Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Roman Spinner editing dab pages in breach of ban

Roman Spinner (talk · contribs) was banned from editing dab pages in February 2016. They are currently involved in a messy repeated AfD for a dab page, in the course of which they substantially altered the content of the page while nominating it (for the 2nd time) for AfD.

Perhaps their ban on editing dab pages should be extended to a ban on nominating dab pages for any sort of deletion (CSD, PROD, AfD), to keep them away from this area of editing in which they seem to cause problems for the encyclopedia. Failing that, they need to be reminded that editing a dab page is editing a dab page, even if the same edit nominates it for AfD. PamD 09:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Blatant breach of ban, so I have blocked for 48 hours (although I don't think adding an AFD header as part of the nomination process should be considered on its own as enough to break the ban on 'editing'). I support extending the ban to nominating for deletion too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe he could look at archiving that massive talkpage when the block expires. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

For clarification, as Roman Spinner seems unclear about it too, the diff I cited in the initial post was not just adding an AfD header: he made substantial changes to the dab page in the same edit. PamD 16:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Roman has now explained below that the substantial edit was accidental. It illustrates the importance of checking the effect of any edit, including those which are automated or shortcuts. PamD 12:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I suggest an amendment to the original ban. I believe it left him able to edit on disambiguation talk pages. This has led to many move discussions, and I think the ban should included deletion discussions and talk pages. One example of my concern is Katharine Blake which Roman nominated for speedy deletion three times [1] (it is a redirect to a dab), and created move discussions (see Talk:Catherine Blake and Talk:Catherine Blake (disambiguation), keeping on and on despite lack of support. Roman just doesn't seem to be able to stop himself. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Well at that point you might as well make it a topic ban from all DAB pages/discussions. Very little wriggle-room there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, perhaps explicitly covering redirects to dabs too. Boleyn (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'd support extending this ban to "Wikipedia disambiguation, broadly construed". That ought to clearly cover the relevant areas being disrupted: if it has to do with disambiguation, it's off-limits. The problem seems at the core to be WP:IDHT: when told explicitly that what they're doing is wrong, Roman Spinner ignores the advice and does the wrong thing anyway, often repeatedly. Immediately renominating Ivan Saric for deletion after being told that AFD is the wrong venue to propose a merge is just the latest example of this years-long pattern. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Boleyn, i believe you misremember the result; the linked discussion, while the initial proposal was not specific about talk pages, modified the proposal to explicitly include them, which Katie's close clearly states. That minor point aside, however, i would fully support the proposal above, to ban Roman from disambiguation altogether. Some of his work is useful, but the continued wrong actions, even after being shown they are wrong, is not helpful at all, and the project should be protected from them. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 11:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

LindsayH, I appreciate your kind characterization at the start of the sentence, "Some of his work is useful", however the remainder of the sentence, "but the continued wrong actions, even after being shown they are wrong, is not helpful at all, and the project should be protected from them", leaves me puzzled. Other than this unfortunate sole exception over the entire course of the year and two months from the time the dab page topic ban was imposed, what are those "continued wrong actions" that threaten Wikipedia's integrity and where/how has it been "shown that they are wrong"? —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 12:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment from OP: given Roman's replies and explanation of the accidental nature of his substantial edit to a dab page, I'd be happy to see this dicussion closed now with no further action - but other editors @Boleyn: @Ivanvector: @Boing! said Zebedee: @LindsayH:might wish to continue. PamD 14:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm happy to close this now - after the comments below, I agree there's no further action needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, that's fine by me. To my mind, a ban from editing disambiguation pages includes a restriction from discussion processes which affect their content, such as suggesting that two dab pages be merged, but if that is not the intent behind the topic ban (I have not read that discussion in great detail) then no further sanction is required. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Personally I disagree, PamD, Ivanvector, Boing! said Zebedee, LindsayH. The original ban stated: Consensus is clear: Roman Spinner is banned from editing disambiguation pages and their associated talk pages (closed by KrakatoaKatie. This includes creating new dab pages. Although no alternative mechanism to allow RS to propose changes to dab pages was discussed, I suggest that Roman Spinner create a sandbox for that purpose if he so desires. Roman has continually broken this ANI by editing their 'associated talk pages', more than a dozen times in the last month. This is not a one-off infraction of the last ANI. I suggest if Roman sees something of concern, he picks an editor to drop a line to and ask to look at it. This is a persistent violation of the original ANI - I propose simply that he is made to keep to the original decision of the original ANI. Boleyn (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Roman Spinner's reply

After seeing the proposed draconian editing sanctions mentioned above, I must at least remind all participants in this discussion that, in the one year and two months that my topic ban has lasted, this is the first and only dab which I have edited. Thus, even the section header, "Roman Spinner editing dab pages in breach of ban", may be modified to "…has edited one page…"

Since it wasn't mentioned in the above discussion, I should also indicate, for the record, that the topic ban was solely related to length of dab page entries and did not involve any interaction infractions such as incivility, harassment, edit warring, etc. In fact, during the 11 years and 3 months that I have edited Wikipedia on a nearly-daily basis, the February 2016 ANI and the related one above, are the only instances that I been taken to ANI. Also, the 48-hour ban that has just ended is the first and only time that I have been banned.

The regrettable and impulsive decision to edit the Ivan Šarić dab page stemmed from frustration at my inability to call attention regarding the need for a merger of the Ivan Saric and Ivan Šarić dabs and, after being informed that Talk:Ivan Šarić#Requested move 6 April 2017 is not the appropriate venue and, subsequently, after the deletion of the merger tags I had placed at the two dabs, I decided to try the AfD.

Even though this decision brought me the 48-hour ban and the above threats of editing sanctions, if there is at least a bright spot in this, it is that the resulting attention brought help from Ivanvector who did exactly what needed to be done. If not for that, there would still be two dab pages where one would suffice.

The only other complaint mentioned above appears to be related to my earlier nomination of Catherine Blake which seems an odd choice to bring up as an example since Boleyn was the first editor at that discussion who offered to support a variant of my nomination. My proposals at those nominations also had some additional support and there was no suggestion of any wrongdoing or inappropriateness on my part.

Taking a wider view, a single-page violation of the topic ban over a period of 14 months, with the violation (insertion of AfD template) not even related to the reason for the ban (length of dab page entries) should not bring forth threats of a much-wider editing ban in areas (nominations, voting, discussions) where I may be able to contribute. Those areas are completely unrelated to the very-narrowly formulated ban and no arguments above specify why, in addition to the 48-hour ban, I should be further sanctioned in such a harsh manner. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 11:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment on the above The diff I cited in the initial post here was not just "insertion of AfD template": you substantially altered the dab page at the same time. PamD 16:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

In attempting to make my reply, above, as brief as possible while including all the key elements, I omitted an explanation relating to your lead paragraph mention that I "substantially altered the content" of the dab page. As I previously indicated, I made no edits to the content of the Ivan Šarić dab page and the addition of the AfD template represented the sole change I made there. Unfortunately, however, instead of adding the AfD template manually at 19:05, 23 April 2017, I took the shortcut of clicking on my earlier edit of 05:27, 23 April 2017 without realizing that in between those two timestamps, three edits had already been made to the page. Thus, I accidentally restored the page to its 05:27, 23 April 2017 form and did not know that it also automatically resulted in those changes until you pointed it out. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 12:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah. That illustrates the importance of checking the effect of any edits one does, especially using any sort of automation or "shortcut". That substantial edit of yours, accidental as it may have been, was the main thing which triggered this whole thread. PamD 12:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Response from another editor

Just looking at your edits for the last 3 weeks, I saw 13 separate bits of editing around dabs from you: 2 AfDs and 11 move proposals which involved moving dabs - There was the proposed move of 7 dabs at Talk:Kalinin, Talk:Pamela Lee (disambiguation), Talk:Kevin McCarthy (California politician), Talk:Dennis Johnson (disambiguation), Talk:Don Mason (baseball). Of the 13, 12 were closed as a straight no or no consensus. I warned you some time ago that you were breaching the ban, but you replied that you were allowed to when it came to these types of discussions and I took that at face value without re-reading the ANI.

I would also say that the behaviour that led to the last ANI was not so much the overlengthy entries, but that you just wouldn't listen, over a period of years. Your response gives me no indication that there has been a change. Boleyn (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I participated at the Talk:Ivan Šarić RM, and I agree that Roman messed the followup badly – instead of just redirecting one dab to the other (a routine action that emerged from the discussion, and that just nobody took upon themselves to execute), he opened no less than two consecutive AfDs. Still, I think the complete topic ban on dab pages is a bit of overkill. Those RM proposals were all within reason, and the last two were closed in favor of his proposed move, while the Talk:Kalinin one was rejected largely on procedural grounds (that mass nomination was inappropriate). I am not aware of history of his topic ban. No such user (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning the RM proposals. As for the Ivan Šarić AfD, I did indeed mess up badly on that one and I apologize to all participants here for having to spend time discussing it as a result. In my frustration at being prevented by the topic ban from merging the Ivan Saric and Ivan Šarić dab as was ultimately done so quickly and easily by Ivanvector, I took the unwise and rash step of re-adding the AfD template, instead of the wise step of posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation and asking other Wikipedians for help in unifying the two dabs.

However, I would like to assure participants that such rashness is very atypical of me and represents a nearly unique occurrence. In my entire 11 years and 3 months on Wikipedia, I have never engaged in edit warring, 3RR or incivility and certainly have no pattern of any such behavior. The topic ban (with length of dab entries as the sole reason) has already lasted a year and two months and this single unfortunate incident should not be used as a reason for expanding the ban and barring me from editing in ever-wider swaths of Wikipedia. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 13:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• We done here? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 02:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Roman Spinner topic ban modification proposal (edit break)

• Support modifing TBan to "broadly construed". This is crazy stuff. Those RMs were a complete waste of time. There is really no sound or logical reason that any editor cannot stay away from dabs. Softlavender (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It should be noted that the current issue, as it was brought to ANI, had been entirely focused upon the editing of a single dab page — Ivan Šarić — with no complaints raised regarding the length of individual entries on that page. Moreover, creation of RMs or participation in RMs had no connection with the reason for the topic ban which solely concerned the length of dab page entries. Nor has anyone had any complaints regarding the content of argumentation within the RM discussions. In fact, among the five RMs mentioned above, two (Talk:Kevin McCarthy (California politician) and Talk:Don Mason (baseball)) are not even dab pages. Another one among those five RMs mentioned above — Talk:Dennis Johnson (disambiguation) — I did not even initiate. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

To repeat what Boleyn said above, "Just looking at your edits for the last 3 weeks, I saw 13 separate bits of editing around dabs from you: 2 AfDs and 11 move proposals which involved moving dabs - There was the proposed move of 7 dabs at Talk:Kalinin, Talk:Pamela Lee (disambiguation), Talk:Kevin McCarthy (California politician), Talk:Dennis Johnson (disambiguation), Talk:Don Mason (baseball). Of the 13, 12 were closed as a straight no or no consensus. I warned you some time ago that you were breaching the ban, but you replied that you were allowed to when it came to these types of discussions and I took that at face value without re-reading the ANI.

I would also say that the behaviour that led to the last ANI was not so much the overlengthy entries, but that you just wouldn't listen, over a period of years. Your response gives me no indication that there has been a change. Boleyn (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)". Despite your claims to the contrary, all of those very definitely were directly about disambiguation pages. You should not be initiating, participating, or editing in those matters. As I mentioned above, there is really no sound or logical reason that any editor cannot stay away from disambiguations. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support this proposal - closer please note I've both proposed this and retracted the proposal above, but on reading the additional comments posted by Boleyn and Softlavender afterwards, as well as reviewing the original close, I have to agree that a more broad Tban is necessary. The original topic ban restricted Roman Spinner from edits to dab pages and their talk pages, but did not address discussions related to disambiguation pages in other locations (such as in XfD venues or requested moves), and in effect this has left a loophole through which he has been able to continue editing dabs by proxy. However, it is clear from that discussion that the community expressed frustration with Roman Spinner's edits related to the disambiguation function rather than specifically from disambiguation pages, which is not covered in the wording of KrakatoaKatie's closing statement. It's clear from this discussion that his edits regarding disambiguation continue to be a problem. Modifying the topic ban to "Wikipedia disambiguation, broadly construed" makes very clear that Roman Spinner may not participate in changes to disambiguation pages by any means. The only exception I propose is clear permission to create or modify a wikilink to a disambiguation page, as editing could be quite difficult otherwise. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support Roman was banned from editing dabs and their associated talk pages, but has continued to do so. I again point out that this ban was put in place because Roman just refused to listen, despite many warnings over a number of years, which unfortunately resulted, eventually, in ANI. I would also say that edit warring and incivility are present, from my perspective. Refusing to listen to other editors and continuing to change pages to how you want them is not civil. If warned about editing for one dab, stopping but then doing exactly the same on another dab the next day, is a form of edit warring. Bearing in mind that the topic ban was not kept to by Roman, I think he is lucky the proposal is just to make the wording clearer. Although I pointed out the 13 infractions in the last 3 weeks, he has persistently edited dab talk pages over the time of his topic ban. I also fail to see how he has struggled to avoid getting involved with dabs when there is so much else to do on Wikipedia. I support the rewording of the original ban to 'broadly construed', as the original ban on editing 'associated talk pages' has been ignored and Roman is returning to the issue of disambiguation, often several times a week, despite the topic ban. I wish him well in other areas of the encyclopaedia, but this has been going on for years and is absolutely ridiculous. Boleyn (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Response from Roman Spinner. Although I posted a general overview below ("Additional statement from Roman Spinner"), it did not directly address the misperceptions mentioned immediately above, which do require a specific explanation.

1) The initial proposal for the February 2016 topic ban concerned solely dab pages. During the discussion, another participant proposed expanding it to include dab talk pages, but no one went any further. The closing of that topic ban mentions dab pages and dab talk pages, but no other pages. Thus, even if it is confirmed that the topic ban does indeed extend to participation in RMs on dab talk pages, it should still be obvious that I violated neither the letter nor the spirit of the topic ban by participating in AfDs or other dab-related discussions which are not situated upon dab talk pages. After all, the intent of the ban was never to bar me from all dab-related pages and topics, but only from editing dab pages and their talk pages.

2) As I previously pointed out, there are only five titles presented above as examples of my RM participation, and two of those — Talk:Kevin McCarthy (California politician) and Talk:Don Mason (baseball) — are not even dab pages. My pointing this out brought the response, "Despite your claims to the contrary, all of those very definitely were directly about disambiguation pages. You should not be initiating, participating, or editing in those matters.", which can be countered with the simple question, "Why?" After all, the topic ban never indicated that I did anything improper outside of dab pages and therefore there was no reason to ban me from other pages.

3) Another contention, "The original topic ban restricted Roman Spinner from edits to dab pages and their talk pages, but did not address discussions related to disambiguation pages in other locations (such as in XfD venues or requested moves), and in effect this has left a loophole through which he has been able to continue editing dabs by proxy. However, it is clear from that discussion that the community expressed frustration with Roman Spinner's edits related to the disambiguation function rather than specifically from disambiguation pages, which is not covered in the wording of KrakatoaKatie's closing statement. It's clear from this discussion that his edits regarding disambiguation continue to be a problem.", is particularly mystifying since there is no such loophole. AfDs do not take place on dab talk pages and are concerned not with individual entries on the page, but with the deletion of the entire page. RMs, which do take place on dab talk pages, also are not concerned with editing of individual entries, but solely with renaming the page's main title header. Thus, there is no manner through which the content of a dab page may be edited by proxy.

4) Continuing with 3), I am not aware of any complaint during the 2016 ANI regarding disambiguation "function" — the entire topic ban was based solely upon the length of dab page entries. Finally in 3), how is it clear that my issues regarding disambiguation continue to be a problem? A mistake upon a single dab page and participation in RMs situated upon dab talk pages are the sole problems mentioned. That single dab page edit (placement of AfD template — nothing related to length of entries) caused me to receive the first editing ban in the entire 11 years and 3 months that I have edited Wikipedia. As for dab talk page-based discussions and RMs, if the closing admin decides that those are part of the topic ban, then I will no longer participate in anything that is based within dab talk pages. However, as for "his edits regarding disambiguation continue to be a problem.", which edits are those? Other than participation in RMs, which edits are in question and what is the problem?

5) Lastly, Boleyn's complaint that "Roman was banned from editing dabs and their associated talk pages, but has continued to do so", disregards that the single edit which brought this discussion was a one-time occurrence that resulted in a 48-hour ban, and the RMs involved strictly discussions and no editing of dab page entries. As for, "this ban was put in place because Roman just refused to listen, despite many warnings over a number of years, which unfortunately resulted, eventually, in ANI", between my first edit on January 22, 2006 and 10th WikiBirthday on January 22, 2016, only 4 Wikipedians posted on my talk page, leaving, in nearly every case, gentle reminders, rather than warnings. I responded to each of the 4 editors, explaining how I measure the length of my edits and other details and was not issued any warnings — certainly none that would indicate that I was in danger of receiving a topic ban.

6) The following statement certainly needs to be addressed, "I would also say that edit warring and incivility are present, from my perspective. Refusing to listen to other editors and continuing to change pages to how you want them is not civil. If warned about editing for one dab, stopping but then doing exactly the same on another dab the next day, is a form of edit warring.". I sympathize with these feelings and regret that my edits led to the point that such sentiments needed to be expressed. However, we cannot start redefining what edit warring and incivility mean in Wikipedia terms. Wiki editors hold a variety of differing views and disagreeing on this topic with only 4 Wikipedians in my first ten years of editing, should not be made to seem that I was opposing a groundswell of opinion.

7) Honest disagreement on an issue cannot be classified as incivility, although our disagreement regarding the length of dab page entries has not existed since February 2016 and I furthermore regret not accepting Boleyn's arguments posted on my talk page three years ago — not merely because it would have prevented the ANI problem, but basically due to those arguments standing on their own merits. As for edit warring, in my entire time with Wikipedia, I have never engaged in such behavior and, unlike the social, political or scientific edit warriors who clearly violate NPOV by favoring their own viewpoints and reinserting those viewpoints using 3RR, when, in the past, I edited dab pages, no one ever complained of NPOV violations or reinsertion of text in a manner consistent with edit warring.

8) Ultimately, however, other than the element of punishment for the length of my pre-2016 dab page entries, what is the reason for the insistence upon a pound of editing flesh beyond the recently-concluded 48-hour editing ban. No one has even specified whether or how my participation in RMs, including those located within dab talk pages, has in any way impacted Wikipedia's integrity or caused distress for any Wikipedian. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

To repeat, Despite your claims to the contrary, all of those, including Talk:Kevin McCarthy (California politician) and Talk:Don Mason (baseball) very definitely were directly about disambiguation pages. All anybody has to do is click the links and search for your name to see that. Moreover, in addition to that repeated misrepresentation, your interminable walls of text here are not helping your case. Softlavender (talk)

Since the word "misrepresentation" has been put forth, it needs to be pointed out that it is, in fact, a misrepresentation to submit the edits I made to Talk:Kevin McCarthy (California politician) and Talk:Don Mason (baseball) as examples of my violating the ban against editing dab pages. Since neither one of those is a dab page, therefore I did not violate the ban by editing those two pages. When walls of text are needed to counter unfounded accusations, then walls of text have to be submitted. The explanation here, however, is as short and simple as it needs to be. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It was and is a misrepresentation to repeatedly claim (three times now so far) that those posts are not very definitely directly about disambiguation pages. That is why it is being proposed that your topic ban wording be changed to add "broadly construed", because you seem to not be able to resist editing disruptively concerning disambiguation pages, whether directly (on the page or talk itself) or indirectly (via RMs and related discussions). Softlavender (talk) 07:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not simply claiming, but stating directly, that without any doubt, the two pages in question are not disambiguation pages and that therefore I did not violate the wording of the ban on editing disambiguation pages by editing those two pages. Of course, there is a disambiguation element inherent in the discussions on those two pages, but there is no indication that the narrowly focused ban was meant to bar me from editing non-dab pages or participating in dab-related discussions since I was never accused of being a general disruptor of dabs, but simply of creating overlong dab page entries.

As for the constantly-repeated unsubstantiated charge of "editing disruptively", I challenge anyone to point out a disruptive edit I have made. If the length of my dab page entries prior to the February 2016 ANI is considered to be disruptive, then at least any allegedly "disruptive" edits I am supposed to have made in the year and three months since then. The single dab page that I have edited since February 2016, Ivan Saric, is of course an unfortunate exception for which I have apologized, but a single exception (which was unrelated, it needs to be stressed, to the length of dab page entries) cannot be considered to represent a pattern of disruption. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 08:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The 13 items in just the last three weeks alone, mentioned by Boleyn, were disruptive and wasted the community's time. They all involved dabs, that is why we are requesting that the TBan be reworded to include the words "broadly construed". Softlavender (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, Roman, you're just not listening. The original ANI found your edits disruptive. You were given a topic ban you have not kept to. Although I pointed out the 13 pages you have edited in violation of editing dabs and their associated talk pages, that was just for the last three weeks. Looking back in your user contributions shows you regularly, usually weekly, editing dab talk pages. There is no point re-debating the original ANI - there were concerns about your editing of the talk pages and that's why it was explicitly banned. If you had refrained for a year and then asked for that to be lifted, that would be different. Instead, you ignored it. You keep saying there was a single exception - it has been every week! Ignoring an ANI decision is disruptive, full stop (exemplified by the fact we're all wasting our time here). You mention that only 4 editors sent you messages about your editing of dabs against consensus - that excludes the many which were on the talk pages of the dabs themselves (I remember, as I left several). You just don't listen to other editors. Can we just wrap this up now? After years of interacting with Roman, I see no attitude change and no chance he's going to really reflect on this, so rewording of his ongoing topic ban is the only option and not a harsh one given his persistent breaking of the ban on editing dab talk pages. Again, I genuinely wish you luck in other areas of the encyclopaedia, but you need to let disambiguation-related topics go. Boleyn (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose expanding the ban; this would effectively bar Roman Spinner from participating in requested move discussions where dab pages may be affected. They have routinely contributed to the RM process constructively before and after the ban. I'd go so far as to suggest that the condition that they avoids dab page talk pages be removed altogether. The crux of the problem was edits to the pages themselves (and not listening to criticism), not talk page edits.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

My thanks to Cúchullain for his very kind words. I also feel that after years of interaction, I must reply to Boleyn's above comment.

Again, Boleyn, I regret that you feel everyone's time is being wasted here (there are 25 other items on today's ANI agenda), but there is nothing to be gained for yourself or for Wikipedia by pursuing the call for a pound of flesh so relentlessly. Yes, of course, all you want is for me to keep to the conditions of the ANI, but there is really no need to make it into a personal crusade. As you well know, search as you may, that other than this single unfortunate miscalculation (which did not involve the reason for the February 2016 ANI — overlong dab page entries), I have not edited any dab pages for a year and three months. At a point when everyone else in this ANI was satisfied, it shouldn't have to have been necessary for you to go into punishment overkill mode.

However, for you, everyone else reading this, as well as for the closing, I do need to address the points you have made above. First of all, the original ANI was exclusively about overlong dab page entries and not about the broad topic of "disruptive editing", since I've never engaged in such editing. If that phrase was used at all, it was because some editors may have declared the overlong entries to be disruptive. As you well know, I addressed you directly at that ANI and declared that all my future dab page entries will be pared to the bone — basically two to four words — thus making the point of the ANI moot — other than for punishment, of course, with the ban against editing dab pages imposed nonetheless. Dab talk pages were not mentioned in the ANI submission and were added as an afterthought mid-discussion. There were no "concerns", other than the overlong entries.

Most inappropriate, however, are your repeated attempts to influence opinion here by submitting inaccurate statistics. Such statements as "You keep saying there was a single exception - it has been every week!. and, repeated by Softlavender, directly above your statement, "The 13 items in just the last three weeks alone, mentioned by Boleyn, were disruptive and wasted the community's time. They all involved dabs. All of this content is deeply misleading since it all refers to a single venue, WP:Requested moves.

Other than the mentioned single exception, the only complaint seems to be my participation in a handful of RM discussions which were held within dab talk pages. Only 5, not 13, examples of such RM participations were submitted and, to inflate even that small number, two of those were non-dab pages — Talk:Kevin McCarthy (California politician) and Talk:Don Mason (baseball) — but were nevertheless supposed to represent examples of my violating the topic ban. In actuality, although referenced as a "topic ban", that ban is very narrowly specified as solely referring to "dab pages and their associated talk pages", not to every page with a parenthetical qualifier in its main title header.

Another attempt to influence opinion is through a misreading of the past. When you state, "You mention that only 4 editors sent you messages about your editing of dabs against consensus - that excludes the many which were on the talk pages of the dabs themselves (I remember, as I left several). You just don't listen to other editors., what you really mean is that I don't listen to you. You would be hard put to find a single editor who left a dab talk page comment relating to my edits. Even you, yourself, left no more than one or two dab talk page comments, occupying yourself primarily with deleting all my dab page and talk page contributions using WP:TWINKLE, without even bothering to read them and incorporate any of the additions and corrections (such as duplicate names or circular redirects) that I had made. A number of those mistakes which you restored to the dab pages (such as the circular redirect at The Young Lovers#Other) are still there — uncorrected years later, even when I specifically pointed it out on three separate occasions in that page's revision history. I will leave it to others to decide the disruptive aspect of such editing.

In retrospect, however, I do sincerely regret not complying with your heartfelt posting on my talk page in 2014, not merely to have prevented the two ANIs and moved forward the ultimate inevitable compliance, but because the points that you made were reasonable and sensible. You have been one of the most productive contributors to Wikipedia and I thank you for having devoted such a major portion of your life and time to its expansion and improvement. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 16:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment Roman, this is a real case of WP:Wall of text and makes it very difficult for people to contribute properly to the discussion. Your recollection of our past interactions is simply untrue, but I am not going over it yet again, this was already discussed and assessed at ANI, resulting in your topic ban. Cuchullain, no one's suggesting that Roman has never made a constructive edit to a dab page or dab talk page, but that doesn't outweigh the damage caused or the fact he has not kept to the original ban. The crux of the issue was his editing of dabs, you're quite right, but there were good reasons dab talk pages were included, and there was very much a problem with them. Some of the issues were like those at Katharine Blake [2], proposing a speedy deletion/move three times for same reason despite them being deleted. Others were for copying his 'improved' edits to the dab page on many dabs after removal for a discussion on whether they were better, although he didn't (although advised several times to) start a discussion in an appropriate venue, such as the active Wikiproject Disambiguation, to discuss entry lengths. I'm trying (and not quite succeeding) to avoid being led off on the tangent of rehashing why the ban was put in place, but it was for good reason, based on years of editing dabs and their associated talk pages and paying no heed to consensus. Boleyn (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Boleyn: I'm not seeing any evidence that Roman Spinner has caused disruption by editing talk pages or participating in RMs since the ban was implemented. On the other hand, I've seen them participate productively and offer valuable input at dozens of RMs, including those where dab pages would be affected. As this proposed ban increase would preclude them from editing in a way where they continue to be productive, it should not be implemented.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Once again I thank Cúchullain for his continued kind words and once again I must, unfortunately, respond to Boleyn's misleading characterizations of my edits.

Boleyn, I deeply regret that your need to see me further punished is so relentlessly obsessive. You must feel that all that is needed is a constant repetition of "Roman just doesn't listen" or "Roman has ignored numerous warnings" and you will be believed simply on the basis of such repetition and one or two misleading examples. You write, "Your recollection of our past interactions is simply untrue, but I am not going over it yet again, this was already discussed and assessed at ANI, resulting in your topic ban, but this is not a case of dueling truths or alternative truths, but only about simple facts. The ANI was called solely on a complaint regarding the length of my dab page entries and the closing decision was based upon that issue.

As for my "walls of text" here, I had hoped that by dividing the points into bite-size pieces, the text would be easier for you and others to peruse. Take any one piece — each one clears a misunderstanding. Only one piece in that "wall of text", the paragraph starting with the words, "Another attempt.." was about our past interactions and was meant to display that it is you who doesn't listen — when, three times, at widely-spaced intervals over a period of 20 months, — I pointed out in the edit summary that you have created a circular redirect, you reverted me three times without ever bothering to correct the mistake, which is still uncorrected today, more than three years after I called attention to it. There are a number of other such examples where you used TWINKLE to revert all my corrections and additions and then make no changes of your own, thus leaving the original mistakes uncorrected.

All other sections, of what you see as "wall of text", concern the misleading examples you have provided to bolster support for your current calls for punishment. The same pattern unfortunately continues in your reply to Cúchullain, above. It is inexplicable that you continue bringing up Catherine Blake when there is absolutely no consensus that she is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC there and you yourself wrote here, "I would support a move from Catherine Blake (disambiguation) to Katherine Blake, and Catherine Blake to Catherine Blake (wife of William Blake). People unsure of the spelling are highly likely to type in 'Catherine' and end up at Blake's wife's page. Boleyn (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC). I subsequently submitted each of those moves — 1 and 2 — and yet you did not support either one.

Finally and, most misleadingly, you keep insisting that I "didn't (although advised several times to) start a discussion in an appropriate venue, such as the active Wikiproject Disambiguation and that I was "paying no heed to consensus, again presenting the impression that I ignored all advice. Once again I reiterate that between my first edit on January 22, 2006 and my 10th WikiBirthday on January 22, 2016, only you and three other Wikipedians posted on my talk page regarding the length of my dab page entries, and the postings of those three other Wikipedians were far from any warnings, but simply gentle questions regarding the length.

The complaint, "Others [other issues/other complaints] were for copying his 'improved' edits to the dab page on many dabs after removal for a discussion on whether they were better [you must obviously mean "edits to the dab talk page"], should be seen in light of the fact that there is not a single posting to be found — not even from you — upon any individual dab talk page regarding the length of my edits. In fact, you simply deleted (usually using TWINKLE) almost all my explanatory dab talk page postings, in clear violation of dab page etiquette (my postings did not contain copyright violations, personal attacks, incivility or anything else discouraged by guidelines) and did so without leaving, on that dab talk page, any posting of your own.

As for "paying no heed to consensus", other than the 4 Wikipedians in 10 years, no one else left any messages anywhere regarding the length of my dab entries. When the ANI consensus did develop, less than two months after my 10th WikiBirthday, I immediately agreed, at that ANI, that the only dab page entries I would create in the future would be ones that are "pared to the bone" (bearing a two- to four-word description). Thus, any suggestion that I don't listen to "numerous warnings" or "pay no heed to consensus" is completely misinformed. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Additional statement from Roman Spinner

1) The above comments have left the completely unfounded impression that I must be a serial violator of disambiguation page content, that I must regularly disregard numerous postings of advice and warning addressed to me, that I must repeatedly do the wrong thing, that I simply don't get it and that the only way to maintain Wikipedia's integrity in this area is to completely bar me from having any contact with dab pages, including banning from participation in voting and discussions related to dab pages.

2) Since the comments don't directly address the details of my ban, let me reiterate once again that the sole reason I was brought to ANI in February 2016 and ultimately topic banned was the length of my dab page entries.

3) At the time I made my first edit, on January 22, 2006, dab pages were fairly unstructured, with a number of entries presented in an overlong manner. I took the more-detailed entries as a model for creating my own dab page entries, but limited the length of my entries to three-quarters of a single line of text, as it appeared on my screen. Between January 22, 2006 and my 10th WikiBirthday on January 22, 2016, only 4 Wikipedians posted on my talk page, mentioning that my dab page entries tended to be overly long. I responded to each of the 4 editors, taking care to explain in detail my dab page editing style. Even more tellingly, during a four-year period, between 2008 and 2012, when I edited hundreds of dab pages, not a single Wikipedian communicated with me on the subject.

4) In fact, the first time I encountered sustained opposition regarding the length of my dab page entries was 3 weeks after my 10th Wikibirthday when I was taken to ANI and the discussion participants roundly disagreed with the length of my entries and voted to ban me from editing dab pages.

5) As can be seen in that February 2016 discussion, Boleyn made a comment which ended with a question directed at me, "Are you going to stop editing dab pages in this way? Boleyn (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)". My reply was, "Yes, of course, I will stop. Judging by the comments, I am on the losing side of this argument. As I wrote near the end of my April 2014 lengthy reply to your posting, "[T]hese disambiguation pages do not come easily to me and I spend hours, sometimes days, working on single long one…" Faced with a chorus of disapproval, it would be at least counterproductive, if not masochistic, to expend so much energy/effort for such meager effect. All my future entries will be pared to the bone -- vital dates/defining date, nationality and profession/function/venue. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)".

7) My reply, however, made no difference and the ban was implemented.

8) On a purely objective level, other than for the element of continued punishment, there has been no need for the topic ban since the day it was imposed, and the notion that I "don't listen" or that I "can't help myself" stems from conflating the topic of longer entries with the experience of typical topic bans imposed upon the social, historical, scientific or linguistic edit warriors who constantly spar over abortion, genocide, annexation of territory, climate change or diacritical marks over names. Since no continuing complaint, other than the length of entries, has ever been lodged against me, and (other than this single unfortunate occurrence which did not involve length of entries) it has been more than a year since I edited a dab page, if/when the topic ban is lifted, it would be extremely simple to determine whether my dab page entries are sufficiently brief to fall in alignment with my reply to Boleyn's question in the 2016 ANI.

9) As for "I warned you some time ago that you were breaching the ban, but you replied that you were allowed to when it came to these types of discussions and I took that at face value without re-reading the ANI.", my reply was actually more nuanced and conciliatory, indicating that if you feel I am incorrect in my assumption that I am allowed to participate in RMs and that the topic ban is total, please feel free to visit the ANI and I will comply with the decision there.

10) In the end, what should be stressed most forcefully is that other than lengthening dab page entries in the past, there have never been any accusations of incivility, edit warring or breach of talk page etiquette [see comment by No such user (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC), above, regarding my participation in RMs]. Thus, there is simply no basis for proposing broad-based bans on taking part in dab page discussion and voting when no evidence has been presented that there had ever been any problem or dissatisfaction within those venues. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 12:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for closure from Original Poster

• Comment from OP: Please will someone now close this thread, which I regret opening. I posted here after a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Saric (2nd nomination). I had made an edit to the dab page in question to resolve its problems and suggested that we redirect and close the AfD, but Boleyn reverted that edit of mine and pointed out that Roman Spinner - who is topic banned from editing dabs - had deleted two valid entries from this dab while nominating it for 'deletion', making it look like a completely invalid dab. This appeared to be something worth bringing to ANI. Roman has since stated (1:02 pm, 27 April 2017) that the edit in question was accidental (restoring to a previous version without noticing intervening changes), and I AGF. I suggested closing this ANI discussion (3:05 pm, 27 April 2017), pinging the 4 editors who had already commented. Two were happy to close, one didn't reply, and Boleyn has become involved in a lengthy discussion with Roman which, a week on, is sapping the energy of anyone who is following this thread. The consensus seems to be to take no action. I hope that someone uninvolved will now close this thread, so I can take ANI off my watch list and get back to normal editing. (I often check my watchlist on my phone, where every change is listed separately, and ANI occupies all 50 diffs displayed under "Other"). PamD 07:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Creuzbourg and User:K.e.coffman Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel

Establishing a case of WP: Tag team I think. They have established a two-editor consensus, that declares sources unreliable in their personal opinion. They insist and deleting swathes of information, and retaining a tag of "unreliable sources", with no support from the historiography. I am hoping for some sort of resolution, nothing more. Dapi89 (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)c

This is part of an editorial war already reported Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dapi89 reported by User:K.e.coffman¨ I suppose its better if all matters are resolved in one forum. Otherwise, I think its rather a case of WP:OWN on behalf of User:Dapi89, proven by such statements by him as: Editors opinions count for nothing and I will do as I please. There are three editors who agrees. Creuzbourg (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Dishonest. I said I will do as I please on my talk page, not the article. Also, our collecrive opinions dont matter, its the sources that should prevail. That is the point i made quite clearly. Please dont lie. Dapi89 (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dapi89:, you are required to notify users when starting a discussion about them, see the big orange edit notice at the top of the edit page. I have notified them both for you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Somehow I feel I am involved. I did not edit the article, but contributed on the talk page. I notice that Dapi89 has voiced the first accusation of tag teaming on 4 April 2017.[3] Since then the editor has made no attempt of WP:DR, but confined him/herself to short comments speaking of a possible "destruction" of the article that he/she has to prevent. Thus the editor seems to perceive anyone who is not with him as being against him.(from WP:AN3RR). The editor routinely resorts to accusations. From today [4]--Assayer (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

For the administrator who look into this case: Wikipedia editor Creuzbourg (person who started to mass remove material on the Rudel page) tagged the article as containing excessive intricate details and contains unreliable sources even though is a GA article that requires to meet the comprehensiveness criteria and is throughly reviewed, has also tagged with the same tags these following pages:

→ FA article: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Albert_Kesselring&type=revision&diff=777161722&oldid=776657232

→ FA article: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Werner_Mölders&type=revision&diff=777174753&oldid=776113712

→ GA article: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Adolf_Galland&type=revision&diff=777163959&oldid=776113388

→ GA article: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Erich_Hartmann&type=revision&diff=777160461&oldid=777010274

I don't believe Creuzbourg editing of these articles is being done in good faith, he acts as if he have consensus for tagging and removal of sourced material on these Featured Articles and Good Articles. In other words, from my observations he is biased and agend-driven editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.237.138.234 (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

IP 104.237.XX, please log in to your account if you wish to attack people on ANI (or for that matter on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history). Nobody believes you don't have one. Evading scrutiny on noticeboards is inappropriate. Bishonen | talk 20:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC).

I do not believe that Featured Articles and Good Articles are beyond criticism. I am not driven by any agenda. I do not normally write about WW2 German military history or biography, but tried to improve an article that I found faulty. I tagged it and started a discussion on the discussion pages. I did not want to do, what most WP-editors do, i.e. just leave a tag and run; however the tag was immediately removed, the discussion thwarted. I am immensely disappointed with Wikipedia that such disruptive behavior can go on and on and on, and extremely tired of the whole thing. I am perfectly willing to be banned from editing Rudel or any of above articles, as long as Dapi89 also will be banned. The articles are faulty, and the tags should not be removed before consensus is reached. Creuzbourg (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Update and request: Dapi89 has been blocked for 72 hours for edit warring (in a conflict which is relevant to their OP complaint of tag teaming). They ought really to be able to comment here without any cumbersome please-move-this-to-ANI system, so I've offered to unblock on condition that they edit nothing other than this ANI thread for as long as the block would have lasted. They're not online and I have to go out now. If they agree to the condition, I'd appreciate it if any passing admin would kindly unblock, with a note about conditions in the log. Bishonen | talk 10:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC).

Response by Dapi89: Then no, on principle. I'll agree to leave the Rudel page alone for 72 hours, if the same rule is also applied to the tag team operating there . Dapi89 12:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC) (Diff). Assayer (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Assayer. So much for that, then; he'll remain blocked, AFAIC. Bishonen | talk 14:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC).

Boomerang proposal: 30-day topic ban for User:Dapi89

• WP:BOOMERANG: the reporting editor has a long pattern of uncivility and ad hominem arguments. Just today, at the WP:3RRN, he suggested that he can also provide evidence of Coffman of violating the 3RR rule on many occasions (diff). When I invited him to file such a report, he responded with On reflection, this is a case of Wikipedia:Tag team without providing any proof for this claim: diff. Substantiation is lacking from this report as well, which I consider frivolous & without merit.

This has been an-going pattern with the editor, please see some of the edit summaries by Dapi89 from the Rudel article as well as others:

• Undid revision 773585302 by Creuzbourg (talk) poor editing; dumbing down; no sense in removing these details; eliminated tag. Related discussion: Rudel#Intricate details. From the Talk page: BS.
• rev deletions by Coffmann, ignorant, dishonest, disruptive. Related discussion: Lütjens#External links
• ridiculous. Related discussion: Lent#Alt text.
• reverted edits by Coffman. Ignorance (...). Related discussion: Uncited content previously cited to Franz Kurowski
• spurious tag and vandalism. Related discussion: Recent edit
• "No Stephan, no. A clear lack of understanding", with comments such as: No Stephan, that is how it works. The onus is on those making the allegation to prove their case. And yes it is Stephan. In Talk:Otto Kittel#Kurowski (the article was ultimately delisted as a Good Article: GAR).
• Etc.

This pattern of behaviour is disruptive and a topic ban from Luftwaffe / WWII articles (perhaps starting at 30 days, same duration as floated at the 3RRN) may be in order: diff from 3RRN. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Although this has many appearances of a content dispute, I agree with @K.e.coffman: that @Dapi89:'s POV edits and source disputes are problematic. This user has every appearance of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality to preserving "their" sources and interpretations. They frequently accuse "opposing" editors of lying, rambling, dissembling, and incompetence. Their block log shows 6 blocks for disruptive editing, personal attacks, and/or harassment. This is behavior that has persisted and show no signs of abatement after these blocks. Examples just since their last block include, but are certainly not limited to (in no particular order):

• Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_149#Talk:Malcolm Wanklyn#Dandolo.2C_.27Avieri-class_destroyer.27.2C_imaginary_submarine_etc.: ...if you can't understand that you've no chance of understanding the issue.... I don't give a damn what you think, I'll drown you in sources on the FAA if I have to.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive897#Blatant case of WP:OWN stemming from This edit on Malcolm Wanklyn: ...cease from this. This is not a requirement and it looks awful. You're not a main contributor, so your opinions are not important. (In edit summary) and Well let me spell out the obvious; his opinions on the bibliography are not important....That is quiet clearly a lie Shem.
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Fringe source in WWII bio article ...His {User:K.e.coffman} attacks on the German-related articles, specifically related to World War II, looks like a crusade.
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 64#Luftwaffe of the Bundeswehr The argument he {User:K.e.coffman again} gives is that is non neutral point-of-view. I'm saying that's BS. (Disclosure: this comment made in response to me)
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 65#Luftwaffe of Nazi Germany No, I was in favour of only Bundesluftwaffe and objected to it's removal. No need for dishonesty. (Disclosure: I was also involved in this discussion)
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 204#Franz Kurowski for a GA article (WWII) ...It is beyond absurd. The opinions of a few editors on Wikipedia is not enough. One editor described that it as lazy analysis, I'd go further....
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_216 ...Other editors should beware before being drawn in to this agenda-driven bull shit.
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 217#Additional input sought for a GAR re sources ...Such an assumption is colossally stupid and exposes your own bias.

Dapi89 clearly has an issue with K.e.coffman and seems incapable of participating in any discussion of WWII topics, especially ones in which the latter is involved, without resorting to accusations of bias and incivility. Equally clearly, there needs to be some resolution of these issues. Since I am also tangentially involved, I refrain from suggesting any specific remedies but trust to the evaluations of the folks here. Thank you for your time. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Dapi89 and coffman clearly have issues with each other;l I'm very reluctant to say it's on DAPI. I'd say it's a two way street. The discussion to which coffman refers is often not a discussion at all but a barrage of wiki-rules and wikietiquette and wikipolicies, followed by edit summaries, links to old pages, and so on. It is a brilliant use of wikipedia's user guidelines to obfuscate the issue, which is fundamentally that one editor wants to control and limit the sources relating to Nazi-era articles, and another wants to include a wider array of sources. One editorial group wants to trim articles of all details, including things that are important, that might be of human interest, and that relate to post-war activities, and another editorial group who think those details might be interesting. auntieruth (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• I've attempted to discuss issues with the editor previously, but it was not successful; see: User_talk:Dapi89#Edit summaries. I've also attempted to engage the user in the discussion at WP:Notability (people)#Current consensus, but apart from an erroneous claim, no dialog was offered. Another contributor pointed out the personal attacks (Talk page), but the response was: I'm not going to rephrase. There is a history of disruption with this editor and I will make the point in which ever way I like and the standard ad hominem about the suspect agendas of arch-polemicists. Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- despite being warned about a potential block and / or while blocked, User:Dapi89 has continued to cast aspersions and belittle other editors, as in

• cant seem to distinguish the wood from the trees (diff);
• it appears as if you have taken sides (diff);
• Dishonest. (...) Please dont lie (diff).

He has offered no substantiation to the claims at this ANI discussion, while insisting that there's a tag team operating at the Rudel article. I have concerns that once unblocked in the next 36 hours, the user would continue this pattern of behaviour, and I thus reiterate my topic ban proposal. K.e.coffman (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support TB Luftwaffe Length of time is immaterial to me. And an instant 24 the next time he is incivil or makes PA/aspersions.L3X1 (distant write) 13:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose TB Luftwaffe This argument between DAPI and 2 other editors seems to have degenerated on all sides, and I object to banning a professional historian who specializes in aerial warfare. auntieruth (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• It's not just two other editors, as documented above. While this particular incident started with Dapi89's accusation of tag-teaming against two editors, but his bad-faith accusations over many, many WWII content disputes are not limited by target. The statement "degenerated on all sides" is also an apparent mis-interpretation of events. In this dispute, as in others involving Dapi89, his interlocutors have refrained from the personal attacks and incivility that are clear in his own statements. As to the professional historian charge, even professionals are expected to edit by consensus and good sources. Every time Dapi89's sources are challenged he becomes very, well, unprofessional. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)

• not sure who posted this, but I will say that the whole discussion is out of control. I'm more likely to support an "all fighters to their corners" approach to give everyone a breather. Including those of us who are trying to keep up with the opus-like volume of material posted on why such and such is bad, or good, or problematic. auntieruth (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• You're correct, I missed adding my sig. Apologies and added now. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• The allegations of incessant bickering (diff) & the discussion having degenerated on all sides are without merit. @Auntieruth55: please provide diffs to substantiate this statement; alternatively, please strike it. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• I refer you to your own posts. This demonstrates incessant bickering. Every week I'm reviewing something that you're editing; some of your material is very good, especially on the Russian and Ukrainian fronts.--I like it very much. As for the "diffs", I don't have time. Papers to grade, exams to write, articles to edit, reviews to do. Anyone looking at the history of the pages in question can see it. As for degenerating, the name calling -- whoever does it-- needs to stop. The bickering is not helpful, No one has time for it, and I wish it would stop. auntieruth (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Auntieruth, I understand you may well have better things to do in real life than to provide evidence (diffs) for your accusations against K.e.coffman. But in such a case, the proper course of action is to refrain from posting those accusations. Seriously. I don't see how K.e.coffman is to be expected to answer something so unspecific as "your own posts ... demonstrate incessant bickering". Especially since uninvolved editors such as me can see K.e.coffman's posts, they're right above, and I don't see any bickering in them. Except indeed in their many quotations of bickering and intemperate remarks by Dapi89. Bishonen | talk 20:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC).

• As a comment, not all academic or other experts are able to properly edit WP. A professional historian obtains importance in their field by finding new data or original reinterpretations; aWP editor must do neither. An academic is expected to have a distinct personal POV, and to firmly defend their hypotheses as superior to those of other people; a WP editor must do neither. Some professional historians , especially those known for writing general textbooks, are able to write and interact in WP mode; some are not. The ones who cannot resist OWNership are usually banned from even a topic area where they are experts. Their ideas are not banned: they can still contribute by their published works, which can then be used by other editors. DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, thank you for clearing that up. This all goes back to a discussion of whether a specific source is considered reliable: Just, Günther (1986). Stuka Pilot Hans Ulrich Rudel. Atglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer Military History. ISBN 978-0-88740-252-4. Schiffer is a private, family owned publisher. They have a wide array of books. I'm just not convinced that this is an alt-right wing publisher promoting fascism. There has been a focused effort by one or two editors to limit the publications that are considered neutral for this range of articles, and I just don't understand the problem with it. I don't think it's DAPI's effort--although he/she is sometimes a bit abrupt--but I also think coffmann can be off target on these things too. I'm concerned that a series of articles that have been collectively valued and reviewed by the project are being taken apart unnecessarily. Can they use some discreet editing? Probably yes, but not on the scale that has been happening. Two of the editors involved seem to expect instant responses to their posts, and that just doesn't happen. We all of us have "real life" and cannot be expected to drop everything because they have posted a question. I do appreciate that coffmann is now (most of the time) posting questions on the talk page before massively unilaterally deleting information, or bilaterally doing so with the other editor's approval. I'm just not convinced yet that this is the right thing to do. auntieruth (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

An editor who routinely says things like: "I don't give a damn what you think," and "Your opinions are not important," and "Such an assumption is colossally stupid" is not "a bit abrupt". This minimizes and papers over the very persistent attempts by Dapi89 to bully and badger editors into acquiescing to his position. Couching this behavior in terms of the dispute over Schiffer is also inaccurate. As noted above, this behavior has involved other editors besides User:K.e.coffman and User:Creuzbourg. This is hardly behavior provoked by one content dispute. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

As can be seen on the talk page, the "conflict" evolved with a discussion about "intricate details". It was actually me who first questioned the bias of Günther Just's work on Rudel on 2 April 2017, not because of its American publisher, however, but because of Just's close personal ties to Rudel, the NPD and, later, the DVU. In short, Just is a well known journalist of the extreme right and his work is strongly biased. A little to my dismay that did not become a major issue during the ensuing debate and it was never commented upon by Creuzbourg. Instead the discussion focused upon style, intricate details and GA criteria (i.e. question of "comprehensivenes"). There is one thread on "sources". But what has been reverted by Dapi89 ever since were mainly copy edits.7 April 2017 or 25 April all the while he only minimally contributed to the discussion. --Assayer (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Concerning Dapi89's habits as a "professional historian" of aerial warfare I might point out that they recently made mutually exclusive claims about two different persons. On 10 February 2017 they claimed that Friedrich Rumpelhardt was Most successful radar operator in the Luftwaffe, part of the most successful night-fighting team in air warfare , whereas on 9 April 2017 they claimed that Erich Handke was The most successful night fighter operator of the war Both statements obviously contradict each other. Dapi89 still also found words to belittle K.e.coffman on each occasion.--Assayer (talk) 11:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban as proposed, i. e. from Luftwaffe and WWII, not just from Luftwaffe, for 30 days. 30 days, which would be a long time for a block, is short for a topic ban, in my experience, and I'd also support a longer ban, such as three months. Reverting an established and obviously good faith editor with an edit summary of "rev deletions by Coffmann, ignorant, dishonest, disruptive" is pretty scandalous, no matter how much you disagree with them. It's the kind of aggressiveness that's likely to ruin the experience of Wikipedia editing, not just for the target of the abuse, but for other people who are deterred from discussion by it. As for the accusations above and at Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel that coffman has also taken part in "bickering", I can't see that they have any merit. I've noticed further examples by dipping into Coffman's userpage, which names no names, but is full of juicy quotes with links to who said them. That's far too much for me to go into, or indeed read, but for a recent example, check out the history of Günther Lütjens on and around 10 March, which is where the edit summary I quoted comes from. There we see coffman removing the external links with polite references to the talkpage, and Dapi reinstalling them with name-calling. (The talkpage discussion is also interesting.) The quotes offered by Eggishorn above add to the impression of a battleground editor. Bishonen | talk 15:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC).
• Support 3 month topic ban from WW2 broadly construed per Bishonen. Coffman is certainly a contentious editor within the WW2 field, but he is respectful and follows WP conduct policy and content policy. People's issues with his views on sourcing being Nazi propaganda, etc. are a content dispute not best handled at ANI. That doesn't matter here though, as those issues are content disputes. The question is whether or not Dapi's behavior in WW2 articles is enough for a topic ban. The name calling of editors who are perceived as being on the opposite side of a content dispute in WW2 is disruptive to the project. A topic ban would not be punishment: it would allow steam to escape and hopefully encourage future collaboration. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - A topic ban as proposed, i. e. from Luftwaffe, for 14 days, should be enough time for him to be reflective and cool his heels, if one is to be imposed. Kierzek (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as auntieruth has said many of us have greater 'real life' priorities, and most of us can't keep up with the sheer volume of edits coming through. I can appreciate Dapi's level of frustration has reached breaking point. I acknowledge I also have history with coffman's practices and it has left me dispirited and resigned that quantity and rules-lawyering will win out a common sense approach on Wikipedia. As I was approaching a breaking-point, I did a self-imposed exile from the topic unwilling to put wasted time and effort to either compile and argue for a case or to write new material when it would likely be reverted without discussion. I also acknowledge that neither side can see merits in the other's case and I don't know how this can be resolved. I would prefer auntieruth's proposal that both sides be given a timeout instead of just one being singled out for punishment and reprimand when both have exhibited questionable behaviour by different means and methods. Philby NZ (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I would consider editor Philby NZ to be involved given the prior interactions; for example, here's commentary from an AfD on an article that I created (AfD: J.J. Fedorowicz), where he commented on my editing reputation, while suggesting that the article's purpose was to act as [my] platform to show how shoddy its publication reliability is (diff).

The disagreements that Philby NZ describes were due in part to copyvios on the Luftwaffe articles that he contributed to; pls see for example: User_talk:Diannaa:Copyvio (where he had described my contributions as sabotage). Likewise, past disagreements with Dapi included in part the placing of copyvio-revdel tags in articles. Dapi insisted on removing such tags, such as here: Talk:Gustav_Rödel#Copyvio, which also showed Dapi's rather surprising lack of awareness about how Wikipedia handles copyvios. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

yes and that it why I mentioned my conflict-of-interest. The copy-vios were related to some of my original writings on Wikipedia. The tribulations of dealing with you since have meant I have barely written any article-expansions since on this topic in the last few years. Philby NZ (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Poke The current 3RR block expires today so Dapi89 can contribute his understanding of concerns expressed the above. I'm poking this thread because it is currently unclear if his return at that time will be conditional or not. Aside from the standard conditions that apply to every editor, that is. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not conditional. Dapi89 was offered an earlier unblock on certain conditions, but did not accept them, so those conditions are a thing of the past. His 72-hour block will expire in about three hours, with no conditions. He'll be free to edit all of Wikipedia after that. Bishonen | talk 18:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC).

Okay, below are a few edit diffs (my grading is finished for the week) that I have dredged up.

• I don't think it's reasonable to expect an editor to respond in short order to another editors demands. see this conversation
• I call this an unreasonable action on the part of another editor
• acknowledgment of an editorial war here.
• and here. Since these articles involve WP:MilHist, it may be that we have some housecleaning to do on our guidelines. Would you suggest that? I can bring it to the project's attention (again). auntieruth (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• adding another. This edit was done a while ago, changing what had been an alttext description of a picture (remember when alt-text was required?) to delete "details. See here. auntieruth (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure you posted the diff's you intended? It is very easy to get the oldid parameters mixed up when posting diff's, hence my question. These tend to document poor behavior by Dapi89 with the exception of the conversation with me on K.e. coffman's talk page (at worst general frustration with a wikiproject) and the changes to Sayn-Wittgenstein (K.e.coffman has made no secret of their disdain for romanticism in WWII German officer articles and doesn't do so disruptively there). In fact, some duplicate some of the earlier-posted quotes of Dapi89's behavior. I think that history is already well-established. Did you mean to add to the record or to support the earlier statements about "bickering"? If the latter, I'm very confused as to how these help. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Well, yes, I guess. I don't like pulling up old edit posts, because it seems like water unbder the bridge. And yes I did meant to chose those, because they show another side to the story. auntieruth (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

We had an edit conflict while I was adding this.

• I realize that WWII is a contentious subject. I found a reddit page with all kinds of instructions about how to disrupt wikipedia's efforts to provide some coverage of the German military. I have it bookmarked and I could post the page here, but I'm not sure it would be productive. Its instructions were very clear on how to disrupt the wikipedia processes. One of the complaints was the the abundance of articles on the Knights Cross and lack of articles on Heroes of the Soviet. I'd like to see more of those. auntieruth (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- indeed, the romanticisation of the German WWII war effort is not only being discussed on the internet, but is also a subject of serious academic study. I would recommend:

• The Myth of the Eastern Front by Ronald Smelser & Edward J. Davies, and
• The Wehrmacht: History, Myth, Reality by Wolfram Wette

(Disclaimer, all these articles have been created by me). I would suggest either one as required reading to anyone who would like to edit on WWII topics as they related to the German war effort.

Separately, I believe Auntieruth55 to be involved; please see: ANI: Attempted doxxing / casting aspersions by Auntieruth55 below. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support The evidence in the first two comments under "Boomerang proposal" is compelling, as is the attitude shown at User talk:Dapi89#Blocked (diff if needed). Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose TB I have my problems with Dapi's editing style as well as coffman's, but both editors have engaged in battleground behaviour, and have an unswerving certainty of the "rightness" of their views. As auntieruth has pointed out, the never-ending threads and streams of wikilawyering and pointy behaviour that come from coffman are hard to keep up with. WP would benefit from both editors showing a bit more respect for consensus. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Its not just between User:Dapi89 and User:K.e.coffman, its also about User:Dapi89's behavior towards me when I tried to copy edit the Rudel article. When it comes to unsubstantiated claims of "professionalism" and hints of academic employment in the present discussion, that's just ludicrous. Any real academic, whether tenured or not, is swamped with teaching, trying desperately to get time to do real research, and publish real articles; not spending their valuable time writing and fighting rear-guard actions on Wikipedia. Creuzbourg (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Peacemaker67 please provide evidence of battleground behaviour and streams of wikilawyering and pointy behaviour. Please also show how I've demonstrated insufficient respect for consensus. Otherwise, please retract your statement. (Such accusations from the user are quite typical, as in Yet more wikilawyering and pointy behaviour while apparently describing WP:BURDEN as an essay: diff).

For the record, I make a distinction between community-wide and project-specific consensus; see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS -- more wikilawyering! :-) In the Rudel article where the tag team accusations have stemmed from, such consensus has resulted in an article consisting of talkative expositions and meticulous investigations of insignificant details (see Intricate details, with participation by Peacemaker67, MisterBee1966, Dapi89 & Auntieruth55). A similar protracted discussion took place at Hartenstein#OR. Talk page participants included MisterBee1966, Dapi89 and Auntieruth55 over a month's time. Likewise, see Gollob#Recent edits, in multiple parts, with participation by MisterBee1966, Dapi89, Peacemaker67 and Auntieruth55.

The project coords might want to consider whether its best practices are in agreement with the wider community norms, or even with its own project members. In the thread that Auntieruth55 started as part of this dispute (Massive changes of FA articles), one member commented that the articles in question should be delisted because the sources are too old or too Nazi: diff. This is while the OP states: I don't know what the problem is with these sources , which seems odd for a professional historian. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Happy to. Give me a couple of days. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

You appear to misunderstand what I meant - you did not mean that I considered the sources inadequate, but that some editors considered them inappropriate. The complete failure to find any sort of consensus or compromise and the associated edit warring is what renders the articles unstable and prime for delisting. The strident appeals to ANI to try to get anyone who opposes you to be blocked or banned, and the twisting, whether intentional or not, of what others say to make your point, only makes the situation worse. (By the way, I thought that I was meant to be informed when someone involves me in an ANI discussion).Nigel Ish (talk) 08:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

In response to a request that I “put up or shut up” (my words) about K.e.coffman’s unpleasant and aggressive editing behaviour, in the context of Dapi's behaviour, I have looked at some articles where K.e.coffman and I have interacted. I assert that these are indicative of his general aggressive editing style. Most of the highlighted articles are about senior German officers who served in Yugoslavia (Yugoslavia in WWII being my main area of interest). Given his prolific editing rate, no doubt his demonstrated behaviour on these articles has been repeated hundreds of times on articles I am not aware of. So, these are just a few examples from where our interests intersect. As I have noted, when challenged he gets very pointy. As another editor has noted, this manifests in “discussion” which is often not a discussion at all, but a barrage of links to wiki-rules, wikietiquette and wikipolicies, followed by edit summaries, links to old pages, and so on. I have found his editing style to be quite aggressive and unhelpful to the encyclopaedia, so I have avoided interacting where possible given my interests. While not condoning Dapi'd editing and communication style, I think coffman's also has to be taken into account here, it can be intensely aggressive and frustrating.

Some aspects of the behaviour which I describe as problematic with these articles can be placed under several headings. I am highlighting just three aspects here:

(1) removal of reliable sources he has personally decided are unnecessary or “militaria” books, despite their having clear encyclopaedic value for the future expansion of an article, using a number of spurious justifications, including that their use is “over-citation”, when in fact in most cases it is only the second citation for a given piece of information. He sometimes removes the citations, then subsequently states the source is “unused” and removes it. This is not in the interests of the encyclopaedia, as it removes potential sources of information for those that might wish to expand an article; [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

(2) highly selective removal/commenting out of what he personally refers to as “intricate detail” such as dates of promotion, family details, awards etc from biographical articles, despite long-term and clear consensus that such information is part of meeting the comprehensiveness criteria on military history articles; [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]

[28] [29] [30]

(3) edit warring against consensus to get his way; [31] [32] [33] [34]

[35] [36] [37]

• Oppose TB Never had any interaction with any of the participants here. After a quick review I am incredibly unimpressed by User:K.e.coffman's approach to the "content dispute". For instance He raises the reliability of the source "Obermaier, Ernst" on Talk:Werner Mölders#Tags. Obermaier is a source for tens of articles on Wikipedia, a handful of which have now been tagged. Very frustrating that instead of choosing raise this issue at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, he is on here trying to knock out a fellow editor Bosley John Bosley (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Bosley John Bosley:, it hardly seems fair to accuse K.e.coffman of being "on here trying to knock out a fellow editor". This ANI thread was started by Dapi89, trying to "knock out" (if you like to put it like that) two fellow editors, K.e.coffman and Creuzbourg, on a charge of tag-teaming (which has yet to be substantiated). Those two editors should reasonably be permitted to respond. Bishonen | talk 14:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC).

This ANI thread was started after K.e.coffman initiated the WP:Blocking Games Here. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - while I have had my problems with Dapi in the past, I don't believe his behavior is any more problematic than Coffman's (in fact, I said as much in the ANEW post that resulted in Dapi's block, though that was seemingly ignored). Coupled with behavior like this (deliberately hiding my rebuttal of his deletion rationale as "off topic"), I actually have more trouble with Coffman's activities than I do Dapi's. Parsecboy (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment It seems odd that those editors who oppose a topic ban hardly ever care to comment on Dapi's "name calling of editors" and accusations, which are by no means limited to disputes with K.e.coffman (see difflinks provided by Eggishorn above). Sure, some admit of having problems with Dapi here and there, but maintain that K.e.Coffman's behavior is at least as problematic as Dapi's (if not more so). To a large degree, however, this discontent seems to be based upon content issues (awaiting Peacemaker67's evidence, that is). The problem of sources used for the FA article on Werner Mölders has been raised by me on 21 February 2017, see Talk:Werner Mölders#Update on the literature. Still Auntieruth55 started a thread at MilHist Project claiming I don't know what the problem is with these sources. Everything is checked and double checked. It seems to me that one editor wants these articles to go in a specific direction. Instead of arguing why there would be no problems with the sources, which is a content issue, many contributors engage in constructing a case of "promoting an agenda and for self-aggrandizement" (see auntieruth below) by K.e.Coffman. Strangely enough for them it seems to be clear that only one side in the conflict is "promoting an agenda". It is obvious that some editors feel that they have "more trouble with Coffman's activities" than with Dapi's, for the simple reason that they agree more on content issues with the latter. But I wonder how they would phrase their position once their deletion rationale had been called false and dishonest. or once they would have been commented upon: Nothing but opinions from an agenda-driven Wikipedia editor. You're views are personal and tendentious. You're a polemist. End of story. That's just a small collection from my few discussions with Dapi89.--Assayer (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Given that I'm one of the people you're discussing, Assayer, I figure I'll respond. I didn't come here so much to defend Dapi as to oppose K.e.coffman. Coffman's behavior is classic - edit-war over an article, then head to the drama board first to get the other side blocked (carefully framing the case to omit any wrong-doing on his own part). Why we reward this behavior has always amazed me. Why Coffman (and Creuzbourg) was not similarly blocked for his edit-warring on the Rudel article over the course of the past month (or even admonished) is, frankly, inexplicable. Which is to say, if 1, 2, 3 reverts in eleven minutes, followed by a 4th a very cautious 31 hours later (after Dapi was already blocked) is not edit-warring, we have a very serious definitional problem. And since you seemingly acknowledge that both sides are pushing a POV, one wonders why you (and others) tolerate one and threaten the other with a topic ban. Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• This thread is about a proposed topic ban for Dapi89, because of his long record of uncivility and ad hominem arguments uttered against various editors on various occasions. So far you and other editors opposing such a ban have mainly pointed to K.e.Coffman as being the (at least as) guilty party. And, yes, that argument is construed to defend Dapi's behavior. You might perceive it as if you were adding context to that conflict. I perceive it as apologetic. It gives me the impression that you tolerate Dapi's behavior, or somehow even approve of it, as if certain editors deserve that kind of treatment or have asked for it. If you consider K.e.Coffman's behavior to be disruptive, start a thread about it, present your arguments, support it with difflinks and make your suggestions, how you think that the community should deal with it.

Re:POV I am of the opinion that anybody has a point of view and that neutrality is acchieved within a collaborative process defined and guided by the various editorial guidelines, for example WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:ONUS and so forth. I have stated this point before and the reaction was kind of "He said Jehovah", or, in the words of Dapi89: That encapsulates the problem Assayer, with you and K.e.Coffman: "I think" and "IMHO". Editor opinions count for nothing. Assayer and K.e.coffman have used Wikipedia to attack sources about any German serviceman who served in World War II if it dares to complement their personal bravery or service record. I did not threaten a topic ban, btw, I merely would like to see that pattern of uncivility being stopped. What's your suggestion? So far I perceive your argument as something like: Make Coffman disappear and everything is fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assayer (talk • contribs) 15:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Dapi's incivility is not limited to this topic - if your problem is his uncivil behavior, a topic ban is not the solution.
• I am categorically opposed to sanctioning one editor in a conflict and allowing the other to get away with the same behavior, simply because they ran to the drama boards first. That is why I'm here. I am no friend of Dapi - this is the last time I tried to help save him from himself, and you can see what I got for my efforts. Frankly, I'd be happy to see them both indef'd, but unfortunately we're probably not there yet (and to return to my earlier comment, why the community allows this level of disruption for as long as it does is beyond me). Parsecboy (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Parsecboy:, the narrative you laid out above fails on the very basic fact that user:K.e.coffman did not start this thread, user:Dapi89 did. Also, Dapi89's problems are not limited to K.e.coffmann. They are consistently incivil and insulting to any editor they perceive as an enemy. I see no recognition in your remarks so far in your thread that you are taking consideration of the actual facts involved. Statements like Coffman's behavior is classic - edit-war over an article, then head to the drama board first to get the other side blocked seem to be motivated instead by personal prejudgments. Dapi89's initial allegations of tag-taming were never supported and seem to have been rejected by most here. K.e.coffman's accusations of incivility and personal attacks, however, are amply supported by statements above and even trivial searching will find more. There have been additional accusations of K.e.coffman's poor behavior, again without evidence. I would think an admin would at least attempt to substantiate ANI postings about another editor. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn:, as someone else pointed out above, and you either missed or ignored, Coffman went to ANEW before Dapi started this thread. No evidence of Coffman's poor behavior? Are you bothering to read anything I've said? Try the bit I am bolding for your attention now. Parsecboy (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Parsecboy:, I might reasonably ask the same of you, especially since the "someone else...above" was me. I am quite aware that I posted about Dapi89 being reported to 3RR. I note that such reporting was reviewed, accepted, bocked, and then the block was also reviewed and endorsed. Holding K.e.coffman's feet to the fire over a report that 3 admins had a hand in seems really unjustified, not to mention disrespectful. If you want call K.e.coffman's edits gaming the 3RR rule, well, I can't tell you otherwise. I note that the full history actually stretches out over five days, involves at least four editors, and was accompanied by talk page posts. It seems like edit warring and WP:BRD playing out simultaneously, making the behavior of anyone not crossing bright lines a matter of interpretation. I also note that this thread has gone from accusing K.e.coffman of tag-teaming to accusing them of incivility to accusing them of bickering to now accusing them of edit warring. Are we going to keep moving goalposts until we can find something to catch them on? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: - I was referring to Bosley John Bosley's comment directly above my original statement, not yours. If you were aware that Coffman went to ANEW first, on what basis did you challenge my "narrative"?

Obviously I cannot comment on why the other admins ignored Coffman's behavior on the article - but surely you would not subscribe to the idea that admins are infallible? On the article in question - take a look further in the history, and you'll see that the three editors have been reverting each other for over a month now.

As to the rest, where have I accused Coffman of incivility, bickering, or tag-teaming? Surely you cannot insist I defend arguments I didn't make, can you? Parsecboy (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Parsecboy:, I challenged it on the basis that you said: ...then head to the drama board first. I have always seen "the drama board" refer to this one. I cannot recall any expansion of that phrase in general use to refer to 3RR. Perhaps "the drama boards" (plural) including all the WP:AN sub-boards is what you meant. The narrative of events on this board, however, clearly started with Dapi89's unsubstantiated complaint.

I don't, obviously, think admins are infallible or else I would not have challenged your postings, would I? When three admins, including one as respected as @Bishonen:, agree on a set of actions, however, I tend to think they might be on to something.

I did take a look at the history. I would not have made the 3RR/BRD comment unless I had. The history shows it is not a case of simply reverting and re-reverting. Different formulations are added, refactored, reverted, partially re-added, etc. Combined with the talk page discussion, that means calling a three-party edit war is missing important qualities.

My last point above refers to the general trajectory of the thread. I'm not asking you to defend Dapi89's or auntieruth55's comments. I do think that continually adding new charges for an editor to defend to the same thread is unfair. I get that K.e.coffman is out of step with a number of MilHist editors (and I honestly don't know if you are one of them) and that creates disputes. I think I documented that Dapi89 has crossed very clear lines of behavior. I also think that K.e.coffman tries very hard to "color inside the lines," so to speak. If walking up to the line and not crossing it repeatedly is itself sanctionable, however, then there are rules I'm not aware of in play. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: - argue semantics all you want, the point that Coffman ran to a drama board to present a one-sided version of events that resulted in Dapi's block stands.

I tend to think that means they just didn't examine the situation all that thoroughly. No one is perfect, whatever their reputation is.

Look, you can split all the hairs you want, but the long and the short of it is, the three editors were editing over each other, trying to force their version of the article in for the past month. It doesn't matter in the slightest that they reformulated things as they went—in fact, 3RR specifically states "whether involving the same or different material".

{{xt|" If walking up to the line and not crossing it repeatedly is itself sanctionable, however, then there are rules I'm not aware of in play." - indeed there are. From the intro to WP:EW: "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.". And when Coffman made 3 reverts, and then waited a full day to make a 4th, it seems blindingly obvious he knew what he was doing. Parsecboy (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Oddly enough, stating some-one is "arguing semantics" and "splitting hairs" is a classic hair-splitting semantic tactic to dismiss arguments and avoid addressing their merits. You were the one that spoke of a repeated pattern of K.e.coffman "running to the drama board" and then changed what that meant. You were the one that posted all of one example of this supposed repeated pattern. You were the one that imputed motives to K.e.coffman that you expect others to accept just because it's what you think happened. This is all uninspiring evidence of your version of events, and I think I am well within the rules to point it out. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Bullshit - you dismissed my claim because I didn't make clear exactly what drama board Coffman ran to, when you yourself admit you knew exactly what I meant. Want more evidence? Look a few threads down, for another example of Coffman running to this drama board, trying to get another editor sanctioned for a ridiculously false doxing claim. There, you will see two other similar cases linked, where his activities succeeded, at least in part.

Ironic that your reply, where you accuse me of dismissing arguments rather than rebutting them, completely ignores my point about Coffman's edit-warring. Pot? That's an awfully dark shade of black you're wearing. Parsecboy (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Could k.e.coffman provide one evidence that his contributions to Luftwaffe articles on Wikipedia (topic ban k.e.coffman wants for Dapi89) have been made for any other reason than for the advancement of article quality. We would like to see contributions to Luftwaffe articles you improved, contributed or developed. I could provide the opposite. I would like to ask for your action on an Luftwaffe article: Otto Kittel. This article was rebuild by Dapi89 and MisterBee1966 starting with 16 February 2017 (it was rebuild with different sources as k.e.coffman raised the question about using kurowski and community accepted that he is unreliable) and since then until Dapi89 was blocked, the article was stable. Once Dapi89 was blocked you edited the article and remove literally everything. See the difference: [38] Could you please explain your action on just this article. You removed literally everything, all sourced material including Obermeier, Bergström, Constable-Toliver, Trautloft etc. Are really this source non-reliable? Can you provide here or on the Otto Kittel talkpage sources that state that? This discussion is very important for you conduct here on Wikipedia as some persons raised the question for a topic ban for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.237.138.234 (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Um, did you miss this from above? IP 104.237.XX, please log in to your account if you wish to attack people on ANI...Evading scrutiny on noticeboards is inappropriate. This post makes it impossible to believe that you are new since January (as the IP contributions would imply). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment on timeline: For anyone who's keeping score on who has reported whom and to which board, here's the timeline: At 16:46, 25 April 2017, Dapi89 posted to this board over a dispute at his talk page, requesting that Creuzbourg be "blocked from his Talk page" [39]. Shortly thereafter, I posted to 3RRN, at 16:55, 25 April 2017. Dapi immediately used that forum for spurious claims directed at Creuzbourg and me (see the hatted section of the post: link to 3RRN archive). At that point I invited him to post to ANI, which he did, at 17:18, 25 April 2017. Hope this clarifies. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment on the proposal: I followed the link provided by Parsecboy, and then another -- this was quite illuminating. Sample diffs: "I will (as the greatest contributor to the article) change the altered passages as I see fit (...). I don't need to discuss it nor do I require your permission" [40]; "Weak Parky. (...) Understandable as it is a struggle to make sense of what you say. Careful how you write" [41]; "Yes it does Peter. (...) Please buy the Collins German dictionary" [42], etc.

Although these predate my interactions with Dapi89, mine have been similar: "The Germans do not refer to the current air force as the "German Air Force"! I suggest some reading is in order for you" [43]. This dispute took a side trip to NPOVN to resolve.

The diffs show that Dapi89 is quite passionate about WW2 topics and considers himself to be an expert. But, as DGG has pointed out, this often leads to the inability to edit articles neutrally or collaboratively. Anybody with different point of view is considered "ignorant", "disruptive", "dishonest", a "vandal", "tag team", and so on, as is obvious in this case.

This can also lead to situations when the immersion in a particular topic leads to original research or fast & loose handling of citations. I can provide diffs/links if needed. Dapi's behaviour has led to on-going disruptions over many years and a topic ban is indeed needed, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Support 3 month general ban on Dapi89 for incivility, bullying and aggressive tactics. Carlotm (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support Seeing the discussion above, and my own look through, I think that this is well needed. —JJBers 05:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Si Trew at RfD

user:SimonTrew has been flooding RfD with up to 70 nominations a day (see any RfD log page in the last week, or from shortly before Christmas. e.g. all-but a handful of the 74 nominations at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 20 are by Si Trew), in almost all cases without having done even the most basic of WP:BEFORE checks to see whether they should be deleted or not, and ignoring feedback about what consititutes a good redirect regarding WP:DIACRITICS. [44] is a good illustration of the mentality - trying to nomiante as many redirects as possible in as short a time as possible, regardless of the disruption it causes.

I have asked him on his talk page to slow down on several occasions, e.g. User talk:SimonTrew#Relax in December and user talk:SimonTrew#Please slow down today. He's been instructed to do basic WP:BEFORE on multiple occasions, but has repeatedly refused to do so sating that "it's not my business" (see user talk:Thryduulf#Slow down for example).

Examples of problematic nominations: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 21#64 Oozumo, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Log/2017 April 22#Marten Trotzigs Graend, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 20#Keflavikurflugvoellur and many others.

It's also worth noting that my intention to bring this here was described as "bullying" [45] [46] [47].

What I'm seeking is either a full topic ban from RfD or a limit of 20 nominations per day, each demonstrating that WP:BEFORE has been carried out. I will be linking to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

That is simply not true. I time my nominations very carefully, actually. I am on different time zones from other regulars at RfD. User:Thryduulf does not own RfD, but seems to think he does and wants to bully me because of "other contributors". I have a good memory. User:Champion, who hardly ever contributed, came back this morning and bunged in a few. Several new editors I have encouraged to contribute. Because of this admin bully, User:Thryduulf, we will never get anything done. I have said at my talk page, you are not the only admin. User:Tavix got nominated and became admin mainly because of his work at RfD. There is no requirement for this bully admin to come to RfD. It is purely voluntary. "Flooding" is a joke. I split list 11 into chunks and got through 5000 of them listing about 50, that is 1% of what was on that list. I probably rcatted about the same amount and the other 90% were fine as they were. Sheesh, flooding. I am not a bot. I find this nomination absolutely ridiculous from an admin who pops his head around the door, finds he has work to do, then lists me at ANI. Don't do it, go and contribute somewhere else. Why are you an admin? I dunno. I thought to do that kind of work.

As for doing basic "WP:BEFORE". I cannot do that. The User:Eubot redirects the redirects the articles are not going to have RS are they, they are redirects. I don't care whether the article has RS but whether the redirect makes sense. I sift through the language redirects and go keep, delete, RfD. I took another route earlier today to just nominate the redirects at CSD to see what happened. Would be easier. Certianly easier than arguing with a bully admin who has to do a bit of work as an admin. Shouldn't be an admin then. And try to get my name right. Si Trew or Simon Trew. Not SiTrew. I am not some kind of meme. Si Trew (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I counted 8 personal attacks in this post alone. 2600:1017:B021:5EB5:995B:EC9D:49E5:E6F3 (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The example "problematic nominations" are still open for discussion. That is why I bloody well brought them there because I was not sure. The first is Finnish but a bit iffy, in English Wikipedia, the second is still open but the speedy keep is by this involved admin [[User::Thryduulf]]. That's ff--- WP:INVOLVED if I ever saw it. Si Trew (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, most of the redirects ST has nominated range from the ridiculous to the actively misleading, and I wish they could be deleted without having to go through RfD. (As a fairly seasoned editor I don't question the need for due process, these are just my personal reactions as a professional linguist and a Scandinavian. (Then again, as a Scandinavian, I was brought up in a very consensus based culture, so...)) Anyway, the underlying problem seems to be that there is not enough participation in the RfD discussions so I should put my money where my mouth is and try to participate more. --bonadea contributions talk 11:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Consensus is for Germanic ones to be kept, including Scandinavian. I listed a couple yesterday for A, Sweden and O, Sweden I think. You may have an opinion on those. All I can do is sort and go that's all right that's a bit iffy that needs a delete. I'm just the card dealer not the players. Si Trew (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

As a counterexample, I put Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_26&action=edit&section=6 this in saying "Ladies ang Gentlemen this is the kind of thing I keep". Good job I did. Nothing wrong with it. Just some bully admins seem to think I am trying to harm this project. Si Trew (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Just because I don't say I haven't done WP:BEFORE does not mean I have not done it. Do you want my listing to be sesquipedalien? I am wordy enough as it is. Take WP:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_22#Kestal.2FGoeltepe for example. Did you think I did not try to find that WP:BEFORE I listed it? Fucking ridiculous ANI by Thryduulf. Just because he can't be bothered to work doesn't mean others can't. Should have his admin stripes taken off him. YOU DO NOT OWN WIKIPEDIA. Si Trew (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Consensus is that the German and Scandinavian ö → oe (and ä → ae, etc) redirects should always be kept (but you still nominate them, e.g. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 22#Schwyzerduetsch), not that ones that are not ones which are not German or Scandinavian should always be deleted. For almost all of the Turkish redirects you've nominated I've found uses in sources indpendent of Wikipedia that demonstrate that transliteration is used, which is a reason to keep them. This is the sort of thing you should be finding before nominating, not relying on other people to find for you. It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't nearly a full-time job keeping up with your nominations - hence the request for a rate limit. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Si Trew the point I'm trying to make is that I'm putting in literally hours of work (e.g. on 24 April I worked on RfD from 12:44-14:07, 14:45-15:05, 17:43-17:53, and 21:37-22:31 dealing solely with the nominations made on 19th April (almost all by you), I then worked until 23:35 on 20 April nominations (see Special:Contributions/Thryduulf, all times UTC). Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

And how many hours of work do you think I put in to make the encylopeadia better? How many? Two? I have to go that's OK, that's iffy, that's a delete. We don't have an WP:X1 concession. "Three years" in your words, I will get it done in ten days, promise, if you let me, but I must flood RfD and I haven't time to do WP:RS, and RS doesn't apply to redirects anyway, I have to go keep, delete, iffy. Si Trew (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

So I don't even get to state my own defence, it seems.

Take this little beauty for example, 15_fevrier_1839. What are you going to do with that. It's a French date that has the accents knocked off but it is not an Engish date. What are you going to do with it? Hmm? It isn't 15 February. What are you going to do with it? You're the admin, you know better than me, you bully. I would list it at RfD, but do what you want with it. Si Trew (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Taking three years without flooding RfD is much better than 10 days of flooding RfD. My opinions on redirects have nothing to do with my being an admin. As for 15 fevrier 1839 that's an obvious keep per WP:DIACRITCS as it's the original title of the film without diacritics. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Its the title of the film without diacritics. Its common for non-native language speakers to search for a foreign language title without diacritics for the simple reason they may not be able to actually type the diacritics without difficulty. Nor may they be able to actually translate the title into whatever language they speak. It not being an English date has nothing to do with it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Si Trew nominating a huge number of redirects per day. Many of the redirects he nominates are genuinely bad, and he's doing valuable work bringing them to RfD. But... Si Trew, if you stopped including several paragraphs of unrelated, barely related or repetitive text in so many discussions, that would save you enough time that you could have a deeper look into (and deeper think about) every redirect you nominate without slowing you down any overall.
Also, Thryduulf is not a bully; on the contrary, he's probably the single most valuable editor in RfD's history, and pretty much everybody else on RfD gets along with him spiffingly.
Also, this is pointy and you really shouldn't do things like that. And please stop nominating redirects that are identical to an obviously good redirect except for the straight lack of diacritics, unless really special circumstances apply; redirects like that are kept 99% of the time (like 15 fevrier 1839 would be), and nominating them just creates needless overhead. Sideways713 (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support throttling restriction of max. 20 nominations per day, per Thryduulf's suggestion, and further that SimonTrew must carry out the most basic of checks when nominating these redirects and make a sensible argument that discussion of the redirect on its own is required, and not mass-nominating redirects for the sole reason that they were created by a particular user or bot. Many of the nominations he's made since I've been back hanging around RfD in the last week or so have been somewhere between not well researched (e.g. Vikor) to completely obviously not necessary (e.g. Correao, Impact de Montreal) to basically nonsense (JZ series 664). These include one he nominated while arguing in the nomination statement that it should be kept (i.e. he acknowledged it did not need to be nominated at all but did so anyway, making administrative work for no reason). These nominations are disruptive to other editors at RfD, but the problem truly is that Si is completely shut down to any criticism of his actions, doubling down as he has here with angry attacks any time anybody attempts to address this situation and further insisting that his way is both the right way and the only way. You can't participate in a collaborative project if you are not open to collaboration, as Si is regrettably demonstrating. Nevertheless, some of the multitude of Si's nominations do result in redirects being modified, however the signal-to-noise ratio on these is exceptionally poor. If Si can learn to nominate only the ones that need nominating, we'll do much better at RfD. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

In any case and I have not read Ivanvector's comments, redirects are usually open for "about seven days". Says at the top of RfD. There is no great hurry for a bullying editor to spend five minutes to close them. Some of them may want comment from other editors. Si Trew (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. Your reliable sources probably lead back to the shite Eubot created if you look a bit closer. And as usual I'm the one being accused of being the arsehole here. Now, as for asides, I put them in on purpose to try to lighten the load, bring a little humour in because I know it is a burden. Still, just fuck off. Get someone else to do your hard work. Give me a fucking three year ban cos I have had enough of this shit. Si Trew (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

None so deaf as those who can't hear. There are far more newcomers and others that contribute to RfD than when I went on a break in January, from me listing these Eubots. Yes, I do a song-and-dance act. Sometimes I am even quite witty. Sometimes it's not your kind of humour. You have on your hands just today a professional translator who says "I should contribute more to RfD" and I said on I think her maybe his talk page. Don't bother. Go to WP:PNT. You won't be thanked for it. What kind of recommendation is that for the fucking nonsense at RfD. Fucking nonsense. I am trying to get a job done. If you don't like it, do the other thing. I don't mind R's being retargeted, that is exactly why I bring them to RfD when I say I am not sure. that is how we make the encylopaedia better. Now, when I say it should be kept, I would just keep it but it is another way of saying I am not really sure, I should like others' opinions on this. What else am I to do? Si Trew (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

When numerous editors in good standing have problems with the way you do things, you need to accept that it is likely you who are the problem. Blaming everyone else for having a problem with the way you do it is unproductive. You can either keep doing it the way you do and keep being brought to noticeboards (this is what, the 3rd, 4th time in as many months?) until everyone gets tired of it, or actually do what people ask you to do. Without the unnecessary attempts at wit and humour - no one is here to stroke your ego. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support ban from RfD, striking my earlier comment. Today Si's nominations include Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 26#Gyergyocsomafalva, a redirect to Ciumani, a commune in Romania (formerly Hungary) which is named Gyergyócsomafalva in Hungarian. tl;dr: this is another straight {{R from diacritics}}, he just keeps listing them after being asked by many editors now to stop. Instead, he called this "nonsense" and actually created a template just to illustrate this point, which someone (not me) is now going to have to delete. It's this bullshit that is the problem. It's not the first time Si has created pages just to make some point, usually directed at someone who has expressed concern with his behaviour. Admins can see his work at Ladies and gentelman I should like to annouce, a page he created so that he could embed an announcement of some Neelix-redirect-related milestone in an RfD thread. This is well past WP:IDHT and into WP:CIR territory. I would have blocked Si myself for his latest "fuck off" and "fucking nonsense" comments just now, but I am WP:INVOLVED, and while editing this I've struck out my bolded "from RfD" a number of times. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

You are just taking the piss. If you think "Gyergoscsomgalva" means something in Hungarian or English, tell me what it is. Please. I should be glad to hear it. It is not a straight R from dias it is WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. I was quite proud that we had got through half of the eubot redirects I thought everyone at RfD should be proud of that. I also created {{R from nonsense}} to put the rest of the fucking thirty thousand into. I don't see any barnstars coming my way yet. Si Trew (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The article itself Ciumani says in the first line it is Gyergyócsomafalva in Hungarian, the redirect you nominated Gyergyocsomafalva is identical without diacritics. It is not 'nonsense'. Now you either have not read any of the information about redirects regarding diacritics which people have told you about repeatedly, or you didnt actually look at the article Ciumani which would be a massive failure of BEFORE. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no way he looks at the articles before he nominates them. As an example, he nominated Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 25#Bogus Linda with some nonsense rationale, referring to the subject with feminine pronouns. Literally a 5 second glance at the target article would be all you need to find out that Linda is, in fact, male. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• • Sigh, yes if I wasn't involved I'd have blocked him for those completely unnecessary expletives too. I hadn't looked in detail at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 20#Ladies and gentelman I should like to annouce before just now, but it was exceedingly pointy and DuncanHill's recommendation to block Si for disruption is looking sadly more necessary with every example brought here. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support ban from RfD As of today, the user is still being uncivil making personal attacks against bots in the log, here's an example:
  I am FED UP WITH THAT BOT THINKING IT KNOWS ABOUT LANGUAGE. Hippos is Greek for horse as in hippopotamus, river horse, hippodrome, and so on. Then give it a sugar lump, horse likes a sugar lump, that makes a horse hyppy. Then a birdie comes on its rump and it goes neigh or jae. Just.... please.... kill it... now... please. Si Trew (talk) 4:44 am, Today (UTC-4)
  Even though it seems to have support for deletion, this is unneeded for the RfD board. —JJBers 15:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I was notified of an "Officially notified incident at RfD". Administrator User:Thryduulf puts in in his own words a lot of time at RfD and the two things he nomintated he specifically put his hands in at RfD. The clean hands doctrine only applies in real life does it. I have no idea what [[User::JJbers]] is saying, because he or her is never at RfD. Si Trew (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: I was citing a RfD you made earlier today, here is it for reference. —JJBers 15:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The title of the section on Si Trew's talk page where I placed the required {{ANI-notice}} template is user talk:SimonTrew#Formal notification of ANI thread (the template doesn't provide a standard section heading). I don't understand what the rest of the comment is trying to say. Thryduulf (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support ban from RfD at minimum. Frankly, I'd be inclined to indef and throw away the key unless a spectacularly good explanation was forthcoming for "I have a feeling the author of Eubot was Jewish.", and I have a strong suspicion that topic-banning SimonTrew from one area will just cause him to go be disruptive elsewhere. However, since there seems to be agreement between those who deal with him the most that the problems are primarily RfD-related, hopefully separating him from the area that's causing the most problems will allow him to do something useful in an area that won't provide a venue for his inappropriate attempts at comedy. The comparisons between Neelix and Eubot isn't valid; Neelix's edits were (in part) actively inappropriate and needed to be cleared up as soon as possible, whereas some of Eubot's redirects may be invalid, but aren't actually causing any harm, so there's no urgent need to rush through them that that would give SimonTrew any kind of "on urgent work" exemption from Wikipedia's usual written and unwritten rules on disruption and basic courtesy. ‑ Iridescent 15:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • If he does turn to disruption elsewhere then that would lead to a block. Hopefully it wont be necessary, but the spirit of WP:ROPE applies here I think, and his methods are wrong and the results significantly less successful than desired he is intending to improve the encyclopaedia so I think he should be given a chance to do that elsewhere first. Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Iridescent: I believe "I have a feeling the author of Eubot was Jewish" was stated because the bot created redirects related to Judaism. Neelix presumably created redirects related to Christianity. I don't think it was meant whatsoever in an antisemitic manner based on having read many comments by SimonTrew regarding a wide variety of topics at redirects for discussion over the past couple of years. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support RfD ban. Competence is required, and I'm afraid SimonTrew just doesn't have it. The egregious violations of WP:BEFORE, the nonsensical ramblings that don't pertain to the discussion at hand, the uncivil behavior every time someone tries to reason with him, and the sheer amount of work that RfD regulars have to put in to clean up after him is frankly exhausting. It's at the point where it's simply not worth it anymore. I'd bring in more examples, but I'm busy IRL at the moment. I'll just say that I endorse Ivanvector's analysis wholeheartedly. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Striking "RfD" and recommending full ban per Just fucking ban me. Just do it. Not from RfD. From all of of it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support ban from RFD: Instead of hearing the criticisms and using them to change their behavior, the user is doubling down and being quite uncivil in the process. I have no opinion on the length of the ban. --Darth Mike^(talk) 16:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• As another data point on the WP:CIR and creating needless work fronts, Admin's can see the deleted history of Olivia stecker where Si Trew endorsed his own PROD, then after the page had been deleted recreated the page with a commentary about something (I'm not really too sure what) before nominating it for speedy deletion under criterion WP:CSD#A9 which didn't apply (any of WP:CSD#G7, WP:CSD#A1 or WP:CSD#A3 would have though), the original article was in the scope of WP:CSD#A7 subject-matter wise but not content-wise. Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

If you want to restrict it to twenty a day, then get a WP:X1 concession. The consensus of the community was that we didn't need one. You can hardly then stick it on me that I list things. What else am I supposed to do? I dunno, shove it up an already WP:INVOLVED admin or what? Tell me what else can I do with them. Where else can I send them. Tell me. Si Trew (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Doubling down. What do you expect me to do do. I am taking personal attacks about making the encyclopaedia better. How would you like it? Doubling down. Just fucking ban me. Just do it. Not from RfD. From all of of it. Then at least I know where I stand. Si Trew (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

And as for JJBeers remark, since I can't seem to reply to them individually. You may have seen straight after that "I am fed up with the bot. I am not fed up with the person. I can be fed up with the bot because it is a bot." or words like that. You do your WP:BEFORE on it. Si Trew (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: I wasn't pointing out the redirect you nominated, but the content of the nomination, which shows you made personal attacks to a bot, which still violates that policy. —JJBers 17:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

not that i condone SimonTrew's behavior, but one can't make personal attacks against something that's not in any way a person. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: I disagree. Any personal attack of a bot is in effect a personal attack of its operator. It's not at all conducive to a good editing atmosphere, and so I don't see why it should be tollerated at all. Thryduulf (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Thrydulf: It's effectively very much not. If any thing, it is criticism of the edits (the work the bot does) than the editor (the creator of the bot). Writ Keeper is absolutely right. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It's kind of a moot point, since as I said, I don't condone SiTrew's behavior regardless of whether it's a PA or not (which is why I put it in the small tags). But I would argue that a bot is the work of its author in much the same way that a Wikipedia article is the work of its author; if criticizing a bot transitively criticized its author, then I would argue that implies that criticizing someone's edits or articles also transitively criticizes that person. Which of course is contra the whole idea of NPA: to comment on the contributions, not the contributor. I'd argue that a bot is an extension of the author's contributions, not an extension of the author themself. Granted, in this case, the criticism was not at all constructive or civil, and thus it's totally reasonable to call SiTrew out on it, and even sanction them for it. I just wouldn't do so in the name of NPA; in my mind, NPA is a fairly bright line, and I wouldn't want to see it eroded in the way that civility has. Maybe just me, though. I don't mind continuing this conversation if you'd like, but perhaps it should be elsewhere, since it's not really germane to this discussion? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't have time now, but I'll think about your points and if I want to continue discussing it, I'll find somewhere more appropriate (WT:NPA perhaps) and ping you as I agree it's not really the best place here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

This is pretty clearly a comment directed at the creator of the bot. Is it an attack? Depends on context I suppose, but consider the rest of the comment is comparing the bot's behaviour to the "sins" of another editor. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll argue against you. You may have noticed I have never mentioned the nbot author's history but I did some WP:BEFORE and had made a total of fifteen edits mostly minor before this bot was allowed to run. I don't have the problem with the author (retired) nor the bot. That is a sorry state of affairs in 2008 that after a test run of 14-- yes, 14-- successful edits it was then allowed out to wreak havoc. Now, you don't see me naming names. I can have a go at User:Eubot because it is a bot, that is like kicking a kitchen cupboard when you've cut your thumb. It is not like kicking your wife when you've cut your thumb. I am not just allowed but I think entitled to moan about Eubot because I am the one editor here on Wikipedia that is actually methodically trogging through these things. Look at my contribution history today. I must have rtagged and rcatted at least twentyfive as keepers. Of course the ones at RfD are going to cause trouble. I do have a braim in my head. The admin who brought this here is WP:INVOLVED so it surprises me to see making further comments. Si Trew (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I can be pissed off with the bot but I am not pissed off with he or she. They did what they thought right. That is what we all have to do. Sometimes we get it wrong. But that doesn't make you a bad person. I can have a go at the bot because it has no feelings. I would have a pint with the person who created them and say what were you thinking of? You're wrong but you're not bad. The creator only made about fifty edits. Dutch it seems from the name. Well, someone has to clear up the shit. Still, I would have a pint. I am never angry with a person. I am only angry with what they do. Those are different things

(edit conflict) Template:Replto We're not complaining that you are listing things. We are complaining that you are not taking enough care with your nominations, which combined with the volume of your nominations is causing significant disruption. I'm not at all sure what the lack of an X1 concession (which I would agree is not needed, as the proportion of bad redirects is so small and there is no urgency) has to do with anything. As for "doubling down" what we would like you to do is to listen to the complaints that people have about your actions and change your behaviour accordingly. Instead what you have done is made personal attacks while carrying on doing exactly the same thing people are complaining about. Thryduulf (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

You're WP:INVOLVED, User:Thryduulf. You were the one spouting off at RfD and you're WP:INVOLVED. clean hands doctrine please. Stand off. Si Trew (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not how it works, SimonTrew. INVOLVED is a policy that relates to administrative actions, i.e. actions that involve the actual use of admin tools--it would only apply to Thryduulf if they were actually going to block you or something. It doesn't apply to everything an admin does, just because they're an admin. Bringing an issue up on ANI, and continuing to discuss it, does not involve the use of admin tools, and so INVOLVED doesn't apply. We're neither the police nor the court system, and the clean hands doctrine isn't Wikipedia policy. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Ban/block/trout for taking redirects way too seriously. Honestly, if these Eubot redirects are causing you so much stress, go do something else. The encyclopedia is not going to implode because of some silly redirects. clpo13_(talk) 18:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

NO it wont ((edit conflict) I don't give a shit about Wikipedia's [[[kangaroo court]] system. I am being treated unfairly. I worked not "five minutes" like the prosecutors says but hours and hours and hours over these fucking things. I sometimes can't remember what language I speak. I have worked so damned hard over them that sometimes I literally can't tell left from right. Then I am told to do WP:BEFORE. I take it as implicit that I do it. What am I supposed to fucking do, list every eubot redirect as "WP:BEFORE I listed this I checked on Google and could not find anything, and it is still WP:RFD#D5 nonsense". In any case, as I have said many times, WP:BEFORE does not apply to redirects it applies to articles. I have no requirement to do WP:BEFORE at all. I have a requirement, in my head, to make the encylopaedia better by making it easier for people to get to the information they want. Not pissing about at ANI by an editor who has a grudge against me. Now, shall I get on to try to make the encylopaedia better are all you all little admins going to waste more of my precious editor's time? Si Trew (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you going to stop wasting peoples time with RFD's that are obviously pointless and where you have done zero checks to see if it is a valid redirect? Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

If your time is so precious, why are you wasting it on increasingly pseudolegalistic arguments defending a practice every other editor commenting here has cautioned you about? Why not use some of that precious time editing in one of the literally thousands of other areas? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

They're not pseudolegal. I am one of the very few editors I imagine who has actually stood up in court and said yes your honour and no your worship. I know that this is WP:NOTLAW. It is not a kangaroo court either. Si Trew (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I also do actually find its slightly offensive that [[User::Thryduulf]] even in listing here could not be bothered to get my name right. Si Trew (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support RfD throttling - I don't care about redirects really, as long as they redirect to an appropriate target I'm happy. What I do care about is people creating extra work for Wikipedia editors - who are, after all, volunteers, not paid for our time - especially when they're told that they're creating extra work and they pig-headedly refuse to cooperate. Redirects are like the bits of a building between two walls, or between the ceiling and the floorboards of the room above - there's a lot of crap in there but it really isn't worth worrying about. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thryduulf is not the only admin at RfD. Other admins such as User:Tavix have got their adminship from RfD. Thryduulf don't own the shop. The accusations of bullying still hold. I think it is just a simple case of bullying. "I'm an admin do as I say, love, Thryduulf". Well, some people stand up to bullies. Now, let me see how many things Thryduulf has listed in his adminship at RfD.... er.... sorry I don't have a finger to count 0. Si Trew (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I care about exactly what you care about User:Exemplo347. This is a storm in a teapot. And it's a bit ridiculous to suggest throttling it to 20 a day. I am the only editor doing it. I don't see anyone else doing it. There are spits and spats but I go through the lists because we don't have, by amazing consensus, a WP:X1 concession. The very admin who is now nominating me said it was not needed. I forget the greek word but in English it is, um what is the word, when you say one thing and do another. I better check on Wiktionary. I could have got on and done some real work and made the encylopaediae better were it not for this fuss. I will try to start doing that right now. It is the last I have to say on the matter. Si Trew (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support ban from RfD The combination of WP:IDHT and many very questionable RfD's seems to require that. Nothing short of a ban will seem to stop him. I wish there was another way.... -Obsidi (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• I have blocked SimonTrew for 31 hours for this new set of personal attacks, notwithstanding INVOLVED. If you would like, please discuss this block at AN. This block is not intended to conclude this discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow, 31 hours is lenient given the block log. That being said, I think this is further evidence that a full ban is necessary, given this took place outside of RfD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure a full site ban is necessary over those personal attacks, but he might need more than a 31 hour block. You might even want an indef block until he at least says he understands the problem with this behavior and that he wont repeat it. -Obsidi (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support ban from RfD Sigh, maybe he will find something better to do with his time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support ban from RfD - Frankly, I agree with the comment above that, given this editor's stance he's likely to move to another area and cause similar problems there, so an indef or site ban would be justified, but since we don't do preventative blocks of that nature (but probably should), we can start where the immediate problem lies, as shown by both ST's editing behavior and his comments in this very discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe we have enough people in support of a topic ban that we can implement it at this point. Thoughts? —JJBers 21:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• note I've renamed the tread and changed all instances of "SiTrew" in my comments to "Si Trew" per his comments above and on my talk page. I have not changed any other comments. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• I won't bold vote an opinion, because I don't frequent RFD and don't have a good feel for this. I just want to ask a question to the RFD regulars who know him better than drive-by ANI watchers. Si Trew has been here 10 years and made 61,000 edits, much of it redirect related. Surely most of them valuable? Instead of an RFD ban (or a site ban), would it make sense to narrow the scope? Perhaps a 2 week ban from RFD until he calms down? Or a ban from nominating Eubot redirects? It depends on whether he's generally a help at RFD but is getting overwhelmed by the scope of Eubot's contribs, or if he's generally not a help. I get the sense that he's generally a help (I see @Thryduulf: saying nice things on his talk page from December, and I recall @Tavix: being pretty patient during a previous dispute because he does do good work). But it looks like when he gets a bee in his bonnet, he becomes difficult for others to work with. Maybe focus more on getting the bee out of his bonnet? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Simply put, Simon is a net-negative at RfD. Sure, he's got a lot of contributions, but it seems like every other one is an off topic rant, remark or what have you. I'll admit I've got a very long leash, but I feel it's been completely used up. The current flavor of the day is Eubot, before it was Neelix, and his obsession with Neelix didn't end until a months long block. I'm sure if it's restricted to Eubot, he'll find another situation to flood RfD with. This is, what, the seventh or eighth ANI thread dealing with Simon? At what point will we realize that he simply doesn't have enough clue to operate as a competent editor on this site? -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough; I've blocked him more than anyone, so I'm not trying to be his Official Apologist or anything. Just seems a bit of a shame, after being complimented for his Eubot work a few months ago. Perhaps it's my knee-jerk reaction to people talking about a 10-year editor as clueless and incompetent. I do know what you mean, it just seems... a shame, like I said. I won't try to oppose anything here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

A few years ago there weren't many problems with him though. They've gotten significantly worse as the years go on. It's like he's degenerating or something. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Possibly. I know I'm degenerating. Getting old kind of sucks (Speaking for myself, not Si Trew). --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Amen to that. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Currently the negatives (which have been increasing) significantly outweigh the positives (which have been decreasing). If he is to return to RfD it must be with a rate throttle, a demonstrated understanding of the point of WP:BEFORE and a requirement to demonstrate he has carefully thought about each redirect nominated. A restriction from redirects related to foreign languages, diacritics and/or mass-created redirects would be the minimum necessary before I'd consider his return. At the start of this thread I would have accepted just the throttle, but it's become clearer the more others have commented that the level of competence displayed has been worse than I was initially aware of. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Full site ban, somewhat regrettably. In a nutshell, I agree with the ultimate conclusion Tavix made; if SimonTrew's gotten to a point where he's requesting a full site ban on himself, let's just do it. I recall in the past, SimonTrew was indefinitely blocked for legal threats, in addition to all the other RfD-related blocks he's had. At this point, as much as SimonTrew has been cordial (and the opposite) to me in the past, it's quite difficult to see how he's still a WP:NETPOSITIVE for the project with his recent serious lack of WP:BEFORE research on his recent nominations, plus his off-topic comments on RfD nominations are getting to a point where they are now throwing red herrings into the discussions. In addition, with SimonTrew's editing style and personality, I don't see how he could follow a "daily-limit" ban, and editors' daily monitoring of such activity from SimonTrew would be rather exhausting. In my conclusion, at the present time, SimonTrew's capability to provide beneficial additions to Wikipedia is nearly nonexistent, and he and the entire community need a break from his contributions. Steel1943 (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

  In addition, I think WP:ROPE was referenced in regards to only banning SimonTrew from WP:RFD and not all of Wikipedia. My response to that idea: SimonTrew honestly has been provided "WP:ROPE" so many times now that the rope has been destroyed. The amount of editor resources it takes to reel him back in after any of his tangents, whether they contain malice or not, is too taxing on editors and admins. (I mean, legal threats and RfD are two exclusively-different issues.) This really shouldn't be allowed again ... since, at this point, the rope is figuratively broken. Steel1943 (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of "community bans" and in this case, I wonder if it is truly necessary. The proposal for a restriction on their editing in a problematic area is nearing a consensus and they are currently blocked for incivility and personal attacks. If they return and continue then there appears to be ample behavioral and policy grounds for extending new blocks of longer lengths, including indefinite, at admin discretion. Creating a site ban adds a layer of punitiveness that seems unhelpful and non-constructive. It is also harder to undo a community site ban. I recognize that the difficulty in removing a community site ban strikes some as a feature instead of a bug. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of site bans either, but given the extent of what SimonTrew has done in regards to legal threats, bombastic off-topic outbursts and the addition of flooding RfD with nominations that lack WP:BEFORE research, I truly think that it is the best option in this case. I've been following SimonTrew's activity for about 4 years now, so I'm not making claim that he needs a full site ban without any knowledge of some hard evidence to back it up. Looking back on SimonTrew's block log, the indefinite block that he had for legal threats lasted for about 3 months (June 2016–September 2016) and after that was lifted, here we are at yet another issue created by SimonTrew that needs immediate attention and requires an ANI discussion. All of these back-and-forth issues are really becoming taxing for the community. And given the fact that SimonTrew is familiar with how to go through the venues to request getting unblocked when he doesn't have talk page access (such as WP:UTRS), and since he had to go through that since his talk page access was revoked during that time, he'd have to go through it again to get the ban lifted with the stipulation that lifting a ban takes more than lifting a block, possibly including consensus to lift the ban. Seriously, if I thought at this point just banning SimonTrew from RfD would prevent any further issues he may cause, such as legal threats, I'd be all for it. But at this point, it's almost like he's already used up any chances he had to redeem himself after all of these issues, especially with his mannerisms of interacting with others on Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

You have obviously more familiarity with this editor than I. I hardly ever go to RfD, for example. I will humbly defer to your greater expertise on the issue. The only community site ban I have had previous familiarity with was SlitherioFan2016, who was banned for obvious and repeated trolling and block-evasion [48]. I didn't think this editor has raised anything like the trouble that one did, so I expressed caution. Especially since, as Softlavender says, they are currently unable to reply it seemed proper to wait until the current block expired to see if it has any benefit. Perhaps, though, they have reached that level of disruption that simple WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE indefinite blocks are not sufficient. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

While I would support a WP:CIR block (I'm still thinking about whether I support a ban), a WP:NOTHERE block is not justified. Si Trew is attempting to improve the encyclopaedia, and I think believes that he is doing so with his RfD nominations - indeed some of them are beneficial (just not enough to be a net positive, at least at the moment). The problem is with the results of his actions, and refusal to act on feedback about them, that are the issue not his intent. Thryduulf (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm inclined to recommend waiting until SimonTrew's short block has expired before any admin closes this thread. I'd like to see whether at this point he understands the problematical nature of his behaviors, and what he intends to do (or not do) to correct that. If he is unable to do (respond to) those two things satisfactorily, well, then there is indeed a WP:CIR issue and measures should be taken in accordance with an admin's assessment of the consensus in this thread and the nature of the overall problem(s). Softlavender (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• COmment Y'all know I hate incivility, so I am more than displeased with an edit summary like this. If Si can't behave around others without resorting to rudeness, PA, and incivility, they shouldn't do work that requries them to work with others, who may have a differing opinion. L3X1 (distant write) 01:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

break

Od Mishehu has extended Simon's block (based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#INVOLVED block of User:SimonTrew) to 3 weeks so that it now expires at 20:06, 18 May 2017. That is a very long time for a thread to be open at AN/I and I'd rather this not get archived without an actual conclusion, whether that is for a topic ban, indef block, ban, some combination of these or nothing. Personally I would like to see a topic ban from RfD (defined below) and nominating redirects for speedy deletion appealable separately to an appeal of a block or ban at least 3-6 months of productive collaborative editing elsewhere (at which either a conditional or unrestricted return could be discussed). I'm inclined, and to say that the three-week block is sufficient for the personal attacks yesterday. I don't know if it's been done before, but a suspended community ban that could be implemented by agreement of 2-3 uninvolved administrators in the event of his being blocked for disruption, legal threats, etc. is something I think worth considering. I'm not sure whether breach of the topic ban should be a trigger for such ban or not, but I'm leaning yes as it's an area that is quite easy to define (unlike say "Pseudoscience"). I would consider at topic ban from RfD to encompass:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and it's talk page
• Subpages of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and their talk pages
• Any templates with names starting "RfD" (in any capitalisation)
• Any redirect currently (i.e. at the time of the edit) tagged as nominated at RfD, and the talk page of any such redirect.

Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I support that definition pretty much. —JJBers 13:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers: I moved your comment here. Your edit here has oddly duplicated the entire thread. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Great, the visual source editor is broken. —JJBers 13:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• I too would not like to see Simon blocked indefinitely. His passion for improving the encyclopedia is obvious, he is just unable at this point to accept that his enthusiasm for redirects is seriously impeding other editors who would also like to improve the encyclopedia, to the point that he needs to have a community-imposed break from that venue. I have seen no evidence that his disruptive behaviour here would carry over to other areas of the encyclopedia. As for the ban from RfD, I would like to see it defined as a ban from all redirect deletion, broadly construed. This would include RfD itself and all its subpages and templates, tagging redirects for deletion (speedy or otherwise), and discussing speedy deletion criteria related to redirects. I'm not sure what Thryduulf means by the discussion of a "suspended community ban": topic ban violations are normally addressed by blocking. I think it's already pretty clear that Simon's next block for a civility concern (NPA, NLT, etc) will be indefinite. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, where are these "lists" of Eubot redirects? I've not been able to find them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Champion/Eubot list. Sideways713 (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Rather clear definition ... but will probably be breached at some point. Per my comments regarding implementing a full site ban on SimonTrew, given his history of blocks and actions, my ability to have confidence that such a ban will be followed is, unfortunately, very low. As I stated above that my opinion that SimonTrew should have a full site ban is "somewhat regrettably", it's because as Thryduulf and Ivanvector have alluded, he really is performing all of the edits on RfD in good faith and belief that he is making improvements to Wikipedia. However, the actions he takes following most edits he performs at RfD causes commotion that results in blocks (such as legal threats). If a RfD ban is the route that we are going to take (which I say is rather lenient at this point), then due to his history, after the first offense of breaking such a ban, the response shouldn't be a limited time or indefinite block ... it should immediately be a full site ban. Steel1943 (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Request for Clarification: What about existing redirects? Would Si Trew be able to change existing redirects? For example: Let's say A redirects to B; would Si Trew be permitted to change A to redirect to C? Likewise, what about tagging for speedy deletion? --Darth Mike^(talk) 18:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Steel1943, Ivanvector, and Darth Mike: I agree that including nominating redirects at RfD should be included in the definition of breaching a ban from RfD, I'll add it above. CSD is not part of RfD so should be specified separately, i.e. "topic banned from RFD (defined as above) and from nominating redirects at CSD". I strongly dislike "deletion of redirects" because RFD is Redirects for discussion and Si does nominate redirects there for retargetting or further input* and I don't want there to be room to wikilawyer that a nomination for retargetting was not breaching a "deletion of redirects" topic ban. Retargetting a redirect without involving RfD is not covered by the currently proposed topic ban, I had not thought about it before you mentioned it (thank you!) so I am presently unsure whether we do want to restrict him from that or not. If we do, it should be as a third bullet to the topic ban not lumping it in with the RfD bullet.

  * This is fine when done coherently, with thought and not rapid fire - see my nomination at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 27#Foreign language redirects to Portugal (Group 3) from earlier today for how it can be done. Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm pretty neutral on whether Simon should be banned from editing redirects entirely. When Si does take the time to actually analyze a redirect and its background and utility, he's usually right, or at least his action can be justified. The problem of late has been that he is not taking this time and just rapidly nominating huge lists of redirects for discussions with no apparent forethought at all, and also the outbursts when he's confronted on this. I think it would be fine to allow Si to go off and edit redirects on his own where he believes that editing them improves the encyclopedia, to the extent that he can do so without interacting with RfD. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I think Od Mishehu's extension of Simon Trew's block was a mistake that did not take into account the fact that Simon Trew's input is needed (in my opinion) to fully resolve this thread. Now he cannot comment on this ANI thread. If he was able to comment, he could possibly assure us now that he understands what he has been doing that is problematical, and propose what he is going to do to change his behaviors. We could also see if he has calmed down and is refraining from personal attacks. Now that he can no longer comment here, and there are so many proposals on the table including a full site ban or indef block, I don't feel that this thread is going to wind up in as productive a resolution as it could if ST were able to comment further. Softlavender (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Simon can comment on his talk page if he desires, and Ivanvector has made that clear after his block was extended. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Simon has put some additional comments on his talk page which I can't copy over at the moment (my phone doesn't have enough memory). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Simon's comments from his talk page are below (copied by Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)):

@Ivanvector: OK. Here is my basic position. There are thirteen lists of User:Eubot redirectd on them. Many of them, as was said yesterday at the ANI by a professional translator, a new to me editor. (who to make it clear I did not magic up like I can magic up User:Plantdrew on botanical subjects or User:Mjroots on railways).)

It's too many. We don't have a WP:X1 concession. What am I supposed to do, take each to WP:CSD? Then we would end up in the same boat with the admins at CSD saying I am flooding them. It's too many.

User:Champion made the lists, I am going through them. If you want WP:RFD#D5 nonsense such as Thoekoely at an encyclopaedia, have it. I don't.

My WP:BEFORE is to check the internal consistency of our encyopadia. Techinically WP:BEFORE does not apply to redirects anyway, but let's not get hung up on it like User:Thryduulf does. My job, as I see or saw it, is to go through the eubot ones and say "is this greenisholives" or is it "green olives"?". That is all I can do. Si Trew (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's my secondary position. Apart from speaking French, English, a bit of Hungarian and some other languages, more than that, I have a kinda "connecting" mind. It just makes connections all the time I wish it didn't sometimes. I just "connect" things all the time. For example right now I just remembered it was E.M. Forster who said "Only Connect" and Victoria Cohen Mitchell has a tv programme. I can do that without checking. I am that good. Si Trew (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok I got her name wrong. Alan Coren her father one of the funniest men you will ever read. See. Si Trew (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

And as for personal attacks, the thing is that "Simon Trew" is my real name. So, yes, I do start treating it as a personal attack. I am an idiot for using my real name, I suppose, but I don't hide behind a veil. It is my stupidity nine years ago but if I switched names now what good would that do? Nobody's. As we all know, Wikipedia is not the whole world. I don't want "Simon Trew" to become a synonym for "idiot". Si Trew (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you know how to get started with something. You just get started. In the time this ANI nonsense has gone on I have painted a new hallway and fixed my house and various other jobs, all for no money. Oh and got meself a new house which is in about the same state as these redirects are. The way to get started is to get started. I am a bit fed up nobody else seems to join in, but you can hardly blame me for flooding. Five or six other editors could join in. The fact I am doing it on my own is some testament to why people don't like to edit at WP. Si Trew (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

My initial reaction to those comments is that they show he still doesn't understand what the problem is, and if unblocked today would just return to flooding RfD with poorly checked (or unchecked) nominations and rambling off-topic commentary. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Further comment from Si:

"I think it would only be fair if you take out my hazardous contributsions you also take out all the {{R from other spelling}} and {{other language|fr|en}} or whatnot that I do from Eubot without bringing to RfD. Can you please copy that in too, User:Thryduulf? And I am sorry if it felt like a personal attack on you. It was not. I think you were wrong to bring it, absolutely and then go "Right, I've warned you, next time, you're at ANI" and then SMACK I am at ANI. That is not how Wikipedia works. Can you please add those comments at ANI because I can't. Si Trew (talk)" copied by Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Right so since the above is basically stream-of-conciousness irrelevant waffle, can someone put this thread out of its misery? Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• In terms of Simon Trew's usertalk comments now copied over: Although they are no longer outright personal attacks, they are still pretty much rambling self-justifying meanderings (one kicker is "I can do that without checking. I am that good.") Regardless of whether Eubot is a problem or not (that is a subject for another conversation and probably for another venue), I'm worried that we do have a CIR problem with Simon, and that his ability even to communicate clearly, much less collaborate and learn, is somewhat questionable. Softlavender (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, I'm increasingly now thinking we need a block or ban and a topic ban that will take effect if/when he returns. I'm obviously way too involved with this to close this thread but the topic ban (from RfD and from nominating for redirects for speedy deletion) at least looks to have widespread agreement. Whether it should be a block or ban is less clear, but I'm leaning towards the latter. It's such a shame how quickly this keeps getting worse. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support RfD ban of indefinite length. It is clear from the comments copied from their talk page above they have not heard any of the concerns expressed and intend to continue as before as soon as they can. It is conceivable that they will, after some period of time, realize why their RfD interactions were damaging and can request dropping the ban at that time. I'm of no mind to even attempt to determine what that length of time might be, however. I think it should also be made explicitly clear that their leash on civility matters upon return from the current block is extremely short. Is "civility probation" still a thing? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• No, it's not, Eggishorn. ArbCom has had some unpleasant experiences of what's likely to happen if an editor has a target painted on their back by a "civility probation", and it's been a long time since they tried it. The community shouldn't either. They're cursed things. Bishonen | talk 21:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC).

Fair enough. Sounds reasonable. Thanks for filling in the blank space in my memory. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I just want to say that I !voted above for an RfD ban, and that Simon Trew's comments copied here from his talk page have not changed my mind one bit - in fact, they've hardened my position, and have started me thinking that an even stronger sanction might be warranted. My advice to Simon Trew would be: If you want to keep editing here, stop commenting, you're only hurting yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose full site ban - I cannot, regrettably, oppose a ban from redirects for discussion, but I don't think a full site ban is due at this time. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• I will endorse above statements above noting that Si Trew's refusal to do a WP:BEFORE check (technically not mentioned at RFD, but which definitely should be) for Eubot redirects is disruptive and a time sink. We have better things to do than perform simple Google Searches on his behalf. Unlike the Neelix redirects, which could impugn Wikipedia's reputation through having an admin redirect things like "tubular titties" to breast cancer, the Eubot redirects are mostly harmless. At worst, the transliterated redirect blocks valid DAB pages or has a better target due to changes since the bot was run. Many of them are perfectly valid redirects which Si Trew refuses to recognize because of his prescriptivist take on how redirects should work, because he seems to believe that all readers should be forced to perfectly reproduce any diacritic in the original language, which is at odds with WP:DIACRITIC. Some of the more questionable ones are at worst a redirect from a spelling which is a plausible pronunciation, and which can be deleted or kept without much harm either way. I would endorse Thryduulf's restrictions above, but also offer the following terms as suggestions:

• A ban from nominating redirects for speedy deletion, which would circumvent the purpose of the RFD ban, and could be abused given widespread misuse of WP:G6;
• A ban from retargeting (but not refining) redirects, Si Trew has advanced some rather implausible alternate theories for where a redirect could/should target to [49] [50], [51];
• An exception for Si Trew to make one RFD nomination per day, notwithstanding any other part of the ban, provided that he supplies a clear explanation for why the status quo should not be kept and URL links to demonstrate that a Google News/Books/Scholar search has been done per BEFORE. This would allow some of the good work that he does to still be done (e.g. creating a valid DAB page, adding hatnotes, created a valid DAB page). If the proposed change would be at IAR levels of obviousness, then the RFD can always be snow closed to get the correct result. Any violation of this clause will result in its removal. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, I included a ban from CSD in my proposal so I obviously agree with that. I don't agree with the one nomination a day, as while he does sometimes do good work, I think he needs a complete clean break from RfD and the restriction needs to be very simple so there there is no possibility of wikilawyering, indeed I prefer the restriction suggested by someone above from editing redirects completely over your second bullet for the same reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Fair. I would be okay with those conditions as well since the mass nomination of Eubot redirects has been pretty disruptive, but would prefer a more lenient approach at least to start.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 12:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose any indef blocks/bans, I think some Wikipedians are way too happy to swing the banhammer. From what I have seen of him prior to this incident, Mr. Trew is constructive and intelligent. Thryduulf, nominating a bunch of redirects for discussion is not a reason to block or ban someone. You are acting like it is your problem, but it is not. I have not encountered him outside of RFD, so I can't say anything about CSD or the like, but to do something as crazy as to indefinitely block/ban him would be a serious loss to RfD. I don't like this turning on him I'm seeing. I thought sanctions are not supposed to be a form of punishment, but instead are to prevent further damage. Guys, I just don't think kicking Si Trew out is the effective or moral way to go.--Mr. Guye (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose any indef blocks/bans I fully endorse the comments above by Mr. Guye. Jschnur (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I'm sorry, Mr. Guye, but I have to ask whether you've actually looked at the diffs and links provided in this thread and read his comments in response to the concerns raised and then his responses after getting blocked? This is not just "nominating a bunch of redirects at RfD" it's:

  • • Flooding RfD with 50-70 or more nominations a day, despite repeatedly being asked not to (WP:IDHT).
    • Not conducting even the most basic elements of WP:BEFORE before nominating redirects, despite being repeatedly asked to (WP:IDHT, WP:CIR).
    • Continuing to nominate redirects without actually presenting a reason to delete or retarget them, and sometimes even arguing for keeping them as is, despite being repeatedly asked to (WP:IDHT, WP:CIR).
    • Repeatedly nominating redirects that are correct according to policy (particularly WP:DIACRITICS), despite being repeatedly asked to (WP:IDHT).
    • Repeatedly nominating redirects that there is a firm consensus to keep (e.g. ä → ae in Germanic language names/titles), despite being repeatedly asked to (WP:IDHT). Together these mean that he is causing hours (literally) of extra work for other volunteers who have to check his work and clean up after him.
    • Continuing to post off-topic rambles in RfD discussions, despite being repeatedly asked to. This and all the above are seriously disrupting RfD (WP:IDHT, WP:CIR) and has been ongoing (and getting worse) for months.
    • Responding to criticism with personal attacks (WP:NPA).
    • Creating article space pages to make a point or comment (WP:POINT, doubly so when the comment is being made in the wrong place).

    Links and diffs for all of these (and more) are in this thread, and it is everybody other than you who is seeing his actions at RfD as a very significant problem, which is why I wonder if you've been actually looking at the evidence provided. The good he does in relation to redirects is being very signficantly outweighed by the negatives. I didn't want to see him indeffed and banned from RfD - I wanted a rate limit and a requirement to do WP:BEFORE for each nomination, but every response he's given has made things worse for him as he's making it increasingly clear is not willing to work collaboratively with other editors at the current time. Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

April 19 was a relatively quiet day for Si's nominations at RfD as there were only 48 of them (it's rare that most people make more than 5 in a single day). 7 are still open and 1 has been relisted. Of the 40 that have been closed, none were nominated for retargetting:

• 5 were withdrawn - 1 with a factually inaccurate nomination, 2 after complete failures to do WP:BEFORE were highlighted, and 2 where he replied to his own nomination with a recommendation to keep before anyone else commented.
• 8 were deleted
• 1 was retargetted
• 26 were kept (2 speedily kept because the nomination didn't actually include a reason for deletion or retargetting) - over 50%. Thryduulf (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

  I endorse the above reply by Thryduulf. Anyone with a similar track record of ignoring WP:BEFORE at AFD would already be sanctioned. Si Trew's actions require RFD volunteers to waste hours doing simple Google searches which he could've done himself, simply so valid redirects are not deleted. Given the vast number of nominations, I would not be surprised if some redirects that should have been kept fell through the cracks and were deleted. I would add that unlike AFD, mass nominations make the main RFD page slow to load, because it transcludes all the daily logs with open entries (the default assumption is that there will not be a flood of nominations). The slow load time has been brought up at WT:RFD a couple times already. [52], [53]---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 12:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

  @Mr. Guye and Jschnur: I second this endorsement. If it were just that he was making a lot of nominations, we wouldn't be here. If it were just that he sometimes makes poor decisions with regard to nominations, we could correct that if he would ever accept criticism. But he doesn't: you can see here and here and here (or above) the sort of non sequitur response you get if you ever try to suggest that he's doing something wrong, and always he continues to do those things. This has been going on basically continuously since the Neelix redirects came to light in about November 2014, other than at times that Si has found himself blocked for things like one of his rambles containing an explicit legal threat. Repeatedly doing things you've been asked not to do is disruptive, and banning him from RfD is to prevent any more of his disruption related to that venue. As an example of how this behaviour is specifically disruptive, observe this nomination which Si listed for no reason and then immediatedly withdrew, but he did not remove the notice of discussion from the redirect, breaking it. It's likely this has happened dozens or hundreds of times from his rapid and careless mass nominations, and it's likely he's creating a secondary cleanup project for the rest of us. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

  I endorse the comments of Thryduulf, Patar knight and Ivanvector above. I would only add that the problems at RfD aren't limited to Si Trew's own nominations; his off-topic ramblings have disrupted other editors' nominations, and his lack of competence and inability to take in what his fellow editors say has been on full display in discussions started by others as well. And as others said above, the big problem is that Si Trew responds to criticism by digging in deeper and descending to personal attacks and even legal threats; and that instead of learning from his mistakes, he has become more and more disruptive over time. Most regulars at RfD would be happy to tolerate (indeed, for years already, have tolerated) most of Si Trew's quirks; but it's become clearer and clearer that he's not willing to work together with other users, and that his failure to do so is causing too many problems to just ignore. No one's happy that he has to be banned, and anyone who's spent any length of time at RfD knows that he does do good stuff there. It's a pity that he can't stick to the good stuff and drop the rest; but unfortunately, he insists on drowning the baby in increasing amounts of bathwater, and his behavior has made it clear that isn't likely to change. Sideways713 (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Bottom line

• So what's the bottom line here? It seems like we have a mix of (1) full topic ban from RfDs, broadly construed, to (2) an indef or site ban. Is there any perceived harm in giving Si a bit more WP:ROPE and stopping at the TBan, or are his CIR issues demonstrably too far gone to waste time on that and therefore we should skip right to indef? Asking so that this thread can be effectively understood and closed by an admin. Is this thread ready for consensus to be assessed and closed? If everyone has said their peace, there's probably no point in repeating your !vote, but if you haven't !voted, do so now as I think this thread is nearing completion. Softlavender (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• Effectively my support is for a ban from suggesting changes to redirects, but not from making changes. That covers tagging any redirect for CSD or xfD, discussing on its talk page, or discussing anything to do with RfD anywhere, but not from modifying an existing redirect. My observation is that Si knows how redirects should work and can make good decisions, but he doesn't seem to be able to do it without "looking busy", i.e. spamming RfD with completely unnecessary discussions. If he can just go do it, fine. Until it becomes apparent that that is a problem, I don't support banning him from that activity. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• In case it isn't clear from my many comments above, I think topic ban from (a) RfD (as defined above), and (b) nominating redirects at CSD is minimum. I am neutral with regards extending that topic ban to redirects more generally, and oppose a topic ban more general than that. My first choice is for a suspended indefinite ban, my second choice is an immediate indefinite ban, my distant third choice is neither of these. Most of all however I would like to see this thread actively resolved rather than idle out without formal closure. Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thryduulf, can you clarify what a "suspended indefinite [topic] ban" means and entails? That said, it looks like you and Ivanvector are in agreement that Si should be able to change or modify redirects but should not discuss, RfD, or CSD them, or involve himself in any way with RfD, including discussing it. Is that correct? Softlavender (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

As described above as suspected ban is simply one that does not take effect immediately, but only if the topic ban is broken. And yes, you're right about my opinion of what Si should and should not be able to do regarding redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

So you are requesting a ban on RfD, broadly construed (including discussion of redirects), and a ban on CSDing redirects. And in more standard Wikipedia terminology, you are also requesting a final warning that if further disruption occurs an indefinite block or site-ban will ensue? I'm asking because "suspended ban" is not a thing, and "indefinite ban" is not a thing (although indefinite blocks, and site bans, are). Softlavender (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I suppose I am asking for a topic ban with the explicit provision that if it is breached that a site ban is the only course of action available. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, @Softlavender:, there was a Arbcom case where a topic ban was placed in suspension. Look up RoslynSKP. A suspended topic ban was placed on her as a result of her behaviour in Ottoman/Turkish WWI related articles. I'll link the sanctions once I find it, unless someone does so before me. Blackmane (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Aha! Found it. here it is. Blackmane (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender and Blackmane: you might be interested in this discussion on how various sanctions are defined.

As far as Thryduulf's suspended ban proposal, I support it. Reviewing this discussion led me across several examples of Si being similarly disruptive in other venues, most notably (to me) Tavix's RfA, which led to this, then this, then this legal threat, and finally this indefinite block. While that's tangentially related to RfD in the first place, it's a real example of how Si can't let things go and crusades to the point of needing to be blocked. I think it will be evident that if Si does not abide by this serious restriction after this lengthy discussion, then he has no respect for the community and should not be a part of it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• I would support Thryduulf's suspended ban proposal for the same reasons as Ivanvector. While I would like to give him an RFD nom per day with the restrictions I listed above, I would also be okay with a complete RFD ban at this point in time, to reduce the ambiguity of the terms. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I would support that as part of a phased return if he demonstrates consistent collegial editing and appropriate response to feedback in other areas of Wikipedia, but not at the current time. Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Ditto. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
      • @Ivanvector: I did see that RFC pop up on WP:CENT earlier and made my support known for your option 3. Blackmane (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Time to close?

I think that everyone who has an opinion about this has almost certainly expressed it by now, some several times (guilty as charged) as it's been the best part of 5 days since SoftLavender started the summing up section above. So, I think it might be about time to close this - if nothing else it isn't really fair to Si to leave this unresolved for too much longer (certainly if I were in his position I'd want to know where I stand, one way or the other). Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not going to close this either; but does anyone dispute this as a summary of the consensus?

• There is consensus to indefinitely topic ban Si Trew from 1) Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and all RfD-related pages, subpages and activities, broadly construed, and 2) nominating redirects for speedy deletion;
• It is unclear if there is a consensus that the topic ban should cover retargetting redirects as proposed by Patar knight; this is something that could still be discussed. There is a consensus that the topic ban does not cover refining a redirect to point to a section of the page it already pointed to, nor does it cover other redirect-related edits such as tagging;
• Consensus in a related discussion endorsed blocking Si Trew for 3 weeks due to WP:NPA violations;
• There is no consensus for an indefinite block or a full site ban, but one of these is likely to follow if Si Trew violates his topic ban and/or causes significant disruption in other areas of Wikipedia;
• Si Trew is, at his best, capable of contributing to RfD positively;
• Accordingly, if he resumes editing Wikipedia after his current block and his edits in other areas consistently demonstrate an ability to respond to feedback appropriately and to edit in a collegial manner, the community is ready to review the topic ban and possibly relax or lift it;
• There is consensus that Thryduulf is not a bully. Sideways713 (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • That matches my (very involved) reading of this thread. Thryduulf (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this is fair reading. If there's no consensus if retargeting redirects should be included, maybe it should include a reminder to be conscientious about redirect policy when carrying out retargets? It would still give Si latitude to fix redirects, but would serve as a deterrent to using retargets to carry out changes which might not have gained consensus at RFD. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, along with noting that his actions regarding will be closely watched and will of necessity be examined as part of any appeal of the topic ban. Thryduulf (talk) 09:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
      • All seems accurate to me, but I have to (pedantically) point out that the community endorsed the 31-hour NPA block; the administrator who closed that review chose to lengthen the block to three weeks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Pattern of making controversial title changes without RM or discussion by user In ictu oculi

In ictu oculi holds views that often differ from mine about article titles, which is no crime, of course, except he regularly engages in unilateral page moves, without discussion, that are in accordance with his eccentric views, but are often contrary to consensus view, or are at least clearly controversial. WP:RM is quite clear about potentially controversial title changes - they should be avoided, and requests at RM should be initiated instead. Anyway, IIO has been warned in the past, and I warned him yesterday, and he made some more moves today, so I'm asking for assistance. This has been an ongoing problem for the better part of a decade.

A couple of recent examples:

• Yesterday, he moved To the Max! to To the Max! (Max Roach album) [54]. (I reverted [55] and asked him to stop on his talk page[56])
• Today, he moved Bombay Mail to Bombay Mail (1934 film) [57]. (I reverted this undiscussed controversial move adding unnecessary disambiguation to a title [58].)

Warnings/discussions:

• By PaleCloudedWhite PBS, in an ANI notice, in August of 2012 [59].
• By Tbhotch, in another ANI, in 2014 [60].
• By me, on IIO's talk page, in October of 2016: [61]
• By me, on IIO's talk page, yesterday [62]

IIO and I often clash on title decisions so I'm not the most objective judge, so I ask others to confirm there is an issue here. I'm hopeful a serious warning coming from someone other than me should resolve this chronic problem for good. --?²C ? 01:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

He probably moved To the Max! to To the Max! (Max Roach album) because there are two other entities named To the Max. These lack the wow sign. But except for the punctuation (which is not pronounced) they are identical. It is reasonable to say "These are enough alike to constitute essentially the same title". It's a judgment call whether to ask for a Requested Move in a case like this. But a Requested Move means asking your colleagues to drop what they are doing and consider your question. You don't want to do it if you figure it's probably just a technical fix. So I can see someone going ahead and doing it, subject to a Requested Move discussion if someone objects. In ictu oculi moves a lot of pages, so some of these are going to be disputed.

On the other hand, moving Bombay Mail to Bombay Mail (1934 film), are you sure he didn't do this to make room for an article on the actual Bombay Mail train or something? (Even if he did, he needs to say so in his move summaries). If not, this would be highly idiosyncratic and I'd be interested to hear about that. If there's a pattern of this kind of move (and not making way for a new article) then that's not good. Herostratus (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Herostratus, both situations mentioned by B2C are covered by WP:DIFFCAPS, a subsection of WP:AT IIO knows exists, and IIO knows a related-move can be seen as contentious. Although both titles are ambiguous, having To the Max! redirecting to To the Max! (Max Roach album), because there is no other "To the Max!" (in place of simply having a {{other uses}} or an {{About}}); and not creating an article about Bombay Mail train/office and preemptively moving it to "(1934 film)" when there is no other film with the same name are common problems with IIO. Bombay Mail (train) (recent redirect) just redirects to Howrah–Allahabad–Mumbai line where it is only mentioned as "he Mumbai-Howrah Mail via Allahabad is called Calcutta Mail between Mumbai and Allahabad, and Mumbai Mail (some still call it by its old name, Bombay Mail)". Other examples exist, they can be found on the public log, like Haco or Mercedes (film), Dt., or Nueva Era (this is just a redirection problem, but he never attempted to fix it), when enough time has past to have written an article to make disambiguation valid, but they solely are redirects to the article they were originally titled, or back in September when he moved Sivi Kingdom to Sivi (king), unexplained, despite the fact the article discusses more the kingdom than the homonym king, also note that he decided to move it to "Sivi (king)" and not to "King Sivi", "Sivi King" or "Kingdom of Sivi", which are more natural terms. The reason for a move I guess was to justify the move of Sivi to Sivi (film), but in itself you don't need to move A to justify B. And this is just for moving articles, there is another problem with IIO edit pattern and it is the notability of certain articles he creates. At WT:Notability, my talk page and WT:CDS are examples of what I'm talking about, but these aren't all the examples. Unfortunately I don't have all of them, but it is a start. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 03:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm among editors who disagree with B2C's views on titling, as he says above. B2C's view against disambiguation and recognizability tend to be outliers, as his activity on guideline Talk pages shows.

Occasionally we all get something wrong, and if there's a discussion or objection I listen and then that's easily resolved. I do a lot of work on disambiguation, and occasionally someone objects. Looking at the last ten:

1. Wild Boy to Wild Boy (film) ([Wild Boy to Wild Boy (film) summary (https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=wiki.riteme.site&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2017-03-12&end=2017-04-20&pages=Wild_Boy_(song)%7CWild_Boy%7CWild_Boy_(novel))

Wild Boy 1934 film was getting 4 out of 72 views. A dab page was needed, can anyone see any problem with creation of a dab page here?

2. Intrigue (film) to Intrigue (1947 film) summary (Intrigue (1942 film)

There's also Intrigue (1942 film), per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films). Template:Edwin L. Marin updated, requires several hours for "what links here" to settle to allow other links to become visible.

3. Bombay Mail to Bombay Mail (1934 film) summary (Bombay Mail (1935 film))

As the summary says there is another film, WP:NCF, but there's also Bombay Mail (train), again Template:Edwin L. Marin updated, requires several hours for "what links here" to settle to allow other links to become visible.

4. The Scandal to The Scandal (1923 film) summary (The Scandal (1934 film) The Scandal (1943 film))

per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) again

5. The Mirage (film) to The Mirage (1920 film) see The Mirage (2015 film), a Canadian comedy-drama film

per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) again

6. Sybil (book) to Sybil (Schreiber book) (Sybil (novel))

The Disraeli "novel" is also a "book" Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)

7. The Mirage (Al-Sarab) to The Mirage (Al-Suwaidi book)

Per author name not Arabic word for "The Mirage", Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)

8. Metahistory to Metahistory (Hayden White) (the term was in use decades before the book)

The problem here were mislinks to 1973 book from the adjective metahistorical and generic term metahistory. The 1973 book Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-century Europe is an important book, but a book about metahistory, not the subject itself.

9. Haunted London (1973) to Haunted London (Underwood book)

We don't disambiguate by year Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)

10. To the Max! to Talk:To the Max! (Max Roach album) (not always found with !)

As already reverted and not contested. The context not mentioned above is that this was a third album after To the Max to To the Max (Con Funk Shun album) and To the Max (album) to To the Max (The Mentors album). These were clearly mistitled per WP:NCM. The ! isn't found in some sources per Drummin' Men: The Heartbeat of Jazz The Bebop Years by Burt Koral, but whatever that was an afterthought, the main job was fixing the partial disambiguation of two (or three) albums.

We could go on to review the last 100 moves related to disambiguation or dab pages I have created or expanded. No need to stop at the last 10, but is the work of correcting incomplete titles contrary to naming conventions per se a bad thing? If it is tell me and I'll cease contributing to disambiguation pages. More than happy to do so if this work is not wanted by the editing community. I don't get paid, any more than the rest of you girls and guys. If it's not useful tell me. I'll go. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The thing here we can all agree is that if not about how useful or useless is your editing, it is about how you are doing your editing. With B2C's, this is the 5th or 6th user that has a complain about your editing pattern, how many users do you need to stop for a moment and ask to yourself "Am I doing this right?" Let's take Bombay Mail as the example here:

You create Bombay Mail (1935 film), you move Bombay Mail (1934 film), and you created Bombay Mail (train). All OK but you missed one thing, which was the reason B2C could revert the move: you didn't create a disambiguation page. At least you now create an article to rely the disambiguation, months ago you used to move pages only because a similarly titled work existed and no single article was created. In this example, B2C moved the page back 3 hours later. Also, I'm quite sure you would have never created a disambiguation page and the base title would have been a redirect until someone else noticed it, like when this took 2 months, or this 9 months, or when you moved Haco, and it still redirecting to its previous article, or dozens of similar examples that you have not fixed, but instead of fixing them, you move to another article to continue doing the same. Or even worse, doing moves like this or this with no single reason given. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 16:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: I can confirm that I have run across instances where IIO has moved a page to a title with a disambiguator, but in the process, doesn't create a disambiguation page. However, this wasn't always the case: The lack of creating disambiguation pages may be a recently-developing issue. I recall a few years ago, IIO moved quite a few song or album related pages from base titles to tiles with disambiguators and then created disambiguation pages at the leftover redirect's base title. However, such disambiguation pages were created before the consensus was established declaring that if an article about a song or album is the only article by that name that exists on Wikipedia, then it should be at the base title. (I can't recall where that guideline is at the moment, but I am sure you know what in referring to since I think we've crossed each other's paths regarding this in the past.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict, responding to the original complaint and User:Tbhotch) -- I am confused. IIO did construct another meaning for "Bombay Mail" -- "Bombay Mail (train)". It is just a redirect, true, but so? He had to move the article to make room for the redirect.

The original complaint implied that IIO moved "Bombay Mail" to a title with meaningless, unnecessary disambiguation. Here I was all "Whaaat? What's wrong with IIO, to do something like that?"

But that's not the deal at all. So can we get our facts straight please.

So now that complaint seems to come down to "IIO created a redirect, and I wish he hadn't". I mean, I guess you could take it to Redirects for Discussion, and maybe that's where that discussion should happen rather than here.

And there are two films named "Bombay Mail", one made in 1934 and one in 1935. Right? That is what IMDb says. So is it really so terrible to name your article "Bombay Mail (1934 film)" instead of "Bombay Mail (film)", considering that there is another film of that name with which a reader might get confused? True, it's not precisely correct (Unless IIO is planning to create an article on the other film) and that does matter.

As to "there is another problem with IIO edit pattern and it is the notability of certain articles he creates"... isn't this getting a little bit scattershot here? Can we stick to one thing maybe.

So what is the desired end here? "IIO must initiate a Requested Move discussion for any and all moves"? And maybe that would be fine and is necessary. The claim is that there's a general pattern of misfeasance. I don't see it in those two tiny examples, but if there's a pattern it ought to come out with a little investigation. Can we get some actual examples of actual specific wrongdoing? This would help. Herostratus (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Why sticking to one thing at the time? Sticking to one problem at the time is the reason why this edit pattern has not been revised, checked or even penalized through either ANI or even his ArbCom discussion, and how he has been being WP:GAMING since circa 2012. I literally gave you a link of how he in 2013 was trying to WP:POINT the speedy deletion criteria, something he still doing, yet I'm being a "little bit scattershot". Like you want me to open below a subsection of how he has been creating BLP WP:A7 articles before and after that CSD discussion, because I can do that. Or maybe you do not want me to do it because apparently we humans cannot focus in more than one problem at the same time. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 14:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Herostratus, the problem is not with IIO creating another meaning for "Bombay Mail" (a redirect named Bombay Mail (train) that redirects to Howrah–Allahabad–Mumbai line), but with him unilaterally (without discussion or RM) moving the article previously at Bombay Mail to Bombay Mail (1934 film) (it has since been reverted). The list above is just a list of a couple of recent examples. It was not mean to be exhaustive, but he does this stuff all the time. IIO shows little respect for the need to let others weigh in on these decisions; he does not recognize that his opinion on these matters is often contrary to that of the community. --?²C ? 16:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note: Born2cycle's opening comment could give the impression that I have opened a thread about In ictu oculi at ANI before, in 2012, but this is not the case; instead my original comment was being quoted by another editor there. If you look at IIO's response to what I originally wrote, it's apparent that there wasn't really a dispute. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

My apologies. I did not realize you were being quoted there. I've stricken the reference to you and corrected it. --B²C ? 16:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm also worried about In ictu oculi often renaming pages when unwarranted, and also disregarding WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as Born2cycle noted below. Extra DAB's in certain cases simply don't help at all and very needlessly go against WP:CONCISE. It might be a case of WP:IDHT in certain instances. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's look at one case, and extrapolate from there

OK. The case of "Haco" is mentioned above. Let's leave "Bombay Mail" out of it because it's recent and articles are just now being created, so it's muddied; let's look at "Haco" instead.

It's just one case, but the assertion is made that this is typical. So let's start there anyway.

OK, the article Haco existed, being created 2006. It is about a singer.

On March 10 2017, In ictu oculi [created the redirect Haco (king). It redirects to Haki, and indeed that article gives "Haco" as an alternative name for that king, and has for many years. So OK so far.

One minute later on March 10 2017, In ictu oculi moved "Haco" to "Haco (singer)", which automatically left "Haco" as a redirect to "Haco (singer)". OK so far.

In ictu oculi now had a choice to make. He could rewrite Haco as a disambiguation page, pointing to the article Haco (singer) and the redirect Haco (king), and possibly adding in Haco V (a redirect to Haakon V of Norway which has existed since 2005) and so forth, and possibly with a "See also" section mentioning Hako (disambiguation) and so forth.

Or he could have figured that Haco (king) is the primary topic, and rewritten Haco to redirect there. Or he could have figured that Haco (singer) is the primary topic, in which case he should have not moved Haco (or moved it back if, after consideration, he concluded that the singer is the primary topic). In either case, if In ictu oculi thought that there was a primary topic, then the primary topic -- either the article about the singer, or the redirect to the king -- should have been named "Haco", and so his series of moves and article namings should have been different.

But in any case, In ictu oculi -- if he wasn't going to create a disambiguation page -- should have added a hatnote to Haco (singer). This he did not do, as can be shown by this history. This was an error of omission.

Couple secondary detail points

(In ictu oculi did edit the (already existing) hatnote at Haki (which is now the target of Haki (king)), but only to change it from "for the village in Iran see Haki, Iran" to "This article is about King Hake. For the village in Iran, see Haki, Iran. For railway station in Japan, see Haki Station." (So no mention of "Haco (king)" which is OK, since "Haco (king)" does not redirect to "Haki"; if it did, a "Haco (king) redirects here..." note might have been in order. So this edit it OK, it neither breaks nor fixes anything, its just something In ictu oculi did while he was in the area I assume.))

(This shows that seven pages link to Haco, which is a redirect page, while according to this only one non-redirect page targets Haco (singer). So the assumption is that link cleanup was not done. So this is likely another error of omission. It's not a capital crime, I have forgotten to do this myself on (rare) occasion and I think maybe bots clean this up (not sure). But still.)

All this strikes me as rather odd. With no disambiguation page and no hatnote at Haco (singer), there isn't any way for a reader to access Haco (king) (and thereby Haki, if they know him as Haco). Yes sure she can type "Haco king" in the search box, but that's unnatural; more likely would be "king haco" or "haco of norway" or perhaps "haco mythology" or "haco norse" or "haco ynglinga" -- none of which will lead to reader the desired goal, Haki. (Haco (king) has no incoming links.)

So this looks like a sub-optimal job. I don't see the gain. Neither is it terrible -- the ability of readers to get to where the want to is neither lessened nor increased, nor has any data been added or lost. It's a wash, but it did end with Haco now being at Haco (singer) when this isn't strictly necessary -- it follows from the decision to make no dab page and no hatnote at Haco (singer) that there was no reason to move Haco to Haco (singer) if nothing was going to be done with Haco (king). Haco (king), floating in limbo as it does, does not impinge on Haco continuing to be an article about the singer instead of a redirect to the article about the singer.

You have to understand that unnecessary disambiguation drives people bonkers, and it is against our rules. I couldn't care much less, but for Haco (singer) to exist at that title when it could remain at just Haco makes some people claw the draperies -- and they do have the rules and accepted practice on their side, without question. Since they do, asking the admin corps for backup is reasonable IMO.

No move was made wrongly, nor was there a case where a Requested Move should have been initiated instead of just moving stuff. Rather, the problem is that the moves were fine, but failing to make dab, or even a hatnote, afterwards is not OK. (Also link cleanup was not done apparently). This is not exactly just a content dispute, but a failure to follow optimal procedure.

Coming into this analysis with no preconception, I do see where at least in this one case its problematical. As I said above, the assertion is this case is typical normal for In ictu oculi, and he doesn't care to follow optimal procedure, and some sort of warning or injunction about this is requested.

So In ictu oculi, what's the deal here? Did I miss something, or what? Or was this case exceptional? Herostratus (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Good analysis and I hope you can now appreciate how time consuming this is. If you take almost any one of IIO's unilateral moves like this one in isolation it appears to be contrary to policy but not that serious; it's the pattern of doing this repeatedly that's the issue. You also hit upon a key point: "You have to understand that unnecessary disambiguation drives people bonkers, and it is against our rules." IIO demonstrates no respect for this community consensus viewpoint and others too (e.g., he seems to barely recognize WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). Consistently and repeatedly. This is why I think he should stop making these moves. His judgement is off relative to community consensus. He can argue my judgement is off too on these matters, in the other direction. And I concede it might be - but that's why I tend to not make unilateral moves. He should too. --В²C ☎ 21:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the move of Haco to Haco (singer) [63]. --В²C ☎ 22:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The info above is incorrect. This was originally a redirect to the Norwegian king, the insertion of the Japanese singer is a more recent addition, see Talk page of article. @Herostratus: as the summary says "Haco (king) see books" "Haco was" in Google Books. It's too far back to recall but typically if I didn't create a dab immediately it was because I was giving opportunity to anyone involved in the article to revert and let any link and templates settle. And then it was peacefully reverted and I didn't make any drama. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Could you possibly be more cryptic? No. Is that an oversight or are you leaving a modicum of CYA defense while hoping to not draw any attention? That aside, so what your comment summary meant was that moving the Japanese singer from the base name is justified due to the existence of the reference to the king as "Haco" as shown by searching for Haco in Google Books? Well, the Japanese singer has been at this base name title since 2011. Again, just like in the Bombay Mail case below, you don't even bother asking the primary topic questions let alone getting the community to answer before you start moving. More evidence supporting this proposal. --В²C ☎ 13:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

But look at Bombay Mail closer because it's a good example

• Bombay Mail is a 1934 American film. The article has existed since 2016 when it was created by Koala15.
• On April 26, 2017 at 13:56 In ictu oculi unilaterally moved it to Bombay Mail (1934 film) (I've since reverted this move).
• On April 26, 2017 at 13:51 In ictu oculi created Bombay Mail (1935 film), a Hindi language film.

Now, here's the point. These are both relatively obscure films, but between them, on the English WP, the American film is likely to be a bonafide WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Likely enough that no one should unilaterally decide it's not. But IIO did, and moved the article accordingly. Again, taken in isolation it's not a horrible crime, but he does this stuff all the time, and needs to stop. --В²C ☎ 23:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I dunno; reading that, my first thought was "train, ship, plane, or service?"...and it turns out it's all four. This was, and is, with a couple of m/b shifts, a ship route, the eponymous cargo, the train and a possibly even flying boat route. I expect, seriously, that the post service is far more important historically than either film. Disambguating them out seems a good call. Anmccaff (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Except he left Bombay Mail as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Bombay Mail (1934 film), implying it is the primary topic. Well, if it is, then it shouldn't be disambiguated. But there are good arguments to made, as you did, that maybe there is no primary topic. That's the point; the issue of whether it is the primary topic is obviously potentially controversial, and precisely what needs to be determined, and that's why we have WP:RM, to make these determinations. It should not be determined unilaterally. You can't just look at each of these in isolation to see the pattern. --В²C ☎ 00:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Because as has been explained before (a) it takes time for templates to adjust, (b) it allows yourself to follow me. I didn't delay so much before you started this. Bombay Mail is a pretty typical example of there being one major topic Bombay Mail (train) and two minor topics Bombay Mail (1934 film) and Bombay Mail (1935 film) the only thing preventing a dab page has been yourself. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Nobody including me is preventing you or anyone else from creating the dab page at Bombay Mail (disambiguation). And it's not me preventing the dab page at the base name, In ictu oculi, it's the consensus-supported concept of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that's preventing it, a concept for which you have shown little if any regard. In this case as in many there may or may not be a primary topic. Do reliable English sources ever even refer to the IIO-linked train as "Bombay Mail"? Even if they do how likely is a user searching with "Bombay Mail" to be looking for the train or either of the films? These are questions you don't even seem to bother asking let alone try to get an answer from the community before moving articles affected by these answers. Sadly, that's why you need to be kept from unilaterally moving articles titles. --В²C ☎ 13:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Closer look at A True Woman

Tbhotch linked to this this above; let's take a closer look.

• 2007: Created as A True Woman
• April 29, 2016: inexplicably moved by In ictu oculi to The Heart of a Woman (Baroness Orczy novel) [64]. No explanation in summary. Nothing on talk page.
• April 3, 2017: reverted by Tbhotch with summary: "Unexplained move"

Is the relatively obscure book better known by its American title The Heart of a Woman, then by it's British title, A True Woman? Perhaps, but since the former requires disambiguation (conflict with Maya Angela book with same title), why not leave it at the latter? Well, if you prefer "more informative" titles, as IIO does, then the move makes sense. For him. So does making the move when you know if you put it up to an RM it's likely to get rejected, but if you do it unilaterally it might not get noticed (as it did not in this case for almost a year). I don't want to speculate about IIO's true motives, which even he might not be fully aware of, but the bottom line is that this is not a slam dunk rename. It's obviously potentially controversial, and IIO should know this, and know better than to make such moves. --В²C ☎ 00:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd have expected there was a guideline for this, that might be modified in occasional cases -MBE (as opposed to my own favorite, MBP). I'd also expect that a book by a prominent, if adopted, British author would go by the title published by in London, rather than New York. I think someone would have to make the case pretty strongly for it to be otherwise.

On the other hand "might not get noticed" does cut both ways, it implies that this is a bit of a coin-toss. Anmccaff (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Anmccaff, it "might not get noticed" because it's an obscure article with few if any watchers. And even if it is a coin-toss, that means it can go either way, indicating it is potentially controversial. Precisely the kind of decision that should go to RM - not made unilaterally by one editor, let alone by one with a reputation for often having opinions contrary to community consensus on such matters. --В²C ☎ 17:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Out of 10,000s of edits you are going back 12 months to April 2016? This is a level of forensic investigation that no active volunteer on the encyclopedia could pass. Yes Google Books indicates that the American title is better known, possibly because it is still in print in this title but out of print in the UK one. But really 12 months ago? Out of 10,000s of edits? A more common US title is suddenly urgent enough for ANI? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no CSI "forensic investigation" drama over here. The Heart of a Woman was the TFA for April 4, 2017. The original article included links to two unrelated albums, so I changed to to the dab page that already existed. There I noticed the weird title "The Heart of a Woman (Baroness Orczy novel)" as we shouldn't be using royal titles for disambiguations. Then clicking the article you find that A) it starts with "A True Woman (US Title The Heart of a Woman)", B) the infobox says "A True Woman" and it includes a book cover with this title, so why it had a different title? I didn't had to go further to know why. It doesn't matter if "Google Books [sic] indicates that the American title is better known". This is a British book by a British author, and WP:RETAIN applies. Otherwise Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is to be titles Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. This is the exact thing B2C is complaining (and others below not completely understanding), that you decide by yourself over and over again how to title articles ignoring policies and guidelines when convenient for you. WP:NCBOOKS, a guide you already knew by then, would have suggested "The Heart of a Woman (Orczy novel)", assuming it was a needed move, and any normal editor would have asked if original English titles are to be used over adapted English titles. The same applies to Sivi below. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 17:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Closer look at Sivi

Tbhotch also linked to this above.

• 22:09, March 8, 2006‎: Sivi Kingdom created by Jijithnr [65]
• Sep 20, 2016, Sivi Kingdom inexplicably moved by In ictu oculi to Sivi (king) [66]

No corresponding adjustments seem to have been made either. For example, the Sivi dab page still links to Sivi Kingdom (not to Sivi (king)). But wait, the plot thickens.

• 2007 LRBurdak creates article about the film as Sivi.
• Sep 20, 2016 Sivi inexplicably moved to Sivi (film) by In ictu oculi (well, we can divine that he did it to make room for a dab page)
• Sep 20, 2016, now that Sivi is a redirect to Sivi (film), IIO converts the Sivi redirect to a dab page [67] with three entries: Sivi Kingdom, Sivi (film), and a link to SIVI.

Now, if we look at the relevant page view stats it's obvious that a strong argument can be made that the film (now at Sivi (film)) is the primary topic and should have remained at the base name, Sivi.

Again, all this is for the community to decide, in a proper WP:RM. It's not for IIO or anyone else to make these decisions unilaterally. It's about the pattern. He needs to be told to stop. --В²C ☎ 01:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

September 20, 2016? 10 months ago? Again, how did you find this needle in the haystack? Before the minor Tamil horror was created, Sivi would have lead searchers to Sivi the king in the epic Mahabharata. look in books "Sivi" + India refers to "good king Sivi" "fabled king Sivi", 4000 results the 2007 Tamil horror film directed by K. R. Senthil Natha gets no book hits at all. It's simply in the wrong place squatting on a reasonably well known character in India's national epic. Do you see any India project editors objecting to the film being titled (film)? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, as noted at the top of this subsection, Tbhotch linked to this even further above, presumably from memory. I didn't find it. Your final sentence speaks volumes. Instead of assessing per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria, you think whether "India project editors" object is how one should decide whether a given move is justified. If nobody notices and you get away with it says anything, then it's all good, right? --В²C ☎ 16:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Move to WP:AN?

Born2cycle, the thread is going to be archived very soon. This message that I'm writing would stall the archiving of this thread. May I move the thread to WP:AN please for bigger attention? George Ho (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

No George Ho, you may not move the thread to AN. This is the correct venue; AN isn't. In addition, AN gets less attention than ANI. Softlavender (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks George Ho, but I think this is the right place. Not sure what to do here. We could provide (many) more examples of the disruptive behavior, but I don't know if that will help. --В²C ☎ 18:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... titles are getting messier. Discussion about titling the Fabergé eggs, which doesn't involve IIO, led to using parentheses for precision (via parenthetical disambiguation?). Also, after the discussion about notability and ambiguity at the "Notability" talk page, I see IIO expanding some articles, including ones that he started: [68][69]. Conflicting principles are... weirder or entangled or something? But actions based on such principles... I think there's enough evidence of his renaming things. As said before, I don't want to get too involved in IIO's contributions, especially after the Faberge egg discussion. However, I see the proposal below, but I'll hold off until I'm ready to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC); already did. 01:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Informal Collaborator

I just found a note on In ictu oculi's talk page asking him about his unexplained/undiscussed move of Informal collaborator to Informal collaborator (East Germany) [70]. Typical. I reverted it. [71]. --В²C ☎ 05:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

In fact when you check the history of the article you will realize that that this was a revert to the longstanding title of the article which was only recently changed. WP:BRD covers this case. The next revert (yours) goes into editwaring territory. The change to Informal collaborator should have been subject to a WP:RM. Agathoclea (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Agathoclea is probably correct in this case, User:Born2cycle To go over the sequence of events.

• The article was created in October 2014‎ by User:Charles01, under the name Informal collaborators (East Germany), and it kept that title for 2+ years.
• On 16 February 2017‎, User:Korny O'Near WP:BOLDly moved the article to Informal collaborator with an edit summary of "Simplified name - no need for disambiguation", and fine.
• On 20 April 2017, User:In ictu oculi moved the article to Informal collaborator (East Germany) with an edit summary of "revert move". This would probably be proper under WP:BRD, and of course the next step under WP:BRD is to go to discussion. (IMO FWIW User:In ictu oculi should have have been less terse.)
• But it didn't go to discussion. Instead, on 2 May 2017‎ you moved the article back to Informal collaborator with an edit summary of "Revert undiscussed/unjustified move - unnecessary disambiguation". This is move warring, a subset of edit warring. And you also didn't open a discussion even then.

And, you know, fine. It was just a second reversion, things happen fast here, it was different editor who made the first move, it's hard to always do the exact right thing by the letter, sometimes one forgets to check the move log, and so forth.

But here's thing: you stand by this and avow that you'd do it again. That's very different from "Oops, sorry".

At User talk:In ictu oculi#Your "informal collaborator" move, we've discussed the title of this article. My conclusion is that possibly "Stasi informers" would possibly be the best title, but that Informal collaborators (East Germany) would be at any rate be more informative than Informal collaborators... it's all at that linked thread. It's a point that reasonable people could disagree on and discuss, and to your credit you have engaged and explained your thinking.

But you appear to be standing by your point "I am correct, period, and thus justified in rolling back".

As far as I know, we're only allowed to edit war on WP:BLP grounds. Expanding that to "WP:BLP, and titles with parenthetical elucidation further explaining what the article is about" would be a hard sell I think. Herostratus (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Born2cycle's move was the first reversion, not the second, given that In ictu oculi changed the article to a different name than the original one. Also, I didn't think my page move was that bold, since putting "(East Germany)" at the end of a name that doesn't require disambiguation is a clear violation of Wikipedia naming conventions. My rename was an obvious fix. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Welp OK then. "Obvious fix", okey-doke. Herostratus (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Herostratus and Agathoclea I can understand your reaction to my choice to revert in this case, but there are a few missing key pieces. I'll copy and update Herostratus's timeline accordingly.

• The article was created in October 2014‎ by User:Charles01, under the name Informal collaborators (East Germany), and it kept that title for 2+ years.
• On 17 October 2016, User:In ictu oculi ignores (deletes without responding, not even in the comment summary) a warning on his talk page to stop making unilateral potentially controversial moves.[72]
• On 16 February 2017‎, User:Korny O'Near WP:BOLDly moved the article to Informal collaborator with an edit summary of "Simplified name - no need for disambiguation", and fine.
• On 20 April 2017, User:In ictu oculi moved the article to Informal collaborator (East Germany) with an edit summary of "revert move". This would probably be proper under WP:BRD, and of course the next step under WP:BRD is to go to discussion. (IMO FWIW User:In ictu oculi should have have been less terse.)
• On 24 April 2017, User:In ictu oculi moved the article Easta to Easter (Kyary Pamyu Pamyu song) without discussion or explanation. [73]
• On 24 April 2017, User:Born2cycle reverts the undiscussed move of Easta [74] after leaving an explanation on the talk page before [75] and after [76] the revert.
• On 26 April 2017, IIO again ignores yet another warning on his talk page to stop making unilateral potentially controversial moves[77] by deleting it without response.
• On 26 April 2017, User:Born2cycle notifies IIO about this AN/I on his talk page [78].
• On 1 May 2017, User: Korny O'Near inquires about IIO's move on IIO's talk page [79].
• On 1 May 2017, after seeing the inquiry from User:Korny O'Near, User:Born2cycle reverts IIO's unexplained/undiscussed 26 April move, with an edit summary of "Revert undiscussed/unjustified move, and notes accordingly on IIO's talk page [80] (so not without discussion as previously accused).

As I noted below, if it was anyone else I almost certainly would not have reverted IIO's 27 April move so quickly (if at all). It's fallout from repeated similar behavior on his part, and his ignoring repeated reminders that he not engage in this disruptive behavior. Maybe this one time it was arguably a legitimate revert on his part, but given his reputation (read the Support !votes here), I hope my choice is understandable. That said, I hear what you're saying and I'll try to be less hasty next time, even with IIO. --В²C ☎ 00:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Another example: Tokin

Perusing IIO's talk page I found this interesting section: User_talk:In_ictu_oculi#Move_of_Tokin_to_Tokin_.28headwear.29 from the end of March. Yet another example of a dubious move by IIO with no justification/explanation (and certainly no discussion)[81], an inquiry from a user (Nihonjoe), again very cryptic responses from IIO, until finally Nihonjoe essentially shrugs his shoulders ("It's fine"). Can't really blame him, but now we have yet another case where we have a dab page instead of the primary topic at the base name. Instead of reverting it, since there was some discussion (albeit after the move), I went ahead and created an RM request for this one: Talk:Tokin_(headwear)#Requested move 4 May 2017. --В²C ☎ 21:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Another example: James Taylor at Christmas

So the lowest fruit on this tree can be found on IIO's talk page, it turns out.

• IIO moves James Taylor at Christmas to At Christmas (James Taylor album) with no explanation or discussion, much less an RM[82] (as usual)
• Kellymoat inquires about this on IIO's talk page User_talk:In_ictu_oculi#At_Christmas_.28James_Taylor_album.29. No response from IIO.
• StartCheerspeaksnewslostwars reverts IIO's move with edit summary, "this obviously should have been an RM" [83].

By the way, IIO also edited the At Christmas dab page, changing the references to the article accordingly [84]. Nobody ever undid this, until I just did[85].

Not only are there countless examples of these unilateral moves, so many of them demonstrate bad judgement. Being BOLD is one thing, but this is ridiculous, and causes a lot of work for a lot of people. --В²C ☎ 22:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

This seems to have been tied to In ictu oculi's move of At Christmas (album) to At Christmas (Sara Evans album), which I've just reverted.[86] In short, it looks like he moved the James Taylor article to an incorrect title to justify adding additional disambiguation to the Sara Evans album (and created a incomplete dab issue by not redirecting At Christmas (album) to the dab page). This is unfortunately a pattern; last year he created Toil (Tolstoy book)[87] to justify moving Toil (album);[88][89] as it turns out the book is not by Tolstoy and is not titled "Toil".[90] Cleaning that up considerable work. It's disappointing to see that this habit has continued.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: ban In ictu oculi from moving articles without going through RM

Proposal: Per the above discussions In ictu oculi doesn't recognize or ignores when article moves are potentially controversial and does it often enough for it to be disruptive. In addition, he tends to create unnecessary and trivial dab pages. I hereby propose an indefinite ban on In ictu oculi from moving articles (changing titles) without going through the process at WP:RM.

• Support as nom. I don't think anything else will stop him from continuing to engage in the disruptive behavior which he has done for years. --В²C ☎ 18:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support Too many controversial moves without discussion, concerns have been raised on his talk page for years and no changes. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support, having undone some of his controversial/"what the?" moves (most were months ago) myself. Ss112 04:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support, largely. Must use WP:RM (including Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_technical_moves), unless:
  (1) The page is under 100 days old and he is the sole non-minor author.
  (2) The page is in his userspace.
  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's reasonable. That would mean he can still create dab pages too, with the (disambiguation) parenthetical. He just can't disambiguate the title of the article at the base name to make room for the dab page at the base name without an RM discussion to establish a lack of primary topic. --В²C ☎ 05:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Noticed this after reading Tbhotch's !vote below, so commenting. (1) is a reasonable exception, but (2) falls outside the proposed parameters of the ban, which is about "moving articles". If what is meant is publishing userspace drafts, then it should be a given that it is an exception, as moving it out of the userspace is the first time it is given its "article title"; if it refers to non-articles in the userspace, it is already not covered, as B2C's proposal relates to articles, not user pages. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, (2) in SmokeyJoe's addendum is redundant since the original proposed restriction was not intended to prohibit moves from user space into article space for the first time (after all creating articles in article space is not prohibited so a copy/paste from user space to a new article in article space is clearly allowed and it's effectively the same thing as moving from user space except moving also retains history). But, whether an article is not an article while it's still in user space is something of a semantic thing and I don't see how redundant clarification can hurt. --В²C ☎ 00:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

(2) Redundant with regard to your intent, but I've seen people get in trouble for violating unintended letter or words in ANI topic bands before, commonsense not invoked. Of course he can move and rename in his own userspace. Renaming draft articles in other's userspace, or others draftspace page would be a violation, broadly construing the proposed ban. (1) is important. There is no real intention to straitjacket IIO. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Bold moves of low-traffic pages has long been considered perfectly acceptable, and this seems to be the case with virtually all, if not all, the examples listed above. No page move is controversial until someone opposes it, so the moves in question would only be controversial if IIO was edit-warring over them, or was moving them against the consensus of a previous RM. I know from personal experience that IIO has more respect for discussion and consensus on these matters, and if anytging is overly careful when it comes to following the proper process. I seem to recall an incident from four years ago when I BOLDly moved a page, and a sockpuppet of the banned user JoshuSasori RMed the page back (because IPs and new accounts can't unilaterally undo page moves), and IIO, despite himself, actually supported the RM on procedural grounds, even hough he agreed with my unilateral move on the substance and knew that the OP was a sock. Forgive me if I'm misremembering; I'll find the exact diff if anyone needs it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I find the recent behaviour of IIO unexpected and out of character. It is as if he has tired of discussions and is no longer reading them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes @SmokeyJoe: I've dropped in to read them, but what can I do. It's the same couple of editors following me to pages they have no interest or involvement in and hunting for something from 10 months or a year ago to offend among 1,000s of edits. I can't win. If I wait for the templates to readjust and leave a decent period for someone following me to revert then I'm guilty of having not yet made the dab page, if I make the dab page I'm guilty of making the dab page. You can see from B2C's edit history that a substantial proportion of his limited contributions to article space are following my work. With the system being that repeated bites of the cherry will eventually "get" someone, what would you have me do, defend and justify in detail the last 1% of my dab work. Yes I'm tired, but more tired of having B2C's shadow. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. A page move is easily reverted if not needed, while every time I participate in a RM I feel like wasting time. Let's not create more RM. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Fewer page moves, I would prefer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Wait ... what!? What about naming conventions? Our article titles are not all automatically perfect. If they can be improved, they should be. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Incessant fiddling of titles, of article urls, in pursuit of the nebulous concept of perfection, especially when by editors with no interest in the actual articles concerned, is disruptive. Fiddling of the title, url, links, lengthy narrow-focus discussions, repeatedly, in the absence of a non-trivial good reason, is disruption. The relevant policy line is found at WP:TITLECHANGES. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Perfection is a goal or direction, not a destination that can ever be actually reached. But the alternative to aiming for perfection is not aiming at all, but instead going every which way, haphazardly. It's chaos. And, in the context of WP titles, much more resource and time consuming. In this context we have two very different concepts of perfection: 1) every title meets WP:CRITERIA as well as possible, including concision and being recognizable to those familiar with the topic, or 2) every title is recognizable to everyone, even those who are not familiar with the topic. These two destinations are incompatible. From Chicago we cannot head towards both Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine. And if some of us are trying to go to one while others to the other it's not going to be pretty, while those who are fine with staying in Chicago are going to wonder what all the bickering is about. I think trying to make every title recognizable to everyone is too nebulous a destination to even aim for. Not that WP:CRITERIA is perfect! But at least in most cases we get a solid answer out of it. With "make it fully recognizable to everyone" there are a myriad of valid choice for almost every title. It's unworkable. That's why I push us to aim CRITERIA compatibility. It's not perfection, but it's doable. --В²C ☎ 00:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The operative word in WP:TITLECHANGES is "controversial". Nothing there applies to changes that are not already controversial before they are made. WP:AGF takes precedence here; unless it can be demonstrated that IIO probably knew that one or more of his changes would be controversial before he made them, then unilateral BOLD changes are not a problem meriting a formal sanction. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I would have the ban with my exceptions apply to every user. BOLD page moves on old or other people's new pages is at least confronting, and worst disruptive. Better to ask the author for agreement, if they agree it will not be a unilateral bold page move. If it is old, lay out the one paragraph proposal in a formal RM, and encourage non-admins, even if involved, to close and enact all one week old unopposed RM proposals. An articulated rename proposal made after a week is way better that a bold move with no real explanation that anyone can respond to, short of this sort of drama. There are some few expert editors, particularly with DAB pages, who this shouldn't interfere with, but I think it is clear that IIO can attempt everything he wants to do more collegially by using the RM processes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

"Better to ask the author for agreement, if they agree ..." – Totally inconsistent with WP:OWN, WP:EDITING, WP:BOLD.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support until demonstrated While it is more work, better to set them up for success by restricting them to RM's then allowing to fail by either doing what they want or preventing them from moving at all. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 15:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support, unfortunately. This has been a recurring problem for In ictu oculi for many years now, and it appears to be escalating. At the center of this is his idiosyncratic preference that most articles be given parenthetical disambiguation, which conflicts with how most others view the recommendations of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:DAB, etc. He's been making undiscussed moves to unnecessarily disambiguated titles - and leaving the base name redirecting to the disambiguated form - since at least early 2014.[91][92][93] He's said his intention is to allow others to object before creating a dab page,[94] and to be fair he follows through in many cases, but in many others, the problematic title just remains in place forever.[95][96] I've spoken to him about this,[97] and many others have as well. I've also spoken to him about the fact that when he does create dab pages, he often (almost always) neglects to format them correctly.[98][99][100][101] Unfortunately, In ictu doesn't take such discussions well; he accuses others of following him around, aggressive behavior, picking fights, and even stalking.[102][103][104][105][106][107][108] I take this as an indication that he's avoiding the RM process and just unilaterally making controversial moves to avoid scrutiny. He's told me[109][110] and others not to post on his talk page, so unfortunately dialog isn't going to resolve this issue and further steps are necessary. Considering the vast scope of the problem - there are likely thousands of articles that he's moved to problematic titles - I think it's wise to restrict In ictu's move privileges as proposed. This is unfortunate, as In ictu oculi is a valuable editor when working on article content, but this has been a problem for a very long time. His input will still be valuable to the RM process when he uses it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support, I once had a similar interaction with In ictu oculi, where my Patliputra Medical College and Hospital page move was reverted by In ictu oculi because it "appeared" to them that there exists another college with a similar name. I requested them to provide a source for the same and after recieving no reply, I reverted their page move. Now having read the thread and gone through contributions of In ictu oculi, I do think the user has an unwanted special affection for disambiguations. I feel the user has good knowlege of the wikipedia policies (including page move policies) but they prefer to game the system. The ban (if imposed) will still allow the user to use their experience and make page moves using RM, while at the same time prevent them from gaming the system. Pratyush (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose All this is trivial in terms of content. WP is edited for our users, and I see no case where the titles would confuse a user; some of the specific ones like Bombay Mail have a reasonable justification . Yes, it's technically against our rules, but with so many real problems at WP, this does not seem worth bothering with. A little more tolerance from others would solve the problem. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

If it were really trivial, that would be the end of it. But with thousands of these changes every month, over the course of many years, becomes a serious problem for others to clean up. As someone who has devoted much of my time to the RM process so that readers can locate our content, I don't consider the vast amount of time I've spent cleaning up after In ictu oculi trivial. And there's no indication it will stop through our normal mechanisms of discussion and consensus.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Reluctantly support - Even with the titling mess in general, and even when IIO does a lot of good, I hate to admit that IIO's unilateral moves are becoming more troublesome and tiring. I trust ourselves the community to resolve this matter immediately. --George Ho (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I do recall this editor in past, unilaterally moving articles from non-diacritics to diacritics titles. These unilateral page moves, seem a continuing pattern. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I was actually incredibly surprised it took so long for anyone to explicitly name the elephant in the room. No, that is the opposite of what happened. Back in the bad old days of the "diacritic wars", several users (now mostly sitebanned; Kauffner, JoshuSasori, LittleBenW...) were going around unilaterally removing diacritics in contravention of Wikipedia's style guidelines. IIO frequently responded by opening RMs to move pages back to their properly (and stably) diacriticized titles. If there were instances of the reverse, I would hazard to guess they were exceptions rather than the rule, and I would need to see evidence to believe otherwise. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I remember him creating many articles (without diacritics titles) and then immediately moving them to diacritics titles. Several years ago, I described IIO as a train gathering speed (partially due to support from others & partially due to little opposition) during those disputes. I suggested that should he come to a sudden stop, it would be a quite a train crash. It appears that 'crash' is now in progress. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Wait ... so you are complaining about him creating articles with the wrong titles, realizing his mistake, and self-correcting? Who are you to criticize him for that? I thought you had created articles without diacritics in their titles, and had good, PAG-based reasoning for doing so, and IIO had come out of nowhere and moved the articles without discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm continuing to support the proposed page move ban & will not be changing my stance. You're free to continue trying to persuade me to change my recommendation. GoodDay (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment - I created French Polish and Vietnamese bios in 2010? Yes. I may be taking a back seat on this, but having looked in cannot not comment on this editor's grudge. Firstly "diacritics" is a non-issue for 99% of the editors on en.wp. It is only a small minority such as GoodDay (see block Log) for whom it has been an issue. Secondly, how many 1000 bio articles have I created? (see contributions) Anyone creating bio articles knows to create them with both full Unicode "François" and ASCII/tabloid "Francois" so that both Francois does not redlink but leads to François. [I'm surprised to even see this editor resurface, has someone been canvassing by email?] In ictu oculi (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as I have interacted with IIO in the past and have a great deal of respect for this editor. I haven't sifted through all the moves in detail, but from what I can see this thread is an over-reaction by B2C. Naturally there will be disagreements among editors about what is best in any given situation, but I see nothing here that merits any kind of ban. IIO and B2C have different views on titling, which is a more complex subject than some would have it. Omnedon (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It could be called an over-reaction by B2C, and I think I usually agree with IIO and disagree with B2C on traditional titling battlelines, but here B2C is right. There is a simple principle: When asked to stop doing certain BOLD things, you must stop. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, that would be true but assumes that my editing has not become progressively more cautious (and my contributions reduced) as B2C's contributions become ever more closely following my own edits. I have reduced work on disambiguation, I have created less dab pages, I have erred on the side of caution, as for example in the last 10 dab/move/edits above when not immediately creating the Bombay Mail dab page despite the need for one, to allow B2C to revert where he wishes to do so. In fact although edits following myself make a good proportion of B2C's article space edits, B2C only reverts a small proportion of disambiguation work. It is difficult to fully anticipate correctly everything B2C will object to. Effectively it means ceasing disambiguation work in anticipation. If B2C was representative of norms in the encyclopedia then fair enough, but [ [Talk:Thriller_(Michael_Jackson_album)#Requested_move_15_March_2017]] does not represent a normative position. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I definitively agree B2C is not normal, and that his blinkered relentless pushing of minimalist titling theories are disruptive time wasting for others, but that does not justify any bold page move that someone else would object to. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Omnedon: Actually, opposing this proposal based solely on the principal that IIO is a respectable editor whom you like is not a good idea, as the proposal is not all that restrictive to begin with, and most reputable editors have found themselves subjected to such sanctions at one point or another anyway. I think B2C's actions in this thread have been ... somewhat questionable (honestly I didn't notice it because I was active on ANI and a familiar name showed up -- I noticed it because of the insane number of subheadings), but that also is not the best rationale for opposing the limited sanction. Note that this advice comes from someone who actually is opposed to the sanction, for what it's worth. I think a strong warning about making potentially problematic moves, and perhaps unnecessary disambiguation, would be more appropriate. I'm just speaking my opinion because if I only spoke my opinion when it undermined "support" !votes (see above and below) that would make me a terrible hypocrite. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hiriji88, you don't seem to have quite gotten what I wrote; my oppose is not based solely on my opinion of IIO. I have looked and I see nothing here that merits a ban. I've expressed my view here briefly. This does not belong at ANI, and IIO does not deserve a block. That many editors are subjected to sanctions at one time or another doesn't make this acceptable. Omnedon (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support as per nom. Well, I am currently having similar conflict with regards in "a user who moves pages without requesting and respecting WP:RM discussions" and I think it's really kinda rude to Wikipedia guidelines on requesting move to not respect it or discussions on WP:RM (especially applied to controversial moves). ~PogingJuan 03:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The link is malformed, so here you go: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BoybandPH naming and Hollyckuhno ([111]). --George Ho (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It should probably be noted that PogingJuan is lucky he wasn't site-banned for some of the shit he pulled a few months back on a certain BLP talk page and a couple of ANI threads spun out thereof (veiled threats of off-wiki violence, insincere claims that said threats totally weren't meant as the threats they looked like, despite repeated refusal to strike them as allegedly unintended threats). He really shouldn't be !voting to apply sanctions to other editors, especially not based solely on personal opinions and general principals that aren't widely accepted by the community. If Hollyckuhno deserves a TBAN, that's Hollyckuhno's problem, not IIO's. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Well, after looking into this a bit, I suggest that both plaintiff and defendant be enjoined from moving pages without permission. If not that, then neither should be enjoined, as that implies too much fault for one side in an ongoing squabble where it's not clear where the main fault lies.

After all no one should be moving pages without a discussion, if there's any chance that someone might object. Both plaintiff and defendant seem to have a tendency to conflate "looks fine to me" with "no one could object" (which is a common human failing). Points against User:In ictu oculi are well taken, but at the same time User:Born2cycle is on occasion a little rigid and sometimes of the mind "there's no dispute here, and we won't have a discussion: I'm just right, is all" when there possibly is reasonable basis for discussion. In fairness to User:Born2cycle he has thought about these issues a lot, and cogently. That doesn't necessarily make him always right though.

All this is a violation of WP:RELAX as User:DGG points out. I would suggest to all parties that titles aren't that important, as long as the proper redirects and hatnotes are in place. I don't think that that will be taken to heart, though. I honestly don't know know how to solve this difficult and distressing standoff between two veteran, productive, and respected editors. But just an all around reminder as I said: no one should be moving pages if anyone might object, and "anyone might object" should be considered liberally. Herostratus (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Herostratus: I understand what you're saying, but I want to reiterate that the problems of In ictu oculi's edits go well beyond any dispute between him and B2C. We're talking about thousands of bad moves and all the problems associated with them: misnamed articles, misleading redirects, hindered navigation, and poorly formatted dab pages, plus all the community time spent cleaning up after (if it's ever cleaned up at all). Individually the issues are minor, but when compounded thousands and thousands of times, despite repeated requests to stop, it's not a minor problem anymore.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, maybe you are right, User:Cuchullain. I just worry that the line between "misnamed article" and "article named differently from what I, personally, would prefer" is getting a little muddied. If I move New Orleans to the The Big Easy, that is a misnamed article. Disagreements about what might or not not be the best way to elucidate or expand on the information in the title, and if so what format should be used... that's a different thing. Herostratus (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Herostratus, the point you keep missing or overlooking is that whether expanding a title for elucidation is acceptable is a well known point of contention (or "likely to be contentious" in WP:RM parlance), but IIO regularly makes such title changes unilaterally anyway. I don't. --В²C ☎ 20:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you don't but at the same you reserve the right to, since you refused to agree not to when I suggested it informally as a peace compromise. And I mean look at #Informal Collaborator right above. It was you who was move warring and demonstrating an attitude of "There'll be no discussion, I'm right and that's an end to it" even when IIO's move supporting the original page name demonstrated that there was opposition to your version, from him.

I mean... if, has been avowed by you and others, IIO just off the reservation, then it is understandably maddening to have to engage him over and over on stuff he's never going to get his way on anyway. However, I'm not convinced it is that simple, is all. Herostratus (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Herostratus, I think that's the ticket. The problem seems to have gotten worse lately with Iio making more and more moves of the type that fail when they go to RM or face scrutiny. And there have been some that aren't just misnamed, but are flat wrong (ie this). At any rate, under these sanctions, he'd still be able to propose and discuss any move he wanted through the process.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Herostratus, of course I agree to not makes unilateral moves that are potentially contentious, which is all I've ever asked IIO to do. But I reserve the same right that everyone else has to revert undiscussed/unsupported moves (including reverting alleged unexplained/undiscussed "reverts" of well-supported moves made two months earlier, which is what happened at Informal collaborator). IIO has repeatedly demonstrated either an inability or an unwillingness to make distinctions between potentially contentious and clearly uncontentious title changes, and often ignores requests to provide explanation. --В²C ☎ 21:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Well, if you don't make unilateral moves, then what's this? I gather that your feeling is "well, that's not really a possibly-discussable move, it's just a correction, like fixing a spelling error". But it's not that simple I don't think. Herostratus (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Herostratus, what that is is a revert of yet another unilateral move by IIO that came to my attention when I saw it questioned on his talk page a few days after I opened this AN/I. It was just a few weeks after he deleted (without responding; not even in the comment summary) another reminder from me for him to stop making potentially controversial unilateral moves[112]. Perhaps it's a bit unfair but hopefully understandable: if it was anyone else I almost certainly would not have reverted it so quickly (if at all). It's fallout from repeated similar behavior on his part, and his ignoring repeated reminders that he not to engage in this disruptive behavior. Maybe this one time it was arguably a legitimate revert on his part, but given his reputation (read the Support !votes here)... again, I hope my response is understandable. Does that answer your question? --В²C
    • Yes it does, to some degree. Yes this diff (IIO blanking a talk page thread instead of responding) is something I hate to see (although, heh, you did it to me just recently (no hard feelings)). It may be justified if person feels they were being hectored (which I'm not accusing you of).

Yes, though, I get it. As a practical matter, it is both human and functional to treat people differently based on their history. You're saying you wouldn't have rolled back if it was someone else... OK. That is reasonable if justified. Whether it is justified I'm not sure. You guys are having a difficult time getting along and respecting each other's point of view, I guess. This I think is a problem that needs to be resolved somehow, and I'm not sure that you "winning" is the best way forward.

One reason I'm not sure that you "winning" is the best way forward is than on the merits I have have issues with some specifics of your approach to titling in general, and I fear that your "winning" this case will further valorize that point of view... But also, the sight of two veteran, dedicated, able, and highly respected colleagues at loggerheads in the manner distresses me, and I would prefer a win-win to a win-lose outcome. That may not be in the cards, but lose-lose may be the best option available... Herostratus (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Herostratus, at least I responded/explained in my edit summary, right? And I've responded/explained to all of your queries. You can't say I'm ignoring you. I think the problem IIO and I have in getting along, to the extent that it exists, is not central to this AN/I. Even though I started it, I acknowledged the rocky history I have with IIO in the opening sentence here, and let's not forget that there were at least two previous similar AN/Is in which I was not involved, not to mention all of the accounts relayed in the Support !vote comments logged here. I'm open to getting along better with IIO, and any assistance in that direction. That said, IIO's disruptive behaviorial issues that are the subject of this AN/I are really the only serious issues I have with him. There are quite a few other eidtors I disagree with just as often, but don't have any working issues with them like I do with IIO. By the way, have you seen his comments and my responses in the Bombay Train and "Let's look at one ..." subsections above? I think they help explain why we need some action here. --В²C ☎ 18:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you have responded and explained, and this is to your credit. As to rest, OK; I'll wait for what others say. Herostratus (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Wait to hear what others have to say about what? I'm far from perfect, but while many here have confirmed that IIO's move behavior is problematic, none besides you have even suggested that I do anything close to what IIO does with respect to unilateral moves. --В²C ☎ 16:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

It is not at all necessary that the move-related behavioral issues raised about IIO must be mirrored exactly by B2C. If B2C also exhibits move-related behavioral problems, even if they are different ones, that is sufficient for remedial action to be taken with regard to them, whether or not any ais taken with regard to IIO's. I've addressed this with specifics in longer commentary below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Neutral as proposed, but support SmokeyJoe's proposal. As I said above, the move-pattern is just the tip of the iceberg. There are more serious problem with his editing, but they were decided to be off-topic, so I will assume this ban (if applied) will reduce the gaming from his part. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 17:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support this user has already way too often renamed pages when unwarranted (particularly to add unnecessary parentheticals) and should at the very least discuss controversial moves before performing them. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support per all the above. Another important point to remember here: there is no WP:DEADLINE. If an editor believes a page to be at a suboptimal title, it won't kill anyone to wait a week or so for an RM to confirm this. bd2412 T 02:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support. IIO makes controversial moves without discussion to obscure pages and they often aren't picked up on for quite a while. Considering his relatively narrow view of what constitutes primary topics, I would much rather he be made to put them up for discussion first. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
• Mutual and temporary manual-move ban, or just a mutual but final warning. A three-month ban seems to be pretty customary. SmokeyJoe's terms in the third non-nominator comment seem to be the right approach. Over the last decade+, I've seen both of these editors improve in various ways, and yet both dig their heels in on certain views and tactics that don't mesh with the consensus approach to article titling. One thing I've noticed – and directly experienced! – is that a limited-time ban on making manual moves forces one to think more carefully about moves, their rationales, their impacts, and (frankly) the basic human politics involved in getting consensus. I rarely do manual moves these days, and I know other editors given short-term bans who have also taken to using RM religiously. We're here at ANI to remedy not punish.

  The complainant here (B2C) has a long history of problematic RM behavior himself, going back to at least 2010, and resulting in an ARBCOM case (which warned and admonished him by name) in 2012, another admin warning in 2013, an ANI sanction in 2013, an AN case, etc. I could diff-pile all that stuff and more (and maybe doing so would be deserved, given the mountain of questionable or at least differently interpretable evidence dumped here to demonize IIO, with little attention paid to the wealth of "B2C has unclean hands" material that could be dug up. I actually wrote most of that, but I don't think it's productive of resolution, so I scrapped it.

  Look, this two-editor deathmatch just needs cold water dumped on it. B2C's "my way or the highway" manner, incivility, and excessive devotion to WP:CONCISE as if it's the only one of the five WP:CRITERIA that really matters contrarian interpretations of WP:CRITERIA, all just desperately need to be given a long rest. So does IIO's "I'm pretending I can't hear any of you critics" act, and his similarly excessive insistence on leaping directly to parenthetical disambiguation (WP:PARENDIS) of and only of the WP:COMMONNAME, when the policy clearly favors avoiding disambiguation entirely by testing the available sourced names against the five CRITERIA (hint: COMMONNAME is not one of the criteria at all; it's just the first name to run through the actual CRITERIA tests as the most likely to fit them best). Only if that fails should we resort to disambiguating the COMMONNAME, and the policy is clear that we try WP:NATURALDISambiguation of that when possible, and only if that fails do we resort of parenthetic.

  Both editors have been failing to be civilly open to others' views on such matters, and abusing WP:BRD as a WP:FILIBUSTER weapon – concerns raised about article title disputes since 2012 in the WP:ARBATC ArbCom case. If curing these problems requires a two-editor break from moving articles around at will, then so be it.
   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC) [Revised to be less specific about interpretational conflicts, which aren't the issue here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)]

  SMcCandlish, please don't misrepresent my views on title decision making. I give all WP:CRITERIA due weight and treat concision primarily as a tie breaker. That is, if all other criteria don't indicate a particular title between two, then concision kicks in preferring the more concise. I can't deny my past issues and I'm certainly not perfect now but have I done anything in the past (say) year that warrants some kind of sanction as you seem to suggest? If so, please identify that behavior because I have no idea what you're talking about, besides stuff from long ago. And if there is anything recent how about bringing it to my attention on my talk page first, to give me a chance to resolve it? I came here to AN/I regarding IIO's behavior because he ignored attempts from me and others to address his behavior on his talk page as documented above. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 07:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

  @Born2cycle: This is a red herring (though I've replaced the policy-interpretation comment, above, with something more general). Also, protesting your innocence and encouraging people to provide further evidence against you is not advisable. The principal issue with your RM-related behavior in this proceeding and the matters behind it (for way more than, say, the past year) is WP:CIVIL/WP:AGF/WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:BATTLEGROUND-related. It's your failure to change after ArbCom admonitions [113][114], admin warnings [115], a narrowly escaped topic ban from move discussions, at WP:AN [116], contingent upon promises that you have not kept [117] (though some improvement regarding some of them is observable), and WP:AN sanctions [118], all about your move-related behavior pattern. It's not about policy interpretation at all, and these arguably stack up (among other incidents/warnings I've not cited) to suggest an indefinite T-ban from RM, though I advocated a short one or just a final warning.

  Have you done anything worthy of sanctioning lately? This direct accusation of bad faith of at least two kinds, without any evidence, in this very discussion, appears to qualify, both as to normal ANI admin civility enforcement and – very particularly with regard to you – per the discretionary sanctions authorized by WP:ARBATC#Remedies, in a "title warring" ArbCom case in which you were not just a party but specifically instructed to stop that kind of behavior (first raised, that I know of, in an even earlier AN dispute in 2010 with PMAnderson, which culminated in ARBATC in 2012). That's seven damned years to figure out how to approach article titles more reasonably. That AGF-failure diff is just one instance from one discussion; as I indicated, I'd prepared a lot more evidence but restrained myself from posting it. I would think that you're familiar with the kind of comprehensive diff dump I'm prepared to do to see "style and titles warring" disruption curtailed, and that you would not want to goad me into posting one.

  Anyway, I speak from both direct and observational experience in suggesting that a mutual short-term move ban would be instructive for both you and IIO, and would dispel a lot of unnecessary drama for other RM editors. If you end up back here again over the same matters, I think you should expect the long-term move/titles topic ban you almost got last time. I strongly suggest you refrain from lodging any more move-related ANI complaints, because they just draw attention to your own issues in this area, and raise concerns about "move-stalking" of "enemies" (IIO appears to have a good case that you've been doing this to him). If you think someone is being a real problem with regard to moves, step away and let someone else deal with it (e.g. ask admin Cuchullain to look into it, since he's well-versed in the nature of the issue and willing to speak up about it). Your hands are just too unclean on this to bring a case yourself, and you are far too devoted to titles debate as your no. 1 activity on WP for you to have a balanced viewpoint on the matter, anyway.

Venue-related stuff:

When an ANI thread is already open about a user's behavior (regardless who opened it about whom), and remedies have already been proposed (including some unilateral and bilateral BOOMERANG suggestions), then that noticeboard thread is the proper venue for addressing the behaviors (especially in light of previous AN/ARBCOM incidents about the same behaviors), not user talk. It's also not at all encouraging of use of your user talk page when you hat the relevant discussions there specifically to stop further commentary about these matters. Despite your hatting, I did try reopening related policy-interpretation discussion there anyway [119], before I posted here, and I did so specifically to correct someone else's policy misinterpretation, so I'm hardly picking on you (and you did not respond anyway).

Policy interpretation stuff∂:

I'm going by the CONCISE-related manifesto essays you wrote, which had the character of proposals to change AT policy, and which you cited incessantly as if they were guidelines, until they were both WP:MFDed and userspaced [120], [121]. If your views on the matter had perceptibly changed as a result of these clear community indications that they were anti-consensus, that would be great. But your above statement is simply a reassertion of one of your MFDed essays, without any significant alteration, and it is still inconsistent with consensus policy interpretation and the wording of the policy itself. There is nothing whatsoever in WP:AT that even suggests that any of the five criteria are specially used only as some kind of "tie-breaker". If WP:CONCISE wasn't important in its own right, it would not be one of the five WP:CRITERIA, and the community does not agree with you that concision considerations only enter into naming decisions when all other things are equal between two names. Nor does the community agree with you that a shorter name must always be used versus a longer one if both satisfy the criteria (which is what my struck comment was referring to). Most of us understand it's more complicated than that, since a slightly longer name may much better satisfy multiple criteria than a too-clipped one. If [I can't read minds!] you've actually moved away from your other MFDed essay's contrarian position about the latter point, then I might have misinterpreted your current position after all, and stand to be corrected. (This possibility is why I struck my original comment.) Feel free to clarify – in user talk, since "how B2C interprets AT, and who or how many agree/disagree" isn't one of the matters that are before us at ANI. Similarly, people have also disagreed with your interpretation of what the word "concise" operationally means in the WP article titles context, but that's another matter for another time and venue, and has no relevance to the behavioral matters that are actually the ANI concern. I won't engage with you or anyone else in further discussion of such off-topic interpretational detailia in this venue.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I've been following the whole thing from start, and just now, I can really agree SMcCandlish, I feel a final warning for IIO, and a large trout for B2C for the incivility. —JJBers 18:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

JJBers, if there is anything about my behavior that you believe deserves a trout please bring it to my attention on my talk page, to give me a chance to resolve it. I came here to AN/I regarding IIO's behavior because he ignored attempts from many including me to address his behavior on his talk page as documented above. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 07:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I personally find it very annoying when people post essentially the same comment, in the same words, in response to multiple different editors (or in response to several unrelated comments by the same editor[122]). I'm not sure if there's a policy or guideline that explicitly discourages this, but if there is none there ought to be. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: WP:BLUDGEON covers the first (though not the "in response to several unrelated comments by the same editor" variant). B2C was admonished by ArbCom already about this stuff: "Findings of fact: ... Born2cycle's editing on the disputed pages and related subjects has hampered efforts at resolution, specifically by excessive responses" [123]. It was also a major issue in his previous WP:AN sanctions: "... hounding the opposition is not helpful. It discourages uninvolved editors to participate, it raises tensions, and it puts folks in a more defensive mode than collaborative. I find that there is strong consensus for some kind of sanction. By strong, I mean overwhelming to the opposes. ... Unfortunately, getting B2C to see the light has not solved this problem in the long term." [124]. The same basic pattern was also central to an RM topic ban at WP:AN that he narrowly escaped [125] by promising to change this pattern, the failed "seeing the light" referred to in the second quote.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Truite? Ou boomerang?

I'm sorry, but the more commentary by B2C I read here and on IIO's talk page, the more I think he/she seriously needs to be taught the importance of WP:CIVIL. I find it incredible that someone who routinely engages in this kind of sniping rhetoric could have been editing for twelve years without a single block. Did this just happen recently? Understanding/misunderstanding policy is one thing, but civility should be a given, and in fact is by far the most important policy on Wikipedia (for good or ill). Everyone gets frustrated/angry from time to time, but I don't see anything IIO did that could explain this. @Born2cycle: do you understand why this kind of comment is inappropriate? Do you regret it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: I still disagree with B2C, but to quote Jeremy Barton, "I'm starting to root for this guy". I can definitely sympathize with B2C on some of the details here. So I say WP:TROUT. I can see that consensus is actually moving toward a formal sanction for IIO, and if some of the others (including Cuchullain, who I trust even more than IIO) are right that something has changed about IIO's behaviour since I last interacted with him, sobeit. I can actually accept this because I had essentially the same thought back in 2015 when IIO posted this bizarre and hypocritical attacks against me. I'm not withdrawing my opposition to the formal ban, though, as I don't see any evidence that people have tried to convince him to voluntarily pull back. This is just to say that I don't think my TROUT proposal is likely to go anywhere. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: What about B2C's attempts to challenge the consensus of the "Fabergé egg" articles?

• Talk:Fabergé egg#All this unnecessary disambiguation is contrary to policy
• His contributions
• My talk page
• Reverts by admin Primefac

Your response to the above? George Ho (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll be creating a multi-page RM when I have time. --В²C ☎ 16:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri88, regarding the comment you linked above, I'm sorry but I don't see what the issue is with it. This whole AN/I, and at least two others prior to this one (in which I was uninvolved), are all about IIO making undiscussed/unexplained moves much like that one. That is what he does, that's all I said, and it's why I think only prohibiting him from making unilateral moves will resolve it. The examples identified above are just a sampling, there are many, many more. I don't mean to disparage him, but it does no one any good to pretend otherwise. If I'm missing something, I apologize in advance. --В²C ☎ 16:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Note I was going to stay out of this, but having my competence repeatedly called into question by Born2cycle is starting to wear a bit thin. How much of this nonsense am I expected to put up with? Exemplo347 (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Non-admin_closure which states: "Non-admin closes normally require that: The consensus or lack thereof is clear..."? --В²C ☎ 23:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes. I'm familiar with Non-admin closures of all types. Our conclusions differ - that doesn't mean there's any lack of competence on anyone's part. To infer or imply otherwise is not an act of good faith. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Born2cycle: Don't question the ability of inexperienced editors to perform non-admin closures of controversial discussions. You'll get repeatedly threatened with a site-ban. Believe me. My experience with this is the same reason I said above that CIVIL is the most important policy, and outweighs all others combined. Ask ArbCom and they will agree -- the highest court in the land doesn't care a lick about content, sourcing, verifiability, original research, or good faith; if you are easily driven to write snide remarks some of the stuff in the diffs above, you need to just follow the Wickedly talented Adele Dazeem's advice and step away, or talk to other users you trust about reviewing closures in your stead, because you're not going to get what you want acting like that. I actually agree that Exemplo was out of line with that close (email me if you want a full explanation why, or look at the contrib history of AlbinoFerret and figure it out for yourself), but you need to know how to express yourself in a manner that those who don't agree will appreciate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you and I really appreciate what you're trying to do here, and accomplishing. Exemplo347, I apologize for questioning your abilities and experience. I've seen it done before (about others in similar situations) and thought it was acceptable and appropriate. But now I'm not so sure, to say the least. --В²C ☎ 00:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:HOUND

User:The Banner His focus on FFA P-16 is obvious. He suggests articles from FFA P-16 for deletion for example Bucher aircraft tractor while he ignores similar articles in case their not from FFA P-16. He even started a Sockpuppet investigations on me and FFA P-16 although several others told him that we're clearly not the same person (see there). We both asked him to stop following FFA P-16 (see WP:HOUND and Stop Wikihounding me! with no success. --MBurch (talk) 10:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith when I posted my first several comments, but as it turns out, when one looks at The Banner's edit history a bit more closely, he posts AFDs on an almost daily basis, so the claims that his focus on FFA P-16 is obvious and he ignores similar articles in case their not from FFA P-16 are demonstrably false. The only one who is "obviously focused" on hounding one particular editor is User:MBurch, who has barely made a single edit not related to The Banner in months (his edits to de.wiki are irrelevant, as it seems he is only on English Wikipedia to harangue The Banner). I think that unless this thread is withdrawn and the above baseless remarks about The Banner stricken, a block and/or one-way IBAN (they are possible) should be put on the table for MBurch, and his tag-team partner FFA P-16's disruption should also probably be dealt with appropriately. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It's indeed not good faith to automatically assume sock puppets on all those that don't agree on someones deletions requests especially after several people mentioned that we're clearly not the same person. At least in German Wikipedia where I mostly edit it would have been just part of common sense for the petitioner to at least excuse yourself after such a mistake. --MBurch (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

MBurch, a clerk endorsed CU on you, and CU confirmed that you were a sock, and you were blocked accordingly for several days. The idea that you were a sock of FFA is not some idiosyncratic idea manufactures by The Banner to punish you for opposing his AFDs. And, more than that, the incident in question was three months ago. Drop it now, and go do something that doesn't involve hounding The Banner, or you will likely be blocked per WP:NOTHERE, regardless of whether you are in fact a meatpuppet (which you still really look like, even if CU was wrong to declare you a sockpuppet). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you please stop calling me a sock!? Doug Weller statement was very clear (see his investigations).--MBurch (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88:} You should not make the statement that I confirmed an editor as a sock when I later stated that I was mistaken and apologised. It doesn't help and it might be misread. Doug Weller talk 12:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: My apologies. As you know, CU is a bit inscrutable to those of us who don't have it. My point is that, regardless of whether it was a mistake or whatever, MBurch is not doing himself or anyone else any favours by constantly ragging on about it like he is, nor by insinuating that the whole SPI was a revenge action by The Banner, since clearly the evidence convinced several other good-faith users. This same thing happened a few months back with someone else who was CU-blocked as a sock of User:Kauffner. Apparently on that occasion too, there was some mistake, but even after being unblocked the user continued to do nothing but complain about how he had been mistreated. I do not, of course, think you unblocked someone whom you had already confirmed was in fact a sock -- I don't even think MBurch is a sock. I just think he needs to drop the stick already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hijiri88 (talk • contribs)

I accept your apologies while one from The Banner is technically still missing, but I won't insist on that if we find a solution that ends this whole drama. --MBurch (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I was apologizing to Doug for my unfortunate language. I was not apologizing to you because I was not wrong to say you were determined by multiple independent parties, based on several different types of evidence, to be a sockpuppet. So you are still very much in the wrong to repeatedly insist that one of those multiple users was motivated solely by revenging you. Rather than insincerely claiming that you "accept my apology", you should be the one apologizing for continuously trying to game the system. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

You insulting me calling me several times a sock and when I kindly ask you to stop and even the checkuser Doug Weller tells you that there's no reason to call me a sock you excuse yourself but not towards the person you insulting? It's true I'm mostly active in German Wikipedia, but I have globaly more than 25'000 contributions which is a bit more than you have thought I'm two years longer active as well but fun fact is that you got several times blocked [126] (one time even for abusing multiple accounts). Maybe you shouldn't really hand out advice yourself. --MBurch (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

You insulting me calling me several times a sock Wrong. I never called you a sock. I said your behaviour made you very much look like a sock, so much so that an SPI was opened, a clerk endorsed CU, a CU was performed, and you were blocked for several days. I said this because you kept insisting (indeed continue to insist) that the SPI was baseless, and was only opened as revenge for you !voting in some AFDs. I am not saying you are a sock: I am saying you are engaged in gross ABF, hounding, and otherwise disruptive behaviour. These are not the same thing. when I kindly ask you to stop Wrong again. Nothing about your conduct in this thread has been "kind". even the checkuser Doug Weller tells you that there's no reason to call me a sock Is that what Doug said? I thought he told me to stop using the phrase "CU-confirmed sock" because it was misleading. you excuse yourself but not towards the person you insulting? Yes, I apologized for my unfortunate choice of words. I used the phrase "CU-confirmed sock" to mean "account that has been CU-blocked as a sockpuppet because CU 'confirmed' (in the technical sense used in SPIs) that it was a sockpuppet". I did not apologize for "insulting you" because I did not insult you. I said you were misrepresenting history to make The Banner's behaviour sound worse than it was, and assuming bad faith on the part of the user who opened the SPI but not the clerk that endorsed it or the CU who blocked based on it. It's true I'm mostly active in German Wikipedia Nope. You are only active on German Wikipedia. Before November 2015, you had eight edits on en.wiki. Then you started showing up on deletion discussions involving The Banner, and your rate of editing on English Wikipedia went up exponentially. Your spurt of edits since February of this year has been devoted almost exclusively to The Banner. Stop hounding The Banner. but I have globaly more than 25'000 contributions which is a bit more than you have Umm... so what? thought I'm two years longer active as well That's ungrammatical and doesn't make a lot of sense. You first became active on de.wiki (the only Wikimedia project to which you have made a substantial number of edits) in 2013, while I have been fair consistently active on English Wikipedia since 2012, and my account's official age is five years older than yours; I was an active contributor between 2005 and 2008, then left the project while in university, as I was during that period awarded credits for the same type of writing that I was doing on Wikipedia for no reward. But again, what does this have to do with anything? but fun fact is that you got several times blocked Actually, if you look at the background, most of those blocks were for technically violating a couple of IBANs, while the other users with whom I was banned have since either been site-banned for obvious NOTHERE trolling and the hounding of me that originally led to the IBAN (in the case of Catflap08) or left the project because ... they were obvious NOTHERE trolls, who, once they were no longer allowed troll me and other users active in a particular topic area, they eventually gave up and left (in the case of Tristan noir). Both of these IBANs have been dissolved, one back in February 2013 and the other in March of this year. But again -- what does any of this have to do with the dispute between you, FFA and TB? Are you just being deliberately antagonistic? Going back through other users' (years ago) block logs) is a fairly good indication that you are the one engaged in hounding. You are, at the very least, behaving in an extremely uncivil manner. one time even for abusing multiple accounts Again, context. I was not abusing multiple accounts. I accidentally edited while logged into this account because this account had email enabled and (at least at that time) I was unable to use the same email address with more than one (declared, legitimate) account. This account (which I had said I would not use to edit English Wikipedia during the period in which the Coldman the Barbarian account was active) was then blocked from editing English Wikipedia. If I had not volunteered not to use my main account to edit English Wikipedia (because of some off-wiki harassment by a site-banned troll who had figured out my workplace and parents' home address) it almost certainly would not have been blocked. I was, at the time, formally retired from editing, but I became aware that a user with whom I had previously conflicted was going around systematically reverting my edits, and decided to report the problem, but I didn't want to log into my main account to do it because another user was actively monitoring my main account's contribs, and harassing me off-wiki. Again, context. Please apologize for your gross, off-topic personal attacks against me, or I will request that you be blocked. Maybe you shouldn't really hand out advice yourself. Right back at ya, big guy. You should be blocked for your behaviour in this thread, let alone your disruptive hounding of The Banner. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@MBurch: I'm going to repeat the most important part of my above response -- please apologize for your gross, off-topic personal attacks against me, or I will request that you be blocked the next time you make a comment like that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mean to attack you at all, I just believe you're comments were not much helpful. In my personal opinion you increased the conflict while others tried to find a solution in short, brief words. Fact is I signed up 21th of November 2010, I have globally over 25'000 contributions mostly in German Wikipedia, but a few on commons, wikidata and others, too [127]. --MBurch (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

It's good to know you didn't mean to attack me, but that's what you did. And if we discount FFA and The Banner themselves, you are the only one here who has not been working to find a solution to the problem, as you are yourself a significant part of the problem (indeed, you have scarcely contributed anything to English Wikipedia beyond fanning the flames of this dispute). You opened this thread as part of a tag-teaming/hounding campaign on your part, and since opening it you opposed my first pro-active attempt to resolve the problem, posted an extremely suspicious support for Kleuske's (which made it look like you intend to game and undermine it), and would probably oppose any solution MilborneOne might have that doesn't either specifically single out The Banner or allow you to continue specifically singling him out. It's not even clear who you are talking about when you say "others". Apart from Kleuske and myself, and the involved parties themselves (you, FFA and The Banner), the only people who have commented here have been one-off drive-by commenters. Speculation as to the reason for that aside, it would be appreciated if you didn't continue to insinuate that I have been "not much helpful" and am working to "increase the conflict" when the one who is being deliberately and needlessly inflammatory is clearly not me. Also, you still have not apologized. Demanding that others apologize to you for using unfortunate/misleading wording in a good-faith attempt to deal with the core issues here, while simultaneously refusing to apologize for your own blatant and unprovoked personal attacks, is not helpful. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• He "worked" only on 3 Airports, Amsterdam (probably because he is from the netherlands) , Dublin (probably because he live in Ireland) he doesn't worked on any other Airport article.. except of deleting out informations of Zürich Airport (the biggest Airport of SWITZERLAND).
• The only Air Force Base he was "working" on was the Dübendorf Air Base (an Air Force Base of SWITZERLAND) trying to delet out informations about the Zero-G flight and other stuff.he doesn't worked on any other Air Force Base article of the whole world.. and BTW Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dübendorf Air Base[128] The only Air Base he want have deleted was an Air Base from SWITZERLAND. No oter tiny dusty airfiled somewere...
• The only aircraft project he want have deleted was not for e.g. the Bartini A-57, Lockheed L-2000 or Belyayev Babochka no, he wantet the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ALR Piranha[129] from SWITZERLAND , created from me,do be deleted.
• The only aircraft (build) aircraft page he nominatet for deletion from him was the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KZD-85 from SWITZERLAND, created from me.
• The only airshow page(again created from me) he nominatet for deletion[[130]].was the one about the Air14
• The only page about an Aircraft Type he was deleting out Informations is the Pilatus PC-24 from SWITZERLAND, interestingly what is "not-notable for ihm there

not bother him on any other page like Fairey Delta 1, Avro Ashton, Hawker P.1052.

• From all Modern aerobatic teams and Disbanded military teams his only interest is to suppress Informations of all 4 Teams of the Air Force of SWITZERLAND, on no other Modern aerobatic team or Disbanded military team was touched from Banner. Things which he can not stand in any relation to the 4 Teams (Two of them the Superpuma Display and the F/A-18 Hornet Display had I creadet) of the Air Force of SWITZERLAND not bother him on any other page even with a hint he doesent touched the Dutch Solo Display Team or F-16 Demo Team.
• The only Air Force page who he tryes to "clean " is the one from SWITZERLAND.. Even if ther is an update or change in some projects (for eg. That the C-17 is no more a candidat as Cargoplane for the Swiss Air Force he does not want to admit.
• He attacked in this timeframe my userpag. Inn my eyes he has also much not notable stuff on his userpage.. but I would never touch it.

So he is usualy not active in Aviatic topics most of the time with total differend topics , like Restraurants, Beautycontests,... But if it is something about swiss aivatic, and if I had creadet the page or just add a few words, all hell breaks loose. I have the feeling this is Wikihounding.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nils Hämmerli[131] Kunstflugkommandant
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medisize Schweiz AG[132] Swiss plastic industrie
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terxo AG[133]Swiss plastic industrie
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isopress AG[134] Swiss plastic industrie
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AGP 3 Trailer[135] sole article about a bustrailer he nominated for deletion
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military History Foundation of the Canton of Zug[136] Only Museum he want have to be deleted
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernhard Müller (Officer)[137] he wanted the next commander! of the Swiss air Force deleted
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Task Force ALBA[138]The only military mission he wanted to be deleted
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SPHAIR[139]
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bucher aircraft tractor (2nd nomination)[140] ‎But no other Aircrafttractor (like M2 High Speed Tractor) got nominated for deletion..
• The only air surveilance systems he nominadet ever are two from switzerland/ I had creadeted:[141] The FLORIDA System and [142] SRF System.

Also on EVERY Article from me who was nominated from someone else for deletion.. guess what.. he voted for delet, not a single who he didn't touched.

Non stoping provocations [143] Verh unfriendly acting and threaten to persons who speak up against his wikihounding on me.[144]

Everyone who came across from the german Wikipedia to support me in a deleting discussion got attacked from him in rude words. But not enough.. he started also a checkuser against me and several other persons.. knowing very well that no one is a sockpupped.. He had done this only because of its maliciousness.

If I add some informations somewhere he deled it out with comments like fancuf, fanboy, not notable, irrelevant ,.. But on the other hand he is insisting on such nonsense:[145]. all this is only the peak of all the mobbing, editwarring, stalking from The Banner against me... and this again is only his constant attacks against me.. a lot of other users have to suffer because no one stop him.. a lot of users (who brought in valuable Informations ) have resgnated and left Wikipedia for ever.

Also he is constantly watching My talkpage.. If someon had left there a positive feedback about an article from me like here: [146] he starts to provocate [147]. Not only that he is stalking me in the “open” part of Wikipedia, he is also browsing on my not “open” pages on Wikipedia. He cleaned all this informations out and threatened me with a block warning on my talkpage. Also nomnadte he my ‎User:FFA P-16/workpage19 for deletion. He is damaging Wikipedia with his non stop deleting nominations. Also the Banner is behaving very aggressive against other people in other deleting discusions [148] FFA P-16 (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

When I edited the page of Zurich Airport (the circle section) the user The Banner delated my New adding without a giustification. Link: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Z%C3%BCrich_Airport&type=revision&diff=688550466&oldid=688546793 The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) BOOMERANG, anyone? The OP was blocked in February as a CU-confirmed sock of FFA P-16, and the two were shortly thereafter unblocked because CU was apparently a false positive or some such. But whether or not they are the same person, MBurch has not made any edits to English Wikipedia since being unblocked except to !vote in several AFDs opened by The Banner and otherwise harangue The Banner. Whether The Banner is hounding FFA might need to be looked into (I haven't), but that MBurch hasn't made any edits that haven't been related to The Banner is obvious. The evidence that the Banner is hounding FFA seems to be limited to the claim that the former has been posting several of the latter's articles for AFD (and this is borne out by this). But per AGF, we must assume that The Banner sincerely believes his/her stated rationales for said AFDs, and the fact that several of them have passed with consensus to delete means that said rationales may be justified. If one finds an editor writing a lot of articles on topics that one sincerely believes do not meet GNG, posting said articles for AFD is not "hounding". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri 88, it is not that he nomiated Coincidentally this for AFD because he is thinking it does not meet GNG. like I sayd above.. The ALR Piranha was the only aircraft project he nominated he did not put one of this in question Bartini A-57, Lockheed L-2000 or Belyayev Babochka. He nominadet Bucher aircraft tractor (who i had writen) [149] for deletion.. it had a few references ‎But no other Aircrafttractor (like U-30 Tow Tractor and MB-2 tow tractor who have NO referenc) got nominated for deletion.. The number of from The banner nominated articels i had written (especaly about the Divison General) shows exactly that it is not about GNG and draves a clear picture...The only UAV he ever nominadeted was writen from me he never nominated ANY other UAV Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KZD-85. Very interesting is that ther is now a long line of AfD s from against articels from me..it is no coincidence that he now drag FLORIDA Airspace monitoring and management system and SRF Airspace monitoring and management systemto AfD after they exist already 4 years with "Fail WP GNG" at the same time put no other radar system who was not written from me in question (like Austrian air defense or French air defence radar systems) who's WP GNG is even weaker. That are just a few exampels.FFA P-16 (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

If you want to contest the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bucher aircraft tractor (2nd nomination), ANI is not the place to do it. If you want to nominate other pages for deletion, ANI is also not the place to do it. The fact that most of the AFDs you referred to above resulted in deletion means that the nominations must be taken in good faith. If you think someone is hounding you, you need convincing evidence thereof. I have only so far seen convincing evidence that your friend MBurch is hounding The Banner in your stead. I will admit that I have not read your wall of text, and I do not intend to; writing a massive wall of text with very few diffs is normally a pretty solid indication that you don't have such evidence. Maybe you should have told MBurch to hold off on this ANI thread until you had the diffs prepared? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Honored Hijiri 88.

It's not about rebooting AfD's, but about the abusive position of AfD's and wikihounding of The Banner against me.

Please do not made the victim to the guilty and the guilty to an victim.

MBurch was massively attacked by The Banner when he spoke in AfD's for the receipt of my articles. He also saw The Banner battling systematically against me, and merely asking The banner to stop it. He never bothered any work of The Banner. Likewise, Zurich00swiss also knew that he had never bothered the work of The Banner but was attacked massively by The Banner in his work on the subject of Airport Zurich and the AfD's where he spoke out to not delet my articles.

You do not seem to understand. The Banner is systematically following me, and specifically targeting AfD's against articles written by me. It is not about quality. If you would read the text from me, you would see that he makes various articles of me AfD in subjects where he is never active (UAV, Air Base, Aircraftprojects, Radar system, ..) In all these areas it has Several articles written by other users who meet much less the requirements, but he has not proposed any of them to the AfD. Some have not a single referenc or weblink ..he never touched it, but my article with references... This makes it quite clear that he has it only on me. Examples I have brought above enough.

Just to look at the some articles from me(not all!) who In AfD's had been deleted .. not to read my "long" text and then to decide The Banner is innocent. Sorry but this is not a factual investigation of this problem.

I ask you to take the time and really read and examine all my foundations. If you do not look at everything it makes no sense that you deal with this case. Then I ask for someone else who take care of this case. Someone who is willing to read all my arguments and to look at all the examples I have brought. Thank you.FFA P-16 (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, first, please learn to indent consistently. It's difficult to respond to you otherwise.

If you are not interested in undoing the AFDs, then why are you trying to go back and discredit the grounds on which they were posted for AFD? The Banner's behaviour in posting those particular pages to AFD could have only constituted hounding if he didn't sincerely believe that those pages should be deleted on their own merits. If you are creating a bunch of articles that should be deleted per our inclusion criteria, the problem is with you, not The Banner. Even if he found those pages by checking your contribs, that is still legit and does not constitute hounding.

No, MBurch only posted in those AFDs because they were opened by The Banner and because the articles in question were started by you. Maybe The Banner attacked MBurch for that (you still haven't provided any diffs...), but it's abundantly clear that MBurch has been hounding The Banner -- MBurch hasn't done anything but hound The Banner.

Again, if The Banner's AFDs had merit, then what he did was not hounding. Even if it was systematic, the problem is with you writing articles that almost uniformly get deleted when posted to AFD, not with him posting them at AFD. I will explain this by giving an example. About three years ago, I noticed that a certain user was showing a severe failure to read sources and present what they said accurately, on an article that was on my watchlist. No matter how hard I tried to explain it to him, he just didn't seem to get it. I then got suspicious that he might have engaged in similar disruption on other articles, so I checked his contribs and found that my suspicion had been correct. When I pointed this out on the talk pages of the other articles (which weren't on his watchlist and which I had "followed" him to) I too was accused of "hounding". But I wasn't hounding: I noticed a user engaged in problematic behaviour and dealt with it accordingly. Even if that is what The Banner did here (and you still haven't presented any evidence that that is even what is happening), the problem is most likely with you, not The Banner. Otherwise, why would almost all of the pages have been deleted?

For what it's worth, I did check how often The Banner posts articles for deletion. Of his past 300 new page creations in the Wikipedia namespace, 296 have been AFDs, and that's only since January 1 of last year. That's 0.61 AFDs per day over a period of 16 months -- are all of those AFDs hounding of the users who created the articles? And do you really think you're the first one to try to accuse him of hounding rather that reflecting on your own understanding of our includion criteria? (I actually don't know. You might be. But I doubt it.)

And no. No one is under any obligation to read your massive wall of text, in which you provided no diffs or other clear evidence, before commenting to the effect that you have provided no diffs or other clear evidence. If you don't provide evidence in support of your claims, all the rest of us can do is go looking for ourselves. And if what we find doesn't support your claims, that also is not our fault.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

To follow my edits and then delete the article created by me is wikihounding. Again, it is not about quality. Otherwise he would have to nominate other articles on the same topics that were not written by me. I have listed this above. It is also not so that all articles of me, which he nominated has been deleted. The article about divisional general Bernhard Müller Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernhard Müller (Officer)shows very well that he acts AfD abuse. Only because he does 's 0.61 AFDs per day is no sing that this is right..it shows only exesive use of AfD.. and if you look at the topic of this AfD's articles.. you see that my articels are quid "exotic" to the other topics.. he is usualy not active in this topics.. a clear sign that he his wikihounding me. ..it is no coincidence that he now drag FLORIDA Airspace monitoring and management system and SRF Airspace monitoring and management systemto AfD after they exist already 4 years with "Fail WP GNG" at the same time put no other radar system who was not written from me in question (like [[[Austrian air defense]] or French air defence radar systems) who's WP GNG is even weaker.Again you do not want to read my text and look at the links on the left. If you do not want to read what I write here is no factual processing this case of you. Sorry. So then I am official have to say:I ask for someone else who take care of this case. Someone who is willing to read all my arguments and to look at all the examples I have brought. This is important- Thank you &byeFFA P-16 (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

To follow my edits and then delete the article created by me is wikihounding. Nope. If he sincerely thinks you don't understand our inclusion criteria (and, again, he does sincerely think that until proven otherwise), then checking your contribs and nominating certain pages written by you for deletions is perfectly acceptable.

Again, it is not about quality. Then how come, on seven of the ten AFDs you linked above, there was clear consensus to delete the pages?

Otherwise he would have to nominate other articles on the same topics that were not written by me. Again, NO. No one is under any obligation to do more or less than they wish on Wikipedia. We are all volunteers here. And there are no articles on the same topics written by other editors -- do you mean "on similar topics"? If so, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you believe that those other topics don't meet GNG, you should nominate them for deletion. Don't attack The Banner for not nominating them.

It is also not so that all articles of me, which he nominated has been deleted. I have listed this above. Good for you. Unfortunately, no one said that. I said most. Specifically, 7 out of 10 of the AFDs you linked ended in deletion. And actually, of the other three, two should maybe be reconsidered with MBurch's !vote being discounted as HOUNDing.

The article about divisional general Bernhard Müller Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernhard Müller (Officer)shows very well that he acts AfD abuse. If you think that demonstrated abuse of the AFD process, then maybe you think the other four users who !voted to delete (and maybe even the one said "weak keep") are hounding you as well? On top of that, your own conduct in that AFD (repeatedly refusing to focus on content and making constant off-topic remarks about how you don't like The Banner) was atrocious. Linking to it was not a good idea.

Only because he does 's 0.61 AFDs per day is no sing that this is right..it shows only exesive use of AfD.. No. Lots of editors open a lot of AFDs. I don't know The Banner's particular circumstances, but some monitor new pages, which include a disproportionate number of autobiographies by non-notable individuals, blatant advertising, etc.

and if you look at the topic of this AfD's articles.. you see that my articels are quid "exotic" to the other topics.. he is usualy not active in this topics.. a clear sign that he his wikihounding me. Wait, what? No one who opens that many AFDs is focused on one topic, so the fact that he doesn't have a particular focus on airports or the armed forces (?) is irrelevant.

Again you do not want to read my text and look at the links on the left You clearly are not comfortable with me addressing all the numerous problems in those portions of your comments I have read -- do you really want me to go through your first massive wall-of-text and detail all the ways it is wrong and lends itself to my BOOMERANG idea? For example, you say that he is watching your talk page (again, something he is allowed do) and "provocating", but your "diff" of said is a blank link to the Tupolev Voron article, which The Banner has never edited. I thought for a few minutes you were (falsely) accusing him of tagging the article as needing a copyedit and went through it to see if it was accurate, then I looked around a bit and noticed this. You do still need to provide proper attribution when you translate from German Wikipedia, and if you translated the version that was originally written by you a year earlier, you need to note that, because, if you translated the version as it appeared when you put the translation on English Wikipedia and had been edited by about a dozen other editors, there is a copyright issue. You then go on about not “open” pages on Wikipedia, which makes no sense to me. A bit above you Non stoping provocations with a malformed link to four comments by multiple users, in which The Banner said nothing even approaching incivility. Then you say Verh unfriendly acting and threaten to persons who speak up against his wikihounding on me with a similarly malformed link, in which The Banner responds to MBurch's hounding attacks on him in a fairly reasonable manner. Seriously, what are you asking me to look at with all this?

If you do not want to read what I write here is no factual processing this case of you. Sorry. So then I am official have to say:I ask for someone else who take care of this case. Please familiarize yourself with how ANI works. Like the rest of Wikipedia, ANI is voluntary. No one will touch this case, because you made it too long and unintelligible. The thread will likely get archived with no further involvement from any outside parties, unless I open a separate subthread with a coherent argument for some solution to whatever problem I perceive as going on here. And your absolute refusal to provide evidence for your claims (in case it isn't clear, I did read the small portion of your wall of text that appeared to include diffs) is making me inclined to do so in a direction you apparently don't want.

Someone who is willing to read all my arguments and to look at all the examples I have brought. No one is going to read your massive, incoherent walls of text. If you have concrete examples, you should link them. I read through everything you provided that had a link attached to it, and didn't see anything of substance.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri. But you obviously do not want to see it. He nominates me very clearly articles in areas where he is never active. And there only items of mine no others. Even if he makes a lot of AfD's strikes this conspicuousness. I also find it wrong the people who have voted for the receipt of some articles from me and who have approached the unfriendly approach of The banner now condemned for their substantive contribution. There will be no factual reasoning on the examples which I have brought forth. Only weill The banner many edits and AfD's makes it is not trustworthy. The only thing I want is that he leaves me alone. Clearly all work here voluntarily. But this is not an obstacle for someone else to take care of this case. I am very disappointed that you do not take me seriously.

If you are not willing to take care of my concerns and no one else wants to take care of this case, I see no further meaning in this discussion. Then you can close it because it brings nothing and will only encourage The Banner in the fight against me.FFA P-16 (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, you clearly can't be reasoned with. I have read everything you have written on this page, and there is nothing to it. But you are clearly not interested in acknowledging that fact. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

In fact, I did not want to reply at all at this thread. It is the another instance of the ongoing harassment and bullying campaign of mr. FFA P-16 and his assistant MBurch. It is loud and clear that MBurch is called in to protect FFA P-16. Although his bullying/harassing is annoying, it only confirmed to me that the advice given to mr. FFA P-16 is completely ignored. And he stepped up his campaign after I nominated an attack page for deletion. He seems to think that sandbox pages are sacrosanct and untouchable to others. And that the rules of Wikipedia do not apply to him. See User talk:The Banner#Stop Wikihounding me!. He also seems to think that I have a personal grudge against him because he is Swiss. As a matter of fact, I do not care at all about that. But I have told/advised/urged FFA P-16 to do three things:

1. Get a clear idea of what the community regards notable
2. Get a clear idea of what the community regards as proper sourcing according to WP:RS
3. Get a clear idea that it is worthwhile to make an effort to improve your English

I have seen no effort whatsoever to address these issues.

Mr. FFA P-16 also took offence out of my sockpuppet investigation relating to MBurch. He seems to have forgotten the fact that he is earlier blocked for sockpuppetry, [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FFA P-16/Archive|here] and and on the Dutch Wikipedia.

To finish this off: I do not seek any blocks. What I want are two things: a) that the present campaign stops, and b) that FFA P-16 makes a visible effort to address the three issues listed a few lines above. The Banner talk 09:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Circle at Zurich Airport

• (Moved from the bottom of the page, as this is clearly subordinate to the main thread. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC))

When I edited the page of Zurich Airport (the circle section) the user The Banner delated my New adding without a giustification. The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Diffs please. I can't see anything in the recent history that supports your claim... --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Zurich00swiss: Please provide diffs, and if you posted the above in an attempt to "pile on" because you just don't like the user in question, note that you may well be met with a boomerang for hounding. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Indefinite one-way interaction ban

Okay, I was annoyed enough by FFA's disruption clearly on display in this thread, but now that it's been pointed out to me that he created a WP:POLEMIC about The Banner here and denied the SPEEDY request with the counter-policy statement that Its MY workpage[150] it's clear that something needs to be done. I'm therefore requesting that FFA P-16 (talk · contribs) be indefinitely banned from interacting with The Banner (talk · contribs). If The Banner nominates a page written by FFA for deletion, it should be the community's decision, and the project will not benefit from FFA showing up and posting more off-topic personal attacks against The Banner. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, user X requests a majority of user Y's articles for deletions and you suggests now that Y is now allowed to even argue with X on those deletion requests of his very own articles (since there is no other interaction from Y besides that workpage19 which should be simply deleted)? --MBurch (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@MBurch: So you agree that User Y created an attack page about User X that should be deleted, and when it was requested that the page be deleted User Y reverted the request and placed a statement on the page that he owns it and so presumably can post whatever he wants on it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware of actio et reactio. --MBurch (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I assume that you are implying that since The Banner was the original aggressor, FFA was justified in creating that attack page and preventing it from being deleted? But you still have not presented any evidence that The Banner was the original aggressor. Both of you are claiming that he nominated a bunch of articles created by FFA for deletion based not on the merits of the article but out of a desire to hound FFA. But I presented you with pretty incontrovertible evidence that this is not the case. The Banner nominates hundreds of pages by countless users for deletion, and in all but a few of the cases you listed a plurality of other editors agreed the pages should be deleted. All I am seeing is The Banner posting Good Faith AFDs (and constructive criticism of honestly pretty atrocious articles that don't necessarily merit deletion), FFA refusing to listen, and assuming bad faith by accusing The Banner of HOUNDing. You can try asking JoshuSasori (talk · contribs) what happens when you constantly make bad faith accusations of HOUNDing while engaging in HOUNDing yourself. That guy actually got SBANned for his efforts, then engaged in block-evasion via several IPs and actually did revenge-AFD a bunch of articles I had written (well, actually there was only one AFD opened via proxy, two article blankings, and one successful PROD of a sub-stub). You clearly do not know what you are talking about when you talk of HOUNDing; I do. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The Banner nominates hundreds of pages by countless users for deletion and he suspects always sockpuppets when they don't agree? Of course not just in our case and just in the case of FFA P-16 he nominates several pages together. --MBurch (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@MBurch: That is a personal attack and you should strike it unless you can provide evidence. If you are referring exclusively to the FFA SPI where you were blocked, you should say as much. On top of that: You were confirmed by CU to be a sock of FFA P-16, and CUs need a lot of DUCK evidence before they agree to perform that procedure, and the check was pre-endorsed by an SPI clerk. It's an established fact that FFA P-16 has abused multiple accounts in the past and in the case of you and M1712, it was really frickin' obvious that something fishy was going on, be it sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. Just drop it already and go edit articles, or you will be reblocked as WP:NOTHERE, regardless of whether you were later vindicated with regards to your not actually being the same person as FFA P-16. It's been three months -- let it go, as the wickedly talented Adele Dazeem would say... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

No this was not an attack, this was collecting cases of actions against me, so that I can bring this here on Ani. You broght it by your self to the light.. here you can see that he is following me [151] yes hi is doing a lot of deletions 0,6 per day in one year is a lot (and in some kind it smells as to trigger happy for AfD's). But if you have a look ate the list you have presented [152] It is not on random themes (Tv Stations, beauty contest persons) the pattern definitive fit not to the topics of my articels (military aviation, swiss). It is understandable that many new articels come to AfD, but also this dosent fit here because he nominated just in the past few weeks articels from me who existed since 3-4 years. This is no coincidence.FFA P-16 (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

FFA, it's been several days, so I'm going to start being frank. Your English is terrible, and at best difficult to decipher, and you clearly are not reading and fully understanding my comments. So please refrain from responding in other users' stead, because it makes discussion extremely difficult. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

You have already forgotten my talkpage? And take a look at the talkpage of mr. FFA P-16. Not the current version, as he wipes out everything he does not like, but the older versions. Like this one. The Banner talk 13:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Well the Talkpage is there for to communicate wit an other user, or inform ihm about something.. I informed you that i wish that you stop follw me. How should I communicate with you without using the talk page. everyone can clean its talkpage like he want.. it is nothing wrong with deleting old stuff and its also not wrong keeping some of it. Also veryon can keep positiv replays on the talk page if he wish. that you are monitoring my talkpage and their history shows again suspicious direction stalking FFA P-16 (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I have informed you about issues with notability, issues with sourcing and issues with your language and all this was ignored. Not even the spell checker you took aboard... The Banner talk 21:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Everything probably a reason for an improvement tag but not for AfD, also the one with Bernhard Müller is a good example that your interpretation of notability is also not always correct. And if you posted this on my talk page.There is no need to let it stand there, so I can empty the talk page whenever I want. That is nothing bad.FFA P-16 (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

quod erat demonstrandum --MBurch (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

There are several problems, here.

• FFA P-16 has a poor command of the English language, resulting in poorly written articles.
• FFA P-16's love of the Swiss air force leads him to loose sight of notability issues.
• The Banner has been hounding FFA P-16, nominating nearly every article FFA P-16 started. been communicating extremely ineffectively.
• The Banner has a tendency to skip due diligence before nominating FFA P-16's articles. Case in point Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernhard Müller (Officer).

The drama has been going on at least two years. This has to end.

A proposed solution:

1. FFA P-16 is only allowed to create new articles via the AfC-process. This will address the language and notability problems.
2. An interaction ban between The Banner and FFA P-16 (both ways). This includes a ban for The Banner to nominate any article created by FFA P-16, thus eliminating 90% of the drama. If The Banner feels one of FFA P-16's articles is so bad it must be nominated, he can alert another editor to the problem, who can then nominate it.

Kleuske (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I volunteer my time to a) check any of FFA P-16's articles and b) look at any problem The Banner sees with any of FFA P-16's articles and nominate if necessary. Kleuske (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kleuske: You should strike bullet point 3. No evidence of hounding has been presented. ArbCom actually explicitly stated that checking a user's contribs for legit reasons (like the good-faith belief that the user doesn't understand notability guidelines, a belief you admit you share). See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88#Hounding. You can read through the entire case if you want, or you can take my word for it: his was pretty much the same situation, with users make the same faulty assumption (in violation of AGF) that what was happening constituted "hounding". You admit in bullet point 2 that The Banner had a good-faih reason for examining FFA's contribs, so what you are doing is arguably worse than what the Committee described there: you are declaring bad faith against your own declared understanding to the contrary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I would support this proposal in place of my own, assuming User:The Banner (who still appears to be the victim here, per all the evidence I've seen) is game for a mutual IBAN, which would protect him from further harassment. In my experience, mutual IBANs are very easy for harassers to game, so I would add that the IBAN be slightly modified to allow requests to observers like Kleuske and me (but not obvious meatpuppets or the like) to look into it and decide whether there has been a violation to be covered under BANEX. Put in other words, messages about the other user on the user talk pages of no more than one or two other users at a time should be allowed in lieu of reporting violations directly to an admin or on ANI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Changed to unconditional supportThe Banner's extremely immature response to Kleuske's good-faith attempt to resolve this (immediately below) has convinced me to change my mind. I still think he is the victim of hounding, and I still think the proposed IBAN will quickly be gamed by FFA and MBurch, but I just don't care anymore if The Banner is going to show more interested in fighting over it than actually resolving it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Conditional support The proposed solution would solve the problem, and I think The Banner should voluntarily accept it for the time being. IBANs are super-easy to appeal once the other party gets site-banned or stops editing once their articles continue to get deleted. I'm changing back to conditional support, not based on the condition that The Banner voluntarily accepts, but based on the condition that Kleuske's flawed premise is stricken. I had actually forgotten until just now that ArbCom had explicitly ruled in my case (a case quite similar to this in several ways) that (1) actions amounting to what The Banner has done do not constitute hounding, (2) actions amounting to what MBurch has done (though over a longer period of time) do constitute hounding (if not off-site and/or stealth canvassing or meatpuppetry), and (3) what MBurch, FFA, and even (to a lesser extent) Kleuske have done is contrary to AGF. Kleuske should strike out bullet point 3, or my support for this proposal (based on a flawed and problematic premise that's personally offensive to me as a former victim of hounding) should be taken as null and void. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

It takes some effort from both sides to keep the drama going for this amount of time and The Banner does not show an attitude that's particularly conciliatory or helpful. Instead he shows all signs of holding grudges. I have trouble seeing The Banner as a victim. Kleuske (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: If either of them try to game the AfC process or the IBAN, I will personally report them here and request a block. Promise. Kleuske (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It took you a long time to show up here, Kleuske. And your attempt to put the blame on my shoulders is just as predictable as you showing up here. But your statement (...) nominating nearly every article FFA P-16 started. is evidently false. The Banner talk 15:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@The Banner: You're not helping... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

True. But Kleuske and me have a long record of personal discord. Beside that, in my experience the AfC-process only looks at the notability of a subject, not to quality, sourcing or spelling. So it will address only one part of the signalled problems. The Banner talk 09:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter from who the proposal is, but only if it's able to solve the problems.--MBurch (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

But I am willing to step aside for a while and see if Kleuske, MBurch and the AfC-process really can help fix the issues. I promise to stay away (for starters) to 1 July 2017. The Banner talk 11:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be more than just a temporary stop especially since you're in general not writing in Swiss Air Force aviation as FFA P-16 does.--MBurch (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Kleuske. I will agree 100% to your solution. And all rouls who this solution contains for me.FFA P-16 (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't thank me yet, i'll require significant coverage in reliable sources. I was this close to proposing a site-ban for competence issues and this does not help. Hör mal... Dein Englisch is wirklich grottenschlecht. Fast Kauderwelsch. Du must dich wirklich mal überlegen ob du sinnvoll beitragen kannst wenn fast jeder satz praktisch übersetzt werden muss. Kleuske (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• SupportKleuske's proposed solution.FFA P-16 (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree and I volunteer my time to improve FFA P-16's articles. --MBurch (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support Will end the drama and help the editors and Wikipedia. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 15:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Note I find it extremely suspicious how readily FFA and his obvious meatpuppet MBurch accepted this proposal, and am a little concerned that they might immediately try to game it as I outlined above. Both users have email enabled, and even if they didn't they are both more active on de.wiki than here, where they would technically not be restricted from discussing The Banner. I'm not going to withdraw my support or anything, but I think it would be a good idea to sanction MBurch as well to prevent him from proxy-hounding in FFA's stead. Note also how the indentation on MBurch's !vote implies he was supporting in direct response to FFA giving his approval.

I also find it concerning that, while FFA's English is terrible and MBurch does seem qualified to improve that one aspect of his articles, the main reason for all the AFDs was notability, and MBurch still has not acknowledged that the topics did not meet our notability criteria (insisting instead that The Banner was motivated solely by a desire to hound FFA), which may indicate a poor understanding of said notability criteria, and I therefore think it would be a good idea if he limited his time to improve FFA P-16's articles to copy-editing, and refrained from mainspacing any drafts himself and !voting in any future AFDs.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Stricken per above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Clearly The Banner is just the front man in a wikipedia process, I certainly would have nominated the same articles for deletion if Banner had not got there first. FFA P-16 has been a bit of a time sink for the aircraft/aviation project, his failure to understand English and the requirements to understand for example that not every aspect of the Swiss Air Force is actually notable enough for an article. Most articles are machine translations from German wikipedia and FFP P-16 has clear competence issues with English language and despite efforts over the years I believe the only remedy is a site ban on English wikipedia. But just to note I would not support any sanction for The Banner and see no reason why they should stand aside, in fact he probably needs some sort of award for enduring endless harrasement from FFA P-16 and others brought over from de wiki. MilborneOne (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I still morally support the sentiment in the above comment. I disagree with the third bullet point in Kleuske's opening remark (which I think constitutes a personal attack, as it is made without evidence), and I strongly suspect the fourth bullet point is bull as well (one bad AFD, if it even was that, is not evidence that he has a consistent pattern of not performing due diligence). I just want this mess to be over, and I think The Banner has been rather uncooperative in this process as well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Cooperation stops (has to) at the edge of Wikipedia rules. It is a fact that FFA P-16 is hardly able to cope with Wikipedias rules even in german. But I got here for MBurch which is another fanatic non learner himself (and the best excuse to hound seems to claim hounding). His engagement is strictly for personal reasons, not for good of Wikipedia. On the contrary: Mburchs unreflected and even agressive absolute support undermines every effort to improve FFA P-16’s capabilities. Mburch is rather part of the problem, not of a solution . --2A02:1206:45AE:7E0:7104:7303:6966:8F30 (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Umm... thanks for agreeing with me on just about everything, but... do you have an account? I know it's conceivably possible that someone who only edits from dynamic IPs could !vote in an ANI discussion in good faith, but I haven't seen it happen before, and there's been a whole lot of socktrolling over the last few days. If you are just a dynamic IP could you link to some of your other edits? Sorry, but I'm not a hypocrite -- if a sock agrees with me I'll call them out the same as a sock who's specifically targeting me. (Although honestly, MBurch doesn't seem to have enough of an edit history to have someone logging out to troll them. I wouldn't be surprised if this was a joe-job.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Go for Air14&action=history to decide, whether I’m able to contribute to an article. Another example though for “ungratefulness”. I could actually contribute to some of those articles but won’t, if both of the “twinned” users (sorry, not meant as an offence but to describe a fact) are there.--2A02:1206:45AE:7E0:DEA:4B2E:4D1F:111E (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I see you disputed with FFA back shortly after that page survived AFD. It's still theoretically possible that you could be The Banner, but that wouldn't make any sense as he edited that page logged-in, and would have had no reason to manufacture a false consensus in that situation. Yeah, you've demonstrated adequately enough for me that you're not someone's sock or in any way related to the trolls that have been plaguing this page for the last week or so. Sorry to ask you to explain yourself. I fixed the link for you, anyway. Cheers! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Evidence

2014

Hijiri88 is correct that evidence should be presented if you accuse someone of hounding. At the very least I would claim that the communication between these two is anything but exemplary. It strts with two nominations

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ALR Piranha (no policy reasons given, result keep)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dübendorf Air Base (The Banner cites WP:OR and WP:SYNTH withdrawn by the Banner, no delete !votes)

Then comes a spat about the merging of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Puma Display Team in which the banner accuses FFA P-16 of promo, editwarring and a "distinguished career of blowing things way out of proportion".

• [153]

2015

• The Banner removes "irrelavant parts", an edit-war0like interaction between FFA and TB ensues, TB issues a 3RR warning (despite being the other party)
• A day later KZD-85 is nominated by TB (result: keep)
• There is an interaction with another user over overuse of images. TB chimes in with the remark "Come on, FFA! This is not the first time that you are adding irrelevant details or plain fancruft to articles"
• TB accuses FFA of disruptive editing and tells him "Stop with adding fancruft!" Restores his comments on FFA's TP after FFA deleted them. Accuses FFA of WP:NOTHERE and promo.
• TB nominates FFA's userpage for deletion (result Delete). Threatens FFA with AN/I in the process.

2016

• A spat in Draft:RUAG Aviation over bad English. The article has since been draftified
  • An (unambiguous) PA by FFA against TB results in TB issuing a level 2 warning against FFA.

etc.

2017

... (no time) The above may not add up to WP:HOUNDING as defined by the ArbCom, but I get how FFA gets the idea TB is relentlessly on his case. I also acknowledge FFA's English is very poor (grottenschlecht), and TB was right to point that out. That does not absolve TB from WP:CIVIL. These two editors got off on the wrong foot and the situation has deteriorated since. Some solution is urgently called for. Kleuske (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kleuske: You're right that a bunch of that is below the belt, and I would advise User:The Banner to be a lot more careful about rhetoric. Sorry to invoke ArbCom again, but, yeah, WP:Civility is our most important policy, outweighing all the others combined. The highest court in the land doesn't care about GNG, good encyclopedic writing style, verifiability or anything else, so you have to respect C above everything else.

That said: ANI is a bit more free to deal with things in their proper context, and honestly I think Wikipedia would be a better place if we treated civil POV-pushers the same way we treat good editors with short tempers.

Plus, some of the above evidence seems to have been cherry-picked to make The Banner's behaviour look worse than it was. For example, why are only three of the AFDs that are supposedly the whole cause of the problem listed, and those three all keeps? FFA gave what looked like a more random (comprehensive?) sample further up, and 70% of those ended with delete results.

Anyway, whether or not The Banner's behaviour has been sub-par and should perhaps be sanctioned, Kleuske has now formally retracted the "hounding" accusation, but MBurch and FFA still have not. MBurch in particular has provided no evidence, and making accusations about hounding without evidence, particularly after it has been requested, constitutes a personal attack. This, on top of his continued grossly uncivil attacks on me near the top of the thread, leads me to wonder why we are continuing to tolerate his presence here. He has contributed nothing to English Wikipedia (his entire edit history consists of following FFA and TB around, uniformly propping up the former and undermining with the latter). I'm therefore increasingly skeptical that a remedy focused solely on TB and FFA would solve the problem.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I am very pleased with Kleuske's proposal~(to check my work.. se his statement above). I will anyway kep down with writing in The English wikipedia. And if I would like to bring something in, I then use the offer of MBurch to rework the English. I think that if Kleuske has checked it before, there is no direct contact between me and The Banner, no conflict potential. It is only my concern that the articles I written so far get not nominadet for deletion by The Banner. That Kleuske, has an eye on it. Improved, yes, but not to triggerhappy deleteion. What the banner does otherwise .. working on articels about TV channels, restaurants, Beauticontests. No matter what .. I am not interested and is therefore not a conflict potential. I felt pushed by the banner and MBurch shared this feeling and tryed me to help.. it looks like in the english wikipedia are things not the same like in the german wikipedia..so his intervention was done in good faith,because it looked to him like The Banner is buging me. If the proposal of Kleuske wins, there is no reason why I or MBurch would not agree with this. No reason for us to criticize in future.The banner. I hope this will find a peaceful end for all.FFA P-16 (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@FFA P-16: Nobody wins, here. We all lose. Your behavior towards The Banner is at least as bad as vice versa. I'm not on your side, I'm trying to control the damage. Kleuske (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Kleuske, I just beeing thankful that you brought in something what loocks to me as a good solution. For me its not about to "win".. like I said:I hope this will find a peaceful end for all (also for The Banner).FFA P-16 (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: The Banner is a very productive editor and a boon to the project. The last thing on my mind is making him look bad. At least 50% of the blame rests firmly on FFA's shoulders, who has CIR-issues to boot, but I wanted to point out where all the bad blood on FFA's side comes from. Having walked my dog, I do have second thoughts and regret posting it.

TB does have a tendency to go overboard and tends to turn matters into a personal affair (see his reaction to me, above), which has landed him on this notice-board more than once (and please don't make me cite examples). I proposed the IBAN not to spite The Banner, but to get him off FFA's case and let someone else handle it, since this is getting counter productive. Wikipedia can handle a poorly written article about an obscure, possibly non-notable subject in piss poor English much better than a three year drama. Any action, however justified, TB takes involving FFA only adds fuel to the fire. Hence my proposal. Kleuske (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Ubi pus, ibi evacua Kleuske (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

That being said. I'm getting more and more convinced a site-ban per WP:CIR for FFA P-16 due to a lack of language skills would be justifiable, too. Kleuske (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

If he is just translatign German into English, isn't there a tag for that so it can be copyedited? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 00:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Supplementary proposal: 6-month probation for MBurch

In light of the behaviour displayed in this thread and over the last several months, I propose a final warning for MBurch (talk · contribs). If, during the next six months, he engages in behaviour that could reasonably be interpreted as WP:HOUNDING, appears to be acting as a proxy to allow FFA to violate the above-proposed IBAN, or otherwise behaves in an uncivil manner, he may be blocked from editing English Wikipedia by any admin without further warning. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

I didn't mean to attack you at all, I just believe you're comments were not much helpful. In my personal opinion you increased the conflict while others tried to find a solution in short, brief words. Fact is I signed up 21th of November 2010, I have globally over 25'000 contributions mostly in German Wikipedia, but a few on commons, wikidata and others, too [154]. --MBurch (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC) Responded to the above duplicated comment above, where it belongs. This proposal has nothing to do with MBurch's global contributions, and is not specifically about his personal attacks against me. I would have made basically the same proposal based on his hounding of The Banner and his wikilawyerish attempts to get me in trouble (blocked?) for "calling him a sockpuppet" (something I never did) by pinging the admin who unblocked him. MBurch, if you want to respond to my proposal on its merits, please do so outside of this collapse template. If you continue to post off-topic commentary in this subsection I will take it as a deliberate attempt to filibuster the proposal by preventing discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Editing behavior of Robert Walker

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

---

Robertinventor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The editing behavior of Robertinventor, aka Robert Walker, is disruptive:

[1] Robert Walker changes his own old post materially, after someone has replied, a violation of WP:TALK guidelines. For evidence: this on RSN. This was after I reminded him to not do so. This is not a new issue with RW, but one raised in past such as in an ANI review of Robert Walker's disruptive behavior, a review that ultimately concluded with a topic ban on RW. Admin Bishonen had observed and cautioned Robert Walker to read WP:REDACT, on May 7 2016, advising, "It's a bad idea to change your posts after they have been answered, as this wrongfoots the people who have answered." Robert Walker's editing, after the ban expired, has ignored this.

[2] Robert Walker has repeatedly cast aspersions on Joshua Jonathan and I, without providing evidence and editing diffs. For example, with this, he falsely alleged, "You and Joshua Jonathan often revert edits on the basis that they are only cited to Buddhist scholars". No evidence provided. See the WP:DRN, Talk:Four Noble Truths, and Talk:WikiProject Buddhism for more examples.

[3] The walls of post by Robert Walker (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), (Replaced with: recent evidence in Robert Walker and the WP:WALLOFTEXT section below) with the above two behavioral issues make the situation worse. FWIW, I was recently requested by admin RegentsPark to help in the dispute between Joshua Jonathan and Robert Walker, but RW's behavior is too disruptive to allow progress.

Seeking an appropriate administrative action on RW's editing privileges or warning to User:Robertinventor, User:Robert Walker and linked disclosed accounts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I've already said, I'm sorry for suggesting that you do edit reverts of posts of that type. @Joshua Jonathan: does [155] and conversation about it here: [[156] but you don't. It was a one off mistake in a passage where I was talking about how you and @Joshua Jonathan: both have a similar view on WP:RS and I inadvertently types that you do edit reverts. I have never said that about you before and it was a mistake[157]. As for the rest, I do sometimes say too much, but it's not intentionally disruptive and it is too late to remove that post from the RSN. If only you and @Joshua Jonathan: would give me a friendly warning first, and there is no need to take me to WP:ANI just because I've been verbose again. I've never had any warnings of that nature from either of you. I am doing my best. I take wikibreaks as soon as I spot I'm being over verbose. My "walls of text" are not meant as fillibustering either, they are all carefully worded and thought out and the intent is to help not to disrupt processes here. I also said sorry about editing the RSN post after there were replies and said how it happened [158]. Robert Walker (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Robert Walker: Not true. This is not the first time. You do it again, and again, and again, and again, and again. You apologized earlier too, but didn't change your ways. You promise to reply to my request for evidence, but you don't. You do so even after my repeated requests. Not just I, others such as RegentsPark has asked you to give specifics and evidence last week.

You re-instated your "change of older version of your post" twice (1, 2) twenty minutes "after" I requested to stop changing your previous edits. As admin Bishonen warned you in 2016, you have done this before, and you apologized then too. Yet you keep doing it, any way. You seem to have no respect for the integrity of a discussion, or how your back-editing leaves a misleading impression to the replies of other people, on others who join the discussion later. Your back-changing your posts, after someone has already replied, robs the context of their replies and make the other editors look unreasonable. You are very disruptive. You walls of post, rapid pace of endless editing the same talk pages 100s of times within a week is not helpful to collaboration. I suggest a 1 year ban, or at least a last warning to you, for the following: [1] no back editing "anything" in your non-threaded section, or in any threaded discussion, after someone has replied; [2] you provide edit diff or evidence in reliable sources, for any allegation you make. Any future failure should be grounds for sanctions. I am open to any alternate measures admins suggest based on their experience. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Robert Walker: You apologized above at 19:29, 30 April 2017. Yet, at 19:42, 30 April 2017 you do it again, with the allegation, "Especially since Joshua Jonathan and Ms Sarah Welch often explain to other editors including myself that they are not secondary sources." No diffs, no evidence. The casting aspersions without evidence by Robert Walker seems to never end. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I only saw your message on my talk page AFTER I did those additional edits of the RSN post. I had no idea that editing a user page in my own user space would be seen as disruptive. With the Four Noble Truths talk page, most of my edits are minor edits, and they were of comments that nobody had replied to. Nobody has warned me that I shouldn't do minor edits after I have posted a post there and before they are replied to. They are usually copy editing for clarity and don't change the essential meaning of what I say. I no longer edit my posts after they are replied to in threaded discourse, or I mark such edits with underlines and strikethroughs as recommended. This is the first warning I've had about editing a post when there is a threaded discourse going on in a separate section. I do understand the reason, and I won't do it again when the sections are related as these were. And - you did collapse my first post there for several months a short while back[159]. And @Joshua Jonathan: did delete that post too[160]. Those are WP:TPOs. Neither of you have apologized for doing that yet. Robert Walker (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Robert Walker: Not true. You allege above, again without evidence, that "I had no idea that editing a user page in my own user space would be seen as disruptive." If you had provided an "edit diff", admins would see that it was not your user space, it was "Reliable sources/Noticeboard" where you back-edited. WP:RSN is not your user space. If after your zillion edits, past admin warnings and reminders for "no back editing", past admin sanctions and blocks, you still are back editing on notice boards and dispute forums, there is a pattern of serious behavioral issues with your editing. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I put a lot of thought and care into my posts here. The numerous minor edits are part of that. It is not meant disruptively. The only reason I do this is to make the posts easier to read, to shorten them (as I tend to be verbose) and copy edit them. And in that RSN discussion you said that my post was inappropriate for the RSN. I answered explaining why it was appropriate and said I'd edit my post to make it clear why I had posted there. I had no idea at the time that to do so would be seen as disruptive. As soon as you pointed it out I realized what you meant - I should have just done a strikeout of the entire paragraph and added a replacement paragraph. But of course it was too late after I saw your message on my talk page, which I only saw AFTER I finished the copy editing to make it clearer why I posted there. The conversation is here [161]. Robert Walker (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Robert's statement "Neither of you have apologized for doing that yet": I did apologize. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive951#Request for renewed topic-ban: "Anyway, I apologize; I reacted on impulse, as I just had enough of it." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I missed that. Thanks for the apology! Robert Walker (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Robert Walker: Not true again. You back-changed your edits at least thrice, just today. Here is your first back-change. After you did this, I reverted you with the edit summary "please do not change your old posts/talk page comments after someone has replied". Here is your second second back-change which reverted my revert. Then you went ahead one more time, ignored my explicit request on your talk page not to keep back-editing. You thereafter did the third back-change, not seconds after, but a while later. Please note that the change was not about "explaining why it was appropriate and said I'd edit my post to make it clear why I had posted there". You changed your post materially, with back-edits where you change your allegations against Joshua Jonathan or I, as amply evidenced in that diff.

So, we are not talking about simple explanation added, or indent, for format change, or spelling/grammar fix, or simple stuff that doesn't change the meaning of your post. You change the context and your allegations after someone has already replied. The problem is that this is not a new behavioral issue. You have done it in past when Bishonen warned you. Yet you keep doing it again. The walls of text, and "allegations without evidence" issue is worse disruption by you. You apologized above, yet did it again a while later, as evidenced by the links above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Oh I see, that was you? I do remember during that editing that I pressed submit, but when I went to edit the page again, it still showed the old version. I did not think of the possibility that someone else had edited my comment - which of course I now understand you did because you had a right to do so. I assumed that something had gone wrong at my end. That's why I didn't think to check the editing history and just did the edit again. In that case, yes of course, it was of course a material change but I didn't at the time realize the rule applied, in the midst of that conversation. I did say at the end of my rewrite "(edited after discussion with @Ms Sarah Welch: below.)"

Now I do understand, that if an editor challenges a post you make to a board, saying they don't know why you posted, or any similar situation, yes of course you have to keep the original challenged post on the board and strike it out and then add the new amended post beneath with underlines to show it is new content, so that their comment challenging your post has content. I can go and edit it and insert the old material with strike through and underline the new material if that was acceptable. But at this stage that might of itself count as back editing because other editors have now responded to the edited post. So I don't think there is much I can do except to say sorry as I did and that I'll take care not to do it again. I did add at the end (as edited )Robert Walker (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Ms Sarah Welch, your items in #3 are mostly months to years old (some are 4 years old), so please strike the entirety of 3#. That done, what we apparently have left is RW's re-factoring of his posts. I suggest a prohibition on refactoring talkpage posts. Robertinventor, prepare your posts in your sandbox first, and perfect them as to what you really and clearly and succinctly want to say. Then post them on article talk and do not alter them after posting. Softlavender (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed that links in #3 are old, but that does not mean RW's wall of texts is not a continuing issue. It is a long standing issue, that editors uninvolved in Buddhism article space have recently expressed their concerns / frustration on. Would you be okay if I struck the old links and replaced them with links from recent weeks from WP:DRN, WP:RSN etc? I also request admin review of #2, because casting aspersions without evidence by RW is a persistent problem? I have given recent links above, and can provide more. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• There are no aspersions in your #2 listing, only a neutral and neutrally worded observation (whether it is mistaken or not is not relevant). In terms of walls of text, I suggest that any examples should be after April 15, 2017, which is when the last ANI report ended: [162]. Also, for any example for any problem, you need to provide diffs, not pages, and the diffs need to be of his edits, not yours. Softlavender (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Softlavender: Strange. Why April 15? I appreciate your comments that you make as another volunteer and non-admin, and we all need to respect wikipedia's guidelines. Is there an Arb committee or other resolution that somehow statutorily exempts RW's behavior because he was a part of some other ANI case?

On #2, FWIW, here are the Arb Committee resolutions on casting aspersions (trimmed for brevity, full version here):

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC): It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation.

Passed 10 to 0 at 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC): It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause.

Passed 7 to 0, 22:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC): An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe.

For #2, I have already provided multiple evidentiary links above of repeated accusations by RW without evidence, against me, where these apply. FWIW, RW has accepted that he has accused me without evidence, then at 15:07, 30 April 2017 he retracted his accusation where he admitted, "As far as I know, you don't". But, hours later, at 19:42, 30 April 2017, RW accused again without evidence, "Especially since Joshua Jonathan and Ms Sarah Welch often explain to other editors including myself that they are not secondary sources." RW's accusations that I commonly revert proper content, delete reliable secondary sources, etc is an accusation of misbehavior. Such accusations are a repetitive RW behavior. I urge that these past Arb committee's resolutions on casting aspersions be considered in this case as they are relevant. They are common sense, humane principles, necessary for any healthy working/volunteer environment, in my humble view. To be clear, I am not asking for indef ban on RW for this, but a prohibition, or other limited sanction on his editing privileges as a corrective measure.

I agree with you, Softlavender, that for #3 problem, I need to "provide diffs, not pages, and the diffs need to be of his edits", not mine from recent weeks. I will do so, and update #3 today. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I have only once said that you revert edits, which was a mistake, @Joshua Jonathan: does, but you don't. However I did provide a diff for your statements about secondary behaviour; possibly I might have saved it first before adding this. [163]

@Softlavender: - do you say then that it is an issue that I edit my posts after I posted them, when nobody has replied to them yet? Until @Ms Sarah Welch: said about it in this action, nobody has said that this is a problem as far as I remember. My verbosity, yes, and I used to edit posts after they were replied to, until I was told that you can't do that unless you use strikeout and underline. Since then I have been careful to use strikeout and underline. I can compose my posts in my sandbox, yes.

In those edits I'm going by this section of WP:REDACT.

"So long as no one has yet responded to your comment, it's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes, add links or otherwise improve them. If you've accidentally posted to the wrong page or section or if you've simply changed your mind, it's been only a short while and no one has yet responded, you may remove your comment entirely."

It might be that I haven't understood it properly, or that my interpretation of "a short while" is different from that of other editors. Robert Walker (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

RW, there is no way you can "re-revert" my revert of your back-editing accidentally, then preserve it, and add more back-editing for the third time quite a while later (see above for diffs). Complete prohibition on your refactoring/back-editing is the minimum we must do here to address #1. The issue #2 isn't that you alleged something once. The issue is that you repeatedly "accuse without evidence". You apologized. I was willing to forgive you, thinking of dropping the stick and moving on. Yet, you again "accused without evidence" many hours later. This behavior of yours has not stopped, and this is disruptive (see above for diffs). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I assure you I had no idea. I composed that text first in a text editor on my computer and copy / pasted it in, used the preview button and then edited it, clicked submit and did more editing. But then I found that it didn't seem to have "stuck" - it still showed the old version. I didn't know why that happened, but I just copy / pasted my version on my computer back in again and clicked submit again. This time it worked. I did not realize that the reason it didn't work the first time was because you had reverted it.

@Softlavender: I've just started using my sandbox for my talk page posts, composed a long comment to @Joshua Jonathan: there first. I think this may be a breakthrough for me. It's amazing that I've been editing here so long and not really properly appreciated the use of the sandbox, you will see from its editing history that I last used it in 2013 and I don't think I have ever used it to draft comments before. [164]. Perhaps someone suggested this to me before but if so I forgot. I did try creating comments in subpages of my user space but that got clumsy plus there's the matter of pings, you don't want to ping someone to a subpage of your user space. I assume that pings don't work from the sandbox? Robert Walker (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Robert Walker: The use the sandbox idea, including for drafting, has been suggested to you several times. For example, even during the last AN 2016 case review on you, which led to a six month ban for you a year ago. Back then, you seemed to acknowledge and accept the "draft in sandbox" idea. Yet here we are. Nothing really changed, and the walls of texts and other behavioral issues are back. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Please check my sandbox history. You will see I never used it between 2013 and the present. I have started to use it now and it makes a big difference. I think it will mean an end to this re-editing of posts as my problem always was that I find it awkward to edit my posts in the preview screen and there's the issue of possibly losing data. I may have missed something but I don't remember anyone suggesting this before @Softlavender: and surely I would at least have tested the idea in my sandbox at least once if they had and I'd understood what they were saying. Robert Walker (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Robert Walker: I gave you the link above from May 2016, a year ago, which explicitly mentions the "sandboxes" suggestion. Read the whole AN case thread through the close by admin EdJohnston. We went over this, with a lot of effort and numerous members of wikipedia community who tried to help you and offer your constructive suggestions. If you didn't read it, or if you ignored it all then, it is not the community's fault. Because you were a focus of the May 2016 AN review. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Robert, to answer your question, yes, you in particular should refrain from editing your posts once you post them, no matter whether anyone has responded to them or not. If necessary, this may be made into an administrator's official sanction in order to prevent disruption. Softlavender (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Okay that's clear. Sorry only just saw this post. I pinged you in another post not sure if you saw it. But I now use the sandbox unless a post is very short like this one. This will completely remove the need for refactoring my posts after I post them. I don't know how it is that I can have not realized this way of using the sandbox until you suggested it and that basically was the problem that I was using talk pages as my sandbox. Maybe I thought it was just for trying out wikipedia or doing early stage drafts of article content? I hadn't used it since 2013. Robert Walker (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Robert Walker and the WP:WALLOFTEXT

The walls of text by Robert Walker issue continues, which combined with #1 and #2 issues above have been disruptive. This issue needs to be considered in light of the relevant past, so measures if any proposed and considered, weigh whether and to what extent past measures on Robert Walker's walls of text have helped. The disruption by RW's walls of text was noted for example, during a 2016 AN review process by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi ([165]), JimRenge ([166]), Robert McClenon [167], others there, and by the case closing admin EdJohnston ([168]).

Evidence of walls of text from recent weeks include:

• Reliable sources/Noticeboard: 1, 2, others; Number of posts by Robert Walker since 07:33, April 30 2017: 80

• Dispute resolution noticeboard: 3, others, 4, Number of posts by Robert Walker since 08:27, 26 April 2017: dozens, not counted

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism: 5, 6, others, Number of posts by Robert Walker since 22:29, 10 April 2017: 73

Recent comments by other wikipedia editors:

1. RSN volunteer comment: "If neutral sources also discuss the general views of Theravadan Bhikkus, then of course those academic views should be included. The massive walls of text here discouraged me from adding to the discussion earlier. Thus, please note that I'm only adding one view to this very particular usage, and have no time to enter into the meandering philosophical meta discussion above and in the countless linked discussions. First Light (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)"

1. DRN volunteer comment: "As a side-note, please try to be as concise as possible..That you want to include more non-Western views is not an unreasonable demand. Unfortunately, the fact is that walls of text don't help always and the length and sheer volume of your posts makes it impossible to figure out what exactly you're seeking. Winged Blades Godric 15:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)"

The above evidence is being submitted per the request of Softlavendar in the section above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

More Comments, Not Again!

Not again! As the original posters have noted, this has been going on for a year. The subject editor, Robert Walker, has some issue about the articles on Buddhism. I don't entirely understand what the issue is, both because it appears to be something specific to Buddhism that isn't relevant to non-Buddhists, and because the great length and number of the posts are a barrier to understanding. I think that RW is unhappy that the articles were substantially reworked by User:Joshua Jonathan (JJ) and User:Ms Sarah Welch (SW) in 2014, but I am not sure. In any case, the issue of the length and number of his posts has been brought up here in the past, and it appears that it resulted in restrictions being imposed, but they have expired. In any case, an attempt was made to discuss at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but was closed; my own thought there was that RW didn't identify a specific content issue, and DRN is for the discussion of article content issues (not meta-issues or conduct). The issue was then taken to the reliable source noticeboard, which is now being swamped by walls of text, but the issue doesn't seem to have to do with specific sources but a general philosophical complaint about the difference between Western academic sources and traditional Asian sources. It appears that all efforts to get RW to state a concise issue are unsuccessful, and, besides, he apparently can't just post a statement (whether or not a wall of text) without editing it while others (JJ and SW) are responding. I don't see any likelihood of a collaborative solution for an editor who can't take part in collaboration. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: - for clarity, I did not take it to the DRN. I said on my talk page that I am sure a DRN won't work, having identified what I believe to be the issue, that we have different SUBPOVs here, it's towards the end of this comment [169]. Soon after that, @Joshua Jonathan: took the case to DRN. I never wanted it at DRN, but once there of course I made the best case I could there. Robert Walker (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It isn't important whether RW or JJ took it to DRN. It is important that the length of RW's posts made it impossible for the DRN volunteers to facilitate moderated discussion or to identify what the issues were. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The issue of me continually editing my posts should now be solved with @Softlavender:'s suggestion to use my sandbox. I haven't re-edited any post since then after posting, only two posts of any length since then. Please let me use this for a while so you can see that it works, as I am sure it will. Robert Walker (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

That is only one part of the problem, and has apparently been proposed and accepted and forgotten in the past. However, the refactoring of talk page posts is only one part of the problem, because the length of the posts is also a problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

That's true. However my editing often reduces the length of posts. I often start with a post that is too verbose, and if I don't get any replies to it, then I am able to trim it down a lot by removing repetition. You should see shorter posts as a result. Also note that @Joshua Jonathan: also often does extremely long posts, he is as verbose as me, or not far off - if I had the opportunity to trim my verbose posts as I will be able to do now, you probably won't see any difference. And my posts throughout are written with great care and thought to present the point as clearly as I can and are never intended to be disruptive. Robert Walker (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

If anyone finds that I am saying too much - why not just go to my talk page and say "Look you have said a bit too much in that conversation, why not take a wikibreak for a day or two?" That is what I do when I spot that I've been too verbose myself. Why take me to ANI just to tell me that I've been too verbose again, and try to get me topic banned for it?

User:Robertinventor - The problem is, first, telling you that your posts are too long simply results in a reply, which is more words, and, second, telling you to take a break is a little late after your overly lengthy post has made concise discussion impossible. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: To reply to your earlier comment, the essential point is that these articles do not present the views of sutra tradition Buddhists. Just as Christians believe in the Resurrection of Jesus - sutra tradition Buddhists believe that Buddha became enlightened as a young man aged 30 and at that point he was already free of the unsatisfactoriness of suffering, old age, sickness and death, even though he went on to become old, sick and die. I have given plenty of cites to WP:RS in sutra tradition Buddhism, but these are not accepted as proving the case because they are written by Buddhists! This is one of many issues with these articles but one of the most striking, It's like coming across an article about Christianity that doesn't explain that Christians believe in resurrection. It's a simple point. @Joshua Jonathan: and @Ms Sarah Welch: complicate the discussion every time I mention this by saying that Buddha said it was his last rebirth, which is true. But that is not what enlightenment means to Buddhists, it means this cessation of dukkha which in the case of Buddha he realized as a young man. So the main issue can be stated concisely. There are many other issues of a similar nature in the articles. So, the problem I have is not so much stating the issues, as in convincing editors here who are unfamiliar with sutra tradition Buddhists that this is what Buddhist believe. It is tough to do this against all the claims of the opposing editors that we do not have this belief. As for the reliable sources, my "Four Noble Truths" colour coded by the sources shows how the new version relies almost entirely on western sources such as Anderson for nearly every sentence in the lede. This is why it is essential to establish that it is okay to use the traditional Buddhist sources to describe the beliefs of sutra tradition Buddhists. @Dorje108: agrees that they are POV and he is the only other sutra tradition Buddhist to comment on the dispute. See [170]. As for my decision to take it to the RSN, that was the recommendation of @Winged Blades of Godric:. He made this recommendation as one of two possibilities when I closed the dispute. [171]. I have never taken a case to the RSN before and was unfamiliar with how it works and I didn't use their recommended format of Article, Content and Source as three bullet points and wrote too much. If I'd known how it worked, I'd have written my post like that right away, and it could have saved a lot of unnecessary meta discussion. Incidentally I composed this reply in my sandbox as you can check easily. So far I have saved 11 minor edits on the talk pages by using the sandbox. This is going to make a huge difference to those issues. Robert Walker (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Robert McClenon: I concur with rest of your observations, except one detail. I should set the record straight on that, to avoid giving an impression that Joshua Jonathan and I have been "team editing" the affected articles since 2014. The credit for the improvements to Four Noble Truths etc articles in 2014 and 2015 do not belong to me, it belongs to others including Joshua Jonathan. My first edit to Four Noble Truths article was on 29 April 2016, after being invited to review the article earlier about a year ago because of a dispute which included RW and JJ. In other words, JJ and I haven't been working together on the disputed articles since 2014. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: - when has telling me that my posts are too long lead to more replies? Except here of course, where you say that I will be topic banned from the Buddhism topic area for six months in which case of course I need to reply. But has anyone ever said this on my talk page? Or suggested I take a wikibreak because I'm being too verbose? I don't know of any examples. Whenever they think I am being too verbose, they take me straight to WP:ANI and the first I hear of it is a post on my talk page saying I have an action against me here. Robert Walker (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Specific Unpleasant Remedy, Topic-Ban

Since all efforts both by JJ and SW and by uninvolved administrators and editors to get the issue defined concisely have failed, I find it necessary to propose that Robert Walker be topic-banned from all posts about Buddhism, broadly defined, for six months. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support I've been looking over the discussion both here as well as on WP:RSN and agree that this is the only way forward. Robert Walker needs to learn the difference between primary sources and secondary sources, the importance of an orderly discussion, the importance of focused suggestions, as well as the disruptive nature of walls of text that are being constantly edited and re-edited. At the same time, I feel that they are acting in good faith. Perhaps a topic area in which they are not so deeply invested will help them learn the way of the wiki. I'd prefer to see some evidence outside Buddhism that they can edit meaningfully before a topic ban is lifted so would also support an indef topic ban with the possibility of applying for its removal after six months. --regentspark (comment) 21:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: You don't need proof that I can edit meaningfully here as I edit in many areas. I wrote about half of the article Planetary protection - and ditto for Interplanetary contamination. I wrote Present day Mars habitability analogue environments on Earth recently. Also Modern Mars habitability recently. Both of those are almost entirely my work. So is the Hexany article. I have many contributions here also in the articles on microtonal music and I do many minor edits throughout wikipedia adding content. This dispute has rather distracted me away from that activity, which is what I normally do here. This whole thing started in 2014 when @Joshua Jonathan: rewrote what I considered to be some of the best articles in wikipedia, such as @Dorje108:'s original article on Karma in Buddhism, which had been in a mature state for a long time. I wanted to do something about this as a reader who admired his work on those articles, which represented a complex and intricate subject with careful use of what we regard as the WP:RS in the Buddhism topic area as sutra tradition Buddhists. Robert Walker (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Robert, I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but the walls of text, the refactoring, etc. makes it hard to see what else we can do. This is a volunteer effort and it is impractical to expect anyone to read and make sense of what you're getting at. I was hoping you would see that but it doesn't look like that's going to happen. You're way too invested in this topic - work elsewhere for a bit and then let's see. --regentspark (comment) 22:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes okay. But do you need to topic ban me to say this? Why not just kindly post to my talk page making this suggestion? I am going to take a wikibreak right now. Anyone could have suggested that at any time through these proceedings, and I'd have listened to them, indeed I'd have paid very careful attention to anyone who had made that suggestion. They didn't need to take me to WP:ANI. Just say that my verbosity was a problem again. That would have been enough. Robert Walker (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

No. No. We have said that your verbosity is a problem many times, and you have acknowledged it, but that hasn't changed anything. It apparently is necessary to impose some sort of sanctions on you. You say that you need to be told to take a wikibreak. Okay, but - There is a type of editor in Wikipedia, of whom you are not the only one, who is passive-aggressive, who edits tendentiously in some way or other, and then, when brought up to this noticeboard, says that they plan to take a wikibreak, sometimes a long wikibreak. This does stop whatever the problem is for a while, but, after the break, they come back, and the disruptive behavior resumes, and the slate was swept clean because the community thought, in good faith, that the problem was solved, which it was, for a little while. Yes, apparently we have to take action anyway, rather than just delaying a decision until you come back and your verbosity is a problem again. I know that you mean well, but that doesn't make you a constructive editor in the long run. Yes, something has to be done other than just delaying a decision until your wikibreak is over. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon is spot on. Look at the links above, RW. The DRN volunteer mentioned your wall of text is a problem. The RSN volunteer said the same. I said the same. RegentsPark appealed to you last week about it (again all this is linked above, in some cases with quotes). The wikipedia community is here to contribute to building a free and ever-improving encyclopedia that is available to every poor or rich fellow human being with an access to the web. It is not here to endlessly deal with your or similar disruptive behavior. We are well past the stage of cautioning, pleading, suggesting, rinsing and repeating our suggestions to you. Please reflect on the fact that you, RW, have been through this cycle before in 2016. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

But why do you take me straight to ANI without saying on my talk page that I am being too verbose? There hasn't been any example where anyone has said "We are thinking of taking you to ANI, can you do something about your behaviour"? If I felt another editor was being problematical in their behaviour I would go to their talk page and talk to them 1 on 1 about it first. You all agree that I act in good faith and am motivated and want to help wikipedia. I think you'd be surprised at what happens if you tried this. And make suggestions to help. @Softlavender: was the first one to do that with her suggestion to use the Sandbox - which would have completely eliminated the refactoring issue if someone had mentioned that to me, maybe someone did and I missed it, but nobody really tried to help with the issue to the extent of actually talking about it to me as a person in a friendly way to try to help. Robert Walker (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Please read WP:TALKNO, particularly the part about admin threats. RW, you seem to be telling the community what it needs to do. It is time you took some time off and reflected on, "what do I need to do to help other editors and the wiki collaboration process?" We have been through the cycle of suggestions in 2016. Please read that entire thread. We can't keep going in passive-aggressive circles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, is that the case? But if you aren't permitted to say you are considering taking me to ANI, you could still say that I am being too verbose, There would be no need to say anything else. I'd get the hint quickly enough I assure you. I'd instantly take a wikibreak probably after the experience of all these ANI. I mean at an early stage. Not when things have got to the point where you are just about to take me to ANI pretty much no matter what I do. I've added a proposal below, that I am prepared to limit myself to one post every ... hours (any time interval) in the Buddhism topic area. Would that be a solution? How could I be too verbose if I did just one post every x hours? I have already fixed the refactoring with sandbox and in a situation like the RSN, just by understanding how the rule applies in that situation, which I somehow missed. Please see #Offer for future editing behaviour below. Robert Walker (talk) 04:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

9 april 2017: "Robert, you asked me before to tell you, in a kind way, when your edits were crossing a line. They are, again. We've discussed this over and over again. So, please stop, okay? Just drop it." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@RW: Please see WP:WALLOFTEXT. So many editors, including DRN/RSN volunteers kept and keep reminding you of your "wall of text" issue. Please study the diff links above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Oh that was a comment you made to me immediately after you had deleted my first and succint post on the 4NT talk page for several months[172]. @Farang Rak Tham: restored it[173], @Ms Sarah Welch: collapsed it again along with just about everything else on the page[174] and when I protested about this on your talk page, you made this "crossed the line" comment which you just quoted[175]. As I said then, "When I asked you to warn me about any problematical behaviour first and attempt amicable settlement before taking me to WP:ANI, it wasn't intended as permission to delete my talk page posts". [176]. I think it has to be a credible line. Immediately after your own serious WP:TPO that I had crossed a line, deleting my first post after several months, how could I take that seriously?

Yes, it is true that later, when talking on the Buddha Project page when I complained there about you deleting and collapsing my posts - I'd got a bit het up about it all, and I get verbose when I get het up. I did realize this eventually by myself, and stopped and took a wikibreak. But you took me back to WP:ANI just hours into my wikibreak. That would have been a good time to warn me of my verbosity. Instead of taking me to ANI after I had already noticed my verbosity and stopped, you could have commented on it at the time when I actually was verbose. Or similarly, when I was getting over verbose on the RSN page. Then I would have seen immediately that you were right, stopped and taken a wikibreak. Timing is everything here.Robert Walker (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support Robert McClenon got it right: RW is unhappy with the fact that "Karma in Buddhism" and "Four Noble Truths" were reworked (thanks for the honours, MSW). Robert admits this himself: "This whole thing started in 2014 when @Joshua Jonathan: rewrote what I considered to be some of the best articles in wikipedia." This rewriting was not just about primary and secondary sources, it was about WP:RS, WP:QUOTEFARM, WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:CHERRYPICKING, and WP:RNPOV, as explained in every minute detail at the talkpages and notice-boards. I've been interacting with him now for 2,5 years; while others can summarize in a few lines what those policies imply and move on, RW is still trying to figure out what the first policy mentioned here means, nay, how he can bend it to get what he wants. So, how long will it take him to understand this first policy, let alone the rest? The Four Noble Truths article is now stuffed with references, from both Buddhists and academich scholars, and complete subsections, which answer Robert's concerns (neat summary). I've also made changes in response to the concrete suggestions he made (another neat overview). To no avail: Robert wants his preferred versions back. No arguments will help here. Despite all the explanations about this, for Robert it comes down to "I don't like it, because it does not reflect my pov." So, yes, I support a topic-ban; I've wasted so incredibly many hours on this yet, that a break is very welcome. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Also support indef-topic-ban, following Hijiri88. Unfortunately, I don't expect Robert to change. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support-Echo RegentsPark word by word.Winged Blades ^Godric 07:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Having watched RW's participation at DRN and RSN, I think this is quite necessary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite topic ban with a possibility of review after six months. The condition for lifting the ban should be a thorough understanding of how Wikipedia policies apply to regligious topics. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support I could have sworn this solution already passed one of the previous times this problem came up. Oh, well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - He was topic-banned from Four Noble Truths for six months. He came off topic-ban, and is still or again ranting that he liked it the way it was in 2014. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks for clearing that up. Changed !vote to neutral on set-term ban as proposed, support indefinite topic ban. Robert is a repeat offender, the previous fixed term ban solved nothing, and he doesn't seem to be learning. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Would you be willing to amend your proposal? An increasing number of "support"s (RsP, me, Sarah, JJ, WBoG, Jim...) are explicitly for an indef TBAN, but with the main proposal as it is and some of the "support"s not clarifying which version they support, this might wind up being one of those instances where a closer (even a non-admin closer) has complete and arbitrary freedom to super-!vote for whichever option they like. I know Wikipedia is not supposed to be a democracy, but it's also not supposed to be a tyranny. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I hadn't researched the history fully when I proposed the six-month topic-ban. I remembered that then he had said he would take a wikibreak when he was at WP:ANI. I now see that he was already given a six-month topic ban. At this point I don't want to try to amend this proposal, because that will throw the !votes into question even worse than his amending of talk page posts, but I will concur with a stronger separate proposal for an indefinite topic ban. This is unfortunate, but his insistence on the use of walls of text to argue in favor of tagging is disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: It's not actually all that complicated. Just add an addendum immediately below your initial proposal, and ping the users who haven't explicitly supported one version or the other, which on closer examination is only two: Kautilya3 and Ealdgyth. Even if both of those users showed up and said "No, the ban should be for six months, no longer." (not actually very likely, given what they did write in their !votes) it would then be 7-2 in favour of an indef TBAN, with unanimous support for some kind of TBAN; if a closer decided to rule in favour of the 22%, one of us could easily ask for a close review. With your initial proposal as-is and a bunch of editors !voting "support" (even in a nuanced fashion), though, a closer would have more freedom to do whatever they wanted with this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Tagging of articles for POV or other issues is primarily done to relatively new articles, especially by New Page Reviewers, and is intended to get the articles fixed, not to register a long-term dissatisfaction which the poster can't solve by consensus. This has been discussed at length. Either rewrite or roll back the articles, with consensus, or leave them alone. Tagging them, after such lengthy discussion, is just a proposal for whining. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

It is often used for mature articles too. Example: Jainism is currently tagged with it. That's been in wikipedia since 2002[177]. Robert Walker (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Diff for the tag [178] which was added to the Jainism article by @Ms Sarah Welch:, the same editor who removed my tag from Four Noble Truths. I found this by going to the "What links here" page for the tag and found an article in the Indian religions area tagged in the same way as I propose for FNT. The aim of a tag is to get more readers to join talk page debates and to alert readers that its neutrality has been disputed. I didn't add a tag during the previous disputes, because even adding a CN tag was immediately reverted. This time I was a bit braver, plus I'd identified not just a POV but clarified in my thought that we seem to have two distinct and very detailed SUBPOV's on the entire content of the article. That was why I felt we had a new thing to discuss, new since a month ago. Robert Walker (talk) 08:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment:@Robert McClenon:, I support Hijiri88´s proposal. JimRenge (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support - good heavens, he's still creating walls of text in this area? Especially after the following section ... he obviously isn't getting the idea. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support: [1] RegentsPark's suggestion of an indef Buddhism topic area ban on RW with a possibility of 6 month review by any admin; [2] Softlavendar's suggestion that RW be prohibited from "editing his posts once he has posted them, no matter whether anyone has responded to them or not. If necessary, this may be made into an administrator's official sanction in order to prevent disruption." This would apply site wide including noticeboards such as AN, DRN and RSN. [3] On "accusations/allegations without edit diffs or appropriate evidence" issue, a caution would suffice. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I am also fine with lesser sanction such as one suggested by Robert McClenon, or whatever is considered appropriate by admins. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Robertinventor/Robert Walker tries to force his POV by posting walls of text. An indefinite topic ban from all Buddhism related articles is needed to prevent further disruption. JimRenge (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Offer for future editing behaviour

• I am prepared to offer to do no more than one talk page post per [unit time] in the Buddhism topic area. Time period to be arranged. Robert Walker (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

May be after 6 month expires, and after an admin has reviewed your editing progress as RegentsPark suggested above. It appears your alternate (disclosed) account(s) – Robertinventor and Robert C. Walker – have been active on Talk:Microscope. Your accounts are by far the most verbose poster there as well in April 2017. I see a FORUM-y style, without links to external sources, without edit diffs, etc. There are some IPs active too, which AGF is not you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Please can I remind you of WP:AGF. On that discussion see [179]. And I identify Robert Walker and Robert C Walker as the same user and explain the reason for this [180] Robert Walker (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - since this offer to limit my posts to say one a day, has not been accepted, I don't see how I'd ever be able to appeal an indef topic ban. This means that for the rest of my life I will never be able to mention that I'm a Buddhist to anyone on wikipedia or discuss Buddhism with anyone here. Is that a just response to someone who has been a bit verbose, who has already said that he is now using the sandbox for every post of any length, so won't be refactoring, and who has offered to limit my posts to prevent verbosity? What can I do differently in an appeal that I haven't already offered to do right here, right now? Robert Walker (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

  As long as your biggest concern is not being able to tell other editors that you are a Buddhist and not being able to discuss your religion with others on Wikipedia, you're in the wrong place. You did the same thing on the microscope talk page, you weren't there to imorove the article, you disagreed with Wikipedia's no original research policy, you didn't understand the technical literature you read and you posted walls of rambling, repetitive, incomprehensible text. If you're topic banned on Buddhism articles, you will go elsewhere for discussions, but not for improving articles, then you'll disagree with a minor point of Wikipedia policy and drown other editors in walls of rambling text about your opinions, your beliefs, and your original research. --2601:648:8503:4467:CC4:FFC7:3087:F815 (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Please note - this is the "flamefest" starting ip editor mentioned here: "Thanks for remaining calm despite continual provocation by the IP editor who was fanning a flamefest at Talk:Microscope. I'm just leaving this note here so that you can see that someone noticed :-] " [181] Robert Walker (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Have you finished refactoring this post, yet?[182][183] --2601:648:8503:4467:CC4:FFC7:3087:F815 (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't compose that one in the sandbox because it was so short, then I needed to add the quote. It's a learning curve. This is the first post since I started using the sandbox where I posted as two edits instead of one. I'd just like to add - I am an editor in good standing with many articles to my name. I am often involved in discussions here. Here are some examples of many recent discussions: [184] [185] [186] - in the last one both me and Hucbald found that we liked writing and reading long posts - they were carefully written, scholarly and full of important details. When I need to be short I can be short too. In all my many years on wikipedia I've never had anyone complain of my verbosity anywhere except in these Buddhism topic area discussions. And since my verbosity does seem to be a problem to other editors in this particular topic area - and probably indeed because I get quite worked up about it, at times, which you can perhaps understand when you see that articles are misrepresenting your faith (as I see it). When I get het up like that I get verbose, and I don't notice it has happened until it is too late unless I get a reminder that is really clear. I notice eventually but not right away. That's why I offer to voluntarily restrict myself to, say, one post a day. I think this will end the problem. Please don't take these posts to this ANI as examples as obviously I need to defend myself here and I haven't started on any such voluntary restriction yet. I can if that is the consensus here. Robert Walker (talk) 03:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Robertinventor: No one is talking about banning you from discussing your own biography in contexts where it would not be inappropriate on Wikipedia. You are still allowed say you are a Buddhist on your user space (as long as you don't mention English Wikipedia's coverage of Buddhism or your prior disputes with other users in this area), and mention it casually in Wikipedia discussions that aren't about Wikipedia's coverage of Buddhist topics. I was in a similar situation to you last year, but there's no need to go into that. The ban would only prevent you from editing or discussing our articles on Buddhist topics. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh that's good to know and thanks for sharing your own experiences and clarifications. Robert Walker (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of proposed topic ban of Robert Walker from the Buddhism topic area

Well it looks as if you are going to topic ban me again. Perhaps there is nothing I can do but do let me just try to post some words in my defense, and maybe some other editors here will have another perspective on it? @Robert McClenon: You brought up several things at once, the length of my posts, the refactoring of them, the number of them. In answer to those points:

• @Softlavender:'s suggestion to use the sandbox will deal with the refactoring problem completely.

• It will also deal with the second one also to a large extent as often my editing of my posts is to deal with verbosity - you will notice that edited posts are often shorter - so if I do them in my sandbox I can reduce the length considerably.

You also say that I was warned before this But out of five times that @Joshua Jonathan: and now @Ms Sarah Welch: have taken me to WP:ANI, they have never tried a friendly resolution. Why not test me to see if I am one of those tendentious editors, by first posting to my talk page: "you are being too verbose, please take a wikibreak, or slow down".

It is easier to be succint when the editors you are talking to are also concise. @Joshua Jonathan:'s very post about my walls of text on the RSN was a wall of text [187] of 7,817 bytes. He does many replies that are thousands of bytes long including this reply to my short summary of the issues on the 4NT article: [188]. Also, many of those bullet points are short questions that require me to provide detailed evidence in response.

The central issue here is simple to state. I wish to add a POV tag to four articles on Buddhism in wikipedia, Karma in Buddhism, Four Noble Truths, Anatta, and Nirvana on the basis that they do not present the views of the world faith of sutra tradition Buddhism which has over 200 million followers outside China (and a similar number in China), see Buddhism by country. I think their views on their own faith needs to be presented somewhere in wikipedia, either in the same article as the views of western academics or in separate articles for their views as a WP:SUBPOV. The opposing editors claim that western academic sources are preferred as they give a "distance" and are not coloured by our faith[189].

I can't expect you to know which of the many authors on Therevadan Buddhism are regarded as WP:RS, but can you not see that amongst a world faith with hundreds of millions of adherents and many countries that are almost entirely Buddhist such as Thailand, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Bhutan etc - that there must be some well regarded Buddhist scholars that could be used as sources for their own beliefs? Walpola Rahula and Prayudh Payutto are amongst the best regarded eminent scholars from the Buddhist scholarly traditions of Sri Lanka and Thailand respectively, with Buddhist populations of 14 million (70% of the population) for Sri Lanka and 64 million (93%) for Thailand. If I went to the RSN and asked if the Watchtower could be used as a source for the views of Jehovah's Witnesses, there would not be any question about this as everyone knows what it is, and they know that it is the main way that Jehovah's Witnesses express their beliefs. But @Dorje108: and myself are the only ones in the discussions so far from this world faith of hundreds of millions of Buddhists, and both of us say the articles are POV. The 2014 versions of the articles show that there are many well regarded WP:RS sources within the sutra traditions themselves, and these articles were in a mature state for many years before @Joshua Jonathan:'s rewrite of them to the western academic Buddhism POV. I used colour coding here to show how the new lede relies almost entirely on the western academic sources Colour Coded Four Noble Truths.

One of the most central points is that in Four Noble Truths it explains in the lede that Buddha realized cessation of suffering and unsatisfactoriness by first ending rebirth, so that when he died he wouldn't take rebirth again. I can understand how this may seem to make more sense to a westerner. But for sutra tradition Buddhist, they have the direction of causality here back to front. Buddha was able to say it was his last rebirth because he realized cessation and was free from Samsara already as a young man. My attempts to answer their many challenges to this, is like a Christian trying to respond to a challenge: "Christians don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus - prove it!". How can you give a short answer to that if they won't accept any of the sources that are well regarded in your faith? This is just one of the easiest to explain of numerous statements in these articles that contradict the faith of sutra tradition Buddhism, presented as an unbiased explanation of what we believe by western academics.

All I want to do is to add a POV tag, not to edit the articles. Since the neutrality itself is under dispute then as per WP:NPOVD, the first stage is to invite discussion, by adding these tags, over whether it is indeed WP:POV. And yet @Joshua Jonathan: in the last month or so has deleted my original post to the talk page with a short summary of the issues, for which he apologized, @Ms Sarah Welch: collapsed it, they edited my POV tag when I added it to first change the talk page entry it pointed to, then remove it, then remove the tag altogether, on the basis that my claim that the article is WP:POV is invalid - but the tag just says that its neutrality is disputed. How can a dispute over whether an article is WP:POV be resolved by one of the editors in the dispute removing the tag while the dispute is in progress? Then they took me to DRN over a POV tag, when I already said on my talk page that I don't think we can solve this by DRN. Surely the unresolved DRN by itself proves that the neutrality of these articles is disputed? And I went to the RSN as a result of the recommendation of the closing editor for the DRN. Now they take me to WP:ANI twice in a single month. They have a clear editorial interest in getting me topic banned to prevent me from adding those tags. That's the background to this action. Robert Walker (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

(Incidentally I composed this message in my sandbox as you can check easily, so saving 16 minor edits :) )

From a friend's comments off wiki I discovered something is unclear here. If I am not topic banned, and I am permitted to do so, my plan is to add the four POV tags to the articles. I would add a very succint summary of the main issues as I see them - and my proposed solution to do two versions of each article similarly to the four SUBPOV articles on Resurrection of Jesus, and link to the colour coded two versions of the articles and any additional material in my own user space, not in the talk page. I would recommend that JJ and SW similarly present a succint summary of their views and put additional material in their user space. I would then step back and see if anyone comments. The main aim would be to get more editorial eyes on it, from readers of the articles. Maybe that can lead to a solution, and I feel we have taken it as far as we can in this discussion, and the solution has to come as a result of others, especially the sutra tradition Buddhists themselves, presenting their ideas and views on the topic. Robert Walker (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Robert Walker, please do not present your content dispute with JoshuaJonathan and others at ANI. This discussion is about your conduct as an editor. JimRenge (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@JimRenge:, I was responding to other editors here who referred to the content dispute as part of their reason for the topic ban[190]. Robert Walker (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to put in the diffs, so here again: Here @Joshua Jonathan: deleted my original post to the talk page with a short summary of the issues[191], @Ms Sarah Welch: collapsed it[192], then after I added my POV tag pointing to this list of issues, [193] they edited it so it doesn't point to any section in the talk page, then removed the tag altogether[194] while the neutrality was still disputed. Then they take me to DRN because I objected to them removing a POV tag! And now want me topic banned, which of course will prevent me from adding any POV tags. Robert Walker (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Stats

here is the diff from just before Joshua Jonathan's first edit back in December 2011, to now. Looking at the editing stats, Joshua Jonathan has made 922 edits; the next highest has 369 and the next, 90. Robertinventor has made... 2.

The Talk page is a different story. Looking at the revision stats, going in order, Robertinventor has made 815 edits and added 1048 KB; Joshua Jonathan has made 352 edits and added 451 KB, and Ms Sarah Welch has made 76 edits and added 43 KB. Jytdog (talk) 06:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: If I'm reading you correctly, you are pointing out that Robertinventor talks a whole lot on the talk page while never contributing to the article itself. You are most certainly right (hence why we are here), but your methodology is a little flawed as it fails to take into account the sheer verboseness of Robertinventor's talk page posts (artificially inflating the number of bytes he has added) and the number of times he edits his own talk page comments (artificially inflating his number of edits). It's a given that Robertinventor is verbose and has a tendency to tweak his edits -- again, that's part of why we are here. I think a much more intellectually honest method (and frankly not all that much harder, depending on your browser and device) would be to Ctrl+F each editor's signature on the talk page and archives. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Scratch that. I checked, and now I think a much stronger point (though one you don't appear to be trying to make) is that Robertinventor hardly ever edits articles related to Buddhism, period. His most-edited article that is clearly within this topic is Karma, which is #24 on his list of articles by number of edits. Next is History of Tibet at #43, followed by Pāli Canon at #50. These top three combined account for a total of 31 edits, and I can't find any other "Buddhism-related" article he has edited more than 3 times. A TBAN won't prevent him from editing articles on topics he is interested in, so this is cut-and-dry. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Tenebrae and WP:DISRUPT

• Tenebrae (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

Lately, Tenebrae has shown a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality when it comes to RuPaul's Drag Race and the corresponding season articles. A consensus was reached that we would use the show as a primary source for the progress of the contestants (similar to Project_Runway_(season_14) & Big_Brother_18_(U.S.)). Tenebrae refuses to have any of it. Here is a list of his edits saying that he is restoring the status quo while he filibusters everyone to death because he is the only editor who isn't getting his way:

• [195], [196], [197], [198], [199], [200], [201], [202], [203], [204], [205], [206], [207], [208], [209]...ad infinitum.

Then there was a RfC opened which was immediately one-sided. And multiple attempts by users to call for it to be closed since consensus was quickly reached again [210] [211] [212]. Tenebrae then took it upon himself to gaslight and bring up the actions of opposing editors as a red herring [213] [214]. He has also shown that he believes he is better than others due to his time on the wiki and his arbitrarily inflated edit count. [215].

I want Tenebrae blocked for disruptive editing, topic banned from anything Rupaul related, and banned from opening RfCs. This user will show up here and point out what other editors are doing and repeat the same nonsensical verbiage about secondary POV pushing or whatever. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I am very close to blocking you for your edit summary and behavior at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

This is the place to discuss Tenebrae's actions. If you want to discuss mine, you should open another topic. However, you are WP:INVOLVED due to my questioning of your administrative actions before, so I highly suggest you recuse yourself from participating. Also, there was no problematic edit summary on that page, so please be more specific in the future. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

See WP:BOOMERANG. And questioning my admin actions does not make me involved. Lastly, gtfo is not acceptable here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not even sure how to respond to User:Nihlus Kryik. Except for himself and one other editor who have been uncivil and/or have been name-calling at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race#Request for comment, all the other editors have been discussing the WP:VERIFY / WP:PRIMARYSOURCE issue reasonably and collegially. As is not surprising, there is no consensus there after just two days. I'm not sure why he would throw in irrelevant comments about edit-count. I also don't know how to respond to a new editor who has attempted to edit others' talk-page posts and even an admin's post at ANI.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Look, the editor who I said would only talk about what others are doing is only talking about what others are doing! nihlus kryik (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that that comment was uncivil, but it's a favorite initialism of mine. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I would also note User:Nihlus Kryik is WP:CANVASSING editors he believes disagrees with me to come to this ANI, and is not contacting those who agree with me. See his contributions notifying only Obsidi ‎and Anonymous5454 ‎but not Brocicle or Trooper1005, for example. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

More about what others are doing and no comment about his own actions. Surprising... I notified the users who believe you have been disruptive. It has nothing to do with agreeing with you. Feel free to notify anyone else. I don't care. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

You need to care as your actions are against guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

And yet here you are derailing another topic. As I said, if there are concerns about my edits, feel free to open another topic, but being disruptive here is not going to get anything done. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not how ANI works. The actions of all editors involved in a situation are examined. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

And in fact, I do need to point out another false comment by Nihlus Kryik, that he "notified the users who believe you have been disruptive" (as if that excuses canvassing). If one does a search for the word "disrupt" at the RfC, Nihlus Kryik is, in fact, the only one who has used it against me. Not only did User:Obsidi never say I was disruptive, he in fact tempered his opposite position to mine with nuanced comments about WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

(ec x3) Please bear in mind, that when you bring an issue to AN/I, your own actions are taken into consideration too. As Neil has stated, your actions, ESPECIALLY refactoring someone's comments on AN, are against our guidelines. WP:BOOMERANG exists for a reason, and you may need to be mindful of this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't refactor someone's comments. I nowiki'd a template to prevent the bot from archiving. There is a massive difference and I am tired of being accused of something different. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? You modified an admin's decision three times. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I did not modify a decision. I put nowiki brackets around a template to stop the bot from archiving. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? nihlus kryik (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The admin closed the discussion. It should have been archived. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The closed it because Tenebrae showed up and derailed the conversation, like you are doing here. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

So you admit you negated the decision because you didn't like it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

No, because it made no mention of the closure request and purely focused on the disruptive edits by Tenebrae. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I closed it because it was clear that the ongoing dispute from the article's talk page had spilled over to WP:AN/RFC and was likely to continue there unless halted by a third party. It had all the appearance of a WP:OTHERPARENT thread; of the twenty edits prior to my closure, all edits were to the same thread and were by three people, all of whom were disputants in the RfC proper; and yes, although Tenebrae did make the most edits in the block that I hatted, it was clear to me that Nihlus Kryik was not going to let it lie and the dispute could have continued for much longer. So my closure was a response to the actions of others besides Tenebrae. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

And while you all were worried about me, Tenebrae has continued his battleground editing. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I haven't had any involvement in this controversy until now. I will only comment that the conduct of User:Nihlus Kryik is one of the most flagrant examples of self-defeating conduct at this noticeboard that I have seen, but apparently User:Nihlus Kryik really doesn't understand that the filing party's conduct really is also scrutinized at this noticeboard, and apparently doesn't understand that insulting of administrators isn't a good idea. (It is true that a few other disruptive editors have deliberately insulted administrators in order to be able to argue that the administrator was involved and thus disqualified. That approach doesn't work, and sometimes results in a site ban. User:Nihlus Kryik - Stop being your own worst enemy. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Concur with Robert McClenon. Regardless of the merits of the dispute, Nihlus Kryik is ensuring their complaint fails. As already said by others, editors need to expect their behaviour to be scrutinised at ANI when they are complaining about someone else in a dispute which the complainant is also involved in. Telling people to open a new thread because this one is only about the other person's behaviour is nearly always counterproductive. Still a single mistake may be ignored. However if someone keeps on insisting people aren't allowed to comment in their behaviour and goes as far as to show further bad behaviour here at ANI, many people aren't even likely to look into the complaint. The behaviour makes people think there is no merit to it. Nil Einne (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Then you simply aren't doing your jobs if you think it is perfectly okay to ignore a complaint due to the complainer's actions. nihlus kryik (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI Nil Einne and Robert aren't admins. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 02:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem you face, Nihlus Kryik, is that your own statements draw attention to your behavior. You state that consensus was reached to "use the show as a primary source for the progress of the contestants". But the discussion you linked to has "YES, RELIABLE SECONDARY SOURCES CAN BE USED FOR HIGH/LOW MARKS" as its close. Tenebrae's second RFC then involved primary sources. You declared consensus had been reached after two days and tried to have the discussion closed. Obviously any editor disagreeing with you in the RFC is going to object to you doing this. You labelled them disruptive editors and when another admin declined to close, you refused to accept that and tried to keep the close request open three times. You even went to another admin's page demanding they explain why they reverted your disruptive changes. Finally, you came here, accused Tenebrae of disruptive editing, canvassed, and seemed upset when they defended themselves. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

From what I've seen, both of their behavior (Nihlus Kryik and Tenebrae) have been very poor in this area. Nihlus Kryik's been pushing what the consensus is far more expansively then can reasonably be claimed, and Tenebrae's been fighting every inch even when many editors disagree with him. Both have been having very WP:Battleground kind of mentality. Having both together have made the editing far more contentious then it should have been. I know Nihlus has made some poor decisions, but we should look at all the editors behaviors involved here not just Nihlus. I would suggest both Nihlus and Tenebrae be topic banned from the RuPaul's Drag Race pages. -Obsidi (talk) 04:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Obsidi: Can you provide some diffs to show Tenebrae is editing against consensus? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the question, and I'm gratified to see no such diffs could be provided. I do have to note that Obsidi was the closer of the previous RfC and is now on the opposite side of the issue from me in the current RfC. I'm sure he's operating in good faith, yet his unique position as a closer who's now become partisan may color his judgment. Finally, I might be misinterpreting but I think he and I agree on a basic principle: that unless a primary-source judge specifically says "so-and-so is ranked high" (or synonym) and "so-and-so is ranked low" (or synonym), then any claim of high or low is subjective, POV interpretation. I'm not sure why anyone would ever find it objectionable to give a cite supporting that what they say is true. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I replied below, with the diffs requested of the conduct I was refering to. -Obsidi (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Please see my response at Obsidi's 18:48, 1 May 2017 post below. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I know this is isn't the place but this really needs to be resovled but do we use reliable secondary sources to source the progress tables of previous seasons? I feel like no one's really given a straight forward answer to the question that started all of this. Brocicle (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

See [[216]] @Nihlus Kryik:, I see that you had an old account with multiple blocks. What is the name of your old account? Doug Weller talk 10:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

We just finished a RfC in which it was disputed if even secondary sources which directly supported if a contestant was High/Low could be used. And now Tenebrae's started a second RfC in which the question is if edits that are “subjective” can rely upon a primary source. And he has edit wared (although not breaking 3RR), to keep the all edits on High/Low marks out of the article during this second RfC ([217], [218], [219], [220], [221]). Let’s assume that by subjective he means inferences or conclusions and RfC properly resolves that such things cannot be used. That still doesn’t answer the question as to if any of the edits removed are actually “subjective” and as such he is removing edits which are not going to be resolved by the RfC on the basis of the RfC’s existence. And so even once the RfC resolves (which he is insisting on waiting the full 30 days) there are going to be further disputes on the subjectivitiness of the edits he is currently removing. That’s at least one more 30 day RfC just waiting to happen. And so we got to ask, at what point will the vast majority of editors actually be able to change the text as they think is appropriate? To me it just seems to be repeated stonewalling not based on any explicit reason as to why any given episode is subjective, but a blanket statement that isn’t true for all cases, for the purpose of not having High/Low marks in the article. And instead is going to wait 30 days for one RfC, then 30 days for another, and then 30 days for another, etc… It isn’t good behavior, imo, but it wasn’t bad enough for me to have personally brought him to ANI yet (and I’m not going to talk about behavior of editors outside of that context).-Obsidi (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm on editorial deadline today and probably shouldn't be taking time to respond, yet I must reply to false claims and unfounded accusations by Obsidi, who accuses me of edit-warring despite, among other things, my not making multiple edits.

The diffs he offers above are in full compliance with WP:RfC protocol, which states that once an RfC begins, we don't make contentious edits to the staus-quo sections under discussion until the RfC is resolved and a consensus is reached. The edit-summaries plainly state, "Issue is under discussion at an RfC" and "Restoring status quo now that RfC has begun....." Indeed, another editor here makes the very same edit restoring status quo, and I don't see Obsidi making any claims against that editor.

I have been assuming good faith all this time, and now have to state my concern that Obsidi, the non-admin closer of an RfC, has gone on to take a partisan position on the related RfC. This gives the appearance that his first close was not objective and disinterested. Perhaps his initial close should be reviewed, since a) his making unfounded accusations here shows questionable judgment and a misunderstanding of WP:RfC, and b) allowing subjective, POV interpretations of primary-source content flies in the face of longstanding Wikipedia policy, as does c) resisting quote-and-timestamp citing of the vague statements being interpreted. If the interpretations are valid, then no one should be reluctant to cite the statement.

As for User:Nihlus Kryik — an extremely new, apparent SPA editor who is making wild accusations and showing highly intemperate behavior not only with me but with multiple admins — I would have to say his judgment speaks for itself. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I cited 5 edits of you reverting (all of these were to the single season page, among the dozen of reverts split among the multiple season pages). But your RfC is so broad, its practically a policy question (I’m not even sure it is relevant on that page), allowing you to revert huge areas of the article for 30 days. Everyone should be able to agree that a primary source cannot be used for subjective (or as I would refer to them as interpretations and conclusions) statements. But the RfC doesn’t decide if any specific statement is subjective, and yet you would claim under the authority of the RfC to revert whatever edits you personally think are subjective for 30 days even when the RfC won’t even resolve that question? That’s very disruptive, see WP:STONEWALL and WP:STONEWALLING.

As to the quotes/timestamps, there are millions of cites without quotes on Wikipedia, and many don’t even have a timestamp yet alone a quote. If the accuracy of a citation is challenged to a source like this we usually require a timestamp (mostly for easy of verification like page numbers), but we have never required a quote (sometimes one isn’t even possible when summarizing large sections). Nor have I seen ANY policy that requires quotes on all these citations. If you would like to change that policy to require quotes, fine, but this page really isn’t the place to change policy.

If you would like to challenge my close feel free (although I would ask you open another section to dispute it as this section is about potential behavioral problems). I think my close accurately reflected the discussion and the relevant policy considerations. But I would note that the closure requirements ask if “the closing editor may have become inextricably involved through previous experience in the conflict area.” Involvement AFTER the close is not relevant, I am clearly involved in this second RfC and it would be improper of me to close this one. -Obsidi (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I have to point out that only two editors who are opposed to my position, including one highly intemperate editor, are claiming I have been disruptive. No one other than you two are saying so. And you were brought here via that other editor's inappropriate canvassing. No one else appears to have an issue. You also bring up smokescreening claims here that have nothing to do with what the RfC discussion is about, let alone this discussion. The RfC is not about policy. It is about the fact that judges on RuPaul's Drag Race don't tell contestants "you're ranked high this week" or "you're ranekd low." Therefore, you and Nihlus Kryik appear to want to be free to add subjective, POV interpretations of whatever statements are allegedly being made by the primary source. That violates WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY and WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Simple as that. And it's telling that you're so opposed to telling other editors exactly what statements you're interpreting.

I'm not a fan of non-admins closing RfCs, precisely for what I'm seeing here: By taking a partisan position on the related RfC, you raise reasonable suspicions that your close was not objective and disinterested, since you obviously have partisan feelings. So perhaps a review is in order. But one thing at a time. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Your right that so far no one other than me and Nihlus Kryik has commented, Yea or Nea, on if you were being disruptive (I assume they are waiting to see what the arguments from both sides look like before they weigh in). If it stays just the two of us, you will be fine. You are also right that I was canvased in (I am at these boards often and would have commented anyway, but I was canvassed as much as I didn't want to be and can't change that now), so the closer and other editors are free to take into account that I was canvassed into this discussion. If you would like, I can notify everyone that has been active on that page, which should reduce the problems caused by the inappropriate canvassing.

If the RfC question was "Does the show RuPaul's Drag Race ever explicitly identify someone as ranked high or low, or is any such determination an interpretation or conclusion?" then I would agree with you (and the answer would refer to specific instances in which some judges say x or y, or some other reason to believe someone was ranked high/low based on the show). But the question of the RfC doesn't even mention the show at all, it is a pure question of policy applicable to many pages: Can editors make subjective claims based on the primary-source episodes without providing a cite (timestamp and quote) as to what exactly was said? Not one word of that is about the content of the show. -Obsidi (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for a reasoned and collegial reply. I think the fact that the RfC is specifically at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race and not at Wikipedia talk:No original research or a similar page signals that the RfC is about RuPaul's Drag Race. I don't believe anyone at the RfC discussion seems unaware of this or believes otherwise, judging by their comments.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Warn Tenebrae I'm going to change my mind a bit. While I had previously recommended topic banning Tenebrae, I'm changing my recommendation to a warning. As much as I think the behavior is very WP:STONEWALLish, I'm not sure he was properly warned and allowed a chance to correct his behavior. Nihlus kryik tried to tell him, but didn't do so in a very good way based on policy, and so I could understand Tenebrae not understanding the problem. And even so, most of the problems I have seen are prior to even Nihlus kryik, in his flawed way, trying to tell Tenebrae. Once warned he should be given a chance not to do bad things prior to getting topic banned. While being warned isn't a requirement, it is usually expected prior to something as serious as a topic ban unless it is very clearly wrong behavior. -Obsidi (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but following RfC protocol and restoring status quo for topics under RfC discussion is absolutely proper. In fact, least two other editors at the various RuPaul's Drag Race articles have done the exact same as I, and you're not calling them disruptive. So while I had wanted to show good faith, it's clear by your unfounded claims and accusations that your concern is solely that I disagree with you at the RfC. The fact that only you and one highly intemperate editor who sides with you are making disruption allegations is extraordinarily telling. And since no one else besides you is commenting against me at this point, your barrage of attacks is taking on the appearance of a vendetta. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow you accuse me of a vendetta for a post in which I reduce my recommendation? That's a new one. And it isn't a "barrage of attacks," I made my recommendation and was asked to explain myself, which I tried to do, and then reduced my initial recommendation. I also dispute that any and all edits you claim are subjective for the next month are under the RfC, as the RfC question will not decide on if any edit is or is not subjective. -Obsidi (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Obsidi: Pointing out that consensus is being misused and opposing editors gas-lighting by willfully ignoring consensus, even denying it exists (essentially lying), is not battleground behavior. It's rare, but sometimes everyone else is wrong and sometimes there is a cabal.--v/r - TP 14:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't care if he is pointing out that he doesn't believe there is a consensus if that is a good faith belief. I wouldn't refer to what the other editor was doing as explicitly lying or gaslighting, merely disagreeemnt as to the consensus. No my problems are diffrent than just that. -Obsidi (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Claiming that a consensus exists about primary sources when the consensus is about secondary sources is straight up lying. Disruptively hounding an editor that they are wrong when, in very plain text, they are correct is gaslighting. My description is accurate.--v/r - TP 19:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The RfC was about secondary sources (not primary sources), that doesn't mean there wasn't a consensus in favor of using primary sources as well (although it had yet to have been established conclusivily by an RfC close so I'm assuming he was refering to a local consensus). -Obsidi (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that when I came to the discussion about "High"s and "Low"s originally to give a third opinion, I had no previous connection to the issue at hand. I believe that the issue at hand is misunderstood by many parties and there was a lot of "I like it" voting going on which in my opinion falsely indicated consensus. I took the time to research the matter and to be fair, it's major muddy water territory. Judge ratings being different to table entries, secondary sources that only back up one episode for the table entries and it's strictly up to viewer interpretation to extrapolate the final result for these tables from the primary source for all of the episodes involved. So you can see why people are getting frustrated at each other and ending up accusing each other of misconduct. The editor who closed the original decision didn't look at the core issues at great enough detail so any apparent consensus was tilted heavily towards the "I like it" votes that saturated the discussion. I don't think that any editor (including Nihlus Kryik) taking part in that discussion should have action taken against them but the issue that this complaint stems from (about Highs and Lows) needs a decisive answer from an uninvolved editor and I'm too involved with the issue to do that now. Thank you. -=Troop=- (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

(non admin comment) I would be interested to know why Nihlus was so concerned about the block of user F0rmation122. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 15:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Originally I assumed it was because he lost some sort of "ally". That set of articles has editors with odd editing histories and I included Nihlus in with them. [222] Doug Weller's comment above makes the situation have a lot more sense now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I suspected a possible sock, but it's all for the better if I'm mistaken. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 19:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I stated I didn't think it was a "new" editor, hence either a sock of someone or avoiding scrutiny. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Or a perfectly proper WP:CLEANSTART, merely not being a "new" editor doesn't mean something neferious neccessarily. -Obsidi (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

"Certain articles and topics are particularly contentious, and have attracted additional community scrutiny in the form of requests for comment, community sanctions, or arbitration cases. These areas should be completely avoided by the editor attempting a clean start" Not exactly a perfectly proper WP:CLEANSTART. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

RuPaul's Drag Race isn't usually what I would consider a "articles and topics [that] are particularly contentious" at least usually. Now yes, there is RfCs that started after he started editing on this page, but RfC's happen on all kinds of pages. There is no community sanction or arbitration case involving these pages. -Obsidi (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The RFC was started before their last batch of seven reverts. So we have an editor, making trivial edits to get auto-confirmed, edit warring on content under discussion in an active RFC. Far from a perfectly proper WP:CLEANSTART. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• So we have an editor on an effective WP:CLEANSTART, with multiple blocks on their previous account (per Doug Weller above), whose editing under their new account includes disruption, edit-warring and incivility, and who comes to ANI demanding another edit be blocked. Have I summed this up succinctly? Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

He is clearly on a WP:CLEANSTART, but there is nothing inproper in that. We don't know, yet, if the previous blocks are related to this sitaution, nor any evidence that it was a clean start to evade WP:SCRUTINY. I have no problem with Doug Weller asking for the prior name to make sure the blocks are unrelated to the current situation (or at least a reason for the clean start so we can know if we should confirm that more confidentially). But so far, we should act based on his current behavior (which do seem bad enough for some kind of sanction). -Obsidi (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Obsidi: Their previous account did not have to be editing in the same or related areas to make their history relevant. We're looking at their behavior. Edit warring, disruption, canvassing, and landing at ANI all within their first ~100 edits. This would probably result in a block if there was past similar history. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say he had to be editing "in the same or related areas to make their history relevant" merely that we don't yet know if his history is relevant. The blocks may be on entirely unrelated issues, we just don't know yet. -Obsidi (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus Kryik: I'm a volunteer here, as with nearly everyone else. I don't have a job. Even if I were an admin, I still wouldn't have a job. Heck even if I did have a job here, it's entirely resonably my employer might feel because there are insufficient people-hours I should prioritise on complaints or problems where it looks like there is something worth dealing with and not waste my time on complaints where the complainers own actions very strongly suggest there's nothing to look at, except maybe whether the complainer merits a block. If you think people always need to take every single complaint you make seriously, not matter how flawed it is, you've got another thing coming. Especially when the people dealing with the complaint are volunteers and you have absolutely zero service commitment or undertaking from the service you're complaining about. Nil Einne (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• OP has not used WP in 3 days. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 11:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• No action should be taken against any editor in this dispute. My suggestion would be to address the core issue of "High"s and "Low"s at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race and have it examined in greater detail by an experienced editor who isn't involved. As I stated in my previous comment, the muddy water nature of the issue has caused significant misunderstanding between editors which in turn has caused this conduct dispute.

I don't think it was helpful of Tenebrae to divert the attention of the issue away from "High"s and "Low"s when he started the RfC on Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race. Direct interpretation of episodes as a primary source has always been done for plot summaries of TV series. However the original issue of "High"s and "Low"s was more difficult to pin down an answer for. The tables for each episode currently state that contestants who didn't win and weren't middle of the table to be "High" or "Low". The issue from what I understand it (I'm not a fan of the show) to be is, the judges don't state anyone to be "High" or "Low" and there's only one secondary source that does indicate this and that's for just one episode. What I would suggest is that this issue is solved by adherence to policy (WP:OR in this case). I know that some editors, Anonymous5454, for example disagree with this but if careful consideration was taken to traverse the answers to this: flowchart at the start of the section on Talk: RuPaul's Drag Race then it seems inevitable that "High"s and "Low"s are inappropriate for inclusion in the articles because a secondary source would need to be acquired for each and every episode, therefore becoming an impracticality.

I don't think it was helpful of Obsidi to close the original discussion of it without full knowledge of the above mentioned issue. They did state that it wasn't a vote but the end result was in practical terms, a vote because it was clear that the issue of "High" and "Low" table entries was not scrutinised in enough depth by the closer. My weak oppose in the original discussion was based on wanting "High"s and "Low"s but accepting the inevitability that secondary sources would not be practical to attain for each and every episode to source them.

It was especially unhelpful of nihlus kryik to make this a conduct dispute though not to the extent of endorsement for any action being taken against them for making it one. The content dispute first and foremost should be solved and then everyone should go separate ways after a decisive answer is given to this issue. Thanks. -=Troop=- (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I did understand what you are saying above, and you may well be right as to the High/Low marks. Maybe the judges are clear enough, maybe the are not (I've not actually formed an opinion on that yet), although my guess is that they are clear enough in some episodes but not clear in others. But my close in the first RfC dealt with the questions actually asked in the first RfC, which was not about using the show as a primary source to determine if the judges were clear enough (instead it asked about using the secondary sources you mentioned). -Obsidi (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Older Login Password Not Recognized, New Password and Acct create blocked - Name/Address in use?

I created an account and last posted on Wikipedia over 8 years ago and now have logon problems with my Wikipedia account that apparently still exists, but was deactivated... I am contacting the Admins to 1.) be sure my personal info is not duplicated by my creating 2 Wikipedia accounts that share the same contact info with 2 different email accounts and 2.) ultimately re-enable my Wikipedia edit access to allow me to suggest a few changes to the content of several Wikipedia webpages.

A problem reoccurs when I recently tried to logon to Wikipedia with the same User Name/Password from the distant past, however my correct logon info as I remember was not recognized. I attempted to revise the Password, but the User Name/Email Address was not recognized. I then tried to create a new Login Name/Password and a Display screen popped up and said my User Name and/or email address was already in use. It seems that Wikipedia will not allow to me to see or revise my original login password. New password reset attempts are not recognized because "The Account is already in use"My past logon account is in good standing with Wikipedia and may have been deactivated due to infrequent Logons.

With my older Wikipedia account still available, do I have to request that older Logon account to be recreated or resurrected by a Wikipedia Admin? Otherwise, should I create a new Account/Password and link it to another email address other than the original that I want to use? I can send the Admins more detailed account info, but I am unsure if this email is considered public or private since it goes to the Admins in a public forum...

Regards, Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.64.108 (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Steve. I'd say the first thing you need to do is tell us the names of these accounts, as without that it would be very hard to help. But not your email address - you should keep that private. In general, accounts are not deactivated through disuse. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe try "[your old user name]~enwiki" as the user name? 8 years ago should be before global accounts. The account's name may also have been usurped by another user. In any case, telling us the account name is the best course of action. ansh666 17:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

If you are getting the message that your email address is in use, and you still have access to that email address, then you should be able to request a password reset. If you can login but your account is blocked, you will need to log in to the account and then request an unblock from the account's talk page. If you don't have access to that email, then unfortunately there's nothing we can do and you'll have to create a new account. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Cross project image copyvios

Yahadzija (talk · contribs)

Above editor has been blocked on Commons for repeated upload of image copyvios after numerous attempts to get them to stop. Almost immediately after they were blocked on Commons they began uploading copyvios here instead. From what I can gather at Commons, they seem to have a serious misunderstanding of copyright law which revolves around the difference between ownership of the physical image and ownership of the copyright. Their almost immediate upload of copyvios here after their block on Commons makes them a serious threat of disruption. Asking for an administrator to block and delete images uploaded from May 2nd on (see Special:ListFiles/Yahadzija). --Majora (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The problems are a bit subtle, but are definitely there, and we don't want a problem on the same scale as they've caused at Commons. A lot of the copyvios are borderline fair use (scans of historical images for which there would be no reasonable replacement etc) but some are pretty blatantly claiming ownership of an image where they've just scanned an image from a textbook or modified an image they've found somewhere on the web. Unless they show up here demonstrating a good understanding of the problems (and reading their talk page at Commons, that seems rather unlikely) I'd suggest a tban from uploading files would be appropriate. GoldenRing (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I support a TBAN as well. —JJBers 23:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: If this was a one time issue and was isolated to here that would be acceptable. The facts of the matter is that they immediately came here and continued to violate copyright after their block on Commons. That is far worse and demonstrates a clear disregard for what people are trying to tell them and an even clearer disregard for copyright. Actually, seeing as they are blocked on 7 projects (4 indefinitely) they are a net negative to the entire wikimedia project as a whole. I'm seriously debating on asking for a lock on their account from a steward. They certainly qualify for one as the abuse is widespread. --Majora (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

As a side note, GoldenRing. Nothing they have uploaded since their block on Commons would qualify for fair use. Not a single one. They are either blatantly replaceable or are on pages that would not meet fair use policy. --Majora (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Majora: Do you have some reason to think that recent uploads such as File:Crna_rijeka,_Tributary_of_Ilomska.png are copyvios? They claim to have taken the photo themselves. A Google images search doesn't immediately turn up anything and I don't see any particular reason to doubt it, but I've only had a modest look into it. GoldenRing (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: Some of them definitely are copyvios. Those include maps such as File:Ilomska confluent basin.jpg, its dup File:Ilomska-sliv.jpg, and File:Ploca-1.jpg which is constrained by freedom of panorama restrictions and is likely a derivative work anyways. Some of them maybe out of copyright but I'd have to do more investigation. They certainly did not personally take File:Pioneer troop in Šiprage, 1943.jpg and it clearly shows their misunderstanding between physical ownership of the image and ownership of the copyright. The others (including the one you specifically asked about) are suspicious simply because of past bad behaviors. Any semblance of trust that this person will properly follow copyright has been completely and utterly destroyed by their continual upload of copyvios. They get blocked in one project and just move on to the next repeating the pattern again and again. I certainly hope the global lock goes through but as of right now the disruption is directly affecting enwiki and needs to be dealt with. --Majora (talk) 02:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Second side note. It looks like an anon IP already beat me to the global lock request on meta --Majora (talk)

@Majora: I appreciate that the problem is widespread and I'm not necessarily opposed to just blocking them. On the other hand, looking through their Commons user talk page, I see a lot of templates and not much effort to educate the user. That effort may have gone in somewhere on some other wiki but I've not seen it yet. And, on a brief look, apart from the image uploads, most of their editing seems to be okay. So I'd prefer to see a resolution that's not just indeffing them. GoldenRing (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Clpo 13 2's RFA isn't even done, yet his input would be helpful. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 00:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

  @L3X1: Not that I don't trust Clpo13's judgement, I do. But files, copyright, and fair use are kinda my thing here as well. Did you have any specific questions? And since we are talking about them a courtesy ping seems to be in order. @Clpo13: --Majora (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

  I appreciate the ping. I'm not familiar with this user either here or on Commons, so I'll defer to Majora's judgement. clpo13_(talk) 01:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

  The only question is why are WP's image standards so far higher than everyone elses? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 01:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

  @L3X1: I don't think I understand the question. Why do we require such strict requirements for our images? Because we value the "free" part of "The Free Encyclopedia". Also to comply with the safe harbor portions of the DMCA we must treat all copyvios that are reasonably suspected of being copyvios harshly. Copyright is serious stuff and the ramifications of ignoring it can be immense. --Majora (talk) 02:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• There are clear ongoing copyright violations here, so I have issued a 24 hour block while discussion continues as to the proper solution. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, as far as I can tell, the choice is between a tban from uploads and a site ban. The basis for the choice is whether some vaguely positive editing here outweighs disruption on our wikis that has led to numerous site hand elsewhere. I'm leaning slightly towards a topic ban, but I certainly won't oppose a site ban. GoldenRing (talk) 11:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Given the response at their talk page so far, I'm now leaning to a CIR block. GoldenRing (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that was just a misunderstanding of the reason for the block, but there has clearly been copyright violations of text too, so CIR might be the problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

This user immediately resumed their previous behaviour within minutes of the expiry of their earlier block. As such, I have replaced it with an indefinite block. Any admin is welcome to lift the block if they are convinced the copyright violations will cease (including, say, a promise to refrain from any action around images, though there were concerns about textual copyvios, too). --Yamla (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Personal attack based on ethnicity/nationality at Talk:RT (TV network)

Is this personal attack by SpikeballUnion of the type that can and should be removed immediately? I think it is, but Keith-264 thinks it's not. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

From the looks of it, it looks like a personal attack. —JJBers 21:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I objected to Fleischman calling it an ethnic slur; Polish is a nationality and he has reverted it properly now. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Keith-264 didn't like my edit summary, so he reverted me and restored an ad hominem attack on another editor's ethnicity or nationality. Wow. Just wow. And I never called it a slur, so that's just weird. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, in the context of the situation, it looks like a slur. —JJBers 21:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Is this a place where I can add my own input? SpikeballUnion (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it is. My use of "Polish", the nationality (not ethnicity), was in the context of the Joseph Stalin article, in reference to the fact that the user might have some inherent biases (seeing as he objected my neutral-point-of-view edits) as Stalin had invaded Poland and that a communist government had been set up there, ruling for 40 years, and that Poland is now an EU and NATO member. It was not an ethnic slur. SpikeballUnion (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I assumed it had to do with the stereotype of Poles being "slow" up top. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 00:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I've never heard of that stereotype. This was the only use I intended for it, and I apologise that I did not make it clear enough on the talk page (although I thought I made it pretty clear on my user talk page). I also apologise if this use in of itself was not appropriate, and if so shall refrain from ever doing it again. SpikeballUnion (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if Keith has been notified of discretionary sanctions for eastern european topics, but this could be taken to WP:AE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Without looking at the context (I don't even know whether the "Polish opinion" in question was actually an opinion expressed by the person being addressed, or if it was a strawman) I can only say that, in general, the view that "That's your opinion, and any television station could be referred to as primitive propaganda" is, in theory, acceptable (and so the best part of the comment should not be stricken). Furthermore, "ethnnicity" clearly has nothing to do with this, the subject was attributing a particular political view to people from a particular nation-state. If someone said to me "That's your Irish opinion, that the BBC is primitive propaganda", it would clearly not be based on ethnicity and I wouldn't take it as such. It would be ridiculous, laughable, uncivil and rather dickish, but not an ethnic slur. Whether in this case it constituted a personal attack may depend on context and, as I said, I haven't looked at that. But insinuating that it is based on ethnicity doesn't help, so that question should just be ignored. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

" "ethnnicity" clearly has nothing to do with this, the subject was attributing a particular political view to people from a particular nation-state" Uhhh... what? You sort of contradict yourself there. " If someone said to me "That's your Irish opinion, that the BBC is primitive propaganda", it would clearly not be based on ethnicity" Uh, what, again. You do realize that "Irish" is an ethnicity, right? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Hesselp

There is a situation with Hesselp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the page Series (mathematics) and the talk page Talk:Series (mathematics). He has been edit-warring to include his rewrite of the article [223], [224], [225], [226], [227], [228]. Although not at the moment above 3RR, the above is clear indication of edit warring, being reverted by four different editors. He was warned against edit warring, yet persists. Other editors have attempted to engage him at Talk:Series (mathematics), but attempts to resolve the dispute amicably are met with walls of antagonistic rambling text: [229], [230], [231], [232], [233], among others. We have given up on trying to interact with this user, in the spirit of WP:DENY (the above posts strongly suggest trolling). But I believe the time has come for this disruption to be put to an end administratively. (Pinging other involved editors: @Hesselp:, @D.Lazard:, @MrOllie:, @Wcherowi:.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

It looks like there was some edit warring involving this user going on at the Dutch version of the article. @The Banner:, could you tell us if those issues were similar to what we're seeing here? - MrOllie (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I had no involvement in this article and I want to keep it that way. But on the Dutch version is was a long story of editwars, WP:TLDR, dismissing arguments brought in by others, endless edit-suggestions. The Banner talk 17:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• Slo-mo EW is still EW. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 13:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I think this should be placed on WP:AN3, this is a clear edit war. —JJBers 13:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• This is edit war on the article pages (English and Dutch) and disruptive edits on the talk pages (in both languages). Apparently this user knows the 3RR rule: Generally he waits more than 24 hours before a new revert, and he stops (for a while) edit warring after 3 reverts. As, usually, WP:AN3 actions consists in short blocks (for a few days), this would be not efficient here, as his disrupting edits could restart immediately after the end of the block. D.Lazard (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Today he has done 3 reverts. D.Lazard (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• I certainly feel like I'm involved with an edit war that I see no way of stopping. This editor is tenacious and smart enough to play the system. He is so committed to his POV that he won't even consider the possibility that he may be taking an extreme position that others would reject.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Playing the system is a blockable offense. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 16:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Reaction by Hesselp.   I haven't done anything else than concentrate on the best way - at the level of mainstream Wikipedia readers - to describe the meanings (plural) of the technical/mathematical term "series" in mathematical texts. A main point is that the meaning of "convergent series" can be explained easily by interpreting this words as "summable sequence". This is not at all new, see the number of google-hits on "summable sequence" and "summable sequences". The same point is shown in Calculus by M. Spivak (editions 1968-2008).   To which extend it is reasonable to characterize my posts on Talk page as "rambling antagonistic text", I leave to decide by other judges.
@Slawomir Bialy: my edit is not a "rewrite of the article", it can be seen as a rewrite of 1/6 of the article.
@MrOllie: Yes, I tried about the same on Dutch Wikipedia, with partial success.
@Wcherowi: - (on your newest 'edit summary') Using  'no consensus'  without ANY discussion on the merits of the content of a text/edit, is misusing this word.  - 40 000 hits on 'summable sequence(s)' does NOT point to an "extreme position".   - Tell me at least, which aspect(s) in the edit you see as 'extreme', it's certainly by far not the complete text.
@L3X1.   I don't understand what you mean, please explain. -- Hesselp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hesselp (talk • contribs) 16:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:GAME: Editors typically game the system to make a point, to further an edit war, or to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view.. Continously reverting and warring with other editors, even if done over a long period of time, still counts as edit warring. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 17:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The merits of the were discussed or otherwise incorporated into the article. Here are some diffs (among others): [234], [235], [236]. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

How best to proceed?

I've been dealing with an article that has been the target of an ongoing vandalism campaign since January 2011. There was a lot of vandalism in January and February of 2011 and then there were a variety of tools used to curb it (I personally filed 3 RFPP requests, but we've also tried edit filters and pending changes protections). The result is that now the vandalism takes place only once or twice every several months. The vandal edits are very obvious and always nearly identical, replacing the name of the protagonist of the fictional work with a dick joke name (the main consistency is that the word "wiener" - sometimes misspelled by the vandal as "weiner" - must be part of the new joke name), so it's clear that this is one person/group and that the goal is disruptive rather than good-faith or POV-based. But as easy as it is to identify and to revert, I really don't want to spend the rest of my life cleaning up this nonsense. After more than a half-decade of this, I've finally reached the point where I have to face up to the possibility that this vandal may be dedicated (or obsessed) enough to keep up this campaign for much longer if needed. And if that's true then I don't see any solution other than very lengthy or indefinite (semi-)protection.

I know there is a natural reluctance for admins to use lengthy or indefinite page protections, and I've learned to be wary of filing at RFPP for anything less than egregious high-level ongoing vandalism (I've been given the old "not enough recent disruptive activity" far too many times). So I'm asking for advice instead of just filing for protection. Might there be another option out there? How can we address this? Thanks in advance for any advice. -Thibbs (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• It is helpful if you link the article. You could ask for indef PC2 or semi at WP:RFPP. If it has gone on this long, it warrants it. Had you linked the article, I might have already done it here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • You mean PC1, right? AFAICT, PC2 has effectively been deprecated... A long-term PC1 would definitely a good way to go in this case IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • (ec) Just noting that they retired PC2 last January and the policy was updated.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I meant 1, thank you. PC isn't something I use very often, but it seems to fit here as an indef since it is a long term troll. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• As a PCR I prefer you give it 30/500 (not used enough) or semi. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 17:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• • @Dennis Brown: - OverBlood. The last act of vandalism is the last edit to the article. You can review the article history and talk page for additional context. Evidence of earlier page protections will be found on the "Overblood" redirect (the article's old name). -Thibbs (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
    • My tools are in the shop, but this pretty ripe for PC1. It isn't an article that you would expect people to edit a lot and a disproportionate number of the edits over the years have been vandalism. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks, everyone. -Thibbs (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
      • PC1 was enabled, but I might have just gone with long-term semi-protection. Constructive IP edits seem unlikely – the only constructive edit to this article in three years was a tweak to the infobox. If you do a Google search for "Weinerless Steve", it turns out it's some YouTube channel. The various IP editors are probably fans adding some dumb meme or in-joke to the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
        • This is the standard for PC (or long term semi) now? Three vandalism edits in five months? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
          • This seems like a long-term issue with the page. I beleive PC is pretty much fine. —JJBers 21:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Djln categories' creation and his use of HotCat

User:Djln is systematically destroying thousands of correct subcategories for ALL basketball articles and categories on Wikipedia. This issue is URGENT and he is abusing the use of HotCat like nobody I've seen before. For example, he completely disregarded this category's description and intent just so he could put "{{tl|{{Category redirect}}" in it. Also other examples of his widespread abuse include this, this, this, this...and the list goes on. He literally single-handedly ruined all of college basketball's categorization schemes, which took hundreds of hours to craft. He is unilaterally abusing HotCat, took NO time to determine WHY certain schemes are in place, and to be honest he is making me consider leaving Wikipedia altogether. I focus primarily on US college basketball topics, and have spent thousands (10,000+ probably) hours since 2007 crafting this art of the website, only to be disheartened by a HotCat tyrant undo so much of my work with dozens of erroneous edits per minute - nothing I can possibly imagine having to revert myself.

I request IMMEDIATE revoking of his use of HotCat, rollback, and any other privileges until he can demonstrate consensus-building and an understanding that what he's doing is NOT OK. I also further request all of his edits to be completely undone, which will need a bot to do because of how widespread this is. Help!!!!! Jrcla2 (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Note 1 – look at this user's talk page. He's been told for YEARS about improper categorizing, merging, unilateral moves etc. This user needs an immediate block while all of this mess is being sorted out! Jrcla2 (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems to have been one block and lots of discussions over their category edits back in 2010[237]. I haven't checked if there have been any other category related issues from 2010 until now. —Bagumba (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Note 2 – Djln is from Ireland (as evidence by his user page) and so he likely has no idea about the way American college sports are regarded, nor how they're categorized. He seems obsessed with nationality-related categorization to replace anything topic-specific, which is the wrong way to go about Wikipedia. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• Please explain why his edits are disruptive, and please can you link to the discussion/guideline/whatever which demonstrates community consensus showing that? GiantSnowman 15:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
• I don't have any knowledge of this, but to take one of your examples, but moving 1903–04 Michigan State Normal Normalites men's basketball team from Category:1903–04 in American college basketball to Category:1903–04 in American college basketball by team seems logical. Can you explain why it's wrong for those of us that aren't sports fans? Black Kite (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
• I see no problem, agreeing with Black Kite for now. —JJBers 16:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Black Kite, JJBers: in the other examples he's overwriting specific categorization by conference by to a more general categorization. This is bad. Djln needs to immediately stop this sort of editing and discuss. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

This is actually a much better example. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

So some might be OK, and some might not be? Incidentally, Jrcla2 needs to stop reverting every single one of his edits as well. That isn't helping, especially if the edits are of mixed usefulness. Both should stop and discuss. Black Kite (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The evidence doesn't do much, I looked and saw nothing other than some edits to pages and a few category redirects changes. I personally still agree with Black Kite's comment above. —JJBers 16:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Someone needs to provide diffs of the 'bad' edits and explain why, so those of us not involved in college basketball can review and take action if necessary. GiantSnowman 16:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers: @GiantSnowman:: please see this example. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you should need to know anything about college basketball to understand why this is bad. That edit is blowing away a well-established pattern of categorization reflected on thousands of other articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Look at the edit history of that category! Djln MOVED the category from "Category:1903–04 collegiate men's basketball season in the United States" to "Category:1903–04 in American college basketball", which he then decided screw it let me create "Category:1903–04 in American college basketball by team". THAT is what's bad - he took a perfectly legitimate category, moved it to something wrong, then moved the article to the doubly-wrong category. Look at the paper trail for god's sake. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the edits provided above, I see no harm, if not, helping the categories, they looked over specific before, then he generalized them, slightly. —JJBers 16:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you. fucking. kidding. me. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

So basically, Djln has (without discussion or explanation) decided to change how an entire topic (college basketball) is categorised, contrary to long established conventions? GiantSnowman 16:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you GiantSnowman. Spot on. Literally 10,000+ categories are likely affected. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, GiantSnowman, that is a good summary of the situation. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

OK. Well, they've stopped editing for now so everyone can take a breather. Let's see what Djln says when they return. GiantSnowman 16:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Right, thanks. I'll drop a note onto his talkpage, though looking back he doesn't seem to use it that much. Black Kite (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

That seems good. —JJBers 16:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Jweiss11, Jrcla2: what is a good location to discuss this? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball? Black Kite (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I would say so, yes. As this definitely would affect WikiProject College Football and WikiProject College Baseball (all 3 of these WPs work in consensus for consistency among formatting, categorizing, etc.) those editors should participate on the WP College Basketball page as well. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

OK - added this to the note on Djln's talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• I find the attitude of Jrcla2 very alarming and completely over the top. The claims he has made in his rant are completely unfounded as other others editors have pointed out here. In fact the comment Djln is from Ireland ... and so he likely has no idea about the way American college sports are regarded is borderline racist. His unilataral reverting of my edits is also not helpful. All I have tried to do is tidy up American college basketball categories. They are extremely over categorised and are just a mess. This makes it virtually impossible for editors or readers to find articles. For example at the category "Athletic League of New England State Colleges men's basketball seasons" there are 20 subcategories each containing just one article which is frankly ridiculous. There are dozens if not hundreds of other similar examples. I have tidied up similar categories across various sports and I can't really see what the issue is here. All I planned to do was merge these categories into more easy to navigate categories based on "XXXX-XX in American college basketball" and/or "XXXX-XX in American college basketball" by team" format. Djln Djln (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

borderline racist. I don't know you nor Jrcla2, but I doubt that is racist. I (e.g.) don't know how the Euro-sport system works, and while it is learnable, I don't find the basic assumption of Jrcla (while possibly unhelpful) totally unreasonable. His unilataral reverting of my edits is also not helpful. True, addressed above. Consensus should be reached before a major reorganisation though. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 21:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@L3X1: Sorry but I find the comment to be racially offensive. If mentioning where somebody comes from and citing it is as reason for them not contributing to Wiki is not borderline racist then what is. Djln Djln (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh for fuck sake, will you get a clue? You apparently don't know what you're doing, regardless of why. EEng 10:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: Thanks for your contributuion, totally inappropriate and unhelpful. Djln Djln (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Jrcla2 was offering a way to see what you're doing as the result of a cultural difference rather than you just being a disruptive prick, and you choose to turn it into "racism". EEng 12:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: "cultural difference" is a term used by racists to try and claim they are not racist. Dial it down with the language, totally inappropriate and uncalled for. Your contibutions are not helpful. What is your point. Djln Djln (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked EEng for the above. It's possible to disagree, and even to disagree vehemently, without calling someone a "disruptive prick". Using such language actually causes more disruption. It would be better not to comment at all than to comment in such a manner. --John (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

And I've also blocked Djln for disruptively continuing to edit basketball categories following Black Kite's warning. --John (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Holy blockfest batman. See below Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Block review 1 Djln

Please review this block by User:John in response to the thread above. Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse block - user was warned to stop editing basketball categories, user continued editing basketball categories, user is blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block - gotta agree - user was warned, kept doing it, and added allusions to racism to boot. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block Implications- not even accusations- are particularly unhelpful at best and at worst, chilling. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Block review 2: EEng

Please review this block of EEng by User:John in response to this comment by EEng. Please also see the ongoing discussion at User_talk:EEng#May_2017_2. Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse block, noting that I had warned the user about personal attacks earlier this week after they repeatedly posted insulting comments about another editor with whom I was trying to discuss their own block. It seems to me EEng has been on this path for a while now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
• Bit more difficult. Generally I find EEng to be somewhat annoying, but while he certainly is wanting people to read between the lines, this one isn't as clear-cut to me. I don't follow EEng so I can't say if he's been pushing the boundaries lately. Might have been better to ask him to refactor/strike the comment before blocking. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
• Resolved by Bishonen, and we can move on. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. The comment of EEng in question was inflammatorily worded, but was actually (if carefully read) about finding a way *not* to interpret the target of the comment as misbehaving. That is, it was a show of good faith rather than an attack. Regardless, it has been resolved by Bishonen's unblock, I hope. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I will say that although undoubtedly the correct interpretation, if EEng doesn't mind me saying, it was phrased in such a way as to make such a misinterpretaion not just possible but even likely. It was a complexly-structured statement which could be easily mis-parsed. I think my personal suggestion would be that, in future, if an editor is going to mention potentially offensive epithets, it would be better to do so in a manner in which it was clear that it was based on hypotheticals rather than accusations. of course someone will now point out that that this is probably one of the most turgid paragraphs on this page. Meh. Parse that! :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I think I was perfectly clear, and admins are supposed to AGF and check their parsing before blocking. Reducing everything to the explicit and obvious helps editors' critical faculties grow flabby. EEng 18:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

That would kind of make this the Krypton Factor. Better to take it easy :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Like I'm supposed to get that reference, as if I was one of you Brit poofs. EEng 18:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Block review 3 and revocation of talk page access: Roxy the dog

Please review this block of Roxy the dog by User:Ivanvector in response to this insult by Roxy the Dog. In response to the block Roxy the dog wrote this and this, which led Ivanvector to revoke talk page access. Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog. I think I was pretty clear in my rationale for the block, and you can also review this unblock request for why I disabled talk access. I haven't read any of this thread, I had EEng's talk page on my watchlist for having warned them about a separate personal attack a few days ago. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Ivanvector, I have the utmost respect for your work on WP, and see no reason to think otherwise. I would very much appreciate your consideration of this diff and hope you will reconsider this block. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Ivanvector, as I said on Roxy's talk page [238], I think this was a very poorly thought-out block sequence. It gives a chilling impression that admins are royalty immune from criticism, undermining the legitimacy of the authority you've been granted. I think it's important for admins to model the behavior they seek, including showing a thicker skin and greater interest in resolving and deescalating situations than you showed here. Roxy is an established editor and should first have been offered a chance to revert or edit his remark to conform to the guidelines. I was especially troubled by your revoking TPA because Roxy questioned your actions. It smacks of retaliation. Msnicki (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Roxy's comment was an unambiguous personal attack but a harmless one. Ivanvector needs to grow a thicker skin. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The original attack wasn't directed at him so that is a misread.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, you're right, it was an unambiguous personal attack to John, not to Ivan (they're really the same name at root, right?) My apologies to Ivan for the mixup. Nevertheless I think that as a mild and deliberate provocation the better response would have been for everyone to just roll their eyes and move on rather than granting this bit of trolling the gratification of being noticed. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

RIGHT. No-one ... is to block ANYONE ... until I blow this whistle! Even if - and let me make this absolutely clear - even if they do say "prick". Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Black Kite is complete pr- pomegranite!!! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse block and tp revocation. This one is so clear cut...why is this under review again?
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• I'm very sorry to see that Roxy has got caught up in this; personally I'm happy to let people conclude for themselves whether my various blocks say more about me or more about the admins involved, but others get more emotional about it. Given that the block I received was overturned as wrongheaded, Roxy should be cut some slack. Ivanvector, you need to read the context of people's posts, even one like the one you blocked Roxy for, before acting. EEng 18:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Could I borrow a few eyeballs?

Nazism in the United States. Steady coatracking, POV editing - it's a near complete POV fork from other articles on the subject. Currently there is an IP editor from Brazil, with only marginal English skills, trying to claim that German neo-nasty use of the "stars and bars" somehow proves the US is a hotbed of neo-nastery...or something. It's rather hard to tell, sometimes, what, exactly the various anonoIPs are trying to say; it's obvious that some of the writers don't even have good Portuguese writing skills, and attempt to communicate by machine-translating their Paulista equivalent of Joual. For an example:

squadrons of aircraft on loan from Adolf Hitler infamously inebriated a city of Guernica into carcass and intended whole blocks of Madrid and Barcelona

was seen, apparently, as perfectly good English by one of the IP socks. This is a more dramatic example, perhaps, but not by so much as you'd like.

Sourcing has included rather obviously self-created sites, various Russian propaganda outlets, Charles Higham, and...Fox News. When the last is a high point of your sourcing, that's a very bad sign. Anmccaff (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I took the liberty of making the coatrack policy link work. Do you know of any good versions that the article can be restored too? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 19:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. I was in the middle of doing that myself, and got an edit conflict.

I don't there has ever been a good version of this article, or ever can be. Its whole purpose is coatracking. Anmccaff (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• I took a quick look and agree there is a problem. I have semi-protected two weeks. --John (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you, or anyone, of course, take a look at what version would be best to restore to? I'm sick of looking at the damn thing, and have skated too close to AN3. Anmccaff (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• I agree on coattracking. The third sentence has sent off alarm balls, and from there on it just gets worse, with more and more NPOV. It definetly is a coatrack, because Nazism in the US is a real thing and should make for an interesting historical article. If I may be bold and willing to go out on a limb, would nominate it for G11-attack page. First 500 edits only go back to January 5th of this year. Since ins creation 9-24-16, it has been edited way too much by IPs. I see there was an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US support for the Nazism with plenty of delete votes. I have to jog, but will continue looking for a good version to revert to; in it's present state an AfD would consign it to the rubbish heap in a jiffy. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 23:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Nope, article is DOA. What encyclopedia starts a paragraph with "at least"? I recommend an AfD, my experience tells me CSD G11 will not be accepted. I currently have it under PROD (support !votes on the talk page are always welcome), but if someone feels AfD is better, they may nominate. I also feel there should be some Arbcomm applying to it.d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 23:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

At least a dozen articles that I know of start a paragraph with "at least". EEng 02:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

PROD declined, so AfD? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 02:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

It is very interesting. Bad English is obviously - unredoughtbly - a very good reason to delete, instead of correcting, any and all articles. Congrats! Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 02:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Congrats???!? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 02:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

One who doesn't speak English all that well should not be making arguments about the unredoughtbly of the English in that article... --Tarage (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I assume he means undoubtedly. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 12:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion. —JJBers 02:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Believe it or not, Tarage, unredoughtbly really is a word. Uncollapse to learn more.

Extended content
Ha! Ha! Just kidding!

EEng 10:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

So the Soviets dropped "bread" on the Finns and Poles, and they in return dropped "cocktails" upon Soviet tanks breadwagons. Now Hitler is dropping booze down upon cities. What next? Hussein giving "milk" to the Kurds? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 13:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

What would be the point of that? Kurds are made from milk. EEng 13:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I see you're still showing them the whey... Blackmane (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Also some oddness relating to it that needs admin attention [239] was made by an edd involved in the AFD of the page we are discussing here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Link doesn't work for me. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 16:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Fascism_in_the_United_States&diff=779112196&oldid=721098069 This one work?] I think there's a transposition error in the one above. Should we be notifying the perpetrator at this point, BTW? Anmccaff (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I left an ANI notice on his talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

RHB100 and GPS article (again)

Some admin attention needed, particularly here. See also the discussions recently mentioned on that page. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Jvm21 (again)

This editor was recently brought to ANI with regards to them creating articles that don't meet the notability requirements of WP:NMOTORSPORT, and to a lesser degree, their continued personal attacks. The outcome of that ANI thread (from only 10 days ago), was a note dropped on their talkpage by Neil. Since then, several more articles have been proded , with Jvm21 notified on their talkpage with User:GoldenRing dropping a polite note not to continue with the creation of these n/n articles. This provoked this reply from Jvm21 on GR's talkpage (diff). Since then, Jvm21 continues to ignore other editors and the notability guidelines and creates more non-notable articles. This again provkes a personal attack to the editor proding the article (User:Corvus tristis).

Their talkpage, constant personal attacks and failure to engage with other editors and/or projects to address the concerns tells me this editor is WP:NOTHERE and continues with their disruption. I'd be grateful if someone could take a look. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I would have first suggested a provision that requires Jvm to go through AfR from now on but the personal attacks and blatant refusal to adhere to advice and policy makes me guess it will not go well. A block probably is the only way to get to an editor like this.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
• Blocked for a week. Their previous comments, which I have linked in the block notice, are clearly not acceptable. The persistent creation of non-notable racing driver BLPs is a secondary issue - if they cannot play nicely with others, this is not the place for them. Black Kite (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks BK. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

And after this response, I've revoked talk page access for the duration of the block. I'm generally of the opinion that allowing a blocked editor a little leeway to vent on their talk page can be a good thing. But this seems like a long-term characteristic rather than a temporary over-reaction, and as it's only for a week I think it would help them stop digging deeper. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)