Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the incident noticeboard

This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.

  • Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email directly with your concern.

Sections older than 72 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Centralized discussion



This is supposed to be the Administrator's Noticeboard-Incidents but has anyone noticed that after nearly a month of exchange of TL;DR posts between three or four editors, not a single admin has made a comment? More interesting, not even the peanut gallery have deigned to chime in. Nobody in their right mind is going to wade through all this which took me 20 minutes just to scan through it, and summarise it and pronounce a verdict. I see a lot of pot-kettle/kettle-pot, 'crickets chirping' and 'frogs croaking', a lot of big wind bending the trees and the whole thing going nowhere beyond a few half-hearted attempted polls going round in ever decreasing circles. I suggest you guys take your argument elsewhere, such as one of your talk pages, bury the darned hatchet, and let us archive this thread to make room for more, new nonsense while 'Wikipedia's servers continue to whirr and hum and blink....' Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

I was assuming good faith when I posted my first several comments, but as it turns out, when one looks at The Banner's edit history a bit more closely, he posts AFDs on an almost daily basis, so the claims that his focus on FFA P-16 is obvious and he ignores similar articles in case their not from FFA P-16 are demonstrably false. The only one who is "obviously focused" on hounding one particular editor is User:MBurch, who has barely made a single edit not related to The Banner in months (his edits to are irrelevant, as it seems he is only on English Wikipedia to harangue The Banner). I think that unless this thread is withdrawn and the above baseless remarks about The Banner stricken, a block and/or one-way IBAN (they are possible) should be put on the table for MBurch, and his tag-team partner FFA P-16's disruption should also probably be dealt with appropriately. Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
It's indeed not good faith to automatically assume sock puppets on all those that don't agree on someones deletions requests especially after several people mentioned that we're clearly not the same person. At least in German Wikipedia where I mostly edit it would have been just part of common sense for the petitioner to at least excuse yourself after such a mistake. --MBurch (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
MBurch, a clerk endorsed CU on you, and CU confirmed that you were a sock, and you were blocked accordingly for several days. The idea that you were a sock of FFA is not some idiosyncratic idea manufactures by The Banner to punish you for opposing his AFDs. And, more than that, the incident in question was three months ago. Drop it now, and go do something that doesn't involve hounding The Banner, or you will likely be blocked per WP:NOTHERE, regardless of whether you are in fact a meatpuppet (which you still really look like, even if CU was wrong to declare you a sockpuppet). Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Can you please stop calling me a sock!? Doug Weller statement was very clear (see his investigations).--MBurch (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88:} You should not make the statement that I confirmed an editor as a sock when I later stated that I was mistaken and apologised. It doesn't help and it might be misread. Doug Weller talk 12:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: My apologies. As you know, CU is a bit inscrutable to those of us who don't have it. My point is that, regardless of whether it was a mistake or whatever, MBurch is not doing himself or anyone else any favours by constantly ragging on about it like he is, nor by insinuating that the whole SPI was a revenge action by The Banner, since clearly the evidence convinced several other good-faith users. This same thing happened a few months back with someone else who was CU-blocked as a sock of User:Kauffner. Apparently on that occasion too, there was some mistake, but even after being unblocked the user continued to do nothing but complain about how he had been mistreated. I do not, of course, think you unblocked someone whom you had already confirmed was in fact a sock -- I don't even think MBurch is a sock. I just think he needs to drop the stick already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hijiri88 (talkcontribs)
I accept your apologies while one from The Banner is technically still missing, but I won't insist on that if we find a solution that ends this whole drama. --MBurch (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I was apologizing to Doug for my unfortunate language. I was not apologizing to you because I was not wrong to say you were determined by multiple independent parties, based on several different types of evidence, to be a sockpuppet. So you are still very much in the wrong to repeatedly insist that one of those multiple users was motivated solely by revenging you. Rather than insincerely claiming that you "accept my apology", you should be the one apologizing for continuously trying to game the system. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
You insulting me calling me several times a sock and when I kindly ask you to stop and even the checkuser Doug Weller tells you that there's no reason to call me a sock you excuse yourself but not towards the person you insulting? It's true I'm mostly active in German Wikipedia, but I have globaly more than 25'000 contributions which is a bit more than you have thought I'm two years longer active as well but fun fact is that you got several times blocked [1] (one time even for abusing multiple accounts). Maybe you shouldn't really hand out advice yourself. --MBurch (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
You insulting me calling me several times a sock Wrong. I never called you a sock. I said your behaviour made you very much look like a sock, so much so that an SPI was opened, a clerk endorsed CU, a CU was performed, and you were blocked for several days. I said this because you kept insisting (indeed continue to insist) that the SPI was baseless, and was only opened as revenge for you !voting in some AFDs. I am not saying you are a sock: I am saying you are engaged in gross ABF, hounding, and otherwise disruptive behaviour. These are not the same thing. when I kindly ask you to stop Wrong again. Nothing about your conduct in this thread has been "kind". even the checkuser Doug Weller tells you that there's no reason to call me a sock Is that what Doug said? I thought he told me to stop using the phrase "CU-confirmed sock" because it was misleading. you excuse yourself but not towards the person you insulting? Yes, I apologized for my unfortunate choice of words. I used the phrase "CU-confirmed sock" to mean "account that has been CU-blocked as a sockpuppet because CU 'confirmed' (in the technical sense used in SPIs) that it was a sockpuppet". I did not apologize for "insulting you" because I did not insult you. I said you were misrepresenting history to make The Banner's behaviour sound worse than it was, and assuming bad faith on the part of the user who opened the SPI but not the clerk that endorsed it or the CU who blocked based on it. It's true I'm mostly active in German Wikipedia Nope. You are only active on German Wikipedia. Before November 2015, you had eight edits on Then you started showing up on deletion discussions involving The Banner, and your rate of editing on English Wikipedia went up exponentially. Your spurt of edits since February of this year has been devoted almost exclusively to The Banner. Stop hounding The Banner. but I have globaly more than 25'000 contributions which is a bit more than you have Umm... so what? thought I'm two years longer active as well That's ungrammatical and doesn't make a lot of sense. You first became active on (the only Wikimedia project to which you have made a substantial number of edits) in 2013, while I have been fair consistently active on English Wikipedia since 2012, and my account's official age is five years older than yours; I was an active contributor between 2005 and 2008, then left the project while in university, as I was during that period awarded credits for the same type of writing that I was doing on Wikipedia for no reward. But again, what does this have to do with anything? but fun fact is that you got several times blocked Actually, if you look at the background, most of those blocks were for technically violating a couple of IBANs, while the other users with whom I was banned have since either been site-banned for obvious NOTHERE trolling and the hounding of me that originally led to the IBAN (in the case of Catflap08) or left the project because ... they were obvious NOTHERE trolls, who, once they were no longer allowed troll me and other users active in a particular topic area, they eventually gave up and left (in the case of Tristan noir). Both of these IBANs have been dissolved, one back in February 2013 and the other in March of this year. But again -- what does any of this have to do with the dispute between you, FFA and TB? Are you just being deliberately antagonistic? Going back through other users' (years ago) block logs) is a fairly good indication that you are the one engaged in hounding. You are, at the very least, behaving in an extremely uncivil manner. one time even for abusing multiple accounts Again, context. I was not abusing multiple accounts. I accidentally edited while logged into this account because this account had email enabled and (at least at that time) I was unable to use the same email address with more than one (declared, legitimate) account. This account (which I had said I would not use to edit English Wikipedia during the period in which the Coldman the Barbarian account was active) was then blocked from editing English Wikipedia. If I had not volunteered not to use my main account to edit English Wikipedia (because of some off-wiki harassment by a site-banned troll who had figured out my workplace and parents' home address) it almost certainly would not have been blocked. I was, at the time, formally retired from editing, but I became aware that a user with whom I had previously conflicted was going around systematically reverting my edits, and decided to report the problem, but I didn't want to log into my main account to do it because another user was actively monitoring my main account's contribs, and harassing me off-wiki. Again, context. Please apologize for your gross, off-topic personal attacks against me, or I will request that you be blocked. Maybe you shouldn't really hand out advice yourself. Right back at ya, big guy. You should be blocked for your behaviour in this thread, let alone your disruptive hounding of The Banner. Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

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

I didn't mean to attack you at all, I just believe you're comments were not much helpful. In my personal opinion you increased the conflict while others tried to find a solution in short, brief words. Fact is I signed up 21th of November 2010, I have globally over 25'000 contributions mostly in German Wikipedia, but a few on commons, wikidata and others, too [2]. --MBurch (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
It's good to know you didn't mean to attack me, but that's what you did. And if we discount FFA and The Banner themselves, you are the only one here who has not been working to find a solution to the problem, as you are yourself a significant part of the problem (indeed, you have scarcely contributed anything to English Wikipedia beyond fanning the flames of this dispute). You opened this thread as part of a tag-teaming/hounding campaign on your part, and since opening it you opposed my first pro-active attempt to resolve the problem, posted an extremely suspicious support for Kleuske's (which made it look like you intend to game and undermine it), and would probably oppose any solution MilborneOne might have that doesn't either specifically single out The Banner or allow you to continue specifically singling him out. It's not even clear who you are talking about when you say "others". Apart from Kleuske and myself, and the involved parties themselves (you, FFA and The Banner), the only people who have commented here have been one-off drive-by commenters. Speculation as to the reason for that aside, it would be appreciated if you didn't continue to insinuate that I have been "not much helpful" and am working to "increase the conflict" when the one who is being deliberately and needlessly inflammatory is clearly not me. Also, you still have not apologized. Demanding that others apologize to you for using unfortunate/misleading wording in a good-faith attempt to deal with the core issues here, while simultaneously refusing to apologize for your own blatant and unprovoked personal attacks, is not helpful. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • He "worked" only on 3 Airports, Amsterdam (probably because he is from the netherlands) , Dublin (probably because he live in Ireland) he doesn't worked on any other Airport article.. except of deleting out informations of Zürich Airport (the biggest Airport of SWITZERLAND).
  • The only Air Force Base he was "working" on was the Dübendorf Air Base (an Air Force Base of SWITZERLAND) trying to delet out informations about the Zero-G flight and other stuff.he doesn't worked on any other Air Force Base article of the whole world.. and BTW Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dübendorf Air Base[3] The only Air Base he want have deleted was an Air Base from SWITZERLAND. No oter tiny dusty airfiled somewere...
  • The only aircraft project he want have deleted was not for e.g. the Bartini A-57, Lockheed L-2000 or Belyayev Babochka no, he wantet the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ALR Piranha[4] from SWITZERLAND , created from me,do be deleted.
  • The only aircraft (build) aircraft page he nominatet for deletion from him was the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KZD-85 from SWITZERLAND, created from me.
  • The only airshow page(again created from me) he nominatet for deletion[[5]].was the one about the Air14
  • The only page about an Aircraft Type he was deleting out Informations is the Pilatus PC-24 from SWITZERLAND, interestingly what is "not-notable for ihm there

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

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

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

  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nils Hämmerli[6] Kunstflugkommandant
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medisize Schweiz AG[7] Swiss plastic industrie
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terxo AG[8]Swiss plastic industrie
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isopress AG[9] Swiss plastic industrie
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AGP 3 Trailer[10] sole article about a bustrailer he nominated for deletion
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military History Foundation of the Canton of Zug[11] Only Museum he want have to be deleted
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernhard Müller (Officer)[12] he wanted the next commander! of the Swiss air Force deleted
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Task Force ALBA[13]The only military mission he wanted to be deleted
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SPHAIR[14]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bucher aircraft tractor (2nd nomination)[15] ‎But no other Aircrafttractor (like M2 High Speed Tractor) got nominated for deletion..
  • The only air surveilance systems he nominadet ever are two from switzerland/ I had creadeted:[16] The FLORIDA System and [17] SRF System.

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

Non stoping provocations [18] Verh unfriendly acting and threaten to persons who speak up against his wikihounding on me.[19]

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

If I add some informations somewhere he deled it out with comments like fancuf, fanboy, not notable, irrelevant ,.. But on the other hand he is insisting on such nonsense:[20]. all this is only the peak of all the mobbing, editwarring, stalking from The Banner against me... and this again is only his constant attacks against me.. a lot of other users have to suffer because no one stop him.. a lot of users (who brought in valuable Informations ) have resgnated and left Wikipedia for ever.

Also he is constantly watching My talkpage.. If someon had left there a positive feedback about an article from me like here: [21] he starts to provocate [22]. Not only that he is stalking me in the “open” part of Wikipedia, he is also browsing on my not “open” pages on Wikipedia. He cleaned all this informations out and threatened me with a block warning on my talkpage. Also nomnadte he my ‎User:FFA P-16/workpage19 for deletion. He is damaging Wikipedia with his non stop deleting nominations. Also the Banner is behaving very aggressive against other people in other deleting discusions [23] FFA P-16 (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

@Hijiri 88, it is not that he nomiated Coincidentally this for AFD because he is thinking it does not meet GNG. like I sayd above.. The ALR Piranha was the only aircraft project he nominated he did not put one of this in question Bartini A-57, Lockheed L-2000 or Belyayev Babochka. He nominadet Bucher aircraft tractor (who i had writen) [24] for deletion.. it had a few references ‎But no other Aircrafttractor (like U-30 Tow Tractor and MB-2 tow tractor who have NO referenc) got nominated for deletion.. The number of from The banner nominated articels i had written (especaly about the Divison General) shows exactly that it is not about GNG and draves a clear picture...The only UAV he ever nominadeted was writen from me he never nominated ANY other UAV Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KZD-85. Very interesting is that ther is now a long line of AfD s from against articels from is no coincidence that he now drag FLORIDA Airspace monitoring and management system and SRF Airspace monitoring and management systemto AfD after they exist already 4 years with "Fail WP GNG" at the same time put no other radar system who was not written from me in question (like Austrian air defense or French air defence radar systems) who's WP GNG is even weaker. That are just a few exampels.FFA P-16 (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

If you want to contest the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bucher aircraft tractor (2nd nomination), ANI is not the place to do it. If you want to nominate other pages for deletion, ANI is also not the place to do it. The fact that most of the AFDs you referred to above resulted in deletion means that the nominations must be taken in good faith. If you think someone is hounding you, you need convincing evidence thereof. I have only so far seen convincing evidence that your friend MBurch is hounding The Banner in your stead. I will admit that I have not read your wall of text, and I do not intend to; writing a massive wall of text with very few diffs is normally a pretty solid indication that you don't have such evidence. Maybe you should have told MBurch to hold off on this ANI thread until you had the diffs prepared? Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Honored Hijiri 88.
It's not about rebooting AfD's, but about the abusive position of AfD's and wikihounding of The Banner against me.
Please do not made the victim to the guilty and the guilty to an victim.
MBurch was massively attacked by The Banner when he spoke in AfD's for the receipt of my articles. He also saw The Banner battling systematically against me, and merely asking The banner to stop it. He never bothered any work of The Banner. Likewise, Zurich00swiss also knew that he had never bothered the work of The Banner but was attacked massively by The Banner in his work on the subject of Airport Zurich and the AfD's where he spoke out to not delet my articles.
You do not seem to understand. The Banner is systematically following me, and specifically targeting AfD's against articles written by me. It is not about quality. If you would read the text from me, you would see that he makes various articles of me AfD in subjects where he is never active (UAV, Air Base, Aircraftprojects, Radar system, ..) In all these areas it has Several articles written by other users who meet much less the requirements, but he has not proposed any of them to the AfD. Some have not a single referenc or weblink ..he never touched it, but my article with references... This makes it quite clear that he has it only on me. Examples I have brought above enough.
Just to look at the some articles from me(not all!) who In AfD's had been deleted .. not to read my "long" text and then to decide The Banner is innocent. Sorry but this is not a factual investigation of this problem.
I ask you to take the time and really read and examine all my foundations. If you do not look at everything it makes no sense that you deal with this case. Then I ask for someone else who take care of this case. Someone who is willing to read all my arguments and to look at all the examples I have brought. Thank you.FFA P-16 (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, first, please learn to indent consistently. It's difficult to respond to you otherwise.
If you are not interested in undoing the AFDs, then why are you trying to go back and discredit the grounds on which they were posted for AFD? The Banner's behaviour in posting those particular pages to AFD could have only constituted hounding if he didn't sincerely believe that those pages should be deleted on their own merits. If you are creating a bunch of articles that should be deleted per our inclusion criteria, the problem is with you, not The Banner. Even if he found those pages by checking your contribs, that is still legit and does not constitute hounding.
No, MBurch only posted in those AFDs because they were opened by The Banner and because the articles in question were started by you. Maybe The Banner attacked MBurch for that (you still haven't provided any diffs...), but it's abundantly clear that MBurch has been hounding The Banner -- MBurch hasn't done anything but hound The Banner.
Again, if The Banner's AFDs had merit, then what he did was not hounding. Even if it was systematic, the problem is with you writing articles that almost uniformly get deleted when posted to AFD, not with him posting them at AFD. I will explain this by giving an example. About three years ago, I noticed that a certain user was showing a severe failure to read sources and present what they said accurately, on an article that was on my watchlist. No matter how hard I tried to explain it to him, he just didn't seem to get it. I then got suspicious that he might have engaged in similar disruption on other articles, so I checked his contribs and found that my suspicion had been correct. When I pointed this out on the talk pages of the other articles (which weren't on his watchlist and which I had "followed" him to) I too was accused of "hounding". But I wasn't hounding: I noticed a user engaged in problematic behaviour and dealt with it accordingly. Even if that is what The Banner did here (and you still haven't presented any evidence that that is even what is happening), the problem is most likely with you, not The Banner. Otherwise, why would almost all of the pages have been deleted?
For what it's worth, I did check how often The Banner posts articles for deletion. Of his past 300 new page creations in the Wikipedia namespace, 296 have been AFDs, and that's only since January 1 of last year. That's 0.61 AFDs per day over a period of 16 months -- are all of those AFDs hounding of the users who created the articles? And do you really think you're the first one to try to accuse him of hounding rather that reflecting on your own understanding of our includion criteria? (I actually don't know. You might be. But I doubt it.)
And no. No one is under any obligation to read your massive wall of text, in which you provided no diffs or other clear evidence, before commenting to the effect that you have provided no diffs or other clear evidence. If you don't provide evidence in support of your claims, all the rest of us can do is go looking for ourselves. And if what we find doesn't support your claims, that also is not our fault.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
To follow my edits and then delete the article created by me is wikihounding. Again, it is not about quality. Otherwise he would have to nominate other articles on the same topics that were not written by me. I have listed this above. It is also not so that all articles of me, which he nominated has been deleted. The article about divisional general Bernhard Müller Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernhard Müller (Officer)shows very well that he acts AfD abuse. Only because he does 's 0.61 AFDs per day is no sing that this is shows only exesive use of AfD.. and if you look at the topic of this AfD's articles.. you see that my articels are quid "exotic" to the other topics.. he is usualy not active in this topics.. a clear sign that he his wikihounding me. is no coincidence that he now drag FLORIDA Airspace monitoring and management system and SRF Airspace monitoring and management systemto AfD after they exist already 4 years with "Fail WP GNG" at the same time put no other radar system who was not written from me in question (like [[[Austrian air defense]] or French air defence radar systems) who's WP GNG is even weaker.Again you do not want to read my text and look at the links on the left. If you do not want to read what I write here is no factual processing this case of you. Sorry. So then I am official have to say:I ask for someone else who take care of this case. Someone who is willing to read all my arguments and to look at all the examples I have brought. This is important- Thank you &byeFFA P-16 (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
To follow my edits and then delete the article created by me is wikihounding. Nope. If he sincerely thinks you don't understand our inclusion criteria (and, again, he does sincerely think that until proven otherwise), then checking your contribs and nominating certain pages written by you for deletions is perfectly acceptable.
Again, it is not about quality. Then how come, on seven of the ten AFDs you linked above, there was clear consensus to delete the pages?
Otherwise he would have to nominate other articles on the same topics that were not written by me. Again, NO. No one is under any obligation to do more or less than they wish on Wikipedia. We are all volunteers here. And there are no articles on the same topics written by other editors -- do you mean "on similar topics"? If so, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you believe that those other topics don't meet GNG, you should nominate them for deletion. Don't attack The Banner for not nominating them.
It is also not so that all articles of me, which he nominated has been deleted. I have listed this above. Good for you. Unfortunately, no one said that. I said most. Specifically, 7 out of 10 of the AFDs you linked ended in deletion. And actually, of the other three, two should maybe be reconsidered with MBurch's !vote being discounted as HOUNDing.
The article about divisional general Bernhard Müller Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernhard Müller (Officer)shows very well that he acts AfD abuse. If you think that demonstrated abuse of the AFD process, then maybe you think the other four users who !voted to delete (and maybe even the one said "weak keep") are hounding you as well? On top of that, your own conduct in that AFD (repeatedly refusing to focus on content and making constant off-topic remarks about how you don't like The Banner) was atrocious. Linking to it was not a good idea.
Only because he does 's 0.61 AFDs per day is no sing that this is shows only exesive use of AfD.. No. Lots of editors open a lot of AFDs. I don't know The Banner's particular circumstances, but some monitor new pages, which include a disproportionate number of autobiographies by non-notable individuals, blatant advertising, etc.
and if you look at the topic of this AfD's articles.. you see that my articels are quid "exotic" to the other topics.. he is usualy not active in this topics.. a clear sign that he his wikihounding me. Wait, what? No one who opens that many AFDs is focused on one topic, so the fact that he doesn't have a particular focus on airports or the armed forces (?) is irrelevant.
Again you do not want to read my text and look at the links on the left You clearly are not comfortable with me addressing all the numerous problems in those portions of your comments I have read -- do you really want me to go through your first massive wall-of-text and detail all the ways it is wrong and lends itself to my BOOMERANG idea? For example, you say that he is watching your talk page (again, something he is allowed do) and "provocating", but your "diff" of said is a blank link to the Tupolev Voron article, which The Banner has never edited. I thought for a few minutes you were (falsely) accusing him of tagging the article as needing a copyedit and went through it to see if it was accurate, then I looked around a bit and noticed this. You do still need to provide proper attribution when you translate from German Wikipedia, and if you translated the version that was originally written by you a year earlier, you need to note that, because, if you translated the version as it appeared when you put the translation on English Wikipedia and had been edited by about a dozen other editors, there is a copyright issue. You then go on about not “open” pages on Wikipedia, which makes no sense to me. A bit above you Non stoping provocations with a malformed link to four comments by multiple users, in which The Banner said nothing even approaching incivility. Then you say Verh unfriendly acting and threaten to persons who speak up against his wikihounding on me with a similarly malformed link, in which The Banner responds to MBurch's hounding attacks on him in a fairly reasonable manner. Seriously, what are you asking me to look at with all this?
If you do not want to read what I write here is no factual processing this case of you. Sorry. So then I am official have to say:I ask for someone else who take care of this case. Please familiarize yourself with how ANI works. Like the rest of Wikipedia, ANI is voluntary. No one will touch this case, because you made it too long and unintelligible. The thread will likely get archived with no further involvement from any outside parties, unless I open a separate subthread with a coherent argument for some solution to whatever problem I perceive as going on here. And your absolute refusal to provide evidence for your claims (in case it isn't clear, I did read the small portion of your wall of text that appeared to include diffs) is making me inclined to do so in a direction you apparently don't want.
Someone who is willing to read all my arguments and to look at all the examples I have brought. No one is going to read your massive, incoherent walls of text. If you have concrete examples, you should link them. I read through everything you provided that had a link attached to it, and didn't see anything of substance.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri. But you obviously do not want to see it. He nominates me very clearly articles in areas where he is never active. And there only items of mine no others. Even if he makes a lot of AfD's strikes this conspicuousness. I also find it wrong the people who have voted for the receipt of some articles from me and who have approached the unfriendly approach of The banner now condemned for their substantive contribution. There will be no factual reasoning on the examples which I have brought forth. Only weill The banner many edits and AfD's makes it is not trustworthy. The only thing I want is that he leaves me alone. Clearly all work here voluntarily. But this is not an obstacle for someone else to take care of this case. I am very disappointed that you do not take me seriously.
If you are not willing to take care of my concerns and no one else wants to take care of this case, I see no further meaning in this discussion. Then you can close it because it brings nothing and will only encourage The Banner in the fight against me.FFA P-16 (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, you clearly can't be reasoned with. I have read everything you have written on this page, and there is nothing to it. But you are clearly not interested in acknowledging that fact. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
In fact, I did not want to reply at all at this thread. It is the another instance of the ongoing harassment and bullying campaign of mr. FFA P-16 and his assistant MBurch. It is loud and clear that MBurch is called in to protect FFA P-16. Although his bullying/harassing is annoying, it only confirmed to me that the advice given to mr. FFA P-16 is completely ignored. And he stepped up his campaign after I nominated an attack page for deletion. He seems to think that sandbox pages are sacrosanct and untouchable to others. And that the rules of Wikipedia do not apply to him. See User talk:The Banner#Stop Wikihounding me!. He also seems to think that I have a personal grudge against him because he is Swiss. As a matter of fact, I do not care at all about that. But I have told/advised/urged FFA P-16 to do three things:
  1. Get a clear idea of what the community regards notable
  2. Get a clear idea of what the community regards as proper sourcing according to WP:RS
  3. Get a clear idea that it is worthwhile to make an effort to improve your English
I have seen no effort whatsoever to address these issues.
Mr. FFA P-16 also took offence out of my sockpuppet investigation relating to MBurch. He seems to have forgotten the fact that he is earlier blocked for sockpuppetry, [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FFA P-16/Archive|here] and and on the Dutch Wikipedia.
To finish this off: I do not seek any blocks. What I want are two things: a) that the present campaign stops, and b) that FFA P-16 makes a visible effort to address the three issues listed a few lines above. The Banner talk 09:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Circle at Zurich Airport[edit]

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

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

Diffs please. I can't see anything in the recent history that supports your claim... --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Zurich00swiss: Please provide diffs, and if you posted the above in an attempt to "pile on" because you just don't like the user in question, note that you may well be met with a boomerang for hounding. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Indefinite one-way interaction ban[edit]

Okay, I was annoyed enough by FFA's disruption clearly on display in this thread, but now that it's been pointed out to me that he created a WP:POLEMIC about The Banner here and denied the SPEEDY request with the counter-policy statement that Its MY workpage[25] it's clear that something needs to be done. I'm therefore requesting that FFA P-16 (talk · contribs) be indefinitely banned from interacting with The Banner (talk · contribs). If The Banner nominates a page written by FFA for deletion, it should be the community's decision, and the project will not benefit from FFA showing up and posting more off-topic personal attacks against The Banner. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, user X requests a majority of user Y's articles for deletions and you suggests now that Y is now allowed to even argue with X on those deletion requests of his very own articles (since there is no other interaction from Y besides that workpage19 which should be simply deleted)? --MBurch (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@MBurch: So you agree that User Y created an attack page about User X that should be deleted, and when it was requested that the page be deleted User Y reverted the request and placed a statement on the page that he owns it and so presumably can post whatever he wants on it? Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure you're aware of actio et reactio. --MBurch (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I assume that you are implying that since The Banner was the original aggressor, FFA was justified in creating that attack page and preventing it from being deleted? But you still have not presented any evidence that The Banner was the original aggressor. Both of you are claiming that he nominated a bunch of articles created by FFA for deletion based not on the merits of the article but out of a desire to hound FFA. But I presented you with pretty incontrovertible evidence that this is not the case. The Banner nominates hundreds of pages by countless users for deletion, and in all but a few of the cases you listed a plurality of other editors agreed the pages should be deleted. All I am seeing is The Banner posting Good Faith AFDs (and constructive criticism of honestly pretty atrocious articles that don't necessarily merit deletion), FFA refusing to listen, and assuming bad faith by accusing The Banner of HOUNDing. You can try asking JoshuSasori (talk · contribs) what happens when you constantly make bad faith accusations of HOUNDing while engaging in HOUNDing yourself. That guy actually got SBANned for his efforts, then engaged in block-evasion via several IPs and actually did revenge-AFD a bunch of articles I had written (well, actually there was only one AFD opened via proxy, two article blankings, and one successful PROD of a sub-stub). You clearly do not know what you are talking about when you talk of HOUNDing; I do. Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The Banner nominates hundreds of pages by countless users for deletion and he suspects always sockpuppets when they don't agree? Of course not just in our case and just in the case of FFA P-16 he nominates several pages together. --MBurch (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@MBurch: That is a personal attack and you should strike it unless you can provide evidence. If you are referring exclusively to the FFA SPI where you were blocked, you should say as much. On top of that: You were confirmed by CU to be a sock of FFA P-16, and CUs need a lot of DUCK evidence before they agree to perform that procedure, and the check was pre-endorsed by an SPI clerk. It's an established fact that FFA P-16 has abused multiple accounts in the past and in the case of you and M1712, it was really frickin' obvious that something fishy was going on, be it sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. Just drop it already and go edit articles, or you will be reblocked as WP:NOTHERE, regardless of whether you were later vindicated with regards to your not actually being the same person as FFA P-16. It's been three months -- let it go, as the wickedly talented Adele Dazeem would say... Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
No this was not an attack, this was collecting cases of actions against me, so that I can bring this here on Ani. You broght it by your self to the light.. here you can see that he is following me [26] yes hi is doing a lot of deletions 0,6 per day in one year is a lot (and in some kind it smells as to trigger happy for AfD's). But if you have a look ate the list you have presented [27] It is not on random themes (Tv Stations, beauty contest persons) the pattern definitive fit not to the topics of my articels (military aviation, swiss). It is understandable that many new articels come to AfD, but also this dosent fit here because he nominated just in the past few weeks articels from me who existed since 3-4 years. This is no coincidence.FFA P-16 (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
FFA, it's been several days, so I'm going to start being frank. Your English is terrible, and at best difficult to decipher, and you clearly are not reading and fully understanding my comments. So please refrain from responding in other users' stead, because it makes discussion extremely difficult. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
You have already forgotten my talkpage? And take a look at the talkpage of mr. FFA P-16. Not the current version, as he wipes out everything he does not like, but the older versions. Like this one. The Banner talk 13:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Well the Talkpage is there for to communicate wit an other user, or inform ihm about something.. I informed you that i wish that you stop follw me. How should I communicate with you without using the talk page. everyone can clean its talkpage like he want.. it is nothing wrong with deleting old stuff and its also not wrong keeping some of it. Also veryon can keep positiv replays on the talk page if he wish. that you are monitoring my talkpage and their history shows again suspicious direction stalking FFA P-16 (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I have informed you about issues with notability, issues with sourcing and issues with your language and all this was ignored. Not even the spell checker you took aboard... The Banner talk 21:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Everything probably a reason for an improvement tag but not for AfD, also the one with Bernhard Müller is a good example that your interpretation of notability is also not always correct. And if you posted this on my talk page.There is no need to let it stand there, so I can empty the talk page whenever I want. That is nothing bad.FFA P-16 (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
quod erat demonstrandum --MBurch (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, non-exclusively. This would clearly solve the main behavioral matter. Someone below said they'd considered proposing a simple site ban for FFA P-16, on WP:COMPETENCE grounds, and this was also my instinct after reading this ranty, barely comprehensible mess. However, I'm a firm believer in letting the tiger show its stripes, so try Hijiiri88's softer proposal here first. Some of the additional details in the proposal below have merit, as well.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Yup, most of the disruption seems to be coming from one side of the line. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 04:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Alternative proposal[edit]

There are several problems, here.

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

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

A proposed solution:

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

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

P.S. I volunteer my time to a) check any of FFA P-16's articles and b) look at any problem The Banner sees with any of FFA P-16's articles and nominate if necessary. Kleuske (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@Kleuske: You should strike bullet point 3. No evidence of hounding has been presented. ArbCom actually explicitly stated that checking a user's contribs for legit reasons (like the good-faith belief that the user doesn't understand notability guidelines, a belief you admit you share). See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88#Hounding. You can read through the entire case if you want, or you can take my word for it: his was pretty much the same situation, with users make the same faulty assumption (in violation of AGF) that what was happening constituted "hounding". You admit in bullet point 2 that The Banner had a good-faih reason for examining FFA's contribs, so what you are doing is arguably worse than what the Committee described there: you are declaring bad faith against your own declared understanding to the contrary. Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I would support this proposal in place of my own, assuming User:The Banner (who still appears to be the victim here, per all the evidence I've seen) is game for a mutual IBAN, which would protect him from further harassment. In my experience, mutual IBANs are very easy for harassers to game, so I would add that the IBAN be slightly modified to allow requests to observers like Kleuske and me (but not obvious meatpuppets or the like) to look into it and decide whether there has been a violation to be covered under BANEX. Put in other words, messages about the other user on the user talk pages of no more than one or two other users at a time should be allowed in lieu of reporting violations directly to an admin or on ANI. Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Changed to unconditional supportThe Banner's extremely immature response to Kleuske's good-faith attempt to resolve this (immediately below) has convinced me to change my mind. I still think he is the victim of hounding, and I still think the proposed IBAN will quickly be gamed by FFA and MBurch, but I just don't care anymore if The Banner is going to show more interested in fighting over it than actually resolving it. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Conditional support The proposed solution would solve the problem, and I think The Banner should voluntarily accept it for the time being. IBANs are super-easy to appeal once the other party gets site-banned or stops editing once their articles continue to get deleted. I'm changing back to conditional support, not based on the condition that The Banner voluntarily accepts, but based on the condition that Kleuske's flawed premise is stricken. I had actually forgotten until just now that ArbCom had explicitly ruled in my case (a case quite similar to this in several ways) that (1) actions amounting to what The Banner has done do not constitute hounding, (2) actions amounting to what MBurch has done (though over a longer period of time) do constitute hounding (if not off-site and/or stealth canvassing or meatpuppetry), and (3) what MBurch, FFA, and even (to a lesser extent) Kleuske have done is contrary to AGF. Kleuske should strike out bullet point 3, or my support for this proposal (based on a flawed and problematic premise that's personally offensive to me as a former victim of hounding) should be taken as null and void. Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
It takes some effort from both sides to keep the drama going for this amount of time and The Banner does not show an attitude that's particularly conciliatory or helpful. Instead he shows all signs of holding grudges. I have trouble seeing The Banner as a victim. Kleuske (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: If either of them try to game the AfC process or the IBAN, I will personally report them here and request a block. Promise. Kleuske (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
It took you a long time to show up here, Kleuske. And your attempt to put the blame on my shoulders is just as predictable as you showing up here. But your statement (...) nominating nearly every article FFA P-16 started. is evidently false. The Banner talk 15:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@The Banner: You're not helping... Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
True. But Kleuske and me have a long record of personal discord. Beside that, in my experience the AfC-process only looks at the notability of a subject, not to quality, sourcing or spelling. So it will address only one part of the signalled problems. The Banner talk 09:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
It shouldn't matter from who the proposal is, but only if it's able to solve the problems.--MBurch (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
But I am willing to step aside for a while and see if Kleuske, MBurch and the AfC-process really can help fix the issues. I promise to stay away (for starters) to 1 July 2017. The Banner talk 11:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I think it should be more than just a temporary stop especially since you're in general not writing in Swiss Air Force aviation as FFA P-16 does.--MBurch (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Kleuske. I will agree 100% to your solution. And all rouls who this solution contains for me.FFA P-16 (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Don't thank me yet, i'll require significant coverage in reliable sources. I was this close to proposing a site-ban for competence issues and this does not help. Hör mal... Dein Englisch is wirklich grottenschlecht. Fast Kauderwelsch. Du must dich wirklich mal überlegen ob du sinnvoll beitragen kannst wenn fast jeder satz praktisch übersetzt werden muss. Kleuske (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • SupportKleuske's proposed solution.FFA P-16 (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree and I volunteer my time to improve FFA P-16's articles. --MBurch (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Will end the drama and help the editors and Wikipedia. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 15:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Note I find it extremely suspicious how readily FFA and his obvious meatpuppet MBurch accepted this proposal, and am a little concerned that they might immediately try to game it as I outlined above. Both users have email enabled, and even if they didn't they are both more active on than here, where they would technically not be restricted from discussing The Banner. I'm not going to withdraw my support or anything, but I think it would be a good idea to sanction MBurch as well to prevent him from proxy-hounding in FFA's stead. Note also how the indentation on MBurch's !vote implies he was supporting in direct response to FFA giving his approval.
I also find it concerning that, while FFA's English is terrible and MBurch does seem qualified to improve that one aspect of his articles, the main reason for all the AFDs was notability, and MBurch still has not acknowledged that the topics did not meet our notability criteria (insisting instead that The Banner was motivated solely by a desire to hound FFA), which may indicate a poor understanding of said notability criteria, and I therefore think it would be a good idea if he limited his time to improve FFA P-16's articles to copy-editing, and refrained from mainspacing any drafts himself and !voting in any future AFDs.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Stricken per above. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Clearly The Banner is just the front man in a wikipedia process, I certainly would have nominated the same articles for deletion if Banner had not got there first. FFA P-16 has been a bit of a time sink for the aircraft/aviation project, his failure to understand English and the requirements to understand for example that not every aspect of the Swiss Air Force is actually notable enough for an article. Most articles are machine translations from German wikipedia and FFP P-16 has clear competence issues with English language and despite efforts over the years I believe the only remedy is a site ban on English wikipedia. But just to note I would not support any sanction for The Banner and see no reason why they should stand aside, in fact he probably needs some sort of award for enduring endless harrasement from FFA P-16 and others brought over from de wiki. MilborneOne (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I still morally support the sentiment in the above comment. I disagree with the third bullet point in Kleuske's opening remark (which I think constitutes a personal attack, as it is made without evidence), and I strongly suspect the fourth bullet point is bull as well (one bad AFD, if it even was that, is not evidence that he has a consistent pattern of not performing due diligence). I just want this mess to be over, and I think The Banner has been rather uncooperative in this process as well. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Cooperation stops (has to) at the edge of Wikipedia rules. It is a fact that FFA P-16 is hardly able to cope with Wikipedias rules even in german. But I got here for MBurch which is another fanatic non learner himself (and the best excuse to hound seems to claim hounding). His engagement is strictly for personal reasons, not for good of Wikipedia. On the contrary: Mburchs unreflected and even agressive absolute support undermines every effort to improve FFA P-16’s capabilities. Mburch is rather part of the problem, not of a solution . --2A02:1206:45AE:7E0:7104:7303:6966:8F30 (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Umm... thanks for agreeing with me on just about everything, but... do you have an account? I know it's conceivably possible that someone who only edits from dynamic IPs could !vote in an ANI discussion in good faith, but I haven't seen it happen before, and there's been a whole lot of socktrolling over the last few days. If you are just a dynamic IP could you link to some of your other edits? Sorry, but I'm not a hypocrite -- if a sock agrees with me I'll call them out the same as a sock who's specifically targeting me. (Although honestly, MBurch doesn't seem to have enough of an edit history to have someone logging out to troll them. I wouldn't be surprised if this was a joe-job.) Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Go for Air14&action=history to decide, whether I’m able to contribute to an article. Another example though for “ungratefulness”. I could actually contribute to some of those articles but won’t, if both of the “twinned” users (sorry, not meant as an offence but to describe a fact) are there.--2A02:1206:45AE:7E0:DEA:4B2E:4D1F:111E (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I see you disputed with FFA back shortly after that page survived AFD. It's still theoretically possible that you could be The Banner, but that wouldn't make any sense as he edited that page logged-in, and would have had no reason to manufacture a false consensus in that situation. Yeah, you've demonstrated adequately enough for me that you're not someone's sock or in any way related to the trolls that have been plaguing this page for the last week or so. Sorry to ask you to explain yourself. I fixed the link for you, anyway. Cheers! Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the link (I was in a hurry). This more exact link, [28], reveals another point: FFA P-16 obviously wrote an essay based on his personal knowledge which is (unhappy to say) restricted - a lot to actuality. This takes us back to notabilty. MBurch couldn't be a help there as he hardly sees these problems but fules discussions if there is any critics among: His second contribution to a discussion in 2017 (or his 6th contribution within 4 years at all) was regarded as a personal attack [29]. --2A02:1206:45AE:7E0:4519:903E:F3BF:2463 (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw a similar case to this recently and there expressed a similar concern to yours above. There was one user consistently trying to enable another user's disruptive behaviour and repeatedly refusing to admit disruption was taking place. The solution was that mentoring was needed, and the user who was denying that disruption was taking place wound up being named as the mentor, which was honestly a pretty disastrous solution there. This is why I think expanding the solution to this problem to tell MBurch that if he engages in any more behaviour that seems disruptive, he will be blocked.
Although, given the NOTHERE nature of his activities, I wouldn't be opposed to a straight-off indef. Foreign-language Wikipedians who only edit English Wikipedia to hound people and get in fights are NOTHERE -- this is how I was once, mistakenly, treated on Japanese Wikipedia, and I was threatened with a block by a good-faith admin who mistakenly thought I was forum-shopping an English Wikipedia dispute there. Similarly to MBurch here, now, basically my entire edit history at that time made me look like I was hounding Juzumaru. The difference is that where in my case it was all a misunderstanding and it was Juzumaru who was at fault, there is no evidence that The Banner has been harassing MBurch on and goading him to come over here. In fact the two don't seem to have ever interacted on (the EditorInteract tool seems to be failing me here, though, as it claims The Banner has only six edits despite some other evidence to the contrary).
Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
sorry, I didn't mean to make you write such a long answer. I can now tell you why I edited once again this morning: I did it just because I was sure that MBurch would add my IP (again) to a sockpuppet-investigation on the german wikipedia. And YES - here he goes: [30]. It' so easy to predict a man on a mission...
Of course it doesn't make sense, to add an IP to a sockpuppet-investigation, if that IP has never even edited in the german wikipedia. But who cares about rules or sense, if one is on a mission... Happy fishing! (In german it is called "fishing for sockpuppets" if you cannot prove a misuse but want to see who it was - of course the rules don't allow that). --2A02:1206:45AE:7E0:1462:F8AD:1249:C1BC (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
As Hijiri 88 mentioned above is my edit history in the English wikipedia too small to have someone logging out to troll me, but that's of course not true for the German wikipedia. Already those IPs that showed up during the sockpuppet-investigation there where quite suspicious. So maybe you tell us about your long sockpuppet history in the german wikipedia (de:WP:LSWU#Fernrohr) and I guess accidentally you forgot to mention that one account in the newest sockpuppet investigation got already blocked and confirmed by an administrator of the German wikipedia [31]. --MBurch (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
MBurch, this is not the forum to talk about German Wikipedia trolling. If you think the above IP is the same person as that LTA case, that's your business. Everything the IP has said here is fair and accurate. Your behaviour on English Wikipedia has been nothing but disruption. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I really hate to complicate this process, but confirmed, the IP 2A02... is definitely used by our long-term de.sockpuppeteer Fernrohr, proved by his last CU [32], I've blocked his range in de.wp today. - @MBurch, @FFA_P-16: probably it would be a good idea to settle this case friendly. No hounding seems to be involved, the en.guys are well-recognized wikipedians, as you are in de.wp, and any block/ban/probation measure against any of you will only hamper our collaborative work. Just 2cts. --MBq (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @MBq: I'm sorry if I'm the one misunderstanding something, but on English Wikipedia (I don't know anything about German Wikipedia's rules on this matter, so I don't know if they are different) CUs don't generally identify an IP with a named account except in extremely exceptional circumstances. If the IP is a troll targeting MBurch (alhough, at least on, he has been targeting FFA more than MBurch, and only started coming after MBurch after I proposed a BOOMERANG against MBurch for their (pretty atrocious) behaviour in this matter. If the IP's opinion can be disregarded as that of a sock-troll, that's fine, but MBurch's supposedly stellar record on another Wikimedia project (his his block log isn't clean, though, and Google Translate is telling me it can't easily be explained by technicalities or an admin having misread his having been hounded) does not justify his coming to specifically to houng one of our editors, or his engaging in pretty gross personal attacks against outside commenters who point this out. Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Support part 1 of this; prefer the original proposal above in place of part 2. The problem with this proposal as written is that The Banner hasn't actually done anything to deserve an I-ban; imposing one on him will just be punitive for nothing but the sake of pretending to be even-handed. If the problems identified with The Banner (needs to communicate better, needs to do more WP:BEFORE) are legit and well-evidenced, then the solution is to admonish him to adjust his behavior on those scores. They are not sanctionable problems at this stage. However, it's becoming increasingly dubious that FFA P-16's activity on en.wp is a net gain. I would even support a site-ban, but I think Hijiiri88's one-way i-ban above will deal with the behavioral problem, and "we'll see" whether before forced out of his grudge match has FFA P-16 actually produce content the encyclopedia can use. If end up back here in a few months or a year and that situation hasn't improved, then it's time for an indef so the project can just get back to work without having to AfD unsuitable kinda-articles from the same user again and again.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support part 1 only This has actually been my view the whole time, but I didn't think it had a chance until SMcCandlish agreed with me above. The Banner didn't engage in hounding or anything of the sort, and treating him to an IBAN when he doesn't want it is inappropriate. Additionally, I'm now 99% certain FFA and MBurch will coordinate off-wiki to allow FFA to get around the ban. MBurch, who almost never edits, didn't just happen across this dispute (FFA almost certainly mentioned it to him at some point -- I don't speak German), nor did the admin MBurch clearly invited here within the last few days, who showed up and commented on this dispute clearly without having read anything that didn't involve some unrelated LTA incident on My solution to this problem hasn't received much traction, and without a preventative measure in place I don't see why we should just assume that the same thing that has already been happening will magically stop happening despite us giving them a new motive to do so. I am also a bit concerned that some of FFA's bad articles may still need to be AFDed, and while part 1 would prevent future disruption, part 2 would make fixing the past disruption more difficult. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Correction: The checkuser said nothing at all about the IP's. Blocking of two EASILY DISTINGUISHABLE IP ranges was clearly a mistake by MBq. Anyone can see that the three 2A02:1206:45AE used here on the English page have nothing to do with those 2a02:1206:45b4 used by Fernrohr in the german wikipedia. I don't blame MBq but want to show what effect false claims have in the wikipedia that we all know.-- (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Support part 1 of the proposal. There are also clearly WP:CIR issues at hand, both re: topic notability, sourcing & English proficiency. I've participated in a couple of AfDs on articles created by FFA, and I would agree that the contributor's articles (plus the associated drama) are generally not a net positive for the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I had a very detailed submission to add, that I worked on for several hours but then lost due to my laptop crashing, but the essence is that FFA should be banned from the English WP altogether because of lack of competence. I would call for his banning from all WPs except for the German because of his habit of shovelling his atrocious English-language text into foreign-language articles (for example Malay; Spanish; Haitian Creole, Hungarian - with a long history of edit-warring when others remove his English-language edits; Polish - also with a history of edit-warring; Norwegian [33] [34] - again with a history of edit-warring; and even Chinese and Russian, but that is outside our jurisdiction - I merely bring it up to demonstrate just how bad he is. Other Users have been complaining about his bad English for years (although you can't see it because he sanitises his Talk page, only keeping material that he believes casts him in a positive light - you have to look through the history); he acknowledges it's bad and continues blithely on his way without a care for how much cleanup work he leaves in his wake because his work to redress the lack of articles on "Swisstopic" is Important (e.g. Swiss Military Tarpaulins). His contributions are not a net improvement to the English WP. YSSYguy (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)



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

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


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


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



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

@Kleuske: You're right that a bunch of that is below the belt, and I would advise User:The Banner to be a lot more careful about rhetoric. Sorry to invoke ArbCom again, but, yeah, WP:Civility is our most important policy, outweighing all the others combined. The highest court in the land doesn't care about GNG, good encyclopedic writing style, verifiability or anything else, so you have to respect C above everything else.
That said: ANI is a bit more free to deal with things in their proper context, and honestly I think Wikipedia would be a better place if we treated civil POV-pushers the same way we treat good editors with short tempers.
Plus, some of the above evidence seems to have been cherry-picked to make The Banner's behaviour look worse than it was. For example, why are only three of the AFDs that are supposedly the whole cause of the problem listed, and those three all keeps? FFA gave what looked like a more random (comprehensive?) sample further up, and 70% of those ended with delete results.
Anyway, whether or not The Banner's behaviour has been sub-par and should perhaps be sanctioned, Kleuske has now formally retracted the "hounding" accusation, but MBurch and FFA still have not. MBurch in particular has provided no evidence, and making accusations about hounding without evidence, particularly after it has been requested, constitutes a personal attack. This, on top of his continued grossly uncivil attacks on me near the top of the thread, leads me to wonder why we are continuing to tolerate his presence here. He has contributed nothing to English Wikipedia (his entire edit history consists of following FFA and TB around, uniformly propping up the former and undermining with the latter). I'm therefore increasingly skeptical that a remedy focused solely on TB and FFA would solve the problem.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 15:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I am very pleased with Kleuske's proposal~(to check my work.. se his statement above). I will anyway kep down with writing in The English wikipedia. And if I would like to bring something in, I then use the offer of MBurch to rework the English. I think that if Kleuske has checked it before, there is no direct contact between me and The Banner, no conflict potential. It is only my concern that the articles I written so far get not nominadet for deletion by The Banner. That Kleuske, has an eye on it. Improved, yes, but not to triggerhappy deleteion. What the banner does otherwise .. working on articels about TV channels, restaurants, Beauticontests. No matter what .. I am not interested and is therefore not a conflict potential. I felt pushed by the banner and MBurch shared this feeling and tryed me to help.. it looks like in the english wikipedia are things not the same like in the german his intervention was done in good faith,because it looked to him like The Banner is buging me. If the proposal of Kleuske wins, there is no reason why I or MBurch would not agree with this. No reason for us to criticize in future.The banner. I hope this will find a peaceful end for all.FFA P-16 (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
@FFA P-16: Nobody wins, here. We all lose. Your behavior towards The Banner is at least as bad as vice versa. I'm not on your side, I'm trying to control the damage. Kleuske (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Kleuske, I just beeing thankful that you brought in something what loocks to me as a good solution. For me its not about to "win".. like I said:I hope this will find a peaceful end for all (also for The Banner).FFA P-16 (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: The Banner is a very productive editor and a boon to the project. The last thing on my mind is making him look bad. At least 50% of the blame rests firmly on FFA's shoulders, who has CIR-issues to boot, but I wanted to point out where all the bad blood on FFA's side comes from. Having walked my dog, I do have second thoughts and regret posting it.
TB does have a tendency to go overboard and tends to turn matters into a personal affair (see his reaction to me, above), which has landed him on this notice-board more than once (and please don't make me cite examples). I proposed the IBAN not to spite The Banner, but to get him off FFA's case and let someone else handle it, since this is getting counter productive. Wikipedia can handle a poorly written article about an obscure, possibly non-notable subject in piss poor English much better than a three year drama. Any action, however justified, TB takes involving FFA only adds fuel to the fire. Hence my proposal. Kleuske (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Ubi pus, ibi evacua Kleuske (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
That being said. I'm getting more and more convinced a site-ban per WP:CIR for FFA P-16 due to a lack of language skills would be justifiable, too. Kleuske (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
If he is just translatign German into English, isn't there a tag for that so it can be copyedited? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 00:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • This is definitely not evidence of hounding. A diff-pile twice this large, of genuinely problematic behavior, all from the last month or so might be. What I see here is:

    2014, too long ago for consideration, TB wasn't fully up to speed on AfD procedures yet, like many noobs (and even old hands who don't do AfD much).

    2015: TB, like other productive editors, knows what WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE policy is, and removes unencyclopedic cruft from articles. He still might not have been clear on what makes a good AfD candidate, but then again this is also cherry-picked evidence, and maybe by this point most of his selections were successfully AfD. When people add cruft, he objects. The tone and personalization weren't a good idea, but are far short of WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA violations. Didn't seem clear on WP:USERTALK, but restoring a deleted talk post, one time, is not a big deal. Raising WP:PROMO concerns, if there seems to be a pattern, isn't the wrong thing to do. Raising NOTHERE ones is more difficult to do without being a WP:JERK, but we do have that essay for a reason and people are allowed to cite it. (I've done so twice in the last few days, to editors who are clearly here for the right reasons overall, but have been engaging, in a "temporary but too extended" way, in personal disputation that has nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia. I find that such minor troutings are often effective. It never actually hurts anyone to remind people that this is an encyclopedia project, not a social networking site or a sport-debate webboard.) The fact that three editors here (at least) are considering a site-ban for FFA_P-16 on WP:COMPETENCE grounds is at least as strong a finger to point as TB mentioning NOTHERE, and it speaks to many of the same concerns.

    2016: Trying to address terrible article quality is normal and desirable. Successfully getting a WP:POLEMIC deleted is also normal and desirable.

    So, I think we're done here, and The Banner is definitely not going to be pilloried in the stocks, just asked to communicate less testily, to jump to fewer conclusions, and to review policies and procedures and follow them a little more closely, both with regard to how AFD is properly done, and what user talk page etiquette is. I think we've probably all committed worse wiki-sins than these, without sanctions, at some point. PS: If you're going to try to diff out an alleged pattern, you need to start with recent, relevant material, not stuff from years go that no one cares about and which is unlikely to represent current behavior or level of wiki-savvy.
     — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  21:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

This edit tells you about the problem here: [36] Funny story but simply not encyclopedic. How many years do you grant an author to learn?-- (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Funny though how IP's appear to revert .... [37]. It's all too predictable. And why is it so predicable? Because it never changes. After strolling around I just found this - didn't know it until now. But if you look at what's on FFA P-16's page now; .... it hasn't changed a lot, that collection, has it? (does FFA P-16 even explicitly explain [38] not to be willing to follow the rules?)-- (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Supplementary proposal: 6-month probation for MBurch[edit]

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

Extended content
I didn't mean to attack you at all, I just believe you're comments were not much helpful. In my personal opinion you increased the conflict while others tried to find a solution in short, brief words. Fact is I signed up 21th of November 2010, I have globally over 25'000 contributions mostly in German Wikipedia, but a few on commons, wikidata and others, too [39]. --MBurch (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Responded to the above duplicated comment above, where it belongs. This proposal has nothing to do with MBurch's global contributions, and is not specifically about his personal attacks against me. I would have made basically the same proposal based on his hounding of The Banner and his wikilawyerish attempts to get me in trouble (blocked?) for "calling him a sockpuppet" (something I never did) by pinging the admin who unblocked him. And then, later, inviting in a German Wikipedia with no connection to this case just because of an off-topic rabbit-hole he had dragged us down, and apparently, somehow, convincing the editor in question that the main issue here was a non-issue requiring no action.
MBurch, if you want to respond to my proposal on its merits, please do so outside of this collapse template. If you continue to post off-topic commentary in this subsection I will take it as a deliberate attempt to filibuster the proposal by preventing discussion.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC) (edited 21:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC) )
  • Support, along with the above steps. All three parties should be addressed, but as to the actual issues (and severity thereof) they present. MBurch's hands are hardly clean in this matter, even if he's less central to the problems than FFA P-16.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support A skim through the ANI leads me to mostly the same conclusion. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 04:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support -- such behaviour is not helpful. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Need an administrative assessment on this thread please[edit]

This thread has some polls/surveys and needs an administrative close. Softlavender (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

<sound of crickets chirping> EEng 20:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
<frogs croak and fireflies flit as small woodland creatures cavort. somewhere in the distance a coyote's howl echoes off the valley walls> EEng 07:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, there don't seem to be too many editors commenting on the proposed sanctions... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
<The seas rise and humanity perishes. Deep inside a hollowed-out mountain, powered by their atomic generators, Wikipedia's servers whirr and hum and blink...> EEng 23:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

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


After 22 days of wrangling, the clear consensus is that Hesselp is Topic Banned for six months from editing Series (mathematics) and its talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

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

There is a situation with Hesselp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) on the page Series (mathematics) and the talk page Talk:Series (mathematics). He has been edit-warring to include his rewrite of the article [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]. Although not at the moment above 3RR, the above is clear indication of edit warring, being reverted by four different editors. He was warned against edit warring, yet persists. Other editors have attempted to engage him at Talk:Series (mathematics), but attempts to resolve the dispute amicably are met with walls of antagonistic rambling text: [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], among others. We have given up on trying to interact with this user, in the spirit of WP:DENY (the above posts strongly suggest trolling). But I believe the time has come for this disruption to be put to an end administratively. (Pinging other involved editors: @Hesselp:, @D.Lazard:, @MrOllie:, @Wcherowi:.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

It looks like there was some edit warring involving this user going on at the Dutch version of the article. @The Banner:, could you tell us if those issues were similar to what we're seeing here? - MrOllie (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I had no involvement in this article and I want to keep it that way. But on the Dutch version is was a long story of editwars, WP:TLDR, dismissing arguments brought in by others, endless edit-suggestions. The Banner talk 17:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, the edit history shows a long history of contentious additions, and reverts by other editors there. The talk page is dominated by endless discussions. Without knowing Dutch, I would suggest that this appears to be a similar pattern. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • This is edit war on the article pages (English and Dutch) and disruptive edits on the talk pages (in both languages). Apparently this user knows the 3RR rule: Generally he waits more than 24 hours before a new revert, and he stops (for a while) edit warring after 3 reverts. As, usually, WP:AN3 actions consists in short blocks (for a few days), this would be not efficient here, as his disrupting edits could restart immediately after the end of the block. D.Lazard (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Today he has done 3 reverts. D.Lazard (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I certainly feel like I'm involved with an edit war that I see no way of stopping. This editor is tenacious and smart enough to play the system. He is so committed to his POV that he won't even consider the possibility that he may be taking an extreme position that others would reject.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Playing the system is a blockable offense. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 16:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Reaction by Hesselp.   I haven't done anything else than concentrate on the best way - at the level of mainstream Wikipedia readers - to describe the meanings (plural) of the technical/mathematical term "series" in mathematical texts. A main point is that the meaning of "convergent series" can be explained easily by interpreting this words as "summable sequence". This is not at all new, see the number of google-hits on "summable sequence" and "summable sequences". The same point is shown in Calculus by M. Spivak (editions 1968-2008).   To which extend it is reasonable to characterize my posts on Talk page as "rambling antagonistic text", I leave to decide by other judges.
@Slawomir Bialy: my edit is not a "rewrite of the article", it can be seen as a rewrite of 1/6 of the article.
@MrOllie: Yes, I tried about the same on Dutch Wikipedia, with partial success.
@Wcherowi: - (on your newest 'edit summary') Using  'no consensus'  without ANY discussion on the merits of the content of a text/edit, is misusing this word.  - 40 000 hits on 'summable sequence(s)' does NOT point to an "extreme position".   - Tell me at least, which aspect(s) in the edit you see as 'extreme', it's certainly by far not the complete text.
@L3X1.   I don't understand what you mean, please explain. -- Hesselp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hesselp (talkcontribs) 16:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:GAME: Editors typically game the system to make a point, to further an edit war, or to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view.. Continously reverting and warring with other editors, even if done over a long period of time, still counts as edit warring. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 17:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
The merits of the were discussed or otherwise incorporated into the article. Here are some diffs (among others): [51], [52], [53]. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
The disruption continues: he pasted this ANI thread into the talk page of the article, in apparent violation of the talk page guidelines, this addition was reverted by one editor, then Hesselp restored it; it was removed by a different editor who pointed out that talk pages are for discussing article improvements rather than soapboxing, it was restored again by Hesselp. Does it matter whether this is good faith editing or simple trolling/vandalism? The editor in question clearly continues to be disruptive. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I note that, regretfully, Hesselp is a WP:SPA. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

SPA-for-bad or SPA-for-good? I don't understand your comment, as per SPA, thats not even a teeeeerrible thing to be. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 22:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, we are at ANI about this user's aggressive behavior, are we not? (With disruptive crossover activity on the nl.wikipedia.) SPA is certainly not a good thing in that context. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
"...editing to add promotional, advocative, or non-neutral approaches, or has a personal or emotional interest in the area of focus..." — this is the case, and this is why I wrote "regretfully". Boris Tsirelson (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
"Promotional"?   Yes!  I promote improvements in the rather messy [54] [55] present text.
"Advocating"?   Yes!  By presenting detailed arguments on Talk page.
"Non-neutral"??   Please comment (on Talk page) in which line(s) in this edit you see a non-neutral statement approach (after glancing through the list of 32 'definitions' in [56]). --Hesselp (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you are right mathematically; and your suggestion could be accepted on a professional mathematical encyclopedia (such as Springer EoM). However, you fail to take seriously the very first objection by McKay on that talk page (of 02:42, 20 January 2016): articles like this are supposed to talk to as general an audience as possible and not just to mathematicians. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
"Mathematically right" - thank you!   From your objection 'non-neutral' you changed over to 'too-high-level'. I cannot see myself why the alternative text can be considered as more difficult than the present one. So please, comment (on Talk page) in which line(s) in this edit you see hard points. Maybe they can be improved / worded in an easier way.   Is the introduction of the label 'summable sequence' too difficult to be understandable by a general audience? -- Hesselp (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I tried engaging on the article talk page but got nowhere fast. I'm getting strong indications of WP:TE and WP:IDHT. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The facts, in short:   David Eppstein was 'baffled' (Talk page 22:01, 8 May 2017) by my incomprehension regarding the true nature of "expressions" and "infinite expressions" (being the central key-term in the definition of 'series').  After asking for the difference between finite and infinite expressions (09:38, 9 May, again 08:44, 10 May), the answer (14:36 and 15:43) was unclear to me, so I made my question more concrete (points A-E, 18:49, 10 May).  Reaction by David Eppstein: " more interaction with you", "I see your edits as tendentious and disruptive"  and some more not very positive remarks. -- Hesselp (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hesselp's version of series (mathematics) begins by "In mathematics (calculus), the word series is primarily used as adjective ...". This is not only WP:OR but also blatantly wrong: It suffices to look at any modern textbook of calculus to know that "series" is primarily used in mathematics as a noun. Note also that, although series are studied in most textbooks of calculus the only source for Hesselp's lead is about 150 years old (and also misunderstood). The remainder of Hesselp's version of the article continues in the same style and consists only of Hesselp's own inventions, beliefs and/or misinterpretation of the rare source that he produces. D.Lazard (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments on D.Lazard's post 23:35, 10 May 2017 :
On "..any modern textbook.." :   For a survey of attempts to define 'series', see the list '32 attempts' in this post. The 32 different wordings can be combined to a handful of really different content. Most of the about 80 authors say that a series IS an expression, but leave it to the reader to find out what's the character of the mathematical object, denoted (described, referred to) by this expression.  The same is the case with the 'definition' in the present version of the article; implying the self-referring sentence:  A series is an expression of the form  ..+..+..+  ···  denoting a series.
And left to the reader as well is the question of how to interprete the label "convergent series". A convergent expression seems to be nonsense, but without any idea about the content of the expression, it's not easy to understand what's really denoted by this label.

In some sources (Spivak, Buck, Dijksterhuis, Van Rooij, Cauchy, Gauss) can be found more explicitely how to interprete the usual wordings. Making it possible to see the connection between the traditional - self-referring - wordings in most books on calculus, and the way how the label 'series' is used by mathematicians in practice.
Only a minimal change in interpretation is needed.  That is: don't say: 'series'  IS the expression  ..+..+..+  ···   itself,  but say: 'series' is used to label a certain TYPE OF expression.  The type, constituted by a summation symbol (the sigma-sign, or the repeated pluses and end-dots) combined with the name of a sequence.
This is what should be an improvement of the article, with its consequences in the wording of the remaining standard content. Helping the reader to grab the meaning of the on-first-site strange combination 'convergent series' (= convergent expression).

Original Research ?:   The explanation of the meaning of 'convergent series' - as being nothing else as summable sequence - is the very first statement in chapter 'Series' in Michael Spivak's well known "Calculus".  Already for half a century: 1st ed. 1967, 4th ed. 2008.  See More precise terminology 21:37, 9 May 2017

"The only source...."?   No, all 80 rather modern calculus books in the list in this post, 20:28, 8 May 2017 served as sources. And of the 19th century sources are mentioned earlier: Cauchy, Susler, Itzigsohn, Gauss, Von Mangoldt.   Why doesn’t D.Lazard mentions which one of this five he has studied, and which point in it I should have misunderstood?

The remainder of Hesselp's version....  Without concrete examples, I can't comment on D.Lazard's last sentence.  Is it the conclusion of everyone who have read this edit? -- Hesselp (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

"Mathematically right", yes... but be careful. Yes, a series is a sequence. But also a (finite) word is a (finite) sequence. And a (formal) polynomial is a (finite) sequence. And a formal power series is a (infinite) sequence. And a stack is a (finite) sequence. And a queue is. And a file is a (finite) sequence (be it a movie in mp4 format, a graphics in jpeg format, or whatever). All this is mathematically right in the same sense. But this truth should be used with due care. A developer knows the implementation details; a user often does not (and need not). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I have removed a copy of this ANI thread from the article talk page, which Hesselp had restored [57] after another user removed them today [58]. It would be helpful for an uninvolved admin to look into the editing patterns. The ANI thread had previously been copied on 5-8 [59] and removed then. mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 19:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I see that the content has now been restored again [60]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with CBM that an action by an uninvolved administrator is needed, I suggest a permanent ban. In fact, Hesselp has shown many times that he is unable or unwilling to have a constructive discussion. The new edit war quoted by CBM is a new example. It should be noted that the object of this edit war (in which I am not involved) is presented as an answer to my above post of 10 May 2017. In this alleged answer, the main point of my post (the fact that "series" is not an adjective) is not discussed. Instead, he pretends discussing the present content of the article, but, in fact he discusses formulations that never appeared in the article and are invented by him. For example "The same is the case with the 'definition' in the present version of the article; implying the self-referring sentence:  A series is an expression of the form  ..+..+..+  ···  denoting a series. This seems a quote, but the word "denoting" does not appear in the article. This method of changing the wording of the content that he pretends discussing is systematic. This strongly suggests a bad faith; in any case it is definitively impossible to have a constructive discussion with this editor. Therefore, a permanent ban seems the only acceptable solution. D.Lazard (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Indented my comment on two copied sentences (D.Lazard, 21:18, 12 May 2017); his two examples are strong enough for a 'permanent ban' ?
D.Lazard: In this alleged answer, the main point of my post (the fact that "series" is not an adjective) is not discussed.
      Hesselp: By "main point"  is referred to:
      "Hesselp's version of series (mathematics) begins by "In mathematics (calculus), the word series is primarily used
        as adjective ...
". This is not only WP:OR but also blatantly wrong:"
      There is some distance between   "series" is (not) an adjective   and   the word series is primarily used as adjective.
      This "primarily used as" is what I try to illustrate in all my posts.
D.Lazard: For example "The same is the case with the 'definition' in the present version of the article; implying the self-referring sentence:  A series is an expression of the form  ..+..+..+  ···  denoting a series. This seems a quote, but the word "denoting" does not appear in the article.
      Hesselp: Current article, sentence 8:  "Such a series is represented (or denoted) by an expression... ".
      Reading backwards: "The expression ... denotes (or: is denoting) a series." -- Hesselp (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hesselp is now up to six attempts to copy and paste this whole discussion from ANI into Talk:Series (mathematics). He has already long since been warned about edit warring, and specifically not to do this. A block might be warranted, at least. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I have copied parts of this ANI thread to Talk:Series (mathematics), because I thought (and think) that this parts contain relevant information for users involved in improving the Series article.   Which rule I have broken by doing this? -- Hesselp (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
WP:MULTI, for a start. For that matter, your attempt to argue the content issue here is problematic for the same reason. Issues of how to properly define series should be discussed only on Talk:Series (mathematics), not here. Issues of your problematic behavior should be discussed here, not moved to the article talk page. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
The edit warring needs to stop. Hesselp, just because others have stopped responding to your WP:IDHT posts on the talk page does not mean that there is not solid consensus against the changes you want to make to the talk page. No one is under any obligation to respond to you further. Since you have now successfully closed down any further discussion on the edits you want to make, the next stop would be an RfC. But if you choose to go that route, you should not abuse the RfC process the way you have abused the discussion page, because that would be further evidence of disruptive editing. Given that you are an WP:SPA, I strongly believe that the community consensus for further disruption will be an indefinite block. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Restored this thread after it was inappropriately archived by an inexperienced editor. Softlavender (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Hesselp recently wrote (on a sandbox page where he apparently keeps backups of his copy-and-paste walls of text): "Caused by personal circumstances I've to tell that I leave by now Wikipedia for at least a couple of weeks." I note that there has been no apology, no acknowledgement of misbehavior, and no promise not to start right back up with the same problematic behavior once he returns. But unless we agree to take action now (for instance, by a topic ban on Series (mathematics), its talk page, and related articles) nothing will happen, and this thread will be archived and forgotten by the time he returns. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Proposing 6-month topic ban on Series (mathematics). Hesselp's history doesn't augur well for ever becoming a productive editor, but miracles do happen. Given that the disruption has been pretty much specific to this one article, and monomania is common in mathematics, I'm not suggesting one of those cliched "broadly construed" bans. Pinging (I think) all participants here: Sławomir Biały David Eppstein, Softlavender, D.Lazard, CBM, Tsirel, L3X1, Hesselp. EEng 00:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Per EEng. having refreshed myself to the events that have happened since my above comments, I believe this is the best course of action, as opposed to a block. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree, a block is too much at this point, but we need to do something and this should help. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support 6-month topic ban on Series (mathematics) and its talk page. Hesselp is much too bold, but hopefully not a crank. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Either he will not respect the ban, and changing to a permanent ban will be easy, or he will give up with his disruptive edits. The tone of some posts and edit summaries suggests that he is unable to accept that he may be wrong, and this implies that, if he want to come back here, he will not be able to wait for that. D.Lazard (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Restoring non-closed thread. D.Lazard (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't see much indication that he sees anything objectionable about his behavior. In that case, the unconstructive time-wasting and edit-warring will likely continue at Series (mathematics) and its discussion page. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Problematic behavior by User:Medeis at the reference desk[edit]

(NOTE: Diffs giving more examples of this behavior are provided in the collapsible box below - it seems some people missed them before.) -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

First of all, apologies if this is in the wrong place, and feel free to move it.

Several days ago, an anonymous user asked this question on the Reference Desk. After some brief discussion, User:Medeis suggested it be closed due to the questioner asking for opinions, something discouraged on the Reference Desk. Myself and User:JackofOz did not agree that he had done so or that it should be closed, and stated our reasons why. One user, User:Baseball_Bugs, did agree that it should be closed, but for a reason quite separate from Medeis's, and one that is not a valid reason to close a RD question at all (the questioner not having responded for 18 hours). At this point, with two in favor and two opposed, otherwise-uninvolved User:Ian.thomson closed the thread for a third reason - an anonymous IP was vandalizing it. I opened this discussion, Ian Thomson explained his reasoning, an administrator banned the problem IP, and some other users expressed support for keeping the question open and concern at Medeis's general excessive tendency toward closing people's questions and ignoring consensus on the reference desks. No one posted in support of the closing, and Medeis didn't offer any new reasoning beyond what (s)he'd already said. I unhatted the question since the vandal issue was now dealt with and there was clearly no consensus to close, and figured that would be the end of it.

However, Medeis promptly hatted it again. I reverted this second hatting, and asked Medeis to explain him/herself in the talk page discussion. Without doing so or in fact saying anything further at all, (s)he simply hatted it yet again, with no explanation beyond "not this again." At this point I'm bringing it here out of 3RR concerns and because Medeis is clearly uninterested in the consensus on the talk page.

I find this situation quite troubling and am not sure what should be done about it. This is far from the first time issues of this nature has arisen around Medeis. (S)he is extremely active on the Reference Desk, possibly the most active user there, and the majority of his/her contributions are helpful. However, a quite substantial minority are not. Medeis received a six-month topic ban from the Reference Desk in 2014, although it was later rescinded when another admin decided there wasn't consensus. This had no effect on his/her behavior. A perusal through the Reference Desk talk page archives, or Medeis's own talk page, will find many other instances where Medeis's application of his/her own ideas about what the Reference Desk's rules should be has caused friction with other editors. (S)he seems to view the Reference Desk as his/her personal fief, and if the general rules and guidelines of Wikipedia/the RD or the community consensus disagree with his/her personal views, (s)he simply ignores them.

I am really not sure what to do about a user like this. Personally, I think a topic ban would be warranted - I don't think Medeis's positive contributions to the Reference Desk outweigh the combative and haughty attitude with which (s)he interacts with others there. But (s)he is far from a pure vandal, so I'm not sure that would be appropriate under Wikipedia's procedures. Warnings and discussions in which consensus sharply disagree with him/her seem to have no effect whatsoever though, and if an admin simply unhats this question again and takes no other action, we're just going to be running into these issues again, and again, and again. Any thoughts would be appreciated. -Elmer Clark (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


Ten more examples of (IMO) inappropriate closures by Medeis, all within the last month. Especially troubling is that she simply removed a couple of them, making it impossible for anyone else to even realize it was ever there.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Medeis hats a question on the grounds of it being "far too broad to be worth the cognitive effort," even though it had already received a well-referenced answer that the user said he appreciated (if it's not worth the cognitive effort to YOU, you don't have to answer...) [61]

Medeis closes someone's questions related to a sci-fi story they were writing on the grounds that "the RD doesn't do homework for you" (no indication was given that this was homework, the question implies otherwise if anything), after a half dozen others had already given relevant responses [62]

Medeis closes a question that had already received several relevant responses because "we cannot comment on unspecified material," weird to begin with and an extremely narrow and unreasonable interpretation of what the person was asking [63]

Medeis hats a question because "WP:BLP does not allow speculation about the motives of living figures--provide relevant sources" when the user specifically asked for references, not speculation - apparently Medeis sees simply having asked this question as a BLP violation, which is ridiculous [64]

Medeis removes a two perfectly neutral and reasonable questions from the same user because she assumes he's a known troll from the past simply because, I guess, his questions relate to racist regimes of the past, and this known troll was a racist (none of the contributions from the actual questioner's IP were problematic). A definite WP:AGF violation if nothing else. [65] and [66]

Medeis removes a question as "a request for personal judgments" when an equally reasonable interpretation would be that the questioner was asking about standard procedure [67]

Medeis removes an innocuous questioner because the questioner had been banned for causing unrelated problems elsewhere [68]

Medeis hats a question, where, admittedly, another user had expressed concern that the question was too vague as stated, but he was actively talking with that user to clarify that he was specifically looking for references, not debate, and asking for help on how to reword his question better [69]

Medeis removes a question saying "we don't make judgments here," even though it was blatantly obvious the questioner was asking about prevailing Victorian attitudes and not RD users' personal views [70]

I have also thought of a specific sanction I think would be appropriate - can we simply ban Medeis from closing reference desk threads? If they genuinely need to be closed for legitimate reasons, someone else will. But these constant closures of people's perfectly reasonable questions do serious harm to the Reference Desk - I cannot think of a better way to scare people off. -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Moved this thread from AN to AN/I as AN/I is the more appropriate forum for discussion of editor behaviour. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't see it noted that it was not I, but user @Ian.thomson: who hatted that discussion after I and @Baseball Bugs: suggested that it should be. I see no mention of the fact that @WaltCip: enforced the hatting and semiprotected the page, given an IP user he identified as a sockpuppet had been editting disruptively and refactoring my edits. I do see Elmer Clarks revival of the thread, when even the original OP had lost interest in it, after two days as a deliberate provocation, hence my reversion of the pointy reopening and my "not this again" comment. To summarize, there's no need for me to discuss reverting refactorings of my own comments, I am not the one who hatted the thread, an admin protected the page and closed the thread, and a reversion of a pointy re-opening two days later does not count as edit warring. μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
      • I just wanted to point out for the record I am not an admin and I do not have the authority to semi-protect pages. I'm not sure where Medeis is getting this idea.--WaltCip (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I did in fact note that it was Ian Thomson and not you the first time (but not the second or third). And I think it's a little ridiculous to say I "revived this as deliberate provocation" after the "OP had lost interest" when that OP expressly asked for it to be re-opened and wondered what was going on in the talk page section. Your description of the admin's actions are also very misleading - the only admin action taken was specifically in response to the vandalism issue, it was certainly no endorsement of the thread being closed on your supposed grounds, which, in fact, everyone else roundly disagreed with on the talk page. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I was pinged by Elmer Clark and because I only have time right now for Wikipedia in at least the the next 24 hours but probably longer, let me give my opinion. I have made it clear many times that the fundamental problem with the Ref Desk is that it is not so prominent, there is an unhealthy low ratio of people asking questions to people answering questions, this then invites disputes about administering the site. Basically, it's the "too many captains on a small ship problem", which then probably leads to negative feedback on any would be question askers; they are not going to bother to come to our ref desks. Medeis is our de-facto alpha woman who has taken it upon herself to hat questions that she thinks are not appropriate. Most of the time her actions are appropriate, the problem really is about the way she goes about this which is going to lead to friction when her actions are judged to be wrong by others. Even if that happens just in one out of 50 cases, that's then still going to be a problem.
The way forward is for everyone but especially Medeis to get a sense of perspective here. The Ref Desks has been surpassed a long time ago by StackExchange, this is why I spend a lot more time there than here, see my questions and answers there, clearly the set-up there invites a lot more high quality contributions. As I've also said w.r.t. to the other hot button issues regarding legal and medical advice: It's besides the point as no one ever comes here to get any sort of meaningful advice anyway. We're pretending to be a university when in reality we're just bunch of toddlers making a lot of noise in Kindergarten. Imposing your rule here is then like fighting to get your way as the mayor of PhinDeli Town Buford, Wyoming, a total waste of time. What may be more worthwhile is to try to make the Ref Desk to become more prominent. Count Iblis (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
First the OP has noted one specific situation (for which they have some of the particulars wrong) and then expanded that to make broad statements about behavior by Medies for which not a shred of evidence to back up is provided. Next, what admin action does the OP want - they make a vague reference to a topic ban and then act like it is up to somebody else to enact it. Lastly, I have to wonder how someone with who averages less than 100 edits a year since 2010 has any idea of what goes on at the ref desks on a daily basis. The free-for-all that the RD's have become could use "centralized discussion" but until that happens this thread is not going to accomplish anything. BTW M is nowhere close to the most active editor on the RD's. MarnetteD|Talk 21:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I do not believe I have any of the particulars wrong - see my response to Medeis. And while I rarely edit these days (largely because of how toxic my favorite part of Wikipedia, the Reference Desk, has become) I still read it almost daily, so I don't think it's inappropriate for me to comment on general trends there. Your other point is fair and well taken though - give me a couple of hours and I'll post some more specific examples of recent problem behavior. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
And as to not suggesting any specific course of action, I simply don't know what would be appropriate in a case like this (I've never encountered anything similar here) and was hoping more experienced editors might offer up a reasonable solution. If you're only supposed to post here to petition for a specific course of action then I apologize. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I have started threads before asking the community what action they think is appropriate but those threads showed a long-term trend with minimal commentary (maybe a paragraph of context and a list of WP:DIFFs with short summaries). Show, don't tell. Also, in those instances, the most obvious course of action was a block (topic bans generally being a last chance). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't want a part of this drama but I would like to clarify something: My explicit reason for hatting the thread was not vandalism, it was that it seemed the shortest and simplest way to stop an edit war since the thread had gone quite off-topic. I did not consider it an administrative action since that's probably what would've happened without the tools. Since other users disagreed and someone blocked one of the users involved in the edit war, I didn't see any point in continued action from me.
    The RD is problematic, there does need to be centralized discussion for changes (probably at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)), and I'd be interested if that happens. Otherwise, that's really all I've got to say. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
If the OP has read the ref desks "daily" for nearly seven years (and they have changed quite a bit in that time) they would know that there have been numerous editors (including myself) who have closed threads. Some have agreed with those closes and others haven't, yet you have only brought one editor to ANI. That is troubling to say the least. MarnetteD|Talk 23:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I certainly don't have any blanket objection to closing questions ever, I simply believe Medeis in particular frequently does it when not warranted, to the detriment of the desk. -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
There are three classes of editors who close questions on the refdesks (with a fair amount of overlap). First, there are those who make uncontroversial closes, and the only reaction they get from other refdesk editors is an occasional thank you. Second, there are those who make some dodgy closes, but as soon as several other editors star pushing back they back off, usually with an apology. Third, there are those who do a lot of dodgy closes, and dig in their heels when they encounter pushback from the other regulars. Medeis/μηδείς is in the third group. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think Medeis hats discussions all that frequently nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Did you see my list of examples? Do you not think ten hattings in a month is a lot? Or do you think all/most of those examples were in fact justified? -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Close this thread[edit]

  • Support There is no admin action requested. So the only reason for the thread it to smear Medeis. As far as I am concerned this needs to be closed before it delves any further into WP:HOUND territory. MarnetteD|Talk 23:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Please hold off, I am adding further references and requesting a specific course of action as we speak -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I've now added ten more examples in the collapsible box and suggested a specific sanction I believe would solve the problem without sacrificing Medeis's positive RD contributions. Please let me know if I need to take any further action to allay your concerns. -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks MarnetteD. If admins are interested, here's yet another pointless provocation by OP 2600 on my talk page, the same IP who was reverting other's actions and refactoring my comment on the thread that is the "basis" for this "complaint". (I'll be asking for a permanent semi-protect there as soon as I post this). μηδείς (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Just to be clear, this IP has nothing to do with this complaint at all. It's totally irrelevant, a confounding factor actually that muddies the waters of the real issue. The issue is you closing questions, or advocating closing them, when there is no reason to do so, and persisting even when consensus is clearly against you. You originally wanted to close the question because it was asking for opinions, before this IP even showed up. Later, you DID close it twice, even though this IP had been banned by then. -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, this IP was NOT the OP! -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Just to be clear, if you are going to add new evidence, you should give actual edit summaries or edit qutes with diffs on the open forum, not hidden under a hat inside your original complaint. You make numerous errors which I would call factual errors. My deletion of User:Neptunekh's edits requires no sanction. She's a banned user, one who has threatened self-harm, and who is subject to summary deletion as such. The 2600 IP6 range has not been banned, IP ranges are not banned, but User:WaltCip has indeed identified them as disruptive sockpuppets, and again, no further sanction is necessary to revert their edits. You will find that all the so-called hattings you have attributed in this case are mere reversions to the prior state established by Ian.thomson. I agree with him that his hatting does not mean he agrees with me.
Nevertheless, I agree with him that unnecessary edit warring over moot non-requests for references is not a good idea.
Finally, you repeat this nonsense that I am responsible here for an unjustified hatting. Again, after Bugs and I suggested it, Ian did it, and Walt enforced it. Yet you attack me. Who are you, I wonder? You go from accusing me of hatting a thread of dubious value in most people's eyes to "advocating" the hatting of such a thread. Looking at your "contributions", they are almost entirely against me. Is rhat why you registered an account? Is advocating the closure of a thread, without closing it, now to be forbidden?
The rest of the "evidence" you hide above shows that when opposed, I don't edit war regarding closings, such as the case where I thought the Boer War OP might be the user called the Nazi troll. Another user reverted me, and said he didn't think it was actually the same troll, and that was it.
Yes, I have restored edits of mine that were refactored. But no edit warring on my part. No childish stalking or pointy attacks. (For example, Count Iblis and I frequently disagree, but also contribute civilly without seeking to ban each other.) In the meantime I have provided plenty of actual contributions to the project. Hours worth of work on the African nation question, and the Eastern Slavic question.
What have you done? I think I have said enough. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
This post is a good example of the same kind of problematic behavior you display at the reference desk. Excessive focus on procedural issues and minutiae while largely not addressing the larger issue at all, paranoid and unfounded accusations regarding people's motives (I have thousands of edits and have been registered since no, I did not create this account to harass you, and I made my added evidence here as clear as possible, with a boldface header and located right at the top), and a complete disinterest in the fact that many people see fundamental issues with the way you approach things. Even among your supporters here, no one has argued that these closings, and a general mindset toward closings that is as broad is yours, is a good thing. And I acknowledged many times that you also make many unambiguously good contributions, and specifically tried to find a solution that wouldn't jeopardize that - and I think I did. Unfortunately no one here has even responded to it. I don't suppose you'd be open to voluntarily leaving hatting questions to others who follow less controversial criteria... -Elmer Clark (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Who wrote the unsigned comment above, I was wandering... Only to find out it was Medeis. What's up with that bit of indent confusion, Medeis? El_C 09:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it was simply one post with a formatting error, not an unsigned post which I immediately responded to. And my apologies to WaltCip, my confusion was to look at the last in a series of edits and to assume they all belonged to the same editor. μηδείς (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Also I'm still struggling to see where I apparently identified a sockpuppet and enforced an unjustified hatting... Did I pass an RFA in my sleep last night?--WaltCip (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Fairly sure Medeis is referring to User:Berean Hunter who did hard block the trolling IP range (not the IP who started the question) and protect the page. Special:Log/Berean Hunter. As for the indent, it's unfortunate and confusing but seems sa simple mistake so although I may be the master at making a big deal out of things at times, I don't see it's likely to be productive here. Nil Einne (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Affirmative...except the "...enforced an unjustified hatting" interpretation further up. I removed the trolling IP's last edit per DENY but this should not be taken as an endorsement either for or against the hatting. I left that as a matter for the editors there to decide.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I think This link provides some necessary additional evidence people need to decide what to do about this situation. --Jayron32 10:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Concur with that. Even if you think some sort of action against Medeis is warranted, it's unlikely it'll be achieved here. A simple read of this thread, and the connection with the disputed post on RD/L is enough to tell you that. BTW this also means I'd support closing of this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yesterday, I read some of the discourse between editors on that ref desk talk page and I would say that it would put off both established editors as well as newcomers. Clearly, it is an unhealthy environment. I believe this ANI post may have been an attempt to remedy that based on the filer's interpretation of Guy's advice. ANI was one of the options listed. Probably time to try one of the other options...
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Honestly the ref desks would be a nicer place if more people *would* close down discussions promptly. Its the Mos Eisley of wikipedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support closing this much-ado-about-not-much discussion, as the question's poster (as noted below) has provided clarification that could take the inherent guesswork out of it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Return of the OP[edit]

The OP has returned and clarified his question, so I have reopened the thread, leaving the side-discussion closed as moot. μηδείς (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

This discussion isn't about one incident. It is about a long-term pattern of behavior. As I have said elsewhere, I have serious reservations about singling you out for your inappropriate hatting and deletion when [A] others are doing the same thing, and [B] a literal reading of the special rules ("reference desk guidelines") that only apply to the refdesks allows the disruptive behavior. Given those two mitigating facts, I do not think that administrative sanctions against you are justified. That being said, your behavior (and the behavior of several others) on the refdesks has been disruptive, you have shown yourself to be unwilling to stop despite severe pushback from the other refdesk regulars, and undoing the closing after someone reported you at ANI for it in no way makes your ongoing disruptive behavior moot. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Guy Macon's Advice[edit]

I choose not to express an opinion about whether the behavior of Medeis/μηδείς requires any sort of administrative action at this time. Others have weighed in on this, and I support whatever the consensus is.

That being said, in my opinion the following is glaringly obvious:

  1. The reference desks -- all of them -- are toxic and have been toxic for a while.
  2. The help desk and the village pumps are not toxic.
  3. Something some of the refdesk regulars are doing at the reference desks that few people are doing at the village pump or help desk is the cause of this. I believe that this something involves non-administrators attempting to control the behavior of other editors without going to dispute resolution or asking for an uninvolved administrator to intervene.
  4. This is not a "one editor is causing all of the trouble" sort of problem. There are multiple editors who attempt to control the behavior of other editors, a much larger group that keeps asking them to stop doing that, and a few who egg them on and call for even more self-appointed refdesk policemen.
  5. We also have troll problems on the refdesks, yet the help desk and the village pumps have far fewer problems in this area. Something some of the refdesk regulars are doing at the ref desks that few people are doing at the village pump or help desk is the cause of this. I believe that this something is troll feeding, which includes attempting to control the behavior of other editors as well as the traditional refusing to ignore the trolls.

I have, what I believe to be a solution.

I have asked, repeatedly, that we at the refdesks try my solution as a limited time (30 days or so) experiment.

The experiment never gets done because those who attempt to control the behavior of other editors on the refdesks refuse to stop, even temporarily.

Here is my proposed solution to this problem:

  • Get rid of the special rules ("reference desk guidelines") that only apply to the refdesks and which the admins (rightly) refuse to enforce. Turn it into an essay that makes it clear that it is advice, not a policy or guideline.
  • Apply the standard rules that apply to all pages on Wikipedia. In particular, apply WP:DDE and especially WP:TPOC.
  • Stop complaining about other editors on the refdesk or the refdesk talk pages. Instead, complain on the user's talk page, and if that doesn't work, file a report at WP:ANI or try some other form of dispute resolution, starting with WP:DRR.
  • Let Wikipedia's existing mechanisms for dealing with disruptive behavior do their job. This includes full use of WP:DRR and WP:ANI and includes administrators blocking anyone who violates WP:TPOC or persists in complaining about other editors on the refdesk or the refdesk talk pages after being warned not to do that again.

What we are doing is not working. And before anyone asks, no I will not post an RfC with the above solution. I refuse to post RfCs where I am 100% convinced that the proposal will not pass. Feel free to post it yourself and get shot down if you think I am wrong on this. I suggest Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) as an appropriate place to post the RfC.

Finally, I really don't see anything that ANI can do to fix this. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Can we just send the refdesk to MfD and have a straight up or down on the whole thing? Seems easier. TimothyJosephWood 15:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
<shows up here straight from the refdesk> Delete and salt, then nuke the site from orbit. (I'm not serious, but I really believe Guy is on to something with his proposal.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I find it interesting that [A] there is strong resistance to trying it for 30 days. [B] those who loudly object are, for the most part, the same few editors who insist on controlling the behavior of others. [C] who loudly object are, for the most part, the same few editors who keep being criticized for inappropriate hatting and deleting, yet vow to continue doing it anyway. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I refuse to post RfCs where I am 100% convinced that the proposal will not pass. That is a truly remarkable statement. You are pushing strongly for changes that, according to you, stand no chance of community consensus. One thing is certain, such changes will not be passed on this page. ―Mandruss  15:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I fail to see why you would find this to be remarkable. I have proposed what is, in my opinion and the opinion of several other refdesk regulars, a good solution. I acknowledge that the consensus so far is against even trying my proposed solution as a limited-time experiment. I agree to abide by the consensus even though I disagree with it. I presented my solution in the hope that I may some day persuade enough people to change the consensus. What would you have me do? Pretend that the consensus is right when I think it is wrong? Refuse to abide by the consensus just because I think it is wrong? Post an RfC that I believe will be a waste of effort? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
To be fair, Guy, the sentence he quoted does carry an implication that you're engaged in WP:ADVOCACY because it says you want to accomplish something without going through the normal channels. I don't see it as a problem, however, because it's advocacy for a change in WP policy, it's a change that is obviously intended to improve the project and it comes from an editor who is obviously here to contribute to the project. It's just an "it sounds bad" kind of thing, IMHO. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • This has been proposed before, but the problem is that there aren't any special refdesk rules, just a brief summary of general policy at the top of the page. So WP:DISCLAIMER, WP:BLP, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:NOTHOWTO, etc., would still apply. And frankly, we are a lot more lenient in regards to those policies than anywhere else in the rest of the project. I am not sure how anarchy will help any supposed toxicity. μηδείς (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • What part of "This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow"[71] are you having trouble understanding? If, as you claim, standard Wikipedia policies apply, then it seems to me that you should be held accountable for multiple violations of WP:WP:DDE and especially WP:TPOC. The reason that I wrote the words at the very top of this section were because I assumed that you had a good-faith belief that what you have been doing is allowed under the "reference desk guidelines" (specifically, the part that says "It should be noted that the Wikipedia talk page guidelines apply to the reference desk, both for posting questions and for responding to questions, unless these guidelines clarify that they do not apply"). If this isn't the case, please explain your ongoing disruptive behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I drafted a response to Medeis saying "Guy Macon drew attention to special refdesk rules in his post of 05:02 Thursday", but before I had a chance to save it he himself drew attention to them in a rather aggressive manner. (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
WP:DISRUPT isn't going to apply because it refers to "improving an article or building the encyclopedia". WP:TPOC doesn't mention hatting. (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
What part of
" If a discussion goes off-topic (per the above subsection § How to use article talk pages), editors may hide it using the templates {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} or similar templates—these templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors"
are you having trouble understanding?
BTW, Further guidance about hatting is specifically covered in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Closing discussions.
Wikipedia:Disruptive editing applies to any page anywhere on Wikipedia. The correct quote is "disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia". The purpose of the reference desks is to help build the encyclopedia, plus refdesk discussions often lead directly to improvements in specific articles. Disrupting the refdesks is definitely against the rules. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree 100% with what Guy said directly above me, and was about to say the same exact thing until I saw he beat me to it. The refdesk is part of the encyclopedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

One Editor’s View of the Problem[edit]

I will comment briefly, mostly to agree with User:Guy Macon. It isn’t entirely clear whether the original poster actually wants to impose a restriction on User:Medeis or simply wants to discuss. (A major problem here, at WP:ANI, is editors who want to discuss, typically in a hostile fashion, rather than requesting actual administrative action. In this respect, WP:ANI is like the Reference Desks, in being toxic, but is unlike the Reference Desks in having sanctions.) I have sometimes been active at the Reference Desks, and sometimes have ignored them for periods of weeks.

In my opinion, the real problem at the Reference Desks is editors who take the Reference Desks far too seriously, and who therefore think that things need to be done about them. Taking the Reference Desks too seriously is a self-fulfilling prophecy; insisting that there is a problem, either one particular post, or in general, is the problem. Also, as User:Guy Macon says, the Reference Desks have their own trolls. The trolls are fed by the tendency of some Reference Desk posters to get into a blather about the trolls. The trolls, of course, mostly come in from IP addresses, and occasionally from throw-away accounts. The usual response, which is the usual and appropriate response on Wikipedia talk pages, is to semi-protect the page or pages. However, a few regular editors, whom I refer to as RD “idealists”, think that this is the wrong answer, and that the Reference Desks are special, a special outreach of Wikipedia to unregistered editors, and that locking out the unregistered editors is the wrong answer. This results in heated discussion, which probably feeds the trolls. All of this is just one more example of how RD regular editors cause a problem by insisting that there is a problem that must be solved.

In any case, insisting that there is a problem that needs to be solved, whether it is threads that need hatting, or User:Medeis, is what causes the problem, and is why the Reference Desks are toxic.

I agree with User:Guy Macon that a real answer would be for the RD regulars to stop trying to control the behavior of other editors, and would add that they should also stop worrying so much about how to fix the Reference Desk problem. The discussion of how to fix the Reference Desks is the Reference Desk problem. As to the original topic, User:Medeis, she should stop hatting and deleting threads, where her actions do more harm than good, but the original poster should just leave her alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I think most of it is quite correct. However, I disagree about how significant what Medeis is doing is. Do you not agree that closing a new questioner's question is likely to chase him off from using the Reference Desk (and potentially Wikipedia in general) again? And that that is fundamentally antithetical to the RD's purpose, and diminishes its value as a resource? At ten (again, IMO) unjustified closings a months, we're potentially talking about hundreds of people affected here. I find it hard to believe that taking administrative actions while simply brazenly ignoring established procedure and consensus in a way that affected this many people would be tolerated in any other area of Wikipedia.
And I'm not sure this is relevant to your point in the first paragraph, but I originally posted this at WP:AN, not AN/I, and it was moved here. And this is the first time I've ever personally brought an issue to either place. There may be a more appropriate place for this discussion, but I don't think it's the Reference Desk talk pages for exactly the reason you pointed out - the reference desk isn't special, and whether a type of behavior is acceptable there should be decided by the community at large based on general Wikipedia guidelines and principles, not just by the reference desk regulars among themselves based on their own self-imposed rules of RD conduct. Also I did originally bring this up there, and consensus was unanimously against Medeis, but (s)he still re-hatted it twice anyway. I don't know where to turn at that point besides to admins. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
pinging User:Robert McClenon so you know I replied to this since it's been 24 hours plus and I'm not sure you're still following this -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
User:Elmer Clark - It appears that I was just pinged because I failed to comment on a response. Apparently the OP thinks that it is important to discussions here that back-and-forth continue at length. I will respond shortly, but pinging me because I failed to get into an argument seems like an effort to continue an argument. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe I missed something, but I didn't see a specific administrative action asked by the OP (nor a general administrative request such as for administrative attention). What does the OP want, other than for me to say something (and this thread isn't my thread, but the OP's and Medeis's and the community's). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Very sorry if my pinging was inappropriate, I thought it was standard procedure to do so when you were replying to someone and there was a good chance they might not see your reply (in this case, because I replied to you so long after your comment). You're certainly free not to involve yourself any more. To be clear, the specific administrative action I am requesting comes at the end of my addendum to the original post - Medeis being banned from closing reference desk discussions. -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
(Ah, I realize now my wording was ambiguous and could be taken to mean I pinged you because you were taking too long to reply. It wasn't that, it was because my own reply came so late you might not have seen it.) -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand that this is not the best place for this discussion, but I just wanted to pipe up to say that as a long time Refdesk user (Mostly under my old username:APL) I agree strongly with Guy Macon's analysis above.
There's a huge set of written and unwritten rules that dictate proper behavior and God help any question-asker that violates them. Deletion and hatting is the most visible aspect of it, but you can also more subtly browbeat newbies too. (Did the question-asker ask an obviously US-centric question without actually specifying the USA? Let's all lecture them about it!) Add to all that a pervasive suspicion of IP editors, and it feels like there's a real hostility towards new users.
Of course, the existence of this hostile attitude makes it a rich and entertaining target for actual trolls, so the problem is self-reinforcing.
Whether Guy Macon's proposed fixes would fix it, I'm uncertain.
ApLundell (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
We could, you know, try it for 30 days and see whether it works. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Everyone needs to stick to 0RR 1RR w.r.t. non-vandalism edits on the Ref Desk[edit]

Editing the Ref Desk is not similar to editing a Wiki article, there is far less need to revert outside of vandalism. There is a need to hat questions that are not appropriate, and it's these sorts of actions that can get reverted. So, I propose that we all stick to 0RR 1RR when it comes to editing the Ref Desk as far as non-vandalism edits are concerned. We stick to 1RR 2RR w.r.t. dealing with the edits of the OP of a question. So, if you hat a question but the OP reverts you then you can revert to your hatting (even if the OP is a regular, the idea is that an OP will typically be less objective than others). Note that the OP would already be in the wrong when reverting the hatting, as he/she would need to stick to 0RR 1RR, but most questions are asked by non-regular IPs who won't know about these rules. If most regular sticks to these rules, then all inappropriate questions will end up being hatted without creating much drama. Count Iblis (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: as pointed out in the comments below the original proposal invoking 0RR was wrong, so I corrected the text by changing X RR to (X+1) RR. Count Iblis (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I question your statement: There is a need to hat questions that are not appropriate.
Why do we need to hat anything? I know I've done a little bit of it myself, but on reflection I think hatting is not only unnecessary but counterproductive. Firstly, it actually highlights that which is purported to be hidden, so that's a complete wank. Secondly, nothing is gained by hatting. Thirdly, it's an open invitation for reversion and edit warring.
So someone asks an "inappropriate" question. So what? Best to just leave it alone, or explain to the OP why it's not appropriate, and then just move on. Consider a RL ref desk: Someone rocks up and asks a question that is beyond the remit of the desk. What does the librarian do? Turn back time and pretend the client had never existed? Throw a shroud over the client to hide them from view? No. They just say that they can't answer that question, and maybe suggest where would be a better place to ask. Then on to the next client. Simples.
Now, sometimes answers can get somewhat off-track, and there may be a case for hatting a section of a thread that is really not useful to the OP or anyone else. But as for hatting questions - no way. I'd rather delete a seriously offensively inappropriate question outright, than hat it. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm, I think you make a good point here. But apart from the hatting issue, whatever we do on the Ref Desk, unless it's reverting vandalism, one should be able to stick to 0RR. Count Iblis (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The ref desk rules say that certain types of questions, though not inherently vandalism, are inappropriate for the ref desk and are subject to deletion. Would you prefer that approach to hatting? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Deletion means removal, not just pretending to hide it behind a hat. There should be a high threshold for removal, but some questions would undoubtedly surpass it. Merely hatting a question actually highlights the question rather than downplaying it, human nature being what it is. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
My main point is to stick to 0RR, not whether hatting or deletion is better. Suppose the issue of what to do with a problem post would arise then under 0RR it would tend to be sorted out in the best way possible with the least amount of friction anyway. Count Iblis (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Are you saying that once someone hats something, it should stay hatted? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
No, because you can then remove the hat and decide to do something else (if anything) with that post. But when you do that the editor who hatted the question cannot revert back to the previous version, as that would violate 0RR. So, for an edit war to go on and on would requite more and more different editors to step in and undo each other's edit, but there are only a handful of regulars at the Ref Desk, so that's not going to happen. Count Iblis (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
That's not 0RR then, it's 1RR. And consider this: user A hats or deletes. User B unhats or undeletes. Why does user B get to "win"? What's special about user B that his opinion overrides user A's opinion? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
What's special is the fact that user B just demonstrated that the close was not an uncontroversial or uncontentious close. It is the exact same principle used at WP:BRD. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
So it should then be taken to the talk page. However, if you want to literally use 0RR, then no one can be allowed to unhat or undelete until it's been decided on the talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Count Iblis, could you please edit your comments and the section title to reflect the fact that you are proposing 1RR and not 0RR? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Where was this decided?[edit]

Re: "The ref desk rules say that certain types of questions, though not inherently vandalism, are inappropriate for the ref desk and are subject to deletion",[72] Where was this decided? Could someone please post a link to the RfC or other discussion where the Wikipedia community (not just the refdesk regulars) decided that this was OK?

WP:CONLIMITED is quite clear on this:

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages, information pages and template documentation pages written by a single individual or several participants who have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process have no more status than an essay."

Whenever I bring this up, someone replies accusing me of saying that no removals are allowed. I have always been clear that removals on the refdesks are allowed in cases specified by existing policies and guidelines, particularly WP:DISRUPT and WP:TPOC. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm talking about the long-standing rules against giving professional advice and about not asking questions whose purpose is to invite debate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this thread has strayed from its origins. The OP was trying to WP:HOUND a specific editor. Everything after that is misplaced. ANI is not the place to decide what is going to happen to the ref desks. As a couple of us have suggested a Wikipedia:Centralized discussion should be started. Then notices can be placed in various places to generate as full of a discussion as possible. An alternative is a RFC but, IMO, this has gone on so long that a CD is preferable. We can continue to spin our wheels here but, eventually, these threads will archived with nothing having been finalized. As with my request about the original thread I suggest this be closed. Then the discussion can be resumed at the appropriate spot. MarnetteD|Talk 16:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Close it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I really don't appreciate your repeated accusations about my motives. I think I've given you a very good explanation for why I've brought this up here, and accusing me of "trying to hound someone" nonetheless is a clear violation of WP:AGF. It's also absurd on its face given that, as you've pointed out, I'm much too inactive here to be involved in any ongoing personal disputes with other editors. I believe I've only interacted with Medeis once before ever, and it was about (essentially) this same issue. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
And if this is the wrong place for this - perfectly possible, as I pointed out in the very first sentence of my post - wouldn't the correct solution be to move it rather than to close it? I think consensus from the comments here is that there definitely is an issue with Medeis's behavior, but I didn't go about addressing it properly. I would hope more experienced editors would work with me on that instead of just closing it - it's not a good thing if the avenues for addressing problems on Wikipedia are de facto only available to experienced users because anyone making procedural mistakes simply gets their issue tossed out regardless of the merits. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest that if you're after a topic ban (say), you should just check the Banning policy where it says that you should make you proposal at WP:AN (preferably), or WP:ANI. So, in summary, this is a legitimate place for this discussion, but perhaps you need to start afresh with a direct proposal rather than just a general discussion. Providing diffs of disruptive (or perceived disruptive) behaviour would be essential, I can help with that, so please, if you feel dissuaded by the bureaucracy here, don't let that stop you. There are many here willing to help you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Elmer, the suggestion to ban Medeis from hatting/closing or deleting any Ref Desk Q's is a good one, as she has shown a complete lack of judgement in when to do so. You should make that into a formal request, and I will support it. As for the accusation of you acting improperly in bringing the issue up here, I completely disagree. StuRat (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. I'm concerned about bringing this up again in a new post though because at least one user (User:MarnetteD) already seems convinced that I'm hounding Medeis, and I'm afraid starting a whole new discussion somewhere else would just reinforce that. Also I did provide diffs in the collapsible box in my "addendum" above, you may have missed that Rambling Man (is there a better/more prominent way I can format that? Medeis seems to think it wasn't prominent enough as well). -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
The outcome I really don't want is for this discussion to be closed because of my procedural errors/confusing and bad formatting/the perception that I'm hounding Medeis/etc without any ruling being made based on the merits, and then Medeis forever being able to cite this discussion as "proof" that this issue has already been looked at and addressed if anyone ever brings this up again. Advice on how to avoid that would be greatly appreciated... -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I believe diffs are included right at the start of the discussion, in most cases. But there is a certain irony if this thread is closed because it wasn't worded properly, when Medeis closes threads for that reason, too. StuRat (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Support a topic ban banning Medeis/μηδείς from closing or deleting any Ref Desk Q, with the option of later doing the same to other editors if it is determined that their closing/deleting is becoming disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
You're inviting the Nazi ref desk troll and/or the Vote(X) troll to raise holy hell anytime their garbage gets deleted - and to punish Medeis if that's the user doing the deleting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
How do you figure? There's still literally every other Reference Desk user available to close obviously disruptive threads. And Medeis can easily avoid being "punished" by simply...obeying the sanction. -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Obviously disruptive threads need to be closed fast, and it doesn't really matter who does it. Why, oh why is this discussion even happening when the community - agreed procedure for dealing with this problem has not been tried first? See this comment:

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't the reason why what we are doing isn't working is that we are not following the existing community - agreed guidelines, which are:

  • Whenever you remove a post report on the talk page that you have done this or (if you are removing a troll post from Soft Skin which includes mention of any or all of gas chambers, Hitler, the Holocaust, Jews and National Socialism) identify it in your edit summary. (talk) 10:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
    • "Not working" - compared to what? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
      • It works great for you because of your phobia against giving "professional advice"; a site that looks extremely unprofessional is the ideal site for you because you then know that no one is going to construe anything from such a site as being "professional advice" (not that you are in the habit of giving professional advice but the mere thought that you may have inadvertently given professional advice may keep you awake at night) :) Count Iblis (talk) 03:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC) .
        • It's not a phobia, it's a rule, and I had nothing to do with its establishment. If you don't like that rule, take it up with the Foundation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
          • One thing doesn't exclude the other. As a doctor you know that you need to adhere to very rigorous hygiene rules when engaging in certain medical procedures. But if you then get obsessed by sticking to such rules even when it's not necessary and tend to argue on nebulous grounds why such rules still apply, you may be suffering from OCD. Count Iblis (talk) 08:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
            • What has that got to do with not allowing professional advice on Wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
              • There are in principle valid reasons why you would not want professional advice to be given on some website. However, these reasons come with certain assumptions that have to do with there being a real problem. The way the Ref Desks operate in practice makes them quite unlikely places for anyone to ever get any serious advice like legal advice or medical advice from. It's like pretending that a Kindergarten in an academic institution and then fighting about how to stick to proper academic standards when there is little more to it than brawling Kindergartners. Count Iblis (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration proposal[edit]

Proposal. The behaviours at the ref desks have been out of control for a long time now. It was a mistake that Arbcom did not look into it as a result of previous cases, including TRM's. They should do so now. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  • You don't need to propose. If you want to go to ARBCOM, go to ARBCOM and make a case. They'll either accept or reject it.--WaltCip (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It is perfectly legitimate to first discuss a proposal before filing an arbcom case. If a bunch of people say that you have no chance, you might not want to file. If a bunch of people say that it looks like a good idea, you might decide to file based upon that. Also, the exact wording of your filing is important, and should be happerd out before filing. For that, I suggest writing up a a draft in userspace and inviting comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I will Support the filing and opening of an ArbCom case concerning behavior at the Reference Desks. This should have been taken up previously, but still should be taken up. The scope of the case does need to be stated properly. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Two kinds of disruption occur at the refdesks—pushback from the liberty crowd when discussions are sensibly closed, and pushback from the liberty crowd when trolls are reverted. Arbcom cannot provide a solution that is not based on a community decision about what is acceptable, so nothing productive will occur until a massive RfC establishes the purpose of the refdesks and whether any limits apply. Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    • This could also be stated that "disruptions occur on the ref-desk when a small group of users aggressively misinterpret the rules to remove or shut down legitimate questions." depending on who you think is in the right. Getting clarification on such issues, or determining a way to make them them no longer an issue, might just be a service arb-com could provide.
However, I think we'd need to all be prepared for the possibility that they'd decide that the RefDesk has outlived its usefulness. ApLundell (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
This sounds fine to me (and I think it's clear that someone other than me should be making the proposal). However, I would hope that it would not turn into a vague discussion of the "general culture" of the reference desk during which Medeis's specific behavior isn't addressed, which IMO goes above and beyond the broader problems plaguing the reference desk as a whole, and is a problem that can be tackled with much simpler measures than fixing everything wrong with the entire RD. -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Question particularly for User:Dweller: Would standard discretionary sanctions applied to the ref desks help? Is been a long time since I've looked at them and I was never very involved (and one doesn't like to second-guess the committee too much) but if the problems described above are described accurately then DS seems a fairly likely part of the outcome of a full case. Would that help? Or would it just create an environment where new editors' Wikipedia experience starts at AE? GoldenRing (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
    Possibly/probably. Arbcom could also usefully help determine whether the RefDesks really are exempt from usual policies or guidelines. And, strongly, the problem editing isn't coming from newbies. It's RefDesk regulars sniping at each other and at questioners and disagreeing about 'the rules'. Longstanding editors and administrators who ought to know better behaving like mastodons. It's like a bloody playground, has been for ages and ages and ages, has spilled into ArbCom's turf on several occasions and each time it's not been addressed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I hope this doesn't happen. The refdesks are usually a saner place than the rest of Wikipedia. Medeis is a knowledgeable refdesk contributor whose presence makes the place smarter, so I want for her to keep participating. And I'd rather that the broader Wikipedia dispute resolution bureaucracy simply stay away from a part of the project whose dysfunction is less severe than the part that's being proposed to fix it. I remember another one of these discussions where Medeis made some points about WP policy interpretation which I thought were philosophically at odds with how the project works at its best, and that her recurring conflicts with other contributors might follow from that. So I've thought that informal discussion or mediation might bring out better understanding and maybe compromise about those issues. I'd like to help with that if possible, though my editing opportunities are very limited these days. (talk) 06:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

What questions would you specifically request the arb-com look into? I'd like to suggest the following : - Does the reference desk still serve a purpose proportional to the effort put into it? - Do the Ref Desk guidelines hold any weight, and should they be enforced? - What should be done about questions that do not strictly contravene the rules, but about which there is disagreement on whether they are legitimate questions or trolls? ApLundell (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration#Scope of arbitration explains that Arbcom will not decide what should happen at the refdesks. The policies and guidelines I am aware of focus on the encyclopedia and Arbcom will rule on whether editor behavior aligns with those procedures. I am not aware of any rules regarding the refdesks so Arbcom cannot help. However, I can answer your last question. Participants should understand that pursuing freedom or personal enjoyment is not the purpose of this website, and should already know that there have been many cases of trolling or otherwise inappropriate commentary. Therefore, the correct procedure is to accept any close or removal that could be construed as good faith. Only revert when it is believed the close was itself trolling or a blatantly misguided me-too action from a new participant. Even then, a close should be reversed only when pursuing the discussion would be beneficial—do not revert a close merely becauses like or freedom. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
So individuals can make up arbitrary rules ("Questions about sexuality are self-evident trolling.") and then enforce them as long as they might be doing it in "good faith"? That can't possibly be right. ApLundell (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I doubt very much whether any editor has carte blanche to misbehave just because it's on the Reference desk rather than the encyclopedia. ArbCom can and does deal with misbehaviour on talk pages as well. The correct procedure is to follow the community - approved "Reference desk guidelines" (see section above). I don't think good faith should be the criterion because it raises the potential for argument ("Sorry, guv, I didn't know it was against the rules, I did it in good faith.") (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
The above claim is factually incorrect. The special rules ("reference desk guidelines") that only apply to the refdesks and which the admins (rightly) refuse to enforce were never approved by the community. They were written and are being enforced by a small group of editors who never asked the community to approve what they are doing or to appont them as the refdsk police. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
These guidelines were adopted when the Reference desk was reconstituted in 2006. Prior to adoption there was discussion on the talk page, as can be seen from the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules. Any proposal which is adopted after being discussed on a talk page is regarded as having community consensus. (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
It's a bit similar to how "not truth" was for a long time the de-facto "consensus" on verifiability here on Wikipedia. There was actually never a consensus about it, just the claim that it was so and then you got many editors who would support the status quo due to a lack of a good alternative. Or take the issue of gay marriage in the real world. The opponents have cited the many thousands of year's old consensus that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. But did that consensus ever get established based on a detailed analysis of gay relationships? Of course not, such relationships were taboo until just a few decades ago. Count Iblis (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Once again,'s claims are factually incorrect. Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline (later renamed to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines leaving a redirect) was created on 8 December 2006‎. Shortly after that, Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules was created as a content fork of Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline, then nominated for deletion in the MfD that linked to above. The "discussion on the talk page" (the MfD) was a discussion about the seperate, content fork page, not about Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline(s). Futhermore,'s claim that "Any proposal which is adopted after being discussed on a talk page is regarded as having community consensus" is also factually wrong. See WP:LOCALCON.
Given the apparent familiarity with Wikipedia policy, the ability to search for ancient MfDs,. the apparently deliberate multiple factually wrong claims, and the edit history (2 edits total), WP:DUCK tells me that is a sockpuppet. The question is, is he a sockpuppet of one of the refdesk regulars who have taken on the role of self-appointed moderators, or is he a sockpuppet of one of our IP-hopping refdesk trolls? My money is on the latter. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Guy isn't telling the whole story. The result of the Mfd was to merge Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guideline. I do know the difference between a talkpage and an Mfd. There followed a comprehensive discussion of the proposals on both pages. The policy Guy links to actually says

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.

You can see the scale of the discussion here: Special:Permalink/94890911. (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I hear quacking... The 11-year-old discussion linked to above was among a handful of refdesk regulars who unanimously !voted to allow everything and did not discuss removing or collapsing comments at all. Again, zero evidence that the wider community ever approved the creation of self-appointed refdesk cops. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Whatever the original problem at the Reference Desks is or was, it is compounded by a few editors who are so determined to solve the problem that they create a problem in the source of solving it. This noticeboard certainly isn't the place to solve the problem. (However, this noticeboard does not effectively solve any problem that polarizes and divides the community.) An argument can be made and has been made that Medeis should be topic-banned from closing threads at the Reference Desk, but that doesn't appear to have consensus, and besides that would only address one part of whatever the problem is. If there is no consensus to take action here, either file an arbitration request and close this thread, or close this thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

SteveBaker's opinions[edit]

SteveBaker was a Ref Desk regular who made a large number of contribution. He has just left a note on the talk page to explain why he left a year ago, see here. On his talk page we can find a few comments from a year ago, like this one that make it clear that the problem is with self-appointed moderators. Now, I don't agree with SteveBaker on everything here, I don't think banning Medeis would be a good idea, but his the broader perspective on the problems is spot on; self appointed moderators imposing their rules is asking for problems. Count Iblis (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

If an editor is supporting and applying consensus policy, then they are not a "self-appointed moderator", they are an editor supporting and applying consensus policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
That would be fine and good if you could provide a link to the discussion where the Wikipedia community agreed to the special rules ("reference desk guidelines") that only apply to the refdesks and which the admins (rightly) refuse to enforce and a link to where the Wikipedia community further agreed that ordinary editors can perform deletions and hatting that would otherwise no be allowed under WP:TPOC or WP:DDE. Do you have such links? Because unless someone provides links RfCs or other discussions that I am not aware of, the special rules and especially the whole idea self appointed moderators imposing those rules looks like a classic case of WP:LOCALCON to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Xx236's disruptive editing and advocacy on Vladimir Lenin and other Soviet themed articles[edit]

The short version: Over the past month, Xx236 has been editing disruptively on various Soviet-themed articles, most notably Vladimir Lenin and Talk:Vladimir Lenin. They are engaged in WP:Advocacy to push a staunchly anti-Soviet and anti-Lenin view that is far more extreme than those found in the WP:Reliable sources. They have been warned about this on multiple occasions and clearly are not listening. The only way to deal with the situation now is to ban them from editing Soviet-themed articles and their Talk Pages. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The long version: Since 19 April 2017 (a month ago today), User:Xx236 has begun twenty-three different sections at Talk:Vladimir Lenin, each containing a different complaint about the FA-rated article. They have also added unreferenced and poorly referenced trivia about the Polish anti-communist movement into the Lenin article itself ([73], [74], [75], etc) and argued that unreferenced additions should not be removed so long as they are "obvious facts" (?) ([76]). They have similarly bombarded other Marxism and Soviet-themed Talk Pages with section after section in quick succession (fourteen over at Talk:Joseph Stalin, five at Talk:Main Currents of Marxism, four at Talk:Red Army, six at Talk:Soviet Union, six at Talk:Anti-Katyn, six at Talk:Soviet Union in World War II, two at Talk:Socialist state etc). This is just getting silly and needs to stop. It clearly comes under the definition of WP:Disruptive editing.

If their complaints actually had merit then it would be a different kettle of fish, but they don't. Rather, XX236 is just making poorly worded and highly idiosyncratic claims: stating that Lenin was not a Marxist ([77]), that Christopher Hill cannot be a legitimate historian because he was a Marxist ([78], [79]), and that the Soviet Union was not a socialist state ([80]). Other comments are totally incomprehensible ([81]) or are criticisms of statements made in reliable sources ([82]). They reject various WP:Reliable sources produced by academics and scholars as unsuitable on the most spurious of grounds: Louis Fischer's work because he was a leftist writing in the 1960s ([83], [84]), Mark Sandle's because it had the word Socialism in the title ([85]), and Robert Service's because several Amazon reviews and a random Trotskyite website don't like it ([86]; [87]; [88]). At the same time they are repeatedly claiming that the Lenin article is biased in favour of its central subject and the Soviets ([89]; [90]; [91]; [92]; [93] etc) and that it does not deserve to be a Featured Article ([94]; [95]; [96]); this is despite the fact that it has been heavily scrutinised by many different editors during GAN, PR, and FAC only last year, none of whom thought it had a pro-Soviet bias.

Xx236 is engaged in WP:Advocacy. They make it abundantly apparent that they hold passionately anti-Lenin and anti-Soviet views ([97]), in part perhaps because they claim to have had Polish relatives killed by the Soviets [98] and grew up in the Soviet-backed Polish People's Republic ([99]). Clearly, they are seeking to use Wikipedia to spread the 'truth' of their POV, and are very concerned that anyone might develop views about a "good Lenin" ([100]). To this end, their proposed changes to the article consistently downplay or seek to delete anything that might possibly contribute to a favourable or at least not entirely hostile view of Lenin. At the same time, they are trying to add undue emphasis on anything 'bad' that Lenin and his government did, foregrounding these at the expense of the more balanced view that we get in the Reliable Sources. For them, the article is 'biased' because it does not promulgate their own view that Lenin was a terrible human being whose every thought and deed oozed nefariousness and malice ([101]; [102]) and who should be held responsible for everything that the Soviet Union ever did during the 20th century ([103]; [104]). Those who disagree with their proposed edits are dismissed as Soviet sympathisers ([105]) or generally treated un-civilly ([106]) (update: after initiating this ANI request they even labelled me "immoral and disgusting" [107]!) They are not here to build an encyclopaedia in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies; they are here to 'Right Great Wrongs'. This has been pointed out to them repeatedly, but they are refusing the get the point, and claiming that any accusation of advocacy is a "personal attack" ([108]; [109]).

Their constant posting has proved time consuming for myself and others — among them User:Jack Upland, User:Amakuru, User:John, User:Jimfbleak, User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, User:Crossswords, User:Ian.thomson, and User:Britmax — to deal with. That their edits are disruptive has been pointed out to them by both myself ([110]) and Jack ([111]) but that has not stopped them. On 17 May, I raised the issue once more on the Lenin Talk Page, asking them to stop ([112]); several other editors chimed in to support me on this, and both Ian.thomson and Fortuna suggested taking the issue to ANI ([113]; [114]). Xx236 has taken no notice, accused his/her critics of trying to do "their revolutionary duty" ([115]), and continued posting new complaints at the Talk Page ([116]). At this stage it is abundantly apparent that Xx234 has absolutely no intention of desisting from their advocacy and disruptive editing. The only option left is for a ban to be introduced preventing them from editing Soviet- and Marxist-themed articles and their Talk Pages, which is what I propose. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the ping. This assessment is wholly correct. I can't improve on Midnightblueowl's gloss, but I would emphasise that the main issues to me are the lack of communication and the poor quality of the edits; if either of thse factors was a positive one, it might cancel out the other. But they don't. And combined with the amount of energy other editors have spent- and fair play to them, that's far more than me- and wasted on Xx236, I have to support the proposed Tban. This should last until such a time that they can persuade the community that they are capable of neutrally editing the subject without mounting a soapbox. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 13:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Totally support topic-ban from the topic of the USSR, broadly construed to include not just the Soviet leadership but people who lived there, military campaigns involving the Red Army etc, and any topic ban to explicitly involve talkpages as well as articles themselves. I've seen this going on in the background since Vladimir Lenin found its way onto my watchlist during its FA review, and endorse ever word Midnightblueowl says above. Whether or not Xx236 (aka Xx234~enwiki) is acting in good faith is irrelevant; it's clear that they have an ultra-fringe POV that because Communist regimes committed atrocities, anyone who has anything positive to say about any aspect of anyone or anything connected to a Communist government is automatically an unreliable source and consequently no Wikipedia article can mention anything positive about any aspect of the USSR. (This isn't a standard we apply to any other topic; Nazi Germany, Harrying of the North, Genghis Khan, Cultural Revolution etc faithfully document what positives there are, and give due weight to the views of historians who feel that insert name of atrocity was exaggerated or justified.)

    On the specific topic of communism, it's sometimes easy to forget that significant parts of the world still have Communist governments and even many non-communist countries still have significant communist movements—"when you add up the positives and negatives the Communist Party was overall a force for good" is still a significant school of thought, not a fringe opinion like "Hitler was right" that's only held by a handful of cranks, and Wikipedia is obliged to give due weight to this school of thought. Despite the many, many times this has been explained, Xx236 appears incapable of understanding the difference of "my point of view" and "neutral point of view". ‑ Iridescent 13:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Oh dear, I've just read most of Xx236's contributions at Talk:Vladimir Lenin and I've checked a good few of Midnightblueowl's links, and the tendentious POV-pushing and bulldozing IDHT are overwhelming. We clearly have someone here who has a visceral hatred for Lenin, Soviet Communism and anything related to the USSR - and their life's experience might well justify that. But we certainly can't have our Wikipedia articles turned into hate pieces, and I really cannot see any way this might be someone who can be brought round to the Wikipedia way of doing things. So that's a Strong Support for a topic ban from all pages associated with the USSR, broadly construed (especially as this appears to have been going on for a long time). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
    Oh, and @Midnightblueowl: You did a pretty good job of keeping the long version so short! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Likewise. From the linked discussions its clear they are totally incapable of editing neutrally in the area. Even if they are right about Lenin not being a Marxist ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
"Nobody is born a Marxist, not even Marx" :) — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 12:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I would even block if this continues. — JJBers 14:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Hopefully a ban will deal with the problem at hand and that will be the end of it. However, if Xx236 attempts to evade a ban or goes and edits disruptively on other topics then I think that a total block will be inevitable. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Tban of this WP:TEND editing. There are other websites where this editor can grind their axe. MarnetteD|Talk 16:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I've been watching this happen and I think Midnightblueowl's summary is excellent. For completeness, I am also pinging Gravuritas, who has been making somewhat similar points, though with a better understanding of how Wikipedia works, and who has expressed support for Xx236 at least once or twice. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Thanks for the ping. Sorry, don't think MBO has given a fair summary of the situation. To someone with some knowledge of the history of Eastern Europe, the article is biased in Lenin's favour. To take a simple example, the article emphasises Lenin's anti-imperilist pronouncements and glosses over his many imperialist actions. Small edts, e.g by me, to begin to correct this slant are met by a snowstorm of resistance, in particular by MBO and JU. Xx236 appears to me to often be correct in his analysis, even if his way of working is somewhat grasshopper-like. JU has greeted him with scorn for his English, and MBO has been obstructive: e.g. describing one of Xx236's suggested edits as having 'multiple grammarical errors' when it only needed two 'the's to correct it. I wish Xx236 worked more slowly, and concentrated on one or two edits at a time, and I have previously suggested such on his user page, but I understand his frustration. The risk in banning him is that the current cosy cartel of editors who enthusiastically study Lenin and Soviet history, but ignore other external sources, will be left to govern this article. I, using somewhat different RS, will be continually outvoted and will accordingly give up. I would suggest a rap on the knuckles for Xx236, and another rap on the knuckles for those editors who have stifled him when he makes fair, constructive points.
Gravuritas (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Gravuritas' statement that I criticised one of Xx236's additions because it contained "multiple grammatical errors" is untrue. That was actually a concern that I expressed about User:Staberinde's contribution [117], and (as the link shows) it was far from being my only concern about that addition. Myself and Staberinde subsequently cordially discussed the issue at the Talk Page and came to a compromise that we could all live with. It had nothing to do with Xx236 at all. Therefore, aside from the fact that Gravuritas' claim here is just totally false, it is also an issue that is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Correction accepted. Sorry, have no time to check timeline.
Gravuritas (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
And, for what it's worth, I never "greeted him with scorn for his English" or "mocked" him as Gravuritas has claimed previously. In any case, this is a red herring, because language issues have been a minor factor, as anyone who looks at the Talk page can see.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Moreover, while I appreciate that this section is not designed as a discussion of Gravuritas' edits, Gravuritas has made the claim that their own edits have been met by a "snowstorm of resistance" and that I am "obstructive" and a member of a "cosy cartel of editors" who deserve a "rap on the knuckles" for our opposition to Xx236's edits. For this reason I think it important to give some clarification. It is true that I, and other editors, have opposed many of Gravuritas' edits and suggestions, just as we have opposed Xx236's. But this is because Gravuritas has also been engaging in many of the same disruptive behaviours as Xx236, albeit in a more articulate manner. Gravuritas began their activity on the Lenin article on 20 April 2017 (only a day after Xx236 reappeared) and clearly shares Xx236's fiercely emotional anti-Soviet perspective ([118]; [119]; [120] etc) and I believe that to be the reason that they regard "the article [as being] biased in Lenin's favour". Like Xx236, they have made additions to the FA-rated Vladimir Lenin article that are simply un-referenced ([121]), and have removed academically referenced information with which they happen to disagree because it could potentially cast Lenin in a slightly positive light ([122]). They have also repeatedly engaged in edit warring to make (often) idiosyncratic alterations to the article without consensus ([123]; [124]; [125]; [126]; [127]; [128]; [129] etc). In doing so they have made multiple false claims to bolster their position: claiming that a Talk Page discussion has backed them when it has not even taken place ([130]), making inaccurate statements about the history of the article ([131]; [132]) etc.
Rather than seeing their critics as people trying to keep a balance and uphold Wikipedia rules and regulations, they have repeatedly accused those who criticise or oppose their actions of being Lenin sympathisers ([133]), "apologist[s]" ([134]), "deniers of [Stalin's murders]", ([135]) and defenders "of the indefensible" ([136]), even going so far as to call on their critics to apologise to "Stalin's millions of victims" ([137]). Clearly, they do not care much for WP:Civility, and editors who disagree with them (for a variety of reasons) have been accused of being an "ignoramus" ([138]), a promoter of "biased garbage" ([139]), and "scum" ([140]; [141]). When confronted on this, Gravuritas' response has been to state that the Civility policy doesn’t count in certain scenarios and that they will not abide by it ([142]). This behaviour is evidently nothing new; they have been repeatedly censured for breaches of civility ([143]; [144]; [145]; [146]; [147]) and their behaviour has been brought to ANI twice before, in July 2016 [148] and again in September 2016, when User:Spike Wilbury told them to clean up their act and behave in a civil manner ([149]) – clearly they have not done so. It is perhaps due to their general outlook and their similar patterns of disruptive editing that Gravuritas has developed some sympathy for Xx236 and has defended them when no-one else has. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban. Everyking (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban. In fairness to Xx236, I think that many of this user's edits are good faith attempts to improve articles, unfortunately, Midnightblueowl makes a convincing case that the total pattern of behavior is disruptive. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, I don't doubt the sincerity of Xx236's actions. I believe that they are motivated by a genuine desire to tell readers 'the truth', rather than any impish love of mischief. Unfortunately, that does not stop their edits from being any less disruptive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, it isn't just a matter of good intentions; some (a few) of Xx236's edits do really seem to be helpful, but that does not prevent the user's overall behavior from having undesirable consequences. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support everything what Midnightblueowl said. Its not only about these topics but his whole attitude in communicating to other people, which he has a dissagreement with. There were 2 instances where he called my edits (adding articles into the See Also category) trash and other hostile choosing of words when trying to make an argument. English skills are no excuse here, he knows what he is writing.--Crossswords (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban for Xx236. And for Gravuritas. Being moderately more articulate and civil doesn't make his unacceptable edits any less of a cas of POV pushing. Bit of them need to be told to walk away and tlstol trying to use Wikipedia to promote their POV. oknazevad (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I can not check everything above, but I looked at editing by Xx236 on the pages Lenin and Stalin, because that was allegedly the problem. Here are all his recent series of edits on pages Lenin [150], [151],[152] and Stalin [153]. I do not see anything even remotely problematic here, anything which would justify his topic ban. His talk page comments are indeed questionable, however I do not think they warrant a topic ban. I am looking at the diffs by the filer of this complaint, For example this comment - yes, he is right, the role of Lenin in creating the Soviet system can be well documented. Or this - yes, he is right, the expertise of R.Service on the subject was challenged by at least one serious historian. And so it goes (can't check everything). His only problem: he does not provide any sources to support his statements on article talk pages (but I think he provides acceptable sources while editing articles themselves). If this is indeed so seriously problematic, please bring it to WP:AE (the subject is under discretionary sanctions), but please provide at least 5-6 clear-cut diffs that are immediately problematic after looking at them. My very best wishes (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I feel that you may be being a little generous with your assessment, there. You state that you see nothing wrong with Xx236's additions to the Lenin article, but they were adding unreferenced and poorly referenced material to an FA-rated article without trying to gain any consensus for its addition first. The material itself was more about anti-communist groups in Poland than it was about Lenin himself; it counts as WP:Trivia. That's clearly disruptive. As for your statements about Xx236's Talk Page comments, again I think you are being over-generous. You cite this comment and state that "yes, he is right, the role of Lenin in creating the Soviet system can be well documented", but that isn't actually what Xx236 said. Xx236 stated that Lenin was involved in constructing Stalinism, not the "Soviet system". The two things are different (and it's not even as if the article ever denied that Lenin constructed the Soviet system of governance - indeed it talks about how Lenin did this at various points). Further, that particular link was not originally selected by me to demonstrate that Xx236 was making dubious claims (that Stalinism owed a fair bit to Lenin is hardly a controversial point); rather, it was selected because it demonstrates Xx236's view that the article was biased.
  • You then state that "yes, he is right, the expertise of R.Service on the subject was challenged by at least one serious historian". Aside from the fact that virtually every historian of modern Russian history has been challenged on various points by their peers (such is the nature of academic scholarship), Xx236 was not actually stating that Service's work had been challenged by a professional historian; rather, they were suggesting that it was bad because they found a Trotskyite website that gave it a poor review and because it had a couple of poor reviews on Amazon. That wasn't helping anyone; it was just an attempt to undermine the (academically referenced) content of the page (presumably so that Xx236 could then step in and start changing things). Their whole approach to interacting with others at the Talk Page has fallen well within the definition of WP:Disruptive editing and they have ignored every previous attempt to deal with the problem. A topic ban really is the last resort here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • PS: Apologies for being a nitpicker about some of your comments. I—like several others—have been dealing with Xx236's incessant disruptive editing for several weeks now and I really do think that something needs to be done about it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I can see what had happen. There is another contributor on talk pages who repeatedly makes totally ridiculous comments like this: "There is no real evidence that the Moscow trials were "rigged" or that the saboteurs were not actually working to overthrow the Soviet leadership". That provokes Xx236 to became engaged in WP:SOAP-like discussions and make talk page comments that are now brought on this page as a proof of his misbehavior. My very best wishes (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I would agree that User:Claíomh Solais also makes some dubious Talk Page comments; they are clearly coming from a strongly pro-Stalin POV that is (in its own way) contrary to the WP:Reliable Sources. However, they have only been active recently on Talk:Joseph Stalin, not Talk:Vladimir Lenin. There has been virtually no interaction between Claíomh Solais and Xx236 (I can only find two Talk Page discussions where they have both contributed), and certainly no instances where Xx236 has directly responded to Claíomh Solais' comments (bar perhaps this confusing comment from 26 April). Thus, I think it somewhat misleading to state that Claíomh Solais' comments have "prokove[d]" Xx236 to edit disruptively. There is barely any connection between the two at all. Even if there were, the fact that there is one editor posting comments from a pro-Stalin perspective over at Talk:Joseph Stalin really would not excuse Xx236's disruptive editing to push an anti-Soviet POV on a whole host of articles. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Here is the problem. I am looking at first three diffs ([384], [385], [386]) you provided as evidence of misbehavior by Xx236 on page Lenin. Here is first of them: [154]. Yes, that looks disruptive. However, one must look at the whole series of edits by Xx236 [155]. Is it really problematic? Yes, I would not make such edit, but this is hardly a reason for a topic ban. I can mostly see WP:SOAP like discussions on the part of Xx236 and several other users. A strong warning about it? Yes, sure. Topic ban? I am not convinced. My very best wishes (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The addition of poorly referenced WP:Trivia into an FA-rated article is problematic, but I would agree with you that that alone would clearly not warrant a topic ban. Rather, the reason why Xx236 warrants such a ban is because for the last month they have been engaged in a relentless programme of WP:Advocacy and WP:Disruptive editing across a wide range of Soviet-themed articles. Their comments, as you note yourself, are problematic. That they have been repeatedly asked to stop and have flatly refused means that there is no other option left but a topic ban. The addition of the poorly referenced trivia in the Lenin article was just one, very small, part of this wider pattern of disruption. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I quickly checked his comments on several talk pages and even responded. I do not see his comments as something really disruptive. But he is definitely frustrated and needs a wikibreak. My very best wishes (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Add to that the additions of editorialising to articles (sample), as well as the belief that the country has been teeming with street children up to the 1990s (diff of article move), and this seems to be a case of WP:CIR / clouded judgement. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
My crime is Soviet/Russian historiography studies mostly the Great Patriotic War, forgetting the period 1939-41. Why don't you ask for citations but prefer to attack me here? The statement is obvious, there are hundreds of Soviet/Russian texts about the Great Patriotic War and much less about the WWII. Xx236 (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
This not the place to discuss the page Orphans in the Soviet Union, but you have started so I'm responding. The page is about the street children and about orphans: Major contributors to the population of orphans and otherwise homeless children.... The majority of the text is about street children. Homeless children was a more general notion, it included orphans and non-orphans. The Russian article is about homeless children. Xx236 (talk) 07:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • This Wikipedia needs a basic discussion of Soviet subjects to remove possible bias and omissions. Such serious discussion is being replaced by a hunt on me. This Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a Marxist-Leninist circle or a highschool in which students are bullied becaus ethey belong to an another culture.
This Wikipedia needs a feministic review of biographies of white male leaders eg. Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin.
Midnightblueowl is a much better editor than me, but Wikipedia needs not only editing but also knolwdge and my knowledge is at least comparable. Midnightblueowl doesn't accept my critics, even if I'm right. As far no my opponents has declared knowledge of Russian language or of the whole subject - Soviet history. People who edit pages about everything, aren't able to be very competent in every field.
I have been accused to be pro-Polish, but the accusation failed. I have been accused several times to be wrong, but several of my opinions were right. I'm not going to discuss these absurd accusations. Learn and return.
Please remeber that all of your biased and false accusations will be preserved for ever. In 100 years a doctor thesis will be written - leftist censorship in English Wikipedia.
I'm 90% right so if you decide to topic-ban me, I'm leaving for the period of the ban.
What about the editors who have attacked me ad personam, eg. my language? Xx236 (talk) 07:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
My edits of Vladimir Lenin haven't been disruptiive, they are still there. Please change the misinforming name of the thread. What you do is immoral and disgusting.Xx236 (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Lplease punish my recent anti-Soviet crime in Moomin.Xx236 (talk) 10:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I do not think that anyone accused you of being "pro-Polish per se, Xx236, nor did they "bully" you because you "belong to another culture". Nevertheless, you have added WP:trivia about Polish anti-communists into the Lenin article, mentioned Poland in the Talk Pages, and made your anger regarding the Soviet treatment of Poland quite clear. Your experiences as a Pole have clearly influenced your view of the Soviet Union; and that's fine, but you can't let that interfere with the rules and regulations of Wikipedia, as you have done. Your grasp of the English language is not perfect, granted, and while that has made some of your comments difficult to understand, the main problem is the general rambling structure and bizarre content of your comments, which has nothing to do with being a native English speaker or not ("Lplease punish my recent anti-Soviet crime in Moomin" being a classic example).
  • Your above comment also demonstrates your tendency to view all your critics as ideologically motivated ("a Marxist-Leninist circle... leftist censorship in English Wikipedia") rather than as people seeking a neutral presentation of the information present in WP:Reliable sources. I have no doubt that there are editors on Wikipedia with a Marxist-Leninist or otherwise far left POV (I cited Claíomh Solais above) but unless all of the editors who scrutinised the article at GAN, PR, and FAC are secret communists eager to promote the image of the 'good Lenin', then I do not see how a highly biased article has been produced (as you claim). Ironically, while you accuse me of constructing a pro-Lenin article, others ([156]) have accused me of having crafted an anti-Lenin article and being part of a bourgeois disinformation campaign. I've made it quite clear that I am not a Leninist nor do I think that Lenin's rise to power was a good thing—the man was clearly an ideologically driven zealot quite happy to see thousands killed—and yet you repeatedly paint me and others as some sort of communist cabal simply for opposing your disruptive editing. It's rather frustrating. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Once again, K.e.Koffman provides a single diff ("sample") by Xx236 instead of looking at the whole series of his edits on the page. So, the thing was sourced. Was it an adequate sourcing? I do not think so, but the statement was true and could be very easily sourced to something much better. My very best wishes (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Just because a statement might be true does not necessarily make it relevant or worthy of addition to an article (especially a Featured Article). One of the (many) problems with Xx236's additions to the Lenin article was that they were effectively WP:Trivia. Lenin was one of the most influential figures of the 20th century. A significant portion (perhaps a majority) of the international communist movement look to him as a central ideological figurehead; there are thus statues and street names dedicated to him all over the world. In becoming a communist icon, he has also become a symbol that everything anti-communists despise, and they have reacted against him and his influence. Accordingly, there must be literally hundreds of thousands of potential facts about Lenin and his legacy that could be added to the article. That does not mean that we actually have to start adding them. Xx236 had simply cherry-picked a few random facts from Polish history and added them (without any attempt to gain any sort of consensus first); this sort of editing is disruptive. So on this particular issue, the problem is not that Xx236 merely added poorly sourced material; it is that they added said material to the article in the first place.Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Here is edit by Xx under discussion. Some of their changes are minor and non-controversial (that shows the user wants to improve the page), others are debatable. I think the Philosophers' ships absolutely must be included on the page, but the statement must be significantly rephrased and elaborated. As about the "legacy" insert, I agree it should not be included in this way, however this is just a minor content dispute, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Again, I think that you are trimming the issue down too much. The issue is not just about the addition of poorly referenced material into an article. It's about a huge campaign of disruptive editing spanning many different articles, and in particular their Talk Pages. The addition of poorly referenced material is just one small part of that broader disruptive pattern. In and of itself, that one small issue would not warrant a topic ban; but the broader pattern clearly does. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, I checked his mainspace/article editing (4 pages) and his comments on 6 talk pages. I think he obviously has a POV (just like many others), but he wants to improve these pages, his talk page comments are frequently very much reasonable (I responded to some of them), and most important, he actually improves these pages, together with others. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the same basis as has been outlined by My very best wishes and Gravuritas. The majority of the editors !voting here have had little in the way of contact with the user and are basing this ban on a select number of edits which don't even begin to reflect the many years of constructive gnoming Xx236 has put in. I'm not even going to claim that I haven't had a few content clashes with him, because I certainly have. This is a knee-jerk reaction to behaviour he ends up sorting out himself by cooling his heels off his own bat, and the purported rationale of bans of any form are not supposed to be punitive. Xx236's eye for detail and finding problems with content and reliable sources for improving articles make him an asset, not a liability. Eastern European subject area articles are rampant with POV pushers of all ilk. The number of seriously POV editors who have managed to avoid any form of ban is (almost) laughable. Punishing one predominantly constructive editor who has moments of flipping out is ludicrous in the face of the plethora of extremist civil POV pushers is ludicrous. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but I don't buy the argument that Xx236 should be given free reign to edit disruptively just because there are also other POV pushers out there. I also disagree with the statement that this is a "knee-jerk reaction". Xx236 has been asked repeatedly to stop their disruptive editing behaviours by several editors (including myself). They completely and utterly ignored that request. If the request for a topic ban is turned down then they will just keep on and on with this disruptive behaviour in the knowledge that they basically have immunity. That means that there will be lots more disruptive editing that myself and other editors have to spend time and energy dealing with. The whole thing is really rather damaging to Wikipedia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I beg to differ, but I am not promoting any form of 'free reign'. A TBAN applying to this and 'related topics' broadly construed means a ban for Xx236 from involving himself from literally hundreds of articles on the Soviet Union, post-Soviet nation-states, etc... which most certainly does make such a proposal a knee-jerk reaction. These are articles where the user does his best gnoming using the talk page to point out contradictions, missing information, etc. He is not confident with his English and seldom actually edits the articles themselves, but leaves succinct missives on the talk page knowing that there are a number of editors who have the more obscure articles on their watchlists who will look into his observations and make appropriate changes. There are actually very few instances of his observations being unconstructive, and he is certainly made aware of this by other editors when consensus is against him. Issue a stern warning, or have the user temporarily blocked from the article in question, but don't conflate sporadic incidents of the occasional silly piece of WP:DE with WP:NOTHERE, WP:COMPETENCE with the objective leading inevitably to the elimination of a productive editor. Again, I would reiterate that I have great respect for the majority of editors commenting here, but I also know that they have virtually no knowledge or contact with Xx236 outside of a limited range of articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, Xx236 made more than 30,000 edits in this very wide subject area. His edits are usually very "gnomish", I saw his edits many times. He edited a lot of different pages for years, and no one objected. However, for someone with his interests, such wide topic ban is equal to a side ban. Ban him from pages Lenin and Stalin if he is such a problem for you. My very best wishes (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I am not related to the edits in the mentioned pages, but this user has a history of similar edits in Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Vilnius or other Lithuania-related pages where he tends to push pro-Polish POV without backing it up with reliable sources. In addition, he was already topic-banned in the past for similar behavior. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing of Dear John (U.S. TV series)[edit]

Alpha123321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Dear John (U.S. TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

On 12 April 2017, Alpha123321 removed the protected page template that Kelapstick had set on 31 March. The page protection was a response to a series of unconstructive edits by Alpha123321 has reverted every change made by another editor since 3 May.

  • 8 May: Asked the user to voice their rationale
  • 14 May: Warning posted
  • 21 May: Most recent incident

Ringbang (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

My one comment on this is that User:Alpha123321's do not appear to be constructive (and the removal of the {{ubl}} templates is indicative of some disruptive editing that is seen more generally in TV series articles...). --IJBall (contribstalk) 02:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
User:Alpha123321 has now clearly edit-warred at Dear John (U.S. TV series) – I would suggest a block is in order, esp. if Alpha123321 reverts even one more time. --IJBall (contribstalk) 05:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I've temporarily blocked Alpha123321 for blatant edit warring at that article. I have to wonder if their history of disruption might justify escalating to an indefinite WP:NOTHERE block. clpo13(talk) 06:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm suspicious that IpswichFan and Alpha123321 might be the same person. See this edit that occurred right in he middle of the disruption caused by Alpha123321 - why would he do this? And what's the probability that this is a coincidence? My gut says that it's low. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Has anyone done a checkuser? —Ringbang (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
They're  Unrelated. PhilKnight (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Legal threat?[edit]

User: blocked for 1 week. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Hi, Would this be under a legal threat?, I know in the past I've reported threats here before that actually haven't been so figured I'd ask, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

"Ip addresses will be requested from solicitor if this abuse continues" certainly qualifies. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. And according to edit-summaries in the history of this article, it's not the first time an IP has been flagged as making legal threats. DMacks (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Prior to her involvement in Big Brother, it was a hit piece written around how she was alledgedly dropped from a reality show because of her personal life - there were a number of BLP issues. The article now is essentially the same structure with 'Has now appeared in Celebrity Big Brother' attached to it. (For those not in the UK, Celebrity Big Brother is the bargain basement of 'celebrities'.) Probably needs to go to AFD again. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks all, So is this actionable ?, I'm surprised nothing's been done so far (If these sorts of legal threats aren't actionable then it's pointless me reporting these?). Thanks,Davey2010Talk 12:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh its unambiguously a legal threat. I was just pointing out there are *issues* that might explain why an IP, possibly related to the subject, might go to the level of making them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I've nominated it again as all the issues that resulted in prior deletion still exist. I considered CSD#G4 but not having access to the old version, I don't know if the new text isn't "substantially identical to the deleted version..." Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I've linked the previous ANI thread at the top of this one. Relevant stuff is WP:DOLT and WP:BLPCRIME. Actually communicating with these IP users is close to impossible, as they are on a mobile ISP which is known to use frequently changing dynamic addresses. Is it "actionable"? Sure, it's a pretty clear violation of WP:NLT, but the violator is likely already no longer on that IP address. Or, do we need to make changes to the article? The IP user has not identified a specific concern, so all we can do is review the content again with a general eye towards BLP and BLPCRIME. As I said in an edit summary (which seems like roughly the best way to communicate with the person or people involved), they should email info-en-q so that they can properly discuss their concerns. Alternatively, it could just be a "hater" (or similar), rather than someone with a proper BLP concern, trying to destroy the page. At this stage, your guess is as good as mine as far as what the specific problem is and whether the person doing this is actually acting on behalf of the subject. Murph9000 (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
    I've left another edit summary and now a message on the article's talk page, pointing them to the contact page and info-en-q email, on the basis of DOLT. Murph9000 (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah I had no idea there was a prev thread nor I did know they were on mobile ISP .... so at this point blocking etc is pretty pointless, Personally I think it's someone related to the subject (or the subject herself) wanting the info gone but at the end of the day there's means and ways of doing things, Well I've got the article protected in the hope the IP will either go to the talkpage or will read your edit summary and hopefully voice whatever concerns they have,
Kinda unrelated but if anyone wants to remove parts of the article or send it to AFD I have no objections,
Anyway thanks all for your help - Much appreciated. –Davey2010Talk 13:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC),
Nah, I don't think so. When I read, "Ip addresses will be requested from solicitor", I read that someone whose a COI is going to request that IP editors help him accomplish the goal of deleting the page (as in they're going to recruit people to help them). The summary doesn't say, "you're going to hear from my attorney", or "I will take legal action". I agree that many statements we've seen here can tread very closely to a NLT, but the wording in this edit summary doesn't come close enough in my opinion. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
In the UK, a solicitor *is* a type of lawyer. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
In the UK, a solicitor is a lawyer (attorney), (but might not be a barrister). The issue is a clear, unambiguous legal threat. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Continued uploading of copyvio's[edit]

Seems MonkeyKingdom (talk · contribs) is not getting/heeding copyvio warnings. I came across some files they uploaded the other day as some were tagged with {{OTRS pending}} only to find no permissions and other permission issues in the OTRS system. Obviously the vio warnings are not working. - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Block from uploading files. — JJBers 17:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Can't block someone only from uploading. I see that MonkeyKingdom has explained themselves on Mlpearc's user talk. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I suggest we wait for the proposed deletions to expire, since they assert that the permission has been given. -- Luk talk 19:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Works for me. - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd delete them all now. You're not telling me that badly cropped and shopped images like File:Henry Musasizi Official.jpg are genuinely works of a government? Black Kite (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Black Kite: I stumbled across these images when I was doing my patrolling and I just asked another admin (Oshwah) to delete them all under F9 and they agreed to do so. I had no knowledge of this thread going on when I asked them to take action. When it is clear that the person just stole the image from a random site and uploaded it using F11 is not an option and it never should be. As for the images claimed to be by the Ugandan government are copyrighted. Period. Leaving them here for 7 days is nonviable when it comes to copyright. If they upload them again, they should be indef'ed. --Majora (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
@Luk, Black Kite, and Oshwah: The files have been deleted and MonkeyKingdom has upladed more at Commons. - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I can't speak to the deleted files, because I haven't seen them, but the [files uploaded to Commons do not appear to be a copyright violation. They appear to be simple snapshots, taken by someone close to the subject (or the subject themself). There is no evidence that the files have been published elsewhere, so we should assume good faith in this instance that the uploader is, indeed, the creator of the image. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Luk, Black Kite, Oshwah, JJBers, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Majora: Those files on Commons are under discussion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MonkeyKingdom. Messing with OTRS shows bad faith.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban requested for LABcrabs (and True Tech Talk Time) on BarlowGirl related topics[edit]

I have been concerned about the attempt at pushing a specific WP:POV on the BarlowGirl article by LABcrabs, who also uses the alternate account, True Tech Talk Time. A summary of the editor's argument in short is

  • members of the band, an all-female (all sisters of the same family), Christian rock band made a "purity pledge" (a vow not to have sex until marriage) and took that further to not even date when they were in their teens,
  • the band rose to fame with making the proclamation,
  • this proclamation was part of their "image",
  • members of the band have made comments that either favour or support non-Christian musicians, some of whom may be considered inappropriate in the eyes or Christians at best (the Beatles for one), and antithetical to their previously stated position at worst (Lady Gaga for one)
  • therefore the band are hypocrites and this hypocrisy must be commented on in the article. Several editors have commented about this on the article's talk page indicating that the use of primary sources involves WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. This has been an ongoing discussion since November 10, 2016 (when a discussion was started on the article's talk page titled "BarlowGirl's hypocrisy". The editor has taken long breaks from pushing this content and since I'm a frequent editor and a watcher of the article, I am the one who usually reverts the content. Sometimes my reverts are complete, other times I revert only the OR and SYNTH. The talk page has seen five editors come out against LABcrabs and each time LABcrabs backs off, for a while. The thread can be see on the talk page and there are several statements by LABCrabs there that give me reason for concern.

A few hours ago, I asked LABcrabs to take a voluntary topic ban. This was based on the editor's addition at 2017-05-21T16:03:43, which I reverted six hours later, and promptly discussed with the editor. The editor refused, stating "I am absolutely unwilling to have people dictate to me which topics I should discuss and for how long". I am requesting a topic ban for LABcrabs (and the alternate account, True Tech Talk Time) in relation to BarlowGirl. With comments like "I confronted Lauren Barlow on her Lady Gaga idolatry multiple times, which resulted in blocking and a refusal to comment. If the motive is pure, or even if it's something like wanting to 'grow up', why not simply tell fans?" and the additional commentary that follows, it's clear that this has become a personal goal (if not vendetta) related to the subject and that there is little hope that there will be any neutrality when discussing it.

The real problem I have is that LABcrabs has added some good content to this article and others by the subject, but seems incapable of objectively approaching this fringe subject. I am not pleased with having to request a complete topic ban on anything to do with BarlowGirl, but think it's best. If someone has a better suggestion, please offer it, otherwise the request for the topic ban stands. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

What Walter fails to mention is that the original user that reverted the additions (Lady Gaga and others, but I now only keep Lady Gaga on the list) on November 2, 2016 was an IP address associated with a paid BarlowGirl (BG) staff member. The IP only made two edits edits on Wikipedia, both regarding BarlowGirl. The first edit removed artists, with the editor leaving this comment: "Removed misleading information that was given out of context." Instead of explaining why BG endorsed said artists, even if there is indeed a pure or harmless reason, the content was simply removed. The second edit is even more alarming: "Removed Purity section, It doesn't reflect band member's [sic] current views". This is original research by this friend/staff, but I believe it is very true that BG departed from its purity teachings. I have previously asked this staff member why BG was yoked up with such secular artists like Bruno Mars, who go against the purity teachings, and the reply was that I cannot judge because I didn't know the Barlow sisters' hearts. A few months later, the staff refused to discuss the topic, yet continues to imply to other fans that everything is okay.
I am not willing to reveal that IP editor's identify at this time. I would like to quote WP:PAID here: "If you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you, who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship." The IP contributer clearly failed to make any disclosure whatsoever, and I believe that BarlowGirl has an ulterior motive in paying staff members to edit its Wikipedia page.
Walter's suggestion also sets a terrible precedent in banning me from other topics simply because I disagree with them. I have edited True Love Waits, which I changed after edits on BarlowGirl's page removed artists like Bruno and Beyoncé. On that page, I also talk about a similar band, the Jonas Brothers, where only one of the three members fulfilled the purity pledge. I talk about the brothers' involvement with Victoria's Secret Pink and even edited Pink's page: I have done my best to add photos and properly source content, despite disagreeing strongly with the company. This and my contributions to BarlowGirl's Home for Christmas article stand as strong examples of how I can contribute to Wikipedia without slandering a brand.
I would like the discussion to better provide a solution in light of BarlowGirl's involvement with the article and my involvement with the article. If someone wishes to ask Lauren Barlow why she supports Lady Gaga, that's their call. (To her credit, she let one user comment about how "some of her video's [sic] have been disrespectful towards [C]hristians".) The topics of purity and staying separate from the world are discussed amply in the Christian community, whether or not BG is mentioned. I am asking for a balanced perspective with this. --LABcrabs (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The issue is not the anon editor's involvement LABcrabs, its yours. The anon editor did not make statements that make it clear that they are trying to make a point, yours did. I also noted that you have made good edits to articles and would have preferred you take voluntary leave, but you don't want that, yet you also want to make your point. Do you see the problem that I see and what I hope to achieve? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
And then this with a lot of OR. I do not see this getting better. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I am willing to take a temporary voluntary leave on my terms. This would include June, July and August of this year, plus the remainder of May. My concerns with the paid "anonymous" user still stand, and you are incorrect: this "anonymous" user clearly has no problems with these secular artists and BG's change in purity beliefs. My concerns with Lauren Barlow's recent moral changes still stand. I encourage you and any other person interested in the topic to ask Lauren, if you wish, on Twitter and/or on Instagram why she believes what she believes. I would like this incident closed if we can agree on my voluntary break from the topic of BarlowGirl, and only the topic of BarlowGirl, for that period of time.
"a lot of OR." Yeah, right. --LABcrabs (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Again, the issue is not the anonymous editor. If you want to open a complaint against this editor, do so elsewhere. The issue here is your refusal to see that SYNTH and OR are not acceptable ways of adding information to BLPs. You taking a vacation is not acceptable which is why I opened this discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
BarlowGirl paid. I have since taken my edit and personally removed much of the content (Bruno Mars, Beyoncé, etc.) that isn't recently relevant (2017) to BarlowGirl. That leaves us with Lady Gaga, which Lauren Barlow portrayed positively in 2016 and 2017. Per your request, I found a secondary source (Tommy2) that is actively used on Wikipedia, yet you refuse it on the grounds that Superchic[k] covered Lady Gaga, not BarlowGirl. I say again that the BarlowGirl and Superchick live tour has two artists partnering together for one main event. Again, BarlowGirl put its name on an event where songs from the Black Eyed Peas, Lady Gaga and the Beatles were performed. If it had any issue that covering such artists would go against Jesus Christ, it would have been brought up, but it was allowed to pass instead. This is how it started, subtly and in a small manner, before growing to what it is today. I will not keep repeating myself. The fact that you want me banned permanently, and not temporarily on a longer period of time than ever before, speaks volumes about you. I wonder if you are a fan boy and/or part of the paid deal. The original edit I made was on August 7, 2016. It was not disputed until the paid contributor intervened on November 2, 2016. I refuse a permanent ban because it is an undue burden that will not only censor my ability to talk about BarlowGirl, but also risk growing into further censorship and instead give priority to paid contributors funded by the subject of this article. --LABcrabs (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
In addition to my three-month break from the topic, I also suggest that someone would educate me on the matter of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, if need be. I'm reading Synth and I notice that my edits now show little to no Synth. The examples shown seem to blame the UN for the 160 wars and push that Jones is not a plagiarist. What my edit presents is that a) some Christians, but not all, agree with Lauren and b) the indisputable fact that Lauren Barlow's modesty standards have changed over time. It was women like Lady Gaga that Lauren Barlow referred to as immodestly dressed. There is no dispute about that. There is also no dispute about the "mixed reception" Gaga has among those who profess Christ. If someone wants to discuss with me on separate pages like Talk pages, that's fine with me. --LABcrabs (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
You have not been following on that band's talk page. I and the other four editors do dispute your claims and most have stated SYNTH. I'm not sure how you can't understand that what you're doing is combining "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". That's the basis of synth. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I am willing to take a leave for the rest of this year (2017) on English Wikipedia as far as editing the BarlowGirl article, the band's albums, its singles and tours. I have no obligation to take a leave, but I volunteer to do so for the stated time. I am not open to any other proposals that concern a topic ban. If my proposal is rejected, it is cancelled. --LABcrabs (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Not enough and not until you recognize how your edits are not appropriate based on SYNTH. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support a topic ban. Whether you're open to it or not isn't the issue. Until you are willing to edit the article within Wikipedia policy, you should not be able to edit the article (or the talk page). (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment: As stated, I now withdraw any and all temporary break proposals. Further, I suspect foul play on Walter and others seeking to ban me. Show me the exact policy on Wikipedia that prevents me from sharing the fact that BarlowGirl (BG) endorses Lady Gaga. All of this "Wikipedia policy" excuse seems like nothing more than BarlowGirl's PR department trying to do damage control. Walter Görlitz is a biased pro-BG editor, and so is Royalbroil. I've contributed lots to Wikipedia, including many edits to BG's Home for Christmas. I will be making an unlisted video soon on this page because none of you seem to be concerned about the situation. My understanding is that Walter, Royalbroil, the paid IP ( and others are mocking and gaslighting this situation, acting as if BG did not change and being ignorant of the facts. I've messaged the individual behind the paid IP outside of Wikipedia, by the way, long before those two edits on November 2, 2016. Though I hesitate, I can present messages if need be. I believe that this situation as a whole needs to be examined. To simply impose a ban on me is to be ignorant of this situation. --LABcrabs (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
      • WP:NOR is the policy you're looking for. For one musician to comment favourably about another singer does not in any way imply "endorsing" that singer. What you mean by "endorsing" is that you mean that they believe that that person's lifestyle and opinions coincide with the other person's. As for your crusade, make all the videos you want. If you think I'm doing what I'm doing because I am pro BarlowGirl, you're mistaken. I am pro-Wikipedia and we have rules that govern what can be said on the project. I think it's time an admin actually comments on this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I've blocked True Tech Talk Time as an illegitimate alternative account.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you Bbb23. Are there any admins who are concerned about LABcrabs' use of sources and whether it meets the criteria of SYNTH? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Unauthorized bot job, unresponsive operator[edit]

Resolved: Operator states they have disabled the automated editing tool being used.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk · contribs) seems to be running an unapproved bot job on their main account [157]. The code they are running is not compliant with WP:COSMETICBOT, and the operator has continued running the bot for 5 minutes now since my second comment on their talk page - 12 minutes since my first comment - so it appears they are not actively monitoring the bot [158]. I'd like to request a brief block until the bot code is disabled for repair and for moving to a proper bot account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The edits appear perfectly fine to me. It's replacing [[Foo|Foo]] with [[Foo]], which is an approved task on Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia/List of errors (in all cases, per the legend at the top). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
It's only approved when a more significant edit is made at the same time. This is why it is listed as "cosmetic" in the table at [159]. The lists marked that way can only be done when a more significant edit is performed at the same time, per WP:COSMETICBOT. Moreover, the user is running the bot job on their main account, which is an independent issue. There is still no response from the operator at this point... — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Aha. My misreading of that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That CheckWiki list is definitely not "uncontroversial" or "approved", despite its WP:OWNers unilaterally declaring it to be so. We have a nice shiny recent Arbcom ruling to that effect. ‑ Iridescent 20:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe:, The issue isn't about the edit quality its that they are marked as largely cosmetic, and that it was atuomated edits (which would need a bot flag.)

The relevant tool has been disabled and deleted.

However I will be asking an administrator to disable this account, because owing to the concerns of the original poster. I've effectively lost the trust of the community.

Goodbye. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

In summary, I apologise to the contributor that started this ANI report, and the entire Wikipedia community for :

1. The tool-assisted edits, with respect to "WPCleaner" and CheckWiki listed errors. 2. A failue to make myself away of the ARBCOM ruling/decision. It is said in legal matters that ignorance of the law is no defence to an action. 3. That a timely response was not made in relation to the contriutors concern on seeing what they in good faith they had no other reason to think of as anything but a Bot, which under established rules I have also failed to make myself fully aware of, would appear to need a seperate approval.

All three of these by themselves would be regrettable, but to combine them is clearly not the standard of conduct the community expects, especially from a long term contributor. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00, did you learn? Will you do it again? If you learned from it and you won't do it again, move on and continue editing. ~ GB fan 20:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Certainly, but I don't think it would be appropriate for a couple of weeks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
What I meant to say was, I certainly learnt from it, I definitely WILL NOT do it again, (i.e running a bot like WPCleaner in automated mode), and that I will try and wait for the consensus about so termed cosmetic edits to stabalise. I'm still convinced it may not be appropriate for me to resume 'normal' editing for a bit.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps request permission to do it? It seems like a useful thing to me. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Isn't there at least one other bot that does Foo|Foo -> Foo? I recall seeing such edits in my watchlist articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: The editor who was making such edits is currently under sanction by ArbCom not to make any cosmetic-only edits as a result of repeated bot policy violations, which is why you likely haven't seen such trivial edits recently. Such edits have been extremely controversial in the past when (semi-)automated, and they're currently against policy. ~ Rob13Talk 20:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I was aware of that case, but didn't realize that the foo|foo->foo edits were theirs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00 I support the task and I would like to see more editors doing it. You re doing a great job. If more editors do this then the argument that this is a bot-like task will resolve. Moreover, no strong arguments against it ever presented. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Amazing you managed to be banned from doing something that had 'no strong arguments against it'. Its almost as if you are talking complete rubbish. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Only in death does duty end Yes, it really amazing because the main argument was not against the edits themselves but about the magnitude. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no policy against these edits. Moreover, Carl intentionally makes wikisyntax harder which may discourage newcomers from editing. RU Rob works as a sidekick to Carl to this mission that forces people to leave Wikipedia. This is subjective and nothing to do with intentions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken Anything can change with consensus. It seems people are reforming a consensus to perform similar edits in practice. No strong arguments against these eits was presented. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Yourself and SFan does not constitute "a consensus", given that virtually every other person who has commented considers your conduct disruptive. If you really still feel you have the right to make up your own policies as you go along and were only sanctioned on a technicality, ARCA is thataways. ‑ Iridescent 16:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Iridescent on this, I don't agree with the view that the contributor is trying to present. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Iridescent ther are more editors fixing those. There are also editors intentionally making wikisyntax harder. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

User:JJMC89 bot[edit]

The JJMC89 bot is malfunctioning and wrongly deleting Fair Use graphics files for which a valid Fair Use Rationale has been provided. This in turn triggers another bot to nominate them for Speedy Deletion as "orphans." The bot operator has been notified but claims that nothing is wrong with his bot and refuses to shut it down. This is a massive problem in the making and fast Administrative action is called for. Carrite (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

See User talk:JJMC89 for evidence that multiple users are being affected and complaining about this, with some sort of ham-handed case-by-case "fixing" touted as the solution for a defective bot design that is creating automated chaos — I have five affected files so far myself, alone. Carrite (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The problem seems to be that, per WP:FUR, "The name of the article the image is used in must be included in the rationale". This is being interpreted by the bot (and, I think, by most humans working with WP:NFCC) to mean the specific article name must be linked in the FUR. In most of these cases, the uploader has either included the article name in the FUR (but not linked as an article), or there is a typo in the article link, or the linked page is a redirect to the correct article, rather than the article itself. There is some confusion that maybe the bot is insisting that a template be used, but it does not look like that's the problem, it's the lack of a precise article link. This is easily parsed and fixed by a human, but this bot is having trouble.
It seems suboptimal to automatically remove the image from the article; for such a common error, a less drastic solution is warranted. Particularly since a separate bot efficiently tags NFCC images not used in articles for deletion, meaining a simply typo/unlinked article can result in removal of the image from the article and it's subsequent deletion. Perhaps a better solution is to list images (1) tagged as Fair Use AND (2) used in an article BUT (3) without that article linked in the FUR somewhere, and have a human review and fix the easy ones. Or improve the parsing skills of the bot to figure out when there's a minor error and have it fail more gracefully. It would certainly cause less heartburn for uploaders, and therefore for the bot owner too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam: The bot doesn't only check for links, it still detects the FUR even if it isn't linked, as long as the text on the image page uses the same title as the article it is being used on. Pppery 23:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, note that the bot hasn't run in 5 hours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
There is an auto-generated link to the article in which the fair use file is being used on the same rights page! Why should it be necessary to duplicate an auto-generated file (which satisfies the requirement that linkage be made)? Carrite (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
(not necessarily defending this, just explaining) Since it's auto-generated, it would be there whether or not there was an FUR specifically for that article. The bot appears to be trying to find files marked as fair use, but without an adequate rationale (one requirement of which appears to be a link to the article in the FUR itself). --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Given that its most recent tagging before its last run stopped was yet another questionable tagging (this one was arguably justifiable but at the very least warranted discussion, and I very much doubt the image in question is even copyrightable in the first place), I've indeffed the bot. This is explicitly "indefinite not infinite", and I authorize anyone to unblock once JJMC89 has fixed the problem. ‑ Iridescent 22:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Undoing the damage Given that this bot marked about 77 images as non-fair use as shown here, the changes need to be reversed. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 23:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The bot hadn't edited in ~8 hours when it was blocked, and there is a way to disable individual tasks on its userpage; therefore, the block was unnecessary. That aside, I have yet to see an edit that wasn't correct at the time of the edit. The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline.WP:NFCC#10c For all of the edits presented on my talk page dealing with image removal, the file description page did not have a link to the article or contain the title (name) of the article in the wikitext. For Iridescent's example, a bot cannot tell if an image is incorrectly tagged as non-free. Carrite, the image usage links cannot satisfy WP:NFCC#10c since they are not part of the FUR (and would make its wording to require the name or link unnecessary). — JJMC89(T·C) 02:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

While you are correct that the name of the article needs to be in the rationale, the bot should be aware of "close matches" which a human editor would clearly recognize as something that could be easily fixed; this is something we expected of BetaCommand's bots in the past. The combination of outright image remove and not having this close match is problematic. If the bot only warned about the rational and then removed after 7 days, that's fine. --MASEM (t) 04:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
When I was running a bot to enforce this, the standard I used was that the image had to mention the name of the article (I think I made this case-insensitive), or that it had to link to the article, or that a link on the image page could be used to reach the article through some combination of redirects and disambiguation pages. --Carnildo (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Block review[edit]

  • Was there really a need to block the bot as a whole? If you visit the bot's userpage, you would see that you can edit one page to disable that function. SQLQuery me! 02:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
    • The bot's userpage isn't really that clear, and takes a while to decode what you're supposed to do. I can see why Iri would shut off the bot, using the big button specifically inviting him to do so if the bot was causing problems. Still, since JJMC89 has disabled that task (see here, and to be super safe I double-disabled it (see here), I've unblocked the bot so it can do its other non-controversial tasks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Oh, yeah. Hey Iri, you were pretty clear above you were cool with an unblock if the issue was resolved, but a classier admin than me would have courtesy pinged you that they'd unblocked anyway. Always striving to be classier, I'll do that now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Stay classy, AN/I  ;) — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 17:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The first block of text on that page says "Administrators: if this bot is malfunctioning or causing harm, please block it." and links the block rather than link to any one page, like other bots. It certainly isn't clear that there is any other way to stop the bot at first glance. Dennis Brown - 17:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
    Well, unless you read the next few lines down, yeah - fair point. SQLQuery me! 04:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Greg Gianforte page[edit]

Editnotice added; three users blocked for edit warring. El_C 18:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Many editors engaging in an edit war, due to breaking news on a political candidate the day before an election. I don't know what the correct action is, but the page needs some protection/involvement from an admin. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

See also WP:ANEW#User:Amberwaves reported by User:Gamesmasterg9 (Result: ) Three editors are duking it out; they need a cool-down block. — JFG talk 03:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Module talk:Webarchive[edit]

This Lua module is used in over 160k articles. Reverts and changes have significant impact on the backlink databases etc.. a user wants to make a change but that change does not have consensus. I've repeatedly asked this user to get consensus before they make the change but they are edit warring. I need help/intervention. Can we please: 1. Restore the template to its original state before the edit war began and 2. Ask this user to get consensus before they make any further changes to the Module. I'm asking ANI for help due to the impact this edit war is having across 160k articles. It's also a case of template editor right abuse, "avoid making unilateral decisions, and instead propose the change on the template's talk page, and then make the change if there are no objections". Thank you. -- GreenC 14:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

No time to dig into this in detail, but one thing jumps out: I think we treat the template-editor right more like an admin wheel warring, and less like an editor edit warring, don't we? i.e. reverting again is taken much more seriously, and BRD is more tightly observed than in normal editing, and consequences are more severe. So thanks, GreenC, for not reverting back, and @Codename Lisa:, you need to revert yourself and discuss further, or you're likely to have the template editor right taken away.
That said, as NYB likes to say, this minor question about wording (using "the" or not, and "on" vs. "at"), is probably not on the list of top 200 issues currently affecting Wikipedia, so let's all try to not get too snarky and annoyed. Just be patient, spend the extra 5 minutes discussing, and resolve it like peers, instead of opponents. Unless there is some previous history between you two, which I do not need to know about... --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, hello, everyone.

Isn't the pot calling kettle black? I myself intended to report Green Cardamom here for Template Editor right abuse, but considered it too hostile.

Basically, he was not allowed to revert me in the first place, because this revert is a violation of the reverting policy: He seems to have no objection to contribution itself; as such it is a disruptive edit. His only ground for reversion is:

"a user wants to make a change but that change does not have consensus."

Untrue. As we all know, Manual of Style and other guidelines are considered community-wide consensus. When I told him that, he replied that "it's not hard policy". Alright. That's true. I am enforcing a not-hard-policy. Is my contribution a violation of something stronger than not-hard-policy?

"It's also a case of template editor right abuse." Right back at you. According to Wikipedia:Template editor § No discussion, I can perform this specific change without discussing it first. But Template Editors are specifically forbidden from taking advantage of their editing privilege to subvert the community consensus just because they like it! (That's what GC is doing.)

Look here, people. When I came to Wikipedia, I made it my top priority to clearly communicate my dispute concern on the first message, and if the mistake was my assessment of the situation, give up. To err is human. But the way I see it, GC wrongly assessed the situation (mistook a consensus requirement for a discussion requirement) but is now refusing to admit to that mistake.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to give everyone a notice: A self-revert has been effected. Well, I still think I am right, but since two administrators asked, I think I must oblige them. No, it was not a direct order, but failing to oblige two admins, no less, needs to an extremely good reason. (No, I am not flattering. Example of a good reason is: When an admin edits an article and adds an incorrect unreferenced sentence when the correct well-referenced version is two sentences further down the paragraph.) —Codename Lisa (talk) 09:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • This should be handled on the talk page. For the record, I agree with Floq that warring via templates is a much higher issue than simple edit warring and closer to when admin are guilty of wheel warring, as TE is indeed an advanced bit. That means we are quick to strip the template editor bit from someone who wars without a long discussion. I don't know who is right or wrong, don't really care since that is for the talk page, but you both need to be careful to keep the bit. Dennis Brown - 15:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Floquenbeam and Dennis Brown both mentioned wheel-warring, but only one side of it. Wheel-warring is a two-edged sword that cuts both ways: An admin never counter-acts another admin's action without talking to him first. (Dennis Brown specially observed this proviso in regard to me in 2012.) In this context, not only the counter-revert by Codename Lisa was wrong, the initial revert by Green Cardamom was also wrong. The correct procedure for editing high-use template is either Discuss→Edit or Edit→Discuss→Decide. Both involved parties here must take care that: (1) Wrong does not justify another wrong. (2) Any actor is responsible (at least partly) for the repercussions of his/her own actions, including provokation or entrapment. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 17:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    • That's a valid comparison. With higher privilege bits comes the higher expectations of conduct and accountability. Hopefully we won't have to revisit this. Dennis Brown - 17:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
      • It is my hope. I've attempted to reboot the communication to focus only on the contribution as opposed to the contributors. Let's see what happens. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
        • You hear that, Green Cardamom? To sum things up, both of you misused the tool, but Codename Lisa has taken steps to remedy her misconduct. You are expected to do the same. Also, you may not consider her self-revert as a sign of your revert being justified or a nod to future wheel-warring with other TEs. You TEs must behave much better than stubborn school children. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 23:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
          • The funniest thing has happened: Ever since I rebooted the discussion, accepting the burden of being wrong in process, promising a compromise and a discussion only on the contribution, Green Cardamom has stopped appearing in the discussion altogether. The reboot took place on 26 May 2017 13:51 UTC. Right now, it is 28 May 2017 10:39 UTC. Three hours and twelve minutes from now, it will be forty-eight hours. How am I supposed to interpret this? —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
            • That's easy: His contribution log has not logged any changes since that date either. But of course, unless you haven't heard of the word "weekend", you mustn't be surprised. Wait until 30 May 2017 13:00 UTC, when we can be sure that the weekend is over, or until his contribution log shows a significant number of additional contributions, whichever came sooner. If nothing happened, come here. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 11:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Dennis Brown and Floquenbeam: WP:WHEEL is referenced in the last sentence of WP:Template editor#Editing disputes. It could probably be more prominent and more direct: "Edit warring on a template-edit-protected page constitutes a wheel war, which may result in immediate removal of the template editor user right". WP:TPEREVOKE says similar (why are there two sections on the same material?). I might start a discussion there or possibly make a bold edit. --Izno (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Sounds good. Both editors here seem to be good editors, but yes, it might be good if that was bolded a bit more. Dennis Brown - 19:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
      • @Izno: Why do you think this is a discrepancy? To me, it seems a deliberate act of excluding wheel-warring from grounds for revocation. Sure, people in this discussion seem to think strongly about it, but the rest of the community might not. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 23:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
        • @FleetCommand: I'm not sure what you mean you ask Why do you think this is a discrepancy?, since I did not say I thought it to be a discrepancy. It is clear to me the intent of the one section is mirrored in the other, in fact, so much so that they should probably be in the same section rather than in different sections. --Izno (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Page protection for one year[edit]

Consensus is clearly to keep the pages protected. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

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

I am away from active editing for long and may not be aware of the exact policy guidelines. I have come to know somehow that a page has been protected for one year:

I am simply amazed at such a long protection for such a simple page whereas issues appear to be not very serious. In my opinion, protecting a page for one year is simply an insult to the collective wisdom of Wikipedia editors.

I would request for comments and the way to un-protect the page so that the content of the article does not remain static and interested editors are allowed to improve the content/ modify the content to reflect more accurate content suitable for Wikipedia which is essentially an encyclopedia. --Bhadani (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the summary by the protecting admin (User:Primefac)—"will reduce once the issue is sorted"? Deor (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, quite. And semi-protection was tried, only for an autoconfirmed editor to immediately continue the edit war. Article content remaining static is preferable to a bunch of edit-warriors fighting it out. Black Kite (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
User:Bhadani, please remember the orange banner at the top of the edit window which tells you to notify the person whose actions you are discussing at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I just did it. --Bhadani (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Deor hit the nail on the head as far as protection goes; an AC vandal hit the page right after I had semi-protected it. The length was simply because of the already massive protection log - I didn't feel indef was necessary but a good length of time clearly was in order. In retrospect, EC protection might be sufficient, and I'm okay with it being dropped to that. Definitely not back down to semi, though. Primefac (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep protected -- I've observed the edit warring in question, and IMO the article should stay protected for the foreseeable future. Similar sentiment has been expressed on the article's Talk page recently. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep protected It looks like Bhadani has not taken the time to familiarize himself with the issues related to this page. The IPs that have been edit-warring to reinstate a promotional, NPOV version of the article have an IDHT mentality and resort to making empty threats and calling others "trolls." They're not going to get it and we don't need to give them an opportunity to wreak more havoc. In my opinion, opening this thread is simply an insult to the collective efforts of Wikipedia editors who have dealt with these disruptive IPs. Lepricavark (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep protected The edit warring was completely out of hand, with IPs and new editors and even a paid person (Lingveno, paid by Kabir Singh) jumping in. Chisme (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Lingveno had, as far as I am aware, made a full disclosure about his payment per WP:PAID. He was also one of the few willing to use the talk page rather than edit warring all over the place. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep protected - Too much edit warring by NPOV IPs, throwaway accounts and socks. Bhadani may want to familiarize himself with whats been happening before requesting that protection be lowered or removed. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I thank everyone for the comments and elaborating the issue. I may add that imputing that I am making 'an insult to the collective efforts of Wikipedia editors who have dealt with these disruptive IPs' is not correct. I feel light after reading the comments and also understand that background of the issue. However, I still have a little doubt as regards the manner in facilitating the editors interested in "correct content" during the protection continues in force. Anyway, thanks again for neutralizing most of my doubts. --Bhadani (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
It may not be correct, but perhaps you should revisit your own comment that I was parroting back at you. Making statements such as the one you made in your original post without knowing the context is not helpful. Lepricavark (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I remember my comments well. I know that it was not necessary on my part. Let us forget and move forward. --Bhadani (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep protected - Per {{Edit fully-protected}}. If an edit is worthy of inclusion the edit request process can be used. - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep protected per above. Too much COI and noise going, no other way to control the situation. Dennis Brown - 14:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse protection but modify to indef semi. We should strive to avoid adding to this list. All of the actual promotional editing is being done by IPs from the looks of the recent history. The confirmed editor who inadvertently restored a copyvio version of the article appears to have done so in good faith. If semi is ineffective then PC should be tried. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • PCR comment I haven't worked this page but I did see the fighting. After a week of full, the throwaway EW autoconfrimed accounts can be prevented by 30/500ing for a month, then prehaps a 6 month PP1 with similar SEMI at the same time. Per WP:30500: cases where SEMI has proven to be ineffective, admins may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (such as vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 17:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Indefinite one-way AfD proposal and argument ban[edit]

The two parties have come to a voluntary understanding with each other, and there seems to be no need for admin action at this time. Neutralitytalk 00:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

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

I propose to prevent Montanabw from proposing or making arguments for AfD on articles I create. I find the behavior of this editor to be unacceptable. For starters he has accused me of being a paid editor and is relentless in forcing me to answer; see User talk:RonSigPi#Your challenges to AfD. Since I don't owe him or her any answer, but I think it will be reasonably asked here, this is my only account, I have never had a conflict of interest, and I am not being paid to edit. Been on here for almost a decade and never been asked anything like this before. I proposed a reasonable solution - basically stay out of each others way for a while and re-evaluate after a set time - and that was ignored while the aggressive questioning continued. Further, this editor has been defaming my name in public and open discussions; see Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#WP:NHORSERACING where I was told I was simply gaming the system and see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Horse racing#WP:NHORSERACING where I was accused of misstating and misleading the guidelines. Note in this instance I clearly just quoted what is actually said and other editors had already said that I raised a good point. Maybe this editor does not think its a good point, but to attack me in this way when clearly other editors think its reasonable furthers the definition. Also in these sections, this editor has basically said they will personally be evaluating all my articles. I know no reason why I need such an escort. The vast majority of articles I write have been reviewed and are not subject to AfD. In the last six or so months only about six of those articles I created have been up for deletion (our of dozens created)- four of them by this editor. Of the other two, one of them when new facts were made clear I retracted the keep and even agreed that it should be deleted. Its not as if other editors are constantly finding the articles I create so necessary for deletion.

Virtually all the articles I create meet WP:NSPORT. Some are ultimately found to be not notable, but the vast majority has stood over time. Its not as if the articles I create have no basis - virtually all meet the presumption of notability and virtually all have multiple sources cited. While some may question if those sources are WP:ROUTINE, that a question raised throughout wikipedia, not an issue isolated to me.

In short, it seems this editor has a vendetta against me. While they cite articles that they do not put up for AfD, they still question their validity. Furthermore, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Fryar (2nd nomination), they established WP:NRODEO. That article's subject met the guideline, but then the editor vigorously argued for its deletion. So an editor establishes a guideline and then when a certain editor (me) makes articles that meet that guideline that same editor argues vigorously for its deletion. Outside of that making the guideline pretty useless, it shows they are treating me differently than they intend for all other editors to be treated. This is not an isolated incident (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Bain - notice others say keep, so its not like I am crazy here).

I do not need his or her personal approval to make edits and do not need him or her watching over what I do. The proper solution is to prevent this editor for proposing or making arguments for AfD on articles I create. I see no other solution they will agree with. I have tried hashing this out on my talk page (where he/she initiated discussion), but it only escalated. If I follow guidelines creating articles, but have to constantly worry about meeting an editor's personal standard that has made harsh accusations in this community against me and has said they will continue to monitor me personally, then why would I continue? I think from what has been shown this is the only reasonable solution. RonSigPi (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Response: I never heard of this editor (as far as I can remember) prior to finding that he had created a number of non-notable stubs of very poor quality, first on some rodeo topics and now at horse racing. So no "vendetta." His own talkpage indicates that he creates an awful lot of articles that get deleted, (in contrast, I think I've had one or two out of 250+ over 11 years) and his speed at creating all of these and then gaming the guidelines and doubling down did smack of a paid editor. Those who haunt AfD know that I am more often viewed as an inclusionist than a deletionist (pinging DGG, who can speak to this), so when I do AfD an article, I really do think it's scraping the bottom of the barrel. I only noticed the articles that popped up in areas where I already am active, the equine and horse racing projects. But I noticed at WT:NSPORTS that he self-admitted to creating a bunch of marginally notable articles on golfers, and per WP:BOOMERANG perhaps the person who needs to slow down here is the filer. I shall provide some examples in a moment. Montanabw(talk) 00:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Example of a recent AfD I was not involved in. Indicative of recent "doubling down" behavior. I have no issues if this editor does a WP:HEY and saves an article. But the Fryar AfD was a very good example of an article where the editor refused to improve the article he created. I note on his talkpage that he has, in the past, worked to improve some articles and thus saved them. Well worth doing, IMHO. Montanabw(talk) 00:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
      • That is actually the article I referred to where I had a strong position, was given new information, and promptly changed my stance. In my mind that is a good thing - listening to new information and changing a position when that new information is substantial. RonSigPi (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Here, the editor first says "I never heard of this editor." But here Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#WP:NHORSERACING they say "It's crystal clear and this individual is gaming the system with stub creation across multiple topics, including horse racing, rodeo, golf, and, I believe, Boxing." So they have never heard of me, but know my track record for article creation over four different projects? Outside of Félix Verdejo, I don't think I have made a boxing edit in months, so they have either never heard of me or they have been tracking my edits for months. RonSigPi (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
      • I don't know that I've ever encountered either of you, but I can see that the editor may have overstated the case and is not aware of you despite having accused you of "gaming the system". Frequent editors encounter a lot of editors, and if they're like me, don't remember all of them. I'm sure that you will be remembered going forward. And also for the record, there are two opinions about notability guidelines: one is that they don't need to be subservient to GNG, and the other (which most experienced editors espouse) is that they are. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
        • I sincerely thank you for your comment. I think someone taking a balanced and step-back approach is always welcome. To me this highlights my concern and my frustration with what has occurred. Reasonable minds can differ and do differ on the guidelines and how they should be used. I even tried saying as much on my talk page. However, I was told that my position, which is to write articles whole subjects meet the guidelines, is a waste of the communities time, me attempting to game the system, etc. Worse yet, when I point out an error/point of confusion in the guidelines, as I did in the horse racing guidelines, I get the most venomous attacks - even when other editors agree the guidelines are not clear enough. There are two sides to every argument and two sides to the notability guidelines, but to me falling on one side should not cause defamation and the like from the other side. Of course I have made this point probably too many times and will just reach editors defending character and not addressing what was said. I do thank you for not only taking a balanced approach to both of us, but for fairly trying to look at what occurred and not personal defense. This is not in any way intended an underhanded comment to montanabw, I appreciate your fair analysis. RonSigPi (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose strongly. montanabw is a great editor and not at all prone to automatic AFDs. The user in question creates articles of highly dubious quality and notability, which creates work for other editors in either getting them worthy of wiki or wastes their time reviewing for AFD. May I suggest the user stop wasting time on horses that don't have a major grade I win to their name? For example, look at Jockey Club Gold Cup, one of the most important races in America, and find the redlinks. The Woodward, Travers, Breeders' Cup Sprint, Kentucky Oaks are other race with several redlinks. Note that finding an article on the horse in the BloodHorse does not satisfy notability - they write articles on literally every graded stakes race and a whole of ungraded ones in North America. Jlvsclrk (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Same could be said of wasting times of editors to defend articles that clearly meet guidelines established by the community to presume notability - especially so with WP:NRODEO where the editor in question wrote the guideline. Also, I don't think someone being a "great editor" is relevant. Someone can be a great father, but still do something they shouldn't. Some people can be a great employee, but still run into a problem with human resources. Montanabw may be a great editor and under WP:GOODFAITH I will believe you. S/he certainly is dedicated considering the overall number of edits and time served. But that does not change that his/her conduct in this instance has been unacceptable. Has nothing to do with him or her being a great editor, but to clearly making personal attacks, harsh accusations (and using the decision to not defend against unreasonable accusation as proof of their validity), and defamation of character. User:RonSigPi (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - Insufficient evidence, highly overstated case. Montanabw is a valued editor, and as such it should take a lot more than this to sanction her, even grated that any of this is justified, which I don't believe it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment: If anyone wants to review my AfD hits, here you go. I'm clearly someone who leans inclusionist and most of the time that I'm "wrong" it's that I err on the side of keep rather than delete. I have nominated (I think) four of this editor's prior articles for deletion prior to the current drama. Two were deleted, one was kept (and that's fine, that's why we have community consensus) and one is pending. I also reviewed two of this editor's articles (specifically Gunnevera and Afleet Again and determined that, though of poor quality, they meet WP:GNG as well as WP:NHORSERACING and, in fact, this editor's talkpage will show that I thanked him for creating one and offered suggestions for improvement. As a veteran of AfD, I know that stubs with inadequate sourcing are vulnerable targets at AfD and that the article creator, familiar with the subject, is often the best person to do the WP:HEY work to salvage them. (as opposed to dumping the work on others) So, with that, perhaps an admin could kindly assess this filing before it begins to generate more heat than light? Montanabw(talk) 02:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Both editors here a long time, and should try harder to get along. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - BMK hit the nail on the head. Let our seasoned, productive editors go about their business unmolested. - Bri (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Question Honest question. I mean this sincerely. I want to know how I am supposed to resolve this. Montanabw asserted that s/he wrote WP:NRODEO. They wrote that an appearance in the National Finals Rodeo confers a presumption of notability. I wrote an article for someone that does just that. Montanabw then nominates for deletion stating that if they won then they would be notable, but not someone that just competed. They then say I am "gaming the system" to write such an article. So they make a guideline, I follow that guideline and write an article in good faith with at least some sources, they try to delete the article on the premise that the guideline they wrote is faulty, then make accusations at me gaming the system for following their guideline. Honestly, what I am supposed to do with that? RonSigPi (talk) 03:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
        • RonSigPi All of the SNGs (NSPORTS, etc) explain that they are merely guidelines to assist people who assess articles for notability; they do not supercede WP:GNG. Just because something exists that meets the bare minimum standard doesn't mean it's actually notable --even the SNGs usually say something along the lines of "most likely to be presumed notable" -- in your case, look at why Gunnevera is probably OK even though he hasn't yet won a G1 race, versus the two articles I did AfD. Gunnevera won a major GII and had a LOT of press coverage as a Derby contender whose trainer had a fascinating backstory (none of which you mention in your article though). The fillies are winners of extremely minor races and retired without any substantial press coverage or accomplishments. Montanabw(talk) 04:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
          • I 100% agree with you. They are just guidelines. Never said they overtake GNG. They don't. However, to accuse an editor of being a pay editor when they are following the guidelines, making the accusations you have made, and the aggressive nature you have taken with me is not just generally unacceptable, but all the more so considering it is clear I am following established guidelines. Furthermore, when I find a trend (articles on horse being nominated), find a possible reason for this situation (ambiguity in the guidelines that other editors clearly agree is ambiguous), and make neutral suggestion that it be fixed, you attack not just the articles I create, but the overall edits I made (even if the rodeo argument is fair, boxing was just brought in by you). You are confusing the substantive points you are making and how you are handling yourself. From a policy and guidelines standpoint, nothing you are saying is wrong. I have agreed with you, respected your positions, and responded appropriately and accordingly. The way you are attacking me is - its not like you just politely said "Hey, you are writing a lot of marginal articles that seem to be deleted, maybe focus on more clear cut articles", but you personally attacked me and my motives. This is even more concerning when basically I was following your lead - you put out AfDs, I saw why, and asked for clarification. Having people say your a good editor is irrelevant. No one said you weren't - myself included. You have been proceeding in an unacceptable manner. Instead of arguing the righteousness of your actions that have never been in dispute, address how you have acted in accordance with WP:GF and WP:CIV. That has always been the issue here, not if you are right, but the nature of your conduct. RonSigPi (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Just to be clear, my question has nothing to do with articles being deleted. Sometimes we create articles that don't meet GNG, but meet a SNG and they get deleted. So be it. I accept that. I think only once have I substantively challenged a deletion decision. My question is when I follow a guideline in good faith and then not only have the article removed, but then am told I am gaming the system (and basically taking away any good faith you should show towards me), misstating the guidelines, and causing problems through multiple projects (all of which have had their guidelines followed by me) how am I supposed to proceed? Again, its not that the articles get deleted, but I get attacked and accused in response to following the guideline. RonSigPi (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
      • I understand what you are saying. It hasn't been so much your writing dozens of stubs on minimally-notable topics so much as your tendentious doubling-down when they were AfD nominated -- and when challenged, you just kept arguing the minimal standard instead of making the case for the subject. It is much better to try and go in to find the sources that you can at least list at the AfD discussion. Ideally, where a person has time, it's even better expand the actual articles to meet the WP:HEY guideline that demonstrates notability. But most of us don't have that kind of time -- save for the articles we actually create ourselves. Montanabw(talk) 04:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
        • The same could be said to you. Isn't it better to go and try to find sources that have a presumption of meeting GNG than to just AfD? There is noting wrong with responding to AfDs. I don't think this is "doubling down", but explaining why I created it. If you look at my AfD comments, even on other articles, I rarely say "meets/does not meet ""WP:SNG" - I always try to give a reason. If I continuously contested AfD decisions, then you could say I was doubling down and being disruptive. Explaining why I created an article is just plain helpful - lets editors understand why it was create and the basis for that. Its ok if I am not found correct, but I am allowed to comment. And for what its worth, I think its far more important to AfD articles that clearly don't meet GNG (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dougie Gair - I admitted I was wrong) than going after a bunch of articles that at least meet the community guidelines. Better yet, I would rather you write the articles for the redlink Kentucky Oaks winners than AfD marginal articles. Would rather have the notable with the marginally notable than be missing the notable, but make sure we clear out the marginally notable. RonSigPi (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Although this flareup has escalated due to the disagreement of the AfD nominated of questionable articles the best case would be for all to a couple steps back and maybe look at the reasoning and have a plan of action for improvement rather than finger pointing and unnecessary accusations. The OP has IMHO taken guidance of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing/Notability#Criteria strongly supporting notability

2. Individuals who have won multiple significant Grade/Group 2 or 3 graded stakes races or the equivalent level in their respective nations

and created articles of stub quality. It is true that under (2.) the articles have a qualified if significant could be qualified. But there has been an active response from those in the Horse racing Project by those who actively contribute to the project that the articles be deleted. This is where the uproar began. The OP did make a significant effort to have his contribution verifiable references. The article on Heart Ashley had five references. So there was some research done to prop up the article so that it would test its inclusion. However, even with the references, inclusion of the article is doubtful. Even with the escalation of this fiery debate it has not changed my mind about continuing with the AfD of the articles including Title Contender who won two GIII Derbys in 2013 and is now an equestrian show jumper. This leads us back to the Horse racing Project that we tweak the notability inclusion so its more definitive so that we don't get into these time consuming debates. I would also ask that the OP joint the Horse racing Project which he has admitted he is not part of and contribute positively. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 13:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose It is not on you to unilaterally decide whether your articles are notable. If in question, it is on the community via the AfD process. And it appears that in most of these cases, the consensus does indeed agree with her, as it does here. Therefore, your proposal that this highly established editor be sanctioned for some supposed wrongdoing lacks grounds. You need to be able to respect a deletion consensus even if you don't agree with it. Secondly, she didn't accuse you of being paid, having a COI. She simply saw you rapidly creating low-quality stubs of questionable notability in a specific subject area, which was a red flag that she inquired upon. She indicated that had you simply said "no", she would have dropped it. Instead, you issued a way over the top response and immediately called for her to stop nominating your articles for deletion. However, the fundamental implication that this user has it out for you in some way appears to be very false. You can't just ban users who question your behavior from interacting with you. Swarm 18:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose I commented delete on some of the articles montanabw put up for deletion. As I know rodeo, those articles, like Stephanie Frye. And the race horses. I have known montanabw's contributions for some time, and montanabw is indeed more of an inclusionist. montanabw's only concern is for Wikipedia. Montanabw is highly respected and beyond reproach. Montanabw is not the only one who has noticed questionable stubs. As for the OP saying he only created one boxing article in months Felix Verdejo, that is not true. There is an article, Eric Mitchell, created in March, that runs a fine line of being notable. If it is notable, it's just barely so. It's a stub that is a just a laundry list of fights the boxer lost, and one draw. The OP is also pushing the edges of notability in cycling. These two racers are "notable" if they have competed in a UCI World Tour according to NSports. In this case, the 2017 Milan–San Remo race. Well one rider came in 190th place, and one came in 192th place. Only one race is mentioned for each. Obviously, we don't want all these cyclists in Wiki (and that's just one race out of many per year). Rik van IJzendoorn and Umberto Poli (cyclist). And although these two aren't quite stubs because they have an infobox, there are only a few sentences of content. It smacks of the same issue in NSports as qualifying for the National Finals Rodeo in rodeo. Wikipedia is not meant to hold an article for every qualifier at the NFR. And I doubt we want 200 racers from one race in Wiki either. Montanabw is not out of line here. OP could probably make some of his stubs notable with some work, like montanabw said. dawnleelynn(talk) 20:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Retracted and Resolved Montanabw and I come to a resolution via my talk page. This request is retracted. RonSigPi (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Please don't close yet, as there might conceivably be some boomerang concerns. Sorry, RonSigPi, but having studied your talkpage, I'm a little dubious about this "resolution". Your retraction of the accusations is well and good (and rather belated), but do you think the issues are "resolved", Montanabw? And do the other people who have opposed above? If yes, then by all means let's close. Bishonen | talk 22:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC).
    • Please review: I am not 100% certain we have a full resolution, though I hope we do, based upon recent posts. My understanding is that I am agreeing not to AfD any of RonSigPi's NON-equestrian articles (though we are unclear on !voting on them if someone else noms them) and RonSigPi agrees to be more thorough and careful in creating articles, at least on equestrian topics. We are defining "equestrian" -- I think -- to include NRODEO and NHORSERACING, but what is unspoken is that NEQUESTRIAN generally probably is included. On racehorses, he can discuss at WikiProject horse racing if he has inquiries about notability. If that's the deal, we're good. Montanabw(talk) 01:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Presume Resolved: We have an understanding, request admin review and close with no need for further action as the parties have reached a meeting of the minds. Montanabw(talk) 00:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Living actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood - repeated disruptive editing from multiple IPs[edit]

Has been going on for past two days - List of living actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood. Edits originate from and an IP range at 2601:584:4500:2AE0. WP policies have been referenced in edit summaries & multiple editors have reverted the improper additions to the list. Farolif (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Probably best handled via WP:RPP. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I had considered that to begin with, but there are valid edits coming from other IP's. Meanwhile, this sockpuppet continues to war with myself & other editors without providing sources for his new criteria (ie - extending the cutoff to 1965). Farolif (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Would be worth it in the short-term, IMO. Maybe protect for 1 week. Good IP editors can use the talkpage. Maybe it's half-term where the sock is and they're bored. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Editor doesn't care about the purpose of the footnotes[edit]

Recently, User:Rebelrick123 added in the "Championships and accomplishments" in some wrestlers biographies the accurate name of the title (specifically the WWE Championship) they held. For example, Triple H has held the championship 9 times, but his fifth and ninth reign were as Undisputed WWF Champion and WWE World Heavyweight Champion, as it is pointed out in the footnotes. From his POV, notes are not necessary if we inform what they were, and due to this he puts all the title names that wrestlers hold them in those times in parenthesis; so in this case he was Undisputed WWF/WWE World Heavyweight Champion for 9 times? Nickag989talk 09:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this requires any admin intervention at this time since it isn't about editor behavior or sourcing, etc. This seems best handled by consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling from the looks of it. Regrds. -- (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I renew my call that Wikipedia simply drop all coverage of professional wrestling, footy players, music genres, beauty pageants, and anything Ru Paul–related as just not worth the drama. EEng 14:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC) And no, I'm not actually serious about this. At least not entirely.
It's a nice thought. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Seconded, Boing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Professional Wrestling" championships are Kayfabe. If a detail is controversial, either the version provided by WWE is canonical, or it's probably a too-specifc detail of a fictional universe and not worth including. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Weird threats against Widefox[edit]

I can't quite tell what this is all about, but it looks threatening. Maybe it should be oversighted? Bri (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Got it. El_C 18:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
The personal information is available on Widefox's userpage. Good block/delete regardless. -- John Reaves 18:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
This is User:Styron111 who has been been globally banned by the Wikimedia Foundation from editing Wikimedia sites[160]. The SPI is here [161]. Yes, block and delete on sight. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Excessive nominations of Pakistani schools for AfD from User:Greenbörg[edit]

There are approximately 75 schools in Pakistan nominated for AfD today by User:Greenbörg, for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Army Public College Kakul Campus. This clogs the AfD process and is in direct opposition to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which says "Editors should not flood AFD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations."

I'm not necessarily opposed to deleting these articles, I am opposed to having this many show up on the same day in the AfD process. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Ouch. Yeah, that's clearly very excessive. High schools and colleges are generally considered to be notable, and while that's not a rule, it is, obviously, a reason not to overwhelm AfD with indiscriminate and excessive nominations of high schools and colleges with a copied and pasted generic statement. @Greenbörg:—care to offer any explanation for this? Swarm 19:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, the speed at which they're creating AfDs makes it clear that they're not actually attempting to find out whether an institution is notable, the nominations are being rapidly done via Twinkle and really are indiscriminate. Swarm 19:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    • There was clearly no attention paid to WP:BEFORE here. A couple of the subjects probably do warrant deletion. Several are demonstrably and clearly notable with a cursory search, and many (as might be expected) are going to require some examination of sources that aren't immediately evident. But regardless of the individual merits, this is a mess. I wouldn't be sad if an admin opted to procedural-close the lot of them, although I imagine someone would grumble that the 7 day timer is sacred... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I just noticed these and this is very excessive. It seems like WP:BEFORE isn't being followed and that the editor is trying to make a point. SL93 (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • A few things here: the schools RFC had other points beyond adding SCHOOLOUTCOMES to ATA. One of the points in the nutshell was to avoid flooding AfD. Another argument that the close mentioned was particularly strong for those arguing "support" was the systemic bias point (because if we're honest, most schools brought to AfD are from South Asia.) Finally, as was brought up by editors in the discussion WP:FAIT would seem to prevent actions like sending 75 Pakistani educational institutions to AfD. I'm fine with having discussions about secondary schools on a case-by-case basis, and even though I almost always end up as keep, I do consider the option for deletion in each case. Going through 75 AfDs to do this would be next to impossible and overwhelms the community's ability to process similar AfD nominations. These should be procedurally closed. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • These should be procedurally closed and the nominator admonished. A nomination spree like this would be inappropriate for any subject, but the close of the "schools" RFC specifically forbade excessive nominations and instructed those bringing articles about schools to AfD to go above and beyond BEFORE. Also, in circumstances where related articles are nominated for deletion with similar or identical rationales, the nominations should be bundled (see WP:MULTIAFD). Rebbing 23:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, this is not their first such incident. Last year they randomly moved a host of Pakistan cricket articles against convention and consensus, they were warned many times (on their talk page and at WT:CRIC) . I left a final warning on their talk page after which they stopped. But given this repetition of "mass action" behavior with alarming regularity, some sort of sanction of limiting any such activity to not more than 1-3 articles per day with a cap of 5-6 per week or something similar is needed. —SpacemanSpiff 09:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Not only excessive AfD nominations, sometimes more than one per minute, but clearly false statements about the subject institutions by claiming they are "running illegally." Quick search found at least one has Higher Education Commission of Pakistan recognition. Zero attention to WP:BEFORE, quite the opposite with demonstrably baseless misinformation. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Not only excessive AfD nominations, but Greenbörg has moved over 500 articles in the last 12 months, sometimes at a speed of up to 10 a minute - and this appears to be basically all they do on Wikipedia. A large number (I haven't checked them all), while not illegitimate, are completely unnecessary. I think this editor has a predilection for rapid, unnecessary editing. Greenbörg was grandfathered into the New Page Reviewer group; I have removed the account from that group. I will leave it to other participants in this discussion to decide what other action, if any, should be taken. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Kudpung, that was the reason I'd given a final warning in May 2016 as regards moves (in addition to the many he received prior to that), but it appears to have had no effect at all on this person's behavior. This is all nothing more than "well meaning disruption", it's still disruption and we're probably better off just preventing him from doing the same action on more than one article per week or some such thing. —SpacemanSpiff 03:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
That's why I said I'll leave the decision to the rest of the participants. Meanwhile, I've started cleaning up but to do it properly and even using the admin script, this will take two to three hours. We need help. The closing rationale I'm using for most of them is The result was keep. Procedural Keep: excessive nominations of colleges/high schools contrary to consensus. . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Could access be removed to Twinkle and any other tools that are facilitating the rapid, disruptive edits? Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think there are any ways access to Twinkle, or even moving pages can be technically limited. It could be easily possible to make the AfD and other deletion tags only accessible to accredited New Page Reviewers, but the community's insistence in October that all newbies and inexperienced users continue to be allowed access to some of the most intellectually demanding maintenance features of the site prevented any improvement. We got consensus to create a special user group to operate the New Pages Feed and its Curation Tools but of course it had no overall effect on the poor quality of New Page Patrolling by others through Twinkle. This is a classic example of why stricter controls are now required - authorised New Page Reviewers are far less likely to make errors but even the 400+ of them can't keep the backlog down. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
@SpacemanSpiff:I knew, I have done many disruptive moves violating the established policies which I was not aware of at that time. After 2 years I am a better editor than I was 2 years back. Now, I am going to remain abstain from moving pages again. I will never move a page again without discussion. Please also point out other blunders I'm doing. Greenbörg (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • There is a very apologetic message on my talk page to which I have replied:
Thank you for your candid message Greenbörg. However, I think you should stay well away from all moves and deletion process and anything that concerns the processing of new articles. I recommend you concentrate on finding sources for articles and perhaps reviewing Recent Changes and helping to combat vandalism. If you don't stop what you have been doing, there is a very strong chance that the community will take measures to limit your editing or even stop you editing altogether.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC).

Repeated vandalism of Comilla[edit]


I'm afraid there's quite a bit of vandalism going on at Comilla, List of urban areas by population and List of cities and towns in Bangladesh from anon Special:Contributions/ (now blocked) and IP neighbours and, and new accounts (NAIMUL ALAM MAZUMDER (talk · contribs) and NAIMUL ALAM MAJUMDAR (talk · contribs)). It started on 15th May or before. A dose of protection might help, or perhaps an IP range block. Batternut (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Batternut For protection you might want WP:RFPP. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 21:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, WP:RFPP request made. (Hadn't noticed WP:RFPP before). Batternut (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Incivility - *Treker[edit]

I've been debating with this user about the inclusion of a semi-related product in a media franchise's navbox. (There was no violation of 3RR on the part of either user.) We discussed it on the talk page, but ultimately came no closer to a conclusion. The first time I suggested filing for 3rd-party dispute resolution, he actually said it was "a bad idea" (later removed). When I continued discussions on the talk page, it reached a point where he got overly angry, even declaring in regards to arbitration "sure, they might side with you, not the first time bad decition has been made instead of following guidlines and logic", and choosing to ignore what he deemed "moronic and mind numbing discussions". When I notified him that I was filing for dispute resolution since we weren't getting anywhere on our own, he refused to participate, invalidating the process and leaving the situation unresolved. (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I presume you're use the term arbitration loselyloosely since this doesn't sound like the sort of dispute which is even close to needing that. Anyway I have no comment inon the incivility, however if you an editor isn't engaging in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process, you could always choose some form which doesn't require their engagement. Ultimately if they don't engage and the community agrees with you, then it doesn't matter what they've said. Nil Einne (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
So because he refused to participate in the dispute resolution, which he can do as it's voluntary, you filed an ANI? This seems like WP: Boomerang to me. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 07:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Exactly, User:WarMachineWildThing - The unregistered editor complained at DRN that the notice of the dispute had been deleted, and that the subject editor was becoming uncivil. I said that DRN is voluntary, and that incivility can be reported at WP:ANI, but first read the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree that there seems little need for this to be at ANI, but WP:Boomerang would be a little severe in this instance, surely? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Admittedly, this is more about the use of harsh language and attitude in my other examples; the refusal was for context. I was told to report the incivility here on the dispute resolution entry. I'm aware of WP:Boomerang and understand it, but I genuinely don't appreciate being yelled at and repeatedly called a moron by another user, so I was willing to accept the risk of self-incrimination. (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I looked a bit about the actual stuff you are complaining about and while I don't think a boomerang is necessary I really have no idea what you're complaining about. Firstly no one seems to have called you a moron. The closests thing is "moronic and mind numbing discussions" which seems to be referring to the discussion not you, and while it may not be the most civil comment but is never going to warrant sanction if that's the only comment. I mean heck even taken together with other comments, it's not likely to count for much. As for these comments [//, I'd be very hesitant to call personal view that "bad decition has been made instead of following guidlines and logic" as incivil. Saying youyou don't know what navboxes are for is slightly uncivil, but again not likely to count for much, especially if there's some evidence it's true (I'm not saying there is). So yes, I have no idea why this thread is here at ANI. It's not ready for a BOOMERANG although if you keep complaining you do risk it becoming one. Nil Einne (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Corrected some mistakes in my post. Nil Einne (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Here's everyhting I have to say before I go on ignoring this again.

NO, my "that's a bad thing" not "that's a bad idea" (like you said) comment was a knee jerk reaction to reading that some project allow crossover games like these on navboxes, had nothing to do with opposing third opinion. I removed it becuse I realized it would be missinterpreted, (which it was, of course) and I didn't have the energy to explain it at the time.

I'm sorry that I got angry and was uncivil but I don't regret most of what I expressed.

Navbox discussions are always mind-numbing and moronic (I didn't call you moronic or a moron) because this website has some of the most vague rules about it. I've been told repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly by other editors on this website that crossover games like that don't belong on navboxes but apperantly that's not something that everyone likes to follow. There's a really great essay that makes a lot of sense that most people seem to go by, but apperently you don't need to follow it even thought it seems to be the only logic based guideline for these damn things.

Which makes every single discussion on the subject a giant "other stuff exists" debate of annoyance that goes nowhere. On my entire time on wikipedia, NEVER has a navbox debate been seteled with anything that resembeled logic that can be followed by every other project. I still think adding the LEGO game makes no sense becuse it only mentions the franchise once in the entire article, which makes the navbox at the bottom unneeded. But you know what I don't care anymore, add it back for all I care, it's doesn't matter anymore since I've already wanted to leave the debate.

This wouldn't have happend if wikipedia had better guidlines and strickter enforcement. I've had so many of these debates recently that I feel like I'm about to be driven insane with frustration. Several time have I started up discussions and not even recived a response after I've let the other editors version be left alone. It's a "my way, my way" preference driven piece of nonsense that I'm guilty of participating in too.

By god, I just want consistency.★Trekker (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I too just wanted consistency, which is why I posed the question and wanted more insight in the first place. With you saying one thing and me seeing another, it's hard to know whose interpretation is right. I just want a definitive answer in writing so that in future instances where this debate arises, we have something to point to that will prevent the issue from becoming a whole to-do again. (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
It's unlikely you will ever get a definite answer since that's simply not how wikipedia works. A lot of times we don't have better guidelines simply because we don't want them, take a read of WP:NOT especially WP:BURO. Maybe also Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines if you have time. You should especially be aware you are not going to get someone who will rule on your dispute. Simply put policies and guidelines are supposed to reflect WP:Consensus. But it's ultimately up to the community to determine what the consensus is, and it can change anyway. Which means you should give up on expecting definitive answer for many disputes (including content ones like style and inclusion issues). Especially when you're trying to have some wide ranging intepretation which will apply to many different pages in one way or the other. While we do aim for consistency where we can, for various reasons it doesn't always happen and more significantly, there will often be disagreement about whether something is inconsistent. For example, just because it's okay to include something in one template doesn't mean it will always be okay to include it in another template even if the circumstances seem the same to you. (And for better or worse, people don't generally have to explain why they feel these two cases are different. Instead they just need a policy and guideline support explaination of why this should happen in case 1, and the other thing should happen in case 2 whenever it comes up in each individual case.) This doesn't mean there are no definitive cases. For example, if someone tries to call someone a paedophile based on flimsy evidence, that will be a definite no. Nil Einne (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Legal threats by Jdm7dv[edit]

Jdm7dv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) created Jonathan Moore (engineer) and was nominated for speedy deletion. After repeated removals and warnings, Jdm7dv posted here: "Onel5969 I ham a historical figure and my editor needs to make edits to my article this is not self promotion. One more threat and the police will be notified." I redacted the threat and warned him about legal threats, but he restored the threat. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 19:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Jdm7dv was blocked, per legal threat, and unblocked by me, when it was removed. Bears continued watching.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Botched History merge (by me)[edit]


Pamela Clemit needs to be created with its complete history, please see [162] and [163]. Help! I shouldn't try to do these things. Bishonen | talk 21:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC).

Done. —Cryptic 21:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thank you very much, Cryptic. Bishonen | talk 21:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC).

Redskins (slang)[edit]

(non-admin closure) Content dispute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

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

There is a content/NPOV dispute which I see little hope for resolving without admin input since it is between me an one other editor who uses insulting and condescending language rather that having a respectful discussion. No other editors have made any comments or suggestions after almost three weeks, perhaps because the topic of the article is of no great importance. I have spent some time editing the content, but simply to remove details that were cluttering other articles that do have significance to me.

User: Bromley86 began editing Redskins (slang) on May 7, 2017 by removing a sentence from the lead section;

Use of the term is connected to the history of bounties being paid for Indian scalps.
which was supported by the citation: Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz. "What "Redskins" Really Means: An Origin of Violence and Genocide". Beacon Press. 

There was no prior talk page comment to explain this deletion, but the edit summary was: "Insufficient support for inclusion in Lead (Body correctly says "controversial etymological claim"), and horrendously biased source (an abducted woman "murders" her captives while escaping!"

I reverted this with the edit summary This "biased source" is a PhD Historian

Later there was an exchange on the talk page:

Your opinion of the "bias" of a PhD historian as the citation for a statement on scalping in the lead section has no weight. An equally reliable published source, with an author of similar academic standing, may be used to rebut or reword to indicate the controversy, but not delete content.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually, my opinion does have weight: we should always evaluate sources. There will be plenty of qualified people who have misrepresented things, and someone who accuses a woman of murder in that situation is hardly fair and impartial. That's beside the point though. Again, why is this minor point in the Lead? Bromley86 (talk) 11:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I am frankly shocked that anyone thinks editorial discretion can be stretched to justify what is to me original research. The content dispute has continued, resulting in my posting to the NPOV noticeboard and placing a POV tag on the section in which the content on the relationship of the term "redskin" and the practice of bounty hunting has been reduced to a sentence that states that a single cited source "refutes" the alternative views supported by multiple sources (some of which have been deleted).

What needs to be addressed here is Bromley86's labeling as "obstructive" my insistence on maintaining the content from all reliable sources; and using condescending language to argue that (I am assuming gender) his point of view is the correct one and his ability to read, understand, and summarize sources is superior. For example, one of my comments was labeled "insane". I may also think such things about other editors, but I do not post them. WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Content disputes are not within the remit of this board. It would help if Y'all would leave the vitriol out, but WP:DR is the way to go here. John from Idegon (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Tenebrae WP:HOUNDING[edit]

'Boomerng' - what I see is a new editor with just over 300 mainspace edits quoting chunks of policy and guidelines at experienced editors - which is little short of Wikilawyering. This is not the way to jump into a collaborative environment, and The Kingfisher isn't going to make friends round here very quickly. He needs to grow a thicker skin. Nothing to reproach Tenebrae for; no admin action required. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

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

I had a content dispute with user:Tenebrae on the Gisele Bündchen article. Subsequently, Tenebrae followed me to three articles, Ami Horowitz, Dennis Prager, and Adam Corolla, where they have never edited before, and they made reverts on my edits in all three articles here, here, and here.

Regarding this revert in the Ami Horowitz article, Tenebrae wrote in Talk that at least three editors have reverted me and that I must achieve consensus. Ironically, and to Tenebrae's detriment, they reverted the exact edits that all the others had previously made. In Tenebrae's quest to WP:WIKIHOUNDING me, they made one revert that completely went against months of discussion, consensus, and an entire history of accepted edits. The Ami Horowitz page is high watched and no editor has been afraid to revert, and there has been an active history of discussion, but Tenebrae discounted that all.

Tenebrae should be sanctioned for obvious WIKIHOUNDING, specifically because of their long Wikipedia history. The Kingfisher (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see you've presented real evidence of wikihounding. As the page you linked to says, following editors when you have genuine concerns over their edits arising from what you've see in our article is perfectly normal and accepted. With only 3 cases, and no real evidence presented that their edits were harmful it's difficult to call it wikihounding. I don't really understand your point about going against other editors, the fact that they've gone against other editors and not just you, would seem to suggest they have genuine concerns about what they saw after they followed you due to legitimately concerns over your editing, rather than them trying to target you. Note that this doesn't necessarily mean all their edits were right. Nil Einne (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

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


Newimpartial, with your minimum experience, if you want to avoid being called to this page and risk getting blocked, I suggest that you focus on adding new content or cleaning up vandalism - you just qualify to enroll at the WP:CVUA - and leave the heavy maintenance areas to people like Legacypac and admins like DGG who know perfectly well what they are doing with user sub pages and Drafts, user names, and spam. You probably think you have been acting in good faith, most new users do, and I think you have, but the onus is on them to read the rules. People are calling for a block here, there won't be another warning. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Would someone mind imposing a WP:CIR block on User:Newimpartial? This user's repeatedly declining userspace spam tags (see User:Bubba1987/Kyle Irion, User:BucaFan3/Shy Kidx, and User:Rabbithatch/Gina Phillips), getting past the point of WP:STICK, and complaining at my talk that these aren't spam when I delete them (see [164] and [165]), and when I gave a final warning, he conveniently decided to file a DRV for Shy Kidx, which means that I can't block him. Comments by other users at his talk demonstrate that he doesn't understand how we apply multiple speedy deletion criteria. Nyttend (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I have only declined userspace spam tags on articles which were not unambiguous spam, which is the SD policy as I understand it. Userspace deletions which are ambiguous are supposed to be discussed at MfD, but a couple of users (Legacypac, who I observe has a history in this area, and DGG) have been applying SD tags over-generously to User-space and Draft articles. MY DRV was not in any way a WP:GAME - it came from my legitimate frustration at having userspace articles SDed while they are being discussed either in their Talk pages or on MfD. The editors/admins who have had issues with my behaviour all seem not to accept the WP:CONSENSUS expressed in WP:STALE about when, and how, User- and Draft- space articles are to be deleted.Newimpartial (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
For the record, only administrators can decline speedy deletion requests. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Decline, sure, but there isn't a policy against non-administrators removing the tags, is there? The tag itself only says that the creator/editor of the article can't remove it, not that it can only be touched by administrators. But I am here to learn. Newimpartial (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
That ties in with declining and falls under the same thing. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Anyone apart from the article creator can decline a speedy deletion nomination by removing the tag, not just admins. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I noticed the user at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alternative addicts and while I have not examined the situation sufficiently to know if a block is needed, the misguided attempts to impede spam removal are disruptive and a final warning should be issued. Posting Who is "we", white man? :) at the link I gave indicates either trolling or an inability to know when flippancy is appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, Johnuniq. I was not trolling; that was a misguided attempt to lighten the mood.
By the way, this <> is another example of the "we" I was querying with my joke. I really don't know who that "we" is.Newimpartial (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
My good-faith understanding of WP:STALE is that there is WP:CONSENSUS not to delete userspace and draft-space drafts for WP:N or for being old; the users whose "spam removal" I have "impeded" seem not to agree with that WP:CONSENSUS. If people think I am out of line in my response to some SD requests, then I am willing to learn, but it really looks to me as though Legacypac and DGG are outsdide of WP:CONSENSUS on the matter of userspace deletions. Newimpartial (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Along with all the Admins who are outside consensus when they deleted all the crap I speedied over the last few hours? 22:14 (Deletion log)‎ . . [Onel5969‎; JamesBWatson‎; DGG‎; 1a16‎; Zzuuzz‎ (2×); Iridescent‎ (2×);Anthony Bradbury‎ (2×); Dlohcierekim‎ (3×); CactusWriter‎ (9×); Jimfbleak‎ (11×); Fastily‎ (15×);Nyttend‎ (21×); Athaenara‎ (23×); RHaworth‎ (33×)] Now he posting undelete requests and starting DRVs on the deletions.
Sorry but I've had enough of this editor running around fighting legit spam fighting. He lacks a WP:CLUE. Topic Ban him already. Legacypac (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I stalk Primefac's talk page and ran into this editor over deletion of an article that was mostly copyvio. They objected to the G12 tag, but are now apparently upset that it was deleted as G11 instead. I caught a glance at the article before it was deleted and it was horribly promo and clear copyvio. This makes me very concerned about this editor's ability to determine what is and isn't appropriate content for an encyclopedia. They've had numerous editors trying to work with them (some less polite than others), and just don't seem to be getting the message. I hesitate to support it, but perhaps a topic ban until they understand policies and guidelines better might be the best option? Waggie (talk) 06:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

No understanding of prohibited user names [166] Legacypac (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Look, I can do a voluntary (or involuntary) ban on Deletion discussions until I get to 1,000 unreverted mainspace edits, or something.
What I understood, though, is that "what is and isn't appropriate content for an encyclopedia" wasn't supposed to be the criterion for deletion of userspace and draftspace entries - I had understood that per WP:CONSENSUS, draftspace and userspace were supposed to be more permissive, as in the criteria set out in WP:STALE which seem to be widely ignored when admins approve CSD nominations.
Anyway, I can sit this one out if that's the will of the room. There was certainly nothing but good faith on my part in my MfD participation. Newimpartial (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Per what consensus, and where (with links), does it say we're supposed to keep blatantly promo and copyvio drafts or force them into the already over-burdened MfD process? The "G" criteria of CSD can apply to any page on Wikipedia, regardless of namespace. The "A" criteria is the criteria that is specific to mainspace. WP:STALE is for drafts that have simply been abandoned, aren't likely to ever be articles, and that don't have any other major problems - it was created to avoid overburdening MfD for no good reason. Yes, my respectful advice would be to avoid participating in deletion for now, learn more about the policies and guidelines, and when you do get involved again please consider more carefully what others are putting on your talk page. Waggie (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
But that's not what I'm saying, though. If it's copyvio, WP:COPYVIO says to carve out the copyvio bits if that's not the whole thing; it doesn't say to speedy delete a mix of copyvio and legit draft. And some editors and admins seem to think that promo covers anything they don't think "belongs in an encyclopedia" - including things whose only fault is being non-notable - which is exactly what the WP:CONSENSUS decision here <> says is NOT supposed to happen. The point of WP:STALE, as I read it, is that draft and userspace articles are only to be deleted with reason; in my participation at MfD I have supported deletion where there was a good reason, and opposed it where there wasn't, which is how I thought the system was supposed to work. Newimpartial (talk) 07:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

This user lacks understanding of how WP defines promotional aka SPAM. When I find a page that has not been touched in 5 years with obvious copyvio and a bunch of promotional stuff about a non-N subject, I don't sift out the 2 sentences that I can't find with a Google search and carefully set that material aside for future use. We all delete unsuitable material all over the project in the normal course. Misunderstands copyvio - if I find a paragraph of copyvio in a long mainspace article, I remove it. If it's 70% easily provable copyvio in some stale draft with no obvious use to the project, I seek to delete it all. Legacypac (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Legacypac, I have never objected when you've flagged or nominated for deletion an article that has been dormant for 5 years; that's the (subjective, personal) threshold where I feel that time itself has passed enough that I no longer see its relevance. But when people have created and abandoned drafts within the last 5 years, and they aren't all copyvio or unambiguous spam, then I think they should go to MfD for a proper trial and execution. Is that really so wrong?
I know you "seek to delete it all", but that isn't WP:CONSENSUS which is why it should go to MfD to be adjudicated by case.
And I have frequently seen you invoke WP:N against user- and draft- space drafts, which is a clear violation of WP:CONSENSUS as expressed in WP:STALE. Haven't you also submitted drafts to AfC just to get them rejected as grounds for deletion? Newimpartial (talk) 07:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

First, stop with the BS accusations about my editing. I only occasionally use AfC to get another set of eyes and comments. I don't need AfC to justify a deletion move.

Then what was this <> . I must have misunderstood what was happening there, particularly when you wrote "100% agree" in the edit summary where you deleted the AfC decline for the article you "submitted" Newimpartial (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Or how about this situation here <,_Alabama&action=history>

WP:STALE does not trump the Pillers. It is fine to ask "does this meet N?" because that is part of the process of deciding if there is a reason to salvage and promote or take some sort of delete action.

But this statement here is exactly where you disagree with WP:CONSENSUS, where you got in trouble before, and where I have objected to some of your nominations. The criterion you want to use is specifically disallowed by the consensus expressed here:<> Newimpartial (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to flood MfD with pages that fall under a CSD, but that is what your inappropriate interference in CSD to force more MfDs is doing. Than at MfD you have posted numerous "procedural closes" to try and derail the MfD process. There are hundreds of thousands of page you could go improve, and hundreds of thousands more you could go fight spam on, so why spend your time forcing spam fighters and admins to redo their work, educate you, and justify every action while you insult us? Even while at ANi you continue to question and argue across various pages, whixh is an awful start to sitting out for a while. Legacypac (talk) 07:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Except that they don't unambigiously fall under a CSD, which is the requirement. Where they do so unambiguously fall under WP:SPAM or WP:COPYVIO, I have never reverted, objected, or opposed. My "procedural" votes are simply that - where an MfD nomination was either explicitly or implicitly based on WP:N (such as your WP:YAMB-based nominations) I procedurally opposed. Which is part of due process, and not an insult to anyone.
And since I received notice of this ANI, I have not voted in any XfD discussions whatsoever - which, since I haven't heard from anyone except Waggie that wasn't involved in the CSD disputes, shows some good faith on my part, I think. I have carried on a discussion about what the WP:CREATIVE criteria actually mean, which is a substantive dispute in which the other poster is, I believe, misconstruing the criteria as both written and applied, but that is clearly good faith on both our parts and anyway is over now. And it certainly has nothing to do with the "war on spam", which seems - unaccountably, to me - to be what you feel this ANI is about.
  • Based on how Newimpartial has responded here I support closing this with a final warning that a block will occur the next time they continue their campaign. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Would it be possible to hear from an admin who was not part of the userspace CSD disputes? Otherwise, I am in agreement. Newimpartial (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Like continuing their campaign with these three posts [167] questioning my clean up efforts and methods, including commenting on actions I took after the final warning? Legacypac (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

No final warning has been issued, Legacypac , and this discussion has not yet been closed, though either way I have stopped voting and participating in XfD. I was "commenting on your actions" only to clarify what I had said earlier, and to give you an opportunity to clarify for me how those diffs were not an attempt to clear up Draft-space contra WP:STALE.Newimpartial (talk) 08:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not the person brought here with a block request to stop the activity you continue to engage in right in this thread. Perhaps a new hobby - instead of questioning everyone else's actions try working on this backlog [168] Legacypac (talk) 08:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Why are stale userspace drafts a bigger problem than premature content deletion and violation of WP:STALE? I am puzzled.Newimpartial (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

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

reverted edits to my userspace page[edit]

Situation explained and understood. Nothing else to do here. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 11:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

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

This user reverted edits to my userspace page, after I attempted to rescue it from deletion. I am really wondering what are the rules of the wikipedia if people are getting so involved in my userspace and making reverts. please help me understand this better, i find it distressful. James Michael DuPont (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mdupont: That is not in your userspace. Your userspace pages (in addition to your main user page) are prefixed with User:Mdupont/, and not anything else. That redirect from a page move should have been speedily deleted a long time ago. It should not have been created with that title in the first place, but that's a very minor issue and we all make mistakes. Murph9000 (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that is a good explanation! I did not catch that mistake until you explained it, thanks for your patience with me. James Michael DuPont (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

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

User Murph9000 reverted the same wiki article for too many times without providing adquete reasons![edit]

Wiki article, Comparison of instruction set architectures, has been reverted by user Murph9000 and some others for too many times, without providing adequate reasons! I feel that it is quite unfair for anonymous editors who did really contribute. I wish such thing could be mediated in proper way! And that wiki article also needs further corrections and improves. Those people bring too many troubles!— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

From a quick investigation, it looks like you did not bother to notify Murph9000 (talk · contribs) (I will do so) and it looks to me like there's a claim you are an indefinitely blocked user called Aaron (this is not WP:OUTING, this is what I see from the edit histories on that page). I'm not sure which specific user you are, though. If you do have an account indefinitely blocked, you are not permitted to edit at all, until that account is unblocked. The multiple other editors who are reverting you are acting appropriately. If you do not have an account which is blocked, you are in violation of WP:3RR and should be blocked on that basis, but then so should other editors. I'm not sure which situation we are in, though, so I am personally taking no action. --Yamla (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Also notified Jeh (talk · contribs), Guy Harris (talk · contribs), Vincent Lefèvre (talk · contribs), all of whom have also been reverting the edits. Which tends to lend credence to the reporter indeed being someone engaging in block evasion, I suppose. --Yamla (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I have already created an SPI report regarding the numerous IPs with which I believe the reporter here has been evading his block (although it does not yet include the most recent IPs used today. (n.b.: As clear a case of WP:DUCK as I've ever reported.) The backlog at SPI is, sadly, severe at the moment and this is preventing timely action on my and many other reports, but perhaps, with these 3RR issues at stake they can be paid additional attention. Note that blocking "the IP" will have little effect because he seems to have two different /19 IP blocks (at least) at his disposal and it is apparently very easy for him to change within them; he has used at least half a dozen different IPs just in the last 24 hours. The only recourse to protect the encyclopedia is to continue reverting and trust that SPI will come to the right decision in a timely manner. Jeh (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Both users, the motivations why Jeh and Guy Harris guard their mistakes on related articles are very suspicious. They deny the things which almost all the software vendors recognise. Those software vendors differentiate x86-64 from x86, but they both treat them as one. So I guess they might earn money from Intel, so they prevent such modifications to related wiki articles! (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
"Those software vendors differentiate x86-64 from x86..." Yes, but the context on this page is different. Depending on the context, two things may be regarded as different or part of the same group. This is no different from the other architectures on the same page. Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
At least some of those software vendors also differentiate 32-bit XXX from 64-bit XXX for values of XXX other than x86, because, for example, you need different compiler options to generate code for 64-bit XXX, and you need a 64-bit processor running an OS that supports 64-bit code to run software for 64-bit XXX. Nothing special about x86 here. Guy Harris (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  It sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me, as stated by multiple users, and extremely obvious from even a brief glance at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Janagewen. Reverts are per WP:EVASION, which has been made quite clear to this IP hopping LTA case before my first revert, and which I made quite clear in one of my subsequent reverts. This ANI case is just another example of extreme bad faith from this globally-locked user who is indeffed from EN-WP and 5 other WMF wikis. Murph9000 (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh. Wow. Block evasion and sockpuppetry dating back to September of 2015 and edit warring, personal attacks, and disruptive editing dating back a year further. It's clearly the same user, and you are being much too nice. I'd suggest removing any comments they post on article talk pages, either. I endorse the actions taken by Murph9000 and by the other named editors in this thread and will block the IP address and protect the page. To the person who opened this thread, you are not permitted to edit any Wikipedia article until your original account is unblocked. You, the person who opened this thread, are the one being abusive. Massively abusive. --Yamla (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Yamla. I've replied to a couple of WP:FORUMSHOPPING type messages this particular IP left on some user talk pages, because I was named in them. I pretty much WP:DGAF about the messages that were left there, but I give my explicit permission to remove my replies if an admin feels the need or desire to EVASION-revert the messages. Murph9000 (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Yamla. It is gratifying that the SP reports (of which I contributed not a small fraction, especially recently) provided enough info to allow you to hear the quacking, as it were. It is also good to be told that blanket reverting, even of the LTA's talk page "contributions" (I use the term loosely), is the right thing.
Of course, when we revert, the LTA will simply re-revert. As you have already seen. (I was hoping that this particular EW would lead to the currently-attacked page being semi-protected rather before this.) SPI reports have been ineffective due to the LTA's IP-hopping and also due to the many-days backlog at SPI.
The only way I can see to get the point across is protecting the pages, but RFP is not being acted upon particularly quickly either. I'd had a request up to SP that page - it was finally acted upon after almost 12 hours.
I feel that if this LTA's abuses are consistently, swiftly reverted and then blocked via protection, we'll get a better result, per WP:DFTT and WP:DENY. And even if we don't it's more effective at protecting the encyclopedia than edit wars. Is there a reporting venue or some such that would get faster action on RFPs? Would an entry at LTA help? Jeh (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Legal threat at Philip Day (businessman)[edit]

Resolved: Tinkerbellmademedoit indef blocked until they respond to the conditions of the block. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Tinkerbellmademedoit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has made a legal threat in his edit summary at Philip Day (businessman) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I have restored the previous version, as the information is cited in a reliable source, The Guardian. I have left them a message and based on their editing history, a COI warning. I will notify them of this discussion. Edwardx (talk) 12:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

User false accused me of threatening a real person.[edit]

Champion falsely accused me of supposedly threatening Donald Trump only because I joked about how similar oir names are, the user then decided to speedily delete my user page, report my user name (without consulting me, and claimed it was/is a "threatening" name), and seems bent on blocking me yet never asked me anything or why I use my name. This seems like an obvious abuse of privileges bestowed upon the user to speedily delete a harmless user page where I talked about myself and made a single joke. Donald Trung (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Donald Trung:---Well, Sjb72 was the deleting administrator and Champion is hardly the one to fault.You may contact Sjb for further queries.Further, we don't like sarcasms etc. esp. coming from brand-new users.And you are better with changing the username.Cheers!Winged Blades Godric 15:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
IMO you should just ask for a rename. The fact that the username is by your own admission a nickname derived from but not your real name, and reference to Donald Trump mean it's always going to be problematic. The fact that this nickname is old doesn't really help things much. Ultimately as a clear reference to another living person who isn't your friend or relative, and a notable one at that (which he would be long before he was politically active, in fact probably was from when you the nickname arose hence why you knew of him in Australia), even if it isn't intended to mock said individual; means any of your actions could be as associated with them. I'm not commenting on whether this meets the standard for a forced username block, but there's nothing stopping you voluntarily requesting a rename. Also I can't see what was deleted but the fact it was deleted makes me think it did raise concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[edit]

I have no idea what this IP is babbling about, but I know that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia Could we please have a short block? Many times, when a vandal sees the message saying that he is blocked he goes away forever, not knowing that (unlike pretty much every other site on the internet) our blocks are often temporary. --~~