With heavy heart and great regret, and after much discussion, I must ask on behalf of multiple editors for action regarding User:BaronBifford, who has exhibited persistent, and indeed defiant, WP:OWN at Superman. Perhaps this would take the form of a few weeks off Wikipedia in order to break what may be obsessive behavior. Perhaps a topic ban of some length would be in order. His behavior is not only disruptive, but at least a couple of us fellow editors are genuinely concerned for him, given his voluminous, nearly SPA pattern of editing.

After a talk-page consensus goes against him, he slow-motion edit-wars by biding his time and then sneaking in edits that other editors have rejected. Here are examples where another editor's edit-summary links to discussions he ignored:

• [1]
• [2] after his edit-warring here
• and [3].

Here are examples of more slow-motion edit-warring:

• this on July 23 following
• this on July 22.

He frequently goes against Project guidelines and MOS. Edit summaries that mention but do not link to relevant talk-page discussions, which are now linked to on this page, include:

• [4]
• [5]
• [6] with discussions at Talk:Superman#"In other media" section and Talk:Superman#Publication that show no consensus for BaronBifford's unilateral changes. He initiated additional discussion at Talk:Superman#Radio, TV, and movie adaptations that also resulted in no consensus for his changes. Other examples of time-consuming and pointless arguments to go against guidelines and MOS include Talk:Superman#Cover date vs actual publishing date and Talk:Superman#Image staggering.

Other examples could be given. What's perhaps more troubling is that multiple editors have worked patiently with him to no avail, only to have him denigrate anyone who works on the article other than himself. For example:

• [7]: "What exactly do you think you guys do for Wikipedia?"

• [8]: "I'm the only editor doing any meaningful work on this article… How can these guys appreciate the work I'm trying to do? I feel like I'm a painter whose every stroke must be approved by a committee of plumbers."

• [9]: "I'd rather conform to how the professionals do it then the sloppy work of Wikipedia's amateurs!"

• [10] "You haven't put any dedicated effort into research or refining the content of this article, or an other superhero article. The superhero articles of Wikipedia are generally shit, because they are written by fanboys who don't care for presentation, thorough research, or the perspective of the layman."

• [11]: "I'm the only [person] doing anything constructive on this article."

• [12]: "I don't think you have the same kind of perspective I have developed over the past nine months."

But I think the biggest concern comes out of a statement that shows he just doesn't get the idea of consensus and guidelines / MOS:

• [13]: "the only reason he is opposing me is that I've failed to gain consensus with everyone else and that my proposed changes are not consistent with many other articles on superheroes." Well, yes! That's exactly right. And he somehow refuses to accept these basic tenets of Wikipedia.

Or as he puts it another way [14]: "The best articles on Wikipedia tend be those written by one guy who commits lots of time and money. The worst ones tend to be the ones built piecemeal by many editors."

If you go to the Superman talk page, you'll find multiple editors trying to talk him about this, going back to at least May 31 [15]. You'll find much regret in my voice in many posts, including one my last, at Talk:Superman#CC of notice just placed on an editor's talk page. But nothing any of us has said has had more than a very minimal impact. He regards us as impediments to his article. Or as he puts it [16]: "I am disappointed by the constant obstruction of other editors who take no intense interest in the development of this article." --Tenebrae (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As another one of the editors who has tried to help the user in question understand why this can't continue and why we need to discuss these changes and then being accused of knowing nothing of Superman I unfortunately have to agree with this. I have chosen to edit the article when it's needed IE: vandalism, incorrect info posted. As I believe Wikipedia wouldn't be what it is without users working as a team. The article has had several consensus done and the article has been written per those. I take no satisfaction in having to take it to this point. The user seems to be under the impression that they are the only editor who should be editting the Superman article and they are the know all be all of the subject. The larger concerns for me are the constant ownerish attitude and the constant dismissal of other editors edits or opinions or consensus. My largest concerns are comments like

[17]: "The best articles on Wikipedia tend be those written by one guy who commits lots of time and money. The worst ones tend to be the ones built piecemeal by many editors." And [18]: "I'm the only [person] doing anything constructive on this article." And comments to other editors like [19]: "WarMachineWildThing, looking at his contrib history, is mainly interested in professional wrestling. How can these guys appreciate the work I'm trying to do? I feel like I'm a painter whose every stroke must be approved by a committee of plumbers."

Those types of comments are just a small sample. While I do edit wrestling articles more often it's because they seem to be vandalized alot I was in the wrestling business for 10yrs so yeah I have alot of intrest in it. But I have a Superman collection that was started for me over 40 years ago before I was born, I had the ONLY Superman Tribute Truck that was featured on the Chris and Dana Reeve Foundation website because Christopher Reeve was on the hood, and Im known as Superman by the kids in my area because of the Charity work I do, so I have alot of interest in Superman and knowledge. But the user seems to think because I don't edit the article obsessively my opinion doesn't matter. If you look at his edit behavior of his last 200 edits I would say 90% are on the Superman article alone which is a concern for me as I am concerned for the person behind the screen of their ownerish and obsessive behavior that has caused them to think that what they are doing is right and don't understand how this behavior is harmful to the article and themselves. Sorry for the long windedness but I agree this user needs to understand this is not acceptable behavior and should be given a "time out" Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae has been exceedingly patient and afforded BaronBifford every opportunity to demonstrate a sincere and consistent willingness to collaborate with his fellow editors. Unfortunately, despite the generous patience of Tenebrae (and several others like WarMachineWildThing & myself), BaronBifford has repeatedly ignored or outright mocked consensus-building and consensus itself. He has lashed out: telling an editor to "piss off"; criticized the "generally shit" quality of superhero articles; called others "squabble editors"; etc. What concerns me more, however, is when Baron repeatedly expresses what he sees as his right to edit certain content, even in the context of general opposition to his proposals. Here are just a few recent examples of Baron's general attitude of ownership:

• "What exactly do you think you guys do for Wikipedia?"
• "I'm the only editor doing any meaningful work"
• "I have yet to hear anyone else put any critical thought into this."
• "Where did you get your bizarre notions?"
• "I'm the only [one] doing anything constructive on this article."

At the very least, I hope an uninvolved admin will seriously onsider a Superman topic ban for a time, though I defer to Tenebrae's greater experience in suggesting the best course to move forward. Levdr1lp / talk 03:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think Superman is within the scope of any ARBCOM sanctions so it wouldn't be just a uninvolved administrator but a consensus here for a topic ban. As of right now, everyone is posting talk page comments that show possible incivility but it would be helpful to show to see the actual edits and the actual RFCs and the actual discussion with the editor that are evidence said problems. This reversion may or may not be appropriate but I can't tell from the way BaronBifford edits what is the actual problems here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I've given links to examples of his contentious edits at numbers 54 to 59 above. And the issue here is WP:OWN, so if there's a more appropriate venue than this, I'm sure we'd all be glad to move the discussion there. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main arguments against my edits are that they are somewhat inconsistent with some (but not all!) other articles on superheroes. They refuse to take into account the specific nature of the history of the Superman character. There are also a lot of ad hominem attacks against me. They want me to pass every little structural change I make through a committee, a process which is extremely slow (how many days did it take an admin to respond to this ANI thread?). My detractors say I refuse to "collaborate". My rebuttal is that they fail to collaborate. I've numerous times asked Tenebrae and others to participate in my research. I even offered to buy reference books out of my own pocket to encourage him. But his meaningful contributions have been minimal. He has made corrections to my grammar and formatting, and he has mostly been correct in that regard. But he has contributed nothing insightful to the article, which is painful after all the time and money I have expended. He likes to flaunt his credentials as a professional editor (of what I don't know), but what I want is an historian. Tenebrae does not come off as an historian. A sincere fanboy, yes, but not a serious scholar. I once had a perspective similar to his, in fact. I too am a massive superhero geek. But my research into the details of Superman, the commercial and creative talent behind the character, has changed this perspective. As the knowledge in an article develops, the structure of its content must mutate. The traditional bindings the he placed on this article deforms its body.

The biggest point of argument here is my wish to place a summary about the movies and TV adaptations of Superman alongside the information on the comic books. This seems logical to me, because there is so much cross-pollination between the books, TV shows, and movies that I cannot imagine not describing it holistically. This is how the professional books have addressed the topic, including Encyclopedia Britannica and all the reference material that appears in the Bibliography. Only here on Wikipedia do we have the notion that Superman is "primarily" a comic book character and that his movies and TV shows are a footnote in its history. BaronBifford (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a footnote, given we have entire articles such as Superman in film and Superman (franchise), as well as Category:Superman films and Category:Superman in other media, among others, so his claim is without merit. Organizing all this under an "In other media" section as the MOS has described for years is sensible and as per longstanding consensus. As for the Britannica article, one paragraph placed high in a short article is no different from what we already do in mentioning other media in our article's lead.

Refusing to follow MOS consensus when multiple editors on the talk page say they agree with the guidelines is contentious and WP:OWN-ish and in no way part of the collaborate effort for which we strive. It's like trying to edit with Donald Trump. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Here, I agree with Tenebrae. The MOS has been consistent on pretty much every single fictional character article: the initial source is the main point and then films and TV shows and the like are separate. There is zero reason why Superman alone should be completely reorganized differently than literally every single other piece of work out there just because you personally like the way Britannica does it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, a college student with the hubris to refer to himself as a scholar when I've published and edited many articles about comics — though I'm not going to out myself — shows someone without the perspective that he might have gained by examining the more than 100 comics-related articles I've created in 11 years here. I don't know what criteria he uses to denigrate someone with the ad hominem label "sincere fanboy," but I would say his obsession with Superman as shown in his edit-history makes him the pot calling the kettle black.

In any event, his slow-motion edit-warring and his constant arguing with other editors over settled guidelines and MOS is exhausting and WP:OWN-ish. His idea of collaborating is to go on the article talk page, tell us everyone is wrong and that only he is right, and then to go back to the article and make contentious changes. I ask: What should be the community's response to this behavior? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you mistake dedication for "obsession"? I hear Wikipedia is struggling to retain editors and here you are trying to shut down a hard-working editor who is neither a troll nor a vandal.BaronBifford (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to listen to other people here and ignore the fact that this version has been built upon years of general consensus and views, then you're more of a hindrance than a help. Respect the fact that your suggestions are contentious and put forth some effort in convincing others to agree with you on them. Just because you most strongly believe in something doesn't mean that's the way it should be done. Again, if you only edit the Superman articles and only want them structured a certain way, propose that but realize that other people are concerned about how all fictional character articles are designed and in that vein, Superman is just a single article or series of articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page fully protected two weeks. In the mean time, RFC's should be started or WP:DRN should be used to help settle content disputes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like to think I got a lot of shit done up to this point. Four steps forward, one step back — not bad. BaronBifford (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wish your comment above showed some indication that you see the problem, but you're just being self-aggrandizing. That's not actually helpful.

The ball is in your court, BaronBifford. As the admin suggests, please start an WP:RFC or start a detailed discussion at WP:DRN. But I think the issue is larger than specific edits, and three other editors here agree: Your WP:OWN behavior needs to be addressed. Because if you don't initiate discussion and simply return to contentious editing in two weeks, honestly, that's no good for anyone and it's no good for Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the comments he left above he doesn't care what anyone thinks or the fact that because of all of this the page is now locked down and he's going to continue with this behavior. When you can't work with others or follow the consensus that has been agreed upon and continue to do what only you want, that's not good for anyone. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Having read that talk page, I can't escape the conclusion that this is a bit of a mixed case. On the one hand, I find that I agree with a great many of the copy edit observations BaronBifford makes there, and I feel he presents his views generally in a very cogent manner. That said, there are also some clear issues with WP:OWN here, as well as a fair bit of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT with regard to said behaviour--which of course is not uncommon in such cases. Now, not meaning to backseat admin Neil here, but I don't think I would have opted for page protection in his place; if indeed there is one editor moving against consensus (as seems to be the case), then I don't think it's in the best interest of the article and share the skepticism of others that it will resolve the core issues.

That being said, Neil's approach does give BaronB an opportunity to back up and re-assess his behaviour here. DRN is an excellent way to iron some of the differences out and hopefully find some unexplored middle ground. But it can only work if all parties come to it open minded. And with regard to Baron I feel that can only happen if he accepts that, on this project, he must pick his battles and that, no matter how right he may feel he is on a particular content issue, it is vastly more important that editors embrace the principles of collaboration and consensus than that they stick to their guns on this or that particular issue; the former might make one little passage more reliable, but it's the latter that makes our collective content vastly more reliable in the aggregate. If he cannot comport himself to this principle, this is likely just not the project for him to contribute his time to, and we can expect this problem to not only persist on the Superman article, but indeed to follow him wherever he takes his editorial interest. That would be a shame, as I think he has strengths as an editor. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Snow Rise's assessment here. BaronBifford, regardless of the quality of your contributions, continuing to persist in behavior consistent with WP:OWN or rejecting collaboration with other editors is not going to end well for you or this project. Please be mindful of how you conduct yourself. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BaronBifford. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Might I propose a topic ban relating to Superman themed articles? That would seem to be the most appropriate response to this situation, Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier this month, User:IndianBio made this comment to Xboxmanwar (talk · contribs) which also summarizes my frustration:

Xbox, you are a valuable editor and the main discussion raised at Talk:Rebel Heart was to sough your expertise when I realized that there was a discrepancy. I wanted to involve the community also because there might be countless articles where such discrepancy glared. You never sought to edit collaboratively but went on this rampage of WP:IMRIGHT. That's not how this works. A WP:CONSENSUS is paramount to mass changes. You were being reverted across multiple articles and warned for it, but you never paid attention. The result was you edit warred so many times now across multiple articles, because you never thought of being the better person with your expertise and seek a DRN or BRD.

At the article Kodak Black:

I removed unsourced content here, as only one of the songs listed had a source, and the editor who added it also added a chart entitled "List of singles, with showing year released, peak chart positions and album name". Since only one of the songs actually charted, I reworked the edit, and added a source with this edit. Xboxmanwar reverted the edit here and added unsourced content back to the article; content which doesn't factually belong to the chart with that title. There was a clear purpose to my edit, yet Xboxmanwar had little regard for that. This sort of edit waring is endless with this editor.

On that same article, there has been talk page discussion here and here about not adding certain aliases to the infobox. Despite that, Xboxmanwar has added the aliases 7 times: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26].

• These last 2 lines are both inaccurate and misleading. First, the second "here" discussion highlighted above is timestamped after all of the 7 diffs provided, and per my comments below that discussion seems to have been accepted by Xboxmanwar once it was explained clearly. Additionally, the "seven times" is inaccurate and disingenuous since DIFFs 1-3 are contiguous (non-removed) edits for the same day, and DIFF 7 is the original adding of the problem content. I do not know if this was intentional or accidental misinformation but assuming good faith it still means that all other evidence and diffs in this report should now be considered potentially flawed and reviewed carefully for accuracy. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 18:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries: This editor regularly leaves unsourced edits, with edit summaries like:

• "please leave it like this, this is how it should be"
• "guys I got this tracklisting"
• "Its not unsourced, its a fact, and if don't believe so, check out this link: {{URL|http://thepatour.com/}} He used to be on that page, gone now."
• "Check BMI for proof on middle name".

Or bullies other editors in edit summaries:

• "Cleanup, replaced embedded lists with tables, looks cleaner, and the tables doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL or anything at all, if anyone has issues for ridiculous reasons, see WP:COMMONSENSE, and for other issues, see WP:IGNORE, thank you."
• "Bruh are you dumb?"
• "No offense Magnolia, but you are really bad at maintaining this article"

After I nominated this article for deletion, Xboxmanwar left this message on my talk page: "I am disgusted on how you nominate Allen Ritter for deletion, again". He then called me a "dick" here, and "disrespectful" here.

At Kodak Black, he wrote "you are too restrictive on this article, I never seen anybody kiss this article's ass as much as you, plus you removed the chart that @JustDoItFettyg: added, and you removed it because the source "isn't reliable", are you lazy? The source that Fetty provides is from Billboard itself, how can you call that not reliable, thats straight from the source of Billboard. You need to let loose".

I have sought help with this editor at dispute resolution, and at third opinion.

Section blanking

• At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Billions, he twice blanked the deletion discussion, here and here.
• At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoey Dollaz, he blanked the deletion discussion here.
• At Desiigner, he removed the AfD template here.

Canvasing

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Ritter (2nd nomination), he canvassed other editors for support here, here, and here. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I both agree and disagree with the filer. I noted an interesting thing... it seems Xboxmanwar arrived here in January of this year^[1] and nobody posted a "Welcome" template that explained the rules of WP. In fact the very first thing that did happen was he was bitten by Magnolia677. Thus he got started off on the wrong foot from the get-go. That does not excuse all of his behavior but it helps to understand some of it. Xboxmanwar has been disruptive and at times rude and uncivil. However he has also shown the ability to respond positively to discussions that are calm, polite, and provide clear explanations such as here where he was corrected for violating WP:ETIQ and here where I was hand-holding him through a good faith (but aborted/unsuccessful) effort to try and salvage an AfD including where he acknowledges some of his faults .

Xboxmanwar has been here only about 7 months and in that time has produced hundreds of productive edits on many other pages. Yes, he has made mistakes and is still learning. Yes, he can be slow-to-learn and obstinate at times. And yes he can be hotheaded. So can other editors who have much more experience. I have tried to help him to learn because despite his prolific work he is still very much a newbie and I believe we need to dramatically AGF and nurture such editors yet at the same time call them out and politely correct them every time they make a mistake. We need to be teaching high-potential editors like this rather than attacking them and driving them away.

I think raising this AN/I is good to get this discussed but there are certain "big picture" questions that need to be considered in this case: Noting the volume of pages he has worked on is Xboxmanwar's problematic behavior present in many/most/all of the pages he edits or only on a few? If only a few then what are the common factors for the pages with problems? Is there perhaps one or more editor interaction issues that need to be addressed? Would an IBAN of some kind be helpful here? Or is the problem resolvable by more training or some kind of mentorship perhaps? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 18:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely 100% agree with Koala Tea Of Mercy; we must remember to always reflect a good faith-based point of view and in a manner that doesn't bite or make them feel discouraged for making mistakes (a completely normal thing that everybody does). We must be diligent at communicating with new users in a manner that welcomes them to the project, teaches them in a manner that makes them feel like they're important to us (because they really are!), and encourages them to learn and become a long-term contributor here. There's no reason why we shouldn't be doing this for all new users who make mistakes in good faith, and appear to be trying to contribute and improve the project. It's an element that we tend to fail at, and it's absolutely key if we're going to retain editors and contributors here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm 50/50 with the reporter as well. A few of the edit summaries and comments that Xboxmanwar added were not appropriate; some contained personal attacks and opinions towards others, calling them "bad at maintaining articles", a "kiss-ass", and were straight-up insults. But, Magnolia677, you're not entirely innocent from this either. The insults made on your talk page started when you said this to him in response to his initial message here. While I believe that his message was created in a bit of frustration and could have been a bit more calm in nature, I don't see anything completely uncivil or any personal attacks. Expressing feelings of frustration and disgust, or stating that something made somebody feel annoyed, in itself, is not uncivil. You started taking that discussion into an uncivil argument when you called his message "childish"and told him off.

I agree that the blanking and canvassing are disruptive, but I don't see the need for administrator action at this time. I think that Magnolia677 should be reminded to keep a cool head when dealing with difficulty such as this, and that Xboxmanwar should be given a warning (maybe even a final one) for civility and disruption; further violations of policy, or editing against consensus purposefully will lead to blocking. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response

@Magnolia677: It appears that you have been following me around on Wikipedia, going through all my history, just to make this report, may I say that you have issues too? Before, you spam marked most of the articles I made before for AfD, including the article Desiigner, which he had a number one on the charts at the time, but still marked it for deletion here, with the other editors on that AfD page showing their disgust of this editor marking it AfD, with one notable comment:

• Speedy Keep, the artist has a top 5 hit in the US and you nominate this for deletion?

This shows that this editor carelessly just marks articles for AFD without backing it up, all with the same message (with Ben Billions being slightly different),

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Billions
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoey Dollaz
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Ritter
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cubeatz
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carnage (DJ)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desiigner

The messages he left on those pages has no backup information to support his claims as to why an article "fails", not pointing out what made the article "fail", I only blanked those pages because I was furious at the time on why this editor would AfD articles without backing it up, just with the same stale message, and eventually other editors agree with him, (Another editor has pointed this out to them before on the original Allen Ritter page, the one before I remade the new and recently deleted article, but they were ignored by them and other editors), still failing to say where the article fails, with most of them says Delete, fails this and that, and thats it, they don't where the "impact zone" is, so that can be fixed. These articles that this editor marked AfD had no issues with them, but then this editor came along and in my opinion, screw things up, because they didn't do any harm to anyone, and the other editors that saw the article didn't do anything because it was fine, but this editor didn't like that idea.

This editor's claim on my "unsourced edits", are hysterical,

For MC4, thats how the tracklisting should be, just like every other article with a tracklisting, so the unannounced songs can be put in there when the are announced, its logic.

For Major Key, I can't even believe this editor tried to use this excuse, this excuse doesn't help this editor at all, I simply filled in the tracklisting of the album, because it was released that night, I don't know how this is supposed to a "behavioral issue" in any way.

For this Kodak Black issue, the website (it takes time to load) removed him from the concert with Lil Uzi Vert, and even through I cannot find a older mirror of that website, I have one key evidence that he was on that website before, plus you can see here the original poster versus the new poster, as he was quietly removed when he got jailed, and the promoters obviously don't want to state about it, only to remove him, this editor doesn't want this information the article even through we have discussed about it before and that outcome didn't work, as I explained to this editor as to why to include it, but only to see to blatantly remove it again with no explanation, which shows that this editor is oblivious on this matter.

For D.R.A.M., simply do a BMI Repertoire search to find the info about a certain song if its registered in the system, just like ASCAP and SESAC, which you can find artist info (Example: Full Name, Award Winning Songs), which I used to find his middle name.

For Allen Ritter, I was furious with him because this editor stated to cleanup the article, but only to remove sources (that were even correct, just the parameter was wrong, but the editor didn't seem to care (If you read through that page, you will see what I mean), and they didn't add any sources to help contribute to the now-deleted article, you can't call that a cleanup, plus this editor did the same thing on the first nomination, and this editor claims that even through he has a Grammy nomination, they claim that it doesn't count, regardless of the other people nominated with him, he was still Grammy nominated and is liable for it. I angrily respond to this as this editor pointed, but they dismiss it, calling it "a teenage rant", which to my reaction, was an insult, so I insulted them back, by calling them a "dick" and "disrespectful", but then it looked like that turned my back on me, which made me even more disgusted, and I was trying to point out on the second AfD nomination with Koala Tea Of Mercy on how he is notable, plus that editor has had issues with this editor before. Thats also why I was canvasing other editors to help me save the article, but all of the editors I've reached out to didn't respond.

For my "bullying", this user states that I'm bullying other editors, whereas I'm only "bullying" him in all the entries he posted, which now shows that this editor likes to make false claims,

I'm not bullying, I'm "criticizing". This editor watches this article like a hawk, reverting every tidbit this editor doesn't like on the article, like in those entires he posted, I was putting embedded charts in the article, since that is the "norm" for musician articles, seen here, here, here and here, but this editor removes them and puts embedded lists instead, which isn't used often nowadays on Wikipedia.

For this Kodak Black issue with the charts, please look here near the end and here.

For this Kodak Black issue, the source was straight from Billboard, which is reliable, but this editor refused to understand it.

For the Kodak Black stage name issues, please look here.

For the issue with IndianBio is something else, please don't bring him into this and mix this up, I am done with him already.

This editor has put a ton of claims on me, I should note that even through this editor had AfD most of the articles I have made before, this editor's list of created articles appears that this editor has made peculiarly articles on ghost towns and small unincorporated communities that almost nobody will have an interest in reading them, also based on the fact that those articles have very little information on them, and the chance of regular users finding those articles are slim.

Thank you. Xboxmanwar (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And this is why I have reported you here. Your last comment demonstrates your lack of concern for the Wikipedia project, and your inability to detect when you have just insulted a large group of people. Several editors on Wikipedia have worked hard to create articles about small communities and ghost towns. An excellent story was written here about User:Coal town guy, who wrote hundreds of articles about West Virginia. Most US states have active user groups, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey. When I wrote the article on Bruinsburg, Mississippi I discovered that the largest amphibious operation in American military history (until the Allied invasion of Normandy) took place there. You can now find a link to Bruinsburg on the Ulysses S. Grant article. Hundreds of other editors could share stories of the importance of documenting small settlements and ghost towns. Yet to you, these Wikipedia articles are "ghost towns and small unincorporated communities that almost nobody will have an interest in reading", and "based on the fact that those articles have very little information on them, and the chance of regular users finding those articles are slim". How dare you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: The fact that you ignored all my other counter-claims I've written in response to your report on me, and only cared about my last comment about you, makes you look single-minded about the last thing that should be taken cared of. To re-clarify, I never said nobody, I said almost nobody, which means that you are in a certain area of people that have that interest, and thats fine, what I'm saying is that a lot more people will discover something popular and/or upcoming, like "Kodak Black", versus an article you made back in 2013, "Low, Utah". If you look at the stats for "Kodak Black" in January 2016 versus "Low, Utah" in the same month and year, you can see the obvious difference in article views. I'm not saying that its a bad thing to have these articles, I'm saying to for you to try to be pertaining about the articles you mark AfD, since people will be interested in more mainstream things, regardless if that article wasn't right (Example: This article fails this and that.), rather then something thats simply a ghost town in some area in the world that most people won't find out about or go to. You marked AfD on articles that I made that you and I both know will have more views than most of those ghost town or unincorporated community articles you or anyone made, unless something significant happened there, like the Castle Geyser, its a property not that's not very occupied, only to be known because its a geyser, they shoot water to the sky from the ground, plus, this particular one has specially formed cone. Also, I do care about Wikipedia, which is obviously the reason why I'm on here, making edits everyday, fixing things up and whatnot. I never insulted a large group of people, like I mentioned before, I know certain people like you have this interest, and I'm totally okay with it, but with the uprising of rappers, record producers, singers, celebrities etc. I'm pretty damn sure that people will take a look more at that "dumb" stuff (Examples: Kim Kardashian, Kanye West, Taylor Swift (Their current feud), etc.), then lesser known properties. Those articles that you caused to be deleted could've had a bigger impact than lesser known properties with little information on them. Sorry, but thats the cold hard ugly truth, go ahead, hit me with more insults, but I'm simply saying what's happening. Also, just like you mentioned in your response to my first response, "Several editors on Wikipedia have worked hard to create articles about small communities and ghost towns." Oh yeah, well I on Wikipedia have worked hard to create articles about rappers, record producers, singer, etc. taking hours trying to contribute to the articles I make, and you come nominating them for deletion, whereas nobody ever touched your small articles for a couple years (Example: History of Low, Utah), basically hasn't been touched since 2013, versus the articles I make will be revised in the future, those small articles are dead ends. So if you think I've done wrong first, believe me, you did. Thank you. Xboxmanwar (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This gives me a headache wading through all these walls of text. I already had to bonk these two's heads together for edit warring at Kodak Black here, and since then they've gone on to make literally dozens of edits daily to this same article, arguing, undoing each other, name-calling, on and on. I wish I had this little to do over the summer break. Maybe a page ban for Xboxmanwar and Magnolia677 from Kodak Black would give us all some peace. --Laser brain (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Demeaning others work is not going to score either of you any points with anyone. It's a childish waste of others time by both of you. KNOCK IT OFF!

That having been said, I agree we should have done better initially by the editor in question. I question whether it would have done any good. If you peruse Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Ritter (2nd nomination) you will see at least three editors attempting to explain the concepts of WP:RS and WP:N. During that time frame, I left him a message on the same topics, along with a welcoming template and an invitation to Teahouse. I strongly urged him to make use of these resources and invited him to ask questions on my talk page if he so desired. To date he has asked no questions at Teahouse or at my talk. He seemed to at least not be applying IDHT to Koala Tea Of Mercy, but there is no indication if any communication there. (IMO, the reason for lack of bad attitude toward this particular editor is because he supported keeping Allen Ritter, even tho he conceded that the only basis was IAR. This shows an extreme BATTLEGROUND attitude). In short...for all our lack of cordial treatment initially, he still isn't getting it. Witness this response to a now blocked obviously paid editor two days ago. This edit was the topic of discussion. I would propose that we insist this editor get some mentoring. Perhaps KTOM would be willing? John from Idegon (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: Coming from someone that dismissed Allen Ritter as not a musician,

That would all be great, except the subject of the article in question is not a musician and WP:MUSICBIO does not apply to him. Yawn. John from Idegon (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

If he wasn't a musician, I wouldn't have added a Wikipedia article about him, but he is one, he is a singer, pianist, songwriter and record producer, here are his credits, WP:MUSICBIO does apply to him, as well as WP:COMPOSER, plus his Grammy nomination, regardless of the people he was nominated with, also the 1, 2, 3, 4 ASCAP Awards he got, makes him notable. Xboxmanwar (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid someone was going to suggest that. Sadly I will need to decline. Normally I would be willing to mentor newbies on occasion but the next semester at my college is starting in a few weeks and I have materials to prepare for my classes and will be getting back into my research projects so I will have a much restricted availability for Wikipedia. In fact if you see me here after a few weeks from now until the end of the year it means I am playing hooky from my academic responsibilities. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 12:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to offer myself as a mentor if it's needed and mentoring is the conclusion that the community comes to :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The editor in question responding with more BATTLEGROUND is fairly substantial proof of the problem. I opposed him in a discussion so therefore I cannot possibly be able to offer objective analysis? The bit about accepting the paid editor's OR needs to be addressed. This isn't the place to rehash Mr. Ritter's notability. The community has already decided that. John from Idegon (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: I'm not a paid editor. Xboxmanwar (talk) 05:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Any degree of extra patience that I think we might reasonably give to an editor solely on the basis of a missing welcome template is evaporating quickly here. On the basis of this thread alone, there is ample and continuing evidence of WP:incivil and WP:disruptive behaviour and a propensity for needlessly personalizing disputes, all fueled by an apparent WP:OWN mentality over the articles and content in question and a steadfast refusal to internalize some of our most basic editorial guidelines on sourcing and verification (WP:V and WP:RS, for example)--all this despite their having been here for more than half a year. Indeed, the further this discussion progresses, the more inclined the user appears to be to double-down the WP:IDONTHEAR and battleground tactics. There's just too much name-calling and obstinance in evidence here to be completely dismissed by a rocky start and a lack of guidance.

Handy templates or no, all beginning editors need to acclimate to policy and demonstrate basic competency with the consensus process and our civility standards. That is not the direction this editor is headed in and, from where I'm standing, that seems to be as much about their disposition as anything. The WP:Personal attacks and the questioning of the general value of other editors needs to stop, immediately, if this user is be a net-value to the encyclopedia. If they cannot put the breaks on these behaviours themself, and in short order, then I think a short term block is warranted to make the point. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xboxmanwar - The fact that you can somehow parse the statement I made above as accusing you of being a paid editor brings WP:CIR into play. Perhaps if you had not blanked your talk page you could have easily looked at the actual conversation in question to clarify it for yourself. So, to repeat myself, when a now blocked editor posted on your talk page this:

We represent Ralph Jeanty and Sean McMillion who are writers for August Alsina.... They wrote August Alisna's verse in "Do You Mind", They have offcially been added to the credits on album...Please stop undo-ing Thank you

diff

you replied:

Ok I believe you, I have fixed your edit with the correct parameter, thanks for the notice.

diff

This conversation pertained to this edit.

You need to explain your reply.

I purposely omitted the name of the blocked editor although it is easily accessible in the diffs. There is nothing he or she could add that is on point here and they are unable to anyway, because they are blocked. Leaving the name out eliminates the need to notify them. John from Idegon (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: Maybe because it was true? Also, I know that you didn't accuse me as a paid editor, I was just pointing that out, but after that editor posted their notice on my talk page, I went to do the research myself, and I found the some information, which is the link I've provided . I shouldn't have said that I believed them, but I'm sure they were true, judging by their work with August Alsina and Betty Wright, two guest artists who appeared on Major Key and the link I've provided, plus the paid editor's desire to add their credits to the song "Do You Mind" on that album makes me believe that its true. Xboxmanwar (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since my name was pinged in this mountain of conversation (I had missed it in the original ping). My dealing with this user (Xbox) has made me realize that there is a huge wP:CIR as well as incivility and the major concern here was WP:IDHT. I absolutely have to agree with Snow rise here that just a welcoming template miss, is not the problem here. The continuous Edit warring mentality as well as the OWN issues and Battleground leads me to sincerely believe this is a case of WP:NOTHERE. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IndianBio: I never intended to be in a Battleground, but since Magnolia667 keeps reporting me about continuous disputes we have, it had been turned into a Battleground. Xboxmanwar (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xboxmanwar please explain how the reference you cited above meets the requirements for reliable sourcing. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: WP:SELFSOURCE. Xboxmanwar (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

I am at a loss as to how that source verifies that edit. If I'm missing something, please would someone explain? Second, my understanding of self source (which I'm still not sure the source in question would be on the article in question) is that we will accept an official social media page from the subject of an article to verify info we would accept on face value from the person (the only two examples I can think of are religion and sexual orientation. If I'm wrong, please correct me) or minor facts such as birthdate, place of birth and hometown, but only in the absence of better sources. If I've got this wrong, please correct me. I don't believe any error in interpretation is major tho. I do not see how it could ever apply to a page on a recording.

@John from Idegon: I'm sure that a self-source doesn't apply to solely minor facts, or the examples you've provided, WP:SELFSOURCE doesn't not state in any way as to only applying to certain subjects. Xboxmanwar (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this report's lame excuse for battleground behavior is very troubling. Primarily for him, let me recap this thread:

1. Magnolia677 reported Xboxmanwar for inappropriate behavior on numerous articles.
2. More than one editor responded saying Magnolia677 was guilty of bite. If Xboxmanwar would have simply kept his mouth shut at this point, this thread would have closed with Magnolia677 being admonished not to bite and that would have been that.
3. Instead, Xboxmanwar responds with a TLDR reply chock full of lack of CLUE and personal attacks. Magnolia677 responds in kind, which obviously he shouldn't have. Then Magnolia677 got smart and shut up.
4. Another editor stepped in and suggested banning both editors from Kodak Black.
5. At this point I decided to get involved, chastised both editors for their poor behavior and proceeded to outline my observations of the lack of clue in Xboxmanwar's interactions with others and his editing in general.
6. Xboxmanwar responds with a personal attack and trying to rehash closed matters.
7. Several other editors also make observations pertaining to Xboxmanwar. In particular citing battleground and various things pertaining to lack of clue.
8. I ask twice before getting a meaningful response about a particular and quite recent issue regarding OR.
9. Unless my lunch is in my shoe, he responds in a totally clueless manor, still quite battleground in tone.

Therefore, I feel I must propose the following:

That Xboxmanwar be topic banned from things pertaining to the music industry, broadly construed, for an indefinite period. That he be required to secure a mentor and with said mentor's assistance, learn to make constructive edits in other areas. After 6 months and with the recommendation of his mentor, this ban can be appealed and should be lifted if he has successfully mastered the alphabet soup of policies he needs to know.

Discussion? John from Idegon (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: Where at 6. I do a personal attack, and for 2. why would you tell to shut up, Magnolia667 was the one who reported me, what makes you think I should stay quiet for that? Also, maybe if you read the "walls" of text, you could understand more of what's going on than just dismissing it. Xboxmanwar (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this sanction and would like to have a mentor assigned to Xbox. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (Non-admin observation) Unfortunately Xbox (IMO only) would continue to do battle here on a regular basis without having a mentor to reel him in from time to time. I believe the last sentence written by Xbox above speaks volumes. I may be wrong but not all the time. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  19:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Aloha27: I said earlier that I never intended to be in a Battleground, I simply want to know where this editor's rogue claims come from and as they said before, they didn't read everything, or IMO only, they didn't bother to read any of my main responses and presumed that I was automatically wrong without reading them and they went directly to a solution. Xboxmanwar (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Racingmanager (talk · contribs) has been creating a lot of new articles basically by copying content from their personal website - www.greyhoundracinghistory.co.uk/. They subsequently amended the copyright notice on their website when warned that these dumps appeared to be violations. Lots of threads, but this and the following section on that page are the gist. There is much more, for example at User talk:Racingmanager, but they keep deleting it. The discussions were messy and fragmented - there is also stuff at User_talk:Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi#Copyright_issues, which raised ancillary points such as WP:SPS.

They have today created 1927 English Greyhound Derby and I have had to trawl through that, finding both apparent copy/paste issues and also some blatant misrepresentation of at least one source - discussion at User_talk:Sitush#Greyhound_Articles but, again, somewhat disconnected because Racingmanager has been refactoring, spewing their own comments across various pages and also deleting warnings on their own talk page.

Diannaa has been involved, as has Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Racingmanager has ca. 10,000 edits over a prolonged period, including the creation of everything in {{English Greyhound Derby}} and a lot of other greyhound related articles (regarding stadia etc). It is obvious they are knowledgeable but in their attempts seemingly to dump the masses of stuff they have accumulated elsewhere, they're creating a lot of problems relating to copyright and attribution/sourcing. I suspect the difficulty arises because they did not annotate their original research with source materials and are now trying to push things through without reconstructing the information from scratch.

I can't handle this. Can anyone suggest a solution? - Sitush (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of my articles are appropriately sourced. My website carries a wikipedia recommended message on the homepage but Sitush is still not happy because he does not like the wording used which I have already said to him I will clean up. In regard to the 1927 English Greyhound Derby article I have used sources and listed them but he has removed one even though it appears on page 54 of the book quoted.

He even accused me of so called blatant misrepresentation of at least one source which he has just realised was a false accusation and has just apologised to Diannaa and not me I might add! He now reverts edits that I have made regarding clarification and citations I added for the clarification and citation tags created by another user. Now he is even criticising the way I use my sandbox and is harassing me on my talkpage.Racingmanager (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Actually, Diannaa has done some more digging and it looks like Racingmanager may have copied stuff from an older website (greyhoundderby.com) - to their own (greyhoundracinghistory.co.uk), then started dumping their own site on Wikipedia. Ok, in among the above linked discussions they announced changing the license at their own website so as to be compatible with WP ... but that is useless if they copied it from elsewhere in the first place. And there would still be issues such as the misrepresentation, eg: here. - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Comparing revision 732140547 of 1927 English Greyhound Derby to the source website http://www.greyhoundracinghistory.co.uk/1927.pdf is a match; there's a pretty much complete overlap in the "Competition Report" section. But greyhoundracinghistory.co.uk is the website that's recently been released under a compatible license. HOWEVER, comparing with http://www.greyhoundderby.com/1927-greyhoundderby.htm also is a match (copyvios report), and the Wayback Machine shows they have had the content since 2006. This kinda throws all the material at greyhoundracinghistory.co.uk under suspicion as being potentially copied from other sources. The PDF from greyhoundracinghistory.co.uk was never archived by the Wayback Machine, so I can't tell using that tool, but two other tools (this one and this one) both show Racingmanager's PDF was created on March 21, 2015. — Diannaa (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the article differences between greyhoundderby.com and the 1927 English Greyhound Derby article. The website states -

• the wrong result of the winner of the Northern Final
• the wrong northern qualifiers
• no mention of the illness of Great Chum
• no mention of the cost of Entry Badge
• no mention of the Hopsack

How can you possibly claim that the article had copied the website.Racingmanager (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the copyright issue, we normally don't cite our own research or copy-paste from our own website to this one. Your PDFs don't cite any sources. What makes them a reliable source for this wiki? Right now we have no information on that. — Diannaa (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Racingmanager is trying to retrospectively source information from their site. The problem is, as noted above, they're not even getting that right. I've no idea how widespread the problem may be but I've looked at a few since this issue first arose a couple of weeks ago and the number of problems is astounding for someone with that number of edits. They means well, I have no doubt, but I'm on the verge of thinking we need to nuke the lot unless someone is willing to go through all of their creations. - Sitush (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks to Sitush for the notification of this discussion. Racingmanager was advised by Diannaa on 20 July to stop creating articles and resolve the copyright issues in those that still stood; this does not seem to have happened, as 1928 English Greyhound Derby was created only yesterday, still including WP:COPYVIOs. And older articles such as the 1979, 1984, and 1986 English Greyhound Derbys have not yet been rectified. This suggests that his interest in conforming to WP requirements is absent, and that the comunity is going to have a helluva lot of work repairing his damage. The question, then, seems to be wheteher Racingmanager is present when we do. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain where the copyright violation is on the 1928 English Greyhound Derby is? I don’t understand why there is a problem with creating new articles because I have already said I am going to clean up the earlier articles. The articles I am creating are for the benefit of Wikipedia in an area that Wikipedia does not cover well. I have continually proven that there are no copyright issues regarding my original website which has now prompted the other user to suggest that I have copied other websites. If it is such an issue I will start editing the older articles now starting with the 1953 event and then moving forwards to hopefully appease the user. If you require it to be done some other way then please explain clearly. I will ensure I put in the page numbers from the Barrie Dack book but please advise if I am missing something else.Racingmanager (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed the 1953 edit. I have added the appropriate page numbers of the sources, the information is in my own words and I have provided an explanation regarding a technical item. Can you please provide feedback if you think anything needs doing differently. I will not start 1954 until I receive some feedback because I would like to try and appease other users .Racingmanager (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the copyright violation on 1928 English Greyhound Derby: The "Competition Report" section has a large overlap with http://www.greyhoundderby.com/1928-greyhoundderby.htm. According to the Wayback Machine, they have had this content on their website since at least June 20, 2006, while your document http://www.greyhoundracinghistory.co.uk/1928.pdf shows a creation date of March 21, 2015. It's the second one like that we've found. — Diannaa (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do seem to have used a lot of material from the 1928 report on Greyhoundderby.com, I will need to rewrite the section. I am sorry for this and will delete the 1928 report, this was one of many of the sources I used but was obviously not careful enough in formulating it when putting it together in the first place. Can you advise with regard to the 1953 report because I have received no feedback.Racingmanager (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any copying from http://www.greyhoundderby.com/1953-greyhoundderby.htm in your article 1953 English Greyhound Derby. I am unable to check what's in the book Greyhound Racing: The First Fifty Years by Barrie Dack, as the closest library with a copy is in Edinburgh so I have no way of knowing if there's copyvio from that source and whether or not you have represented that material accurately. There's still two overarching problems: you are using your own website, your own research, and adding that material to Wikipedia, without any outside confirmation that the information on your PDFs is correct. None of them list any sources. What makes this material a reliable source for use on this wiki?. Right now we have nothing but your word. And the second and most important problem is that you were asked to stop creating new articles or adding any additional material to this wiki until you've gone back through your existing articles and checked them for copyright violations. (While you are doing this, you could improve the sourcing on each article, adding in confirming sources that are not your own website.) This task has to take priority over creating new articles. How you would do this is use the copyvio tool https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ to compare each of your articles with the corresponding article at www.greyhoundderby.com, and remove any copyright violations that you find. As I said before, I can generate lists for this purpose, or you could use this list. The most important thing you need to do, right now, is stop adding more copyright violations to this wiki. If you don't you will be blocked. — Diannaa (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Diannaa regarding this, and it extends to all the articles about stadia etc also, not just the Derby articles. It might be better if you pretend that your own website and those of others do not exist. Go back to the book and newspaper sources and start over. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I plan to remove any reference to my website and check that the material I used against the Greyhoundderby.com website using the list you have provided. One single year competition report in the Barry Dack book covers anything up to three pages and therefore I know the any material taken from this is in my own words because I had to shorten the story of how the greyhounds qualified for the final considerably. I am also attempting to use wording that reflects general use but there are of course many racing terms that are common. However I will ensure I try to delete words like legendary, fabulous etc. I will carry on with the edits of the existing year reports before looking at the history sections of racecourses. Racingmanager (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One way this could be resolved is by trimming the articles back to bare facts - the entrants and results. Facts are not copyrightable under US law (Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.), which removes any copyright issues. Unless something notable happened, with press coverage in reliable sources, the details of specific races back in 1927 are probably not worth including anyway. This doesn't look like something where the COI noticeboard could help; not seeing promotion here. John Nagle (talk) 05:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I have checked all of the competition reports using the copyvio tool https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ with the greyhoundderby.com website and can confirm that all was ok. I also manually checked and have decided to take down the report for the 2004 English Greyhound Derby because there is one sentence that I found to be similar despite being given the ok by the copyvio tool. I will rewrite this one in due course. I am up to 1962 so far with the re-writes.Racingmanager (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I may have missed it, but I don't see where you answered this question yet: "you are using your own website, your own research, and adding that material to Wikipedia, without any outside confirmation that the information on your PDFs is correct. None of them list any sources. What makes this material a reliable source for use on this wiki?. Right now we have nothing but your word." What's changed since then? --Begoon ^talk 19:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I now see above that you say you are now sourcing to somewhere else. I should have read more carefully. --Begoon ^talk 10:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2016 Nice attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:AGF and WP:NPA

• Accusing me of POV pushing for removing "riddled with bullets". Same thing here saying that I have a "problem with the sources", before later saying it was apparently paraphrase. Apparently per talk is a paraphrase of a translation from French by the user, and is just their preferred wording.
• Calling me lazy.
• Carrying on about me in summaries for edits to content I'm pretty sure I had nothing to do with.
• Warning regarding personal attacks by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi.
• Removal of comment on contentious editing by John, who is apparently a "Scottish based twit"
• Threatening to report me because I accidentally removed the wrong source, and because one edit equals a war.
• Warning here from me for personal attacks on another editor.
• Engaged in a short war with Ianmacm over whether there should be a current event tag on the article, then went to this thread, where apparently the problem is that other editors don't respect the French nation.

WP:EW

• First AN3 reported by Erlbaeko (warning)
• Second AN3 reported by Erlbaeko (no vio)
• Unrelated warning from me for warring with others.

WP:COPYVIO

• This thread where the text of a published article was removed by me for COPYIO, reinserted again, and removed my me again. I warned on their talk, at which point I was accused of removing it out of "antipathy to French sources" on the article talk. They then collapsed the discussion, and reinserted more copyvio that was removed by Biwom, reinserted back into the article, removed again by Biwom, and finally removed a third time by me.

WP:BLP

• I removed names from the article which were then reinserted and again removed.
• Then came this thread where "You created part of the problem yourself by insisting on given names not being used." (Apparently BLP is optional now.)

I could probably go on for a while more, but I figure this should suffice. This editor clearly WP:OWNS the article and has taken turns systematically warring and attacking each editor there in turn. The current spat on the talk is pretty representative of the article over the past few weeks. The user exhaustively reverts and exhaustively attacks until the other person just gives up. Well, I give up. Talking does nothing, and judging by their block log neither does that. TimothyJosephWood 18:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It does rather look here as though Timothyjosephwood is in the right here. Repulsive as this terrorist attack is, Wikipedia is not a newspaper with a political agenda, therefore emotive descriptions should be avoided. Wikipedia's job is to impartially describe an event in a detached fashion, not report it from the front line with such expressions as "riddled with bullets" etc. Giano (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even about whether this wording is used or not. It's about the fact that nearly everything on the article has to escalate to warnings, final warnings, and noticeboards, even for something so mundane. TimothyJosephWood 19:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You issued the warnings on your own, Timothyjosephwood. You chose to escalate things here. You chose not to continue discussions on the talk page after BULLYING me there. You mention copyvios above as if they were ongoing. But you know perfectly well that I asked Dougweller, Moonriddengirl and later Diannaa for advice. They provided that advice, although not all at once. What particular reason did you have for omitting to mention that here? I would say that it was a major failure to WP:AGF on your part. Perhaps even a ploy to alienate one of the few bilingual editors active on the article. But I am not aware of any point of view I am trying to push beyond accuracy. You were eager to add details of the 73-year old friend of the perpetrator to the forked BRDP (biography of a recently deceased person). Now that he's given an interview to Nice-Matin dispelling many rumours, you seem to have lost interest. The personal interview with him is interesting, even enlightening, but not anything for wikipedia at present. Looking for sources is very important. You don't seem to do very much of that at all. Mathsci (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly your account of edit-warring is a bad faith misrepresentation. Both times this was dismissed. First by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (with a warning about editing the timeline box) and then by Lord Roem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who saw no violation of any kind. What reason did you have for not mentioning that? Why do you not WP:AGF? Mathsci (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for BLP violations, given names or the first initial of a surname is not a BLP violation as far as I know. On the French article, all the first names and initials now appear. I assume they know what they're doing. Timothyjosephwood seems sure of himself and points the accusatory finger at me. But it's in the New York Times here.[27] How sure can anybody be in those circumstances? Mathsci (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition on the talk page Timothyjosephwood made references to me adding sensational content on how victims died.[28] When I told him that no such content had been added or envisaged, he said that is was "hypothetical".[29] Again a huge failure to WP:AGF. These invented scenarios of his are unhelpful and verge on the inflammatory. Timothyjosephwood states in the second diff that "a news source is not an encyclopedia". The article 2016 Nice attack is written entirely using news sources. Is this Timothyjosephwood's latest ploy for justifying removing things that don't appeal to him? A news source is not an encyclopedia? Is that why he made this spurious report here? Making statementsof this kind shows a huge misunderstanding of the way in which wikipedia articles on disasters like this are edited. A great sensitivity to French people, French culture and the French media is needed. Mathsci (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timothyjosephwood misrepresents my translations. He knows that I asked

• Dougweller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

and that on Dougweller's talk page Doug suggested

• Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

as a copyright expert. Diannaa intervened and said the short one paragraph translation (all that I needed) was fine and otherwise I should just use a paraphrase, as if the content were written in English. Yet, once that was settled with senior administrators on wikipedia, Timothyjosephwood presents it here as a continuing copyvio. That seems to show a huge lack of good faith in his part. In constrast to Timothyjosephwood, Dougweller, Moonriddengirl and Diannaa took time to understand the problem of explaining sources to non-French speakers. They were courteous and eventually advised me that the short segment that I wanted to discuss was fine. Timothyjosephwood has taken a very begative attitude to the use of French sources and seems almost resentful that anybody would think of using them. But the current developments mentioned above are only covered in French sources. On ne peut avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre. I use evry possible source and check them meticulously, which is not always easy. Timothyjosephwood wants to delete "The windscreen and the front of the truck were left riddled with bullet holes" as an affront to humanity, some bizarre of POV-pushing and editorialising. Rather than discuss on the talk page, he ran straight here as if I was some rogue packing wikipedia with inaccuracy upon inaccuracy, copyvio upon copyvio.

But why exactly would I ask Dougweller or Moonriddengirl, and eventually Diannaa, for advice? So that I could continue on an editing rampage? Obviously not.

Here I simply reported what I had read in the Guardian, the Telegraph and on the BBC News website; and countless other places. Anodyne and neutral. I incidentally was able view the pictures of the truck, taken by journalists, riddled with bullets as described in the sources (more specifically the driver's side of the cabin, a true but irrelevant detail). Mathsci (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merde!, Mathsci, User:Timothyjosephwood excuse me but this is a really stupid ANI. Mathsci AFAI can see has been an invaluable asset on the article, and 4/5 of the time appears to have been mostly right. However, excuse me for saying it Mathsci, at times you over react in a major way, (WTF has the 'Elders of Zion' got to do with anything ?). It really is possible to communicate and correct misunderstandings between Fr & Eng without getting personal and without acres of text. Somebody close this please and everyone calm down. Pincrete (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was this conspiracy theory nonsense Claim of Israel's role of flase flag attack which I would file under Elders of Zion or Edwin Mullins Eustace Mullins. Nothing to do with the article and beyond the comprehension of UK editors. Timothyjosephwood's editing sprees on the article are cosmetic and do not involve finding or checking sources. I was very happy to find the article with the CCTV information. Timothyjosephwood seems to resent sources like that as if they conjured up by magic to cause him angst. Many things that we have learnt more recently are surprising. I wondered how a very large truck could get on to a narrow one-way road going in the wrong direction with cars parked on either side. A small detail, but completely clarified by the CCTV report. the truck did not take that small road but the Avenue de Fabrol further up. I also understand how the truck could accelerate before the first fatalities. Nothing for the article, but awful to contemplate. I listened to the interviews with the family of the probable first victim, a French-Moroccan. The daughter of one was abused by an Islamophobe when she went to visit the spot where her mother had been killed. As I say, hard to listen to. Mathsci (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant Eustace Mullins? Edwin Mullins doesn't seem to fit at all in to what you were saying. Nil Einne (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. Mathsci (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since when does violating WP:COPYVIO, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:EW and WP:MOS make someone an "invaluable asset". Pincrete asking for this to be summarily closed is inappropriate. Yes it is quite possible to communicate between french and english "without getting personal" however Personal Attacks by Mathsci seem to indicate he is incapable of doing such or is unwilling to do so. Perhaps a page ban is in order.--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is an 'invaluable asset' when they are the only one competent to inform the rest of us of the difference, for example, between a French legal term and its 'close neighbour' in US or UK terminology. The PA's in my opinion are mainly silly and sometimes possibly the result of his frustration at not being understood. 'Scottish based twit' is daft and unnec., but we've all been called worse. The copy-vio was solely on talk page, his literal translation of a French source, which he -and others- were unaware was still copy-vio. Mathsci is possibly too emotionally invested in the article, but on balance, I still believe he has been a major asset, and I have not had any problems communicating calmly with him. I was 'pinged' here, I've given my opinion, unless a specific response is needed from me, I don't intend to take any further part in this ANI. Pincrete (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm simply not going to read that wall of text. And this is part of the problem on the article: If someone edits they war, and if someone engages in discussion it's pages of WP:IDHT until they give up.

Second, per Pincrete's comment today on the talk "I also noticed 'riddled with bullet holes' some time ago, but didn't want to make a fuss." And that's exactly what it is. Even minor changes to the article are a battle that must be fought. The user is clearly here to make an encyclopedia; they're just not here to make it with others. This was exactly the nature of the AN3 warning given by EdJohnston: "The fact that Mathsci has worked to improve the article does not immunize him." TimothyJosephWood 22:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pincrete didn't 'want to make a fuss', because he didn't think it important enough, and he knew the content was sourced. When other editors also thought the language a bit inappropriately dramatic, he agreed with them, and the content has been changed without rancour. I've made it clear that I think, on balance, Mathsci has been an invaluable asset, please don't use my name to imply otherwise. Pincrete (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Guys? Can I make a suggestion? Go and chat about it on some subpage somewhere, and I am pretty sure you'll reach an accommodation in short order. The mediation folks may be able to help, but honestly? I think you'd settle this over a beer and be on to the election within half an hour. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a discussion on the talk page. Timothyjosephwood decided to bring things here. He didn't like something quoted in sources labelled "grauniad", "torygraph" and BBC. He didn't like reading that a terrorist's lorry had been damaged by bullets in some way or other: windscreeen peppered, raked, pockmarked or riddled with bullet marks; right door or left, right side or left of cabin similarly. Unimportant details, but giving some idea of what took place as reported in the media. Timothyjosephwood just removed the innocuous phrase: "leaving the windscreen and cabin of the truck riddled with bullet holes". As for User:John, I defended him when Wnt launched an attack on him on RSN; John later sent me thanks through his thanks button. Mathsci (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's already been two RfCs generated by Mathsci's behavior, and neither of them involved me as a belligerent. I started one and closed the other. TimothyJosephWood 23:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which RfC's about my behaviour? Which particular statements did they discuss concerning my behaviour? Please link to them and explain yourself. Thanks, Mathsci (talk)
        • I found one RfC prematurely archived.Talk:2016_Nice_attack/Archive_5#RfC_on_the_removal_of_a_timeline Five for removal of timeline, two against. The first RfC was here.Talk:2016 Nice attack/Archive_5#RfC_on_Mia_Bloom_Inclusion Content about Mia Bloom was removed once after significant new content had been added about the perpetrator not being a "lone wolf". As I commented then, anybody was free to add it back, in a relevant section, but nobody did. So perhaps to do with my editing, as I had modified the article quite a bit. Mathsci (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Bloom RfC was salvaged after Mathsci went forward with the side they supported, less than a day after it was opened, overriding four votes against. In the second case it took third party intervention (me) to restore the status quo and open an RfC, and an AN3 report by Erlbaeko, to have Mathsci settle for anything less than their preferred version. Pretty much par for the course. TimothyJosephWood 10:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Timothyjosephwood has left the RfC on the timeline box hidden festering in a talk page archive. The two AN3 reports of Erlbaeko resulted in a warning about the timeline box and a conclusion of "no violation". Timothyjosephwood's stating otherwise does not change that. At the moment he is simply misrepresenting facts. I don't have a preferred version and have altered many things when it has been suggested, e.g. after a talk page comment I rewrote the sentences concerning the cyclist and the motorcyclist originally introduced by me into the article. I also changed the archiving on the talk page to once a week. Timothyjosephwood has abandoned the timeline RfC to the archives. He has also stated "News sources are not an enclyclopedia" (see above). An odd thing to write. Timothyjosephwood has invested much effort into vetoing French sources from the article; he has also tried to obstruct short translations or summaries from French articles from appearing on the talk page. Meanwhile US news sources have at present essentially stopped reporting on the disaster. Mathsci (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This report seems vague—if there is any significant issue, please briefly outline it, with a couple of links (a diff, a discussion), and a brief statement of how Mathsci was a problem. I say that after trying to understand TimothyJosephWood's point just above where he says "The Bloom RfC was salvaged after Mathsci went forward with the side they supported, less than a day after it was opened, overriding four votes against." However, the RfC on Mia Bloom Inclusion was closed by TimothyJosephWood in a way that seems to vindicate Mathsci who pointed out that comments written before the majority of details were released should not be featured in the article. The RfC fully supported Mathsci's position, and TimothyJosephWood's objection in this ANI report seems to be that a misguided RfC should halt editing for 30 days. Is there anything substantive rather than an issue which seems to show that Mathsci was correct, and where his comment is a model of good RfC conduct. Johnuniq (talk) 12:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The report is that in two months off indef, they've managed to accrue a long list of NPA violations, edit warring, violations of BLP and COPYVIO, and warring to violate COPYVIO. Their comments above re: "short translations" shows their inability to WP:LISTEN, as they still don't understand what was explained by multiple people: short quotes are fine, and full articles, which they warred to include, are not.

Add an inability to understand WP:NOENG, as they apparently believe quite strongly that "English-language sources are preferred" is a slur, and that I am on a personal war against France. This is evident by the pages of tirades above, as well as by the string of personal attacks and aspersions yesterday, and reverting to use euphemistic wording of their own translation, then doing the same with other wording, both of which were eventually fixed by others.

The RfC I closed was an attempt to maintain peace. The RfC I started was an attempt to end a war. I have attempted to be a mediating party on the article, as Mathsci has had constant conflict with multiple users. Simply put, they WP:OWN the article, and on multiple fronts, with multiple users, they have shown a willingness to violate policy to maintain that. TimothyJosephWood 12:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• TimothyJosephWood seems to be trying to make a "pattern of behaviour" argument here. It is likely that Mathsci does not like TJW or their editing, but I do not see the former's behaviour as outside the norms. There are no BLP or COPYVIO violations that I could find. There are some personal attacks and some bad faith. Even in the somewhat heated discussion which TJW characterizes as "threatening to bring him to ANI", most of the discussion is good-faith and focused on content. In contentious areas, a bit of friction is unavoidable, unfortunately. As for content, most of Mathsci's edits seem to be good and helpful. There are some disagreements over policy. It would be good if other people are involved more, perhaps through an RfC or WP:3O rather than just the two of you arguing. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLP and COPYVIO issues linked to above under main header. TimothyJosephWood 13:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, scratched it. The COPYVIO issue seems to have been resolved and so has the BLP issue. I am inclined to think that they were good-faith disagreements over policy, but they are still violations. Mathsci should be more careful. There is a pattern of behaviour suggesting WP:OWN here. I don't know how it should be addressed. Perhaps a warning suffices, because I don't think it is egregious, and most of Mathsci's edits are helpful. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Two months off indef": why does Timothyjosephwood mention the arbcom block here? It has no relevance whatsoever.

On his own admission French language falls outside Timothyjosephwood's expertise. Nevertheless he is trying to edit an article on a recent disaster in France where almost all new sources are currently in French. That puts him at a disadvantage. He has been misinterpreting wikipedia policy to dismiss French sources: blanking French quotes from the talk page; surrounding them with walls of bogus wikipedia policy; and making shrill complaints about copyvios when English translations are given. I use the best sources I can find. They are rarely US sources.

Timothyjosephwood has neither an informal nor a formal role as any kind of mediator. Mediation on wikipedia is quite a different thing. It is definitely not self-appointed vigilantism.

Timothyjosephwood's most recent declaration has been that "a news source is not an encyclopedia". When he writes something like that, how does he expect other editors to take him seriously? N'enseignez pas votre grand-mère à sucer les œufs. Mathsci (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I note that Timothyjosephwood has not made very many content edits (3,000) and has created no articles. According to his "logic", these articles by me—Chateau of Vauvenargues and La Vieille Charité—should not exist. I only used French sources. The same with Porte d'Aix. So what he writes is baseless nonsense showing a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of wikipedia.[33] He has no idea of my writing skills or lack thereof. He cannot speak French and is trotting out rules to discriminate against editors who know French better than he does. If he had created articles like Clavier-Übung III, his negative commentary might be worth reading. At present, without diffs, it is a personal attack by somebody seemingly with overt prejudices concerning the French language. I am British and have a deep respect for France, its culture and its language. Timothyjosephwood's alphabet soup of claimed wikipedia policies about sources in French would justify the deletion of many articles I have written related to France. His attitude is highly disruptive. Why such a negative attitude to the French language? What about Phèdre which I edited extensively? Or Iphigénie? Or The Four Seasons (Poussin)? No Timothyjosephwood's crusade against French sources is doomed to disaster. He has cast aspersions on my editing skills, but he shows almost zero awareness of how I edit. His "report" here is an example of WP:POINT. Mathsci (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as WP:BLP violations go, Timothyjosephwood added this piece of salacious gossip to Talk:Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel about a claimed "principal lover".[34] The 73 year old recently gave an extensive interview to Nice-Matin. It is briefly discussed here Talk:2016 Nice attack#Best friend. Timothyjosephwood has not done anything to remove his BLP violations from Talk:Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel. His sources were the India Times and Sky News. So horrific content and unreliable sources. Is this the "model editing" he wants other wikipedians to emulate? This is what happens when an editor dismisses French sources. Quelle horreur ! Mathsci (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

• "misinterpreting wikipedia policy to dismiss French sources" - Failure to understand WP:NOENG after having it explained multiple times
• "blanking French quotes from the talk page" - Failure to understand why pasting an entire article was WP:COPYVIO
• "shrill complaints about copyvios when English translations are given" - Failure to understand why a translation of an entire article is WP:COPYVIO
• "walls of bogus wikipedia policy" - Complete WP:IDHT
• "any kind of mediator" - Although I have defended this editor multiple times, including when they were improperly templated on their talk
• "a news source is not an encyclopedia" - I don't even know. I guess WP:CIR, when someone says "a news source can say 'raked with bullets', but WP shouldn't".

The user flatly doesn't care about policy, period, in any case where it interferes with their ownership, and fails to even acknowledge that they've at all violated it. The block log is relevant because they've already been blocked twice for harassment, twice for warring, and once indeffed by ArbCom. It's a pattern that goes back to 2008 and they've apparently learned nothing. TimothyJosephWood 21:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I guess the user wants to have a spat over where arbitrary breaks are, even though the above thread includes a pages long diatribe posted by them that makes it unnavigable. TimothyJosephWood 21:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply above not here. Mathsci (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This report is painful to read. I'm seeing so many words that are not devoted to responding to the actual complaints made. If we don't want a book written on here, can someone take a look at closing it? Arkon (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know. Going off the rails over something minor, and claiming a 1:1 contribution-to-disruption ratio seems to be their MO. TimothyJosephWood 23:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Back when the article was new (and I was still watching it), I noticed that Mathsci's editing on it and talk-page comments were very whiney, accusative, bossy, long-winded, and chauvinistic. That's one reason I stopped watching/editing the article. In my observation Matchsci has a huge ownership problem with any article he starts to edit. All of that said, it does not seem that TJW is dealing well with the situation, and moreover has thrown a bit of the kitchensink into his OP of this ANI. I think TJW needs to be more accommodating of French sources (if you edit via Google Chrome you can instantly get the translation), which for this article are certainly not to be dismissed out of hand since it is a French event. TJW also needs to remember to ignore PAs and discuss only content. Reacting to or pointing out PAs only leads to more problems. I don't know what the solution to this whole scenario is, but I suggest we treat it like the (series of) content dispute(s) that it is, and proceed from there (including, if necessary, forms of dispute resolution). Mathsci should be warned that any further bullying, domination, or personal attacks or aspersions will not be tolerated in either edit summaries or posts and will result in a block. And that shorter, more concise wording is always preferable to unnecessary detail. Any edit-warring by any editor should be dealt with through the normal channels of (1) discussion on article talk page, (2) user talkpage warning, (3) WP:ANEW report. Plus we could definitely use more eyes from admins and experienced editors on that article and its talk page. Softlavender (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, I could have gone further in my OP and didn't, for what it's worth. Perhaps more importantly, there's not a single diff provided where I've cast aspersions on French sources...because...well...I haven't. TimothyJosephWood 00:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"...this is the English Wikipedia, and we should probably prefer English sources..."here.--Noren (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that's perfectly in line with guidance at WP:NOENG. TimothyJosephWood 01:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would have been better to start with the above claim that your stated preference for English language sources is supported by policy and move the debate on to whether the degree of preference was appropriate within that policy, rather than to muddy the waters with the demonstrably incorrect claim that you never cast aspersions on French sources.--Noren (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What aspersion? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to muddy the waters with the demonstrably correct claim that I quoted WP policy nearly verbatim. TimothyJosephWood 15:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked through all of your edits and all of your talk-page comments, and you are correct; you have never disparaged French sources. Therefore Mathsci's gigantic wall of text above (now hatted) is an utter red herring, and his constant dishonest aspersions against you on that score on the article talk page ([35], [36], [37], [38]) are completely out of order and beyond the pale -- I'd say he deserves a sanction for those aspersions, especially when combined with his other uncollaborative behaviors. Softlavender (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then you didn't look carefully at the edit history. There are 5 talk page archives, even though the article is recent. There's also deleted content. It's easy enough to provide the diffs. The BLP violation of Timothyjosephwood occurs here[39] and is described in the previous section. Please don't forget that. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the talk page and every single one of its archives, and every single edit TJW made to the article. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide diffs. On the completely unrelated matter, why are you showing a diff of direct quotes/information from India Times and Sky News on the talk page of a completely different article, where the person in question is not even named? TJW got consensus for that wording on that talk article's page, and even pinged you to participate: Talk:Mohamed_Lahouaiej-Bouhlel#Sexual_relationship. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the new section below. The BLP violation is explained in the previous section where I mention the recent article in Nice-Matin. Your other question about diffs is taken up in the new section below. I am still analysing them. I analyse your own handful of contributions here, just to check whether your initial complaints stand up to scrutiny. Contrary to your statement here, I cannot conceive how you could have analysed the diffs of the OP in the time interval you provided yourself. The description below mentions your own very brief involvement on the article. It concerned the image in the infobox. I created the image for the infobox that has been there for approaching two weeks. You complained about an image of a shoe,[40] opened a talk page section specifically on the infobox[41] complaining about the invisibility of the PDA on the image at that stage but suggesting a cropped image,[42] you complained that the image still used in the French infobox had too much "ocean, beach, trees, and buildings"[43] you dismissed my comments when I mentioned the actual course of the lorry and landmarks on the PDA.[44] I told you that the wrong part of the water front was pictured, mentioning the landmarks of on the route of the lorry. I explained I was looking for suitable images in all sorts of places (commons, flickr cc, etc).[45] You replied that "All I care about at present is that the infobox image match the claim in the current caption that it shows the promenade. It doesn't, and it was changed without discussion." At that stage the image showed the Quai des Etats Unis not the PDA. I don't see that you were "bossed" there. Some WP:IDHT from you. You did not acknowledge the current image added later that day. You made no more edits to the talk page. Mathsci (talk) 10:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you don't have any evidence that TJW ever disparaged French sources. Nor did he engage in any BLP violation on this or the other article; in fact, as I noted, he called for talk-page consensus and specifically pinged you before posting anything. And as below, you are trying to falsely trump up ridiculous charges against people not even party to the disputes between you and TJW, in order to somehow deflect attention away from yourself. Softlavender (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously haven't read the section below. Please could you do so now? And please don't complain about tl;dr. I explain there that I have analysed most of the diffs, but that doesn't seem to have registered with you. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 11:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• [This edit, a reply to Softlavender, was moved here twice by Softlavender, who also deleted content in so doing: the edit was addressed to her, but she felt that she should control where other editors placed their comments to preserve the chronology. She then allowed herself the luxury of changing the chronology herself, with the above edit.] You made these edits to Orgelbüchlein, an article completely outside your normal editing interests or expertise.[46][47][48] Francis Schonken's editing of articles on Bach's sacred music is currently restricted. Despite that he made an edit to the lede of that article. When he was reverted, you plunged into edit warring in a WP:BATTLEGROUND spirit, determined to make your WP:POINT. In an edit summary you wrote: "This odd and controversial claim (see Talk page) is made here and is not backed up *anywhere* in the article. Either cite it somewhere, or remove it." You stopped as soon as I made this simple edit;[49] I then made this edit.[50] You were previously aware of the sources. These edits of yours were purely disruptive. You questioned this statement of the acknowledged Bach scholar Russell Stinson as if it were controversial,

The edits you made then were tag-teaming to circumvent Francis Schonken's editing restrictions. You knew then that the statement was uncontroversial. Yet you capriciously described tit as "odd and controversial". Those edits cast you in a very poor light. Here, as if still nursing a grudge, you reappear with a litany of personal attacks. But you have to justify yourself with diffs, not just an uncontrolled outburst. Please take a few minutes to reread WP:NPA to refresh your memory on wikipedia's policies on personal attacks. You edited disruptively on Orgelbüchlein then. Why should it be any different now? Mathsci (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Schonken is not restricted from editing Bach's sacred music; I was not tag-teaming with Francis; each of my edits was entirely appropriate and neutral; the uncited material had been repeatedly challenged since 2012; you finally cited it. Moreover, this has nothing to do with 2016 Nice attack, but it does indeed reveal your ownership behavior. Softlavender (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The summary is here.[51] It was more stringent than a restriction on reverts in Bach's sacred music, because the closing administrator thought Francis Schonken might game the system. You were tag-teaming because you were repeating his edit immediately after I reverted it. You flouted the editing restriction be acting in place of Francis Schonken to circumvent his restrictions. Combined with your inapt words "odd and controversial" to describe Stinson's text, you were editing in bad faith. Your text above is also a personal attack, without diffs. You were not editing there in good faith, so, given that behaviour then and your attacking tone above, why it should it be any different now? If you had edited more responsibly then, things would be different now. As for Orgelbüchlein, there is a clear indication of the state of the article on the talk page.Talk:Orgelbüchlein#To_do_list It contains a list of chorale preludes which still are in an incomplete state in the article. There are 25 completed sections and 22 incomplete. I wrote most of A solis ortus cardine while preparing the next section to be added. With a failure to WP:AGF you interpret that process of creation as "ownership". But that hasn't on any other articles I have completed. I mean Organ concertos, Op.4 (Handel), Concerti grossi, Op.6 (Handel), Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes, and so forth. Your edit-warring on Orgelbüchlein showed bad faith, as do your personal attacks here. Your edits to Orgelbüchlein were disruptive; and again I cannot see it's any different here. Mathsci (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. He is not restricted from editing Bach's sacred music. And all of your other claims are incorrect as well. Softlavender (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What...exactly...what? Nevermind. Here, have some of this. TimothyJosephWood 01:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: After finally getting through this book I am inclined to agree with everything User:Softlavender has said because this to me seems to be getting noone anywhere.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: What is being requested here? Is it a topic ban or a block or something? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume that Timothyjosephwood wants me to be banned from all articles do with France and the French language (principally because I speak French). I also assume that Softlavender wants me to be banned from all articles related to sacred music (principally because I know about the subject and am the only editor on wikipedia to add content on Bach's sacred organ music). But if you look carefully in the previous section you will see that another administrator user:JzG has dismissed Timothyjosephwood's report here; as have various other editors of long standing familiar with my edits. I don't think Timothyjosephwood was happy with that outcome, so he created a new section here and persisted. You'll have to read everything to sort that out. I hope that answers your question. Mathsci (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, I have no idea what would solve the problem. I may have suggested a topic ban before this spat with Softlavender, which strongly suggests that it's not a topical issue. The user apparently still thinks they've done nothing wrong, and that the major issue is that they're being somehow discriminated against because they speak another language. Seems the current strategy is simply to make the thread too long for anyone to read, by adding pages of unrelated content. TimothyJosephWood 10:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of article

I have spent some time going through to the article talk page. It takes a long time and I'm not even sure whether there is any point. I have about 150 edits to look at. It is evident that cannot be done speedily as Softlavender has suggested. After looking through the edits, my initial feeling is that everybody was trying to improve the article in some way or other. With a knowledge of Nice, having stayed there several times, plus a knowledge of how the South of France worked, I had a different approach to US editors. I learnt from the French while living and working there. I have followed the same pattern while trying to improve the article. I knew about the landmarks there and the geography. That first emerged in discussions of the images, particularly for the image in the infobox which I created. I also used the French article as a reference for how ours should look. There was initially a very wide divergence. Although French editors will understand quite quickly how Nice ticks (just like Marseille), that need not be true for US editors. Hence the importance of landmarks and cross streets on the PDA. The PDA is long and finding an image showing the right segment took some work. Softlavender did not understand the process behind that nor the relevance of the Hotel Negresco and the Palais de la Méditerranée. The French had already decided on the Negresco for their infobox, because of its iconic significance in Nice. That icon has been desecrated now. The image also gave a good idea of the PDA itself (traffic lanes, pavements, central divide). That structure is visible on our annotated map which I created by assembling reasonably high resolution tiles on openstreetmap. Apart from the images and the maps, I used google map to trace the route as if on the PDA for checking details; similarly I checked the Route de Turin around number 62, the apartment of the perpetrator. The geography was an important starting point for improving the article. The actual evolution was governed by when information became available. In greatest detail information first appeared in French sources. The 3 news conferences of the prosecutor on 15, 18, 21 July, available on videos as a spoken narrative in French. Portions of this have been transcribed in detail by the French media and to a much lesser extent by the UK media. The next information came on 25 July from the policewoman in charge of CCTV monitors on 25 July and gave a detailed chronology for the truck on PDA. The rapidity of events brings home how awful the disaster was. The article changed in several ways. First by the victims table being moved and rejigged. Two sections were interchanged to make that possible. The charges from the 21 July conference were paraphrased in English and given a separate subsection. In the meantime Nice-Matin located three heros, two of whom played a crucial role in halting the attack. The French account of the attack was translated into English and was introduced into the first two sections of the article, with sources gradually added in French and English where possible. Two sentences on the heros were included and the chronology matched with the CCTV reports. That also happened on both maps, taking into account the events involving the heros. Apart from recent arrests and the Agence France-Presse listings of all fatalities, that brings the article up to its current state. Investigations are pending; and there are ongoing disputes over security issues between the government, local authorities and the national and municipal police. No great changes are anticipated at the moment.

I might return below to how the sporadic and unpredictable way information became known affected editing. The disaster is still so terrible that examining such matters at this stage seems ill-advised, when people are still struggling to understand the enormity of the attack as well as it details. Certainly reading and listening to the French sources obviously helps in creating content but it also takes its toll. I might comment on Timothyjosephwood's role in this. However, I am very reluctant at this stage to discuss any aspect of his edits in detail, although I have looked at over 2/3 of them so far. I would like to give him the opportunity to withdraw this report and calmly reflect on the sad process we have gone through on wikipedia in recording this event. Using noticeboards as a means of attacking other editors who have invested large amounts of time improving the article is not the way forward. The article is about France and the French; the main sources are in that language, whatever wikipedia policy might be; and the task on wikipedia is to give an accurate and sensitive account of the terrible disaster in English. It should not offend any French person who reads it. That is my point of view. Mathsci (talk) 06:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Just putting this out there, someone can correct me if I'm missing it, but...none...of this 800 word essay has anything to do with why you've repeatedly violated policy, nor does it even attempt to justify your repeated accusations that I'm somehow vehemently anti-French. TimothyJosephWood 12:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have read this whole discussion and I can safely say you're characterizing Mathsci's "accusations" against you unfairly. My read of this is that his view is not that you are anti-French, but rather that you have a bias against sources printed in French even though they may be the most salient with respect to French happenings. TJW, I have always respected the way you handle conflict when I have had the fortune to observe you in action on this board and in other places. I would echo the sentiment above that giving some room here for dispute resolution between two parties would be in the best interest of the encylopedia, in order to preserve the value that both of you can bring it. 107.7.142.6 (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Having read through this ridiculously long thread, I'm inclined to agree with Timothyjosephwood here. User:Mathsci, if you don't provide some evidence for "a great antipathy to sources in the French press", "[a lack of] sensitivity to French people, French culture and the French media", "a negative and condescending attitude to French sources", "misinterpreting wikipedia policy to dismiss French sources", "discriminates against editors who know French" and all the rest of your unsourced allegations of racism, I'm inclined to block you for personal attacks. Note that English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available is a formal and official Wikipedia policy, not just some vague guideline which one can disregard should one feel so inclined, and "dismissing French sources" is an obligation provided sources of equivalent quality exist in the English language. ‑ Iridescent 13:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have analysed 150 odd edits in an unsaved version on my sandbox. But as I say above, I am reluctant to add that here. I have catalogued 63 diffs. I could summarise the problems here. The above is not an essay but a detailled explanation of how the article was written, much of it by me. Why ridicule its length? The writing has largely been uncontroversial but painstaking. Images, maps, French sources, English sources, comparison with the fr.wikipedia.org article, etc. Other editors have helped with some of the writing about local heros; others have smoothed the text; others have helped establish the timings, which were hopelessly wrong for a long time.

There was a nasty public thread on wikipediocracy about this which User:Stanistani has kindly put into a private forum. I very much appreciate his help. I don't know whether you contributed there, Iridescent, because I looked at nothing beyond the identity of the original poster.

The IP is correct that the main sources used to correct the article have been in French. English sources have been scrupulously searched out whenever they exist. It takes a long time, searching for "attentat nice" or "nice attack". Sometimes "arrestations" sometimes "arrests", etc. English language sources have dwindled to almost nothing now. No wikipedia policy can change that.

Using the French sources has required the facility to understand spoken French (as a double check for correctness), mainly because most information was divulged at the 3 press conferences of the Paris Prosecutor. There are very few sources in English for most of the content after 18 July; when they exist they are patchy and not necessarily reliable. The Guardian is usually fairly reliable as it has learnt to check and correct facts after the event. But it is patchy. The chronology is available only in French. The sources about the heros are in Nice-Matin. As far as I remember you're British. You will be able to verify that once small details start appearing that might be important for the article they will not necessarily appear in any useful form in the UK media. The US media does not seem to report on this at all. CNN translates "mon ami" as "brother", suggesting a false equivalence between Tunisians in France and African Americans. Most of the newly sourced content appears in Nice-Matin.

This report was started by the OP shortly after this edit by him.[52] He objected to statements, sourced to the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian and BBC News about the state of the lorry after the final gunfire between police and the perpetrator. He found the phrase, "leaving the windscreen of the truck riddled with bullet holes" to be sensationalist writing. Roughly the same phrase in all the sources, including the French (criblé d'impacts de balles). I don't want to trot out the 63 diffs. The OP is well meaning but at a disadvantage because of language. It was when he started attempting to translate French himself, that things went pear-shaped. I would not blame him, but I would suggest that he is more circumspect and does no try to discuss fine details of the French language. In the end on the article with another active British editor a phrase was concocted which seems to suit everybody: "There were multiple bullet holes in the windscreen and front of the truck." My contribution there was minor and grammatical. Some images of the truck being towed away after each bullet hole had been labelled with a police tag were used as a double check. Mathsci (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So basically no. TimothyJosephWood 14:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want them, you can have them. I have prepared a first draft unsaved in my sandbox, but I don't see the point at the moment. They'll stay there unless my computer crashes. Things went pear-shaped when you attempted to have a discussion about how to translate legalistic French. With no training in French, that is an extraordinary thing to try. You even seemed to cast doubt on other small translations by me in a wiki-bureaucratic way (SMS messages). As I've written on the talk page, a paraphrase avoiding these ambiguities is better. It is not WP:OR to state that the charges were made under French laws concerning terrorism. That is a neat way out of things as far as I'm concerned. I share the views of the IP on your qualities as an editor. But the sources are what they are. We have no control. Mathsci (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So "no", then? Claiming the evidence exists in a private forum on Wikipediocracy, a site of which I believe you're the only member in this discussion and thus you know none of us have access to, is evidence of nothing at all. (And no, I'm not British, but even if I were I don't know why you'd think that would make me believe the UK media is inherently unreliable, which appears to be the thrust of your latest argument; sure, they have shitty tabloids the same as everywhere, but they also have the BBC, the Times, and Sky News which are arguably the most reputable news sources in the world.) ‑ Iridescent 15:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't said no, I said I'm quite willing to provide a list of uncommented diffs, possibly even commented.

You write "a private forum on Wikipediocracy, a site of which I believe you're the only member in this discussion and thus you know none of us have access to". It's not what I wrote. It is your misreading. I have had no access to wikipediocracy since 2012. That is why I left this message on wikipedia for the main administrator of that website.User_talk:Stanistani#Request I repeated it in an wiki-email message to make sure he got it. There are editors on wikipediocracy who like to write my whole name in full whenever possible.

Sky News is unreliable. The Times is not available without subscription. The sources I have used in writing the article are BBC News (extensively), The Daily Telegraph (extensively), The Guardian (extensively) and France24 in English (extensively). I have not used The Daily Mail. Because of the time delay, US newspapers are not particularly useful. I never said the evidence is in a private forum on wikipediocracy. I wrote that it is an unsaved version of my sandbox where I have been gathering diffs. Quite different. Why credit me with things that I either haven't said or written? I asked Stanistani to place the discussion on wikipediocracy in a private forum because of privacy issues. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting for User:Iridescent to explain why he made these wild statements about wikipediocracy. I have prepared 28 diffs, dated but uncommented. When he explains why these wikipediocracy, I'd be quite happy to provide the diffs, possibly once I've added comments. After all Dougweller, Moonriddengirl and Diannaa helped me. Mathsci (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That will be directly above where you claim that the evidence is in "There was a nasty public thread on wikipediocracy about this which User:Stanistani has kindly put into a private forum" and (implicitly) accuse me, without any evidence (obviously, as there isn't any) of being a Wikipediocracy member, perhaps? I'm not going to engage with you further; this thread is pretty clearly you returning to your old game of flinging accusations at everyone in sight in the hope that some of them will stick, since if you had any actual evidence we'd have seen it by now, so I'll let whoever's stupid/brave enough to close this thread to judge your conduct for yourself. ‑ Iridescent 18:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said that you're a member of WPO; I apologize if I gave that impression. I know admins and ex-arbitrators who are. Newyorkbrad, Roger Davies, Casliber, GorillaWarfare, even AGK. I am not (I was banned in 2013). One arbcom banned person is prohibited from posting about me there. He persists and each time that happens the thread is removed from public view. The reason for that is that some members of WPO post the full names of people that they don't like. Of course I don't associate you or any other arbitrators or ex-arbitrators with that kind of nonsense. You have had my selection of diffs posted on your page. I haven't finished preparing it. Mathsci (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of those diffs "provide some evidence for "a great antipathy to sources in the French press", "[a lack of] sensitivity to French people, French culture and the French media", "a negative and condescending attitude to French sources", "misinterpreting wikipedia policy to dismiss French sources", "discriminates against editors who know French"" - perhaps you meant to post some actual evidence to justify your personal attacks? Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not the first time Mathsci has had 'issues' over France related content, with a history of displaying ownership. Nor is this their first rodeo when it comes to personal attacks. Lets not mention the banning incident either... Mathsci does not like other people editing articles where Mathsci feels their 'expertise' is superior. This results in edit wars, personal attacks and noticeboard drama. This behaviour goes back to 2007 and has not changed noticeably since. Their block log is indicative. Noticeboard reports tend to follow a predictable pattern, walls'o'text until everyone is bored. Since it took Mathsci off-wiki harrassing an editor and attempting to out them on wikipedia before any action was taken regarding him, I suggest nothing is likely to gain consensus here, regardless of the evidence presented. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're talking about six years ago? When Pmanderson decided Marseille should be spelt with an "s"? And ChildofMidnight tagged bastide? There might not be an "s" at the end of Marseille but there certainly is at the beginning of "Stale". There has been no off-wiki harassment by me. It might be that a wikipediocracy troll have been supplying you with false information. Please be careful of those trolls. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh so you *didnt* attempt to track down Cla's home address then? Sorry I must have you confused with some other Mathsci... Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, not at all. I imagine you might be blocked if you continue editing in this way. Mathsci (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just because somebody writes something, doesn't make it true. Mathsci (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Shots fired. TimothyJosephWood 16:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Iridescent: "User:Mathsci, if you don't provide some evidence for "a great antipathy to sources in the French press", "[a lack of] sensitivity to French people, French culture and the French media", "a negative and condescending attitude to French sources", "misinterpreting wikipedia policy to dismiss French sources", "discriminates against editors who know French" and all the rest of your unsourced allegations of racism, I'm inclined to block you for personal attacks. Note that English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available is a formal and official Wikipedia policy, not just some vague guideline which one can disregard should one feel so inclined, and "dismissing French sources" is an obligation provided sources of equivalent quality exist in the English language." Considering that you have recently been unbanned (after about 2 1/2 years), I wouldn't bother with escalating blocks and simply go back to indef. An unban like this is a final chance, not a clean start where the past is forgotten immediately. Fram (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have the diffs in my unsaved sandbox and could add them as an uncommented line of diffs.

Please provide English language sources for the following. The chronology of the attack from the official CCTV police report. The fact that the truck started its attack just after 22:32 and was brought to a halt just after 22:35. The detailed report of the sighting of the truck around 22:00 at the intersection of Avenue de Fabrol and Avenue de la Californie. The report on the award of medals for bravery to Alexandre, Franck and Guenol with citations for all three. The accounts of Alexandre the cyclist and Franck the motorcyclist as they engaged with the truck on PDA. The official list of 84 names of the killed, published by Agence France-Presse. The draping of the town hall of Nice with banners listing the names of the 84 dead. Accounts of the last two arrests and where the arrests were made in Nice. You can have four or five days if you want. Mathsci (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is turning into a complete farce. Drop $10,000 in unmarked bills at the spot at midnight, or the diffs get it! TimothyJosephWood 19:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, 28 raw diffs have been posted on Iridescent's talk page. He or she doubted they existed. I prepared an initial list of 67 diffs with commentary. Then I selected these but want to add commentary and possibly tweak the list. That takes time. I didn't start this request. Mathsci (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2

Apparently this discussion has, for some reason, moved to Iridescent's talk. TimothyJosephWood 19:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't. Iridescent was given a preliminary list of diffs, that's all. Then, as a game, he or she decided to add their own commentary. But how could Iridescent know about parallel edits to the article, about particular sources, about specific content, about context or about questions being posed to Dougweller, Moonriddengirl and eventually Diannaa? Iridescent played an interesting and unusual game. Not one that many administrators have played before. Mathsci (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There's not much of a discussion there. Ok, wherever it is, at this point, I guess I support a topic ban for Mathsci from the 2016 Nice attack article and talk page. I was waffling before but there seems to be arguments repeatedly and mild incivility all around but the amount of people Mathsci wants to drag into this is evidence that the editor needs to do something else rather than pile up walls of text here than do not actually explain the edits but simply seem to annoy more and more people. I agree that the Mathsci "I can read French and am therefore better at this than anyone else" routine is tiring. And no, I don't see a reason we should be preferring sources by languages. The reliable sources should be consistent with one another, regardless of language and if there is a difference, the debate should be on its reliability not on its language. It's one articles, there's over five million more and no one person is important enough that others should be attacked for their lack of knowledge of other languages. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no desire to drag anybody into this. I haven't presented diffs here and on the contrary did not want to. Those active on the article such as User:Pincrete have acknowledged that the majority of recent sources are in French. There are no equivalent English sources. Where there are, of course we use them Here is recent content where there are no English references. The police CCTV report in Marianne (magazine). The report on the bravery medals awarded by the local authorities. the individual testimonies of the heros. The report on the names of those killed in France Agence-Presse. The report on the black banners draped from the town hall in Nice listing all the names of victims. The recent arrests in Nice and their precise location. Earlier information was available in many English sources but, now that other events have overtaken these, that is no longer the case. Actually I don't see the article changing very much apart from some rejigging which is done by random editors. In its present semi-stable state I don't envisage editing it very much at all. Mathsci (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are examples of content added recently where no non-French sources or no detailed non-French sources were available:

• [53] the description of how the motorcyclist and cyclist intercepted the truck; the precise details for the cyclist were worked out thanks to contributions from Biwom.
• [54][55] Arrest of 36 year old suspect in Nice.
• [56] correct timings from police CCTV report
• [57] official list of victims from AFP; banner on Nice city hall
• [58] description of the five suspects charged
• [59] 3 medals for bravery awarded by local authorities

Mathsci (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of those diffs "provide some evidence for "a great antipathy to sources in the French press", "[a lack of] sensitivity to French people, French culture and the French media", "a negative and condescending attitude to French sources", "misinterpreting wikipedia policy to dismiss French sources", "discriminates against editors who know French"" - perhaps you meant to post some actual evidence to justify your personal attacks? Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are all examples of content added by me. The parts of the articles where I have done most work are the Background and Attack sections, which were initially a translation from the French article; and the section on "charging of suspects". I also reconfigured the victims table to ease congestion in the article (too many boxes and images vying for space).Mathsci (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to explain the language problems and will do so now. Tjw has stated his preference for English language sources many times (ssee diffs below); when content as above has been added where only French sources were available, nobody has objected including Tjw. Slight problems have arisen in discussing the police CCTV reports on the talk page. Moonriddengirl and Diannaa were helpful in explaining how sources like that, only available in French, could be discussed in detail on the talk page. For the CCTV report that was done in summary form with links to the article. The timings were not in numerals but in words, because that is how reports are written. I converted some of those into numbers on the talk page. That content again was accepted with no difficulty. This information was crucial to the article in establishing timings. The initial version of the article implied a half hour period for the attack. The CCTV footage indicated a period of less than five minutes from the start of the attack (at c 22:32) to the halting of the vehicle (just before 22:36). That source radically changed both maps in the article and the description of the attack itself. This would not have been possible with only English sources, even if Ricky82682 and Fram might think otherwise. The maps were redrawn by both me and Erlbaeko. The map in the infobox is used on about 60 wikipedias and in its current state is due to me. The correct entry point on to the PDA was also described in the police CCTV report. Previous maps and content suggested had gone the wrong down a tiny one way street; there were no sources at all for that. Where Tjw have differed has been on precise legal terms. On the talk page of the article I have suggested that if we don't know things precisely we formulate so that is informative for the reader (we mention French laws of terrorism) and then give a short form of the charges. Individual words can create problems, but the detail is rarely important. So in summary I would that although Tjw has expressed the wish for sources to be in English he has in fact shown great flexibility.

I regret that the two of us have disagreed and that individual words like "entreprise" and "complices" have caused problems. Ultimately we have always agreed. In this case there was probably a misunderstanding in this chain of edits on 1 August.[60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68] Something of a storm in teacup for describing how the truck was damaged. In one these diffs Tjw wrote the following,

He was in fact discussing the innocuous phrase "leaving the windscreen and front of the truck riddled with bullet holes". A phrase used in multiple English sources, with variants for riddled. He sensed something "sensationalist". The word riddled was removed in a later version. However in his edit he strayed onto other territory. The writing in the "attack" section—initally a straight translation by me of the corresponding section in the French article—was kept neutral and extremely careful. The language used for fatalities was psrticularly careful and deliberately understated. In that sense it was unlike press reports which used phrases like those mentioned by Tlj. Knocked down slike kittles, thrown into the air, limbs found enmeshed in the front axle. Any detail like that has been carefully avoided. So my reading is that there was a misunderstanding. Both of us wished to avoid anything hyperbolic in connection with the fatalities.

It does actually helps to have someone fluent in French editing the article. The article can be improved as a result. I have used the thankyou button for Tlj before the incidents on 1 August (e.g. when with Wehwalt he was able to find images of tributes) and I believe we sing from the same song sheet. for almost all the article the main source has been what the Prosecutor said and how it has been transcribed. French sources give great detail, AFP translations less so.

Tlj has expressed his antipathy to French sources on the talk page[69][70][71] but when he sees it used to add valuable content he has never objected. He has sometimes overreacted when I have tried to discuss sources only available in French. That was the case for the CCTV report which was vital for writing the article. I actually did not know how to proceed in cases like that so sought help from Dougweller, Moonriddengirl and later Diannaa. The non-existence of sources in English is hardly my fault. The fact that they are in French is no problem to me and I am willing to provide translations and/or paraphrases for others as I have done several times. Tlj removed many of those as being too lengthy and so possible COPYVIOS; but now that the rule for translation-paraphrasing or brief translations is known, it can be accomplished within the framework of wikipedia. Again I think that the attempts to equate French culture with American culture when attempting translations of single words is doomed to failure. Context is everything. The diffs from August 1 contain examples of Tjw trying to do that. I have explained how adopting a different approach (French laws on terrorism) circumvents the problem without entering the domain of linguistic WP:OR. Mathsci (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The EW reports of Erlbaeko resulted in warnings to both of us from EdJohnstone about edits to the timeline box (which has an unresolved RfC). If somebody is deceiptfully committing COPYVIOS the last thing they're going to do is ask the 2 wikipedia COPYVIO experts Moonriddengirl and Diannaa about a possible problem. There is no outstanding copyvio issue. I do agree that there are probably better ways for me to handle language difficulties without being unduly rude to others, even when others were trying to do something completely out of their depth. There I should learn from Dougweller and Moonriddengirl. Patience. Mathsci (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really?? Your ban would be for OWNISH behavior, your argument all articles dealing with French should only have French sources is my point to English Wikipedia/French Wikipedia comment.I said nothing to the effect of there shouldn't be French sources, You like to put words in people's mouths clearly. I also never said any article should be deleted because of French sources nor did I say you should be banned for adding French sources. I find it really hard to believe there are no English sources but whatever. You think you own the article, you clearly think you own this ANI and you have yet to show anything showing you aren't being OWNISH. That's why you should be banned and why I still support an article ban Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:NOENG "says "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available". In this instance Eng sources of equal quality have not always been available. One particularly notable instance is in respect of 'timing' of the event. Most Eng sources came out within a few days of the attack. Most Eng sources printed timings in which the 'attack' started shortly after 22.30 and the driver was shot dead at approx. 23:00, ie the attack lasted somewhere over 20 mins. Several editors have defended these timings simply because they are NYT, BBC, Gdn, Reuters etc. As far as I know, the timings have not been updated in Eng sources. A child could see these timings are nonsense, taking over 20 mins to travel under 2 KMs is an average speed of around 3 MPH, it might be possible to kill turtles at that speed, but not 84 humans. I wish Mathsci would calm down a bit, but other editors are implying here, and have defended on talk, that content which is patent nonsense is OK, so long as it is based on Eng sources. That isn't how 'WP:NOENG' is intended to be interpreted, and I for one have been happy that someone has understood where Eng sources have got things wrong (and Eng sources have now largely moved on to other stories). Pincrete (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the attack section of the article using US sources:

This version is riddled with errors. Alexandre Migues was a cyclist. The motorcyclist was called Franck. All the timings are wrong. The first road was Avenue de la Californie, not Promenade des Anglais, etc, etc. Here is the current version which started as a translation from the fr.wikipedia.org article. It uses some English language sources but also several French sources.

Mathsci (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does any of this have to do with anything? You've offered nothing to justify your personal attacks and violations of policy. You are repeatedly filling this thread with pages upon pages of completely unrelated content. Why is any of this even here? No one is debating about the content of the article, they are debating your conduct as an editor. Are you so removed from the discussion that you actually don't understand that? TimothyJosephWood 01:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You insist that there were policy violations. But the EW reports by Erlbaeko resulted in one warning to him and me about the timeline box (EdJohnstone) which was observed; and no violation (Lord Roem). Equally well problems of explaining French sources to assist those who might have difficult reading them (like you for example) were clarified by asking the wikipedia copyright experts Moonriddengirl and then Diannaa. What more could I do? There were also no BLP violations: the French article lists all the first names of charged suspects. I have apologised and apologise again here if you were offended when I criticised your level of French, when you attempted to translate words. I have tried to build bridges with you. Mathsci (talk) 07:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The length of this response and the complete lack of relationship to any actual substantive issues here (hint, this isn't WP:RSN) is further evidence to support a topic ban. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue appears to be Timothyjosephwood's rejection of French sources. He has militated on the talk page about that, as the diffs show.[72][73][74] As Pincrete pointed out above, not using French sources would have resulted in a highly misleading and erroneous article of no use to the reader. Contrary to what WarMachineWildThing has suggested, there are no UK-US sources for the CCTV report that was so useful for excising multiple errors. Timothjosephwood played no role in making those corrections. I don't WP:OWN those corrections, I just made them (by meticulous editing and sourcing).

But with 21 edits to the article yourself on 14-15 July,[75] you're presumably commenting here as an editor not an administrator. You made this edit[76] deleting 3 English language sources in the lede (BBC, Guardian, CNN), replacing them by one French source from Le Figaro. (According to Timothyjosephwood that would violate WP:NOENG.) You also tinkered with the incorrect estimated speed of 20 km ph[77] an unsourced and inaccurate internet rumour (correct speed was 90 km ph), And now you are proposing to punish me for improving the article using French sources and correcting some of the hopeless errors created while you were editing. Wow. Mathsci (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

I have made 477 edits to the article. I've helped improve it and correct multiple serious errors using French sources when no English sources were available. It is an article about a French disaster. Some of the injured are still on life support machines and any further fatalities will be reported in the French press. The investigation is continuing in Paris with the 6 charged suspects. Although there might be continuing political recriminations in France, that is unlikely to be reflected in any edits to the English article. Since I don't think there's very much more that I can do to help on the article, I will voluntarily stop editing it now. Mathsci (talk) 08:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocked

I have indefinitely blocked Mathsci. Less than 4 months after his ban was lifted, we have the above situation, where even after days of asking for any evidence for his accusations, he still fails to provide diffs which support them in any way (the three diffs given here do not in any way justify the accusations, and the much longer list given at Iridescent's talk page have been analysed and give the exact same conclusion.) Instead of retracting the accusations and accepting that his opinion is not shared by uninvolved editors looking at his diffs, he continues in the same vein. Coupled with other problems (like the copyvios), I see no reason to believe that ending his editing of that one article will make any fundamental difference. If people see a different solution (topic ban, talk page restrictions, whatever) that may produce a better, lasting result, they are free to try that out of course, but some reassurance that Mathsci has any idea of what he did wrong and how we will avoid getting a similar situation again in a few months time seem to me to be the minimum to even consider unblocking. Fram (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This ANI has not been closed, therefore I wish to add this comment. It is a great pity that editors have 'locked horns' about Fr/Eng sources, which is the issue which has most often 'flared up' on talk. I am the first person to admit that Mathsci's 'you don't speak French, so you don't know what you are talking about' at times has been tiresome and has soured relations with other editors (even though at times it has been demonstrably true, poor understanding of French, and preference for Eng sources has led to serious errors and wrong surmisals, from many of us). It is simply a fact that the best sources, most complete, most accurate and most likely to print corrections and updates have been French. That is hardly surprising. I take no pleasure therefore from knowing that the one person who has been able to point out the errors has been banned. Mathsci is guilty of over reaction, but so is this ANI IMHO. Pincrete (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Pincrete, I think quite honestly, that you have summarized my own feelings towards this thread quite well. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh, he's been in danger of this for some time. Demonstrably incollegiate. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have not followed the article in question or Mathsci's edits enough to have an opinion on whether this sanction is justified but, as one of the few editors who work in the field of Baroque music, the loss of his expertise in that area will be a loss to the project in my opinion.Smeat75 (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse block. If I may borrow a comment from above - "Demonstrably incollegiate". Long term.

One may "if" and "but" about particular points in this epic thread, but its existence and consequent disruptive effect, along with its many precursors, demonstrates that this is an editor whose approach is unlikely to change for the better. This editor has long treated this place as a battlefield, and was allowed back in on the understanding that they would stop doing that. Yet here we are again... I think It's time to say "enough". --Begoon ^talk 14:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd be the first to admit that this user is clearly here to build an encyclopedia, and that the project would be better off if they had learned a long time ago to work with others who are as well. Unfortunately, across articles, users, topics and years, they do not appear to be able to do this. They have proven themselves to be generally immune to reasoning, policy, and sanctions, and I can see no reason to expect this to change. TimothyJosephWood 15:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Seems to be an overreaction, but an editor on as thin of ice as Mathsci should have been skating a little less aggressively. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: An overreaction? I'm looking at it more as an unfortunate, regrettable, and sadly inevitable last resort, all preferable avenues being, by now, painfully exhausted. --Begoon ^talk 15:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors seem to value Mathsci's contributions, and they have undoubtedly improved upon many topic areas, therefore I would have liked to have seen a month long block or a topic ban type action first. However I am not as familiar with this user's long history as you or many others, so I can understand your feelings. My point was only that it seems like an overreaction to this specific case for an indef block. All history taken into consideration would be a different circumstance...Mr Ernie (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I understand your point, but I still think it's better to take the bigger picture into account here. Always treating every incident in isolation means that repeated patterns are never addressed. I don't think that is really a sustainable approach. Begoon ^talk 16:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed a wise and measured approach. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'd miss Mathsci as one of the editors with detailed knowledge of Bach's work, able to make images available such as this lead image, and writing Orgelbüchlein. I bet some readers value his contributions. I had no conflict with him, even if we don't always agree. - I admit that I don't watch ANI, so saw this only by its sad result. I have no time to read it all, but see that is about a tragic recent, with emotions high. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that's truly the tragedy. If Mathsci could make those valuable contributions without all these massive shitfights, then all would be well. It seems he cannot, so here we are. I don't like it either. --Begoon ^talk 17:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. Not the first such tragedy, and not likely the last. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative suggestion @Fram: I would like to make it clear that I agreed with your block. I also note that you propose alternative sanctions; on the proviso that "some reassurance that Mathsci has any idea of what he did wrong and how we will avoid getting a similar situation again in a few months time." I'm not sure, incidentally, that we do have such assurances in the current block request here. But- as a suggestion for the future- in light of the community reciving and accepting such assurances, perhaps a TBAN would be in order. Something along the lines of French politics and terrorism, broadly construed. Thus there might still be room for his editing in the arenas that seasoned editors have already told us they would miss his input from. The project would (hopefully) be protected- and so would Mathsci. This, as I said, should all still be contingent upon Fram's suggestion, noted above.

Incidentally, in case anyone thinks I am partisan towards this editor, I am currently *banned* from his talk page  :) just FYI. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fair, and I'd support that, assuming that we can somehow be confident that the battleground attitude won't continue to be a huge issue. As several people have pointed out, Mathsci makes many valuable contributions, and we should certainly not lose them without considering all alternatives. Begoon ^talk 14:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user Calcoform turned up in March 2016 and was warned for edit-warring on New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany, putting in unsourced changes to present a denialist agenda while calling it "Verifiable, sourced facts" and saying that accusations of sexual violence were "used by far-right propagandists to spread hatred against refugees". This edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany&diff=prev&oldid=708580862 stands out for blaming "white German men" when the word white does not appear in the source! https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/24/first-cologne-attack-verdict-suspects-unlikely-convicted-new-year-eve

On the talk page, he went on a rant, saying, in full:

This entire piece - from the misleading title to the discredited material offered as 'facts' - is designed to spread racism and hate against refugees. Dishonest editors with a far right agenda simply stick down material which has been entirely discredited. They ignore the involvement of German nationals in the alleged assaults, and fail to make clear that there is hardly any evidence at all for sexual assaults, beyond anecdotal ones (CCTV and phone pictures reveal nothing except for a few minor thefts - hence the handful of minor convictions, which have been conveniently ignored in this piece) Those who produce these kind of propaganda pages for Wikipedia discredit the site, and actually harm their own extremist cause because sensible, educated readers can see exactly what they are doing. Intelligent, moderate readers should compare this dishonest, exaggerated, extremist Wikipedia entry with the latest facts: ^[1]

"There is zero evidence for these rapes, beyond vague claims. Wikipedia is meant to be about hard facts, not propagandists desperately trying to support a racist agenda with what they can scramble together from dated newspaper articles. The 'excuse' for the lack of images of these crowds of men assaulting young women is the 'poor quality' of film. Of course, because in 2016, CCTV and phone cameras used to record pretty much every single public incident in the world just aren't up to it in Cologne."

And what do the "latest facts" say, according to his source?:

"Most of the men who sexually assaulted women in Cologne on New Year's Eve may never be caught, the city's police chief, Juergen Mathies, has said."

"About 1,000 men of North African and Arab origin gathered near Cologne's main station on 31 December. Smaller groups formed, first surrounding women and then threatening and attacking them, the report said. Chancellor Angela Merkel's immigration policy has since come under mounting criticism."

So his source, which he claims to be the truth and to knock out all sources before it, says exactly what the article says and what he finds so "racist"!

After five months dormancy, he returns to make edits to Harry's Place, a small blog. He says "Added balance to correctly describe a much-criticised hate blog that is regularly used by anonymous contributors to defame named individuals", which shows his level of neutrality, and edit-wars to put in contentious claims from two other tiny blogs to say in the lead "It is often used by anonymous contributors to circulate personal smears, defamatory attacks and Islamophobia " and " Its contributors use online pseudonyms to spread this virulent racism and Islamophobia". After being reversed and warned, he goes on another rampage on the talk page, again making conspiracy theories and saying that his precious blogs are "extremely reliable, and verifiable information".

This edit history shows that Calcoform has a left-wing/Islamic bias and can't leave it at home when he edits, inserts manipulated information to deflect crimes by people he sympathises with onto "white people", accuses people of being racists for using reliable sources, and is generally unpleasant in his summaries and posts. Maybe he has some other interests like gardening or cookery and he can write about them instead, but I am certain that the evidence I have provided shows that politics and religion are not the place for him 89.243.99.144 (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having both a left-wing and Islamic bias (when it manifests in the way as it did with this user) is kind of ironic, since one also protects Islamism with that, which really is a far-right ideology infused with more hate than most modern western neo-nazi movements. Besides that, I think the disgusting agenda pushing and sexual abuse denial should be stopped by a topic ban. I haven't looked at the things he wrote on other topics, I leave that to other editors. --Laber□^T 16:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Laberkiste, these are the only edits the user has made (apart from one banal edit to a journalist). This is an account used when this person wants to go on a great big rant (look at the five month absence). I only theorised about other contributions, because if he is banned from politics and religion, there are other things in the world that are not so controversial and people can contribute to maturely. 89.243.99.144 (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With "other edits" I referred to his edits on other things that the Cologne Assaults, e.g. Harry's Place. --Laber□^T 17:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, am concerned about the demonstrated slanted editing style, as per these diffs:

• Edit-warring, use of weasel "alleged": [78][79][80].
• Blatant POV-pushing: [81][82].
• More POV-pushing on another article: [83][84][85].

The user has been warned about edit-warring and POV editing. I support (at least) a topic ban on Calcoform from New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany and Harry's Place. GAB^gab 17:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I've reviewed this users (short) Wikipedia-career and can only conclude WP:NOTHERE, WP:ABF, WP:BATTLEGROUND. Additionally, this user (apparantly) does not understand WP:RS thus adding WP:CIR to the list. A topic ban might remedy the situation, but the evidence presented above, in my opinion calls for an indefinite block. Kleuske (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of giving one very final chance to make productive, neutral edits in a different subject area, but I fully respect if a reviewing admin decides to dish out a block, instead. GAB^gab 20:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. He just screwed that very final chance: "What a twisted, censorious, manipulative view of knowledge you have." In my book that's a personal attack. Kleuske (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[86] Accuses ThePlatypusofDoom of vandalism. More ranting on TP. Kleuske (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More personal abuse and now in fullblown WP:3RR-territory. Kleuske (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reported user has been blocked for 48 hours by NeilN for edit warring and battleground conduct. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So yeah someone needs a timeout. Clearly they are doing nothing to contribute and are just here to be disruptive. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked two days with a clear warning that behavior has to change. This does not preclude a topic ban if consensus favors one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the infrequent editing and the disparity of the chosen topics, i don't see what the topic is we should ban him from. Let's hope 48 hrs suffices. If not WP:ROPE applies. Kleuske (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kleuske Both topics involve politics and Middle East (in general but not specific). These are topics that should be written about with the utmost care and biased editors in either direction should find something else to write about 89.243.165.189 (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to construe the Middle East extremely broadly if it's to include Cologne and Hamburg. Kleuske (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The thing was that the people identified, arrested and tried for those crimes (that he says didn't happen and were done by others, take your pick) were of backgrounds from the Middle East. Hence the subject attracts people who think all Middle Easterners do those crimes, and people who think that none of them do those crimes, both of which are pathetically delusional viewpoints 89.243.165.189 (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not a declaration of (edit) war? This guy is pretty persistent in his work on a page nobody reads about a website outside the top 500,000 in the world. Also on the talk page he is trying to give away other users' identities. As Harry's Place writes primarily on Israel/Palestine I thought it would be protected like other pages to prevent edit warriors of either side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.165.189 (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is and he shows every sign of being quite persistent. Hence he's blocked for 48 hrs with a warning in no uncertain terms. If he persists, WP:ROPE applies and he will be blocked again. Kleuske (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought... This user has already shown a battleground mentality. To edit 'Middle East' and/or Israel/Palastine topics (broadly construed) that's useful like a good, clean kick in the head. Perhaps it is better to issue a topic ban on the Middle East. Kleuske (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user started as a Trump campaigning account, resulting in some page deletions and a rename of said account, which was several months ago. Today, I noticed that he edited the article on Ali Khamenei, stating that he was dead without mentioning any sources. Considering the previous behavior of said user, I resorted in adding a level 4 warning to his talk page. Later, this user states on my talk page that I can't (well I just did so...) give him level 4 warnings and my opinion is "worthless". He also used an insulting edit summary on his talk page. Since this user seems to have very few productive edits and seemingly has massive issues with the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, I propose a indefinite block.--Laber□^T 01:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That edit was a mistake, reports were coming out that he had died and I edited the article before a reliable source had come out, turns out it was false, my bad. With that said, there was 0 reason for you to slap a level 4 warning on my page over a mistake I made over a month ago. I sense you are just trying to start a quarrel here. --Centipede92 (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Centipede92 - The final warning, given your past, and the fact that you modified a biography of a living person -- was perfectly appropriate. Your edit summary with this warning removal is also not helping your case here. Any further disruption or edits that are against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines can lead to blocking without further warning. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An "only warning" for an isolated mistake from over a month ago is appropriate? Interesting, you're the first I've heard claim this. And you and Laberkiste seem to have some misconceptions here, I was never associated with the Trump campaign, I chose my username because I joined planning to primarily edit Donald Trump-related articles. The user seems to take issue with me, our first interaction was him nominating my userspace draft for deletion, claiming it was "promotional" when it clearly wasn't. After that he left a warning on my talk page for an old edit, then reported me to AIV for... messaging his talk page? Strange. Anyway this user just seems to have a beef with me for some reason, don't know why, you can look at my edits and see I haven't caused any trouble for anyone. --Centipede92 (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Centipede92 - I will acknowledge that the edit was made over a month ago, and the warning was left in an untimely fashion (the person who reverted your edit should have left a warning)... maybe even in a bit of a random fashion (in fact, I'm curious as to how and why this is coming up now - maybe Laberkiste will explain this). I don't have access to all of the information, since your past does involve pages that were deleted. This is why I am not endorsing a block; I'm simply stating that, yes while the warning seems random and ill-timed, it was made due to an edit that clearly violated Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. The warning states that if disruption continues, blocking can be imposed without further warning. And for this reason, I believe that the warning is appropriate. I hope my clarification helps you to understand my thoughts.

On a side note, this statement you made is uncivil and not appropriate. It's okay to be frustrated and ask about a warning to the issuer, but telling someone that "your opinion is worthless regardless" is not okay. It's also for this reason that being on a final-warning basis, rather than a being blocked, is appropriate given the evidence I have. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A level 4 only warning was probably a little over the top, especially considering the edit was a month old and no further BLP violations had been brought to light. Instead of a template message, a personal message reminding them of the BLP policy would have been more appropriate considering how young Centipede2's account is. @Centipede2: Any editor may give another editor a warning of any sort. Administrators, although they have the accesses to block people, are not the only ones who have the necessary authority to warn people. They will take into account any warnings an editor may have before imposing blocks or other sanctions. In this case, I'd say this can be closed with a simple reminder to all involved to maintain civility and for Centipede2, BLP violations are taken very seriously. Blackmane (talk) 03:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A level 4 or 4im warning seems appropriate given the past issues with editing. It is kind of 50-50. However I do believe I would have done the same, since it was a serious BLP issue the 4 or 4im would have been appropriate regardless. Centipede2 You also didn't help yourself with disregarding WP:CIVIL. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What "past issues" are these, exactly? I've never had another warning or had a page deleted. Also I see looking at the edit history that lots of other users added info of his supposed death to the page, he didn't warn any of them. --Centipede92 (talk) 04:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe the deleted page that is being spoke of was your You Can't Stump The Trump article which was deleted on May 29th 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=You_Can%27t_Stump_The_Trump&action=edit&redlink=1 Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 04:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) My apologies Centipede92, I was going based off of what the OP wrote, I suppose I should go back to the old tried and true method of "trust but verify" although you do have a page that has been deleted You Can't Stump The Trump. A level 4 warning was still appropriate due to BLP concerns. I'd also like to take this opportunity to make you aware of the Discretionary Sanctions imposed on Biographies of Living Persons which authorizes any uninvolved Administrator to place sanctions on any editor who violates the restrictions that have been placed by the Arbitration Committee. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was a redirect from being moved, the page is still in my userspace --Centipede92 (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless you'll still want to make yourself aware of that ARBCOM case if you are editing BLPs. I do think that a block at this point would be a disproportionate. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What is being asked for here? A block? A ban on editing BLPs broadly? A ban around post-1932 US politics? Some other restriction? A warning? ARBCOM gives a lot of leeway and without actual community consensus, just discretionary sanctions. I think blocks are a bit excessive and WP:AGF] on the Khamenei one, it's not the first time people have reported rumors but I don't know the full history here. The stump the trump page is now a draft but while it's not notable, it's not something I find blockworthy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amusso1234 has repeatedly replaced the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Websites/Sample with an article about Aaron Rowe, a character in a book called The Dead I Know. (see diffs 732629676 and 732931264) They have also created Template:Aaron Rowe two times, but it doesn't belong in the template namespace. According to their edits at Talk:Aaron Rowe (diff 732789050), they are a student trying to complete an assignment. While they may not intend to cause any harm, their activity is disruptive, and they might be WP:NOTHERE if they're doing this for a school assignment. Sunmist3 (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to believe Amusso1234 he/she is 9 years old, so please let's not be too heavy-handed. EEng 07:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that as being in year 9 in school and not that age. I deleted the template and left them a message. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I certainly deserve a trout for that. (Did seem a bit precocious.) Please crush his or her spirit without mercy. EEng 07:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry no trout for you. I'm from Cambridge Bay so you get one of instead. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not quite sure what he's trying to do, but he's still at it at WP:WikiProject Websites/Sample EEng 16:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to have stopped. I doubt it's an assignment as those usually result in a flood of those together not one person. Left a lengthy talk page comment so we'll see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Below is a copy of a report I've entered at AIV, and am now bringing here. Range of IPs that have disrupted perhaps dozens of articles, with a penchant for dogs and hip hop artists. Several articles have been protected, and some of the accounts have been blocked, but there's still a lot of residual damage, at articles like this [89], where the edits go back at least to July 11. Graham87 blocked at least two of the early accounts, for three months each [90], [91]; cross-checking their edits helps lead to related accounts and articles. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 10:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 2607:FB90:4D:5F4C:6518:DDF0:C0E0:D27 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Block evasion. Third or fourth time I've reported this user in a day, all 2607|FB90 accounts. Is a rangeblock possible? If not, more articles, like German Shepard, need protection. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stale report. Nobody has addressed this in nearly 12 hours and the edits were a content dispute, not vandalism. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As explained, this is block evasion, involving persistent disruption to multiple articles, some of which Ronhjones has already protected. One of many incarnations, and perhaps the first: [92]. Since this isn't being addressed here, I'll ask seek further assistance, either from individual administrators or at ANI. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI is the right place to go, per points 3 & 4 above. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will do--this is the most persistent and widespread such example I've come across in a while; two of dozens of examples can be seen in the edit histories of Great Dane and Boxer (dog). Please don't legitimize the edits as content disputes. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 10:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC) [End of AIV report][reply]

I haven't really been watching the dog articles lately but I did notice some of these changes the other day. Although the geo-location seems to be different, I suspect it is the long term problem discussed here, after this thread on Drmies talk page months ago, and partly written up here. Same breeds, same changes etc. I think Graham87 may have blocked some similar IPs in the last couple of days. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; that's helpful, and establishes a much longer history. All the time I spend dropping hot potatoes with Drmies, and I didn't notice this. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Sagaciousphil, thank you. AN is the right place, since you're asking for a range block (you know I don't know how to do those). 99, thanks for looking into this as well. I just protected the Boxer article; I am very tempted to semi-protect all those articles indefinitely. The editor has an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Kwiecinski/Archive. There is no talking with them; they seem impervious to all attempts to communicate, and obviously their editing skills are, how to put this, challenged. Drmies (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His favourites are mainly breeds within the Working group, some of the Pastoral Group with a handful of others (Basset Hound, Labrador Retriever, etc), plus various rappers (if that's what you call them). Blocks never seem to have been particularly effective as he just switches off the router or whatever it is that changes the IP; pending changes only works if reviewers actually check against the ref, which doesn't always happen. I have no idea whether the weights/heights are correct in the targeted breeds at the moment and they should really be checked against the Breed Standards. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies or other admins: looks like he's started again today? SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sagaciousphil, what do you mean "if that's what you call them"? Too many rappers: Nas and Beastie Boys turn it out. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

86.187.168.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) AccountForANI (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could clarify who 86.187.168.41 is stalking, because it certainly is not this account as it has never made any edit to either of the articles that 86. has edited (or indeed to any article whatsoever). Or to put the question another way: since you refer to 86. as "My stalker...", of whom are you a sockpuppet? --Elektrik Fanne 12:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has been here before, I believe with a similar query that has since been resolved. I will try to find it in the archives. If there's a reason for anonymity, than, it'll be somewhere in the archives. I found their thread, Archive 930 thread: Return of IP troll, [93]. Whomever it is, Ed at least was of the opinion that their report is genuine. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch Mr rnddude; pinging Edgar181 as FYI. It's a curious account that has seven edits; all to noticeboards, and six just to ANI _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the main account is trying to deflect harassment and such away from themselves. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This is an IP-hopper that has had a fascination with reverting my edits to video-game articles for about 7 years now. I've submitted dozens of reports to ANI before this under my main, but I've switched to an alt here to deny them attention from my main. You can find a few of the previous reports here. AccountForANI (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AccountForANI: Apologies for any implied WP:ASPERSIONs in my post up there!- _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And likewise. I should add that without any context, it did look like a rather odd report. --Elektrik Fanne 15:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked 86.187.161.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 86.187.168.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for disruptive editing and semi-protected the targeted pages for a couple of days. These are IP socks of an editor that has been persistently edit warring across multiple pages. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This looks like something we could tailor an abuse filter to catch since their ip range isn't very wide and there's a pattern in the edit summaries. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AccountForANI: are there any specific pages this stalker targets? Or is it just your edits in video game articles? EvergreenFir (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, it's just my latest edits that they target; last few articles in my edit history usually, though they seem to disregard articles that are not video-game related. My request for an edit filter regarding this whole issue got rejected though, see this. I could speculate and say that they do have certain triggers; A few days ago I did edit an article Magic Carpet 2 which was one of the articles that they edit-warred like hell over for years, that's most likely what caused them to return now that I think about it. Originally the vandal stuck to a certain set of articles, the stalking only became a thing once they weren't allowed to force their edits through on those articles, but they still seem to come back to avenge any edits to these articles it seems. AccountForANI (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AccountForANI, please excuse my removal of your post earlier. Your username seemed fishy to me and it alerted me. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I know it looks weird when a single-purpose account comes in complaining about other users. The no info thing really didn't help either. AccountForANI (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AccountForANI: Perhaps add {{Alternative account}} to your user page? Just for future reports? EvergreenFir (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a longstanding issue over at Elizabeth Dilling and Talk:Elizabeth Dilling arising from User:Signedzzz’s clear sense of ownership over the article. This is an issue that has been going on now since 12 July 2016. Since that point, Signedzzz has repeatedly deleted any additions to the article with which they do not approve (even well-referenced ones: [94], [95], [96], [97]). When asked to explain these deletions, they have often provided unsatisfactory and uninformative responses and have resorted to clear instances of Personal Attack ([98], [99]), false accusations ([100]), and generally unwarranted un-civil and hyperbolic behaviour ([101], [102], [103] etc) toward several other editors, myself included.

On 14 July, an RfC was opened to discuss the proposed changes with which Signedzzz disagrees; a consensus has come out in favour of supporting most of them. Accordingly, they were incorporated into the article. Nevertheless, Signedzzz has refused to accept the validity of an RfC and has edit warred both to prevent the RfC's conclusions being incorporated into the article and to delete the RfC itself ([104], [105], [106], [107]). Their edit warring was brought to the attention of administrators by User:Pincrete, resulting in User:EdJohnston issuing a warning to them on 16 July. Signedzzz continued edit warring at the time [108] and, despite taking a break from the article for several days, has now returned and continued their edit warring [109]. Given that this is not an isolated incident – Signezzz has been blocked on four occasions over the past two years for their behaviour – measures clearly need to be taken. An earlier attempt to deal with this issue fizzled out but given that Signedzzz's actions have continued in spite of previous warnings ([110], [111], [112], [113], [114]), I propose an indefinite article ban be placed on this editor with regard to the Elizabeth Dilling article and perhaps also its Talk Page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[To clarify, this section is not about a content dispute. Any discussion regarding content can take place at Talk:Elizabeth Dilling and the RfC found there. This section is for a discussion of Signedzzz's behaviour on the article and its talk page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC) ][reply]

Support/Oppose

• Support article ban as nominator. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban. I got called to the article by the RfC, and Signedzzz's behavior immediately struck me as out of line. I posted a number of comments on the talk page, including one directed at Signedzzz on how they could engage with other editors more productively. Signedzzz complained that that one comment was off-topic, so I tried to move the discussion to their talk page[115], but Signedzzz responded by deleting that message. As an aside, I agree with Signedzzz that the RfC was initially poorly-worded, but WP:RFC is clear that this is not justification for Signedzzz's behavior. Chris Hallquist (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak support for a one month long article and talk page ban. WP:OWNership is clear. It feels like Signedzzz feels like everyone should discuss all other edits on the talk page and then it's WP:BLUDGEON about it. A poorly designed RFC doesn't give carte blanche to delete it. I think some time away is what is needed, not a wholesale topic ban. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support I don't think an indefinite article ban is the solution. I think perhaps a 3 to 6 month article ban would be better. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I continue to support an indefinite ban, although a six month article ban would perhaps also be acceptable. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I removed the RFC (2 weeks ago) since it personally attacked me, and no discussion had taken place. I then restored it when told by an admin there was no 3RR exemption for removing a bad faith RFC. My edits yesterday were not "edit warring". I removed uncited info (famous for fighting socialism, had 2 affairs), and a section heading ("European travels" in Russia, Japan and Palestine) and some unfortunate phrasing ("the younger Elizabeth Kirkpatrick" - younger than who?) In other words, stuff that would make it no longer a GA. Yes I wrote the article, but why shouldn't I remove uncited info from it? This is in incredibly bad faith. It is no wonder that there are so few editors. zzz (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• And by the way, "false accusations" is complete rubbish - see the last ANI report, where the OP admitted to adding false information while the article was on the Main Page. zzz (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • zzz, I don't think the issue is with the edits on the article itself, but that you've done an extremely poor job of discussing them on the talk page. I looked up the previous ANI you refer to, and something MBO said about your behavior strikes me as exactly right—"your reasons at the talk page were at times vague, unsubstantial, and lacking in any argumentation". And in some cases, you didn't even go that far, but rather simply deleted cited material with no more reason given than "wp:v" (for example [116]). Futhermore, the errors you're referring to on MBO's part look to me fairly minor, and do not justify indiscriminately reverting their edits without explanation. Chris Hallquist (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is no explanation, really? I realise you are not interested, but you should look it up anyway: Verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies. They work together to determine content, so editors should understand the key points of all three. As I just stated, "... became known for her opposition to socialism", in your example, is uncited original research (and non-neutral), added to the first sentence of the lead section of a GA. As I stated before, MBO added in the lead section that Dilling came from a "highly religious" family: also totally failing on all three counts. As you both have a problem with me removing this stuff, you need to try and get Wikipedia's core content policies changed. zzz (talk) 05:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability being a core content policy is not an excuse to not discuss disputes over whether something is verifiable. Chris Hallquist (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "My edits yesterday were not "edit warring". I removed uncited info". This is demonstrably untrue. Here is Signedzzz deleting a number of appropriately sourced referenced statements from the article; the exact same statements that received support during the RfC but which they have consistently opposed for reasons left unclear. Their most recent explanation for these removals ("WP:V") doesn't even apply to this material whatsoever. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the diff of my edits yesterday: [117]. I did not remove any "appropriately sourced referenced statements". There is only one statement I removed that had been raised on talk or in the RFC, which on article talk on 14 July I explained was not verified by the source, in answer to your query. There was no reply to my explanation, so I assumed it was clear. I have just added further clarification of this: [118] zzz (talk) 11:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "the OP admitted to adding false information while the article was on the Main Page". This is again deeply misleading and a deliberate warping of my original statement. I have acknowledged that I added "Soviet war hero" into the article when the original source material merely specified "Soviet hero". That was an error of interpretation on my behalf, and I'm glad that it was spotted. However, if one were to read Signedzzz's comments on the issue then they would be left with the impression that I was deliberately adding significant falsities into the article, which is palpably untrue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See above: you also added that her family was "highly religious", which is also an error of interpretation on your behalf, as you previously admitted at ANI. (There were other mistakes, such as getting her name wrong) zzz (talk) 11:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: No diffs have been presented as to zzz's supposed removal of well-referenced additions to the article. Furthermore, the RfC violated WP:RFC in a multitude of ways (not the least of shich is "short, simple, neutral" -- and one issue, not numerous issues -- and the fact that it should not interrupt ongoing discussion). Plus RfCs need to run for 30 days; they cannot be considered "consensus" until that timeframe is complete. I see no reason to ban zzz from the article until proper neutral discussion and/or DR is utilized. Please everybody go back to the drawingboard and discuss these content disputes on the article's talk page, within Wikipedia guidelines. It seems to me, by the diffs the OP actually provided, that zzz objected to the article being mucked about with while it was on the mainpage. Now that that's over, please everyone try to have more civilized discussions, and please answer questions when they are posed on the talk page rather than ignoring them. I think this ANI has served as a notification to zzz to edit and discuss collaboratively. If they continue to evade good-faith discussion, then enact a one-month ban from the article. Softlavender (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC); edited 09:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Softlavender: - With respect, this discussion isn't about a content dispute. Yes there is content that has been disputed, but that issue is being dealt with at the RfC. This section is to deal with Signedzzz's behaviour, which has included severe ownership issues, edit warring, refusal to accept the validity of an RfC (to the extent of repeatedly deleting the RfC), and un-civil comments and personal attacks on editors who disagree with them. Moreover you state that "this ANI has served as a notification to zzz to edit and discuss collaboratively. If they continue to evade good-faith discussion...", but they have already been warned on multiple occasions now by various uninvolved editors and administrators ([119], [120], [121], [122], [123]) and it has had no effect. Warnings just aren't working. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Keep in mind, the original RfC was dismissed as inappropriate (and at the time invalid) by an administrator. The rest is a fairly accurate characterization of the situation, based on my involvement on the previous AN/I thread, but, I will be taking a look at the page again to see what progress, if any, has been made. SoftLavender brings up a general point rather than a "in all cases" one. I am not sure if she is aware that this discussion was held previously (with no immediate action taken) but I don't recall her participating in it. I think if anything, that last thread would have been the "notification" that you refer to SL. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been quite willing to admit that my original RfC post — while in my opinion even handed — was long-winded and not in keeping with the specified format for RfC requests. I'm at fault on that. That is why, on 22 July, I replaced that post with one that was more appropriate. However, I do not believe that the inadequacies of my original RfC post invalidate the fact that virtually every one of the proposed additions has been validated by uninvolved editors at the RfC; moreover it doesn't in any way legitimate Signedzzz's behaviour. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not legitimizing anything until I've gone through the talk page. When I get through the talk and see what has been happening since the last thread, I'll decide what is and is not legitimate (from my perspective). Mr rnddude (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, apologies, there has been some misunderstanding here, Mr rnddude; I never meant to imply that you were trying to legitimate Signedzzz's behaviour (although reading back my message I can certainly see how I gave that impression! My bad). All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As for the lack of diffs, there was one present alongside a link to the article's edit history, however I am happy to add further diffs in if it helps demonstrate my case. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat, in my mind your OP did not make any valid case against zzz and only demonstrated that he objected to people mucking about with the GA article while it was on the mainpage, which is understandable and forgivable. And as I mentioned, the RfC violated WP:RFC in a multitude of ways, not the least of which is "short, simple, neutral", and an RfC should be about one issue not numerous issues, and an RfC should not interrupt ongoing discussion. Plus RfCs need to run for 30 days; they cannot be considered "consensus" until that timeframe is complete. I recommend scrapping that malformed RfC. Softlavender (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SoftLavender, I feel the need to point out that this "RfCs need to run for 30 days" is incorrect per WP:RfC here; "Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment." Consensus is decided when nobody left is interested not when some arbitrary time has passed. Usually 30 days, but, extended if many people are interested, shortened if not. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightblueowl, the creator of the vastly malformed RfC, cannot claim "consensus" after barely two days of it being opened, especially considering the complete mess that that RfC is. It should be scrapped as against policy, or left to run at least 30 days and then closed by an uninvolved admin. Softlavender (talk) 09:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to discuss the future of that particular RfC or its inadequacies. If you wish to do so, then let us take that to Talk:Elizabeth Dilling. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before our comments push this thread outside the realm of readability, I think what SL is saying, is that because the RfC is illegitimate (on the grounds that she has explained), so are the edits that have been made to the article as a result of that RfC and that signedzzz's reversion of those edits was legitimate (no consensus to add had been established, so the removal of that information is actually to be expected). What I think is being said is to go to the article talk page, restart the RfC and deal with one issue at a time. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From my own perspective; Signedzzz has at times been very WP:OWN about the article, they have made very strong and rude comments to you and other editors. They also did edit-war to keep the article to their preferred version, however, given the issues with the RfC (and yes I do believe they are pertinent to the discussion in my opinion) what should now happen is; re-open the RfC, if you need help for formatting feel free to ping me, pose the recommended change (one change) and see how the editor responds. If there is any issue, regarding WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:EW, WP:-INSERTWPHERE- then bring it here to address. Chances are, this thread is a final warning, the next one is a TBAN. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude, re: "no consensus to add had been established, so the removal of that information is actually to be expected"—normally I'd agree, but zzz showed little interest in discussing the issue on the talk page. If you read the talk page carefully, much of it is MBO trying to get zzz to engage in consensus-building, and zzz ignoring MBO. Chris Hallquist (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hallquist, yes that's true, MBO has indeed tried to engage with Signedzzz productively, however, if consensus is built then, despite any object that Signedzzz might raise, that consensus is implemented as no editor OWNs the page. I recognize that due to Signedzzz reverting and EW to remove the RfC (malformed as it was) this became a difficult thing to do. What MBO now should do is take the malformed RfC scrap it, start a new one, one that is correctly formatted and thereby dispel any objection Signedzzz could legitimately raise and if the problem persists, bring it to AN/I or AN/EW (whichever may be the case). This split on what the correct action is, exists because the correct action (strictly following policy) is to redo the RfC and remove the content implemented as a result of the RfC. Which, Signedzzz did. The other side is that Signedzzz has had OWN issues with the page and so their actions can still be construed as being non-constructive. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree with you entirely about that. I may have mistakenly fallen under the impression that you were saying that an RfC must run for 30 days, rather than, that is should run for 30 days (especially in this case) to give people the chance to comment (and that if nobody is interested after at least a week or two then to consider closing it (but not in this case)). I agree with the rest of both of your comments, I did not mean for my correction (based on my interpretation) to detract from what you were saying. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If zzz is banned from the article, then Midnightblueowl should be banned from the article for the same amount of time. This is a clear case of two editors failing to collaborate with each other. Zzz spent four months diligently growing the article from 11,000 bytes [124] to 31,400 bytes [125], and got it to GA and on the main page. Midnightblueowl immediately came in and made several dozen consecutive edits [126]. On the same day, Midnightblueowl filed a completely non-neutral RfC [127]. Then after only two days of comments from outside editors she shoehorned in her preferred version [128] and edit-warred over it [129]. Clearly the problematic editing is not confined to zzz. So in my mind if zzz is banned from the article, Midnightblueowl should be as well, for the same amount of time. Softlavender (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Really? I haven't launched personal attacks, been un-civil to all manner of users, deleted an RfC repeatedly because I disagreed with the results it was generating. I haven't been repeatedly warned about my behaviour on the article (indeed in over ten years as a Wikipedia editor, I haven't been blocked on a single occasion). Yes I clearly have a strong bias on this particular issue as I don't want to be blocked, but even so I think that this is a dramatic and rather uncalled for suggestion. What purpose would it serve? Anyone reading through Talk:Elizabeth Dilling will see that I have consistently reached out to Signedzzz in the hope of working cooperatively; I have praised their efforts in getting the article to GA status. Moreover, I have tried to bring in uninvolved editors to give their opinions, and when they disagreed with me I certainly didn't attack them (as Signedzzz has done). These aren't the actions of someone who has severe ownership issues over the article. To try and compare my actions with those of Signedzzz here is absurd. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The praise was combined with accusations, in the RFC which you launched while the article was still on the main page. This appears to me as the actions of someone with ownership issues. zzz (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Softlavender, I agree with MBO. It seems like you're not taking concerns about personal attacks (and lack of consensus-building) seriously. Chris Hallquist (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. As the far more experienced editor, she should know better than engage in all that nonsense I just detailed above, which precipitated the entire affair. Not only that, this is the second ANI she's opened about this article; the first was bot archived just two weeks ago: [130]. -- Softlavender (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was indeed archived (without achieving anything but a warning for Signedzzz), but the problem has persisted. Hence the new post. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how "the problem has persisted" in the past two weeks. All of your evidence was from before that time period. Softlavender (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: When Midnightblueowl says the previous ANI "achieved nothing but a warning", that may be too generous, reading the thread, it's not clear to me what the content of the warning really was (beside perhaps not to remove the RfC). There hasn't been much editing activity on the main article in the past two weeks, but that may only be because editors were waiting for more of a conclusion from the RfC. There was, nevertheless [131], which zzz didn't give any kind of clear explanation for until I pushed for one. They were also dismissive and hostile towards my attempts to suggest how they could participate in the talk page more productively. (As I've noted previously, their entire response was to claim my comments were off-topic, then revert my edit when I tried to take the discussion to their talk page.) I question this somewhat given zzz's past block record, but maybe this is a situation that calls for a less-ambiguous warning before we jump to a ban? Something like, "be civil, explain non-obvious reversions on the talk page without being asked, and recognize that merely quoting the source may not make it sufficiently obvious to other editors why you think a statement has verifiability issues." This would probably be the right approach if zzz had no prior history of conduct issues, but given the history I lean towards a two-week block.

If MBO is referring to the warning given by Katie, part of the confusion over whether the behavior persisted may be due to not reading time stamps carefully. Looks like one of zzz's big reverts came just an hour before that warning. Chris Hallquist (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: We don't solve content disputes with ANI bans proposed by protagonists. Really, we don't. Begoon ^talk 11:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The content dispute is being dealt with at the RfC. This section is here to discuss Signedzzz's behaviour, not the content issue. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. The many words I read all seemed related to a content dispute. I'll read it all again with a view to finding behavioural issues. Begoon ^talk 11:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Begoon pay careful attention to the parts where MBO is trying to get zzz to engage in discussion on the talk page, and zzz is just ignoring MBO. See also my initial Support comment, where I link to the diff where I tried to address zzz's conduct issues on their talk page, and they ignored me. Chris Hallquist (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Given zzz's history of behavior, do we have any reason to think banning them from one article will solve future conduct issues from them? That might just make zzz into somebody else's problem. A better solution might be a two week ban block (zzz has previously been banned blocked for 48 hours, four days, one week, and one week). Chris Hallquist (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that the issue of ownership and everything stemming from it is only impacting one particular article (and its talk page), then I would lean toward an article ban as the most appropriate course of action. However, if there is a case to be made that their behaviour is also negatively impacting other articles (and I have no idea whether that is the case or not) then I think we could be talking about a wider ban; in my opinion however, evidence for a wider pattern of behaviour stretching across multiple articles would need to be presented first. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't expect zzz is currently displaying similar behavior on other articles. But given they're past behavior, I think it's reasonable to worry that a ban from the Dilling article will just cause them to pick another article as the one they "own". Maybe a two-week block could get zzz to realize that their behavior is, in general, unacceptable. Chris Hallquist (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Midnightblueowl Gah! I got my "bans" and my "blocks" mixed up. One advantage of a block is it creates an electronic trail in the block log. (Correct me if I'm mistaken, and we do have logs for other forms of sanctions—if so, those logs might be worth checking before making a decision.) Chris Hallquist (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a  Confirmed sock of Nouman khan sherani (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Within a month this new user Neebras (talk · contribs · count) has created 97 pages of which 13 have already been deleted, some are on various stages of deletion like PROD/AfD/Speedy and some have been redirected. Same applies to categories and templates. Is some admin action warranted here or should we continue spending community time in debating and discussing edits of this user who took BEBOLD seriously whereas we cant? Their talk page is full of notices and I see a nicely written note by @WikiDan61: suggesting a slow down and giving time to ponder which probably has fallen on deaf ears. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest an indef block until they agree to create all new articles via WP:AfC only, and a topic ban on creating new categories and templates (if they want a new category/template to be created, they can request it at the relevant WikiProject). If they agree to both of those conditions, the indef can be lifted, but if they breach the agreement, the indef goes back on. Softlavender (talk) 07:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You suggest an indef block? There is currently one warning, and an apology, on the user talkpage. FFS. Begoon ^talk 12:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[132]. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry, I missed the history, but still, an indef block? Sledgehammers is a word that springs to mind. --Begoon ^talk 12:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the rest of my proposal. This isn't the first time we've indef blocked a disruptively creative user who fails to heed dozens and dozens and dozens of posts on their talk page. Softlavender (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You're supposed to take Be Bold seriously, it's meant quite seriously. On the topic of admin action, have they been warned about their actions being disruptive? if not, then that should be the first step. Use template {{uw-disruptive3}} or {{uw-generic4}} to warn them, if they persist, bring it to AN/I and admin action may be taken. They haven't received a formal warning, just a couple reminders and a mild warning. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neebras, you shouldn't ever remove a thread about yourself from AN/I. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that Neebras just deleted this entire ANI thread is further proof that he needs to be stopped from his disruptive editing until such time as he agrees to edit within supervised channels. Softlavender (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• General comment Whilst it's true that 14% of his contributions have or are likely to be deleted, 86% haven't; make of that what you will. This user has been here less than a month, yet has still written stub articles. Some of these ([133], [134], for example) meet WP:NTENNIS. Other actions- this foolish blanking here- could just reflect inexperience with WP procedures. And as has been indicated, since no one has formally told him he needs to abide by them, why would they? I suggest WP:MENTOR, if agreeable to both parties. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll slow down - I'll stop creating articles of my own opinions like List of Shaan and Alka Yagnik duets, Bollywood duets. I think it will be good for all. If u notice, all the articles deleted were within List of Open Era Tennis records, which I weren't aware about. Some otther articles were deleted as the subject had articles regarding the same. But Bollywood songs articles and Tennis bios I've created all are beyond discussions, they've quite perfect, my sources (atpworldtour.com, wtatennis.com, mirchimusic.com) actually are reliable. So, I think there's no problem on my songs and tennis bio articles. Is that ok? Neebras (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Neebras: Actually, most of the tennis biographies that you've created do not meet the criteria for inclusion. While the sources you've noted are reliable for gleaning statistics about a player, they are not discriminating about which players they cover. In order to establish notability, we'd need evidence that the players achieved any of the goals set out at WP:NTENNIS or were otherwise the subject of significant coverage. Inclusion in databases that list all players is not considered significant. But you know this, because commentary like this has been posted on your user page more than once. The fact that you choose not to accept that assessment is problematic. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh dear ... I'm another who had tried to advise Neebras on their talk page, and the concerns I found and raised included copyvio (I believe the editor felt insecure about their paraphrasing skills). But I'm afraid that checking up on how they have been doing is one of the things I haven't been able to get to since having to work on all the translations produced by the WMF translation tool. I have no doubt of Neebras' good faith, and tried to improve some of their articles, partly to show how to do things like italicising film titles and fully identifying references (and indeed I saw them pick up on some of it). I wonder if anyone would be willing to offer a mentorship? Yngvadottir (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still think WP:AFC is the way to go. Other editors use it, why shouldn't this disruptively creative editor? I doubt he is really going to slow down enough for mentorship. He has just now created 4+ (and counting) new articles, one hour after deleting this ANI thread and then saying "I'll slow down". So much for slowing down. Softlavender (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: He's still creating an article every hour. It's time to block him until he agrees to go through WP:AFC. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is, for example 'radiomirchi.com.' a reliable source? If not, it's another for PROD- and both the latest creations rely on it. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm another editor who has pleaded with Neebras to be careful in creating non-notable tennis articles. There was another one today Tina Plivelitsch that I just prod'd. To be fair, some articles were notable but were sourced with incorrect info. Players were said to win tournaments that never existed. It turned out they won other events that made them notable but that wasn't in the article and we had to search it out for ourselves. There are a few other articles that editors here have complained about but which are actually notable. Such as jr players who have won one of the jr Grand Slam tournaments (singles or doubles). That makes them notable even if they stink the rest of their careers. The trouble is I can't rely on this editor to create a notable article... each one has to be gone over with a fine toothed comb with a good chance it will have to be thrown out. He seems to refuse to read the notability guidelines at WikiProject Tennis Guidelines. Before making it into mainspace his articles need to be heavily vetted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#RFC on adding parameters for relatives to Comic Book Character Infobox, the initiating editor, Fluffyroll11, appears to have canvassed other editors in an impermissible way, with talk-page advocacy such as "Hey if you want to help bring back the comic book characters relatives field in info boxes comment [at this RfC] [138]. "[C]anvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior." This resulted in at least one editor joining the discussion to support the initiating editor.

The initiating editor believes most of his August 4 canvassing was neutral and that the RfC is not tainted and should continue. Other parties are unsure what would be proper: continuing; ending discussion at the point just before canvassing and asking for a close; ending this RfC and starting it again after an appropriate length of time; or some other solution.

It's been a generally genial discussion, and the parties have agreed to ask for an admin opinion. With thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenebrae: I would like to point out in her message when she says "This resulted in at least one editor joining the discussion to support the initiating editor." isn't accurate. Still at this very moment none of the people that received what you could consider a biased message have commented and were all rectified and replaced with the other message I used. The one editor that she pointed out receive this unbiased message just like Tenebrae did (and she was opposed to it the topic being discussed) and the editor she is referring to received the same message as she did and just so happened to be in support of it. So the RfC itself has not been tainted. Also I sent them messages which is not a violation of anything to get more people aware that the discussion was taking place as with most of these most people don't realize it is taking place until after it is already done over so I wanted to make sure people who were interested in this topic of comics could have their voice heard if they so desired. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not inaccurate. Here is his message to Coquidragon [139] at 21:26, 4 August 2016, and here is Coquidragon's support [140] at 22:08, 4 August 2016 — his first edit since May, which seems unusual. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it might be unusual my lack of postings. Well, blame my wanting a vacation from the internet. I've been trying to cut down my hours. Sorry for the confussion this might have caused. --Coquidragon (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenebrae: How is that unusual? They didn't even receive that message that you accused me of canvassing with which I changed to match the one this person received since it was unbiased and is the same message that you received. So did I canvas you or does that not count since it resulted in opposition? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to follow your convoluted sentences is nearly impossible. I thought we had collegially agreed to have an admin look at the RfC and your posts to other editors and render an opinion. I thought I wrote something accurate and fair, and indeed, my follow-up gave diffs supporting my statement. I don't think admins want to see arguing on this page when we have requested essentially a favor. Keep in mind that it was your actions and your words that brought us to this point. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: @Tenebrae: since you mentioned Coquidragon you were required to notify them of this ANI thread. I have done so for you. Please remember to notify all parties if you mention them in the future. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron, Thanks for letting me know. Like I said in the original RfC, the message left in my page was neutral. I was invited to leave my opinion in an issue and I did.--Coquidragon (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenebrae: There you go again with the insults sorry I forget periods sometimes. I am not trying to argue just point out that your adding your opinion to something trying to state it as fact which in reality isn't what it should be stated as what happened. You left out one diff the one were she says in response to your canvassing accusation. here is Coquidragon's statement against canvassing accusation: [141] at 22:35, 4 August 2016. Wonder why you left that diff out? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an admin!

I'm staggered to see that the OP above, Michael Hardy (talk · contribs), is an admin! (I know - I had to check multiple times, and I'm still hoping I'm mistaken.) As if the above cluelessness isn't bad enough, after it was closed he went over to MjolnirPants's talk page to launch the following - User talk:MjolnirPants#I apologize for doubting your infallibility. That comes after the following which preceded the above report, User_talk:MjolnirPants#Collegial discussion, in which he accused MjolnirPants of being insincere which is especially galling as MjolnirPants was going out of their way to be positive and avoid the need for a CSD/PROD tagging. Do we really have to put up with admins like this who give us all a bad name? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• For the continuing personal attacks on MjolnirPants at User talk:Michael Hardy ("he told me I was forbidden to communicate but should simply obey him" which is blatantly false, "He is a hard-core bully" which is totally unacceptable, and "He is angry that I would do anything so abusive as to say he was mistaken about factual assertions. I was willing to communicate about issues; he was unwilling" which is another false accusation), I have issued a short block and a warning. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's this sarcastic comment at someone else's user page, which is yet another dig at MjolnirPants. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...and I was thinking admins know what kind of discussion should be done on ANI! — RainFall 08:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. This is easily one of the most unusual blocks I've ever seen. This administrator's edits go back to 2002(!), and this is their first block, ever. Correct? I've never seen an admin of this standing blocked for personal attacks like this. Doc talk 10:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Should it make a difference that they are an admin? Or, should the only difference be that admins should be expected to be held to higher standards? MPS1992 (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• My opinion is that admins should be held to a higher standard - but if there's a consensus that I'm wrong, I'll be happy to unblock and annotate the block log accordingly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, but I'd settle for equal standard. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Where was {{Uw-npa1}}? Followed by further warnings? Surely admins are entitled to similar due process before being blocked for personal attacks. Doc talk 10:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Legalism. Surely admins don't need to be advised about NPA. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  And if soneone had put a {{Uw-npa1}} there, I imagine they would have been rebuked for "templating the regulars". MPS1992 (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I could perhaps understand a first warning, but, if you're an admin I would have an expectation that you understand what is and is not acceptable behaviour. The only reason to issue a warning to an admin is in heat of the moment circumstances where a mistake was made unintentionally. An admin, and an editor for 14 years, should by this point be very aware of the policies that they are espousing. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• There's no requirement for templated warnings, and there was an attempted discussion on his talk page - but all that led to was personal attacks, after the above ANI section was closed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, the "He is a hard-core bully" attack came after the above section was closed, and after NeilN had tried to calm things - I consider that as sufficient warning. And, of course, an admin is supposed to know not to launch personal attacks without having to be warned like a newbie. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Eastwood's got it right about this generation. Won't bother to link it. Soon enough, the statement "You're wrong!" is going to be considered a "personal attack". See, it implies fundamental wrongness. To say "You're wrong!" without quantifying it with something like "...in your opinion" is a personal attack. It's like saying, "You're a wrong person". Which is certainly a personal attack. Doc talk 10:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of which has nothing to do with this situation. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are dismissing what I said, and this hurts me. I consider it a personal attack. Please apologize. Doc talk 11:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike dismissiveness when it's directed at me, too. That doesn't make it PA. There is a clear and distinct difference between "That is absurd" and "You are a bully". ―Mandruss ☎ 11:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I think a block is over-the-top. People are entitled to show a little emotion from time to time. There was no harm done, and no likelihood of any disruption. It was explained to me (here) that Ancestral health is a scam (that's my quick summary), and it's likely that Michael Hardy is unaware of that, while MjolnirPants recognized the links used in the new article as problematic. That would explain the latter's unhelpful approach at their talk. Unfortunately Michael Hardy was in a frame of mind where something got under his skin and he was very mildy sarcastic—if everyone stopped talking about it, the mini-drama would have stopped hours ago. Johnuniq (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Johnuniq: I found nothing on the page you linked that alleges that ancestral health is a scam. How does that work, when in the first place it is not a person or organization, and in the second place, the organization formed for researchers and publishers in the field does not attempt to sell anything? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  If "there was no harm done", let's scrap NPA as there is never any harm done by mere words. I'll suspect you'll be at the head of the line begging to have it back. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate your thoughts, Johnuniq, thanks - but I honestly don't do you really see "He is a hard-core bully" as merely mildly sarcastic? (rephrased as a question) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  (extra ping @Johnuniq:, as I amended the above after having signed it and there wouldn't have been a notification sent. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

  As an aside, given what has been revealed about the "scam" uncovered at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Ancestral health (and the lack of sources other than primary ones), someone should probably nominate Ancestral health at WP:AFD as being non-notable - I won't do it myself as I wish to remain uninvolved. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't have blocked (full disclosure: I wasn't aware the editor was an admin). My last post asked him to move on and there were no more edits after that, period. Not sure the behavior would have continued, necessitating a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, thanks, that (in addition to objections from others) is enough for me - I've unblocked and have annotated the block log accordingly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)**@Boing! said Zebedee and NeilN: Not to be disrespectful of Michael Hardy, he's one of the early Admins who was simply granted the tools - so far as I can see without requesting them. He got them Dec 2003, and his last use was to unblock someone about 4 years ago, and before then in 2010. I'd like to see him resign the tools. I think there are still a number of Admins around who got the tools just for editing, don't use the tools and are almost certainly way out of touch that shouldn't have the tools, but unfortunately our procedures don't allow us to remove the tools just for not using them. All they have to do is edit to keep the tools. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but there you are. Doug Weller talk 11:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Doug may be wrong about non use of tools and desysopping. -Roxy the dog™ bark 11:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)I was wrong, hence striking. -Roxy the dog™ bark 20:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine why the tools should be removed based on this reasoning. If anything, he should celebrated as a freaking pioneer here! With some balls! Sure, it's now the year 2016 (PC), and like Rip Van Winkle he may have awoken to a much different world where you can't be sarcastic. A nightmare? Doc talk 11:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I completely agree that old-days admins who haven't used admin tools in years and who are badly out of touch with current admin expectations should lose them, ideally by resigning (and that's not in any way disrespecting their pioneering work in the early days of the project). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If you believe that Michael Hardy has abused the tools to the extent that they should be taken away, that can be done. If not, he's as entitled to keep them as any other admin who still actively edits but may rarely use them. I passed my RfA almost ten years ago, does that make mine invalid too? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh yes, I know the rules and that there's no way to remove the tools without misuse - I'm just opining that there should be a way to take them away from the old-style admins who were appointed with no community input, especially when they show they are badly out of touch with expected behavioral standards. But in the absence of any such procedure, I'd like to see admins who never had to pass RFA resign and actually run for RFA if they wish to keep the tools. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Out of touch admins can do real damage. The worst case I've seen was when two valuable veteran editors with clean block records were blocked for edit warring with a sock of a LTA. The admin (returning after a five year absence) then reverted the article back to his preferred version and template protected it. Furthermore, he refused to lift the blocks (I and another admin did so) and, in the end, issued a half-hearted apology. What I'd like to see is a bot placing a message on the talk page of any admin who hasn't performed an admin action in over a year. This message would remind them to review policies, guidelines, and community norms before picking up the tools again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]