Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive949

TBAN for Korvex from biblical archeology

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

---

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

Korvex is a pure WP:SPA for biblical archeology topics, who brings a strong POV of Biblical maximalism to Wikipedia (the view that the narratives in the Bible are actual history).

Per their edit count they have 364 edits since they opened their account in October 2016. ~200 of them are to article Talk and ~90 are to articles themselves.

Korvex almost exclusively cites things by Bryant G. Wooddrama boards published on the website of Associates for Biblical Research (ABR) where Wood is research director. ABR describes itself as a ministry and links to the "The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" in its "about" page.

Others have added bad content cited to ABR as well. For instance an IP added content here sourced to this page at the ABR website, which has a video explaining why their work is essential -- namely "This (uncertainty) has led scholars to reject the historicity of the account of the capture of Ai, the Conquest in general, the Exodus by implication, and ultimately, the Gospel of God's Son." (clears throat)

Sample edits:

• first edit was to The Exodus, added content arguing for historicity of the event, citing 2 postings by Wood at the ABR website. That edit was reverted.

• second edit was to Book of Exodus, removing the word "myth", changing BCE to BC (oy), adding content that makes the argument that the whole Torah must be very old because of a very old tiny scroll with a few verses found on it, adding some OR cited to some bible verses. It was reverted.

• next edits were to Talk:Exodus (a disambig page) arguing for their edits at The Exodus.

• next edits added content to the The Exodus "proving" that it happened, which was reverted. Korvex restored. It was reverted again. An IP then showed up the next day and blanked 2 sections on archeology. Which was reverted.
• next edit argued for that change on the correct Talk page. and also went to the User talk pages of two editors who had reverted them, User:Isambard Kingdom (diff) and User:Doug Weller (diff), in each of which he argues to support his edit with a blog posting on.... the ABR website.

You are getting the picture. The rest is more of the same.

This posting is prompted by Korvex's recent fixing on Ai (Canaan), a city discussed in the bible as being conquered by Joshua, which scholars/archeologists have not been able to find any definitive RW site for. Korvex's hero Bryant Wood believes that Ai is current day Khirbet el-Maqatir; hardly anybody else thinks so, but Korvex wants to give significant WEIGHT to that (like this (reverted by Guy here; restored in part by Korvex here (mentioning Wood in the edit note); reverted here by me.

Korvex showed up a month later and added another Wood ref here out of an edited book, trying to argue that this was independent of ABR. I reverted, Korvex restored, I removed again.

We rejected that source, as edited book chapters are often not solid scholarly works and after a lot of drama on Talk we encouraged him to go RSN, which he did, and where the source was shot down.

Korvex showed up again 2 days ago and did this, reverted by Doug Weller here, restored by Korvex here, reverted by User:Drmies here, restored by Korvex here, reverted by me here.

All though this Korvex has been BLUDGEONing the heck out of the talk page (talk page revision stats here; just their contribs here) not to mention leaving notes on my user Talk page like this (about a bogus edit war warning from another misguided editor).

Korvex is becoming a time sink. They are not WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but are a SPA Advocate for biblical historicity in biblical archeology, and are doing the typical things like bringing poor sources, edit warring to try to keep them, and battering the talk page. Am asking the community to consider a TBAN from biblical archeology.Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Biblical archaeology is far from something I know a great deal about, but I will note that Korvex does seem to be editing with a strong POV. For instance, they changed the fact that Richard Dawkins is separated from his wife to their being divorced, when the source says, quite specifically, that they're separated. He also used a citation from an open access journal, the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, to make a point, without identifying the source, just the author and title of the paper. (An open access journal, of course, would not be acceptable as an RS for anything except the existence of the journal and whatever editorial comments they may make, not for the material published by the journal.) Whether he did that out of ignorance or to hide the source, I don't know. Numerous other edits of his which seemed dicey to me have been reverted by other editors. I think folks who know something about their subject matter should take a closer look at Korvex's editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog makes many obvious errors. Jytdog apparently believes that the "only person" I cite is my "hero" Bryant Wood, but the enormity of this error is great. I've cited countless scholars in my Wiki history in conversations and edits, including 1) George Mendenhall, 2) Christopher Theis, 3) Joshua Berman, 4) Koert Van Bekkum, etc, etc, etc. Jytdog thinking that Wood is the only guy I cite is simply false.

Jytdog then states that my only edits have to do with advancing my narrative on biblical archaeology -- an obvious error. I've made edits that have nothing to do with proving biblical archaeology, including 1) William F. Albright's page (fixing sentences) 2) Eilat Mazar's page and expanding her discoveries 3) Finkelstein's book Bible Unearthed 4) encyclopedia list of online encyclopedias 6) page of Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy 7) Yaki Yerushalayim page, etc, etc, etc. Jytdog also makes another funny error when he states I try to source virtually everything Wood has published, but the only work I have ever referred to from Wood is his work on Khirbet el-Maqatir. It is true though, that the majority of my work on Wikipedia has to do with the religion and political state of Israel, as well as Israeli archaeologists. Jytdog's only research seems to be limited to the talk page of Ai (Canaan). Jytdog also makes another grand error when he says no one asides from Wood considers the identification of Ai as Khirbet el-Maqatir, but that's an error for a different page to discuss.

It should be obvious that Jytdog's accusations come from his personal vendetta against me. His post advocating for my ban is full of mockery, and has many personal attacks (that I'm a "sinking time ship"). Jytdog has an obvious personal vendetta, where he believes a few selectively chosen edits of mine being reverted constitutes a ban.

As for Beyond My Ken, someone who is obviously neutral because he posts his comment in a calm tone and tries to judge the situation accordingly, makes good points. I did in fact seem to make an error with the open source journal JHS, and as for Dawkins' page, whether or not the source says "divorce" or "separated", Dawkins was in fact divorced with his third wife. If the source fails to reflect that, we need to get a new source that makes it clear to the reader of Wikipedia that Dawkins wasn't just "separated", a rather ambiguous term, but did in fact get divorced from Lalla Ward. See this for example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3694202/Britain-s-highest-profile-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-announces-end-24-year-marriage-Dr-actress-Lalla-Ward.html Korvex (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not how it works. If a source says something, we report it. If you don't agree with it, you find a different reliable source and then debate it. You don't change it and then try to find a source to fit the claim. Also DM has been determined not to be a reliable source. Try again. --Tarage (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Why is Journal of Hebrew Scriptures a problem?

And why is, "(An open access journal, of course, would not be acceptable as an RS for anything except the existence of the journal and whatever editorial comments they may make, not for the material published by the journal."? You appear to be conflating open access journal with predatory open access journal. Why? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• They are the academic equivalent of a blog, with no guarantee of accuracy or fact checking, despite the claim to be "peer reviewed". Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• I don't have extensive experience with this editor, but my brief interaction has been unpleasant: I think this editor adheres to fringe scholarship and it seems to me that they try to favor those fringey viewpoints in article space. They also seem to lack a basic understanding of how the editing process here works (note their latest revert and their comment, on Ai (Canaan) and Talk:Ai (Canaan)). Finally OH MY GOD the amount of verbiage they put on these talk pages is enough to drive one insane--and I find such verbosity typical of POV warriors and other tendentious editors/hobbyists/fringe inhabitants. So sure, I support a topic ban. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • PS If Korvex would only refrain from edit warring (it may be that they just don't really understand how that BRD thing works, or consensus, or whatever) they'd be in a lot less trouble. If they figure that out, or make certain promises, I might reconsider. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• In line with what the other editors here have said, Korvex's editing history has created a large amount of work for other editors. Most of Korvex's edits are not to wikipedia pages themselves, but to talk pages, where (in most cases) the result is a long and unproductive disagreement, with Korvex on one side and every other editor on the other. I have several times been one of the "other editors" in the long, drawn-out "Korvex contra mundum sessions." Korvex is focused either exclusively or almost exclusively on topics related to religion, and in general edits in an attempt to move the articles further in line with a maximalist (i.e. religiously conservative) position. In general, discussions between Korvex and other editors do not reach a resolution, and are filled with long, tedious, and consistently disrespectful posts by Korvex, in which Korvex frequently (I assume accidentally) misrepresents the contents of various cited sources and misrepresents the meaning of Wikipedia policy pages. Korvex probably has the ability to contribute to Wikipedia constructively outside of fields related to the historicity of the Bible, but given that their editing history is one long campaign of POV-pushing, often with a tone that appears to be uncivil filibustering, a TBAN would be appropriate. Otherwise, Korvex is likely to prove disruptive in the future and distract from the goal of building an encyclopaedia. If they continue editing in the present manner, other editors will be faced with the choice of either (1) repeatedly having long fruitless discussions with an angry editor, or (2) simply giving up and allowing biased editing to avoid drama. Alephb (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, I support a TBAN for religion (best) but if that's determined to be too broad, I would support a TBAN for biblical history, biblical historicity, biblical studies, and/or biblical archaeology. Alephb (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC) PS: and/or ancient Egypt and the near East, broadly constructed. That would work too. Alephb (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Strong support for TBAN Removing neutral dating and adding christocentric dating in an article on Judaism would be enough in itself to warrant a ban, even without all the other stuff. IMO, we have far too much tolerance for both civil and uncivil POV-pushers in this particular area. He doesn't like me naming him, but everyone probably knows who I'm talking about when I say we had a massively disruptive POV-pusher operating in this area for far longer than he should have been, with the admin corps apparently afraid to do much about him until he started calling evolutionists and secularists Nazis. (In case anyone doesn't know, ask Bishonen.) As far as I am concerned, the sooner problems involving the early books of the Hebrew Bible and their relationship to archeology, geology, biology and history are discovered and dealt with, the better. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I think the ban should be from ancient Egypt and the Near East, broadly construed. The TBAN parameters as proposed by Jytdog are far too narrow, and actually wouldn't cover a significant amount of the disruptive behaviour described. Richard Dawkins' marital status is so far removed from the rest that I think the only way it could be covered is with a TBAN from "religion", if that's seen as necessary, but most of the other stuff appears to fall within "ancient Egypt and the Near East", though not necessarily biblical archeology. Bickering over the definition of the word "myth", for instance, has nothing whatsoever to do with archeology, and he was doing it on an article about an ancient text, which would not necessarily fall within the proposed parameters either. Ditto for the christocentric dating in an article on a Jewish topic, in contravention of WP:ERA (which has nothing whatsoever to do with archeology, and he could easily keep doing it under the proposed ban). That, plus I'm not a fan of the term "biblical archeology" to begin with -- it's dated terminology that cedes too much ground to users with the same POV as Korvex: as Christine Hayes says And it was explicitly referred to as biblical archaeology — an interesting name, because it suggests that the archaeologists were out there searching for evidence that would verify the details of the biblical text. We're doing biblical archaeology; archeology in support of the biblical text. [...] Increasingly, practitioners of what was now being termed Palestinian archaeology, or Ancient Near Eastern archaeology, or archaeology of the Levant, rather than biblical archaeology — some of these archaeologists grew disinterested in pointing out the correlations between the archaeological data and the biblical stories or in trying to explain away any discrepancies in order to keep the biblical text intact. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@JzG: @Alephb: @Drmies: @Jytdog: Per my post above and Doug Weller's below, the original proposed TBAN parameter (in the thread title) doesn't appear to be broad/clear enough. Could you clarify what topic (Near Eastern [biblical] archeology; biblical history; ancient Egypt and the Near East; religion) you think Korvex should be banned from? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Consider the other side These "long and unproductive" debates have only happened with me on three single pages so far as I'm concerned. 1) Exodus 2) Ai (Canaan) 3) Book of Deuteronomy. In my initial post, I've shown 6 pages where I have made edits with either zero debate on the talk page or at most, 2 short responses, which shows the good majority of my edits have gone smoothly. I can show much more than 6, of course. Regarding my "bickering" over the word myth, that is actually a serious issue where Aleph insists on literally labeling the position of Wikipedia as the first five biblical books as fiction. This to me is unacceptable, an error, and of COURSE I have responded to it. It's hard to imagine I'd be banned from all discussion on religion because of drawn-out discussion on three pages (seriously) that have almost all ended. Lastly, if Tarage can direct me to a place where Daily Mail was deduced as unreliable, by Wikipedia standards, I would accept that. But again, producing a ban because of drawn out discussion on three pages (where two of it has entirely ceased for some time) seems rather unnecessary. Someone said I should be banned "just" for switching BCE to BC, but that was literally my first or second edit in the entirety of my Wikipedia account where I had just started editing and did not know about WP:ERA. I'd also accept from refraining edits in those 3 pages where I'm prone to engaging in debates for the next month or so, if that makes a difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korvex (talk • contribs) 05:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

For anyone trying to follow along, the reference to "Aleph" in the paragraph above is about this edit by Korvex [1], which I reverted [2]. This has spawned the latest exchange here, which went on while this ANI was already in progress: Talk:Mosaic authorship#Charter myth and recent undid edit. Alephb (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Korvex, if you push a fringe theory or make antisemitic, offensive, or non-NPOV edits, it doesn't matter how often other users have challenged you and you have fought back, resulting in "long and unproductive debates". Twice should be enough, but even by your own admission it has happened on three separate pages. If you are not a POV-pushing SPA, that should be the easiest thing in the world for you to prove; yet you have to resort to counting the number of articles on which you have gotten in massive blowouts with other editors -- what does this say? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Korvex, here´s the Daily Mail thing you wanted: [3]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• I've had the opportunity to interact with Korvex on one of the pages in question. I'm sure some of you are waiting for me to waffle about how he's not that bad, and a stern warning should be enough. Well, I'm sorry to disappoint, but based on what I've seen I must strongly Support a TBAN from articles on biblical history or ancient Egypt and the near East. I crossed the line of "give them another chance" when I saw them say "The exodus happened, end of discussion." And if you think that's bad (and you have any knowledge of the subject), take a look at the logic they used to arrive at that conclusion. It makes my brain itch to know that someone actually thought that was a compelling argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

To editor MjolnirPants: It seems as if my ban on 'religion' is inevitable, but I have without question established my case for the exodus. You were unable to refute my contentions, and using our personal debate to ban me seems unproductive. You have 1) Tried to explain the Book of Exodus' vast knowledge on the geography and customs of Egypt with "maps" 2) Spent an unfortunate amount of time trying to defend the claim that nomadic migrations leave remains, after being conclusively shown to be false 3) Called Petrovich a "fringe scholar" until of course I brought up his actual credentials and 4) Conflated the abandonment of Avaris during the reign of Ahmose I with the abandonment of Avaris in the reign of Amenhotep II. So, you were indeed wrong about that, but again, this conversation had nothing to do with any actual edits -- I specifically stated my debate with you was to show your claims were wrong and that I also had no intention of adding the content I espoused into the Wiki page. You were simply incorrect about the historicity of the Exodus with me, as I was incorrect about the validity of Murdock's quote or whatnot on that mythicism page. I have offered you an opportunity to defend your responses on my Talk Page, but you were unable to because of points 1-4 that I mentioned here. And for the third time, using a personal conversation with someone to ban them from edits is not the way to do things (but again, the ban looks inevitable as of now). If you want to ever claim that I was speaking any factual errors in our personal conversation, you're going to have to bring the evidence to my Talk Page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Korvex (talk • contribs) 14:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Take a look at the above: Aside from disruptive formatting and a really frequent problem with signing their posts, the POV problems are made obvious by this apparently willful inability to distinguish between a refusal to engage and an failure to rebut. Note also that they continue to insist upon the historicity of the Exodus, not just in terms of their own belief but in terms of fact, a statement which is flatly at odds with the overwhelming scholarly consensus.

Korvex: In case you don't get it, understand that I'm not going to engage with anyone who claims they've proven me wrong by claiming I'm wrong. Every single point of fact we've discussed has been supported by citations to evidence by myself and by bald assertions by you. You have, not once in the entire brief discussion we had, provided a single shred of evidence to support any of the assertions that you claim have proven me wrong. Indeed, I see below where you continue to make wildly unsupported claims right here in this very discussion. If you think I'm going to waste any more time trying to prove you wrong when you clearly believe that it's impossible for you to be wrong, you're sadly mistaken. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

To editor Mjolnir:, you're taking this too personally. Sit back for a second. All my claims have in fact been supported by references. I gave you quotations from world-renowned scholars like Richard Hess. I've given you references to excavations by scholars like Manfred Bietak. Why does this disappear from your memory immediately after I post it? It seems you are not very open to evidence that may challenge your view on the exodus. You gave very few citations, if any. You gave some citations to some nomadic settlements, but as I repeatedly pointed out, we were discussing nomadic migrations, not nomadic settlements. You state that the overwhelming scholarly consensus is against me. Something tells me you only read minimalist literature, Mjolnir. Grand scholars like Richard Hess, James Hoffmeir, Eugene Merrill, Kenneth Kitchen would dismiss exodus ahistoricity on any day of the week. This "consensus" seems to exist only in minimalistic imagination, I plead with you not to take up the minimalist agenda as this is very self-detrimental. Again, I have provided overwhelming evidence for my positions. I am getting tired of being constantly insulted by you, being told I am making "bald assertions" and that discussion with me is a "waste of time". All the evidence is on my side. You say that you simply are not willing to respond to me, not that you actually cannot respond to me. This is rather strange, considering you posted 3 hefty responses to me earlier, and then stopped when the evidence became too overwhelming to rebut. You have called people like Petrovich "fringe scholars" in order to maintain your hypothesis. These claims are indefensible. You will not be able to defeat me regarding exodus historicity. We likely will not converse again after this, so I will give you the last word. You can either attempt to defend the historical veracity of your claims, or you can resort to name-calling again. Go ahead.Korvex (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

To editor Mjolnir:, you're taking this too personally. Sit back for a second. All my claims have in fact been supported by references. I rest my case. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

In light of MP's ("MPs'"?) comments in another discussion further up this page, the above should be taken pretty seriously. I'm sure some of you are waiting for me to waffle about how he's not that bad, and a stern warning should be enough is right. MP is one of the most patient, forgiving users I have seen editing in this area, so his coming down as he is here is noteworthy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

MP's would be the correct choice. MPs would be something completely different. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

To editor MjolnirPants: Your most recent personal attacks against me are getting out of hand. You state I am "trivial to disprove" despite the fact that you were wrong on everything in our personal discussion. You are crossing the line when it comes to respect and not even backing up your statements with any evidence, I am attempting to take all your attacks against me without insulting you however you seem to think that my limiting time on Wikipedia warrants you replace your fruitless arguments in our previous discussions by attacking my character. This is absolutely not the way to have a coherent debate, you must treat your opponent with respect regardless of whether or not you have faired successfully in a debate with them. You also make an innumerable number of errors regarding your latest personal attacks on Petrovich as well. I have told you Petrovich has a PhD in syro-Palestinian Archaeology and is a professor of ancient Egypt at Wilfred Laurier University. Yet you attack him. I have shown that the book has been peer reviewed, and apparently the fact that he needed a Kickstarter to raise money to be able to find his research (Petrovich is nothing near rich) apparently disqualified that. Furthermore, fringe hypotheses are not presented at ASOR, obviously Despite all this you attack Petrovich personally. You ignore the endorsement of his book from grand scholars like Eugene Merrill and other scholars like Sarah Doherty, and conclude not only is it fringe but you warrant personal attacks against him. Your behaviour reflects that when you cannot substantively address someone, whether it is me or a scholar, you attack them. Coincidentally, Petrovich's book speaks exactly about a priori rejection of a thesis that does not affirm to ones presuppositions. When you become a professor of Ancient Egypt at Wilfrid Laurier University (funny how a supposedly fringe scholar is a professor in one of the best universities in Canada), maybe your a priori dismissal can be considered. My session on Wikipedia is nearing its end, I am happy that the large majority of my edits on numerous pages have been accepted and have mixed ideas about this coming to an end.

And this is a perfect example why a siteban is necessary. Despite your continued insistence, Petrovich's book is NOT peer reviewed. You don't seem to understand what peer review means when it comes to scholarly papers or publications. Secondly, fringe hypotheses are indeed presented at the ASOR annual meeting. They will let just about anyone who is paying ASOR member, including students, to do presentations at the annual meeting. Here's their rules: http://www.asor.org/am/2017/rules.html which no way confer any scholarly reliability to the participants. The chairs just have to find it interesting enough to present and they have a TON of slots to fill. Finally, Eugene Merrill is not a "Grand Scholar" in any way. He's a Biblical literalist who only publishes in Biblical literalist theology journals. Really only one to be frank. The one published by the seminary he was a part of. He's as fringe as fringe gets. Biblical inerrancy is fringe. That's why they have to make their own journals because their "evidence" for inerrancy would never pass the peer review of actual scholarly journals. Capeo (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

To editor Capeo: Capeo, what analysis do you speak from? EUGENE H Merill being fringe? Two of his works have been cited over a hundred times, many others with a large amount as well. Definitely a renowned Old Testament scholar by every thing I've seen about him and the influence of his academic work. Wikipedia actually has a page on him (that you did not consult) noting he is distinguished professor at Dallas Theological Seminary (a major academic institution with other leading scholars in New and Old Testament scholarship as professors like Darrel Bock and Daniel freaking Wallace). He's definitely a literalist, but so are so many other leading scholars in Old Testament scholarship that this couldn't possibly qualify as fringe. In my opinion, the top New Testament scholar in the world is N.T. Wright (search up the citations to his works and try not to explode) -- a literalist by almost any definition. So of course, a work with Merrill's name on it is by definition one that cannot be dismissed, even if found to be incorrect a year later, although I'm not aware of any scholars to have ever been correct on everything.Korvex (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't want to get involved in the Petrovich stuff any more, but I am tired of being told that he is a Professor at Wilfrid Laurier. Yes, he manages to get called this in the media, but he isn't one. His academic.edu site[4] calls him an adjunct teaching Ancient Egypt(something I've told Korvex before), and the University doesn't call him professor. See this and scroll down to HI299E: ANCIENT EGYPT (WINTER) where is is given no title. But at HI121: ANCIENT HISTORY IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT (WINTER) you'll see a real professor with the title. And the course he is teaching is not a standard part of the curriculum. Note its number if HI299E, and "Courses carrying special numbers (HI299, HI346, HI496) are established when a faculty member has an interest in pursuing a topic of study that is not part of our regular course offerings." Doug Weller talk 14:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that insight, Doug, I don't think I would've picked up on that. I also have to say, yourself and other editors involved on the talkpages of the articles in question have shown a level of patience that goes above and beyond what I could ever do. That Exodus talkpage in particular is an example of bludgeoning on a level rarely seen. No editors should have to put up with such endless repetition of OR, SYNTH and baseless refuted claims lacking RS. It's that talkpage in particular that has me convinced that a TBAN is insufficient. Korvex doesn't seem interested in trying to understand even the most basic sourcing policies and guidelines. Capeo (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban. This kind of user causes burnout because they are here to mould the encyclopaedia to fit their own worldview, and they don't permit of the possibility that their worldview is wrong. Guy (Help!) 08:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support a TBAN from articles on biblical history or ancient Egypt and the near East. and given his edits at Dawkins, religion. One of the issues I've had with him is misrepresenting sources. His Dawkins edits are a good example of that. First he changes "separated" to "divorced" with an edit summary "Separation is an ambiguous term and fails to reflect it was an actual divorce)". This despite the fact that the source makes no mention of divorce. He even misrepresents himself. On being accused of pushing Wood he replied that he cites other sources, such as Koert van Bekkum. Now van Bekkum seems to be a reliable source and indeed Korvex did use him, but he used him to add " "However,scholars are not entirely certain that Et-Tell is the location of Ai. Koert van Bekkum says that there is scholarly discussion on the location of several biblical cities, including Ai,[1] citing Bryant G. Wood who has recently come to identify Ai with Khirbet el-Maqatir." The paragraph already mentioned Wood, stating that " Bryant G. Wood's identification has been accepted by some[12] although rejected by others." so this simply added another mention of Wood. Not only that, the mention of Wood was in a footnote which said "For literature concerning Ai and the related discussion about the identification of Bethel with el-Bireh in stead of with Beitin (172.148), see D. Livingston, ‘Further Considerations on the Location of Bethel and El-Bireh’, PEQ 126 (1994), 154-9; B.G. Wood, ‘Khirbet el-Maqatir’, IEJ 50 (2000), 123-30; 249-54; for Tel el-Umeiri and Tel Jalul as candidates for Heshbon, see S.H. Horn, ‘Heshbon’, IDBS, 410; Idem, Hesban in the Bible and in Archaeology, Berrien Springs, MI 1982, 10-1; R.D. Ibach, ‘An Intensive Survey at Jalul’, Andrews University Seminary Studies 16 (1978), 215-22; Geraty, ‘Heshbon’, 626." And given that the article was about the city of Ai, the failure to mention what van Bekkum actually said about Ai, "Et-Tell, identified by most scholars with the city of Ai, was not settled between the Early Bronze and Iron Age I." but only use a footnote mentioning Wood seemed to me, in this context, to misrepresent the source. He certainly only used it in order to get another mention fo Wood into the article, making his statement "Jytdog thinking that Wood is the only guy I cite is simply false." looking a bit - well, a bit something. He then at the talk page accused me of suggesting he was lying, something I didn't do. Which is another big problem, his continual personalisation of discussions and attacks on other editors during talk page discussions. These range from accusing User:Tgeorgescu 2 months ago of lying[5] to more recent accusations of slander[6] and another attack on Tgeorgescu[7]. He also accused User:Zero0000 of pov pushihng and misrepresenting our policies and guidelines at Talk:Ai (Canaan)#Bryant Wood and the Associates for Biblical Research.

I could provide more detail about misrepresentation, use of poor sources, WP:UNDUE, personal attacks etc but unless asked I don't want to waste even more time here. They're mentioned or discussed on the talk pages anyway. Doug Weller talk 09:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• • I just noticed his comments last night at Talk:Mosaic authorship#Charter myth and recent undid edit which are more evidence of his unwillingness to AGF and an evident battleground mentality. Doug Weller talk 10:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral That's now, but if nothing changes in his behavior, Korvex will receive a TBAN sooner or later, that's unavoidable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment The above was advice, but seen his subsequent edits, it seems that he does not comprehend what the problem is about. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Strong support for an indefinite topic ban for this persistent POV-pusher, from biblical archeology — or from biblical history and ancient Egypt and the near East and religion — indeed from any areas that otherwise gain consensus here. I'd ban him on my own responsibility if the subject was under discretionary sanctions, but since it's not, I hope the community will take care of it. The time and energy of constructive editors is Wikipedia's main resource, and is not to be squandered like that. (I know, I'm like a grammophone with that, but it's true.) As JzG says above, this kind of user causes burnout. Bishonen | talk 10:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC). Adding: After reading the further comments below, I'll support an indefinite block, too. Bishonen | talk 21:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I hope you don't mind, but I corrected what looked like a really obvious misprint in the above comment. I guess "bibliographical archeology" is a thing (digging up ancient books like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi Codices and the Dunhuang Manuscripts?), but I was 100% certain that wasn't what you meant to write. ;-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support TBAN. Just at Talk:The Exodus he has written close to 20,000 words and shows no sign of slowing down. Moreover, his argumentation is rife with illogic, sophism and misrepresentation of sources. He believes what he believes and arguing against him is useless. He needs to be disappeared from any topic connected to religion and the bible, which includes archaeology of the Middle East and the history of languages. Zero^talk 12:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Zero. That I show "no sign of slowing down" is, I find to be not correct, as all my conversations on the Talk Page of the Exodus have finished. As for the history of languages, I understand religions, but history of languages? Are you referring to Doug's book again, in which the thesis of it has been peer-reviewed and presented to the American Schools of Oriental Research, as well as confirmed by grand scholars like Eugene Merrill? You seem to be trying to take this ban thing from religion and trying to extend over topics that you have not conformed with your personal disagreements with me, and are attempting to extend it over topics that I have made not a single attempt to edit for. Korvex (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• It looks as if the ban is inevitable with so many people against me. I have already admitted that I have had drawn-out conversations (that have all ended by the timing of this post) on three different pages, and perhaps that warrants the ban. But I will in fact defend myself from accusations of actual errors and illogical content that I wanted to add in the edit, as I considered my edits to be true, and therefore wanted to add them into Wikipedia (for examples, Dawkins did in fact get divorced from Lalla, but because the sources used the synonymous word 'separated' in this event, this edit of mine was blocked, and is now considered evidence I'm a POV-pusher). This is not the place to defend my edits, so if anyone thinks I have made factual errors regarding the truth of what I actually wanted to add in Wikipedia can discuss that with me on my talk page. Anyways, I do have a point of view (everybody does), and maybe I have indeed taken it too far twice or thrice. I will accept the verdict of the admins on this issue.Korvex (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Korvex, my question to you is whether this criticism (and I know it's not easy to handle so much of it, sorry) makes any sense to you. Specifically, do you see how the totality of your edits seem to evidence a POV, and how that particular POV is considered fringe? or at least not neutral? or, maybe, less neutral than the non-biblical archeological perspectives? Drmies (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    • For me the problem with the Dawkins edits are not so much that you are for some reason now looking at atheists and atheism (given your post at Talk:Atheism) but that you are still misrepresenting sources. We do not decide for ourself what a source "really means" (you didn't say those words but you implied them). This type of use of sources is a constant problem with you. And your reply to Zero about Douglas Petrovich's book is another. You keep making exaggerated statements. His "thesis" has not been peer-reviewed in any way that I recognise, his book has so far not received a review so far as I know other than this one and you haven't produced one, and his thesis, that Hebrew is the basis of the world's oldest alphabet[8][9] is definitely not widely accepted. Doug Weller talk 15:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, yes, I understand and admit that 2-3 of my edits did in fact POV push. I fully admit this and if I receive a ban, I accept the ban I will be given. I can do nothing my past actions except for admit my mistakes. As for Petrovich, I don't know what this has to do with discussion on my ban but I will respond. Regarding Petrovich as not having his work peer-reviewed, this is incorrect -- Petrovich's publishers have peer-reviewed it. I even found some of his discussion with supporters of the funding of his book to be published that this is correct. It has also been presented to the American Schools of Oriental Research - see pages 105-106 - which is significant and definitely makes it "reliable", because the prestige of the ASOR is not easily equaled by most journals. Doug, you also point out the book only has one 'review' -- but it has already spurred discussion from people who accept it (Eugene Merrill, Sarah Doherty, I think that new chronology guy David Rohl also accepts it, Carr) and from those who do not accept it (Christopher Rollston, Thomas Shneider). Some of these names are pretty big, Doug. If you actually take a look at the current debate existing on the subject, you'll see that the evidence is heavily stacked in favor of Petrovich's side -- I have read all the positive and negative discussion. The proto-consonantal script has names only attested to in the Hebrew language (like Ahisemech), for example. Lastly, I don't know if express.co.uk is considered reliable by Wikipedia, but I found an article there that uses the phrase "their 24-year marriage is at an end" to describe what happened between Dawkins and Lalla. I will not use it to try to make an edit considered the current situation I'm in, but if express.co.uk is considered a reliable source, I will happily send the source to the editor who wants to add it in to Dawkins' page.Korvex (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Korvex, the problem with your edits and behavior to date, as my OP lays out, is that you have abused your editing privileges to use Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX, to promote your view that the Bible presents history. Every one of your edits to religious-related article is about that one POV. This is not OK in WP -- WP:SOAPBOX is fundamental WP policy. This is what many WP:SPA accounts do, and they end up wasting everyone's time with endless wrangles on Talk pages. You are not here to build an encyclopedia, you are here to advocate for a specific point of view. That is the problem. Yes as you noted, everybody has a point of view but we ask everyone to set that aside when they log in, and edit neutrally. (This is discussed in the NPOV policy at WP:YESPOV) People who cannot do that, get topic banned. Please read those three wikilinks already in this post, along with the essays WP:ADVOCACY and WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:Civil POV pushing. You have been doing all those things. Drmies is hopeful that you can have the self-insight to see this and the follow-on hope that having seen it, you might be able to rectify it. So far you are not seeing the problem, nor acknowledging the problem, and I realize that I didn't link to any of those in my OP, hence my providing them here. Please do read them and reflect on them, and then read what people have written here again, and then reply here again. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The fact that Korvex is using this forum to try and rehash the entire Petrovich controversy is exactly why this TBAN is appropriate. There have already been long discussions in which a number of editors have discussed why they dismiss Petrovich as not being WP:RELIABLE. Korvex wrote long angry essays, misrepresenting the situation repeatedly, and got nowhere in convincing anyone else to accept the reliability of Petrovich's book that he himself hadn't even seen yet and which has never been reviewed in any scholarly outlet. The fact that he would use this discussion of his behavior to begin beating that dead horse again is a perfect illustration of how he operates and continues to show no sign of moving in a more productive direction. He has said nothing new here that he hasn't already said, at much greater length and with a harsher tone, on the talk pages already discussed above. Alephb (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

To editor Alephb: I request you scroll up, considering I was absolutely not the one who brought up Petrovich. I quite literally said Petrovich had nothing to do with this discussion before responding. Again, I did not bring this up. I have admitted to the POV pushing already. Couldn't be bothered going through contribs to find the date and time, but this was obviously Korvex (talk · contribs). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Does it look to anyone else like Korvex is now deliberately trolling this ANI thread? I "Ctrl+F"ed Petrovich's name, and unless someone else strategically misspelled it, Korvex was indeed the first to bring him up here. And even if that was not the case, mentioning Petrovich's name isn't even the problem; it's the continued arguing over it (which again, only Korvex has been doing). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed site ban

• Based on my interactions with Korvex at Talk:The Exodus and here, I'm also going to have to propose and support an indefinite site ban. Korvex repeatedly makes statements of fact which are trivial to disprove, doesn't bother to provide sources for the vast majority of their claims, generally provides poor sources when they do, misinterprets those few acceptable sources they use, laces their comments with hyperbole, and continuously makes bad faith accusations against any and all who disagree with them. Those problems might be most apparent in one particular topic, but they are problems which have the potential to affect any article they work on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• After looking into this a bit more I have to agree with MP above that a site ban is what's needed though I'd support a very broad TBAN as well. On the Ai page Korvex showed no understanding of BRD or consensus and somehow thought because they disagreed with an edit, and brought it to the talk page, that somehow gave them impunity to repeatedly revert against consensus. That talk page and the responses above also display that they have no grasp of what an RS is and resort to OR and SYNTH continuously. Just in the response to Drmies above there is a complete lack of understanding of what constitutes a scholarly RS. Petrovich had to resort to a Kickstarter campaign to get his book published and in no way shape or form do publishers do scholarly peer review. The OR about reading some discussion somewhere about it is meaningless. Korvex then links to the program for the ASOR annual meeting, not either of the actual journals ASOR publishes, but a program. Giving a presentation (among hundreds) at the ASOR annual meeting in no way confers reliability to the presenter or indicates that their views represent the scholarly consensus. Having other fringe pushing scholars (with no sources to back that up BTW) support a fringe view in no way confers reliability either. Petrovich has articles on Creation Ministries International's website claiming proof of Biblical inerrancy. His views are extremely fringe. That Korvex doesn't see that gives me little hope they will every understand WP sourcing requirements. Capeo (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support site ban - I really don't think a topic ban, even if it covers multiple subjects, if going to be sufficient. My observation is that this editor appears to be incapable of editing in the manner that Wikipedia requires, and will do so in whatever topic he moves on to. His problem -- as is true with many FRINGErs and POV-pushers -- is in his mindset, and no topic ban is going to change that. For the benefit of the closer, my support for a site ban should be considered to be inclusive of support for topic bans for all the subjects noted here, should the site ban not become the consensus choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support site ban mainly based on behaviour in this thread. Accuse other Wikipedians of "personal attacks" for pointing out that this or that scholar holds a fringe view is simply unacceptable. I also think that, if he ever wants to come back and appeal the site ban, he should still be subject to the topic ban, so consider me a support for both separately. Would that it were this easy to deal with all users who falsely and repeatedly claim All my claims have in fact been supported by references. at ANI. I guess some topics aren't as sexy as so-called biblical archeology. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support site ban - moved to this from my original topic ban support after seeing the further discussions - this should be inclusive of the topic bans. He continually ignores other editors and repeats the same arguments no matter what others have said, and as others have said above this behavior would simply spread to other areas if he remains as an editor. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support for TBAN or site ban-This is an obvious and blatant POV pusher who is not here to build an encyclopedia but to fight for the truth. Editors such as this drive away others who are more productive by wearing patience to the bone, imo it is ridiculous how long such editors are tolerated in these areas, no wonder actual scholars do not spend time on WP, who wants to deal with such timesinks over and over?Smeat75 (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support site ban - for the reasons I previously stated in my support of a TBAN. At the time, I did not know the site ban was an option, so I supported the TBAN. Because of Korvex's history and his behavior here, I think a site ban would be an even better option, allowing us to focus on building an encyclopedia again, instead of having to repeatedly clear up the half-dozen misrepresentations / personal attacks per paragraph, multiplied across seemingly unending discussions, that we have seen so far from Korvex. Alephb (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• I don't object Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support site ban mainly based on Korvex' inability/unwillingness to understand what is required in order for a source to be considered reliable. For instance, what is and isn't a "peer review" was explained in this discussion in early February and yet Korvex claims that he has "shown that (Petrovich's) book has been peer reviewed", basing his definition of a "peer review" on the same premise that was shown to be faulty in the previous discussion. I can't help thinking that Korvex doesn't want to hear about some rather central concepts, such as verifiability and consensus discussions, not to mention civility - and that is not something that can easily be confined by a topic ban. I have not ran across Korvex before, but have devoted some time to reading back on previous discussions, in particular the ones from the past few months, and so my opinion is based on that. --bonadea contributions talk 23:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Nergaal is edit warring

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

---

The user Nergaal is edit warring in the artikel Cultural racism. His arguments are political and his aim is to erase the article. He also says that he is acting according to AfD from 2012. This article was made 2 years ago and was up for speedy deletion but the admin that acted on it said this: "Speedy deletion declined. This has been translated from sv-wp and is different from the article previously deleted at AfD (CSDH)".

I do not want to be in a political discussion with the user about the article, but the user refers to it as being Political Correct and me as a PC police. Dnm (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Dnm refused to reply to any of my issues raised in the talk pages. To me he seems to have a clear agenda in all his edits. Nergaal (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Now it seems the user has target me in yet another article and starting to revert me on no grounds. The motivation for the deletion of the paragraf is on the talk page but he seems not interested in talkning just reverting me.

Besides the edit warring, he is very aggressive and unfriendly on the talk page as well. Dnm (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

What are the discretionary sanctions about? El_C 00:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Non-admin comment - Edit warriors are generally handled at WP:AN3, though uncivil behaviour is an ANI offense. However, this may not matter if admins are willing to address it here. DarkKnight2149 00:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It already is at WP:AN3, I see ([10]). DarkKnight2149 01:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Dnm, please avoid forum shopping. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Massive blocks being applied by admin User:Materialscientist

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

---

This admin is blocking hundreds of users, often quite severely, and without even adequate documentation for the specific offence. This needs to be reigned in

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=&limit=500&type=block&user=Materialscientist&page=&tagfilter=&subtype=

There is over 100 blocks already today. This was removed because I was accused of not giving benefit of the doubt at to the administrators motivation. Those motivations and if he is acting in good faith is not an issue here. What is an issue here is the behaviour of blocking huge numbers of editors without adequate reasons or explanation.

This is an ugent matter and the community must investigate this abuse of authority. 166.84.1.2 (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you give examples where he blocked anyone "without adequate reasons for explanation" as you indicated above? Simply adding the user's block log history doesn't count as providing adequate evidence as you need to do (especially when you make accusations such as this)... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to point out @Materialscientist: was not notified of this ANI per policy, so I have pinged them. Second if you look at the block log the IP has linked it shows the IPs and users blocked by Material were Vandalism. So I have to say Material is doing their duties. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Um, IP, that is an administrator's job. Apparently you are one of the editors he has blocked. Which one? Please see WP:UNBLOCK instead of complaining here. Softlavender (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with Oshwah on this. There are Twitter-like system limits on how long an edit summary can actually be, so there's not a whole lot of room for admins to get into long context-heavy explanations of why a block is being imposed — if I'm reviewing another admin's block I can't just eyeball the edit summary, but need to investigate the blocked user's edit history to determine whether the thing they were blocked for was a blockable offense or not. So no, just linking to an admin's overall block log is not prima facie evidence of wrongdoing just because you call it that. You need to show details of one or more specific incidents you have an issue with, and reasons why your issue might be valid — because of the entries in Materialscientist's block log, they've been right in every single case that I've actually bothered to review. Bearcat (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

If I am reading this correctly IP is block evading as they posted as the IP then went back and changed the signature to their user name. User is on a 48 he block. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 04:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

WarMachineWildThing, that account hasn't been blocked since 2016, and was never blocked by Materialscientist. It could be he has (a) sock account(s) that is blocked. Softlavender (talk) 04:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Possibly a sock account, yes, or just a general bull in china shop rampage against the idea of anybody ever being blockable on here at all. Yeah, we're pretty much done with this "complaint". Bearcat (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

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

On-going deletions in the criticism section of WP:Fairphone

The criticism section of the Fairphone article is "cleaned up" from time to time with different rationales (no sources, invalid sources, "bs") and without any prior discussion on the talk pages.

Examples (there are more)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fairphone&oldid=770592483
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fairphone&oldid=761885694

Could someone protect this paragraph to force the users to have a discussion on the talk pages first? Currently the talk pages are pretty blank. Also it would be nice to know if links to a forum that is maintained by the company can be used as a source or not.

I think this is an edit war between people that are disappointed by the project's information strategies and people that want to protect it for ideological reasons. Something in the middle would be nice for WP.

Thank you.

Note/disclose: My edits are affected by the changes, but also the changes of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.192.73.113 (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

No, we cannot protect this paragraph. That's not an "I don't want to" — with our software it's impossible to protect just part of a page. If the disruption is bad enough (I don't have the time to review it right now), the whole page can be protected. Nyttend (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll chime in and say that the forum posts are not reliable sources. If the complaints in the forums are notable, someone working for an independent, reliable publication will write about them. AniMate 18:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Forum posts cannot be used as sources. Please read our reliable sources guideline. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your replies. I understand the issue of valid sources. But I think especially for current tech good sources outside of forums is hard to find. You find early reviews, but seldom long time reports, as they would be needed to show long term issues. Fairphone mentions a few of the problems from the forum in their blog. Currently the Fairphone 1 has no replaceable parts available, badly outdated software and a known design issue with its usb port. People that will buy a used FP1, will not find this information quickly. But if it's against WPs rules to use multiple users reports in an official forum as a source, I will add their own blog posts as source. The problem is, that they are framed in a way that makes it nearly impossible to use them as good source.

Please treat those as primary sources, to be used in very limited circumstances. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

203.248.117.231 and other IP addresses, assigned to CJ Corporation, its subsidiaries, affiliates and other related companies

On 6 March 2017 at 10:40 (UTC), IPv4 user 203.248.117.231 vandalised the Rainbow Ruby article. According to [11] and KISA Whois, that IP address is assigned to CJ Systems, a subsidiary of the CJ Group along with CJ E&M (which co-produced Rainbow Ruby).

Similarly, on the same day at 9:17 (UTC), a registered user at the Korean Wikipedia, named Dalbit27, modified the article about the same programme to only feature CJ E&M and 38°C as the production companies. If the user is working for any of CJ Group companies, this is a serious breach of Wikipedia rules.

It shows that, if there is a mention unfavourably written about them, someone at CJ can just edit it out in an ungentlemanly manner. So, anyone in the IP addresses assigned to the CJ Group, its holding company CJ Corporation, and other related companies must be blocked from editing any article related to them and its products. Registering as a new user, as well as editing such articles as a logged in user from those addresses also must be blocked. We may not be able to block them from editing outside those IP addresses and even using VPN, but we must show them something.

P.S. I would understand if that user was writing aggressively in favour of that series (like 'That characters are so adorable that the UNESCO wanted to do something with it.'), but why did the user vandalised the article instead? JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 07:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Probably not going to happen Essentially, this is a complaint about undeclared COI editing. "ungentlemanly manner" is irrelevant because incivility is never going to be enough to preemptively TBAN someone, let alone a bunch of people one of whom behaved in an uncivil manner. If a bunch of Rainbow Ruby SPAs show up and start editing disruptively on English Wikipedia, maybe then it'll be worth, say, imposing indefinite extended-confirmed protection on the page, but I'm not seeing any evidence of that at the moment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Unjustified reverting of my edits

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

---

I've been adding full names to the articles of several Star Trek characters.

Christopher Pike (Star Trek) - Christopher Richard Pike

Hikaru Sulu - Hikaru Kato Sulu

Jonathan Archer - Jonathan Beckett Archer

Kathryn Janeway - Kathryn M. Janeway

Leonard McCoy - Dr. Leonard Horatio McCoy

Robert April - Robert Timothy April

Sarek - S'chn T'gai Sarek

Spock - S'chn T'gai Spock

William Riker - William Thomas Thelonius Riker

Each time I tried to add these names, most of them kept getting reverted. The first time, Materialscientist told me that my citations were incomplete, but after I added chapter numbers and page numbers to my citations, it got reverted anyway by different users.

Titodutta told me that he thinks "the article was better before I made the change", which is not a valid reason. Later on, he told me that my edit was "unclear" and he was "unable to verify it", which makes no sense because this information can be easily verified by doing a Google Books search.

Dr. K and SonOfThornhill told me that this information is non-canon, so it doesn't belong in the lead section of the article. When I asked them to show me a policy to back up their claims, I was ignored. I've checked Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and it doesn't mention the word canon at all, so there’s no reason for my changes to get reverted.

I ask that I be allowed to make these edits, since they are consistent with Wikipedia policy. --NetSpiker (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

References

The novels have never been considered canon in Star Trek(unlike Star Wars); different authors might use different middle/other names for characters. In my opinion the articles can certainly mention the names of the characters as given in different novels, but those novels are based on the characters as written for TV, so it is the names given in canon that should take precedence. 331dot (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. This does not belong here. ~ GB fan 01:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@331dot: If different writers give different names, then both names should be listed in the opening sentence as has already been done in the article List of students at South Park Elementary: "Clyde Donovan (originally Clyde Goodman and briefly Clyde Harris)". Even in Star Trek canon, a character can be given two different names; Deanna Troi's father was called Ian Andrew Troi in one episode and Alex Troi in another. Besides, it doesn't matter what is and isn't canon since Wikipedia doesn't have a canon policy. Novels and TV episodes are equally valid.

@GB fan: I wasn't sure where this discussion belonged. Another user recommended that I come here. If it belongs somewhere else, can you please transplant it there? --NetSpiker (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Novels and TV are not equally valid because you don't have the characters in novels without the characters on TV. 331dot (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Endercase

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

---

Endercase (talk · contribs)

This user is apparently WP:NOTHERE, and I don't frankly know what to do.

The account is old, but they made a tiny number of edits back before 2013, and came back about two months ago. It seems pretty likely that they were upset that a Twitter account got stealth-banned and came to Wikipedia to write up on the subject based on what was on Breitbart.com. They have spent basically all their time in the last few weeks fighting over whether Breitbart.com and other rightist fake news sites should be allowed as the sole source for factual claims and forum-shopping the same dispute to RSN, NPOVN and Jimbo's talk page (see [12]; also pinging User:JzG and User:Only in death). When said forum-shopping doesn't work out they post disruptive non-comments in multiple unrelated threads on the same noticeboards (no need for diffs; Ctrl+F their username on either of those noticeboards and it's pretty obvious; or just Ctrl+F "bold" on the currently live version of RSN).

When others disagree with them, they start posting these weird, sarcastic-looking attacks on them. (I've seen it myself[13][14] and also noted it happening to User:MjolnirPants.[15])

I'm thinking at least a TBAN from "RSN" or perhaps "right-wing news media" is in order, but at this point the user is practically begging to be blocked.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• We can now add canvassing to the list of disruptive things Endercase has got up to.[16][17][18][19] I literally wrote my entire response to DT below before it occurred to me that it was really weird for a random editor to have seen this thread and responded in good faith the way he did. I check his talk page and find that Endercase canvassed him, apparently because he's one of the very few people (the only person?) to say "I agree" and "I don't want you banned" to them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Please note this hidden comment with edit note "Clarifying why I pinged who I did, since I can totally see someong accusing me of assuming bad faith and hypocritical canvassing.".

If Endercase is canvassing, he sure is doing a bad job, since most of the editors didn't come here to defend him/her. It looks like a cry for help from a new user who doesn't know the rules and why he is in so much trouble. For a new user, it sure seems honest. When I asked him about mentoring, he said, "I agree I need a mentor". [20]. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: When someone adds an invisible clarification of a certain point so as to be left in the public record but not to clog up the thread, it kinda defeats the purpose when someone else comes along and adds a response to it that's longer than it, and quotes its edit summary in its entirety. I am only counting one canvassed editor who hasn't shown up yet -- do you mean that it was not votestacking since he canvassed one user who disagreed with him along with you and Nocturnalnow? That seems more like a deliberate attempt to seem like one is not votestacking, while disproportionately contacting editors on one side. Also, as I said when you quoted it below, the quote you provide was immediately followed by a clear statement of BATTLEGROUND mentality in which the users who oppose him were called a "Cabal": if you intend on mentoring Endercase, you need to stop downplaying/ignoring/denying the disruptive behaviour that needs improvement. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The only thing I see in the diffs/link you provided is that a page-ban from RSN would be in order. He seems to be monopolizing things there and is not being very helpful (more to the contrary). Unless you provide specific diffs I don't yet see anything else actionable presented. If he is edit-warring on an article (e.g., Stealth banning), then report to WP:ANEW. Softlavender (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Given that a significant part of the problem is forum-shopping, I don't see how a narrow page ban would solve the problem. I said TBAN because, if he posts something on NPOVN or Jimbo's talk page that clearly belongs on RSN, then he could still be blocked if he were subject to a TBAN but ... well, actually if he were subject to PBAN then we could say he was wikilawyering his way around it and come right back here, but it still seems unnecessary. He also really doesn't appear to be HERE -- again, essentially all he's done since coming back is fight over Breitbart.com. (Even on Talk:Stealth banning, all his posts are essentially just him arguing for inserting material he read on Breitbart and InfoWars, or complaining about how he is not allowed directly cite them -- this (the bottom part) is a particular egregious example.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

That said, did you look at this diff? Or this one? These kind of remarks are not appropriate, and they are hardly atypical. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the three diffs and the two links you provided. The comments seem pretty standard stuff -- except for on the RSN (excess posting, excess repetition, and idiosyncratic interpretations). You haven't provided any evidence of anything else. To make a case on ANI, you need to provide probative diffs. Softlavender (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I dont think there is enough yet. But I also think its just a matter of time. Generally their noticeboard (and I am including Jimbo's talkpage here as well) posts quickly devolve into soapboxing when people disagree. What really needs to happen is that an uninvolved editor needs to close their threads sooner rather than later when they go off target. RSN/NPOV boards are for asking specific questions about specific issues with articles, not trying to convince people of an idiosyncratic interpretation of policy. If they want to soapbox on Jimbo's page, well thats different. They can join all the others there. Or an admin can take 5 minutes to explain to them that if they want to discuss the policy, do it at the policy talkpage instead of noticeboards. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• WP:TBAN seems appropriate given the WP:NOTTHEM, WP:IDHT and everything else. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think Endercase will read carefully what everybody says and will adjust their participation in order to get along and contribute better. I'm sure they want to contribute and just need a little more time and experience. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow was also canvassed. I don't have the time or energy to figure out why right now; unlike with DT, it didn't apparently come right below the words "I don't want you banned". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Endercase is accomplishing nothing but the waste of time and energy by defending indefensible sources of lies and deception. When people point this out, they wiki-lawyer and whinge. That does seem to smell of NOTHERE. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Orangemike was also canvassed, but clearly it didn't go as planned. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• No Action Endercase is a very new user, and the bigger problem is that the accuser (Hijiri88) has failed to assume good faith with unfair accusations such as WP:NOTHERE, WP:SPA, and suggestion the new editor is "editing Wikipedia because you are upset that your Twitter account got stealth-banned". Hijiri88 interrogates him/her about whether s/he is using multiple accounts [21][22]. (See entire discussion.). Hijiri88 also accuses the new editor of "a fallacious attempt to get users to say indirectly that Breitbart is reliable in certain circumstances". [23]. If anything the problem is the accuser. Perhaps an iBan from Hiriji88 -> Endercase is in order.

I have recently encountered Endercase at WP:RS/N here. It was obvious to me the editor is new and does not understand many of the rules we live by here, citing things like ignore the rules, like there are "no rules". Admittedly, s/he got a little defensive but cooled down when I treated him/her with respect, unlike others who were not so friendly. There is no reason to WP:BITE new users like this.

I have written about this problem at WikiProject Editor Retention here.. In fact, this particular case was on my mind as I wrote it.

Endercase did reach out to me on my talk page. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

David Tornheim was canvassed. Endercase chose to message him about this discussion for some reason, likely that he had written "I don't want you banned" several days earlier. David Tornheim is one of the only users to agree with Endercase in one of their content disputes, and to have partly benefitted from Endercase's disruptive "non-comments" I mentioned above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Self-collapse. This long response was written because I (Hijiri88) have a tendency to take AGF to the extreme, and didn't occur to me until after I'd written it that Dave might have been canvassed.

@David Tornheim: Umm ... what? Endercase is a very new user The account was created in 2011. It came back recently after a long absence and has done nothing but fight over our sourcing standards. s/he got a little defensive I'll say. [Points to diffs of sarcastic attacks further up] Perhaps an iBan from Hiriji88 -> Endercase is in order. Not going to happen. I asked, in a fairly polite manner, if Endercase had used any other accounts, and was met with a string of sarcastic personal attacks. Plus, one-way IBANs don't work and are rarely resorted to except perhaps in the extremest of cases, as ArbCom explicitly told me a little while back. There is no reason to WP:BITE new users like this. Again, if I thought Endercase was a new user I would have applied BITE appropriately, but the account is six years old, and is behaving very precociously on multiple noticeboards (including Jimbo's talk page). Admittedly, some of his recent behaviour[24] does make me reconsider my earlier opinion that he was socking, perhaps his main account was blocked, and he went back to his earlier account. In that case, perhaps he could be considered a newby, and if so I apologize for BITing. However, this does not excuse his continued disruption on multiple fora, after numerous users called him out and told him what he was doing wrong. Your opinion seems to be somewhat similar to OID's (I dont think there is enough yet) except that, for whatever reason, you threw in a string of random jabs at the messenger. Seriously, if a one-way IBAN (something ArbCom refused to do even after a year long hounding campaign), what would you do with all the other users, including at least two admins and one long-term user whose contact with Endercase was essentially limited to thread you link above, who said the exact same thing as me? Your comment seems to be more about your being just about the only one so far to have agreed with Endercase on something he said on RSN than about the actual issues. Which no doubt is why he canvassed you.[25] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC) Stricken as redundant. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

^This is worth a read, because it seems to reinforce what I said. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Update: Since I wrote the above "No Action", I suggested to Endercase that s/he seek a mentor. His/her response was "I agree I need a mentor." [26]. I would be okay with closing this with the recommendation Endercase get a mentor and Hijiri88 (and all of us experienced editors) be gentle and less accusatory to new users. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Your reading of that long comment is somewhat optimistic: the portion you quote was immediately followed by I appear to have upset a very active Cabal of users. Anyway, how would you feel about a set-term (three months? six months? one year?) TBAN on right-wing news media and/or RSN combined with mentoring for the same period of time, subject to review on completion of said set term? If, as you say, this is not a NOTHERE case, that kind of solution being effective would be a pretty surefire way to prove your case. Conversely, anyone who is HERE and recognizes that their activities have caused disruption would have no reason not to accept such a narrow restriction with a definite end date to look forward to. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I spent some time on a reply on your proposed remedy (and am a bit warn out on this whole discussion). I do not think he has been disruptive, so he should not be punished with a tban. I think he is new and *confused* about what is and is not okay, and believes he is right and argues his case.

He--like probably a large portion of Trump supporters here in the U.S.--probably does not understand why editors on Wikipedia don't consider Breitbart or InfoWars to be good WP:RS. It's our job to make it clear to him that there is some consensus that establishes that. When another editor said Breitbart was no good, they provided no evidence for it, so Endercase went to RS/N to ask whether we really do ban specific sources (especially sources he thinks are good). His reaction makes perfect sense to me--exactly what a new user would do, one who doesn't understand how things work here. Obviously he didn't know about the banning of Daily Mail. I believe this problem is going to keep coming up, so we need an RfC or something like that to point to that says Breitbart (and InfoWars) are generally not good WP:RS. I would vote in favor of it, if such an RfC is held. Maybe I'll make one myself.

I have seen similar behavior over sourcing, e.g. Talk:Breitbart_News#Fake_News_being_passed_off_as_sources.

As for a remedy: Mentoring is fine, and perhaps a warning about not advancing specific sources as good WP:RS. If he stops advancing Breitbart and Infowars, I believe your main issue goes away. I think he might begrudgingly comply. We could ask him if he will do it voluntarily. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not think he has been disruptive Only because you are choosing to ignore all the disruption he's been causing. I think he is new and *confused* about what is and is not okay, and believes he is right and argues his case But how do you propose we deal with that? Are you offering to mentor him? If so: you say you don't think he has already been disruptive, so how would your mentoring prevent further disruption? so we need an RfC or something Maybe. But won't Endercase keep complaining with each new "formal ban" that it should be listed somewhere? If he stops advancing Breitbart and Infowars, I believe your main issue goes away. Actually, my main issue is the incivility (as I said in the commented off section above explaining why I pinged MP). I think editors who get their information about the world from Breitbart but know better than to directly cite it on Wikipedia are just as dangerous to the integrity of the project as less tactful users like Endercase, but they are obviously very difficult to root out. Actually it doesn't matter where they got their opinions: any editor who adds their opinions to articles and look for sources retroactively, rather than read sources and write what they see in the sources is a problem (ask Nishidani or Curly Turkey for the worst example in my memory of that -- I don't wanna go into detail). Endercase has actually been showing signs that even if you or some other mentor could get him to understand that citing Breitbart is out of the question, he'll just become one of those editors. And since I'm somewhat pessimistic about the Encyclopedia, I think that's the best we can hope for in a lot of cases. Content-wise. But he would still need to drop the sarcasm, ABF, canvassing... and anyone who doesn't recognize that he has been doing these things is not the right one to teach them not to. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Notice: I refer to this AN/I at the talk page of WikiProject Editor Retention here.--David Tornheim (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Note: I don't actually believe that Endercase is a new or inexperienced user, nor that we should treat them as such. New and inexperienced users do not hang out at RSN proffering advice, nor do they quote Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages [27]. I don't know what is the appropriate action here, since Hijiri has failed to make a case by failing to provide diffs substantiating the claims in his OP (not the first time this has happened, which makes for a lot of wasted community time). I do think Endercase should at the very least be kept on a very short leash, and be banned from RSN and probably from reliable-source discussions in general. Softlavender (talk) 07:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

No mos. I actually kinda regret not providing more evidence specifically in the form of diffs in my OP comment. Not that it was actually necessary or appropriate. Just that I could have prevented this massive! CREEPy, wikilawyerish tangent about what kind of evidence is preferable. No one cares anymore. Everyone can see what is going on. I think the evidence I presented upfront was enough. Others disagree. Whether I am right or wrong, I apologize for my choice having led to this long distraction from the subject of this thread. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I actually decided not to post this earlier as it might be bludgeoning to reply to you more than twice before anyone else had commented, but there is actually no obligation to provide evidence specifically in the form of diffs, and in this case diffs would not have been helpful as it would have simply multiplied the number of links that need to be clicked. Endercase posted the same comment in half a dozen RSN threads, and he was the only one to use that particular word on the page, so linking the permalink for the then-current version of RSN and saying Ctrl+F either "bold" or "Endercase" was actually better than diffs. Similarly, the claim that the user is NOTHERE cannot be demonstrated by individual cherry-picked diffs; I linked their contribs, where it is blatantly clear that all they've done for the last several weeks is argue on various fora about Breitbart and InfoWars. I provided diffs where it seemed appropriate (specific snipes at me and MP). It's really not clear what "claims in [my] OP" you want further evidence for. I guess I could have (should have?) linked this to demonstrate that more than half his mainspace and article talk edits are to the same article, which is the one he tried to cite Breitbart and InfoWars on, and his favourite single page in any namespace is RSN, where all of his comments are either weird non-comments or about rightist fake news. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC) You provided a link to RSN with instructions to search for his username, which was instructive, and as I stated above I feel he should be banned from that noticeboard and probably from all discussions of reliable sources. But you did not provide diffs substantiating any of your other claims. The three diffs you provided show nothing actionable, and they do not mention Breitbart. Do not expect other editors to search through hundreds of contributions to find the diffs you should have provided. Softlavender (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC) Softlavender, could you tell me where I was told that I am obliged to provide my evidence in the form of diffs? Or specify a particular claim I made that wasn't supported by evidence? I am sorry for not providing specific diff for the Breitbart claim. I assumed you would look at the talk pages of the articles in question and see that when he says "my sources" and the like, Breitbart is what is referring to. Here are some diffs where, either in the edit summary or his comment text, he specifically names Breitbart.[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] It also appears on his userpage under the spelling "Brietbart". It is undated, so it would be a massive timesink to find the exact diff. Currently, "Breitbart" (and "Brietbart") is only used on RSN by users responding to Endercase, but the rest of us (me, OID, Fyddlestix...) are not just putting words in his mouth: he is unambiguously referring to Breitbart, and to a lesser extent InfoWars, when he talks about "his sources" and "banned sources". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC) The very first instruction at the top of this page is "Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting." And it doesn't mean 20 diffs, but enough to adequately demonstrate each point you are stating. Softlavender (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC) Please include. Not "you must include". It's a guideline, not a hard rule. Evidence in other forms is frequently enough, and sometimes (as in this case) preferable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC) It's not a guideline, it's an instruction. There's nothing about the word "please" that makes the instruction conditional. It doesn't say "may" or "maybe". Nfitz (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC) @Nfitz: Lots of ANI threads don't require evidence specifically in the form of diffs. The one immediately below this one didn't provide a single diff because anyone could click on the blue link and see what was being referred to. The one that led to this guy getting banned said, essentially, "Look at this person's user page -- it's Nazi propaganda" and if I recall correctly included no diffs. In this case, the only thing I didn't provide specific evidence for was "This looks to me like NOTHERE, but I'm not sure how to deal with it"; there are a bunch of ways to recognize NOTHERE, and most ANI regulars are quite familiar with at least some of them. Don't wikilawyer me into requesting that the wording of the instruction be amended to take cases like these into account and say something like Please include evidence (for example, in the form of diffs) to help us. That's WP:CREEP and really shouldn't be necessary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC) Although, I have seen cases where no diffs were required, I think much time might have been saved in the case if more diffs were provided in the filing, rather than expecting us to try and figure out exactly what Hijiri88 contends is "disruptive". I didn't understand what "CTRL+F Bold" meant, even though I use CTRL+F all the time. Providing the diffs of such a search would have saved me time. I hope Hijiri88 listens to the concerns raised here and take the message that if s/he is going to file something like this in the future, to please provide diffs and evidence. Also, last night I started looking at the many diffs above provided to Softlavender. The claim was "either in the edit summary or his comment text, he specifically names Breitbart." Many of them came from a SECTION named Breitbart. That's not him "naming Breitbart", that's just him posting in the section containing the name Breitbart. A single link to the section saying, "here he is defending Breitbart"--if that is true--is sufficient. I feel much time could have been saved if the original filing had focused on diffs of "disruptive" behavior or behavior advocating Breitbart, InfoWars or some other right-wing site as WP:RS. It took me a while to understand that the advancement of right-wing sites was really the main concern, rather than argumentative behavior. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC) @David Tornheim: I provided all the evidence I thought was necessary. Everyone here except you recognizes I mean by "disruptive", and the only reason you don't is because you are ignoring all the specific evidence presented. Softlavender also recognizes the problem, and was just being pedantic about the difference between "diffs" and "evidence, in the form of diffs where appropriate". If you sincerely think, after all of this, that my main problem is the advancement of right-wing sites when I specifically told you above, in the comment that you pointedly ignored for some reason, that [a]ctually, my main issue is the incivility. I'm still waiting for a response to the question I posed in that same comment: if you don't recognize that Endercase's behavioir has been disruptive (I do not think he has been disruptive), how would your mentoring prevent further disruption? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC) Hijiri, several people have informed you that you did not provide diffs adequate to substantiate your several various claims in your OP. This has happened before with your ANI filings, and as it has now, it merely wastes everyone's time (which you are continuing to do by trying to prolong your self-justification, bickering, and wikilawyering). Now you can either take that information to heart and improve the next time you feel the need to file at ANI, or not and waste more people's time. But please stop harping on it here. Softlavender (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC) You still have not identified the "several various claims" I didn't substantiate. But why on earth are we still talking about this? If you still want diffs for something I said, I'll provide them within his collapse template. This is just distracting at this point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: A user with 328 edits is not a new user??? [43]. When I was a new user, if someone told me, "You can't use this source anywhere"--especially if I believed it was a good source, I would have looked for a general place to air a grievance about such a banning of a particular source, or banning of any source. (for the record, I don't think Breitbart is a reliable source, but I know there are people out there that think infowars and Breitbart are the only sources that have "real" news ). The way he aired it and then posted on WP:NPOV shows he didn't know that it was inappropriate to post at that notice board. He obviously didn't know about the banning of Daily Mail either or he wouldn't have asked the question. We are supposed to assume good faith, so these claims he is not a new user (or has multiple accounts) need some evidence. I provided evidence he is a new user. Is it guilty until proven innocent? --David Tornheim (talk) 08:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

New and inexperienced users do not hang out at RSN proffering advice, nor do they quote Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages [44]. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

New and inexperienced users do not hang out at RSN proffering advice. Sure they do. I did the exact same thing when I had fewer than 1,000 edits under my belt, offering opinions at six different RS/N sections in a 24-hour period two years ago, until a couple of admins basically told me to butt out. I was a bit shocked, believing that Wikipedia was completely egalitarian and everyone could comment anywhere, regardless of experience, especially when I saw certain editors making so many comments in so many places.

It is a rookie mistake to be citing things like WP:BOLD and WP:IGNORE the way he did--not disruptive but naive.

As for Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages, who knows how he learned of it--possibly he just did a search because he didn't understand why some of us were talking about deleting an inconsequential article (WER_v_REW)) that had inadequate WP:RS. Incidentally that article has nothing to do with Breitbart, Infowars or alt right ideology. He is obviously defending an inclusionist approach. I saw no evidence of disruption. He did argue with others, when experienced editors like myself argued with him. Nothing strange about that either: New editors who think they are right will argue, just like experienced editors do. I did the same thing when I started. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, whether he is new or not (and I don't believe he is), he is borderline trolling in my opinion, does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia, and needs to be reined in. I think a topic ban on reliable source discussions, broadly construed, would at least be a good start. That would give him a chance to cut out the game-playing and demonstrate he can edit constructively. Otherwise, I'm not sure anyone wants to babysit him and if he fails to act maturely he probably is heading away from Wikipedia, so to speak. Softlavender (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I did the exact same thing when I had fewer than 1,000 edits under my belt That's one way of looking at it. Another would be that you had made over 400 edits, over several years, before your first edit to the Wikipedia namespace. Again, though, it doesn't matter to my argument whether Endercase is actually a new editor. BITE is an essay, and is subordinate to various policies (such as AGF). Once a newbie has rejected friendly and politely-offered advice from multiple parties and kept doubling down, apparently because of a firm belief that Breitbart and InfoWars are not unreliable sources, they should no longer be treated with kid gloves: editors who refuse to abide by consensus, either by deliberate or accidental failure to recognize the consensus, should either be given a limited sanction to allow them to demonstrate that they are at least capable of contributing constructively, or in extreme cases with a block. Incidentally that article has nothing to do with Breitbart, Infowars or alt right ideology. In other words, it represents only a tiny (even negligible) portion of his contributions so far. More than half of his mainspace and talk edits are related to the two articles he is insisting on citing Breitbart/InfoWars on. In second place is the two Arianism articles he briefly edited immediately after returning. I have not looked at the content of those edits, but one would need to be pretty ignorant of right wing ideology to think that they have nothing to do with it. (I never said "alt right"; my first interaction with Endercase was the FRC thread, about a Christian fundamentalist, anti-LGBT hate group.) Nothing else even comes close to these three. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI Arianism is nothing to do with Aryanism --79.71.0.201 (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@79.71.0.201: I know that. Read my comment again. I specifically said that I wasn't talking about "alt right" or "Nazism". Arianism is associated with right wing politics because conservative Christians (Christian right) frequently associate various groups with whom they disagree with "Arianism", and lump secular scholarship of early Christianity in with that Da Vinci Code-based misconceptions, most of which center around the Arian controversy and the Council of Nicaea. It's super-off-topic and would potentially violate BLP if I posted it in detail, but there's one particular conservative scholar I'm thinking of; but it's definitely not limited to him. The topics of "Arianism" and "Gnosticism" can very easily be tied to the Christian right. As I said, I haven't looked at the content of Endercase's specific edits to the topic, so I am not judging the edits specifically: merely pointing out that the fact that he edited those pages is not evidence that he has been contributing positively to topics that aren't pet topics for the American right. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:DENY.

Hijiri88 needs a long topic ban from American Politics for comments like "Breitbart.com and other rightist fake news sites" and "the FRC thread, about a Christian fundamentalist, anti-LGBT hate group" which suggest that Hijiri88 is incapable of cooperating with editors with different points of view. Breitbart is a real news source that meets WP:RS. A distaste for its political stances (WP:IDLI) is not grounds for disallowing it or comparing it to Infowars. Anyone who tries to enforce partisan purity on Wikipedia should be blocked as WP:NOTHERE. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC) Woah. Seriously? Why would I be TBANned from a topic I have barely edited, not once disruptively. Also, who on earth are you? Have you and I interacted before? Your IP range is unfamiliar... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC) 71.198.247.231, if you wish to troll ANI and ask for bans for users in good standing, kindly log in to your account to do it. Bishonen | talk 17:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC).

• Give them a stern warning and let David mentor them. If they show up here again, slap a TBAN (or possibly an indef block) on them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I would be inclined to agree that mentoring could solve this problem, but I have my doubts as to David's ability or willingness to address the problem. I have serious doubts about mentoring by David under these circumstances: if disruption continues as before, will David just ignore it as he has been? The "mistakes" could be forgiven as a thing of the past, and even the fact that many of them clearly weren't mistakes overlooked, if there were any evidence that it wouldn't continue. If an editor who had disagreed with Endercase, or had at least acknowledged the problem, were offering to do the mentoring it would be one thing, since (if the IDHT behaviour continued, even toward the mentor) they would likely get frustrated and report back that mentoring wasn't working. David, though, looks set to just ignore all further disruption and only offer Endercase advice on how to successfully get away with his disruptive behaviour. If someone who recognized the problem were offering to fix it ... wait, a funny thought just occurred to me ... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88:I understand your concerns, however I'm not too worried about the disruption it could cause. A failure to get the point while under mentorship would result in a fairly quick block or TBAN. Look at it in terms of a risk-reward balance: There's a substantial chance that it would result in a small amount of disruption, and a substantial chance that it would solve the problem while adding another useful editor to the project. Even if the balance is in favor of the risk, the equation points to taking the chance as the best option. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Shit. I only just saw this now. Either your ping didn't work, or I was distracted when I clicked on the notification. You actually make a fairly good point about A failure to get the point while under mentorship would result in a fairly quick block or TBAN. is right on the money, and I'm now kind of regretting all-but withdrawing my support for David doing the mentoring. I still don't think he's qualified, but allowing other users to shoot themselves in the foot is a much better idea than taking the gun off them so I can shoot myself in the foot. Put simply: I don't want to take responsibility if/when whatever happens doesn't work. There's theoretically enough support below for a TBAN (if the canvassed and hounding !votes are disregarded), so if a closer wants to go that way I think they probably could, but at this point I think a likely outcome is "Mentor, by whoever wants to take a shot at it". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Strong warning and short leash is sufficient here. I wasn't canvassed, and am commenting because of a not very positive interaction I had with this editor at WP:RS. If Endercase is sincerely wanting to contribute, then he'll learn and change his behaviors. If not, then leash should be short. First Light (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• JzG and Orangemike have both voiced very strong opinions but have not !voted on the two proposals below. I am pinging them to invite them to do so. Softlavender (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  I'm pessimistic (how much rope in enough?), but not quite enough so to obstruct either proposal. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  Very little, in my opinion. First Light (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Mentorship

As suggested above, I also think the mentor idea is a good one. Although in most ways I am not the most qualified, I would be willing to act as User:Endercase's mentor, as long as he doesn't expect me to be available or on Wikipedia for over an hour a day. Although it is counterintuitive for me to be his mentor, I think I can guide him into compliance and non time wasting way to edit and contribute overall without pissing people off. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow, respectfully, I do not think you are appropriate or qualified to be the mentor here. I say that glancing at your contribs and your edits on, say Marie Le Pen, and elsewhere via your former account. And also because Endercase canvassed you into this conversation. The mentor needs to be a longterm Wikipedia editor in good standing with very clear NPOV. I think a TBan from RS discussions and from mentions of Breitbart and InfoWars would be better than mentoring, but if mentoring is chosen, I personally do not think it should be you. Softlavender (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

ok, Softlavender, thank you for your respectful wording. I accept your observation in this regard and withdraw my offer of mentoring. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• support mentoring. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, my support was not contingent on any specific mentor for Endercase. I was not actually offering to be an "official" sanctioned mentor, even though several editors for some reason read it that way. Someone with more experience might be more appropriate. I have given him advice and feedback when I met him at WP:RS/N, and since he wanted more, I have continued. Others with similar or more experience have given advice too: Hijiri88 and MjolnirPants. There is also the option of his seeking further help at:

• Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user
• Wikipedia:Mentorship

If any of my advice is a problem, let me know and I will stop: There are plenty of other things I could work on.

My biggest concern so far is that he is not as willing to defer to experience as would be appropriate for a new user. I don't know of any rule that behavior is breaking or how best to address that. I don't think banning him from WP:RS/N is the appropriate solution, since (1) he has already been willing to back off of WP:RS/N (2) that specific forum is not the main issue with his behavior: It seems to me more an issue of attitude and need for more respect for experience. Wikipedia does present itself in a very egalitarian way, with many egalitarian principles and policies, but I think most of us with experience know that experience makes a big difference in how seriously what you say will be taken. Is there some policy somewhere about respect or deference for experience? I've never seen any... --David Tornheim (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment from someone not opposed to mentoring, in theory I still think mentoring from someone who thinks there has been no disruption -- indeed is still officially trying to shift the blame onto those disputing with Endercase, as David's first comment still has not been stricken -- is not going to help the situation at all. If David was willing to admit that there is a problem, or if someone else who was willing to admit there is a problem offered to do the mentoring, it would be another matter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that I'm still waiting on a response to my [Y]ou say you don't think he has already been disruptive, so how would your mentoring prevent further disruption? above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think his behavior was 'disruptive'. But I also think he made a number of errors, because he is new and does not understand the rules fully, which he freely admits below. Rather than be defiant and admit no wrongdoing here, he admits he needs help and has made mistakes. That's what I would like to see personally. He wants to learn and follow the rules. I have already spent quite a lot of time on both my talk page and his giving him advice. He asks good questions. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Sarcastic, uncivil comments and laughing at other editors in edit summaries are not "errors". If mentoring does not prevent further disruption of this sort, then mentoring alone will not solve the problem. The "mistakes" you say he has admitted to are mistakes others attempted to correct both before and since you, and he has refused to listen. He is only now admitting that he made "mistakes" because he is facing sanctions, and there's no reason to believe that if those sanctions don't pass he will not go back to not listening. You are the only one who thinks his behaviour wasn't disruptive, and it's increasingly obvious that this is because you are the only one to agree with him on the substance of one of his posts (apparently the only one you read). If you don't recognize what is wrong with his behaviour up to this point, then how can mentoring by you correct it going forward? If any other editor were offering to mentor him, or if you were willing to admit that his behaviour was disruptive, I would assume that mentoring would be a good first step, since if the behaviour continued the mentor would be the first to notice and get worn out by it, but you don't seem to even understand what he has been doing wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Sarcastic, uncivil comments and laughing at other editors in edit summaries are not "errors". Hijiri, I agree with this statement, but there is an argument to be made, here. Specifically, that it remains a possibility that a cursory reading of WP:RS, a misunderstanding in which WP:NPA is taken to be the whole of our policy on civility, and a few relatively minor misunderstandings about fallacies could explain the response to me that triggered this thread. To such a person, who felt that Breitbart met our RS guidelines, that any sort of interaction that didn't involve insults was acceptable and that (for example) dismissing an argument as "ridiculous" is an ad-hominem and that "argument" on WP is synonymous with "negotiation", one could see how such a response could be made in relatively good faith. Personally, I don't think that is the case here, as that requires a comedy of errors on a level that would virtually mandate a WP:CIR block. I think, in this case, it's generally more constructive to assume they acted in bad faith, but are capable of extending good faith. If we're wrong, we'll find out soon enough, and if we're right, we get a shiny new editor. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Yes, I agree with just about everything you said in the above comment, but at the time I posted the comment to which you were responding, I was of the opinion that David mentoring would be a bad idea, not that mentoring itself (as opposed to formal sanctions) was a bad idea. At the time you posted your response, I had already changed my opinion on this point, since I figured that if David's mentoring was supplemented with my own it would not be a problem. (That's why I didn't initially reply to you.) But now (after the discussion on JzG's talk page and a bit of my own research based thereon) I have gone back to thinking that, whether or not David is theoretically capable of offering advice to new editors, he probably shouldn't, given his own sketchy (and, more importantly, recent) edit history. Since my offer to do the mentoring is still on the table, I haven't gone completely back to where I was two days ago, so ... I guess take this for what it's worth? Whether Endercase would be open to me and only me doing the mentoring (and whether I have the time/energy to take on the full responsibility) remains to be seen. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose of David Tornheim as mentor. In my view, David has serious issues of his own. Guy (Help!) 07:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment So ... yeah ... when I questioned JzG on the specific details behind the above comment, some interesting points came up. David Tornheim was TBANned from a discretionary sanctions area last July and within a week was blocked for violating the ban.[45][46] After being blocked, he disappeared from the Encyclopedia, before reemerging 49 days ago.[47] Essentially, David appears to have engaged in IDHT regarding his own ban and almost immediately violated it, and he has less than two months of edits to his name since that incident. This all makes his apparent refusal to accept my compromise proposal, or to strike his earlier attacks against me further up this thread, difficult to interpret as good faith "not having gotten around to it yet". I of course believe in second chances for users who were blocked and briefly left the project, and particularly for those who have been TBANned in the distant past (I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't), but should such users be mentoring younger problem accounts? David Tornheim's capacity to mentor a new editor who has been (perhaps inadvertently) causing disruption is definitely in question. I dunno: am I still "failing to assume good faith", having just noticed this background four days too late? I'm still up for mentoring, for whatever it's worth, but I'm wondering if Endercase should be explicitly told not to treat David as a mentor if he wants to avoid a TBAN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that I have no problem with David as a person, and have not reviewed his edits outside this thread (so I have no idea what I would think of him as an editor). His above unstricken personal remarks about me are not really a concern for me, and I don't think he should face any specific sanctions for not striking them and not accepting a compromise proposal whose terms (per my own stricken support for the TBAN) I have already technically met. The above comment only means that I am again beginning to question whether he is the right person to mentor Endercase. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

David is a perfectly nice chap, but mentorship requires someone who unambiguously "gets it", and I really don't think he does. His input would IMO be more likely to lead Endercase astray. Guy (Help!) 07:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban

I propose a topic ban from RS discussions, broadly construed, and from mentions or references to Breitbart and InfoWars. Softlavender (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support, as proposer. This solution is much easier and more doable than mentorship (which is time-consuming, unpredictable, and unwieldy, and rarely works with disruptive editors who already know an enormous amount about Wikipedia). It will allow Endercase to contribute productively to Wikipedia however he likes, and demonstrate that he is here to build an encyclopedia. -- Softlavender (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Regardless of whether mentoring happens, it's clear that nothing will be gained from the editor continuing to discuss those two sources and continuing to post on RSN. In a few months' time, once the mentor (David, if he ever gets around to explaining what he meant above) determines that the time has come, the ban can be appealed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I stand by the above, especially in light of my own offer below to mentor Endercase. I think a break from RS discussions, and generally staying the hell away from citations of Breitbart and InfoWars, would do Endercase good, and would advise him thus if he accepts my offer of mentorship. Once I think (or perhaps David and I agree) that the time has come for him to contribute constructively to RS discussions, then I would support lifting the ban. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Support withdrawn pending agreement to my proposition on David's talk page. Both David and I agree that Endercase should refrain from both the issues covered by the proposed TBAN, and if Endercase is really serious about mentoring then the result is the same wiout a formal ban.At his point I just want this mess to be over. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that I am now neutral on the formal ban (assuming David Tornheim's accepts my request on his talk page), but this is based on the assumption that Endercase takes the advice of me or David or both of us, which would have about the same effect, at least in the short term, as a formal ban. I think, if mentoring works, the formal ban would be redundant for as long as it would have been necessary. I have not changed my !vote to "oppose". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing my withdrawal. My offer to mentor Endercase still stands, and if Endercase accepts my mentoring and listens to my advice, then the effect would be the same as a formal ban. Having a ban on one's record is not a "punishment", and David Tornheim (whose own recent history with bans is apparently somewhat checkered) is wrong to claim this. The fact that both users offering to mentor Endercase have advised him to take a self-ban on these two narrow topics means that formalizing the ban would just mean that, if Endercase (flagrantly and deliberately) refused to follow said users' advice, he would be blocked for doing so. The only effect of not formalizing the ban would be to allow Endercase to ignore the advice of his mentor(s). Note that the reason I'm re-supporting the ban proposal is to allow the closer to count my !vote as what it is rather than what it would be in ideal world. If one discounts the two canvassed !votes (both of whom seems to be under the mistaken impression that bans are meant to "punish" or "censure" users rather than prevent disruption) and the one hounding !vote, the number of "support"s significantly outnumbers that of "oppose"s, so theoretically a closer could close as consensus being to enforce a formal (narrow, perhaps temporary) ban. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons I mentioned in the discussions above. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that David Tornheim (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

• Opposed The mentoring with David Tornheim is the perfect solution, imo. Endercase has not been such a problem that they deserve being banned or censored in any way, imo. They just need a first chance.Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Nocturnalnow (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

@Nocturnalnow: Again with this "censorship"? I stand by my offer to mentor Endercase (or at least help/supplement David's mentoring), but continuing to claim that something is being "censored" is not going to help. Claims that can be sourced only to Breitbart and InfoWars are already, effectively, barred from inclusion in Wikipedia because they are almost certainly false, so any specific sanction on use of particular sources by Endercase would not censor any content he might want to add. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Wait ... or did you mean to write "censured"? If so, I apologize for the misunderstanding. I still disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion on whether he should be censured by the community. You're not entitled to accuse others of trying to "censor" him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm confident he meant censured. Thanks for the kind words Nocturnalnow. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

sorry..censured is what I meant. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nocturnalnow: Okay. Stricken. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I respect your opinion, but I don't agree. "censure" implies some kind of stigma, but not being allowed contribute to an area of an online encyclopedia in which one has caused disruption is not something that should be treated this way. Several other contributors to this discussion are subject to TBANs and other restrictions, and have (presumably) contributed constructively while abiding by those terms. Sometimes bans are handed out not because the users themselves were causing disruption (deliberately or mistakenly) but because the community or ArbCom decide that a (limited!) editing restriction is the easiest and best way to solve the problem. Again, here, I must emphasize that if Endercase is subjected to a formal ban and mentoring, and a few months down the line wants to appeal the ban, I will support it appeal if I think it is right. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri 88, I understand your reasoning, I just think that in this case we should approach the matter from the position of holding back the formal ban for application if the mentoring does not fix the entire matter, similar to a court putting someone on probation. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nocturnalnow: But again, your analogy doesn't work: A formal ban, which amounts to "If you do this bad thing again, you will be blocked from editing" is similar to probation. Mentoring means that if the solution doesn't work, a new ANI thread and an entirely new discussion of what is to be done.

He was already given the same advice (in some cases by the same people!) that he now appears to be listening to before this ANI thread was opened, and flagrantly ignored it. It makes about as much sense to assume that he is faking contrition now in order to avoid a formal ban, and will go back to being disruptive once this thread is closed, as to assume that this is just a coincidence. It would be a technical AGF violation to apply a formal ban under these circumstances, except that both users offering to mentor him are telling him not to do what the proposed ban would formally prevent him from doing anyway, so that the only difference between a formal and an informal ban is that he is not allowed ignore the former.

If this gets closed as "Hijiri88 is to mentor Endercase" or "Hijiri88 and David Tornheim are to mentor Endercase", and Endercase immediately starts ignoring my mentoring, the responsibility to report him again and request a formal ban would then be on me, which is not something I want. Much better to formally say that if Endercase flagrantly ignores the advice of his mentor(s) he will be blocked, which would allow anyone to report him if he does so.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of the practical effect difference between mentoring and "ban", the word "ban" has a more negative linguistic connotation, whereas "mentoring" has a more cooperative connotation. So, I think we should respect the optics of any close as well as the practical effect of it. At least that's my opinion. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose It seems that Endercase is listening to some good advice now. If they could stay away from WP:RS and stop bringing up those same issues voluntarily, that would be better. If this becomes a problem again, then a ban could be revisited, though I'm hopeful that won't needed. First Light (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@First Light: You are right, but the "good advice" he is listening to at the moment is largely "don't post on RSN" and "don't cite Breitbart/InfoWars". The problem, though, is that the same advice was offered before this came to ANI, and he ignored it then. It's therefore entirely possible that he is only listening now because there is a discussion of a formal ban, and will stop listening once his thread is archived. While being formally subject to mentorship and ignoring said mentorship is likely going to result in a block, it would have to be left to the mentor to report on ANI that the mentorship is not working. The mentor, here, would be either me (I'm sick of ANI and really don't want to come back here if this happens) or David (who still seems not to recognize a number of the problems here). A formal ban would mean that if he ignores the mentors' (or even each individual mentor's) advice he will be blocked and it won't need to be the mentor who does the reporting. (I need to keep emphasizing this, since I don't want this to come back and bite me in the ass: This is based on my interpretation of the banning policy as being similar to the blocking policy; bans, with the exception of site-bans imposed on NOTHERE editors, are preventative, and are not meant to say that the banned users in some way "bad people" or "unwelcome on Wikipedia". I am not sure if others agree with this personal philosophy. I thought it was widely recognized and was kinda surprised not to see it formally enshrined in WP:BAN.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I share some of the same skepticism that you do, regarding pattern of behavior and the mentor issues. I just think that one more chance, short leash, etc. is best. I also think that if the bad behavior continues, someone will bring it here. It won't depend upon you. Just my opinion. First Light (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@First Light: Meh. It seems to me like "one more chance" and "short leash" would be arguments in favour of a TBAN, and if they waste that last chance by violating the TBAN they are issued with a block. But, again, this is based on my (personal? idiosyncratic?) opinion that a limited topic ban already is a last chance (which also seems to be what User:Softlavender is talking about above with [the ban] will allow Endercase to contribute productively to Wikipedia however he likes, and demonstrate that he is here to build an encyclopedia). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per above.Per the points raised by other editors. DarkKnight2149 20:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Note Darkknight2149 says "per above", but he hasn't actually posted anything above. His only other comment in this discussion is below here, which ... well, for reasons explained here his involvement in this thread is highly questionable. I'm also not the only one who thinks this drive-by commentary is inappropriate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC) (Edited 07:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC))

I was referring to genuine points raised by others when I said "See above". Also, see this. DarkKnight2149 22:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTVOTE. You need to specify why, not just say "per above". No two participants in this thread are in full agreement, and everyone agrees that disruption, in some form, has taken place. Also, your participation here, and explicitly stating that you are doing so [b]ased solely [emphasis added] on [your] past experiences with [me], may well qualify as a TBAN violation -- your only past interactions with me were in the topic area from which you are banned, and the ANI thread that led to said ban. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, solely from my previous observations of your behaviour at ANI discussions. Stop bringing the TBAN into this. You are clearly retaliating. DarkKnight2149 22:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

My behaviour at those two ANI discussions was directly related to the COMICS discussion. Said discussion is the one from which the above user is banned. I have no interest in reporting the comment in the section below (which essentially amounts to "Hijiri88 is not a nice person and his behaviour, not mine, led to me being banned") as a TBAN violation; I'm just explaining why I think it is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support, per my arguments above. And David Trondheim is an absolutely inappropriate mentor. Guy (Help!) 07:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I think he will going forward act in a more approrate manner than he has in the past. A warning is appropriate (as this whole section is), but I don't think a T-Ban is necessary at this time. Obsidi (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Does the above look super-weird to anyone else? Obsidi doesn't appear to have been canvassed, but he/she also has hardly edited since 2014, and has twice as many ANI edits as article edits. Being an ANI junkie is fine, but it's really unusual to see a good-faith user with that particular ratio. Whatever the case, this might be just as relevant when counting their !vote as whether or not some of the other contributors were canvassed. Either way, Endercase's edits on his user talk page immediately before the above ([48]: IDHT defenses of the earlier canvassing, and clumsy wikilawyering over the definition of the word "ping" apparently with the intent of equating what I did at the top of this thread with what he did) make it obvious that if "this whole section" is a "warning" to Endercase, it doesn't appear to have worked yet. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Endercase at this point is doing things which aren't helping his case, and which some folks see as disruptive. That's not enough for a TBAN. I have commented below to Endercase that he take a good look at what he's done to be considered for a topic ban from commenting on Reliable Sources, and on Breitbart and InfoWars. That said, even sources we normally deprecate as reliable for most facts in an article can be used as reliable sources in rare occasions. The idea ought to be to give Endercase a short bight of WP:ROPE, explain how and why his behavior is striking some editors as disruptive, and if he doesn't look at our WP:RS guidelines and persists in advising others how to do things that might reasonably be considered disruptive, proceed with the proposed ban from RS discussions, broadly construed. But a ban on mentions or references to Breitbart and InfoWars throughout the project is overly broad and conflicts with WP:NOTCENSORED. loupgarous (talk) 05:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Vfrickey: As has been explained numerous times within this discussion, banning a user who is behaving disruptively (and at this point appears to be being deliberately antagonistic even towards those who are trying to help him) is not "censorship". We are not talking about banning all references to Breitbart and InfoWars on Wikipedia: we are talking about banning one user who doesn't know how to reference them appropriately from referencing them (hence this discussion taking place on ANI rather than, say, RSN). And (again!) a limited TBAN is ROPE: pretty much everyone opposing this proposal seems to be misunderstanding the difference between a TBAN and an SBAN, and completely misconstruing the purpose of the former. Hijiri 88 (聖やや)

Comments (meta)

• Comment from Endercase I'm definitely open to mentorship, or to any actions deemed appropriate by consensus. I have currently engaged in mentorship with David Tornheim on our respective talk pages. Their input has been very respectful, helpful and enlightening thus far, though I would not deny the assistance of any users (particularly one/s "assigned" to me) in helping me have a better understanding of the workings of Wikipedia or of life if they would like. Despite having read all policies that have been referred to me I feel as if I do not currently have a clear understanding of Wikipedia's working definition of "disruption". All of my actions have been based on my understanding of policy at the time of my interaction. I would have definitely done things differently had I had the understanding that I currently have of policy, yet I still feel like I have a lot to learn. I'd would like to thank all of you for using your time to determine what is appropriate action to take in my case. Endercase (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase: Mentors are not "assigned". It's voluntary, so if no one is willing to mentor you then you don't get a mentor. I appear to be in the minority in thinking that mentoring by the one person who has thusfar offered to do it is not going to work. If the community decides that mentoring by David is the solution, then I will accept that, but ... well, what would you say to me being your mentor? I'm willing to forgive and forget any past negative interactions you and I have had, and if you are really willing to work to get better at editing, then I am willing to assist in any way I can. How about it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: David Tornheim has been extremely helpful thus far and I would not like to lose their interaction and input. However, your input would also be extremely valuable. Considering that you and David Tornheim have not gotten along even in this discussion it may be difficult for the two of you to work together. If you can work with them in mentoring me I think this would represent a major development between two very different editing styles. This would be a very growing experience for all of us and I suspect this would lead to a few growing pains. However, I feel like we would all learn quite a bit from the experience and become better editors. If you would like to mentor me the main thing I think I need at this moment is your clear definition of disruptive behavior. You have mentioned: excessive posting, sarcasm, and repeating the same arguments under a singular heading, canvassing, and having non-descriptive edit summaries, and a few other things. I have also been reading other AN/I posts to generate a better understanding. I would love to have a better understanding of your perspective and would like David Tornheim's input on this idea. Endercase (talk) 06:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

[me] and David Tornheim hav[ing] not gotten along even in this discussion is not really an issue, since we have never interacted before, and in this discussion we have a disagreement as to whether your behaviour has been "disruptive" or merely "mistaken". This actually isn't even that much of a disagreement, since we appear to be working on different definitions of "disruption": the way I use it, it says nothing about intent or lack thereof, and so is not mutually exclusive with "mistaken" behaviour; under my definition, it's a truism that disruption has taken place, regardless of whether or not you meant to be disruptive. Everyone, including me, is in agreement that mentoring would be a good idea: I am just concerned that David seems to have been ignoring the concerns the rest of us have had expressed about your behaviour, and so might continue to do so even if he is officially acting as your mentor.

If you are willing to accept me as your mentor, I will offer you the advice not to cite Breitbart or InfoWars at all -- they only occasionally get things right, and then only when they are in agreement with more reliable sources, and their editorial slant is so much at variance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy that using them would involve enough care and diligence that it would be impractical even for experienced editors. Better just avoid them.

As for RSN, I would strongly advise you not to contribute there in the manner you have been. That noticeboard is most often meant to determine whether this or that source is appropriate for some particular purpose on Wikipedia, and so telling other users to be "bold" and add whatever material they are talking about is not helpful. Neither is saying that a discussion of whether the FRC is a reliable source for the teen pregnancy article should take place on the talk page rather than RSN. Most regular contributors there are highly experienced in writing articles, and you are not going to be able to contribute as well as they can without gaining more experience actually writing articles and citing sources yourself. This is based on the assumption that you are not a university professor who should already know that Breitbart and InfoWars are unreliable; I'm not (I have a bachelor degree and I read a lot). I can't unilaterally ban you from RSN, but I really think it would be a good idea for you to stay away from it for a while, until you've contributed a bit more content and demonstrated to me (and whoever else) that you understand or content policies and guidelines, particularly WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS. (You may also have a problem with WP:NPOV, but I haven't seen enough article content to tell.)

I would be happy to continue offering you advice like this for the foreseeable future, but you would need to listen to it. I tried to offer you essentially this same advice on your talk page before coming here, but you ignored it. That is something you will not be able to do if you are granted the "mentoring" option in place of what some other editors have argued for in this thread. There may be limited support for Softlavender's TBAN proposal relative to the general concept of "mentoring", but there's more support for a "strong warning" and "short leash" than for any other option, so you must understand that if you don't listen the advice that is offered you from now on, you will likely be blocked from editing. Please do not take this as a "threat". I no more wish to see potentially good contributors blocked than does David, nor do I have the power to unilaterally block you even if I wanted to. It is simply a statement of fact.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

TLDR: You shouldn't cite those sources, and you should write more articles before attempting to offer advice on RSN. These are terms you really should adhere to, whether or not the above TBAN proposal garners enough support to pass. If this thread is closed as "Mentor", you need to listen to your mentor's (or mentors') advice. If not, your mentor will likely get tired of trying to make you listen, and we will be right back here without the "don't block; mentoring is better" option on the table. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment (addressed mostly to Endercase). I have no objection to Hijiri88 giving advice to Endercase in addition to myself. In fact, I would prefer it, as my time is limited. I agree with Hijiri88 that we would not likely be at cross-purposes, any more than the case when I first met you at WP:RS/N and experienced users were giving you advice.

I agree with Hijiri88 that the main disagreement between us is whether your behavior so far needs punishment on the level of a tban or censure: I don't think it does. I see this as a beginner who did not understand the rules, thought WP:IGNORE meant we have no rules, and now you know that, yes, we do have rules and there are consequences to not following them.

I agree with nearly all of Hijiri88's advice:

1. use of Breitbart and InfoWars as WP:RS should be avoided
2. encouraging editors be WP:BOLD is a bad idea, especially as you did at WP:RS/N
3. listen more to advice from experienced users (you can look at their user page to get a sense of who is experienced), and refrain from long arguments. If you really think the other person is wrong, you can ask us.
4. stay clear of giving advice at WP:RS/N, again avoid saying "be WP:BOLD". Learn the rules of WP:RS first, and that means more than just reading the rules. It takes experience.

It should be okay to ask a question at WP:RS/N about whether a particular source can be used to support a particular statement. But do it to gain input and consensus, rather than argue if you don't like the answer.

The only thing I disagree with Hijiri88 is any requirement that you create your own articles. There is plenty of work to be done adding to existing articles with top quality RS; and especially adding good RS to statements that are have poor RS or none at all and correcting errors in the text when the sentence does not match what is in the RS. Fixing typos is always welcome, as is reverting clear cases of vandalism. And as I mentioned before, work to be done at WP:Backlog (<I'm not sure if you need more experience to work on that stuff or not. There is probably work to be done that a new user would find comfortable.)

FYI, in the past mentors were assigned. I don't know what is happening with that now. The page Wikipedia:Co-op says that it is no longer active. I will ask. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Concern - Based solely on my past experiences with this user, I don't think that Hijiri88 is the right choice to be the mentor. But in terms of what he's saying here, I agree with much of it. DarkKnight2149 20:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that Darkknight2149's "past interactions with me" consisted of me correcting his disruptive misreading of sources on one article, a minor interaction about which I had forgotten on another article, and my participation in two recent ANI threads about him. The ANI threads resulted in him being temporarily TBANned from the topic area covering the two articles. I am now thinking that the temporary ban may need to be extended to indef, since it's clear that it has only made the problem worse. The only thing my previous interactions with him demonstrates that might be remotely relevant to this case is that I know more about careful reading of sources than he does. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This is the sort of behaviour I was referring to. And since you are looking for a fight, I'm moving on. Do not mention or ping me here again. I'm out. DarkKnight2149 22:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I've interacted with Endercase before at WP:NPOVN, regarding something relating to a bias. He mediated in the discussion and I did not get the sense of any bias towards either side. He seemed to be quite neutral and helpful in resolving the issue. I'm just bringing this up because it is an example where this user acted as a productive, unbiased editor and it should be taken into account. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment (addressed to Endercase). Endercase, you've seriously ticked one editor off to the point the editor has been more active in seeking sanctions against you than even they think's entirely appropriate. You might study the comments by other experienced editors here in this thread to see what you did. I don't know you, nor do I have a dog in this fight - except that I think we ought to separate advocacy for certain sources deprecated in WP:RS as reliable in rare occasions from trolling as such. It's possible but you'll have a hard slog. You're not helping your case by being "tactical" and advising people how to do things which most of us could reasonably see as disrupting us from making an encyclopedia. If you can marshal objective reasons for the sources you want to use (apparently Breitbart and InfoWars) as reliable by themselves in support of a given point, please do so only after considering that we're here to write an encyclopedia, with as close to a neutral point of view as we can. Usually, we only cite a political advocacy source like Breitbart, Huffington Post, InfoWars or Media Matters in support of a fact if the fact is so worth documenting you're prepared to cite sources which disagree with it. That hardly ever is worth the trouble and added text to an article. As it is, you've convinced some reliable people to topic-ban you from the Reliable Source discussions. Please take a minute to consider why they feel that way. It's probably not personal for most of them. loupgarous (talk) 05:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Vfrickey: It is worth noting that I did not call for the use of the sources you mentioned in RS/N. I asked for a list of banned sources and questioned the process of banning sources in general. I also templated the regulars. In addition, I am guilty of minor violations to civil (sarcasm, and non-descriptive edit summaries): I have struck several related posts as they were inappropriate. The primary thing I've been doing that seems to really upset peers here is that I tell them (no matter how much "experience" they have) when I think they are wrong and I cite why I think they are wrong.

As to those sources: I was fine with them being removed. I was not fine with the way that they were removed. Not a single editor (other than myself) has publicly evaluated the particular articles I cited, nor the information I took from them (to date). They were removed citing a general consensus I did not participate in that occurred a number of years ago, and my particular usage was never directly spoken to. I was advised at the time not to challenge the removal as the RS/N does not look favorably on polarized sources, as such I did not. Endercase (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

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

User:JFG Edit warring/Disruption

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

---

I made several additions and copyedits to the Donald Trump article. I also moved an "ancestry section" and blended it into the Early life and Family section at the beginning. I made extensive use of the talk page. JFG came along and simply rolled back all my changes without any justification. This included copy edits and additions, which has nothing to do with his objection to the move of the ancestry section. He did not make use of the talk page prior to this, only after the fact. This is clearly disruption especially as he's rolled back all my edits using Twinkle. My edits were not vandalism. They are sourced and most of them were copyedits. This is block worthy behavior. The article is under ArbCom sanctions and I cannot simply revert him. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Notified:here SW3 5DL (talk) 07:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking about starting a section here about SW3. Now that s/he's done the honors, I hope s/he is not shooting himself or herself in the foot. When SW3 says "I made extensive use of the talk page", that probably means "I went to the talk page sometimes and no one agreed with me but they were mostly wrong anyway so let me do whatever I want".Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

My response is here. You made a series of edits. They were challenged. You have not gotten talk page consensus for them. End. None of the rest matters. You've been around that article easily long enough to understand how this works. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see where mentioning Trump entered Fordham as freshman and transferred to Wharton as a junior were challenged. Nor any of the others, for that matter. Only Anythingyouwant went on about the 'ancestry' section. You've shown up after the fact, like JFG. And JFG did not bother with the talk page. He rolled back all my edits without even looking at them. SW3 5DL (talk) 07:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

If that Fordham stuff is your best example of material that should have been restored, it's unconvincing. The BLP already says "Trump began a two-year stint at Fordham University in the Bronx. He then transferred to the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania". I fully support the revert by User:JFG.08:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Anythingyouwant (talk)

SW3 5DL made a series of edits over a few hours which restructured significant parts of the article. Several of his changes were objected to by Anythingyouwant in Talk:Donald Trump#Jumbled chronology. One of those changes was reverted by Muboshgu. I found this major reshuffling excessive and confusing to readers. I reverted in bulk and explained on the talk page that such major changes should be discussed and get consensus first. I do not object to restoring selected edits caught in the global revert, provided they do not alter the structure of the article. If SW3 can point me to such edits, I can restore the parts of his work that are non-controversial. However, in the spirit of WP:ARBAPDS and {{2016 US Election AE}}, any edits that are contested by other editors must be discussed further before being restored. Finally, nowhere have I accused SW3 of vandalism; Twinkle is just a tool and I commented on my revert "Recent reshuffling looks messy; see Talk". — JFG ^talk 07:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

SW3: Per the remedies, the reversion is all that's required to challenge. The challenger is not required to "bother with the talk page"; that burden is on you. This is one of the few cases where, thankfully, the instructions are clear enough to avoid arguing about process. And yet we're arguing about process. JFG is an 18K-edit editor with a clean block log and no reputation (that I'm aware of) for disruption. Actually, in my experience at that article I've found him to be one of the two most collaborative regulars there, and he is one of the few editors I've ever come across who doesn't regard "compromise" as a dirty word. Under these circumstances I would suggest you withdraw this complaint and discuss your edits. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I have sent SW3 formal notice of the discretionary sanctions on their talk page. Twitbookspacetube 07:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

JFG is not being forthcoming here. He knew what he was doing using Twinkle to roll back. That's for use with vandalism. He did this intentionally. This is clearly an abuse, especially as he never engaged on the talk page with any objections to any of my edits. He simply reverted, then he made his claim. He rolled back everything. He's clearly here to support his friend, Anythingyouwant. Especially given Anything's comments here and here. Not taking the time to sort the edits shows is proof of what he intended. He's certainly been an editor here long enough to know the difference. And please explain how copyedits are "major changes." Writing that Trump entered Fordham as a freshman and Wharton as a junior is a major change? SW3 5DL (talk) 07:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: WP:Casting aspersions doesn't help your case… and I've seen you fall into accusatory behaviour several times when editors happen to disagree with you. Please redact your claims of bad faith and editor collusion, or face consequences. — JFG ^talk 07:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

This is block worthy behaviour and you know it. SW3 5DL (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Admins take note: For all the histrionics by all of them regarding moving the "ancestry" section, they've got it where I put it the only change is they've added "ancestry." Shows what BS this whole thing is. What they're saying is, "You can't edit here." And JFG is a WP:BULLY using Twinkle to deny me any edits. SW3 5DL (talk) 08:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow, moving into WP:PA territory now… Have you ever come across the first law of holes? — JFG ^talk 08:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I never thought that my draft essay would become relevant again so soon! Twitbookspacetube 11:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed WP:BOOMERANG

Due to continued WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLE behaviour, and personal attacks, and bludgeoning the discussion, and a lengthy block log, I propose that User:SW3 5DL be blocked for one month.

*Support as proposer. Twitbookspacetube 07:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support – SW3 is adamantly not listening to his fellow editors, and adds insult to injury by WP:casting aspersions. — JFG ^talk 08:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

When given an opportunity to resolve the content dispute, (If SW3 can point me to such edits, I can restore the parts of his work that are non-controversial.) SW3 ignores it and accuses fellow editors of vandalism and collusion. When given an opportunity to retract his inappropriate aspersions, SW3 digs in and resorts to insults. Enough! — JFG ^talk 09:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support reluctantly, for the reasons described by everyone above. I honestly have appreciated a lot of SW3's edits during the past several months, especially deletions of unessential or biased material. I hope some time off will be relaxing and will dissipate hard feelings.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support - For not listening to fellow users, battleground, pointy counter-proposals below, and casting aspersions. A lengthy block will hopefully get them back on track.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see his justification on the talk page: He justifies his rollback of ALL my edits as, “Recent reshuffling looks messy.” What? Copy edits are messy reshuffling? Adding new material with RS cited, is messy? And as I said, they’ve left the Ancestry right where I moved it. This rollback is not justified. SW3 5DL (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

And what about Twitbook? He just reverted my edit here at ANI. This was no accident. SW3 5DL (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: Please rethink your iVote in light of my comments above. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 08:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

SW3 5DL I'm sorry but my opinion has not changed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support as per [49], and the blatantly retaliatory posting below. Which is not just completely childish, but clearly WP:IDL and WP:IDHT at the same time (an achievement, that, in its own way), and verges on trolling this board. Further edits such as this illustrate a problem not only in how SW3 5DL interacts with other editors but also highlights an imprecise view towards policy; the placing of DS notices regarding a relevant page can hardly be dismissed as 'trolling.' — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 09:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

How is that comment "revenge?" SW3 5DL (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose both suggestions from SW3 - see above. Twitbookspacetube 08:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator note SW3 5DL, this isn't the place for a content dispute. Seeing as, so far, four five editors are calling to have you blocked for a month—if that's not a good indicator for reflection, I don't know what is. What you ought to have done was to find out on the talk page how to resubmit your edits while leaving the disputed portions out, and otherwise hammer out a compromise. Also, it dosen't really matter that much how your edits are reverted as long as there's engagement on the talk page. El_C 09:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

And I used the talk page and asked JFG to revert himself. As I pointed out, they've left the section I moved right where I moved it. So that's moot. That leaves my other edits, but he would not revert himself. He doesn't dispute all my edits, then why not restore them? And I did use the talk page for my edits. SW3 5DL (talk) 09:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

And please don't even count Twitbook. He reverted one of my edits here. That's a bit audacious I think. SW3 5DL (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: Apologies for coming here, but as you can see, it's been a bit of a ganging up and I can't sort that on my own. SW3 5DL (talk) 09:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

And I did use the talk page for my edits. That is not what the remedies instruction says. You have no talk page consensus for the edits. I've been hesitant to Support a boomerang block, hoping you will back away, allow the adrenaline to subside, and take a fresh look at this later. At this point all I'm seeing is a determination to miss the point. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Propose and support indef block of SW3 - It has become abundantly clear that this whole fiasco is simply another manifestation of a long term problem which needs to be resolved before they can reliably edit here. Twitbookspacetube 11:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment on "abuse of Twinkle rollback". No, it's the basic Mediawiki rollback that is for reverting vandalism only, and that's because it does not allow you to leave an edit summary. The same prohibition does not apply to Twinkle rollback (which is unfortunately ambiguously named and repeatedly results in this confusion), as Twinkle does allow you to leave an edit summary. JFG's revert included an edit summary, and was not an abuse of Twinkle. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Twinkle Vandalism rollback function doesn't provide an ES. Twinkle AGF and Twinkle Rollback do allow user custom ES.L3X1 (distant write) 14:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but Twinkle Vandalism rollback wasn't used here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Non-admin com. It is a hard life here on Wikipedia, esp. if you are content related. I support 2 month block for SW3.L3X1 (distant write) 14:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - Suggest no more discussion for a couple days while SW3 considers how he is destroying his own case, and that SW3 then (or preferably earlier) retract his complaint. Objective3000 (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Note that whereas SW3 5DL has a non-zero block log she has not been blocked since 2014, and, before that 1-week AE block, since 2010. One or even two months seems like an overkill to me. Note that I am not commenting on the incident, or even on the necessity of a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment This thread looks pretty much like a POV pile-on content dispute. I edit this article very little, but looking at the history and the talk page I see, first, that OP is regularly engaged in talk there, in an articulate and reasonable manner. I also see that there's a editors of a certain stripe are strangely disproportionate in this ANI festival. I am going to put a neutral note on the article talk page so that everyone there is aware of this thread. SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment The diff in the proposal isn't a personal attack, but Twitbook referring to SW3 5DL as an idiot definitely is. However, I already asked Twitbook calmly not to do it again. I am only making this comment in case he does, or if this is not a first offense (I haven't been keeping tabs on this discussion, so I wouldn't know). DarkKnight2149 00:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Nobody needs to be blocked for anything. Support liberal use of the trout, particularly on SW3 5DL for bringing it here in the first place, and on Twitbookspacetube for fanning the flames. Recommend this entire thread be rolled up into a ball and archived post haste. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose BOOMERANG at this time. WP:IDHT talks about an editor who "perpetuates disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on would be more productive" (emphasis added). I don't recall SW3 having engaged in long-term disputes of this kind. WP:BLUDGEON says "It is not desirable to reply to every comment in a discussion." No quantitative data have been provided to support any such charge. WP:BATTLE talks about other editors having to spend too much time cleaning up someone's mistakes. SW3 hasn't been making an inordinate number of mistakes. The policy also talks about someone who carries on ideological battles. SW3 appears to have engaged in fewer ideological battles than a number of past and current contributors to the article. The policy also talks about someone who holds grudges. SW3 obviously does develop a grudge rather quickly, but I haven't known him to hold onto the grudge once the perceived provocation ends. He does however seem to become comparatively sensitized to a subsequent perceived provocation by the same editor. In a typical case, such conduct would merit no more than a one-week topic ban -- if the editor in question can be persuaded to acknowledge his misconduct. It's our duty to give SW3 some persuasive evidence that he can use to assess whether he is in fact guilty of at least one charge. I'm not sure we've done so yet. Meanwhile I recommend that he reevaluate his complaints about other editors' conduct, using the feedback he's received. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Firstly, I want to thank the admins, @El C, Boing! said Zebedee, and Ymblanter: for not blocking me for months. I appreciated their comments for pointing out what I should have done, Twinkle's ambiguity, and taking into account my infrequency of blocks since 2010. Those measured responses reassured my faith in the system here. Secondly, I thank my fellow editors on the article for coming here to speak to both my faults and my better nature. @Objective3000: Thank you for being the first reasonable editor to post, asking for a pause to the comments so that I could rethink things. That was a very thoughtful thing to do especially given all the negativity that was being generated at the time. It helped a lot and I very much appreciated that. @SPECIFICO:, thanks for being the first in to comment on my editing on the article, and for posting to the article talk page. It is not easy to stick your neck out here on ANI, especially when things appear to be turning dark, and I admire that you did that. @Scjessey:, We don't always see eye to eye and yet you came here to speak where others might well have given it a miss. That speaks very well of you and I thank you for that. I'll take that trout if you want to put it on my page, because you're right, I should not have brought this here. The article talk page is where to resolve this. @Dervorguilla:, I appreciate your thoughtful analysis of my editing and your valuable feedback. This has been a valuable learning experience and I see my fellow editors, and this process, in a new light. I will strike the proposal for the block for JFG. The rollback of my edits are best managed on the article talk page. If the admins are satisfied that this is resolved, then perhaps one of them can close this case. Thank you all. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: Knowing your usual level-headed demeanour, I was really surprised to see you file this complaint, quickly escalate from a content dispute to aspersions, and even refuse the helping hand that I handed you. In turn, my reaction to your stubbornness was excessive, and I should have waited a day before supporting a lengthy boomerang block. I believe that the specific content issue has been resolved in the meantime, but if you have further remarks or suggestions, feel free to ask me or the community on the talk page. I also thank the experienced admins for calling a truce, I support the close of the dispute with no action and I wish everybody happy editing! — JFG ^talk 17:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Recommend closing with no further action. Looking back on this today, I'd say it was an over-reaction to a content disagreement strengthened by misunderstanding - editors creating new content here can be passionate folk, which is all part of it, and we should all be trying to cool things down here rather than pouring more fuel on the fire. Unfortunately, I see some unnecessary aggression in response here, with one editor even urging an escalation to an indefinite block and engaging in personal attacks! (I don't want to take that any further here, but, clean-started user, you know who you are and I suggest if you want to contribute here you should try to resolve disputes by de-escalation, or you should stay away from ANI and leave it to more experienced and wiser heads). There's been enough fish served up, the initial complaint has effectively been withdrawn, and the comment above by SW3 5DL shows there's nothing we need to prevent now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Counter proposals by SW3 5DL

Support block for JFG for disruption and abuse of Twinkle rollback. He has abused Twinkle and abused the process. He's using WP:BULLY tactics here. And as I noted earlier, they've gone and left their disputed "ancestry" right where I moved it. They've just added back the word "ancestry." There's nothing wrong with my edits. They certainly don't deserve to be rolled back en masse. And any editor who rolls back another's edits without any evidence of vandalism, is being disruptive. He knows the warnings on that page. This is block worthy behavior. SW3 5DL (talk) 08:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Support block for Twitbook. He just reverted my edit here at ANI. I think this shows the caliber of their argument. SW3 5DL (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Twitbookspacetube: Do stop isolating my edits. SW3 5DL (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Facepalm Twitbookspacetube 08:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Ditto. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 12:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The OP is now revert-warring over subheaders here at ANI

The OP is supporting the OP's own new proposals, not supporting a boomerang. So a subheader is needed to avoid confusion. See the edit history showing two editors have inserted the subheader "Proposals by the OP" but the OP (SW3) has repeatedly deleted the subheader.[50][51] Oy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I've moved it again, and if they really want to edit war me on it, so be it. I'm not going to allow such vandalism to obstruct readability. --Tarage (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Jpop73

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

---

This editor Jpop73 is proposing to harass me via public blog link just because I came across his page that he attempted to recreate and had it CSDed in addition to reporting him to WP:COIN, a year after I did the same and had his many articles deleted for the same reason (for failing to pass notability guidelines). Donnie Park (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I left the user a one-and-only warning about personal attacks and threats to dox. El_C 02:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Park, I've already forwarded screen shots to my attorney of this and your previous attempts to cyber bully me with your accusations. I'm kinda sure that falls under the definition of WP:LEGAL HalfShadow 03:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• You're kinda right. Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Kinda cool. 'Cause he was kinda a jerk. HalfShadow 03:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Beat me to it. El_C 03:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Big nuisance vandalism at Template:Infobox person

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

---

Shahbaz khan ath (talk · contribs) repeatedly monkeying with Template:Infobox person (used on 230,000+ pages), despite warnings. Batternut (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It was only the documentation subpage, but still, the user got blocked. I've applied some semi. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Repeated Copyvio

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

---

In this series of edits, Sulthan90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) copied verbatim the text of the "hostel" section of the Jamal Mohamed College website, which has "Copyright © 2015 Jamal Mohamed College. All rights reserved" on the bottom of each page (checking the page requires clicking on the side navigation "Hostel" – because of the JavaScript navigation, direct links do not work). He also uploaded the image from that page to Commons and added it to the article, but that's a separate issue.

I reverted the copyvio and left a warning on his page, explaining the issue.

He has now reverted my reversion without any explanation, and without response to the talk page notice.

Normally I would not re-revert, but I'm unwilling to leave a blatant copyright violation in place any longer than necessary, so I have once more removed the infringing text.

I have no intention of playing edit-war games with an unresponsive violator any further, so I'm seeking administrative action to ensure that further violations are prevented. You'll note from his talk page that this is by no means the first incident of copyright violation from this editor. --RexxS (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Revisions deleted and user blocked for one week. As RexxS says, the user has had previous contributions deleted for copyvio, and in this case completely ignored the warning. BethNaught (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Hounding by User WilliamJE

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

---

This morning I reverted a couple of edits by User:WilliamJE. In one of them[52], he stated that Dak Prescott, the NFL rookie of the year, didn't have a page and wasn't notable, which calls into question his basic competency. Since then, User:WilliamJE has started hounding me, templating me[53], and repeatedly editing my sandbox[54][55][56], despite my request that he not do so.Jacona (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

In his sandbox edit, the complainer calls me disruptive. That is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:NPASAND. The hounding taking place is against me not vice versa. I have not made personal attacks against this User but instead have been the target on multiple occasions of personal attacks by this complainer....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Let me also point out that this complainer never posted an ANI notice on my talk page. Which is a clear violation for ANI complaints even if the User has been told to not post on a talk page again....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not fast (like removing entries without reading), it took me a couple of minutes to figure out how to post the ANI warning, not something I do. Jacona (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

This edit summary is clearly inappropriate, and the writing in JaconaFrere's sandbox claiming a long-term editor is disruptive is also unacceptable to be retained in the userspace long-term. WilliamJE, it's better for you to grab an admin to deal with the sandbox than remove something about yourself. I don't see any action as necessary here except a warning to JaconaFrere that they act in a more civil manner in edit summaries and on talk pages. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Rob, my talk page has been the target of multiple attacks on me over the last year as seen by its protection log and on in the history of talk pages such as here[57]. Some of those are going on at this very minute by an IP causing me to have to request protection for my talk page again.

Note Jacona did finally post an ANI notice to my talk page but NOT till after I mentioned his failure here. Too late....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@JaconaFrere: Why stir up unnecessary drama with that edit summary and this ANI report when you could have simply wikilinked the name without comment? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Because the edit summary he used showed not just a complete failure to look for sources, but the false assertion that the page did not exist, and he had removed the content post-haste. Jacona (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

And User:NeilN, you are right, restoring the information and wikilinking would have been more appropriate. I apologize for being a little snarky in response to the user's edit. Jacona (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

As far as the note for myself in my sandbox, I merely referenced an ANI discussion which asserted exactly that. How can that be a personal attack? Jacona (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC) It's not searchable, and just for my use. Jacona (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

You're complaining about "no effort" when you added an unlinked name with a citation needed tag from January 2014? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

You called an editor disruptive and Uncivil at the sandbox without proof violating WP:NPA....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

You have a point, when I undid the change I should have added a reference and removed the tag. But removing the NFL Rookie of the year, claiming there was no article, and no notability. That's an extreme lack of diligence! Jacona (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

And absolutely no reason to make personal attacks and make false accusation of me doing one towards you. Where is the WP:BOOMERANG?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Vipul

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

---

Following on from the closed thread here regarding Riceissa, I'd like to put the spotlight back onto the person running the paid-editing scheme:

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

In the absence of any sanctioning, this editor continues to add link-spam to articles they've been paid to edit - see this diff. This undermines any commitment they've made to cease their paid-editing work (assuming they've made such a commitment) and I'd like to see if there's any reason why they can't suffer the same fate as Riceissa when they're doing exactly the same thing. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 10:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Can we add "marketingland.com" to the spam blacklist? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there evidence that Vipul's work relates to the links they used? You can email me evidence that cannot be placed here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I've yet to see any evidence that Vipul & Co. were adding spam or referral links. Plenty of accusations, but little evidence. Sam Walton (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, the editor himself has admitted openly that he's paid a certain amount per 500 page views - I don't see how that's an "accusation." Exemplo347 (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Exemplo347: Could you provide a diff or link? I must have missed that. Sam Walton (talk) 11:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, firstly there's his user page, and secondly his own site details his scheme. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Quote or diff the exact passage, if you will. *** I put all the links up on COIN—Dive in! El_C 11:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That page doesn't say what you think it says—it says he paid Wikipedia article writers by view of the Wikipedia page (e.g. he rewarded people for creating high-demand pages) and says nothing about external links. I'm struggling to see how Adweek and Marketing Land could possibly not be considered legitimate sources for an article about online advertising, especially in light of the fact that they weren't replacing existing legitimate citations but being added to support a previously uncited statement. ‑ Iridescent 11:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

My point is that the editor is still attempting to drive traffic toward pages he's created for payment. He's been very open about everything he's doing, so why has one of his employees been indef blocked while he's still able to do exactly the same thing? Exemplo347 (talk) 11:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

"the editor is still attempting to drive traffic toward pages he's created for payment" You appear to be shifting the goalposts here. What do you mean? He didn't create that page, and while it's true Riceissa made a large number of edits to the page, I'm struggling to see anything wrong with Vipul's edit, so I have re-added it. Sam Walton (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, he's included it on his list of pages here - User:Vipul#List of pages I have explicitly sponsored creation of or contributions to... Exemplo347 (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Vipul agreed to stop paying other users for their edits for the time being, he didn't agree to stop contributing himself, so I still struggle to see a problem here. Sam Walton (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The edit seems unexceptional to me. An ANI report on this matter was just closed. Opening another ANI again so quickly is out of line. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• My original question still stands - why is Vipul still allowed to edit when he's clearly not here to improve Wikipedia? Exemplo347 (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Because it's not clear. Fact is, there probably still remains a rather lengthy process to determine the status of both Vipul and his Enterprise. It's unlikely to happen in a flash. El_C 11:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, at the very least, there should be some sort of warning for Vipul, preventing him from editing articles that have been created or edited as part of his scheme. Per WP:COI, editors with a declared Conflict of Interest are supposed to be limited to making suggestions on Article Talk pages. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Does Vipul have a COI in regards to Google Surveys? He paid someone else to write content there, which is now fully disclosed at the talk page. I can't see that he serves to gain anything by editing that article, so I'm not actually convinced he has a COI there. Regardless (even if he does have a COI) there's nothing prohibiting him from continuing to edit the article given that he has declared anything remotely resembling a COI already. I can't help but feel like you're looking for any reason to stop this user making edits, but right now he appears to be making sure every edited article is properly tagged with a COI/Paid notice and is making entirely uncontroversial edits like the one you flagged here, which seems quite reasonable to me. Sam Walton (talk) 11:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, he's paid someone else to write content there. Yes, it's disclosed. That means WP:PAY applies to his edits there. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:PAY would appear to apply to Riceissa, I can't see that it applies to Vipul. He does not have financial ties to Google Surveys, and is not being paid by them - or anyone else - to make edits to that article. Sam Walton (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:PAY would actually cover someone who pays someone else to make edits, if you read the wording of the first paragraph. The reason it subsequently concentrates on the recipients of payments is that is the most common form of COI we deal with. Saying that, I agree entirely with you that there is nothing wrong with those edits anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• I recommend that this thread be closed as there is nothing to act on presented in the OP and this risks becoming a long distraction. With a trout for Exemplo347, who is well-intentioned but has made several unsupportable statements here; more smoke than fire. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Blocked user vandalizing their talk page

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

---

Not sure if this is the right place to report this, but an IP user(2.96.247.3) keeps vandalizing their talk page, see [58], [59], and [60]. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 22:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is fine for this sort of issue. I've revoked talkpage access. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Blocked for restoring a question at the humanities refdesk

OP mistaken for refdesk troll; sorted now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

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

---

After I restored a question which seemed perfectly legitimate at the Refdesk that was removed as trolling, I was blocked for long-term abuse, without any explanation. I want the person who blocked me to apologize and/or explain to me how what I did was wrong. The question didn't seem to violate any Refdesk policies and was an answerable one.Thanks76.168.98.68 (talk) 08:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It was from a long term vandal. Don't restore things like that. It gives people reason to believe you are the vandal. I doubt you'll get an apology. --Tarage (talk) 08:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

A long-term vandal? Well, if that's the case I'm sorry. But the question seemed legit.76.168.98.68 (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

If you look at Special:Contributions/Azimuth2469 you can see that the new editor posting the original had already been blocked. As the RefDesk does have a resident troll with just such a posting style, then I'd support that block. As you were innocent (and per AGF I'm required to believe that of you anyway) then I can only apologize on WP's behalf that you were caught in the crossfire here. It wasn't personal though - it was conflating your post with the same troll, in an environment with just terribly few clues to be going on.

I'd suggest that if you're interested in WP, it's worth creating an account. An account is just an anonymous as an IP (in fact, more so) and it allows you to establish some reputation as a genuine editor, which helps to avoid such situations. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Favonian, you need to communicate with the blocked editor when levying a block; blocking without explanation was the basis for desysopping longtime admin Can't sleep, clown will eat me a while back. I'm not trying to threaten you or suggest that one incident warrants some sort of sanctions against you — I mention this simply as grounds for saying that you must explain your blocks, if nothing else with {{uw-block}}. Nyttend (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Heck, no. Do that for the usual cases, sure, but for LTAs who use thousands of IPs that's actually counter-productive. There's no need to leave a block message for some innocent user to see as the LTA instantly flips to a new IP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

As for "not trying to threaten", you could have fooled me. ;) I must apologize to the IP for the miscarriage of justice, but agree with Neil regarding the utter futility in communicating with the legions of socks, knitted by the likes of the Ref Desk Antisemitic Troll and Nsmutte. Sorry for the late reply – I was temporarily Irish yesterday. Favonian (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Edits by 70.44.233.118

This user is involved in disruptive editing on a number of pages, including one which involved a sensitive legal issue. Please take the time to review talk and contribs. This user is most likely WP:NOTHERE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.44.233.118Edaham (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverted this month's talk page posts and gave the IP a final warning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing by 107.191.1.166

This IP address has changed The Cabin in the Woods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) genre from horror comedy to horror 4 times, without any discussion. This goes against the hidden message left on the page which states: "DO NOT CHANGE THE GENRE WITHOUT DISCUSSION ON THE TALK PAGE. THERE ARE NUMEROUS SOURCES CALLING THIS FILM A HORROR COMEDY". I have reverted their edits 3 times and they have reverted mine 3 times so I believe that neither of us have edit warred. However, the current revision of the page (see [61]) is their version of the article which states the genre as horror. I do not want to revert this edit because of obvious reasons of not wanting to edit war. However, as said earlier, I believe they have not edit warred themselves so I cannot report them to WP:AN3. I have tried to bring up a discussion (see [62], 2nd to last message) but they have not responded. So, what should I do? Does this warrant a block? Or have I misunderstood the definition of edit warring, and that they have, in fact, edit warred. I would like some help on this matter. Thank you. Tompop888 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring is repeatedly reverting another editor. It doesn't necessarily require four reverts, but reporting an editor to WP:AN3 generally does require breaking the three revert rule. I warned the IP editor for edit warring. It doesn't look like there's been much discussion on the talk page in the past few months, so maybe you could start a discussion there. You could also ask for input from uninvolved editors at WikiProject Film through a neutrally-worded message, such as, "There's a dispute over the genre of The Cabin in the Woods on Talk:The Cabin in the Woods. Please help find consensus." In this case, it seems like the IP editor is blanking sourced content, which is disruptive, but this is still a content dispute and subject to 3RR. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Nergaal at ITNC

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

---

I come here reluctantly but I feel it is necessary to address the comments of Nergaal at WP:ITNC. I have posted on their user talk page regarding this but they have offered no reply. They strongly disagreed with the posting of this ITN item regarding the Leekfrith torcs- which is their right to do- citing "US/British centrism" among other issues they saw. The event was posted to ITN regardless as it gained consensus per the processes used there. Nergaal does not seem to be able to move on from the posting of the item, and proceeds to disrupt ITN with their pointy comments on many nominations subsequent to the posting. They usually have to do with their views on bias and the "jewelry nomination"(the torcs). There are certainly legitimate concerns about bias here but these comments are not productive to the end of addressing bias.

• [63] "this has nothing to do with the UK so it shouldn't be posted /s"
• [64] "An actually important news that didn't happen in the UK, so using the rationales from below I have to call this an oppose /s."
• [65] "Are you trying to say something published in Nature does not pass our threshold for reliable? Are you saying PR advertisements by the British Museum that get absolutely no review are more reliable? Jesus."
• [66] "How is totally irrelevant topics when one is geology and the other is archaeology? One has a peer-reviewed process available to anyone, one is a PR-stunt by a profit-driven entity? He literally said there are many doubts about this. The presenters of the paper are not independent because it is in their interest to spin it as a big discovery. To accept the hype uncritically would be journalism. He applied exactly 0% of this yesterday. Why aren't we flipping coins to see what gets posted if we aren't going to bother with some consistencies?"
• [67] "Maybe you forgot that yesterday people said "of international importance", "cool stuff", "A notable historical find", "widely reported, globally, as significant", "unique find and truly historic", "If reliable sources are used and consensus exists", "this story is far too interesting to be condemned to the esoteric". Which one applies less to this story to the yesterday's one? Cause that one took only 4h to post at a 7-2 vote with ample oppose reasonings, but this one has almost a day and 9-2 vote and isn't on the mainpage yet. Origin of life is less interesting than iron age jewelry from Britain?"
• [68] "You are saying that the jewelry was unanimously agreed that it wasn't the oldest jewelry in Britain (on small corner of the world) and was less than 2/3 old as the actual record holder (~2500 years vs 4000 years oldest evidence) for is worthwhile ITN, but this evidence for earliest-fucking life that gives an average age estimate right at the previous estimate (no uncertainty range given there) but at its upper limit puts it right when the oceans formed is not ITN worthy? Dude you should become a lawyer or something."
• [69] "I agree with Luke, this has nothing to do with the UK, not visually appealing, not described by the British Museum as a "unique find" /s."
• [70] "Support, probably the largest archeological discovery in a long time; until the British Museum takes it and then gets renominated here when they put it up for visitors near the golden torcs."
• [71] "I was not talking about you, I was talking about consensus. If it was up to people like you all archeological trash finds from Britain would get posted, while colossal statues and alike would never make the main page."

I am not the only user to feel these comments are unproductive; four other users have posted to Nergaal's user talk page asking them to refrain from further comments.

I seek no specific remedy; just something that results in Nergaal stopping their pointy comments and actually work towards addressing the legitimate issue of bias. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Notification made [72] 331dot (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

What I am supposed to do now? Nergaal (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Drop the stick, stop making pointy comments, and move on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep, that. If not, I imagine the next step is to seek for a topic ban to prevent you from contributing at ITNC. After that, it'd be more widespread, i.e. you get blocked, then banned. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I endorse this ANI discussion. Nergaal can't seem to stop talking about the Leekfrith Torcs and how we need to feature other things, along with how Wikipedia has an Anglo-British bias or something along the lines. This seriously needs to stop. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Further edits along this subject line seem to have stopped, and I doubt anything further will come from this discussion. Suggest close.--WaltCip (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@WaltCip: - I didn't want to be the one to have to defend this, but I think that we should do something about this. It just doesn't stop and it's purely disruptive at this point. I think a warning is too weak because of how previous warnings failed, but a TBAN is too strong because he hasn't done anything on that scale where it needs to result in a topic ban. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Edits seem to have stopped and we don't do punitive blocking.--WaltCip (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

As the person who started this, I will say that if this discussion motivated Nergaal to stop, I'm content with that. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Probrooks

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

---

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

Probrooks came to my attention when they linked to this blog written by someone who is obviously not a doctor, to argue that real scientists think that our bodies contain invisible channels of magical energy that ties parts of our bodies to specific times of day and five of the planet in our solar system.

Looking into their contributions, I see that Probrooks was quite upset that we do not tell people to believe that there's some kind of magical toxin in foods because chemicals. I found them defending claims that watered down flowery brandy will cure disease because it hasn't been tested enough to disprove it yet. For God's sake, Probrooks even thinks that we shouldn't say it's pseudoscience to claim that pretty rocks will magically cure cancer, because... it's admittedly not science? Apparently, real science is just "skeptic dogma". Oh, and Probrooks thinks the anti-vaxxers might have a point.

Now, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture is an option, though not ones I can take myself (as I reverted the user twice at the article where they first caught my attention). No consensus would be needed for a topic ban, all that would be needed is for an uninvolved admin to:

• Post the filled out Template:AE sanction on Probrooks's talk page
• Put an entry at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log

But! In looking for the previous diffs I've provided, I see this and this, which have me concerned that topic ban relating to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience will eventually be necessary. They haven't done any editing in pseudoscientific matters outside of alternative medicine since being notified about those sanctions, though. Also, a topic ban on both alternative medicine and pseudoscience in general would cover 99% the areas where they edit.

In short, Probrooks is wasting the time and patience of other users (at best!), if not rather unrepentantly pushing for magical thinking that discourages people from getting real medical treatment. Whatever does the community (or just an uninvolved admin) think is best? Ian.thomson (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

This came about because some editors wish to proclaim that "Acupuncture meridians are not real." My assertian is that there are scientists who are researching acupuncture meridians, it would be unwise to be so firm and definite in the wording, as it actually looks quite foolish and disrepectful to mnay people. I don't discount the existence of meridians, as it is an oriental system of medicine which is growing around the world and many find benefit in. I do not believe wikipedia should be telling people what to think, re: meridians and only wanted to point out the extent research on this matter.

As for the rest of it, this is just putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying flower essences cure disease, if you actually read what I say, I say they may be able to treat emotional conditions. I'm not claiming crystal healing is going to cure cancer, I'm saying it is not a science in the first place, and so how can it be "pseudo-science"? What are you really saying about toxins? Are you disputing there are not synthetic chemicals in our food stuffs? Did you not read the links provided there? These are not "magical toxins", but real toxins that are produced by industry that find their way into food.

I am simply trying to help wikipedia be more neutral, look into respectful and appropriate usage of language when it comes to contentious topic areas and help maintain a balanced point of view. I believe as many do that Wikipedia is let down by its coverage of "alternative medicine", I'm not pushing for "magical thinking" as you so inelegently say here, but actually trying to play by the rules, trying to help wikipedia not be so biased and one sided in communicating information.

Probrooks (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Just in: 1, 2. I think we may actually have a WP:CIR-issue, here. Kleuske (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• For the record: This closed section was my previous interaction with this editor, in which they showed up at an article talk page to (by their own admission) proselytize for the highly fringe, conspiracy theory-laced subject of the article, and not to propose or discuss any changes to it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

• Propose topic ban from alternative medicine, per WP:ARBCAM. When reliable mainstream scientific publications document a shift in the scientific consensus with regard to alternative medicine, Wikipedia will write about it. The community has rightly lost its patience with editors who sit here trying to civilly (or not) push other points of view regarding science and medicine, based on internet blogs, "stuff that everyone knows", and things that "some scientists believe". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Probrooks == WP:PROFRINGE. A topic ban would be for the good of the Project. Alexbrn (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree of coure, wikipedia should be neutral and fair to all points of view, I believe. There are many points of view, some of which are relevant and valid in any discussion. What I see happening a lot of the time, is wording and the pushing of an overt point of view, which is not balanced, fair minded or respectful. I am not necessarily trying to "push" a fringe point of view, but I think it is important to keep in mind how controversial content is communicated, a lot of time a line is crossed when sentences like "Meridians are not Real" are used. Who is actually keeping a check upon this kind of editing, which results in articles which I think most intelligent people are going to have a hard time taking seriously, when a particular point of view is pushed, even though that view may be predominant in mainstream science. Mainstream science is not the end all and be all of what is real, to think otherwise is called scientism. When it comes to acupuncture, which is a part of the global human culture, I think there is a certain level of respect and civility towards other people's beliefs and practises which is important in a community minded endeavour like wikipedia. Probrooks (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

No, you've got it completely wrong. Wikipedia does not provide what you call "neutral and fair" (i.e. equal) coverage to all points of view. We consider what the consensus of reliable sources say to be true, and we reflect that in a "neutral and fair" (i.e. balanced) way. You say that "meridians are not real" is wrong, but science disagrees with you. You say "mainstream science is not the end all and be all of what is real", but reliable sources disagree. You say "there is a certain level of respect and civility towards other people's beliefs and practises (etc.)" and you are right about that. It's perfectly decent and respectable to say that acupuncture is a form of alternative therapy that some cultures have practiced for thousands of years, and it's perfectly decent and respectable to say that modern medicine finds no merit in these therapies; those two facts are equally true. What's not respectful is misappropriating a cultural practice to tell people that there's magic lines under their skin that can be manipulated to cure their cancer, because there's not and they can't. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Ahem, Ivanvector, "meridians are not real" is not something that science disagrees with. ;-) --bonadea contributions talk 18:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bonadea: clarified what I meant ;) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Why do you make the assumption that there is no possibility that acupuncture meridians are not real? Why do the lines have to be "magic", perhaps they are actual? Perhaps they exist as thousands of practitioners say they do. So you are saying all these practitioners are deluded? I would suggest that logic would tell us there is some element here which is true, otherwise how could acupuncture be growing around the world if it was just placebo?

What you are saying about modern medicine finding no merit in acupuncture is incorrect. Many medicial doctors around the world utilise acupuncture and in Brazil for example, acupuncture is mainstream medicine that is recognised by the government as any other form of medicine. I'm not saying that people can cure their cancer with acupuncture as I actually do not believe it is that useful in the treatment of cancer. All I'm saying is that there is a fairer line than "Meridians are not real anatomical structures: scientists have found no evidence that supports their existence", and it is: "Mainstream modern science has yet to discover any evidence to support the existence of meridians." THAT line is the consensus of reliable sources in a "neutral and fair" (i.e. balanced) way.

What modern day science understands in 2017 is obviously not the actual truth and should never be painted as such, especially when almost no science has been carried out to actually discover meridians for example. And yet there are some scientists who have been exploring the primo vascular system as a candidate for the meridian system in Korea starting from the 1960's. I'm not saying this should necessarily be included in the article, but its useful to know there are some scientists working on this, if you at all care about exploring this matter. Probrooks (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Probrooks: - I'd just like to point out that, in relation to your 'thousand practitioner' comment: There are thousands of people who adamantly believe the earth is flat. Thousands believe that we never went to the moon. There are probably over a million people who believe that global warming is a 'Chinese hoax'. Just because a large majority of people belive something doesn't mean it's true. The entire continent of North America could say that it's possibly to land on the sun and build a house; doesn't mean it's correct or factual. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support As soon as "western cultural imperialism" is invoked and (unnamed) other editors are accused of hijacking wikipedia, we have an issue and a remedy is called for. Kleuske (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Obvious. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• Reluctant Support I think Probrooks means well, I really do; but we cannot give equal or even significant space to hypotheses that have zero scientific support behind them. That's classic WP:UNDUE. "Scientists are working on them" is a specious argument; once they find some hard evidence, we can talk about it. Until then, I fear that the rest of us are wasting too much precious time making sure that readers understand that things like meridians are hypothetical at best, at least at the present time. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. When someone has such a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works, all that ensues is a huge time sink for those who do understand and are trying to get on with it. Blackmane (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Le sigh. A perfectly nice person, but unable to either understand or abide by our policies on fringe subjects, and by this point it doesn't matter which of the two it is, because patient efforts to explain are getting nowhere. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I cannot tell you how offensive that anti-vaxxing claim is. No more. --Tarage (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I've noticed Probooks taking a pro fringe stance for some time now. It's never disrupted any discussion I've been in, so I've never had reason to take it here, but the diffs provided above paint the picture of an editor who has an agenda to pursue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

So, he's trying to turn the place into Hippypedia? ... Yeah. I'll...um...I'll show myself out. HalfShadow 00:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey! What's wrong with hippies? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

They're filthy and they smell funny!!! ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support at a minimum. My reasons are given above. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Advocates should not be given free rein to waste the time of good editors with suggestions that meridians are anything but an interesting idea from many centuries before medicine became a useful discipline. Please think about how articles on other topics should be written—would you want to read about a topic you were unfamiliar with knowing that it is based on views contrary to evidence? Johnuniq (talk) 06:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• Question - I'm just scrolling through and this discussion caught my eye. I was wondering if this TBAN extends to fringe science and protoscience, or possibly religious topics? I don't think we're specifying the extent of this TBAN well enough. Anybody can be banned from pseudoscience topics and go right to the articles of whatever religion they get their ideas from and disrupt over there. An entire ban from religion and science would be grossly inappropriate, but a weak ban would be just as ineffective. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Procedural support I didn't think it was necessary to comment here given how obvious the outcome, but once I started clicking on the links (I actually thought from reading the OP that it seemed really weird that this problem hadn't come up before, and before I noticed how new the account was I started down a rabbit hole) I discovered that the Meridian (Chinese medicine) article had a coupla problems that seem to have absolutely nothing to do with Probrooks. When I tried to fix a few of them, one of my fixes was reverted by a user who appears to be on the right side of this dispute (although they have not posted in this thread yet). I pinged them on the talk page and am awaiting a reply, but I'm a little paranoid now that some people might misinterpret my motivations as a result of this, so I might as well cast a !vote here if only to demonstrate that that's not the case. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Am I allowed to vote here as an experienced editor or must I be an admin? If I can't, just ignore. This is getting out of hand. This user is involved in a massive discussion at Meridian (Chinese medicine) where (I think he) spouts fringe theories and links to 'sources' of experimentation done by pseudoscientists and the country of North Korea. He then goes on to accuse another editor of trying to TBAN him because he believes in alternative theories, and how the TBAN will be done solely as a punishment rather than to preserve the article space. This user also states (as seen above) that if 'a thousand practitioners' believe it then it must be true; A weak argument, saying that climate change denial and Flat Earth Society have thousands of believers. This user just causes way too much disruption by trying to make fiction into fact and a TBAN is in order to stop this nonsense from continuing to occur. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@UNSC Luke 1021: Am I allowed to vote here as an experienced editor Yes. or must I be an admin? No. I'm not, and neither are a bunch of the other people who already !voted before you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: - Ok, thanks for clarification. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Also, not to mention support for anti-vaxxing, claiming that Wikipedia is being 'hijacked by incompetent editors', saying that extremely reliable scientific journals are 'fringe theories' and (I think I said this) claiming that North Korean scientists are much more reliable than scientists that aren't in fucked up countries. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support TBAN - Took me all of five minutes to determine that this is either necessary now, or going to be necessary very soon. Pushing absurd fringe theories about medical topics and complaining that "mainstream science" just hasn't caught up or otherwise on par with said fringe theories tells me just about all I need to know. Key for me here is the western culutral imperialism is the arbiter of truth comment. Which reminds me, you all might want to decolonize your mind just in case you haven't done so already. The Great Juju up the Mountain would greatly appreciate it. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Conflict of edit/autobiographical/potential sockpuppet issue at Paige Brooks

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

---

There is an ongoing issue at Paige Brooks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Primary editing has been by:

• Missalusa (talk · contribs)
• SSIISS (talk · contribs)

Both users editing has only been at this page or discussion related to it, or related topics such as The Price Is Right models and Men in Black II. Article is in bad shape, I chose to nominate for deletion rather than cleanup because I do not believe subject passes WP:BIO: I have been unable to find significant reliable sources, and articles with a similar degree of RS material have already been deleted at AFD. Both these users have removed the AFD templates and removed other template messages such as "Autobiography" and "Advert". Given edits such as this seems to be a pretty strong case for conflict of interest, autobiographical editing and given the similarity between the two contrib logs there also seems a strong case for sockpuppetry. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 07:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems I have unintentionally created quite an uproar here. I just want to take this opportunity to straighten out a few misconceptions and issues.

Firstly, I am Ms. Brooks' biggest fan!

I do not work for PaigeBrooks.com and the Paige Brooks article that I created 10 years ago is in no way affiliated with PaigeBrooks.com. I created it because I thought it was appropriate for this forum due to her level of recognition and honors.

Ms. Brooks' management team has been very kind to allow me to post photos, awards, etc. with their permission, when I asked. If you have any questions or want to confirm this information that I am providing, you can contact them. They are very nice. I contact them through the email address that is publicly available on the official website.

I am certainly and obviously not an expert at Wikipedia (this is the only Wikipedia article that I have ever done). I am not at all familiar with the guidelines and hope this is the correct way to get in touch with other users and administrators who have been taking issue of late.

Only now, after a recent update, have I realized that the manner in which I originally wrote the article and subsequent updates are not completely within the guidelines of your community. Luckily, through the years, I can see some of your experienced Wikipedia users have corrected my many mistakes and vastly improved the article.

The newest improvements are especially impressive. After 10 years of the article having my incorrect-for-Wikipedia writing style, I am happy to see that it meets the Wikipedia standards now.

I want to apologize for any previous, although unintended, guideline missteps. I never meant to upset anyone, although I am afraid some of my actions may have done so. I did not realize that those actions were breaking the rules. Most importantly, I do not want my mistakes to reflect on Ms. Brooks in any way.

I hope this note helps clarify things and that the article can continue to be included in Wikipedia now that it has been so vastly changed and improved, despite my inadequacies at creating and editing. Even after a decade, it is never too late to get things right. :)

Thank you for your understanding. missalusa (talk · contribs)

 Administrator note Just let the Article for deletion process run its course, then we will be able to tell whether the entry conforms to our notability guideline. In the meantime, you are encouraged to continue improving the article. Thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia. El_C 10:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks El C. I probably was jumping the gun with this & should have left it until the AFD was over, it just seemed there were more issues than just the notability of the article here. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

You misunderstand, my comment was for Missalusa. Sorry for the confusion. I'll go ahead and close this as I think we're all on the right track now. El_C 13:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

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

• Comment Suspect has 3 times added the above section "I am her biggest fan bla bla bla" to various place on his/her talk page, so including the AfD posting and this AN/I, it is on wikipedia 5 times. As TP are not soapboxes, should talk page access be removed and the edits rollbacked? L3X1 (distant write) 01:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Could use some more admin eyes at Wikipedia:Blpn#Gurinder_Singh_Mann

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

---

—NT —

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

Newcomer Being Mistreated

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

---

Hello, I've asked for help a few times, hoping this is the last time, I am being accused of ballot stuffing but both my accounts are declared, linked, and I've only voted once per poll. Please see coordinated harassment of me by three editors here https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Clevermercury?markasread=4490823#Sockpuppet_.5BFalse_Accusation.5D

Please assist! --Cdfi (talk) 10:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be on Commons? El_C 10:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Clevermercury - en.wikipedia has nothing to do with how commons is run. You need to take this there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Reporting a problem

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

---

Hello this is garrison9656, and I want to report a problem with a user that has verbally abused me. He basically shunned my intellect on a edit I made (which I admit it wasn't a good edit now that I look back at it.

I'm pasting the transcript for what he said. He posted it on my wall, but I took it off. Here's what he said, "Hi Garrison9656. This edit of you removed the account of how Gautama was awakened to the harsh realities of life. It's an essential part of the basic Buddhist narrative, which gives the rationale for Gautama setting out on his scetic path. You gave the following edit-summary:

"I didn't see the point of including that whole paragraph, since that parapgraph didn't really seem necessary, and the next paragpraph talks about how he left the palace. I tried editing the paragraph, but I couldn't think of a way to link Channa into it."

I this is typical of your level of knwowledge, you better refrain rigth away from editing at Wikipedia. Sorry to say, but it's breath-taking. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)"

I don't know if I am on the right page for reporting a user, and there were a ton of articles about debates and how to deal with criticism and what not before I found this page. I feel that even if I should just ignore it, he shouldn't go unpunished for his verbal abuse. That and I think he's like a Wikipedia admin since the first thing I got was a Welcome message from him when I finishing signing up.

Also, there really needs to be an easier way to contact for help. Most sites like Apple, gaming sites, and more have a support tab on there main screen. I think Wikipedia needs to do this so it isn't frustratingly complicated to get some support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrison9656 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can welcome a user, not just administrators. Wikipedia is not like other websites; there is no central authority to report issues to, everyone here is a volunteer. If you need assistance in using Wikipedia, try the Help Desk. This is the correct place to report an issue regarding user conduct- though you should(not sure if you did or not, as I write this) attempt to discuss the matter with the other party first. Maybe the person could have been nicer, but I'm not sure that is "verbal abuse". 331dot (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

And it happened more than one year ago, btw. What admin intervention do you expect? Lectonar (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed; this is very stale. Why did you wait so long? I doubt any administrator will intervene, and they will likely close this soon. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Garrison9656, I agree that the user's conduct when communicating with you was not appropriate and that experienced editors should be expected to communicate in a civil manner and refrain from making personal attacks... but this occurred much much too long ago for action to be taken now (almost exactly one year ago). Next time someone repeatedly engages with you in an uncivil manner and/or repeatedly makes personal attacks at you, you need to ask for assistance and get help at that time. My best advice to you is to move on and don't hold any grudges. The fact that you waited so long and are reporting this now... it concerns me that you might be. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE editing (incl. socking, using personal attacks, battleground-loaded editing, copyvios, and what-not)

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

This user has been playing with fire for quite some time now. His editorial pattern includes so many unacceptable things, that it requires admin intervention.

Recent personal attacks/battleground-editing

• "Undid Indian vandalism"
• "Kindly keep your noses in your Gangetic history. Indus history has nothing to do with India. You're welcome."
• Are you on drugs or something?
• You just completely screwed up a perfectly good article. I'll instead be reporting YOU and YOUR disruptive edits.
• "you Indians just love shoving INDIA into every bloody Pakistani article because it makes you feel better about the craphole you live in"
• "Before trying to act all smart, open up your OWN source and read what is says. Idiot"

Recent IP socks used

• IP 99.226.91.115 (same edits, same edit summaries, same target articles, literally editing the articles a few minutes before or after the account in question)

Recent Copyvios

• here
• here

OR/Agenda pushing

• [73] (basically adding information about peoples/ethnicites from regions that far pre-date any "diaspora" of the country in question, a country that was created no more than 80 yrs ago. This erroneous self-interpreted bogus would be similar to someone adding "Paeonian migrations" to the article "Macedonian diaspora", or "Illyrian migrations" to the article "Albanian diaspora".

- LouisAragon (talk) 06:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Clearly not competent to edit Wikipedia with such an attitude. Simply NOTHERE. --QEDK (愛) 10:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I will attempt to answer all these ridiculous claims one by one. First off, go through my entire edit history before making a remark about me being not "competent" enough. Pakistan Railways for example I've been working on for months and have had no problem. The problem seems to arise whenever "Persia" is mentioned. This LouisArgon character shows up literally out of nowhere and starts making really ridiculous edits. It's almost like he's desperately trying to make Persia a European country or something, judging from his edits, but that's another argument and debate altogether. This entire kerfuffle arose in Overseas Pakistanis article. He removed mentions of migrations that took place during colonial era and the Middle Ages. He brings up Albanians and Macedonians (which are ethnic groups) and then compares them to Pakistanis (which is only a nationality representing several ethnic groups). He assumes that Pakistanis didn't exist until 1947 and the ethnic groups that make up the country all popped out of thin air in 1947. He offered no reason as to why he made those edits either...he just thinks because he's an established Wiki editor, he can do whatever he wants. Is this the way Wikipedia operates? Where are his edits in Overseas Chinese and Non Resident Indian articles which practically do the same thing as Overseas Pakistani article? Where are his edits in Overseas Vietnamese? India didn't exist until 1857. Vietnam didn't exist until after Pakistan. And nobody was calling themselves "Chinese" during the Ming Dynasty either, so what his argument om about? LouisArgon, IMO, has a very unhealthy obsession with Pakistani wiki articles and employs double standards. He's made a mess of History of Pakistan too in the past and continuously reverts template edits without offering any logical explanation. Secondly, regarding my IP address, I've recently moved to another country hence the change after March 7, 2017. And many occasions I forget to login. It's not a malicious attempt to hide myself as LouisArgon is claiming. It's not hard to find out who's who anyway. Why would I hide myself? In Pakistan Railways I've done the same thing many times, simply because I just forget. For those Wiki editors who seem to have a level headed approach, look at my Wiki edit history and it speaks for itself. I don't go around looking for fights, instead they come looking for me it seems. I have no personal quarrel with LouisArgon, but his edits in Overseas Pakistanis was ridiculous to say the least. If this is his view, I expect his edits on Non-Resident Indians, Overseas Vietnamese and Overseas Chinese. But alas, no edits were made on those articles. The reason is simple. LouisArgon is biased and employs double standards. Thank you for reading my response, Have a great day.--PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Let me put it simply. If you can't properly conduct a conversation without using personal attacks, I am not obliged to prove you as a helpful member of this community. --QEDK (愛) 11:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• @QEDK: What personal attack have I used in the paragraph I wrote above? I'm stating an opinion and presenting my argument about how I find LouisArgon's edits as disruptive and unproductive. It was done out of spite, not for the betterment of Wikipedia. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• What affects me is that you already used personal attacks, ...Indian vandalism, ...because it makes you feel better about the craphole you live in, et al. You're being purposefully vile and as BSZ states later on, it's only a matter of circumstance that you haven't been blocked yet. Here's my advice to you: take a BREAK, reflect on your own actions and return when you're competent enough to work as a member of this community. Also, one of the golden rules on this site is, assume good faith and anyone can clearly observe your repeated failures at that basic rule. You hold a baseless animosity towards India and her citizens and that's very concerning considering this site is considered to be a repository of neutral and verifiable information. --QEDK (愛) 15:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• @QEDK: Look at the old template I edited, and the reverted version and tell me which one reflects the History of Pakistan better. When Indian wiki members continuously vandalize our articles, then you should expect a response. You have no idea how many time I've had to clean up vandalism and reverts of Pakistan being called "Porkistan" and "Pakibastardland" and stuff like that. But that's okay according to you. Heaven forbid if we actually respond back...oh the outrage. My only mistake was not reporting it. They have an entire group of people who literally skim over every Pakistani article to insert "Indian subcontinent" which isn't even valid anymore since South Asia is used. I have no hatred for India or Indians...I have a hatred for Indian ultra nationalists who are not aware that a border exists between India and Pakistan. I'm also against the notion that 92 odd years of illegal British occupation with there experiment "British India" somehow erases 9000 years of Indus history and culture. If you want to ban me, go right on ahead. I'm not shying away from what I have said...I said it...if I have to be banned, then I'll take it. But I am not wrong in my edits that I have made. Look at my edits in Pakistan Railways and the various articles I have written on connection including railway stations, lines etc. Read MY edits in Overseas Pakistani, History of Jews in Pakistan and tell me what I have done that is so outrageous that they had to be reverted? I have provided sources, used proper grammar, cleaned up the article and just made it better reading experience overall. I've doubt you've even looked at my edits. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• I do not see why that would affect your editing capability. You have to learn to distinguish between people who are here to edit and people who are there to vandalize, while I understand your situation, you're letting yourself get away with your attitude. I'm afraid I can't sympathize with you. I can only request you stop this while you still can, with the little bit of ROPE that BSZ has given you. I pray you shall continue to be a good editor. Cheers! :) --QEDK (愛) 16:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

He just reinstated the same material on the Overseas Pakistani people using another sock IP. Just look how the IP, with the exact same geolocation as his other IPs, reinstated PAKHIGHWAY's edit word for word verbatim. Gotta admit, this is quite the circus act. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• @PAKHIGHWAY:--Well, there exists a procedure in Wikipedia called no personal attacks and establishing consensus.That you have created some good articles hardly gives you a lee-way to harass other users who are far-more experienced than you are.And please don't bring your ethnic rivalries over here.Any-way it's high time you look at your behaviour before telling others unhealthily obsessed and employing double standards.And may-be you don't know that we are serious about WP:SPA and serial WP:COPYVIO violators.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 13:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Winged Blades of Godric:-- I have a right to share my opinion, that's not called "harassment". Being singled out by a Wiki editor because I called him out on this talk page is harassment actually. Also being far more experienced doesn't give someone the right to simply make foolish edits and not give reasons for it. What's the point of an edit summary if LouisArgon won't use it? He made those edits out of spite, not for any logical reason and he has a long history of this mind you. I simply asked that if Overseas Pakistani article can't mention anything before 1947, why wasn't the Overseas Chinese or Non Resident Indian articles edited? Why can those articles talk about the middle ages and colonial era and not article in question? Nobody in the 12th century called themselves Chinese or Indians. I have yet to receive a response from you or LouisArgon over this query. Furthermore, refer to my last edit on History of Jews in Pakistan and compare the entire article to the current horrible status of the article right now. Which one is better? Mine or the reverted version? The answer is pretty simple. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@PAKHIGHWAY:--You have the right to free speech as long as you don't repetitively transverse certain boundaries guaranteed by WP:NPA and take those rules for a toss.As to why I/Louis did'nt edit the other articles, remember --We are all volunteers over here.Winged Blades ^Godric 14:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric:--That's no excuse whatsoever. We're all volunteers here so that means one can be biased towards one particular ethnic group or nationality? The point is, if those articles are mentioning it, then why shouldn't the Overseas Pakistani article be mentioning it. If it's invalid, then all of them should be deleted. It wouldn't take too long. Infact, I'll go ahead and delete all mentions of colonial and middle age history in Overseas Chinese and Non Resident Indian? I'm assuming you will support my wonderful volunteer work, correct? --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric:--Also, I am not repeatedly using personal attacks against anyone. Have I used a few in the past, sure...but this isn't my daily way I do things. I've been on here since October...I've probably had a few run ins. I usually mind my own business and try to contribute to Wikipedia and don't get into edit wars. When editors like LouisArgon show up and make literally disruptive edits and just delete things without saying why, what do you expect the writer of that article to do? It's extremely annoying. Shouldn't editors be leading by example? How can he get away with simply deleting things he doesn't like? That's completely uncalled for. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@PAKHIGHWAY:--I understand your frustration and it may be heartening to hear that I did not took any sides at Overseas Pakistani.I plainly reverted because there appeared to be some fishy collusion between you and some IPs and since he opposed your addition, the onus was on you to prove you're correct.And in the regasrd just follow boeing's way-out.As w.r.t History of Jews in Pakistan & Pakistani Jews in Israel,I don't support your edits.Winged Blades ^Godric 14:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric:-- Okay that's fine, how do I go about starting a consensus debate on the talk page? Do I just start a section and write my opinion? Which editor will read my side? Or do I have to post a template or something on the talk page to get an editor involved. I'm not sure, I'm new to this because I've never had a Wiki editor breathing down my neck 24 hours a day. And furthermore, how can I report a certain wiki editor for disruptive edits? To be honest, I'm not in the business tattle tale, but I am not one bit amused about LouisArgon's editing and his lack of insight and not wanting to help new wiki members out. Classic bully in my opinion and I intend on making this an issue of this. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@PAKHIGHWAY:--Yeah, just start a section, write your opinion and wait for people to chip in.If the discussion is just between you two and still do not lead to productivity, there's WP:RFC, dispute resolution etc.

And to make an issue(lodge a complain), just create a section about your grievances at any particular editor at this very page,But, be wary of WP:BOOMERANG.And, I don't personally feel that it will be a very good step.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 15:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see how this current situation unfolds. I'd rather that LouisAragon just stop following me around Wikipedia and tend to his life. I'm confident that my edits are reasonable enough for logical level headed people to understand and see where I am coming from. I've written my complaint here Talk:Overseas_Pakistani#Emigration From Pakistan section edit war. I hope you and other editors reading this will look into my grievances and see my edits and see how I did nothing wrong. I provided full sources and simply put I made the article better.--PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

User should be indeffed. None of that is even remotely acceptable. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• @PAKHIGHWAY: You are edit warring with two other editors on that article to reinsert your preferred text. Some admins would have blocked you by now, but instead I have protected the article just for one hour to try to avoid the need for that. I have no idea whether or not the text you want included is appropriate and I'm taking no side in the content dispute, but you really do need to stop the edit war and seek a consensus. So please, start a discussion at the article talk page and let others offer their opinions - and if you get a consensus in your favour, you can add the content. If, instead, you continue the edit war after the protection expires, you should expect to be blocked. (I have no comment on the incivility issue as I have not looked into that.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Boing! said Zebedee: Thank you for explaining the procedure. I don't expect you to take my side, I just want my side heard. None of the other commentators explained what to do. They just ganged up on me and began bullying me because I had the audacity to question a Wiki editor who took things too personally. Can you please explain how I can go about starting a consensus debate on this on the article talk page? Do I have to write a special code or something? {{WP ABC}}? An example would be great. Thank you. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Nothing special needed, just start a new section at the talk page and explain the text you want to add, and let the discussion commence. And you really should stick to just discussing the content and leave out allegations of bullying and ganging up on you - it can often seem like that to those unfamiliar with Wikipedia's methods, but it's usually an incorrect interpretation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done that here Talk:Overseas_Pakistani#Emigration From Pakistan section edit war. I hope you and other editors reading this will look into my grievances and see my edits and see how I did nothing wrong. I provided full sources and simply put I made the article better. I still have no idea why he simply deleted everything for no reason. Ridiculous --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Add obvious lack of WP:COMPETENCE to that indeed as well ("They just ganged up on me and began bullying me" -- kidding me?...). Even after these loads of insane, grievous personal attacks, the copy-vio's, the persistent IP socking, he's still continuing with his WP:NOTHERE editorial pattern, as we speak.[74][75] Objectively speaking, not a single article protection is gonna solve anything here. I've seen a lot of disruptive editors during my time, but the lack of competence shown here in combination with the rampant curriculum, is truly baffling. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Also (the muppet show is seemingly never ending); it's beyond me how he asks here "how to start a talk page discussion". So....how exactly did he know how to start and participate in talk page consensus discussions here, here and here?.... Literally nothing matches up. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

You seem a little too over excited. I think you should read what I wrote again. I never asked anything about how to make a talk page. I asked how to get attention of other editors to my grievances so your biased edits could be reverted and condemned. I know very well how to use the Talk Page, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. I'm just not well versed in using the Talk Page to get a obsessed wiki editor off my back. Read before you call people incomptenet and muppets? Are these not personal attacks now? What "Competence is required" does not mean * It does not mean "come down hard like a ton of bricks on someone as soon as they make a mistake." Wikipedia has a learning curve. We should cut editors (particularly new ones) some slack, and help them understand how to edit competently. Mistakes are an inevitable part of the wiki process. * It does not mean perfection is required. Articles can be improved in small steps, rather than being made perfect in one fell swoop. Small improvements are our bread and butter. * It does not mean we should ignore people and not try to help improve their competence. * It does not mean we should label people as incompetent. For example, we do not say "You are incompetent because you don't know anything about the subject of this article." * It does not mean that Wikipedia's civility policy does not apply when talking to incompetent people. Rude and uncivil comments may discourage the motivation of the targeted editor, raising their psychological barrier against recognizing their own mistakes or seeking to improve their skills. * Finally, it does not mean we will give any good-faith editor an infinite number of opportunities to make themselves useful. If, after an appropriate amount of time and coaching, someone still isn't competent, don't make a heroic effort to defend them. Cut them loose, and focus your mentoring efforts on a better candidate. So next time read what's written before trying to lump me as "incompetent" and a "muppet". Is this not personal attacks?--PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

And what is this sock you keep calling me? I've already stated that I forget to login at times when making edits and that I recently moved to another country which explains why change in IP. You really need to tone it down. I'm baffled at how you were even made an Wiki editor with a tongue and tone like that. You jump to conclusions and get way too over your head. Calm down, drink a glass of water. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe PAKHIGHWAY earned themselves a block for edit warring or incivility, but I see a glimmer of hope. This fits the pattern of "aggressive but well-meaning newbie, who might learn to edit constructively over time". Since the bulk of the problem seems to be a paranoiac belief that LouisAragon (and their minions) is out to revert them, maybe a one-way WP:IBAN would solve it? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• Seeing the developments of late, I feel an one-way IBAN between Pakhighway and Lois will serve good.Winged Blades ^Godric 05:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

It looks like there are issues of competence here. For example, the user adds two paragraphs about Pakistani Jews in Pakistan to an article about Pakistani Jews in Israel, and when this is rightly reverted, they cry vandalism. I would recommend being open to the notion that they still have much to learn when about contributing to Wikipedia. El_C 05:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Civility

This seems to have gotten off-track. Can we address the blatant racism displayed by PAKHIGHWAY? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

That's quite the accusation, one which ought to be corroborated with extraordinary evidence (in the form of diffs and quoting the exact passage that's presumably racist). El_C 05:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

There is one outright racist comment in the original post with two further comments that while not explicitly racist, indicate the editor is focusing on other editors racial background instead of the content. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I would block right now, but it seems that another admin is already attending to this, and that they are even more forgiving than yous truly is (wow, who knew!). El_C 14:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C:, as far as I understood, BSZ explicitly mentioned and showed in his first comment here, that he'd only deal with the users' content-related problem with respect to one article, not with all the personal attacks/all other stuff. Btw, I just picked several of the recent incivility diffs in my original post. There are more of them, e.g. "Learn Urdu or fuck off.", and "Don't even know how to write UNIVERSITY in Urdu and you call yourselves "educated".". But, I believe that the point was illustrated more than sufficiently with the original post. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The guy calls the entire country of India a "craphole" and he gets a free lesson in talk page editing. "Hello user IHATESTUPIDINDIANS. Thanks for your comments about how everyone from India can just "fuck off". Did you know you can change the size of the font you used for the word "fuck" by clicking on "Advanced" and selecting 'level 2' from the dropdown menu?" ADMINMIKE96 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Can we get some closure on this? Either ban him or don't? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Numerous IP addresses (likely proxies) on a big puffery spree

Over the past month or so, a series of IP users have made very similar disruptive edits to the same pages.

Pages disrupted

Filmography and awards of Stanley Kubrick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Martin Scorsese filmography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Paul Thomas Anderson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Paul Thomas Anderson filmography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Last Temptation of Christ (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users being reported

• (for Filmography and awards of Stanley Kubrick): 79.55.190.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 212.216.199.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 87.1.192.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• (for Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio): 79.35.185.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• (for Martin Scorsese filmography): 212.171.252.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 95.249.168.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 79.32.187.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• (for Paul Thomas Anderson): 79.49.188.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 80.116.30.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 95.245.31.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• (for Paul Thomas Anderson filmography): 95.251.206.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• (for The Last Temptation of Christ (film)): 79.52.185.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 95.251.206.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 212.216.251.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the users' edits

1. (for Filmography and awards of Stanley Kubrick): 14 February 2017, 14 February 2017, 15 February 2017
2. (for Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio): 17 February 2017, 18 February 2017
3. (for Martin Scorsese filmography): 18 March 2017, 19 March 2017 (edit summary contains false statement about BBC Culture list, which was ranking only American films), 19 March 2017, 19 March 2017
4. (for Paul Thomas Anderson): 16 March 2017, 17 March 2017, 16 March 2017
5. (for Paul Thomas Anderson filmography): 18 March 2017
6. (for The Last Temptation of Christ (film)): 17 March 2017, 18 March 2017, 17 March 2017

Comments:

Most edits from these IP addresses have simply been removed by myself and several other editors. These users have also made many edits to Martin Scorsese, which has been protected by now. The pages listed above, however, have not, and similarly worded content continues to appear on them. Because of the similarity of the content being added, and the similar formatting/citation errors in many of the edits, I have come to believe that this is one IP-hopping person. Address it however it should be addressed. Thanks for reading, AndrewOne (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm an involved admin because I've (at least) rolled back some of the edits and handed out blocks when this user was caught evading prior blocks. I don't monitor all the pages that AndrewOne identified, mind you, meaning most of the hard work has been done by others. The IP addresses, whenever I've checked, have geolocated to Italy, though not always to the same location in Italy. I believe the appropriate action is to semi-protect all of the articles listed. --Yamla (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to thank AndrewOne for starting this discussion and Yamla for his input and his administrative actions in response to this anonymous editor. Some of the articles above are already semi-protected precisely because of this editor's actions. Andrew and I, as well as other editors, have tried multiple times to address these issues with the anon., but he has not listened, instead choosing to see himself as the victim of bullying. I agree with Yamla that long-term semi-protection is the only appropriate action. There are too many IP ranges to effectively block him. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I have found more undesirable edits to other pages for Scorsese-directed films: see here and here. AndrewOne (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Legal threat (against Wikipedia Spain)

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

---

Martinkemp (talk · contribs), a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet of Ivan Artaza (talk · contribs), has threatened legal action at User talk:Martinkemp against Wikipedia Spain. Note they have signed the name, Ivan Artaza, so even without access to the checkuser technical information, it seems incredibly likely they are indeed in violation of WP:SOCK. The legal threat certainly puts them in violation of WP:NLT but I'm somewhat at a loss on what to do next. I already declined an unblock request prior to the legal threat. Should talk page access be revoked, leaving them with WP:UTRS as an option for unconditionally retracting the threat (or indicating their legal action has completed)? I will notify the user of this post immediately after saving. --Yamla (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes sound reasonable. Have removed their talk page access. Some people believe WP should function the same as FB :-(

Have deleted their talk page comments per their request. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

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

I Am Being Abused

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

---

Please see here, I have been targeted. Thank you

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cdfi#Talk_page_blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdfi (talk • contribs) 05:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

You appear to be blocked on the Wikimedia Commons site. You need to appeal your block and follow the proper procedures there; we cannot help you here with this. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

They have blocked me even from being able to post on the administrator notice board on commons... I've put in two {{unblock}} requests but the same guy who blocked me to begin with reviewed it and denied it then deleted my posts from the admin notice board, I call foul play. --Cdfi (talk) 05:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Another instance of using sockpuppetry guidelines to bully people, but we can't do anything about Commons here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems that commons has no method for appealing a block once a user's talk page and email have been revoked. Regardless, yeah, nothing we can do here. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hi Cdfi. As pointed out above, it is your Commons account which is blocked which means you have to discuss things there. So, you might want to take a look at c:Commons:Blocking policy#Appealing a block. Although Wikipedia and Commons are all operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, each site has its own policies and guidelines as well as its own administrators. Since your Commons user talk page access has been revoked, emailing Commons OTRS (c:Commons:Information team (OTRS)#E-Mail contact) now is probably your only remaining option for appealing your block. However, before you send off an angry email full of claims and accusations, you probably should take a look at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks just for reference. An angry email is likely to be counterproductive and will not help you get your account unblocked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Regarding Admin Bbb23 and article Willie Garson

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

---

I have a complain against admin:@Bbb23: who I feel is being racists in removing citations from Jewish related organisations, saying they are unreliable without giving reason why they are unreliable. He fails to review the citation correctly and has frankly shown laziness towards wikipedia as a project. Govvy (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Govvy: Why didn't you "take it to Talk or WP:BLPN" as suggested? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, I'd refrain from making a personal attack in calling someone racist right off the bat. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Rather than taking Bbb23's edits personally, perhaps you should read the policy on reliable sources and assume good faith (which is a requirement of editing here) that he was acting within policy, and if you disagree, discuss with him why you think the sources in question meet the policy for reliable sourcing, rather than saying you find his calling them not reliable "offensive". IMO, the only one behaving improperly here is you, Govvy. By the way, other editors stepped in and made the required notification of him for you, and there is absolutely no need to ever ping an editor twice in the same posting. Pinging does not satisfy the notification requirement. John from Idegon (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

First off the source he removed first time seemed reliable enough to me from a fairly respected organisations and I thought he was a normal user first time around, secondly I found another source to backup the first source and added that only to have both sources removed. The second source was from a very well respect Jewish organisation, given the second fact and the laziness to not even review what I added I found that offensive. Following on the removal of the Jewish content from Garson's article which had two backups for the information seemed overt and the fact that he was an admin and the fact I am finding many an admin on wikipedia running policies over doing the work extremely annoying. Do you not think I haven't read policies? I have been round long enough when I notice plenty of things not adhering to what wiki should be and some admins have been abusing their powers on other users and even of other admins. I considered many opinions and options and concluded that there was a flash of racist consideration to Garson's article that Bbb23 doesn't even realise he has done. My only conclusion was to what I truly believe to be a violation of policy and respect for wiki. Govvy (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

You've given no evidence here of any transgression, however I tracked down the complaint and found it baseless. Despite being advised to stop the personal attacks (calling another editor racist without providing evidence of same is unambiguously a personal attack), you've doubled down. You have a misconception of what it takes for a source to be reliable (hint: There is nothing in the policy on reliable sourcing about seeming reliable to you), you apparently are not familiar with what our policy on biographies of living people say about religious identification, and you are not listening. The only behavioral problem here is you, and this is not the place to settle a content dispute. I'd strongly suggest you drop it, read what has been suggested to you and if you still think there is a problem, take it to the appropriate noticeboard. Playing the race card on your first play is incredibly bad form. Perhaps he doesn't realize he has done something because he hasn't done anything. John from Idegon (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Then your conclusion is faulty. Being a well respected organisation says nothing about fact checking. WP:BLPCAT unequivocally states Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question. The point that Bbb23 made is that the source you used does not itself source that back to the subject. I.e. for the edit that you want to make it is not reliable, irrespective of how well regarded the organisation is. I propose this be closed forthwith and a trout, plus a warning, duly delivered for going straight for the racism card. Blackmane (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The claim you're trying to source is that "Garson was born to a Jewish family". Neither of your sources says more than that Garson is Jewish. Even for that claim, BLP and RS generally call for sources evidencing the subject's self-identification for claims involving religion; the specific sources don't meet our RS requirements on that point, whatever the general reputability of the organizations involved. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources that were used do seem to be sub-par, take it to the talk page please. Same advice to Bbb23, the explanation by Blackmane above might have stopped this whole thing. Arkon (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

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

POV-pushing on multiple Balkans-articles

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

---

Copied from WP:AIV where countless other reports have been handled since the report, but noone seems to want to touch this:

• 91.148.77.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On NATO bombing of the Radio Television of Serbia headquarters (diff):. Repeated POV removal of sourced content on multiple articles (articles subject to AE/Balkans) after getting a final warning for it (they swiftly remove all warnings they get, but the final warning, and the ones before that, can be found in their talk page history). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that I stated reasons for removal of "sourced" content in edit summary. 91.148.77.114 (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Reasons that are POV and not valid. As you have been told you need to discuss it on the talk page and get support for it there, before removing it. On at least one article you are also repeatedly falsifying content, by changing text to say things that the source does not say (see comment on IP's talk page), which is as POV as it can be. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I can say the same thing about you - reverting back to suspicious and POV content, without bothering to understand the issue. 91.148.77.114 (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

If you are reverted, just redoing the same edit and repeating the same edit summary again and again is not enough. I think you need to use the articles' talk pages to properly explain the reasons you think your edits should remain. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The IP (who, based on edits, page history of involved articles and general behaviour, including checking if they're being reported at WP:AIV and then immediately posting claims about POV/bias there, to make it seem like a content dispute, is identical to Special:Contributions/212.178.255.63, who was blocked twice in February, see block log, for the same and similar edits, and most probabaly also other IPs further back in time) has over the past few days repeatedly removed properly sourced material from and/or changed text on multiple articles relating to Kosovo and the 1990s Balkan War (articles edited sofar are Battle of Tripolje, Destroyed Serbian heritage in Kosovo, NATO bombing of the Radio Television of Serbia headquarters, Battle of Lođa, Attacks on Likošane and Ćirez and Kragujevac massacre, all of them subject to AE/Balkans), with claims about the articles being biased/POV, edits that also include repeatedly toning the text down and making the articles no longer say what the source says. The edits have been reverted by multiple other editors, and the IP has been told to discuss the changes on the talk page of the articles, and get support for them there, but the edits continue.

All warnings they get are swiftly removed, BTW, so you will have to check the page history, which also shows they've been around for a while, so if someone knows who the real master behind it is please say so here... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

When I edit, I'm a vandal, when I state in edit summary the reason for removal of the content I get reverted and accused of vandalism. I may have made some mistakes, but I am no vandal. And when I go to a talk page nothing gets done. Too bad Thomas.W cherry picked through my edits, avoiding articles where I contributed. 91.148.77.114 (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

You personally feeling that something is wrong or biased isn't a valid reason for removing properly sourced content, or rewriting sourced text in a way that doesn't properly reflect what the sources say, and especially not a valid reason for doing it over and over again, after being reverted by several different editors. As you have done, using more than one IP for doing it. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, you ignored what I said. As for your claim of "personal feeling" I can say the same about you. 91.148.77.114 (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

One good edit doesn't excuse 99 POV-pushing edits. And I don't have any personal feelings when it comes to the Balkans since I'm not from there and have never been there, I just try to uphold the rules here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem with Balkan-related articles is that often both sides have sources to back-up their POV, so one has to apply WP:UNDUE in order to archive balance. It is quite common to see editors cherry-picking sources that are convenient to their side and remove sourced content and sources from the other side. That makes a situation where it is not enough for some content to be sourced to become undisputable but rather one should gather and see what reliable sources say about the subject from 3 sides: one side, the other, plus neutral ones. FkpCascais (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Which is why I want the IP to discuss it on the talk page of the articles, instead of just repeatedly removing anything they don't like. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes,, that is clearly a way to go. FkpCascais (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Then (Thomas.W) why not take your own advice, and the initiative, and use the talk page? The last post there (talk page of NATO bombing of the Radio Television of Serbia headquarters) was on 14 feb, by me. Given the absence of talk page usage by the complainant, I don't see validity in raising a case here. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: I thought that was obvious: I have no opinion fore or against the edits, and quite frankly don't care if it's one way or the other, I'm just reverting an IP who is repeatedly removing and/or falsifying sourced content just because they don't like it. And the reason I posted here is that I feel that repeated (as in over and over again no matter how many other editors revert them) removing sourced content, using one IP after the other, and having been blocked for the exact same thing multiple times before, deserves a block. An opinion others here apparently don't share. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Even if you don't personally have an opinion on the content, by repeatedly reverting and without making anything as a talk page post, aren't you behaving in the same way as the IP by doing nothing to break the cycle. Without first trying to resolve things on the talk page, bringing a case here looks premature. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

??? Are you seriously claiming that anyone reverting blanking, falsifying of sourced content etc etc needs to spend hours on discussing every single revert on the talk page of the article in question? Do you have any idea how often this happens here, and how many editors like the IP there are? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is asking you or expecting you to spend "hours" discussing "every single revert", though sometimes contentious material on difficult subjects will need that amount of consideration. But you have not even spent minutes discussing it, as far as I can see. Looking at your recent edit history I see lots of revert edits, many with brisk edit summaries, and many "warnings" posted on other editor's pages, but almost no use of article talk pages. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Did you check what the edits were, or did you just look at the list? Don't judge anyone without checking what the edits were, and the page history of the article the revert was made on. Reverting vandalism, such as fanboys repeatedly inflating numbers without sources on articles about the armed forces of various minor countries (or in a case earlier today lowering the numbers for country A and at the same time increasing the numbers for neighbouring country B, without sources of course...) doesn't need any discussion, it's also difficult to discuss things with IP-hoppers, who often change IPs several times a day. Nor does reverting repeatedly made changes from "Kiev" to "Kyiv", made by editors who already know that we use the name that is in common use in English, and also has been discussed ad nauseam on Talk:Kiev/naming need any discussion. A janitorial job on a side of Wikipedia that most people here, apparently you included, never see. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

No I haven't looked at the individual edits in your history that are not related to the case here, and I am not questioning your good motives in any of the edits. I am just trying to say that I think going straight from reverting content deletions to here is hasty without first trying to resolve the situation through article talk pages. If the IP doesn't respond there, to your prompting, that makes the case for bringing them here much stronger. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice This IP has targeted my edits. They asked FkpCascais to have a look on my edit at Kosovo War and the later editor undid my changes. The later is currently reported by another editor. The report is some sections above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course you were reverted Ktrimi991, you removed an entire well sourced paragraph about the expulsion of Serbs and other non-Albanian civilians (your edit I reverted). You are making an euhemiism saying they wre displaced instead of expelled. FkpCascais (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Note: The same editor, now as Special:Contributions/91.148.93.114, is still doing the same type of edits, and is now also edit-warring on Serbian Air Force and Air Defence to restore an older version of the article with outdated sources. A previous IP they have used is Special:Contributions/212.178.251.41 (check contributions), so this is an IP-hopper with a long history of edit-warring, blanking and POV-pushing on multiple articles, over a long period of time, getting away with it time and time again because of knowing how the system here works, switching IPs, swiftly removing all warnings and other talk page messages they get, and knowing how to make their pro-Serbian POV-pushing look like simple content disputes, even though it isn't... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I really appreciate all those accusations. Very constructive of you. Also, nice cherry picking of my edits. 91.148.93.114 (talk) 09:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

As I said earlier here, one good edit doesn't excuse 99 POV-pushing edits. And I didn't cherry-pick, I just picked one of your many IPs at random, if I had wanted to cherrypick I would have picked an IP like Special:Contributions/212.178.238.187, blocked on 10 March 2017 for wikihounding FOX 52, an editor you had edit-warred against on Serbian Air Force and Air Defence, reverting all edits they had made, on a considerable number of articles. But since I have your attention, would you mind telling us which registered account you once had? That is before you started to use, or were forced to use, IPs for your editing... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

A couple of more IPs you have used recently, with the exact same edits and exact same behaviour: Special:Contributions/212.178.241.183 (blocked in February 2017 for vandalism), Special:Contributions/91.148.93.34 (an IP that really shows your repeated edit-warring...) and Special:Contributions/91.148.93.212. All from the recent page history of a single article, Serbian Air Force and Air Defence. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Never had an account. Like I said, nice cherry picking. 91.148.93.114 (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

IP, why dont you consider creating an account? FkpCascais (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. I'll consider it. 91.148.93.114 (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Based on their contribs, this user has been using a string of IPs, of which I've at least put together:

• 212.178.229.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 31 Dec
• 212.178.226.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 31 Dec
• 212.178.254.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 7 Jan
• 212.178.225.193 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 9 Jan
• 91.148.93.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 13 - 14 Jan
• 91.148.93.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 16 - 28 Jan
• 212.178.241.183 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 7 Feb, blocked 31 hours
• 212.178.226.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 7 - 8 Feb, in violation of the block above
• 212.178.230.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 9 - 12 Feb
• 212.178.255.63 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 15 - 18 Feb, blocked 15 Feb for 31 hours and 18 Feb for 1 week
• 212.178.251.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 24 Feb - 3 Mar, in violation of the block above
• 91.148.95.226 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 3 - 8 Mar
• 212.178.238.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 10 Mar, blocked 24 hours
• 91.148.77.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 11 - 13 Mar, in violation of the block above
• 91.148.93.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 14 - 19 Mar

That's enough for me. I'm blocking the latest IP for repeated block evasion, violation of the multiple accounts policy, and prolonged, egregious edit warring. Admins should not hesitate to treat in the same manner if the user pops up on another IP, and I can recommend some ranges if it comes to that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

---

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

minimum period not met.

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

---

Why are you closing a debate so early? And reminding me when I feel aggrieved? Lack of explanation, I don't understand why you ppl feel the citations I selected have no value, do ppl even look at them? Govvy (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

What part of "take it to the article talk page" is unclear?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

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

• Hasn't Arbcom decreed blocks for coy circumlocutions for boomerangs? EEng 19:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Question

I came across a situation today where I've already dealt with the immediate circumstance — but because there's a much longer history to it, I wanted to ask for opinions from other administrators on whether there are grounds for a longer term remedy or not.

Over the years, WP:NMEDIA's rules for the notability of radio stations have been considerably tightened up; what's relevant in this particular case is the clause that now deprecates low-power radio stations which only broadcast prerecorded tourist information as not inherently notable. Just over a month ago, one particular cluster of such stations was deleted by AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information Radio — within the past 24 hours, however, a user named User:Nathan Jay Williams recreated all of the articles again without making any improvements to demonstrate that the stations are somehow more notable than the old versions had indicated. I speedied all of the articles accordingly, and politely explained on the user's talk page why the articles could not just be recreated again — but several hours later, he blanked his talk page, moved it to User talk:CJ Ramsey (which is not connected to a registered account), and immediately recreated all of the same articles a second time despite having already been advised that he couldn't do that.

It should also be noted that the articles in question were originally created by User:Nathan Williams. The Jay version is a new account registered on March 16 of this year; he hasn't edited Wikipedia under the old username since 2011. And while CJ Ramsey is an unregistered account, the old "Nathan Williams" has sockpuppeted in the past as CJ Ramsay — and both of the older identities were once known as regular creators of hoax articles about radio stations that didn't actually exist at all (or fake amateur Corel Draw logos for real stations). He stopped doing that just in time to avoid a permanent editblock for it, although he did once garner a two-week temp, and while his editing patterns remained problematic at times after that it never again reached the level of requiring an outright editblock.

Until now.

Literally within one day of first registering the new Jay account this month, NJW already found himself on the business end of a 24-hour editblock from another admin for repeatedly removing AFD templates from articles with active non-closed AFD discussions. So after re-re-speedying the re-re-recreated articles again, I gave NJW a 48-hour editblock for disregarding my explanation of why it wasn't acceptable.

So this is my question: should I just let the 48 hour block run out and give him another chance to continue editing Wikipedia, escalating the block only if he misbehaves again? Or given that he's already garnered two temporary editblocks in just four days, should I combine that with all the problems he's known to have caused in the past and just bump it up to permanent right now? Bearcat (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment - I tried to undo the inexplicable Talk Page move, and return it back to the user's actual Talk Page. Unfortunately, it's not letting me. Small problem, but I apologise nonetheless for my inability to do so. DarkKnight2149 03:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Weird...I just tried that now and it let me. Is that maybe a thing admins can do while non-admins can't because of the vandalism potential? Bearcat (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I would assume so. One final thing of note - while I have no experience with this user, I do have experience with vandals. The user's Talk Page currently consists exclusively of a link to a seemingly random diff. This could possibly be evidence of intentional trolling or WP:NOTHERE. That's just an observation, though. DarkKnight2149 03:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's the diff of the last edit I made to the earlier CJ Ramsay talk page, so it's not entirely random. But yeah, trolling or "I'm outta here bubbye" might be possible explanations. Bearcat (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Looks OK to me. Hopefully the salting will stop the activity, but if it doesn't then I don't think it would be unreasonable to start issuing longer term blocks. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC).

Battleground conduct by User:JaconaFrere

This user's conduct in the above thread Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Hounding by User WilliamJE speaks for itself, and JaconaFrere is continuing to make hounding accusations. I noticed the above thread and looked at some of the user's contributions. From there, I ended up at Talk:List of people from Charlottesville, Virginia, where I chimed in on an active discussion. I also removed some content from the Starkville, Mississippi article, and JaconaFrere correctly restored one of the articles I had removed while using his edit summary to gratuitously point out my spelling error. At the Charlottesville talk page, this user implicitly accused me of hounding and then reverted my response. It may have been an accidental rollback, but I'm not convinced. After I restored my comment, JaconaFrere left this comment which came across as a facetious personal attack on my competence. Administrator BU Rob13 had posted in the above thread initiated by JaconaFrere: I don't see any action as necessary here except a warning to JaconaFrere that they act in a more civil manner in edit summaries and on talk pages. It appears that JaconaFrere has disregarded BU Rob13's warning. I will also note that this user previously came to my attention a few days ago when he posted an AfD comment that made little sense in the context of the discussion. I'm not sure what action might be warranted, but I'd prefer to be able to edit articles and participate in discussions without having my motives and competence impugned. A block would not be ideal, but it's a problem if this user can't participate in discussions without getting personal. Lepricavark (talk) 02:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Lol. After an earlier ANI discussion today, Lepricavark has appeared to be attempting to confront me, editing the last two pages I had edited, (both of which he had never edited before) and making a snarky comment on the Charlottesville list more or less stating that he's going to get me for starting an ANI discussion. He obviously had no interest in the Starkville, Mississippi page other than to seek me out, as he repeatedly misspelled the name of the article in his edit caption. I'm leaving for tonight, I am not seeking any confrontation with this individual. I apologize that he is offended by any action that I have taken, and I promise that I will not follow him around the encyclopedia.Jacona (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can construe removing irrelevant content from an article as an attempt to confront you personally, and there was nothing snarky in my comment in which I absolutely did not imply being out to get you. Note that I made that comment, which it now seems you intentionally reverted, after you made a personal comment about me. I misspelled the article name because I though that was how it was spelled. It's hardly the first I've had a misspelling etched into my brain. It did occur to me you might not appreciate my edit on the Starkville page, but you do not own that article. You have a tendency to take things personally, yet you laugh it off when someone else objects to your personal commentary. Lepricavark (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I make mistakes sometimes. Sorry. I hope you have a nice day. Jacona (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by user sfsound

Oshwah has done the thing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

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

---

User User_talk:sfsound, who appears to be either Matthew Katz or someone employed by him and editing on his behalf, has made several disruptive edits to articles like It's a Beautiful Day, It's a Beautiful Day (album), Matthew Katz and Moby Grape where he removed well-sourced material and added unsourced statements, many times writing in first person. He has already been blocked once. After the block was lifted, he continued to perform the same edits and ignored a request on his talk page to disclose his conflict of interest. Fbergo (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I echo your concerns. The edits here, here, and here (to name a few) add a ton of unreferenced content (some of which could be argued to be in violation of WP:BLP) and reflect a point of view that is not neutral. This is definitely disruptive and needs to stop. This user has been blocked twice this year (the second time for seven days) for disruptive editing, and it appears that the behavior has continued. I've left this user a final warning regarding the addition of unreferenced content. If this user continues this disruption, I will have no choice but to impose a longer block in order to protect the quality and integrity of these articles. If other administrators feels differently, or thinks action is warranted at this time, I have no problem with them doing what they feel is right. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Should the edit sum with the [REDACTED] be revdel'd as a precaution. We have no idea whether this editor is really Katz despite the claim to be him and we don't know whose number this may really be. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Checking:... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Update: It has been handled. Thank you for letting me know. Next time you'll want to report this privately, but no worries. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. Sorry about not adding emailing instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it, Oshwah. Fbergo (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

---

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

request for block of user @Jytdog: to prevent him from removing valid edits

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

---

As a preface, I take this action only after numerous attempts to help jytdog understand that there is no wp policy that prohibits discussion of primary sources. See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_134#Is_there_any_official_wp_policy_that_prevents_the_incorporation_of_primary_source_material_in_wp_articles.3F

I ask for you to consider one specific example. In the article Induced pluripotent stem cell there is a section on Safety

At the start of that safety topic, there are 6 sections, with approximately 90% of the references not meeting the MEDRS guidelines followed by my addition of...

The first published report of a person treated for macular degeneration with a cell-sheet derived from iPSCs was reported in 2017 in the New England Journal Of Medicine^[61]. That publication and other research was reviewed independently in Science, which pointed out that the procedure was at least safe.^[62]. The same issue of NEJM published a perspective about the benefits and risks of stem cell therapy.^[63]

61 Mandai M, Watanabe A, Kurimoto Y, Hirami Y, Morinaga C, Daimon T, Fujihara M, Akimaru H, Sakai N, Shibata Y, Terada M, Nomiya Y, Tanishima S, Nakamura M, Kamao H, Sugita S, Onishi A, Ito T, Fujita K, Kawamata S, Go MJ, Shinohara C, Hata KI, Sawada M, Yamamoto M, Ohta S, Ohara Y, Yoshida K, Kuwahara J, Kitano Y, Amano N, Umekage M, Kitaoka F, Tanaka A, Okada C, Takasu N, Ogawa S, Yamanaka S, Takahashi M (2017). "Autologous Induced Stem-Cell–Derived Retinal Cells for Macular Degeneration". N Engl J Med. 376 (11): 1038–1046. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1608368. PMID 28296613.

62 Normile D (2017). "iPS cell therapy reported safe". Science. 355 (6330): 1109–1110. doi:10.1126/science.355.6330.1109.

63 Marks PW, Witten CM, Califf RM (2017). "Clarifying Stem-Cell Therapy's Benefits and Risks.". N Engl J Med. 376 (11): 1007–1009. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1613723. PMID 27959704.

Jytdog removed my edit (the official diff is [here]) with the comment "zero MEDRS sources."

So, my question to you administrators is whether jytdog has the backing of the community to prevent me from citing current research. It appears to me from various discussions that his view is not the mainstream consensus view of the community on this issue, and he is not following official wp policy from WP:SCIRS which specifically states "Respect primary sources A primary source... may be a valuable component of an article. A good article may appropriately cite primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. In addition, I feel that he is harrassing me by removing my edits, while not removing other material sourced to non-MEDRS sources.

Thus, I ask you to block jytdog from removing edits soley because they are based on primary sources. Note that I am not requesting a block from removing edits that are based on low quality primary sources. I strive to cite only papers published in highly respected journals. I'll save him the trouble and point out myself that I realize there is considerable discussion of the reproducability "crisis" in science, but unreliable sources can even find there way into reputable tertiary sources, as I learned and corrected here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DennisPietras (talk • contribs) 03:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

We're not blocking someone for someone trying to following guidelines and explaining that to you: Talk:Induced_pluripotent_stem_cell. Note you've gotten zero support from other editors for your proposed change. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Generally new editors know they are new and ask for assistance rather than tell others how things should be. There are few good editors who keep medical/biology topics clear of news-of-the-day factoids and my suggestion would be that DennisPietras should be topic banned or indeffed if they do not start taking advice very soon. The discussion at WP:VPP is unhelpful and misses several points. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Your missing the whole point, utterly and completely. DennisPietras is not realigning on news-of-the-day factoids. He,other editors need to be able to cite the best research available. --Aspro (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Aspro: I think you missed adding "according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." to the end of your last sentence. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

No, that was not part of a forgotten thing. Part of our credo is to create the best encyclopedia ever. Think JW has achieved that already. Still waiting on VPP for a determinative this is not allowed by way of policies and guidelines when primaries are acceptable under policies and guidelines. --Aspro (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Then it is you who is missing the point. WP:MEDRS states (in bold, no less): "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content." The talk page discussion isn't going to alter that and Jytdog isn't going to be blocked for following that. Very few things are absolutely disallowed on Wikipedia but if you're advocating generally editing against a guideline, you're likely to get nowhere. Better to work on getting consensus to change the guideline instead. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

”generally “. Yet, what is one to do when there are no other good source? Leave it to other editors to resort to news-of-the-day factoids? Does that make for a good informative encyclopedia? For a convincing augment one's premise have to be coherent. No longer simply and only general is it? As Solon the Lawmaker of Athens (638-558 BC) quoted (and has oft been subsequently misquoted): “Laws are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools”. Where are the WP laws banning editors from using primaries when they are the best references for the article?... Where are they? --Aspro (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

"Generally" means "The editor who wants to break this rule needs to show why breaking it helps," not "the editors who want to enforce this rule need to prove that enforcing it helps." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• From my interactions, I really think that Dennis has it in him to be a good editor in science-related topics, but he keeps getting stuck in WP:IDHT with respect to the community norm that we don't base science content on "cutting edge" reports that have yet to become widely recognized as correct. Wikipedia isn't a science journal. He's been threatening Jytdog since their first interaction, and needs to take a good look in the mirror instead. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it was a mistake to move this from a policy noticeboard (VPP) to a behavioral noticeboard (this). So far it has only served to confuse the issue, since a large part of the discussion at VPP is about science articles in general rather than MEDRS articles. The distinction is absolutely critical. Zero^talk 23:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see this on VPP, but yes. This specific issue is a content dispute. DennisPietras, this is the wrong place for this. Good places to ask for feedback on edits about human biology are WT:MED and WT:MCB. To venture a tiny bit into the content aspect, the argument you both should be making is about whether this content is due weight. It will always be appropriate, if an article says "It has been reported that X", to reference the source in which X was reported. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN:OK I accept your decision not to block jytdog. Bye. DennisPietras (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Disruptive Behaviour

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

---

• Apollo The Logician (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Religious views of Adolf Hitler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Irish indentured servants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Apollo The Logician has been involved in edit warring and disruptive editing behaviour. Most recently at Religious views of Adolf Hitler. No reasoned offers for discussion are taken on board and 'his' combative attitude continues to disrupt the editing process for editors. See [[76]] and [[77]] and [[78]]. I have experienced his combative editing previously but let it go. But this time I would like him to be formally warned or other sanctions to be taken against him so he doesn't repeat his disruptive behaviour. Robynthehode (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Those edits are from three days ago, and if you look at Apollo The Logician's talk page you'll see that they've already been warned about them by an Admin. What else would you like to happen? Exemplo347 (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, it was not clear that Admin had warned him. So to tell it is Admin rather than just another editor you have to go to their user page and search for a box saying they are an Admin? Not clear is it really?. Secondly Apollo The Logician came back with attitude. So not only does he act disruptively but carries on with his general attitude when he is warned. Of course he could have not realised that it was an Admin warning him but the Admin didn't bother to say that they were an Admin in their post on his talk page. Or am I missing something here? Honestly as an answer to your last question - block him - at least for a reasonable time to allow him to reflect on his behaviour. Robynthehode (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

What attitude? Can you provide evidence for that claim? Also I know it was an admin, I clicked on his/her profileApollo The Logician (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I was just about to warn this user for skirting 3RR on Irish indentured servants, only to see that they had an ANI open. From their talk page history, they've already received (and blanked) eight or nine 3RR warnings since the start of the year. Here's four additions of "and women" to the same sentence in the last 25 hours: 1, 2, 3, 4 (the fourth ignoring a talk page discussion about it). --McGeddon (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

That is nonsense.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• As Apollo The Logician continues to edit war across multiple articles despite a clear warning that said disruption would result in a block (and even as this AN/I discussion is taking place), I have blocked them for one week.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Incident with 217.118.78.104 (Clearing Other Users' Sandboxes)

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

---

Hello everyone. I am currently working on an article in my sandbox, and have been slowly putting together references. For some reason, the user 217.118.78.104 has deleted all of my references on multiple occasions for no apparent reason (as seen in these two edits: 1 and 2). I would like this person to be blocked to prevent him or her from continuing to interfere with my editing in my sandbox. As you can see from this person's edit history here, he or she has a history of editing other people's sandbox. I would greatly appreciate feedback on this matter. Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I've given then a warning to not do this again. Should they persist, please report to AIV, and a block would likely follow. I've also notified the user about this current discussion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

And 2 minutes after I warn them, they go right back to blanking users sandboxes. Blocked for 31 hours. In the future, just post a report to WP:AIV (after properly warning the editor of course). RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Magnolia007

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

---

SPA Magnolia007 has been consistently whitewashing the article Ali Shilatifard by removing negative material, adding puffery, and edit warring to remove a COI tag added by editors who noticed his activities.

When a user left him a good faith COI message, he responded By accusing said editor of having a COI themselves and threatening to report them to an admin.

Could we get an admin to step in here and at least get Magnolia to cool his Jets, so to speak? 2600:1017:B020:C6D5:6041:ADE7:352F:5803 (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I dropped a caution on their talk page. Hopefully that will resolve this issue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I sure hope so, but these 3 diffs make me think a CIR issue is at play here too: [79] [80] [81]. We'll see. 2600:1017:B020:C6D5:6041:ADE7:352F:5803 (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. Another promotional SPA, another indefinite block. Compare my comment in the section "COI editing on Makau W. Mutua" immediately below. User:Ad Orientem's warning does not seem to have had the desired effect. Bishonen | talk 13:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC).

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

Fangusu range block request

Fangusu has been using the 2607:FB90:54* range recently (link shows edits since new year, but activity has been mostly within last week). Info on recent socking can be found at User:EvergreenFir/socks#Fangusu. There's a link to the SPI page there and the LTA page. There are existing range blocks in place for this user already. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a really large range... I think the best solution to this is to block as we see them. Unless anyone else has input? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

There aren't very many edits. I think collateral damage is probably more important than the size of the range. I'm not really familiar with this vandal, though, and it's not easy for me to tell which ones are Fangusu. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this is Fangusu, or at least not only her. A couple of her usual ranges WHOIS to a university which counts several known trolls as its students, including your end date change vandal. It's been a long time since I've seen Fangusu try to add anything new to the encyclopedia, she's been obsessed with restoring her old edits lately. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

In the range you posted, it looks to me like these users are the date change vandal:

• 2607:FB90:540:A1D6:9A6:DC0B:9B9F:4D8C (talk · contribs · WHOIS), already blocked
• 2607:FB90:543:1B8A:A0AE:B5:A710:1398 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), stale

I don't think any are Fangusu. Several are random unrelated vandals. This isn't enough to construct a range, so I mined the range's contribs through 2016 as well. We've got a user who likes Wrestlemania, one that's into The Eagles, one that likes to update lists of Nickelodeon broadcasts, but none that stand out as any of these LTA cases. One-off IP blocks are probably fine here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Lute88 regarding Ukrainian collaborationism with the Axis powers

On the mentioned page, I re-phrased a sentence where the Holodomor was written as "genocide", by removing such words such as "genocide" and "engineered" as this description was not neutral. As written in Holodomor genocide question, many historians and scholars do not believe that the Holodomor falls under the definition of "genocide", as well as there being no international consensus that the Holodomor was genocide. The genocide question still carries on to this day, and therefore, the sentence was not respecting neutrality, as writing that the Holodomor was "genocide" is favoring one side. As I changed this, Lute88 reverted the edit, and I replied with that the genocide label was still disputed, where he reverted my edit again, claiming that it wasn't disputed, and when I linked the user to the Holodomor genocide question page after editing again, he reverted the edit without giving an explanation, and kept doing so, yet again without reason, leaving me to presume that the user is simply ignoring facts that is presented to them. 92.6.41.228 (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Lute88 reverts all the edits which potentially may be perceived as contradicting pro-Ukrainian POV. They rarely bother to provide a reason.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: The IP has not, however, pointed out the diff in question. Their change doesn't actually make any sense within the context. Both versions are awkward, but the IP is edit warring their changes. There's an article talk page for discussion of the phrasing. I think it needs modification, but 'Soviet' is not a replacement for 'Russian' for starters. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I would not object against blocking both of them for edit-warring. I do not like any of the versions either, both look like original research.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The IP hopper was trying to delegitimize the Holodomor, but lost track of what he was doing.--Lute88 (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• This seems to be a content dispute. Coretheapple (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

To entirely eradicate the word "genocide" from these events is a white wash. While there may be a difference of opinion as to the application of the word "Genocide", the fact of the controversy is incontrovertible. This is a content dispute that should be worked out on the talk page of the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I just don't see an editor behavior issue here, that's all. I have no opinion on the content issue. Coretheapple (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

This does not 'delegitimise' the Holodomor - it is still mentioned without any sort of denial or questioning, and links to the Holodomor article, a better solution than giving a disputed label, as the edit was on the summary. I agree that there could be further improvements, but reverting everything without reason is not a good approach at all. Also, you have falsely accused me of using an 'IP hopper' - falsely accusing someone on the spot is a form of cyberbullying on Wikipedia. In fact, I have a dynamic IP address which is the common form these days, utterly pathetic behaviour, not surprising. 92.7.0.121 (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

revert war on Korean dialects, disputes regarding language family categorization

This is regarding editors using the IPs 117.53.77.84 and 211.54.2.241. I was just doing spot-editing of some pages I was looking at a week or so ago, and basically got pulled into this back-and-forth reversion "war" with this editor. The pages I specifically refer to are the following:

• Gyeongsang dialect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jeolla dialect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Gangwon dialect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Pyongan dialect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hwanghae dialect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Chungcheong dialect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hamgyong dialect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Gyeonggi dialect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Korean dialects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The specific modifications I made to those pages, categorically-speaking, were:

• Changing the language family color from "Altaic" to "isolate"; I justified this change because of the discrediting of the Altaic language family.

• Adding estimates of speaker populations and the relative accuracy of those estimates. I reached my estimates of estimated speakers for each dialect by using South Korean population data from 2014, North Korean population data from 2008, and Korean diaspora population estimates from 2015 (with regards to the proportions of dialect speakers in the diaspora, I admitted in my edit explanations that there is a substantial fudge factor involved; I estimated that within the diaspora, at least half spoke the Standard Korean/Gyeonggi dialect, maybe a quarter spoke the Gyeongsang dialect, and smaller proportions spoke the other dialects, I didn't attempt to reconcile these proportions with the large number of ethnic Koreans in the diaspora who can't speak Korean at all).

I made assorted modifications to the pages (e.g. adding a "citation needed" tag for unsourced claims, etc.) as I saw fit.

At first, the individual doing the reverting left no explanation. When I left a note on that IP's talk page, I received subsequent responses in Korean. While I am fluent in Korean, I found it inappropriate that the editor, who may have little or no knowledge of English (which would explain the lack of explanation for the reverts), left a message on an English-language talk page almost entirely in Korean. At any rate, the rationale that individual gave for the reverts were as follows: 1) because the Turkish, Mongolian, and Manchu languages still use the Altaic family tag/color (these were formerly lumped together under the Altaic umbrella as the core grouping), this is valid for Korean (which, by the way, does not follow; only certain expanded versions of Altaic ever included Korean), and 2) province population estimates are not a valid surrogate for numbers of speakers of local dialects. I replied (in Korean) that the Altaic language family was discredited and thus the Turkish, Mongolian, and Manchu language family/color tags were also therefore incorrect, and that the point of estimating the number of speakers was not to obtain a highly accurate estimate but rather to provide a sense of relative scale of speaking population. The editor's response to my objection to the Altaic color/tag was that the use of the color was not necessarily an acceptance of the grouping (the references I provided evidently were sufficient for the author to concede that point) but for the sake of consistency.

My edits are sourced and corroborated in other references, and while I've asked for semi-protection for these pages to nip this revert war in the bud, some individuals have recommended that I bring this series of incidents here.Ecthelion83 (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

1. familycolor Altaic is not about an language family. It's just an areal classification along with Khoisan, Amerindian, Papuan, Australian, Caucasian, and Paleosiberian. See Template:Infobox language family.
2. There aren't any statistics about the linguistic demography published by the SK government. Ecthelion83 has misunderstood each SK province's population data as each dialect's population data. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
3. Using familycolor Altaic to the Korean language was already accepted. See 1 and 2 --117.53.77.84 (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Note that the link for Altaic (areal) on Template:Infobox language family links to Altaic languages. Again, the Altaic classification is discredited; we should begin discontinuing its use. There is no rationale on Template:Infobox language family that provides any sort of published authoritative documentation for the use of the Altaic tag in any form for Korean, only an exhortation that the language family tab be appropriate. The appropriate language classification for Korean at the moment is language isolate. The one change by User:Florian Blaschke is justified by "we use Altaic as a colour for the areal group" - it should be noted that he is a scholar in Indo-European linguistics, and as far as we can tell he has no relationship to Korean, so it is unclear what he means by "we," and as he is not a primary researcher in Korean (and even if he was), he provides no published documentation for this arbitrary classification.

• I haven't confused population data for speaking population; if you even read my original discussion here, you should note I am well aware of inaccuracies in making estimates as I did (but, since you clearly missed it, I repeat: the point of estimating the number of speakers was not to obtain a highly accurate estimate but rather to provide a sense of relative scale of speaking population; I am aware that a provincial population estimate does not necessarily translate into an accurate estimate of the number of speakers of thats province's local dialect - I just did a best-guess or "ballpark" estimate because those dialects' infoboxes lacked these numbers).Ecthelion83 (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

1. Altaic (areal) means the colour is just an areal classification, not about a language family. So there is no reason stopping to use it.
2. Population of each Province doesn't mean each dialect's population. For example, people from Western South Gyeongsang (e.g. Jinju, Sacheon) and Northern North Gyeongsang (e.g. Andong) use somewhat unique dialects. These dialects aren't as same as mainstream Gyeongsang dialect. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
3. We don't have to fill in the gap about 'speakers'. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Again, even the areal classification for "Altaic" is questionable, as the entire hypothesis has been discredited.
• You are just repeating what I have already noted. The Korean dialect pages refer to provincial-level variances in the spoken Korean language; I believe that the fact that a high degree of accuracy in the number of speakers is difficult to obtain (especially given the large size of the Korean diaspora) does not mean we should leave the estimated number of speakers in each dialect's infobox blank. In addition, for an estimate of speakers based on provincial population to be so inaccurate as to be invalid, the degree of permanent migration in and out of each province would have to be substantial, and as far as I know most migration within Korea is not of the permanent kind (with the exception of migration to Seoul and Busan), so using population estimates to partly approximate a number of speakers is reasonable. If anything, given the degree to which many Koreans can easily speak multiple dialects (usually one's home dialect plus Standard Korean, i.e. the Gyeonggi dialect spoken in Seoul), the number of speakers of some Korean dialects may exceed the population of the provinces from which they originate.Ecthelion83 (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• I should add that the other editor's rationales do not justify mass reverting behavior. We have been "talking," so to speak, on each other's talk pages, but we are basically reiterating the same argument we are having here.Ecthelion83 (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  Yes...that is why it is called an edit-war. You need more eyes on this as mentioned below; please also use the link I left when I denied your protection request. Lectonar (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Take a breath Folks, this is clearly a content dispute and Administrators are unlikely to pick sides. Have you tried discussing the changes on the Talk page of the article? If so, your next step should be to start a Request for Comment discussion on the talk page. If that fails, Dispute Resolution is the next step. I'm not sure who advised you to bring this here, but it wasn't the best advice they could have given you: having a very public content dispute on this page will probably end badly for everyone involved. In summary: (1) Discuss on talk page. (2) Request for Comment discussion. (3) Dispute Resolution. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• There is more than 1 page whose content is in dispute, but I'll do what I can to generate a discussion on each page.Ecthelion83 (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

References

The Korean user is probably a korean internet nationalist, he will not stop his edits and his ignorant behavior. Maybe he will even start to call us Chinese or Japanese "agents". It woulb be great to block him for some days or longer. Maybe you writte him also in korean if he do not understand english. This topic was already discussed and the result was to support the remove of the altaic color classification at least on korean and japanese, but also one the former members of core-altaic. 213.162.68.186 (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit-war/vandalism; korean nationalist use sock pupped

The korean user use two ip adresses, one mobile in seoul and one computer in seoul. He use 117.53.77.84 and 211.54.2.241

This two ip adresses edit/vandalise the same pages. He ignore all discussion pages and questions. He refuse to give a explanation. It seems that he can not even speak english.

Especially on japonic languages and related pages; on koreanic and related pages and on ainu language.

He is using unenzyclopedic way.

It would be nice if some would warn him or block him for some days, maybe he will inderstand than. Or a block for english wikipedia because of using sockpuppets.

213.162.68.183 (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

1. 117.53.77.84 is my home IP, and 211.54.2.241 is my workplace's IP.
2. Familycolor Altaic is about an areal classification, not a language family. See Template:Infobox language family. It justifies using the colour to Koreanic languages and Japonic languages.
3. Using the familycolor already accepted by other users. See 1, 2, 3, 4. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
4. He made some personal attacks against me. See 1, 2. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I do agree that these are personal attacks. This should be dealt with accordingly by an administrator. I can't help with the family color or anything. Do you have any way to prove that one IP is home and one is workplace? We need something more than just your word in something this serious. I'm not an admin so I can only really help to a certain extent. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

How can I prove it? --117.53.77.84 (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Maybe an admin could help. Maybe @Boing! said Zebedee: or @There'sNoTime: could be helpful; they help at SPI. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, no time right now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the OP (IP #1) has been edit-warring and apparently hunting down and reverting IP #2's edits. Perhaps this should be taken into account. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe User:일성강 or User:Kumasojin 熊襲 made block evasions via the IP 213.162.68.183. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you should stop making accusations with absolutely no probable cause or concrete evidence. You can request an investigation at WP:SPI. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that IP #1 (accuser) is located in a country that doesn't use Asian symbols like in the usernames above, so one of them socking as IP #1, who is on the other side of the world, is doubtful. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

See this. And 213.162.68.183 is an Austrian IP. Any questions? --117.53.77.84 (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The user 117.53.77.84 get already blocked 4th times. Also I and other users have said him that the altaic classification for japanese and korean is obsolete. This was already discussed and the result was to support the deletion of altaic colour at least by japonic and koreanic. Also ainu language is not paleosiberian. The areal classification was accepted in past. But researches change this. We/wikipedia should update this. There are enough evidence. Also it is stated that koreanic is an isolated language. Altaic now seen as discredited by modern linguists. And if you mention areal classification, remember that korea is not in central asia. It is east asia, or sometimes north-east asia. Also you are ignoring modern facts and only belive your controversial or outdated source. I have writen you on your korean talkpage. You ignored and deleted it. Do you reguse a discussion. You only write noe to get not blocked. And even when you change or corrupt wikipedia pages it will not change the reality. Modern linguists all accept that altaic is obsolete and korean is isolated. Not to mention the newest genetic research from korean ulsan university that clearly show that koreans are not of northern origin. But you nationalists ignore all facts that do not fit your worlview. 213.162.68.183 (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

1. The language family and ethnicity aren't directly related. For example, are Maldivians and White British people directly related in ethnicity? Obviously they aren't.
2. Ainu languages originally used a paleosiberian familycolor. But User:일성강 changed it to 'language isolate'. I simply reverted it because this user is blocked now.
3. Because there aren't any Japonic and Korean 'familycolors', we have to use altaic familycolor. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator note I don't know what kimuchi is, but you only get one warning for personal attacks^([82]), 213.xx, and this is it. El_C 16:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Than time has come for wikipedia to update the colour classification. As the classification is still controversial a areal family of koreanic and japonic(including ainu) would make more sense than the obsolete altaic one. And i am sorry for the verbal attack. 213.162.68.183 (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

You have a couple of options here: list a Request for comment; get a Third opinion; try the Dispute resolution noticeboard; or any of the other Dispute resolution steps. El_C 17:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator note As the IP was given a final warning prior to them continuing to make aspersions about Korean "nationalists", I've blocked their IP. The other IP that was edit-warring with them has been blocked as well, as this isn't their first EW offence. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

www.beerglasses.eu

• Pint glass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 46.199.38.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.7.116.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 46.199.15.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 46.199.56.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

@McGeddon: Spam link repeatedly inserted by a different IP each time. Maybe start with page protection. Target page looks non-commercial and I don't think it's being inserted anywhere else yet. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

It's also being added to beer glassware. You can see it on the range contribs. Coffee semi-protected pint glass, but we might need to do a range block if it spreads to other articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

If the spam rate gets out of hand, you could also consider temporarily blacklisting the URL for a bit :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I found and removed an older example of it at Breweriana [83] left by 2605:e000:1525:c089:4005:8164:f476:bfcf. Since it's over a month old, and as I understand it IPv6 addresses change more often than the weather, is there any point in leaving them a notice about this discussion? BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I'd say it's kind of pointless to alert a stale IP address. The IP addresses above are from Cyprus, and this IPv6 address geolocates to the US. It could be this is simply a popular website in its niche. This search can locate any further external links. Oshwah's idea about the spam blacklist sounds like the best solution if this becomes a burden. Sometimes, though, you just have to scan through the linksearch and revert spam. It's tedious, and you don't get barnstars for doing it, but someone has to clean up the spam that's not disruptive enough for blacklisting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I can never remember how to do a link search but I've got the article watchlisted and will report if it becomes a problem again after the protection expires. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Amithvpurushothaman Suggestion

USER:Amithvpurushothaman has created a puff article Sreedeep ck alavil which was deleted once already today. I CSD'd it only to have the user remove the speedy deletion tags. He has been warned twice now. Please can we consider blocking him for 24hrs or whatever the appropriate sanction is Gbawden (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I see this has been done now. Frankly, I would have blocked him for longer because it is obvious he does not understand the basics. Deb (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

COI editing on Makau W. Mutua

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

---

I reported this yesterday to the COI noticeboard, but nobody responded and the user with a COI resumed activity. Masoomulla (talk · contribs · count · logs) has never edited any page other than the Makau W. Mutua page, and his contributions there consist largely of scrubbing negative material. Some examples: [84], [85], [86]. He's also made contributions favorable to the subject. In short, I think we need some eyes on this article and this editor. After I left the COIN notification on his talk page, he failed to respond either at the noticeboard or on his talk page. Lepricavark (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I have been reverting some of those removals. It's been going on for a month now. I would agree that the editor in question should be contacted. It does not look like an experienced editor, is definitely an SPA account, and probably doesn't know how to use the talk page. Scr★pIron^IV 19:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Technically, it's been going on with this editor sporadically for 8 years. Lepricavark (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I support blocking the user indefinitely and then watching the page for sock puppets. They are clearly WP:NOTHERE, except to promote a living person. By the way, Lepricavark, you should close the COIN to avoid WP:Forum shopping. DarkKnight2149 21:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I've closed the COIN discussion. Lepricavark (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. I honestly think we sometimes have way too much patience with this type of "editor". Bishonen | talk 11:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC).

Given how long this user has been around, it's hard to disagree. DarkKnight2149 13:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

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

An Editor is keep reverting statements related to Trump Administration

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

---

And editor User:MordeKyle Keep reverting comments related to trump administration in article 2017 Olathe shooting, even though they're well sourced and associated with the incident, he previously edited that whole article without discussion which resulted in article getting temporarily protected, discussion with him didn't resolved the issues and after the the page protection was expired he still keep reverting edits without reasonable explanation. Diffs 1, 2. Redhat101 Talk 00:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

My lord, another report to admins? This is getting ridiculous... There are more than enough reasonable explanations going on, including many in which you were pinged in. You added this information again despite ongoing discussion. The information was reverted, again because of potential WP:BLP violations, along with other policy violations. Please read these policies and you will understand why the reverts were made, and please visit the talk page. This is ridiculous.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Did either one of you try DRN before coming here or nah?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@TheGracefulSlick: It was not necessary as there is a ongoing, civil discussion that has been going on for a while, that Redhat01 has completely ignored. The most recent revert was made after he/she had been pinged in that discussion a lot of time, completely ignored the discussion, and re-added the information that has potential WP:BLP implications. It was rather clear why I reverted. I don't really know what to do in this instance, as this is the 3rd administrative attempt he/she has made to try to dictate content on this article. I have asked another editor to start and RfC in the discussion, because I am tired of being abused here.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 01:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@MordeKyle: Stop abusing me The page was previously got protected because of your Mass removal of content without discussion, i didn't ignored the discussion on the page, i have updated the comments with proper sources from whitehouse.gov even then you removed it. and the source had no WP:BLP violation.Redhat101 Talk 01:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: I tried my earnest to discuss the issue with User:MordeKyle, but it wasn't getting anywhere and the user has a long history of disruptive editing (Instance A, B, C). Which deterred me for any further discussion.Redhat101 Talk 01:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@MordeKyle:I have updated the relevant quotes with sources from whitehouse.gov, as was the consensus of discussion page. even then you removed without a reasonable explanation and your history of disruptive editing (Instance A, B, C), is deterring for any further discussion. Redhat101 Talk 01:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Dear Administrators please look into the Tags on the entry "Nader El-Bizri"

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

---

Dear Administrators please look into the restoring of tags by MarnetteD as posted by Edward321 regarding the entry "Nader El-Bizri". Please check whether they are entirely justified and how improvements can be brought to this entry if needed, and whether more editors need to check it. I tried to introduce some amendments but a professional editor like you would manage to refine the entry more. Thanks 2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:3DE7:5B4A:4EE8:E3CB (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Milcho Manchevski and related has Stage 4 terminal PROMO

Somehow I got on Milcho Manchevski and was shocked to see how much puffery and promo was on it. I removed all the bad stuff (about 80% of the total conten) and began to investigate who was responsible for all this. I also checked various articles associated with Milcho (his films) and have come up with several SPA promo accounts that may be socks of this one: User talk:Davidklausner1 Now Mr.Klasuner 1 did say he was Milcho's agent and wanted to drive traffic to his website, but not a confession of sock-mastering. These are the SPAs in question:

Davidklausner "Milcho Manchevski's assistant"

Dragan.atanasov

2017reception

Pmm1112

Daronpan

These are the articles affected:

Shadows (2007 film)

Mothers (2010 film)

Bikini Moon

Before the Rain (1994 film)

I'm posting this before I do a mass nuking of PROMO, puffery, redlinks, and then PROD everything that might not be notable so that everyone can see the state of the article and take appropriate actions. I also don't know if this should be duplicated at SPI or not, but a CU for the accounts (which were just notified) would be helpful. L3X1 (distant write) 21:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

AdditionI find it interesting that David, Daron, and 2017 all were editing at the same time, and 5 days after David's last edit Daron begins. L3X1 (distant write) 23:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Is considered by many to be one of the most original and innovative artists of our time for his unique blend of experimentation, poetry, emotion and a demand for the active participation of the viewer in the construction of meaning—wow, with a straight face(!). El_C 22:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken, we were making almost the exact same edit at almost the exact same time. If that isn't active participation by the viewer I don't know what is. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Great minds..." and all that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• RfC There is an RfC on Bikini Moon over the wording of the first sentence. L3X1 (distant write) 21:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

2017 SWAC Women's Basketball Tournament

An anon on this page is undoing User:Yamla's rollback of a user that was blocked for engaging in sock puppeteering. Can someone familiar with this individual check the edits. Sakuura Cartelet ^Talk 00:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Restoring edits by a blocked sock does seem quite suspicious. I blocked the IP for a week. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Unable to edit because of misidentification with a blocked user

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

---

I once used a public computer apparently used by someone called Jamenta, and now my anonymous edits--almost all connected to my expertise with William James on whom I have published many articles as well as a\n Academic Press book--are all being deleted--even from the talk page--based on this misidentification. See below. Please advise. And thank you.

"Unhelpful changes./* corrections */ Please explain why correcting grammar and adding a brief quote by a well respected knowledgable source is unhelpful."

"Because you have been banned from wikipedia on your account Jamenta for inserting fringe content on wikipedia, swearing and making legal threats."

"You have an obsession with quoting William James. He was a psychologist who was duped by paranormal claims yet you quote this guy like a religious script. He he is mentioned in the article, a long quote is undue to a fringe point of view."

"It is not a long quote. I shortened it once and am willing to make it even shorter. You are apparently unacquainted with James's full writings on parapsychology. He remained open-mined, unsure, and ultimately "baffled" by parapsychology. But whatever your personal opinion about James, it is not serving Wikipedia--a forum dedicated to balancing different opinions--well here. A minimum, specific reason of support by a well-respected authority on Myers specifically and parapsychology in general, is essential to match the many reasons opposed by other, far obscurer, and by no means better vetted, authorities."

"Once again, the Jamenta thing is false. It was assumed because I posted from a public computer. I have no idea who Jamenta was or is. Please address the substantive issue raised here pertaining to this article." 71.167.134.66 (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

So Jamenta does not stantd for William James? But both of you have an interest in parapsychology...? What administrative action are you seeking. Please be brief. El_C 23:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure sounds like a duck to me. [87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94] --Guy Macon (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Just happened to be passing through ANI (ugh, why did I do that) and it's somewhat surprising nobody more invested in this issue has noticed this, but: it is obvious from Jamenta's early contributions how his username came to be, and El C's hypothesis is incorrect. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I am looking to have the capacity to suggest edits based on my expertise. If the first step I need to take is to appeal this misidentification with Jamenta so that it never arises again I will begin that appeal. Once again, I am an Academic with a significant publication history. 71.167.134.66 (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

And I have no idea who Jamenta is. The computer I used, ill-avisedly I now see, was with a huge law firm, with a staff of 800 people. Lots of people are interested in parapsychology. Some, alas, bringing to it more heat than light. 71.167.134.66 (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)I can show you my Academic bona fides. You would have to believe I was some sort of Jekyll/Hyde character to be posting like the examples I saw.71.167.134.66 (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Who was it that just removed my last post here? : “Create an account and then you will no longer be anonymous”. Wikipedia:Why create an account? --[[User:Aspro|Aspro]] ([[User talk:Aspro|talk]]) 01:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Was it anonymous user 71.167.134.66 ? --Aspro (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, it was [95]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• And too bad, because it's the intuitive thing to ask: why not register an account? It only takes half a minute. El_C 02:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• 71.167.134.66 - Whether you are Jamenta or not, we cannot take your word for it that you are William James. You could go to WP:OTRS and ask them how to go about providing them with the information they need to prove your identity, but (I'm not absolutely certain, but I think) you will probably need to create an account to do that, since we can't have the proven "William James" flitting about from one IP to another, that would set up a situation where just about any IP could say that they were William James. On the other hand, if anyone is really convinced that you are Jamenta, they can file a sockpuppet investigation report (SPI), and if admins decide the evidence is sufficient you can be blocked from editing, whether you have an account or not.
  If anyone has corrections to this information, please feel free to jump in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for your time here. I can create a user name with my real name, but what is to keep my real name from being identified with this Jamenta person? Should I just disown the identity when I sign on, and make my appeals about it therefrom? One other concern: My sense is that NPOV is not always enforced when it comes to parapsychology. Can an Administrator override a trigger happy editor like Mr. Macon here. Can a pile-on of obscure critics really not be answered by one well-sourced renowned critic? If you find my changes serve the interest of fair play can you revert them now? That would be encouraging. There is little point in my continuing to try to balance out a pile of negative references with one positive reference if it will always be reverted by those, like Mr. Macon and company, who apparently does not believe parapsychology deserves a NPOV.71.167.134.66 (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV does not mean that all points of view are treated equally. Please read WP:FRINGE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Understood. Would very much appreciate hearing from the Administrator community whether they think Mr. Macon's deleting my sourced James review of Myers Phantasms of the Living in the 2 Wikipedia articles it appears in, an insertion I made to balance out the pile-on of obscure detractors, was in keeping with "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."71.167.134.66 (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

That isn't the role of Administrators and probably belongs at WP:NPOVN. Doug Weller talk 11:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted because I believe (see WP:DUCK) that you are blocked user Jamenta, and additions by blocked users editing as an IP in order to evaid the block may me deleted on sight. The question you ask above is not for this noticeboard. I would also note that, when you posted at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Violation of fair and balanced policy you did not limit yourself to the question you asked above, but instead repeated your "I am not Jamenta" song and dance, a topic which belongs here.

Thank you, Doug. I will go there71.167.134.66 (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC). Tho at some point the Administration community might need to weigh in on what seems to be a concerted effort by a group of Editors to prevent a balanced reporting of the history of parapsychology. WP: FRINGE does not clarify whether Skeptical Extremism or the American Association for the Advancement of Science should determine the viability of James's openminded approach to parapsychology.71.167.134.66 (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

There is strong evidence 71.167.134.66 is the banned user Jamenta himself or associated with that user.

• Jamenta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Jamenta's favourite two people were William James and Frederic Myers) Jamenta was banned for inserting repeated fringe content, swearing and finally making legal threats.
• 208.194.97.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which 71.167 has admitted being was blocked by two different admins as Jamenta. This IP was pushing fringe content of William James at Watseka Wonder. Check this IPs talk-page. This IP registers to a law firm.

• 71.167 has also been creating sock-puppets. These are him which he admitted: myerslover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), psychicbias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He said he forgot his password but this is false. He later logged in on psychicbias to leave a comment, but then left another comment on his IP to pretend to be two different users. Check the history at Frederic W. H. Myers.

• It is aslo likely this user has other sockpuppets on the Myers article. My conclusion is that this user is Jamenta or at a minimum associated with that individual. In his defense his wrote that over 800 people worked in the building he was working at on his own IP, but really? Two people have the exact same interest in James and Myers and moan about "sceptic bias"? Whoever this person is, he is not honest. I am all for letting people use wikipedia who make constructive edits and giving people a second chance, but this user is nothing more than a pseudoscience promoter. He fails to understand wikipedia policies on fringe material, he seems to think over a hundred years old opinions from credulous paranormal believers like Myers are reliable sources of information. He has no decent edits, not here to build an encyclopedia all he wants to do is push fringe content. He will never give up doing this, every edit he will make will be controversial and just stir up repeated arguments like he has done before. He is now stirring on another noticeboard. I think it would be best if this guy Jamenta was blocked. 82.132.242.74 (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to concur with 82 above. All those IPs are Jamenta or closely related somehow. I've never seen anyone else with the obsession for James and Myers and the willingness to try to argue that "evidence" over a century old outweighs more current sources. Does this have to go to SPI or can an admin just DUCK block these accounts? I'm not sure how viable a range block is. Maybe protect the effected articles for a bit? Capeo (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

82's analysis is very convincing. I would think the best option would be that all the accounts be duck blocked, and the editor's IP edits continue to be deleted as block evasion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

{{checkuser needed}}  Clerk declined - CheckUser will not disclose the IP address(es) of a named account. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

SPI clerk comment: 82's analysis is missing diffs, and I can't find where 71.167 supposedly admitted to operating any other accounts. I completely agree with I am One of Many that this user's edits bear very little similarity to the angry rants and legal threats of Jamenta. If there's something I've missed, please make a report at WP:SPI. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not Jamenta. I have no idea what a sock pocket is. I am a recognized James scholar and will sign on with my own name if that is the only way to pursue this false accusation. But there is little point in my trying to edit for fairness in my area of expertise--using James, where appropriate, to balance pile-ups of obscure and sometimes questionable authorities--if the Administrators will not support my efforts. I think it is essential to make the distinction between promoting parapsychology per se and promoting a fair and balance point of view toward historical figures and events that are part of its history. 71.167.134.66 (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a James scholar. Please, just stop. You have no interest in how James, or anyone, came to their ideas from a sociological viewpoint as an actual scholar would. It's more than clear you actually believe this stuff. Capeo (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Now he is WP:FORUMSHOPing, and for some reason has decided that I am the source of the "persecution" he is experiencing. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Violation of fair and balanced policy. We need an administrator to step in and sort this out. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

You were the person who deleted my entry. I was advised on this site to take my request for reversion to the NPOV noticeboard71.167.134.66 (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, several people -- not just me -- have deleted your contributions as being made by blocked user Jamenta. Please stop singling me out. Again, your claims that you are not Jamenta belong at ANI, not NPOVNB. Again, your question as to whether there is a "pileup of Myers detractors" which violate NPOV does belong on NPOVNB (ANI does not rule on content disputes), but that wasn't what you posted to NPOVNB, and that wasn't why your contributions were deleted. They were deleted as block evasion by blocked user Jamenta. And your behavior is a classic example of the law of holes. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment The IP editor and Jamenta are not the same person. It's obvious from examining the writing styles of both editors. And of course there are William James scholars. We really need assume good faith here. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• It looks to me like someone purposely changing his writing style in an attempt to get away with block evasion. I won't reveal all of the things I noticed (no point tutoring him on how to evade his block) but I will point out one: What are the chances that someone who writes "I have no idea what a sock pocket is" would also also write "I once used a public computer apparently used by someone called Jamenta" and "The reason I did not fight the misconception when it arose was because it was a public computer and I did not want to involve the company"? On the one hand, he implies that he has never read WP:SOCK, yet on the other, he is making excuses for using the same IP as Jamenta before anyone here has identified the two as posting from the same IP (While doing that 71.167.134.66 inadvertently revealed that he has also posted as 208.194.97.5 [96]. Also compare [97] with [98]). So he knows that checkuser exists but doesn't know what a sockpuppet is? What he didn't realize is that most admins are not checkusers and that those who are checkusers won't reveal or even check Jamenta's IP against any IP editor -- blocked editors still have full privacy right on Wikipedia, and linking a username to an IP address is a serious breach of those rights. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't see where else this discussion can go. Can it be closed?--Aspro (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Not unless you want a clone of this discussion to be opened by this or some other Jamenta sock in the near future. If I and the roughly dozen other editors who have been reverting the steady stream of "new" users who just happen to be pushing the same fringe content about William James and Frederic Myers that Jamenta was pushing are wrong, we need to have an administrator tell us that so we can stop doing it. If we are right, then this latest sock needs to be told that complaining to ANI isn't going to stop the reverts. Again, can we please have an administrator sort this out and make a decision? Pretty please with sugar on top? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• The evidence of sockpuppetry is signficant, but not conclusive. I would like to propose as a resolution of this matter an application of WP:AGF and WP:ROPE: let this editor openly create an account from which to continue editing. His edits will undoubtedly be subject to substantial scrutiny, and can be judged on their merit. The situation is likely to resolve itself on those merits. bd2412 T 04:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• I support the above solution. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support too. I suggested (above) that the OP created an account which would not only support his declarations of no-wrong-doing but would (if he has the wiki-spirit of co-operation) help us. No response – wants to reattain anonymity and out of reach, letting us jump through his hoops of his creation. OP says, quote: “Once again, I am an Academic with a significant publication history.” unquote. An academic's livelihood depends on s/he's work being widely disseminated. He hasn't even bothered to reference his credentials. --Aspro (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I have learned my lesson about the perils of not creating an account. I will open one later this month. If anyone follows through the work I have tried to do so far (again I am not now nor ever have been Jamenta), I believe it will be evident that my sole purpose has been to balance historical articles that are overloaded with negative responses to anything dealing with parapsychology. None of the articles I have worked on bear any resemblance to Wikipedia's noble aspirations for what an article should be. If Wikipedia decided to banish all articles dealing with parapsychology (like the New York Times pretty much now does) I would be ok with that. But once an article is allowed, it cannot just hang there as a target for darts.71.167.134.66 (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

And yet, after three editors have supported a solution that involves 71.167.134.66 registering a user name and 71.167.134.66 seemingly agreeing with that solution,[99][100] he continues arguing his case editing as an IP.[101][102][103] --Guy Macon (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I can see your point about double agreeing. I believed, perhaps erroneously, that I needed to respond to Aspro Talk's "No Response." I am still responding here now with my IP because I launched this thread, "Unable to edit because of misidentification with a blocked user," as such and thought I needed to maintain that same identity throughout. The exact same reasoning applies to why I maintained my IP on the WP:NPOVN site that an Editor here kindly referred me to. But then, you have even blocked my responses to those who responded to me there. The responses I was given were worthy of responses, which I gave. I would like to hear from an Administrator how those responses can be restored. Again, I thought it would be confusing to switch identities midstream. 71.167.134.66 (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC).71.167.134.66 (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I will be happy to restore those comments as soon as I see that you have registered an account and started posting using it, as you agreed to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Guy. I will this week. I assume no one has an objection to my initially registering an account with an anonymous name, such as "Spirit of James"? I want to be sure that the responses to my revisions will be Jamenta-free. (Again, if any good-faith Administrator needs my actual identity at this point to enforce a Jamenta-excuse ban, I will be happy to supply it.) I will also be upfront that I am mostly focused on editing in areas of my published expertise, citing authoritative sources. Please let me hear now from an Administrator if such focused editing is ultimately not appreciated as making a contribution to building an encyclopedia.71.167.134.66 (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

You don't have to reveal your real name, ever. You can choose to do so (as I have done) and you can choose to prove it (as I have also done; just ask at the help desk if you have trouble figuring out how), but those are your choices to make. Using your real name really won't help you at all on Wikipedia, because we rely on reliable sources, not on the knowledge/expertise of our editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hi 71.167.134.66. You can use your real name if you like, but you might want to take a look at WP:REALNAME and WP:WRW first. As Guy Macon pointed out, it's the quality of your edits, not your choice of username, which really matters the most . On Wikipedia, your choice of username may only turn out to be a problem if (1) it does not comply with WP:UN and (2) it gives others the impression that you have a conflict of interest when it comes to certain Wikipedia articles. However, off Wikipedia harassment can be an issue which is a possibility you might want to take into account if by chance you are a fairly well-known person. Remember that your user contributions are pretty much there for anyone to see and try to use in a manner which might not be appropriate.

As for focused editing, there's nothing wrong per se with being a WP:SPA. However, limiting your focus to a single article or genre of articles might also limit your ability to better understand collaborative editing and how various policies and guidelines are applied on a community-wide basis. Moreover, being an SPA is not considered a good reason for not editing in accordance with these policies and guidelines. Being an "expert" with respect to a particular field may help you improve the quality of certain articles, but it does not grant you any special status; you will still be expected to edit according to relevant policies and guidelines. There are a number of WikiProjects where editors of similar interests work together on improving certain areas of the encyclopedia. The overall goal of every editor should be WP:HERE and not WP:NOTHERE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both for these helpful tips. Obviously I anticipate more harassment for my decidedly SPA focus on NPOV balance for historical articles related to James's world--which involves a subject, parapsychology, that some Editors have openly expressed complete contempt for. I will continue to be accused of violating the SPA ban of "appear[ing] to edit for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favored point of view," when I am trying to use my area of expertise to undo what I see as violations of same. My sole interest is in correcting obvious historical errors and distortions using respectable sources. If I use the name, "Spirit of James," some Editors who have already publicly equated an openminded approach to parapsychology (as James had) to an openminded approach to flat earth theories, will surely feel provoked and especially motivated to counter my edits. They would deny James as a respectable source for the same reason that they would deny anyone who promoted flat earth theories as a respectable source. I have already been told this explicitly on the WP: NPOVN site. But of course, as I pointed out (soon to be unblocked), there are no respectable sources--let alone esteemed scientists, Noble laureates, etc. as there are for parapsychology--who are openminded about flat earth theories. Not one. Yet I anticipate Editors will continue to see my edits as a provocation to promote their "favored point of view" that any source that advocates an openminded approach toward parapsychology, automatically qualifies as an unreliable source. Nonetheless, I still think it best to have my SPA out front, registering as "Spirit of James," by which I am referring only to his openminded spirit toward parapsychology, however much it may be misinterpreted as referring to his solid conviction in parapsychology--a conviction he explicitly stated he did not have. But if any Administrator feels this username is ill advised, please let me hear from you.71.167.134.66 (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The following has been explained to you multiple times:

1. Arguing about article content at ANI, as you just did (again), is inappropriate behavior. Administrators do not make decisions on content, only on user behavior.
2. Arguing that you are not a sockpuppet on pages other than ANI is inappropriate behavior. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. The reliable source noticeboard is for taking about the reliability of specific sources for specific uses.

I would add the following; now that you have agreed to start using a username as a condition of not being blocked, in my opinion, a reasonable number of questions posted to ANI or the help desk about what username to choose seems reasonable to me. I am not an administrator (I have turned down multiple offers to be nominated) but I have been here over ten years, and I don't see any problem with the username "Spirit of James". I also don't see any problem if you end up making the same arguments Jamenta made. We all agreed (see above) that, if you start editing with a username, we will all assume that you are not a sockpuppet trying to evade a block, no matter what our personal opinions on that are. I would, however, caution you to avoid making the same arguments Jamenta made and doing the same things that got Jamenta blocked.' There is some good advice about this at Wikipedia:Clean start, and I would also recommend my essay at WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Guy. But again, I have no idea who Jamenta is or what he said. So as long as no one mixes us up again, as my own account will apparently assure, I don't see how clean start is relevant. Our styles, apparently, are completely different, as an Administrator here has already noted. I have not been, nor ever intend to be, abusive. I am sorry you think I had a specific article content post just now. It was very much directed at past and anticipated future User behavior as applies to SPA, and whether using my proposed name would be overly provocative. But I very much appreciate that although you are not an Administrator you have weighed in favorably on it. Pending no Administrator caveat, I will go with it. Thank you.71.167.134.66 (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

User is now editing with the new username. I suggest closing this as resolved. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Winkelvi block

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

---

If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended. - WP:BLOCK#Unblock requests

I would like to recuse myself at this point from further action on this block, and would instead like the community to decide on what to do with Winkelvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). They have a long history of edit warrior behavior, now at 6 blocks for breaching the policy on edit-warring. I personally do not think they are going to change this pattern, and do not see any pragmatic reason to think otherwise. I suggested at most lifting the block and replacing it with a 0RR (with exceptions for blatantly obvious vandalism/spam), but there's still not evidence that this will be a net positive decision. As such, I would believe it is best if more eyes look at this and am giving my full endorsement to any community decision, even if that is a complete reversal of the block (which I do not anticipate). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Reduce the block to something far shorter (maybe a week, but I have no strong opinions)

This was raised at ANEW by a pop-up disposable IP account, and concluded with 1 day and a 3 month blocks for two parties in trivial and fairly symmetrical edit-warring (Yes the edit-warring is real, I don't dispute that). I cannot see that such an unbalanced conclusion is at all appropriate, whatever the track record of the editors. I am particularly concerned at how it was raised! Edit warring is a problem, but disposable socks to cause trouble is a far greater one. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring is a problem, but disposable socks to cause trouble is a far greater one. I'll say. Granted, I don't actually agree with you on what should be done in this case, more because of personal editing philosophy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse three months or perhaps indef Raise to indefinite block. If and when unblocked or it expires, 0RR indefinitely. How many chances do you give an editor? Five? Six? A dozen? I first ran into Winkelvi in Bess Myerson a couple of years ago, and it's the only true nightmare I experienced on Wikipedia. Enough already. Coretheapple (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Amended, per subsequent comments. Coretheapple (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
• I suppose if anyone goes to WV's talk page to investigate, they'll see there are at least 6 admins who already support an unblock with an indefinite 1RR restriction, which I'm planning to enact on Monday, if no one has done it before then. Coffee opposes that and so brought it here. There was some vague accusation that WV was adminshopping before this was brought here, so it's worth pointing out that among the admins supporting this are an unpinged admin who has previously blocked him for a month (me), an unpinged admin who has previously declined a more lenient unblock request (LB), an unpinged a pinged (sorry, my mistake, she was pinged) admin who, I believe, has previously issued WV a topic ban (Bish), and another unpinged admin (Ritchie). None of the admins who were pinged by WV are supporting a straight unblock, and none of them have reputations for shady behavior or favoritism. It seems to me that 6 admins all agreeing on a course of action for an unblock, and only the blocking admin opposed, is pretty close to as good a definition of consensus as you're going to get around here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

A 1RR restriction cannot be unilaterally placed by a single administrator unless the user is editing in a topic area that's under WP:AC/DS, or if it's approved by community consensus. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hence why this is the most appropriate venue for this review Bbb23 (in reply to your comment at this editor's talk page). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not a single administrator, it's 6+. And anyway, yes a single admin can impose 1RR as an unblock condition, if the blocked editor agrees. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Errr... yes it can. WP:CONDUNBLOCK --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

NeilN, Floquenbeam - You're correct; if the editor agrees, then yes it's perfectly fine. Sorry, should have made that clear. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah, Bbb23, and NeilN: "If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended. (WP:UNBLOCK#Unblock requests) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not making this shit up as I go along you know... — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I was replying to Oshwah but did you add the right wikilink? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It would appear that I am making shit up as I go along... tsk tsk. WP:BLOCK#Unblock requests — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Well somebody elsewhere just pulled a cowboy unblock that I disagreed with, yet I didn't feel the need to haul them to AN and make a song and dance over it; I'm going to let it go. (And I realise writing this is ironic). Likewise, 5-6 administrators have reached a consensus of what to do, why can't you as blocking admin just accept that sometimes things don't go your way and move on? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad he didn't. It's a chronic issue that deserves daylight, not the shadows of a user talk page that nobody is watching. Keri (t · c) 22:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Because it has nothing to do with me. I'm doing what I think is best for the community and encyclopedia's interests. I'm not "hauling" anyone here but the action itself, so I'm not sure where that came from. I'm confused though why any administrator would have an issue with their decision being brought here, if they actually thought it was the correct one per the community's wishes. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: "[I]f anyone goes to WV's talk page to investigate, they'll see there are at least 6 admins who already support an unblock with an indefinite 1RR restriction ...." I don't see 6 admins supporting that. I see five admins: three friendly admins that WV pinged, one admin known for their extreme leniency and cowboy unblocks (Ritchie, who unblocked WV's one-week block after 2.5 days in February 2016 with a three-month 1RR restriction), and one with a longterm feud with the blocker. I also see a number of admins there disagreeing with that plan. Softlavender (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC): edited 23:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse 3 months. 0RR if unblocked prematurely. Raise to indefinite block. Some people, whether on the autism spectrum or not, just don't belong in Wikipedia. Vandals, trolls, and abusive and disruptive editors can be blocked or banned, and being on the autism spectrum is no excuse for unacceptable behaviour. Far less tendentious editors have been indefd for lesser and for likewise exhausting the community's patience. This unblock, if it happens, should be the last-chance saloon for WV. Keri (t · c) 22:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse. When an editor who has been blocked 6 times for edit warring asserts, in apparent seriousness, that he "didn't think the first revert counted," we have found ourselves beyond the limits of WP:AGF, WP:CIR, or both. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

In this particular case, the claim seems pretty untenable, but there can be a real question about exactly counts as a first revert. But when it comes to a 3rr rule block, you were edit warring either way, so you aren't likely to get off on the technicality. Monty₈₄₅ 22:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Especially given this edit WV made to his user page about 1RR. Keri (t · c) 23:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse either continued block, 0RR, or both. I don't think this user intends to do ill, but the aggressive editing style and sometimes discourteous mode of personal interaction has exhausted the patience of the community, as seen in his block log. Speaking in my capacity as an involved editor, not an admin: just a few days ago, at Ben Carson, WV (1) edit-warred to restore challenged material of dubious relevance; (2) did so without first posting on a talk-page discussion that I had already begun; (3) failed to give a substantive rationale once he did show up at the talk page (merely "I happen to disagree" and then, once pressed, that the content "worth noting"); and (4) blindly reverted a subsequent, separate edit; inaccurately called it a revert; and failed to acknowledge the mistake. That pattern is not promising. If unblocked, then 0RR with the usual exceptions (blatant vandalism/spam), as Coffee has agreed to, would be called for. Neutrality^talk 22:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

None of the admins (except Coffee) called for 0RR; we all called for 1RR instead. I'm unsure as to whether you missed this or whether you do genuinely prefer 0RR as an option. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the "community" (of people who are not watching WV's talk page). Keri (t · c) 22:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh please. You want everything handled on ANI? Drmies (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

No, just prolific, tendentious repeat offenders. What a fucking stupid question. Keri (t · c) 01:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

What happened here to bring people like you out of the woodwork? First you're clamoring for openness, and when I ask if you want everything out in the open you say that's a "fucking stupid question". Learn some manners, child. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Nowhere have I advocated for "everything to be handled on ANI". Your mocking tone and straw man ad hom tells me everything I need to know about you. Given that I have never advocated bringing "everything" to ANI, it is a fucking stupid question, designed purely to belittle me and undermine my opinion and dripping with trademark passive-aggression. As is your pathetic trolling/baiting attempt with "learn some manners, child." What's next, "your mom" jibes? As for "What happened here to bring people like you out of the woodwork?" And what exactly are "people like me"? You mean "other editors"? The "community"..? And "the "woodwork"? You mean working on the encyclopedia and not daring to question your judgment, like good little drones? What a thoroughly unpleasant little man you come across as. Keri (t · c) 18:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

At about the same time as Drmies was insulting Keri, he left an abusive post on my talk page in which he stated that my "condition" (i.e,, my Asperger's, which I just mentioned in a comment) is more "excusable" than Winkelvi's.WTF? Coretheapple (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

For clarity - I do prefer 0RR, as supported by Coffee and Keri. I think it's more than justified in light of the prior blocks/sanctions. As usual, it would not apply to blatant vandalism or spam. Neutrality^talk 22:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse the initial block as a reasonable exercise of admin discretion. But also Support Unblock with 1RR, indefinite duration, with an expectation that it wont be eased for at least a year. Personally, I don't think 0RR is a reasonable solution outside very active and controversial areas. Monty₈₄₅ 22:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse and frankly 1rr is not really an incentive to not edit war. 0RR or dont bother. -edit- And after reading his talkpage, that excuse was laughably unbelieveable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Coffee's wrong in counting five previous edit-warring blocks. Before this latest one, Winkelvi had been blocked six times for edit-warring, and two of them (including the one I levied) were removed by the blocking admin well before they would have expired. Swarm unblocked with a rationale of Sock involvement demonstrated post-block, edits exempted from 3RR (i.e. WP:3RRNO), while I unblocked and then left a comment of Winkelvi was in the middle of discussing the situation; I wouldn't have blocked if I had seen this. I'd say you should count this as four EW-related blocks. Whether or not four-versus-five-versus-six should affect anyone's vote or anyone's contribution to this discussion I won't say; I just hope that people consider the entire block log and not just the blocks themselves. In particular, don't count all of the [admin] blocked Winkelvi lines, since at least my second block of him (the one-second block) was done just to add an apology to the block log; I'm thankful that nobody, so far, has carelessly just counted the number of lines. Nyttend (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The reason for the included number is the pattern of behavior itself. Just to clarify. :) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Sure, that makes complete sense, and if I were voting here, I'd focus on the behavior pattern in my argumentation, regardless of how I voted. I just wanted to ensure that everyone inspecting the block log understood what was going on. Nyttend (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps the block log and blocking admins' comments deserve closer scrutiny. For example, this: "I made it clear in the last ANI that the community has had enough of this... previous blocks of up to one week have not been enough to get the point across." or this: "If you don't understand that, perhaps a month is too short, because we cannot keep indulging you in your near constant battleground behavior with everyone. Your behavior is nearly constantly disruptive. You do it even when warned, except apparently you think as long as the disruption is with some other person it is OK. Every single time you are blocked you say you've seen the light and will change, you never do. IMHO, next block for the same behavior should be indef." Keri (t · c) 23:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Its worth noting that in the last year they have also been blocked for deliberate harrassment of another editor and 'feuding' with other editors. Both conduct issues. That is aside from the edit-warring blocks. At what point do we accept Winkelvi is either unwilling or unable to play nicely with others? Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

All that I'm asking is that you consider the block log carefully; if that consideration leads you to think that it's time to believe that he can't play nicely with others, I won't attempt to dissuade you, just as I won't if the consideration leads you the other way. Just trying to make sure that everyone understands the facts well. Nyttend (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I think 0RR may be justified here, given that WV's default mode is complete entrenchment in a given position without willingness to really listen or discuss -- as exemplified by Neutrality's example. This kind of behavior would be expected of a newbie, but it is unacceptable for someone who has been here 5 years and made 25,000 edits, and there has been no indication of any longterm change. I hate to say that because WV can be a good ally if he happens to agree with you, but the longterm edit-warring, tendentious editing, and personal attacks really need to be stopped. Softlavender (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Blocking administrator comment - Winkelvi is once again (cleverly IMO) admin shopping/canvassing: [104]. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)edited — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Why didn't you just say in a neutral way that he has made a new post on his page?? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Because, I've never found it necessary to call a spade by any other name. This is this editors 10th block for disruptive behavior, in 4 years. I can't be asked to simply assume good faith without merit at this point. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
      • This pinging habit of WV's is a bit irritating, but calling it canvassing here is overblown. 01:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs)
      • Coffee, you are not asked to assume anything different than anyone else. Your record of poor blocks and lack of discretion is as egregious as your description of Winkelvi. That is why we are again discussing, with much drama, your block. I would have hoped that the last reproach would have instilled a more thoughtful approach to blocking but it seems that is not the case. In any event, your block has caused much more disruption than Winkelvi. Please reflect on that and moderate your behavior and maybe take a break, say a year, from blocks. --DHeyward (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
        • I suggest you open an ANI thread, or go to ArbCom if you actually think that you have any chance of convincing anyone of your aspersions (without evidence). I'd also like to point out that while you may think that my integrity is why this thread exists, you are actually discussing this matter because I asked you to. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)@DHeyward: You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Coffee made a bad block and we're here to discuss or overturn it. In fact, the opposite is the case. Coffee opened this thread himself to ask for review, and there appears to be near-unanimous endorsement from everyone who wasn't canvassed. In addition, your casting of aspersions here is unwelcome and unproductive. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
• Thank you User:The Wordsmith. DHeyward, really? Drmies (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'll add myself to the list of admins who supports an Unblock and indefinite 1RR - I have not dealt with Winkelvi before as far as I can remember. Black Kite (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
• I've seen plenty of Winkelvi, and he of me. This edit warring is an unfortunate habit. The talk page discussion is so long that I can't even tell if he really got it--that this was a violation and a blockable one. Can any of you tell me if he posted that he gets it? Anyway, I supported, or maybe even proposed! an unblock with a 1R condition for three months--I'll settle for anything that resembles that, and if there's a majority for 0R, I suppose I'm OK with that too.

  Softlavender, I hear you--I think Winkelvi is one of those editors that just can't help himself when given the latitude editors think 3R give them. I don't want to be the psychoanalyst here or anywhere else, but that's what I think, and I think we have quite a number of those editors, most of whom function quite well though sometimes with restrictions, and you understand I'm not naming names here. His edits, as far as I remember, aren't tendentious; sometimes they're just...persistent. That's not good either, but it's not irredeemable. He's no POV warrior, for instance. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

My use here of "tendentious" to describe WV's behaviour is intended to reflect that of WP:TE: "On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions" (my emph). WV's edits certainly meet those criteria. Keri (t · c) 01:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I was torn whether to use the word "tendentious" or the word "WP:BATTLEGROUND". If you like I can change it to that, as it is a more accurate, yet stronger, description, and has been noted by various admins like Floq (e.g. in the diffs provided by Keri). In terms of "getting it", I don't think anyone who has filed, and/or been subject to, as many ANEW reports as he has, over the past 4 years years [105] (I count at least 75, including one a week ago), can maintain any semblance of credibility after repeatedly claiming that (he thought that) the first revert doesn't "count" in 3RR: [106], [107], [108]. He knows the drill perfectly; yesterday he clearly warned a user who had made three reverts for 3RR, and then when the editor breached 3RR with a fourth revert Winkelvi reported him [109]. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC); edited 03:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I meant nothing personal, by the way--and I meant "tendentious" in the strict sort of POV sense. I agree with you on the ANEW experience and I find the whole thing rather baffling, but I'm paid to AGF, sometimes to a fault perhaps. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support indefinite 1RR regardless of unblock and neutral, leaning support on unblock Frankly, I think the project would be better off if everyone was subject to 1RR except in cases of obvious vandalism, etc. The 3RR principle, that everyone is allowed edit-war up to a certain point, runs counter to AGF, since we should be assuming as soon as we are reverted once that the reverter is acting in good faith. 3RR also places an arbitrary numeric value on what counts as an edit war, and so encourages gaming of the system by users who don't engage in talk page discussion but edit carefully to make it look like they do. The only exception I can think of is where the reverter's edit summary made it clear that they had, in good faith, misunderstood your original edit.[110] So yeah, I would probably support an unblock and indefinite 1RR for just about anyone, but given the repeated nature of this offense, and especially that the last block was repealed with a 3-month 1RR restriction I am a bit more ambivalent on an immediate unblock, and can't see how anyone could oppose the 1RR restriction regardless of whether they agree with my personal philosophy. (Full disclosure: ArbCom subjected me to 1RR in late 2015 for some edit-warring that had happened in early 2015. I had immediately regretted said edit-warring and happily accepted the 1RR restriction. It will be the last restriction I appeal, if I decide to appeal it at all.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I have to say Hijiri 88 that I'm impressed by your disclosure here. I've not known many restricted editors to be so forthcoming, without requirement (at least I don't know of a requirement... correct me if I'm wrong). It is definitely appreciated by all of the reviewing editors here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Don't mention it. Honestly the disclosure was more of an afterthought. I actually think it kinda hurts my case, as it means that my case-relevant argument (that Winkelvi was subject to a fixed-term 1RR restriction as a condition to his last unblock) is sandwiched between two long pieces about me and my principles, and so is likely to be missed. I honestly hate when people !vote in these discussions based exclusively on their own principles (or their like/dislike for various participants), so I really hope no one thinks that's what I'm doing here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
• Too much drama. Conditionally unblock and close this kerfuffle. --DHeyward (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block as a valid action of admin discretion. Given the extensive block log, I find the length to be perfectly reasonable and in the same situation, I likely would have imposed a block of similar length. Since the issue of unblocking with a 1RR condition has come up, I strongly oppose that. It almost never works, especially not in editors with an extensive history of edit warring like we see here. We'd be back here in less than a month. He has given some indication that he understands what he did wrong, so I would Support an unblock (or reduction in block length) with a 0RR editing restriction. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The Wordsmith, hello. I'd like to point out the Winkelvi has a long history of saying that he "gets it" after a block, before reverting to the same type of behavior after being unblocked or having the block expire. Check out this message [111] that he wrote in January 2016 after receiving a 1-week block for edit-warring. After reading it, consider his behavior since then, and please tell me if you still trust him when he promises to stop. Also, I would encourage you to read these edits from May 2016 after he was blocked for feuding with another editor. [112] They demonstrate clearly Winkelvi's history of saying after a block "I didn't know what I did was wrong, but now I do, and I won't do it again." I think we're at the point where we can stop giving him the benefit of the doubt. Due to this, and also his repeated history of behaving inappropriately on talk pages, I politely and respectfully encourage you to modify your position to supporting an indefinite block. Display name 99 (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Display name 99: I have seen that, yes. I understand that he's said that before, which is why I only support unblocking with the mandatory 0RR restriction. I'm big on forgiveness , so I'm not going to outright switch to supporting nothing but an indef, but I wouldn't be heartbroken if that's what needed to be done. Consider me Neutral on that. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• It seems to me we should note all of the admins that Winkelvi has been ping-canvassing from his talk page [113], [114]: MelanieN, Diannaa, Bishonen, JamesBWatson, Anna Frodesiak, Drmies, Bbb23, Laser brain, NeilN, Ponyo, Ritchie333, Floquenbeam. (Those are "nopings" on my end.) Although I think Coffee is being a bit aggressive in his insistence not to accede to the other admin opinions on WV's talkpage, those admins were all canvassed except Floquenbeam and Laserbrain, whereas it is the community at large who bears the brunt of WV's behavior, and therefore the community should probably have a voice in this matter, given the very long history, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • That is quite in fact why I brought this here. I don't have enough energy to try to discuss this matter with that many people all at once (by myself), and it is my personal opinion that these admins do not a consensus make. I believe firmly in the community's ability to decide what is best in matters like this, and as such have deferred this matter to you all. Laser brain declined the original unblock request and another formal one was not made, WV instead decided to use a system of pings to get unblocked. Obviously, I have grave concern for such a system... and WP:ADMINSHOP shows that our community does as well. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)UTC)
    • Huh. I'm normally inclined to agree with Drmies in cases like this, but I don't here, as that definitely looks like canvassing. I've never quite understood why something can only be called "canvassing" if the users were specifically contacted on their talk pages, especially in cases like this where that is impossible and pinging on one's own talk page is all one can do. That's way too many people for Winkelvi to be pinging. The fact that all or at least most of them are respectable Wikipedians who aren't likely to come to his aid just because he canvassed them doesn't change the fact that he did canvass them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC) (edited 04:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC))
      • Hijiri88, I don't think Winkelvi can expect me to agree or jump to his defense if the position is indefensible--in this case, the block itself was justified and I said so. BTW, I don't think that canvassing need come by the way of some sort of notification; a ping will do as well. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
        • My apologies for the lack of clarity. I meant that in this particular case I don't agree with your assessment that calling it canvassing here is overblown since whether or not the apparent intent or actual effect resembles legit votestacking, accusing someone who pings that many users of canvassing/admin-shopping can't possibly be overblown. I didn't mean to directly equate you with the "if it's only a ping, it can't be canvassing" crowd. Clarified accordingly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Wow, yeah, (apparently) bypassing WP:UNBLOCK in favor of pinging 8 friendly admins is not good. Softlavender (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• A year ago Winkelvi was given a 1RR restriction for three months as a condition of an early unblock: [115], [116]. He doesn't seem to have learned anything from that sanction. That would seem to indicate that whatever happens with this discussion, the sanction should be longer and/or stricter. Softlavender (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse block Endorse block, support indef There's only so much WP:ROPE you can throw out. It's been shown that 1RR can't do much, so I really doubt the effectiveness of 0RR at preventing the same WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 05:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support 0RR for a duration of one year and unblock (after which WV can appeal the sanction in a community discussion and if failed, every six months thereafter) 1RR clearly hasn't cut it before and I doubt that increasing the duration is helpful. I agree with Anna's judgement of the editor, I've seen them elsewhere but I think it's better if they stay away from any kind of reverts for a while. --QEDK (愛) 05:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I was curious about Coretheapple's mention above of his "nightmare" encounter with Winkelvi on Bess Myerson two years ago and checked that out. It does indeed seem to have been a nightmare, and in my opinion is representative of Winkelvi's inability to, and refusal to, brook disagreement. He appears incapable of letting go. Winkelvi arrived at the article here: [117], and made 120 edits to it in 2.5 days, including massively, heedlessly, endlessly, and obstinately edit-warring with Coretheapple and Alanscottwalker (edit-warring begins here: [118], clicking "Next edit" from there on out is quite instructional). This resulted in Winkelvi being reported at ANEW [119] and the article being locked for a week, at which time Winkelvi left the article completely. Not however before covering the article talk page with endless IDHT walls of text [120] (from top to bottom of that talk page, 79 edits and tens of thousands of bytes in 6 days: [121]) and leaving behind two very frustrated, be-numbed, bewildered, and resentful editors. If Winkelvi is unable to edit collaboratively, and needs outside intervention on such a regular basis, this is a real problem and needs a major solution.

  I'd also like to state that, for the record, I don't know how long it has been going on, but Floq and Coffee have an obvious feud going on (I noticed this in re: the TRM AE discussions), and so Floq should not be implementing any change here in my opinion. And also for the record, Winkelvi knows very well which admins he can curry leniency from, from having interacted with them in the past, and several of those were indeed the admins he pinged in his first round of pings, so the discussions on his talkpage should not be seen as binding or representative, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I was waiting for someone else to point this out organically before I commented on this, but Floquenbeam has no place in reviewing any of my administrative decisions ever as he has a clear lack of neutrality regarding me. If he makes any action here whatsoever, he's going to have to answer to the Arbitration Committee. (Of course I highly doubt he'll actually make any action on this at all; he has baited people to try to make them respond out of hand in the past, so I'm sure that's likely what's happening here [since he's very aware of our current standing]. I will not be falling for such a trap.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Softlavender is correct in every respect. One of the most frustrating things about Winkelvi is not just his serial edit-warring and cluelessness, but his ability to game the system, finding admins he can coax into giving him "just a second chance" or a third chance or a fourth chance. I don't know if this was a factor in the recent hostilities, but he also claimed to have a medical condition that somehow contributed to or "explained" his edit-warring and tendentious conduct. His lengthy block record only hints at the burden he is to the project, as he is constantly being dragged before this or that drama board. Search the drama boards and you can see for yourself. Here is one, an encounter with User:Tenebrae from 2014 that I just picked at random. Read that. No action. It just goes on and on and on, and he keeps on getting a pass until finally he gets blocked. Personally I am surprised that he has not been indeffed by now, but he always seems to find yet another sympathetic admin to give him yet another second chance, so that he can return to his old ways until he gets yet another second chance. Coretheapple (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

That's my impression, also. The gaming of the system is very clearly demonstrated by this diff from a couple of weeks ago, which should be read in its entirety. WV always claims to be shocked and surprised when bought to account for their actions, but their words there demonstrate complete clarity about how "the system" works, and how to game it. The irony is breathtaking. Keri (t · c) 16:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Give them the choice, stay blocked 3 months or agree to 6-month-to-1-year 1RR as unblock condition — While 3 months reflexively seemed a bit much when I first stumbled across it (but then checked the block history and totally understood why), it's also a strong incentive to agree to an unblock condition of WP:1RR. To be perfectly clear, his revert history at Billy the Kid clearly and obviously violated WP:3RR, and is doubly damning considering he's reported other people on AN3 before (I actually patrolled one of the reports the other day). What's worse is the fact that he was unable to acknowledge his error directly after the block, disputing the technicalities of what constitutes a revert—and to be clear, he's wrong. This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of 3RR, as well as the concept of WP:EW as a whole. This, first and foremost, needs to be rectified. I've always been a fan of imposing 1RR over blocking when possible, and on a completely tangential note, it might be a good idea to start an RFC to allow admins to unilaterally impose 1RR restrictions on an editor (without needing an WP:ACDS) in place of, and for durations proportionate to, normal blocks (subject to same appeals process as blocks). This would have been a prime case where an immediate 1RR restriction could have saved everyone a bunch of time and would have been pretty obviously supported. --slakr^\ talk / 09:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment: The thing about imposing 1RR instead of blocking, without community discussion, is that nobody knows that the 1RR exists except the people who happened to be watching the user's talk page at that time. So the user can freely violate 1RR and nobody knows and they do not get reported. That's why drawing the community's attention to the discussion and also allowing input and buy-in into sanctions other than blocks is very important. (And it's not the case that Winkelvi does not understand 3RR -- he has reported or been reported at ANEW at least 75 times -- see my and others' posts above.) Softlavender (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse (I was pinged above) If there is an unblock condition should be 0RR, if anything, because 1 RR has already been tried. Winklevi needs to get with the program, and the more rope that has been extended, the more they seem to not get with the program. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
• Unblock with indefinite 1RR (with an exception for WV's own talk page) as proposed at user talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse with the only chance of unblock early being 0RR for at least 6 months, but I think a year is best. I think it's pretty clear that Winkelvi has issues with reverting. Hopefully a 0RR would keep the positive contributions without allowing wiggle room. I read the Bess Myerson talk page posts and am impressed with the paitence shown by the other editors. I might have blown a gasket with that level of edit warring and wall of text posting. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block-I stumbled across this discussion and decided to give my opinion. I've interacted with Winkelvi a few times, most notably at Billy the Kid in early 2016. This was the first GAN that I reviewed, and I committed a few embarrassing mistakes, for which I take responsibility. But what I saw from Winkelvi was a persistent battleground attitude that included not only edit-warring but persistent hostility, questioning of motives, WP:Ownership, and vindictive behavior towards anyone disagreeing with him. By examining the history of his block log and the talk page and AN/I discussions concerning him that have taken place since then, I have found no reason to believe that he will change anything. Perhaps the biggest mistake that I made at that article was not failing it immediately after the edit war, which was largely out of guilt for originally passing it prematurely. What ensued after that was also a sort of nightmare, aided somewhat by my lack of knowledge on GA reviews and occasional immaturity, but rooted largely in Winkelvi's near-constant battleground attitude which alienated most of those who worked on the article.

On his talk page, pinging Drmies, Winkelvi said that he "gets it." He has a history of saying that sort of thing after a block, but then somehow we always end up at the same place as before. A 1RR has been put in place before. Now he is back to the same type of behavior, so it's time to take it up a notch. But even a 0RR would still result in Winkelvi being able to continue his accusatory, battleground, and non-AGF behavior on talk pages. He may even resort to doing that more often, knowing that if he reverts and is caught it would likely result in a longer or indefinite block. What I saw on the Beth Myerson talk page is disturbing, and we could see more of that sort of talk page drama if Winkelvi knows that he can't revert anymore. That's why 1RR and even a 0RR won't work well enough. It also doesn't help that I find Winkelvi's excuses about not knowing the technicalities of 3RR to be totally unconvincing, considering his experience, history of edit-warring, and history of reporting other users for edit-warring. I'm not buying it.

Winkelvi has been given plenty of chances. He has thrown away all of them and in the process has caused the WP community an enormous amount of time and anguish. I don't think that there is enough non-destructive behavior from Winkelvi to outweigh this. That's enough to say that he is a net negative and that an indefinite block would be in order. Display name 99 (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support Block, support indef block - As far as I recall, I have no involvement with this editor. Reading the above, I think there is plenty of evidence to not only support the three month block but to extend it to an indef. Enough is enough. Jusdafax 16:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I wasn't going to comment here, but in view of a couple of comments above, I will. User:Coretheapple, Winkelvi has had the aspergers userbox on his page for as long as I've known him, and your "he also claimed to have a medical condition that somehow contributed to or "explained" bla bla", is shameful, as if it was a new thing and most likely something he made up. "Medical condition", bah. You will answer me if you wish, naturally, but I have no more to say to you. @Softlavender:, when you say if there isn't an ANI discussion, "the user can freely violate 1RR and nobody knows and they do not get reported", you're assuming bad faith in a way that'll be like a knife to Winkelvi. He's on the autism spectrum, as he points out himself every now and then — it's no sort of secret — which colours his interactions with others. I understand that Wikipedia is not therapy, and I have certainly seen him behaving atrociously on talkpages. But he's actually big with rules, and I don't for a moment believe he'd violate a personal, specific sanction "freely" just because "nobody knows". Please compare the section "About me and editing" on his userpage, where he says among other things "Because those of us on the Spectrum are unfailingly "rule-followers", we are also honest to a fault. When we are accused of lying or intentionally being disruptive or not acting in good faith, it's quite hurtful." I've found that to be very true, both parts of it: Winkelvi follows rules, as long as they're very, very exact and spelled-out rules, and he's dreadfully distressed if he's accused of shady dealing. (Compare his reaction to Coffee in the first discussion, right under the block notice, and btw I think Ritchie333's comment on that discussion was excellent: "... when I block somebody I generally punt any conversations about the block off to reviewing administrators... picking a fight with an editor you block is generally counter-productive." How I wish Coffee had worn his listening ears for that.) Also, never mind the autism spectrum, which people obviously aren't obliged to know about, it's a nasty thing to imply about anybody, that they'd cheerfully violate a restriction they had agreed to. That's what WP:AGF is for: because we know so little about anybody on the internet that we're commenting on.

While I'm here: I've advocated unblock + indefinite 1RR on Winkelvi's talkpage, but I won't record any sort of bolded !vote here, because I'm not sure about the unblock. That's because Winkelvi does behave badly sometimes even apart from of edit warring, and I can certainly sympathise with the people who have experienced a "nightmare" interacting with him. That's far from something I'd wave away. But I do want to say, please don't unblock on condition of 0RR. One of Winkelvi's latest comment on his page, here is rather convoluted, which of course doesn't serve him well, but the takeaway from it is that, while he's fine with 1RR, he hates the idea of 0RR so much that he'd rather ride out his 3-month block. So please, people, don't do that; either keep him blocked, or give him an indefinite 1RR restriction. (On balance, I believe the 1RR restriction would be more helpful going forward than the block, but I think both are acceptable.) Bishonen | talk 16:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC).

Oh please. You're acting as if he just has a userbox and that was that. How dare I mention that! What you didn't mention was that when he was doing his number in the Myerson article, and in other of his many disputes then and afterwards. he was constantly "playing the Asperger's card," citing that alleged condition as an excuse for his actions. Yes, it is a claim, no it is not verifiable, yes, it is irrelevant, and yes, it is one of the many ways he gamed the system. was claiming that he Asperger's is the cause of his conduct. He has two entire sections on his user page devoted to describing how his Asperger's is the cause of his conduct, and he has brought it up in defense of his actions. In this exchange with Jehochman he said "I'm not clueless, I have Asperger Syndrome (as is broadcast at the top of this page). People with Aspergers are generally quite intelligent with high-IQs. So, no, not clueless, just asking for specifics (something Aspies need at times to understand what someone is referring to vaguely)." The "broadcast at top of this page" comment refers to the fact that he has a notice at the top of his talk page referring to his Aspberger's "If you've had any kind of issue or misunderstanding in your dealings with me," So no, it is absolutely not just a user box. "People on the autism spectrum need to be aware that pulling the 'Oh, but I'm a poor misunderstood Aspie/Autie' card out of the pack is a bad move! There are a lot of us in here, and we can tell when someone's using it as an excuse!" Coretheapple (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC) (additions and strikeouts, since I've heard objections to use of the term "playing the Asperger's card") Coretheapple (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Bishonen, thank you for your message, but I'd like to point out a view things that I object to in your comment. You say "Winkelvi follows rules, as long as they're very, very exact and spelled-out rules." Um, no. The 6 blocks for edit-warring (not counting the one with sockpuppetry) show that this isn't the case. Take a look at this quote from WP:3rr:

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period."

That seems pretty exact and spelled-out to me.

That's also not to mention the constant disruption that Winkelvi has caused on talk pages and drama boards during his 3+ [5] years contributing to Wikipedia. In a previous block, resulting from a long-term feud with another editor, an editor (possibly Floq, but I'm not entirely sure) called attention to the fact that Winkelvi seems to think that it is acceptable to, after being warned against feuding with one editor, to instead feud with another one, or (this may be from someone else) to "regularly change [his] mode of disruption." That's not Autism. That's called gaming the system by pretending to be clueless so that people will take pity on you and keep giving you chances. Display name 99 (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

PS, I should know. I have borderline Asperger's. Display name 99 (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Ha! I do too, not so borderline. Other stuff too. BFD. Coretheapple (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bishonen: "Winkelvi follows rules, as long as they're very, very exact and spelled-out rules." - I have loads of respect for you (as you know, and I hope at least some of that is mutual), but WP:3RR seems like an awfully cut-and-dry, spelled-out, exact, clear, (whatever other synonym to refer to blatantly easy you deem necessary) rule. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Coffee: yes, I respect you too. Bishonen | talk 23:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC).

Bishonen, I disagree with your conclusions, but I will contact you via email so as to avoid prolonging the drama here. Softlavender (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment There are two main concerns expressed by the editors above - edit warring and talk page bludgeoning. 1RR is the obvious solution to the first concern but I foresee two problems. First, according to the "rules", Winkelvi can revert once a day on an article ad infinitum. Second, this allows anon IPs to troll Winkelvi as they have done in the past. For the talk page issue, I would suggest he be limited to one post a day but that may lead to walloftext posts. What is really needed is a mentor that Winkelvi has to go to whenever he runs into a conflict. However that could potentially be quite a demanding job and I don't know if anyone would volunteer to take it on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• I believe mentoring has been attempted in the past. Coretheapple (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ahem. I think we can discuss this without getting into NPA territory when it comes to Winkelvi and his userbox. I also think we can disagree with with Coffee without making him out as some rogue Nazi admin--he is not. I also think we can disagree with Floquenbeam without thinking we'll end up at ArbCom. And I think we can disagree with, for instance, Bishonen's assessment without being rude. Winkelvi broke policy; the block was justified. Coffee blocked and others disagreed; that's fine, that's what we're here for. Discuss it without criticizing the blockee, the blocker, the hypothetical unblocker, the proponents of more blocking, etc. Keep it civil please. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
• I'm only commenting here because I noticed WV posted to my talk page the other day seemingly accusing me of being responsible for his latest block (which I'm not). Anyway, I strongly strongly endorse this latest block because this is the sixth time he's been blocked for this same offense. Aside from what others have said, it's important to note his last block was for harassment of Calibrador (talk · contribs) -- the name used by photographer Gage Skidmore. (See here for more. WV's first edit following that block's expiration -- literally his very first main space edit -- was to remove a photo Skidmore had taken from an article [122] and he has continued to do so since [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131]. Ultimately, I think we should just indef block him and get it over with, instead of having this discussion again every five or six months. Calidum 19:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block, raise to indef: I'm another user who has been harangued and pursued by Winkelvi, much as Coretheapple and other describe, when he inserted himself into a discussion for the sole purpose of personal attacks and to stir trouble, and participated in an edit war about which he knew nothing in an effort to prosecute some old (and in my case, imaginary) grudge, most recently at The Crown (TV series), but also in at least one other article. He's also done the same with Calibrador in recent days. He works the "I'm on the spectrum" card for all it's worth, but speaking as someone with Ph.D.-level expertise and 30 years in the field, his social and communication skills are far too developed for a person with Asperger's syndrome. People, as uncomfortable a thought as this might be, some people with disabilities do actually abuse their disability rights, and Winklevi does so. How long will our bleeding hearts protect him, at the expense of how many editors he hassles and harangues? How many chances will it take before the community realizes he is a lost cause, and should be indeffed? --Drmargi (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)@Drmargi: Please clarify your comment his social and communication skills are far too developed for a person with Asperger's syndrome. Are you saying you don't think he actually has it? This would appear to contradict your statement that Winkelvi is abusing his "disability rights" as you put it, implying he does have Asperger's. If you think he doesn't, how can you claim to refute a diagnosis solely over the Internet? I know a person in RL with Asperger's who I am confident could conduct themselves to an excellent standard on Wikipedia, as indeed do many other autism spectrum editors here. BethNaught (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not diagnosing anything; I can't do that over the internet, nor would I care to if asked to. I'm simply commenting on characteristics and behavior as I see them. --Drmargi (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• • Comment As someone who has also had the misfortune to be on the brunt of Winkelvi's unrelenting wrath, I vouch for Drmargi's statement above. Winkelvi embodies what Wikipedia should not be. Preventing other editors from ever having to interact with them would be a great accomplishment for this project. Calibrador (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I saw what you experienced recently, which was worse even than what I have, and was appalled. I was glad to see a block was applied in your case. I mine, Winklevi's behavior barely caused a blip. --Drmargi (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I assume this is related to the Carrie Fisher 3rr image issue? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse block, support unblock with indefinite 1RR restriction. - Coffee's block was proportionate and reasonable. I believe that Winkelvi has the best intentions, and that his contributions are a net positive. That said, his doggedness is his Achilles heel. Since he is rule-bound, following a one revert restriction should be no problem. Personally I follow 1RR except in the most extreme situations, which I find avoids a great many conflicts. Winkelvi could benefit from the realization that any truly bad edit will probably be addressed by another editor, so he should not feel it imperative to correct it himself. My advice to Winknelvi to go out of his way to be accommodating to regular editors who push back. As to NeilN's suggestion, I thing a mentor would be beneficiaL. Perhaps someone like the esteemed Drmies would be equal to the task. I also see Bishonen as an inexhaustible font of wisdom and practical advice.- MrX 21:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

MrX, I can barely raise my own children, and I don't think I should be in charge of making coffee let alone "mentoring" a real human being, but I will do what I can. But please don't let any unblock be conditional on my or anyone else's offers to help out: the merits of the case, that is, to which extent the community has faith in Winkelvi, should be the deciding factor. You said it well, "his doggedness is his Achilles heel", and I hope he recognizes that. Personally, I have faith, though I understand that Winkelvi has made some enemies here. But I really always have faith, even in editors I've blocked myself or been in disagreement with, even in some of the most serious cases brought before ArbCom. I can't help it. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC) @Drmies: I fully trust you to make me, for the record. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC) Drmies has opined on his talk page that Winkelvi "can't do all that much about his self-disclosed condition."[132] I don't think an editor who holds such an opinion should mentor this user (and I believe it has been tried in the past). Besides, If that assessment is correct, no mentor would do any good. I don't think we are in a position to make such a judgment. But I do believe that for whatever reason or no reason, his behavior will not improve. It's important to note that this is a problem that stretches back ate least two years.This massive ANI case from January 2015 was what I was referring to in my comment when I used the term "nightmare," that and the talk page issues referred to by Alanscottwalker below, Coretheapple (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC) We've also noted that one of the problems with WV's behavior is his tendency to ping numerous friendly admins hoping that he will get some support. So I'm not sure why we should appoint one of his favorite admins to "mentor" him. I don't mean to offend Drmies. It's WV's behavior that is concerning me. Also, can we please stop calling him "rule bound?" WV uses the rules when he thinks they will help him. But when they don't, he ignores them. Those 6 blocks for edit-warring tell the story very clearly. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC) Display name 99, I think you misunderstand "mentor". It means a friendly but possibly strict coach; it doesn't mean "cop who keeps someone on a leash". That I'm supposed to be "friendly" to Winkelvi is yet to be determined, and at any rate that's your assessment of Winkelvi's hypothetical assessment of my attitude toward Winkelvi--do you understand my point? You don't know, and neither does Winkelvi. But let's say I am in fact "friendly" to them (that I'm an admin has nothing to do with it)--why on earth would you want to give someone a mentor who is unfriendly to them? Isn't that just like taking out an insurance to make sure they'll fail? And can I repeat that I am not seeking to be anyone's mentor or feel qualified to be anyone's mentor? Drmies (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC) Drmies, of course I wouldn't want the admin to be "unfriendly." My concern was the possibility of either bias in the admin or WV deciding to think that he had someone he could use to come to his rescue in the event of an argument, and nothing more. I understand your lack of enthusiasm for the job. I personally don't think that it will work, and repeat my statement that, due to the persistent and severe behavioral problems occurring over the past years and in spite of repeated warnings, an indefinite block is by far the best way to solve this crisis. Display name 99 (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC) That's not what mentors do, typically. I just got done sending a long email to my friend and colleague Coffee, with some details about someone from a while ago, in a case somewhat similar. This editor, who had similar editing behavior, got indeffed on the spot for all the right reasons and has worked themselves back into the fold, now without any restrictions and problems. I don't think I was necessarily their "mentor", but we had discussions via email, they'd ask me what I think they'd should do, and I'd tell them what, to the best of my ability, I thought was a good thing to do. Mentors, in my experience, don't necessarily go and jump in the middle of disputes; mentors aren't advocates, though they'll act in the best interest of their protege. So, I don't know about Winkelvi, there's no guarantees, but he's a human being and he's been here a while, and he's done some good (IMO much more good than bad), and I'm not going to give up on someone as long as they have an interest in improving our beautiful project. I will confess to something: in modern US parlance, I'm a liberal, I suppose, and that means, to me, that I don't easily give up on people. Frequently one gets very disappointed that way, and there are no ribbons or medals for getting it right, but I suppose I was Born This Way. And if 0R is the best I can get out of it, that's fine, though I prefer 1R, because 0R really means "we have no faith in you whatsoever"; 1R means "we don't trust you to stop on time". That's a big difference. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC) Drmies, I understand not wanting to give up on people. But there comes a time when one must consider the common good. In this case, it is the interest of the project and the well-being of its contributors. If the person in question has shown a consistent failure to follow directions and change disruptive behavior, and causing countless other people a huge amount of anguish in the process, and has not given any indication that the behavior will change, any concern for that person must be made secondary to doing what is best for the community. You say that a 0R means "we have no faith in you whatsoever." And what reason would there be to have faith after 6 edit-warring blocks in 3 years? It's a good thing to not want to give up on people, but you also need to use some common sense to deal properly with abusive people who clearly aren't going to change. And because the abusive behavior extends beyond edit-warring, and includes extensive harassment, bludgeoning, and other forms of aggressive behavior on talk pages, it should be clear that a 0RR won't even come close to solving all our problems. Only an indefinite block, made after years of smaller blocks and warnings and countless hours spent by countless editors sorting through drama and trying to find a solution, can put this unwanted behavior to rest. Display name 99 (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC) I'm glad I don't feel that way. What I do or do not need is between me and my creator. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC) Winkelvi has more edits than I do and has more time in the project (24,000 edits and nearly five years). We're beyond the point at which mentoring would do any good. It's been years and years and blocks and blocks. Even if mentoring was capable of working, I believe the mentor would have to believe that the editor in question was capable of changing his behavior and dealing with whatever behavioral issues he may have. Drmies has already indicated he has no such confidence, as I observed previously. Note this exchange with Jehochman. And I agree that he does seem to be a partisan and that it would not help. Coretheapple (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC) Coretheapple, please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say I have no confidence Winkelvi can change his behavior; au contraire. And I'll say the same to you that I said before: you can't be a mentor if you're not sympathetic. That is not the same thing as "partisan"--a. it puts everything in the context of conflict, which is the wrong way to work in a collaborative project and b. a mentor is not a punisher. If you are somehow worried that this evil Winkelvi's mischief is going to go unnoticed because partisan admin Dr. whoever is shielding his misdeeds from the world, you're mistaken. All edits are out in the open, and by last count there were some two zillion editors in this very thread who want Winkelvi blocked indefinitely and will be keeping a close eye on him. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC) You told me on your talk page that Winkelvi "can't do all that much about his self-disclosed condition"[133], by which you mean his Asperger's. If so the situation is hopeless because Winkelvi blames his behavior on his Asperger's. For instance, in this exchange with User:Jehochman, he said "Jehochman, I'm not clueless, I have Asperger Syndrome." On his user page he has two entire sections on the subject. One says "If you've had any kind of issue or misunderstanding in your dealings with me, there is an excellent article/essay on Wikipedia editors with Asperger Syndrome found here that might help." Immediately below that, in a section entitled "About Me and Editing," he goes on and on about his Asperger's and how it influences his editing. He has another Asperger's notice at the top of his user talk page. If we take him at his word that his behavior is caused by Aspergers, and if we accept your belief that he can't do much about it, then mentoring will not work and he needs to be indeffed for the good of the community. It isn't fair to expect that the community bear the brunt of this person's behavior, whatever its cause, if self-control is not in the cards. "Some people, whether on the autism spectrum or not, just don't belong in Wikipedia. Vandals, trolls, and abusive and disruptive editors can be blocked or banned, and being on the autism spectrum is no excuse for unacceptable behaviour." I realize that you have a lot of empathy for Winkelvi, but you need to have empathy for the people who have to deal with him. The reason there are a "zillion people who want him indeffed" as you put it is not that we are evil, but because of his behavior. You have never had to put up with bad behavior from him, because he shows a different face to adminstrators. As numerous editors have pointed out, he's extra-nice to you guys (unless you block him). The rest of us don't have that advantage. Coretheapple (talk) 05:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

entirely arbitrary break

• Just to be clear, the problem with my long ago interaction with Winklevi, was yes edit warring, but also his unbelievably and intentionally ignorant arguments (eg, admitting he did not read sources) and offensive long drawn-out fights (over basically nothing, at all) and gross accusations (over less) - Winklevi needs be told straight out that he harms Wikipedia. He just has to shut down this manner of interaction, which begins with reversions, 0RR actually takes care of all that, if he can buy into it - read Anna's comment on his talk page, about going to write something worthwhile -- that is what he needs to do, (don't go near others work) if he has any hope, beyond the block. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
• Indefinite block. I was involved in the Myerson issues referred to above. The continued prevalence of identical issues is discouraging. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 01:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse block Back in 2015, I had a rather acrimonious encounter with Winkelvi when he reported another editor for edit warring. I will admit that WV's prediction that the other editor would continue to edit war did prove true so I'll give him that much. That other editor ultimately got himself indefinitely blocked for edit warring and socking, but that's by the by. I've generally avoided WV after that encounter. However, the argument does show that WV knows full well what it is to edit war and that any sort of prevarication is basically bullshit. Anything less than a 0RR restriction upon expiry of the block would be too lenient. Blackmane (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. I won't weigh in with any particular recommendation, because to me it just seems like a quibble about degree. But I would add that, just recently, I too had a rather difficult encounter with Winklevi. I found him to be unreasonable, illogical, stubborn and unwilling to engage in meaningful discussion. When he made up his mind, he was like a bulldog with a bone and that was it. So the question is, if that's someone's personality, is there really any administrative action that could reasonably be expected to change it? As we've already been down this road many times before - isn't the past, predictive? X4n6 (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a perfect way to describe the situation. The Myerson incident above might be the egregious example, but it's far from the only case of WV taking it upon himself to be prosecuting attorney, judge, jury and executioner. See this discussion in 2014 about Breaking Bad. And who could forget this one regarding Chelsea Clinton or this 2015 one regarding Taylor Swift. (Whether female musicians are singer-songwriters or merely singers and songwriters is apparently a cause celebre for him: See here for another example.) For a more recent example, see multiple threads at Talk:Ilias Psinakis or Talk:Madonna_(entertainer)/Archive_19. Calidum 22:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Calidum: Yes, come to think of it I received a note from User:Robert McClenon over that odd issue. [134]. Evidently there was an RfC on that nonsense in a project some time before, and I was summoned by bot to participate. Coretheapple (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Multi-war veteran. Happened to see this and noticed some comments from editors who haven't been directly involved with him, yet are weighing in. While I've been subjected to a series of edit wars with him in Dec. and Jan., I don't want to offer any opinions unless invited, since this seems to be an admin board. Another veteran, who became a casualty, is User:Pauciloquence, FWIW. --Light show (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

Light show, I'm not an admin either. Non-admins regularly contribute to this board, so feel free. Coretheapple (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC) My impression was that besides the hounding by immediately going to articles I started working on, his edits were clear provocations to edit war for pure joy. By the third article in a row, it was pretty obvious that he was treating edit wars as a form of sport. He also had some kind of clear backstage pass, since he got that other editor speedy blocked w/o notice and got me speedy blocked twice in a row at Commons on a near fabrication while edit warring at En/WP. He had no fear of admins, most of whom seemed to be his buddy.--Light show (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC) Light show, given his block record, I doubt very much that most admins seem to be his buddy. Sorry, but that's silly--he just got blocked for three months so please--backstage pass? Your link is to Commons, where apparently you are blocked indefinitely for serial copyright violations; here, you have been blocked for edit warring by Courcelles, for more edit warring by Future Perfect at Sunrise, and for more edit warring by EdJohnston, and by Moonriddengirl for violating a topic ban (uploading copyrighted images, I think?). Kindly tell me which one of these bans and blocks are Winkelvi's fault. I see now that I closed that community ban in 2014, so maybe that's the sour grapes? Anyway, since one of the participants here now thinks I'm a passive-aggressive cunt, I should probably stop weighing in. If y'all think Winkelvi is irredeemable and you want to throw him out indefinitely, please do so without false representations and personal attacks. You'd appreciate that if it were ever your turn. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC) Jesus! I'm not a member of the Light Show Fan Club, we've had a series of disputes over Melanie Trump within just the past week, but he sure as hell showed more civility than you have in this entire discussion, with your steam-out-of-ears tone and now a gratuitous personal attack on Light Snow. You are in zero position to lecture anyone on personal attacks, sir or madam. And you do realize that your flailing about here contradicts the point of your missive--which is that Winkelvi has buddies in the admin corps? Without which we wouldn't be here? Coretheapple (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC) Does "cunt" count as a personal attack? Why isn't your buddy blocked for saying that? Did I miss you warning him? As for Light show, the attack (on Winkelvi and the admin corps) is his--I merely asked which of his many blocks are supposedly caused by Winkelvi. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC) That other editor I first mentioned, who hasn't been around since December, is apparently reading this and sent me a request. Since Winkelvi got them speedy blocked w/o notice, he/she has been trying to get unblocked. So if any admin has a few minutes, maybe they can review his case and help them out. For a newbie, they were making some very good quality improvements to a number of bios. --Light show (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC) Light show, I read through that investigation. [135] It appears as though a Checkuser never confirmed the connection. I think that's a major problem. Every person accused of sockpuppetry should be entitled to a Checkuser search. This way, the sockpuppetry is confirmed, and so the indefinite block would not be based exclusively on circumstantial evidence. I'll admit that the circumstantial evidence in this case does seem to be strong-I've interacted with one confirmed WS sock before, an account by the name of Jilllyjo-and I have observed some similarities. Yet this shouldn't be enough. Finally, the connection is listed as "Likely." Then it was closed. Nothing else happened. In a criminal court, being able to argue that the defendant "likely" committed the crime is not enough for a conviction. It's also worth noting that the blocking admin, Bbb23, was pinged by WV. Bbb23 also protested Coffee's decision to open this thread, so it appears he may be a bit sympathetic to Winkelvi. Thus, although it is beside the original point here, I support the investigation being reopened so that a CheckUser may be brought in to investigate. Display name 99 (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC) That is incorrect: a CheckUser (Bbb23) did investigate, and Pauciloquence is checkuser-blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC) Ivanvector, I have one quick question before I strike my comment supporting the reinvestigation. If the CheckUser did indeed confirm that the two accounts came from the same IP address, why does it only say "Likely," and not "Confirmed," as it did, for example, in the Wordseventeen/Jilllyjo investigation? Display name 99 (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC) I can only guess since I wasn't involved with that investigation and don't have CheckUser access myself, but my interpretation is that a "likely" result indicates a strong likelihood of connection on a technical basis (versus "confirmed" which is definitely the same user), but still a positive result when the user's behaviour is also similar as it seemed to be here. Or more to the point: a CheckUser placed the block, so it's a CheckUser block. I trust Bbb23 would not annotate the block log in that way if there were any doubt. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC) This whole thing is of questionable relevancy anyway, Display name, just to clarify one point: many if not most SPIs do not involve checkuser because they are WP:DUCK situations. Such as, for instance, the same promotional article being re-created. Coretheapple (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC) OK then. Display name 99 (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC) You guys are getting a little worked up - maybe you could take a step back? HalfShadow 01:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC) Drmies has been worked up over this for the past couple of days, so I'm glad someone noticed. But just to answer his question, which is a fair one: no, I did not warn the editor in question over the word "cunt." Drmies was throwing around words like "asshole" so I figured that word was OK with him. Coretheapple (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC) @Coretheapple: Drmies is not the subject of this thread, nor has he done anything to deserve the blowback he is getting here. Can everyone please focus on the question at hand, which concerns Winkelvi? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC) I said "assholish quality of y'all's discourse"--a comment on content, not on an edit. Coretheapple, Keri, and now Display name are having a little coterie on User talk:Keri, where [Keri referred to me as a cunt. The comment is still there for these boys to snicker over. Core is simply trying to get under my skin, but has not been able to turn Light show's lies into anything substantial against Winkelvi. And from the other editors here, who all seem so concerned with behavior, crickets--at the very least you'd think someone would say something over this "cunt" business, for which the civility police wanted Eric Corbett's head, or the false accusations re:Winkelvi and the admin corps by a serial edit warrior and copyright violator. Community, where are you? Drmies (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC) It would be best if you all took a step back. Your apparent emotional attachment to the issue is distracting and disruptive to the many editors already involved here who are working toward consensus. For what it's worth: @Drmies: "assholish quality of y'all's discourse" may be a comment on content but it contains a blatant and IMO very unnecessary insult to the person contributing that content; @Keri: the next time you associate an editor with your "mental list of 'cunts whose opinions I disregard'", it will be noted in your block log. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC) Speaking as one of the editors you refer to above, I wasn't aware the term was used. Why? Because it was in another thread on another page. It only got here because you chose to bring it here multiple times, in the most inflammatory way possible. So if anyone should be called to task for its presence on this thread, it's you, Drmies. Otherwise, we'd have been none the wiser. Here, it does nothing but stir people up and deflect from the matter at hand. --Drmargi (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC) Facepalm I don't know what you all don't get about being told to drop it, by more than one administrator. The next person I find trying to prolong this side dispute is going to find themselves blocked. Enough already. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Indefinite block. As someone who also had a nightmarish encounter with Winkelvi, I knew it was just a matter of time before his behavior came into light. He is quick to accuse other people, but when someone challenges him on his own behavior, he gets extremely defensive and cries "personal attack". With Winkelvi, he can do no wrong and its always someone else's fault. His problem is much bigger than edit warring. He was recently given a two month block([136]) a few months back and the first thing he did when it expired was lash out at two admins.[137][138] Does this look like someone who learned his lesson and can change his behavior? Despite a lengthy two month block, he was still defiant and told the admin he was wrong and learned nothing. I don't know how he got away with that and I am not sure if the admin ever read his comment. This is a user who can not admit that he is ever wrong and will never change. He also knows the rules clearly and is always reporting other users for edit warring, so no one should buy his excuse about being confused about the rules. Due his battleground behavior and earlier feud with me(long story), he even reported me at WP:ANEW here over a time stamp which was quickly dismissed as probably the most ridiculous and pettiest report ever on Wikipedia. This is the kind of editor that does more harm than good to the project and what Wikipedia doesn't need. He has been given plenty of chances. Enough is enough. TL565 (talk) 07:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I've not had any dealings with Winkelvi (that I recall), so I can't really comment on their conduct, or who they might have rubbed up the wrong way. However, I'm more concerned that the starting point of this block was a malformed report at the edit-war notice board by an IP who appeared out of nowhere to only disappear again. Apologies if that's already been brought up in this thread, but there's a lot of text here already, and I find that to be a major part of this which appears to be overlooked. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see anything wrong with it. It was just an IP who noticed the hypocrisy of Winkelvi's report on another user for violating the 3RR when he had just as many reverts. It's a good thing the IP brought attention to it because he would've gotten away with it too. TL565 (talk) 08:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm off to watch repeats of Scooby Doo. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in most cases I have seen (perhaps not this one -- I haven't checked) the real hypocrisy is claiming that the only thing that matters on ANEW is the number of reverts, as I mentioned (somewhat vaguely) in my earlier comment. Again, I haven't looked into this most recent edit war, but for the sake of argument imagine that Winkelvi had been desperately pinging the other user on the talk page and presenting reasonable arguments for his version, and the other user was either ignoring said comments completely and not posting on the talk page at all or posting variations on "You're wrong" or "I don't care" (or even "You are a stupid poopy-head" -- I've seen it happen). In this scenario, Winkelvi would still be wrong to revert multiple times (he should have just come to ANEW first), but he would clearly be the less guilty of "edit-warring". If Winkelvi, after edit-warring back, then decides to go to ANEW, that still is not hypocrisy on his part -- it's him doing what he should have done to begin with. Again I should specify that this is only in response to TL565's comment above; I am not saying definitely that anything like this scenario happened here. It's just that since it has happened before. I once narrowly escaped a block for having taken bait like this (since there was tag-teaming/meatpuppetry involved, the other party hadn't even technically breached 3RR yet), so it's kind of a pet peeve of mine. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

In this case both users did post to the talk page here, though WV's only justification appears to be "I think they are not improvements" and you need to observe BRD with no other explanation. Of course, when he filed the report at AN3, WV claimed the other editor involved had not attempted to discuss the matter [139] despite the ongoing discussion. Calidum 12:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear: by "malformed" all it means is that the IP didn't follow the correct format for reporting a 3RR violation [140]. If you examine the edit history of the Billy the Kid article[141] you can see that it was clearly a 3RR violation. But what's striking is what he was edit warring over. Here is the diff of the edit in question. These are piddling, inconsequential, trivial wording changes, such as changing active voice into passive. (E.g., changing "reviewed the photo" into "the photo was reviewed"). This is identical to his behavior in Bess Myerson 26 months ago, down to the last detail in the sense that he pushed the revert button repeatedly over trivial, inconsequential semantic issues in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, I didn't even notice the word "malformed". I took Lugnuts' comment to be more about the (malformed or no) report being filed by an IP who appeared out of nowhere to only disappear again, as Andy Dingley said at the top of this thread. I'm usually inclined to cut people slack when it comes to failure to conform to templates like that because, honestly, a lot of the instructions on Wikipedia noticeboards and the like are really difficult to follow, especially when it looks like ANEW works essentially the same as AN and its other subpages like this one. Frankly, it's increasingly hard to assume good faith on the part of the users who write some of those instructions, as from time to time when questioned they seem to indicate that the goal is to make it difficult to use such-and-such process and so decrease the rate and which said process is used (I'm not talking specifically about ANEW here). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• The debate here is mostly in reference to this ANEW entry: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive338#Winkelvi (Result: Blocked). A new IP address appears, alleges, "Winkelvi made four reverts in 11 hours on the same page" but doesn't even say which page this was, so that's unverifiable, and Coffee blocked them for 3 months within an hour and without any sort of discussion or clarification as to what had happened.

This is a bad block. Not because Winkelvi wasn't edit-warring, but because on-demand long blocks by passing socks have traditionally required IRC or requests at Wikipediocracy, not just an unformed handwave at ANEW. That is a much worse thing than anything Winkelvi was doing. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that an IP not abiding by proper format makes it a "bad block." There's no question that was a terrible 3RR report, in the sense of not even mentioning that it was in Billy the Kid. But to figure out what he meant, all one had to do was look in Winkelvi's recent edit history, and there it was. This was not an accusation of sockpuppetry, just something very obvious. Keep in mind too that people are blocked for edit warring all the time, without any ANEW report being filed. Coretheapple (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

Hijiri88 "Perhaps" not this one? Rather than taking a quick look at the actual circumstances, you propose an alternative scenario so that you can bring up a pet peeve that does not apply? I am the other editor who was edit-warring with Winkelvi over simple copy edits involving minor stylistic changes (mainly using passive-voice constructions vs. active-voice). It started when I reverted Winkelvi's reversion of an IP editor's copy edits (which were completely valid). I've had other run-ins with him at the same article, and found Winkelevi's intransigence to be the single greatest impediment to the article's progression toward GA status, which was strange, considering that he was the nominating editor. His interactions with the poor reviewers who accepted the thankless task of dealing with him were a sight to see. I can only say that in the years (since 2011) I've been editing, Winkelvi is by far the most unpleasant person I've ever tried to work with, inside WP or outside. The history of his behavior in the many negative encounters he's had on WP speaks volumes. I would certainly have pointed out Winkelvi's hypocrisy (after the expiration of my 24-hour block) if the IP hadn't. Carlstak (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC) Someone (TL565) made a general statement that was (in general) wrong, I replied in general, and while no one complained another user (Coretheapple) corrected me on something that was really peripheral to what I had written (it was clear that no one was particularly concerned with the malformed nature of the ANEW thread), so I replied to that. I am under no obligation to comment any further on this particular case than I already have; I presented my opinion on what should be done in this case (which was a very popular opinion, not an "alternative scenario [...] that doesn't apply") three days ago. I said "perhaps" merely because I was not sure either way (as far as I am concerned, it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference regarding what should be done here), and for the purpose of what I wanted to write I was under no obligation to find out. It was NOT meant to imply that I had looked into the specific details here and was unable to figure out whether or not what I said applied. The rest of your comment beyond the second sentence has nothing whatsoever to do with me, and so I will not address it. (For the record, I too have interacted with Winkelvi in the past and found his behaviour unpleasant. That has nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote. Frankly, with Winkelvi blocked at the moment, I'm a little more concerned with how unpleasant you are being with the above highly belligerent remark.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC) "Highly belligerent"? Please. Carlstak (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Does Scooby Doo have ad breaks? I'm selling a bridge. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Zoinks! Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 15:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• The IP didn't even make a separate report. It was supposed to be in the same report at Wikinelvi's [142] Some one else later separated them and it got archived seperatly. TL565 (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• You're right - that does make quite a difference then. An interesting theory has been hypothesised for this, but that is Wikipediocracy's mud, and they can fling it themselves. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• It's a helpful clarification, but I really don't believe it is all that consequential. Coretheapple (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse block as well within admin discretion. Coffee ought to be admonished for bringing this here: a pretty clear consensus had already developed below Winkelvi's unblock request and this thread is a very transparent attempt to forumshop the result he was the only one not agreeing with. That said, we're here now and other issues have come to light. Having read both threads I support unblock with indefinite 1RR restriction with the standard WP:3RRNO exemptions. This will not affect WV's anti-vandalism activities as blatant vandalism can be reverted anyway, it will only prevent WV from getting into the revert wars they have such a tumultuous history with. So I hope, anyway. Any second revert on any page anywhere would result in an immediate and indefinite block. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Ivanvector, after the block, Winkelvi continued his habit of pinging friendly admins to try to bail him out. Knowing from experience which admins he can gain favor from, it's a pretty clear case of "admin shopping" and thus shouldn't be seen as representing any kind of general consensus. Most of the editors on the talk page agreeing to a 1RR were canvassed.

Appealing to the community was in truth the best decision, because it is we who have to deal with Winkelvi's behavior. We shouldn't be forced to let a group of hand-picked administrators decide what to do with Winkelvi. In a place like this, anybody, no matter what their previous interactions (if any) with Winkelvi, can see and comment on the proposals. Display name 99 (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the end but not the means. Anyway, arguing about it beyond this point is not going to aid the discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Ivanvector, Coffee should be thanked for both the block and raising it here - you, perhaps, should be "admonished", for your raise the heat, "admonishment" - raising it publicly is policy and actually much better process for multiple reasons (someone above actually says your 1rr will work better now, because we are all suppose to be imposed upon to watch him). Did you read Anna's last comment on the talk page? You want to leave temptation? So, an indef can occur. Better to remove temptation (or mistake), entirely. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I said let's not pursue this, and instead you pursue it by threatening me? That doesn't jibe well with your missive about not raising the heat. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

That's absurd. There is no threat. Unless, you are claiming your original comment was a threat. My comment was even milder than yours. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, I interpreted your "indef can occur" comment as directed at me. I see now what you were referring to below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Sincerely, thank you, for that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hey y'all, let's not get upset on my account. Ivanvector, there's simply no logical way you can call a deliberate selection of favored admins: consensus. If this was the case every single editor here, when blocked, would never use the {{unblock}} system anymore... we could all just ping who we wanted to be on the panel of our fate. This is why the policy states: Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended. Furthermore, it looks like you may be accidentally misreading what Alan wrote. I (and Alan can correct me if I'm wrong) believe he was merely referring to what impression your comments might make upon WV and what affect that might have on him (e.g. a future indefinite block due to unhindered disruptive behavior). At any rate, I'd rather we not blow this up too far out of proportion; I've already fully explained my reasoning for coming here. If certain editors decide they don't want to believe me, so be it. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Coffee: in the end, however this came about it's coming around to probably be a proper outcome. However, it does honestly look to a neutral observer (or to me, maybe I'm not as neutral as I think I am) like you only posted here to get around the emerging consensus to overturn your block. But you're right that admins were canvassed, and you've already explained the situation, and you posted in the right forum, but the other discussion is still going, and there's all the different talk page posts, but ... I don't know, it's all a mess. Let's all agree that this got to where it needed to be and leave it at that. To that end I've struck my comment above, I don't honestly see the point in admonishments anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I want to assure you that I did not come here to avoid a consensus, I came here to avoid a cherry-picked consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I get it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

not so arbitrary break

Reading through the above a few times, I think there are two main courses of action editors are recommending:

1. An indefinite block
2. An unblock with an indefinite 0RR or 1RR editing restriction.

It'd be helpful when judging consensus if editors stating a preference above could indicate if they could live with the other option. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Remove temptation, from someone, who behaves as if they cannot handle it, and then gets into obnoxious BATTLE over their reversion: Block and 0 RR, sure if they take the 0 RR, I am neutral on ending block early. (1RR has already been tried). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• Indefinite block It'd be a matter of days before the 0RR/1RR restriction is broken - not because the editor would deliberately do it, but because their temper enthusiasm would get the better of them. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• As indicated above, I'd definitely prefer indefinite. However, I could live with letting the block expire after the full 90 days and then going with an indefinite 0RR after that. However, there's no way I could do 1RR. It's been attempted already and didn't come close to solving all of the problems. Display name 99 (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I favor an indefinite block, and I think an immediate unblock with a 1RR or even 0RR restriction would be a mistake and would be unfair to the editors in subject areas in which Winkelvi is a prolific contributor. It's kicking the can down the road. It's not just reversions and edit warring, it's a general cluelessness, a refusal to "get the point." Even without reverting, an editor can wreak havoc on talk pages, driving away editors by filibustering and wall-o-text rants, very much as Winkelvi did at Myerson and as he began to do at Billy the Kid. And over what? Nothing. Passive versus active voice. Little turns of phrase. Whether someone should be called a "singer-songwriter" or a "singer and songwriter." In fact, even if a 0RR restriction had been in force in January 2015, the nightmare that he inflected on other editors on the Myerson talk page would have been just as awful. He's been shown plenty of compassion and given multiple chances. Time to show compassion for the rest of us, Coretheapple (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• The problem with an 'indef block' is that a)its not a ban and so not subject to community input to lift, and b)any admin can unblock in the future based on whatever Wink can convince them of - as they have an extensive history of saying 'I'll change' this is clearly a suboptimal solution. So regardless of their block length/when they are unblocked, he needs a 0RR restriction which can only be lifted by community consensus. He is well aware of 1rr, 3rr etc and since he has repeatedly (there is ample evidence above) shown no interest in not edit warring despite knowing full well what it is and all the details around what constitutes a revert, only 0RR has a hope of working. I say working, but I mean 'cause less disruption to other editors'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Good points. What about a site ban? It's the same thing. OR an indefinite block that can only be lifted by community consensus, if there is such a thing. Please see my comments above re talk page abuse. Coretheapple (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• WP:CBAN --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Only in death: Actually, a community imposed indefinite block cannot be unilaterally lifted by any single admin without community consensus to do so. Blackmane (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

You may want to review WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN. As written the policy states any non-arbcom indefinite *block* can be appealed in the usual manner via an unblock request. Only community *bans* are required to go back to the community/arbcom. Granted any admin who did unblock after the community voted for an indef block would likely end up here, but the editor could not be reblocked without accusations of wheel-warring. Its the weakness of blocks vs bans for persistant offenders. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Indefinite block. Let's just recap the situation. He was blocked in June 2014 for edit warring. January 2015 for edit warring over multiple pages. Twice in March 2015 for edit warring and disruptive editing. July 2015 for edit warring (overturned on a technicality). November 2015 for edit warring (ditto). January 2016 for edit warring. May 2016 for feuding with multiple editors. September 2016 for harassment. March 2017 for edit warring. That's ten blocks in the period of 1,000 days -- one every three months. It's clear this behavior has not stopped and I don't see any positives to outweigh the many negatives other editors have described above. (Note that he could still ask the community to have the block lifted in the future -- indefinite isn't infinite -- and it might be good if he were the one saying what he would do differently to avoid confrontations instead of us offering him lifelines in the form of revert restrictions.) Calidum 18:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, I wanted to see how much further the rabbit hole goes. There were at least 16 other reports at WP:AN3 concerned Winkelvi where either the page was protected, he warned or no action was taken without explanation. Here they are:July 2013, January 2014, February 2014, September 2014, October 2014,October 2014, January 2015,January 2015,January 2015,February 2015,March 2015,May 2015,May 2015,November 2015,June 2016 and September 2016. (He's also filed a number of reports himself, but I didn't take time to sort through many of them). Calidum 01:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - neutral with regard to indefinite block, it's not my preferred option but Winkelvi has clearly exhausted the patience of many editors. I oppose 0RR in any case as I've only ever seen it lead to gaming the definition of a revert followed by more dramah (I mean generally, not just in this case). I also think a site ban is unduly harsh for this and do not support it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

If that is true, isn't 1RR, even more so? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

... what? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

You talked of gaming, 1RR would seem more gamable than 0. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Not in my experience, no. With 1RR there's some leeway, while with 0RR you basically guarantee that the next dispute will be over whether or not a particular edit was a revert or not, with little care about the actual substance of the edit. It's counterproductive. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Indefinite block. It's clear that there is a significant body of administrators who can be manipulated by Winklevi, leaving me with no confidence that the 0RR/1RR restriction and subsequent mandatory indef would be enforced. Worse, were Coffee to do so, he'd be subject to a quick hauling over the coals by at least some of his administrative peers. Moreover, it's clear that the experiences of those of us who have been on the receiving end of Winklevi's behavior are of little consequence to the group Winklevi has wrapped around his little finger, and we will continue to be pursued, harangued and hassled by him. Given that, the one and only acceptable choice is to indefinitely block him. --Drmargi (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - A site ban may be overly harsh in this situation. Why not finish his current block then 0RR indefinitely? That would be a step-up from the last attempt to reason with him, while avoiding a site ban. This solution, however, would be his last chance to reform, at least in my opinion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick, the biggest issue with that is Winkelvi's equally consistent hostile and combative behavior on talk pages. Talk:Bess Myerson and Talk:Billy the Kid are the two best examples. Display name 99 (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Display name 99 good point. I was trying to suggest an in-between from the two most said proposals. If an indef block is decided by consensus, I would not object because I have no personally experience dealing with this editor.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Indefinite block is my preferred solution, which I support with great regret in this and other cases. I have spent a lot of time reading all of the background information in the past several days and that has been a depressing process that has failed to convince me that a more lenient outcome would be better for the encyclopedia. In the sake of disclosure, I had a brief and unpleasant interaction with this editor a couple of years ago, and have steered clear since. Of course, I could live with another solution because I accept consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• I've started to post in this thread a couple of times now, and deleted what I wrote because it made me want to bash my head into a wall, and then come back to it to find it even worse. I see I waited too long and we're now in the "Requests for Banning" phase. This whole thing, from top to bottom, is basically How Not To ANI: The Thread. The tendency of ANI to escalate drama and work up a crowd is well attested. I think it's often underappreciated how frustrating and distressing editors can find these long threads in which people show up to pick apart the subject's perceived personal faults as exhibited over the last several years. (Likewise with frequent comments from the blocking admin on the blocked editor's talk page. Best to let others step in.) The original plan worked out by a group of admins familiar with the situation - unblock after some time to think + 1RR - is a sensible one. Most of the comments here overlook the fact that 1RR did work pretty well in the past, but the restriction expired. So renew it. (There's also a lot of pixels spilled on the length of the block log, but "gets blocked once every six months for 3RR" is really not the kind of thing that breaks the wiki. He's hardly the only established editor who occasionally goes over that line.) Since he says he'd prefer to wait out the block than work under a 0RR restriction, I suppose those are my second and third choices. The proposals for an indefinite block or siteban are unwarranted. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by working up a crowd, as virtually all the editors posting here have had experiences with this editor, aren't just kibbitzers dropping in for blood sport. Also the focus on edit-warring has overlooked the talk page issues noted by some editors here. 0RR would not address them. Coretheapple (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. I think 0RR is worth a try. Indef, just means until someone unblocks - it is often quite short. The reason 0RR would work, is it takes away the incentive to enter these BATTLES, at all.Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

True, there is that possibility. But if you have 0RR, there would be no impact on talk-page concerns such as you I believe noted. That's why a site ban makes sense. Reading CBAN, it seems specifically tailored for this kind of situation. Coretheapple (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, I think the talk page BATTLE stems form the reversion warring, and trying to "protect" his re - version using his battle tactics. Remove reversion temptation at all means remove the reason for BATTLE - means he goes and does something else, like create articles on on his own or with someone, as Anna suggested on the talk page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

But all 0RR means is that the battle shifts to the talk page. He has his preferred wording. He puts it up there. It is reverted. Now instead of revert-warring he takes it to the talk page and calamity ensues. I believe this happened when Myerson was protected, as I believe it was. Yes, hopefully he would stop that behavior. But he won't.. I trust you know how hard it is to deal with such situations. It's not like 3RR, which is cut and dried. We just had a situation like that in another article, involving a small group of editors who went against consensus.

So there is a talk page nightmare. You come here. You know how hard it is to convey to third parties that a tendentious editor is being tendentious. Meanwhile, the protection corps materializes. He gets another chance. More promises. More time down the toilet. It's like the man said --- like beating your head against the wall. Sorry to be so gloomy and dismal, but that's just how it is. Coretheapple (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

He no longer has the ability to force his view in article space, he must get consensus on the talk page - he is most unlikely to get consensus if he takes his BATTLE stance, and being ineffective is probably his best teacher, here. It's plain there will not be a ban, at this time - and as someone else said the step-up is 0rr, and I think it takes away almost all his incentive to Battle. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Remember this exchange about "plagiarism" in Talk:Bess Myerson? Which did not exist? He was unable to force his view on that in article space but it made no difference. 0RR doesn't address this kind of talk page situation. Only self-restraint. Which ain't happening. Coretheapple (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I do remember, it began with a his desire for reversion of the stupidly alleged plagiarism, and it was around the same time that he admitted he did not read the sources, all which goes against his desired version, and makes it all ineffective. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

And an accumulation of that kind of thing is why there is an interest in indefinitely blocking. I agree, though, that the elephant in the room is that whatever is done here might be reversed by admins who are sympathetic to WV and not to the people he encounters. I would suggest that an indef, after a discussion like this, would not be casually overturned. Coretheapple (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Look, the world won't end whatever the outcome here. The test, I think, is what causes least additional stress and time wasted for the community, defined as "editors who might encounter him." What will result in the least drama in the long run? So let's say he's indeffed. Then the burden is on him to come back after a period of time and make commitments, and subsequent to such a return there would be less incentive to be troubling. As a person who myself has struggled with ... well..... [143] I believe that this makes the most sense. Coretheapple (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

But, no. If there is an indefinite block, with no required consensus instruction on how to lift it, it is just left to the lifting admin to do what they think best. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Well there's our answer - an instruction. Coretheapple (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

And the choices, at present, are 1RR or 0RR. Alanscottwalker (talk)

No, I think it's premature to judge the outcome of this discussion. The last one in which I participated in ANI concerning this editor went on for many days. Softlavender suggests a talk page restriction, for instance. Coretheapple (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Come now, Opibina, your "bashed head" is drama to the max. This so-called "group of administrators" includes, at least 1, where the last comment on the talk page was essentially, 'maybe you should stay blocked then, you need to find something else to do, because you can't handle it' That's working it out, too, but just not in your way, no point in your bashing your head, silliness. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: Re: "The original plan worked out by a group of admins familiar with the situation - unblock after some time to think + 1RR - is a sensible one." That plan was "worked out" by three friendly admins WV pinged, an admin known for his extreme leniency and cowboy unblocks (Ritchie, who unblocked WV's one-week block after 2.5 days in February 2016 with a three-month 1RR restriction), and an admin with a longterm feud with the blocker. It was not worked out or agreed to by anyone who has had to deal with WV's disruption (and those that have not had to deal with WV's disruption would include you: [144]). In terms of ANI, you are on record as stating "Nothing good happens at ANI", but in your four years active on Wikipedia you have made only 75 edits here, even though you have been an admin for most of that time: [145]. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC); edited 23:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, yeah, why would I hang out in a place I don't like? "The food here is terrible - and such small portions!" ;)

And yeah, if I've ever crossed paths with Winkelvi, it was forgettable. Not part of the "protection corps" supposedly hanging around. That's how this is supposed to work - independent review by uninvolved people with fresh eyes. Some of the stuff here - joining in to reanimate a minor two-year-old content dispute - well, that's a little bit like the "not letting go" behavior Winkelvi's accused of, I'd say. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Like DHeyward, you're missing the point. The reason there is so much agreement on this thread is because hundreds of good-faith editors have been at the receiving end of Winkelvi's obstinate, relentless, heedless, and highly disruptive behavior over the past several years, often multiple times in different venues. The Bess Myerson article is just one example out of several hundred. If there were an ArbCom case, people would present dozens more (I myself have several examples). If you have not been on the receiving end of Winkevli's harassment (and very few admins have; WV knows better), then you do not have the same experience others here do. And ANI is not "supposed to work [by] independent review by uninvolved people with fresh eyes". It is for knowledgeable and experienced editors to give their best recommendations. Lastly, if you think the Bess Myerson article example is a "minor" content dispute, then you have not examined it thoroughly. Either that, or you do not understand extreme edit-warring and WP:BLUDGEONING. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

No I am not missing the point nor is Opabinia regalis. I've been around the block to know the difference between a collective feeling of low-level annoyance and long term abusive editors. The lack of diffs, lack of ANI reports, lack of AE reports and virtually no diffs except for multi-year one-off encounters. If he has such a record, take him to ArbCom. This ANI has all the markings of a pile-on with each editor that ever had an unpleasant experience leaves their "death by a thousand cuts" diffless anecdote. I have now read Bess Myerson talk page and he had valid criticism and input. So much so, that only a technical violation of 3RR would warrant a block. There was no abuse or disruption and he called for sourcing where there wasn't any. Nothing wrong with that at all. Another example is how many of winkelvi's detractors lament his pinging admins to his talk page. None of the pinged admins cared. No one thought it necessary to remove talk page access. Yet, there are busy-bodies here that are upset by this behavior. Why is that? It doesn't concern them. It doesn't bother the admins - that makes it defacto not disruptive. But that's another hallmark of piling on. He's not pinging or berating those that are making rather broad accusations against him without diffs. These "one time at band camp..." anecdote need a lot more evidence, not just torches and pitchforks. The place for that is ArbCom because what's hear at ANI is too shallow to warrant additional sanctions. --DHeyward (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course the pinged admins didn't care -- he chose admins who were predisposed towards him. There are plenty of diffs and links provided in this thread -- not all of them sufficiently relevant, but enough of them are. And you didn't look at all of the 120 edits WV made to Bess Myerson in 2.5 days including endless edit-warring over some of his unnecessary changes. There is some degree of piling on in this thread, but that's because WV has relentlessly targeted hundreds of good-faith editors over the years. Beyond the piling on, however, you'll find very experienced and circumspect editors and admins such as Cullen328, The Wordsmith, Neutrality, Black Kite, QEDK, Ealdgyth, Calidum, and Blackmane endorsing a three-month block (or longer) and/or a 0RR restriction. So it's hardly an overall pile-on, however much I may disagree with an indef block. Softlavender (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

A 3 month block is the status quo. A 1RR restriction has been encouraged by many, including myself. Those are reasonable. Site ban, indefinite block, etc are not reasonable. Please don't argue for additional unreasonable sanctions and then cite admins that are essentially not asking for a change. --DHeyward (talk) 05:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I responded to your statement that "This ANI has all the markings of a pile-on", which it is not in my opinion, given the number of very experienced and circumspect editors and admins who are advocating strict sanctions (0RR [The Wordsmith, QEDK, Ealdgyth, Blackmane]; 0RR and continuation of the three-month block [Neutrality]; indef block [Cullen328, Calidum]). Softlavender (talk) 06:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse Block + indefinite 1RR. I am not a fan of indefinite blocks and I also don't think we need to unblock at this point in time. I too, like many editors, have had my run ins with WV and I think while the block was 100% righteous, we can give WV some rope. WV states that he responds well to cut in stone rulings, so we can do that. When he is able to edit again, it should be under indefinite 1RR restrictions. Further edit warring and attacks should result in laddering of blocks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• What a mess. Of the options presented, I favor unblock with indefinite 1RR restriction, although if the consensus was for 0RR instead of 1RR, I can understand that POV. I do not believe that an indef block is justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• Indefinite block. Yes, it's a mess. End it. The endless saga has to end. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• Unblock with 1RR as the admins on his talk page suggested. Are we really going site ban someone over 4 edits to Billy the Kid and two year old reference to a kerfuffle at Bess Myerson? This ANI thread has been more disruptive and been more of an "administrative burden" than anything Winkelvi has done. He's a passionate editor over a very small topic area. That's the type of editor we want to rehabiliate and retain, not site ban. Since the caustic nature of this ANI post has driven many of the contributing admins away, there is no way to form a consensus that changes the status quo. He's been blocked for 3 months because of a 4th revert to that highly watched, hotbed of controversy article of Billy the Kid - apparently the cause of much "administrator burden." Oh and two years ago, I understand that people were upset with his talk page comments at the article Bess Myerson. I could probably get more detail if I read those articles. He has not participated in this ANI mudslinging contest which has actually caused more disruption than anything Winkelvi has done. Keep in mind, we are NOT at ANI because of Winkelvi. Winkelvi was given a 3 month block which was not contested here or brought here by him or anyone seeking a change. Had he been lucky enough to have received an Arbitration Enforcement block, this ANI would have been closed as out-of-process. Think about that: our highest burden articles would not have allowed this process to occur, yet there are editors that think he should receive harsher punishment. Unbelievable. --DHeyward (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

"Are we really going site ban someone over 4 edits to Billy the Kid and two year old reference to a kerfuffle at Bess Myerson?" No of course not. It would be because of the 10 total blocks (not counting the sockpuppetry one because of the technicality) that he has accumulated over the past three years, and his lengthy history of bullying other editors on talk pages. And yet you single out those two incidents and act as though if these were the only two major things that Winkelvi ever did wrong we'd still be having the same sort of discussion. Unbelievable. Display name 99 (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The Billy the kid revert is why he was blocked for 3 months. I did not bring up Bess Myerson but those seeking his ban surely did and they hold a two year old grudge as if he was still actively editing it. For reference, the two year old "talk page bullying" is much smaller than this ANI as well as being much more civil. The entire ten year history of the Bess Myerson talk page is smaller than this ANI. Winkelvi has no authority or rope to bully anybody and no evidence has been presented that he has done so - specifically the editor that he was edit warring with was blocked for a day for the same issue and the same "administrative burden." Beth Myerson was not a "nightmare" by any stretch of the imagination. If those are the strongest indicators of his poor behavior, there is a problem with the system, not Winkelvi. Those were lame an tedious but a real yawner in terms of drama. I care less about the number of blocks and more about circumstances and if the 4th revert on Billy the Kid and talk page kerfufle on [[[Bess Myerson]]] that occurred 2 years ago and is so small, the entirety of it hasn't been archived in nearly ten years.. If the 10 blocks are as lame as those examples, he's not a problem that needs banning or anything more than a revert restriction. His biggest crime on Billy the Kid was that he was forcing BRD when others were not and they edit warred until both broke 3RR. Happens every day. For that, Winkelvi was described as "most unpleasant person (they)'ve ever tried to work with, inside WP or outside." After an edit war over copy edits. That's just doesn't get past the BS meter. Methinks they doth protest too much. --DHeyward (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

DHeyward, you are misrepresenting me. My statement, "Winkelvi is by far the most unpleasant person I've ever tried to work with, inside WP or outside" was based on this instance and several prior encounters with him. I would ask you not to draw conclusions without doing your due diligence, which you obviously haven't done. Carlstak (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

DHeyward, you're missing the point. The reason there is so much agreement on this thread is because hundreds of good-faith editors have been at the receiving end of Winkelvi's obstinate, relentless, heedless, and highly disruptive behavior over the past several years. The Bess Myerson article is just one example. If there were an ArbCom case, people would present dozens more (I myself have several examples). If you have not been on the receiving end (and very few admins have; WV knows better), then you do not have the same experience others here do. Softlavender (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

To put Softlavender's comments in perspective, I suggest that editors go to ANI Archive 871 and scan down to No. 26, "Winkelvi." I do believe it is much longer than this ANI, stretched on over some days, and involved multiple articles and many editors, including some, on both sides, to be found here, including the same defenders. It began with an alleged polemic on his user page, continued with User:J. Johnson's concerns re 2014 Oso mudslide, moved on to Bess Myerson, at which point a topic ban was discussed (the discussion indicates he consented to absent himself from that article and then reneged), went on to an accusation of canvassing (Drmies closed the discussion by agreeing, but called it "mild"), moved on to his user name, then Meghan Trainor, the result of which was that Winkelvi and two people he was in a dispute with were blocked for 48 hours. Coretheapple (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Do not unblock except under 0RR. A long block (3 months) does not seem unreasonable in light of the long history of problems. I don't think indef is the appropriate action (yet) but it seems clear that the community has reached the end of its patience. 1RR has been tried before and has not produced lasting improvement; so 0RR is the logical next step. Regardless of how this turns out, however, the next block should be indefinite. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
• Leave block as is and indefinite 0RR on expiry per my earlier statement. Blackmane (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm personally not seeing a consensus to unblock among people who were not pinged by Winkelvi. Also, while I understand an indef block is on the table, I think there should be an ArbCom case before that eventuality is enacted. I personally think the three-month block is defensible given that the last block was for two months. In terms of what should happen after the block ends or expires, I suggest both 0RR and some sort of agreement (similar to TRM's in his AE appeals) not to draw out article-talk disputes. (I'm not sure how to achieve that, but perhaps something like an agreement not to post more than twice in any given disagreement.) We really need to cover article-talk discussions in the sanctions, since WV can bludgeon even a simple well-cited RfC discussion into infinity with endless irrelevant arguments. Softlavender (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC); edited 07:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment This discussion was framed as a choice between two polar opposite alternatives, blocking indefinitely and unblocking while imposing editing restrictions. Perhaps the solution is to affirm the three month block and at the conclusion thereof impose an 0RR restriction plus an article talk page restriction of some kind.

Also I just noticed a comment from Winkelvi on his talk page, in which he said that in this discussion there have been "outright lies, a lot of half-truths, (and) total mischaracterisations". That's a serious matter and I wish I had noticed it sooner. I think it is essential that Winkelvi be given the opportunity to enumerate those "lies, half-truths and micharacterizations." Coretheapple (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I offered him the opportunity to have a statement copied to ANI. He declined, but the offer remains open. BethNaught (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Well that's a serious accusation. I'm surprised he wasn't held to account for that on his talk page, as it is an attack on the integrity of editors posting here. He should either substantiate that accusation or withdraw it. Coretheapple (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support unblock with one-year 0RR restriction (which can only be lifted after the expiry of the duration in a community discussion) and oppose indefinite block (edit conflict). I (and a few other editors) hold that WV is capable of being a net positive (still). I think the editor should simply stop using the *revert* function because I believe they have lost the ability to use it without being contentious. I urge that for the duration of a year, they will do something else and be able to regain the community's favour. --QEDK (愛) 16:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry to be a pain, but could you clear up I think the editor should simply stop using an ability so contentious, I believe they have lost the right to use it without its use being contentious being 0RR because I'm having difficulty parsing what you're actually getting at here. Blackmane (talk) 06:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• My apologies. I messed up the paste from the edit conflict and made mistake in the original too. Edited now. --QEDK (愛) 10:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Break for a different point

• Comment There is more than one way to create mayhem and harass another editor. I had an unpleasant entanglement with Winkelvi back in the first quarter of 2015. It happened because Winkelvi edited an article on my watch list and we went through the usual dance of an editor making a BOLD edit and then not following WP:BRD. However that is not the reason for this comment (as such behaviour has been covered by many other editors). This comment is to highlight something else. For reasons now obscured in the mists of time (ie. I can not be bothered to look into the history of many articles to find the root cause), Winkelvi became involved with a dispute with user:Kbabej. Winkelvi targeted many articles that user:Kbabej had created, or had made more than a trivial contribution. If the article had a significant history Winkelvi would change it, and then edit war to keep the change (see for example the creation and a section on the talk page: Talk:Robert Hastings Hunkins#WP:UNDUE). But another tactic employed by Winkelvi was the use of AfDs targeted at articles created by user:Kbabej whether or not there were reasonable grounds for doing so. 0/1RR only tackle edit warring in article space, they do [not] stop other sorts of harassment: links to relevant AfDs in particular look at the period 03:16–03:46, 6 March 2015 when Twinkle was used by Winkelvi to create about 20 AfDs. -- PBS (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: I was wondering if you could suggest a possible remedy for what you've described. We are at that point in the discussion. Nothing that you have described would be addressed in the edit-warring (0RR/1RR) remedies. Apart from blocking, what else could be done? Coretheapple (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer to wait to see what other have to say before commenting further. -- PBS (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

PBS, did you mean "they do [not] stop other sorts of harassment"? Carlstak (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Well I think I understand his point if "not" was unintentionally omitted. Coretheapple (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

My mistake I did accidentally omit "not" -- I have now added it in. -- PBS (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This latest twist makes me think an indef is not enough. If Wink is so vindictive as to follow edit histories and harass editors he doesn't like on other articles, and misuse Afd, then it's time to discuss a community ban. Shame on those calling for an unblock. This is clearly a nasty editor, and needs to be shown the door. Jusdafax 21:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

A perfect example here. [146] Calibrador makes one edit, then Winkelvi shows up, changes the edit and makes a bunch of edits of his own despite not editing the article before. More evidence of this stalking behavior here [147] which led to the block before this one. He continued the same vindictive behavior here [148] and here [149] on Carrie Fisher which was a highly visible article at the time. It's easy to ask for leniency when you haven't been on the receiving end of Winkelvi's wrath before. TL565 (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This 3RR discussion appears to be the upshot of one of the tussles noted above. What's notable about it is how petty it was, and what a waste of time it was. Two almost identical versions of one photo were at stake in the edit-warring. Winkelvi pinged admins he thought would back him up (which boomeranged). Much back and forth. Over nothing. Result: nothing. Coretheapple (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Coretheapple, that thread is one of the funniest things I've seen all day. Thanks for posting it. Display name 99 (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, This one takes the cake. He reported me over a time stamp. It was so petty and dumb, one user almost left the project for good over how ridiculous it was. TL565 (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't understand what you meant by "time stamp," so I wasted three minutes of my life to look at the edit history. I think it's important for editors to understand what happened, so I will briefly elaborate. An editor (hereinafter "Dave") posted a talk page comment that he neglected to sign. Some time later he signed it. The date stamp was inaccurate, as it was off by some minutes from the time he actually wrote the comment. TL565 (who deserved a trout slap for doing this) changed the time stamp to reflect when "Dave" actually posted it. Winkelvi objected. An edit war began. Then an AN3 discussion initiated by Winkelvi. Over nothing. Coretheapple (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

TL565, that's probably the most ridiculous report for anything that I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Also, I like how he reported you for edit-warring after only 2 reverts, but later claimed that he didn't think he deserved a block after 4 of them. The hypocrisy is almost beyond belief. Display name 99 (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It bears mentioning with respect to the foregoing that Winkelvi has 25,760 edits and has been editing since April 7, 2012. The "time stamp" discussion occurred in September 2016. Coretheapple (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Why does "TL565 ... deserve[] a trout slap" for correcting the timestamp? Correct timestamps are extremely important -- to verify who said what & when, especially if there is a later dispute or report or a question of who was replying to whom and why. Softlavender (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It was seen as refactoring other people's talk page comments and should be up to the original poster to correct their post. Whatever, I don't do that anymore. if someone wants to put the wrong time, that's their problem. As you can see, Winkelvi knows the rules very well on here. TL565 (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

In no way, shape, or form is correcting a timestamp on a previously unsigned post "refactoring other people's talk page comments". Please see WP:TPO. This proves that Winkelvi does not sufficiently understand that policy, even after 5 years and 25,000 edits. What he appears to be here for at least some of the time is battling with others via inane edit-warring, arguing, and spurious reporting, to the point of petty vengeance. Softlavender (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Well it seemed a little piddling, but your point is well taken and I withdraw the trout slap! Coretheapple (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Wow. Having looked over all the complaints about Winkelvi here, and some of the voluminous discussions involving him elsewhere, I get the impression that he enjoys conflict. There is an unusual amount of animosity being expressed here, even for ANI. When someone repeatedly engages in behavior that has had negative consequences for them, it's because they're getting some kind of psychological payoff. Winkelvi is the star of these wiki-battles, the star of the show, so to speak, and attention is centered on him. Massive payoff. Carlstak (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• What, Winkelvi again?? What colossal waste of time, and patience. Indefinite Block him, please, and let's be done with this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

J. Johnson, Winkelvi is already sitting out a 90-day block. We're here to decide what else to do with him. Major options that have previously been proposed in this thread include unblocking with a 1 revert or 0 revert restriction, having him sit out the full block and then apply the restrictions, or applying an indefinite block. Which do you prefer? Display name 99 (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for the lack of precision; I will emend. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• I finally had to take a breather from all this, being a working girl, but came back to look at the progress, and continue to be appalled by what I see. It seems to trouble no one that Winklevi has essentially called all of us who have reported our issues with him liars. To her credit, BethNaught gave him a chance to make a statement, but instead, he chose to climb up on the cross and play the martyr. His choice, of course, but to what end? Well, it certainly cuts off our ability to confront him about the waves of bullshit, harassment, pursuit ad nauseam that many of of us have been subjected to. Meanwhile, the "poor widdle Winklevi" pageant drags on with no action, and we who are in his line of sight must wait for some sort of solution to his widespread, chronic and highly problematic behavior. Again, when are we going to be the priority of the administrative corps weighing in, rather than an editor with a long block log and a massive collection of excuses? --Drmargi (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• It rather undermines your point to throw in a near-PA such as "poor widdle Winkelvi", don't you think? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Especially after the Calibrador and timestamp discussions were posted, and of course all the other evidence that has been submitted, I can't see how anyone who isn't a buddy of Winkelvi can be in favor of anything less than an indefinite block. (I'm not accusing anybody, I'm just saying that it doesn't make sense to me.) These issues demonstrate a clear intention by Winkelvi to harass, stalk, and bully editors that he doesn't like. It's about time we got a consensus here to get this disruptive and unhelpful editor off this website indefinitely. Some sort of community ban would definitely take care of it for me. Display name 99 (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, there's been a lot of evidence here, but, collectively, it doesn't add up (at least in my estimation) to an indef block. That's the kind of thing we usually save for real, hard-core vandals, puppet masters, and other miscreants, and I don't see Winkelvi as being in that category. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• No, that's not correct. Another user with very uncannily similar issues (edit warring over nothing; tendentious editing on talk pages) and a much shorter block log was indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing after an ANI discussion similar to this one. I don't know how kosher it is to identify that user, but if anyone asks, I will link to the ANI at which he was permablocked. The primary difference is that user's failure to cultivate administrators to bail him out, run interference for him in situations like this, and give him another chance and another chance and another chance. Coretheapple (talk) 03:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• As a matter of fact that editor had only been blocked two times previously, both as part of the same dispute in which he/she was indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. I think one of the comments in that ANI is worth repeating as it applies to this situation as well:

Personally, I don't like the idea of letting more damage being caused by this user; I'd prefer skipping straight to the most nuclear option available because this sort of tendentious editing is such a time-wasting exercise for existing contributors, and more dangerously, it has the effect of chasing away the limited resources we have too permanently. . . . I have yet to find a situation where the net outcome for the project has been positive by delaying sanctions in the never-ending wait for a user with these sorts of issues to reach the required level of improvement. Rehabilitation on the English wiki hasn't been successful for this type of issue, and has in fact caused further cuts (read: burn-out) to the resources available here. The community has had more than enough experience with earlier good faith attempts at fixing this type of issue which has repeatedly proved ineffective, and it is simply at the point where it cannot afford to keep making the same mistake.

The subject of the above comment was much, much less of a burden on the community than Winkelvi.Coretheapple (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Yet more talk page drama here, Talk:Mike_Pence/Archive_2#Photo. As you can see, I didn't have as much patience with him as some other users. This is someone who will never admit to making any mistake. Instead, he will escalate it and accuse you of personal attacks and not assuming good faith. For sake of the community he needs to be indef blocked already. Just imagine how much future drama and anguish will be saved if it is done now. TL565 (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• having read through those two ANEW reports, all I can say is "Wow, just wow" at the complete and utter pettiness of them. Blackmane (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support any escalation - incl. indef 1RR, indef 0RR, or (extremely unfortunately) indef block. I have only rarely interacted with Winkelvi and these interactions were quite cordial. I have had far sourer interactions for which I would not request an indef block than almost any presented here, I am however extremely concerned about the hounding of calibrador described far above and another editor whom I cannot name because it has been lost somewhere in the mess. Winkelvi has, in my estimation, done some good work for the project. In this sense I would hate for the esclation chosen to be an indefinite block and absolutely despise even the notion of a community ban. A CBAN would perfectly exemplify the nature of AN/I's reputation for stoking minor flames into engorging blazes. That said, to anybody not viewing this through a rose-tinted ("tinted" really it's two-layered frosted glass you can't see anything through) lens, it should be apparent that doing nothing (including letting the block ride out) will by extension do nothing to curb real (or even perceived) issues that many editors have with Winkelvi. It would be irresponsible for those defending Winkelvi to set him up for this future failure that will (read: will) invariably (read dramatically: in-fucking-variably) result in a future indefinite block or community ban. I am concerned, however, that 0RR will only stop edit-warring and not anything else. I cannot think of a valid remedy for the issues of battlegrounding and harrassment (wikihounding) presented above. Indeed the most common remedy for these behaviours is an eventual indefinite block. To be blunt, I would support an indefinite community ban for a furthered instance of wikihounding, harrassment, or abuse. For the time being I cannot because at some point the statute of limitations has to be applied. For me, it is too late to be bringing a spate from 2 or more years ago as evidence. This statute is subject to my subjective interpretation of events. As far as I am concerned, edit-warring is not solved by indefinite blocks, but, by editing restrictions whether P/TBAN in instances where edit-warring can be linked to topics or pages, or, 1RR and 0RR where edit-warring is pervasive and widespread and not limited to a page or topic. I would have to demand a strong case be presented (separately from this display) to act or recommend an action over wikihounding and harrassment.
  Unrelatedly, I found certain behaviours displayed here by involved and uninvolved editors to be quite poor and worthy of reprimand themselves (trout or warning only; even though some of it is block worthy). DHeyward is not wrong to call this thread "caustic" especially when considering some of the behaviour displayed here. It has left me with a quite sour taste because some editors that I do respect have participated in this. This I find unfortunate. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Re "statute of limitations": the two-year-old disputes are relevant in demonstrating how the same issues have persisted over the years (edit-warring/tendentious editing on active vs. passive voice at Myerson in Jan. 2015; and edit warring/tendentiousness over active vs, passive voice at Billy the Kid in March 2017 and talk-page time stamps in Sept. 2016). Yes, threads are caustic. Why? Because editors are only human, and it seems to those of us who have dealt with him (who are not administrators he has cultivated) that Winkelvi is viewed by his defenders as an object of compassion and the community just has to suck it up and endure him. As I indicated above, that is not the approach that has been taken in very similar situations in the past, including one that I'm personally acquainted with and discuss directly above. Coretheapple (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• No, threads are not caustic. This thread is caustic and it became caustic because of the participants on it. The causticism has nothing to do with the subject matter; case in point, Winkelvi has not said so much as a syllable (to be put on this thread) for the duration of this discussion. You could deflect this to the "defenders" of Winkelvi, and indeed you'd be half right, but, you'd also be half-wrong. A positive and a negative have no net value. This thread would be less than 1/10th of it's current length if editors were not swiping shots at each other in replies and instead made their case and then left - as I will proceed to do so from here on out - and accepted whatever outcome as that would be, by definition, community enforced. You may respond if you wish and I will read the response. Don't take this as me just knocking the table over and saying "I'm out". This thread is unique to me (despite my participation in possibly a hundred such threads) in that there are three separate "extended content" closes of unproductive (inflammatory even) commentary between editors that were required to re-rail the discussion. As for my statute of limitations, I have one question to be self-answered and the net result is the same. Were these dealt with at the time? if no then the statute has expired for me and I won't take it into any consideration unless they detail something especially egregious (harrasment for example), if yes then double jeopardy/time served whichever the case. Escalation does not mean relitigation. Besides, I am supporting any action taken (because some action should be taken) and I personally recommend indefinite 0RR to end the issue of edit-warring. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I guess it would be preferable if people were more succinct and pleasant, but that tends not to happen when people are trying to describe tendentious editing to third parties who don't always ooze empathy and sometimes are belittling. It also reflects the wide swath cut by an editor with 25,000 edits, five years on the project and recurrent issues. As a point of comparison, this ANI has only gone on for five days. The 2015 Winkelvi case, scroll down to Item 26 here, involved identical issues, was far longer and more acrimonious than this one, and dragged on for twenty days. Coretheapple (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• As Ritchie333 astutely noted, the longer this thread goes on without a clear consensus, the more likely an admin will come along and shove the entire issue "down the road". I understand many editors have a variety of issues with Winkelvi but taking whacks at him won't be allowed to go on for too much longer. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Well, I didn't start this discussion, and neither did any of the editors taking "whacks" at Winkelvi as you put it. A block was imposed and whoa! What an uproar. Defenders are pinged and rush in. So Coffee came here (which itself got him chastised severely). Want to kick the can down the road? Nothing can be done to prevent that even if there was a succinct discussion without whacks. Coretheapple (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• By the way, while I don't agree with you, I can see how some might view this as unduly like Festivus. If you have any suggestions for a compromise, please suggest. I posted one (adding to what 99 said below), but I didn't have my heart in it and I self-reverted it. Coretheapple (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• This edit to Winkelvi's talk page bears mentioning here. Personally, if I was a neutral uninvolved administrator trying to make a decision here, I would have Winkelvi sit out the full 90-day block followed by an indefinite 0 RR. It would seem to be the best way to find a middle ground between those calling for an indefinite block or community ban and those calling for a 1 RR, while also satisfying all those who want a 0 RR. Display name 99 (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

As I think I said upthread or elsewhere, I oppose 0RR because it means Winkelvi cannot revert someone lacking WP:COMPETENCE doing something good faith but obviously wrong anywhere. Consider a newbie adding something factually correct but full of puffery and weasel words; is Winkelvi violating 0RR by removing that puffery and stripping it back to the bare facts? However, when I proposed 1RR, I put a pretty clear stipulation that a) it was forever and b) on the first violation he would be booted off and not be allowed back without taking the standard offer, which appears to have not been mentioned so much in this thread. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333, if Winkelvi was to be placed on a 0RR and happened to see an edit adding factually incorrect material, he could either wait for somebody else to revert it or ping the editor as part of a POLITE message on the article's talk page. I just don't think we can trust Winkelvi after hitting the revert button once to not do it again if his reversion is reverted, while claiming vandalism or whatever else he can think up to excuse his behavior. Display name 99 (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse blockextend up to six month block, and no appeal before three months have passed per prior experience with this editor. That experience had nothing to do with edit warring (interaction with a COI editor who wasn't editing mainspace anyway), but everything with Winkelvi's rude talk page behaviour. Transforming the sanction to 0RR/1RR would only address part of the problem. This sheds a new light on Winkelvi's "... Aspergers ... please leave me a civil message ... Being rude will get you nowhere." – hadn't seen that caveat at the time (maybe it wasn't there yet), but this is for me a deal breaker: it seems to suggest that they want to appropriate some sort of "right to be rude" (under the protection of "hey, I have autism spectrum so you can expect me to be rude") but won't treat others on the same footing. Accidentally I meet quite some people with autism spectrum, ADHD, ADD,... IRL. Some of them may be generally ruder in their interactions than others (who, for instance, may be extremely shy): however, for finding a place in society it never helps them to suggest that they should expect society to adapt to how they prefer their interactions with it. The Wikipedia editing community is such a society: Aspergers should never be an argument in how an editor wants to tailor their interactions with that community. So the message the Wikipedia community should be sending here is that behavioural guidelines apply the same to everyone. When Winkelvi returns to editing (if they have Aspergers there is little doubt that they will return to editing imho), further infringements on behavioural guidelines should be addressed with escalating blocks (which thus may be something in the order of magnitude of six months next time). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Updated !vote, see below.00:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: Do you have any thoughts as to whether restrictions on, say, his talk page behavior subsequent to expiration of the block would be worth trying? I ask because there seems to be sentiment to wrap things up. Among people who have dealt with Winkelvi, there is no confidence that administrators will actually apply escalating blocks even if they are theoretically available, hence a desire to find a solution here that will put an end to this situation. Coretheapple (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Issuing specific behavioural strictures à la tête du client kind of beats the purpose of sending the message "that behavioural guidelines apply the same to everyone" (which I would prefer – see above). Wrapping this up once and for all—wouldn't that be nice...—may be impractical: either Winkelvi is given a positive chance to exhibit better behaviour next time, no more encumbered than by a block log which needs not to be mentioned again when their behaviour turns for the better, or face a chain of appeals and counter-appeals draining community resources.

Re. "... no confidence that administrators will [do or not do whatever in the future]" – not the topic here. I'm not an admin but respect their discretionary powers. While an admin would take the flak for installing a pre-emptive measure of this kind, that admin would also be issuing a vote of no-confidence in their own kind for their inability to address a future situation which may or may not occur. Thus I'd advise any admin not to react with such pre-emptive measures. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure it's one of the topics here. It has to be. We are here in a discussion commenced by the blocking admin, Coffee. Winkelvi pinged a bunch of administrators after he was blocked, and the pinged admins proceeded to roast Coffee over an open spit. Coffee held his ground and came here. Winkelvi himself has attacked the editors here as "liars" but declined to actually say what "lies" have been told about him, which not one admin has challenged on his page. So yes, indubitably, the prospect of Winkelvi resorting to such tactics in the future, and admins showing empathy toward him and not toward people with whom he comes into conflict, is definitely on the minds of non-admin editors he has encountered in the past. 0RR, 1RR and possible talk page methods are not designed to tie the hands of administrators, however. The point simply is to act now, rip the bandaid off the skin so to speak, enact measures so that we won't be back here again. Coretheapple (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd be more worried about the (implied) canvassing, and the name-calling, during the current proceedings than about what might or might not happen in the future (and about how hypothetics might reflect on admins). Looking a bit more into the current case (my first reflection was primarily based on a previous experience) I'm updating my preference to six month block. I still feel less inclined (but strictly speaking not opposed) to 0RR/1RR kind of accompanying measures: if they would edit-war again that would call for appropriate measures, even before 3RR is trespassed. I'd appreciate if the closure of this thread (and the notification to Winkelvi when it gets closed) would mention they need to take a close look at the Wikipedia:edit warring guidance again: that it can be detected way before a technical 3RR violation, and that editors should live up to it. And that WP:EDITCONSENSUS is official policy, while WP:BRD is less than an essay, and not at all as practical as it pretends to be. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm agnostic on unblocking, but I strongly support at least a year's 0RR restriction if unblocked early. The 1RR restriction seems to have not taken, so to me, repeating that isn't going to solve the problem. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Not relevant to the discussion at all. BMK, Coretheapple has received the message, either they heed it or they don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr rnddude (talk • contribs) 06:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEONing in this discussion I must say that I am more than a little put off by Coretheapple's choice to act as the prosecutor in the case against Winkelvi, which smacks of WP:BLUDGEON and WP:ABF. My suggestion is that they refrain from any additional commentary, as their bias is quite apparent in their expressed views, and they're unlikely to contribute any clarity to this discussion with further commentary. They have no obligation to depose other editors to find out their views, nor are they doing themselves any particular favors with their overall behavior in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Sheesh. I wasn't "deposing" Frances. I just wanted to see if she had any views on the other remedies, that's all. She didn't mention them, and I wanted to see what she thought. Trying to get to a solution. Yes I have a position. Have I hidden that? Coretheapple (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC) <squeeze>(Well, I'm not a she – no big deal). --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC) No, you've smeared it into every corner of the discussion. Time to stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC) OK, I'll take your kibitzing under advisement. However, in the interim you may want to not disrupt dialogue on this page, meanwhile, by commencing side conversations like this one and interjecting gratuitous remarks like this one. Coretheapple (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Uncollapsing. Please do not collapse again, the subject of your behavior is entirely pertinent to this discussion. And BTW, as a Wikipedia editor in good standing, I'm not "kibitzing", I'm pointing out something which other editors may wish to take into account when evaluating the weight to give your many commentsin this discussion, and to consider in determining the cause of your obvious vehemence about getting Winkelvi indef blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC) Frances Schonken, the same goes for you as well. I did not "refactor" your reply, in fact, I put it directly after the question asked by Coretheapple, preserving the flow of the discussion. You had no reason to undo my moving this to a different sub-section. This is now a different issue, and should not be collapsed, please don't do it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC) You put my reply before the paragraph I was replying to, which is refactoring; fixed it now. Would close this subsection as rant. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC) My apology. I didn't realize that your reply was in two parts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC) Agree. Pointless and disruptive. Please stop. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 01:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC) Actually, that is not the case. Many of Coretheapple's comments qualify as rants, this is a coherent, rational objection to WP:BLUDGEONing and disruptive behavior throughout this section on their part. "Disruptive" does not mean "I disagree with it", in this context, it means something on the order of "preventing or discouraging community members from expressing their opinions by attempting to control the discussion through sheer volume of commentary," which is why I asked Coretheapple to stop, and allow the community to reach a decision without their continual "guidance". Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

We have a very extreme range in the !votes on this entire thread, from "immediate unblock with limited-term 1RR restriction", to "indef block". I propose a compromise: Three-month block followed by indefinite 0RR, appealable in six months if no talkpage WP:BLUDGEONING has occurred. In other words, the current three-month block remains in place, followed by an indefinite WP:0RR restriction. The 0RR restriction may be appealed here at ANI after six months (six months after the block expires). If no talkpage WP:BLUDGEONING has occurred during that time, the 0RR restriction may be either lifted or replaced with a 1RR restriction. Softlavender (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support, as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support with proviso that the block itself is not subject to appeal. --Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 02:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Every block is subject to appeal. I think we can leave it to our admin corps to decide if the unblock request is warranted or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

To Figureofnine and BMK: The proposal explicitly states (in bold) that the current three-month block is retained. If you support the proposal as written, that is a given. If you support it with changes, or support something else, then that would need to be stated in your !vote. Softlavender (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

My point to Figureofnine, is that, while I could well be wrong, I cannot recall the forced imposition of a non-appeallable block, although if Winkelvi were to agree to not being allowed to appeal the block, that would be a different matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

A non-appealable period of a block is possible, as it would be for any sanction, but not the entire block duration, except in the case of TP abuse. Many Arbcom sanctions in the past have come with non appeal periods. Blackmane (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - I would agree with the proposal if it called for IRR, but 0RR is not warranted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

BMK, I totally hear you on that, and various people in the thread have advocated a 1RR restriction. But the concern repeatedly voiced that 1RR merely allows edit-warring to be spread out more slowly, and the overwhelming number of "indef block" !votes, caused me to propose a situation where the concerns of the "indef block" !voters and the "0RR" !voters would be covered. Softlavender (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support My view hasn't changed since the last two times I !voted for the same thing. Blackmane (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support - in short; I have advocated for 0RR above and I fully and absolutely agree that the block should not be lifted. I'd say 1 year appeal, but, six months is fine if that is the consensus. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per my above comments Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I hear you, Ritchie, but as others have observed several times, 1RR will not stop Winkelvi from edit-warring (nor from talk-page bludgeoning); it will only slow him down on the edit-warring, and will not stop talk-page bludgeoning at all. Also, there is enormous support for an indef block, and therefore I believe a 1RR proposal, even an indefinite one, will be very unlikely to gain consensus. Whereas a proposal that meets everyone's concerns can easily gain consensus and avoid an indef block. Softlavender (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

0RR will probably increase talk page bludgeoning. I believe the effect will be similar to The Rambling Man's talk page when he was briefly blocked, which might as well have had a redirect of WP:ERRORS2. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

There are editors who spend days, weeks or months not reverting. I'm sure there are editors who have never reverted. There are hundreds if not thousands of articles that have never had a single revert. If Winkelvi can't control his talk page behavior, if he needs an outlet in reverting, then he should be indefinitely blocked. Coretheapple (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333, please re-read the proposal: The only way Winkelvi can have the 0RR lifted is to completely avoid talkpage bludgeoning. That was specifically built in to my proposal. Softlavender (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support as the best feasible option. I thank Softlavender for wading through all this, finding the common ground and for proposing a solution that will achieve two important things that are loud and clear in this discussion: a) the need for long-term consequences accruing to Winklevi for his edit warring and; b) the need for a very short rope where Winlevi's WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is concerned. --Drmargi (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support - although I don't really care if the block remains as long as the 0RR is put in place. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support I think this proposal works. The block should not be subject to lifting except by community agreement here, and Winkelvi should be warned against canvassing, as he has done for years whenever he gets in a jam. Canvassing specifically defined as pinging. We are here because of canvassing, which resulted in the mess on his talk page and the mess here. Thanks to Coffee for holding firm on the block and to Softlavender for this compromise proposal. Also I with agree with User:Starke Hathaway below and other editors that this needs to be the Last Chance Saloon, with the next step being an indef. Coretheapple (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I actually proposed the exact same thing a few days ago somewhere in this mess of a thread.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support This is an editor whose zeal too often overmatches his judgment. That's been hard on a lot of members of the community and has sucked up a lot of time and electrons. But, the long history here still argues for trying to reach some reasonable accommodation. We may never think of a true vandal as a member of our community. But Winkelvi is demonstrably not a vandal and is a member of our community, however vexing his behavior sometimes may be. Taking one more shot at retaining his contributions while ameliorating the drama, a shot embodied in this proposed compromise, seems to me a risk worth taking. David in DC (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - per my two comments above. This is an editor shown above to have multiple long-term issues aside from blatant edit-warring, including massive edit stalking and abuse of AfD to vindictively get back at other editors. This is an editor hostile to those who dare to disagree with him and one who simply believes they are never wrong, except when they are about to be sanctioned. The admin canvassing alone is reprehensible. If you don't indef now, we will be having this same time sink of a process down the road. I see plenty of support for an indef above. The long history of problems with this editor should end here and now, instead of kicking the can down the road. Jusdafax 16:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Jusdafax, I'm with you here. But unfortunately we don't have consensus for an indefinite block or community ban. Too many people voted in this thread who either a) are Winkelvi's allies or b) have never been victimized by him and who don't know how severe the behavior is. I think that this solution is clearly the best we can get. As I said below, I hope (and am confident, I might add) that if we end up back here in less than a year's time because of Winkelvi's inappropriate behavior that we can finally get rid of him. Display name 99 (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's try to keep this discussion on topic, not pursue unrelated issues. --Drmargi (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Canvassing is one issue, but there's more I'm curious about as one of his battered and banned victims. How can an editor who hadn't edited anything at Commons for at least the previous year, be able to post a message to the Commons AN and within an hour get numerous primary editors there supporting him: ie. having them speedy delete w/o notice multiple images, opening a major discussion and succeed in getting me indeffed on a near technicality? Besides pinging other Commons editors who rushed to his side, he kept referring to me as a "she," when he knew I wasn't and had been reminded a number of times to knock it off. One Commons editor even retracted his "nonsense" block. BTW, has he ever apologized for the wreckages he's left us with? --Light show (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC) FWIW, to add some context about his Commons AN, he posted it around the same time I reverted one of his hounding drive-by edits. Most of his edit warfare was strangely over extreme trivia, as you can check. He came to articles he never edited and simply started breaking stuff. --Light show (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC) Comment "within an hour get numerous primary editors there supporting him"-Initial post at Commons was 02:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC) The first response to it was more than four hours later-06:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC). You were indeffed as a Commons Community Ban on 30 December 2016. It was because of what you did or didn't do in the way of uploads there-not the actions of another editor you either have mis-stated or can't prove. We hope (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC) It came just 41 minutes later, not 4 hours..--Light show (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC) Since when is fixing bad links a response? the edit. We hope (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC) Are all your comments that important that you have to "od" them to stand out? Are we playing "look at me"?--Light show (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC) They are to keep them connected with your comments due to your mis-statements vs what actually happened. We hope (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC) Whatever. They are mis-formating the discussion and cluttering the page with digressions. You really should demote your comments into a single thread. Use the colon key. --Light show (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support as a reasonable reflection of the community's loss of patience with this editor. I would prefer that the block be replaced by the 0RR restriction immediately, rather than forcing a three-month wait to see whether Winkelvi intends to abide by the restriction or not. If we've decided that 0RR is the appropriate restriction then the block is no longer preventative. I prefer 1RR for reasons I've stated earlier but will not oppose on that basis. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Winklevi would do well to heed his own advice - "Edit warring is not just violating 3RR, it is also a behavior...", which came from this EW report from 6 months ago noted above, WV also drops this policy reminder from WP:EW and WP:3RR into that discussion: Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. And when he is accused of having "a lengthy history of edit warring" in that discussion, he responds with - Precisely why I know what I'm talking about. So in my opinion, WV knew he was edit warring in this instance for which he was blocked, and since he acknowledges his lengthy history of edit warring, it should come as no surprise to him that there was an escalation in this block. I also believe Coffee's block was justified and endorse it as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support-This is clearly the best we can get out of this discussion. My hope is that if we end up back here any time within the next year or so because Winkelvi continues to cause trouble, we can get consensus for an indefinite block or community ban. But for now I'll settle with this. Display name 99 (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC) I also think that if a significant (or increased) amount of talk page bludgeoning occurs during this restriction that it could be enough for indefinite block, as opposed to merely not lifting the restriction. Display name 99 (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support per my prior comments and David in DC. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

(first DHeyward vote moved down to #!Votes needing attention) --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support as second choice after indef block. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 02:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support just to close this. I would also add that breaking the 0RR should result in an indef, so we should hopefully not have to deal with this again. I would also propose that WV is allowed (although I'm not sure it's forbidden) to ping people or adminhelp template to revert when necessary, but should be used judiciously. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support I previously supported an indefinite block but also said that I was prepared to support consensus. This seems to be the compromise most widely supported by the community and I hope that this can be resolved very soon with general acceptance of what I see as the emerging consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Something is needed beyond hoping against hope that, after years of these issues with little discernible improvement, a 3-month block will cause Winkelvi to suddenly see the light. As this proposal appears to stand the best chance of consensus, I support it. I also agree that this should be the last chance before indef, provided the next complaint has as much substance. While I accept the theoretical possibility of an editor who contributes so much as to be worth this amount of turmoil, I've yet to encounter them. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

(second DHeyward vote moved down to #!Votes needing attention) --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support per my comments elsewhere in this thread. I think it should also be made clear that this is the last step before indef. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Lukewarm support. I thought we had this hammered out, a consensus among admins none of whom related to Winkelvi, and some of them certainly not known for being pushovers. I still support a 1R restriction, for all the reasons given by Ritchie, DHeyward, and others, but if it's between this and an indef block, I'll take this. And I note also that this thread is interminable in part because Winkelvi has rubbed plenty of people the wrong way, but also because some of those people seem to be very litigious and fond of carrying grudges. The project is big enough, and 1R is an incredible tight leash, and those who've been put on it can testify to that. It's behavioral training, whereas 0R is just punishment and an invitation to just fuck with an editor and get him upset, for those of who who hate him so much. What I will ask of you, Softlavender, should this be passing, is that you (yes, you) built in a line that says "DON'T POKE THE BEAR". Hounding/harassment will not be tolerated. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

"Rubbed people the wrong way"? That's why we're here? Against whom are an array of grudge-holding and "very litigious" editors? That's a neutral statement by a neutral editor and not an advocate? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, you know that I hold you in very high regard, and you also know that I am not quick to call for sanctions against editors. But in this specific case, I think that you are underestimating the sheer amount of disruption to the encyclopedia that this editor has created for years, alienating and antagonizing many otherwise productive editors over and over and over again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support as a reasonable compromise, although I'd prefer a 1RR per discussion on this long thread. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support as reasonable compromise per above. I view the 0RR as frankly essential. Neutrality^talk 18:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Reluctantly support because an indef block appears out of reach at this point, for reasons I still don't fully understand. See you guys back here in five months. Calidum 05:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Though I'd prefer something in the lines of unblock and one-year 0RR restriction. --QEDK (愛) 06:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

!Votes needing attention

@DHeyward: in a !voting procedure it is almost never a good idea to !vote twice (please keep your fellow-Wikipedians, such as a potential closer of this discussion, in mind who try to parse this). Could you attend to this? I'd suggest to replace the initial bolded word of either of your !votes by Comment, which would address this potential confusion, after which this #!Votes needing attention subsection title can be removed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Many of the initial admins have bailed. This is a solution in search of a problem. Admins had it worked out on Winkelvi's talk page. It should have enced there. There is no way any consensus of the community can be achieved when so many have moved off the discussion due to the caustic nature of this thread. Any change from here is invalid. File arbcom if a different outcome is desired. --DHeyward (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)+

Of the five admins on WV's talk page that had "worked [it] out", none of them were neutral. Three of them were friendly admins that WV had ping-canvassed rather than using WP:UNBLOCK; one was an admin known for their extreme leniency and cowboy unblocks (Ritchie, who unblocked WV's one-week block after 2.5 days in February 2016 with a three-month 1RR restriction); and one was an admin with a longterm feud with the blocker. Softlavender (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with your aspersions and this is not the place to make them. Feel free to file an Arbitration case with evidence but your viewpoint is skewed enough as to make this "compromise" moot and certainly not a good faith effort to respect many different views. --DHeyward (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

You can disagree but that doesn't make Softlavender's points any less truthful. I also don't see how this proposal wasn't done in good faith. It literally is an in-between for those who want an indef block and those comfortable with repeating the 1RR stipulation again.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I haven't made aspersions; I'm stating observable facts. I don't know why you feel my viewpoint is skewed. The "many different views" expressed before my proposal were as follows [Note: many people expressed their !votes two or three times so I have counted carefully and eliminated redundancies]: 16 supports for 0RR; 13 supports for indef block; 12 supports for 1RR. I created a proposal that would satisfy the concerns of those calling for an indef block but keep Winkelvi on wiki while providing both a preventative to his edit-warring (as desired by the plurarity -- the 0RR !voters) and to his talkpage bludgeoning, but still allowing him to improve and for the sanction to be ameliorated if he so chooses. This proposal addresses the major concerns of all parties, while still keeping him on wiki. I do not think an ArbCom case is necessary since if concerns are addressed and a consensus is agreed upon, a lengthy drawn-out and contentious ArbCom can be avoided. If you can think of a proposal likely to gain consensus which addresses the concerns of the majority, you can certainly propose it. My goal is to resolve, not to prolong, this dispute. Softlavender (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The obserable is you have a beef with Winkelvi. It's as observable as any other that you have listed. If you you have evidence that the admins you hace characterized agree with your characterization, then present it so we know. Otherwise it's an aspersion that implies the admins you have characteried are acting contrary to the interest of the project. I doubt any agree that they have a grudge, animosity or anything less than impartial. Take it to ArbCom s tey are serious allegations that you think we need to accept as fact. --DHeyward (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The original remedy is and was a 3 month block. The alternative was lifting the block with a 1RR restriction. Any proposal outside of that range is moot as the caustic process has driven moderates away. It is invalid as those that chose moderation have been beaten away with incessant attacks. We should be here discussing alternatives between those originally proposed and not piling on burdens that only Winkelvi's most ardent detractors were willing to continue participating. --DHeyward (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Assumes facts not in evidence. You cannot know why people are no longer participating here. Many editors prefer to state a position and move on. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Which is exactly why canvassing views 7 days after the original sanction after many have given up is not valid. The community has moved on with no change. --DHeyward (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Resolving an ANI thread is always valid, especially when it can avoid an ArbCom case (in fact, ArbCom does not accept cases unless sufficient obvious forms of resolution have been attempted). No canvassing was done; however if anyone wants to neutrally ping every single person who has participated in this entire thread but not yet !voted on this compromise proposal, that would not be unwarranted and I don't think anyone would object. Softlavender (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The original remedy was indeed a 3-month block. The request for an unblock was declined by Laserbrain. Instead of filing another unblock request, Winkelvi ping-canvassed eight friendly admins. Of those eight, three of them, along with an admin known for their extreme leniency and cowboy unblocks and an admin with a longterm feud with the blocker, agreed upon a 1RR unblock condition, whereas at least two admins on the talkpage disagreed with that. The case was then brought here for review. Nothing is moot simply because you happen to disagree with it; there are plenty of moderates (including admins) here who advocated much stricter sanctions than those five non-neutral admins: (0RR [The Wordsmith, QEDK, Ealdgyth, Blackmane]; 0RR and continuation of the three-month block [Neutrality]; indef block [Cullen328, Calidum]) -- by the way those are "nopings"; I simply linked their usernames without pinging in case you don't recognize them. Softlavender (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Do those admins agree with your "facts" about their motivation? If not, the place to call admins "cowboy" or "feuding" is not here. They spoke, you ignored. That is not the hallmark of compromise. --DHeyward (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I haven't listed motivations, only observable facts, and neither admin has denied these observable facts. "They spoke, you ignored. That is not the hallmark of compromise." I'm not sure what that means. I was not present in the talkpage discussions, nor do I have WV's talkpage on my watchlist. I have explained the facts of the case to you. The compromise I am seeking is the resolution of this ANI thread. Softlavender (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, I suppose I am "friendly" with Winkelvi in the sense that I have civil discussions with him, and he's asked me for advice here and there. But if you think that makes me somehow not neutral, and if you think that therefore my opinion on the talk page proposal is null and void... well I don't quite know how to finish that sentence. I suppose, if I have to be neutral, objective, and trustworthy by what I think your definition is, I should be an asshole to everyone. In other words, I strongly object to tenor and content of your statement regarding the half-dozen admins, some of whom are among the most active and most respected (not me, but I can live with that--but Floq and Bish were in there, no? and Ritchie?) admins on the damn project. What you're proposing, between the lines, is the end of adminship: you talk with someone, you're not neutral/acceptable anymore. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, apparently, you aren't really that objective at all on matters concerning Winkelvi. Care to explain this? Display name 99 (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support Close with no additional sanctions beyond 3 month block. The conduct did not become worse after the block. --DHeyward (talk) 04:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean? He couldn't edit beyond his own talk page after the block. That's how blocks work. Display name 99 (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It means what it means. If Winkelvi is supposed to be cast into outer darkness because of his personal behavior, he could have exhibited plenty of aspects of that behavior on his talk page. It's what purely disruptive editors do--and Winkelvi didn't. DHeyward, what is the world coming to, that I would agree with you--I suppose that also makes me non-neutral, and my opinion of no value... Drmies (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Drmies he basically called all of us pushing for more sanctions liars, and then refused to provide any evidence to support the statement. That seems disruptive to me. He also took a statement that I made and bolded certain parts of it to make it seem as though I hoped he would get an indefinite block after this discussion was over, although the statement was clearly referring to a hypothetical scenario in which Winkelvi continued to be disruptive even after being placed on a 0 RR. Display name 99 (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

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

IP close of a contentious RfC

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

---

The RfC at Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for comment on our proposed policy for users remaining in redlinked categories was recently closed by an anonymous editor. That shouldn't be bad in itself. WP:NAC allows for editors in good standing to close such discussions, but the IP in question has a prior history containing only a single edit. Their close also weighs in so heavily on the extreme end of the range of opinions that were presented during the discussion, that it appears like little more than a humorous (tongue-in-cheek?) supervote. Their close has already been reverted by several different editors, but they go on reinstating it. – Uanfala (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• The IP, which is dynamic, is at 4RR on this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I wanted to talk about this in a venue like this, too.. but Uanfala was faster.

The problem here is evident: These editors persist on irregularly reverting a closure via reverts, to the point that we have to discuss this here instead of my talk page or WP:Adminstrators noticeboard itself. Closures should not be reverted if they aren't clear vandalism or similar. The reason is simple: If they could, then everyone could continue reverting until a closure is made they like, giving those editors who are more revert-happy an advantage. That is the reason why you must go via the closer's talk page and then ANI to get a consensus against the close, if it was indeed made in error. But the way these editors went is clearly disruptive to the process(but at least they don't seem to be bad faith actions).109.43.1.204 (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Whatever else, if you're really on 4RR I don't see how that falls under any exemption. Nil Einne (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

3, my mistake. I was counting the IP's original close: [150] plus three reverts to restore it: [151] [152] [153]. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Consensus and longstanding precedent support closes of non-contentious discussions by non-administrator editors in good standing. Is this an editor in good standing? Who, having never apparently attempted to close a discussion before nor even participated in project space at all before yesterday, just happened to decide to try their hand at closing a huge discussion with likely disruptive implications (concerning what all users can and cannot post on their own user pages)? Or is it an editor who participated in the discussion and is logging out to try to force a close that favours their opinion? Or a banned editor trying to disrupt the project? I don't know, I have no idea and neither does anyone who looks at this now or reviews the discussion later, but judging the outcomes of such controversial discussions is not a good situation for assuming good faith. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

And several editors have already observed that the close gives an air of bias, which I agree. Closes of controversial discussions where the motive of the closer is in question are not likely to be respected by the community. This should be re-closed by someone with a demonstrable history of closing controversial discussions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

And what is exactly the reason for not discussing this with me and then, if necessary, at the noticeboard itself(as opposed to Incidents), but instead trying to force this by reverting? If you think that this decision really has an air of bias, then you can surely try to find and identify this bias and tell me or at least this venue what exactly is, in your opinion, the problem with this close. It does not create exceptional workload, it can show you that you imagine a bias that isn't there, or it can help in correcting the close and, if the case is indeed reopened, prevents a close that has these problems, if they indeed exist, to be made again. Reverting, on the other hand, does not help closing the debate at all. Experienced editors with an account and a history of good closings in controversial discussion apparently didn't close that discussion even when the debate slowed down, so I closed it instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.43.1.119 (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• IPs (and inexperienced registered users) should never close contentious RFCs, and especially not RFCs about Wikipedia policy. Period. Such closes should always be made by admins and very experienced long-time registered users. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Then find those admins and registered users with long-time activity and very high experience, and ask them to help with those closures. If there were enough extremely experienced registered users closing discussions in a normal time, I would probably not close those discussions. It doesn't seem like that though. If there aren't enough admins and very experienced registered users doing closures, then either someone else- like me- does that task or it is not done at all.109.43.1.119 (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
    • You'll likely find yourself blocked the next time you revert an admin re-opening your RFC close. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
      • There is no good reason for me to revert that again anyways, we are discussing this right here. What I propose here is that the discussion is indeed reclosed, and that the complainants are directed to complain about the closure the usual way, and to use arguments in that discussion instead of unsourced and unexplained accusations like "It seems biased". However, someone else will look at this and decide, after the arguments come to a conclusion. So no, I won't revert again, but thanks for the warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.43.0.140 (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• The arguments and actions of the reverters conflict with WP:NAC, which allows "any editor" to close RfC; both WP:NAC and WP:Closing discussions explicitely say that the reason that the closer is not an admin is NOT sufficient,

and they conflict with WP:Closing discussions, that sets the correct method of challenging closures; first discuss with the closer, and then, if necessary, go to WP:AN. Reverting closures without discussing and getting consensus at AN/with the author is wrong if there were any arguments provided beyond simple votecounting, and if the other usual exemptions don't apply(Vandalism, legal reasons...). There is a very good reason for all this: Reverting empowers editors to try to circumvent consensus until someone closes it the "right way", especially if consensus is determined to be with the minority of votes(because a large number of the majority votes were against policy/had no reasoning and/or core policies would be violated otherwise). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.43.0.140 (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Read the page you linked to (WP:NAC) again, especially the line that says "Additionally, per this RfC, any non-admin close of an RfC should not be overturned if the only reason is that the closer was not an admin" (my emphasis). Your close was reverted because of weighing in "so heavily on the extreme end of the range of opinions that were presented during the discussion, that it appears like little more than a humorous (tongue-in-cheek?) supervote" (see first post in this thread), not because of being made by an IP. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• Also adding that WP:NAC allows, in its second sentence, non-admin closes by "registered editors" (bold in the original text), not any editor. – Uanfala (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Furthermore WP:NAC makes it clear that discussions should be closed by someone with the appropriate experience, including experience of Wikipedia's policy and workings. If we're to believe that this IP isn't a sock then they apparently have few or no prior contributions at all. (And if they are a sock then they definitely should not be closing RfCs.) I don't think anyone's suggested that this discussion has to be closed by an admin but a contentious RfC on a guideline like this one does need to be closed by an admin or a non-admin experienced editor in good standing. And the IP should note that the fact that nobody who has commented thinks this closure was a good idea is a strong signal that such a result wouldn't be seen as acceptable. Hut 8.5 17:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• I will agree with other editors here that the IP has been acting inappropriately in these edits. I am one of the editors who reverted, and I explained in my edit summary that the close was a supervote, so for the IP to complain that we all just reverted without explaining the problem is untrue and disingenuous. On the contrary, it has been the IP who was edit warring. It really was an outlandish close that did not reflect the actual discussion, calling among other things for editors who have unapproved categories on their user pages to have their user page editing access removed. And I also think that there is a clear smell of some blocked/banned but experienced user editing logged out. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Note: The IP made this change to the Wikipedia:Non-admin closure essay, which brought me here. I don't believe that any IP should be closing a contentious RfC, especially considering all the socking that goes on at this site. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Infopage or essay, whatever. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

We probably should actually promote that page to guideline. We quote it and make decisions based on its advice as though it's policy. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the IP's edit at NAC. It is completely inappropriate to make such a change without first getting consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

And I have removed the passage in question, for several reasons. Essays and the like should not try to write policy, and there is as far as I can tell, nowhere in policy that says IPs can't close discussions. NACs are required to be non-controversial to begin with, and so, due to the presumably self-evident nature of the discussion and close, it shouldn't matter at all whether the editor is registered or not. If it does matter then it is probably not an uncontroversial close and thus probably shouldn't be an NAC regardless. In either circumstance the question of whether the editor is registered or not is immaterial.

We should also be taking care in these conversation that we don't start quoting essays and infopages as if they are policy, because they aren't. TimothyJosephWood 17:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I really don't care what that essay says, and I will explain this further at the essay talk page, but all I did was restore the existing language. It wasn't me who changed anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Comments repeatedly removed by another user from ITN nomination discussion

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

---

An user with a different opinion about whether to post an article has twice removed a comment of mine about sourcing issues in a nomination. He has also posted a vandalism tag on my talk page. He has also struck out another user's comments previously. He appears to believe this is justified on the basis of my lack of civility, but he had made no effort to reach out to me to edit my comment while preserving my good-faith attempt to point out the sourcing issue with the article. He has also posted a ban tag on my talk page despite not having administrative rights.

Maybe I haven't read the ITN project guidelines clearly, but I believe this is a flagrant violation of standard project discussion guidelines.

I appreciate a quick admin response, to both of us, to clarify how this should progress. I'm happy to rewrite a more constructive comment on that discussion page, but I'm not doing it because someone decided to plaster vandalism templates onto my talk page with TW for a project page discussion comment. This feels like an attempt to harass some anonymous poster out of not posting a comment on the awful sources on their pet article.

link of first edit 73.61.16.86 (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

As I informed you on your user talk page after also removing your post, the proper venue for complaints about a nomination once it is posted is WP:ERRORS. Further, your complaints seem to have to do with the content of the article itself- which if you dispute it, should be discussed on that article's talk page. No one has posted a "ban tag" to your page, but warnings, which anyone can do. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I missed your second comment because Luke was too busy spamming TW tags on my talk page. My apology.

I'm still confused. Was the problem that I simply posted in the wrong avenue, or was there a civility issue? The other user's comments are ambiguous about this. I didn't think WP:ERRORS was the correct page to post it, as it requires a verified error, whereas the problem with the original posting was that the central claim to significance is completely unverifiable.

As for going to that article's talk page - to be frank, I don't have much faith with finding an effective resolution on that article's talk page because there's another user has been edit warring in that article and repeatedly inserting unreliable sources in a disingenuous way. example. The quality and accuracy of that article seems obviously bad enough that it merits an immediate removal from ITN. I'm also simply not involved enough on Wikipedia anymore to want to waste 2 hours with a drawn-out conflict resolution process against some experienced user who is trying to push an agenda. This shit is why some of us left in the first place. 73.61.16.86 (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Please. I didn't remove your comments because of a difference in opinion; I removed them because they contained strong and unnecessary profanity, as well as being better suited at WP:ERRORS, which I did state in the first warning that you proceeded to ignore. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Is profanity a legitimate reason to remove another talk page comment, and is it a legitimate factor in deciding whether a talk page comment constitutes vandalism (if that's even possible)? I'm not asking rhetorically, I want an admin to clarify whether I've completely misunderstood basic guidelines for a decade. 73.61.16.86 (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary profanity can amount to offensive content, which is against the rules. The usage of the template was justified. I generally don't use the specific templates but rather the generic vandalism template, so I hope that this clears up any confusion. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with your premise that it is, under any circumstances, appropriate for a user involved in a talk page discussion to remove another user's comments out of a personal perception of "unnecessary profanity". I don't have a particular interest in continuing this dispute, as I've stopped using Wikipedia formally for years, but this seems like such an absurd breach of etiquette to me that I want an admin to weigh in on whether this is indeed permissible.

I also suggest you follow WP:AGF and try not to use vandalism tags for content-related or policy-related disputes. I'll in turn follow the same principle and assume you weren't aware that this is not the intended use of either those tags, or of Twinkle as an anti-vandalism tool. 73.61.16.86 (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

sigh... @NeilN:, can you look at this to satisfy this user's request for administrative action? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I should add that this edit is a really egregious example of what had happened in that discussion. Let me clarify the context for people who are confused: 1. multiple sources agree that a mosque had been hit by an air strike; 2. the U.S. released a statement that they had an air strike on a nearby location, but specifically denies hitting the mosque; 3. this user wants to write "the U.S. admits hitting the mosque" in both the ITN stub and in the article, and his justification is "Do you really think the US would admit to a mistake?" 73.61.16.86 (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I would say that an article posted with incorrect or invalid sourcing would qualify as an error. I would also say that if your post didn't contain 'how the fuck' in it I might have left it and posted what I put on your talk page there instead, but I didn't see a need to leave the vulgarity.

If you don't have faith in using the article talk page, that's something only you can decide, but talk page discussion is how things are done here. There are other dispute resolution procedures available to you if your concerns are not properly discussed. 331dot (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I won't be pursuing a dispute resolution process against an experienced user who is clearly trying to weasel a fabricated statement into the front page with extremely disingenuous original research and edit warring. The edit I linked above, and his contributions page, is more than enough to demonstrate what has happened. If you don't find that problematic, it's up to you, but I'm not wasting more time to help this piss-poor project while the two of you are too preoccupied with policing vulgarity instead of fixing the egregious soapboxing on a current front page article. 73.61.16.86 (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. This whole effort is only as good as the people who participate. If you choose not to participate, that is your right, but then that limits how far you can advance the goals that you seek. I assume you are aware of this since you state you have been here for a decade and it would seem that all those efforts are not from the IP you are using currently. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

If by "the whole effort" you're referring to my concern over the quality of 2017 al-Jina mosque airstrike, then not many of you have been participating; nor were some of you paying sufficient attention during its ITN nomination stage. Your argument amounts to asking me if I'm willing to fix the article, wrestle it away from someone who has clearly not been editing that page in good faith, and/or try to get it removed from the front page because it is so clearly a violation of policies on reliable sourcing, soapboxing, and copyright.

And no, that's not something I am willing to do. Here's a better suggestion: before that nomination closed, the two of you could have spent 5 minutes looking at that page, realize that it has a source that has never been cited on politics/news on wikipedia as a reliable source, or just read the comments from the article creator who was discussing his own conjectures about what happened during the discussion of the nomination itself. At that point, write "oppose", explain the rationale cogently, and maybe we wouldn't have had a trash article with fabricated claims on the front page for more than a day. But instead, you've dedicated most of your attention to policing my single use of the word "fuck" in a discussion comment. Let me clarify: I'm not whining here because I think I'm a victim, I'm whining here because some of you clearly enjoy spending more effort on meta/community edits and templating other users rather than taking an easy opportunity to fix completely broken content in a front page article, and are still lecturing to me about my effort. 73.61.16.86 (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Some of those sourcing issues in that article have been fixed by another editor and I, but you two are free to go help. 73.61.16.86 (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

You know, you could have read the warning templates left by me and one by 331 stating that you should go to WP:ERRORS instead of ranting and raving in the nominations' section. If there is an error, then you go to the error page. You don't voice your unhappiness at the candidate page. Also, I don't think you understand that unwarranted profanity falls under offensive content. This is a violation of Wikipedia policy. You can be banned for saying 'fuck' without reason. You can't say it in a menacing or offensive tone. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@331dot: - Should the IP reveal their account or is this unorthodox? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@UNSC Luke 1021: I'm not sure if they have an account or not (they could be using a floating IP); I was simply reiterating what they said combined with what is visible in their edit history. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@331dot: - Can we close this discussion? The IP seems to have left Wikipedia entirely and no new responses are occurring. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Responding to an edit summary that mentioned me: A user posting a valid concern to the wrong page by mistake or ignorance is not disruptive. I can still remember being a newbie and posting messages to user pages instead of talk pages a few times. If I had been plonked with increasing levels of disruptive warning templates then I might have concluded Wikipedia was a pretty hostile place and acted accordingly. Instead, I received non-templated messages telling me the proper place to post and moving the posts for me (even after I did this a couple times). Sometimes, a message without a template makes the message clearer. As for the profanity, content posted on the main page often causes strong feelings to occur so the occasional "WTF?!" is understandable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: - I just want to point out that the IP states above that he's been here for a decade, so I don't think WP:NEWBIE applies here. But yes, I will take your advice in the future. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@UNSC Luke 1021: Thanks. As a matter of fact yesterday was the first time I did some admin work at ITN and it took me a good ten minutes and a pointer from an editor to figure out how some of the things worked over there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Coda

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

---

• I think there needs to be a coda here. @UNSC Luke 1021: on January 21 you were blocked by JzG in the spirit of a suggestion by Floquenbeam to give you one last chance to avoid an indef or a site ban. Floquenbeam's proposal, which you were strongly advised to adhere to, included your not posting at AN/I, yet I see you active in 3 or 4 sections above, and here you responded again when the IP specifically requested admin input, and then called for the section to be closed. Floquenbeam's proposed conditions also specifically excluded you from Main Page discussions, yet this situation arose because you removed the IP's post at a Main Page discussion venue (and, as stated above by NeilN, you were wrong in categorizing the IP's edits there are disruptive; I'd go further and say that your reaction to use of the "f" word was a violation of WP:TALK). These proposed restrictions were to have lasted for 3 months. It's only been two. Have I missed a community decision or the successful conclusion of a mentorship? Why is Luke spending all this time at noticeboards, treating the IP badly and generally ignoring the conditions on which he was spared indef or a ban? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd forgotten about that. The ANI thread in question is here: [154]. Luke shouldn't be doing any of this editing until May. He explicitly agreed to these conditions in the linked thread. JzG went out on a bit of a limb, there was frankly consensus for an indef block and JzG showed some mercy. I'm not amused that this is being taken advantage of like this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    • A review of his edits shows that he never stopped contributing to main page discussions (started back up 2 days after his block expired on 4 February), or AFD (started up same day it expired) and started in an ANI again early March (1 month, not 3 months, after block expired), and NPOVN and UAA before that, around mid-February. (I'm not counting AIV because I'm frankly willing to overlook vandalism reports, although that was technically not allowed either). I can't explain why no one called him on it; I, for one, simply never noticed, and when I did it didn't register. I think I may have actually interacted with him at ITN/C in February, and just forgot. Harder to understand is how Luke forgot. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Fuck. @Floquenbeam: - I was unaware that stuff like UAA was off-limits. I did not read carefully when I looked at your proposal and did not recognize that ITN and NPOVN was off-limits as well. I just screwed up by coming to AN/I, although that hasn't begun until a few days ago. I won't deflect the blame anywhere else; I fucked up. However, I don't know why I should be punished for this (even though I am fully aware that I should be blocked for this). I haven't ever had trouble at ITN until now, I was only at NPOVN once because I wasn't sure if a problem was occurring (which I handled calmly and respectfully), I was totally unaware that UAA and AIV were against the rules of my agreement, and I have only been coming to AN/I for about four or five days. I haven't been mistreating this IP, and I know that 331dot was doing the same thing without being called out by you. I haven't been cursing or attacking or anything. I haven't accused anybody of anything. I think saying that I've been mistreating this IP is an extreme exaggeration. However, I was not trying to take advantage of anything and I was the one who fucked up by going to these places. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The IP's treatment appears to have been resolved above; or, at least, is the least of your worries. You agreed to the following in order to avoid an indef block/ban:

Quote from January ANI, very important parts in bold
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
OK, as one of several who gave final warnings, I'll comment here: I'm going to mention several times below that I'm pretty sure he's young. That's not to be dismissive or mean, it's just an explanation for behavior that would otherwise be attributable to darker motives. Adding the Bee Movie script is not out-of-left-field crazy; according to my own kids, it's apparently a thing kids do (Google "Bee Movie memes". And then weep about our future). I can imagine a kid doing this, thinking it's funny, without thinking too much about copyright, when he sees others doing it. So this is probably not evidence of outright trolling. It's just evidence, after many, many previous actions, of poor judgement. Talk of a true site ban seems like a severe over-reaction. Reasonable if he had no redeeming traits, but I don't think that's the case. There's a decent chance of a salvage operation here. Talk of giving yet another final warning is a severe under-reaction. I gave a pretty clear one, and it wasn't understood. I suggest a 2 week block. To firmly grasp the attention. And no unblocks after a few days if there's a "you've firmly grasped my attention" unblock request. A hard 2 weeks. Long enough to be painful, short enough to not encourage bad ideas. Followed by a 3 month ban on non-article related edits. So the following would be OK: articles, talk pages, Wikiproject pages about articles (like, for example, WP:MILHIST and WP:TANKS, his own talk page. The following would not be OK: ANI, RFA (well, already done), XFD, Main page discussions, Wikiproject pages where he gets involved in arguments, etc. While it seems mean-spirited, I suggest a ban on editing his userpage too. My hope would be to instill good habits, so that when the 3 month ban is over, there's no desire to go back to his old ways. If he really sticks to this, he'll have a decent reputation as a content builder at the end of the 3 months. Reputation is important, I would hope he wouldn't want to risk it doing something stupid on his user page at the beginning of month 4. If he can find a mentor, great. Not sure that should be required, but it should be encouraged. Kids mature quickly, so this isn't completely Polyanna-ish. I really have seen young users I was a hair's breath away from blocking indef change their ways once it became clear that fun time was over. Not all of them, not even most of them, but enough to know that there's a reasonable chance of success. If problems resume after 3 months, or if problems begin on the pages they're allowed to edit during the 3 months, then cut bait. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

So effective immediately, follow the restrictions you agreed to. Or the deferred indef block will probably be reinstated. They are in effect until May 4th. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: - So... Is there anything I can do to prevent myself from getting into more trouble and keeping this from going to ANI? Anything you can suggest? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

? it's at ANI now. But my best suggestion is to do what you agreed to do, which I helpfully highlighted in bold inside the hat immediately above: A 3 month ban on non-article related edits. So the following would be OK: articles, talk pages, Wikiproject pages about articles (like, for example, WP:MILHIST and WP:TANKS), your own talk page. The following would not be OK: ANI, RFA, XFD, Main page discussions, Wikiproject pages where you get involved in arguments, etc. ... a ban on editing your userpage too. Only work on articles. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: - So is AIV and UAA off the table? I do most of my work there. All the other stuff will go away until May 4 (or June 23, depending on if the timer resets). No ITN, ANI, NPOV, SPI, user page or anything not stated otherwise. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

(/Floq allows a feeling of exasperation to wash over him for a moment/) Why are you asking that? Do AIV and UAA have anything to do with only working on articles? Yes, they are off the table. You agreed to only work on articles. Keep to that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Luke, basically anything that you can get to by typing WP:(insert redirect name) into the search window is off limits. That includes all of the noticeboards (AN, ANI, AIV, ANEW, ArbCom, UAA, NPOVN, RSN, DRN, etc), policy pages, guideline pages, template pages, CSD/AFD/MFD. Basically anything that is related to the administration of Wikipedia is off limits. Blackmane (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: - I just want to clear up any lasting confusion here.

• This TBANish thing wears off on May 4th or June 23rd (because of timer reset from ANI excluding this discussion)?
• My user page is off limits (like the exact page this links to)?
• Anti-vandalism is disallowed entirely, or just going out of my way to stop it (excluding obvious vandalism that I find by chance)?
• I cannot participate in any AFD, including articles I have extensively worked on or created (such as Astroneer or Battle of Raseiniai, for argument's sake)?

Sorry if these questions sound somewhat moronic, but I just want explicit clarification so I can avoid yet another incident. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• No disrespect, but what is the point of this boundary-pushing? Your instruction was four words long, and in boldface: Only work on articles.
• Anti-vandalism is disallowed entirely<Facepalm> If you see vandalism, remove it, like every other editor. --Calton | Talk 08:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Have to agree with Calton here - if you have any question about whether something is allowed or not, consider it NOT allowed. That's the safest way. Just don't edit anything not in article space and you'll be safe. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Here's the most important question in my opinion: Did the timer reset (does the TBAN wear off on May 4 or June 23?) I don't want to go back to ITN on May 4th just to get myself even deeper in the hole by finding out it wears off on June 23rd. Last question. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• UNSC Luke, they are in effect until May 4th, 2017 per Floquenbeam; So effective immediately, follow the restrictions you agreed to. Or the deferred indef block will probably be reinstated. They are in effect until May 4th. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@UNSC Luke 1021: I didn't really sign up to be your boss. These aren't restrictions I'm imposing, they're restrictions you agreed to in order to avoid an indef block. But since I seem to have morphed into this role:

• I originally said 4 May above, as that would be 3 months since the unblock, but the more I think about it: since you've essentially never followed these restrictions, I hesitate to allow them to expire in just over a month. 23 June makes more sense. So yes, contrary to what I said above, they expire on 23 June. Thank you for clarifying.
• Participation at an AFD someone else initiates on an article you've been involved in creating is fine; it's part of content work. But I would anticipate that would be very infrequent. But no starting AFDs yourself, and no participation in AFDs of articles you haven't been involved in extensively.
• Tell you what, I'll protect your user page to remove the temptation.
• AIV reports and user warnings about vandalism to articles you've been involved in are OK, but I would anticipate it would be very infrequent; just vandalism you see in the normal course of article work, on articles you have edited for content. Vandalism patrolling is not OK.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Regarding "I'll protect your user page to remove the temptation." I agree with NeilN at RFPP that this is counter productive - Luke should be proving that he can avoid the temptation himself, not be technically forced to adhere to the conditions. If we wanted we could create an edit filter to stop him editing anything but articles, but frankly that wouldn't be very useful for allowing him to show that his behaviour has changed. Sam Walton (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

We have two goals here: demonstration that he can avoid temptation, but more importantly (IMHO), instilling good habits. Obviously he isn't disrupting anything by editing his userpage, it's just we want him to get used to doing productive work, and not fiddling with his userpage all day for 3 months until the restrictions lapse. I'd be more than satisfied that he's shown he can avoid temptation if he stays away from AN/ANI/AIV/AFD/ITN/etc. I think we can do him this small favor. I hadn't seen the request and decline at RFPP, so sorry about that NeilN. But my own thought is to leave it in place. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Whatever is decided is fine with me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Since his response to this thread has been to open a Peer Review on an article on which he's never previously edited, as far as I'm concerned AGF has well and truly expired here. I'd support a community ban if there's a single further WP: space edit from him outside the narrow parameters defined by Floquenbeam above. ‑ Iridescent 18:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

  I opened a PR on that article so I can get information on how to improve it. It isn't up to GA but I don't know what to fix. I want to improve this article when I receive feedback. I don't see how I'm causing a problem by requesting some review from peers. I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to open a peer review because it will help me in the articlespace. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Luke, this is how you get blocked from Wikipedia. How many times do people have to tell you to edit NOTHING but articles before you understand. What you did is not an article. Stop editing outside of articles. It's very likely that you have already done enough damage to warrant the community block being instated, but on the absolutely slim chance that you manage to avoid that, I'm offering you this advice. STOP. EDITING. ANYTHING. BUT. ARTICLES. PERIOD. --Tarage (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

User:Stephen removing image with no basis in policy

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

---

ChoreographerTrisha Brown recently died. As part of working on her article, I searched for a free image to add to it, having also done so in the past, but was unable, again, to find one. As part of the most recent search I utilized Google images, Flickr, the NYPL Digital collection, and the Library of Congress Digital collection. Unable to find a free image, and the subject now being deceased, I added a non-free photograph File:Trisha Brown.jpg to the infobox, a headshot reduced from a full-body shot. The image is properly rationaled, and, because the subject is now dead, there is no possibility of a new free image of the person being created.

Admin User:Stephen has continuously removed the image, on the grounds that an adequate search was not performed for a free image. I'm not sure how, exactly, Stephen knows how much or how little of a search I performed, nor how much searching took place in the past, but in any case, as far as I am aware there is no pre-set time required for a free-image search before a non-free image can be used, so Stephen's removal is both unsupported by policy, and out of process, as we have a procedure for discussion of non-free images.

I request that an admin inform Stephen that he should stop his removal of the image from the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

While AGF that you did, can you point to where you've tried to document what image searching you've done before her death? For NFC images after death, we usually want editors to wait roughly 3 months to allow an appropriate free search to be done (including if possible approaching friends and family after a period of mourning); however, if you can readily demonstrate the search for free images in the past without luck, that time period can be made much shorter. There is an element of AGF, and here, BMK is a long-established editor that seems well aware of NFC so that AGF has significant weight, but in Stephen's shoes, I don't see anything on the talk page to assume an image search had been done in the past, which is why if you had documented past efforts, that would give more strength to the argument to shorten the wait. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Please point out where in policy it requires a 3 month waiting period or documentation of the search. And how, for heaven's sake, am supposed to "document" my actions? In any case, point me to policy please, or WMF instructions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:NFCI#10 presently says a month but current discussion and general past practice has been closer to 3. And the aspect of documentation is something under current discussion too, as to help editors shorten this period. You could have documented it by having a comment at the talk page "Anyone have a free image of this person? I've at X,Y, Z with no luck...".

The whole point of this period is to avoid lazy editors that simply think "Person is dead = no chance of making a non-free = can use non-free immediately". We need editors to be a bit more aggressive in searching out free images before resorting to non-free, because often you can find free images in other atypical places that existed before death. And while we can't force editors to contact copyright holders, or copyright holders to license works freely, this is still a step that should be encouraged. Hence why the waiting period to encourage editors to go seek out those images. They may, they may not, but it avoids rushing to include non-free just because the person died. That's why if you have noted previously that you tried to search for free and failed, that's a valid reason to keep.

Now I'm not saying Stephen's in the right here. We don't want to encourage hard numbers here (as soon as you do that for NFC, it is gamed from lessons from the past), but Stephen seems to be enforcing just that. That's why I think in this case, with your veteran experience, we need to AGF that you did prior searches before the death with no luck; it would have been helpful if that was documented to make it a very clear case in favor of retaining the picture, but I still think it should be kept here. But this is an atypical case given that we are talking an experienced editor reporting their failure in finding free images. Newer editors generally do not have the history to demonstrate that they've reasonably tried. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I was unaware of the 1 month period in NFCC #10 (I don't know if that's new or not), although I was aware of the discussion of making a 3-month period, since I commented in the discussion. And I don't want it to seem that I am married to this image or any non-free image - if someone better at searching then I can find a usable free image, I'm fine with using it, unless it's of such terrible quality that it demeans the subject and the page. As for my prior search, I don't think I can document it, as I didn't make any edits to the article at that time. (It's not unusual for me to search for free images when an infobox of a prominent person is empty.)Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, good idea to post on the talk page when I'm unable to find a free image, I'll do so from now on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Given how pendantic some NFC-handling admins are, that's probably a good action, but again, I do want to stress the need that such admins should consider the editor that has added the image and consider AGF that a search had been done, particularly if they are a major contributor to the article. If this was a random IP adding the same image, sure Stephen's actions are completely legit. Here, it's more vague but I would definitely support inclusion at this point. --MASEM (t) 17:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Aye, the problem has been certain editors trawling through recent deaths and adding any old non-free image to their articles without any attempt to locate a free image. At least BMK did attempt to do so. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

That I did, and if anyone has any leads, I will continue to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It might also be helpful if you posted a request at WP:RI or c:COM:RI or maybe even on the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects. Most of the WikiProject banner templates have a parameter "needs_photo" or something similar which can be used too. Part of WP:NFCC#1 is not just that you are unable to reasonably find/create a free equivalent, but that others are also unable to do such a thing. If it can be shown that you have actively tried to get others involved in the search and nobody has been able to find a free image, then justification for non-free use becomes stronger. I'm not trying to restart the kerfuffle at Talk:Jane Morgan#Restarting the discussion, but that probably could've been avoided if an effort had been made to get others involved in the search for a free equivalent at an earlier stage. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, but I've never had anyone remove a non-free image that I've added to an article about a dead person. Your suggestions are good ones, though, and I will keep them in mind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Mlpearc

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

---

It seems that this user is beginning to spy-gate on me, and is giving me nearly-fake warnings, thinking that my edits are nonconstructive. For example, I updated a college career with Juju Smith-Schuster with all of its up-to-date college stats, and Mlpearc reverted it without even specifying a single reason. It just comes to show that these users can spy on you and revert your edits for no reason at all. If you could please, could you look into this case? SportsLair (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The editor explained the reason to you, and you have not attempted to discuss it with the editor, AFAICT. You may learn about a boomerang soon.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes, victims refuse their rights to discuss with those who give out warnings as this may lead to tensions and confusion. Even if one reverts one edit, it can monitor or spy on that user for a temporary period of time, which could possibly violate the Terms of Use. SportsLair (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually it is well within policy to look over an editor's contributions if a common mistake is found, yours being unsourced content. That is not him acting as a "spy". By the way, Wikipedia is a collaborative project so ignoring others is not the best option.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator note What proof is there of wikihounding? This dosen't really seem to rise to the level of an ANI report. Mlpearc could maybe have spoken plainly to SportsLair instead of relying on templates—and SportsLair should had cited their sources from the outset, certainly after requested. Not much more to this that I could see. El_C 01:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Apparently that's not it - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, I will explain the truth. I missed adding sources on some of the articles, but here's the real thing. Sometimes, it's OK to complete an edit without citing a source, but in other cases, a rollbacker will strike, revert your edit, and leave you with a warning. Sometimes, these users can overlook on your contributions to see if you didn't cite any sources, but it may not always be a good idea, as this maybe considered tampering or spying, and it doesn't always good faith. SportsLair (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not "OK to complete an edit without citing a source" if the edit is challenged, and it's not spying or wikihounding to challenge an unsourced edit. Sundayclose (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

....sigh....I...I guess it's true....that you cannot always edit cleanly without citing a source. Then the whole thing...of all what came down here is all my damn fault. I didn't mean to post this discussion since the first place. I only wanted...no, I can't say it anymore. I'm done for. I guess we'll have to call this discussion off. But if anything else happens, I will gladly let you guys know. Until then, take care. SportsLair (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Impersonation account

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

---

User:DangerousJXD2 needs to be blocked. Longtime troll whose current gimmick is impersonation accounts. —DangerousJXD (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Another imposter

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

---

User:DangerousJXD3 is again an imposter of User:DangerousJXD. Previous #impersonation account was blocked not too long ago. Nickag989^talk 15:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Already blocked by Zzuuzz. --Yamla (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

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

User making legal threats

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

---

Greetings, hopefully I've chosen the correct venue for this - if not, please point out the correct one. Anyway, this diff was just posted by AppleStudio, seemingly an account with a Conflict of Interest. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked, uw-lblock left on the user page. As always, any admin can unblock if the legal threat is unconditionally retracted or if the user completes their legal action. --Yamla (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

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

User:SummerPhDv2.0/Wikipediholism trolling

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

---

Prior case: [155]

Summary: Over the past three years, this editor has been blocked at least 30 times (that I found...), evading each one. In the last AN/I case, their non-answer answers basically said: "Gee, maybe I didn't make all of those edits."

A brief rangeblock, a sock case finding they might or might not be another long-term vandal followed, with a month long range block.[156] More nonsense soon followed.

Yamla feels they are de facto banned.[157] I think it's time to make it official. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support official ban obviously. --Yamla (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Ban - Enough is enough. If a user is blocked over 30 times with countless sockpuppets, they've obviously never been here. Get them out. (Side note: originally I thought we were trying to ban SummerPhD, which made me go 'wtf' for a few seconds.) UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support official ban Pretty obvious here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Simple as that. Lectonar (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support the community has exercised sufficient patience. Lepricavark (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Thirty times?(!) This one has slipped through the cracks. El_C 14:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support - easy call. They have no business being here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support - We've done all we can as a community. If you know me well, then you know that I'm usually the one person a person that asks to help and mentor someone - even when nobody else will. In this case, we've exhausted all options and we've given this user many more chances than most others. Unfortunately, it's time to say goodbye. :-( ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - Is this some sockpuppetry world record? Most socks used by a single editor? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Not remotely; I know one who's been an issue for years. HalfShadow 22:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I suspect he may be the IP that randomly appears on my talk page every so often asking who is allowed to post on my talk page. Thankfully it seems people are watching it, as it often quickly gets reverted. Needless to say, I'm not sure what's wrong with this person, but they obviously have no interest in being a net gain to the project. --Tarage (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
• Actually Oshwah, you're not the only one. I do the same thing. But I'm with the flow on this one. I've ran into this joker before. Support the ban. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

HA, you're right. Sorry... I didn't mean any kind of implication with my comment above. There are a lot of good helpers on Wikipedia; unfortunately, this person cannot be helped. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I would also like to point out for the record that this editor in question also tried to play vandal and counter vandal with himself, creating both JB1213 and Mali1702 in an attempt to create a fake sockpuppet for banned user JordanBaumann1211, and then reporting said sockpuppet with the other account, I guess in some twisted attempt to make one sock look like a legitimate editor? Either way the checkuser caught it, but this is the level of abuse we are talking about. --Tarage (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tarage: - This isn't your everyday sockpuppetry, this is... advanced sockpuppetry. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support - A no-brainer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Blocks for the sock-clown who vandalises my talk page in revenge for what i did for Betty Logan? Where do I sign? L3X1 (distant write) 22:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Better late than never. Jusdafax 22:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment How is this going to solve the problem? He's an IP hopper, so unless your going to indef all his IPs (not cricket, I hear) Slitherio will just go buy a new one, and for my An/I it was said that a rangeblock couldn't happen, because 25% of the world would be affected. L3X1 (distant write) 22:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't know where you're getting this from, L3X1. I've personally range blocked this vandal twice, and I'll probably do it again if this passes. Maybe later I'll write an essay about IP addresses, range blocks, and how they work, because there seems to be a bit of confusion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    • NinjaRobotPirate I would love to read that essay. You can't possibly rangeblock all of them; they're too far apart. A rangeblock requires us to specify a range of addresses that must all be blocked, and the only way we could block all of them is blocking all addresses that begin with numbers from 58 to 121 — that's 64 of the possible 256 numbers in the first group, i.e. literally a quarter of all extant IPv4 addresses. Nyttend (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC) is where I got it. L3X1 (distant write) 00:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia has a few scattered pages that explain these concepts, but I was never really satisfied with them. Well, I finally made stab at it: User:NinjaRobotPirate/IP editors. It's way too technical, but I guess it's not horrible for a first draft. In my head, it was a lot more accessible, but when I started writing, it came out like a rehash of Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses. Oh well. I hope it makes some degree of sense. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Indeed, better late than never. Blackmane (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support per all the rational comments above. This is a no-brainer snowstorm. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support official site-ban. Softlavender (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. To answer User:L3X1's question, this doesn't mean we'll start applying broad blocks to IP addresses just to catch a single person. What it will do is make it easier for admins to "shoot on sight" when they see this person appear, rather than having to wait for antisocial behaviour then clean it up. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC).
• Comment - User admits to continuing to sockpuppet in the comment directly above. Case opened and user ignored. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the comment. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support - beyond obvious. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - no added value. User is already blocked on sight for block evasion and disruption. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think that a rangeblock would be more effective as we wouldn't have to even block them in the first place. It stops disruptive behavior before it happens. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• A rangeblock probably isn't possible or it would have already been done. There is no requirement for an IP to be banned before they can be rangeblocked. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• The value is in the route to appeal. An indef blocked user (even one who is de facto banned) may appeal to any administrator and convince them that they won't repeat the behaviour that led to the block, whereas a sitebanned user must appeal to the community. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Appeal clearly isn't an issue here, so still no added value to be found. This is a feel-good measure with no practical impact, and thus not worth doing. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Question - This user qualifies for taking the WP:STANDARDOFFER on July 9th, 2017 (as of this edit). Will this user be barred from taking this offer, or will they be allowed to. I think that all this sockpuppetry amounts to not being allowed to take the offer ever. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:SO requires six months without block evasion. As they've been evading their block as recently as this week, they wouldn't qualify until late September. Still, I see no reason why WP:SO shouldn't be extended here. Given the years of disruption, it'd be hard work to convince the community the ban should be lifted, but it's possible. --Yamla (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

We never revoke the standard offer, that's why it's the standard offer. But there are some users whose appeals are highly unlikely to ever be successful, and this is probably one of them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Legal threat in AfD discussion

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

---

In an AfD discussion, the article creator Josh4u made a legal threat and requested that the nominator should provide their personal details, here. Josh4u has been warned and asked to retract the threat. --bonadea contributions talk 08:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely, for now. El_C 08:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

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

edit warring to close RfC just started two days ago

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

---

I opened an RfC on Donald Trump talk regarding LGBT rights on March 22 here.

• Today, an editor closed it claiming WP:SNOW here. I reverted the close because the RfC's been up just two days, and has two supports and I mentioned this in the edit summary. here. Then another editor came along and reverted me, without any explanation in the edit summary here. And you'll note, this editor voted Oppose. He's involved and can't close anyway.

• I'm asking for an admin to reopen the RfC because the bot notices have not gone out yet, and won't for at least a week, and as cautionary note says, this close is too soon because it seems the Oppose votes are early pile on, and closing will prevent editors with other opinions from weighing in. I'm not asking for anyone to be blocked, just reopen the RfC by an admin, and if this closing persists, then a block would be needed. But I think an admin doing this will solve it for now. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • What steps were taken to discuss this section prior to opening an RFC?--WaltCip (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

1. Please read my close statement. I specifically did not call it SNOW, and I stated as such. 2. The second point was probably more important. 3. This dispute belongs in article talk, not here. This is the second time in, what, 10 days? that you've run to ANI to complain about something that should be handled calmly among editors in article talk. This is not what admins do. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

And you did not think to comment on the talk page before closing the RfC? SW3 5DL (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

That is not required. I understood that closes are subject to challenge. I applied WP:BRD and executed a WP:BOLD edit (B). You challenged by reverting (R), which was an entirely legitimate move. The next step is discussion (D). So go discuss. Anythingyouwant's re-revert is a fuzzier matter, but it was just one revert and that sort of thing is so common that it certainly doesn't warrant a trip to ANI. If you want to make an issue of it, you could take it to WP:ANEW where edit warring complaints are addressed. Me, I would just discuss instead. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The RfC had responses. It is barely 2 days old. The bot notices have not gone out. This is shutting down an RfC the larger community is meant to comment on. This page does not belong to you or any other editor. You are free to give your ivote, but you do not have the right to deny the ivote to others in the community because it is your opinion that it should be closed. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support reopening of RfC. This was a disruptive closing. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

If you report Anythingyouwant's re-revert as EW, be sure to report this one as well. Many editors mistakenly draw a distinction between "good" edit warring and "bad" edit warring, despite clear advice NOT to do that in the first paragraph at WP:EW. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The RFC was properly closed. Then SW3 reverted without discussion. I restored the close (once), and posted this note at SW3's talk page. Then SundayClose reverted my revert so I left this note at SundayClose's talk page. The proper thing is to restore the close, and seek consensus to overturn it at the proper notice board.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC) @Sundayclose:Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: I have started that discussion for you. If this is the wrong way to handle this dispute, I'm always open to learning. Please cite p&g. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

1. The RfC should probably have never been started. A five comment thread lasting less than a day does not constitute a reasonable attempt at working out ... disputes required of an RfC, and definitely not on an article with almost 2,000 watchers. RfCs can be lengthy bureaucratic exercises, and frivolous ones squander the time and attention of those willing to repond to Legobot.
2. This should not have come to ANI at all without at least attempting to discuss the issue, and when it did, OP should have notified the individuals involved, as is required.
3. The RfC probably should have never been closed, and any autoconfirmed user should have been able to predict that doing so would have resulted in a metric ton of drama. While failure to discuss the issue is a legitimate reason to not start an RfC, it is not clearly a legitimate reason to close one once it's well underway. Once reopened, it should definitely not have been closed again by an involved user.
4. Performing an obvious SNOW close while claiming you are not invoking IAR actually means exactly nothing. It's still an obvious SNOW, or at least an attempt at one.
5. The RfC has been reopened, and there is no administrative action that needs done here that I can tell, so I believe we're done here. TimothyJosephWood 17:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

So I can henceforth revert an RFC close whenever I disagree with it, even if I started the RFC?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Disagree with your reasoning, Timothyjosephwood, still waiting for that p&g to counter mine. But I agree that we should be done here. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

You don't have a policy to stand on either. You have a recommendation from a WikiProject page which applies to starting an RfC and not to closing it, a close that is clearly not uncontroversial and therefore within the scope of an WP:NAC, a completely botched WP:SNOW close besides, which itself is a misapplication of the policy even as it claims to not be an attempt to invoke the policy it consummately misapplies, and now you have a gratuitous link to WP:STICK. TimothyJosephWood 17:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Failure to defer to the opinion of one non-admin editor hardly constitutes beating the deceased equine, so you might want to reconsider playing the STICK card here. I have now found WP:BADNAC item 2, which is the only remotely applicable p&g supporting your argument. It applies if a disagreement from the inappropriately-started RfC's opener, and one other editor, constitutes a "controversy" that I could have predicted. Otherwise it does not apply. It remains to be seen just how controversial the close is, which is why I opened the discussion in AT. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

1. WP:NAC is neither a policy nor a guideline.
2. WP:BADNAC is in the section specifically covering XFD
3. There is however a section covering RfC, and I particularly like this bit, after all, I wrote it: Editors should consider not only whether their assessment of the consensus is correct, but whether the discussion might be better closed by an administrator as a matter of form, resulting in a judgement that would be less likely to be challenged, even if the substance of the outcome would be the same. TimothyJosephWood 18:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Then this comes down to one question: Is it inappropriate to close an inappropriately-opened RfC, subject to challenge? You have stated your view, but you have yet to show p&g that answers that question. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure WP:COMMONSENSE pretty well covers a situation where you boldly close an RfC two hours after it started and it gets reverted by two different editors. TimothyJosephWood 18:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It would appear that your common sense and mine are in conflict. User:Cyclopia/Ubx common sense For the record, that's 26 hours, not 2. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Meh. Point still stands. There's nothing wrong with making a good faith effort to close an RfC that may stand a comparatively small chance of succeeding. And while it may be a touch premature, the question posed itself isn't a gross misinterpretation of policy, and whether to close it early is not something that justifies more debate than it would take for the actual RfC to fail. TimothyJosephWood 20:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: If that's a change in your position (I can't really tell), it would help matters if you would add to or strike your comment in the AT thread. You come across as very authoritative there and some editors may perceive you as an authority. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Well I've been around for about ten years now, so I'd like to think I've started to get the hang of things. That NACs are intended to be uncontroversial closures isn't apparently abundantly clear in the guidance provided, is a problem with the guidance, and one I intend to fix, because it is overwhelmingly the de facto practice with regard to what closures are and are not appropriate for non-administrators. TimothyJosephWood 21:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

If the definition of "controversial close" is any close that might be contested by two editors, I suspect virtually all closes are controversial. By your reasoning, then, except for a precious few no-brainers that any 13-year-old could handle, only admins should close discussions. This needs "fixing" only if you say that closes, and NACs in particular, are not subject to challenge. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

We are not dealing in the hypothetical "might be challenged". The close was challenged by two editors, and they are supported by myself, and it therefore is not an uncontroversial close appropriate for an NAC. NACs are intended to be and are for the most part janitorial actions. If you don't understand it then you need to hang out more in XFD type places, and if you don't like it then tough luck. NACs are definitely subject to challenge, and the challenge in-and-of-itself serves as an indication that the close was not uncontroversial and that there is more discussion on the matter to be had. TimothyJosephWood 22:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

there is more discussion on the matter to be had. Precisely. That has been my position from the start of this thread. And I in fact started said discussion. It requires a stunning failure of logic to say that the close was rendered retroactively improper by objections that were not known in advance of the close. If this is where 10 years gets you, you can have it. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I would also remind you that failed RfCs are themselves precedent setting in certain ways, and can be useful in avoiding endless rehashing of the same debate ad nauseam if it is the case that there is not a new argument or fresh evidence to suggest that the previous RfC might be overturned. But a botched closure likely ruins all that and makes us all go through the same song and dance again, when we could be over at WP:BACKLOG fixing #### that matters. TimothyJosephWood 22:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Despite the "Keep calm" message on his talk page, SW3 appears to lose his cool a bit too easily these days. Do we need to swap the trout of a few days ago for a whale? The early RfC close was audacious but justified given the lack of prior efforts at consensus-building and the quasi-unanimous opposition to the OP's proposal. He comes complaining to AN/I counting two supports including his own and one "compromise support", neglecting to note the 8 editors opposing, all providing a cogent rationale (not "me too" !votes). I have no prejudice against keeping the RfC open but it frankly doesn't stand a chance. OP also falsely claims that "the bot notices have not gone out yet, and won't for at least a week", which is patently false [158][159][160] thus abusing the incidents board. — JFG ^talk 18:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

SW3 was referring to the user talk notices summoning subscribed editors to the RfC, not the listings. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Just putting this here since the threading is getting wonky. But trying to champion further discussion and broader input while arguing to shut down on of the most powerful tools available to solicit further discussion and broader input, is a pretty self-contradictory position to take.

It requires a stunning failure of logic to say that the close was rendered retroactively improper by objections that were not known in advance of the close. No, it doesn't. What it requires is an appreciation for the fact that the close may not have been as uncontroversially acceptable as originally thought, and a passive willingness to let the discussion happen even if it is a failed one. As I said above, failed RfCs are also important gauges of consensus. The "D" in BRD with regard to closing an RfC is the actual RfC, not a discussion about the discussion, whether to shut down the discussion or whether to let it continue. But at this point, I'm not seeing anyone stepping in to try to reclose, so I'm not really sure why we're still talking about it. TimothyJosephWood 10:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: The entire point here is that the issue was given far too little time in regular discussion before the RfC was started. 10 hours, 5 comments, 3 editors. This was a misuse of the RfC process—as I clearly articulated in my close statement, including a direct quote from WP:RFC itself. I'm sure you're aware that clear consensuses can be developed without RfC. I didn't shut down discussion, I shut down the inappropriate RfC. You seem to have lost sight of that fact. Then the same editor who misused the RfC process came here and misused the ANI process—for the second time in a week. But it's clear that we're not getting anywhere here; if you're unable to hear what I'm saying I'm prepared to drop this and kick this can down the road. I will do the same thing under similar circumstances in the future. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, and I agree that the RfC was premature; I just disagree that that's a sufficient justification to close it over the objection of multiple editors. But I agree that we're not really getting anywhere here, and even if we were, it doesn't require the admin bit, so considering the can kicked is probably as good a resolution as any. TimothyJosephWood 13:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Thank you for your reasoned comments here. The Donald Trump talk page has had multiple RfC's, often with several open at the same time. RfCs on that page are commonplace, sometimes with little prior discussion, and sometimes contentious. See here and note the calls to 'abort,' but nobody shut down that RfC. Closing the RfC without any prior discussion, without ivoting, without any comments offered to that effect, is disruption. The claim that the RfC was 'premature' does not justify disruption, as you've noted. That explanation is akin to, "I set the house on fire because the lights went out and I needed the light to find the fuse box." As for bringing the issue here, I needed somebody to put out the fire. I think you've done that. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

What has happened in other non-identical cases is irrelevant here. To whatever extent previous cases are similar, consider that perhaps it was simply tolerated until we reached a point of "enough is enough, this needs to stop". As I've said, I reserve the right do it again under similar circumstances (unless an admin tells me not to; note that no admin has weighed in here one way or the other). Please observe WP:RFC as to proper use of the RfC process; that guidance is there for good reason. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

To SW3 5DL, your RfC was premature, period, and as I said above, we have finite resources of people willing to respond to Legobot and actually make well reasoned contributions, and we should not squander that on issues that have not yet been sufficiently discussed. That standard is weighted by the amount of page watchers, with relatively isolated articles warranting more quickly turning to broader opinion, and very heavily watched pages tending toward simply waiting for more input and further discussion. Claiming open disruption, is a pretty high standard, and one which should not be done lightly.

To Mandruss, being an administrator is not a big deal and putting so much weight into the opinions of someone who has more buttons than you makes you come off as sophomoric. I would advise putting more weight into well reasoned arguments instead. TimothyJosephWood 23:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Great concept dude, but what if I feel my reasoned arguments are better than your reasoned arguments? Deep question. Furthermore, considering that the article is under DS and I have no desire to be blocked, what admins think about this does matter to me. As it's likely this thread has been read by one or more admins without comment to date, my takeaway is that I wasn't too far out of line. Your reasoned arguments notwithstanding. Also note that there were reasoned arguments in support of my action (admittedly one just barely off the fence) from two experienced editors who are familiar with the context on that talk page, which you are not. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood:, If you'll re-read my comments to you above, you will note I direct my comments only to the disruptive closing of the RfC. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: The RfC has been re-opened. There is actually no specific timing or waiting necessary for an RfC, unless there has been an RfC on the exact same question completed less than 30 days beforehand. Discussions about the parameters and variables and options regarding the subject of the RfC should occur in the "Discussion" section of the RfC.

  The RfC is neutrally worded. That said, it is very confusing, as on the surface it seems to be asking where a/the section on LGBT Rights should be placed, and most editors are responding to that question. However, looking deeper, the RfC appears to be actually asking whether there should be an LGBT Rights section or paragraph in the article at all (so far there isn't one). So, although the wording of the RfC is neutral, it is not clear. A clearer question would be: "Should this article contain a section or paragraph on LGBT rights?" My suggestion, if it is possible, would be to scrap the current RfC and create a new one with that question, along with a sample cited proposed text for the section/paragraph. Where it should go inside the DT article is not the important question. Softlavender (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  There is actually no specific timing or waiting necessary for an RfC, - Well that's just contrary to fairly clear guidance at WP:RFC, as stated multiple times above. You're free to seek a change to community consensus on that point. If you mean that the guidance doesn't say anything like "RfC should not be started until at least one week of prior discussion, involving at least 6 editors and 50 comments, has failed to reach consensus" ... well, duh. No Wikipedia guidance is like that. 10 hours/5 comments/3 editors is clearly insufficient by any reasonable interpretation, or the guidance is useless and should be removed. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender:, I will take a look at the RfC again, but from what I saw it appears there is a total objection to the mention of LGBT rights, and the arguments seem to center on it being a social issue, rather than a civil rights issue, despite RS calling LGBT rights a civil issue. Hence, the RfC. I will check the wording. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Once again, you are conflating two issues into one. You need to do things in order: (1) Create a viable cited text for a paragraph or section on LGBT rights. (2) Gain consensus to put it in that article or into some other article about the Trump presidency. You should not have started an RfC without doing those things thoroughly beforehand. And the RfC you did start is confusing and unclear and doesn't even ask what you want to ask, which is should there be mention of LGBT rights in the article. Your bringing up the name of the article section has torpedoed the entire premature RfC. Softlavender (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Please use the article talk page for content discussion. This ANI thread was opened only for the purposes of reopening the RfC after a disruptive close. That's been done. The issue has been resolved. The thread here needs to be closed. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Wilson Tan vandalism

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

---

I reported Wilson Tan (talk · contribs) to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, but was advised to redirect the issue here as it is slow, but long-term vandalism. This account appears to be a disruptive-only account with every edit being vandalism. The user has mainly been introducing factual errors at 2017 Melbourne Football Club season (among other AFL pages too) by inputting results for games that haven't been played yet. The user continued to vandalise with introducing deliberate factual errors even after final warning. Flickerd (talk) 08:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked indef. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Revdel

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

---

Please. Many thanks — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 18:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:  Done -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 18:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Vandalism by Hyilix

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

---

Hey, can this person Hyilix (talk · contribs · logs) be blocked soon? He/She messed up Today's feature article in a way that it's very impossible to simply revert. Look at his contributions, lots of vandalisms and trying to joke with people that complain about his edits. On his talk page, lots of users are complaining about his subtile vandalism. --Deansfa (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok look, I was just testing Wikipedia's integrity. If you want to fix the vandalism just revert the edit at 19:18, 26 March 2017‎ by Hyilix on the Interstate 8 page. Hyilix (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC) Hyilix

It wasn't so simple. You admitted yourself that the time was long between [your constructive edit (to help the ignorant we are understand how to make vandalism) and the edit couldn't be reverted because of conflicted diffs. --Deansfa (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Support block: Contributions show lots of vandalism, which is clearly no joke. Setting the integrity tone doesn't help as much either. SportsLair (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked 48 hours This was deliberate and barefaced vandalism. If you don't know enough not to do this, then you need to spend the next couple of days thinking about this and what you hope to accomplish here. If anything like this is repeated, you should expect a long term/permanent wikibreak. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Numerous huge test edits and immediate revert by IP

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

---

I don't know if anything can be done about this, but for four years 97.76.226.66 (talk · contribs) has made large test edits (typically 5000-12000 bytes), then reverted them within one minute. It's clearly the same person making the edits because they all are made to articles related to Saturday Night Live. This IP has made less than fifty total edits, almost all of them following the same pattern. Other users and I have given standard warnings with no change. The frequency of these test edits is increasing, now occurring every week or two. If I'm the only one annoyed by this, feel free to ignore this report. Thanks! Sundayclose (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hrs This is clearly long term disruptive editing. Re-report if they start up again either here or at AIV. Or you can just drop a line on my talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

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

User:GretzkyCC

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

---

GretzkyCC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is related to a victim of the 2017 Westminster attack. This editor has been editing the article, and got into a minor edit war, which they had agreed to cease. Inappropriate edit summaries using the phrase "muslim scum" have been made. I issued a clear warning that the phrase was unacceptable, which GretzkyCC reverted as vandalism. It has been suggested at talk:2017 Westminster attack#"an Islamic terrorist attack" (again) that GretzkyCC is WP:NOTHERE. That needs to be tempered by the admittance of being related to a victim, and that GretzkyCC may be grieving. However, such editing cannot be allowed to continue. GretzkyCC needs to understand this. Mjroots (talk) 08:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

GretzkyCC has been notified of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I have ceased my bad behaviour. I admitted to, and apologised for it at Talk:2017 Westminster attack. Having violated Wikipedia policy, I accept my punishment. GretzkyCC (talk) 08:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@GretzkyCC: - It's not about punishment, and if this can be resolved without you being blocked then that is all to the good. Mjroots (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I have been reported by another user for edit warring, which will likely bring about a block. I'm accepting of that. When I return I will get back to the constructive editing I was doing before. WP:NOTHERE doesn't apply, since I have made multiple constructive edits from this account and was a longtime constructive IP editor before signing up. GretzkyCC (talk) 08:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring may lead to a block, but not necessarily. As you've indicated that you have ceased edit warring, then that should be the end of the matter. Given the circumstances, a little slack can be cut. Mjroots (talk) 08:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI SPI filed here. Sro23 (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI I'm a constructive editor who has been banned for 10 years for literally no reason. I suppose I got my comeuppance in losing a family member. GretzkyCC (talk) 09:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this editor is continuing to edit-war on other articles, making their explanations seem a little bit hollow. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked per the user's own admission of being a sock. Sam Walton (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Impersonation account

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

---

User:Barek2 is an impersonation account that needs to be blocked. It was created by a longtime troll whose current gimmick is impersonation accounts. —DangerousJXD (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed. El_C 05:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Darkknight2150 is another. —DangerousJXD (talk) 08:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Now blocked. —DangerousJXD (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

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

If this troll tries to "Impersonate" (and I use that word loosely) me again, can someone notify me? If ANI wasn't on my watchlist, I wouldn't know about this. DarkKnight2149 13:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Elisa.rolle

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

---

Could an admin please have a look at this editor's contribs and see if a competencyu block is in order. She's only been editing for three days but has many edits to many article, spending about 5 seconds or so on each edit. Some highlights of her activities:

• Replacing good images with her own less good images
• Adding multiple images without consideration of how the images will effect the article layout
• Adding very poor images (i.e. too dark, poorly composed) to articles
• Adding images duplicative of images already in the article which don't add to or improve on the existing image
• Not explaining in captions why an image is relevant to the article, thus making the reader find the connection between the two
• Adding irrelevant images to articls, i.e. in the article on a male subject, adding a picture of the man's wife when she was a child
• Promoting her own work, a "travel guide" to LGBTQ luminaries, from which her pictures came from

Many editors have left messages to her on her talk page, asking her to slow down, giving advice, etc, but she's not fundamentally listening. (Or, rather, she's listening, but selectively. After I spent around 10 hours (cumulatively) fixing the articles she wrecked, and told her so, she re-doubled her efforts, this time using historical photographs, and after I fixed a number of those, and decided that the effort was not worth the outcome, and that he additions were not so intrinsically valuable as to justify the time it would take to fix the many articles she worked on today, I told her I would be rollbacking her edits, and did so. She reverted back. I'm now going to stay very far away from this person, but I believe an examination of her editing is warranted, and that perhaps a WP:CIR block might be needed if she doesn;t listed to the advice that's given to her. IN any case, I will not be fixing the articles that she re-ruined by reverting, so someone might want to spend the 12-20 hours that will take, or simply revert her back and warn her to take her time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I did listen to all advice I was given, and when I simply asked a question to you, you replied " It's really not necessary that we have photographs of where every LGBT luminary in the past 100 years has lived.", so if the issue is that, I'm adding LGBT content, and you do not like it, I think there is a huger problem here than me editing. Removing content that is pertinent to the article only since it's LGBT content I hope it's against some rules. Anyway, I'm tired of it, I posted my content, and I posted content from the Library of Congress (Arnold Genthe and Frances Benjamin Johnson, who are LGBT photographers of the past whose work is public domain). You reverted the edit on a building of Paul Rudolph, a Beach Club, to which a use added the photo of the sea in front. I put the original design by Paul Rudolph that is stored at the Library of Congress. Again Rudolph was gay, is that a reason to remove a pertinent content? I posted the common tombstone of Anne Whitney and Abby Manning AND corrected the cemetery details, that were wrong. You reverted the edit, therefore leaving a wrong info in the article. Only since Carole realized it, she reverted to my previous edit. I realized someone is scared of too much LGBT content. Therefore I will stop. BUT the content I added, I kindly ask it remains. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't play the LGBTQ card, as you know nothing about me, my friends, my family, my life or my work. You sound just like all the other editors who are certain that I'm anti-whatever-they-are-for because I edit to make Wikipedia better, without regard to their POV or yours or anyone else's. Your edits were often very bad, and that's why they were deleted. Period, full stop. That you can't see that is part of the reason I think you may be incompetent to edit Wikipedia - but that's for someone else to determine, as I'm off of your train for good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I would advise taking a very deep breath before insinuating some kind of bias against an editor of long standing and high regard. Perhaps you would like to review and modify your above comment? As it stands I don't think it is likely to be helpful. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Elisa.rolle You seem more concerned with venting than building an Encyclopedia. - Mlpearc (open channel) 00:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

As User:Beyond My Ken mentioned, several of the images this editor is uploading appear to be from her own book. See [161] and [162]. There doesn't appear to be any copyright violations, and there has been no attempt to create a Wikipedia article about herself. Still, there may be a conflict of interest. "Look at all these great pictures of South Beach...and I can get them all in this book on Amazon". Magnolia677 (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, it wasn't me that introduced the LGBT topic at first, I just replied to a comment. Never once before that I pointed out mine was LGBT content. Yes, it's, but the articles were already in Wikipedia, I did not create them. I just completed them with pertinent pictures. Mlpearc, I'm not sure about the venting comment. I gave 3 clear examples of why the reverting was wrong. But as I said, I stop here, I will go back to read, as I was doing before receiving 99+ notification of reverting without reason, and I will not edit more. If you wish to revert correct edits, personal opinion is you are loosing valuable content. But is up to you. Already 2 people reverted the content, they provided a plausible reason, and I accept it. As per some of the images being sourced from my book, yes, they are, and of course is not copyright infringiment, since I gave it to wikimedia with a Creative Commons license. I DID NOT put any reference on the wikipedia article about my book, and as Magnolia said, I DID NOT create any new article. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

A specific reply to Magnoglia, I added also public domain content from Arnold Genthe and Frances Benjamin Johnson, first uploading it to Wikimedia (I checked personally with the Library of Congress, and that is no copyright infringement) and then adding it to Wikipedia. In no way this is link to my book, therefore this was all volunteering job from my side. All my edits were reverted without reason. And I hope the explanation that the pictures were not good does not apply: Arnold Genthe and Frances Benjamin Johnson were among the best photographer of the XX century, an inheritance the US should be proud of (and I'm Italian, therefore I'm talking as an admirer here). --Elisa.rolle (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Based on what I've looked at so far and the replies from Elisa.rolle, at least one of which looks like an attack on BMK's motives, I'm strongly inclined to the view that at the very least there are some CIR issues here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that there have been some images that have been helpful, but there are also sometimes that images are added that are not needed. A key issue seems to be being very new to Wikipedia and not really understanding the guidelines for adding images and that it's very helpful to engage in discussions about reverted image additions, rather than adding it back.

Looking at the article with the most number of edits, Greta Garbo, there were two images added of her from 1925. Both images would benefit from cropping - and really only one of the images should be used. It makes the top of that section busy. I'll start a discussion about that on the article talk page and will crop the images in commons.

I would recommend not adding anymore images until the guidelines about images are reviewed. I gave one link earlier WP:Images and there are links from that page to more information. I agree with the point about questioning BMK's motives, that was inappropriate.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It would not be so much of an issue if she would use accurate descriptions on Commons. Instead, she is putting information about her book in the descriptions. If all the descriptions removed mentions of her book, that would go a long way to indicate they are here to contribute to building an encyclopaedia, instead of promoting their own works. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 05:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, it looks like it's a blanket description, rather than describing the photos - which makes it a problem if there's not a tie in the article to the photograph.

I have been going through her contributions and for the most part have been having to revert the additions: 1) Poor quality historic images that have required cropping (ragged edges, cut marks along the side, etc.), 2) angles and composition that are not appropriate for encyclopedia articles (ex: commons:File:Lincoln Kirstein House, New York City, NY.jpg), 3) adding duplicate and unnecessary additional images that make the pages too busy. I am stopping now because it is beginning to seem that it would make sense to just revert all current versions of her contributions where she reverted BMK's edits, rather than looking at each and every one.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This seems like a case where mentoring would be the most prudent path to take. If successful we'll have fixed the problem and retained an editor with a decent amount of knowledge on an underrepresented topic. 2600:1017:B01B:C417:4D47:2706:B7F3:C2F1 (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for this suggestion and for recognizing I have "a decent amount of knowledge on an underrepresented topic", but as I said, I do not feel like continuing. I'm replying to some comments Carole did on some reverting, just one I made a further edit (she was complaining about the bad angle of the Lincoln Kirstein House photo, I had another I did not upload on Wikimedia, I did, and if that is better, ok, otherwise she is free to revert). But I will not do any more edits, and I will not add anymore pictures on Wikimedia. If you haven't noticed, I'm Italian, and I spend quite a lot of my savings to travel to those places and take pictures that then I was willing to put out for free with a Creative Commons licence. Another user pointed out there is a sort of guidelines on how not to bite the newcomers; well, I felt not only as I was bitten, but also chewed and splitted. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

A terribly convenient IP, with just one edit, parachutes in and offers support. Is it just me, or is someone quacking? Kleuske (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You weren't bitten, you simply weren't listening. BB has been around for a long time and knows the policies; and he at least started out politely. 2600:1017:B002:688:9AA0:2E5B:B0BC:44D9 (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand you are more into it than me. A "conveniently" IP address offers support, another just continue with the attack. For me is the same. No, Beyond My Ken didn't start politely, he started from the beginning in an unpolite way. I replied once, using the talk action, without reverting his actions, but just asking why in ONE event he was removing two photos and a sentence in an article WITHOUT photos and the reason was "unnecessary", and his answer was "It's really not necessary that we have photographs of where every LGBT luminary in the past 100 years has lived" and to revert ALL my edits in less than one hour. If this is how it works here fine. I just offered CaroleHenson (talk) to help on adjusting/removing my edits, but sincerely at this point, I take back my offer. Do as you wish, and I would also kindly ask to close this topic. I would prefer no support o attack is coming my way anymore. You can block me, or do whatever you want, I'm not asking to continue editing. I do not want to continue with editing. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

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

• Post-close note: Just a reminder that there are about 60 articles which Elisa.rolle edited which still need to be vetted to see if the edits were improvements., so there's a project for some hardy soul(s). CaroleHenson found out, as I did, that fixing the edits can be quite labor-intensive, especially considering the minimal improvements they provide, so in some cases reversion of her edit may be required. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Vandalizing talk page

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

---

User:Davidbena decided to randomly remove other users' comments, on the talk page of an WP:ARBPIA3 article. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

It looks like an edit conflict, which accidentally happens sometimes (don't ask me how). Let's ask User:Davidbena if they'd like to restore the comments. Alternatively, do so yourself. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, didn't see zzuuzz's reply and just now fixed it myself. Yeah, I'm confident it was an edit conflict. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict. No vandalizing.Davidbena (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Harassment

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

---

Oncenawhile (talk · contribs) has been posting baiting attempts and other crap on my talk page for years:

• [163] (personal comments about my name)
• [164] (I never mentioned Harper)
• [165] (personal attack after I made a comment about his harassment)
• [166] (acknowledges I removed his post but somehow thinks this is gloating material, adds more personal attacks)
• [167] (more childish baiting)
• [168] (this was today, again acknowledging that I remove his crap from my page)

All this despite my repeated removal of his comments and requests that he stop posting on my page (which you can see in the edit summaries of [169] [170] [171]). Can an admin kindly do something about this?

FWIW, he also likes telling other editors they are not full members of the human race [172], for example. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Anything recent? What I'm getting at is what brought you to ANI today. El_C 22:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

My sixth diff above notes it's from today, but a quick look at my talk page would have shown you that today not only did he post that ridiculous bait, it was preceded by [173] this nonsense, also today. Recent enough? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Seconding this nomination as I've also been on the receiving end, and witness to, repeated personal attacks by Oncenawhile. This has been a long-running problem with this editor, in addition to other indiscretions of his. Some examples:

• Coming on to my talk page and comparing my posting to "Milli Vanilli"
• Calling my post "general ########"
• Calling user Shrike "a fraud" who "should be ashamed"
• Referring to user Poliocretes as "close-minded"
• Describing my statements as "vacuous"
• Saying that I made a "stupid revert"
• Calling me "Pathetic"
• Calling me "Islamophobic" based on nothing
• Telling No More Mr Nice Guy "I worry about people when they feel the need to project their own self-importance to unknown strangers. Numerous psychological studies have shown that such behaviour belies a deep lack of underlying self confidence."

Also pointing out that only a few days ago, BU Rob13 told Oncenawhile that he was "rapidly heading towards a topic ban" based on some of these personal attacks. Obviously that hasn't made any difference. Drsmoo (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I was ready to topic ban until I realized these diffs were from 2015 and 2016. This editor received a final warning of sorts about a week ago at AE. Coming to ANI very shortly after with diffs from before the warning is not helpful. The only 2017 diff shown here was a bit snarky but not a personal attack. No action is needed here. I will only reiterate my earlier warning to Oncenawhile with the added comment that you will be blocked for a long period of time if this ever repeats itself. That diff is beyond the pale, and it would have resulted in sanction if it had been reported at the time. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @BU Rob13: please could you expand on your use of the phrase "final warning of sorts"? Surely a final warning would require some previous warnings, an opportunity to respond, and a proper investigation of an opposing editor's list of diffs (to check if they were taken out of context or cherrypicked). Oncenawhile (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't speak for Rob, but myself, I give one-and-only warning for personal attacks, such as for the one cited ("underlying self confidence")—so perhaps that's the inference. You should certainly consider yourself under a final warning due to it. El_C 00:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I've made other comments like that before or since, but either way it wasn't an attack. I admit it was a personal comment, but one has to understand I had developed some kind of Stockholm syndrome with this editor. Despite his constant opposition to my edits, I consider him likely to be quite similar to me in many ways. At the very least, we both seem to care about this encyclopedia, even though we express it in different ways. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Good. Yes, I consider it a personal attack—at the very least, casting aspersions. You should definitely avoid insinuations into editors' mental faculties. El_C 01:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: The pattern of behavior outlined by the diffs above is both severe and long-term. In particular, you essentially insinuated that another editor was mentally ill. That's unacceptable and warrants an only warning for discretionary sanctions. Keep in mind discretionary sanctions are active in the topic area and require no warning beyond the initial notice. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I object to the characterization as severe. None of my comments fall under any of the examples at WP:WIAPA. I have already acknowledged that the self-confidence comment from 14 months ago was misjudged, but it was not an allusion to mental illness (I am very sensitive to that topic, and neither low self-confidence - nor low self-esteem with which it is often incorrectly conflated - are considered mental disorders in their own right), nor was it intended as an attack. Nor is there anything severe about any of the other diffs that NMMNG or Drsmoo brought, or even some form of pattern. Many of the diffs have been misrepresented by NMMNG and Drsmoo in their summaries above (most importantly, in the majority of cases they have misrepresented comments I made about content and comments as if they were actually about the editor), and this appears to be having their desired effect. For example, at the AE, following Drsmoo's summary you incorrectly stated that I had called another editor close-minded - yet if you read my actual comment the reference was to the work of an eminent scholar who has been working (eg page 9) to counteract close-minded thinking in the field of archaeology. If you look into the other diffs, you'll find the same misrepresentation - in a much more obvious fashion - again and again.

To get specific, are you saying I can't call another editor's comments vacuous, ########, a stupid revert, or pathetic? I have previously considered that being very direct about one's views on other's comments is sometimes appropriate.

Finally, since you have given a strong view on their accusations regarding my editing style, please could you also look into my accusations about theirs? Oncenawhile (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: Vacuous and a stupid revert are fine; they address arguments, not people. ######## is pushing it in terms of civility. It's not actionable on its own, but it does assist in establishing the pattern. Pathetic is also pushing it. Look, when you go to comment on others' comments or actions, think about whether such a comment is going to help reach a consensus. Calling someone's comments "pathetic", even if you diametrically disagree, isn't helpful. It doesn't achieve any goal other than to irritate and divide. I have made plenty of harsh comments about the arguments other editors make in various disagreements of opinion. I certainly don't shy away from that. But I never use words like "stupid", "pathetic", "########" because they don't actually help with anything. At best, they don't tell you anything about why things are "stupid", etc., so they don't add anything to your argument. At worst, they incense other editors and make it much harder to reach consensus. Focus not on what's allowed by the rules but what's helpful to accomplish your own goal, if that's easier for you. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: thanks for this, which I consider a fair and balanced assessment, and good advice. I would note that my ######## comment was actually "general ########" (being used as a cruder synonym for vacuous), and my pathetic comment related to the behavior of the editor who was once again trying to evade explaining why he reverted an edit. See, even I manage to misrepresent my own comments.

In light of this discussion, I am reflecting on whether I should be softer when facing these kind of editors (I consider that editors who refuse to properly explain a disputed edit to be the most disruptive kind of editor we have, as they impede progress and are much harder to deal with than plain vandals). The problem is that I have yet to see admins engage on trying to fix this, so when Dispute Resolution fails (which it often does) I feel I am left to my own devices. Am I right to imply from your silence on this issue throughout this thread that you see things differently? Oncenawhile (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

What about his ongoing harassment on my talk page? That happened twice today after I asked him at least 3 times to stop. Been going on for years, even before the diff you say is beyond the pale. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Oncenawhile should certainly stick to article talk pages to communicate with this editor, since it's plainly obvious their user talk page messages are not welcomed. El_C 01:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but can you point out one actual personal attack? Not reference to an argument being pathetic or a position being border-line Islamophobic, but one ad hominem. El_C 23:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I provided the recent examples you asked for above, in case you missed it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Please note that there is a long history of these two editors] opposing my edits at the same time.

Drsmoo has been forum shopping these cherrypicked diffs for a long time, opening half a dozen or so ANIs and jumping in other discussions whenever possible. I have yet to respond in kind with a list of diffs regarding Drsmoo's (or NMMNG's) behaviour for that matter, but I will do if admins think worthwhile. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

---

I'm just trying to figure out what happened today to prompt this... El_C 23:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's my statement at WP:ARCA. I am pushing for changes which will stop the exact tactics that these two editors use to counteract my edits. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it's your multiple not-trying-to-improve-the-encyclopedia posts on my talk page after I asked you repeatedly to stop. Hopefully El_C will figure out what happened today (hint: this is the third time I explained it) and perhaps explain why that would even be relevant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

No one is trying to specifically counteract your edits. You happen to make a lot of edits which are inaccurate, and then when reverted, drag things on for weeks/months while personally attacking everyone and/or ignoring consensus. Then you say that the other editor has been following you because of the number of edits. Feel free to post a list of diffs, I have no issue with that whatsoever and am confident that I've upheld the rules. Drsmoo (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The tactic is simple. You or NMMNG revert an edit you don't like, I respond on talk by saying "your revert is incorrect because of xyz", then you simply avoid the question - either by silence or by diversion. This often upholds the letter of the rules, but there is an important distinction between the letter and spirit of the law. Hence the rules need to change to stop this behaviour from all editors who follow it, as it is damaging the encyclopedia. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's not bring ARBPIA into ANI, because nothing good will come of it. El_C 00:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

No, consensus decides that your edit was bad, you ignore consensus and personally attack everyone, everyone stops responding to you because you haven't established consensus for your edit and they aren't going to be bothered when your edits are so uncivil and they don't feel like being harassed and personally attacked. Drsmoo (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

If this was the case, you would not have avoided my request to point out where your sources support the sentence, despite me asking more than a dozen times. Ignoring it again and again with aspersions of consensus on a separate question is not going to make this go away. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised that NMMNG wasn't afraid of a BOOMERANG when bringing this case. For example are the comments he reports worse than what he wrote to Oncenawhile yesterday: "The reason I did not reply to your comment above, as you know from our dealings on other articles, is that I do not allow you to waste my time unless at least one other editor supports your position." [174]. Also, if you look at that section of the talk page, you will see that only Oncenawhile has made an argument for his position. So who behaved better there? Zero^talk 00:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with that comment whatsoever. Could be phrased differently, but all things considered is farily civil. Quite different from "Telling NMMNG not to attack another editor is like telling a child they can't have cake." Drsmoo (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Heavens. NMMNG told Once that he was going to oppose him but had no obligation to explain himself. It is a spit in the face of Wikipedia. Zero^talk 01:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I think both civility and a cooperative attitude would go a long way to make ARBPIA articles a less toxic place. El_C 01:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Oncenawhile shouldn't have posted on NMMGG's page. Since I and NMMGG are utterly unable to agree on anything, we agreed not to post on each other's pages. It's common sense.That said, one index of what editors are doing in these conflicts is the interaction measure, which Oncenawhile applied to this case. If one looks closely at it, one, well, I for one, get the impression these are conflicts between a content/page builder, Oncenawhile, and editors who do a lot of reverting, or argufying on those pages. This kind of difference underlies much conflict, between builders and kibitzers. You can have poor builders of course, but they do actually work. The second index of what is really going on is to see which editors (the reverter-report type) are prone to prefer rushing to A/I or AE to 'denounce' the others, usually over trifles that look thin-skinned. One should of course strive for good manners, but one shouldn't be in the toxic I/P area if one doesn't have a tough hide or lacks patience. Nishidani (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oncenawhile shouldn't have posted on NMMGG's page. Since I and NMMGG are utterly unable to agree on anything, we agreed not to post on each other's pages. It's common sense. [175] took a while for that to take, but I'm glad you now think it's common sense.
• The second index of what is really going on is to see which editors (the reverter-report type) are prone to prefer rushing to A/I or AE to 'denounce' the others, usually over trifles that look thin-skinned. [176] [177] lol. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Probably doesn't help that Once is constantly pushing a strong pro-arab stance.74.70.146.1 (talk) 09:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Oncenawhile has had multiple run-ins with NMMNG over many months, probably years. If someone makes it clear that they don't want anything to do with you, it's sensible to not post on their talkpage. If either has a problem with the other, ANI is the venue; otherwise, the person should suck it up and focus on content.

As for discussions between Oncenawhile and NMMNG: after a certain point, discussion is useless when people aren't going to agree. By the same token, NMMNG shouldn't simply revert without giving a reason, as they did here; if someone is allowed to block something simply because they don't like it, WP cannot work. WP:3O is a good way to get informal opinions to break impasses, and RfCs should be considered as well. Also, one or the other can simply let it go. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

To reiterate, Oceanwhile should know by now they they are not welcome on NMMNG user talk page, so posting there (anything) can be seen as provocation. At the same time, on the article and article talk page space, they are both expected to conduct themsleves professionally. And of course, I would hope for all reverts to be well-reasoned—otherwise, there's a risk that the consensus clause will be used to grind, not just edit wars but editing itself, to a halt. El_C 18:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: I must have the ability to post notifications on his page, to make him aware of conversations elsewhere. For example, as required at WP:ANI, WP:RM, WP:AFD and WP:DISCFAIL. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Unless specifically required to by process, (ANI notification for example) if someone tells you to stay off their talk page, you stay off their talk page. No discussions about articles, no complaining about reverts they have made of your edits. Otherwise you risk getting an interaction ban with the user which you given your editing area, would not like very much. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I already told him explicitly that he may post administrative stuff he's required to inform me about on my page. He's just wasting everyone's time again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hidden in an edit comment from 18 months ago (in which you also attacked my edit as "pathetic", see discussion above).

Another misrepresentation. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

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

User talk:Bruce1997

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

---

This editor has created 5 duplicate articles, some of which have been CSD. These articles are unsourced, make little sense, and attempt to promote some French mosquito fighter. Bruce contested deletion by posting this poor excuse on his talk page. I believe this editor is NOTHERE and should be blocked.

Current Articles include

Anti-Mosquito Innovation

Anti-Mosquito The new generation is coming

User:Bruce1997/sandbox His sandbox from which he copies all these articles. L3X1 (distant write) 02:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Notified. L3X1 (distant write) 02:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

And block. Bruce has stated his purpose here is to promote this person and his work, and he doesn't seem interested in actually communicating with people, except to tell them that they're wrong. He can have his editing privs back if he can demonstrate an understanding of Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. L3X1 (distant write) 02:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you Someguy1221 or some other admin close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Mosquito Innovation? XfDcloser won't let me close it as delete.L3X1 (distant write) 02:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Request for block

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

---

Please block me - it's a good idea to protect Wikipedia from the edits I might well decide to make. 68.232.71.82 (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Please provide diffs for your controversial edits and we will determine whether or not they are in violation of policy.--WaltCip (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a sock wants attention… L3X1 (distant write) 03:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, for example this is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE - whoever was behind it obviously has an agenda and should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia. 68.232.71.82 (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Still, the point I am making is that I myself have not made any controversial edits, BUT I MIGHT WELL D IF NOT BLOCKED. 68.232.71.82 (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't push the big red button...TJH2018talk 03:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Their talk page makes for... interesting? reading. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 06:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• This IP address may have been used by sock master User:CrazyAces489 (User:BlackAmerican when he attempts to go through the standard offer) by looking at the talk page. Could it be a different person?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inaccurate information inserted on Meir Einstein

If you look at the history of Meir Einstein, you will see 2 IPs inserted information about Meir Einstein without providing a source; I didn't find the information they inserted in any news source, so I've removed it twice. I'm not sure what to do if the information is inserted a third time, because that may be considered edit warring on my part. Ethanbas ^(talk) 23:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Removing unsourced contentious BLP claims (he just died, so BLP fully applies) is exempt from WP:3RR. You are fine. --MASEM (t) 23:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

OK thanks. How long does BLP last for after a person has died? Does it cease applying only for historical figures (however that may be defined)? Ethanbas ^(talk) 23:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

OK: "Anyone born within the past 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime. Even absent confirmation of death, for the purposes of this policy anyone born more than 115 years ago is presumed dead unless reliable sources confirm the person to have been living within the past two years." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Recently_dead_or_probably_dead Ethanbas ^(talk) 23:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Right, exactly - but even this specific information being added would absolutely need to be sourced to be kept, and I doubt you'd any flak for removing that claim repeatedly five years out. --MASEM (t) 23:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)