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

---

• I've restored this thread, which was archived by a bot without having been closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Johnvr4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would like to request a block of User:Johnvr4 under WP:NOTHERE. To quote User:Nick-D in March this year, Johnvr4 "doesn't seem interested in working collaboratively to develop neutral and appropriate encyclopedia articles. ..I believe that a block would be justified by [his] repeated attempts to create articles which are unreliable and inability to listen and respond to the concerns which multiple editors have raised about them .. . Fundamentally, I don't think that Wikipedia is an appropriate location for the stuff [Johnvr4] want[s] to publish, or that [his] approach to doing so is in line with Wikipedia's collaborative ethos." (User talk:Nick-D#U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islands). Johnvr4 is repeatedly trying to create articles which are severely biased against the U.S. government's view on things, and distorts sources to do so. This was raised at the original Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Red Hat by User:Moe Epsilon, in regard to a reference which was distorted [83], at User_talk:Johnvr4#Air_defense_interceptors.2FGenie, and at U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan over the reasons for removal of nuclear weapons from Okinawa (partially due to a perceived vulnerability to terrorism, which Johnvr4 repeated tried to downgrade from the article). He also is repeatedly unable or unwilling to recognise a consensus formed against him [84] and has recreated his preferred version of deleted content three times in his sandbox after an MfD was closed against him (see User talk:Johnvr4#Red Hat content, and further advisory by User:RoySmith (User talk:Johnvr4#Recreation warning). Another example of concerns about his editing style came from User:AustralianRupert at [85]. This user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia in line with WP's principals, and I kindly request that he be blocked from further editing. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support Power~enwiki (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support for now I'm still not fully done reading below, so I'll put this in for now. —JJB^ers 01:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Additional comment: at [86] Moe Epsilon said: "You have only edited a small handful of article topics and I can't look through your editing history and find an example of you making major changes to an article and then not having a major dispute on the talk page. Your contributions have either been deleted outright, reverted partially or debated upon heavily. That is concerning. I told you back in 2014 that was concerning because I took a single reference you supplied, which was used several times in your writing, and it wasn't factually accurate according to what the references said." which again is another indicator of the problems this user causes. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Please pardon my interruption but I'd like to inform this discussion of Wikipedia:Requests_for_history_merge#New_requests forOperation Red Hat where the history of the text that User:Moe Epsilon once accused me of "cooking up in my spare time" as a reason for AfD as well as Bucksohot06 assertions about it in MfD, DRV, and here will soon be visible again. those editors and others had been told very clearly the assertion he continues to put forth about submitting that text is untrue. Buckshot06 restored that very text. The restored page history will make those misrepresentations apparent despite his stated opposition to restoring it.Johnvr4 (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Sincerely regretful support from an involved party. I actually sort of like John. My second discussion with him on my talk page indicates that he can carry on a concise and non-bludgeoning discussion when he chooses to. He was very polite about accidentally referring to me as "he" instead of "she", and came to my talk page to apologize about feeling like he'd villified me/dragged me into this mess. I genuinely don't think John is being intentionally disruptive just for the sake of causing problems. I think if we could get him to edit about anything else that he didn't have such a strong passion for, he'd be a great contributor. I think the problem is that he has such an obsessive passion for how he sees Red Hat/weapons deployment/related topics that he gets complete tunnel vision and blocks out anything that contradicts his own view of the topic and our policies here. He gets frustrated that we can't see what he sees, leading him to produce ever-lengthier posts trying to convey his point but instead alienating his intended audience in the process. I don't know that there is a viable alternative to blocking, possibly save a broadly-construed topic ban for anything related to Red Hat/weapons deployment/similar. But I admit I have doubts as to whether that would be effective or merely a postponement of a block. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if my comment here is appropriate but I am OCD and spectrum. But not just on any one particular issue. I also have some nerve damage, adrenal tumor that jacks me up, and I nearly failed typing (sorry for the typos- I'm disabled). I would consider myself an expert on the material simply because I have read every reliable source I had cited (there were like 250) and did not synthesize if I had to use a public domain report or lesser primary source until a better one is found. Numerous times I have suggested to simply follow our sources or allow addition of a new ones as a compromise to end every dispute. However, that literally never ever happens with said editor as I have documented repeatedly. I was/am frustrated, mouthed off a bit too. To nearly everyone. I was actually shaking after it was nominated and then deleted. I apologize again.Johnvr4 (talk) 05:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - I've taken a look at a randomish sampling of editing over the last few months and don't feel that a NOTHERE argument applies. Obviously, there is some less than optimum pugnacity with the editing, but this appears to be a good faith editor adding sourced content. Carrite (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I actually hatted a discussion on PMC's talk where Johnvr4 was going over oard, but he came back and had a reasonable conversation. I'm not convinced that the very WP:INVOLVED Admin is correctly asessing this situation. We don't have to follow the US Govt view of things and accusations American is editing against American seems hard to believe. Perhaps BuckShot06 needs to lay off Johnvr4 and Nohnvr4 should edit other topics. Legacypac (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Having followed this since the original AFD, I can safely say this is probably the eventual route that will have be taken. If he is not blocked, then a topic ban will definitely need to be implemented, broad-construed to prevent him from working on anything related to Operation Red Hat and military-based articles. John has a very hard time communicating concerns and actually addressing problems with his content, and this is a long standing issue. @Carrite: I feel like John is here to add sourced content as well, however his content is misleading or synthesized at times, and several editors have addressed that. It's a problem that goes back to the days of him first editing five years ago on the same topic. His behavior hasn't changed much and his problematic content went from being on the main articles to his sandboxes, which he has attempted to write for four years now with little to no improvement to follow Wikipedia standards (which is what the MFD was about). If John is not willing to take a topic ban and edit other topics, then this has to be the route to take because he is so engulfed in this behavior around these topics that it is now disruptive. I only support a block now because the few times I saw John edit outside his usual few articles, it ended up in content disputes as well and having content disputes this frequently is toxic. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Can't support the NOTHERE assertion as I don't feel anything has been presented to support it. Let's start by removing the useless stuff from the equation, the discussion on Nick-D's talk page can be succinctly summarised as "NOTHERE block and be done with it". This is not really helpful to this discussion. Provide me with a reason to support the NOTHERE assertion that does not stem from a NOTHERE assertion. The AfD from 2013 is unhelpful because, while it demonstrates (possibly) incompetence or poor source utilization it doesn't do anything even close to demonstrate NOTHERE (not to mention it was four years ago). Then there's the discussion on John's page (User_talk:Johnvr4#Air_defense_interceptors.2FGenie) that eventually boils down to, the sources don't use the word interceptor therefore don't use the word interceptor. Everything else was cleared up by quotes from the actual sources, or at least appears to have been based on Buckshot's response; [t]hanks for these. Clearly inteceptor isn't referenced. I will remove the words 'interceptor' etc, ... , and substitute with 'hydrogen-bomb-armed'. I mean this discussion if anything is demonstrative of the "here" part of NOTHERE. Then, last but not least, I'm actually presented with a concern that could be addressed. So let me address it; recreation of a procedurally deleted article that has undergone deletion review that supported the original deletion closure is valid grounds to argue disruptive editing. Please don't do that again. Sometimes, you'll have to accept that your work is not suitable for the encyclopaedia. Now, I'm going to take a moment to address something that was sort of brought up tangentially, but, isn't the central concern. Concern: I find that Johnvr4 has a problem maintaining composure and civility when discussing (or arguing) with other editors. This is not helpful to them or others. For example, the discussion on Johnvr4's talk page that I mention John actually asserts that they will edit war for their preferred version because of perceived incompetence on the part of Buckshot06. Evidence; ... I'll keep putting it back in. An edit war will ensue and your failure to read sources or discuss until now...and assertions (like those above) about the alleged lack of a similar passage in sources will be your huge problem. In conclusion, I don't see NOTHERE as presented, but, I do see civility and composure issues that may need some form of addressing. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The 2013 AfD is actually highly relevant, as JohnVR4 has kept trying to recreate this article (in various forms) despite the concerns raised in the AfD and its result, and the many subsequent discussions. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
    • If I may interject, the appropriate link to that discussion is here :Air defense interceptors/Genie The argument was whether the Interceptor came directly from the original source I used- clearly it did yet the other editor would not acknowledge the obvious fact that the word was in that source despite thanking me for sources. I sort of citation bombed him with sources that quote F-100s, with Nukes, Genies at Naha on Alert as well as most of the WP main pages that also had it because he was being so absurd. And we are here talking about it now simply because he said a word is not there in that source. But it is and always has been. It was an Edit War and that concern was 100% his absurdity and I warned him to never ever try to fight anyone over that point. Yet that is precisely what he did today! Please please explore it further! And look at the reverts made that are contrary to reliable sources. He's done that exact same thing multiple times while stating in MfD that I never improved or condensed any material from my sandbox! That main space material was moved from my sandbox. Johnvr4 (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
      • The context for the quote and my prediction of an edit war was in response to Buckshot06's threats and actions to keep removing our very highly reliably sourced content: "You need a source for nuclear-armed interceptors standing ready for scrambling on Okinawa, and until you provide that, I've remove the paragraph again. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)" I hope that addresses (or characterizes) Mr rnddude's concern.

I thought I was pretty nice about it in warning him given the wall I was beating my head against by simply continuing to even interact with that editor. The full quote was: "...Do not make me pull out quotes! I don't have time for such silliness. No one does. If you cant or won't read the sources, I'll keep putting it back in. An edit war will ensue and your failure to read sources or discuss until now...and assertions (like those above) about the alleged lack of a similar passage in sources will be your huge problem. So I'm going to formally warn you now. Stop and review the sources that you've said you already reviewed. If you had done so, we would not be having this discussion!". Johnvr4 (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC) 20:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC) I have only just remembered that Buckshot06 deleted that very source on Mar, 20. Johnvr4 (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Huh, you're right. It's clear as day on the 1981 CDI article. I had missed it both on your talk page and in the article; During the late 1950s and early 1960s the F-100 Super Sabre served as a primary interceptor. On top of that the Mindling/Bolton source explicitly states that F-100s were present at Okinawa and were nuclear arms equipped. That said, content is an issue that two people can mutually resolve if they are willing to discuss. Content problems shouldn't be the reason we are here. There are better ways to deal with these kinds of issues than outright edit-warring too. One, you can ask for a WP:3O. Two, you can withhold the material and discuss on the talk page (this was done, both at your talk and at the article talk, so kudos for that). Three, if need be, you can do and RfC. I've found a section (argument really) that I'm going to go read through. I am getting more lost, rather than less, as to what the issue actually is. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support Block. JohnVR4 is essentially a single purpose editor whose contributions are focused on adding inaccurate and POV pushing material. This includes material which is not supported by the citations provided, as well as cherry picking material and developing large articles which are nothing but WP:SYNTH - to such an extent that they can't even be reduced to stubs. As noted in the post at the top of this discussion, multiple interventions by a large number of editors in good standing have not been successful in persuading him to change his ways or even seriously acknowledge that his editing is problematic. I think it's fair to say that the editors who have been involved with JohnVR4 have exhausted their patience with him. As he is not editing Wikipedia in good faith or in a collaborative way, he should be blocked to prevent further edits which post misleading information and disruptive conduct. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are clearly problems here, but I'm convinced that JohnVR4 has good intentions and genuinely believes his additions are beneficial to the encyclopedia, and is not deliberately trying to push inaccuracies and POV (even if that might at times be the result). As such, I don't see that WP:NOTHERE is applicable - "Difficulty, in good faith, with conduct norms" is given as a specific "not not here" example. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

  Just to add, I think a topic ban would stand a better chance of consensus, if someone were to propose one with an appropriate scope. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:NOTHERE is for users who come here purely to troll other wikipedians. While his edits/comments might cause problems, this is a good faith editor, who needs to improve some aspects of his editing. Perhaps a short topic ban, so he can learn to edit well on subject that he isn't closely connected to might help. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. (involved editor) In one of the last interactions with Buckshot06 (when I thought we parted ways) I left him this message[87]: "...We just seem to bring out the worst in each other and only produce long discussion with out agreement, and embarrass each other then feel bad, over human errors. I tried to explain to you myself numerous times that our sources need to be looked at closely. The fact is that three other editors also looked at that concern and could not have missed it then failed to point that out to you when you asked, probably did disservice to both you and to I. We unnecessarily wasted a lot of time on this. The way I have interacted with you since was a direct reflection of my frustration in feeling that you are also difficult to work because you refused to look at the sources to verify content. If our paths cross in the future I hope that the interaction will be constructive and fruitful and not at all like many of our previous interactions. Peace. Johnvr4 (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Unfortunately, as one might note, what I had suggested and hoped is not even remotely what has happened since. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Conditional Support - Having had a look at Johnvr4's edits I have to agree with Nick-D that "JohnVR4 is essentially a single purpose editor whose contributions are focused on adding inaccurate and POV pushing material." However the discussion here shows that he is eager to continue as an editor on wikipedia. My proposal would be a topic ban for all nuclear weapons and military in Japan related articles; with an additional warning that any further disruption of wikipedia will result in an immediate block. noclador (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
• Topic ban at most, since this is topical and there's no indication the editor is WP:NOTHERE, i.e. not generally constructive and trying to do the right thing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose block. JOhnvr4 is clearly here to be a contributing editor, but he really needs to heed advice from the more experienced editors that have been trying to help him. I would not oppose a short term topic ban to help him get to grips in subjects outside of this topic area. Mentorship may also be an option. Blackmane (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hounding of JohnVR4, userspace and main space submissions by Buckshot06

Buckshot06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Buckshot06 and I have longstanding, heated and unresolved content disputes. He has characterized the disputes as me creating Fake articles and has made numerous baseless policy concerns in talk and recently at Miscellany_for_deletion/OpRedHat as well as to support his arguments in discussions. I have responded to his faulty assertions here:DRV JohnVR4 user spaces and at my talk page. His near-pathological misrepresentations take walls of my text to explain away and as a result my concerns are ignored most recently at WP:Deletion_review/Log/2017_August_30. He has repeatedly threatened to Mfd my userspace draft that was actively being edited 1.5 hours before he nominated it over obviously ridiculous concerns or assertions (such as those he raised in the previous section). His assertions are easily disproved in discussion, diffs, quotes, sources, and every other available method to Wikipedia editors.

Despite my numerous pleas, Buckshot06 repeatedly refuses to read or acknowledge majority and minority opinions in cited reliable sources and then battles over text based upon his strong views and advanced degrees instead of reviewing the reliable sources (especially the newer ones) or opening a content dispute where our issues should be publicly resolved rather than being reverted or deleted outright or having an edit war. He then accuses me of not listening or a plethora or other dubious accusations. I wanted to work together and have asked for help but is is clear that Buckshot06 and I cannot see eye to eye and never will. We have decided to stay away from each other and he has now apparently followed up on a second one of his past (and also ridiculous) threats by opening the above section. This is the third time he has Accused me of an Anti DoD/US stance without the slightest merit and he does not seem to realize that I write from a reliable and documented source standpoint and most importantly, I am from U.S. a military family, from the U.S., which I still support (despite our country's current regime embarrassment). I take I great offense at his third anti-Us accusation (I warned him about it before) as well as his accusation that my thousands of edits were all in bad faith and do not improve Wikipedia -which he has already contradicted in his own words more times than I can count.

That editor has near-pathological pattern of misrepresentation including in his misleading explanations of the links he provided in the above section. On the advisory by User:Moe Epsilon- For example, one editor User:Moe_Epsilon at the [AFD] fabricated a concern about my editing and claimed "I cooked something up." Then that editor made all types of other ridiculous assertions that are disproved by a source (plus the ones already mentioned) which I added only minutes before Buckshot06 deleted the entire sandbox4 draft just this week! The Diffs that were deleted (which I cannot see because I am not an administrator) would prove that I did not write that passage- but there is no just way to see it now since all the diffs are gone. (Well not just yet anyway...Wikipedia:Requests_for_history_merge#New_requests) The diffs would prove that Buckshot06 himself put that nonsense that got the page deleted right back on the main space and abused all of the sources he cited.[88] Note also that Buckshot06's POV version of Operation Red Hat is missing most of the majority and minority viewpoints in every single one of the sources he has cited.

I owe User:Moe Epsilon a bit of an apology. to clarify all my previous comments, he in fact did not accuse me of writing the night move passage at AfD. That was the false assertion of an IP editor. I sincerely apologize for any representation that connecting Moe's comment of cooking stuff up and the faulty concern that I submitted the passage about moves of chemicals at night. Sorry for that mix up Moe. Johnvr4 (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

On the advisory by User:RoySmith- User_talk:RoySmith#Ignoring_of_views_at_DRV, Administrators noticeboard#Closure_review_DRV_of_JohnVR4_userspace_Sandbox_drafts

BuckShot06 makes various entirely merritless claims which I've already disproved to him. In the examples he provided he has fiercely contested moves from my sandbox and is still actively contesting them which proves his main issues with me is a content dispute where he wont acknowledge what a reliable source says (and Note his totally disproved POV complaint) but more importantly his assertions that my sandbox draft where the material is coming from has not been improved nor condensed are utterly absurd: Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan#Terrorist_threat_and_weapons_removed_in_1972-_Apparent_POV and here: Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan#Air_defense_interceptors.2FGenie

Other highly relevant links would be:

1. User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Operation_Red_Hat_Suggestion_Comment
2. User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Operation_Red_Hat_again
3. WP:Articles_for_deletion/Operation_Red_Hat,
4. User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_19#Operation_Red_Hat,
5. User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_19#Userspace_copy_of_Red_Hat,
6. User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Operation_Red_Hat_Suggestion_Comment,
7. User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_22#Draft_review
8. User_talk:Nick-D#OP_RED_HAT_ongoing_issue_notification
9. User_talk:Nick-D#Red_Hat_material_move_to_MK.2FSEARCH.3F
10. User_talk:Nick-D#U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan.27s_southern_islands
11. Deleted message
12. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_137#Massive_2-part_Okinawa_draft
13. "Every one of these concerns are real, now, and valid" deleted comment. (re:this discussion) 12:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

#User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_22#Draft_review Prior to condensing sandbox In response, to these comments I received, I had thereafter moved out about 1/3 of the sandbox content as well as the reduced the scope then split the remainder in User:Johnvr4/sandbox in half.

Note these exchanges among others: "When I file the AN/I over your WP:OR, WP:PRIMARYSOURCES reliance, WP:POV, WP:OWN, WP:SYNTH, and battleground reverting editing, you will be notified, in accordance with policy. In my considered opinion, you should be writing research pieces for publication that allow you to state polemics, not trying to operate on a site that is supposed to be neutral. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)"

"...Given your threat of an apparently inevitable pending ANI, why don't we just file that ANI case right now over the use of sources, edit warring, and POV on this page? Per your assertion, can you show me in this article any of My OR, or an incorrect use of primary sources, POV, OWN, or Synth? These unfounded assertions are going to be looked at under a microscope. Have you forgotten the main section to this sub-section? It is titled: Terrorist threat and weapons removed in 1972- Apparent POV ? Johnvr4 (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)"

Also: "...I remain baffled about how I could be 'cutting you out' after pleading with you immediately above to edit the mainspace article. Your options are twofold: remain editing only your userspace draft, which is not really what a userspace draft is for, or actually get involved in the mainspace. Please engage with me, here or elsewhere, to tell me about well sourced issues which ought to be in the mainspace article, and we can get them in there!! Not every connected issue that you write about in your userspace may end up in the mainspace, but I can certainly see there are issues you write about which ought to be mainspaced. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC) [89]

"I've already said how I believe most of what you have left under Red Hat actually belongs under 112 (or possibly under Project Deseret), and I've laid out my reasons, none of which are invalidated by further things you've said, or by the Chemical Weapons Movement History Compilation, as far as I've scanned it so far. But never mind -- I will cut straight to the chase. Would you prefer I start a WP:MFD (miscellany for deletion) discussion on your preferred, but disputed, version of the article in your sandbox, in line with WP:FAKEARTICLE, not in six months as I had intended to propose, but now? Then we'll get this cleared up sooner rather than later. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)"

1. Project 112 Was moved out from my sandbox three days PRIOR to his demands! Project 112 move from sand box on March 16, 2017
2. Deseret Test Center Was moved out from my sandbox three days PRIOR to his demands! Project Deseret move from Sandbox on March 16, 2017
3. U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan Was moved out from my sandbox two days PRIOR to his demands! U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan Created from my sandbox on March 17, 2017
4. United States military anti-plant research Was moved out from my sandbox one day PRIOR to his demands! United States military anti-plant research Created from my sandbox on March 18, 2017
5. Project MKUltra Was moved out from my sandbox one day PRIOR to his demands! Project MKUltra move from Sandbox on March 18, 2017
6. 1968 Kadena Air Base B-52 crash Was created from my sandbox 12 hours PRIOR to his demands! Created from sandbox on March 19, 2017
7. Japan and weapons of mass destruction Was moved out from my sandbox four days after his demands! Japan and weapons of mass destruction move from sand box PRIOR TO March 19, 2017

Last, Buckshot06 himself moved material he knew to be from my sandbox into another namespace WP:ARTICLE one day PRIOR to his demand.

Most importantly, "I note you've already started breaking down your inputs into smaller chunks, after the long discussion with me at Mark Arsten's page, but please think about the rest too!! OR, POV, and sourcing errors (like trying to keep pure allegations in the article) destroy your credibility when you're trying to contribute here!! Buckshot06 (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)"[90] Johnvr4 (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I sincerely that hope the above exchange with him entirely clears up the total and absolute absurdity of Buckshot06's assertions in nominating my draft for deletion FIVE MONTHS TO THE DAY after his ridiculous prior threats to MfD the draft. All endorsements in support of his entirely false assertions are faulty and his abuse of the noticeboard processes (both MfD and ANI) is now shamefully exposed. (bold for emphasis)

I ask that Buckshot06 be stripped of his administrative privileges entirely, Be sanctioned for purposeful untruths, Leave my userspaces alone, and be prevented from causing further disruption, redevelopment, or improvement to Operation Red Hat with the administrator rights he has been granted. His behavior includes: WP:HOUND

1. The 4+ year assumption I am acting in bad faith
2. locking that page
3. Deleting the PageHist
4. Restoration of the exact problems that caused an AfD
5. deletion of mass amounts of reliable sources and relevant text
6. Purposeful misrepresentation of facts in discussion, reverts, rollbacks, nominations and noticeboards
7. harassment hounding

I may have difficulty responding in a timely fashion due to a hurricane in my location) Johnvr4 (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• To deal with the central request immediately, Johnvr4, Arbcom is the only place where you can ask that Buckshot06 be stripped of his administrative privileges entirely. That is unless Buckshot voluntarily hands them in. Arbcom has a five hundred word limit for case requests (your wall is significantly longer than this), however, I strongly recommend against trying to get ARBCOM involved as they will deny this request on procedural grounds. Instead, your time would be much better spent, getting rid of as much of the assertions or irrelevant material as humanly possible. Very few people are going to be willing to spend their time reading 12k bytes of material. Whole articles have been written with less. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Understood. I will reserve making that request for now. Since the DRV closure review was closed. Must I recap all in this forum and can both requests be open simultaneously? Thank you John.

• That depends, is Roy Smith's closure in any way shape or form relevant to this specific AN/I case and the interactions between you and Buckshot06. If no, then it doesn't belong here. If yes, then keep everything together in one place. Perhaps leave it until this has been resolved first. I don't think there is significant pressing concern that would prevent you from waiting to ask the question a week from now rather than today. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes I'm not sure how to answer that. and no? The relationship is that Buckshot the editor who nominated my user spaces for deletion and I expand my answer in the section below (with Roy). A now involved editor above strongly felt that the issues were the exactly same thing and closed my request however I went to DRV for specific answers and the were ignored completely. Below, I've asked the closer to reopen the request that I made in closure review. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Closure_review_DRV_of_JohnVR4_userspace_Sandbox_drafts Johnvr4 (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

This thread appears to be the immediate follow-up to a closed DRV thread, itself a follow-up to a XfD thread, itself a follow-up to an AfD from 2013. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The DRV was a followup to the discussion at my user talk, which followed my closure of the MfD (reverted once by John because he disagreed). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Happily confirm Power~enwiki's summary, as well as PMC's note. The MfD was about my last throw to see if Johnvr4 was anything more than an SPA. It appears he has not changed his ways at all, and I do not believe he should be here. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Noting also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review DRV of JohnVR4 userspace Sandbox drafts. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

This is not a Forumshopping exercise and as Malcolmxl5 notes above, those discussions have been opened in appropriate places (as stated above) where I have already asked for a review of the closure. Around January 5, 2017 I again notified Buckshot that his his assertions and actions re my draft were without merit and his harassment would lead to the possibility of sanctions and my Ignoring All Rules. nevertheless I incorporated his suggestions.

I did IAR and restore following each questionable recent deletion because every assertion he has made in moving to deletion discussions is a blatant misrepresentation of facts which other editors have (unbelievably) echo. [91]. The IAR restorations were immediate followups to questionable deletions but Buckshots06s efforts to ban me from the topic have persisted long before my IAR restorations.[92] I have edited numerous pages that prove his SPA noticeboard assertion are not accurate and that he knows that assertion to be untrue. Baseless SPA accusations by Moe Epsilon were addressed here: [93]. I also edit Electronic music project, Mil history, and others and wrote a nice article on Beacham Theatre as is mentioned on my user page while I took a break from all of controversies I've written about- which Buckshot06 is suddenly and very weirdly fixated on. He stated his purpose was to put a summary on the main space and something about the units and had no further interest. Those summaries he state were his sole purpose in this subject exist on the main space already and have for some time.

As I stated above and will repeat here, this thread is about the constant misrepresentations by Buckshot06 in very recent discussion and noticeboards- including those listed above- resulting in deletions of my attempts to improve WP. Per his previous section this appears- at least partially- to be an immediate follow up to Buckshot06s actualized threat from April 2017 to come here over a prior content disputes and sourcing that he wanted to edit war over, appeared to have gotten got all wrong, wanted to avoid content dispute and still wants to battle over, followed by my April 2, 2017 willingness to also come here if that is this was the forum that he chose to explore his use of that source (plus a list of other sources). Link:[94] I hope this information clarifies rather than confuses.Johnvr4 (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@User:Power~enwiki Please do not close my valid request for a closure review of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review DRV of JohnVR4 userspace Sandbox drafts unless a particular WP policy requires it. I went to DRV for specific reasons, brought up specific concerns in policy and provided more than adequate proof yet the DRV request was closed by ignoring all of my concerns with out even reading them. That closure without addressing any of those concerns is reason for the request for closure review. I ask that you please reopen the review request that you recently closed if/when possible. Thank you, Johnvr4 (talk) 06:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Johnvr4:--If you feel, that the true evidence that everyone is correct is adhering to your Supervalid beliefs and actions, I'm sorry to state that does not promise you a bright future on our site.And secondly, where this chain stops?You challenged the MfD at DrV.You are challenging the DrV at AN.Prob. iff the AN thread is let to run, a few days after it's clearly foreseeable close, you will be going to _____??I'm also genuinely concerned about the recreation of deleted and deletion-challenged material.That being said I am sorta neutral' about the invoking of ban/block hammer and will take the oppurtunity to sincerely request you to either leave the topic area or put a dead-stop to your disruptive antics.Winged Blades ^Godric 09:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Winged Blades, I was hoping that I would be vindicated, my concerns would be validated, counter arguments would fall apart and be seen for what they were when actual facts were presented. I hoped that each valid concern that I raised in the DRV, and MfD closure would be reviewed since they were ignored in closing it (see comment below). I would hope the drafts would then be restored so I can finish developing them in my sandbox and moving material the does not fit out. Then Id like move the sandbox to my user space and then ask for further community review and publishing on the main space if or when it is deemed ready. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm involved (I closed the recent DRV he started) so I'll not voice an actual opinion here. But, based on what I've seen, Johnvr4 really does need to back away from flogging the Project Red Hat dead horse. It's obvious he's passionate about that subject, but the community has clearly spoken, and he needs to move on. I don't see any good that can come (either to himself, or to the encyclopedia) of him continuing to push his view of that topic. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Roy, your actual opinion you've posted above is based solely on something you stated you ignored completely but you did note WP:STALE applied in closure so that's something. You've ignored my valid policy views and closed the DRV because you didn't want to read it. That closure has not yet been reviewed. How the consensus of the community was reached is just one of issues that you were expected to answer. That was why I came to DRV. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Correct me if I'm wrong, I've read through all the links that were provided above (one of them was a duplicate, FYI) but in a nutshell this is boiling down to:

1. Johnvr4 wants editors to help review the sources, not necessarily all of them but some critical ones.
2. Get back to him on what needs to be improved with regards to how the draft could be improved re sourcing and details.
3. Johnvr4 did not want content to be excised from their draft version. (Something I gathered by this statement I hear your concern and I understand it. I've simply asked you to look past that concern for the time being and discuss with me the other concerns like the primary sourcing and level of detail etc, from this thread.
4. Johnvr4 did not like that fact that an older article was being expanded, incorporating content from his draft. (This was discussed at length, quite vociferously)
5. Most critically, Johnvr4 did not want others messing with his draft.

Does this sum everything up? Blackmane (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes for the most part and thank you Blackmane for taking the time to sort that out. The areas I gathered needing improvement (your #2) are at the end of that #3 thread link. That the Dec. version of the draft was too big was already understood by all (#1).

I would add that I wanted constructive criticisms and tagging of any problematic areas (your #1). I got mass excising (your #3), and being basically shut out of the topic/category (Article was revived a few times) and got what I believed were POV fork solutions instead of improvements to our main space (your#4). At that point I asked for certain editors not to "mess" with that sandbox (your#5).

Importantly, those areas needing improvement and those observations identified in those discussions were being addressed and incorporated into my sandbox (despite numerous assertions to the contrary). Was it a FAKE article, STALEDRAFT, abandoned or did it meet any of the requirements for deletion?

I am a still basically a rookie editor and not an administrator-please help me if I break etiquette or policy. There is a hurricane pending in the event I lose access to power or internet during discussion. Please ping me if a response or action is needed. I have a lot going on IRL. Thank you very much again, Johnvr4 (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Buckshot06 sure seems to have taken WP:INVOLVED actions but it is extremely hard to fight an Admin. Best to protect your self, family amd neighbors in real life. Come back and request a copy of your work be emailed to you. Legacypac (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Buckshot is involved as was explained to him by Nick-D in describing his own involvement nine months ago. That is a reason we are here at ANI.

Quote from User_talk:Nick-D#U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan.27s_southern_islands:

@Buckshot06: From looking at the article's talk page, it seems pretty clear that this is an editor conduct issue rather than a content issue. As it's a long-running issue, I'd suggest that you seek some form of admin intervention regarding John. Arguing about the article's content doesn't appear to be producing results, with material that was identified as problematic years ago and more recently continuing to be posted. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC) Thanks Nick.

What sort of action would you suggest? Do you believe you are 'involved', or can you yourself consider taking action? Buckshot06 (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, a block per WP:NOTHERE or similar given that John, unfortunately, doesn't seem interested in working collaboratively to develop neutral and appropriate encyclopedia articles. Given that I've commented a fair bit on this matter and when it was raised a few years ago I think that I would be 'involved' here. You may want to contact one or more of the admins who serve as coordinators for the military history project ahead of ANI and ask that they look into the matter: my reading is that the underlying issue here is - despite the walls of text - quite simple, especially given all the attempts to work with John by a range of excellent editors and could be handled by any uninvolved admin without a need to use ANI or similar. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

End quote. Apparently, there are or may be a bunch of administrators who are involved that they asked to look into the matter. I don't know. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal concerning JohnVR4

"Johnvr4 is topic banned from contributing to or discussing articles regarding either Japan or weapons, broadly construed, anyway anywhere on the English Wikipedia. They may appeal this ban to WP:AN after six months." (Corrected typo: Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC))

• Support NE Ent 19:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support, assuming there will be no consensus for the block. I hope we can convince John to turn his energies to something he feels perhaps less strongly about. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment.I do not understand this proposal at all given the assertions of Buckshot06 already being proven to be bogus. Can we determine the merit of arguments, restore the drafts, then review them to determine whether a topic ban is appropriate? Have I abused the system? Thank you Johnvr4 (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

It does not matter unfortunately. Buckshot06 is an Admin, so unless you can present damning evidence of abusing their position they will not be sanctioned, and even then likely not. You are best served to drop the dispute and edit elsewhere for a while. Defining this topic your way is not worth getting blocked or topic banned over. Legacypac (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC) I do have fairly damning evidence and have provided those links. I'd like the User space drafts restored right after exactly how and why they were deleted is explored and I want his harassment of me and of my submissions both past and future to end. I would like an agreement from him that that he will review the sources and refrain from fact-deficient assertions when editing this subject or in speaking to or about me. I'm not sure if that compromise can be enforced but that is my very reasonable proposal. If the issue is that two ANIs for similar reasons can't be open at once then place mine on hold. I don't understand the ANI policy but that section has relevant links for the ANI he opened which is slowly getting to the behavior that needs to be understood. (what or who is BRZ that suggested this proposal?) Johnvr4 (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC) Johnvr4: Put aside your belief in the correctness of your position for just a moment, and clear your mind. Then start at the top of the discussion, skip all of your own comments, and read only the comments by other editors. Do you get the sense that anyone involved in the discussion is supporting your position? I think that if you're honest with yourself, you will see that that doesn't appear to be the case. This is a good bit of WP:CLUE for you that continuing to advocate your position aggressively is unlikely to end up in a result you'll be happy with, and could very possibly result in a sanction placed on you. You have to judge whether it's worthwhile to pursue your goal considering those circumstances. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC) I think every single editor would agree with me if they simply looked at the differences of User:Johnvr4/sandbox between Dec 2016 and it's deletion this week or the Afd version vs the Mfd versions. Buckshot06, Nick-D, and Moe won't ever agree with me again and many might tend to agree with them simply because they are usually highly wise, accurate, and reliable (I admit I would do that 9 times out of ten for that same reason in most cases) but if editors could please take look at those diffs, all of the assertions about my "preferred" version (vs the newer sources), not condensing material, not reducing scope, not improving, of not putting it on the main space, or of leaving it indefinitely would simply fall apart. I'm not saying it's perfect by any stretch and it's not even ready for formal draft submission -but it is so close! It's already split into three separate parts for three WP articles and it covers both sides of all the complex issues and is consistent with 177 sources as opposed to the POV current Operation Red Hat that doesn't remotely properly cover the majority points of the 12 of the reference it has had since its recreation. I feel strongly that it simply should not be deleted and that deleting it would be an extreme disservice to the WP project. I just took a 5 month break from this topic and 1.5 hours after returning for a moment to add a new source that addressed Moe's previous concern, Buckshot06 nominates it for MfD with misrepresentations that would take any administrator about 45 seconds to disprove. A Tempundelete of my user spaces would also clear it up. Promptly. Johnvr4 (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "I think every single editor would agree with me if..." So, you're not going to do as I suggested and evaluate as neutrally as possible what other editors have already said above. Instead, you're going to stick to your personal party line that you are right, and everyone else is wrong, and everyone else would agree with you if they would only think as you do. That's tautologically true, but I'm trying to point you to what is the practical reality here, which is that you are virtually alone, and no matter how many times you repeat your tropes, you're going to remain alone or heavily outnumbered. If you refuse to recognize that, then all I can say is that I hope you enjoy the sanction that is almost certain to be heading your way -- just don't say that you weren't warned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC) Johnvr4 Can I implore you to read BMK's wise words again and heed his advice? Admins can and have examined your most recent drafts, and nobody here is agreeing with you. It all works by consensus here, even if that consensus is, in your opinion, wrong - I've disagreed with consensus many times, but I have to accept it, and you have to accept it. Simply continuing to insist that you are right and everyone else is wrong, and that everyone would see things your way if only... well, that's an approach that is guaranteed to fail. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC) I agree with you Ken (and Boing!), However, I just took a 5 month break only to find myself challenging the MfD deletion of my User space draft and I am fairly certain it was not nominated or endorsed correctly. The main space article is simply a POV version that was opened by that editor literally during my discussions with him (and Nick) about improvements to my sand box draft. I've incorporated their suggestions in the deleted sandbox version over the last 5 months and the redevelopment was not complete. That is reality. It is undeniable. Assertions to the contrary are factually inaccurate in our present reality. Ken, those assertions and other content disputes are why we are here and my frustration stems from arguing over content with an editor who wont review our reliable sources. Other commenting administrators (such as Mr rnddude) have confirmed my assessment (in at least one case to date) and any editor who looked at that would likely do the same. "Admins can and have examined your most recent drafts," They have? Buckshot06 asserts that draft still it has not been improved nor condensed in scope and size and Nick-d says its POV and fails Verifiability. The deleted sandbox had Buckshot06 and Nick-Ds suggestions incorporated between Jan and May 2017. That is a primary reason why I feel their repeated assertions about that draft are so absurd. No one has seemed to even read what I've typed on noticeboards and deletion reviews and I highly doubt they took any time to look at the diffs of a deleted sandbox draft or the sources that used to support it. If they had there would be a lot of examples to support those assertions vs the sources that state what I submitted. If the draft was tempundelete-d during this discussion we could simply look right at the text and sources to see whether the assertions hold water. Johnvr4 (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC) User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_22#Draft_review During sandbox draft content discussion between Buckshot06 and Nick-D and I : "I've changed my mind; I've taken the material, retained the material on the core Red Hat CW/BW storage-and-disposal-from-Okinawa-to-Johnson subject, and relaunched the Operation Red Hat article. It still needs a lot of cleanup, but this is an example of what a more focused article, drawn from your text, would start to look like. It is *only* about thing that can be referenced to be referring to anything labelled Red Hat, so please do not start adding other subjects to the article. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC) " Johnvr4 (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC) None of Buckshot06's topic versions cover the entire subject and my draft was MfDed 1.5 hours after I added this source that redefines entirely his strong views on relevance to the core topic. New source added: "The report refers to the possibility that in terms of its timing and the location, moving the barrels of Agent Orange from Okinawa to Johnston Island was a part of Operation Red Hat. A statement from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in 2009 referred to military herbicides having been stored in Okinawa during the period from August 1969 to March 1972 and later disposed of in Operation Red Hat. The relationship between Agent Orange and Operation Red Hat is indicated." Please explain. Johnvr4 (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC) One more try. Johnvr4, please read and seriously think about WP:DROPTHESTICK. The more you continue to hold on to your fixed position, the more it appears to others that you are fundamentally misaligned with core Wikipedian values, such as WP:CONSENSUS, and therefore the more likely it is that this discussion will result in a sanction for you, and that sanction will be harsher than it might have been if you had only allowed yourself to let things go instead of digging in your feet. Please understand, I'm not talking about right and wrong -- I haven't looked into the complexities of your situation seriously enough to make a judgment like that, and, in any case, this is just on online encyclopedia project, not the North Korean missile crisis -- I'm simply evaluating what's gone on here and the likely response to your intransigence. I think that you have to consider not what you believe to be right, and not what result you desire, but the probable result of this ongoing interaction, and decide if that result is worth your continuing to hold the line. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC) I absolutely hear and understand you Ken. I feel that consensus will be eventually be determined by the quality of the argument put forth but that I just haven't to date presented it in a fashion that can be overcome by a poll of other editors who do not have time to look into the merits of each assertion. It is too complex. I do understand that. I simply want the user space draft restored and have very valid policy reasons why that should have already happened. Johnvr4 (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC) OK, your choice. Good luck. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support since a block is likely to fail, and since it is an undesirable outcome anyways. Maybe being topic banned for six months, John can clear his mind and just focus on other topics and helping there. If he is knowledgeable in any other topics whatsoever, he should be able to make positive contributions elsewhere on Wikipedia and let Japan/weapon-based topics go for a while. In the meantime, off of Wikipedia, maybe you can work on the articles on O.R.H. or related topics, personally. In some situations where I didn't want a public sandbox, I used a Word document and maintained wikitext and went from there. That way, John, you can work on bringing the articles up to publication with less conflict once you repeal the topic ban. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Moe, I hope you saw my apology above for my misstatement involving you and thanks for the suggestion. I thought that was what I was accomplishing in user space and that the improvements in my sandbox would speak for themselves. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support As second-preferred option after a block. As noted in my comments above, Johnvr4's editing on these topics does not meet a range of key Wikipedia standards, including WP:V and WP:NPOV, and attempts by multiple editors to provide advice to address this issue have not been successful. Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

There is zero evidence to support Nick-D's statement and much to disprove it. Nick-D was asked here for one example of what he has asserted and couldn't provide one. Further, Nick-D and involved editor, admitted that the much older Dec. version of my sandbox was improved and he told that to Buckshot06, (another involved editor), who seemed to be abusing his discretion at that time. "... I'm not sure if I'm following the above discussion, but It would be best to not use the 2013-era text given John's comments on how he's improved upon it and sought to address the concerns over sourcing, etc, raised in the AfD. Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)" I had improved the sandbox while incorporating their suggestions between Jan. and Mar. which even Buckshot06 admitted elsewhere (at least twice). Yet Buckshot06s asserted at MfD just 1.5 hours after my last edit, that the draft was without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD and Nick-D echoed his statement: "As the material is not being actively edited to address the concerns raised, it should be deleted. ... Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)" It seems clear that both editors knew full well that their assertions at WP:Miscellany_for_deletion/OpRedHat, here, and other place sounded untrue when they wrote them. Their dubious statements have been echoed by several other editors. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC) Johnvr4: Please stop outdenting every time you respond to something. The proper procedure is to add one more tab (i.e. one more colon, with a bullet counting as a colon) than the comment you're responding to. I've had to fix almost every response of yours here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC) @Johnvr4: Your conviction that everyone will agree with you if only you can find the right way to present your case is causing you to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion. Please stop - this is a community discussion, and not every comment requires a response from you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support since he will not take good advice. Legacypac (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Nick-D. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 06:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support (but fix the "anyway" typo to "anywhere"): There is clearly a serious problem here, but it's very topical, and we don't block people for topic-limited things, especially when the behavior is very long-term (i.e., even a lengthy block would likely result in resumption of the behavior when the block expired). An indefinite block could be considered, but I don't see sufficient evidence that the problem rises to that level. This is a content and PoV dispute about a particular subject area, so removing the editor from discussion and editing about that should fix it. If not, we'll know soon enough.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Note to the closing administrator: This is an active and continuing issue and does require resolution. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Note to the closing administrator: This is an active and continuing issue and does require resolution. Please close this incident report formally. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

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

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: G

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: G (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) I don't know what's going on here, but something seems off.

• diff 1 2600:1:b112:5ec:dc7d:4ee2:f684:3b0d ES: Undid revision 799880279 by G-gollin (talk) Convicted ethics violator George Gollin self-editing again
• diff 1 G-gollin ES: Undid defamatory revision

Editors:

• G-gollin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1:B112:5EC:DC7D:4EE2:F684:3B0D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jim1138 (talk) 08:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Yes, the "source" for the addition links to an unsourced attack page. This has been ongoing since July apparently, and they are obviously harassment. I've blocked two of the recent IPs for 48 hours for now, semi-protected the page for 3 days and deleted the revisions for the 3 edits that I can find. Alex Shih^Talk 08:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#USS John S. McCain (DDG-56)

It is apparent (to me) that the dispute resolution process has broken down. The moderator has recused themself after representations from the originating editor. I am not reporting misconduct. Rather, I am requesting oversight. I perceive that this oversight may take the form of a direction as to how to proceed from this point. On the otherhand, it may take the form of a decision in this matter. To this extent, I note that the matter has been discussed fully and that it has been generally notified (as indicated in the subject thread). I am notifying the originating editor specifically and posting a notification of this on the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

As suggested there, I think a proper, neutrally worded RfC at the article talk page is going to be your best option if you can't find consensus. I doubt you'll get an admin here to "rule" on a content dispute or intervene at DR. -- Begoon 11:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou for your response. I have bought this here for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is fairly clear that, unless another moderator takes the reins (unlikely?) the DR process has failed. Secondly, the processes to date have closely followed the RfC process. There has been (IMHO) sufficient "debate" of the issues to establish a consensus but this requires a "close", since the opposing positions (one versus several) decline to acknowledge an "outcome" even though the consensus position has been identified by those offering a third opinion and the DR moderator. In making these comments, I do not per-judge any independent arbitration. I would observe that to protract this matter more than necessary would be disruptive. The originating editor at DR has already unambiguously indicated that they will not be bound by any decision at DR. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you can request a formal close of any discussion at WP:ANRFC. I don't think it has to be an RfC for that: "The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia. Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where consensus remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one...". I'm not sure how long that might take. Or, if you're confident you already have consensus, and the DR is abandoned, you could just go ahead and implement it, consensus does not mean unanimity. I know you know that, but it does bear repeating. -- Begoon 13:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

With thanks. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Doing this. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I just saw what you did - I meant asking at ANRFC for the article talkpage discussion to be closed, since I looked there and that seemed to be what you were saying needed a close when you said "the processes to date have closely followed the RfC process" - the heading you've used looks like you're asking for ANRFC to close the DR, and I don't think that's going to work... Sorry if I misunderstood/misled you. -- Begoon 14:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• While, I am currently evaluating the DRN disc. itself, as a gen. reminder, please don't post any requests about DRN cases to ANRFC.While technically, every editor in good-standing could be a DRN volunteer, approaches at DRN vary widely from RFCs etc. and techniques of closing disc. or moderation varies. And I have not seen any DRN regular sans me frequent ANRFC either.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 14:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah - crossed wires, probably my fault. Sorry. -- Begoon 14:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Begoon:-Yeah! Prob. he got stuck in the little ambiguous phrasing of your 2nd comment and understood it the wrong way! After all, errors can be fairly expected for people who are prob. not so involved/accustomed with the exact intricacies of our abundance of processes.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Clarification

I tried to moderate this dispute, but it appears that there was rough consensus, to which User:Wingwraith took exception, and first wanted me to express an opinion, which I eventually did (reluctantly), and then wanted a detailed refutation from me. At this point, I withdrew from moderation. I am still willing to assist in the formulation of an RFC. I am requesting administrative attention. I will note that any request at WP:AN or WP:ANI is inconsistent with the way DRN works. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Personal attack by EEng

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

---

EEng has made several personal attacks in a rather heated discussion at wt:Talk page guidelines.

Their behaviour on that talk page was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive964#EEng's editing at WT:TPG, but that notification was vague as to the problem and there seemed to be no attempt to discuss on user talk pages, and was rightly closed as no trouble found.

But please can someone look specifically at this edit which ironically looks back to that previous ANI discussion. I find the question Are you never going to get a clue? offensive and uncalled for, and in violation of WP:NPA and wp:civility.

I have attempted to discuss this at User talk:EEng#Personal comments, and the response seems to be that there's nothing wrong with the edit in question.

So I'd like other opinions on this. Andrewa (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'd say EEng's original comment is a 3/10 on the "unnecessarily annoying to other people" scale. His suggestion you bring it here is a 4/10, because it's a waste of other people's time and he knows it. I'd say your actually bringing it here is a 5/10 on the same UATOP scale. Or maybe a 4/10, to match EEng's suggestion you do so. Is that the kind of feedback you're looking for? You really need to not sweat the small stuff; not every minor instance of unfriendliness needs to be escalated. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm grateful for the feedback, although obviously not the answer I was hoping for! You haven't actually said whether EEng's comment violates WP:NPA and wp:civility, but I guess you think that the answer to that question doesn't really matter here, is that a fair statement? Andrewa (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Not really the right admin to ask. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I think it's more useful to think of NPA and CIVIL as a continuum, rather than a good/bad dichotomy. Not every unfriendly statement needs to be classified as "good" or "bad", "acceptable" or "violation", "praiseworthy" or "blockworthy". The harsher the comment, and the more frequent the comment, the worse it is. I sometimes use a speed limit analogy. IMHO you're asking "is going 37 in a 35 zone a traffic violation"? It seems like a yes/no question, but it isn't really. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• "Get a clue" is a personal attack in the same sense that I am a shoe. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @MPants at work: Saying "get a clue" to someone is calling them clueless because, if they're not clueless, why do they need to get a clue? There's been a lot of this completely ridiculous parsing of people's insults and attacks, where calling you an idiot is a violation but calling your edits idiotic or asking you to stop acting idiotically is a good way to constructively collaborate. It's so counterintuitive but there are editors who will fight to the death for the right to passive-aggressively call people dickheads. 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:480B:1D12:4102:2962 (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey IP: Needing a clue and not having any clue aren't the same thing, and neither one is even remotely the same thing as calling someone a dickhead. This is the sort of stuff my 4 year old could explain to you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@MPants at work: "Needing a clue and not having any clue aren't the same thing." I never said they were but nice try. Because while describing someone with either is a violation of the policy against insulting people, the first (i.e., "get a clue") is passive-aggressive cowardice while at least the second (i.e., "you're clueless") is blatant. That's the only difference. Both are attacks, both are ways of telling someone you think they're a dickhead, and neither is how you address someone who you think you can collaborate with in your efforts to improve things, which is supposed to include everybody but vandals. Hell will freeze over before you admit you were wrong, which you are, so I need to be careful not to fall into the trap of arguing with the sort of person who drags their child (?!?) into their efforts to defend treating people like dickheads. 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:480B:1D12:4102:2962 (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• EEng and I have some history regarding civility, and while I think he could use to get a clue himself as to when his levity enriches a discussion versus when it's disruptively offensive, nothing reported in this thread came close to that admittedly blurry line. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

There are also a number of editors for whom typing "EEng" on this board is like a dog whistle, to which they respond by showing up often well after the situation has been largely resolved to cause more dramah. Such is the case here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Calling all editors!

-EEng

Implying other editors are dogs sounds like a personal attack. Shall we escalate? EEng 17:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Can I ask you to stop being so damn sensitive, or is that going to be reported as a personal attack like this nonsense? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

And may-be you could also altogether do better to de-escalate situations, than posting these type of comments every here and there and build up the usual drama-fest.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 14:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I must have missed the lecture where it's my responsibility to entertain nonsense reports such as this. Your comments—yet again—do nothing but derail. Perhaps you should take some of your own oft-unwanted advice? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, I too don't see anything even in the blurry zone.Echo Floquenbeam.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 14:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@EEng, to answer your original question, Obviously not. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Carmaker1 Disruptive edits

Carmaker1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've noticed Carmaker1 engages in disruptive editing and hasn't been blocked, this is likely because most auto pages have information added primarily by single purpose editors who are easily pushed around. He is changing around the years on the Honda J engine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) then when I restored them to the original he refers to this as vandalism. He has repeatedly accused me of being a sock of 212.36.194.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) another editor who attempted to engage Carmaker1 in civil discussion but was instead insulted and had his edit reverted. Honda J engine talk page. His edit history features numerous insults and threats of admin intervention. For a recent instance [95], DanaWright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edited the page on a single occasion but is threatened anyways.

Now he resorts to canvassing for support. He finds the other active auto editor (OSX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have retired from editing) who changes and reverts year alterations and adds underground messages to inform other editors not to bother changing them since otherwise he'll revert them.[96]. Since most of the auto pages are edited in tiny pieces by single purpose editors this is easily accomplished. By tag teaming the article, Carmaker1 (before it was with OSX) expects to change the page the suit his demands. Even more odd since the Honda J engine is built in Alabama for the North American market and rarely found in exported vehicles. Vortex833 (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I should point out that the dispute between Vortex833 and Carmaker1 started as a difference between using model years (for the American market) and calendar years (for the rest of the world). Unfortunately, Carmaker1 went in with all guns blazing, insulted Vortex833 and didn't explain his position properly, hence making Vortex833 into a mortal enemy. I'm trying to bring both sides to some form of understanding at Talk:Honda J engine.  Stepho  talk  13:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Polemic userspace list

Can an administrator review and perhaps delete https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:ImTheIP/NastyWikipedians as it seems WP:POLEMIC?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Precedent allows a user to maintain a list of diffs in their userspace if they're preparing to file some kind of report of a user's behaviour, for example. That appears to be what this is, and was created today, so I don't think POLEMIC applies. It might be a good idea for ImTheIP to explain what they're up to, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Considering the title of the list and that on his user page he is advertising as something he is currently working on it seems doubtful. [97].-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)