Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919

Repeated recreation of suspected hoax

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

---

Mrknmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) created at least one blatant hoax (WP:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Hello Venus). I strongly suspect all their page creations are hoaxes. MIX (Band) was recently speedily deleted, and then MTeens(band) was created with nearly identical content. I can't find any evidence of this band, so I think they must be hoaxes. Other artcles with similar titles have been deleted, but I did not see them. Random86 (talk) 08:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I saw MTeens(band) before it was deleted, and I agree, it definitely looked like a hoax. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 10:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The editor has created eight articles and they have all been deleted. So, either they are deliberately introducing hoaxes (in which case, block), or they so misunderstand WP:GNG and WP:RS etc., that they are under the impression that they can write about their mates' bands from the pub (in which case, WP:CIR might apply)... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

This user also has not made one single edit on a talk page or noticeboard or been involved in any of the deletion discussions. Blocking is certainly just going to result in new users continuing the same behavior, but there's probably no choice. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I managed to see the the versions of these articles on Speedy deletion Wiki, plus a ninth one Chainz (band). According to the helpful infoboxes, they're all basically the same (possibly fictitious) band with lots of AKAs and an inability to get their act together... so to speak. The recurring cast of characters are Kane Styles, Darlene Mostoles, and Mark Nimer. See [1]. What a colossal amount of time this person has wasted. It's time to call a halt and block on sight any other account that attempts to recreate them. Voceditenore (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked. No need to stand on ceremony here at ANI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Sorry

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

---

But this need quick action by Administrators

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Call_girls_in_mahipalpur

Block the user.

The page has been deleted by User:Lectonar. Wot user? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Me. Lectonar (talk) 13:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Lol yeah (thanks! -put yer name in). I meant, what user did the IP want blocked... pretty pointless to ask and not say! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I meant block the user who created the page. Lol

Please sign your posts. You know enough to come to this page, but not to put 4 tildes at the end of your comment? SQL^{Query me!} 13:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Me also block bad no-name-user. Lectonar (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Who is SheriffIsInTown?

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

---

This user became active in September 2015. He is filing successful SPI against Bazaan, CosmicEmperor, KnightWarrior25, though he had no previous interaction with them. His accuracy shows he had interacted with them before, but not as SheriffIsInTown.--2A01:B840:111:D8:C73D:6517:F2C1:A197 (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Clear competency issues

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

---

User 99.195.70.4 just returned from being blocked to doing the exact same thing. While maybe not outright vandalism, these are not productive edits. Eik Corell (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Somebody's kid just realized they can edit articles on their favorite cartoons. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Now you tell me -!!! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week--Ymblanter (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Block needed

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

---

Can someone block 45.48.150.202 - for racist personal attacks, POV vandalism in the Israel/Palestine area etc. Contributions indicates IP in use by the same user for an extended period of time, so an extended block seems appropriate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Revoking of User Mendaliv's Administrator Privileges

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

---

Regarding the user's constant finger wagging and provocation of reactions he is harming editor rights and agitating others for discussion of serious misbehavior only to shut it down before it's really begun. While it is perfectly appropriate to discuss content-rooted matters there when the "matters" being discussed include misrepresenting sources, plagiarism and copyright violations, he continues to agitate and probe the community for his own pleasure. The discussion on whistleblowing legislation requires the whistleblower merely to have a 'reasonable suspicion' of wrongdoing, rather than 'clear demonstration' pointing to a need for others to probe Mendaliv for the finger pointing and scathing criticism he is so close to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gellerone (talk • contribs) 05:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Just wanted to note: I suspect this is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Forces77. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

In any case, it does not belong here.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Voluntary Ban and / or Block of Linrx from Wikipedia

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

---

Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Revised Edition, 1999 Reprint)

Suggested by User:Linrx, over the past weeks or months I have been a semi-active contributor at Wikipedia as a matter of informal grassroots support within the Singapore community. In prior weeks via best effort updates of my Wikipedia User Page I have also expressed my somewhat sincere research and volunteering areas, most of which include yet often also lie beyond the Wikimedia Foundation framework. It is to my knowledge that commercial cyber crime rates have been on the hike in Singapore in particularly the year 2015, as such there is an ongoing community effort in raising awareness of online safety. An example of an official National Crime Prevention Council poster that was uploaded hours ago include what is depicted on this entry. Given that I am suffering from generalised anxiety disorder and a variety of depression symptoms, in as far as my volunteer duties is concerned my role is completed by leaving this post as it is instead of pursuing much lesser re-opening closed disputes involving localised i.e. Singapore-ish users such as User:MageLam since less than 24 hours ago.

It is also to my knowledge that User:MageLam is working possibly with a college student User:Lemongirl942 on tidying up several Singapore-related stubs and / or articles, this is fine since many a Wikipedian has been there and done that. However, I object as a matter of personal experience User:MageLam and User:Lemongirl942's practice of a buddy system - as wholesome as it seems and was previously recommended - as a simple warning or potential admonishment regarding myself and perhaps others as suggested by the Government of Singapore with the above poster. In as far as I have never met either of the two mentioned users, perhaps they know each other closely and intimately in person, the pair collectively made a plea yesterday soliciting comrades which I responded, only to receive disparaging and emotional messages from one party i.e. User:MageLam who was visibly upset when I questioned her hoarding of the article Central Area. The user had practically unilaterally made spam-like edits on this very page umpteen times over months without any administrator whether official or Singaporean reviewing the article, and he or she reacted visibly strongly and antagonistically when questioned about her intentions. This incident was raised as WP:COI instead of a dispute incident because of a very simple reason, he or she is editing a page unilaterally about a place I live and work at without seeking my consensus. While the user assumes that I was referring to paid WP:COI editing thereby reacting strongly, it was the very fact that his or her egoistic edits involve more than WP:BLP, but an entire geographical area with nearly a million people living and working within it on a daily basis. The user i.e. User:MageLam subsequently made claims of harassment when questioned, which she has yet justified with evidence.

In summary, the pair is making edits on Wikipedia pages, which is fine at this juncture when I vet their edits, however on one end they are soliciting for Singaporean volunteers to help them revive a Wikipedia geographical community - in other words they are trying to fix a community that is anything but spoilt, just low-profile - on the other hand they are using Wikipedia guidelines in a self-evidencing manner that makes me question their very intentions and credentials as Wikipedians with the ongoing criminal charges involving Sedition Act (Singapore) that are taking place in Singapore in recent weeks. It should be noted that while they are justified in abusing me with cuss words given WP:FREE, in as far as they may be Singaporeans living, schooling or working on the island, as in the case of Amos Yee, I maintain or reserve the right of requesting that their accounts be blocked and banned as well in the best interest of oneself and many others.

However, out of my own personal safety, well-being cand health, especially in abstaining from personal attacks and harassing comments deemed coming specifically from one party i.e. User:MageLam either on my talk page or his or hers, please consider instead my voluntary ban and block of oneself's account in disabling any interactions with the user. Linrx (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Linrx: I'm not sure what you are trying to say. I understand that you contested this assertion: Central Area, Singapore is also called "City of Singapore" or "Singapore City" (since there were no sources supporting it). I tried to help at Talk:Central_Area,_Singapore#Singapore_City and I asked MageLam to add citations for the claim. Of course, if citations are not available, then it will be removed from the article. But I didn't want edit warring to happen, so I preferred to wait for a while till MageLam found sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Given that you profess oneself as representing both the Republic of Singapore and Wikimedia Foundation as a registered user together with MageLam, your efforts in maintaining articles had and still went noticed and recognised by me and other contributors who visited your talk pages. It is beyond my jurisdiction verifying your claims about your e.g. student status as there are thousands of students on this island with their own activities. However, the very fact that of the many articles that you and your presumed colleague chose to edit, your study focus include neighbourhoods and districts - which can be very well-meaning for many - however what is visibly neglected is the very design architecture of the computing system. Wikipedia is an open content portal by the 501(c) Wikimedia where users with IP addresses can edit freely without an account. If on one hand you are trying to build a Singapore presence soliciting volunteers, while your colleague i.e. MageLam takes offence at edits made by any contributors, you must be mindful that you are representing Singapore - which you did imho except your colleague MageLam - otherwise, kindly refrain from identifying yourself as one, you may even use your IP addresses instead without signing in. Calling people or even your peers names like 'mad' are usual habits we grow up with on an internet community, however if you do it on an international platform identifying yourself as Singaporean, you or your colleague drag me into the disciplinary aspects of internet etiquette which includes self-censorship. Linrx (talk) 04:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Linrx: I did not call you "mad" anywhere. I also reminded MageLam to be civil (see [2]) as I reminded you (see [3]). I want all of us to cooperate and help out, rather than launching personal attacks on each other. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Indeed. As I note too your expressed desires, this is thusly why I called upon an qualified administrator or moderating authority with this post in blocking and banning my account from interaction specifically with either you or MageLam, or in which case if deemed infeasible, simply just block or ban my entire account. It should be obvious in the first place, or with this typing, that is anything but my job preventing you from typing.

However, if what you or your colleague types and commits via saves and submits may affect another, thusly known as dialogue, please be reminded also - which I noticed you have been aware of - that simply by undoing or forgetting what your colleague abusively rants on your somewhat personalised talk pages or other articles, it is less an issue of immaterial human consciences, but an obvious technical design feature of audit trails on computing and engineering systems, i.e. they are all on record. Which brings me one full circle since the first interaction imho, because I felt that both you and your colleague MageLam had perhaps that very good will, yet insufficient technical know-how in administering and contributing articles because both of your assumptions of good faith should be found at a church or a monastic centre over the weekends instead of a live internet community.Linrx (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Linrx appears to be an obvious reincarnation of an indefinitely blocked user (SPI). Please block and close, this wall of text is enough. JimRenge (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

And, I've indef blocked them as such. SQL^{Query me!} 12:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Is there a different administrator who can look over the EGS article rather than "Guy"?

I want to report the "Guy" or "JzG" actions concerning the European Graduate School article. He does not like the school, so he is unlikely to make the necessary edit or changes to the article. He blocked me and he has tried to ban me (without any success this time). I do not want to start a war against him because I like to do something else in life. However, I tried to raise some arguments about the EGS accreditation, the recent Maltese accreditation, the fact that U.S. sources are outdated and not official (even if my contribution are lenghty in talk page, I am referring to the official Michigan, Maine and Texas website links which state something different with reference to the EGS accreditation). A prospective student has written in the talk page and "Guy" replied that the topic was "discussed to death already". I note that different administrators have written in the Rfc (@Softlavender,@Vanjagenije,@Damotclese). This has happened each time I try to raise an argument, "Guy" has the final say. He also replied by telling me that I am here to whitewash the Egs article, that I am a WP:SYN (so according to him I should not write anymore in the talk page. In other words, he believes that only long-term editors can raise their arguments and that I should wait some time before writing that EGS is accredited), then that I was a suckpuppetry, latly a meatpuppetry. In conclusion, so long as he acts as an executioner/judge/final say of the article, my contributions to the talk page would be totally worthless. My question: Is there a different administrator who can look over the article rather than "Guy"?Claudioalv (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there an editor who can look at this content other than the WP:SPA Claudioalv? Who keeps demanding that we engage in novel synthesis such as listing accreditation of some courses in Malta and asserting based on this that all sources relating to questiona ble accreditaiton be removed as "incorrect", or that we portray the degrees as being recognised throughout the EU when actually the linked WP:PRIMARY source contains absolutely nothing demonstrating any obligation to accept degrees accredited elsewhere? And why is a Swiss-headquartered school only able to find accreditaiton in a country whose population is exceeded by that of many of the towns in the US state that lists its degrees as fraudulent, I wonder?

All this user has ever done is try to whitewash this article and WP:FORUMSHOP endlessly in the hope that the answer will change if the demand is repeated often enough. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Content dispute. This is no more than a compacted form of WP:OTHERPARENT. Half of the administration is already WP:INVOLVED in this (see, your talkpage), and surely that is enough. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I find this very curious. Why should the article have an entire section on the Graduate school's lack of accreditation in 2 states in the U.S.? Do articles now have to include sections on whether they come up to the standards of the U.S.? Surely there are a zillion other organisations out there which are not accredited by similar organisations in the U.S. For example, several animal breeding organisations will not even recognise each other so should we re-write the articles to say that (imaginary example) the U.K. Hereford Bull Society is not accredited by the U.S. Hereford Bull Society? DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Claudioalv: Why did you delete my posting? DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

[@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:] It is clear that "Guy" has more power than half of the administration. Each time I raise an argument the answer is "No" without providing any reasons. It should not take longer to see in the talk page that he is acting as a Supreme Judge/executioner/final say. It is not enough because his conduct has been reckless and biased. He just does not like that an editor (even if is a WP:SPA) raises an argument (U.S. source are outdated and that is easy to verify). I was asking to verify and update the U.S. sources, and as a result I was blocked and he tried to ban me. This is a serious problem because freedom of speech is involved. Blocking someone and attempting to ban him without any reason should not be allowed by other administrators. I am not currently asking to edit the article with the contribution I provided (even if there is consensus in the Rfc as you can easily see), I am only asking that someone else not biased can look over the article. thanks for your time. Claudioalv (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hear that Guy? Now you need to kill off the rest in single combat to gain their powers. There can be only one. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep. The rest of them are just getting too old for this shit, Guy! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hm, perhaps this issue can be resolved through this venue: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Graduate School (3rd nomination).  Sandstein  21:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy(talk) I have not deleted any your post. Claudioalv (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see this diff.[4] DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy(talk) I apologize. I did not do on purpose, I guess I was writing at the same time you were writing. Sorry again. Claudioalv (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Apology accepted - thank you. The postings were quite close so it may have been an edit conflict. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy(talk). Moreover I do agree with your post I have accidently deleted. Besides, the States mentioned in the article state something different than EGS degrees are fraudolent. Texas is current review the inclusion of EGS in the list (the recent Malta accreditation was not on their record), Maine and Michigan do not publish anymore any list of degrees mill. This is really easy to verify. However was not possible to address this argument in the talk page because the final say has been so far "Guy"'s judgment and if you disagree with him, he firstly block you and then he will try to ban. Welcome to the real world. Claudioalv (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Well well, inside information. Thus indicating that you are not independent if this company.WP:COI much? Guy (Help!) 00:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Guy. I am just citing the official links you have ever refused to read. You are aware of this information but you just do not care. Everyone can verify them by clicking the following: 1, 2, 3. Claudioalv (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• My concern here is that JzG is acting both as editor and admin in this discussion. At this point he shouldn't be taking admin actions wrt the article--he clearly has an editorial horse in this race. Hobit (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever edited that article other than in an administrative capacity. One does not become involved simply by engaging with an SPA over a long period of time. Guy (Help!) 13:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I would not describe the edit here[5] as "administrative". This is a large deletion being made whilst the article is under a long-standing protection allowing only admins to edit. You also stated in the Edit Summary that the addition you reverted was made against consensus - that is not my reading of the Talk page. I also find it "curious" that the admin who made the edit you reverted was the same admin who lifted the block on User:Claudioalv and refuted your accusation of sockpuppetry. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• My concern here is that Claudioalv has semi-disclosed a COI; he or she was asked directly about connections with EGS here and gave a long answer that didn't answer the question. He/she was asked again here, and in their answer, all they said was "I do not personally know EGS but someone was asking me to solve the problem ...". This is not a clear answer. i have asked them again here on their talk page, and they chose to come here and continue the drama instead of answering there.

In my view it is likely that Claudioalv is being paid for their work on this article, either as employee of EGS or as a contractor. In my view - especially in light of their refusal to answer direct questions - Claudioalv should be blocked until they make a clear COI disclosure on their talk page. So much disruption they have caused - Arbcom even, and they have not addressed this basic thing, directly. Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog. I have answered your question. If you think that banning me is the right thing to do go ahead. But at least verify If I have written nonsense or contributions supported by official governmental website (Malta, Michigan, Maine and Texas). thanks. Claudioalv (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The only real question here is why we keep going through the same old shit with this article, and why we continue to allow SPAs and COI editors to have access to it. I suggest long-term semi-protection and dealing out some indef blocks. BMK (talk) 03:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

User BMK You are biased toward me like "Guy" because you refused to look at my contributions and the sources I provided. Are COI users not allowed to write? If I find that an article is misleading or incorrect, I join the discussion by posting my contribution. Why shouldn't do it? I have revealed my identity the first time an administrator accepted my unblock request. Do you mean that only "Guy" can edit the article and build a free encyclopedia? Wikimedia Foundation legal counsel stated that he is not the final say, but he was probably wrong at this point. Claudioalv (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

What I find ridiculous is that each time I try to raise an argument aministrators and editors prefer to define me like WP:SYN, sockpuppetry, meatpoppetry, clueless, wide-eyed and now COI, instead to verify that Michigan does not state that EGS confer degree mills, Maine does not publish any official list of No-Accredited School, Texas is currently reviewing the EGS status and an official governmental entity of a E.U. Country has conferred a legitimate accreditation (Malta even if is a small country is still a E.U. contry and part of E.U.) However, the current article states just the contrary, i.e. the school is not accredited and in the U.S. the school is specifically included in a list of degree mill (info that relies on outdated links). Claudioalv (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, the whole world is against you (except DrChrissy, apparently), and it's going to stay that way unless you provide the information that Jytdog is asking for - and do so publicly. We don't disallow paid editing, but it must be publicly declared (see WP:TOU), and we regulate the ways in which hardcore conflict of interest editors can participate (see WP:COI). As long as you fail to make a clear public declaration of your status in regard to EGS, you're going to get the same kind of treatment that the previous SPAs received. That you were able to convince a single administrator to unblock you (which he should not have done, but that's water under the bridge) is irrelevant, here you're dealing with the entire Wikipedia community, and we are passionate about keeping the encyclopedia neutral and not letting it be taken over by any outside entity for promotional purposes (see WP:PROMO). BMK (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

As I said to you before Claudioalv, I strongly urge you to complete the COI disclosure work and stop battling here. You are digging yourself a very deep hole the more you push in this way. You will of course do as you like. Jytdog (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Do we really want this seemingly notable-enough article to be deleted just because people are disrupting it? Will that win us anything, or will the ones who disrupt Wikipedia be winning? Can this just be semi-protected for a very long time instead and forgotten about already? LjL (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Timeline of block

Timeline of block Much of the problem here seems to focus on JzG's block of Claudioalv. I have prepared below a timeline of the relevant edits.

• (22:30, 9 February) Claudioalv's first contribution ever to WP is to Talk:European Graduate School here.[6]

• (22:48, 9 February) Claudioalv's second contribution ever is again to the Talk:European Graduate School page here.[7]

• (00:20, 10 February) JzG reverts Claudioalv here[8]. Reverting another user's posting on a talk page is in itself actionable.

• (00:20, 10 February) Jzg indefinitely blocks Claudioalv, leaving edit summary "(Abusing multiple accounts)" according to Claudioalv's block log.

• (16:16, 10 February) Claudioalv's first contribution to their own talk page was here[9] asking to have their block lifted.

• (23:48, 16 February) Jzg's first ever contribution to Claudioalv's Talk page is here[10].

In other words, I am unable to find any evidence of a discussion about any problem that JzG had with Claudioalv before blocking them. Claudioalv does not have appear to have been warned about the possibility of a block, nor indeed even notified about their block. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no requirement that one be warned before one is blocked. You still have much to learn. BMK (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it is you that has much to learn - about misrepresenting others postings. Read it again. Where have I said there is a requirement? DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh come now, DrChrissy, whatever you are, you cannot convince me that you don't understand what "implication" means. Please don't take us for nitwits. BMK (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The implication is only in your head. The reason I raised the lack of warning is that JzG was dealing with a new user. It seems only fair to me that an admin should warn a user of what may happen if the admin is disagreeing with their editing behaviour. Are you seriously arguing that it is appropriate for an admin to block a new user without discussing the problem first and warning them a block is possible? DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, if it were in my head, it would be an "inference" not an "implication" But it ain't. BMK (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Address my question, please. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• The timeline is right there on the talk page; I will agree that Guy would have done well to talk before blocking. However, User:DrChrissy, I can't help but think that you are exporting a personal problem with Guy to this thread, and I should warn you that you shouldn't. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing personal about this at all. I was shocked to see a very experienced admin block a new editor after only 2 edits. I looked further into this and was even more shocked that I could find no evidence to support the reason given for the block, and that there was apparently no discussion with the blocked editor about their behaviour. This, to my mind, is a misuse of the blocking tool. The time line is not clear from the User's talk page because the editor was not informed about their block - I am simply clarifying the timeline and also pointing out that a users posting on a talk page was reverted with no justification. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hatting extensive bickering between two editors that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread (other than to question one-another's motives for being on this board to begin with). BMK is free to open another thread to examine DrChrissy's editing patterns if he believes there are long-term behavioural issues, but this is not the place. Nor is this extensive divergence into back-and-forth assertions about eachother's experience, motivations, and block history helping to resolve any of the issues of this thread, as both contributors should have realized two posts in. Please stay on topic. Snow let's rap 21:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Shocked" my Great Aunt Fanny. You know, DrChrissy, the more I see your edits in Wikipedia space, the more I'm coming to the conclusion that you are deliberately trolling in order to cause disruption. I'm also starting to wonder about your putative lack of experience here. I would advise other editors to keep a close watch on DrChrissy's noticeboard editing - perhaps it might strike a chord with someone as reminiscent of a previous editor, maybe even someone with a bone to pick with Guy. BMK (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC) (E/C)@Beyond My Ken: Apologies for shocking your Great Aunt Fanny. Please could you keep the subject of your comments directed to the content, not the editor. Please answer this question directly. Are you accusing me of being a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet? If not, you are invited to strike that last comment. DrChrissy (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC) No, nothing to strike. My growing impression from your Wikipediaspace editing is that you seem to be deliberately causing problems, just as my 'impression from your conduct is that it's possible you're not as much of a newbie as you claim to be. Those impressions didn't come out of nowhere, they're based on the quality and content of your edits, and they lead to certain possibilities which I would like the community to keep an eye on. BMK (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Are you sure you are discussing this with the correct editor? I have never claimed to be a newbie apart from my very first edits over 5 years ago. My user page shows I have been registered for 5 years and 26 days and this box has been on my user page for as long as I can remember. I repeat, are you confusing me with another editor? DrChrissy (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC) No, DrChrissy, I know very well that every time you get into trouble, you beg for leeway because you've not been here long enough to know all the ins and outs of the place. I also know that although you were registered in 2011, your editing counts were quite modest until 2015. [11]. I also know that 2015 was the year that your edits to Wikipedia space took off. [12]. (You seem to want to have it both ways: "I am not a newbie" and "Give me a break, I haven't been here that long.") In short, I know who I'm talking about, I'm talking about you and your editing and your disruptions. Those are facts, the questions that're open are if you are being deliberately disruptive or not, and whether the community will see fit to do something about it, eventually. (Aside from your two topic bans, I mean - you do realize that most editors go through their entire productive editing life without ever being topic banned?) BMK (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC) That's pretty rich coming from an editor who has been site blocked 9 times! I would ask for diffs about my "beg for leeway", but I won't, because they do not exist. As for the frequency of my edits over time - I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make. Anyway, this is all getting well off the subject of the thread and I am sure readers are totally fed up with your false accusations, so I will leave the last word to you. DrChrissy (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC) DrC, it's difficult to describe the many inaccuracies in your post. I have never been "site blocked". I have been blocked for edit warring, which is the Wikipedia equivalent of a misdemeanor, for very short periods of time, and when the block is over, I have been free to continue editing, unencumbered by any restrictions. The most serious item in my block log is the one for "abusing multiple accounts", which was, basically, a misunderstanding when I changed screen names without notifying anyone about it - it's all explained in the "My History" link on my talk user page, which has been there for years - full disclosure of everything. I have never been banned in any respect, as you have. You seem not to understand that your two topic bans are very big deals indeed, the Wikipedia equivalent of a fairly major felony. The next step up from multiple topic bans is, most likely, a complete 'site ban, which would indefinitely forbid you from editing Wikipedia again until the ban is lifted. You've already seen how hard it is to get a topic ban removed, please just imagine how hard it is to get un-site banned. My final advice to you, which you don't want and won't listen to, is to straighten up your act, stop disrupting the noticeboards to make trouble for admins you believe you have grievances against, stop pushing fringe theories in your editing, and edit strictly according to policy. If you do that, you have a chance that your future history here will go a different way, if you don't -- well, as was said below, you're hearing the sound of the community losing its patience with your nonsense. BMK (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC) I'm pretty sure DrC is not a sock, but ... that sound you hear? It's the community's patience being stretched and it's nearly at snapping point. Alexbrn (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Quite possible, I've been wrong about socks before - but I've more often been right. In any event, I've decided that DrC is really not worth the time or attention -- the bottom line is that he's your standard fringe advocate who simply can't work within the boundaries of Wikipedia's policies on non-standard medicine and science, and appears to hold Guy - a firm advocate of those policies - responsible. DrC's motivations are totally transparent, as are his methods. Although more disruptive and persevering than some, his type is pretty much a dime-a-dozen around here, so it's best to let him work his way into more sanctions on his own, since he seems to be pretty good at digging his own holes (like our friend Claudioalv here). BMK (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Claudioalv picked up right where a blocked user left off. Checkuser subsequently showed that Claudioalv is a meatpuppet, not a sockpuppet. Another admin assumed good faith and unblocked. As we now see, Claudioalv has done precisely as expected: wasted hours and hours of volunteers' time with querulous demands, novel synthesis and circular argument.

As a matter of simple fact, removing talk page comments by suspected socks is not actionable. It's perfectly acceptable.

DrChrissy would be wise not to keep coming to the drama boards with vendettas and vexatious complaints. That is likely to lead to a ban form Wikipedia space to go with your other two bans. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

So, in fact, your reason for blocking "(Abusing multiple accounts)" was erroneous. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it was not. It was a WP:DUCK block for sockpuppetry, it turns out that the user is a meatpuppet not a sock puppet, but we do not draw any distinction between the two. One WP:SPA is banned, another pops right up, we block. We do it all the time. Guy (Help!) 06:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd say there should be more than a mere "suspicion" of sockpuppetry before removing talk page comments becomes perfectly acceptable. LjL (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I know it's fun to poke someone you have disagreed with, but please have a quick look at the underlying issue first. That would avoid appearing to support an obviously problematic user who wants Wikipedia to promote the idea that a shonky business selling degrees has accreditation (re shonky, see for example this list of institutions whose degrees are illegal to use in Texas—the list includes EGS). Many people try to promote stuff on Wikipedia every day, and people like JzG/Guy who deal with them should be thanked and supported, not obstructed with the above retaliation from some unrelated past disagreement. Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't "mere suspicion". There have been a lot of WP:SPAs at that article, and a lot of sockpuppetry too. As usual with a subject whose self-image is at odds with the reliable independent sources, they want to use Wikipedia to fix a real-world problem. And as usual the problem is that the facts undermine their commercial activities. This is not our problem to fix, of course. Guy (Help!) 06:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Please don't be so quick to assume I'm having "fun" to "poke" you because we have disagreed. We have agreed, too. I do not particularly care about the underlying issue here, either. I do take issue with your wording: maybe there was more than "suspicion", but I didn't come up with the "suspicion" terminology, I was reacting to your claim that "removing talk page comments by suspected socks is [...] perfectly acceptable". I do not think that's generally accurate, is all. LjL (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Was that addressed to me? I have no recollection of any disputes with you, which doesn't mean they didn't happen, just that anything that may have happened is currently filed in the ox of things where reasonable people may differ. I don't have any impression of any problematic history between us, and I have no intention of excavating links to try to find one. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I think, in the packed discussion, LjL mistook Johnuniq's post just above for one of your own. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You are right Snow Rise, I conflated the two comments. But as a matter of fact, just like JzG says, I can neither confirm nor deny any disputes with him, but whether or not they occurred is irrelevant because they are not the reason I posted here. LjL (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Let me add something that may help show I'm not here to annoy Guy: I was informed a while ago, by a checkuser, that it's not even really considered acceptable for me to place "suspected sock" tags (the type with documentation that actually explains they're the ones to be used by non-admins) on user pages of users who have been blocked for sockpuppetry. But then, conversely, blanket removal of comments by editors who are suspect of sockpuppetry is always perfectly acceptable? I can recognize it's acceptable in some cases, perhaps including this one, but I just disagree with that blanket statement. LjL (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment From An Outside Perspective: Ok, after looking over all of this, why the hell is the community spending so much time on a C-class article? Don't we all have more important things to do? If Guy and Claudioalv want to go at it, jut let them. We already know that Claudioalv would end up getting blocked. Also, why the hell this article? Who will ever look at this, besides the two going at it above? Shouldn't we be putting our effort towards something positive? Remember, I'm just looking at this without any involvement. TJH2018 talk 02:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Nothing else is needed to be done. The article is protected (if it's not deleted, I imagine it will remain protected for quite a while). If so, fine. From there, individuals can make edit requests on the talk page. Any admin including Guy can respond to those requests. The talk page shows that the edit requests are broad based language about accreditation and Guy has been rejecting them. That's fair to me since the page is under heavy dispute and there's no indication of consensus to support adding any of that language to the article. The next steps are to pursue WP:DRR or better yet to actually provide the support that would get Guy or any admin to see that there is support for including the text into the page. There is currently an RFC on including the Malta and that's going on how it goes on. If you want to be taken seriously here, don't make 500 demands for variations of puffery based on stringing together things into a source and expect us not to see what's going on here. If there's an RFC on Malta, don't bring up the state of Michigan and keep on expanding it to test how much you can get away with; it's not helping. If say there was something like a refusal by Guy to add a faculty member here, then fine but I'm not seeing anything like that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Just providing an update. My back-and-forth with Claudioalv is wrapping up and I expect that you will hear from each of us in the next day or two. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

This is always a tough balancing act. So we have a particular scenario here which often frustrates administrative efforts. We have an article on a small(ish) private institution which is purported to have dubious business practices--it might be a degree mill as here, or perhaps predatory publisher, as in the case of the last time I saw a similar discussion here at ANI. The article gives every impression of having been started as an effort to publicize the institution, polish(and/or whitewash) its image and generally raise its profile, but the article does just barely satisfy WP:GNG by the skin of its teeth. The institution and its employees are obviously savvy to online marketing and organized enough to create headaches for the Wikipedians who have to grapple with them. Initially socking investigations are done with at least some degree of depth and transparency, but nobody (who isn't a COI editor) wants to make this article the crux of their activities, even on a given day, so eventually things devolve to an "oppose on suspicion" (or even "block on suspicion") state of affairs where any new member or insistent IP is assumed to be a part of the conspiratory collective.

My own perspective on this is that, unless we have a WP:DUCK test on steroids (e.i. with their first edit, they restored the exact content removed after the last sock was blocked, something along those), then WP:Assume good faith controls and is binding on our actions. A COI editor will reveal themselves by necessity in most cases anyway, and usually pretty quickly, and we have SPI and other similar tools exactly for these situations. Like LjL and others here, I have objections to the ban hammer being the first stop, based solely on one admin's instincts, at least where there is no transparency as to the evidence that admin considered. It's not that I don't appreciate the complexity of the issue or the burden it places upon our efforts to arrest bias in these articles, its just that I think there are other community principles at play here that can become even more deeply complicated if we start acting in a reflexive manner.

Now, I want to qualify all of the above by saying that I don't know where this situation really falls in that scheme; I don't know the content well enough to say whether it or not it was appropriate for Guy to "block on sight" in this instance. I'm only echoing others here in saying that the standard simply cannot be suspicion alone; an examination of the facts is always appropriate where an admin blocked an account two edits in with only a vague summary, and the admin in question could save themselves and the community a lot of time by being more detailed and transparent about what evidence is being considered in this extraordinary action and/or by giving the suspected a sock just a tiny bit of WP:ROPE to make the situation more clear; they'll certainly take it if they are a COI. Otherwise the admin, even one in high standing in the community, is going to have to live with the fact that an indef of a new user is always going to receive deep scrutiny, as a matter of community principle. Just my thoughts on this situation in general. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Certainly the user's first edit was proposing, on Talk, the same content that had IIRC previously been proposed by other WP:SPAs. And virtually every editor proposing anything on that article is a WP:SPA proposing that we (surprise surprise) remove mention of the identified issues with the place. That does rather invite suspicion. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Frivolous COI accusation

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

---

User:Jytdog has frivolously accused me of having a conflict of interest with regards to cryonics, in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. Here are the facts:

1. I do not have any conflict of interest regarding cryonics.
2. There is a content dispute between me and User:Jytdog regarding the page at Medical definition of death. I added some material to the article, which Jytdog subsequently reverted.
3. Jytdog said on my talk page, "As I noted above, your edits to date are focused on cryonics." This is clearly false. The only cryonics-focused article I have ever edited is the article at Information-theoretic death.
4. The editing I did to that article was to wipe it, merge the content into Medical definition of death, and add a redirect. Jytdog thanked me for this edit.
5. The only thing I have written about cryonics in Wikipedia is the single sentence, "Unlike therapeutic hypothermia, a well-established medical practice that takes place at temperatures above the freezing point of water, cryonics is done well below freezing, typically at the boiling point of liquid nitrogen (-196 °C/-321 °F)." (diff) This sentence was sourced to National Post, which is generally considered a reliable source. There is no plausible reason to think I have a COI regarding cryonics.
6. In a talk page comment, Jytdog said that the material I wrote "gives cryonics WP:UNDUE weight" (diff). This is clearly false. The material in question has nothing to do with cryonics. It is about therapeutic hypothermia or targeted temperature management, which is a mainstream medical procedure endorsed by the official guidelines of the American Heart Association. Cryonics involves freezing to liquid nitrogen temperatures, and is a speculative procedure which (to my knowledge) is not endorsed by any medical body anywhere. The article on Clinical death, which I haven't edited, gives substantial coverage to the medical cooling and resuscitation science which I wrote about. This reflects the extensive coverage this research has received in mainstream media and academic sources.
7. Frankly, I am a huge admirer of the medical research of Lance Becker (I created the article on him) and Sam Parnia. However, I do not work in the field, and have no conflict of interest there either.

I agree that conflicts of interest are a problem on Wikipedia, and that a single wrong COI claim doesn't deserve administrator action. However, poking a bit through their history, User:Jytdog has been enormously prolific in their conflict of interest and advocacy claims. By my count, there have been COI/advocacy claims by Jytdog for thirteen different users in the last three days alone. The response to a disagreement should not be to immediately shout "COI!". Especially if the supposed COI (in this case, cryonics) has nothing to do with the substance of the disagreement. To my knowledge, me and Jytdog don't actually disagree about cryonics at all; it is obviously speculative and not endorsed by the medical community or mainstream medical sources. NeatGrey (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• This is quite an over-reaction. I left two messages on NeatGrey'ss Talk page. The first was a note about advocacy. The second is a notice about the COI guideline, and also asking if Neatgrey had any conection to cryonics companies or organizations. A question is not an accusation. This kind of reaction to a question asked in a civil manner is completely inappropriate. I suggest this be closed and the OP trouted for over-reacting. Jytdog (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The phrasing of the "note" left by Jytdog above is:

"Please make sure you have read WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. Per WP:SOAPBOX, which is part of NOT) it is not OK to use Wikipedia to promote anything - not a drug (if you work for pharma company), not some political candidate, and not cyronics."

This is clearly an accusation, not just a question - Jytdog is claiming that I am an advocate for cryonics, which is clearly not true, and warning me to stop, because of an unrelated content dispute. NeatGrey (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

(addendum) Also, even though the COI note by Jytdog was phrased (partly) as a series of questions, in context it's obviously an accusation. Eg. if you're buying radios in a store, and someone comes up and asks "are you shoplifting that expensive radio?", everyone knows they're accusing you of shoplifting and that's why they're asking. NeatGrey (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Advocacy and COI are distinct concepts, which is why they are in two different sections on your talk page. Additionally, discussions of article content and editor behavior need to remain separate, which is why I brought up those issues on your Talk page. I am sorry that you don't understand the basics of dispute resolution in Wikipedia. This ANI filing is just a huge over-reaction. Jytdog (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion about the proper content of the Medical definition of death is a content dispute, but that's not why I am here. That dispute can, I hope, be resolved through the normal content dispute resolution channels. I am here because User:Jytdog didn't try to resolve that content dispute through the usual channels, but by making an obviously frivolous conflict-of-interest claim, which appeared to be based on nothing more than a minor disagreement about an unrelated issue. And anyone who looks at the logs can see that this is not a one-off incident, but a longtime pattern, where the large majority of Jytdog's talk page comments appear to be conflict-of-interest claims. NeatGrey (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I see that NeatGrey is a new editor, having just started their account this month. I think that it's quite understandable that an inexperienced editor would perceive notices about COI as being WP:BITEy, and that is not a reason for what Jytdog called a WP:TROUT. Jytdog's concerns, first, that the content about cryonics on the death page might not be compliant with WP:MEDRS, and second, that it would be useful to check on the possibility of a COI, are well within the ways that Wikipedia works. As for the page content, it would be useful to see it according to WP:BRD. As for the talk page notices, I suggest that Jytdog reaffirm that it was not intended as an accusation, and apologize that it was understood otherwise, and that then we all move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Tryptofish. FWIW, although this is a new account, I did spend time editing Wikipedia some years ago in college (circa 2010), so I'm not completely new. Otherwise I agree. NeatGrey (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Good! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"would be useful to check on the possibility of a COI" - That's not how Wikipedia works and flies in the face of WP:OUTING. If there is a credible concern of COI editing, then it may be looked into. But we don't assume that new account have COIs without any other evidence. In addition, leaving a template on a user talk page is indeed an accusation. It's not just a "notification". If I left a 'notification' on any of your talk pages about vandalism, you'd assume correctly that I'm accusing you of vandalism. If there is no reason to believe someone has a conflict of interest, there is no reason to leave a template.--v/r - TP 02:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Here here TP, well said! WP:BITE, WP:OUTING, WP:VAMPIRE etc come to mind in my experience. Thanks and bye. Gongwool (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

User:TParis asking someone to disclose a relationship that creates a COI if they have one, does not come even close to violating OUTING. If you read what I actually wrote, you will see that I explicitly said they do not have to reveal their identity and explicitly said that their identity is protected by OUTING. We don't care about identity; we care about relationships. Jytdog (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

If you have reason to believe they have a close relationship with a COI, then disclose that reason privately to a functionary. If you don't, then there is no justification to ask it. Asking for the personal details of another editor is in violation of WP:OUTING. An editor having a new account is not sufficient justification. You cannot go around and accuse every new editor you run into of a COI.--v/r - TP 04:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey, User TP, it's often more than just COI implications thrown at Newbies. The WP:VAMPIREs WP:BITE toward a Newbie can be vicious, it can sometimes go like this, and all plastered on one's talkpage:

1. Self appointed COI checker suggesting a breach by Newbie of WP:COI, WP:PAID and/or WP:NPOV.

2. Then self appointed COI checker suggesting "Disclosure" by Newbie, then making creepily clear to Newbie: "I am watching [your talk] page".

3. Then self appointed COI checker suggesting a breach by Newbie of WP:SPA, WP:SOAPBOX and/or WP:ADVOCACY.

4. Then when all this WP:BITEing fails the last resort from the "COI Checker Editor" is angrily leaving unprovoked offending comments on Newbie's talkpage resembling WP:NPA.

5. And then if you complain about it or mention it at ANI or wherever they warn you that it's not good and bad form to be so bold or most of the community will remember your commentary (or words to that effect) so you're intimidated from participating.

- A nice welcome to Wikipedia, one might say. Of course (I am not attaching the above scenario to anyone. Hypothetical of course:) But what would I know? Bye. Gongwool (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Gongwool, I understand you are unhappy with me but your effort to pile on here is ... not good. I tell new editors i am "watching" their page so they know it is OK to reply there. You are just making yourself look bad here by bringing up silly points like this. In general it is bad form to carry out grudges at ANI; folks tend to remember this kind of commentary and discount what you say in the future. It's a newbie mistake but one that sticks to you. You should also be aware that there are a wide range of views in the community on looking out for the integrity of WP on the one hand (which means paying mind to COI) and placing an absolute value on privacy/looking strictly at content; TParis is way, way over on the "strictly content" side of things and I responded to TParis only to address the OUTING thing, which is serious, and which I take very seriously. Most of the community is in the middle of that spectrum. Jytdog (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about way over anything, but I'm just going to shrug it off. It's a very clear line: don't ask people to identify themselves. If you believe they have a COI, demonstrate it with diffs. If you suspect it because of POV edits, address those. If you have prove outside of Wikipedia, use the functionaries. But don't ask people to declare if they have a COI or not simply, and only, based on their number of edits. That's what is inappropriate. I also share some of the bitey opinions that Gongwool has about this, but they're less series. It's that simple, really. Frankly, I don't see how anyone could disagree with that statement.--v/r - TP 07:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• This all looks like a big misunderstanding. NeatGrey, Jytdog works extensively at the WP:COIN (Conflict-Of-Interest Noticeboard), so that's probably why you see him posting COI queries on so many people's talk pages. I agree his (first) notice on your talk-page was inappropriate as written. I agree all of this should probably have been worked out on the article's talk page. I don't personally offhand see any evidence of COI, having glanced at your editing history. Looks to me like Jytdog just made a mistake, and needs to slow down and be more careful in the future. Softlavender (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Apparent Personal Attacks and harrassment by User:Malik Shabazz

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

---

User reported: Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Malik Shabazz appears to be repeatedly attacking and harassing me and other users using his usernames Malik Shabazz, MShabazz, and ip addresses. I prefer to discuss here in the ANI so that the user will be careful not to attack me when responding. (I was also recommended by 2 admins to use this page for my concerns). Will refer to the user as "Shabazz".

• Most recently Shabazz reverted my edits accross 9 articles without any edit summary explanation other than "Rv POV pushing" [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] - WP:WIKIHOUND. In some instances Shabazz totally ignored the article's talk page discussion[22]. Shabazz ignored my talk page comment explaining my edits [23] (I explained that I am correcting a series of problematic patterns of edits by a certain user with multiple blocks). Shabazz then began dumping repeated accusations and warning on my talk page [24][25]-- Again without any explanation or evidence of disruptive editing or NPOV = Personal attack WP:NPA#WHATIS.

• Shabazz repeatedly made fun of my reading skills, making me feel uncomfortable editing wikipedia, and I am sure many other victims feel the same. First on my talk page Shabazz wrote: "PS: I'm sorry it took you half an hour to figure out why I gave VanEman a barnstar more than a year ago. I hope your reading skills improve"[26] Then again in the page of [27]Shabbazz wrote about me "As she/he so often does, Caseeart demonstrates a disconcerting inability to read"[28].

• Soon after being blocked for repeated personal attacks [29] - Shabazz allegedly continued personal attacks using ip addresses 107.10.236.42 [30] and 63.116.31.198 [31] (and I believe there is more). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Malik Shabazz/Archive.

• Additional Small note and request: Experienced Admins who know the rules much better then I do, are telling me that Shabazz is allowed to actively edit under two accounts (User:Malik Shabazz and User:MShabazz) as long as they are properly disclosed. I am having a hard time finding the rule that allows this. As far as I see in WP:VALIDALT it must fall into one of the 11 categories: Security, Privacy, Maintenance, Bots, Testing and training, Doppelgänger accounts, Compromised accounts, Clean start under a new name, Humor accounts, Correcting username violations, Designated roles. User:MShabazz does not appear to be any of those categories. Caseeart (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I assume the confusion was that he had the account tagged as a doppelganger - however the stated use (in the same sentence as doppelganger) was for browsing from his mobile - That would fall under 'Security' in WP:VALIDALT assuming he meant 'browsing from public networks on his mobile' which would be a valid security issue. Doppelgangers in this context are specifically non-editing placeholders to prevent impersonation - rather than the general usage/meaning of 'clone'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

So that means that it is for browsing from public networks on his mobile? Caseeart (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Likely. Alternative accounts are used regularly by editors who edit from unsecure networks. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Except that he/she does not write that (and instead wrote Doppelgänger). Also the IP's that were involved in the investigation don't show evidence of of public networks. But I guess since that is a possibility - therefore no one could stop him/her. Caseeart (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Honestly I see this kind of thing every once in awhile. I'm not sure it's squarely within policy, but my understanding is that, so long as there's a clear link made between the accounts, we tend to let people do this without bothering them. Basically, if Malik finds it useful to do this, and there's no clear policy violations in what he's doing with the alt, we should let him do his thing in peace. No opinion on the other issues. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The only thing above that is a personal attack is when he said you display an inability to read, which he does after you create a sockpuppet investigation about him on what seems to be rather weak grounds. I'd be pretty annoyed as well. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

If someone questions your reading skills based on what they perceive possibly as being a dubiously competent sockpuppet investigation which they might perceive as being one made without having read the appropriate instructions, that is not something in any way actionable. Move to close this thread because there really isn't anything to do administratively here. John Carter (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Long before that investigation - Shabazz already said "PS: I'm sorry it took you half an hour to figure out why...I hope your reading skills improve". The problem is that Shabazz is not stopping!. Caseeart (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• User:Caseeart, when somebody reverts tendentious removals of sourced content, I think "Rv POV pushing" is a reasonable edit summary. The example you link to of your talkpage discussion[32], that MS has failed to respond to, is not very useful — it's just an angry accusation, with no specifics. Rather hard to respond meaningfully to, I would say. Bishonen | talk 15:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC).

User:Bishonen I explained in my edit summary the reason for my edits. The argument is not whether or not my edits were correct. Shabazz failed to explain why he/she believes that my edits are not warranted or why my edits are POV. Not all my edits were "removal of sourced content" - Some were actually the addition of content [33] that were previously removed using a false edit summary [34].

Is it warranted to revert multiple of my edits across multiple articles - seemingly without even reading much of the edits - and then putting multiple warnings on my talk page without even explaining why there was POV? Caseeart (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It would be helpful to actually write what is POV when reverting, rather than just Rv POV. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Caseeart, please read WP:BOOMERANG and WP:FORUMSHOP, and then consider withdrawing this spurious complaint. You've been told repeatedly over the past six months that there is no meat to your complaint. Evidently you really can't read. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Stop it already!!! Stop saying I can't read! Caseeart (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, Caseeart has read that they can't read at least twice, strongly suggesting that they, in fact, can read. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Caseeart is clearly frustrated, don't make funny observations now, we might just provoke him. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 17:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Caseeart, I recommend you read WP:STICK. Specifically this section:

There comes a point in every debate where the debate itself has come to a natural end. You may have won the debate, you may have lost the debate, or you may have found yourself in a draw. At this point you should drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.

You've tried multiple ways to get Malik Shabazz sanctioned and been unsuccessful. At this point, it would be best if you dropped the issue, avoid interacting with Malik and move on to more productive editing projects. I think every editor here has other individuals they don't get on well with and unless that editor is actively causing damage through vandalism (which is not happening here), it's better to just keep your distance and let go of your hurt feelings. Believe me, many of us have had much worse things said about us than that we "can't read". It's glib but it doesn't rate being a personal attack which usually involves more pointed, four letter, offensive language. I could cite insults that have come my way (and Malik has had even more dirt thrown at him) but it's best to put those incidents behind one and move on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Account probably belonging to public relations firm FP1 strategies

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

---

I've been having trouble with an account named User:Lesbianadvocate POV-pushing, edit-warring, and adding copyright violation material to an article named American Council for Capital Formation. After consulting with User:1990'sguy, who had a similar run in with her on another article, I started investigating why she's writing so many hit pieces, and it looks like all of her articles for the past few years correspond with clients of the digital PR firm FP1 Strategies. (Her edit history can be seen here).

• This year, John Shimkus employed a firm called FP1 Strategies to “build his digital presence”. [35] At around the same time, LA suddenly got interested in posting positive information about him, and negative info about his challenger, Kyle McCarter.

• FP1 Strategies was employed by Quico Canseco in his 2012 congressional race.[ https://www.facebook.com/FP1Strategies/] At the same time, LA suddenly became interested in writing negative information about his challenger, Pete Gallego.

• Also in 2012, FP1 Strategies handled public relations for Rodney L. Davis [36]. At the same time, LA suddenly got interested in rewriting the page of his challenger, David M. Gill. (which is now merged into another article.)

• One of FP1’s long-term clients is Fox Entertainment.[37] LA recently spent two months intensely interested in Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Dish Network, LLC, including posting reams of negative information about Dish Network and its CEO, Charlie Ergen.

• FP1’s Vice President, Ryan Williams, blasted ACCF’s ethanol position on Twitter the exact same day LA created her article attacking the group, using the exact same language. (“$1.6 million from ExxonMobil alone” [38])

In short, all of LA’s major article projects for the past four years seem to be FP1 clients or their opponents, taken on exactly when FP1 takes on the clients. It would be mind-boggling if this was coincidence, right? Can any action be taken? More details about her problematic editing, including some examples of her copyright violations can be seen here if necessary. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

While you might get a response here, you are probably better off posting this at the conflict of interest noticeboard where editors experienced in this sort of thing hang out. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind doing that, but this is the fourth or fifth consecutive forum I've posted to and been told I'm in the wrong place and to go post on Board X instead. Getting through the DMV is easier than this! Thanks, though, for the advice. I will try. EllenMcGill (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It might be easier just to drop a notice at COIN pointing them here. From a brief look at the evidence above it does look suspicious given the timing involved. Just puffing up members of a political party you support isnt that bad, simultaneously making negative edits to their opponents indicates blatant POV editing. When you add in that the (positive) articles are all linked with a specific PR company, it looks even more suspicious. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem, thanks--I just cut-and-pasted it over to there. Should I just go ahead and delete this section now? -- EllenMcGill (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

An admin (or others) might take action/comment so I would leave it for now. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

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

205.154.229.150

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

---

IP is quite motivated in vandalizing articles, especially concerning a particular school district, and a particular school. Almost as if they were juveniles with some personal connection. Multiple past warnings. Behavior continues. On the bright side, they seem to be occasionally creative with their vandalism. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

IP notified of the discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: What are you seeing that requires immediate administrative action? I don't even see enough vandalism today for an WP:AIV report. —C.Fred (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Probably should have put this there. Pretty consistent pattern. Do nothing for a month or so. Sprinkle vandalism one random day. Repeat. No reason to expect this pattern to change. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Admin conduct

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

---

Is this appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.96.135 (talk)

That's pretty specialist. But perhaps he felt stonewalled by intransigence; indeed, perhaps that was the intended effect? You failed to notify the editor of this discussion (now done), and, please- sign your posts with ~~~~ _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't agree. If any editor, particularly an admin, becomes that frustrated, they should walk away from the keyboard until they have calmed down. DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of their report, it should be noted the the IP that made this report has been hounding Ricky for quite some time. See this recent discussion - the 166 IPs and this 107 IP geolocate the the same place in LA and have identical behavior patterns. This is not the first 107 IP to harass Ricky or make absurd comments against his views at MfD. A2soup (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

As is noted, the topic is very specialized and very contentious. To answer the actual question as stated, the specific comment by the admin is not acceptable. However, to answer either of two questions that may have been implied, first, that comment is not block-worthy in context, and it certainly does not rise to the level of being desysop-worthy. Second, was that comment worth reporting here? No. Since any admin action would have been an overreaction, it should not have been reported here. The only issue that needs to be addressed here is whether the OP/IP is a sockpuppet, and I won't raise that issue. This question should not have been filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Please note that the IP just added a double posting of this section, for some reason, which was reverted by another editor. ~ Rob^Talk 15:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Consistent vandalism by user:142.29.14.4

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

---

This has been going on for a while, most recently here and here. See also [https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/142.29.14.4 the rest of his past edits. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a school IP that somewhat recently came off a six month block for vandalism. You could probably get it reblocked if you complained to MaterialScientist, but I'd probably just go through the standardized vandalism warnings in Twinkle. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Socking, POV-pushing, edit warring and general WP:NOTHERE

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

---

It's obvious that User:Alasss123 is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia. The user's entire history consists of pointy POV contributions on Turkish politics, always with repeated edit warring against consensus on both Recep Tayyip Erdoğan [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44] and on Gülen movement [45], [46], [47], [48]. The above is, I think, already evidence enough that this user doesn't give a damn about WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD, WP:EDITWAR or any other policy and is just here to push their own POV. On top of it all, there's also now a highly suspicious WP:DUCKy new account also using the numbers 123 whose only Wikipedia activity is to step in to revert for User:Alasss123 [49]. In short, I suggest Alasss123 be indeffed as an obvious WP:NOTHERE case. Jeppiz (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support Mainly because I'm tired of rabid nationalists trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS that aren't actually wrong in the first place. 142.105.159.60 (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose On Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, there's no ongoing consensus on the talk page regarding the disputed contents and non of the reported user and the nominator have tried to resolve the issue via discussion. AFAIS, User:Alasss123 have made some step by step edits which were reverted by Jeppiz and others. The reported user have explained his edits via edit summary. For example, in this edit Alasss123 claimed that the "This sentence has no source to prove what is being claimed." Similar explanations were presented by Alasss123 for his other edits. This is while Jeppiz reverted his edits claiming that Alasss123's had been vandalism and large scale blankings (without saying why they were vandalism). Another example; this edit is removing a disputed content (" generally considered an autocrat") which I could not find in the source. Per WP:BLP, Alasss123 did the right job by removing this and the reverters never explained why they were reverting him. I really don't see a vandalism here. Mhhossein (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate series of AfD nominations

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

---

• 106.220.147.22 (talk · contribs)
• Leif Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Irmelin Sandman Lilius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Yttermalung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These look to be test or malicious use of AfD templates, with no rationale given. I'd revert them all, but have reasonable expectation that someone will revert and template me for removing AfD templates, so here we are. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• And this further suggests trolling behavior [50]. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks like it's all been wrapped up. Thanks for letting us know. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

This looks to be yet another sock of Nsmutte (talk · contribs). MarnetteD|Talk 00:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. SPI filed, AFD closed (WP:SK2). — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

An Anon came to ANI and didn't get blocked? Someone put this in the log books! This is history in the making.--v/r - TP 00:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• I have blocked the IP - 106.220.147.22 - as they were plainly attempting to harass Bonadea by nominating articles that she had created for deletion and leaving inappropriate messages on her talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Just for the record, you can revert a redlinked AFD tag - if you only do it once (don't edit war) and if you direct the IP editor to post a request at WT:AFD or the article's talk page, since they can't actually create the AFD. But that's for good faith attempts at nomination - LTA cases like this one can be filed under RBI. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat in edit summary?

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

---

Here _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The guy should be blocked for the legal threat, but his claim should also be investigated, especially if it's a BLP issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Cheers Baseball_Bugs, I think I know 'who' the IP is. But obviously cannot say. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Bob Lambert (undercover police officer) is a hatchet job to all intents and purposes for a different Bob Lambert. The Ballyseedy IRA "Bob Lambert" is not well-sourced - it appears to be from a 2008 book by Peter Cottrell. Collect (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely, Collect. I was not referring to the honey-trap guy. The IP has effectively outed himself though. Has the IP been blocked yet? I wouldn't call the Cottrell work a particularly WP:RS- it's a short guide rather than based on research._Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for attempting intimidation through legal threats. That being done, it may be worth looking into their concerns to make sure our content regarding that person is well sourced or removed. HighInBC 14:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks HighInBC, as above, I would suggest removing it until we have a better source than Cottrell. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there any wonder so many people think Wikipedia is run by idiots? As Jimbo Wales said, The [No Legal Threats] policy is a good policy, overall, but there is a very unfortunate sequence of events that happens far too often. A BLP attack victim sees something horrible in Wikipedia, and I think we can all acknowledge that they have no moral responsibility to become Wikipedians to fix it. Some of them react in ways that we, as Wikipedians who favor reasoned discourse over threats, find inappropriate. Sure, and why not? They are being unfairly attacked and they are hurt and angry and they have no idea what our rules are. That's not their fault. Banning them on the spot for a legal threat is not a very helpful response, usually.}}

The difference here, which isn't terribly important right now, is that the highly offensive, unsourced, and apparently quite dubious content dealt with a deceased family member rather than a living person. Nobody reached out to the IP to address their very legitimate concerns. This is not the behavior of genuinely reasonable, sensible people. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

(ec)Did you even notice the part where we took their complaint seriously? I am not sure if Jimbo has attempted to find a consensus to change our no legal threats policy, but as the policy stands we need to block people who have active threats of legal action.

We are not lawyers and we cannot respond to legal threats in a competent way. We block the person with an explanation as to why, we let them know that if they retract the threat the block can be reversed. And we look into the complaint to see if it is valid. I think you are not seeing the whole situation here. HighInBC 16:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Did you even notice what I actually wrote? I posted that Nobody reached out to the IP to address their very legitimate concerns. It's evident from their talk page that that statement is 100% accurate. The boilerplate language posted to the IP's talk page gives no sign whatever that their concerns are being taken seriously. The OP here violated policy by not providing the IP with the mandatory notice of / link to this discussion. This episode is just another FUBAR situation caused by inbred Wikipedia editors being more concerned with the selectively chosen rules of the game here than with matters of genuine substance. It's an embarassment. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Calling people inbred - really? SQL^{Query me!} 10:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: SQL^{Query me!} 11:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Why are we still having this discussion? The IP has been blocked for legal threats. Close the thread.--WaltCip (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Clearly, the behavior of other editors is being discussed as well. The thread should not be closed yet. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: yes I read what your wrote, did you write what you meant me to read? I did "reach out" to the IP in that I left a notice explaining our position on legal threats. We did look into their concerns and address them. Perhaps you could better communicate what it is you think we should have said to the IP, or better yet say it to the IP yourself then teach us by example. As it is you are very poorly communicating what your actual concerns are. HighInBC 00:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

A friendly chat re how best to handle legalistic footstomping

• Frankly, I never bought the received wisdom that we must block legal threat-eners on sight, particularly where the threat isn't directed specifically at other editors, which is usually the sign of an actual attempt to "chill". So what if someone says "Fix this or I'll sue!"? The Foundation knows how to take care of itself; if we're following our own rules there's nothing to worry about; and (most importantly) blocking likely doesn't reduce the chance of actual legal action but rather increases it, by cutting off the channels by which we can explain how things work, and making it look like we don't give a shit about possibly meritorious complaints.

So why do we block for legal foot-stomping, instead of just ignoring the threat and engaging the complaint, at least as long as the person seems to be listening? If they won't engage and just keep making threats (especially, as I say, against other editors) then block as with any other persistently unconstructive behavior. EEng 00:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

One of the big reasons is that any form of intimidation has a chilling effect that damages our neutral point of view. If someone can say "The article should be like this or bad things will happen" that creates a very strong bias. Our WP:NLT policy is of course open to discussion and if consensus is found even change. HighInBC 01:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Duh, thanks for recapitulating what we all know is the logic of NLT. The questions (I guess I'll have to say again) are: whether a vague legalistic threat is, in fact, intimidating (which is different from whether it's meant to be intimidating); and (whatever the answer to that) whether instablocking is, in fact, the most useful way to respond. Since almost all "legal threats" come from very new editors, the idea that such blocks act as a warning to others [underlined portioned added later, to clarify] doesn't hold much water. EEng 03:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the attitude. I am enforcing the NLT policy as it is written, if you want that changed then seek consensus for that change and I will follow that instead. HighInBC 03:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I didn't question whether you were enforcing policy as written. The question was raised above whether our policy re/treatment of LTs is wise, at least one other editor seemed interested in kicking that around, and I joined in. There's no need for you to explain to experienced editors that the way to get policy changed is to seek consensus, that you as an admin would abide by such change, and other bits of obviousness. EEng 03:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The talk page of the policy would be a good place to have a discussion about that. If what I was saying was really obvious then you would be talking about it there. HighInBC 04:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Your logic is faulty, because discussants at ANI often kick an idea around in the context of a particular incident before making a formal proposal elsewhere -- though the literal-minded, and those who like everything bureaucratically pigeonholed, may find that bothersome. Perhaps you just let those who wish to discuss, discuss, without further metadefending your need to defend your earlier defense of an administrative action that I didn't question? EEng 04:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Legal threats cannot be tolerated. The user can sue Wikipedia, or he can edit Wikipedia, but he can't do both. If an editor recants and disavows his legal threat, then an unblock can be considered. If he doesn't, then he stays blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You too are just repeating what we all know to be the current policies/practices, and chanting appealing-sounding syllogisms. Anyway, someone who says, "I'm so mad, if this isn't fixed I might sue WP!" hasn't sued anyone yet, and I'm trying to raise the question of whether those policies/practices best keep that from happening, and best get any errors corrected. Based on the straw-poll so far, however, it appears that for the moment the ground is not fertile for a reexamination of such questions. EEng 05:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

My position is that it is not just the current policy, but that it is a good idea and a good practice. I am not just repeating the policy, I am defending it. I can't speak for Bugs but I suspect they are not just repeating something they heard, but rather expressing an opinion. I think you are belittling both of us by suggesting our defence of the policy are just "appealing-sounding syllogisms". I would love to continue this discussion on the talk page of the NLT policy, if you have any concrete proposals on how to improve things. HighInBC 05:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

My original post asked whether the time-honored NLT arguments really are valid (for example, "blocking likely doesn't reduce the chance of actual legal action but rather increases it, by cutting off the channels by which we can explain how things work, and making it look like we don't give a shit about possibly meritorious complaints") but neither of you even acknowledged that question. Like I said, this doesn't seem like the time to shout into the wind. One thought for the future, however, is that someone should ask Foundation legal what they think about all this. Businesses often receive threats of suit, but they don't simply hang up the phone when that happens. (And yes, I realize WP isn't a business, but the point remains.) EEng 05:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually I did answer your question by suggesting that our NLT policy was about avoiding intimidation in Wiki. The block is not for the benefit of the person blocked, and it is not an attempt to prevent law suits. It is taking legal matters off of Wikipedia because nobody here is qualified to deal with these matters. You responded with "Duh" and then acted like nobody was listening to you. You might not have liked the answer to your question but you got an answer. HighInBC 05:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Precisely. If someone makes extra-Wikipedia threats, be they legal or physical, they have forfeited their editing privileges. There is no constitutional right to edit Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: actually, under the current WP:NLT policy as tweaked around the end of 2015 (I think), a user can sue Wikipedia (or one of its editors for Wikipedia issues), as long as they don't threaten here to sue: "That users are involved in a legal dispute with each other, whether as a result of incidents on Wikipedia or elsewhere, is not a reason to block, so long as no legal threats are posted on Wikipedia". I do not particularly endorse those changes, and I think they went under a bit of silence. LjL (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's suppose someone decides to sue me for some unknown reason. How would they found out just who they should sue? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: what, you mean your real name is not Baseball Bugs?! Damn, I better disclaim that cease&desist letter I sent Mr Bugs... LjL (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But supposing someone uses a pseudonym, what would the plaintiff do? Get some court order compelling Wikimedia to break confidentiality? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: yes. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Seriously though, people on Wikipedia can write pseudonymously, but they can also write with their real name and they shouldn't feel all the chills and their effects, IMO. For the purposes of Wikipedia, a "legal threat" is an intimidation from freely editing articles, based on possible legal action, which creates chilling effects. What is more of an intimidation with such effects than actual legal action taking place? "Oh but I didn't threaten it, I just did it" doesn't impress me a lot as a get-out-of-jail-free card. LjL (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Misunderstanding and misinterpretation of legal threats policy

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Baseball Bugs, Collect, HighInBC, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, WaltCip, and EEng:

With all due respect to the blocking administrator and everyone else who has supported the block, this situation has been badly mishandled. As has been explained on this noticeboard several times before, a statement that something written on Wikipedia is "libelous" or "defamatory" is not, in and of itself, a "legal threat", any more than a statement that something is a copyright violation is a legal threat. A "legal threat" is a statement (or perhaps a very strong implication) of the writer's intention to sue one or more editors or the Wikimedia Foundation, or take some similar action against them. In the case of this particular edit, which deals with something that occurred in 1923, no legal claim for defamation could be brought even in theory because, at least in most jurisdictions (including the U.S., the U.K. and Ireland), only living persons can sue for defamation.

The misconception that any passing reference to an article's content as being defamatory constitutes a legal threat seems to remain widespread even though this issue was dealt with in an arbitration decision I wrote and which was unanimously adopted six years ago (see, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2#Principles in page history). As explained in that decision, and as subsequently written into the policy page that everyone is citing, at Wikipedia:No legal threats#Perceived legal threats, use of words such as "libelous" or "defamatory" is discouraged because such language could be misinterpreted or perceived as a legal threat and thus damages the editing environment. Nonetheless, the policy specifically states in discussing editors' use of such language, "Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention" and that is certainly what should have occurred here.

Even if a more express legal threat had been made, and even if the "threat" would have had more substance even if it had been made, allowances must be made for newcomers who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's editing norms and policies, and who may be reacting out of unhappiness or anger at the treatment of themselves or a family member on the largest and most prominent interactive website in the world. See generally, Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers, Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats, and in a related context, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with edits by the subject of the article, all of which seriously discourage blocking as a first response except in extreme situations.

Policy should always be enforced with due regard to what Wikipedia is and what we are all trying to accomplish here. The situation at the moment is that someone reached out to us angrily because he or she perceived that an ancestor was being unfairly maligned, and we struck back by immediately preventing them from editing any more coupled with a barely tailored template pointing them to a complicated policy page. This is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work.

The block should be reversed and a more reasonable explanation of our editing policy and the reasons for it should be provided to the IP, with the request that he or she bring any further concerns to the article talkpage. It is only out of the possibility that perhaps I have missed something that I am holding off on unblocking pending a bit more discussion, rather than unblocking immediately. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The block should stay until or if the user recants and disavows this statement: "‎The Ballyseedy Massacre and its aftermath: Bob Lambert did not order the killing of three Free State leaders in March 1923 and any suggestion that he did will be treated by his family, my family, as defamatory." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Did you read any portion of what I wrote? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You consider that threatening statement to be a "passing reference"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You should likely note that I did not say that the IP should be blocked - in fact I pointed out that the claim he objected to was poorly sourced in the first place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Collect: I didn't attribute any statement to you. I pinged everyone who had commented in the thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want this re-statement of policy to become the emphatic norm amongst the community at large, I'd suggest pinging a helluvva lot more editors than just those involved here. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

They did not just say it was defamatory, they said "will be treated by his family, my family, as defamatory". "will be treated" is a threat of action. It was clearly meant to have a chilling effect.

I feel the block was in line with policy and our best practices. I don't think it is good for our NPOV to let users intimidate others like that. If you want to reverse the block go ahead, but please take responsibility for any future intimidation this user attempts. HighInBC 17:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The editor was actually following our WP:BLP (removing unsourced information). We even use the word defamatory in the WP:BLPREMOVE Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material.... That the IP editor did not know the magic word "BLP," but rather used common sense is not a reason to block; furthermore, such reactionary blocking is far more "chilling" than ambiguous edit summaries. NE Ent 17:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Gee I hate to repeat myself, but they did not just say "defamatory". They said "will be treated by his family, my family, as defamatory". This is a threat of action. The phrase "will be treated by [my] family" is a promise of action as shown by the words "will" and "be treated". The words "his family, my family" shows that the threat is coming from them and not just a warning about a 3rd party. This is not simply someone saying something is defamatory, it is showing an intent to take action.

The NLT blocking template explains what caused the block and what they can do to get unblocked. They can retract the threat any time. HighInBC 17:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Well said, User:Newyorkbrad. User:Baseball Bugs, what are you doing back here? I thought you'd been kicked off the admin noticeboards years ago for this type of stupid shit-stirring. As for the rest of you, especially User:HighInBC, "treated as defamatory" does not equal "I will sue you". It might. But it might mean a letter to the WMF. It might mean taking the issue to ANI or BLPN. Or something else. Clarify what the editor means before acting. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You've got it wrong, on all counts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Your ad-hominem attack against Bugs does little to contribute to the conversation. Nothing is gained by attacking people who disagree with you. HighInBC 03:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

He hasn't been particularly active of late, so it's understandable why he's behind the curve on these matters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that this is not strong enough to fall under NLT directly, but it's uncivil and chilling to vaguely hint at some kind of consequences, even—or perhaps especially—where it's just as likely the threat refers to extrajudicial action. There does need to be an adequate WP:DOLT assessment here, even if we don't consider it as actionable under NLT. All that said, I would caution us all against letting the pendulum swing too far in the other direction, to the extent of only allowing NLT blocks where a "reasonable anticipation of litigation" arises. NLT may be interpretable in that way, but I believe the practices of the community have redefined the policy in such a way that NLT is broader than that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Chillum, you have access to the block tool. You don't have to pull it out and wave it about in situations like this. Just talk to the man for Christ's sake. "Sorry. We're looking into it. It's being discussed [[here]]. By the way, check out WP:NLT." Listen, inform, advise, be polite and helpful. Bashing people with your tool when a bit of advice will do just as well is the very definition of being a dick. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome to propose a change to NLT. As it stands legal threats call for a block, not a warning. Keep your insults to yourself, they are far more dickish then enforcing the policy that the community created. Seriously, I don't deserve to be treated this way for doing my job here. If you don't like the policy then seek to change it, don't just bitch at the guy who enforces it.

Wikipedia talk:No legal threats has not been edited since 26 August 2015‎. I follow the consensus of the community and that policy has been very stable. If you don't like the policy then change it and I will follow that. I don't pick and choose how I enforce policy. HighInBC 14:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention." Please try to remember this in future. Now that it has been pointed out to you, if I see you blocking people for apparent legal threats without first clarifying their intentions and pointing them to WP:NLT, I'll take you straight to ArbCom. Follow policy - especially with regard to blocking or threats to block. Don't be a cowboy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"Should" ≠ "shall". It's within the admin's discretion unless there's some other problem. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Mendaliv: Yes, should ≠ shall. We allow for exceptions where intelligent admins may use their discretion, or even make the occasional error. Exceptions. Occasional. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. This block-happy refusal to exercise judgment, or even to recognize that judgment can be exercised, is distressing to see in an admin. EEng 18:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

When someone makes a legal threat, the only editing they should be allowed to do is to go to their user page to recant and disavow the legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Another tired, blinkered restatement that ignores everything anyone's said here. Perhaps I should have said, "This block-happy refusal to exercise judgment, or even to recognize that judgment can be exercised, is distressing to see in an admin (or in any other editor, for that matter)." EEng 20:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hatting this before it drags on further. GABHello! 22:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If you don't like the policy, you should lobby for changing it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Another tired, blinkered restatement that ignores everything anyone's said here. This block-happy refusal to exercise judgment, or even to recognize that judgment can be exercised, is distressing to see in an admin (or in any other editor, for that matter). EEng 22:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Wow, man, it's like deja vu. It's like deja vu. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Another tired attempt to distract from the failure to exercise judgment. EEng 22:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Thanks for keeping it to the executive summary this time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

If there's one thing I learned while on Wikipedia is that admins and editors don't know what a legal threat is and will block someone based on their own interpretations of what a legal threat is. I was once blocked until I "took it back," Meanwhile, on my talk page 90% of the editors commenting criticized the block. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

If you're talking about this, it qualifies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I am referring to that, and no, that is not a legal threat. The ADL is not a court of law. If I said, I'm going to email CNN about you, is that a legal threat? No. Admins need to follow policy and just saying, "I'm going to email/contact X" is not a LEGAL threat. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Its intent was to intimidate, hence it qualifies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, you and most admins need to read up on the NLT policy. Newyorkbradkindly posted it and reiterated that a legal threat requires a legal threat. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Unless your threat was intended as a joke, it qualifies, and you were properly blocked for it - and reinstated once you disavowed it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Please note that what I have said here does not require any change to the existing policy, but adherence to the existing policy as per modifications made as long ago as 2010.

I any case, I am going to unblock the IP now with an appropriately tailored message about collaborative editing, even though I realize that if this is a dynamic IP, this is mostly a symbolic gesture. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's review: "any suggestion that he did will be treated by his family, my family, as defamatory.)" Now, what could be done about defamatory material on Wikipedia? Here's an incomplete list.

1. remove it using the English word "defamatory" in the edit summary
2. remove it using the wiki lingo "BLP"
3. refer it to WP:BLP
4. email info-en-q@wikipedia.org per WP:LIBEL
5. post on AN
6. post on your favorite admin's talk page
7. post {{admin help}} on the article talk page
8. post a comment on the article talk page
9. post a comment on the inserting user's talk page
10. find someone on wmf:Staff_and_contractors and email them
11. email cu-ombuds-l-at-lists.wikimedia.org per meta:Ombudsman commission
12. file a lawsuit
13. threaten to sue an contributor

Of those, only the last two are blockable legal threats. To decided "action" means "legal action" without evidence is an assumption and we have a policy on that: assume good faith. The simplest, least drama solution to simply notify the editor of the right thing (e.g. WP:BLP ) to do rather than inform them of the wrong one. NE Ent 00:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Watch -- now someone will say that if you want to change the NLT policy you should get consensus. EEng 03:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

AGF is a policy meant to apply to run-of-the-mill editing, where an assumption of good faith can be made. An assumption of bad faith cannot itself be taken as an act of good faith, and therefore any action that violates AGF should not be defended on the grounds that we are "required to assume good faith". Furthermore, NLT is designed to protect Wikipedia editors from suffering a chilling effect, and prevent other users from imposing such an effect on them; it's all about the intention of the person making the threat and the effect it has on the mental state of the user(s) who receive it. In other words, it's all about context. Saying "I will take action if this defamation continues" is very clearly an attempt to impose a chilling effect, even if the word "action" is not preceded by the word "legal" (it is always implied). If you (NE Ent, or Newyorkbrad, or anyone else) or the user receiving the implied legal threat has to go out and look into defamation laws in such-and-such jurisdiction, and find out if it matters whether one jurisdiction has one rule and the other another, that a chilling effect was had is obvious, and therefore a block should be made pending a withdrawal or explanation that no legal threat was made. Saying that AGF trumps NLT in all cases except where the guilty party used the exact words "I will sue you" or "I will pursue legal action", or any such proposal, goes very strongly against the spirit of NLT. And calling it an AGF-violation to request or to make an NLT block because of a borderline NLT-violation is essentially saying "this user is obviously lying when they say they suffered a chilling effect", which is itself a much worse AGF-violation.

A good compromise, of course, would be to force blocking admins to always remind users blocked for NLT-violations that a clarification that there was no intent to cause a chilling effect or engage in actual legal action will result in an unblock.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

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

New user, same troubles.

Recently blocked user Nouman khan sherani (talk · contribs) (see thread) has created a new account: Nouman arbaz khan (talk · contribs), continuing the same behavior, and also writing on the old users user-page, asking to be unblocked. I pointed him at the talk page, but I doubt it will help. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say that any assumption of good faith has gone out of the window now. An indef block is in order. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 21:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think it's bad faith, it's lack of WP:COMPETENCE. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• I threw out a few blocks, but after seeing a reference to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adilswati, I think it's time to ping the Old Master, Bbb23. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Drmies Bbb23 has not edited since Mar 15 and has a note at the top of their talk page that they will be gone for an indeterminate amount of time. You may want to ping someone else or maybe another admin will see this and take care of things. MarnetteD|Talk 04:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I thought he was back. Bbb23 should not be allowed to leave the premises. Softlavender (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no one else. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, it's just not been the same. GAB^Hello! 23:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe we can summon Ponyo. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 09:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

You can summon me, but I'm not sure I can be of any help. I have no more information than Drmies (less actually) and I don't know what I'm even supposed to help with. Clearly I am no Bbb23.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Ponyo, first of all life is better with you than without you. It's like spring didn't really start until I saw this message. Second, you and Bbb know how to navigate the archives and stuff and connect something to an existing SPI. Thanks, and have a lovely evening! Drmies (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Would it not be best to file a new investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adilswati, to compile further evidence there, for posterity? — Cirt (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

That would be profitable, Cirt. What do you think of this Drmies and Ponyo? --Ches (talk) (contribs) 09:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

That would be preferable to trying to tie the various threads together here.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

OK then, Ponyo. Thanks for your advice. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Harassment getting worse

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive921 § YuHuw's-endless disruptive edit war against the consensus:

A user tried to accuse me of being a sockpuppet of a certain Kaz (who he suggested is a pedophile) but even though the SPI was thrown out he will not stop calling me Kaz. In fact he is simply gathering more friends to join in the mockery. Please advise. I have asked him to stop dozens of times. I have made clear that I find the term offensive but he just gets worse. He also calls me autistic and says I have Asperger's syndrome. If I complain about it his friends say I am being disruptive. They canvass each other, hound me, harass, troll, spin-doctor everything I say, revert edit war together. It really is quite vicious. Is this some kind of hazing-style initiation-rite which every new user on Wikipedia has to go through? Isn't four months enough? How long does it go on for? YuHuw (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

You should collect diffs as evidence. You don't even mention who is doing this (although I guess I can found out from the previous ANI case, above, where this probably should have been posted. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)YuHuw: You need to provide WP:DIFFs as evidence for your claims. You've been told this repeatedly.

Other users: See above thread, "YuHuw's-endless disruptive edit war against the consensus:". Among other things, in said thread, he said "By the way, this IP [51] was yours too wasn't it Ian?", referring to an IP address that is behaviorally similar to him and Kaz (reverting Toddy1 in articles relating to Karaites, Keraites, and so forth), and obviously so for anyone involved with this. There was no competent, good-faith reason to make such an accusation. See my talk page for more examples of his behavior (addressing by the wrong name, changing the subject when asked questions, and attributing bad-faith reasons to others no matter how many good-faith explanations have been provided). Ian.thomson (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Likely it's User_talk:Неполканов. He states he belives YuHuw is a sock of someone up here in this report. However as of the the latest SPI report filed against YuHuw that was proved as negative. KoshVorlon 15:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Please look at this to assure that the SPI closure was very subjective and the admin that closed it has no objection to reopen it due to constantly growing number of evdences that YuHuw's POV is unique Kaz's (Kazimir Yusef Hubert won Staufer) POV. The additional evidence was supplied by Yuhuw even yesterday. He supplied additional, unique for Kaz argument connecting between Johann Reinhold Forster and Karaites.Please refer the following Google results to assure that the only site claiming the same is Kaz's Crimean Institute widely discussed in previous SPI rounds. Other terms used by Yuhuw(e.g Qaraimizers) also used only by Kaz and nobody else in the world. I already mentioned it in the SPI and after that/ Also the really unique disrupting Yuhuw's behavior can be explained by Kaz's mentality, defined as significant difficulties in social interaction and nonverbal communication, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests together with relatively normal language and intelligence. So I kindly ask to consider the Yuhuw's CU re-opening. I am sure that many users will join this apply. I may supply again required details on demand Неполканов (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, more of the same sniping. I can't determine whether anyone is editing against consensus, as I can't figure out what the consensus is, regarding these topics. Repeating what I already posted above; this section is a fork of that. Looking at the edit history of Keraites, I am really turned off by the edit summaries: "lying in edit summary to pretend he is removing something", "This is the 4th or 5th revert of this issue by this user since he has re-signed to WP with a new ID", "undo restoration of User:Ancietsteppe's POV by Meatpuppet", "incessant edit summary insults is very disparaging and harassing", "revert edits by "YuHuw". If you read the new source he added, it does not support the statement he cited it for. Typical of Kaz", and on and on. But I can't see how we can single anyone out for sanctions without sanctioning the whole lot of you. So the seemingly endless drama-board threads related to this have gone on for too long. The above is for me, too mind-numbing and TL;DR for me to slog through it all. I'm going to try to take this to Talk:Keraites and attempt to sort out the most recent two-edit revert war on that page. Y'all should focus more on content and stop disparaging each other. wbm1058 (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, edit-warring, and vandalism by IP-hopper from Kerala, India

• 117.215.194.94 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.242.254.54 (talk · contribs · count)
• 59.89.238.210 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.215.194.25 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.213.19.177 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.248.60.62 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.241.55.108 (talk · contribs · count)
• 61.2.171.145 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.215.197.63 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.213.16.96 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.215.199.78 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.215.194.3 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.215.197.53 (talk · contribs · count)
• 59.92.31.118 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.213.21.230 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.241.21.109 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.213.23.142 (talk · contribs · count)
• 59.96.58.145 (talk · contribs · count)
• 59.89.239.7 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.215.197.53 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.215.192.154 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.213.18.1 (talk · contribs · count)
• 59.99.36.126 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.213.22.17 (talk · contribs · count)

For the past 5+ weeks they have been repeatedly disruptively editing two articles:

• Social work (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Psychological resilience (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Edit-warring and disruptively editing on both articles, and repeatedly vandalizing (yes that is the correct word) Talk:Social work, and also my talk page.

Editors who have been attempting to deal with the IP-hopper include, among others, Jim1138 (who initiated a previous ANI on the issue [see subthread at bottom]: [52]), Cynulliad, My name is not dave, Materialscientist, Cassianto, and Marianna251.

Need some sort of way to deal with it -- either longterm semi-protection (or pending changes) of both articles, or soft rangeblocks, etc. Softlavender (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I've given both articles temporary semi-protection. It looks like a range-block might be called for but that is a skill I haven't acquired yet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You'd need multiple range blocks, prob not worth it if they're focused on just those two articles. Reminder: pending changes is also an option. NE Ent 21:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, range blocks are unworkable. Semi-protection or PC1 are the options available. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Might be best to file at WP:SPI or perhaps WP:LTA as a way to compile all the data together to assist admins and Checkuser with further investigation and, if necessary, multiple rangeblocks here. — Cirt (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Nationalist sockpuppet vandalizing across several articles

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

---

An obvious sock, User:Στεφανος Οι Οι Οι has been vandalizing a lot of Greek-related articles in the last hour to push a nationlist POV [53], [54], [55]. The user is an obvious sock per WP:DUCK; even though the account was created less than hour ago, it's already well acquainted with Wiki-terminology, the rollback function, ANI etc. [56]. (Even if the user would not be a sock, the account is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Jeppiz (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

To admins: I assure I am THERE for good faith purposes. The editor Jeppiz has taken a prejudice dislike to my contributions but this neither makes me a sock nor a disruptive editor. Anyone unhappy with my edits or attitude only has to try talking to me and they'll quickly discover that I am a helpful reasonable person. --Στεφανος Οι Οι Οι (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do dislike contributions that disregard key policies (WP:BRD, WP:EDITWAR, WP:NPOV, WP:MOSMAC, WP:UE) to push a nationalist POV, no argument there. Everything about this 1-hour account suggest at best a user here to right great wrong in areas under discretionary sanctions, at worst (and most likely) a sock. Jeppiz (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

NONE of my edits have violated any of those guidelines, least of all BRD which allows bold revert and I have done this maximum once anywhere. Not everything I have been reverted for has been reverted back, and I am actively involved in discussion, what's your problem? Στεφανος Οι Οι Οι (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

As for UE, where have I used a single word of Greek or any foreign langauge? Στεφανος Οι Οι Οι (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous so I'm withdrawing from the discussion. Anyone can check the user's edit history for themselves. Either one can claim to respect WP:BRD or one can completely disregard it [57], [58], [59], but when one tries to do both in the space of the same hour, it's just ridiculous. Jeppiz (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked. Stefanos is clearly here to Right Great Wrongs. Thanks but no thanks. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Some Persian empires

Hi, I wanted to include some maps in some of the Persian empires, for example: the Achaemenid empire, the Parthian empire and the Median empire. But the other editors are opposing it. They are saying they are not good enough in "quality". Can you please solve the problem?Arman ad60 (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure. WP:BOOMERANG for violating WP:3RR and then coming to ANI over a content dispute. Problem solved. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Look I didn't try to make any consensus in the earlier times, because my English is not very good. So, please don't take it seriously. Well, please can you solve the problem with maps?Arman ad60 (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry man. There is no problem. The consensus seems to be to leave the maps like they are. This forum isn't going to do what you want it to do, which seems to be to override the majority view, and force through your preferred changes.

Probably best to drop it at this point. Check out Requested Maps, where people can post maps they need for articles that don't have any at all. Would be a great place for you to use your skills to help a lot of people I'm sure will appreciate it. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Propose closure. User appears to have given up on WP, at least for the time being, and has blanked everything in sight. Good faith cluster duck of not understanding WP guidelines, editing in a second language, and not understanding the purpose of ANI.

Actually kindof sad, as the editor does appear to have some skill in map creation, but was trying to apply it to highly polished articles that didn't need it, while many many other articles do. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Continued Disruption by User:QEDK

Seeking Admin intervention or community action to control disruption by User:QEDK. At a bit of a loss about how to deal with this:

• Spouting nonsense about G11 not applying to drafts Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Akira1111/New_article_name_here
• Reverted CSD tagging [60] on a hoax article
• Sustained and inappropriate attacks against me that need a boomarang [61] and then [62]
• [63] reverting many changes to policy and immediately asking User:Callanecc [64] to fully protect the page "due to edit warring" to protect his preferred text.
• Seeking more eyes on his nonsense [65] at AN after he spectacularly failed to get any support for a topic ban against me
• Canvassing and speculation about tag teaming [66]
• General incivility and lack of WP:COMMONSENSE

I'll just leave this for less frustrated people to look into. Legacypac (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• I explained twice what I said. You did not read them because you were busy making a revenge ANI thread.
• Yes, so? That draft is not a hoax and I am not allowed to be BOLD when that's been the principle on which you've been acting all the time.
• Where are the personal attacks?
• I reverted changes to policy because none of them were community-vetted. To prevent people from editing policies on ILIKEIT basis was my intention.
• Why not? You're scared or what?
• Where have I been incivil? Where's the lack of commonsense?

There's nothing to look into, except ofc, your own ANI thread. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• I suppose it's too hard, but a kindly admin should take QEDK in hand and try to explain what is helpful and what is not. @QEDK: What do you think about WP:NOTWEBHOST? Should passers-by be able to store stuff indefinitely "because it's a draft"? How could this page ever be useful? Why did you edit it four times to remove the CSD tag? Was the tag wrongly applied and you wanted to make sure the paperwork was done correctly? Johnuniq (talk) 06:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)I removed it, added a wrong tag, restored previous, removed it, so 4 times. Yes, I believe all userspace drafts should be indefinitely stored unless and until it violates Wikipedia policies like BLP violations or UP#COPIES, drafts are drafts because they are not fit to be articles, there's no reason to remove them. There's nothing to suggest I've done anything which is against policy and if so, do cite such. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

You have missed the point: no competent editor could think the page under discussion is a user space draft—it's obvious junk and needs to be deleted to send the message that Wikipedia is not a web hosting service. Get WP:NOTWEBHOST revoked if you want people to store stuff here. Johnuniq (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? NOTWEBHOST prevents you from treating Wikipedia like your personal blog, memorial or wiki or cloud. That draft is legitimate and contains information about a certain Stephen Reynolds. Please read Wikipedia policies completely before you say something again. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 11:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see nothing in your diffs or in a quick general look at QEDK's recent edit history that is disruptive or uncivil. Your accusation that they are not ignoring the rules (the policy that is invoked by WP:COMMONSENSE) makes them deserving of commendation rather than reprimand.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

"Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy." Legacypac (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

How long are you going to put this charade up? Not to mention, if you really had read the whole thing, it says When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The {{essay}} disclaimer also covers that it is not "as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy".—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• A point of correction about bullet point #4 in the opening post of this thread: @QEDK: You didn't ask Callanecc to protect it, you posted at WP:RFPP (request), correct? If your request was inappropriate, it most likely wouldn't have been granted.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I did ask at RFPP. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 07:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not mean to say you asked User:Callanecc directly, he/she just happened to pick up the request. Legacypac (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Baseless. —Cryptic 06:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that some of this seems like a full-scale vendetta of QEDK and Godsy against Legacypac. Perhaps it's QEDK and Godsy that need a MfD topic ban. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I thought that this was an April Fools' Day joke until I realized it was posted on March 31.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    • That is good joke. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 09:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

To begin with, neither side is exactly blowing me away with the quality of their behaviour here. But QEDK, I think you've honestly lost the plot here. We're talking about a draft that hasn't been edited in six and a quarter years. A draft that is stub-length and pertains to a topic that not a single independent RS has been supplied for, in defense of any notion that it might represent a mainspace article under even the most hypothetical of circumstances. You have taken the position that drafts, including those hosted in User space, can be maintained in user space indefinitely, even if they do not represent any realistic possibility of being improved into actual encyclopeadic content. I will say first of all that this position is completely inconsistent with general community consensus as to the appropriate uses of User space--as the landslide delete vote I hope has convinced you of at this point.

But even if you don't accept that general principle, what possible benefit to the project could you see in this material? How can it possible be worth going to the mat, creating this kind of battleground atmosphere and wasting the time of the community to try to preserve this? Is this really a case of you pursuing this over particular readings of G11? If so, may I suggest you are failing to see the forest for the trees in rather an extreme way? Or is there truth to what others have suggested here--that this is driven more by existing animosity between you and Legacypac? Because honestly, at this point, I don't know which of these two options would be more reflective of skewed editorial priorities. All I can say for sure is that you are driving hard against what seems to me to be a WP:SNOW issue, the result of which is that a lot more community energy is being expended over this matter than can be reasonably justified, and that's not likely to have any kind of beneficial outcome for anyone. I'm not sure what your stance is at this point in the deletion discussion, but I think you should reconsider your position on that point at least, if you haven't already. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Block evader
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
QEDK is doing nothing wrong. WP:N doesn't apply to drafts, WP:V doesn't apply to drafts, even BLP doesn't actually to drafts. We've already said that hoaxes in Draftspace can't be deleted since V doesn't apply. It is the rampant deletionists who are out to alienate all these editors who are at fault here. 107.72.99.22 (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC) No, WP:BLP applies everywhere. And WP:G3 (blatant hoaxing) also applies everywhere, as do the rest of the general speedy deletion criteria. Drafts are not immune. clpo13(talk) 23:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Unfortunately, it seems that a few editors at MfD seem to believe that local consensus against the general criteria applying to drafts/userspaces should dominate global consensus. This is the third time I've seen a comment claiming that a general criteria does not apply to draftspace and the fourth time I've seen a comment claiming BLP doesn't apply to draftspace. These were not repeated claims by the same editor; it's been a different account (or in this case, IP) every time. This is going to wind up at ArbCom if we can't even agree on the fact that "all pages" include drafts. ~ RobTalk 03:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Yes, essentially we've been told if someone puts something in userspace, it doesn't matter if the topic is ever notable or even if it true, it can stay forever since those criteria only matter if it's being discussed for movement into mainspace and until the editor returns (even after say five/six/seven/even ten years), BLP and all the other rules don't apply. Even complete nonsense claiming someone "invented" a type of paint that has been proven to be false is not enough in the ridiculous belief that someone could later find information that supports the claims about a person already dead for 100 years drafted five years ago (either a troll or someone's belief that their grandfather invented it). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree heavily with QEDK, but I don't think anything he's done warrants administrator action at this time. The most troubling thing was the revert and then immediate call for page protection, but that's been largely undone now. We should close this and move on before more editor time is wasted. The best thing anyone here can do is participate more actively in MfD so consensus at MfD more closely matches general consensus. ~ Rob^Talk 03:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• My position is already clear. I've said that content policies like notability are not to be applied to drafts, for the simple reason - they are drafts. I don't see any point to deleting drafts because they are not fit to be articles. It's understandable that BLP and CSD#G criteria apply to drafts or anything likewise. You all spectacularly fail to see Legacypac's invalid moves, which I find quite interesting, not to mention he's already admitted why he does so. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 09:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no animosity toward QEDKI amd don't even recall crossing paths with this editor until they started fighting deletion of userspace pages using lack of common sense. This has gotten so out of hand editors of QEDKI's persuasion are voting to keep the userspace pages from long gone users then reverting when they are moved to DRAFT space where there is at least a chance someone might work on it. Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Agravert/Ferdinand_Gravert_(2nd_nomination). I work on it, find the only claim to fame is a hoax, and they still want to keep 5 year old userspace pages from a driveby editor. Who or what are we protecting here? Legacypac (talk) 04:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I.P Address ‎75.131.45.14 keep vandalizing page and making unsourced changes: new section

This IP Address 75.131.45.14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) keep vandalizing and making unsourced and false claims on on Today (U.S. TV program) Show Page and other related TODAY Show pages (It Anchors and Weekend TODAY Show Page as well as on NBC News pages). This person I tihnk is the same person we had issues with a couple months ago with this I.P. Address here: User talk:66.168.88.182 It also look like this I.P address has has had warnings before in the past BreoncoUSA1 (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

IP is hardly related, and I think good faith should be assumed here. Erica Hill did depart the show and I assume the IP thought Craig Melvin will be a permanent replacement, but NBC News has put no PR out about the new anchors yet. I have re-edited the contribs with mention there is no current host. Nate • (chatter) 05:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Godsy Disruption & GAMING the System

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

---

See also: User talk:Godsy § St. John's Fire District and other moves, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Continued Disruption by User:QEDK, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Threats from Cryptic & CSD:U5, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive917 § MfD end run GAME, and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_March_31 § User:Acresant1123.2FChaz_Knapp

---

After failing to get me sanctioned for alleged gaming [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73] [74], , Godsy immediately [75] embarked on his own WP:GAME mission reverting moves into mainspace of WP:STALEDRAFT articles on non-controversial and easily verified topics [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82].

This activity is quite pointy [83] and downright hypocritical. While he claims he is trying to prevent me from getting material deleted from userspace (including the stupid suggestion I'm moving pages to main to delete them) he is himself deleting the Stale Draft material from mainspace where I placed it for other editors to expand and improve. His actions are in direct contravention of WP:COMMONSENSE (does nothing to expand or improve the encyclopedia) and the guidelines at WP:CHALLENGE. "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[3] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.[4] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." He made no effort to add sources or verify anything.

Godsy is part of the small group that appears to want userspace drafts untouched [84] regardless of how old or unsuitable and against policy WP:DRAFT that allows any user to work on them.

I'd like to see these moves all reversed and material restored to mainspace. Let's tag up anything that is actually questionable and see if we can improve these topics rather then delete them by stealth by relegating good topics to userspace forever. Legacypac (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Another report? Sigh... either an admin needs to boldly handle all these or it's likely to end up at arbcom (which is ridiculous imho). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, any admin who does involved is then part of problem so we shall see. WP:UP is now protected since there's massive editing going to create new policy which then gets taken straight to MFD and arguments continue again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Me thinks this is gonna end up at Arbcom. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• I stand my move summaries. Stating the current rules and my subsequently following them isn't equal to "Godsy ... appears to want userspace drafts untouched regardless of how old or unsuitable". I think that a consensus should be formed on the issue of the types of moves Legacypac has been doing. Objections have been raised across multiple forums by many editors, and users shouldn't continue unilateral action not supported by the rules and consensus when their actions are challenged. If Legacypac wants the couple of handfuls (approx. 10) of moves I reverted reveiwed, perhaps the approx. 250 questionable moves from the userspace or draftspace to the mainspace they performed this year should be called into to question. I refuted the above twisting of WP:V on my talk page, so I'm not going to waste space and do it again here. That's all I have to say.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• The unsatisfying close of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive917#MfD_end_run_GAME was unfortunate. It gives implicit approval to the GAMING, short of an arbcom ruling. The disputed boldness needs to stop for policy development. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

On my part, the amount of activity exceeds my ability to review. It is not possible to see the full picture. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Supreme facepalm of destiny Why are we back at ANI already? I really hope this doesn't have to go before ArbCom. We should be working together on an answer to the draft situation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• A full account of my attempt to fix page moves from the userspace to the mainspace by Legacypac that were clearly not suitable for the mainspace for transparency:
  • User:Abigail48/Clive Matson/Clive Matson Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clive Matson restored to userspace per User talk:Sarahj2107#Clive Matson/User talk:JohnCD#Clive Matson
  • User:Aaaloco/Solitaire & Mahjong/Solitaire & Mahjong Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solitaire & Mahjong restored to Draft:Solitaire & Mahjong per User talk:Michig#Solitaire & Mahjong
  • User:Trekie9001/Duplekita/Duplekita Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duplekita restored to Draft:Duplekita per User talk:Ymblanter#Duplekita
  • Unicity Productions/User:APBAnimals/Unicity Productions)
  • Hack n' Smack Celebrity Golf Classic in Memory of Kerry Daveline/User:Kerry's girls/Hack n' Smack Celebrity Golf Classic in Memory of Kerry Daveline)
  • Play It Strange Trust/User:Strangewiki/Play It Strange Trust
    • These three were restored to userspace per Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Unicity Productions, Play It Strange Trust, and Hack n' Smack Celebrity...
  • User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp/Chaz Knapp Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaz Knapp (both were keep) then it was speedied; in the process of restoration at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 March 31#User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp
  • User:Abstractmindzent/Graffiki/Graffiki in the process of restoration at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 April 4#Graffiki
  • User:Kemdflp/richard d'anjolell/Richard d'Anjolell planned restoration per User talk:Malcolmxl5#Richard d'Anjolell
  • User:Aj2001/Der-shing Helmer/Der-shing Helmer still waiting on a reply, User talk:Missvain#Der-shing Helmer
  • User:ARQLA/Regalia/Regalia (Condominium) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regalia (Condominium) considering taking it to DRV, User talk:Sandstein#Regalia (Condominium)
  • Special:log/Godsy 10 page moves reverted preemptively as they probably would have been deleted shortly as the content clearly wasn't suitable for the mainspace as is required.
  • See also: Special:log/Legacypac, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Solitaire & Mahjong, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Duplekita, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 2#User:Trekie9001/Duplekita, and User talk:Aaaloco/Solitaire & Mahjong

—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

We are only back at ANi because Godsy insists I want to delete everything (not true obviously since by his count I've moved 250 pages forward) but insists on himself effectively deleting the pages I think are a good start for mainspace without any effort to improve them. Now he calls into question all my moves. Seriously, what the heck is his agenda here?

Policy development is always an option, but mass undoing another editor's good faith efforts to bring good topics forward defies WP:COMMONSENSE. If he really does not like a page, take it to AfD, don't stealth delete it in a way that is not easy to fix. Legacypac (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Refutation of your statements point by point:

"We are only back at ANi because Godsy insists I want to delete everything"

False. I've stated that some of your page moves were inappropriate per the guideline that currently exist (i.e. WP:STALEDRAFT, "If suitable for mainspace, move to mainspace;") in the AN/I thread about your actions (not started by me I might add). If a page you move to the mainspace is deleted, then it clearly is not suitable for the mainspace.

"effectively deleting the pages I think are a good start for mainspace"

"pages I think are a good start for mainspace" seems to be unequal to "suitable".

"Now [they] call into question all my moves. Seriously, what the heck is [their] agenda here?"

By my count approx. 20 pages have been deleted so far this year that you moved to the mainspace. That's about 10%. If a page gets deleted, it wasn't suitable for the mainspace, and should not have been moved. That means the page moves were improper. If that big of a chuck of the page moves were improper, what is to say that others were not as well? Some of the page moves I reverted were articles slated for deletion (example).

This move (move summary: "move to mainspace to subject to AfD to test notability- claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying") and deletion nomination speak for themselves.

"but mass undoing another editor's good faith efforts to bring good topics forward defies WP:COMMONSENSE"

I wouldn't consider call 10/250 (less than 5% of the moves) "mass undoing". I gave a good reason in my summary of the moves: "The article lacks references of any kind, failing part of the core content policies, and as such it fails the criteria by which it can be moved to the article namespace." WP:COMMONSENSE is part of WP:IAR?, and I'm not ignoring the rules.

The fact that about 10% of your page moves have resulted one way or another in deletion, and that you nominated a page for deletion at AfD after you moved it from the userspace to the mainspace because you disliked the standards of MfD (By my count approx. 20 pages have been deleted so far this year that you moved to the mainspace. That's about 10%. This move (move summary: "move to mainspace to subject to AfD to test notability- claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying") and deletion nomination), calls into question whether your actions were in good faith.

"If [they] really do not like a page, take it to AfD, don't stealth delete it in a way that is not easy to fix."

I neither like nor dislike the pages, and that is not a reason to take something to AfD. That aside: if the pages are in a state that they can be reasonably taken to AfD, then the page move was improper, as pages should not be moved unless they are suitable (i.e. meet the core content policies). As such the page moves should be reverted and the proper forum to seek deletion would be MfD. I did not "stealth delete" pages, I reverted some page moves.

So, I'll ask those reading this thread to take your statements with a grain of salt at the least, and I won't be responding to any more of your falsehoods here.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ffs, Legacypac (talk · contribs), it's enough. We've seen enough of your bullshit, man. I cordially invite you to form an ArbCom case request, if it pleases you but stop making revenge threads about every other person who has the guts to oppose you. Forever and evermore, thine. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 05:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Ok, for the people who oppose Legacypac, what's the next step? Is there an actual plan here beyond just dragging this back here and again with accusations? There's been topic ban proposals, admonishment proposals, and now wholesale reverts of the moves. None of the proposed sanctions seem to have actual support so we're left again with people making accusations. Of course I've been accused of either collaborating or coordinating or colluding or something else so I'll wait for that as well. If Legacypac takes the pages to MFD, will we will be back here again for "gaming" because he's mass-listing these at MFD? And no, yelling and screaming that he should go away is not an actual solution here so please provide some idea of what people are supposed to do. I think everyone agrees that moving pages to mainspace is fine in concept so can someone point to a policy that explicitly says when it is appropriate? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No, moving pages that will clearly not survive in mainspace is not fine. That has been, time and again, been cleared out by admins and non-admins alike. Not to mention, you and a couple of others who are overreaching NOTWEBHOST to delete drafts by saying, Wikipedia's not an indefinite place for storage of data when the actual policy says something altogether. Again, it's him against policy, not me. Moreover, this thread was just meant for revenge. Needless to say, everyone's tired of his pointless charades and if he thinks he's right, he can take the highway to heaven. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 06:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

So you get to determine that they aren't going to survive in mainspace and that's enough? User:Akivah/Yeshivat Rambam Maimonides Academy page seemed like a perfectly fine stub for mainspace to me. And I'm certain there's no policy that says people can unilterally move stuff back into userspace just because they don't like the person who did it. At the very least Godsy could have combined them into a single AFD and discussed them to let other people decide. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: You do realize the references were added after I reverted the move, correct?—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I stand corrected on that one. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

10/10 Legacypac trying to clear his image because he was the one who moved the unsuitable draft in the first place. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 07:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't have listed the pages at AfD because per what I can derive from policies and guidelines that is the improper forum. If the pages could be reasonably listed there, the page moves themselves are improper, and as such the proper forum would be MfD.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't mean to offend anyone, but I do wish to be blunt. This is essentially reopening the other discussion, which was closed reasonably. While I don't necessarily agree with the reasoning for Legacypac's moves, moving them BACK to Userspace without discussion is definitely disruptive and possibly even WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, especially so soon after the prior ANI discussion was closed. If you really can't work it out without fighting and disrupting the encyclopedia, then I think, at the very least, there should be an interaction ban here or at the very least a voluntary Wiki-break for the involved persons also. Please realize that this really isn't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things, even if no one gets their own way here. Getting into these heated discussions only hurts Wikipedia. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Chrisw80: I reverted a few of the moves that were problematic and improper (approx. 10/250, less than 5% of the moves). Legacypac moved them boldy, so I think it was reasonable for me to revert a few that clearly had issues (one of the worst examples). If I had reverted the moves without being super selective or en masse, I could understand your position. Regardless, you are entitled to your opinion. Just making sure you had some information that is vital, as there is a lot to read across all the discussions. Respectfully,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Godsy: That information is important, and it does moderate my opinion somewhat, but it doesn't change it materially. Thank you for replying and for the information. Best wishes. Chrisw80 (talk) 07:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• The bold moves were discussed before and I think the consensus was that, other than the accusations, the discussion was haywire. Now, I took the problematic ones I saw to AFD and for that was accused of being in collusion for asking if the move was actually appropriate. So is the result (a) we can't leave them alone and (b) we can't discuss the mainspace pages via AFD and (c) all that can be done is unilateral reversions of page moves? That's not a recipe for resolution. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• So as an admin, you're telling me making unilateral moves are fine but unilaterally reverting them is not? --QEDK (T ☕ C) 12:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• @QEDK: Aren't these basically CSD criteria applied in mainspace? That's the admin role. Userification is done by admins, we don't generally allow people to just unilaterally take mainspace pages and forcibly move them without discussion at all. Seems strange to say that these pages can be moved back into a variety of userspaces without any discussion at all, especially when the last ANI discussion resulted in no action. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, he was BOLD, hope you got no problem with that, since you were fine elsewhere. And, there's no rule that says userfication cannot be done by non-admins. You do realize everything was done without any discussion, so why do you just keep citing just one side of the whole story. As an admin, you should have already taken the responsibility and closed all of Legacypac's revenge threads, his attempts at throwing dirt on people (I counted three including me) are quite uninteresting to watch. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 18:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, that was argued before, got no action as the close. Clearly that's irrelevant because it was reverted anyway and now we're here again on the other side about the reverting. We aren't going to have move wars and proposals to topic ban/admonish/whatever were all rejected. If this results in no action again, is anyone actually going to move on? The proposals now are to stop all of MFD which is absurd or to "stop" a project which is equally odd. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Suspend all of MFD

There is one solution here: suspend all of MFD and any movement/deletion of any userspace drafts until there is a clear consensus of what to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.99.115 (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as patently ridiculous. There are plenty of solutions to this other than suspending MfD. A suitable compromise can be made here. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Suspension of WP:WikiProject abandoned drafts would be more like it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Also patently ridiculous as it would not address the issue at hand. What we do need is more help over at MfD by experienced editors and admins. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No, Chrisw80, that's not right. Currently MfD has more active participants than it ever had. The recent MfD battles, messy as they were, albeit continuing, have shifted the battlefront to creative (GAMING) issues of liberal CSDing, sometimes explicit reference to IAR, and unilateral moves of userpage drafts to mainspace or draftspace. While many of the moves are good or fair actions, some are not, and the activities have gotten ahead of policy documentation. I suggest suspension to allow for the policy development. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd say the fact that the MFD header and WP:UP keeps getting changed (so much that UP was protected) and then those changes are being used as allegedly "policy changes" at MFD shows is more gaming than anything else. Screaming that everyone involved is scheming together without evidence and demanding that we stop all of this in favor of new discussions after you create and withdraw proposals looks more like you're just creating stalling tactics until everyone else is either topic banned or so frustrated they go away. There's a line between actual disagreement and massively being obstructionist. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Does more harm than good.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Facepalm Hell no. Once we get a full-blown draft MfD discussion rolling I am hopeful that Legacypac will curtail nominating behavior that might disrupt that discussion. If not we can revisit the MfD topic ban idea proposed in the previous thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Suspension and dissolution of Abandoned Drafts WikiProject

Ok if we aren't going to shut down MFD, then the next solution is to shut down the Abandoned Drafts project and suspend all MFD discussions regarding userspace drafts. Any project this far off the rails needs to be eliminated completely. 107.72.99.115 (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: Too draconian. When and if we get a proposal discussion actually going we can agree to temporarily suspend draft MfDs during the pendency of that discussion, but that should only happen if that discussion is disrupted, and should only persist temporarily. The abandoned drafts project is not the problem. The problem is a lack of clear, realistic policy guidance on article drafts. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Can anyone point out an actual problem with the wikiproject itself? This is coming from someone who is experienced with an actual problematic WikiProject. It was merely taking Category:Stale userspace drafts and making it a static table. Other than that, the project has basically been dead since 2011. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"Can anyone point out an actual problem with the wikiproject itself?". Yes. It is small and specific. It has listed a lot of old drafts with a implication that something should be done to reduce or even eliminate the list. There is clearly not consensus for that. Sure, many of the listed pages are delectable under G* criteria, others are good to move to mainspace, but the set of intended drafts of unclear potential are being subjected to actions that were not discussed and are now disputed. A little time to discuss a proper guideline please. Dissolution is overkill. Suspension for a week or two? --SmokeyJoe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not quite there yet. I think that if the noms continue on unabated once we have a discussion kicked off, then absolutely call for a temporary moratorium on staledraft noms (it's not like they're going anywhere). Until it's clear something's happening it'd be premature to ask for a halt to noms, but the tradeoff (in my view) is that once something's clearly happening we might call for something involuntary, from targeted bans from listing drafts at MfD up to a broad halt of the MfD process, to compel discussion. The listers are at least justified in not wanting to stop before a concrete discussion emerges since it's entirely possible nothing will emerge once the pressure is off. But, again, once something emerges the listing should stop, either until a proposal emerges and is adopted, or until discussion is hopelessly deadlocked. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll do it after my vacation is over or someone else can. No problem. I guess, the temporary moratorium can start from now? --QEDK (T ☕ C) 12:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

So the problem is that it has a list of old userspace drafts? Should the category be deleted? Should all the categories at Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard be deleted or suspended? The Oldest People project was a decade of chaos with Arbcom cases and no one considered suspending or deleting that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH USERSPACE DRAFTS. THE ENTIRE PROJECT MUST BE DELETED NOW There is no reason for anyone to care about whatever people did in their userspace, it is THEIR space after that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.99.115 (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

How about no? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as this has been clearly labeled as housekeeping, no need to continue fighting about this. SwisterTwister talk 21:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

DESTROYING ARTICLES WITHOUT THOUGHT is not housekeeping.

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

Request for closure

Can this be closed now? I don't think anyone is suggesting that an admin re-move these pages back into mainspace and I don't think anyone here actually has a serious proposal on what to do. The demands on a moratorium don't really seem to have consensus and we shouldn't just wait around until QEDK's vacation is over or the like. There's been numerous discussions going on with changes to a number of policies and numerous MFD discussions as well. There's clearly disagreement on what should be done but regardless of all this chaos, there's been no discussions taken to DRV for any further analyses so I'm presuming that the closings and resolutions afterwards are at the very least not worth fighting. We still need someone to close the RFCs regarding relistings at WT:MFD so that can be resolved and just more eyes at MFD would be helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Screw it. Don't close this. Let's just have round five of this idiocy continue on and have everyone pile on. What's the next proposal, indefinite bans all around? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm letting the antics get to me. It seems as though this can be closed as there's nothing further to do if people considered Legacypac's page-moves as inappropriately WP:BOLD in the first place. I'd prefer we have a policy where mass unilateral reversions were not done and instead the pages could be discussed each but that's not happening at the moment.-- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

These 166 IPs are obviously trolls, and I would love if admins could block them for a week or so after they leave a comment like this. They seem to have gotten under Ricky's skin, and clearly aren't making reasonable suggestions. A2soup (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

See here. That range seems to be a magnet for abuse. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd noticed this. I thought I saw someone reverting a 166' IP's !vote at an MfD as being by a banned user... if so, anybody have any idea who the banned user is? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I think there have been multiple bans/ban proposals for 166 editors. See this for one of the bans. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, look at that. I vaguely remember that discussion now that I've seen it. Wonder if it's time for a LTA page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Now Godsy is DRV'ing to restore a stale draft promotional article. Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_March_31#User:Acresant1123.2FChaz_Knapp This editor is hell bent on reversing cleanup. Legacypac (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, I think Godsy has a point. The wrong method to the right result here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, most of these old drafts need to be processed, many deleted, but the wrong method has been implement. The WP:BRD principle applies, bold implementation objected to, so stop, discussion how to proceed.

Also agree on the 166.x.x.x problem. I don't know what he has got against Ricky, but he is using all unrelated opportunities to abuse Ricky. Ricky is doing well to remain as calm as he is, 166.x.x.x is most definitely not helping with anything. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI, I've been collecting some info on this troll for some time. See here for just some of the info I've gathered from AN / ANI, which I used to frame the ban proposal. The most prolific 166 troll is one that has been hounding Ricky for months. A few other banned users are also in that range. The most likely banned user that is doing all the hounding is Kochtruth who has ome run ins with Ricky before being indef'd. Since then, any time there is a thread involving Ricky, the 166 troll will show up to stir shit. Editors not familiar with their MO will respond in good faith but in general, it's safe to RBI them Blackmane (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

More Disruption by restoring deleted articles to userspace against deletion discussions

Look at this [85] and [86] where Godsy requests restoration to other people's userspace and even says "I don't plan to improve the content at this time". When the admins declined to put it in stale userspace he starts creating pages in the userspace of long departed users User:Aaaloco/Solitaire_&_Mahjong and User:Trekie9001/Duplekita These antics are overriding AfD's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solitaire & Mahjong and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duplekita and simply lead to more pages at MfD and RfD. There is no benefit or attempt to improve the encyclopedia in these actions. Seriously - how is this helping anyone? Legacypac (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Block evader
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bull. That is not the problem. The problem is that we can destroying decades of work literally from our most prolific editors under the guise of "cleanup." We need to drastically change non-free image policy so that we aren't ham fistedly alienating these editors. 107.72.97.194 (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm merely contesting deletions following the proper process. I stand by the creation of the redirects: they allow the user, in whose userspace the content used to reside, to easily find the content and resume work in the event that they return.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You are free to request the restoration but admins are going to keep questioning you about why you're doing it if you aren't going to work on the drafts. Do you actually think these are plausible drafts or is all this nonsense simply WP:POINT? Why in the world you want to put those draft back in to the inactive user's userspace is beyond me. SmokeyJoe has been arguing that it's somehow easier for people to find it there which I just find baffling but whatever, that's up to you all. In six months, I'll be more than happy to propose those again for deletion if you aren't working on them and then we can have another discussion here about whether all these restoration requests were serious attempts to restore work or just WP:POINT game-playing since you aren't convincing anyone of anything at MFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Ricky81682, where have I been arguing that is "easier"? I don't recall. I do recall pointing out that searching UserSpace with the Wikipedia search engine is easy, as is using WhatLinksHere from mainspace topics to find related userspace material.

"to propose those again for deletion if you aren't working on them". That sounds WP:TENDENTIOUS on your part. XfD is not cleanup. Who are you to impose timelimits on when things have to be worked up to mainspace standard? Draft age is a furphy, what is important is whether the draft has the makings to become an article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: Process is my concern. Discussions with closing administrators is a step on the path to deletion review. If inappropriate deletions are not challenged, they will continue to happen, and that is detrimental to the encyclopedia. I'm simply cleaning up the worst of a large group of moves from the userspace to the mainspace, part of which were not suitable for the mainspace, as is required. The worst examples: User:Abstractmindzent/Graffiki → Graffiki (move summary- "move to mainspace to subject to AfD to test notability- claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying", deletion discussion- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graffiki, and quote- "Users claim GNG can not be tested at MfD so bringing here for discussion.") User:Kemdflp/richard d'anjolell → Richard d'Anjolell (move summary- "stale 2009 draft from a single purpose acct found in cleanup", deletion discussion- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard d'Anjolell, and quote-"Several editors insist that MfD can not consider WP:GNG so I've moved the page to mainspace to allow a wider discussion on the merits of this article.") Legacypac moved these pages to the mainspace from the userspace and then nominated them for deletion. That is something that wouldn't be done if one believed they were suitable for the mainspace (i.e. meeting the core content policies). Legacypac also stated, as shown in the above quotes I provided, that their intent was to thwart the standards of another deletion forum and the opinions of others within the community. That is GAMESMANSHIP. It calls all of the other moves into question, and suggests the inappropriate moves might not have merely been inept judgement about the "suitability", but rather an attempt to cleanup and delete in an unapproved manner. My attempt to cleanup a small portion of this mess has been within the realm of acceptable behavior. If I had wanted to make a POINT, I'd have reverted all the moves en masse, which I'd have arguably been within my rights to do per BRD.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Godsy: So this has nothing to do with whether or not the drafts are viable but all about WP:BURO? Well, I asked the two admins who restored it if they could express an opinion here on what they thought they were doing, restoring them because the AFD was improper or restoring them for the purpose of moving the drafts forward. The fact that neither restored them to the original location and instead put them in draftspace indicates that it was more likely the latter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: That's fine. I was very clear in the reasoning behind my requests at User talk:Ymblanter#Duplekita and User talk:Michig#Solitaire & Mahjong. I even went as far as to state to one of the two administrators after their inquiry about this very subject "I don't plan to improve the content at this time, I've actually never seen the page, as I came across this situation after its deletion."—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 09:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: Really? Asking their opinion in a neutral manner would be one thing, but doing so in that way is inappropriate.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 09:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Godsy: The issue is the restoration of those pages. I think the thoughts that the admins had when they restored them were appropriate. It's a concern because those pages are back at MFD and it's clear the only arguments going on are the actual process wonkery, not whether not the pages should be kept. As I note below, Legacypac also conducted a number of page moves that were deleted via CSD. If you are serious about reversing all of that in good faith, I'd suggest you justify the rationale behind all AFD reversals if you want to argue that those should be restored as well. The same "process is relevant" or not debate applies to these AFD deletions as well as to the CSD ones and I'd argue that these should be deleted because the CSD ones were not restored (nor has anyone ask for them to be). You being bold with what you can get away with is not the same as having approval to reverse things. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: I have already requested the non-general speedy deletions be undeleted, and they were, Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Unicity Productions, Play It Strange Trust, and Hack n' Smack Celebrity... You may not like my actions for whatever reason, but you have yet to show or provide any evidence that they were inappropriate.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Rehashing discredited attacks against me yet again. It is not in your right to revert edits by one editor enmass unless you can prove I'm a vandal. Putting trash back in the project is hardly called cleanup. Legacypac (talk) 08:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I restored the Solitaire & Mahjong article to draft space because Godsy stated regarding improvement "I'll definitely take a look into it if the content is restored". The AfD was clear enough, the restore to draft was to allow an attempt to deal with the issues identified in the AfD, i.e. notability. I didn't restore it to the original editor's userspace as they haven't been active for over 4 years. If it becomes apparent that the article issues are not going to be dealt with, the draft can be deleted. --Michig (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I restored Duplekita to the draft namespace under understanding that someone would be working on it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ymblanter and Michig:, sorry to keep this going but both pages in draftspace are up at MFD again along with the newly created redirects from the old userspace pages to the new drafts. I'm not sure how to proceed here but I'm more concerned about further good-faith moves (we are argue about the faith of these later), subject to deletion and whether there is any finality if the concerns are all about the process wonkery and not whether or not the actual content is useful. Legacpac also had a number of page moves that were deleted via CSD which absent admin tools will be harder to detect. I'm not sure about whether this should be restored based on the process arguments or not. Nothing at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Solitaire & Mahjong or Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Duplekita discuss whether or not the content should be kept. I'd suggest maybe an RFC on the matter but I'm not sure we need anything more than to put in more details about restoration versus restoration in lieu of WP:DRVing a discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing

Legacypac is canvassing by mentioning this discussion:

• At User talk:Ymblanter
• At User talk:Aaaloco/Solitaire & Mahjong
• At Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
• At Articles for deletion/Claire of the Sea Light

Though it is only likely to draw attention to their inappropriate actions, it is still ill-advised.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• I am becoming less and less impressed with Legacypac's behavior as this dispute drags on. This is not a matter to be settled on noticeboards, but by reasoning and compromise. I know part of the problem is that we don't have an omnibus draft proposal yet, but come on man. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah, some people know how to get to the right result in the wrong way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• I'm just really tired of being dragged to ANi several times, having false accusations and threats hurled at me and the constant insults and assumption of bad faith. I'm only interested in improving the encyclopedia - and enjoy learning about diverse random topics. The hypocracy and game playing of a small group of editors has gotten out of hand, so ya, I fought back in the venue they chose (ANi). I'm happy to see all these threads closed up and to get on with improving the project. Legacypac (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Clearing out others' old userspace drafts is not improving the encylopedia. Showing contempt of the project processes by moving pages kept at MfD, or worthy of keeping in userspace, to mainspace where they are not ready, is destructive to collegiate editing. Have you adjusted you preferences to publicly record you CSD nominations? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Clear WP:CANVASSING. And, ofc, he still hasn't done enough to warrant administrative action. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 12:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by User:Legacypac

• Personal Attack: "Godsy is the time waster bring back a deleted draft and he is uncivil to boot. Misrepresents my actions amd acts like a complete troll. Get a life amd stop stalking my edits Godsy." Edit summary: "ridiculous troll". They have recently previously been warned about such behavior: Warning from Athenean.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Facepalm Can we all just take a break from new MfD noms for a bit? Legacypac? Please? I swear, this frustration can go away if we can work together. Those stale drafts aren't going anywhere in a few days that they weren't going over the past few years. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• I actually stopped all stale draft work for several days and Godsy started restoring them. The quote above should be taken in the context of his own comment I was responding to [87]. Legacypac (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• See below. Clearly unsuitable moves from the userspace to the mainspace by have resumed. Special:Log/Legacypac.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comments Legacypac, in the subsection above this one, stated: "I'm only interested in improving the encyclopedia". Near continuous personal attacks that several editors frequently experience from the keyboard of Legacypac say otherwise. Myself, I've been putting up with his biting, rude, and totally uncivil comments for months now (I can provide diffs for same if asked, but it will take some digging). The most recent examples are as follows:

Referencing me, LP said, "the least we can do to give MaranoFan a break from the harassment I've been observing for months." No diffs, nothing to support his allegation, just a personal attack. It goes on from there: "Ches & WV are essentially joined at the hip, to the point I wonder if one is not a sock of the other. Again, nothing to support such a strong claim, but to just out of the blue state I am a sockmaster for another editor? Outrageous. He then continued with the baseless allegations and accusations by saying, "this is just another attempt by WV's meat puppet to attack an editor they disagree with.".

Again referencing me, "WV loves one way interaction bans." Still nothing to support his claim. It's another blatant, unwarranted attack.

At LP's talk page: "It appears to be open season on anyone WV does not like, and his victims get more abuse from Admins. How can you call out his victims for 'harrassment' when they are just standing up against the harrasser?" No proof, just accusations. This is in a thread at his talk page found here.

At a civility AN/I complaint filed on Legacypac in February 2016, I responded with some commentary. In what appeared to be retaliation for my comments, Legacypac then started a subsection on me. Definitely one of the weirder moments I've experienced in Wikipedia but a definite attempt to distract and deflect on Legacypac's part. There was quite a bit of substantial evidence and discussion there, most of Legacypac's responses were more uncivil behavior (although not the worst I've seen from him). The AN/I was closed by Ched as no action, but he did give the following warning: "At this point (and late date) there's not going to be any administrative action taken. All participants are reminded to think before they speak, and review before they click save page. All you folks, boomerangs and all, should now be aware of the fact that better behavior is expected. — Ched :  ? 07:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)" Report can be seen here.

I, for one, am sick of seeing his nastiness continue unfettered and unchallenged by anyone other than non-admin editors. Hoping that an admin will take notice of this and seriously consider doing something that will make a lasting impression on LP. The community doesn't deserve the uncivil treatment he dishes out regularly. Seriously, how long do we all have to put up with this kind of behavior? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I am the aforementioned user who has been accused of being a sockpuppet, and I agree that LP's personal attacks have reached a point where sanctions are in order. LP has had reports filed against him in the past for bullying, and narrowly escaped an ISIL topic ban. This simply goes to show that he is not a kind editor, as well as everything else he has said which is very well outlined in Winkelvi's report above this comment. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 09:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

So not surprised. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 12:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• noting that I've received the ping; however, I am not active enough right now to make any judgments. I'm also not up for doing the research. Best to all. — Ched :  ?  15:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Irony - Legacypac seems to be in a pattern of accusing users of personal attacks (e.g. Deletion review April 3) and incivility (as in my quote above), when in fact they're the one engaging in those behaviors (as above), while the accused are only making factual statements and reasonable comments.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• WV's own reputation makes his post laughable. How many editors are banned from WV's talkpage now (ie a 1 way interaction ban)? Ches's connection to WV is obvious, and noted by others in the same thread as my comment quoted. He also types nonsense. For example I have never been even close to an ISIL topic ban, am a major contributor on the main ISIL topic and creator of some of the subarticles. I suggest WV and his meatpuppet take a long walk off a short pier and that is all I feel like wasting my breath on them today. Legacypac (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • A personal attack within a subsection about your behavior of making personal attacks. Unbelievable.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban Legacypac from userspace

WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"All of Legacypac's AFD nominations have been reversed and the CSD deletions have been restored. It's clear that there is ZERO support for any of Legacypac's antics and a topic ban is the only thing that can be done so that Godsy isn't wasting more time saving us from alienating all these editors. All of Legacypac's AFD nominations have been reversed and the CSD deletions have been restored. It's clear that there is ZERO support for any of Legacypac's antics and a topic ban is the only thing that can be done so that Godsy isn't wasting more time saving us from alienating all these editors. '— Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.58.193 (talk • contribs) 23:55, April 3, 2016 (UTC)'" assuming good faith,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Support. Legacypac's reckless moving of userpage drafts to mainspace, drafts that are good drafts that could become article but are not ready for mainspace, is disruptive. There are a clear lack of consensus on what to do with old drafts. The decision is not binary, the consensus decision making process therefore needs more time and effort on finding a process acceptable to all. Legacypac's wilful continuation of bold moved roundly criticised is contrary to the process of consensus. At a minimum, Legacypac must commit to recording all actions in moving or seeking deletion of others' userpages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC) "Again - if kept it will be tested in mainspace. We don't keep stuff with no potential, so vote accordingly. Legacypac (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)" This attitude expressed at MfD is combative and WP:GAMING, and needs to be repudiated. At worst it is abuse of process and disrespect for consensus, at best it is a change in policy to allow use of XfD to force other editors to fix things on a short timescale. I dispute that the topic challenged has no potential, but it is definitely not ready for mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC) NOTE - The 166.176.58.193 IP, is merely the latest in a line of 166 IPs by an evading editor. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC) And blocked as such. HighInBC 02:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

MFDs/Drafts/behaviour & conduct, etc

Recommend ya'll take your collective concerns to Arbcom. It doesn't appear as though the community is capable of solving these complaints here. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'd support that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• The sought action, warning of Legacypac, has already happened on his talk page, most directly at User_talk:Legacypac#Moving_unsuitable_drafts_to_mainspace, but also in other threads, including in removed threads. Has any admin disagreed with this or other warnings? More importantly, are bad faith moves to userspace, due to "to test notability" or "kept at MfD" still occurring? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

There's no way to know if bad faith moves are happening without anyone going through them (could easily bluff) but at the rate he has been moving stuff, I doubt anyone's going to do it. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 03:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Just look at this: [88] It's one of the slyest ways I've seen to get drafts deleted. Purposefully misinterpreting the author's message and putting it up for AfC. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 03:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

"DRAFT This is my proposed ATEasy article. Please review and provide comments/suggestions. Thanks :) Ronnie" sure sounds like a request to send this article for review and comment/suggestions, which we have a process for actually. Legacypac (talk) 05:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It sure as hell, isn't. Why'd you want to nominate something for AfC when you know it'll end up getting deleted as abandoned. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 06:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• No, y'all settle this here. Please. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Sending an entire deletion process to ArbCom is absurd, but honestly, I think it's what needs to happen at this point. We can't even agree on a change to WP:UP to provide a common-sense guideline on when it's appropriate to move userspace drafts. I've tried to offer a compromise solution, but one side thinks it's inappropriate to include anything in policy responding to LP's moves, and the other side thinks it's inappropriate to ever allow a move of a userspace draft. I don't know what administrators can do in response to that inability to come to consensus. We all agree that the current system just isn't working. The immediate deletion vs. indefinite retention debate is being argued across the entirety of MfD, and that's completely unsustainable. ~ Rob^Talk 01:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The reason I've suggested Arbcom, is because it appears that some editors have been raising concerns about each others behaviour & conduct, around this complex issue. As I mentioned somewhere earlier - Ya'll should decide on what the rules of the game are, before going out onto the field again. Mass confusion generally leads to mass confusion. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Unsuitable moves by Legacypac continue

Unsuitable moves from the userspace to the mainspace by Legacypac are continuing to happen. I reverted a move that was clearly not suitable for the mainspace. Another recent move has been nominated for deletion. Special:Log/Legacypac.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, Wang Dongma is up for deletion. Weng Songma is a redirect there now and the page was moved back to User:Popblack even though it looks to be an earlier version of the page being subject to deletion. That's not better but let's be accurate at least. The draft may be subject to deletion after MFD if the AFD supports deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The draft you call "not suitable for the mainspace" looks pretty good with 19 references and a list of exhibitions at galleries that have wikipedia articles and other links. It is actually longer and better then the mainspace version. The spelling variation on the name (which is plausible given it is translated) caused me to miss the other similar article that has existed in mainspace since 2010 [89] where it was not AfD'd in 6 years and has been worked on by various editors. Obviously we don't need two pages on the same artist, but the simple solution is to merge/redirect one page to the other, not come to ANi and make it look like I'm out to destroy the world. I obviously did not move the page to mainspace to have it deleted, which is your constant accusation. Legacypac (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The Waiting Years is already back in mainspace thanks to another editor- it's an important novel "Enchi took over eight years to write The Waiting Years and for it she won Japan‘s highest literary award – no small feat for a novel with such a glaring social critique." [|http://michellebailatjones.com/2008/09/23/enchi-fumiko-the-waiting-years/] (book review) "Published in 1958, this Noma Literary Prize-winning novel is a halfway mark for Japanese feminism." (Japan Times book review) [90] - I'm not sending junk to mainspace for deletion - these are notable topics. Legacypac (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Temporary restriction on Legacypac

Enough is enough. Legacypac, while I agree that many of the noms and moves you're doing are aimed at getting rid of draft/user pages that don't belong on Wikipedia, I've asked you to dial it back for awhile so we can try to get a draft proposal done. Initially I thought that the pressure you were exerting would stimulate those who opposed you into hurrying up in proposing something, but that still hasn't happened. It looks to me that your continued actions are preventing progress. As such, I'm proposing the following:

Legacypac is banned for 1 month from opening any new MfDs, nominating any pages for U5, moving any pages (other than his own) from userspace or draftspace to mainspace, and adding the AfC banner to any pages. The purpose of this ban is to allow interested editors to develop a plan to address article drafts.

I see no other way to break the back of this dispute, so it can go to policy discussion rather than arbitration. I know it looks like I'm placing this entirely on Legacypac's shoulders, but where there's smoke there's fire. We need everyone who is opposing Legacypac's actions working on something other than bringing Legacypac back to ANI. And the right way to do that is to cut this at the root.

• Support as proposer. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - seems like a good preventative measure to me. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 09:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support Waiting for his "Continuous harassment and numerous personal attacks from editors at ANI" thread. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 10:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Legacypac should be thanked for shining light on the growing pile of cruft that dilutes WP:NOTWEBHOST and which hides those drafts that may be useful. Taking the rubbish out is a normal part of life, and erecting barriers based on ILIKEUSELESSDRAFTS is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 11:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, but his conduct—right or wrong—has proven divisive to the point that the community has been completely unable to propose and discuss the policy changes needed to treat stale drafts. He needs to stop so we can talk. He has been asked to stop. He has failed to stop. The proposed restriction is deliberately short and intentionally worded so it's clear the entire purpose of it is to allow everyone to slow down and work on policy, rather than endless draft noms. This is not a sanction, but a temporary restriction so we can move forward. Your argument here, that the "growing pile of cruft ... dilutes WP:NOTWEBHOST" is precisely the sort of argument that must be made during a policy discussion. It shouldn't be made here and shouldn't have to be made over and over again in an endless stream of new MfDs. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose As per Johnuniq. Less rubbish good. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

If you think all sub-article quality userspace drafts are rubbish, you're welcome to frame your proposal, opposing this with that rationale is moot. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 12:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Only, and Johnuniq. SQL^{Query me!} 12:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too far. NOTWEBHOST violations should be deleted or blanked. We created CSD#U5 to deal with the worst most obvious cases, and their deletion is uncontroversial. Admins should be reminded to accept CSD nominations only where they apply. Most of what Legacypac does is good. He just needs to be warned against moving questionable or inappropriate pages to mainspace, especially where the intent is an end run around MfD. NB these page moves have nothing to do with NOTWEBOST violating pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I actually stopped editing for a few days to allow policy development, but the ILIKEUSELESSDRAFTS (great name) crowd did not work on policy. Instead they got busy restoring deleted useless drafts via requests to Admins and DRV, undertaking moves from main to userspace , and assembling nonsense attacks in ANi and elsewhere on my good faith efforts to cleanup. I'd also suggest reading WP:NOTNOTHERE and in particular "Focusing on particular processes: A user may have an interest in ...nominating articles for deletion. These are essential activities that improve the encyclopedia in indirect ways. Many "behind the scenes" processes and activities are essential to allow tens of thousands of users to edit collectively.... Some articles do not belong in Wikipedia..." IF any restriction were placed on my activity or on use of any deletion process (as has been proposed) or moves, similar restrictions need to be placed on undeletion or other efforts to undo work done on stale drafts. I believe it will be impossible for the ILIKEUSELESSDRAFTS crowd to get policy approved that meets their stated goal of keeping unsuitable material in userspace "indefinitely" so little gets solved. Legacypac (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is my move log https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Log/Legacypac Legacypac (talk) 03:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support per Mendaliv's statement above: "He needs to stop so we can talk. He has been asked to stop. He has failed to stop. The proposed restriction is deliberately short and intentionally worded so it's clear the entire purpose of it is to allow everyone to slow down and work on policy, rather than endless draft noms. This is not a sanction, but a temporary restriction so we can move forward." I support this proposal only because it is a temporary behavior "stop" for LP and meant to stimulate productive discussion. There is no deadline in Wikipedia, so a month off from LP doing this kind of work will harm nothing and (hopefully) help much. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support as per nom advice to ask Legacypac to discuss rather than just push through a poorly stated campaign, as well as throwing useless alphabet soup about useless drafts at the community. I've read WP:ILIKEUSELESSDRAFTS, and it doesn't say anything to explain Legacypac's behavior (and doesn't say anything else), and I chose not to write it. If Legacypac wants to write it, that is their privilege. In the meantime, I agree that Legacypac is being disruptive, and recommend an interim restriction. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Robert McClenon and Winkelvi. The harm that's being done by improper deletions and the work that's being created for others to cleanup by the bad moves outweighs the benefit of the reasonable moves. This needs to be handled in some way, and Mendaliv's proposal seems reasonable, though I worry this will only kick the problem down the road. Despite what Legacypac has claimed across multiple forums (e.g. [91] [92]), this is the first time that I have supported a "saction" against them, only now could it reasonably be claimed so.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Why is Godsy moving pages on notable novels back into Userspace? [93] and Claire of the Sea Light? Give the pages a chance to be properly referenced already. Legacypac (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It isn't suitable for the mainspace (i.e. meets the core content policies) until it is referenced as I expressed in my move summary.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

V does not say there MUST be references. Would you support moving every page without references in the project out of mainspace, or only reversing my moves? Legacypac (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I've referenced this article and moved it back to The Waiting Years.--v/r - TP 22:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose If a clear consensus forms against such a practice that is one thing, but I don't see that consensus. To me it just seems like clearing away old garbage. People can update policy to prohibit it if they can get consensus for it. Until then this seems very much in line with us not being a web host. HighInBC 21:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Opponents to Legacypac's efforts should either hurry up their draft and get consensus, or participate at MfD. I don't find these actions to be disruptive. I think their efforts are productive.--v/r - TP 21:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support, especially the temporary restriction on moving any pages from userspace to mainspace. By far the most disruptive thing Legacypac does is to identify userspace pages that are appropriate for userspace, but not appropriate for mainspace, and then move them to mainspace for the purpose of having them in an inappropriate location where they will be deleted. The practice of deliberately moving pages to a place they don't belong needs to stop right away. I understand that Legacypac also does a lot of good work identifying userspace articles that are appropriate for mainspace and moving them. I thank them for doing that. But the intentionally inappropriate moves are so disruptive that I think a temporary restriction is needed while things are sorted out, even at the cost of interfering with some productive edits. Fagles (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Userspace requires cleanup. QuackGuru (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is a collective of a few editors determined to do Legacypac in and they file frivoulous ANI thread after frivolous ANI thread. The fault however is not in Lagacypac but in these useless repetitive threads. Softlavender (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Legacypac started this thread.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 09:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

We're actually a part of a cabal (called Anti-Legacypac Movement). And it's mainly our ground agents who do the work against him. We used to carry out our matters on our own website in the deep web thinking we're safe. But now, that you've blown the whole thing wide open.... damn it! --QEDK (T ☕ C) 09:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

how many subtreads have you started now? Legacypac (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. The solution to a disagreement over deletion policy in the userspace should not be solved by barring one side of the argument from participating. ~ Rob^Talk 18:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose- I think cleaning out antique will-never-be-articles user space drafts is commendable and Legacypac's work in this area is a big net positive. Reyk _YO! 06:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Alternative Proposal: Temporary restriction to AFC for Legacypac

Competence is required when it comes to determining whether or not content is suitable for the mainspace. Special:log/Godsy: all the page moves from March 28 - April 5 of this year in my log have been reversions of page moves by Legacypac from the userspace to the mainspace of content that was clearly inappropriate for the mainspace (at the time the pages were moved). Pages need to reasonably meet WP:CCPOL and WP:N before a move to the mainspace. Bar the very first one in the section of my logs I refer to above, the content moved from the userspace to the mainspace by Legacypac that I reverted lacked references of any kind whatsoever (not even any external links or other misplaced references). Three speedy deletions were undone because of the page moves, the content clearly failed WP:N. The inappropriate moves of the type described above have continued even after they have been amptly warned on their talk page (User talk:Legacypac) by several users who have also corrected or noticed such innapropriate moves. I'm not even going to get into gamesmanship concerning deletion nominations in this section. Based on just those other actions, it appears (by applying extreme assume good faith), that Legacypac could use some direction in determining what is and is not appropriate for the mainspace. Regardless of opinions held about what content should be kept and for how long, I've clearly demonstrated inappropriate moves of content from the userspace to the mainspace by Legacypac. So, I propose:

Legacypac is restricted from moving any page within the userspace or draftspace to the mainspace for three months. They may submit userpage drafts and drafts to Articles for Creation. If such a userspace draft or draft isn't accepted, Legacypac must remove the AFC templates, so the content of the page is not deleted per WP:G13.

This will fix the problem I've described above that shows no sign of stopping (Special:Log/Legacypac). This also allows them to basically carry on with the good work that they've been doing, while eliminating the majority of what has been problematic. This should also help improve Legacypac's sense of what is and is not appropriate for the mainspace.

• Support as proposer.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:ANIADVICE#8. Involved editors shouldn't be the ones to propose sanctions, imo. Also, I don't see any evidence of wrong-doing by Legacypac. No rules have been violated. No consensus exists that Legacypac has been disruptive. Nothing here even remotely supports sanctions. This entire thread should be closed.--v/r - TP 04:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This was a revenge thread by Legacypac, you've clearly not read the thumbrule you're quoting. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 04:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I wrote the essay I'm quoting. My comment is in the spirit of what I wrote in the essay. People involved shouldn't be writing sanctions for each other.--v/r - TP 04:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't possess the power to read between the lines you wrote, nor do most people for that matter. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 09:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Nope tried that and it was attacked just above. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#MFDs.2FDrafts.2Fbehaviour_.26_conduct.2C_etc and other places. Instead how about Special:log/Godsy stops moving good stubs back into the userspace of long gone editors. He is only targeting drafts I move that don't yet have references and not any of these [94] just to pick one category of unreferenced mainspace pages. Legacypac (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Please format your comments properly if you have to say something. I've bulleted/indented/moved your comments atleast 3 times in total. Not to mention, you don't make sense. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 04:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Does Godsy understand what is suitable for mainspace? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claire of the Sea Light Legacypac (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

User_talk:Legacypac#Moving_drafts_into_AFC ya some people don't like this. Legacypac (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Editor not playing ball by insisting on controversial renaming without using WP:REQMOVE

User User:Wiki-psyc renamed personal boundaries as setting boundaries without any discussion and without using WP:REQMOVE. I reverted it explaining that it was controversial and if User:Wiki-psyc wanted to pursue it please use WP:REQMOVE. Now User:Wiki-psyc has reverted my revert without bothering with WP:REQMOVE aqain.--Penbat (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The first article name change does not appear to be controversial - it occurred 7 months ago and despite being an active article, there is nothing in the edit notes or TALK PAGE to suggest any controversy or disagreement until yesterday.
Penbat suggested a name change yesterday on the TALK PAGE and he implemented the change 5 hours after the change was contested and became controversial. I reverted the name change pending consensus.

Wiki-psyc (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Wiki-psycs point is irrelevant. There was absolutely no discussion before the move on the talk page and no WP:REQMOVE - https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Setting_boundaries&diff=677100382&oldid=677070465 although he did post this on the talk page 1 hour 21 minutes afterwards - https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Setting_boundaries&diff=677106945&oldid=677100387 --Penbat (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I did a major rewrite and documented the workback in 2015 so that other editors could follow. Why are we here? What are you asking for?

Wiki-psyc (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant.--Penbat (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I have move protected the article for some time. As the first move was carried out nearly a year ago, and a lot of work has been done of the article content since then, I do not regard this as move warring by Wiki-psyc. However now is the time to stop moving and get consensus on the most appropriate title. I suggest using the WP:RM process. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:RM is all I want but it seems unreasonable that I have to initiate the WP:RM, not User:Wiki-psyc, and have to make the case to go back to the status quo when there was no discussion or WP:RM before the first rename on 21 August 2015. I am not sure why time is a factor. Substantive changes were made by User:Wiki-psyc just before the rename as part of a package, briefly documented after the event here https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Setting_boundaries&diff=677106945&oldid=677100387. I was never happy with the original rename but have only recently taken issue with it as I have just got round to looking into it in depth. Just because I have not intervened earlier did not mean that I approved - it was presented as a fait accompli. Changes in the article since then have not been particularly substantive but anyway I fail to see why it is relevant to the naming of the article. The basic character of the article has not changed significantly since then. No other editor has expressly supported User:Wiki-psyc's edits or the rename. Edits by other editors have been relatively minor.--Penbat (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Had you reverted the name change after it was originally moved last year, I am sure Wiki-psyc would have been happy to go through a WP:RM. However since it has stood with no contest for months, the status quo has changed. It doesnt matter that no one has expressly supported it, no one has opposed it for months. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Agree with the move protect admin action by MSGJ (talk · contribs). At this point in time, unfortunately with regards to all that has already transpired, it's somewhat irrelevant what happened in the past. Users should discuss and neutrally and in a civil manner make their case on the talk page with the WP:REQMOVE process, and hope for additional input from previously-uninvolved-participants to arrive at the discussion. — Cirt (talk) 00:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Request for help establishing neutrality Like this ANI, the WP:RM has become personally disparaging rather than a simple consensus discussion. This is the second time I have been brought before and ANI for unknowingly editing an article that was originated by Penbat. I'm not going to engage the accusations in the WP:RM. I do ask that this matter be reviewed for possible intervention.

Current WP:RM

Prior ANI for editing a Penbat originated article titled Exaggeration

Wiki-psyc (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Disruption?

I would like to know how this comment is justifiable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

No. Not appropriate, but not worth bringing here. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Meh. I think it's rude, but that's all. If there's some underlying pattern of disruption I'm not aware of, that might be something else, but even then something that mild couldn't be the straw that broke the camel's back in my view. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not the first time he's gotten snippy in the edit summary on this issue, but it seems to be accelerating.[95][96][97] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd have to say I agree here with Baseball Bugs this behavior is inappropriate and not conducive to collaborative building of an encyclopedia together. — Cirt (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Baseball Bugs. Although his edits concern site-related stuff (pp template), it still is a form of POV-pushing IMO. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 19:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:The Parlotones

I keep placing {{outdated}} or {{incomplete}} at Template:The Parlotones, but it keeps getting reverted. Per WP:OUTDATED, "If you do not wish to make the effort to do that yourself but you know it needs to be done, you can also place {{update}} on the top of the page or section". Many sarcastic comments in violation of WP:CIVIL have been made there as well. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

This edit summary was quite uncivil. This edit summary wasn't very nice, either. @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: you seem exasperated by the edit war, but I would suggest you be more civil in your edit summaries. If there are simply three albums missing from the template, I can add them myself. Will that stop the edit warring? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I would rather have Jax 0677 learn to be an editor that helps readers rather than placing tags on articles and templates when he knows what needs to be to done to fix them and that will only confuse and exasperate readers. Look at all the steps he is taking rather doing the simplest of things. He admits to being lazy in his defense above, although he does so by referencing an essay regarding arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Could I have done it, too? Sure. But that won't stop a lazy editor from continuing to be lazy. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply - There are even more comments at Template talk:The Parlotones, which along with the page history, may be reviewed for violation of WP:IMPERSONATE. Despite the fact that I used {{outdated}} or {{incomplete}} for their intended purpose, the edit summaries and comments on the talk page still are in violation of WP:CIVIL. If an album/song is released after I created the navbox, I am not necessarily responsible for adding those new articles. Additionally, the discography article is still missing from the navbox. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess Jax means this edit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks

I'm asking for some help on Talk:Spark (horse). While it's clear that Doug Coldwell (talk · contribs) is making great progress on this article, it appears he's taken ownership and any other opinions are met with ad hominem arguments [98], [99], [100], [101] effectively saying he's an elite editor and I'm not qualified to edit the article I created.

DYKs are great but they shouldn't get in the way of cooperation and having quite a few of them isn't an excuse to bully other editors. Toddst1 (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I see a fair bit of boasting, and some belittling of your work which is not appropriate. Where has he said you may not edit in an area?

I think the best course of action would be to simply remind @Doug Coldwell: that we are all volunteers, and even if you have an amazing body of work that it is not appropriate to belittle the work other editors. HighInBC 14:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

As I said, @Doug Coldwell: effectively said that by his demeaning comments. It's difficult to interpret them differently. Toddst1 (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Non-admin, horsey comment. Doug Coldwell does seem to be belittling Toddst1 for not having DYKs. DYKs are good but are not the reason for writing articles; sharing knowledge is. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Add, the next day: the DYK hook Doug Coldwell is using for the article isn't even accurate. Bull Rock was the first Thoroughbred racehorse in the US, not Spark. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Toddst1:Wow that's inappropriate behavior you've cited above, I gotta agree here. I myself have sometimes commented on talk pages noting my successful Quality improvement efforts, but I've strived not to do so in a demeaning manner and never in direct comparison to others' quality improvement efforts and certainly not in a comparative denigrating way like that. Wholly inappropriate and not conducive to building an encyclopedia together as a community. — Cirt (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Legal threats by Sanjayarora1234

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

---

Sanjayarora1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a clear legal threat in summary of this edit: here Jim1138 (talk) 06:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

They've been warned and notified of this thread. Let's see what they do now. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Sibbs11

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

---

Sibbs11 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly removed referenced content from the article Mahto, including from various IPs (WP:DUCK):

• [102][103][104][105]
• 111.119.234.75 (talk · contribs) [106][107]
• 106.194.44.83 (talk · contribs) [108]
• 111.119.234.69 (talk · contribs) [109]
• 195.59.125.25 (talk · contribs) [110]
• 111.119.234.61 (talk · contribs) [111]
• 111.119.234.43 (talk · contribs) [112]

The article states (with references) that the surname "Mahto" is used by multiple Indian castes. Apparently, Sibbs11 belongs to the Koeri caste, and insists on removing mention of any other castes from the article.

The user refuses to indulge in any discussion except threats:

• On talk page of Tbhotch: "Please delete this content...and Mahto sir name do not belong to all the listed caste except koeri MAHTO. Delete this. Else will put complain against you." [113]
• On my talk page: "You have wrong information about mahto sir name. None of the catse belong to mahto sir name. Please delete else will raise a compain against you." [114]
• On own talk page after folks on IRC refused to help him: "I did not get any help..They are not taking my request and they deliberately intended to defame this community by not removing castes line." [115]
• After being given level 4 warning: "I have already discussed several times. Ultimately i have to take this step to remove the irrelevant contents. Please don't come in between and add irrelevant articles under this topic. I will request the wiki management to revoke you from the admin access. As you are not here to listen any ones voice and just to fight with the words with zero knowledge. I warn you if you try to undo the edited contents I will take this matter to the higher authorities."[116]

Note: Contrary to his claims that he has "discussed several times", he has not participated in any discussion except above threats.

I am tempted to block the user for disurptive editing / incompetence. But I would like someone else to take a look at this to avoid WP:INVOLVED, as I've undone the user's edits in the past and protected the page to prevent his/her IPs from editing the page. utcursch | talk 21:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Did you file an sockpuppet investigation at all? Might consider asking for page protection too. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I've already protected the page to allow only autoconfirmed users. The IPs are obviously related to the user per WP:DUCK. I just want another admin to handle this matter because I have been involved in editing the article. utcursch | talk 22:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Blatant BLP violation and subsequent protection by involved Admin

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

---

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-03-17/News_and_notes is the page in question.

I've blanked it during the MFD due to the obvious BLP violation. An Admin has protected the page after voting keep, keeping the BLP violating information still in of course.

Further reading here https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-03-17/News_and_notes Arkon (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Your interpretation that it was a BLP violation was hardly the consensus view at the MFD, so it does not qualify as an "obvious" violation that requires edit warring, or even as a violation at all. It did not require immediate removal, as evidenced by your only removing it after I said something you didn't like in the MFD discussion, so your actions are quite pointy. Article protection is supposed to be used in cases of edit warring to prevent further disruption, so the admin acted per policy. Gamaliel (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Your interpretation of BLP is fucked in general if you think this is ok on an encyclopedia, or in accordance to Wikipolicy. As for the MFD, I am hardly the only one to say it was one, not even counting the original speedy deletion request. Protection of a page with a BLP violation is shameful. Your actions are shameful. Arkon (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I had a COI in protecting the page from edit-warring, and I don't interpret BLP like Arkon is. That said, I'm open to the idea that I am mistaken in believing that I did not have a COI, and I invite any admin to modify my action as they see appropriate. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Not a COI, INVOLVED. You don't interpret making things up about a living person on wikipedia to be a BLP violation. Wonderful trait in an admin. Arkon (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really concerned with your interpretation, as you've already stated it at least a dozen times. Let the community come and voice their thoughts. I could very well be wrong; I make no claims of perfection. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You don't seem to be concerned with much, which is why we are here. As for it being "my" interpretation, that's obviously incorrect if you actually read the pages you participated on. I am not the only one who has stated the obvious about this page. Still didn't say whether you interpret making things up about a living person as a BLP violation. Arkon (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment It's a joke based on body shaming. It has to go. April 1 is over and it's clearly a BLP violation. It's the same kind of joke that generates a juvenile snicker but the snicker doesn't mean it's not a BLP violation. It's right up there with fat jokes about Hillary and "cankles." --DHeyward (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Respectfully, WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE is clear; consensus must be obtained before restoration of material. Information should not be restored on the basis that there is "no consensus" for removal; clear consensus for inclusion is required. Respectfully request that Ed remove the protection & Gamaliel self-revert the restoration, pending formation of a clear consensus for inclusion. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Mmm, fair point. I'll remove the protection now. Thanks for the pointer, Ryk72. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• No. Blanking this page would negatively affect the current, live version of the Signpost. Gamaliel (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Not blanking this page negatively affects the current living actual human being. No one cares about your mouthpiece. Arkon (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yet again reverting close, with a wonderful new personal attack and BLP violation to boot!!! Yay JZG! Arkon (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• With respect, if the current version of the Signpost relies on the existence of a page which makes this type of statement about a living person, then the appropriate response is to remediate the current version of the Signpost, not to edit war123 to reinsert unsourced information about living persons which had been the subject of clearly identified, good faith, BLP redactions. Regardless of whether the information is found to be a BLP violation, or the "humour" aspects are found to be a sufficient reason for retention (albeit unsupported by policy), the edit warring is a clear violation of WP:BLP. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Arkon has reverted the closure of this section four times and has told the closing admin "you can fuck right off". There are a lot bigger problems here than some dumb joke about Donald Trump. Gamaliel (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Those are clearly issues, and they should be handled, but the close was genuinely problematic and I considered reverting it myself. The comment by Ryk72 wasn't addressed at all and even prompted the protecting admin to remove protection (thanks for considering opposing views by the way, Ed). Closing it as "you're an idiot that doesn't understand policy" is a bit absurd. ~ Rob^Talk 00:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, it wasn't the best close in the world. But involved parties don't get to override closures like that. If I edit warred to reverse a closure I didn't like, you can bet Arkon would be screaming about my "abuse" at the top of his lungs. Gamaliel (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't doubt that, and Arkon's behavior can be dealt with if editors care to do so. Over the year or so I've been around Wikipedia, I've developed a distaste for injecting myself into debates on behavioral issues - too much drama - so I'll stay out of that bit. I'm just saying that the closure was a bit nuts and I think this should remain open. ~ Rob^Talk 00:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I'm considering opposing views, but I'm still finding it awfully hard to see how 'Donald Trump has small hands' is not an obvious (stupid yet amusing) joke. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@The ed17: Have you seen this? It's apparently a real thing that pisses Trump off. Not to mention the well-covered threats of litigation that Trump frequently makes, which this is also poking fun at. Honestly, if I saw this thread out of the context of April 1, I would not jump to "it's a joke" immediately. ~ Rob^Talk 00:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Can we actually agree that "IT WAS A PRANK BRO" is no excuse for BLP vios. That'd be nice. Arkon (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

"Arkon's behavior can be dealt with if editors care to do so." If only we had some kind of noticeboard where we could do that.... Gamaliel (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I know right! You could always ban me without process through a completely private procedure where I have no right of response, just sayin'. Arkon (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a good example of what we have as arbcom members apparently. Someone now defending putting another BLP violation, and a personal attack as close, as being ok it seems, but fuck off is just tooo far. Now that needs the humorous template. Arkon (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The really humorous thing is your deep concern about BLP when it comes to people you don't like: [117] [118]. Someone who uses talk pages as a forum to libel attack people who aren't rich presidential candidates is the last person who should be lecturing anyone about BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh please, everyone who reads this section, click those diffs. Great demonstration of how far from reality Gamaliel's ideas of what BLP is, actually are. Arkon (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:LIBEL and WP:NLT are pretty solid. We usually don't accuse other editors of libel as it can be seen as a legal threat and the correct course is to remove libelous material. "libel" should be used sparingly and only in discussions regarding content, not as way of casting aspersions. --DHeyward (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment if this was about anyone other than Trump it would not be allowed. Regardless of what we may think of Donald Trump, this is not appropriate humor for an encyclopedia. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• I am pretty blown away that a user at ANI can edit war over an admin's close right here and can tell that admin they "can fuck right off" and that user is not blocked (that's a link to a clean block log). Why is this person not blocked? Jytdog (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

  Because being an admin does not mean you can close with a BLP violation and a personal attack as the summary? Because using vulgarity seems to be the preferred way of argumentation (NEW AND IMPROVED SANCTIONED BY ARBCOM)and is hardly blockable? Or why are you sniping instead of responding to the actual point? Arkon (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You've created an entirely new issue by your behavior and discredited whatever point you were originally making; you seem to be claiming to passionately defend one policy but you have definitely trashed two of them. I am just fascinated with the dynamics here - this is the most disrespectful thing I've seen done to the entire admin corps and the community by someone who is not already indeffed since... it must be procaryotes reverting the close on own his Tban appeal at AN a couple months ago. And the admins are doing nothing. So strange, all around. Jytdog (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• User:Jytdog unsure why you are still attacking User:Arkon as the issue is now very clear, it is a Wikipedia shame for the embarrassing wp:involved wp:administrator action after a KEEP vote and additional supporting comments from User:The ed17 and for the wp:edit warring three reverts one two three repeatedly replacing WP:BLP disputed content against WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE which is wp:wikipedia policy not a wp:essay.. and accusing users of WP:VANDALISM as he did it,(Reverted to revision 713976866 by Gamaliel: Please stop vandalizing the current issue of the Signpost) by User:Gamaliel, a wp:arbitration committee member - Govindaharihari (talk) 06:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

ANI is for discussing disruption, and it is not uncommon for OPs to have their own behavior boomerang on them, especially when they are this blatant and even doggedly defending their disruption. It shreds whatever notions we have that there are boundaries of acceptable behavior around here (and shreds the basis for Arkon's claim, since policy apparently doesn't actually matter if it gets in the way of what you want). I would file an EWN notice but it happened right here. Just so interesting and strange, especially the admin inaction aspect. Jytdog (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

This isn't WP:STANDUPFORTHEESTABLISHMENTNOMATTERWHAT_Noticeboard. If you're trying to prove you're part of the "in crowd" to garner yourself an RfA nom in the future, this isn't the place to do it.--v/r - TP 23:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• There used to be the Signpost profanity trigger warning when the Signpost editor became upset with profanity. I guess it was removed. --DHeyward (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• The alleged violation is certainly not blatant, and it is being discussed in an appropriate forum. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Respectfully, the multiple restorations (links above) of material removed on clearly identified, good faith, BLP grounds is a blatant violation. WP:BLP is clear - consensus must be obtained before restoring redacted material. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• That sounds correct. I didn't know about "multiple restorations". The MfD can consider alleged BLP violations behind a blanking. Alleged BLP-violating material shouldn't be restored while it is in dispute. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• MfD can consider the allegedly infringing BLP content, but ANI is the place to discuss the restoring actions.--v/r - TP 04:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Whatever else has gone wrong here, @Gamaliel: you should certainly not have removed the CSD tag from that page[119], as is said in bold in the lead of the policy WP:CSD: "The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it." Fram (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Wow, this is lame. An April Fools' joke that gets the full BLP policy treatment by people on all sides? JzG already pointed to WP:NCR, which is much more relevant to this dispute than WP:BLP. —Kusma (t·c) 12:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• The Mfd seems strongly in favor for deletion. Seeing that this is a BLP and now that all have had their fun, perhaps a BOLD admin could step in and IAR by closing the Mfd and deleting this stupidity.--MONGO 13:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment: On behalf of the Signpost: this dummy page is no longer needed; we have no objection to its deletion. --Andreas JN466 13:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but whether you needed that page or not is not really relevant to decide on its deletion. Fram (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

This was closed by JzG as follows: This does not require administrator intervention - not even the 3RR violation by the OP. Guy (Help!) 13:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I have reopened this because a) it is debatable whether this required or requires admin intervention or not, considering the BLP nature of things and the back-and-forth (some against policy) by admins / arbcom members already happening there; and b) the OP did not make any 3RR violations, as he made one blanking and two reverts only. Having a section where the OP was basically right (viz the subsequent SNOW deletion) closed with a hatnote that implies that the only problematic edits were some non-existant 3RR violation by the OP (but which ignores the actual problematic edits by others) is not the best way to end this mini-drama. Fram (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Argument that BLP contentious material needs to be preserved because Signpost uses it, is one of the silliest things I have seen here. Also 1st April was a week ago, a bit late for April Fools.--Staberinde (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• For the love of God, someone open an Arbcom request. Gameleil needs all of his bits removed.69.143.137.41 (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Your calls for desysoping would be given more weight if you did not log out to post that. HighInBC 16:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• #IPLIVESMATTER Arkon (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• I believe WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. refers. Stifle (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• I don't think this board can resolve this issue. The Signpost is a news publication, and it is easy to see this as an attempt to censor speech about Donald J. Trump, which we don't want to convey. Mr. Trump is truly one of the finest people to have ever lived, and I am glad to see his ardent supporters acting forcefully to remove any dissenting content about him. Let Gameleil be permabanned outside of public scrutiny, and we certainly will be rewarded by President Trump for our loyalty.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• If this was humor about Chelsea Manning, the proponents of this joke would've had entirely different opinions. We can't pick and chose who the WP:BLP policy applies to based on our personal politics.--v/r - TP 23:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

And the hits just keep coming...

• New, pointy userspace creation after the MfD didn't go his way. See Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Gamaliel/Small_hands --DHeyward (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I saw that userbox before the deletion, I am forever scarred from the experience. Luckily Mr. Trump did not see it or we would regret it!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer that editors keep such pointy comments elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a social network. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Civility of Arkon

Setting aside the issue of the the now deleted article, can we look into the civility of Arkon? I'm seeing some incredibly abusive behavior, including cursing at several admins. This is not behavior of someone who wants to collaborate. --Tarage (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You are seeking to sanction him after MfD validated his BLP concerns with a snow close? How about we take a look at those that violated BLP policy and not Editor Profanity Disorder? Note that ArbCom member that violated BLP and reverted to keep BLP violations, then complained about profanity, then accused Arkon of libel, also created and allowed multiple signpost article with profanity using the same offensive terms. His complaints are disingenuous at best and his behavior was the worst. --DHeyward (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of disingenuous complaints, it's interesting you are so offended by a little swearing in the Signpost when you use the comments section of those same Signpost articles to call people Nazis. The fact that the MFD was closed in favor of Arkon's preferred outcome - and the preferred outcome of many other editors - does not give Arkon license to tell an uninvolved admin to "fuck right off". The logical extension of that ridiculous claim is that everyone who is on the right side of a consensus gets to violate whatever policy they want. Nor does your preexisting grudge against me for sanctioning you for your repeated violations in unrelated topic areas have any bearing on the appropriateness of Arkon's conduct. Gamaliel (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not offended, I just don't see the need. I didn't swear at you nor do I condone it, but the essence of Wikipedia is completely captured when the notion that an edit summary of "The close was fucked up" is okay, but "fuck off" is not and "Nuts" is still reserved for the Battle of the Bulge. I'm pretty sure the BLP policy says exactly that BLP Trumps everything (even Small Handed Admins) and there is a BLP exemption for nearly everything. That you continue to pretend your BLP violation was okay even after consensus is problematic as well as your zeal to punish BLP defenders. As for grudge, I have none. You have very selective memory and your "sanction" has never been enforced. I don't even bother appealing it but it was another example of your problematic behavior given the "grudge" you must hold from when your Lori Klausutis article was deleted for BLP reasons (but you claim you don't remember so you are "uninvolved" in everything even though we have butted heads for 10 years - good luck with that). Your American Politics involvement is so problematic that you should be banned from the topic but again you are "neutral." And no, I never called anyone a Nazi (another sideshow canard to go with the ones I just mentioned). --DHeyward (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no memory of what article you are talking about from ten years ago or whatever imaginary connection you may think we have had, but I do recall you calling me a Nazi a week ago. You have a bizarre habit of pretending we are lifelong buddies when you aren't viciously insulting me. Gamaliel (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I know! It's amazing how quickly everything is forgotten when "involved" would warrant abstention, but your false Nazi aspersion memory just makes stuff up. I never claimed we were buddies. Quite the opposite. That's why all your "uninvolved" BS rings so hollow. And now you have a Nazi grudge. Outstanding. --DHeyward (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Life is too short to bother remembering everyone you may or may not have had an internet argument with a decade ago. And there aren't enough hours in the day to worry about every person who ever called me a Nazi. There's been a webpage about me (google it!) with a picture of me next to a Nazi flag that's been up for years. You'll have to try harder to merit an actual grudge. Gamaliel (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't bother, just every political BLP violation involves you. I just pointed out how far back the problem goes. And by the way, diffs on the "Nazi" thing or STFU. --DHeyward (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Here you go: Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-03-09/Systemic_bias#Kyriarchy.2C_Something_about_Arbcom. And if you really believe the preposterous claim that "every political BLP violation involves" me, WP:ARCA is thataway ----> Bring your diffs. Gamaliel (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

So being right absolves you from any transgressions? I'm not saying that one side in this argument is saintly. I'm saying nearly everyone involved has mud on their hands, and we shouldn't just ignore incivility because someone happened to be right in this instance. --Tarage (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Haven't you heard? Cursing is the bee's knees Arkon (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Civility is quite a subjective thing. See this op-ed from the Signpost for a different perspective. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

What's even more abusive is using Wikipedia Signpost (and any other part of Wikipedia) as a means to display one's personal political shitposts under the thinly-veiled explanation that its just an April Fool's gag. And yeah, I just cursed, too. -- Netoholic @ 18:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Arkon should not be faulted for his behavior. Frankly, any means necessary is appropriate to defend Mr. Trump from the scurrilous slime which Gamaliel perpetrated upon him. If one million f-bombs are necessary to remove a false old headline about Donald Trump's hand size, so be it. Except if the editors are women.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes he should, because he revert-warred on this page, but the sanction should not go beyond a little light mockery for initiating one of the most stupid, pointless and pointlessly protracted arguments I can recall here. A joke page was created on the day we create joke pages. It has been deleted. The sky has not fallen. Some people badly need to get a sense of proportion. Perhaps they have really small hands and are terribly sensitive about it. Guy (Help!) 19:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• That's another BLP violation right there, friend.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• Ah, I shall need to remember that "It has been deleted. The sky has not fallen." is a good excuse for terrible behavior. Am I to assume my use of curse words caused said sky to fall? Arkon (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

And being right is somehow an excuse for terrible behavior as well. Stop this nonsense and start being civil. It's not too much to ask. --Tarage (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You'd think it would be a simple request when it's one of our five pillars. Apparently not. Gamaliel (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You think cursing is terrible behavior? That's interesting. Your contribution history is also interesting in regards to this new found civility crusade.

It's more than your cursing and you know it. It's not a crusade to look at the actions of one editor and go "Oh my gosh, what is wrong with this person?", it's common sense. I don't know why you are flailing around with your stick, but you need to drop it and stop now. I do not understand how this behavior is being tolerated. And for the record, I don't have a horse in this race, so please don't lump me into either political camp. --Tarage (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You started this section, on me, I have no stick, but I will respond as needed. I also never lumped you into any political whatever, if you believe that's what this is you should just go ahead and withdraw from this discussion. Here, let me give you the "ProWiki" response: Your original "you were right but.." should stop right there, as one of the five pillars (Hi Gamaliel!), is IAR. So whatever your gripe, I did the right thing in that context. Of course, the real response is that it's astonishing that you find bluntness with curse words, to be a problem while nary a comment regarding actual issues. Sounds Meaty even. Arkon (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

IAR doesn't excuse you from being a civilized human being. There are a million ways you could have gone about this entire thing. You choose one of the most toxic and dividing. There is being blunt and there is being needlessly aggressive and offensive to multiple people. Multiple people have pointed this out to you. It's one of the 5 pillars for cripes sake. --Tarage (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Uh, I think you're outnumbered on the whole "multiple people" thing, with people who actually did the bad deeds being in your group. Do you mean we got a 5 pillar battle royale brewing? Arkon (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

As for dear Ol' Gamaliel, you know what was a simple request? A speedy deletion tag on fabricated text about a living person, which you removed, then argued to actually keep. Trying to use policy as a hammer when you can't even get a grip on the thing isn't very smart, might hit your thumb, your tiny tiny thumb. Arkon (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I love how adults pretend to not understand the difference between profanity and personal attacks. For example, your comment contained no profanity but several personal attacks. Your attacks on Guy contained profanity and personal attacks. Keliana's column linked above contained profanity but no personal attacks. It's not that difficult to grasp, even for those poor souls afflicted with tiny, tiny hands and need special BLP protection from even a mild reference to their affliction.. Gamaliel (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, a double down on ignorance of the harm that is caused by making shit (OHMYGOD) up about living people. Arkon (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Arkon, when you talk about people's small body parts, you need to use the {{humor}} template so they know it's not a BLP violation.--v/r - TP 00:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Consistency is the hobgoblin of small hands;. But seriously: the community should think about the growing deployment, chiefly by right-wing extremists working to keep Wikipedia in line, of crocodile tears. The pearl clutching over an arbitrator using the F word in a signpost article, or calling a joke "terrible behavior," is highly uncivil and, in fact, quite toxic. (If it's terrible behavior, the cover of a recent New Yorker ought to be sanctioned as well.) Conversely, when Gamergaters use Wikipedia to spread rumors about a software developer’s sexual history, or pore through their undergraduate assignments for evidence that they are soft of pedophiles, well, no problem! Oversight will get around to the matter within a day or two of notification, so no big deal, right? (Both the preceding examples are from the past week, incidentally.) This sort of dishonesty is likely to cause the project a lot of trouble, one of these days. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Yay it's Mark! He's here to tell us how to be civil, listen carefully folks. Arkon (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, that's enough. Can we please act like we're building an encyclopedia? The correct term per WP:MEDMOS is sausage fingers. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Misuse of admin tools by Gamaliel

@Gamaliel:, after all the above (including your policy-violating removal of a CSD tag from a page you created and which has since been Snow deleted), did you really think that creating and then using protection to keep User:Gamaliel/Small hands from blanking or deletion was a correct use of the admin tools? Yes, we have U1, but that's not meant for admins to protect their own controversial subpages from blanking. WP:INVOLVED comes clearly into play here. Fram (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I regularly protect subpages in my userspace as I am the frequent target of vandalism. My user page has been protected since 2005. Would you like to see the rev deleted edits that I used to get on a daily basis graphically describing imagined sex acts of my own parents? I deleted it the userbox, it's over, WP:DROPTHESTICK. Gamaliel (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

(removed trolling by Milowent, please stop these childish posts here) Fram (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Umm, you're still discussing actions by others in this whole stupid drama you started, but your actions should be ignored because you want this and because you have, in completely unrelated circumstances, been the victim of sexual harassment? There are unprotected pages in your userspace (I'll not list them per BEANS), but this one suddenly needed immediate and full protection? Right... That you deleted the userbox hours later doesn't simply make the misuse disappear. If you want other people to drop the stick, then start by giving the right example instead of what you have been doing and are still doing here. And in general, even if you wpuld be in the right, "drop the stick" after the first remark about some aspect of your own behaviour, and without anyone uninvolved even chiming in, is a rather pathetic reply. Fram (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, there are some subpages I've neglected to protect. I don't feel like going through three year old to do lists and draft articles to protect everything. I brought up the harassment not as an exemption, but to point out why I use the protection in a perfectly routine, acceptable manner that you are trying to make drama out of. Gamaliel (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

No, you are misusing the harassment to justify your protection of your own page to score a WP:POINT after the Signpost page was deleted. That is not "a perfectly routine, acceptable manner" but behaviour incompatible with being an admin and arbcom member. I hope this is just a temporary lapse and that you will see this for what it is after this has died down a bit. Fram (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

By the way, instead of adding your test page to the Signpost index for 2010, like you did here, you could have deleted the entry you added earlier for the page that started this whole discussion, even though that wasn't a real 2010 page in any case. I have removed both. Are there still more places where you have added the now deleted Signpost page? Fram (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It's an "effing" APRIL FOOLS joke people. God, will someone just get a grip here? (Whether they have small hands or not?) Facepalm Montanabw^(talk) 00:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It's just a prank bro!! Arkon (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw: That's cool bro, I'll just let all the right-wing religious nuts we have on Wikipedia know that on April 1st, they can say anything they want about Chelsea Manning and we won't stop them.--v/r - TP 01:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@TParis: Political satire involves poking fun at the powerful, not bullying people who are not well-positioned to defend themselves. You are making a false analogy here. Montanabw^(talk) 06:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw: You're quite right. So, the line in WP:BLP granting an exemption for politicians is...where...exactly? Or, perhaps, WP:POLITICALSATIRE isn't a red link? No? Yeah, it's easy to exempt yourself when the BLP subject is someone you have complete contempt for; but WP:BLP doesn't grant you a personal exemption for that either.--v/r - TP 06:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) With sincere respect to the authors of the Signpost article and their strong histories of contribution to the encyclopedia, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a publisher of political satire. If editors wish to write and have published political satire, they should seek out a publisher of such material; or alternately take advantage of the many opportunities for self-publication that the Internet provides. I encourage all participants in this discussion to please read WP:NOT and WP:BLP. I also note that the ANI filing relates not to the appropriateness of the Signpost article, but to breaches of WP:BLP and misuse of admin tools. NOTE: Clearly the closes are premature. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This is getting worse and worse the more I look at all that happened here. Did you really edit war to reclose a discussion about yourself here[120], and here, and here for the thrid time, warning the other editor at that time that he is at 3 reverts, which of course also applies to yourself? Removing CSD tags from a page you created, protecting a page you created as a POINT violation, edit warring to close an ANI discussion about your own actions, adding test pages and hoaxes to Signpost indexes for 2010, ... what's next? The original creation and wanting to keep the page can be seen as a lapse of judgment, but everything you did in the surrounding events is seriously worrying. Please stop and take a serious step back here. Fram (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe you'll find that, if you seriously think this is a serious question, there's a serious place called ArbCom to raise it. It’s.....thataway ---> MarkBernstein (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Fram, I'm sorry you saw my removed comment[121] as trolling. Really this whole thing is getting out of hand. "SMALLHANDSGHAZI" was my way of communicating that. The Signpost is an independent newspaper for Wikipedia, not Donald J. Trump's personal mouthpiece, though it might be much more invaluable to mankind if it was. People can have different views about whether Gamaliel's satirical attacks on the world's best person were funny or not, and his subsequent attempts to avoid censorship of his journalistic message. Mr. Trump wants more waterboarding, I suppose that would be a proper punishment for Gamaliel. A small hands user box and small hands headline ... life is too short.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Continued BLP and POINT violations by Gamaliel

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

---

After the above sections (but before the close of the discussion) first User:Jayen466[122] and then User:Gamaliel[123] thought it a good idea to readd the "small hands" line to the Signpost page, despite the clear concerns many people have about this. Can someone uninvolved please make it very clear to him that the Signpost is not his private playground, exempt from BLP or separate from Wikipedia? Continuing to insert a BLP violation and lame joke just because you can is really very poor behaviour. Yes, this would be a very lame ArbCom case, but there's no reason that we can't handle this without their aid.

This kind of behaviour would not be accepted from regular editors, who would now either be at a final warning or blocked for such continuation of problematic behaviour; accepting this from an admin or Arbcom member gives the strong impression that people with those positions are allowed more disruption than others. Fram (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Note that he also felt the need to readd the fake 2010 page to the SIgnpost index for that year[124], and that after another editor removed it, this wsa reverted by User:Montanabw (who just happens to be a co-author of the Signpost Trump page) with the rather hypocritical summary "please do not edit-war"[125]. Why a page, created in 2016 and snow deleted a few days later, needs to be added to a Signpost index for 2010 is not clear, unless it is another WP:POINT violation by Gamaliel and the like. Has anyone kept count of how many very problematic edits Gamaliel has made in this situation so far? Fram (talk) 06:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support block to stop harming the encyclopedia with BLP violating material. There's been consensus MfD and despite all the calls to end this stupid drama and close the ANI, he continues to edit war and find ways ways to reinsert deleted material. His failure to stop and to heed advice means this isn't going to end without a timeout. His battleground behavior is disruptive and his BLP violations inexcusable given all the feedback and the expectations of admins and arbcom members. No one else would have been given this many chances to stop disruptive behavior and far too many editors have to clean up his mess. People want this silly thing to end and a block seems to be the only thing that will end it. --DHeyward (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support block (absent a sincere mea culpa, and with profound regret) to prevent continued BLP violations; additionally request that a genuinely uninvolved admin examine whether discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAPDS should be applied. While the initial Signpost article may be thought to have been merely an ill-considered violation of WP:NOT, the continued WP:BLP violations and involved actions are blatant and ongoing. Edit warring to restore material removed under a clearly identified, good faith, BLP redaction and edit warring to restore a poorly thought out close of an ANI discussion of the editor are egregious violations. The editor has shown no understanding, above, that their actions not only violate policy, but are also deeply uncivil and disrespectful of the community - electing instead to engage, above, in ad hominem, tu quoque and red herring fallacies. The editor has clearly breached, and clearly intends to continue to breach, policy. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment: Fram, I didn't "re-add" the "small hands" line, because it was in the article all along. What I did was change it from a redlink to a link to April Fools' Day. --Andreas JN466 11:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see now what happened and why the others probably were so insistent to keep it in the Module Signpost index. The page, before your edit, got the "Trump" articles from Module:Signpost/index/2010. At the moment, this doesn't show the disputed line. At the time of your edit to the News and Notes page, it was again for a while there thanks to the reverts by Gamaliel and Montanabw. So your edit didn't add the line, but had as result (though probably not intentionally) that the changes to the Modulo:Signpost page had no effect there, while without your edit the disputed line would have disappeared there. Hence my impression that you added it, while your view was that you changed a redlink to a bluelink (no idea why that was necessary, but it's a different kind of edit of course). Gamaliel, in the next revert there, did explicitly readd it though. Fram (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Yeah, you got it, Fram. That's exactly what happened. Basically the whole mess started because the "Related articles" box in the Signpost usually gets its content from that Signpost module. The idea was to have such a box in that April Fools piece, and hence the dummy entries in the Signpost index were created. With hindsight, that was a bad way of doing it, because these dummy pages existed in Wikipedia space as standalone pages; anyone happening on them would not have seen what their sole purpose in life was. So I agree with the deletion argument that JzG put forward in the MfD: "Delete or userfy, this is a joke but it's in a location where readers would not expect one, so needs to go from there. Guy (Help!) 09:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)". I don't think we would ever do this again, given that we've now figured out how to create a similar-looking "Related articles" sidebar manually.
    • Having said all that, I personally don't consider that "small hands" line, now explicitly hyperlinked to April Fools' Day in the Signpost piece for anyone who clicks on it, and prefaced by a humour template at the top of the piece, problematic on BLP grounds. It is now as clear as we can possibly make it that the piece is humour, and not to be taken seriously. The Signpost can't function as a community newspaper if we can't express opinions; all our recent reporting about the troubles at WMF relied on opinion, and in some cases non-public information, and I think it's generally agreed that it provided a service to the community. So you can't hold the Signpost to the same standards as article space, where every opinion has to be sourced, because by this reasoning, anyone could have deleted many essential Signpost articles of the last three months "on BLP grounds".
    • As far as the standalone, dummy page is concerned, the community has spoken, and I agree with that decision: the dummy page should never have been created, and it is gone. We've also deleted the other two, and I see no need to keep them in the index, given that they never existed. But we need a bit of editorial autonomy for the Signpost to function. So if people feel that the "small hands" reference, explicitly linked to April Fools' Day, is a BLP problem, then please start a discussion at WP:BLP/N, because this is a materially different question from the existence of the dummy page that was decided in the MfD; and if consensus at BLP/N is that it is a BLP problem, I'm sure we'll abide by it. Personally, as I say, I disagree with that view, and will argue against it if the matter is raised there. So if anyone has concerns about Signpost content on BLP or other grounds, I would ask them to please use the proper channels rather than going to the Signpost pages and edit-warring retrospective changes into published Signpost articles. Cheers, --Andreas JN466 12:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• • • Thanks. To me, at the moment, the "was it a BLP violation or not" angle is not really the essence, the main problem for me is how Gamaliel did everything to keep it alive before and after it was snow deleted, and how at the same time he did everything he could to end discussion of his actions. This is bad in all circumstances, and even more so when a lot of people fel it was about a BLP violation, where we should err on the side of caution. As for the editorial freedom of the Signpost and the comparison to e.g. WMF-related discussion: the Signpost is intended to discuss Wikipedia-related issues, and this includes serious problems within the WMF or where e.g. the donor money comes from or goes to. The page under discussion here had next-to-nothing to do with Wikipedia, it was not a joke at the expense of Wikipedia but one at the expense of Trump. No matter anyone's personal opinions of the man (and many of us will have strong opinions of him one way or the other), the Signpost was not the place to do this on April 1, and even less the place to continue this after April 1 was over. But this is a side discussion to the actions of Gamaliel, so if you want to continue it I suggest either a new subsection or a different location altogether. Fram (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Well, Gamaliel is the editor-in-chief of the Signpost, and I don't think it's appropriate for people to edit-war with him in the Signpost on the basis of their personal opinions. If someone feels there is a genuine BLP issue, each Signpost piece has a talk page (the feedback on the April Fools piece was overwhelmingly positive), and there are noticeboards where that sort of concern can be expressed in an orderly fashion. Andreas JN466 13:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
        • With respect, please re-read both WP:NOT and WP:BLP. As mentioned above, Wikipedia is not a publisher of political satire, and The Signpost is not exempt from BLP policy. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
          • Per WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought." Are we going to delete all article talk pages, village pumps and essays as well? Do you want to have a community newspaper or not ...? Andreas JN466 13:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
            • Nice strawman. The community is, by consensus, supportive of a community newspaper which provides coverage of, and commentary on, the community itself. The community is not, by consensus, supportive of a community newspaper which provides political satire, including disparagement, of living persons. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
              • Where exactly has that consensus been established? The community responses on the talk page of that piece indicated that people thought it was funny. Andreas JN466 14:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
                • WP:BLP. That these articles seemed amusing to sections of the community is a signifier of our diversity of political opinion; that they seemed appropriate for publication is as strong a signifier of how far we have yet to come. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
    • One more thing, about a section you added while I wrote my reply. "[...]I would ask them to please use the proper channels rather than going to the Signpost pages and edit-warring retrospective changes into published Signpost articles." Linking the "small hands" line to April Fool's Day is a retroactive change, it wasn't the target at the time it was posted (or for a week afterwards). So you didn't follow your own advice here... Fram (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Following that change, the article looked exactly the same as at publication, except that the headlines in the sidebar now linked to April Fools' Day instead of the dummy pages—and that was a response to their deletion (creating redlinks) and the BLP concerns expressed at the MfD. Along with the addition of the humour template, I still think that's a good solution. Andreas JN466 13:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support block or at the least a topic ban from politics. These politically motivated "jokes" are violations of our core policies, no matter what the date of publishing. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support as a clear sign that "IT WAS JUST A JOKE" does not and never will excuse fabricating things about a living person on Wikipedia. Arkon (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Make Wikipedia Great Again: Do Not Block: I wanted to comment that this whole tirade against Gamaliel (even if you dislike the joke and want to discuss that with him, which people should if they do) flies in the face of a 15 year tradition of *preserving* such antics. Within 15 days of Wikipedia's founding, a non-mainspace page was created called "Bad Jokes And Other Deleted Nonsense", see Wikipedia:Silly Things. This over the years has housed many many silly BLP violations, easily found via google, still preserved. See, e.g., Wikipedia:More_Best_of_BJAODN#The_Early_Life_of_Brian_Nichols, or Wikipedia:More_Best_of_BJAODN#From_George_W._Bush, Wikipedia:Even_more_Best_of_BJAODN#Mark_Ogilvie, Wikipedia:Best_of_BJAODN#Y0-Y0_Ma, Nostalgia wikipedia (U2 bashing at bottom). The "small hands" joke about Trump is so longstanding and pervasive that it is reasonable to see how Gamaliel thought it would be OK, and that preservation of the joke was OK under longstanding consensus. This is not a joke about about calling Barack Obama "the magic negro", Chelsea Manning some homophobic slur, or a mainspace article about George Bush choking on a pretzel (now deleted). Its a petty silly individual comment about Donald Trump, the greatest man ever to live. Perhaps that makes it forbidden. But its going far over the top to pile on asking to block him over this.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The section is not about him making that joke, it is about all actions he took to preserve it, and to silence discussion about it (compare e.g. the reaction any regular editor would have received if he had closed an ANI discussion about his actions three times, with the utter lack of reaction from most here). If he hadn't done any of the things he did after the MfD closed (and some before that), we wouldn't be here discussing this any more. Fram (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It's about ethics in aprils' fools journalism! Seriously though, he was trying to preserve the joke, not seeing it as affront to BLP. I don't see how this goes anywhere constructive.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

He was trying to preserve the joke even after it had been resoundingly deleted at MFD, and trying to stop discussion of his actions. Considering his reaction here, he would probably do the same again in the future. The constructive thing would be that someone uninvolved sends him the message that such actions are not acceptable, and that he acknowledges this. The unconstructive thing is letting this just slip by, sending him the message that he can do this whenever he wants, and sending everyone else the message that we have different standards for admins / arbcom members / some editors in the inner circle on one side, and everyone else on the other side. Fram (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

A standalone page was resoundingly deleted at MFD. We disagreed with the decision initially, especially since it this whole thing began as a pointy attempt to troll us. We see and agree with the wider community's viewpoint in the discussion that the standalone page was a problem, and we agreed with the deletion. The MFD was not a discussion about the content of a different page or a decision to forever ban the words from all Wikipedia pages ever. If you want to do that, BLPN is the appropriate place to start. Gamaliel (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Obviously permanent block and salt all user pages and the entire archives of the Signpost. Obviously Fram is quite correct that it is inappropriate to use Wikipedia to make mild humorous topical references. The appropriate use of Wikipedia is to employ your userspace to host polemics attacking living people for being allegedly dishonest. It's clear my ten-year reign of terror of making humorous topical references needs to stop. I also apologize for kicking DHeyward's dog ten years ago, or whatever I did to piss him off to create a decade-long grudge and prompt him to follow me around the encyclopedia making disparaging comments about me, including the obviously not-BLP violating comparison of me to Joseph Goebbels, and to the editors who came here from the offsite canvassing at Gamergate forums for my sins against ethics in gaming journalism. #smallhandsghazi Gamaliel (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Raising the allegation of offsite Gamergate canvassing may well be a sign that you're now part of the problem, Gamaliel. It's a tactic Mark Bernstein has used and we all know he is part of the problem and indeed has done similar things to those of which he accuses others. Perhaps just back down from this, revert your post-MfD edits that some claim are point-y, and everyone let it go. - Sitush (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Speaking of No Personal Attacks, I have indeed, on several occasions, brought attention to offsite Gamergate canvassing. These were not "allegations." Allegations are claims offered without proof, or at least claims that are capable of doubt. No one can doubt Gamergate’s extensive history of offsite coordination of its attacks through social media and through Wikipedia. No one has ever doubted them. They have been extensively reported, and in any case we have all seen them. A short block for incivility and a lousy sense of humor might give Sitush a chance to spend some more time with his dog, whom Gamaliel evidently kicked along with DHeyward's, while reminding everyone that Wikipedia's pillars are intended to apply to Wikipedians without exception. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• I would expect an administrator and member of the Arbitration Committee to respond to good-faith concerns raised by several community members about their behavior with something better than this kind of petulant tu quoque finger-pointing. For crying out loud, Gamaliel, at least try to pretend that you have something other than contempt for site policies and those who are interested in seeing them followed. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• I take site policies very seriously. I've done years of work enforcing BLP policies in articles, on noticeboards, and through edit history redaction. I take the concerns of serious members of the community who express real concerns in a civil manner quite seriously, such as the concern brought up by JzG quoted by Andreas above. I do not take politically-motivated attempts at hijacking those policies to score points against people who perceive me to be their ideological opponent seriously. I do not take Gamergate editors stirred up by a thread on reddit seriously. I do not take editors who call me a Nazi or who use their userpage to attack living people seriously when they claim to be concerned about BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• A necessary precondition of a "good-faith concern" is good faith. Is there any hereabouts? I could have sworn I saw it around here somewhere! Maybe it fell between the cushions, or maybe is saw the Gamergate crowd and slipped out, but there is no good faith in evidence here. No sensible observer could think for a moment that this joke was a BLP violation, any more than the New Yorker cover was, or the headlines of newspapers from here to Cairo. There's no tu quoque anywhere ’round here, either, though partem latinitatis aut intelligentiae aerem circum hoc tollebit. Anyway, tu quoque finger pointing is too redundant. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the thread I found on Reddit was pretty insulting to all sides of this dispute. But I'm sure there are other forums that I didn't look at besides WikiInAction. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Passive aggressive comments show you still do not understand what you did wrong and therefore you will stop doing it. You are failing to grasp very basic standards of editor behavior. --DHeyward (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose—this is silly and way out of proportion. Tony (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose block, but support a warning that continuing to revert editors undoing these BLP violations will result in a block for edit-warring. This is an unnecessary escalation, and administrator action is clearly not needed yet. But it is problematic that an ArbCom member thinks it's appropriate to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for political satire, and it boggles the mind that he doesn't understand why people are differentiating between harmless jokes and making fun of the physical appearance of a political candidate. The difference should be very clear. We can't prominently feature such satire while remaining neutral. ~ Rob^Talk 13:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The Signpost is independent of the WMF, and doesn't pretend to speak for Wikipedia. It is community journalism. People publish opinion pieces in it; Fram did so some months ago, as I recall (and a great piece it was). It's not expected to be neutral. --Andreas JN466 13:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
    • The Signpost is not independent of the en.Wiki community, its publisher, which has set standards within which The Signpost must operate - which include WP:NOT and WP:BLP. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Sure, but it takes a bit more than one person edit-warring to establish that it has fallen foul of those standards. And as I said above, if you want to apply WP:NOT to every page hosted on Wikipedia.org, you'll have to delete all essays, the village pump, and all article talk pages as well. For Pete's sake, WP:NOT specifically says, "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". Well, the Signpost is a "community newspaper". Andreas JN466 13:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• • • • Ah, yes, "one person". You don't seem to have followed very closely at this point. Arkon (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• • • • • Please see WP:3RRNO - Clearly identified, good faith, BLP redactions are not edit warring. Restoration of material so redacted, is, and is also a violation of BLP. W.r.t WP:NOT, please see my previous answer above. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
          • What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. --Andreas JN466 14:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
            • Editors are requested to consider alternatives. This does not, however, affect that BLP redactions, where clearly identified, and made in good faith, are not edit warring. NOTE: I think perhaps the other editors here might have indulged our discussion enough; I am happy to call a halt, with an agreement to disagree, perhaps pending a WP:BLPN or MfD filing, or continue on my Talk page. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
    • (ec)Thanks, but my op-ed was clearly about Wikipedia. The deleted page, not so much... I don't mind that the Signpost has an opinion about Wikipedia-related matters, it may present opinions, positions, criticism, ... but that is hardly relevant here. As far as I know, Trump is not a Wikipedia- or WMF-related subject though. And, of course, the main problem is not that the page was written and published, but how Gamaliel reacted to criticism and deletion of it. Judging from his response above, he still sees nothing wrong with what he did and reacts completely over the top. Fram (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
      • The whole premise of the April Fools thing was that Jimmy Wales would be Trump's running mate, based on his involvement in Lessig's presidential campaign a while back, and people riffed on that. (But okay, you say that aspect is not your main concern anyway.) Andreas JN466 14:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tony1. --Andreas JN466 13:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment When I closed the above thread I thought the incident was further in the past, I did not realize it has been so recently repeated. As such I am reversing my closure. I really did not expect that. HighInBC 14:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: There was no BLP violation. At the most, it was a bad joke. The offending page was deleted, per consensus. The Signpost publishes opinions, of which this was one. If someone didn't find it funny, that's fine - nobody expects everyone to agree with all opinions in the Signpost. As to the admin actions, Gamaliel did not cover himself in glory here, but the misuse of admin tools is not serious enough for any action. I will just comment that Gamaliel is not doing himself any favours by pretending that he did nothing wrong. A bit of self-awareness is in order. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

  A "bad joke" that consisted of fabricating things about a living person. Strange how that keeps getting missed by some. The Signpost publishes...things, they still must adhere to BLP policy. If the consensus is that BLP doesn't apply to opinions, oh boy do I have some fun to get in to. Sorry, I know I've made this point to you before, but a blanket "There was no BLP violation" is simply incorrect based on policy. Arkon (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a Signpost article, still up, which states that Trump has selected Jimmy Wales as his running mate. That is "fabricating things about a living person". I assume you will be putting that article up for deletion as well? I also look forward to you trawling through The Signpost archives to delete all April Fools articles ever written. Do feel free to waste your time if you wish. In the meantime, I will stick to my opinion that it was not a BLP violation. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS amiright? Your opinion is yours to keep, even if it's counter to actual policy. Arkon (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I would point to [126], which Gamaliel has repeatedly inserted. I do not believe Trump has ever threatened to sue Wikipedia over an image of his anatomy. To me this is a BLP violation. It doesn't matter if there is a humorous intent. If editors think some BLP violations are funny and thus should not be violations, they should try to amend our policyto allow that. There is also the (minor) misuse of admin tools to keep this version live. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support block and desysop - okay, it was just a joke, right? We have community processes to deal with such things, like WP:BLP and WP:MFD and such. The thing is we went through those processes, and the community stated in multiple places that this material was not acceptable, it crossed a line. The thing to do here was to have said "okay, I made an inappropriate joke and you guys called me on it, I won't do it again, let's move on." And then maybe some people have a chuckle about it, but everyone moves on. But that's not what Gamaliel did. Gamaliel edit-warred to restore the material, recreated it in his user space, and most egregiously of all he used admin tools to perform actions that he knew were against consensus and where he was obviously WP:INVOLVED. And he's continuing to do so at least per HighInBC's comment above, and his "small hands" page is still redlinked from his user page. What differentiates this from WP:LEVEL2? That it was a joke? I respect Gamaliel, a lot actually, but this is too far. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• I did not realize that redlink was still there, I have removed it. The only "admin action" I took here was a routine protection of a user subpage which is transcluded to my main userpage, a frequent vandal target. I have also done this with other subpages unrelated to this matter. I did not "recreate" anything in my user space, I made a humorous reference to this ANI thread and nothing more. It was a joking reference to myself which said that I had small hands. I deleted it because it was submitted to MFD and I didn't want any more drama. I have every right to use my userspace to make reference to things that happen to myself. The words "small hands" have not been banned from the entirety of Wikipedia, otherwise using that logic we would never be able to employ the phrases "birth certificate", "October surprise", or "blue dress". Gamaliel (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Actually, what was dealt with in community processes was not the joke per se, but the existence of a related dummy page in Wikipedia space that was not clearly identified as an April Fools' joke. Because that was a reasonable point, the page was deleted. Nobody restored it, and your assertion that Gamaliel did is untrue. The community has not anywhere expressed a consensus that the joke itself, clearly identified as an April Fools' joke, and riffing on a theme that's been widely discussed in the mainstream press, is a BLP violation. Andreas JN466 16:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - this is one of those cases where similar behaviour by a non-admin would have received quick no-questions-asked block a while ago. Obviously ANI won't be able to achieve consensus on any sanctions, even though at least some kind of warning/admonishment would be quite appropriate. On a different note, I commend the people who raised this issue, and prevented repeated attempts to shove the whole thing under a blanket with quick closing.--Staberinde (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• If admins engaged in similar behavior to some of the people demanding my head (once again I bring people's attention to the "fuck right off" comment, the comparison of myself to Goebbles, and the anti-Jimbo userpage polemic) nobody would be attempting to shove their behavior under a blanket and we'd all be outraged about admin abuse. Gamaliel (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Actually, I recall quite a few "Fuck right off" comments from admins, shall I try to dig them up? As for the rest of your deflection, DHeyward has asked you to provide diffs or stop casting aspersions. Failure to do so is also something us normal folks would be blocked for. Arkon (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• An admin I thought very highly of was desyopped solely for a similar comment to the one you made. I responded to DHey above now; I initially missed his request in this wall of text. He does like to write about me, you know. Gamaliel (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Are we really going to let one Trump supporter's vendetta be the cause of someone being blocked?142.105.159.60 (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Hustler Magazine v. Falwell unanimous decision protecting freedom of the press, specifically parody and satire as forms of freedom of speech related to public figures. The Signpost is an independent publication and a member of the press. — Cirt (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, per earlier comments, The Signpost may be independent of the WMF, but it is not independent of the en.Wiki community, its publisher, which has set standards within which The Signpost must operate - which include WP:NOT and WP:BLP. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 16:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I would respectively disagree -- in that we ought to value a free and independent press within our context -- that's the mission we give The Signpost. Indeed, from its very first issue The Signpost made clear: "Since this is not in the article namespace, guidelines such as "no ownership of articles", and particularly "no original research", will not necessarily apply." — Cirt (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Really disappointed in Gamaliel...he knows better and his position is such that we expect better.--MONGO 17:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose block, support warning as per BU Rob13. This blew up to extreme propositions, but I don't want to see this hitting NYT, WSJ, FOX News, etc. I think it's rather unfair to suggest that those concerned are Trump supporters with agendas; try replacing "Trump" with the public figure of your choice. My only "agenda" here is maintaining BLP. It's frankly irrelevant who the subject of this is; Wikipedia is simply the wrong venue for political satire, and there are legitimate concerns here. GAB^Hello! 17:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• 'Support block and consider vote of no confidence in Gamaliel as an arbitrator, in deference to the large number of editors who don't consider this worthy of a desysop. Ivanvector has it right. This was deplorable. April Fool's is one day; we have had massive discussions in the past about disruptive April Foolery, and in the past the Signpost created a special one-day edition that was then replaced by a regular edition with errors statement. In this instance, a sitting Arb used his bully pulpit as editor of the Signpost to subvert our entire purpose, edit warred, abused his admin rights, and insulted and threatened the editor who was brave enough to call out the BLP violation. American politics - or Gamaliel's or anyone else's personal views about potential candidates in US elections - are explicitly not an exception to our policies of neutrality and avoiding insulting living people. The reverse, in fact, by Arbcom fiat. I was desysopped for less. Where is Bishzilla. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Threatened? Nonsense. Gamaliel (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per Tony1. This was a silly April Fool's joke but the out-of-proportion reaction is not funny. Mizike (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - also per Tony1. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Whimsical Delight

Also not contributing. Drmies (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ok, folks! We've got 12,500 wiki words -- and more every minute! -- about Donald Trump’s small hands and The Signpost. This is wacky. . It’s also dumb, and it's not contributing to the project. In point of fact, it's providing a lot of comfort to the project’s detractors, who now will always be able to point to this episode as a wonderful example of the foolishness of editing Wikipedia and of the zaniness of the zealots and PR agencies who do. It's no good making a noise, gentlemen. The dean ain’t a-coming down tonight. (I note in passing that I here managed an unforced assonance on "z", which compels quiet kvelling.) Can we close this before it gets even more out of hand? If people really want to make a federal case of this, ArbCom is thataway ==>. I’m sure that would be lots of fun! Alternatively, if someone has time on their hands, they could take this whole Gamergate mob to AE for wikihounding, canvassing, and a lousy sense of humor and proportion. That’s the great thing about Wikipedia: cop cars can become clown cars in an instant. I have no idea how the constabulary there would sort out the culpable from the pedestrians who had the misfortune to be passing by. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC) [127] --Andreas JN466 16:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Propose a TBAN of Akron

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

---

His complaint being vindicated IN NO WAY excuses his vulgar behavior. The fact that he got as pissed off as he did about this whole thing tells me that he's too close to the subject. I propose he be given a topic ban of U.S. politics.142.105.159.60 (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support As proposer.142.105.159.60 (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• OH NO, You can see me!?! I was told the lifesize cardboard Trump cutout would protect me from prying liberal eyes. Arkon (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support MarkBernstein (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Especially since Arkon himself obviously agrees, judging from his above comment. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: Akron is a classy editor, a very very special editor, the best. His close personal relationship to Trump merely reflects the inevitable pull of America's finest to him. People have told me he will be running this place very very soon.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This is no principle regarding U.S. Politics that he violated here so the proposal is baseless. The proper venue is AE with diffs. --DHeyward (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• ... This happened on an April Fools' edition of the Signpost. We're not gonna ban him from editing US politics when no evidence has been presented he's been doing damage in that area. Also, my impression is his outburst has more to do with the Signpost and Gamaliel than Trump, small hands or politics. In any case, we don't ban people on a hunch. Because that would be irrational. Wait... Wikipedia... irrational... syllogism! 31.153.35.116 (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support TBAN for all involved from the topic of small hands, including Poland Syndrome, Baby Hands, The Small Hand, Phocomelia, Thumb hypoplasia, Rett syndrome, and Ectrodactyly. Timothyjosephwood (talk)

• Don't forget Doll Hands please! They are just creepy. Arkon (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess this would be a topic ban on me as well as I told Gamaliel on his talk page that I, indeed, have small hands. And I don't understand why saying someone had small hands would be offensive. #SmallHandPride Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Every editor will need to have their hands measured before this discussion gets closed. Because our brains are too small for detection.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The language used by Akron is against WP:CIVIL and therefore should certainly not be tolerated. However, I have not seen any evidence this was disruptive of the topic area where it is proposed he should be banned from. DHeyward is correct in suggesting it should be raised at AE with diffs, where a short-term block might be considered. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Vulgarity as such is against no rules, as I understand Keilana recently reminded us. Are his edits in the topic area problematic? No diffs have been presented to that effect, and they are required for an allegation about editorial behavior. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• I am tired of the hyperbole around this purported BLP violation. It is a joke, and it references a meme that is in wide currency beyond Wikipedia. Trump may be comicaly sensitive about it, but genie is out of the bottle and well past any hope of control. Guy (Help!) 19:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

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

A reminder and a suggestion

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

---

I'd like to remind everyone that the Signpost is a collaborative effort. The buck stops with me. I'm willing to be the target of everyone's ire and suffer the consequences. But the idea that everything written in this article or in the entire Signpost somehow represents my personal viewpoints or is an attempt to push my ideology is nonsense. It’s insulting to the many other Signpost editors and contributors (including Fram, one of the loudest voices against me above) to say they do not write from their own minds or have their own viewpoints. The April Fools’ story in the Signpost was not designed as an ideological attempt to attack a presidential candidate, it was designed to pair Wikipedia’s biggest celebrity with the biggest celebrity in the news right now, at least in America, and be as loud and as over the top as possible. Three authors are listed in this story and as many as twelve people contributed in some form or another. They all have different opinions and political persuasions. This was a group effort, not a secret ideological attack from me, as some would contend, a charge that should not be taken seriously. In fact, it wasn’t even my idea to use Trump in our April Fools’ story in the first place.

It’s becoming a trend for some people who view me as their ideological antagonist to claim that the Signpost is “my mouthpiece” because I wrote something they didn’t like. It’s the mouthpiece of everyone who contributes to the Signpost each week, and it’s your mouthpiece too. Those who complain about having certain viewpoints represented either forget or ignore or do not know that their voices are welcome too. If some viewpoint doesn’t appear in the Signpost, it’s not that we’re trying to push a different one, it’s that nobody wrote it yet. You are welcome to do so. Hate April Fools’ Day and think it should be banned from Wikipedia? Do you think there’s too much swearing on Wikipedia? Do you disagree with something someone wrote in the Signpost? Do you want to disagree with a presidential candidate who isn’t Trump and it involves Wikipedia in some way? Write about it and we will publish it once it goes through our regular editorial processes, which are collaborative and involve the participation of numerous editors who are not me. Put your money where your mouth is. Instead of complaining about the alleged “agenda” of the Signpost, come set the “agenda” of the Signpost yourself. Gamaliel (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Why do you say "The April Fools’ story in the Signpost was not designed as an ideological attempt to attack a presidential candidate, it was designed to pair Wikipedia’s biggest celebrity with the biggest celebrity in the news right now, at least in America, and be as loud and as over the top as possible.", when the actual page in question contained nothing of the sort. In fact, it stated that said person threatened to sue Wikipedia. Arkon (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

YEAH! YOU'VE GOT HIM AKRON! HAHA GAMALIEL WE GOT YOU NOW! YOUR SIDE PAGE LINK WAS UNRELATED! COMMENCE WATERBOARDING!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

That dummy subpage was created solely to make a Signpost template work in that April Fools' story. That dummy subpage is now deleted. Gamaliel (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the sidepage. I'm talking about the original MFD that was linked in my original post. The one that started all of this. Edit: Sorry got you a Milowent's responses mixed and matched. The page in question had text, that had nothing to do with the actual April fools story (according to you above), but just happened to also say that a living person was threatening the sue Wikipedia. Is that suppose to be somehow better? Arkon (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you want to disagree with a presidential candidate who isn’t Trump and it involves Wikipedia in some way? - Have the editors who have raised objections to this year's series of April Fools articles not been sufficiently clear? Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX; not even The Signpost. We are not a publisher of political satire. Suggesting that we might apply the blowtorch to another living person, albeit of a different political persuasion, as a way of striking a balance is just incredibly tone deaf. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 19:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I worded that very carefully and yet here is the misunderstanding I wished to avoid. Please assume good faith here. I have no intention of publishing non-Wikipedia related jokes or satire when it is not April Fools' Day. (In fact we didn't even approach our April Fools' Day story intending to write political satire - Jimbo was our main target and I think he got the worst there, but nobody is complaining about that.) I wanted to address the contention that the Signpost was only publishing things from one political viewpoint. Obviously I would not publish a joke story that was political satire aimed at Obama next week to give the other side "equal time", but I do want to show that we are ready to publish viewpoints from that other side if they are about Wikipedia in some way, such as columns against proposed internet legislation by the president. Gamaliel (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

What did the text on the page that was deleted at MFD, that brought us here, say that had to do with Jimmy? Arkon (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It said that Wikipedia, run by Jimmy Wales, had defamed our Lordship Donald J. Trump's elegant appendages.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I wish to be clear as to why that particular quote was selected from the four subjects mentioned. To my mind, the other three are all suitable topics for inclusion in The Signpost - Hate April Fools’ Day and think it should be banned from Wikipedia? Do you think there’s too much swearing on Wikipedia? Do you disagree with something someone wrote in the Signpost? - all of these are fine, and I , for one, am deeply heartened by your calls for contributions from diverse perspectives. The fourth, I believe, crosses a line which we should not be crossing. Do you want to disagree with a presidential candidate ... ? - Our response should be, "Then go to a forum which provides a facility for expressing that disagreement". I am happy to disagree on this point, but I believe that our policies are clear on the matter. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. I was trying to explain to those who disagree with me and believe politics is at the root of it that their voices were welcome. I believe political commentary is warranted when the issues involve Wikipedia, such as this Signpost column by Mike Godwin. I was not trying to encourage partisan politicking in the Signpost or anyplace else, as that has no place on Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that the column by Mike Godwin is an excellent one, and clearly a good inclusion in The Signpost. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Speaking of writing that is "incredibly tone deaf", may I introduce this pot, Mr. Kettle? April Foolery is a tradition on Wikipedia. So, too, are “hilarious” personal attacks -- those delightful Gamergate fans call me “Reichstag“ daily. DYK loves puns. It is more than preposterous to equate making fun of "small hands" -- a charge leveled by Marco Rubio, after all -- with "applying the blowtorch to another living person". If that means anything, I suppose it's an allusion to Robert Coover's The Public Burning, and you'll recall that the people who applied the blowtorch to two actually living persons in that affair were Republican zealots, too. And while we're on the subject of small hands, when a page you watch zealously was being used to suggest that a Nintendo marketing employee was a pedophile because she wrote an undergraduate essay, years ago, concerning Japanese artistic and romantic traditions -- well, Ryk72, which side were you on? When another Gamergate target’s page was used to publicize her (alleged, imagined) adolescent sexual history earlier this week, which side were you on?

This is a foolish topic about foolery. It’s also a tactical mistake; you may think this heroic defense of Donald Trump’s small hands will play well in the media, but I believe you'll find otherwise. It's a really bad idea to try to salvage an untenable attack by taking foolish foolery seriously. Lighten up. This parrot is dead. It has gone to meet its maker. It is an ex-parrot.

The cow, the old cow, she is dead;

It sleeps well, the horned head:

We poor lads, ’tis our turn now

To hear such tunes as killed the cow.

Also [128]MarkBernstein (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Please take your personal attacks elsewhere. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• No personal attack. I'm merely pointing out (again) that a bunch of people writing here cannot actually believe what they say. You wrote that Gamaliel was "applying a blowtorch to a living person," but (a) he demonstrably was not, (b) if he was, the same so-called blowtorch had demonstrably been applied by Marco Rubio, The NY Daily News, and The New Yorker, and (c) many of the posters here, yourself included, are demonstrably uninterested in preventing actual damage to the reputations and careers of actual living people. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Please take your personal attacks, aspersions and uncivil misrepresentations elsewhere. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This issue is about Gamaliel and their actions. I'm having trouble understanding what your whimsical delights, Gamergate, the media, and Nintendo have to do with it. I will admit I do enjoy your poems, but please try to keep them all in the section you created up above if you must continue to participate (even though Wikipedia is not a forum). Mr Ernie (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I’d love to take credit, but you ought to recognize that the poem is not my work, but is from A. E.Housman’s The Shropshire Lad. You could look it up. As to understanding the whimsical delights, I think you do yourself too little credit. I know I sometimes write allusively and that, since everyone can edit Wikipedia, some readers might be unfamiliar with nearly any allusion. Still, this is AN/I; I think we can assume we've all been to school. But if you really are confused and really do want help, I'm happy to unpack whatever has confused you. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This is very much about Gamergate, it's why 90% of the participants are here and it's exploded out of control, just like anything involving Gamergate. Gamaliel (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It is possible to independently hold an opinion of the quality of Wikipedia's documentation of the Gamergate controversy, the actions of editors & admins in influencing the quality of that documentation; and the purpose of The Signpost and appropriateness of this years April Fools articles. For the record, I am here because of a notice placed by Arkon on DHeyward's Talk page. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

As, I suppose, the main instigator here, I barely even know what Gamergate is other than the boogeyman it seems to be used as by others deflecting attention from their own actions. So, am I in the 90%? Arkon (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I've asked twice for clarification with no response, so to be clear for those who don't want to read all this mess: The thing Gamaliel just spent two large paragraphs defending, is not the MFD that is being questioned, or the root of the actions of that editor that are being criticized. Not sure what the point was. Arkon (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• You are completely wrong. The deleted "page" only existed to populate the sidebar text of the prank article as a silly flourish. Luckily thorough the power of MSPaint and Google cache I have preserved Gamaliel's atrocities.[129].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

  Whatever it "only existed for" is not relevant to defending it's contents, which the above makes no attempt to do. It tries to frame the situation as a "This was a prank about Jimmy and Trump guys!". The page in question had nothing to do with Jimmy. How exactly does that page "pair Wikipedia’s biggest celebrity with the biggest celebrity in the news right now", which is the stated purpose apparently. Arkon (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• This feigned denseness shows a rhetorical skill I cannot overcome. I concede.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Report to the leader for proper mental conditioning at once. Arkon (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Can we put this on Commons? I have a feeling this will need to be explained again. Gamaliel (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

  Still not sure what you are trying to "explain", but I don't know jack about commons. Arkon (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

  I was attempting to reply to Milowent. Gamaliel (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

  I think we should also be clear that while some editors object only to the "sub-article", other editors, including myself, have strong objections to the whole suite of this year's April Fools articles on The Signpost; for the reasons specified above. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

  Gamaliel, I hereby release that image into the public domain to the extent I have any rights. I didn't upload it to Commons because I assumed this would cause another subsection to be started "MILOWENT COMPOUNDS BLP HORROR".--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

  Ohhh, you mean the screenshot of the thing many many people have told you is a BLP vio. Yeah, sure, commons. Great idea. Arkon (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

  Many many Trump devotees.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

  May his hairness help us all. Arkon (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• If the buck stops with you, Gamaliel, might I suggest that you take a lesson from Google? They thought their April Fools joke was hilarious. Many did not. Google responded by admitting they erred, apologizing and moving on. This idiotic argument persists because, while your joke fell equally flat, you have remained unwilling to do any of that. You and the Signpost tried to be funny. It failed. C'est la vie. However, if you had just offered your mea cupla for that and accepted that the joke sucked, this would have been over days ago. So let that be your reminder and suggestion. Resolute 22:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• I admit the subpage was a mistake and in retrospect I should have found a better way to do that. The whole story is still hilarious. Remember what Pablo Neruda said: "Laughter is the language of the soul.". Gamaliel (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• And your actions in regard to said subpage? We might be getting somewhere. Arkon (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

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

This is a complete waste of time now

Between the snark, incivility, and people losing their heads over trivial things... I don't see anything good coming out of this anymore. Can someone please just put this entire thing out of it's misery? --Tarage (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Jesus H Christ, Support close. It's been a fun read, but this is clearly going nowhere. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• A close seems fine to me, but I'd actually like to see a good bit of the sub-sections closed separately. There is consensus on quite a few things. Arkon (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I...uh...I'm not so much seeing that. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 02:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Appeal for removal of ban

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

---

Hi, according to a January 2015 consensus, I was banned from creating BLPs. I at that time massly created poor quality stubs BLPs and even articles about non-notable persons; in rush. Experience has showed me that my actions were wrong. Since then I had promoted the following articles:

• DYKs - Alan Carvalho, Digão (footballer, born 1988), Caio Rangel, Jeremy Dudziak, Hugo Moutinho, Erik Lima, Cristian Bustos, Jorge Alonso, Alejandro Zamora, Rafa Jordà and Éder Monteiro Fernandes
• GAs - Josh Walker, Cillian Sheridan, Harry Kane, Serdar Tasci, Zesh Rehman, Darren O'Dea and Michael Chopra

In recent times, I also did not have any conflict with any user about BLPs. It is my earnest request to have my ban revoked. One of the reason is that since now is my holidays, I want to promote more DYKs. I also understand that I will not repeat my behaviour. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 10:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I also urge to look at my Contributions. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: This has been appealed three times before: In July 2015 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive271#Appeal, again in July 2015 (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive273#Appeal) and in October 2015 (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive274#Appeal). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I will say, though, that getting GAs and DYKs on BLP topics, including on sportspeople—when such articles were one of the main reasons for the topic ban—makes me inclined to support this request. That said I haven't taken a deep look just yet. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• Suggest On a basis of good fath and the fact that over a year has passed, that the ban is removed- but with the proviso that the first time such behaviour reappears, the editor is to be immediately sanctioned, by the first available admin, with no requirement to appear before a board. Such action would be, not punative, but preventative: as by now the community knows what would happen. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Another option: If it doesn't look like lifting the ban will happen, is to allow creating whatever in draftspace and submitting it to AfC. I know in one of the last appeal discussions this was suggested, but I think it was after conversation died. Anyway I do support such a plan as an option, though I still have no opinion on an outright lifting of the topic ban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support lifting, this is exactly the pattern we're looking for in an appeal. Blocks and sanctions are cheap, and can be imposed immediately if the original problematic behavior continues, but it now appears likely that WP will benefit by allowing this editor to create new BLPs. Zad68 12:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support, RRD13 seems to have got to grips with sourcing and article quality standards, the risk of repeat issues looks low on the face of it and a fix is easy if it does recur. Guy (Help!) 13:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support per above comments. The appellant has demonstrated a record indicating dramatic improvement in content creation and appears to recognize and accept their previous problematic behavior. If the problem were to recur it would be fairly easy to put the ban back in place. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support now that I've looked a bit more. Looks like a much better grasp of standards than we saw before. Time to give Royroydeb a chance! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support: This is precisely the behavior we want to encourage from topic-banned users. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - User's improved alot since 2015 and seems to understand policies etc so see no reason to leave the ban in place. –Davey2010^Talk 01:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Gongwool HOUNDING over COI

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

---

Do you all remember Elvey hounding me over COI matters and interfering with COI interactions in a way that lacked competence, reflected battleground, and made WP look bad? The community first TBANed him from COI matters since he was making a mess of things, and when he blew that off, gave him a 3 month site ban.

Welcome to round 2, now with Gongwool digging his own hole, violating several policies and guidelines in the process. But more than anything, this is just incompetent hounding. Gongwool is upset because of an interaction we had at his talk page a few weeks ago. He jumped on the recent False accusation thread here about me, writing these remarks and this, misunderstanding what TParis had written just before him.

Today, I reached out to CollegeTrader, who per their contribs is a WP:SPA for the Twinlab dietary supplement company and two sons of the founder, and is highly likely to have some connection there.

• i first provided them the standard welcome message, as no one had, then
• I provided them with a standard COI notice, and asked them to disclose any connection.

Gongwool decided to follow me there (was apparently watching my contribs), and in two diffs with inflammatory edit notes here and here (the second claiming I was violating OUTING) changed my comment (didn't delete the whole thing, but edited it - Gongwool is aware this is wrong, as i had told them about it previously)

• I restored my full comment, and left Gongwool a strong warning not to continue hounding me and telling him to ask me, if they don't understand what I am doing. Gongwool removed it.
• Gongwool then went back to the Talk page and partially removed content again, this time a "hidden template" that is part of the template:uw-coi, with another edit note reflecting that they don't know what they are talking about, but sure are angry.
• I restored that, and gave Gongwool an edit warring notice, which included an explanation of the template, and another request to ask me if they don't understand. And I warned them that if they interfered one more time, I would bring them to ANI. Gongwool also removed that, calling it harassment.

• Gongwool then went to the Talk page of Tparis, trying to rile TParis up, here. TParis advised Gongwool not to chase me around.

• So Gongwool decided to go back to Collegetrader's talk page and leave an angry, interfering, and confused note to CollegeTrader, attacking me. None of that helps CollegeTrader understand Wikipedia or even address the COI concern, but just makes this place look terrible.

That was quite the last straw. Being unhappy with me is one thing, but interfering with a COI interaction in this ugly and incompetent way, is not tolerable.

Please block Gongwool for 48 hours with a warning that further actions like this will lead to longer blocks, and please remove his message from CollegeTrader's Talk page. (although that user is probably a lost cause by now, with Gongwool creating a circus there) That is all I will ask for, for now. Jytdog (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog has lied above and misrepresented the sequence of events above and refused to take User talk:TParis' advice on the matter of "walking away" (I certainly will). On his points above, point 5 occurred prior to point 4 (he changed that order on purpose to mislead I guess). He has already threatened me twice today that ANI editors will side with him and ban me if I continue to disagree with him. I suggest if anything he gets a WP:BOOMERANG, but I don't care, for him for falsely accusing me of WP:COI (amongst other things) and when I refused to allow him to provoke WP:BITE me, he left abusive unprovoked comments including the full unredacted word "C*NT" on my talkpage which highly offended me. I disprove of his WP:BITE and WP:BULLYing of newbies, his false threats, abuse of policy, his relying on AN/I to destroy those who disagree with him, and his compulsive-excessiveness of no end. I will no longer discuss this issue here as jytdog is giving WP a bad name (even in the tech press I notice). Giving in to his demands will only further the demise of WP editors that has been reported in the press. Bye, take care. Gongwool (talk) 06:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

However you feel, your actions at CollegeTrader's talk page were disruptive and incompetent. I have not pursued you; you are pursuing me. Period.

• What you call a "false accusation" was a standard inquiry here, given the vehemence with which you were pursuing the Brian Martin / Judith Wilyman matters that became the subject of a very long thread here at ANI, in which several editors pointed out how aggressive you were being; it was not unlikely that you had WP:BLPCOI issues given your vehemence and so the question had a basis. That was our first interaction.
• I apologized for the "cunt" thing here, which was related to this dif I left on your page. You wisely removed the thing I reacted to later, in any case. Thanks, though, for bringing that up, as it shows how you are very, very clearly pursuing a grudge that has nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia.

In any case, you expressed your intention to interfere with my COI work very clearly here (dif already above) and here (dif already given above) and just tonight in your header here (dif already given above) and this new diff. I expected what you did today, to happen. I have seen this before. And with your comment above, you have made it even more clear that you intend to keep being disruptive, even if you are agreeing to stop for a week. And your comment is still standing at User_talk:Collegetrader.

What I warned you about, was not "disagreeing" with me. I don't mind discussing things with people who disagree with me and I asked you to talk to me when I gave you warnings. What I was warning you about, was your actual interference at CollegeTrader's Talk page. That behavior (not your ideas) was disruptive and intolerable.

If you really do agree to back off from hounding me and interfering with me, I will drop this. If you do not agree to actually stop (taking a break for a week is not agreeing to stop) , I believe that the community will block you for being disruptive and being clear that you intend to continue. I have no desire to interact with you, but I will of course respond if you ask me about these COI matters instead of interfering. Do you agree to stop interfering with my COI discussions? That is the issue here. Jytdog (talk) 07:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

More insults, imaginary scenarios, false interpretations of COI, threats etc from the big bad jytdog. And apparently all his Admin mates on ANI are going to side with his WP:BULLYing of many/me and have me banned (so he says). He considers one or two instances of questioning him on his WP:BITE to be 'hounding', he's flattering himself. I have no interest in associating with someone so socially "incompetent" (his insult in reverse) as him. Gongwool (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

That is not an answer. Do you agree to stop interfering with my COI interactions? Yes or no? And will you self revert this? This is not a joke. I take my interactions over COI very, very seriously - I have a ton of risk in doing them from several angles - and you cannot laugh off what you did today nor the threat that you will do it again in the future. Jytdog (talk) 08:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Gongwool, stay out of Jytdog's COI-investigation-and-handling activity. You are a new and very inexperienced user -- here less than three months and with less than 630 edits. Jytdog is the most experienced and active COIN editor we have, and generally handles COIN matters as fairly as he can, as he interprets Wikipedia's best interests. He's not perfect, but he is doing good work re: COI. I support a topic ban for Gongwool from COI matters if he does not voluntarily withdraw from that himself. Furthermore, under no circumstances should you or any editor edit another person's post on someone else's talk page. Softlavender (talk) 08:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey Softlavender. I think that's a fine idea, I agree to not challenge jtydog's bullying and frivolous accusations against other Newbies if he apologises to me for false accusation of COI. Can you please arrange for his apology to me of his frivolous COI accusation of me that was so frivolous he dropped it months back (like most his accusations). Thanks for your support, I will be of assistance to you once this compromise is reached. Gongwool (talk) 08:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry you are now offended by our discussion of COI and advocacy, in the remarks and questions I made here, your response here, my further remarks here, and your thanks, here. That was the extent of it, and I am sorry that offends you now. Please self-revert your comment at CollegeTrader and please say you will never interfere again. Jytdog (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Gongwool, if you continue in this antagonistic vein, you are likely to experience a sanction for disruptive editing. I personally advise withdrawing from COI matters, withdrawing your complaints against Jytdog, and ending your accusations and personal attacks, before a (possibly worse) sanction is forceably imposed upon you. Softlavender (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Stop being a WP:DICK GW. Admins should make you stop, imho.-Roxy the dog™ woof 09:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Good, thank you mam/sir. Apology accepted an never accuse me of COI again please. And I will not question your poor treatment of newbies. But I (like all the rest) can comment on ANI if an issue arises. I may be banned from COI discussions but I can't be banned from ANI discussions??? Gongwool (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course you could. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Gongwool, and everybody. Gongwool you are not banned from anything, just don't muck around when I am trying to work with people on COI like you did on CollegeTrader. I think you understand that now. I have gone ahead and reverted Gongwool's edit at CollegeTrader and I consider this done and am closing it as there is nothing outstanding I have no desire for further escalation. If anybody thinks it is not done they can of course re-open it. Jytdog (talk) 09:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

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

User 331905A4 creating hoax drafts.

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

---

This user seems to create many hoax article drafts, and also edit them while logged out. --Laber□^T 09:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Yamla

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

---

I have inform you all about User:Yamla. his behavior became very erratic and irrelevant. While add some details on Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta but every time he interfere revert again and again the article seems to be constructive But now I realized It's time to pull the the plug do you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.199.255.236 (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Time to pull the plug on your disruptive trolling, certainly! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• The OP is an IP-hopper who keeps vandalizing Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta. Article needs semi-protection. Softlavender (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

  Semi-protected for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Listen to all of you clearly I am not vandalizing the article!!!!just add some missing details on it. Gee what's wrong all of you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.199.121.128 (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

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

User talk page spamming at FLC

• Inside the Valley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Key issue here: Violation of WP:CANVASSING and specifically, WP:VOTESTACK.

I'm quite concerned about User talk page spamming at FLC for Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Mohanlal filmography/archive1 by FLC nominator Inside the Valley (talk · contribs).

FLC started at 15:50, 3 March 2016. Immediately after that, Inside the Valley (talk · contribs) spammed user talk pages of no less than at least eighteen (18) users.

The user Inside the Valley (talk · contribs) response is to deny this is spamming: "Spamming is subjective, hence spam messages are different for each user. If my message regarding the FLC was an unwanted subject. Then it is definitely a spam. You can always ignore or delete it and warn me. But I don't think I have "spammed" every user talk pages I messaged."

Relevant DIFFs, below:

1. User talk:Skr15081997
2. User talk:Cirt
3. User talk:ChrisTheDude
4. User talk:Krish!
5. User talk:Ruby2010
6. User talk:Krimuk90
7. User talk:IndianBio
8. User talk:SNUGGUMS
9. User talk:Famous Hobo
10. User talk:Rschen7754
11. User talk:MPJ-DK
12. User talk:LavaBaron
13. User talk:Dough4872
14. User talk:Bharatiya29
15. User talk:Yashthepunisher
16. User talk:Jakec
17. User talk:NapHit
18. User talk:Vensatry

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Clear canvassing. Who is he kidding? --QEDK (T ☕ C) 04:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

* Not spamming or votestacking, that message was neutrally worded, which is key for something to be called Canvassing. KoshVorlon 11:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Not really, sending a message to people who've never had something to do with the topic is essentially spamming (falls within canvassing) which I presume is the problem. Also, Cirt claims votestacking which means informing editors who have a predetermined POV about the topic (which again falls within canvassing). --QEDK (T ☕ C) 15:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

There are 4 types of inappropriate canvassing:

• Stealth - The use of secret canvassing, which is not being done
• Spamming - A message sent out to a very large audience individually, which has not been done (I consider 10-15 to be a limited set)
• Campaigning - A message that is intended to get the audience to vote a certain way. I believe the message is appropriately nuetral.
• Votestacking - Sending a message out to an audience believed to be supportive. This is where a wrong may have occured.

The question is where did Inside the Valley (talk · contribs) get the list that they chose to send their message out to. I checked the WikiProject page Japan, and I don't see all of these members on these. I also checked the contributors to the article and not all of these members are there. So, the answer we need from Inside the Valley (talk · contribs) is, why did they chose to contact this set of people?--v/r - TP 02:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The last kind of canvassing is the type that we at FLC would be concerned about. I must confess that I feel a certain amount of sympathy for anyone who has to make the decision whether to notify other users of an FAC or FLC. Anyone who pays attention to our content processes knows that many reviews are archived because they fail to attract enough attention (we could always use more, BTW), and even many of our finest content producers will notify peer reviewers and trustworthy editors of a new review. The line between drawing the attention of good reviewers and attempting to stack votes is very thin, but I'd say informing 18 different people of a review is way above and beyond what any review needs. As for why they chose these people, I don't know. To single out one editor's view, Vensatry has criticized possible canvassing in the past. Maybe they are users who have supported previous FLCs they have started, but you'd have to check his previously promoted FLCs to know for sure. Also, the user identifies as Indian and the list involves an Indian subject, so that WikiProject may be more relevant than the Japanese one. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Just to add to TParis's list, "spamming" and "votestacking" don't have to involve a message being sent, but can also, at least in theory, consist of pinging a large number of users or a potentially sympathetic audience of users. (I don't know if pinging users in a non-neutral message would qualify as "campaigning", though.) This didn't happen here, but I'm a bit of a pedant, and felt the need to conclude TParis's point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've seen people accused of canvassing because they pinged like 10 admins in one thread, requesting them to take a look because the thread is stagnant. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 03:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, obviously I don't consider all pinging to constitute canvassing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Marcus Toji

After someone put the {{unreliable sources}} template at the top of Marcus Toji, I simply requested that {{bcn}} be placed on the specific sources that are not suitable, as having the general tag at the top of the article does little good. This was responded to with a block warning. Placing this tag on the article for a third time violates WP:BRD, and I do not wish to violate WP:3RR. What are the next steps? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I have informed the editor that you are discussing him here, as required. In any case, you're both edit-warring over a tag. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

As did I around the same time. I signed mine tho! SQL^{Query me!} 13:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Great minds think alike that was deliberate, so he didn't think it was me reporting him. Thanks though! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Reply - I opened this, and forgot to delete it. I have moved the discussion to Talk:Marcus Toji. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Since @Duffbeerforme: did not reply to my message at Talk:Marcus Toji, I am moving the discussion back here. If we do not get feedback soon, I am going to remove the {{unreliable sources}} tag from Marcus Toji. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of lawsuit controversy, addition of puffery at Marcus & Millichap

On Marcus & Millichap, several IP users have been persistently removing a "Lawsuit controversy" section and adding puffery. When removing the Lawsuit controversy section, the edit summary usually claims that it's "out of context". However, to my eyes, the section is pretty well balanced, and even incorporates a quote from the company's response.

Of particular note, the IP 107.1.246.134 is the most active one of these editors. It's worth noting that the IP is connected to a Comcast Business account in the same region where Marcus & Millichap is headquartered, and has never made edits to any page but this article. They add lots of puffery and have participated in the repeated removal of the lawsuit section.

I have tried reaching out to these editors on the article's talk page and on their talk pages, but they never respond to me, and just keep making the same changes with the same edit summaries. Thus, I'm bringing this to AN/I. I think 107.1.246.134 should probably be blocked, and the page should probably have pending changes or semi-protection turned on. Cheers, IagoQnsi (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• There's a history of problematic editing, both pro and con, from IPs at that article. I have semi'd it for one year. Zad68 13:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing

User:Ottaway is a clear undisclosed paid editor, who clearly works for Ottaway Digital Communications. The evidence is their username, and they've created 2 articles, both of which link to Otterway Digital Communications:

1. Stevens Worldwide Van Lines, [130] shows that they're a client of Ottaway Digital Communications
2. Classical Music America, [131] shows it's owned by Bob Otterway, who is President of Ottaway communications per [132].

This information does not constitute outing as their username makes it blatantly obvious to connect the dots through simple Google searches, and I believe the user should be blocked as not here as well as for failing to provide a paid editing disclosure, as required by Wikimedia Terms of Use. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd say that their username is a clear disclosure. But besides WP:COI, we can also block based on WP:Username policy.--v/r - TP 18:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Source misrepresentation and disruptive editing by nationalist editor

Ferakp (talk · contribs) is making source misrepresentations and deleting sourced information:

• He writes about an Amnesty International report: "However, Amnesty International has published only one report about the Syrian Kurdish forces and it is related to destroying villages and homes, not ethnic cleansing at all." [133]
  • However in reality, the report concludes that "The Amnesty International report concluded that there are documented cases of forced displacement that constitute war crimes."[134]

• Here he changes the direct quote from a book ("Iraq's Dysfunctional Democracy") to something else: [135]
  • He changes: "The goal of these tactics is to push Shabak and Yazidi communities to identify as ethnic Kurds. The Kurdish authorities are working hard to impose Kurdish identity on two of the most vulnerable minorities in Iraq, the Yazidis and the Shabaks".
    • to: "One of the goal of these tactics is to make Shabak and Yazidi communities to identify as ethnic Kurds. Some Kurdish nationalist have previously tried to impose Kurdish identity on two of the most vulnerable minorities in Iraq, the Yazidis and the Shabaks"."

• Here he deletes statistics of Female Genital Mutilation which are well sourced from the referenced PDF document (p. 31). [136]

• He changes all occurences to the practice of Female Genital Mutilation to the past, but in reality it is still widely practiced in Northern Iraq: [137] [138] [139]
  • He also deletes that Female Genital Mutilation is practiced from the intro, even though it is well documented in the article: [140]

• He changes 60 percent to "some of them" and deletes cited information: [141] After a source was added that a honour killing victim was Kurdish, he still removes all mention that she was also Kurdish. He claims that he is confused because one of the sources calls her Turkish, but all Turkish Kurds are also Turkish! [142]

• He was warned many times on his talkpage but always swiftly removes all warnings from his talkpage.--92.106.49.6 (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@92.106.49.6: Amnesty International report is not related to ethnic cleansing at all, it is related to forced displacement and home demolitions. Here is the original report of Amnesty International, you can download it here. Remember that sources you added were "clearly" lying about the report since the report itself never even mention words "ethnic cleansing". So simply the source which says that Amnesty International is accusing them of ethnic cleansing is 100% wrong and biased. About Female Genital Mutilation, two sources were used in one citation and I noticed it after admin marked them. In my second edit, I added a lot of details but he wanted to keep it simple and statements clear so I let it be. Sources you use in Kurdish woman rights are 2-3 years old and it is illegal at this moment. You have been detected at least two times from blackwashing the article. Also, your another friend was caught from blackwashing: Replacing my details with old sources' details even though I had newer sources there. I added sources that the practice is declined and it is now illegal. Also, some of mentioned areas in those reports are now almost clear from FGM as one of my sources says so. That's why I changed them to the past. About Hatun Surucu, she is Turkish, this is because all sources say so. Only your source call she is Kurdish. Here are sources: <--- This source is new from January 2016. One more source, . All sources say that she is Turkish. You have one source but I have 9 source, including BBC and Spiegel! I have warned by 4 guys and 2 of them were banned or blocked. I remove everything from my talk page, whether it is positive or negative except that sweet Kitty which I got from admin. Also, I am 100% behind my Kurdification changes, I simply neutralized statements. You are absolutely trying to blackwash Kurdish articles. Ferakp (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply: Ethnic cleansing is forced displacement.

Yes, Female Genital Mutilation was made illegal, but the law is not being enforced, a fact which you also deleted from the article: [143] By the way, which source says that it really declined? It is still widely practiced in Iraqi Kurdistan, so it is wrong to claim that it was only practiced in the past. Your deletions in the featured articled on FGM were also reverted.

Regarding Hatun (the honor killing victim), you already know that on the talkpage there are many sources that show that she is from a Kurdish family, so your reply is disingenuous.--92.106.49.6 (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC) @Spacecowboy420: @EkoGraf: @Patetez: @Denizyildirim: @Opdire657: @Gala19000:--92.106.49.6 (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@92.106.49.6: Law is accepted, can you read at all? Your source says that it is not enforced and it is from 2012. My source is from 2015 and it clearly says that it is now law and accepted. Read it, here is my source . Here is your source, . Here is my source about declining: . It is from 2015 and it says: In the case of FGM, the Iraqi-German nongovernmental organization WADI estimates that around 72% of adult women in Iraqi Kurdistan have undergone the operation. But among girls aged 6 to 10, the rate has dropped to close to zero in some parts of Kurdistan, such as Halabja and Garmiyan, and decreased by half in other places such as Raniya. The usual age for the practice is between ages 4 and 8, according to WADI. Researchers and activists such as Taha are quick to point out that the existing anti-domestic violence law in Kurdistan, passed in 2011, is likely to be the first of its kind in Asia to address FGM. The draft allows girls subjected to FGM to file lawsuits against the perpetrator and those who forced them to undergo the operation. If the girl is a minor, she can file a lawsuit through a trustee. Another source and source even says directly that it is declined "In the study, there is evidence for a trend of general decline of FGM. It seems that nowadays less than 50% of the young girls are being mutilated.". About that honor killing woman, I showed BBC, Spiegel and other top newspapers sources, that's what they say. About your talk page sources. The first one belongs to Welt, it's very weird that one of source is also from Welt and it says she is Turkish not Kurdish. Your second source is from Speigel and it doesn't mention her ethnicity, it says about documentary, but my Spiegel source says she is Turkish. Also, my BBC source says she is Turkish. One of users changed it to Turkish-Kurdish and I didn't touch it anymore. Wikipedia rules says more reliable sources win. About ethinic cleansing changes: Ethnic cleansing and forced displacements are totally different things. Amnesty doesn't call it as ethnic cleasing. I showed you the original Amnesty report and it does not blame them from ethnic cleansing. If you don't believe me, read the original source and you can also call them and ask them yourself, do you accuse the YPG of ethnic cleansing or not. Amnesty International knows better than you and me when to call events as ethnic cleansing or not. Ferakp (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• I can confirm that there's a problem with Ferakp's editing on Kurdish matters. He arrived at Female genital mutilation to remove or alter the context of material about FGM in Iraqi Kurdistan. [144][145][146] He removed similar material from Iraqi Kurdistan [147] and Kurdish women. [148][149] SarahSV ^(talk) 00:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I have done thousands of edits and improvements and sometimes some users are not happy but I have never vandalized or caused any problems. I explained my Female genital mutilation edits above. About Iraqi Kurdistan changes, the source doesn't say anything like that. The statement in the article said that "Human Rights Watch reported that female genital cutting is practiced mainly by Kurds in Kurdistan; reportedly 60% percent of Kurdish women population have undergone this procedure, although the KRG claimed that the figures are exaggerated." <---- This is absolutely falsified statement. Source talk about Iraqi Kurdistan not about Kurdistan. They are totally different things. Also, I couldn't find that "60%" from the source. This source was used --> . About change of this link, https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Kurdish_women&type=revision&diff=709007260&oldid=706367606. The first one says that ...also continue to face numerous problems, including violent victimization through female genital mutilation, honor killings, forced marriage, child marriage, rape, domestic violence, female infanticide and acid throwing. This is absolutely not true, we are talking about all Kurdish women. There is one reported acid throwing and it's very old, so how could it be continuous? I deleted them from lead but left them in the article. I didn't remove them, they are all still in the article and people can read it. FGM is only in Iran. In Turkey, Syria and Iraqi, it's illegal. Honor killings are problems and it already tells that it's continuing. Domestic violence is also mentioned in its section and also others. I added much more details to lead section. Before my edits it was totally blackwashed. Du'a Khalil Aswad is Yazidi and Yazidis are not the Kurds. They are Yazidis. Also, the articles with its sources says that she is Iraqi Yazidi.

I added this Honor killings was serious problem among Muslim communities until Iraq illegalized it.. It's true, it was legal but now illegal. It was serious problem among Muslim communities. Also, source says so.

Changed media to Turkish media because source says so. Other changes are adding more details. I just added more details and neutralized statements. The report from Iraqi Kurdistan is not related to the all Kurds. That's why many were changed to some when all Kurds were mentioned. Also, In Iraq, non-Kurdish women and society are more liberal. Especially under Saddam Hussein, women had many rights and liberties, including strong economic rights. was removed. The source doesn't mention where that information was gathered and it is based to what study. Because the source is blog (thread) and only some of statements are cited, I see it as a unreliable source. In the source, "In Iraq, non-Kurdish women and society are more liberal" statement was not mentioned but another statement was mentioned. However, because it is blog/thread, I see it as unreliable source. As far as I know, blogs and thread in forums are not allowed as sources. I might be wrong. The only mistake I did was removing this statement -- >The Free Women's Organization of Kurdistan (FWOK) released a statement on International Women's Day 2015 noting that “6,082 women were killed or forced to commit suicide during the past year in Iraqi Kurdistan, which is almost equal to the number of the Peshmerga martyred fighting Islamic State (IS),” and that a large number of women were victims of honor killings or enforced suicide – mostly self-immolation or hanging. However, the source didn't work and I tried very hard to find it but I didn't. The link is still not working. Also, I tried to find the report from the organization's website but I didn't find it. Ferakp (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Could an admin review and see whether a topic ban would be appropriate?--92.106.49.6 (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

My message to reviewer. I have done nothing wrong except in FGM article, I didn't notice the source. I explained all my changes and this is the first time someone reports me. I have edited and improved tons of times and for me it's normal that there is sometimes users who are against my changes, but I have always solved disputes. If you are going to give me a ban, please give me a permanent ban, not topic ban. I am so tired of users like 92.106.49.6 and similar users which have nothing to do than blackwash articles related to the Kurds. Thank you Ferakp (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Ferkp, when a government bans FGM, that doesn't stop it from happening to girls. Enforcement of anti-FGM legislation is poor all over the world, with the exception of France. And laws don't change the fact that women who had already undergone FGM before the change in the law continue to live with its health consequences. There was a high prevalence of FGM among adult women in Iraqi Kurdistan in 2011, according to UNICEF. You removed the information. When you were reverted, you tried to change the context in which it was presented, and also tried to present it as Iraq, not as Iraqi Kurdistan. That kind of editing is a problem. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Did I say somewhere that it stops it? I said that it is illegal now. The user who reported me still claim that it is not enforced but I showed source that it is accepted and it is official law. Iraqi Kurdistan is Iraq. There no such country Iraqi Kurdistan. The source mentions Kirkuk and Kirkuk is not the Iraqi Kurdistan, it's officially Iraq. It is illegal now in Iraqi Kurdistan and that has killed the practice in many regions as my newest sources say. I didn't change the context, I added details but you removed them without any reason, explaining by something very weird reason. There was high prevalence and that information was still there after my edits. My edits didn't remove any details, it still kept details. One edit I made by mistake and it was related to statistics. In another edit, I was thinking to add much more details to ethnicity section but you didn't even leave me to edit it. As I said, I made mistake and I accept it. I have edited and improved thousands of times and sometimes you make mistakes. If I get ban then at least I know I am in the wrong place doing the wrong thing. Ferakp (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Blackwashing is not best handled by whitewashing, but by changing the article to be neutral. WP:NPOV --OpenFuture (talk) 05:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

That's has been my main objective in previous 300 edits. You can see from my contributions that my edits have related mainly to neutrality. Ferakp (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

"Neutrality" by hiding everything related to FGM and honour killings, or claiming that it was the Turkish families, not Turkish-Kurdish ones (as it was). Everything that doesn't hide the facts about Female Genital Mutilation, honour killings or forced displacement of minorities is "blackwashing", even UNICEF and Amnesty International [150]. But you have now qualms in "blackwashing" the whole time Turks[151], Arabs[152], Iranians, and others. Ferakp also just removed the entire human right section from the [153], because the content is already in the Human rights article. But at least a summary of the human rights should be left. --92.106.49.6 (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC) @GGT: @Ottomanor:@Chickchick77:

Looks like you have nothing to do than following my changes from my contr+ page and pasting them here. Why don't you also tell us how I stopped one "Turkish" user who vandalized more than 13 Kurdish articles? About this the edit [154], Rojava has its own article for Human right in Rojava, it is called Human Rights in Rojava. I transferred those statements and sources from Rojava article to Human rights in Rojava.

Can you tell what is wrong with this edit?-->[155]. Kurds are mentioned with "Kurdish" and I also mentioned Turkish guy with "Turkish" name because he was a Turk according to all sources. Ordinary Turkish mentality, try to always blame the Kurds.

[156] : What makes this edit blackwashing if source says so directly? Source says (page 7): The available source material suggests that honour killings primarily occur among tribal peoples such as Kurdish, Lori, Arab, Baluchi and Turkish-speaking tribes. These groups are considered to be more socially conservative than the Persians, and discrimination against women in attitude and in practice is seen as being deeply rooted in tribal culture. The page was blackwashed to show only the Kurds but I neutralized and mentioned all who practice it in Iran. Ferakp (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the original points I made above, Ferakp has:

• On the first point about the Amnesty International report, he still fails to see that forced displacement is a form of ethnic cleansing. (source misrepresentation)
• He hasn't said anything about changing a direct quote from a book (source misrepresentation)
• He admitted a mistake in deleting FGM statistics from UNICEF
• He still fails to see why he shouldn't change all occurences to the practice of Female Genital Mutilation to the past (and delete FGM from the lead, and delete that it is practiced in "Iraqi Kurdistan"), while in reality it is still widely practiced in Iraqi Kurdistan (source misrepresentation) Yes, Female Genital Mutilation was made illegal, but the law is not being enforced, a fact which he also deleted from the article: [228]
• He disingenuously still claims that Hatun (the honour killing victim) is not Kurdish, even though he knows on the talkpage [157] there are plenty of sources saying she is Turkish-Kurdish [158] (and in the German wikipedia page). In another case, he even specifies that a man from Turkey is a "Turkish" man from Turkey [159]. He also makes false claims in articles as here [160].
• Going through his edits, there are plenty of cases of Ferakp misrepresenting sources, deleting incovenient facts, adding false claims, ... --92.106.49.6 (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Try to understand me a little bit. You can't call the event as ethnic cleansing because your "logic" see connection between their acts and ethnic cleansing acts. There is standards and requirements for calling something as ethnic cleansing. Amnesty International uses that word carefully because you have to come with tons of evidences. You can't call that event as ethnic cleansing if only ~180 houses are destroyed in 19 different locations. Look, for example Amnesty International use in another their report words"ethnic cleansing" because they classify it as a ethnic cleansing. The reason why they didn't call it ethnic cleansing in the YPG/PYD related article is because it's a far away from to be classified as a ethnic cleansing. You are just trying to blackwash Kurdish articles. Admit it. This is 7th time you are clearly trying to blackwash Kurdish articles.

Which book?

They are past events, because it is law now and it is illegal. Your sources were from 2011 and 2012. Law was accepted in 2015 and as my source says it has almost killed the practice in many regions.

There is tons of sources which say that she is Turkish and you show me a few sources which say she is Kurdish. Also, my newest source is from this year. However, I let one user to keep it Turkish-Kurdish because that was our optimal solution.

What is the problem with this edit, ? Can you tell me? I added small survey to the front of survey because it was small survey. Look what the source says: The survey group was small but the results are a reminder... My 8th evidence that you are trying to blackwash Kurdis articles.

Excuse me can you show my your claims about "Going through his edits, there are plenty of cases of Ferakp misrepresenting sources, deleting incovenient facts, adding false claims"? It's clear that you are blackwashing Kurdish articles. I have 8 clear evidences that you are trying to blackwash Kurdish articles, I would have reported you and requested ban but you are one of those who change their IPs every time so I won't waste admin's time for such thing.Ferakp (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

References

• There's a 2014 survey on FGM in Iraqi Kurdistan here; UNICEF summary here. It could be used to update Kurdish women or Iraqi Kurdistan, or to create Female genital mutilation in Iraqi Kurdistan. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Thanks for the source SarahV, I will use it to update articles.Ferakp (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You have been caught at least 9 times from blackwashing Kurdish articles, calling me nationalist editor, trying to show my edits which are related to neutralization as blackwashings and following me. You are clearly blackwashing Kurdish articles, as I proved above, if someone has to get warning or ban, it should be you.Ferakp (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ferakp's confrontational tone and disruptive style can be seen from the discussion above, with his clear ad hominem arguments to justify his actions and allusion to criminal proceedings ("caught"). I have also suffered from his lack of collaboration personally; as soon as we had an editing issue on Yaşar Kemal, he posted this to my talk page claiming that I was editing from a Turkish POV and using Wikipedia as the Turkish government's encyclopedia. Ferakp not only misrepresents sources as evidenced above, but also editoralises to imply a particular position. This can be seen here in his unsourced addition, which implies that Amnesty was cornered by YPG's claims, and more blatantly here, where he adds a statement that is undoubtedly correct (perhaps as there were no military casualties) but is not part of the literature concerning the event and about which he could not even find a source to support, in order to push TAK's viewpoint that the Turkish government hides military casualties in this attack ostensibly targeted to the military. Also see this. He has also repeatedly removed reliably sourced material, seen here about statements regarding the persecutions of Assyrians and human rights in an attempt to whitewash. Despite the fact that the Yezidis are described as Kurdish in the relevant article (I am no expert on the issue and any disputes on ethnic identity belong there), Ferakp has repeatedly removed negative incidents involving Yazidi women from the article on Kurdish women without specifying the "sources" against Daily Mail as in here for example. In the same article, he has removed more and more reliably sourced details about violence against Kurdish women from the article (e.g. Human Rights Watch, a Kurdish newspaper) claiming that these were "blackwashing". When it came to ascribing positive topics Kurdishness, however, he manipulates sources as amply evidenced above: here, for example, when his sources do not define him as Kurdish but use the term "of Kurdish origin", which is how it currently is in the article (one of his sources actually defines Kemal as Turkish, obviously alluding to nationality, as opposed to ethnicity). Source manipulation can also be seen here, when he himself admits that two languages were spoken in the family but writes otherwise.
• Now, it is Ferakp's turn to come and claim that I am an anti-Kurdish Turkish nationalist and write lengthy refutations, which is getting really tiresome by now. I hope, however, that the evidence above will help establish the destructive and disruptive pattern that characterises this user's editing. --GGT (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I am 100% behind my messages and edits which you mentioned. About Yasar Kemal, I told you so many times that the person was Kurdish, not a Turk. I added sources and you deleted my sources. I told you to at least keep sources and use talk page until we solve it. Try to understand it, also tell it to your friends who 24/7 try to change Hamdi Ulukaya article to show him as a Turk even though I have tons of articles even his own video about himself.
I am totally supporting the edit [161]: About the lack of interest, it is Turkish claim. If you read news like this you will realize that Turkish press is closed like in North Korea (Press freedom Index) and nothing unbiased comes from them when it comes to Kurdish related news. So, if the Kurds say that they are not allowed to open schools, they are continuously closed and international newspapers confirm them, is it not a fair to keep one biased Turkish source which claims that they weren't interested.. That's why I showed it as a claim but kept it despite the source was unreliable.
About Yazidi woman, I am going to repeat again, Dailymail is not reliable source and she is Yazidi not a Kurd. Just read her article and sources related to her. Tons of articles says she is Yazidis and Iraq. Yazidis are not Kurds, they are recognized as different ethnic group by the UN.
About the edit more: How many times, I have to explain this edit. Let me explain again even though it is already explained. About the first edit, the source says: The rate of FGM was discovered to be 21 percent in West Azerbaijan, 18 percent in Kermanshah, and 16 percent in Kurdistan, according to field interviews and research conducted by Ahmady and his team. The article said that A 2015 study by Kurdish social anthropologist Kameel Ahmady found and assessed a 16% rate of female genital mutilation in Western Iran, where it is mostly practiced by Sunni Shafi’i Kurds who speak the Sorani dialect. Here comes the problem. The source didn't say that it is 16% in Western Iran, it said 16% in Kurdistan. What does source means with "Kurdistan" is still unclear. Did he mean all Kurdistan, including Iraq, Turkey and Syria or does it means only Iranin Kurdistan? If source meant Iranian Kurdistan, then it is not Western Iran, it is officially North Western Iran. However, I assumed that the source really meant 16% in Western Iran so I tried to find the claim that it is mostly practiced by Sunni Shafi’i Kurds who speak the Sorani dialect. However, the source doesn't say anything like that, not even close. The source says that Among the Kurds in Iran, FGM is mainly practiced by Sunni Shafi’i Kurds who speak the Sorani dialect, but not among Sunni Shafie Kurds who speak the Kermanji dialect, let me repeat, among the Kurds in Iran, not in Western Iran as the Wikipedia article claimed. So I simply deleted because it was clearly falsified. Statement related to statistics said "is" but it's not true because the source I added clearly said that it is dropped everywhere to under 50% and in some regions, it is almost 0%. If I would have deleted "statistics", I would have deleted that 72% also. I didn't and I leave it because that is true, unlike other statistics about regions which weren't true anymore because I had source for them. I already explained 3 times that the law about FGM is allowed so that statement which says that it is not enforced is not true anymore, that's why I removed it. There is my source above. If you think that edit is wrong, then you simply protect blackwashing Kurdish pages. Keeping falsified statement about FGM, FGM statistics which is not valid anymore and statement about FGM law which also not valid anymore is nothing else than blackwashing. I would have understood if you would have for example presented statistics in table and mentioned that they are from 2011 or 2012 or have said that law wasn't accepted until 2015 but keeping those despite new sources is clearly blackwashing. Ferakp (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Removing information negative information can be whitewashing. I don't agree with Ferakp's view that his edits are only aimed at restoring neutrality. Many of them are removing reliably sourced negative information. This conflict looks to me as a typical example of two editors with opposite biases trying to make the article what *they* think is neutral, and then assuming bad faith on the case of the other editor. The only solution is probably to get more editors involved, especially uninvolved neutral editors. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You better tell this to the user who reported me.This is because the user is continuously blackwashing Kurdish articles with another Turkish troll group. The same user who reported me is cooperating with Shadow4dark user, you usually find them and some other users always in same pages blackwashing Kurdish articles and whitewashing Turkish-PKK related pages. For example, Shadow4dark has added Kurdish terrorism category to every Kurdish article he has visited and the user who reported me has cooperated with Shadow4dark, he just deleted speed deletion tag which another user added to the Category:Kurdish terrorism. The user deleted it and didn't explain or use talk page to tell why he/she thinks that it is not meeting speedy deletion requirements. The same user also tried remove my all details which neutralized the Kurdish articles. As I mentioned above, there is clear evidence that this user with other users are doing nothing else than blackwashing Kurdish articles and whitewashing articles related to them. I proved 9 times that this users is deleting newest sources and replacing with oldest ones. Also, this user has showed many my edits as whitewashing even though I proved that they are clearly related to neutralization, just read my messages above.

I'm telling it to you, FerakP. Although obviously, it goes for all of you. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

OpenFuture, this is not simply a POV conflict. Of course everyone will have their perceptions of neutrality and of course some inherent bias may be present on my part. That goes without saying. However, having been involved in numerous debates about this volatile and politically sensitive region (and never raised one issue here at ANI about any user), it is very clear to me that this is not about a POV conflict (which would look like this) and that there is an important behavioural problem about this user that is certainly not the case with other users I have disputed with. Consistently adding unsourced, editorialised content based on one's perception of events, manipulating the content of sources (just as he did in his recent text about Yaşar Kemal) whilst consistently removing reliably sourced content on trivial pretexts, whilst continuously accusing others at every dispute of "blackwashing", "disruptive editing", "collaborating" is not a POV problem. It is a behavioural problem and is tendentious and disruptive editing. My having different perceptions of neutrality whilst pointing out a destructive editing pattern that continues despite warnings does not invalidate concerns raised about his editing pattern and does not reduce this to an "it goes for all of you" dispute. The editing patterns of other users here, I believe, are incomparable to that of Ferakp, who has not expanded a single article without adding positive material about Kurdish people or negative material about other ethnic groups. For all his activity on content issues, this user has only created one original article and the subject matter of that article speaks for itself. For all his stance about Kurds, which in other circumstances would be perfectly fine, he has not even expanded one Kurdish-related (or otherwise) article when ethnic issues or negative material about Kurds were not at stake. --GGT (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

GGT Check my edits again, think twice, read your answer again and think again, is it really true what you just wrote here. About Yasar Kemal, I added sources and told you that sources say so. You can't force anyone to be "Turkish" if he is not. You removed details about him and my sources. You had a chance to use talk page but you just reversed my changes. I had to myself start a new section in the talk page.Ferakp (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, if it wasn't a behavioral problem, the POV conflict would be soon resolved as the involved editors would rationally discuss the issue and come to a NPOV compromise. ;-) But anyway, my point was that this is not ONE editor who is to blame here. But both sides are behaving wrongly. It may very well be that Ferakp is a worse offender, I'm not going to spend time making a statistical analysis of it. No matter who starts the fight, breaking Wikipedia policy is the incorrect response. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what could make me a worse offender, is it that I proved that all accusations are not true and I am absolutely right, or that I neutralized articles using reliable and newest sources. You should tell those editors that they should focus on their own articles instead of blackwashing Kurdish related articles 24/7. I am tired to clean Kurdish articles from their fictitious references (I showed 4 of them) and claims. Ferakp (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"focus on their own articles instead of blackwashing Kurdish related articles" - could not have a statement that shows the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. What would be "my articles" now, Ferakp? --GGT (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You understood it well, I said instead of blackwashing Kurdish articles, focus on what you know. Blackwashing Kurdish articles is not funny.Ferakp (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Neither is whitewashing, and this problem isn't going to go away unless we agree to keep to WP:NPOV and discuss the disagreements rationally and calmly. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Section break for convenience and an appeal before this gets to a topic ban

Having read the above and looked at the above, I'm inclined to agree there are issues with regard to Ferakp with regard to how to interpret sourcing in a non-biased manner, tendentiousness and lack of acceptance of consensus, and a general battleground mentality. Ferakp, you need to understand that on this project we overwhelmingly rely on WP:Secondary sources in most circumstances; you don't get to just delete or alter content supported by those sources because they "got it wrong" just because the facts and positions in those sources does not jive with your preferred interpretation of reality and/or primary sources. More important than that, even if you're policy interpretations were correct, you still wouldn't be getting anywhere without adjusting your attitude towards the consensus-based model of this project or the principle of showing special care in editorial areas where you may not have a neutral point of view. To be clear, there are places where I feel your edits show potential to add beneficial nuance to these issues, but there are also others where it is clear you operating under the bias of wanting to see (and to present) an interpretation of facts in a light which is most beneficial to the Kurdish people.

I have sympathy for how the historical context here affects views, and indeed I appreciate the hardships various Kurdish populations have endured themselves, but you have to understand that you are not going to accomplish anything on this project by working against the WP:WEIGHT of sourcing, except to waste a good deal of your own energy, and that of other editors; indeed, you risk pushing the perspectives of the articles in question in the opposite direction you intend as other editors strive to counterblance you, some of whom could possibly become more entrenched in their views as a product of dealing with your own intransigence. Further, at this point, you are running the risk of being seen as so problematic in this topic area that you must be removed from it, after which your influence on these topics will be reduced to just that resistance to your views that you engendered in other contributors. Please consider taking a break from the articles in question for a little while, then going back with an effort to see if you can hammer out reasonable compromise wording with regard to some of the points you object to. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Out of curiosity I've been looking at some of the supposedly offending diffs provided against Ferakp, in particular those provided by GGT. Based on them alone, I find little to fault with Ferakp. The edits have mostly actually improved the articles. The material deleted has often been cherrypicked from sources for effect, or had been expressed as if there was absolutely no doubt as to accuracy (where in reality the unbiased nature of many of the sources could be questioned). Other deleted material was definitely off-topic. I don't know if Ferakp has been using talk pages to explain these edits - if not, they might on the surface appear to be brisk and be engaged in whitewashing, but actually they are not. And I come from this from the standpoint of thinking that there is far too much pro-Kurdish propaganda and whitewashing in Kurd/Kurdistan related articles and they have often been let off the hook regarding accuracy because of a general desire to be "nice" to Kurds. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

For example GGT cited this [162] - but the edit is correct, if you are "born into" it refers to the language your parents spoke at the time you were born, not what you and your peers currently speak in everyday life. I feel this is also correct [163] - the deleted claim was quite extraordinary in the figure given, the cited source is of unknown quality and the page cited seems to not exist. Extraordinary claims will require something better than this. The only issue is with the swiftness of the deletion - perhaps it should have been tagged first. CTC claims this content addition is unsourced [164], but it is sourced! And the content addition is completely justified - if an organization is criticized it is appropriate for a response by that organization to the criticism to be presented alongside the original accusation. This [165] which GGT also objected to, I see as a correct but badly executed attempt to counter editorializing and source distortion. The source does not mention "Kurdish-language schools", it mentions private schools that ran classes that taught the Kurdish language. There are no "Kurdish-language schools" in Turkey, they are illegal - as the source says, classes (except classes that are teaching Kurdish) have to be taught in Turkish. This [166] is also correct. The deleted "where it is mostly practiced by Sunni Shafi’i Kurds who speak the Sorani dialect" is simply cherrypicked from the source for effect: its wording and context suggests that most of the FGM in Iran is done by Kurds. However, the source says nothing like that, and also says "The prevalence of FGM in Kurdistan is patchy and varies sharply from one region to another". The deletion of the "A 2011 Kurdish law criminalized..." content is hard to explain and accept though. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

BTW, two of the articles being mentioned here I see as possible pov forks: Kurdification and Human rights in Rojava. There seems not enough material to justify Human rights in Rojava, and it seems to exist only to host negative criticism, excluding the ample amount of sources that say the rights and liberties of the populations in Rojava are far greater than in neighbouring areas and have been highly praised. Created by Ferakp, I can see why it could give the impression, as has been suggested, that it exists only to remove this negative criticism from another article? The term "Kurdification" is questionable since it originated in Turkish post-Iraq-invasion propaganda as a response to the far more historically well founded and factual term "Turkification", which Turkey had (and still is) been accused of inflicting on Kurds in Turkey. I do not see much legitimate academic use of the phrase Kurdification and all the sources cited in the article need checking to see if they do use that phrase. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Continuous disruptive editing by Shhhhwwww!! even after third block

I'm here to file a case on User:Shhhhwwww!!, this user has make a persistent disruptive editing since his recent release of block in early April. Since 2013, this user was detected making nonsense contribution like [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172] and making disruptive page moves without any discussion first which resulted he was blocked for third time (see his block log). The user also makes content removal without starting a discussion first/reaching a consensus like this, this and labelling anyone who revert his edits as breaching the WP:3RR while still not reaching it as can be seen on here and here. Recently, when he get his third block was expired, he continue to invade Sabah article by starting a discussion with a title "Sabah is racist" [173] and adding the article as part of WikiProject Philippines while it is not a Philippine territory [174], [175]. The same goes to Miangas article [176], [177] which is an Indonesian territory. The user have been warned for his disruptive editing who frequently makes flooding request for comment [178] thus controversially removing his comment from the Miangas talkpage which affecting the recent discussion there [179]. The same can be seen on here and here although the discussion can be discussed in one place without flooding every related topics. The user tactics also usually will retired when someone launched an investigation into his behaviour such as can be seen on this, this, this and this and remove it back when the investigation is over. He also restoring other user comment who have rectract his word [180]. As been reported by other users (which can be seen on here (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shhhhwwww!!/Archive#14 October 2015). When another user User:HistoriaFilipinas create the North Borneo, Philippines article, he re-create it by stating an edit summary (to prevent re-creation). This is quite amusing. Someone should take an action to this user which day by day getting worse even after had been blocked and repeatedly warned as seen on his talkpage. I have filed this case on administrator intervention against vandalism and they told me to report it here. Thank you. Molecule Extraction (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Shhhhwwww!! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Molecule Extraction (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are two POV warriors who fight on various pages, so this is a content dispute between two editors who both are prone to violating policy. I warned them both this morning. I did not warn Molecule Extraction about WP:FORUMSHOPPING but please regard this as such a warning. Stop disrupting and start discussing this in a constructive manner. And that goes for both of you. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm understand and accept your warning. I'm here to just reporting the behaviour of Shhhhwwww!! since 2013 as had been reported by other previous users (senior) than me so any administrators can take a look on this long-term issues. I'm ready to take up any responsibility and mistake If I had done to this projects especially when I had make a talkpage war or edit war with the user. But the only thing I hope is there should be any final decision on this. Molecule Extraction (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Worry about yourself instead of Shhhhwwww!! --OpenFuture (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Molecule Extraction, you also failed to alert Shhhhwwww!! that you have reported him; so he probably does not even know that he is being discussed. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Thanks for putting it. I forgot. Molecule Extraction (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I've tried to be patient with this user and discuss the issues in a more mature manner but the constant Wikihounding, Harrassment, and Personal attacks just get to the nerves. Sometimes enough is enough. Harkening back to edits made three years ago, threats of blocking, overusing arguments are just bad faith. I tried to have a truce to no avail. I tried responding with one-word responses, the attacks continued. I have already backed away when OpenFuture told us to stop. This is unfair. I have already been harrassed a day ago with reporting to the vandalism noticeboard and I was cleared thrice. I am really unhappy right now.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You have indeed tried everything, except following the WP:Five pillars. You have created a whole host of frivolous RfC's you have even made a completely frivolous arbitration request, you have thrown out endless personal attacks, you have editwarred, etc. Don't try to make yourself out to be a victim. Neither of you are victims, the only victim is Wikipedia. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Didn't this user retire after the last time they were being disruptive? Now looking to escape a long block by going on vacation. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me 50 times... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Timing is so often the most important element of a holiday _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• I am willing to have a more meanigful discussion with this user and avoid any disruptive editing. I will still be on Wikibreak for a while to cool my head and calm my nerves. I am also going to try to avoid these topics in the near future. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

'I am willing to have a more meaningful discussion with this user and avoid any disruptive editing'. Hah, the tactics always like that by claiming himself as 'innocence' and then "retire" before being blocked. After your recent block, you however continue to remove a template from the Jamalul Kiram III before starting any discussion and reaching a consensus [181]. I have asking him repeatedly to give a WP:RS from the PH government (be it from PDF documents or from the government press release agencies [182], [183]) that recognise Kiram III or Ismael Kiram II and Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram as the official Sultan for the so-called Sultanate of Sulu (that been recognise until this day by his country peoples) but instead he gave me a link to a newspaper of Philippines Vice-President Jejomar Binay claim to Sabah as can be seen on our discussion in Jamalul Kiram III talkpage. Then on the Sabah article, Shhhhwwww!! keep stressing that WikiProject Philippines must be included [184], [185] on the article talkpage although OpenFuture has told to stop and giving a suggestion to maintain a balance views on the article content. Is that you called 'to avoid disruptive editing'?? An experience Filipino editor RioHondo also has said that there is no need for a WikiProject Philippines to be included on a article that even are not under the jurisdiction of the Philippines. The disruption was also seen on a Indonesian island article, the Miangas talkpage [186], [187]. Clearly that there is some "irredentism" feeling here. While at the same time, you have controversially removing the question header which have affecting the discussion [188]. Is that are not disruptive? You also said 'I am also going to try to avoid these topics in the near future'. I have asking you here if your really want to change your behaviour but instead you leave my question unanswered. Is that how we can trust you easily, after repeated warnings and block but still back to old behaviour?? Molecule Extraction (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• What a mess This thread was opened about twenty hours ago by Molecule Extraction, and has received 12 independent comments including ME's OP comment, but somehow has been edited 48 times!? This is some Special:Contributions/LittleBenW shit, and almost all of it appears to be the fault of the OP. On top of that, he/she seems to be under the impression that Shhhhwwww having a block log means all disruptive editing must be the latter's fault, but all of Shhhhwwww's blocks appear to be about a string of unilateral page moves, and my (admittedly brief) examination of their contribs didn't indicate any continuation of this particular activity following the most recent block. While I don't doubt that both editors are being disruptive, I don't think Shhhhwwww should be blocked again if Molecule Extraction comes out of this unscathed, as Molecule Extraction appears to me to be engaging in disruption on this very forum. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed this (sorry -- wasn't reading very closely). Block Shhhhwwww for three months and see if he comes back and causes still more trouble. Molecule Extraction has a clean block record, so one week should be enough to warn them that this isn't appropriate behaviour. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I think a week is a bit on the heavy side for Molecule Extraction. I've been looking at the articles to see who added all the shit I now have to clean away, and it wasn't him. He just escalated the conflict instead of handling it. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Muffin Wizard.

User:Muffin Wizard and User:Molecule Extraction have identical edit patterns. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and now you are accusing me to be a sockpuppet. What a lame excuse. Molecule Extraction (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Creepy canvassing right here. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Ownership of Mann Mayal

Greetings
I have a problem regarding Nauriya. The user doesn't lets me edit the article Mann Mayal which he has created. Initially I ignored this but later when I edited the article again he reverted my edits again. I restored my edits and asked him to do a discussion on the talk page and he started a conversation but after putting the message on talk page he reverted my edit again. As I said, I requested the user to stop but he didn't. The user added a genre 'serial drama' to this television article and I can't understand which type of genre is it. I wanted to remove it but the creator Nauriya is against me. My many other edits that were not Vandalism were also removed from the article by the creator of the article. Now this is ownership of article.--Musa Talk  17:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

While Nauriya is a major editor of that article, they are not reverting everyone's contributions. I encourage you to participate in the discussion they started at Talk:Mann Mayal. Discussing a difference of opinion to come to some agreement or understanding is preferable to a block and should happen before a complaint is filed at ANI. You also haven't presented much evidence to support your request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Liz: I'm here because of unacceptable behaviour of the user. Currently there are three genres in Mann Mayal, 'Romance', 'Serial Drama' and 'Family Drama'. Now which kind of genre is 'Serial Drama'? There is no source which says that 'Serial Drama' is genre of this show. I changed it to romance-drama but the user removed it. And the genre 'Family Drama' should be written as 'Family'. But according to the creator Serial Drama, Family Drama and Romance are correct genres. Why DRAMA is written twice? The article contains wrong content which should be removed. I removed it and asked the user to refrain from reverting my edits (See talk pages) and start a discussion. He started a discussion but removed my edits again and said don't revert until issue is resolved which I told him first. Please remove the wrong content from the article. And I also made some changes in the style of Mann Mayal but that changes were also removed because they were unconstructive. I just changed the style the content was written by the user itself. This is disruptive behaviour.--Musa Talk  14:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Musa, did you read what I wrote? Decisions about the content of articles is not determined at ANI. Unless it turns into edit-warring or considered stalking behavior, reverting another editor's edit is not considered disruptive behavior, it is part of the BRD process. You two should discuss your difference of opinion and I advised you to join the discussion at Talk:Mann Mayal. If you two can not come to an agreement there, the next step is Dispute resolution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Dicklyon and his disruptive "war on commas"

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

---

Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
There are way to many diffs to list for this, but any admin or editor can easily look at;

• his recent contribution history, re: moves (speaks for itself),
• the multiple complaints on his talk page about this same issue, (here, here and here)
• the previous (and recent) report posted here at ANI (again same issue),
• his changes to MOS:BLP,
• his previous ban on page moves (something about a "war on dashes"?) and,
• his more recent acceptance of a standard offer at AN.
• There was a debate over this at Talk:USS Frank E. Petersen Jr., which went no where,
• there was an RfC on this at the Village Pump that Drmies closed as "no consensus" and,
• there is another RfC, taking place at MOS:BLP with no consensus as of yet, just a lot of arguing.

I'm asking that Dicklyon stop (or be stopped from) moving pages to remove, every, single, comma, he finds until the there is a consensus to support this project wide and changes are made to WP:MOS (lead) and WP:JR. Thank you - ^theWOLFchild 17:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• NOTE Filer is canvassing via ANI notices at the talk pages of various editors here, here, and here. None of the editors he contacted are mentioned in the report above. Looks like a policy-vio to me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Note" You obviously didn't read the ANI. Once you realize you're wrong, feel free to strike your accusation. - ^theWOLFchild 19:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no need for him to mention me; I previously filed a complaint at #Dicklyon and his treatment on commas before Jr/Sr. Somehow, a recent RfC discussion is used as justification for omitting commas. George Ho (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Precisely why Wolfchild's action is canvassing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not canvassing, so give it a rest already. Feel free to address the actual issue. - ^theWOLFchild 19:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it's canvassing given there's an open thread on the same subject on this same page. If there's a concern, just turn this into a subsection above. I don't think neutral ANI notices are normally considered canvassing, though sending them to a bunch of otherwise unaffected people is unusual to say the least. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

No wonder these ANIs turn into such train wrecks. 3 replies and not one addressing the actual issue... - ^theWOLFchild 19:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:JR. There, I addressed the "actual issue". Again. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Can you add a link? Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 21:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing applies to the act of drawing in uninvolved editors to a discussion in an inappropriate manner. If you notice, the editors notified were actually involved in similar disputes with Dicklyon, all of which were linked to above in the ANI heading. As a result of linking to those discussions, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that TheWolfChild felt compelled to notify the editors involved at those links. Tying this to a behavioral guideline violation seems a bit premature. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• From an uninvolved editor, WP:JR seems to indicate that there is consensus for the moves. ansh666 22:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:JR;

• Editors may use or omit a comma before Jr. or Sr. (Sammy Davis Jr.; Martin Luther King, Sr.) so long as each article is internally consistent. - This is before Dicklyon and Co. started mucking around with it to taylor it to their personal preferences.
• Now it reads; Omission of the comma before Jr./Jr/Jnr or Sr./Sr/Snr is preferred. The comma can be used where a living subject's own preference or its use in current sources is clear and consistent. Articles should be internally consistent in either use or omission of the commas.
• That's after this edit, with the edit summary "per RfC closure". However, the RfC (as noted above) was closed as "no consensus", with Drmies saying "MOS should express a preference toward not using commas. Grandfathering older articles, FAs, etc., is recommended, and one should remember that the MOS is a guideline, not a policy".
• No where do I see a policy or a widespread consensus that says; "Go ahead Dicklyon, pretend your the wiki-terminator, a remorseless comma-killing machine from the future, here to edit-war, page-move-war and generally disrupt the project in fulfillment of your mission - to stamp out disease-spreading commas everywhere."
• Again, I'm, asking that the page-moves and mass-removal of commas stops until a clear consensus is achieved and the guidelines are re-written to clearly reflect that consensus. - ^theWOLFchild 00:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the matter has limited to just an issue for American English. Other regional English varieties have decided to scrap the comma out worldwide. Comma before Jr. or Sr. is now an American matter, not global. Still, we have to resort to recent sources using or omitting a comma. --George Ho (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Administrators or editors condone Dicklyon's actions and condemn me apparently. In other words, administrators won't do much about actions of editors who keep removing commas. George Ho (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You can't paint all admins with the same brush, there are a few good ones here that take their responsibilities seriously. With that said, I would still like to see a clear consensus, and clear guideline on this. Until then, neither admins nor editors should be "condoning" Dicklyon's actions, or anyone else's for that matter, that disrupt the project for their own personal preferences. - ^theWOLFchild 01:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The dispute is not whether the parenthetical comma has been dropped from English. (George Ho is incorrect in saying that we don't use it in other forms of English; we do, even though we do generally omit commas.) It is over whether you can change the MOS and then force all the articles to be changed to conform. This is what caused the push back from the content creators and article maintainers. As Drmies said, the MOS is supposed to be an advisory guideline to help writing articles, not to make it much harder to do so. Only FAs have a requirement to conform to the MOS, and there is no consensus that even they need to be constantly changed to conform to the latest version of the MOS. Moving the articles creates a great deal of disruption and additional work, as it break links to the reviews and causes trouble for the bots. I feel that if I can write whole articles in American English, then other people can live with the occasional comma or hyphen that offends their sensibilities. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hawkeye7 says it well. Edit warring, large numbers of moves, etc., are easily disruptive, and the MOS should not be used to bludgeon other editors with. I mean, behavior that's disruptive cannot simply be whisked away by saying "it's the MOS". Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment – In relation to article content, I don't believe that changes to the MOS should act as a catalyst for editors to retroactively apply those changes to older articles that predate the change, especially when more than one style is acceptable. At the very least in these situations, the MOS shouldn't be relied upon for the last word when those changes are being contested. Instead, the typical process of establishing consensus through discussion should be followed. Perhaps the inclusion of more explicit text in the MOS' lead would help to clarify this to help avoid future confrontations like this one, but of course, that's a discussion to be had on its talk page – not here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Clear violation of unblock conditions

Dicklyon was unblocked in December under the condition that he avoid making mass page moves (see [189]). Over the past several weeks, he has made dozens of page moves without gaining consensus first. The moves are also in clear violation of a recent RFC on the matter, which determined that grandfathering in existing titles was preferred (presumably to avoid the same mass moves Dicklyon has carried out). The WP:MoS, which Dicklyon and his followers point to in his defense, explicitly says "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable."

So, to recap, Dicklyon is running afoul of his unblock condition, the RFC he cites and the MoS. He ought to, at a minimum, be told to stop making such controversial moves. Calidum ¤ 03:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, Dicklyon was given a six-month ban from moving pages in April 2015 (see here). He was blocked indefinitely that same month, and a majority of users who commented on his unblock request in December felt that six-month ban should be kept in place. Calidum ¤ 03:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

If the mass moves without consensus don't stop, the next ban should be longer. Jonathunder (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• This might be an issue, but might not be. Dicklyon stopped pagemoves around the time the earlier ANI thread started. While he resumed them about 24 hours later (making around 50), it was after the thread had died down. What matters is the "potentially controversial" nature of the pagemoves: In other words, the unblock condition might be violated if the pagemoves weren't really controversial, but had the potential to be controversial. For me it hinges on the individual pagemoves made, at least after the ANI thread started, when Dicklyon was unquestionably on notice that there was a problem. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I suppose any move is "potentially controversial". Are any actually controversial? Is there any basis at all for Thewolfchild's position that my removal of a comma from ship name that doesn't have one in sources was controversial? I understand that I pissed him off by not following BRD; since his revert had a counterfactual reason for reverting, in his edit summary, I simply reverted that error; even that should not be seen as controversial; please review my actions there. Dicklyon (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

So you admit to edit-warring, page-move-warring and repeat-moving a page, after it was disputed, violating WP:MOS. Thanks, that makes things easier. - ^theWOLFchild 17:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

How about Larry Mullen, Jr., where you move-warred with an admin over the comma [190]? Just because your comrades in the anti-coma crusade showed up to oppose moving it back to the longstanding, stable title doesn't mean the move was uncontroversial. Or how about here [191] where you openly admit you edit redirects created by your page moves to make it impossible for non-admins to undo the undiscussed moves? Calidum ¤ 17:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Calidum, per this RM: Talk:Larry_Mullen_Jr.#Requested_move_20_March_2016, it appears that your using the "uncontroversial" process to add a comma against the guidance of the MOS was the more controversial bit. Yes, I reverted the resulting admin move (the same admin who opened the RM discussion in response to your attempt to again insert the comma), because it was incorrect, against a clear broad consensus as expressed at WP:JR. The RM discussion affirms this. I suggest people review that, too. Dicklyon (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Even if it were right in the end, it's still controversial. Don't play dumb. You're too smart to pretend these moves aren't controversial. Calidum ¤ 17:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a "clear broad consensus" you say? Only 7 editors have participated in that still-open debate and there is clearly no consensus there at all. Your comment is, to put it politely, disingenuous. - ^theWOLFchild 22:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Mendaliv: - He knew full well these moves were controversial. His entire "war on commas" is. He was just brought to ANI for it, (see above) and his talk page is full of complaints about his page-moves and comma removals. Is this what the community had in mind when his indef block was lifted? Meanwhile, the page-moves and comma-removals need to stop for now. There needs to be a clear consensus and equally clear guideline on this before Dicklyon and Co. continue any further. - ^theWOLFchild 17:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• And the moves continue despite this ANI thread. See here for example. Calidum ¤ 18:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

And here - ^theWOLFchild 21:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

What would be the potential controversy when our MOS and the vast majority of sources are in agreement? I understand that sometimes people who prefer to "follow the sources" find edits toward the preference of our own MOS to be controversial when usage in sources is ambiguous or contrary to our style. That is not the case in any of these that we are discussing, is it? Perhaps these are not at all controversial unless you choose to make them so? And why would you? Dicklyon (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

But MOS clearly isn't in agreement with you here. And beyond that, the fact that the commas are an acceptable version and the moves are contested, means that the pages stay with their original titles. You know this, yet are deliberately ignoring it. Your continued conduct 'is therefore disruptive and completely flies in the face of your standard offer. The community allowed you back in after your recent indef block on the understanding you wouldn't cause anymore disruption. Just because you think you're right, doesn't mean that you are. You need to stop all this. - ^theWOLFchild 20:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• It may well be that Dicklyon is pushing the envelope here, and he's made a few more moves recently. What I cannot accurately judge is whether he's doing so disruptively, against consensus, by edit warring, etc. I see a few diffs, above, that allege edit warring--but what I would really like to hear here is what uninvolved editors have to say on the topic. For now, it may simply be that we have two parties fighting over content accusing each other of disruption. Wolfchild, I'm not saying you're wrong in your assessment--I'm just saying that if we were to reblock for violation of unblock conditions, those violations need to be unequivocal, and I don't see that right now. Mind you, I need some coffee. But what I really need is more voices here, and preferably another admin to judge this as well. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

  Drmies At the very least, the page-moves and comma removals should stop until all this gets sorted out. That's what I'm asking for here. Even the guidelines support that (and leaving an errant comma in place will not exactly destroy the project). A block is not what I am primarily seeking here (but if the any admins or the community are considering imposing one, it has my support). Look at the 2015 archive for MOS:BLP, this has been going on for over a year, with no consensus and no end in sight. It's time to bring this to an end. I just want the disruption, that numerous editors have now complained about, to stop until there is a clear direction to take with all this. - ^theWOLFchild 00:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

  Dicklyon was unblocked with the wording "User unblocked (with provision to avoid large scale, controversial actions) per consensus here." Almost any MOS-based change is going to be large scale as it is not article specific. Faffing around with comma's is certainly controversial. And as comments at his unblocking were quite clear, editors were not keen on unblocking him with no restrictions. Perhaps Prodego erred in not making it explicit. But 'Dont make large scale changes in contested areas' should be clear enough to anyone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Definitely need more voices, because both Calidum and Thewolfchild are huge fans of the unnecessary comma, upset that they didn't get what the wanted in the RfC. It is not at all the case that editors unconnected to the dispute are coming here because they feel something disruptive is going on that's affecting their editing. This is pure battlegrounding for personal reasons. If we all ran to ANI every time an article title pattern didn't go the way we preferred, ANI would just consist of a gladiatorial alternative to WP:MR with very little other material.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• And the moves continue today, perhaps because Dick has been emboldened by the inaction of those who've agreed he's in the wrong but fail to do anything. Calidum ¤ 21:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

What does it take to get the admins around here to do some adminning? Meanwhile, I've just now, quite suddenly and randomly, decided I no longer like question marks. Or the letter 'E'. Oh, and spaces, they're a waste of... space. I think I'll start changing every. single. article I come across that has a question mark, letter 'e' or space between words, by simply removing them. All of them. And I can do it to, just as soon as I re-write the MOS to say I can. (I wonder if the admins would so anything then?) - ^theWOLFchild 22:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Using standard RM processes are not a violation of the unblock conditions. Editwarring to unilaterally change MOS to say "every comma that can be removed must removed", or something otherwise extreme, and then fighting about it tendentiously would be. Nothing like that is happening here. Someone else (me) provided a shipload of sourcing on the current state of comma usage on a particular point (intended for mainspace use in article on English usage). Someone else proposed an RfC on that (RGloucester) relating to MoS's wording. People who cared commented. An Arb closed with a consensus finding (even if also some supervoting). A policy-compatible change was made to MOS:JR to update it post-RfC, and Dicklyon did not author any of that. Various RMs since then have challenged MOS:JR's applicability to various cases, and last I looked every single one of them was a landslide in favor of removing the comma (one exception needs to be broken up into mutiple cases, since it involves a ship named after someone, etc.). So where is the problem? What abuse is Dicklyon engaged in? You can't instruct someone to follow consensus-gauging and -building processes instead of acting unilaterally, and then punish them for following those processes, based on what others are doing (which also wasn't unilateral). There is no basis for this complaint other than "I don't like Dicklyon, and I'm not getting my way, so maybe if I make him seem to be a bad guy I will get my way after all." Well, no.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by the accused

Sorry, not much internet on my long road trip today; just read this. You'll find my full confession (posted before this complaint was filed, I think) at this section. More context there, and more on request. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

So much for "consensus"

The RfC you so heavily relied on is now a joke. Only 7 editors participated, few of whom actually agreed with you, and it wasn't even closed. I pinged those 7 editors, (including yourself), and them only, to clarify who supported what. And what do you do? You ping 14 other editors (and counting), none of whom participated in that discussion, and are likely cherry-picked 'anti-comma' people. And this is supposed to prove... what? The fact is, you lied, (again) and you were caught in that lie. You didn't have the consensus you claimed you did, and you can ping a hundred more people, nothing will change that fact. (Where that's guy that cries about canvassing when you actually need him anyway?) lolz... Despite whatever happens now, watching you panic and try to spin this is amusing... - ^theWOLFchild 07:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

How many times do I need to link it for you? It was recently archived from WP:VPP and I linked it on your other forum shop at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Consensus....3F. Dicklyon (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

"Forum shop"...? Forumshopping is raising the same issue at different places. Here I'm asking that you stop all your silly page-moves and comma removals. There I was simply trying to establish the so-called consensus you keep claiming supports your disruptive behaviour. (>bing!< - another lie shot down) Relax... no need to get all pissy just because so many people are disagreeing with you now. - ^theWOLFchild 22:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

We already have one thread on this, filed 2 days previously

• We already have one thread on this, filed 2 days previously: [192]. Could someone kindly combine the two threads/filings. Softlavender (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - The other report is now stale. They are both quite lengthy. There are also separate issues being discussed here. This one has been active for 3 days now, with many editors contributing, but not one complaining of a need to merge... (except for this proposer). Also, this report has been linked to other discussions, moving it would break those links. - ^theWOLFchild 07:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment from (uninvolved and uncanvassed editor): Reviewing the ongoing RFC about implementing WP:JR as it stands (on which I have not !voted, as I don't care, the most pertinent comment seems to come from @Guy Macon:: "Support Dicklyon's comma-removals, including the the page-moves. Reject the notion that when Wolfchild and Dicklyon fight over commas only one of them is at fault. Evidence, please regarding the claim that Dicklyon re-wrote WP:JR and MOS:BLP to support his position -- I want to see diffs. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)" - It's evident from above that there are two sides to this and, as @Winkelvi: noticed above, one side has been disproportionately notified to come here. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: As I said above, if you want to accuse me of something, then accuse me; file a complaint, a separate complaint. Cite your diffs, along with the relevant policies and whatever else you like, but do it somewhere else, and quit filling up this report with off-topic nonsense. Start your own ANI report, so you can actually learn what WP:CANVASSING is, and isn't. As for this ANI report, you clearly have no idea what it's about and I strongly suggest you read everything prior to participating so that you can make more informed, and relevant, comments. Take your time, there is a lot to read. Thank you - ^theWOLFchild 22:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Concur this is forum shopping. Something like four editors disagree with the outcome of an RfC, at Village Pump and very broadly advertised, which ran its full course and was based on a huge pile of source research, then closed not just by an admin but one of the WP:ARBCOM members. They are now trying to "re-legislate" it in every forum they can find, including threads on multiple MOS talk pages, multiple RMs (where they recycle the same refuted, emotive, and evidence-free arguments in a WP:IDHT pattern), and now multiple AN/ANI threads. It's patently litigious, tendentious, and vexatious. There is nothing untoward about someone using actual RM processes to propose moves that comply with guidelines based on RfCs, and relying upon evidence not opinions and feelings. There is something untoward about a handful of editors using every means at their disposal, including wikilawyering, and increasingly personalized disputation in contravention of WP:ARBATC#All parties reminded, to get their way at all costs, over a trivial punctuation desire that is no longer the preferred usage in modern off-WP publications, online or offline, in any genre, dialect, or register. The horse is very, very dead on this one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

  PS: A party who has not commented in this ANI thread at all has independently noted that Thewolfchild is engaging in WP:ASPERSIONS on this matter elsewhere [193]. Given the unclean-hands nature of this filing, and its clear "get rid of my enemy so I can WP:WIN" nature, I think a WP:BOOMERANG is in order.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

S, thanks for noticing this thread. Of course RG has not commented here, as still the wolf has not notified anyone but MOS detractors about this complaint. Dicklyon (talk) 06:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Nice tag-team at the end of an ANI that started with a bang, but ended with a whimper. Actually, make that a whine... - ^theWOLFchild 10:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• The underlying issue here is "how strenuously should MOS guidance be implemented?" When does strenuous implementation of MOS guidance cross the line and become disruption? We need to ask and answer that question before we can say whether Dick's behavior was disruptive or not. (And I suspect that there would be no consensus on that underlying question). Blueboar (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Maybe the underlying issue is really to see who is doing the disruption. Where will it stop? Dicklyon (talk) 06:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Dicklyon and his treatment on commas before Jr/Sr

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

---

Dicklyon has removed commas from titles without consensus case-by-case, like Andrew L. Lewis, Jr. Also, he misinterprets WP:JR as a no-comma rule for Jr./Sr. I don't think WP:3RRN would help much. Also, he posted a message and accused me of being disruptive. I can't handle his antics anymore. Time for administrative action. --George Ho (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

"Antics"? There has been broad support for WP:JR since the recent RFC. If you believe that Andrew L. Lewis, Jr. calls for a comma, please just say why. What have I done to stress you out so? Dicklyon (talk) 05:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion was about MOS and usage of content in text. It may not have extended to article titles. Also, I did not know about the RfC, and I was not told about it. --George Ho (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem, George. Now you know. I had some time today, and removed a lot of un-preferred commas. Please do let me know if you see any case where there's a reason to put them back. Dicklyon (talk) 06:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, look at the edits, especially on Cuba Gooding, Jr. How is the rule extended to article titles is beyond me. --George Ho (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

If, as you claim, WP:JR does not apply to article titles, how do you explain the fact that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies specifically mentions how to handle article titles in four places? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Other parts have to do with how to introduce a person. Also, it's content-based, not title-based. As for commonality, MOS:BIO mentions it briefly without detailing it too much. --George Ho (talk) 06:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• George, in reading Dicklyon's linked note to you, I rather think it's you who's been disruptive. Tony (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

How so? George Ho (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Shall we start with you taking a clear content dispute to ANI after less than an hour and a half / 3 total comments on the article talk page? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It also looks like there's ongoing discussion at WT:MOSBIO regarding how to implement the "Jr." RfC. I think this discussion might work better in the scope of that one. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• @George Ho: Will you accept this WP:TROUT that's on offer and allow this thread to be closed so you can all go back to discussing this content dispute in the appropriate venue? Or does this call for a WP:BOOMERANG? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri, due to below comment, I'm afraid closing it would premature at this time. Let's see how it goes... George Ho (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:JR prefers but doesn't mandate the removal of commas. Strictly speaking, the page moves are unnecessary. This isyet another instance of wishy-washy language in the MOS causing grief. It should be consistent one way or the other and hopefully the aforementioned discussion on WT:MOSBIO provides a clear way forward. clpo13_(talk) 06:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%, but ANI is not the place to discuss that. ANI is where we discuss blocks and bans of disruptive users. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

How is Dicklyon not a disruptive type? George Ho (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Especially when he removes the comma during the RM? George Ho (talk) 06:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The only RM I can see is one you opened, to an undetermined future title. If you don't know what the title should be, you can't criticize other users for presenting there proposals and being WP:BOLD. Also, I had no idea there was an RM open because you never mentioned it. Now do you want that trout or not? I strongly urge you to accept the former... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

What about this RM? And past requests and one of my reverts, whilst RM discussion at Talk:Martin Luther King, Sr. was ongoing? George Ho (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, I notice that the comma was removed from "Robert Downey, Jr." when the RM four years ago said to retain the comma and no further discussions were made in the talk page. George Ho (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

None of those RMs are currently open, and two are over a year old! Are you saying User:Philg88 should be blocked for something he did more than a year ago? You appear to be saying that you want to have a general discussion of our style guidelines on ANI? Or are you blaming Dicklyon for a whole bunch of stuff they had nothing to do with? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

What? No, I'm not pinning on Phil. It's Dicklyon's disregard for case-by-case strategy and generalization on other things. If you think I'm out of control, be my guest. And how dare you propose a block on me after I tried to address a user conduct. Giving me a "boomerang", which I don't know what it means until you try to propose a block on me. --George Ho (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

If you want my propose on Dicklyon, maybe an admonishment perhaps? If that's not enough, how about warning? Or encourage Dicklyon to propose instead of boldly moving on all commas? George Ho (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

You've been editing Wikipedia for a decade and you don't know how ANI works? Maybe you shouldn't have come here, then. I offered you the easy way out of being hit with a trout and closing this thread, and you refused. Twice. I explicitly told you you would be hit with a boomerang if you persisted, and I linked to the page for you to read it. The potentially-disruptive unilateral move in the middle of an RM from over a year ago to which you referred above was made by Philg88 and had nothing to do with Dicklyon as far as I can see. I don't think either should face sanctions for what looks like a good faith misunderstanding from over a year ago. You, on the other hand, appear to be deliberately forum-shopping your content dispute to ANI, and trying to antagonize anyone who calls you out on it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

If I'm too late to let you close the thread, that's fine by me. If you want to close it, go ahead. But I'll be back if the empire strikes back. I swear to you. --George Ho (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Rescinding my latest comment due to unanimous opposition below. If it's not too late, close it if you want. Otherwise, let's hear admins' comments then. --George Ho (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

You know what? If you believe that this ANI is in bad faith, propose an admonishment or a warning on me if you can. --George Ho (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you trying to be antagonistic? I withdrew my boomerang proposal seven hours before you posted the above, and had refrained from further comment in this thread. The "unanimous opposition" was entirely based on philosophical differences over what constitutes a "preventative" block, and I had better things to do with my time than comb through your edit history to see if you abusing ANI was already a recurring problem. Everyone was and still is in agreement that you are being disruptive and are misusing ANI. The "unanimous opposition" was also unanimous that you should be hit with some sort of boomerang or at least a trout. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

If no one is behind me, then... please don't trout me. I don't like being trout-ed. I was trouted once; twice is too much. I don't know if I want to back off or make the thread active. I hate that I'm the enemy here; I don't want to be "antagonistic". If I allow bold removals of commas, then what are we going to do with academics outside Wikipedia who still encourage commas before Sr./Jr.? Also, what about academics encouraging the periods after Jr/Sr? --George Ho (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• I think a WP:BOOMERANG an ANI-misuse admin warning of some kind (not a block, per below discussion) is in order, perhaps a short-term topic ban. Ho may well have been unaware of the RfC but that doesn't mitigate anything, including his vague aspersion-casting that Lyon is "a disruptive type", etc. It's totally inappropriate to drag someone to WP:ANI for alleged linguistic battlegrounding (actually, routine cleanup) when one's own intent is in fact to perpetuate linguistic battlegrounding. It's vexatious, litigious, unclean-hands, and a misuse of ANI to try to WP:WIN a content dispute. Lyon using normal WP:RM processes – slow or speedy – to comply with guideline wording, in an evidence-backed manner, is not problematic. What is problematic is the never-give-up attitude of a couple of editors who are big fans of this comma despite all evidence that usage has shifted over the last two decades (across all dialects and registers) and who go from RM to RM opposing its removal, recycling, in WP:NOTGETTINGIT style, the same bogus arguments in every case no matter how many times they are refuted. This is tendentious activity and needs to stop.

  George Ho in particular has been remarkably WP:DEADHORSE, at both RM discussions and MoS talk pages, about a number of linguistic matters he simply does not understand and refuses to believe enormous piles of evidence about, like the difference between "as" or "like" when used as a preposition versus as a conjunction. It took me many hours of sourcing to get him to even back slightly away from that carcass (thought fortunately the work can be used to improve some articles on English usage).
  PS: comments like "WP:JR prefers but doesn't mandate the removal of commas" are meaningless; all of MOS and our naming conventions pages are just guidelines and do not "mandate" anything. We comply with them as guidelines absent a compelling reason not to in a particular case. And, yes, this is not the place to try to make one.
   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Which is part of the problem. So long as MOS pages remain "just guidelines", we end up with pointless arguments like this. The wording should be stronger. And next time, would you be so kind as to ping me when you talk about me? clpo13_(talk) 05:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. George Ho's above ex post facto comments on my failed boomerang proposal indicate that he just doesn't get it -- he seems to actually think a lot of users came to his defense in the belief that this discussion does belong on ANI and I was totally wrong on the substance. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the objections were to using a block punitively rather than preventatively, i.e. they were procedural not content- or behavior-related objections.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Bogus? SMcCandlish, my arguments aren't bogus. Give one example that my arguments are bogus. --George Ho (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You're just proving Hijiri88's point. This is not the forum for an argument about grammar/style and the bogosity of your beliefs about that topic. And "Give one example that my arguments are bogus" doesn't even parse as a proper sentence, which rather proves the other point. So does the whole square mile of sources I dumped on the like/as matter at WT:MOSCAPS, now in Archive 21, at multiple RMs, and developed in hairy detail at User:SMcCandlish/sourcing/Capitalization in English. Anyone who cares about the actual content dispute will find everything they could want in there. Be careful what you wish for.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm rescinding my t-ban suggestion. In re-reviewing Ho's involvement in these topics, while there is a level of tendentiousness, he's actually usually more civil than the "style warriors" we keep having to deal with periodically. This seems to have been a momentary lapse.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: After reading, above, I have to say I agree with the comment in this sect by Tony1 (talk · contribs). I'd encourage the filer of this ANI thread to familiarize themselves with RFC reflecting community consensus, existing site policy, and then discuss in a civil manner on relevant article talk pages about the issue, keeping in mind pages already cited to him, above. — Cirt (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG for George Ho - block for 24 hours

Withdrawn by requestor

George Ho (talk · contribs) has been given ample opportunity to withdraw this silly request for sanctions over a content dispute that apparently had only started before he decided to escalate it to ANI, and has refused. His most recent comments, immediately above, indicate that he does not have any solid proposal for admin intervention, and just wants to have a general discussion of Wikipedia's style guidelines, which is not what ANI is for. I say issue a short block and tell him that this kind of escalation is disruptive. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Support as nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Withdrawn per WP:SNOW. I guess I was the one hit with a trout in this case.（笑） Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Oppose Personally I prefer the no-comma style, but regardless of the underlying merits, in the War of the Comma Crazies no less than in the Middle East, it's critical that a balance of power be maintained lest any one party become unfettered to spread perverse punctuation preoccupation to further parts of the Wikiglobe. A block of anyone might upset this delicate balance. EEng 11:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Oppose - Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punishing for misusing AN/I. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC) @OpenFuture: Per SNOW, I'm not going to attempt to defend my proposal and overturn all of the oppose !votes, but if you read the discussion above it's pretty clear that, even after several users telling him, George Ho didn't accept that he was misusing ANI. A short block would tell him definitively that what he did was wrong and discourage repeat offense, something that's highly likely if he doesn't recognize that what he did was not acceptable. I even specifically told GH that what he was doing was disruptive and he should take it back, and he refused to listen -- twice. It would also allow this thread to be closed and for the comma warriors to go back to solving their content dispute (although one of them would have to wait 24 hours). So my rationale was preventative, even if the rest of you don't agree. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Unless he has a history of misusing AN/I you can't reasonably call it preventative. Sure, he might do it again, but innocent until proven guilty... --OpenFuture (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Oppose vehemently What is this block supposed to achieve? Everybody is entitled to his/her opinion, and finding consensus is the way forward. This block would be purely punitive, and would have zilch effect. Either stay away from each other, or hash it out without getting too stubborn. Lectonar (talk) 11:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Oppose The comma wars are, in my opinion, one of the most lame long term wars at Wikipedia. I suppose it would make too much sense to solve the whole thing like we did ENGVAR - leave it as it was first done and keep it consistent within articles. It is unlikely our readers give even a tiny fraction of a damn about this when they come to look something up. That said George Ho is a prolific and good faith editor and a block is not warranted. Even if an argument could be made this ANI filing is inappropriate (no opinion on that) this call for a BOOMERANG is more so. JbhTalk 12:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Strong oppose. As OpenFuture has said, blocks are preventative not punitive. This is a punitive measure. On a side note, the comma wars looks to be the next in line after the emdash war, the diacritic war, the engvar war... Who posted this? I felt sure that with so many ANI posters opposed to my proposal, at least one must have been make dickish ad hominem attacks against the messenger, so even after withdrawing I was reading these !votes. I was happy -- and frankly quite surprised -- to see not a single DICK comment, but reading the above I sensed a kindred spirit in someone who recognizes the diacritic war as something in the past (Ctrl+F this page right now for "diacritic" to see why I was happy with this), and I would like to barnstar, or at least thank, whoever wrote it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC) I think it was User:Blackmane...Lectonar (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC) @Hijiri88: Indeed it was. Forgot to sign, thanks @Lectonar:. Blackmane (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Oppose, GeorgeHo is commenting on a possible misuse of removing commas from articles, as the closer of the RFC said that commas on Jr.Sr. could be grandfathered on older and feature articles. A block makes little sense when someone brings up a legitimate issue. Randy Kryn 13:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Close nothing here In ictu oculi (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

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

John Carter continuing to post on my talk page despite repeated warnings not to

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

---

John Carter (talk · contribs) recently logged out and posted on my talk page, even though he knows I am uncomfortable with him posting there unless he is specifically required to do so. Almost a year ago, I told him several times to stay off the page, and he by-and-large obliged, but then in the past 24 hours he attempted to get around this by posting on my talk page while logged out (the IP is definitely him). His other recent (logged-in) edits indicate that he is following me.[194][195][196][197] Can I get an interaction ban? Or at least a warning to John Carter that following my edits and posting on my talk page while logged out is inappropriate? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: Just thought I'd tag this on, as recent data seems not to have been fully convincing for some users. I noticed a while ago that John Carter almost never edits in the mainspace unless the article's title is "Bibliography of encyclopedias". In the last year he has made 23 edits to articles other than that, and of these 23, five of them were direct reverts of me, on an article he had never shown any interest in before. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I just read those diffs and I don't see anything abusive or harassing. Can you point out to me where John has done anything inappropriate towards you? HighInBC 03:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

John Carter engaged in a pretty aggressive harassment campaign against me and User:Sturmgewehr88 between April and November 2015, but I don't want to discuss it. I am under an IBAN with another user involved in the case, and the whole story was pretty unpleasant to begin with. But its zenith was probably these two concurrent and baseless ANI threads he started against us.

Anyway, I thought it was my prerogative to unilaterally ban John Carter from posting on my talk page if I am uncomfortable interacting with him -- isn't it? He has done the same to me. In this case he didn't just "forget", because he logged out to do so. Further, he followed me to WT:BIBLE, and while nothing in his comments either there or on my talk page was itself harassment, he knows I don't want him stalking my edits or my talk page and has continued to do so.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

IP editor does appear to be John Carter. John Carter hadn't edited on the WikiProject:Bible since October 2015, whereas Hijiri88 has been rather active this past month. John then comments on the RfC one day after Hijiri ([198]). Indeed John Carter hadn't edited since January 14, 2016 until this RfC edit. My understanding is that if a user "bans" you from their talk page, editing on it outside of required notifications is considered HARASSMENT. That and the following to the RfC seems like HOUNDing to me. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No comment on the ban, but the time frame you sort of hint at seems to be a key point here. Considering John Carter indeed hasn't edited since January until recently and the edits happened after the edits to the talk page, saying they " "logged out and posted on my talk page" and "logged out to do so" is unproven. It's just as likely they hadn't been logged in for a while. Particularly since it would be fairly dumb to use an IP who's last edit was to a case page involving and naming Hijiri88. Since Hijiri88 had asked them to stay away (regardless of what that should mean) and I guess there must have been historic disagreements to result in this, it's unfortunate John Carter didn't either log in or declare who they were. However in absence of better evidence there was any intentional attempt at hiding who they were, I don't think not being logged in is particularly relevant other than a firm reminder to John Carter that they should either login or make it clear who they are in the edit if they are going to get re-involved in previous disputes. Nil Einne (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: The question of whether JC consciously logged out with the intention of avoiding detection is peripheral; I only mentioned it because otherwise someone would have asked me how I know the IP is him. I told JC to stay off my talk page and he came back, several times. His logged-in edits are almost as bad: he posted twice on a page he hadn't edited since June 2014 (subpages do not count), once in a thread I started, and once a thread someone else started about my proposal. I don't want this user posting on my talk page or following my edits, and I want an formal, mutual IBAN; John Carter said several times (admittedly last year) that he would be comfortable with such an IBAN; if a two-way IBAN is mutually acceptable, isn't this an open-shut case? Bringing up peripheral concerns about sockpuppetry is as far as I can tell pointless. (I did allude to my suspicions of deliberate sockpuppetry both on my talk page and in my notifications to JC, but I consciously avoided it in my OP comment here, because I knew it would turn into a red herring.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: If it's peripheral you should have chosen your words more careful. In your original comments here, you implied that JC had done it intentionally. As I said above you said "logged out and posted on my talk page" and "logged out to do so" which implies there was a delibrate obfuscation on the part of JC. Open and shut case doesn't excuse you making accusations with insufficient evidence and it was fair of me to point out you had done so. A simple example which doesn't make such accusations would be

"recently posted on my talk page, even though he knows I am uncomfortable with him posting there unless he is specifically required to do so. Almost a year ago, I told him several times to stay off the page, and he by-and-large obliged, but then in the past 24 hours he did so while logged out (the IP is definitely him). His other recent (logged-in) edits indicate that he is following me.[199][200][201][202] Can I get an interaction ban? Or at least a warning to John Carter that following my edits and posting on my talk page is inappropriate?"

You can easily come up with many different examples of wording which conveys the point. In other words I agree it's a red herring, as there's no reason why you can't mention the evidence, without accusing JC of intentionally logging out to post out your talk page when you have sufficient evidence to make such an accusations and where what evidence that does exist suggests it probably wasn't a delibrate action. But it's a red herring which you caused by your actions here at ANI.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I know it was a poor choice of words, and I apologize. My only defense is that it was less a deliberate attempt to lead the reader than a Freudian slip ー I legitimately believed that evading detection was John Carter's intention, as indicated by my comments on my own talk page. I initially drafted the above OP comment with a lengthy discussion of why I think this, but then realized my case was still fairly weak, and would be pretty pointless to boot (an OB like John Carter isn't going to be blocked for one small instance of sockpuppetry). When I removed this discussion I guess I wasn't as thorough as I should have been. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose IBAN I am not seeing anything mean spirited here. The links you give show John either talking about articles or explaining how Wikipedia works. You "banning him" from your talk page seems to be in response to reasonable comments. If we are to CBAN based on two people being in the same places then we need a lot more evidence than has been presented. HighInBC 15:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• WP:KEEPOFF is relevant here (though sadly underdeveloped even as far as essays go). Telling someone to keep off your user talk page is rarely helpful, and when done unreasonably, can lead to non-enforcement of that "ban". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Indeed. If you don't have a good reason to tell someone to go away then it is hardly harassment if they say something to you later. Harassment involves being harassing, not just failing to obey some made up restraining order. In both of those links where you tell John to go away the comments being made are measured and reasonable. HighInBC 15:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: He showed up at an ANI thread I started about his friend and deliberately misrepresented the dispute by pretending it was already under discussion on DRN. He engaged in off-wiki contact with ... someone who apparently really doesn't like me and then when I asked if it was the same site-banned user who had been posting my personal information all over the internet (and was at that time still actively engaged in emailing anyone who got in a dispute with me on Wikipedia, from a sock account -- email me if you want the details) he repeatedly misrepresented what I was saying as "of course someone without a publicly disclosed email must be engaged in sockpuppetry" (???) even though I explained my concern to him over and over again. He suddenly showed up on an article I was in the middle of rewriting and started trolling the hell out of me over one word in the lead, despite multiple users telling him to cut it out, and then when he didn't get his way on the talk page he opened an ANI thread (again: you say he was discussing article content, but ANI is not the place for that). Half the time I cannot make head or tail about what his beef is with me, and the only reason I can think of is that he is deliberately being antagonistic. When I told him to stay off my talk page he didn't until told more firmly to stay off, and then he came back again later, while logged out, and posted an inane non-sequitur apparently just to get another rise out of me (seriously -- look at what User:Curly Turkey and I were discussing, and then try to figure out what JC's contribution to the discussion was; if you can, then you understand the content of my talk page better than I do). And he has been stalking my edits to boot! What more evidence do you need? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I wasn't convinced when Hijiri first started telling me that JC was hounding him, but after a couple of months of seeing him showing up everywhere—and often making bizarre comments like the one pointed out here—I'm convinced. I have no idea what a solution is, but I'm positive that he didn't show up at Hijiri's talk page to honestly be helpful—he obviously dislikes Hijirii too much. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. More dispute resolution could be a good idea, perhaps with a mediator or request for comment format. Also, essentially agree with analysis by HighInBC, at DIFF, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Cirt: Dispute resolution about what? John Carter and I do not edit in the same areas, and even in those topics areas where there is a very slight overlap (I edit articles on biblical, Jewish and Christian topics, and JC very occasionally posts on these talk pages) the problem is not that we have a disagreement on content. John Carter followed me around for most of 2015 and reverted a bunch of my edits and caused massive ruckuses on talk pages and here on ANI, and I asked that he stay off of my talk page. He has refused to do so, while hypocritically imposing such a "stay away" restriction on me.[203][204][205][206][207] How on earth would "dispute resolution" solve an issue where there is no dispute other than a non-productive editor hounding a productive one? Further, if both John Carter and I want an IBAN (I think JC's last comment on the issue was I might also request an i-ban of him with me, but he might have said the same thing more recently), why should one not be put in place? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking perhaps informally seeking out someone from the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, but hopefully the comment from Drmies, below, will help clear things up and prevent problems in the future. — Cirt (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Proposal: Semi-protect Hijiri's TP longterm, officially warn John Carter that if he posts on Hijiri's TP again he will be blocked. Any discussion worth having can occur on article talk pages or other Wikipedia space. Softlavender (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• John Carter (talk · contribs), if that's you posting on Hijiri's talk page, please stop. You were asked not to and you have no choice but to obey. If you persist, you will be blocked--it counts as harassment. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

"You have no choice but to obey"? Such an authoritarian command has to be based on the editor being ordered to obey Wikipedia policy or standards, not on what an individual says, even if the individual is an administrator. Please cite the Wikipedia policy that backs up your command to obey. In absence of policy, or an interaction ban, or some other preexisting sanction, I do not think an administrator can make a "do this because I say so, or else" threat. While it might have been socially impolite for John Carter to have made the user page post (if he did it), the post itself had a legitimate purpose and was not offensive or harassing under the Wikipedia definitions of offense or harassment. I accept Hijiri 88 feels the post to be harassing (which should be reason enough for John Carter not to repeat it), but I think harassment as a sanctionable offense should not be based on an individual editor's standard of offense or hurt feelings, but on accepted group standards expressed through Wikipedia policy. Without some sort of harassment within the post's content, or an intent to harass through the act of posting, policy does not exist that allows an editor ignoring a request not to post on a user page to be blocked for not following that request not to post. Or as HighinBC put it "Harassment involves being harassing, not just failing to obey some made up restraining order". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Softlavender and Drmies. People need to stay off other user's talk pages when requested to do so. I'm hoping HighInBC and MSGJ are taking note of this. - ^theWOLFchild 19:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

If you have something to say to me you are welcome to do so at my talk page. HighInBC 21:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, will do. - ^theWOLFchild 16:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Saying "People need to stay off other user's talk pages when requested to do so" (a statement which I agree with) is very different from saying "People must stay off other user's talk pages when requested to do so". The latter is what Softlavender and Drmies appear to be saying, and I think it is not a position supported by Wikipedia policies. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I-Ban, however... An I Ban seems like unnecessary overkill,. That said a request by an editor not to post on their talk page has always been treated as something close to posting a "No Trespassing" sign with your name on it. In all but the rarest of circumstances such a request should be scrupulously respected. Failing to do so absent a very compelling reason has generally been treated as a form of WP:HARASSMENT. It may not be their private property but the community has long recognized the right of editors to some degree of control over their own user and talk pages. If John has been posting on the OP's talk page after being asked not to, he needs to stop. Period. An apology, on this page, not the talk page, would not be out of order. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I am striking my opposition to an I Ban. Based on more recent comments from both parties I now believe it appropriate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I should specify that the reason John Carter is not supposed to post on my talk page is that he and two or three other users put me through a lot of crap last year, to the point where I started to hate logging in and seeing that I had new messages, because I was worried about what new trickery they were up to. I'm largely over that "complex" by now, but it was still very disturbing to log on one morning last week and find that not only was John Carter back editing (and therefore potentially back to inflict more nonsense on me) but had posted on my talk page while logged out. John Carter knows the crap he put me through, and knows I don't like interacting with him, and he has been harassing me at this point for over a year. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

None of this is relevant. The only issue here is that it is alleged that he has posted on your talk page after you asked him not to. That's it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment This seems to me an attempt at continuing the irrational and frankly paranoid behavior that caused Hijiri to be sanctioned in the first place. I would also point out that there was no visible attempt on his part to notify me of this discussion on my user talk page, which is, actually, required, even though I have had to twice request him before to stay off my user talk page, and he seems to continue to ignore those requests. (Note: Actually, that is wrong. He did give such a notice, but started the post with a gratuitous and unnecessary request, which I believe could it itself not unreasonably be seen as being a continuation of his apparent absolute refusal to abide by my already repeated request to stay off my user talk page. Also, I suppose, maybe that requirement does not apply to people as exalted as Hijiri. I believe the issue here is the ongoing pattern of what I consider frankly insane conduct on the part of Hijiri, and I believe that it might not be unreasonable to request some sort of sanctions against him for this conduct on his part. I commented on two discussions at the talk page of the Bible project, because I watch that page and the WP:X noticeboard, where I saw the discussion listed. Of late, I have been spending most of my time gathering material for pages for Category:WikiProject prospectuses and Category:WikiProject libraries, and it is easier to do that without distractions. But I have reason to believe that the ongoing irrational behavior of the original poster here could be seen as being very reasonably grounds for further administrative action against him, particularly considering his refusal to adhere to my repeated request to stay off my own user talk page and the grossly inflammatory and unnecessary nature of the comment he added to the ANI notice despite having been told twice already to stay off my user talk page. Also, if anyone is interested, I would be willing to forward to them an e-mail I received from Hijiri, after my repeated requests to him to stay off my userpage, whose sole purpose seems to have been to tell me he wouldn't be stupid enough to do something. Evidently, sending such an e-mail to get around my request to no longer receive comments from him is something he doesn't consider so stupid. John Carter (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

There's a lot of self-contradiction, baseless insults, and questionable "facts" in the above long comment (which I finally mustered the courage to read from start to finish), but I'm going to limit myself to replying to the last part. I didn't email John Carter "to get around [his] request to no longer receive comments from [me]", as I had, frankly, forgotten about that request (I have, nonetheless, not posted anything on his talk page except what was required in some six months). This will be backed up by the content of the email (I specifically said I didn't want my dispute with him to clutter up any more of an ANI thread about Curly Turkey and CurtisNaito; I wanted to avoid posting here, not on John Carter's talk page).o there is no misunderstanding, I will publish the content of the email below. There is nothing in it embarrassing to me, but publishing it here will clearly prove John Carter's above claim wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

E-mail from Hijiri88 to John Carter, 2015/10/22, Thu 11:05; the edits to which I refer are here

John Carter, I'm emailing you because I don't want this discussion to clutter up the Wikipedia namespace or anywhere else more than it has to. I don't expect you to respond to this email, nor do I particular desire such. Your repeatedly asserting that I was the collapser at ANI is disruptive. The collapser was very clearly NOT me, but Curly Turkey, who has nothing whatsoever to do with ArbCom and (unlike CurtisNaito) doesn't even want to be involved. For one thing, the collapse title referred to my initial response which barely mentioned ArbCom as "acrimonious bickering" over and unrelated ArbCom case -- something that clearly I would never use to describe my own post. You accusing me of "assuming bad faith" by merely stating the facts, while at the same time actively assumed bad faith even though you must have known better (you claimed you had reverted the collapsing several times, so you must have known who you were reverting) is deeply hypocritical and very disruptive. I'm going to forward this email to CurtisNaito and Yunshui (who I know is on a wikibreak but he's an Arbitrator with whom I have had prior dealings, both positive and negative, and believe to be a fair neutral observer). Cheers! Hijiri88

At the risk of hurting my own mental health (again), I'm not going to respond to or even read most of what I guess is another string of lies and deception in the above long comment, but in his edit summary he insinuated that I didn't notify him of this discussion, an obvious lie. I'm done putting up with your bullshit, John Carter. Stay the hell off my talk page, stop following my edits, and stop talking shit about me all over the project (and via email). Just stop. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri, to my eyes, the single source of bullshit here is you. First, despite your evincing what some might see as your opinions to the contrary, you are not in divine, absolute control of everything. You cannot demand that everyone do exactly what you say, while at the same time acting in the irrational and counterproductive way you so regularly do, which can also be seen by your similar refusal to address the concerns of myself and another in the ArbCom case which led to your current sanctions. Refusing to deal with reality does not make it go away. I am more than willing to see the end of your own paranoic ranting myself, and have been since the first time I told you to stay off my user talk page. Under the circumstances, I think the most reasonable thing to be done here would be for you to display the capacity to engage in reasonable conduct yourself, something which I think has been rather visibly lacking from you for some time. John Carter (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Here you go folks, two characteristic examples of the language of John Carter. Notice first that he missed the notification of this discussion on his talk page and decries Hijiri for it. He also bashes Hijiri's characher numerous times (irrational, paranoid, insane, etc) and flat-out lies about Hijiri's past editing and sanctions to make him out to be a villain (can he not tell the difference between Chinese and Japanese after being so deeply involved in that dispute?). He acts like this is all about him being a victim, never recognizing that this is about him posting on Hijiri's talk page. He demands numerous times that Hijiri must stay off of his talk page, but later accuses Hijiri of thinking he is God for demanding the same! And of course he finishes with a holier-than-thou sermon on conduct. I just wonder if anyone else took the time to read all of his posts and notice the same things that show up in pretty much all of his posts. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course, it surprises nobody that — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Carter (talk • contribs) 16:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@John Carter: I recognize the tone of the above six words as being yours. Could you please finish, sign, or remove it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Sanctions

• Support I Ban for both parties and propose 30 day block for Hijiri88 for grossly uncivil commentary on this forum and using it as platform for attacking another editor in a manner that is completely out of bounds. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Yes, I said "bullshit". This may have been a bad call. I apologize for any offense my use of foul language caused. This was not my intention. John Carter just has a habit of bringing out the worst in me (indeed, he seems to enjoy doing so on a semi-regular basis), which is why I told you of all the nonsense he put me through last year. I should have said "obvious and demonstrable lies". But John Carter said the same about what I said, including the word "bullshit" (immediately above). The question is whose accusations are demonstrable. I have provided evidence that John Carter has made up stuff about me (I'll search for the diff where I specifically pointed out to him before he posted below that he and I interacted on the Historicity of Jesus talk page back in 2014, if you need it). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

You can't be blocked just for using profanity such as that. If that were case, half the admins here wouldn't be admins due to massive block logs. - ^theWOLFchild 10:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• weak support I-ban and sanctions as per the above, although I have questions about how it might deal with questions of effectively banning individuals from discussions. Specifically, Hijiri has only since his topic ban from Chinese topics shown any substantive interest in Christianity, and honestly I can't rule out the possibility that his more or less newfound interest in that topic might not be a form of "reprisal" on his part. John Carter (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

How am I supposed to be civil when John Carter keeps lying about me like this? I have been editing Christian topics for years and I have never been topic-banned from Chinese topics! The above looks like a not-so-subtle way to try to get me sanctioned for violating a topic ban to which I was never subject, as I have started editing much more in a certain topic (Chinese culture) since my recent topic ban. John Carter has been making my Wikipedia life miserable for a year, and now I am being threatened with a block simply for reporting on it and responding in a (pretty reasonable, given the circumstances) fashion to his continued harassment. If someone can demonstrate that John Carter has not been lying about me and harassing me for the last year, including in this very thread, please do so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Civility is not optional. If you are unable or unwilling to conduct yourself with a minimal level of decorum then you might want to consider finding another project to work on. Because the kind of invective you have been throwing around here is not acceptable and if you persist in this behavior it is not going to end well. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I said "bullshit". John Carter also said "bullshit". John Carter told a long string of lies about me, with the intention of bringing sanctions down on me. He has not provided any evidence of his accusations, and I cannot be expected to let them stand. I have already apologized for my use of foul language. But the harassment and pathological lying also need to be dealt with. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It is becoming increasingly clear that you just don't get it, and I am starting to doubt if that is correctable. Civility is not limited to the use of gutter language. I stand by my recommendations above and am going to move on unless something actually new comes up on this thread. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Is it to do with me accusing John Carter of lying? I provided evidence. Is it to do with my "thanking" you for an edit that appeared to be dismissive of me? I didn't take it that way -- you made a reasonable point, and I didn't see the point of continuing discussion further beyond indicating that I appreciated what you said. Is it to do with my going on and on about the mental trauma John Carter put me through? You are supposed to assume I am telling the truth, and if you want more evidence, I can provide it to you (preferably by email, for the reasons outlined below). Is it because of something else I said? If so I will try to work on it, but simply saying I am uncivil and linking to a policy page I have probably read a dozen times over over the years is not helpful. I know I have had a lapse in civility. It is because John Carter has put me through a tremendous amount of ... painful experiences, just remembering it makes me very upset, and has already caused me to lose several hours of sleep over the past week (fortunately I'm a school teacher in Japan and am on holiday at the moment). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

(e-c) And the record of the Arbitration case from last year at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88 and related pages rather clearly demonstrates that throwing invective, possibly virtually any time anyone questions him, seems to be perhaps one of Hijiri's more persistent habits. And the primary b.s I see being thrown is still from Hijiri, and his as yet completely unsupported accusations about me. I am more than willing to forward the e-mail to anyone who requests it, other than Hijiri of course, for verification. Also, as per the evidence page I linked to above, Hijiri himself has a rather well documented history of making life miserable for others, including accusations of sock-puppetry from the beginning of editing, as per TH1980's evidence on that page. I believe that much of this is due to his repeated insistence that someone who has contacted me regarding his conduct is a sockpuppet of someone he had previous trouble with. For what it is worth, I myself went through every step I could to determine independently the identity of that person, and find that the likelihood of his being the same person as Hijiri's earlier stalker is pretty much nonexistent. I also have some reason to believe that the ArbCom itself was aware of the identity of the person I had been in e-mail contact with at the time of the arbitration, and there is nothing in the results of the arbitration to indicate that they considered Hijiri's allegations of sockpuppetry by his former stalker worthy of direct consideration. And, if someone wants to talk about unsubstantiated allegations, the worst ones in this matter are Hijiri's repeated insistence that, apparently, only that former stalker could ever disagree with him. A position which, I believe, is ridiculous on the face of it. Regarding use of "gutter language," I think even a former arb somewhere has said on a userspace page that in at least some rather extreme cases it is appropriate to call something "bullshit," or "ridiculous," or similar, and I personally believe that discussion of Hijiri's conduct and apparent deeply-held beliefs may well be one of them. John Carter (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Yes, civility is more than just the use of "gutter language"; does calling someone "insane" breech civility? Or any of the character-bashing John Carter has continuously done since his first post? Or that inflammatory lie that Hijiri never editied Christian articles before and got TBANned from Chinese topics? That last one especially, considering the deep involvement he had with Hijiri, calls either his competency or integrity into question. He should share any sanction placed on Hijiri. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I would think that in this particular case, when I personally very, very much believe the individual in question is paranoic, which generally qualifies as insanE, i personally would not think so. In this case, it is the most accurate, if blunt, description of the individual in discussion possible. And it will be noted in the numerous previous discussions regarding Hijiri that roughly synonymous words have rather often been used to describe Hijiri. I guess it should also be noticed that Sturmgewehr88, whom others have in the past accused of engaging in almost knee-jerk defense of Hijiri on a regular basis in the past, keeps up one of his habits, of himself making accusations without any evidence whatsoever. Also, I think it would be interesting to anyone involved to see him comment, I forget where, in the ArbCom case to the effect that he couldn't find anything which indicates people are responsible for their own actions here. Such a comment might be very interesting to note in this instance. Also noting the obvious and rather transparent inflammatory lie made by SG above, in which he grossly misrepresents my statement to indicate that I said Hijiri has never edited in the field before. I challenge him to, before engaging in further hysterical accusations, to perhaps read the comments of others and not misrepresent them. I said he has shown litle interest in the field, not that he never edited it before. In my history with you, SG, I have to say that I have yet to see you demonstrate much if any capacity for engaging in useful discussion youself, and that you have, as per an e-mail you sent me which I forwarded to ArbCom in the case mentioned above, had to seek help from Hijiri before starting an ANI in his defense. I also note that SG has had to be told to stay off my user talk page twice as well, apparently, like Hijiri, not being perhaps bright enough to understand it the first time, which might be yet another common characteristic beyond the 88 that they share. John Carter (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

making accusations without any evidence whatsoever John Carter, just drop it already. Ample evidence has been provided that I edited Christianity- and Bible-related topics long before my recent topic ban, and even interacted with you on such pages, and that my recent topic ban is on Japanese, not Chinese topics. Maybe you just forgot about all of this, but your continuing to claim that you were not forgetful but in fact correct in your accusations indicates that you are acting in bad faith. Why did you choose to randomly replace "Japanese" with "Chinese"? Why specifically "Chinese"? Unlike Christianity/Bible articles, I actually hadn't been editing China-related articles with any frequency before December. Were you following my recent edits and planning to get me blocked for violating an imaginary topic ban on Chinese topics? Did you really think the blocking admin wouldn't review what my topic ban actually says before blocking me? And did you really think you could get away with this blatant lying?

And could someone please explain to me why I am the one being threatened with a CIVIL block when John Carter says things like I personally very, very much believe the individual in question is paranoic, which generally qualifies as insanE and insulting the intelligence of other users (not being perhaps bright enough to understand it the first time, which might be yet another common characteristic beyond the 88 that they share)

Also, I'm not going to read much into it, but John Carter is aware that false accusations of neo-Nazism have been made against myself and Sturmgewehr88 because of our username. John Carter is perhaps not aware that other users have been blocked for two months for calling me a Nazi. I was logged out at the time, though -- I was not editing logged in because of a chilling email I received from another user who has also since been indefinitely blocked by Drmies. I don't see what benefit JC sees in bringing up our usernames yet again. (Also, I wanted to point out yet another incidence of me editing Bible-related articles in May 2014. Thing is, I think John Carter and I actually agree on most articles related to Christianity, so I really don't understand why he refuses to cooperate with me, and instead insists on denying that I ever edited articles related to Christianity, when he knows that's an argument he can't possibly win. Also, note that in the thread linked, I indicate that I am intimately aware with the contents of Christine Hayes' 20-hour lecture series on the Old Testament. I sure went to a lot of effort to cover up the fact that I'm not really interested in Christianity/Judaism/Bible-related topics, what with watching an re-watching YaleCourses video series over a year before my conflict with John Carter even started. Apparently I have magical foresight and am so obsessed with wikistalking John Carter that I sunk hundreds of hours into intense research of the topics John Carter is interested in and I am only pretending to be interested in.)

Also, can I add that calling WikiProject Bible -- and particular discussion of the Hebrew Bible -- a "Christian" topic is Christocentric and offensive to Jews? I know a lot of Christians (and non-Christians who live in Christian countries) tend to forget that that the Hebrew Bible, including the Book of Psalms, is a Jewish and not a Christian text, so this is probably a good faith mistake, but I would ask John Carter to kindly stop using this language.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

This appears to be becoming yet another attempt by Hijiri88 to post incredibly long wall-of-words comments without directly addressing the concerns or statements of others, something that has been repeatedly noted as being almost standard operating procedure from him. I do not remember having ever said you never edited articles relating to Christianity, although that now seems to be two people who are making that accusation. I remember having said you didn't edit them, and, honestly, your record of editing history seems to indicate you don't edit them frequently, perhaps less frequently than some other topics. Granted, it is always hard to respond to someone who states in their own responses that they haven't actually necessarily bothered to read the comments to which they are responding and/or will not address the matters those comments raise. And, for what it is worth, personally, at least in the context of this site, I don't particularly give a damn about my own opinions regarding Christianity, although I find it interesting that you appear to be indicating that such is my motivating purpose in editing the topic. My interest is in getting the material as encyclopedic as possible, although I do note the rather apparent attempt to impugn my motivations in your statement. Regarding the completely irrelevant and off-topic comment about indicating that I consider the Bible "Christocentric", well, I noticed that discussion because it was and I think still is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard, which I think I mentioned. Jumping to such unfounded allegations as that one is indicative to me of perhaps some people attempting to raise completely irrelevant and unfounded aspersions and insinuations for no readily identifiable purpose. I find it remarkable that once again Hijiri is jumping to conclusions about the motivations of others, a rather repeated habit of his. And, regarding my obvious and apparent mistake in the Japanese/Chinese statement above, I made a mistake there, based on bad memory. Despite Hijiri88's apparent belief to the contrary, other people do at times make mistakes, and cross-examination of others or seeking to find "hidden motives" to determine some conjectural "deeper motivation" where there isn't necessarily any such motivation is a rather frequently noted characteristic of the paranoid. However, my apologies in making an honest mistake. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

This appears to be becoming yet another attempt by Hijiri88 to post incredibly long wall-of-words comments without directly addressing the concerns or statements of others Can you give a specific example? Anyway, you said Sturmgewehr88 made accusations without evidence, and I provided evidence backing up everything Sturmgewehr88 said. The only way you could not have noticed this is if you didn't read Sturmgewehr88's remark before accusing him of "making accusations without any evidence whatsoever". Please actually provide some evidence of the endless string of accusations you are making against me. I have gone above and beyond what should be expected of me, given the restrictions that are already placed on me giving detailed descriptions of our prior interactions. Your first comment in this (former) sub-section consisted of a single massive lie, and both Sturmgewehr88 and I called you out on it. You have been dodging the question by claiming it was a "mistake" to confuse "Japan" for "China", but you still have not addressed the elephant in the room -- that you accused me of "following you" to "Christianity articles", even though I have been more active than you in contributing to those articles for years. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course you provided evidence. As I think can be seen from the e-mail received by me which he forwarded to me, which I myself forwarded to ArbCom, just like in that exchange, you provided the evidence for him to post. This seems to me to very, very seriously raise questions whether he acts on his own particularly often, or whether he simply plays the role of a sort of meatpuppet for you. John Carter (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

For the record, John Carter, I was well aware of this discussion well before you were, and had you not posted in the manner that you did, I may well have not posted here at all. I already know that no matter what anyone says or does, you'll continue to character-bash Hijiri and I (and anyone else you don't like for that matter), you'll continue to be a blatant hypocrite (complaining about WP:TLDR in a TLDR post, seriously?), and you'll continue to, in the popular term of the day, spout bullshit. As in 99% of the ANI threads involving John Carter, this one will become a monstrous wall of text that leads to nowhere but the archives. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 21:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the evidence is I think rather clear that dedfending Hijiri88 is one of your primary purposes in Wikipedia. I am frankly amazed by your comment above that you seem to think it surprising that someone respond to an ANI thread against them. I once again note, although a bit more explicitly this time, that, at least so far as I can see, you have rarely if ever demonstrated any particular grasp of policies and guidelines, no more than Hijiri88 anyway, and that your comment above about how I am engaging in character-bashing in your eyes, which I personally think as the person making the comments in question are more evaluation of the conduct of that editor and the dubious rationality of many of his actions, that your own comment above is to my eyes a much clearer attempt at character-bashing. And, once again, I note how both you and he had to be told to stay off my own user talk page twice by me, which can be seen by the archives of my talk page and your own, and that this could raise some questions regarding basic competency on the part of both of you. John Carter (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I would be tempted to believe that Hijiri88 would accept an IBAN, if it wasn't for the fact that he appears to have difficulty keeping to them (three breaches of previous Iban)]. My two-penn'orth. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I emailed you, as I am not at liberty to respond to the above on-wiki, but I will say that one needs to examine the context -- at least one of those violations was because of frustration that the other party had violated the IBAN by reverting my edits, and I was not able to get any traction by reporting on ANI because John Carter showed up and derailed the discussion multiple times. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately am unable to access emails atm. It seems rather bollocks not to be able to use an ANI as neutral ground- in this case, to be able to respond to my comment! Which may, or may not, be unfounded. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a discussion of a potential IBAN between me and John Carter. You referred to one or two prior IBANs, one of which is still in effect. I can tell you that (despite what John Carter said in 2015) Tristan noir was the only one who violated my IBAN with him back in 2013, and Drmies apologized fairly quickly for falling for Tristan noir's fabricated "incident" in which I supposedly violated it. I emailed you the details of some of my later blocks related to the other (still in effect) IBAN, at least one of which was fairly similar. I am not allowed discuss the other party or their actions on-wiki, and therefore am not able to give you the details. Suffice to say the other party reverted my edits, I reported on AN, John Carter derailed the discussion, and (much later, after the same thing happened) I reverted back in frustration. There was a lot more to it, though. Please read my email if you get a chance. If we were discussing the IBAN in question, I could go into detail (but I don't want to -- again, just remembering all the stuff John Carter and his amazing friends put me through causes me to lose sleep). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support IBAN as John Carter clearly has no intention of stopping following Hijiri around. Oppose block for being utterly petty and serving no conceivable purpose—shame on the proposer for proposing something so pointlessly disruptive. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I find the above comment more than a little ridiculous myself, as it seems to be implying that taking part in an RfC on the talk page of a WikiProject I regularly consult and taking part in an ANI discussion about me is in some way following Hijiri88 around. John Carter (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    • "Regularly consult" meaning that the last time you posted there was two years ago? Seriously? Further, how do your explain your continued activity on my talk page, and you do you explain your mysterious Freudian slip? In the half-dozen ANI threads you started on me requesting that I be TBANned from "Japanese culture", and in the ArbCom case where you appear to have requested the same (most of what you wrote was apparently in the form of emails to the committee, so I can't be sure), you don't seem to have ever even once accidentally written it as "Chinese culture", but now a few days after my writing an article on a Chinese topic and my commenting on WikiProject China about a month ago, you suddenly make this "mistake"? You were clearly following my edits. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
    • it seems to be implying that taking part in an RfC—it implies no such thing—I don't even know what RfC you're talking about. I'm talking about you following Hijiri around and making a nuisance of yourself. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support IBAN and Oppose block, both apply to both editors, two-way IBAN. It is most unfortunate, to be sure, but John Carter (talk · contribs) himself commented in support of the IBAN, and after my prior initial comment, unfortunately, the tone of the rhetoric appears to only have significantly degraded, on both sides of the aisle. — Cirt (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Regarding the nature of comments, I once again urge all involved to see the history of comments by Hijiri as presented in the Arb case, which indicates to me that degraded discussion is the norm in any discussion in which Hijiri88 feels challenged. My one reservation about an i-ban is that there does seem to be some reason to think Hijiri88 might be capable of making some useful contributions in the topic of Christianity and the Bible, particularly of the early Christian era and what is sometimes called the intertestamental period. He is currently banned from his most favored topic area, as per the ArbCom ruling. Honestly, if he could get around the paranoic ideation he rather regularly seems to indulge in, he could I think be a reasonable contributor in the Biblical/Christian/Jewish field, and I wouldn't want to see that ended. At the same time, however, the fairly long history of paranoic ideation on his part does raise concerns in my eyes that there may be no reason to think that such thinking will change, and, possibly by extension, that his own habit of stalking others, including me and the currently inactive Catflap08, as can be found supported in the ArbCom case, raises questions about whether that stalking behavior on his part will continue, along with his fairly regularly demonstrated extremely emotional responses. There is still a huge amount of missing and underdeveloped material in that field, and I would welcome seeing it developed, but I have very serious questions whether the problematic conduct he has rather regularly displayed in regards to many people will be a driving force in his own contributions in that area. John Carter (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

In this case, we actually have a very handy control. Before taking John Carter's word for it (that my rhetoric is always degraded because I had a few slips during a very heated ArbCom case initiated by John Carter), please examine my repeated engagement in these three other currently-open ANI threads, as well as my engagement in this thread before John Carter showed up and started attacking me, and the other detachable comments I have made in several more ANI threads. In none of them, even in this thread before last night, did anyone call me out on my "degraded discussion"; in fact I received several "thank"s for my comments (User:HighInBC, despite being very skeptical of me earlier on in this thread, just last night thanked me for this general commentary on the nature of AGF and NLT). John Carter brings out the worst in me, because that is what John Carter is trying to do. If I am able to comport myself in a polite, civil, respectable manner in every situation where John Carter isn't trying to bait me, then how could blocking me and not John Carter possibly be a solution? John Carter was the one who degraded the rhetoric in this discussion, not me. This is just one more reason why an IBAN is needed, by the way. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support i-ban, no comment on block. Since it seems both editors agree to the iban and the back and forth between them in this pages suggests it's needed, I think it's a slam dunk. I don't think the ability of editors to follow the iban should concern us too much. The only general alternative is some sort of ban. I don't think a topic ban would help between the editors so the other option is a community ban. But I think it's better to give any editors rope, as annoying as it may be to have to deal with iban violation discussions at ANI i.e. hope the iban works and if it doesn't block them as needed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment Could a non-ninvolved Admim review and close this thread? I think very little of substance is being added at this point, and what we have is a long shouting match between two editors who appear to be in agreement on only one thing. They need to be separated by an I Ban. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• I second this. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hijiri, when you make a claim on ANI and request an IBan or other sanction, you need in your OP to make your evidence, claim, and diffs of longterm abuse airtight so that the case is open-and-shut. You really failed to do that, and consequently your case is very weak and led only to massive he-said-she-said squabbling on this thread between you, John Carter, and fellow supporters of either of you. There's no use trying to retroactively make your case three or more days after you filed it -- it's too late then and only adds to the muddle. Now it's just a big mess and no one really has the time or inclination to get to the bottom of it -- at this point people are merely judging who has the worst mouth and who has been most insulting or bad-mannered on this thread. If I were an admin I'd just close this thread as a mistrial, and say please everyone can we please play like adults, and try to avoid people that we are getting overly entangled with. I don't think anybody at all on this thread has made a case for anything, and the fault is mainly because your OP was little more than a barely substantiated whine. Can we please all just drop this and find something on Wikipedia to be improved? Softlavender (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

A week ago I would have agreed with your last sentence. I wanted John Carter told off for not respecting my wishes that he stay off my talk page. I didn't provide extensive evidence of long-term harassment was that (apart from my IBAN with another user preventing me from providing/discussing most of the evidence on ANI!) that I sincerely expected that if I expressed my willingness to submit to the mutual IBAN that John Carter proposed several times, John Carter would show up, apologize for posting on my talk page, agree to a mutual IBAN, and that would be that. I did not expect him to wait several days before showing up and posting a bunch of very long comments about what a horrible person I am. If you want a complete summary of John Carter's harassment of me over the last year, with diffs, I will try to put one together and email it to you later this week. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That's not how it works, Hijiri. If you don't make your case in your OP, you generally have very little chance of getting what you requested, and an overwhelming chance of the thread turning into a free-for-all, as this has. Time to call it a day. Softlavender (talk) 09:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Look, this thread is supposed to be wrapping up, so I don't want to star a fight, but twhen you say "that's not how it works", it seems to be based more on your personal opinion than on any PAG. Uncontroversial requests, such as a mutual IBAN that has already been agreed to by both parties, generally do not require a tremendous amount of evidence up front. Everyone here except you, including both John Carter and myself, seems to support the IBAN, so can't we just give it a rest and, as you say, find something on Wikipedia to be improved? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not notice that John Carter had posted a "weak support" on this thread, above. On that basis, perhaps this IBan should be enacted. Softlavender (talk) 04:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with Ad Orientem and Sturmgewehr88. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• I once again notice what I believe is the oft-repeated and I believe very possibly pathological behavior of Hijiri88 in trying to divert attention from possible errors on his own part and blaming others for them. This seems in a pattern with his previous behavior, in which he seemed to blame virtually every disagreement he had with anyone on the intervention of his stalker of years ago. He seems to have developed a tendency to I believe demonstrably erroneously believe because, in his eyes, that stalking individual is violating policies and guidelines, and is according to his thinking the sole motivating factor in virtually any disagreement he has here, he is free to violate those policies and guidelines as well. That is not and never has been acceptable here. Continuing in similar behavior, even if the original reason is unfounded, isn't either. I would also, frankly, include in a possible I-ban here me, Hijiri88 and Sturmgewehr88 and possibly others, because I believe that there is an easily demonstrated history of possible collusion on the part of those last two editors in particular, and possibly others, perhaps similar to that in the WP:EEML. Lastly, I find it laughable that someone who sent me an e-mail saying he had to contact me somehow, despite having been twice told in no uncertain terms to stay of my user talk page, to indicate he wasn't as stupid as he thought I indicated in a comment, not realizing such behavior is no better than violating the request to stay off the user talk page, and, frankly, far from indicating that person isn't stupid. I believe such behavior, and that very very weak grasp of policies and guidelines, and/or a possible belief that policies and guidelines are less important than him defending himself at any and all costs, including violations, indicates someone whose grasp of conduct guidelines is at best very weak and very very possible indicative of the possible incompetence of that editor. John Carter (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that I didn't mention my dispute with JoshuSasori ("his stalker of years ago") even once in this thread. John Carter seems to want to keep bringing this up in order to portray as a "paranoid psychopath", but I seriously have not engaged in any of the paranoid behaviour he accuses me of having engaged in in this thread. I honestly have no idea what bringing JoshuSasori up will accomplish here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

As, per the above, John Carter has renewed his long-time request for an IBAN with me, I would also like to request an IBAN with him. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Seriously? Is there no one who can close this? It doesn't seem that complicated. We have two editors who can't stand each other and are mutually requesting an I Ban and most of the comments seem to be on board with that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Small comment by uninvolved party: I don't have any strong opinion or recommendation about what to do in this case, but I do find it alarming that by all reports and evidence John Carter is blatantly lying on several fronts in this thread (and that fact is backed up by Sturmgewehr88). If Hijiri were a clearer and better (and less volatile) presenter of evidence/refutation this would be more obvious, but as it is this is sort of buried in the TL;DR mess of this entire thread. I don't think that John Carter should get off scot-free here, considering these deliberate falsehoods. Then again I don't have any recommendation of what to do, other than at the very least somehow prevent John Carter from hounding Hijiri and Sturmgewehr88. I weary of personality disputes, but frankly I have no patience with blatant lying. (By the way I am a totally uninvolved party here -- have never edited any of the pages or alongside any of these users.) Softlavender (talk) 07:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Continued disruption from previously banned IP editor "Claudia"

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

---

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

IP editor 115.188.178.77, who calls herself/himself “Claudia” and loudly expresses regressive and occasionally racist views of Maori culture and New Zealand colonial history, has been blocked at least three times for disruptive editing and obnoxious behaviour, including under the IP address 122.62.226.243.in 2012[208], 2013 and 2014.

She continues to wage a crusade through talk pages against the highly respected New Zealand historian James Belich. Past tirades are here, here, here, an in the four threads archived at the Belich article talk page, here. Her renewed attack is at this talk page; she (again) cites the authors Pugsley and Richards in her derisive comments, though when challenged recently to produce the actual statements of those authors, she could not.[209] I deleted her last Belich comment on the grounds that it was an attack not relevant to the article; she restored it and added a further criticism of Belich: see Talk:Duncan Cameron (British Army officer)#No Personal attack on Belich.

Out of nowhere she has launched an attack on another respected historian [210]; she has also made claims about another historian's conclusions [211] which in that thread I quickly proved to be completely fabricated and wrong. This echoes her past attacks at historian Michael King, prior to her last 12-month block.

Her past behaviour has included faking citations (see this complaint); her recent efforts have included adding a fictionalised “quote” within an article which was nothing more than a stab in the dark of something she had once read (see this and this thread.) Despite her past blocks her edits tend to be inflammatory and trollish and she has a long history of inserting demonstrably false claims within historical material that reflect her strong anti-Maori outlook. She is highly disruptive, creates loads of work for other editors to clean up behind her. And her trail of long talk page posts are usually unsigned. She has not learned to be collaborative and has not modified her behavior. BlackCab (TALK) 01:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

If I may add to this. I have encountered Claudia on many occasions. She/he is so persistent, unreasonable, and closed to any attempt of a civilised discussion that my policy has become to take a page off my watchlist once Claudia starts to take an interest in it. Schwede66 01:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Am I right in thinking this is a LTA editor? Do we have a page where all the reports of this editor are logged? The earliest report I can find is December 2012 (edit: mentioned above)--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• I had the same thoughts. Something pinged in the back of my mind about an editor would slag off a source based on what they read but could never produce evidence of that material merely insisting that they were sure they had read it and others who disputed should just take their word for it. I'm also wondering whether that person was banned. I don't think there was a LTA page for them though. Blackmane (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• For reference, the contributions of this IP 122.62.226.243 (talk · contribs · logs).
• Aha found something! ANI archived report. I also found that I participated in the block discussion...how about that?
• Pinging @Daveosaurus:, @Gadfium:, @Stuartyeates: who have some history with this user. Also pinging @Carrite: and @Softlavender: who contributed to the discussion and had some dissenting views as well as @EdJohnston: who blocked the IP. Blackmane (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Claudia has been editing since at least July 2009, and the question of how to manage her edits has been discussed sporadically since September 2010. Her edits have not improved since her year-long block in November 2014. I think a ban from articles on New Zealand history, broadly construed, would be appropriate.-gadfium 03:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've pulled together a table of reports to the administrator noticeboards. Let me know if I've missed anything. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I've added a couple of blocks to the table. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

And added the BLPN report.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Date	Report	Note
1 September 2010	ANI/19th century New Zealand history
16 August 2012		Blocked for 31 hours
5 December 2012	ANI/Racially charged editing by IP 122.62.226.243 at articles to do with the New Zealand Wars	Blocked for 31 hours
6 January 2013		Blocked for 48 hours
14 January 2013	ANI/IP user flagrantly ignores WP:V and WP:NPOV
10 May 2013	3RR/122.62.226.243 reported by User:BlackCab	Blocked for two weeks
2 July 2013		Blocked for one month
13 August 2013	ANI/User_talk:122.62.226.243 advice and guidance please
7 November 2014	ANI/Well-meaning but clueless IP editor	Blocked for one year
1 April 2016	BLPN/Duncan Cameron (British Army officer)

• User:BlackCab also filed at BLPN on 1 April. The thread is still open at WP:BLPN#Duncan Cameron (British Army officer). One of the diffs is this post by Claudia on the talk page of the living person James Belich (historian). Claudia's previous critique of this man is in Talk:James Belich (historian)/Archive 1. If another block is appropriate, it could be for two years. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

In July 2013 Claudia was also blocked for a month by User:Moriori for similar behaviour. [212] That's four blocks I'm aware of, but still no modification of editing behavior. BlackCab (TALK) 05:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

A recent interaction with Claudia, to show the level of aggravation she creates, is at Talk:Treaty of Waitangi#Proclamations 1840 style. BlackCab (TALK) 05:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Nothing more to say on the topic not said above, except that the primary target, James Belich (historian), has continued to receive professional accolades, implying that professional historian community in no way shares the IP's views. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Given the singlemindedness of this person in their attacks on this historian and that their editing is restricted to topics about NZ history, a topic ban would amount to a site ban. Given their disruptiveness, that might actually be a better option. Blackmane (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure a ban on the topic of NZ history would do the job. Claudia has also launched her attacks on conventional historical narrative (complete with conspiracy theories) at the talk pages of such articles as Māori King Movement, Parihaka, Waitara, New Zealand and Treaty of Waitangi, which she could conceivably argue are not articles on NZ history per se. She was given very firm guidance at the time of the last 12-month ban on how to conduct herself, but is in fact doing exactly the same thing. Unless the topic ban was for anything related to New Zealand, I would prefer a complete block, and a longer one this time. BlackCab (TALK) 03:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Claudia does seem to have a couple of other interests: boats and bicycles, from memory (and a cursory look at her recent contributions). I don't know enough about those subjects to know whether or not there is any value to her contributions, but at least those subjects don't seem to be as full of BLP-violation potential as New Zealand history.

I agree with Gadfium that a topic ban would be approriate - at least as a first step. Maybe a permanent topic ban from the history of New Zealand, or anything to do with the Māori people, or any biographies of living persons - or any combination of the three, up to and including all of them. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This editor has not changed her editing behaviour since the last block. This edit, summarising/paraphrasing the first paragraph on this webpage, confirms my suspicion as to her identity, at the same time confirming that many edits originate from her own work. This is certainly suggestive of extensive POV pushing. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

DerbyCountyinNZ, is that related to the bulk of material on the Pre-Māori settlement of New Zealand theories article? Similar self-published authors involved here. BlackCab (TALK) 07:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so, maybe just coincidence. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd honestly guess that it's not her site - Claudia appears ignorant of even basic Wiki markup while whoever produced that page seems to at least know their way around a content management / web page creator program. I'd just put that down to Claudia being unable to tell good sources from bad - she's had that problem before (once I had trouble finding any evidence that one of her sources even existed other than as an Internet document, because she used a garbled version of its name that the only other occurences then findable in Google all traced back to one white-supremacist blog). Daveosaurus (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no interest in outing Claudia, but that website and that ideology probably help feed her conspiracy theories that lead to the denigration of Belich, King, Orange, Dalton, O'Malley and every researcher ever employed by the Waitangi Tribunal. BlackCab (TALK) 11:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Please let us not stoop to outing. The IP's ideology is not the problem; the IP's long-term disruptive editing style is the problem. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• If she's continuing the same disruptive editing that she received a one-year block for, I don't think a topic ban is going to help. I'd say another very longterm block is in order. I'm also pinging additional editors involved in or referred to in the November 2014 ANI [213]: BlackCab, and Stuartyeates, and the following editors who posted warnings on her talk page up through November 2014: [214] Irondome, Transcendence, Moriori, Amtalic, Gadfium, Drmies, Sue Rangell, Rudolp89, Rudolp89, Adabow, DI2000, Winkelvi, Mufka, DerbyCountyinNZ, Bradshaws1, Epipelagic, Jim1138, Dennis Bratland, JoeSperazza, I dream of horses, and Andrewprout. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Also, the following editors supported her one-year block in November 2014 [215]: Jusdafax, Gadfium, Ruby2010, Moriori, Andrewgprout, QPT. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• I wanna say I ran into this editor before the 2014 ANI thread (in which I actually can't find my comments, if there were any), and I wanna say I remember them from article/article talk space. Unworkable with, and apparently nothing's changed. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• BTW, "x is considered unreliable (some would say VERY unreliable)" is a very nice Trumpism. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, you blocked her in 2012 and 2013 [216], [217]. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to the editor who gave the actual link to this page.The volume of criticism is rather overwhelming and it seems to me rather reactionary and misguided. I cant deal with it all now but a core problem seems to be that I am expressing my personal opinions about J Belich. For those editors who are not kiwis Mr Belich wrote a book based on his PhD about the NZ Wars in which he came up with a whole range of new ideas and theories. The book was very readable and popular and later made into a very popular 10?part TV seriesback in the 1980s and has entered NZ culture as the TV series was then made into a detailed teaching resource for secondary schools which was widely used I understand.

Black Cab (and his cheer leaders) seem to think that I have "made up" the criticism of Belich. This is just not true. After his first edition Belich himself was aware enough of an undercurrent of criticism of his book and some of his themes-enough to revise the 2nd edition and in particular add in the preface an admission that as a young man he had an "anti British attitude" and he was a "revisionist". It was a kind of explanation /apology.

Since then a raft of well known military historians especially Chris Pugsley and Richard Taylor (both army officers as well as historians) have criticised Belich in far more detail. Pugsley's main effort was in the short lived NZ Defence Quarterly in which he systematically debunked many of Belich's theories. In 2013 M.Hill completed his study of the Taranaki war in which he looked in detail at the historiography dealing with the war. He assembled some of the criticism of Belich in this MA thesis."The First Taranaki War. MA in History. Massey University.M.R. Hill 2013".It is now on line. Most of the information below is between P26 and 30 To summarize some of the points : 1 He identifies a range of historians who have issues with Belich and presents the evidence. 2 That Belich did not understand the mechanics of war. He did not understand military terms such as strategy, tactics or ammunition. 3 His idea that Maori invented trench warfare "was universally dismissed". 4 Not visiting or walking the battlefields (until many years later)and as a result making errors in distance and time leading to misunderstandings. 5 Maxwell (another historian) says"Belich mislead readers". 6 Belich "is virtually under seige" 7 I McFarlane wrote to Penguin complaining about "factual inaccuracy". 8 He says there is a"strange anti British and pro Maori undertow"(P30) 9 That Belich turned what were merely rumours into facts.

This is a brief summary only of Hills work. Note neither Belich nor his publisher have ever attempted to answer any of the points raised but Belich did leave NZ. I should note that when I pointed this out 2-3 years ago one editor made very snide remarks suggesting I was " attacking "him. As you can see it was not me attacking him but other historians.ieIT is fact that he was being criticised by his peers and he did go overseas. I should point out that there are only a handful of NZ historians working in this area (I would say about 12). NZ is a small market and as one of Hill's sources has said "its not possible to criticise Belich in NZ " -by that he means, I guess, the general ,ie not well informed, public.

I think a few editors have very fixed(maybe even partisan) views on NZ history so have come out with weird and wonderful accusations to justify deleting views that don't coincide with their own rather old fashioned notions. It is typical of such views to say that a different view is racist! They appear to have worked themselves into a digital lather! My position is that all views should be presented and in particular views or information that shows that an older historian was "misguided!" because they were writing with a deliberate intention to revise( Hill's thesis would suggest possibly distort) history. Marxist historians(of which NZ has had a few) are very good at rewriting history to support a particular political point of view. In the academic world informed criticism is welcomed. But Belich prefers not to answer it seems. You may wish to read M Hill and comment further? I'm pleased to answer any questions, though my response may not be immediate as Im very busy at work.115.188.178.77 (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The issue is never about whether you 'have "made up" the criticism of Belich'; the issue is whether you have supplied reliable sources for claims you have inserted into wikipedia. All claims on wikipedia need reliable sources, that's what makes it an encyclopedia. I believe I speak for the consensus of editors when I say that we don't care what you say about Belich, or Belich's research or the subjects of Belich's research. What we care about is having sources for claim, positive or negative and including them in useful ways in the articles. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

This comment by Claudia demonstrates her misinterpretation and BLP violations resulting from it. Reading her statement, one could be forgiven for assuming that he had left New Zealand 'under a cloud'. But nothing could be further from the truth. He had in fact been appointed to a professorship at Oxford University in England, here [218] described as "one of the top jobs in the world in his field"; "awarded to a historian of exceptional and international reputation."

Another example of inability to correctly comprehend statements, this time without BLP problems (all participants are pseudonymous) is here: User_talk:122.62.226.243/Archive_1#Where_to_go_from_here Claudia at the time was claiming that for vague privacy-related reasons, she couldn't sign up for a Wikipedia account. I pointed out "If you create an account, nobody but Wikipedia administrators (and maybe only certain administrators, at that - this isn't something I've paid much attention to) would have access to your IP address"; Gadfium confirmed my suspicion, and clarified: "Administrators (such as myself) can't see a logged in user's IP address. It takes a checkuser, who goes through additional scrutiny and has to reveal their real-life identify to the WikiMedia Foundation, to see that."; which Claudia interpreted as "Thankyou gadfium for your information -it seems that old Dave was wrong again." If I'd been editing under a real name, that would have been a BLP violation right there - at least as I see it (but I seem to be a bit tougher on BLP than I should be). Daveosaurus (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Request: Could someone please post a list (at the top) of all the IPs this editor has edited under? I believe some editors who have actually interacted with her are having a hard time of placing her or her habits without the entire list. (For instance, thus far I am aware of 122.62.226.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 115.188.178.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and very early 222.153.154.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).) -- Softlavender (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Add 219.89.178.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 125.237.39.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) BlackCab (TALK) 23:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Stuartyeates says: "I believe I speak for the consensus of editors when I say that we don't care what you say about Belich, or Belich's research or the subjects of Belich's research." In fact part of the problem is the fact that Claudia is using Wikipedia articles and talk pages as a soapbox for her distinctive view of NZ history, which involves a campaign to discredit Belich and other historians. I provided the links to some of her talk page comments at the outset of this complaint; at this edit she goes further by unilaterally deciding that Belich's view is not only wrong but has no place in the article at all. I keep finding long soapbox comments, many of them unsigned, at a range of talk pages where she expounds her unique take on history and lambasts real historians. She has been advised many times to start a blog of her own rather than misuse Wikipedia pages. BlackCab (TALK) 13:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

Sample proposal: Since disruptive behavior has resumed following a one-year block (and four five prior blocks over the previous two years), perhaps a CIR indef or site-ban is in order. Softlavender (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC); edited 04:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've been doing some sleuthing on the net and have come across some interesting information regarding this issue and have a working hypothesis of what is going on here. However, the conclusion violates WP:OUTING. Suffice to say, there is a real world implication here, particularly at a professional level if Claudia is who I suspect it to be, provided it's not an impostor. If any admin wishes to seek further information from me, they are free to email me. On that note, I strongly support a site ban. Blackmane (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Considering she is targeting specific historians (all of them living if I'm not mistaken), and attacking them, a COI would not surprise me in the least. Given Blackmane's statements, I strongly support a site ban as well. Softlavender (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support a site ban for an indefinite period. The editor has shown no willingness to modify her behavior. BlackCab (TALK) 13:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support another one-year block I think an indef and site-ban is too much. Another year will hopefully get the point across. Not wanting to bring WP:BEANS to this individual's plate, but, an indef might encourage sockpuppetry. If a year doesn't do the trick this time, then an indefinite block can be put in place. Yes, I know they have been blocked previously, but I'm all for giving chances. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support either a site ban or a one-year block. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support site ban. Four blocks never fixed the problem and another won't either in my opinion. The number of hours that editors have spent undoing her damage must be mind boggling. The first sentence of WP:Disruption says "Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia." The cap fits. Moriori (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support site ban. She's been editing since 2006 (at Bucklands Beach) and is getting worse, not better.-gadfium 21:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support site ban - TBH, I'm quite amazed that the individual wasn't site banned, long ago. GoodDay (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support site ban - Her history of disruptiveness and personal attacks are quite staggering. The community should not put up with this appalling behavior. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support site ban. There have been enough chances for an improvement in behaviour. This editor is causing others a lot of grief and work; this has to stop. Schwede66 19:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Repeated recreation of deleted article

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

---

• Moonshine7* (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Moon7star (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

These users keep recreating an article about Jin from BTS (band) (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jin (singer)). Jin (Bangtan Boys) is their (they claim to be friends) fifth recreation since January. See their talk pages for a record of this. Some were redirected, and some were deleted. They have also both uploaded the same copyvio image on Commons. I think blocks may be needed to stop the constant recreation. Random86 (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• G4'd that one. Zad68 13:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oh good grief. These people take themselves so seriously. Redirect and protect, is my best suggestion. Guy (Help!) 13:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• Both Moon... editors blocked. Zad68 13:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

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

IP vandal editing

Could someone research User:31.149.155.204. There is a trail of questionable edits associated with this IP. Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Couple of kids mucking about at a school in Alkmaar, NL, it would seem. (non-admin comment) Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's a school IP. They've long stopped now. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Automotive IP user

An user with different ip addresses wants to use the words "utility vehicle" in lots of articles. It has been discussed at WikiProject Automobiles, and almost everyone agreed that it was a bad idea. That didn't stop him from edit warring to the point that three pages were protected yesterday. Today he continued with the same type of edits in other articles: 202.94.72.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) And when I reverted his edits he begun reverting edits by me and by another user that has reverted his, including several edits in articles unrelated to the "utility vehicle" dispute: 116.212.233.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) All the ip addresses he uses seem to be located in Perth. ⛐Boivie (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, yes. The IP editor is reverting random edits from all those he deems to have been against his utility vehicle crusade. I suggest IP block Australia, that should fix it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

We don't have utility vehicles in Australia, we have utes. Blackmane (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

New ip again 49.199.120.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ⛐Boivie (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• I put a couple of blocks in place, keep us up to date. Thanks for the report. Zad68 12:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if there is anything further that can be done?

I'm assuming a huge range block can't work, as blocking an entire ISP's customers is not what wikipedia wants to do.

Protecting articles might be hard, as this guy will just go to wherever isn't protected.

What happens next? I'm assuming he will get bored and move on to abusing people on facebook or something equally mature. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh. Special:Contributions/49.199.76.170 Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Noted... Zad68 13:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• There are things that can be done. Preference is to start with the lowest-impact tools and see if that does the trick. Zad68 13:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• The fundamental problem here is that the world fails to use the correct terminology for utes, instead calling them pickup trucks. Wikipedia should promulgate a new policy mandating all Americans to start using the word ute, as God intended. Until then, we could try an edit filter or semi protection. Or play whack-a-mole. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure my suggestion of range blocking all of Australia, would be equally effective. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Wot? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

IP from Perth. Clearly they are concerned about the impending Australia range block. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I read this as "please block this IP as well". Was that not what they were saying? Guy (Help!) 14:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure, perhaps they were saying please block my entire ISP ? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the point is a resonable discussion has already been held and most participants including those from Australia and New Zealand (like me) already understand the issues. This discussion appears to have reached some sort of consensus, or at the very least there's no consensus for your changes. Despite that you're edit warring to make these unsupported changes and if you were using an account you'd probably already be indef blocked. But since you're edit warring with multiple IPs, either we have to block the entirety of Perth Optus users or use WP:RBI. From now own don't be surprised if this applies to your comments anywhere including here since you're still block evading, so they can be removed and you ignored, not because there has not been a resonable discussion or because people don't understand or because they are going off point. You're Australian so I guess we can make some allowances for you being slow on the uptake but even so.... Ducks Nil Einne (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps an edit filter to stop this? I'm going to send my army of drop bears at you, Nil. Blackmane (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

One point that I was slightly concerned about... Are editors that continue to revert these edits by the IP editor subject to 3RR? I'm quite happy to revert this guy 24/7, if I know that I won't be subject to any sanctions for making 20+ reverts per day on a single article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOT3RR: "3. Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users." The IP was blocked for an extensive period of time. IP's are users even if they switch IP. Feel free to revert away. Although you might get bored before they do, I lived in Perth for 3 years and it is singularly the most boring place in the world I have been to. And this is after living in Thetford. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

NOTE - IP 49xxxx, is a blocked individual merely evading his/her block. Please delete or ignore their posts. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

European Graduate School - the return of Claudioalv

• European Graduate School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• See this now archived ANI thread

Hi All. I had mentioned that Claudioalv and i were talking off line, to talk through his COI issues more candidly. He has now posted a disclosure on his user page.

This was one of a few options he and I had discussed for his next steps in Wikipedia. In light of his choice and the disclosure he has made, I am posting the following diffs for the community's consideration. I had also provided these to Claudioalv and given him my thoughts on them.

• here Claudioalv says it is his understanding that what Guy said about him is "defamation"
• here he says to Guy "On the opposite, you still refusing to look at the 2015 Accreditation in Malta and you used this talk page and the EGS article to defame the School by abusing your power as an administrator (for example I was blocked without any reason and now I am thinking that other users that you call sockpuppetry had the same treatment)."
• here he says about Guy's editing: " In legalese I would call that bad faith and defamation"
• here he says that Guy has "maliciously built an article in order to defame the EGS"
• here he says "Waiting 30 days is just postpone the issue that an editor is defaming EGS by keep posting false information."
• here he says to Guy "You are here to defame the school and not to write a neutral Enciclopedia and because the Wikipedia weak policy you have been successful"
• here he says to Guy "By refusing to recognize Maltese law is showing that your conduct is malicious, and your only purpose here is defaming EGS"

I am not sure if he still "owns" these statements or would retract them; I believe he understands Wikipedia somewhat differently now than he did before we started emailing offline. But I will leave that for him to say, and of course the community will do with all this as it will. Jytdog (talk) 05:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The references to defamation are a clear implied legal threat and need to be removed.

I did not create the article. The edit history shows that I have made exactly two edits to the article, almost a decade apart. Two.

In point of fact, I would be astounded if the creator was anyone other than the school itself. The initial version makes no mention of the accreditation issues even though it pre-dates the accreditation of some courses by Malte, so was at a time when no accreditation was apparently in place anywhere. As I think others have said, nobody cares about this article other than them (as a marketplace) and a few Wikipedians who are not entirely delighted with commercial entities abusing Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Of the two, the more motivated by far is the school. That is why they have sent so many WP:SPAs to whitewash the article over the years.

Finally, does anybody here genuinely think that legitimate schools need to hire attorneys to bully people into calling them accredited? Srsly? Guy (Help!) 09:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Now that at least one editor has weighed in , I will say that in my view these statements are clear violations of WP:NLT - especially given their repetition and the fact that person who made them is an attorney semi-representing the school - and Claudioalv should be indefinitely blocked for making them. They can address whether they wish to retract these statements in their unblock request. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Agree, they should be blocked per WP:NLT and probably also as WP:NOTHERE. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• I suggest reading the thread above WP:ANI#Legal threat in edit summary?[219](and still not archived off this page), in particular User:Newyorkbrad's remarks. Thincat (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Thincat, for the cross-reference, as I'd like for more people to read what I wrote in that thread. OF course, the portion of my comments dealing with treatment of newcomers wouldn't apply in full to a much more experienced editor. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of WP:NLT, as I understand it, is to prevent the chilling effect of threatening potentially expensive off-wiki legal action. In this case the mention of the user's position in a law firm and their relationship with a lawyer retained by the subject is certainly intimidating, and it's hard to believe this is not intentional. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Jytdog for your explanation about Wikipedia Policy. It was very helpful. As I have already written you, I was not aware about the rules, policy, and regulations in Wiki. It was my understanding that by reading the terms of Use I could write in the talk page (actually I have never edited any article).

I apologyze with Guy if my affirmation (what I said are personal opinions and do not reflect EGS statements) made above constitute legal threat and WIki does not allow it. It is clearly stated in its policy, but I did not read it. I retract them and I am fine to remove them. I do not know how to do it, but if the community does help me, it would be great.

hatting OFFTOPIC part of this
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
However, I do find that the School does not merit to be defined as questionable or pasty (as Guy did), because of the history of the article. I think that Guy does not know the School, but by defining the school in this way he is not an independent administrator who should look over the article(in fact, he reverted the article half an hour late a different ad update it with the Maltese accreditation). That was the reason why I opened the ANI. He would never change his opinion, nor if the President of the U.S. would say that the school is accredited. I was familiar with the EGS accreditation since January 2016 and the history dates back to years. Not being recognized in Texas, does not mean that the school confer degrees mill. This is the general understanding by reading the article and this is not true. I have also sent to @Jtddog the full official maltese accreditation. It was conferred in February 2016 (before the school was an Higher Education School and now it is a University with the recent maltese accreditation). There are no publications about the recent U accreditation because it is recent (however some Maltese article mention the 2016 accreditation, see Rfc in the EGS talk page). I do not understand why Wiki policy does not allow to say that the school is accredited in Malta(this info relies on an official governmental institute documentation and even if it is primary it is verifiable on their website) and we need to wait for an independent article. I think this is discrimination, because Wiki relies on Texas official Department of Education info and does not rely on the Maltese official governmental accreditation. By and large this was the argument I raised. I do not think administrators who looked over the article are idiots, nor I think I am. I do agree with Jztdog: "nobody cares about this article other than them and a few Wikipedians". But what about if Wiki defines your business "pasty" or "questionable"? Would you be happy or would you try to say the contrary if you have good reason to say that? EGS is not my business, and I did not promote them. I was just aware about the Malta accreditation (and the fact that two U.S. states does not mention anymore EGS in any list) and I spent my free time raising an argument on Wiki. I was probably wrong in "how" to raise this argument because I am not an expert of Wiki. But the content of my argument is based on official documents. I know that you disagree until an article publication is made and I still do not understand this rule. But I appreciate your time in clarifying me the Wiki policy. Thanks. Claudioalv (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC) You really don't seem to understand. Texas says that EGS degrees are nto acceptable. To list any institution's degrees as unacceptable is rare and notable. Of course EGS disputes this. There is enough copmmentary in the (non-RS) discusison boards showing serious problems with EGS courses and teaching, that I, personally, would not override the presumption that this unusual fact should be included in the article. Now I myself would not have created an article on this subject, because I do not think EGS is a significant school, but EGS seemingly decided to use Wikipedia as part of its marketing; on Wikipedia we absolutely do not offer a subject any form of editorial control and it is pretty much inevitable that well-sourced criticism will be included. If the subject also engages in a years-long campaign to remove criticism then the bar to including material proposed by the subject in rebuttal to independent sources showing the subject to be less than stellar, increases. It's a variant of the Streisand effect. Wikipedia articles are warts and all, and this is foundational policy. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC) @Guy Your problem is not the Texas info. Texas does not accept degrees conferred by EGS and include the school in that list. This is written in their website. I am not saying that is not true. It is also written that they are reviewing the list for EGS request based on the recent maltese license. However, the problem I found in the article and that was not likely to discuss with you (cuz you blocked me and tryed to ban me) was about the Maltese accreditation (or license) and the Michigan and Maine statements. Both do not include EGS in any list anymore so the current info is not longer true. I am not crazy since an other ad who is looking over the article is posting the same argument I wrote 2 months ago and I tryed to raise. About the Maltese license, even if the source is primary it is official, so to me WIki does not need any further secondary source. However, I can be wrong because I am not an expert of the Wiki policy. That's it. When you say: "Now I myself would not have created an article on this subject" is the reason why asked to the Community that an other editor could look over the article. You do not like the school so you would never have allowed any positive contribution about the school. And so you did. Finally thanks to Jtydog the truth is coming out. I should have done it before rather than asking for RfC, mediation and arbitration. This is only my regret. Claudioalv (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, this ANI thread is not for discussing the content dispute. I have hatted content-related discussion. So Claudialv has retracted the legal threats. The community can determine if that is sufficient to close this, or if Claudioalv should still be indeffed for having made them at all. Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Or as a disruptive WP:SPA on a mission. Guy (Help!) 07:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually I want to edit an other article. My roommate is listed in Wiki with her husband surname even if they divorced some years ago. Divorce certificate is not listed anywhere, she tried to update her article, but she found this task very challanging and the current status is not longer true. I hope that this time I do not have to disclose that I am her roommate, nor that I am not going to charge her for editing a Wiki article. Thanks. Claudioalv (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Then leave a note on the talk page. Guy (Help!) 19:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Persistent adding of unsourced puffery on page Frederick Achom

Aliopuka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Frederick Achom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Aliopuka, has been vandalising the page Frederick Achom. He/she has made the same edits User:Alex1977-1 was blocked for making. You can check [220]. They both seem to be part of a large sockfarm of paid editors.NihartouJason (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Appears to have been inappropriately waning NihartouJason (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jim1138 (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Non-admin comment. I am a little concerned when I look at Aliopuka's contribs, because they seem to be getting around awful well for somebody with just 80 edits, slapping speedy deletes and CN and uncat tags on things. However, they may just be a very quick learner and not be a sock at all. We need a checkuser to be sure, and their edits don't look like "vandalism" and "puffery" to me anyway. Also, NihartouJason, it's not right to go around telling people that they can't edit a particular article. See WP:BOLD. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• I am very concerned with the content Aliopuka is supporting. Quite a few of the references do not exist or mention the subject at all. (ex [221] <- looks like spam as opposed to reference [222] [223] [224] [225]). As such, I've removed those warnings as bogus. Also, I might want to point out this. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• This looks more like the PR department of a firm than actual sockpuppets. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment : Actually, NihartouJason is vandalizing the article without taking part in the talk page discussion despite repeatedly asking and I have opened this discussion[226]. He is blatantly removing sourced material including awards and adding defamation content which clearly violates WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE.

My first edit to the page was[227] for which I left this talk page message[228] Later, when I saw removal of sourced content such as awards, career etc. from the page's edit history then I tried to add them back[229] from a neutral POV with {{cn}} where no sources were provided such as[230], [231] etc.

But instead of contacting me or leaving any message to any talk page, NihartouJason reported me here[232] where I made this comment[233] as NihartouJason seems to me a SPA account with a particular interest to insert defamation content only to the article. He has been warned on his talk pages but still he is reporting me instead of addressing the real issue on the talk. Aliopuka (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@The Voidwalker:, I am not supporting any sources. I just tried to restore the deleted material removed by the SPA account[234] and repeatedly ask to discuss on the talk page to reach a consensus instead of blatantly removing the sourced materials. If the sources do not cite the claims then anyone can remove from the article with suitable edit summary or talk page message.Aliopuka (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@JzG:, The SPA a/c User:NihartouJason seem to me a paid editor who might have any monetary issues with the subject of the page thus trying to add the defamation content to the page. Aliopuka (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Aliopuka: You are accusing me of not explaining myself on the talk page. Please have a look here. [235],[236]. My main concern is that if you have good intentions then why are you editing the page as the blocked user User:Alex1977-1 did, you just changes the language structure a bit and restored the previous questionable content[237].I reported him and he was blocked and is currently undergoing a sockpuppet investigation. And why do you keep removing the conviction information even when it is properly sourced. NihartouJason (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

So, finally you posted on the talk page[238]. Well, let me explain you. I used the revision by User:Addiecolb and not of any other editors. Secondly, you should discuss on the article's talk page and not on your sandbox. I checked your sandbox draft talk page and it is one sided judgement by only you. I do not see any other editors involvement in it. For example, you said the Jewish Business News source has no author but the news was by their staff reporter so need of a author however, the source does mention "By Jewish Business News" or you said this link[239] doesn't mention "Achom" while the source does mention him so you see, this is not a procedure to reach consensus. Why you removed the awards as well as presented the controversy with undue weight? What is your particular interest with "Frederick Achom"? Please, post your rationale on the article's talk page and treat appropriately with other editors. Aliopuka (talk) 06:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The sandbox was created by User:Jeff G. and he invited anyone to present a more balanced article[240]. After completing the draft article, I posted the link on the main article's talk page no one objected it. I messaged a few editors who were active on this article to check my version. They told me if no one else obstructs then they will assume Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. The awards you are referring to were not supported by any evidence the ones which were, I bumped them up to the intro section. The controversy is not of undue weight just google "Achom Wine Fraud"[http://www.standard.co.uk/goingout/restaurants/wine-scam-costs-investors-110m-6326500.html

] and you will know about it. Why do you keep removing it even after it is supported by adequate number of references?.NihartouJason (talk) 07:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• • Yes, I made that sandbox and did not oppose copying it to the main article after Jason was done with it. I am just trying to improve the project here, but I suspect others are POV pushing and not disclosing, which behavior warrants attention above my pay grade.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Aliopuka: The warnings you are referring to were posted by you yourself on my talk page [241] and were later removed by User:The Voidwalker. He/she stated them as "bogus".NihartouJason (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• I have checked your edits and wine fraud scam edits seem legitimate to me based on the sources you provided. However, I will further check all the references. But still you haven't answered why you removed the other adequately sourced materials? Why you mentioned that this link[242] didn't mention "Achom"? Do you know you can't just delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer? Also, I do not know why User:The Voidwalker undid my warnings on your talk page and stating those warnings as bogus as they were not! Anyway, I have asked him for his rationale as you have clearly removed sourced material from the article which I have restored and are still there on the page.Aliopuka (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• I removed the warnings because I could see serious referencing issues in the material that was being removed. However, a more thorough review shows that a good bit of the material is quite acceptable. Ordinarily, one should review the material they add/remove to an article.

I don't really believe that there is much abuse going on here, rather than a failure to understand. More discussion, rather than templating or reporting, likely would have solved the issues here. Time permitting, I plan on going through the article and cleaning up the material. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 22:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• From the very beginning I insisted on discussion but the SPA User:NihartouJason reported me twice! Any editor can check the page's edit history how sourced material was removed by User:NihartouJason. I just tried to restore the deleted material and reach consensus for improving the project. If removal of large section with awards/accolades, careers is not against Wikipedia norms then what are? If you see serious referencing issues then you could have discussed on the talk page or with the concerned editor instead of removing the warnings. Please, also note that the SPA User:NihartouJason was previously warned for removal of sourced content. I have just tried to restore deleted materials first as there were edit wars on that article (check the page history for clear understanding). Clearly, your judgement was wrong! Anyway, I undid your removal of warnings as the warnings were not "bogus" IMO and left a message on that talk page. Feel free to discuss regarding this and honestly, I checked the removed materials by the SPA user and not all the material had serious referencing issues as you stated. Further the SPA editor reported me instead of discussion or any talk page message as per standard Wikipedia norms. Btw, if you see any referencing issue then feel free to discuss on talk page or edit yourself with a edit summary. I will be happy to discuss on any improvements to the article. Regards, Aliopuka (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

As far as article content goes, I'll review soon to solve the issues I pointed out above, and will be discussing article content on the article talkpage. As far as the warnings go, I was on the edge about them, and won't be making a fuss about them. NihartouJason certainly could have handled the situation better by talking more. Addressing the behavior here is difficult. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Panama Papers

I'm sorry if this looks like canvassing, since I left a message a few minutes ago at WP:BLP/N too. but I'd appreciate additional eyes (preferably eyes familiar with WP:BLP) at Panama Papers, in particular the list of specific people alleged to be clients. If I'm wrong, feel free to let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it's being handled ok, or if anything too conservatively. E.g. the name getting the most press attention is Vladimir Putin, but he's not even mentioned in the wiki article because his involvement was through an intermediary, and the intermediary isn't mentioned either, maybe because he's not a head of state (he is a cellist closely associated with Putin). 173.228.123.194 (talk) 04:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Suggestion: @Floquenbeam: I don't think it's canvassing, especially if it's a very short brief succinct neutrally worded notice. I'd suggest posting notices to the article talk pages of those subjects related to the issue in the article. — Cirt (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The alleged Putin connection and the allegations re. his cellist friend, I'll call them the Putin issue if I may, are right now a horrible mess. There are a few editors convinced that it is all a conspiracy and wishing to delete all they can re. the Putin issue, and the result at this moment is that the allegations have disappeared and the reactions to them are still there. This is an absurdity, but it is also a product of the way in which the article is organised, as few can get a proper grasp on it all. Boscaswell talk 10:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Can I please ask an admin or three to read this: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Panama_Papers#Complete_reorganisation_of_the_article_is_required.2C_and_soon, in which I've set out how I think the article should be reorganised and why it needs urgent action. With page views pushing 400,000 yesterday, it is a biggie. Boscaswell talk 10:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Same issue on Talk:Vladimir Putin#Panama papers, but it seems to be (very slowly) moving forward there.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

We are slowly moving towards large-scale edit warring in Vladimir Putin.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• With Putin saying the whole Panama Papers affair is just a conspiracy to "get him", I would think that he should be mentioned in the article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC).
  

DrChrissy

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

---

I hate to do this, but it looks like DrChrissy is on some sort of vendetta against me and has WP:WIKISTALKed me to the page Earth Similarity Index.

For some background, DrChrissy is topic banned from GMO and alt med articles. The reasons for this are the account's combative attitude and the problems related to pseudoscience promotion at those delicate areas. I have tried many times to bury the hatchet with this account, and it just seems impossible. The account seems bound and determined to go on the attack.

It was with some trepidation that I noticed the account followed me to an area I'm working on that is part of my professional expertise.

• The first edit is an obvious attempt to needle me
• I try to respond civilly

• The next talkpage edit is fine
• I try to respond civilly
• A vague side-eye
• I try to respond civilly
• Another disagreement with me
• I try to respond civilly
• Seemingly coming to agreement? (YAY!)
• I try to respond civilly

Silence from DrChrissy for two days

• Return and discusses a source in a very obscure journal
• I'm pretty appalled that this source is being used. It is very poor
• Personal attack by DrChrissy against me
• Another personal attack
• I point out what's going on

This is becoming a big distraction, and owing to DrChrissy's topic bans on other pages, I'm wondering if an administrator might get him/her to not attack me on discussion pages?

Thanks,

jps (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

One of the collapsible boxes at the top of this page is "how to use this page" This clearly states New threads should carry an informative, neutral title. The title to this thread is clearly not neutral and is deliberately intended to Poison the well. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't see any personal attacks, just a few not-nice remarks and a disagreement about content. The only notable thing is that DrCrissy appears to have followed you to the article (Interaction checker for article and talk page). Is there a pattern of this behavior, or is it a one-off incident? If the former, not sure why this is being brought up here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Yep, there is a history: DrChrissy wikistalked me to WP:FTN to promote parapsychology and Wikistalked me to a sockpuppet investigation that went nowhere. Note that there is also history between you and I, EvergreenFir.jps (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Question Is this canvassing by the OP? DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see incivility from either party. Just looks like a content dispute to me and more polite than many. I would regard the plea to Atsme to be canvassing, though. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC))
  • Note that Littleolive oil and I have clashed over pseudoscience issues, especially with regards to Transcendental Meditation which this account has been shown in the past to unduly promote. jps (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Unduly promote... Your opinion and how long ago was that. Come on jps don't try and muddy the discussion here by disqualifying the editors who take the time to speak. I tried to be fair here. This comment does no one a disservice but you.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC))

Spare me the crocodile tears. I know what your agenda is here and your attempts to be "fair" seem to include making mostly negative statements about me. If this is what you call trying to be fair, I would prefer it if you voluntarily stayed away from conversations that I start which do not involve you. I'll do the same for you. Fair enough? jps (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually jps my agenda was to look at this and be fair. I looked at the diffs and saw nothing that supported your allegations and supposedly no one else did either. I wanted to be neutral and to assume the best faith with you and Dr Chrissy so suggested you both walk away You asked for input you got it but you mischaracterized that as potential stalking. I have no idea if Dr Chrissy is following you around but there's nothing in the thread that indicates he is. You did canvass another editor. At the same time I suggested you both drop this; that's fair. I could have made other suggestions based on what you've said here; I didn't. I'm sorry you see my actions this way and are reacting with nastiness. I have no fight with you. Actually jps my agenda was to look at this and be fair. I looked at the diffs and saw nothing that supported your allegations and supposedly no one else did either. I wanted to be neutral and to assume the best faith with you and Dr Chrissy so suggested you both walk away You asked for input you got it but you mischaracterized that as potential stalking. I have no idea if Dr Chrissy is following you around but there's nothing in the thread that indicates he is. You did canvass another editor. At the same time I suggested you both drop this; that's fair. I could have made other suggestions based on what you've said here; I didn't. I'm sorry you see my actions this way and are reacting with nastiness. I have no fight with you. If you bring a complaint to a NB you should expect input. And my point here was to check in and see what was going on with Dr Chrissy, who I have commented on before, and not you. You can blame your pointed heading for that which specifically mentions Dr Chrissy but certainly not you.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC))(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC))

Go ahead and show me one diff of where you supported me in the last ten years. I can show you dozens where you opposed me. You should know that we have a history, and there is no way you can be fair towards me since you simply always take the side that opposes me. jps (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This is becoming stranger by the minute. Drop it! I have not interacted with you in a substantial way in years.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC))

That's just not true. jps (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is. Very few if any of those comments were directed at you and were part of a larger discussion. I find jps' cmt deliberately misleading at the very least. While I have nothing more to say in a discussion that deteriorated as this one did; I won't let a misleading cmt like this stand.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC))

• Comment The "vague side eye" doesn't seem malicious in any way. The "disagreement with you" doesn't seem to contain any form of personal attack. The alleged "first personal attack" is where DrC questions your competence. Looking over the talk page, you do exactly the same in this section to another editor. I also see several other editors disagreeing with you, with one suggesting that a topic ban on you may be necessary to stop you disrupting the page and another pointing out, quite correctly, that if you want to question the info included, that you find a reliable source. Definitely a better move than insisting that you're an expert on the topic. Valenciano (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • You misunderstand the conversation. The question is not whether we should include criticism in the article. The question is whether the source that is used to determine a particular formula in the article is reliable considering the numbers have changed. I am an expert on the topic. It is not unreasonable to point that out. jps (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment Jps is deliberately misleading the community here. I watch the WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. At 00:12, 4 April, jps posted I could use some more eyes from outsiders referring to the Earth Similarity Index article - here[243] Fourteen hours later, at 14:39, 4 April, my first edit to the article was here [244] In other words, I was responding to the request by jps, nor stalking or hounding. This is a vexatious thread and a total waste of the communities time. It should be dealt with accordingly. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Butting in: I'm a long time proponent of respecting experts on Wikipedia; they are invaluable. Too often they are ignored. Sometime the experts have to declare themselves, but as well, editors have a right to question even experts. In all, I think this could go back to the talk page with a bit more understanding all the way around.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC))

I encourage people to question me. It helps me understand a lot. What I don't like is when people who offer a bad source and I identify it as a bad source declare that I need to strike that evaluation because I lack competence and therefore they're going to ask for a topic ban. See the issue? jps (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and have probably overstayed my welcome here, but at this point may be try treating each other with more respect. Jps this thread mischaracertizes and Dr Chrissy you threatened. You are both experts in different fields so try putting yourself in the other's boots and let this go. You are both important to Wikpedia . Expert are not that common. I realize I'm being obnoxious despite standing behind my comments so will depart before the rotten tomatoes start flying.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC))

This does not mischaracterize the situation. DrChrissy shows up and has caused more problems and headaches. Given our history, ask yourself why that might be. That said, I'm happy to bury the hatchet (again), but I find working with DrChrissy tends to involve over-the-top histrionics and I'm fairly sure it's not going to let up. At least this thread will serve as a record if the problems continue. jps (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

"At least this thread will serve as a record if the problems continue." I have a strong suspicion that this is the primary motivation for raising this thread against me. Jps has a long history of attempted character assassination against me. He is now obviously disrupting this noticeboard to generate further diffs for his future attempts to continue this. Such manipulation of the community and admins should not be tolerated. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems you just want to fight. I don't understand it. I have seen zero olive branches extended from you. I'll try one more time: let's be nice to each other, okay? jps (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Why should I offer an olive branch to someone who behaves in the way you do by raising this fallacious and disruptive thread against me? You continually try to discredit me. Even your opening title of this thread which has now been edited (thanks to the editor that did that) was clearly an attempt to discredit me. I have offered olive branches in the past to other editors and had extremely good working relationships subsequently. But you are way too far away from that yet. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

(e/c)::You most certainly do not encourage people to question you. The very first diff you presented against me in this thread is here.[245] You described this as "The first edit is an obvious attempt to needle me". It was not. It was a perfectly civil edit to indicate that what you stated was not true under all circumstances. Your bringing this thread to AN/I is disruptive, your misleading the community is disruptive, your canvassing is disruptive and your continued attempts to character assassinate me are disruptive. I suggest admins start looking at action against you, and take into account your rather extensive block log. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You know very well what you are doing. The attempts to undermine my good faith efforts to clean up a rather problematic part of the encyclopedia are plainly seen in the diffs provided above. I replied civilly to many of your concerns, even those which were, frankly, uninformed. The response I got was over-the-top demands that I delete my comments. You're trying to WP:BAIT and it is extremely tiresome. It would be better if you just stayed away from me. I'll be happy to return the favor. jps (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment This appears this is a tactic to win disputes. I participated in the same ESI discussion and log in to find jps has filed an ANI report against me: James J. Lambden is wikistalking me. I believe his last comment implies I’m the IP editor as well. Apparently everyone who disagrees with him/her has an ulterior motive. Their tactics here (as with the White Pride article) have made participation unpleasant enough that I’m no longer interested - so credit where it's due. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • You participated in two AfD discussions that you jumped into out of nowhere. Go ahead and convince me that it wasn't because you were looking at my contributions. jps (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Involved comment: are you going to accuse me of stalking you too? I found AfDs that seemed dubious, then I found a shitstorm involving you and everything ESI/PHL-related, you survived my edit warring report unscathed except for a warning from EdJohnston by "extending an olive branch" to use the terms you used in the report, but in the meanwhile, you open ANI threads against other similarly involved editors and still accuse me of "standing in the way of Wikipedia editing" and alleging that I have a "vested interest" in the articles, nevermind that you didn't need to indirectly question my competence because you did it directly. At this point, I really start to question whether you are an WP:EXPERT who's here to improve the encyclopedia, despite the "expert attitude", or someone who is WP:NOTHERE except to get in trouble and try to get other people who disagree with your methods into trouble. I am this close to suggesting a WP:BOOMERANG. LjL (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Why are you picking up the WP:STICK again? I notice that you seem to be discussing me with people outside of Wikipedia, right? Did I do anything to upset you after our last discussion on the Edit Warring board? Yes, I found your contributions at that time to be problematic (and still find those particular contributions to be blinkered). No, I am not going to accuse you of wikistalking me as we have no history. Now if you start following me around to different places, then I might start to wonder. jps (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Ironically, this is the first content dispute I can recall involving DrChrissy where his editing does not seem to be problematic. It is quite possible he followed jps there, and I encourage other admins to check for evidence of wikistalking going forward, but this really doesn't look like anything actionable, for once. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. Maybe I'm just being oversensitive. It's been pretty tough going trying to fix problems related to habitability of exoplanets. Go ahead and close if you want. jps (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this JzG/Guy. However, I would like to point out this is not a content dispute. Jps has raised this thread with totally false, vexatious accusations about my behaviour. His bringing this to the noticeboard must be considered and dealt with in this way, not as a matter of content dispute. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

As a matter of record, jps is well capable of digging his own grave and has done so numerous times before. Some of us are old and cynical and have long memories, we are not too bad at joining the dots. Your best bet is to be the better person, be confident hat you have established your innocence of the charges as presented, and leave it to the janotiros to tidy up the mess. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - will do. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• I went through all of the evidence for myself, and I came to largely the same conclusion that Guy came to. The only point that I can add is that the source that DrChrissy added, that so concerned jps, appears to be one published out of Cuba. I am not knowledgeable about source material in astronomy, but perhaps this was in fact a low quality source. But nonetheless, I think that DrChrissy's conduct was just fine, and that jps overreacted. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

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

IP not making productive edits at templates

How should I handle this? 109.108.250.225 (talk · contribs) has been making drastic changes over several templates and articles and has been warned about it several times already [246][247][248]. Some categories are outright bizarre [249] (was warned about it by Jim1138. His edits at templates are also strange [250]. Since I'm only familiar with the NKR template, I can't comment on the other templates he has edited. Perhaps Laberkiste can help me out here? At any rate, would appreciate it if something could done about this. It's causing quite a lot of stability. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I will look into the recent edits of the IP and rollback every bad one... There are so many edits and some template edits are really fragmented... --Laber□^T 19:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• LOL. try to read more. 1) [251] It was not removal, only subtitle was added, see here apologies from user. 2) Second edit [252] because eight Italian swimmers were among the victims. 3) Here it was removed the unsourced information. Ukraine is not a "military aid" for any party. Navbox used for navigation between articles about topic, not between countries. 109.108.250.225 (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I would take this to the dispute resolution noticeboard. I also advise the user of IP 109.108.250.225 to try to make one large instead of many small edits to templates (use the sandbox if possible). --Laber□^T 19:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Don't advise me such bad instructions. No such rules. I will do so many edits as I want. 109.108.250.225 (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This response is not appropriate, nor is it constructive to the project and what we are trying to accomplish here. Please do not engage in battleground conduct. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yes? Show me the rules which required "to make one large instead of many small edits" (btw where was "many small edits" by me?!). How many? Where? Very strange claim! 109.108.250.225 (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It's just common good practice to do, as it makes your edits easier to read by other editors. It's not by any means required - it appears that they are simply asking if you wouldn't mind helping them out and doing that in the future. When you respond with statements such as, "I will do so many edits as I want", it demonstrates battleground conduct and an unwillingness to collaborate or work with other editors to build an encyclopedia. It doesn't solve anything or make things easier on anybody. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It also makes things easier for you, because you don't need to switch between pages so often. It was just a suggestion. We still need some other editors to look after this case and gather more information, from my side there are no accusations against you or the user who created this thread at this time. --Laber□^T 20:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Again where "many small edits" was done by me? I don't understand. Or number of edits is limited? 50 per day totally? 100? I have edit many different pages with useful edits. Ok, I will stop, good bye finally. Thank you both for critics instead of thanking. 109.108.250.225 (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll let EtienneDolet and Laberkiste continue explaining their concerns and I'll let them show you specific diff examples. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

What I'm referring to is a) the number of minor edits in a row, on a single page and b) the number of identical minor edits on multiple similar pages in a short time. This is a good example, first of six small edits in a row. On Template:Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict, you made eleven edits in four days. Many of your edits follow a pattern that makes me worried they might serve the purpose of flooding your contribution log. See this for example. --Laber□^T 22:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

11 edits in 4 days = ~3 edits in 1 day! And 6 edits in 3 days?! "MANY EDITS" LOL. 109.108.250.225 (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah and Laberkiste: I've told the IP over and over again that the NKR template itself shouldn't have sources and that he will find the sources at the corresponding articles. Yet, the IP continues to edit-war with no stopping in sight. It can't go on like this forever. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

EtienneDolet - Well at this point, the user has been already given a final warning, appears to be refusing to help address the concerns outlined here and make corrective change to the way that he/she is modifying templates, and is continuing to make changes to templates in the exact same manner that is causing the concerns. I think that a block is justified if it's shown that these template changes are disruptive and/or violate policy. Wait for an admin to step in and give his/her observation here; a fresh pair of eyes is always a good thing. I think you've done all that you can to try and fix the issue, EtienneDolet. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see what the IP editor is supposed to have done wrong. One would like to know, for instance, why this here edit was somehow worth a final warning for disruption--not leaving an edit summary is worthy of a block? Iryna Harpy has now written them up for their edits to Timeline of the war in Donbass, but there I see decent edit summaries that indicate an argument. Now, one can argue that the IP is edit warring a bit much, but by the same token, they get reverted a bit much and frequently without any good reason. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Drmies The IP claims that there are no sources for military aid on the template, when I have repeatedly told them ([253][254][255]) that they can easily find these sources on the corresponding articles. It's all right there on the Nagorno-Karabakh War article. I simply don't get what the IP wants to achieve. Should we cite the wlinks on the template page? Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I think what they wanted to achieve here was also to remove the flags/countries, saying that templates like this are for navigation between articles and not countries. I mean, what's the point of linking an article about a country? (See WP:OVERLINKING.) (I don't buy their argument of "no sources", which they repeated on the talk page.) You reverted them twice there and I guess they "won" because you didn't revert again--what I'm trying to say with that is, first of all, good for you, but second, it always takes two to tango. Yes, I wish they reverted less and talked more, that's a fact--but some others in this section have reverted without explanation. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Well I don't want to sit here guessing what they meant. I would much rather discuss it over the talk page in a more elaborate and comprehensive fashion. The issue isn't merely the removal of flags, it is the removal of relevant content which would interest readers. And there's nothing wrong with the infobox being a guideline for a navigation box. At any rate, I warned them about the edit-warring. Let's hope it stops. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Removing other categories relevant to the DAB page without discussion (over and over) is not helpful to readers. If the IP believes it should only be categorised under timelines, they should have made an attempt to discuss it rather than edit warring. Being reverted by several editors should be enough of an alert that it needs to be discussed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit War at WP:NPA

There seems to be an ongoing edit war at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. See the history. I have preemptively protected the page, as edit warring over a policy page is just not tolerable, in my view. I would welcome review of my action, but more importantly i think additional previously uninvolved participants at WT:NPA might help achieve consensus and avoid further edit warring. DES ^(talk) 22:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

...everyone on one side of that war was already blocked by the time you protected. Semi would probably have been enough. —Cryptic 22:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Nobody was warring over content, just several vandal fighters grappling with an intransigent sock. It happens and it wasn't a war.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. I agree that semi-protection is the appropriate level for this page and situation. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thirded; and I left a note for DESiegel on their talk page.--v/r - TP 03:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Another Charlene McMann sock?

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

---

Mindimoo (talk · contribs) seems to be yet another of the Charlene McMann socks. Suspicious activity at any rate. Please see here Regards,   Aloha27  talk  17:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

All set. Mike V • Talk 19:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Copyright violations by CJojoC

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

---

CJojoC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) continues to copy plot summaries from other websites, despite many warnings not to do so. CJojoC was most recently warned by Diannaa on 2 April [256], and CJojoC added more copyvio almost immediately [257]. More copyvio text was added on 6 April: [258], [259]. Looking at the history of My Little Baby shows that CJojoC inserted a copyvio plot summary three times after being reverted: [260], [261], [262]. I think a block may be needed to stop the copyvio. Random86 (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Also the lack of user talk edits shows a refusal to communicate with other editors. Indeffed. MER-C 03:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Suspect user User:Shonell Thakker of paid editing

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

---

User:Shonell Thakker, whose talk page has a warning message from admin user:Materialscientist seems to be following the pattern of a paid editor. All their edits are related to obscure Indian film personalities. The articles have a promotional tone.

A simple google search of the user shows they have a history of employment with entertainment-related PR agencies and digital marketing firms. Request an admin to investigate whether the edits violate Wikipedia's policies around paid editing and Conflict of Interest.

14.140.50.82 (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Materialscientist has not posted anything at all to this user's talk page ever. And neither has anyone else posted anything about paid editing. Have you considered the possibility that the user may be unaware of the policy? 86.149.141.166 (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

No, MS hasn't; but ~82 is probably confusing this (slightly bizarre) message that Shonnel Thakker posted to their own TP- which is of an an unblock request by an IP declined by MS! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• The proper place to file a report such as this is WP:COIN, so please move this thread there. Softlavender (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Removal of comments

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

---

Hi, I want to remove my comments from the talk pages ( History of Islam, History of Iran, Achaemenid empire, Sasanian Empire, Parthian empire). Because my English is not very good, and I have made many mistakes in the earlier times. I am going to retire from Wikipedia once and for all. Can you allow me to do this? Please come to my talk page. Arman ad60 (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Seems like you're removing a lot more than just your comments. Generally you aren't allowed to just delete entire threads containing other editor's responses. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it would be helpful if someone kindly archived away any of the relevant talk page threads that have not been active for some time. MPS1992 (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. It looks like the archival setup is broken on those three talk pages. I fixed Talk:History of Islam... I think. Someone might want to look at the other ones. It looks like the threads this editor is concerned about should be archived anyway. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Well I want to remove all my comments from the talk pages. My comments are not very necessary for the articles. My maps are not going to be accepted in the articles. If I remove the comments from the talk pages will it really do any harm to the articles? I am going to retire from Wikipedia. Let me retire with all the comments. Please consider this thing a bit.Arman ad60 (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

If we just removed your comments, then people's responses don't make sense. It would only make sense if you removed everything, which isn't normally allowed. If there were some compelling reason other than your belief they don't add much and desire to quit Wikipedia, then that might be something different. It is considered helpful to keep old discussions, even of ideas that are rejected, so people who come later with the same idea can know it has been proposed before, and the likely arguments they will face. As I said, our usual rule is to keep these old discussions unless there's some particular reason to remove them. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It's stil happening. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Arman ad60: Please stop deleting discussions from talk pages. If you continue to refactor or remove other editors' talk page comments you may be blocked from editing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• He's doing it again: See these edits. One edit did alter someone else's comment, but that wasn't what bothered me so much. What bugs me is he's changing a lot of the wording of his own comments, which were in perfectly acceptable English to begin with, in ways that I can't be sure it alters the substance of the comment... where other editors have already responded. I reverted the three edits. I'm not sure what's going on here, Arman ad60, but I strongly advise you to stop. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Block needed: He just removed more talk page comments, including posts by others, that comprised a portion of a talk page thread. And here too. This and the diffs I linked above make twice three times since he received a final warning that he's fooled around with talk page comments. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    • He's still making substantive changes to his talk page comments, despite being pointed to WP:REDACT. Some admin intervention would be helpful here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

No you are not right. I am just trying to improve my English. I have changed just few sentences. And it hasn't changed the meaning of the comments. I have every right to do so. Can't I even correct my English?Arman ad60 (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Now at SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arman ad60. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Profanity on Talk:Kanye West

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

---

Admins, would you please consider making this edit invisible? https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kanye_West&oldid=714713748

Peaceray (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Peaceray: Someone is probably going to criticise/attack/mock you for posting this here. You can request revision deletion here or message an admin in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests AusLondonder (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@AusLondonder:, thank you! After 6 years & 12,000+ edits, still learning ... Peaceray (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Peaceray: No problems. Glad to see it has been removed now. AusLondonder (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Just another case of schoolkid vandalism. Nothing worth RevDeling or Oversighting. I see similar, perhaps worse, profanity every time I log onto Huggle as a result of my AV work. Again, nothing special. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree. Some of that is clearly libellous. Swear words aren't worth revdeling obviously. But libel is. AusLondonder (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, AusLondonder - I see your point. I don't think the OP should've drawn attention to this edit, however. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Chesnaught555 You are right about drawing attention which I tried to note in my initial reply to the OP. Many editors aren't aware of the revdel criteria and process though. AusLondonder (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

AusLondonder - fair enough - although it does say in the edit notice for ANI: "If the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or potential libel/defamation, do not post it here" in a big red box. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Done. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmies - much appreciated. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Please unprotect Template:Inflation/UK/dataset

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

---

See my edit summary here for why - it needs 2016 adding otherwise pages using {{{{CURRENTYEAR}}}} won't work, but I cannae add it due to semi protection n stuff, innit. 86.170.7.13 (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

FY2016 is not over yet, why'd 2016 have a calculated inflation rate. Also, the template is designed in such a way that invalid parameters will give you the latest value, so putting {{CURRENTYEAR}} will give us the latest value and works the way intended. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 19:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Inflation/UK/dataset does, but Template:Inflation produces an error if the parameter is specified and empty, invalid or not within the range from Template:Inflation/UK/startyear to the value in Template:Inflation-year, only giving the latest value if the parameter is not used. The source is measuringworth.com, which says for 2016: "There were errors processing your request: Ending year "2016" is not a year between 1209 and 2015." Peter James (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

So perhaps the template should be changed so that it accepts one year later than the last? Is there a {{LASTYEAR}} variable (actually where do I go to find all of these variables and maybe add them, I really don't see where any of this is on the front end)? 86.170.7.13 (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Simply use {{Inflation-year|cc}}, it will default to the last known value for that country. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 03:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

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

PopeyetheSailorMan90

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

---

This blocked user needs to have their talk page access removed as they are using their user talk page to make threats that they will endlessly edit war and that they will "create as many accounts" as they want. Clearly just here to be disruptive. [263] 331dot (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the editor is ranting but is already indefinitely blocked. They are now asking for an unblock on their "regular account" and I'd like to know which account that is so we can see if this is block evasion. So, I'm holding back on withdrawing talk page access right now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Their regular account it Bigshowandkane64 (talk · contribs). It is unlikely that they will mention this. As can be seen here Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bigshowandkane64 and here Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bigshowandkane64 they have created more than a few socks. Please note that this person is banned as well as indef blocked. The talk page rants are par for the course following a block. MarnetteD|Talk 22:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

A check user has confirmed the socking and TPA has been removed so this thread can be closed. Thanks again 331dot for your efforts. MarnetteD|Talk 22:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Multiple problems with editor Cedric tsan cantonais

If you'll look at this edit you'll see two of them. The first is his constant attacks on anons. In this case, the anon made a mistake common with association football editors: assuming that being called to play for a national team equates with being considered that nationality. WP:AGF speaks directly against this. Checking CTC's edit history, you will see many polemics against anons in this manner or worse. The second is that he insists on using Icelanding and other non-English characters. The comment he wrote was, "Anoðr reason to shut down IP edits! Unleß you fīnd prōf ðat Davies actually playd for Canada at ANY level, just shut down ur computer already." It twice uses the Icelandic Thorn: ð, the Germanic long S:ß, an i and o with a macron, usually used to mark long or heavy syllables in Greco-Roman metrics: ī and ō. This makes it almost impossible for a native English reader to understand. This is just one comment. More can be seen in his edit history. I not sure what he's here to do, but it seems he's WP:NOTHERE on some level, definitely treating editing as a battleground, repeated hostile aggressiveness, little or no interest in working collaboratively, at least with anon editors, and major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention, again especially toward anon editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I have every reason to believe that Walter Gorlitz is intentionally presenting only half of the story here. If you look through my edit history, you'll see that I only attack vandals, but not others, and I attack vandals because it's the best way of dealing with vandals. Walter Gorlitz went soft on them and nothing happened, but when I stepped in, the vandals stopped, at least for a few days. Editing is a battleground if and only if the other side is composed of none but vandals. Also, if you look through my edit history, you'll find evidence that I don't just refuse to work collaboratively. It is only vandals and the likes of Walter Gorlitz, a double-standarded anti-diacritic crusader who allows only himself to use diacritics in his name but wants to purge them from all other names, that I am simply unable to work with because of irreconcilable differences.

Also, WP:AGF only applies to first-time mistakes, but not repeated vandalism like that in the example that Walter Gorlitz provided. Seriously, if one (especially an admin) can still assume good faith in repeated vandalism, s/he should re-think whether s/he's leading Wikipedia towards the right direction.

As for my use of so-called "non-English" alphabets, as accused by this anti-diacritic crusader, we all know that there's a limitation of 500 characters in the edit summary, which could be too short in some cases, but I still need to explain why I'm revoking someone's edit or why I'm making such an edit. What else should I do other than coming up with ways to shorten my spelling? Walter Gorlitz wants us to "assume good faith" even in the most blatant cases of vandalism, but why isn't he assuming good faith when all I did was using combined alphabets and diacritics to shorten my spelling? Also, for those who are able to venture back a thousand years or two, diacritics and so-called "non-standard" alphabets were everywhere in English, from Beoƿulf to Cædmon's Hymn. If Walter Gorlitz's standards were not double standard, I don't know what is. Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 17:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It's clear to see the self-deluded hubris presented by Cedric when you look at his claim that he reverted a repeat vandal. The edit made by the IP he made the personal attack on was the editor's first. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:SPEAKENGLISH refers to Modern English, not ancient ancestors of the language Anglo-Saxon or Proto-Germanic or Proto-Indo-European. Excessive use of non-standard spellings (which I'm sure are not even historically accurate to Old English usage) in edit summaries is disruptive. I don't like the character-count restrictions in edit summaries, but Another reason to shut down IP edits! Unless you fīnd proof that Davies actually played for Canada at ANY level, just shut down your computer already would have easily fit. The content of the comment, that IPs should be banned from editing Wikipedia entirely because one IP made a dubious, unsourced edit (to text that was already unsourced to begin with, mind you), is absurd -- almost as absurd, in fact, as calling a user named "Walter Görlitz" an "anti-diacritic crusader". Further, the assertion that WG "wants to purge [diacritics] from all other names" is made without evidence, and wouldn't even apply to User:Cedric tsan cantonais if it was true, as "Cedric tsan cantonais" doesn't contain any diacritics. I've suffered more from the Wikipedia Diacritic Wars than likely both of you combined (perhaps even more than every other editor on the project), but you don't see me making ridiculous assertions like this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Please feel free to look at how Walter Gorlitz launched his crusade here. As I recall, Walter Gorlitz himself does not speak Serbian at all. Yet, he allowed himself to launch an anti-diacritic crusade on a name that he might not even be able to pronounce. Venturing into unfamiliar territories comes with all kinds of uncertainties, especially when we're talking about an encyclopaedia.

Also, my attitude towards IP edits did not just come out of nowhere after one dubious edit. I've had too many pages that the poured my blood, sweat and tear into vandalised by IPs for no reason at all and I've been targeted by several editors hiding behind their IP addresses simply because of simple disagreements. As we Chinese say, "Three feet of ice can't be formed with one night's cold". And yet, Walter Gorlitz, instead of blocking those IPs for vandalism as he should have, he went after me for being to "impolite" while remaining so soft on those vandals as if he was begging them to stop. How is this doing any good to Wikipedia itself? Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 15:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what on earth do you mean "crusade"!? You say his "crusade" was "launched" last May, but when I Ctrl+F-ed his contribs to article talk pages since then for "requested move" and "proposed move", none of the others appeared to have anything to do with diacritics. What's more, when notorious pro-diacritic partisan and infamous Serbian/Japanese/Vietnamese/wherever ultranationalist User:In ictu oculi takes the same side as someone in an RM, I am very skeptical about the possibility that such a user might be an an anti-diacritic warrior. While the tongue-in-cheek nature of the preceding sentence might indicate that I do not take this issue seriously, I do; I've taken far too much crap for it over the years not to. It's obvious to me that either you are paranoid beyond reason about "anti-diacritic crusaders" or that you have some other bone to pick with WG. And you still haven't provided any evidence of where he forced you to adopt your current user name to remove the diacritics that clearly aren't there. Making accusations without providing evidence -- or, worse, providing "evidence" that clearly proves the opposite -- is a form of personal attack.

You clearly have a lot to learn about how Wikipedia works: WG does not have the power to block those IPs, as he is not an admin; and even if he was, he would not be able to indefinitely block them as a point of policy. If you have a problem with vandalism (legitimate vandalism, as opposed to edits you happen to disagree with) the place to report it is here. Only users who know they have a weak argument complain retroactively about "vandalism". If you poured "blood and sweat" into an article, it's the easiest thing in the world to revert legitimate vandalism, and if the vandalism continues you can report it and get the page semi-protected. It's therefore clear that what you are talking about is not vandalism.

Also, saying that IP editors "hide behind" their IPs is absurd. By choosing to edit under a publicly visible IP, those editors are disclosing more personal information about themselves than you or me of 99% of other Wikipedians with named accounts.

Having been on the project for over three years, you should know all this already!

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I have every reason to believe that we're still not on the same page. First, I never accused WG of forcing me to adopt a name without diacritics; Second, all I'm doing is questioning his knowledgeability, which shall be in no way considered a personal attack — In fact, if this counts as personal attacks, I don't know what doesn't. If you wish to question my knowledge in any field, be my guest.

As for the edit summary you showed, can anyone not suspect vandalism when anyone, anon or not, removes a huge chunk of encyclopaedic content without explaining why?

Also, I do not know the history between you and User:In ictu oculi, but according to your standard, calling him/her a "notorious untranationalist" can also be considered a personal attack.

As for why «those editors are disclosing more personal information about themselves» is something I simply can't agree with, WP:NOTHUMAN had made it clear already and I do not plan to re-iterate those points here. I'm not gonna re-iterate anything about presuming good faith, either. But there's one thing that I request you to do: Look deeper into those edit histories. All those IP edits repeated changed the sportive nationality of a player without anything that can be considered as reference. WG himself reverted those edits multiple times but those IPs were simply too stubborn to reason with. The first among those edits might be in good faith, but repeatedly doing that? Maybe you, sir, can presume good faith from those, but the way I see it, those are either vandalism or unconstructive edits.

To be honest, I'm not a fan of treating WP as a battle ground, either. But if those vandalism never happened, neither of us would've been here today. Also, you're making a big mistake by motioning to block me instead of those vandals out there. During my times here in Wikipedia, I dare to say that none of my edits can be considered vandalism. Can you say the same to those vandals out there? I wouldn't think so. Also, why should I be frowned upon just because I demand that all contributors register?

Finally, I don't spend much time here in English Wikipedia simply because my pro-diacritic stance has attracted too much hostility from other editors. So why should I be frowned upon just because the majority of my edits are not on English Wikipedia? I demand an explanation. Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 01:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You said WG "allows only himself to use diacritics in his name but wants to purge them from all other names". This appears to be a reference to his username having an umlaut; however, you did not provide any evidence of him actually trying to remove diacritics from other users' names.

I don't know how you failed to notice that my referring to IIO as a "notorious ultranationalist" was a joke when I explicitly said that I was joking in the following sentence. "ultranationalist" is what LittleBenW, Kauffner and JoshuSasori -- the real anti-diacritic warriors, against whom you never helped us, call him. If you legitimately didn't notice that I was joking, you should apologize to me for your mistake, but even still you should never assume that what I said was meant as a personal attack, even if it had looked like one.

I never said you should be frowned upon just because the majority of your edits are not on English Wikipedia. Please re-read what I wrote.

And despite your own unending string of mistakes, you persist in claiming that the legitimate mistakes of others qualify as vandalism.

If your English level is low enough that you legitimately don't realize that your language is inappropriate and you couldn't understand what I wrote, then we may have a WP:CIR issue on our hands: I generally support users with all levels of English being allowed to edit, but only if they have the humility to admit that they were wrong; you appear to be defensively striking out against anyone you with whom you fail to communicate.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I offer you my apology, sir. Please forgive me for not being able to tell jokes from non-jokes. Honest.

In the mean time, I never took on LittleBenW, Kauffner and JoshuSasori because I never knew they existed. Cédric ^{wants to abolish Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 16:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I know you never knew they existed. That is why you should not be lecturing me about the importance of the "diacritic wars"; I am a veteran of them, and you only showed up as they were dying down. You made your very first edit to English Wikipedia a month after the first of them was blocked, scarcely two months before the second was blocked, and five months before the last. You don't know anything about the "diacritic wars", despite your daring to lecture me on them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cedric tsan cantonais: This nonsense has to stop. You are not allowed to insult people, not even anonymous editors, and although I share your love of diacritics you have to stop massacring English like you do. 250 characters is plenty for any edit summary, in fact if you come even near to a 100 you should simply write the explanation on the talk page, and write "See Talk: <heading>" as edit summary. And stop accusing people of bad faith when they ask you to follow Wikipedia's rules. You are just in this discussion and the edits that have been linked here in violation of WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:SPEAKENGLISH and WP:BATTLE. Stop it. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: Okay, you have a good point, I understand, I will slow down and stop insulting IPs. My two cents... Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 16:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, good. Uill ju alßo stop prätending yat ye aenglíesc späłing cånväntiöns ðös nawt ehksizt? --OpenFuture (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: Þou have just given me every rēson to believe ðat þou þink I'm just anoðer knok-head hwō just adds diacritics for fun, hwich I have no choiç but to take offenç. I do not just switch up letters or add random diacritics for fun. All my use of diacritics are strictly linguistically and etymologically rōted while WG has publicly admitted that the umlaut in his name is merely a "rock band umlaut". If þou woud like to talk about using plain spelling more often, we coud talk, but I nēd you to wiðdraw or at least rephrase ðis. Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 18:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

So where mine, and it doesn't change anything I said. I'm not going to withdraw or rephrase it. If you insist on not using English standard spellings and hence make your communication incomprehensible to people that doesn't reach up to our knowledge of these characters, some sort of administrative action will be necessary. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Just because you want me to switch back to plain English spelling does not mean you can make poor-faith accusations against me like that. Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 23:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Just as a note: I haven't made any accusations I'm a aware of, and definitely not any poor-faith accusations. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever made such a statement. The closest I came to discussing the umlaut in my family name with you was when I stated that it's not my legal (de jure) name in Canada. That does not mean that it's not my family name. When my father arrived in Canada, having spelled his name with the umlaut until that time, he was informed that there is no such letter in English and his family name legally became Gorlitz. All of his, and also my, legal documents and public records are spelled that way. However, my signature has the umlaut, because historically, that is my name, and I have done so since I was in university. My cheques and several other non-legal documents use the umlaut. It's certainly not because of my association with rock music or metal though. If I were to live in Germany, or any country where the character is recognized, I would use it. The point I was making when I explained that earlier is that diacritics are not acceptable in modern English, although they have started to to creep in, either as loans from where we get our loan words (such as in naive/naïve, cafe/café) or as hypercorrections (such as maté tea). The average English speaker would be able to easily transliterate the vowel with an umlaut, or diacritic in relation to the English alphabet, whereas they would not be able to do that with a thorn or other character not found in the English alphabet or unfamiliar to the English alphabet. So, for the official record, I am not against diacritics. What I am opposed to is using characters that are not a part of the modern English alphabet or cannot be easily understood by a reader of modern English. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Indefinitely block Cedric tsan cantonais

I'm usually not one for extreme solutions, but someone who has been on the project for over three years should not be demanding that non-admins block IPs, accusing those IPs of "vandalism" for apparently good-faith edits, accusing those non-admins of imaginary "crusades", or demanding that all IPs be banned from editing English Wikipedia, period, because of something that apparently happened on a different language Wikipedia. Looking at CTC's contributions, it's obvious that the "too many pages that the poured my blood, sweat and tear into" were not on English Wikipedia -- this user has made 96 article edits, only four of which were over 1,000 bytes. I don't know what happened to his edits on Cantonese Wikipedia, but it surely can't justify the likes of this edit summary. While it's possible this user has something to contribute (the clean block log on his main project is ... interesting), it's obvious that he is more of a burden on the project than a boon for the time being; indefinite blocks are not permanent blocks.

• Support as nom. Also pinging Walter Görlitz, since it would be pretty dickish of me to propose a solution, several days late, to a problem he reported without informing him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Slow down I was pinged but I'm not aware of any of this and I don't immediately see a need to block anyone. I would defer to @OpenFuture:'s view of things. @Cedric tsan cantonais: it would be good if you could reply to Open Future, and say "Okay, you have a good point, I understand, I will slow down and stop insulting IPs. My two cents.... In ictu oculi (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: Insulting IP editors is only one of several issues here.

There's also

1. use of gibberish spellings in edit summaries based on a demonstrably-bogus character-count rationale,
2. accusing other users of NPA violations based on his own misreading of their comments,
3. doubling down and refusing to apologize for (2) when it was pointed out to him,
4. violating AGF by accusing another user of engaging in a "crusade" based on one RM from almost a year ago (by the same logic you would be engaged in the same "anti-diacritic crusade", an absurdity I was quick to point out),
5. repeatedly calling edits with which he happens to disagree "vandalism" because they happen to have been made by IP editors,
6. requesting that the admin corps on English Wikipedia engage in some kind of massive anon witchhunt based on something that apparently happened on Cantonese or French Wikipedia,
7. repeatedly referring to this incident on Cantonese or French Wikipedia as justification for his actions, apparently without actually explaining what happened (FTR, I find it highly unlikely that Cedric repeatedly suffered his hard work being "ruined" by "vandalism" -- vandalism is super-easy to revert; more likely, an IP editor repeatedly made well-sourced and reasonable edits that Cedric didn't like; this is why I want an explanation if Cedric is going to keep using dubious anecdotes about foreign-language wikis to justify his actions here),
8. requesting that WG block a certain IP editor for making such a "vandalism" edit, despite WG not being an admin,
9. seemingly accusing WG of trying to change other users' names against their wishes,
10. repeated use of overly aggressive edit summaries, with swear-words and exclamation marks galore,
11. defending (10) with "I was reverting obvious vandalism -- how can you not see that!?" -- clearly either unable or unwilling to get the point,
12. something else that I technically promised not to bring up here unless he persisted, and he hasn't thusfar, but the night is young,
13. refusing to provide an explanation for any of the above when asked,
14. engaging in historically offensive hyperbole (look at his sig); whether or not you disagree with such-and-such Wikipedia content guideline (Cedric apparently hasn't looked at the content guideline he complains about with every post he signs in a while, as it does not say what he claims it says) it is not as bad as slavery,
15. pedantically nitpicking words like "seemingly" and "apparently" in others' criticisms of him in order to dismiss everything they say, and
16. despite clear reasons being given for criticizing his behaviour apart from his attitude toward IP editors, insisting that this proposal to block him is based on a desire to "censor" his views on IP editors.

Most of these look like rookie mistakes, and if a legitimate rookie had made them I would say mentor, not block, but in this case the user has been editing on and off for over three years. Some of them are things that you and I have also committed quite late in our editing careers. But the combination of all of them at this time makes me say a block (without prejudice against unblock, assuming a contrite unblock request, which indicates a full understanding of why the block was made and a sincere desire to do better, is made) is the best option for the community.

And in case it is not clear, my stance on diacritics has not changed in the past three years. I feel the need to clarify this given that little misunderstanding we had on your talk page a short while back. Apparently something in my tone of voice now convinces people that I have turned coat and joined the "anti-diacritic crusade". The reason for the scare-quotes is that, I'm sorry, I am not seeing it as any kind of grand unified crusade since LittleBenW and Kauffner got themselves blocked back in 2013, and Fyunck(click) turned out not to be a massive hypocrite and actually went with the consistent romanization and reliable sources on the Empress Jingū RM around the same time. To quote Basil Exposition, "Austin ... we won."

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Sir, since your accusations full of terms like "seemingly" or "unlikely", I find it nearly impossible to swallow.

Also, if you seek to block me largely because of my stance towards IPs, this is called censorship. Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 16:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I said "seemingly" in line with AGF. If I proclaimed definitively that you did refuse to explain yourself when I requested it, when there was still the possibility that you had just misunderstood my request, it would have been in violation. Fortunately for me, your above response indicates that I was 100% correct, and would have been forgiven for leaving out the "seemingly"s. Please, please, please learn to communicate withnother editors. I said the exact opposite of "seek to block you largely because of my stance towards IPs" -- I posted a laundry list of twelve other offenses you had committed, largely against me, that, when combined, appear to me to warrant an indefinite block with possibility of immediate appeal.

And in my experience, accusing other users of "censorship" has never worked out well for the accuser.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Let me be clear: I had never committed any offence against you and I do not intend to, so unless there're miscommunications between us, please stop adding more accusations to the list. Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 18:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The offenses you commit are against Wikipedia. This is not a personal issue. It's not like you can go around and insult one person and expect that everyone else is OK with that, because they aren't the people being insulted. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cedric tsan cantonais: Yes, you did. I posted one neutral comment above and was met with a flurry of attacks. Of the above, 2, 3, 7, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16 were all committed against me within the last 36 hours as punishment for my crime of analyzing the problem as I see it and commenting accordingly. At this point I have no doubt that if you get blocked you will blame me for it and post on your talk page (or perhaps on Wikipediocracy or some such) about how "Hijiri88 blocked you for your pro-diacritic stance", because you refuse to do the damn research and realize that I have a much longer history than you do of defending diacritics on this site. (Also, like WG, I am not an admin; I have no power to block you, so I would appreciate you not claiming that "blocking you" is what I am doing.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: It is becoming clear to me that we have little to no common ground on the definition of "personal attacks". All I did above was to explain my action and to give you contexts and those are in no way personal attacks, especially not against you. Therefore, I simply can't understand why you're still interpreting them as offences against you personally. Just because I'm the defendant here does not mean you can just keeping adding accusations to the list. Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 01:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It is becoming clear to me that we have little to no common ground on the definition of "personal attacks". What on earth are you talking about? Where in my above reply to you (or even in my long reply to In ictu oculi) did I even mention personal attacks? All I did above was to explain my action and to give you contexts and those are in no way personal attacks, especially not against you. There was nothing in your above comment that explained anything about your actions, although you did provide a new rationale for blocking you (see 15). In fact, you have been roundly ignoring every single thing I say. Please address at least one of the 15 points I raised against you in my long comment above. I'll make it easier for you -- I'll put them on different lines to make them more visible for you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support - The interactions so far gives absolutely no indication that Cedric tsan cantonais understands the problems with his behavior, nor has any intention to stop it. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - this seems like a drama over next to nothing, not indefinite block material. Cedric tsan cantonais just needs to be told that Wikipedia is a humorless place, so should stop with the funny diacritics, and if you can't fit a decent edit summary into the place provided then use the talk page, and that it is pointless to insult anons since they either exist in that form so that they can't be insulted or engaged with in any meaningful way, or they exist in that form because they are in a country where far worse things that insults could await identifiable editors. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

  Oh, he is not joking. Those characters are not "funny". He is dead serious in his invention of a new, consistent (but to normal people incomprehensible) spelling for English. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Voluntary Disappearance

Seeing that there're too much irreconcilable idealogical difference between mainstream English Wikipedia contributors and I, I hereby declare that I'll disappear from English Wikipedia in the foreseeable future. If you want me to stop insulting others, I can do that. However, I reject User:OpenFuture's accusation that my use of diacritics is based on bad faith. I also argue that his refusal to distinguish between linguistically-based use of diacritics and "rock band diacritics" has demonstrated his prejudice against diacritics, which is in contradiction of his claim that he "share[s]" my "love of diacritics". That being said, I also withdraw any and all accusations I've ever made against WG and offer a peace treaty with an apology. Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 23:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

They are not ideological differences. You clearly don't understand my ideology, as you have refused to read my comments. You above very clearly indicate that you have not read User:OpenFuture's comments with any care whatsoever -- where did he/she imply that your "use of diacritics" was "based on bad faith"? This indicates that you clearly have not gotten it, and you will continue your pattern of disruptive behaviour unless you are blocked. Please note that I am not trying to "condemn" or "kill" you -- I want you to read our concerns about your behaviour, to understand our concerns, to apologize and promise never to repeat this behaviour again, and then you will be unblocked and be allowed return to constructive editing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It occurs to me that you're not reading my responses, either. I've already stated that I want to treat linguistic use of diacritics and rock band diacritics (which I don't use) as two things and I've already stated that reduction of my diacritic use to open for discussion, but User:OpenFuture refused to treat them separately. If you look at his message above, the diacritics in his message clearly does not follow any etymological pattern. This implies that he does not understand why and how I use diacritic to abbreviate my edit summaries and that he's treating all use of diacritics indistinguishably.

OTOH, I've already promised that I will stop insulting others and yet you pretend you didn't see those word.

Also, when you talk about offences against you, the first thing I came up with was personal attack.

To respond to some of your accusations:

1. Those are anything but gibberish. Calling them "gibberish" altogether is a give-away that we do not share the same view on diacritics;

4. Yes, that was my fault, and I apologise.

5. Those edits had been previously reverted by other users before I got involved.

7. Just because vandalism is easy to revert does not mean that it doesn't hurt.

9. Again, my fault, and I apologise.

10. Again, my fault, and I apologise.

14. It is disrespecting names that are not of English origins. Therefore, it's bad.

15. You're making the same mistake, good sir.

16. Are you seriously intentionally misinterpreting me or what? When did explicitly say I insisted that this was based on "censorship"? You need to stop making wrongful accusations up.

P.S. I now have reason to believe that we're simply speaking two different languages. And you, good sir, are also making accusations against me based on your incorrect interpretation of my intended-to-be-completely-peaceful words. I never intended to attack or offend you and if I did make you feed offended, I apologise. But I don't think this debate can remain healthy without us understanding what each other intend to say first. Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 03:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

1. I support use of diacritics when it is accurate and supported by reliable sources. You make up imaginary gibberish spellings of English words, that show your ignorance of many of the points about which you dare to lecture me, such as the correct usage of macrons (they don't turn the letter "o" into /uː/; they almost always mark long vowels, the one exception I can think of being Chinese pinyin, where they indicate a flat tone) and the correct name of the eth (which you inaccurately called a "thorn"). I don't know why you do this -- you said it was because of character count restrictions, which was a blatant lie; it seems to be an attempt to make disruptive edits in order to make a POINT.

4. I'm glad you apologized. Now please apologize for the rest.

5. No, I was referring to the Canadian nationality edit. It was not vandalism, and no one but you called it vandalism. Whether other editors supported your reverting it, or reverted the same themselves, is irrelevant. You clearly have not read and understood what qualifies as WP:VANDALISM.

7. So you are still refusing to give diffs, then? Vandalism is easy to revert, and if you are so thin-skinned that you don't like anons being allowed edit "your" articles from time to time, then you should not be working on a collaborative project like Wikipedia.

9. Good, but see 4. above. Also, you should apologize to me for earlier claiming that 9. never happened.

10. Good, but see 4. above.

14. Your signature links to a content guideline that you apparently don't like, and likens it to the North American slave trade. This is ridiculously offensive. However, I apologize for misreading the guideline, which does say that diacritics should be avoided in certain circumstances.

15. You ignored every single thing I said in order to nitpick one word that I said in order to be conservative in my criticism of you. Your outrageous behaviour would have easily justified me not using the word "seemingly", as I was 100% on the money with everything I speculated. And, ironically, in your non-response to this problem you are providing further proof that you are intent on dodging the issue. Also, please don't call me "good sir"; it is belittling.

16. "Also, if you seek to block me largely because of my stance towards IPs, this is called censorship."[264] You posted this 11 hours before somehow completely forgetting about it and claiming only a few lines down that it never happened? Did you really think you could get away with this?

Again, I must say that I have no problem with users with low levels of English being allowed contribute to the project, but they must be humble and apologetic; they should not be aggressively defending everything they say and striking out at other users for criticizing them over their communication problems. If we are having communication problems, it is most certainly not my fault; the only time I used anything other than direct, straightforward English to express myself was when I jokingly/sarcastically referred to In ictu oculi as an infamous Serbian/Vietnamese/Japanese ultranationalist and didn't explicitly state that I was joking until the following sentence (although the oxymoron of a "Serbian/Vietnamese/Japanese ultranationalist" should have tipped you off even there).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

All the spellings I used *were* "correct" in the same sense that your are. (I have not, however, bothered to make sure it was consistently applied). The point was to show how incomprehensible it gets to somebody who does not know the alternative etymology and pronunciations of the characters in question, toungue-in-cheek. You calling it "rock band diacritics" shows with ironic clarity that you indeed didn't understand all of it, as you think I just added diacritics willy nilly. I didn't. Now, if YOU didn't get it, how do you expect the average person that knows nothing about these things to understand it? That's the point. You think you are being clever, and you have some sort of agenda, but all you actually do is make it harder to understand what you write. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: I have to personal agenda. And seeing that I had mistakenly called your use of diacritics "willy nilly", I offer you an olive branch and an apology. I will disappear from English Wikipedia soon after this discussion is closed, but if you wish to kindly let us drink to the love of diacritics, my doors at the Wikimedia Incubator are open to you. Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 04:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It's good that you now understand that you misunderstood my diacritics. I'm saddened to see that you don't realize that others will similarly misunderstand yours. You are of course free to leave, but it's such a silly thing to do. The Wikipedia policies are in place for a reason, you could just follow them instead. But that's your choice, of course. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

A block for bad behaviour and missing the point

• Support Cedric tsan cantonais's edits are usually factual. What I find problematic is his attacks on anons and his use non-English characters. He has agreed to avoid both, but a block, even a short one, would record this decision in the block log. A permanent block or voluntary departure would be a disservice to the community. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support 24-hour block I would say longer, given the massive IDHT mess throughout the above discussion (how many times do I have to explain things to him...), but he has a clear block log at the moment, so technically this is a first offense. I would also disagree with WG's rationale that the worst are "his attacks on anons and his use non-English characters"; several named users, including both WG and myself, have probably had it worse than anons at this point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Weak support - It feel punitive, but the argument that it gets logged is reasonable. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose A block log is not a rap sheet. Nonetheless this editor is subject to a block at any time they resume this behaviour, WP:POINT applies. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC).
  

82.30.110.20 impersonating another editor

82.30.110.20 made this edit to my Talk page, using the signature of Diannaa. The same editor overwrote my comment on Diannaa's Talk page. Edits speak for themselves. 32.218.45.217 (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

With the events of today, if someone like you can behave as you have done without consequence, I am seriously beyond caring. 82.30.110.20 (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC) 32.218.45.217

Looking at 82.30.110.20's comment history, he's pissed that you reverted one of his edits and is throwing a tantrum.142.105.159.60 (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)