Would User:Morty C-137/SPI-Case be considered an attack page? I was under the impression that accusations of sockpuppetry should be confined to WP:SPI.

Recent reports regarding Morty C-137:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive956#Morty C-137: Battleground attitude, personal attacks and edit warring.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive343#User:Morty C-137 and User:Rjensen reported by User:Cjhard (Result: Warned)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive342#User:Pepe.is.great and User:Morty C-137 reported by User:KDS4444 (Result: Warned)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive953#Morty C-137

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has already been had by administators and answered, and I consider Guy Macon's filing here to be in obvious bad faith. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Morty C-137: Where did this admin discussion occur? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been attacked over and over [2] and I have every right to keep records given that we are "required to give evidence". Morty C-137 (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I asked. Where has an admin told you this page is OK? This page has been up for over a month with no SPI case filed. We can't keep pages like this around, per WP:POLEMIC. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just linked a diff for you above. Take it up with them. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since Morty's decide to revert the blanking, I've deleted the page per WP:POLEMIC. These type of pages cannot be left around for long periods of time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that proves this whole listing is in bad faith, since you gave me no actual chance to save the material offline and you're ignoring policy. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've undeleted for 10 minutes so you can copy everything. Then it's getting deleted again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm lucky I saw that at the 9th minute, such a "generous" amount of time. What a load of harassing crap. Morty C-137 (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I interject here? Morty C-137 none of those users nor an admin EVER said that you could do that. Dinah In Wonderland 19:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding this. It's possible Morty linked to the wrong diff, of course. If you're collecting evidence in this manner, it's best to do it off wiki. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two things here. A quick look through Cjhard's (very short) edit summary:

1. It screams "sock puppet" of the sleeper kind. The account has only approx. 815 edits but extensive knowledge not only of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines but it's internal politics, feuds, obscure cases and ANI reports (examples [3]. It made 16 edits in 2007, 8 edits in 2008, 4 edits in 2009, 4 in 2011, 3 in 2012 and then... it "woke up" and exploded with several hundred edits starting in May of this year. And a lot of these involve following and reverting Morty around - there's no freakin' way this is a legit account.
2. It's immediately obvious that the account HAS in fact been following and harassing Morty.

It's hard to tell who the sock master here is but at least this account looks like one of the socks of the same person.

I can easily see why Morty is frustrated here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to accuse me of being a sockpuppet, do it at SPI. Doing it here, incorrectly, without evidence, and without having the courtesy of pinging me in a conversation I hadn't already been made aware of, is an unacceptable personal attack. Honestly, I'm getting tired of it from Morty, and my tolerance for it is waning. Cjhard (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, provide your input to the SPI case Morty finally opened: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cjhard. Cjhard (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If User:Morty C-137 doesn't understand why his behavior (both in maintaining a page full of un-substantiated attacks on wiki, and his recent contributions at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard) is problematic, administrative action against him should be considered. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT there's no "problematic" behavior at RN/B, which, incidentally, is not a discussion you yourself participated in. As far as I can tell.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on it now, though I'm not sure what your remark regarding my lack of participation is supposed to imply. I hope that, after the fourth invocation of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, he will let the discussion die on its own; it hasn't been about "Reliable Sources" for quite some time. That said, it's not actionable; as the SPI case is filed and the attack page is blanked, hopefully an admin can close this soon. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (copy of recent post to WP:REFUND): This page is covered both by WP:POLEMIC (a policy), and WP:CSD#G10 (a speedy deletion criterion that references WP:ATP, a slightly different but essentially similar policy page). I referenced the first policy in the deletion log, kind of assuming the link to G10 was clear, but if that's too lazy and if it helps in dotting the i's and crossing the t's, consider it deleted per WP:CSD#G10. We generally haven't considered short-term compilation of evidence an attack page, but they aren't allowed to linger in user space for a long time; in this case over a month, plus a week since its undeletion. From WP:ATP: "keeping a "list of enemies" or "list of everything bad user:XXX did" on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate". If it's going to take a long time to compile evidence, that should be done offline. Morty now has this material offline if he chooses to use it. If an admin thinks WP:POLEMIC/WP:CSD#G10/WP:ATP doesn't apply here, they can certainly undelete (I'll say as much at ANI in a moment). Or ditto if Morty wants to take it to WP:DELREV instead. But it pretty clearly qualifies to me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC) (end of copy)[reply]

I'm not preventing Morty from continuing to compile evidence, I'm not preventing him from filing an SPI, I'm not claiming Sjhard is or isn't a sock, and I'm not Morty's enemies' newest buddy. But my experience has been that we enforce WP:POLEMIC/WP:CSD#G10/WP:ATP like this all the time. I even tried to blank it instead of delete it, and was immediately reverted. Again, if any admin thinks undeletion is warranted and WP:POLEMIC/WP:CSD#G10/WP:ATP doesn't apply, please feel free to undelete. Now I've been told I'm a stuck up jerk, that I'm someone's pet admin, and that I am intentionally harassing Morty, and I still temporarily undeleted the page for Monty to copy the contents, and I've explained myself sufficiently to satisfy WP:ADMINACCT. I've had more than enough, so I'm disengaging now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Whether the page in question should be deleted or not is subject to the usual administrative rules and guidelines (though I've seen other people do similar, just in a but less transparent way and get away with it). My point rather is that Morty's action were understandable and importantly, that this ANI report is completely pointless.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, I apologize for the jerk comment. That being said, I am frustrated because (a) the last person to blank that page was a freaking sockpuppet of a stalker and (b) you didn't explain ANYTHING of your blanking, followed by just up and deleting it when I reverted and tried to add the newest sockpuppet to the list. How the hell was I supposed to know what you were up to when you were too lazy to give an explanation? Morty C-137 (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a sock puppet. Nothing has been proven yet. --Tarage (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I learned today that this user filed a false allegation of sockpuppetry against me. It's certainly "Not Here" behavior. It needs to be stopped either on its own or by a hasty door showing. The attack page is a symptom of the problem. --DHeyward (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no shortage of symptoms; the repeated assumption/leap to accuse other users above (including intervening admins) of "harassment" demonstrates A) a pretty profound lack of understanding of basic process (which can always be remedied with experience) and B) a more fundamental sense of persecution and refusal to WP:AGF (which is more problematic). We already see enough users show up here on a revolving door basis who are convinced that any time their wishes are thwarted or their behaviour questioned, it is a form of harassment. Best to disabuse this notion early, before it progresses to the conspiracy theory stage and truly disruptive discussions that usually follow. Snow ^{let's rap} 11:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dheyward ran right in after someone was blocked. The Clerk on the case admitted "I can see why it looks suspicious." But hey, go ahead and roundly misrepresent everything. Morty C-137 (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are two sets of sockpuppets attacking Morty. The earliest one is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D.H.110/Archive A second set is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D.Pearson/Archive. I'll quote Bbb23, who is sadly now inactive here: " I can see the confusion because of the usernames, all the pepes and earsons, but they are separate masters editing from different continents and using different other technical data. I don't know why this person is mimicking the other.-" That is my finding also. Two different continents but the later one is mimicking the earlier. I have my own thoughts on this but need to ponder on the evidence a bit longer. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holy mother of WP:IDHT; you really need to stop assuming (and vocally asserting) that everyone who questions you is out to get you, and listen to what the experienced admins and users here are trying to tell you. A few things relating to your last couple of posts:

A) I wasn't commenting on Dheyward's assertions, but rather pointing to your behaviour above of attacking every administrator who takes action to keep you from trampling on policy. I don't see how I am "roundly misrepresenting" anything by pointing out that this is an incredibly self-defeating strategy.

B) You have so selectively quoted mz7's comments in the SPI that you opened against DHeyward (and mischaracterized their role in the SPI) so as to have essentially reversed the conclusion they came to. Here's the full quote, with the context you omitted: "I am not an SPI clerk, but for what it's worth, I agree that the reverts alone are insufficient evidence. I can see why it looks suspicious, but DHeyward is a longstanding editor (created in 2005), and the Doorzki account is not exactly new either (created in 2012). If these were single-purpose accounts with no other edits besides these reverts, we would probably call it a WP:DUCK. However, that's not the case here: both editors have coexisted for a while now without drawing suspicion of sockpuppetry. Given this, I would need to see more evidence of interaction between these accounts or other idiosyncratic behavior (e.g. similar writing style/editing philosophies) before blocking or even recommending CheckUser in this case."

C) Your latest SPI is an absolute nightmare of disorganized non-cogent accusations and non-contexualized links. Moreover, you clearly knew what you were adding to that page, because this was your edit summary for your second edit: "Fuck it. I was trying to get my head wrapped round it and was going to start paring things down and reformatting, but since I got harassed today and told "use it or lose it", it's up. Have fun, whoever.". Uhh, no. That's not how this works. If you want the community to take your accusations seriously, the responsibility is on you to make the argument in a structured and intelligible fashion. It is not the community's responsibility to go digging through that mess of gibberish to make heads or tales of which of the dozens of editors you accuse might actually be a sock, just because you still wanted to open another SPI but you were also angry and wanted to make a statement about your attack page being closed.

You need to take a pause for the cause here, because at ANI we look at the behaviour of all involved parties, even once we've established that one of them is problematic. It will do you no good at all to identify a sock who may or may not be harassing you if, in the course of trying to make your case, you demonstrate a profound inability to contribute to the project yourself without accusing every good-faith contributor and admin you come across of being in on the harassment, and just generally demonstrating a highly WP:disruptive attitude. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Related: Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#User:Morty_C-137/SPI-Case (2nd request). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really, this user has been here for 4 months[4] and he has an enemies and sock accusation list. Not since Psycho in the movie Stripes has someone created a death list so quickly. It's hardly the type of activity new users find themselves embroiled in and arguing about. It's about time to call this one as an obviously returning editor. --DHeyward (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considering his SPI against Cjhard is failing(unsurprisingly), I think we need to start limiting the amount of accusations Morty is allowed to toss around. Yes, it is unfortunate that he has been the target of two sock puppet editors, but that is no excuse for slinging accusations at everyone and hoping some stick. --Tarage (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the SPI is as much as done; the CU found no relationship between Cjhard and any of the other editors. I'm actually pretty shocked jpgordon decided to run a CU in that situation at all, but perhaps they recognized it may prove necessary to refer back to that SPI as fruitless. In light of the polemic/attack page, the recurrent fruitless SPIs, the constant assumption of bad faith and unsubstantiated claims of harassment (particularly the accusations against Guy Macon and Floquenbeam above), and just the generally WP:battleground and WP:disruptive attitude this user is bringing into every space they enter into, I'm fully prepared to support restrictions of some sort--a topic ban from SPI in particular. Frankly, at this point, it's beginning to feel less like IDHT and more like "I will never hear that", but the smallest targeted restrictions should be considered first. I definitely think something needs to be done though; this is a whole lot of drama for the community to have to contend with to indulge for a user who has been around for four months and spends half of their time grinding axes; harassment from socks gets one a certain amount of sympathy, but this user is primed to see foes no matter the circumstances. Morty either needs to learn what is an acceptable claim of harassment or, as has been suggested above, he will have to be shown the door. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia has a history of sanctioning editors when they respond poorly to harassment. Some of this is unavoidable, but I still think we need to come up with a better approach. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how responding poorly to harassment by another editor gives Morty C-137 a free pass to abuse multiple editors who had no part in any harassment.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] Morty C-137, given the wide variety of editors who you have accused of harassing you and acting in bad faith, could it be possible that the problem is you?

There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon presents a heck of a Gish Gallop, but none of those diffs show what he is saying, with the exception of one edit that I've already apologized for. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Respectfully NRP, multiple admins have attempted to approach this user with kids gloves only to be told to stop "harassing" him. I wasn't suggesting a block, but rather trying to isolate them from areas they don't seem yet competent to handle--areas in which they are currently sinking a lot of time into, and which are the nexus of all of the issues they are having with just about everyone they seem to be interacting with on the project now.

The smallest and most targeted sanction I could think of is a topic ban from SPI complaints, appeal-able in a few months once they have enough experience to know what really looks like suspicious activity, under this community's standards--not just the criteria of anyone who disagrees with them ever, on any article. Though, if I'm frank, it's the refusal to AGF / general hostility to anyone thwarting their will that is the real problem. If you think you can reach them, short of that sort of thing becoming a necessity, by all means have at it. But I'll direct you to the above, and this user's talk page, where numerous notably patient admins and veteran community members have tried. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Whilst dealing with true harassment is something we need to do much better, dealing with tactical (or misguided) cries of harassment based on a simple disagreement or failure to gain consensus is something we do poorly too. CRYHARASS can be similar to CRYBLP: a diversion from the underlying issue by appeal to the authority of an inapplicable generality which deliberately invokes strong reactions. Both of these are gaming tactics, and, historically, we've not dealt particularly well with that, either. NRP makes a good point, but, as you say, the issues are wide and nuanced. -- Begoon 10:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think what’s clear is that since his block Morty C-137’s conduct hasn’t improved since his first block. His behaviour on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is a great example of his personal attacks, tendentiousness and battlefield behaviour continuing unabated. His presence is almost inevitably disruptive in any political topic he engages with and his temperament appears to be inherently compatible with a collaborative project like Wikipedia. A series of increasingly long bans ending in retirement or an indefinite ban appears inevitable. However, Morty’s work on articles related to Rick and Morty suggests that he is able to contribute to the project positively in areas which require less collaboration and are less politically charged. The optimist in me would suggest that a topic ban on all political topics along with a sanction against making any personal attacks (specifically accusations of wrongdoing without evidence and/or outside the proper channels) might prevent his negative behaviour while retaining him as an editor. Cjhard (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a short block for incivility and not assuming good faith, followed by longer and longer blocks until he either gets the point or is blocked indefinitely. His behavior has completely disrupted what would have otherwise been a calm, rational discussion on RSNB about whether a particular source, previously reliable, has become unreliable. This is interfering with the operation of the encyclopedia. I am agnostic on the politics topic ban, not having examined his behavior in that area. --Guy Macon (talk)09:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue his behaviour on RSNB is an example of his behaviour in the politics topic, given the nature of the sources discussed and what they're being used for. Cjhard (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that, as a party, jumping on some sort of perceived bandwagon might not be the best thing for you to do here. Despite the very poor SPI, people may still have questions. Your last couple of posts have not helped to convince me that you don't deserve deep scrutiny, yourself. -- Begoon 12:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with Morty's disruptive behavior and personal attacks? A Morty-free encyclopedia has a lot less drama overhead. Threatening his victims doesn't solve the problem. --DHeyward (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DARVO. Those who have been through abusive situations recognize this sort of behavior when someone tries it on them. I've done nothing to warrant the torrent of abuse you've heaped on me, I legitimately saw something weird in a pattern of edits and reported it. You've been page hopping for the past couple days insulting me and trying to get me "banned" while calling me things like "ban-boy" and it needs to stop. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No Morty. I've followed you to admin pages where you are abusing other editors including me. It needs to stop. Your behavior is deplorable and your accusations lack merit. I've not sought you out or even knew you existed until someone pointed out your merit-less SPI accusation in an apparent attempt to get me sanctioned and I learned that I was one of many. I have done nothing but point at your poor behavior. It's incompatible with Wikipedia. I have not started any ANI/SPI/3RR or any other process against you but that seems to be your sole contributions as there are at least 4 open ones about you. Your familiarity with these avenues, your long list of "bad users" and attitude suggest this isn't your first rodeo. I personally find that those that see sockpuppets at every turn are often the worse sock puppeteers and is why they think a torrent of socks are out to get them. --DHeyward (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that DHeyward has now begun stalking my edits and reverting me wherever he can find me, in an attempt to get me angry. [16][17] [18] Morty C-137 (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?"[19] --Monty Python and the Holy Grail

According to WP:WIKIHOUNDING, "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam." DHeyward appears to be simply correcting related problems on multiple articles that you have edited. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia."

Repeat: to repeatedly confront... with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress. Dheyward has never edited those pages before - they were following me in hopes of creating irritation, annoyance or distress. Morty C-137 (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If these edits you cited [20] [21] annoyed you, you are in the wrong place. You called them reverts when in fact your exact text and citation were retained. You didn't bother to check that the source and content were duplicated. --DHeyward (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Morty C-137, it appears that pretty much everything causes you "irritation, annoyance or distress", including the most innocuous of edits. Right now it looks like you are heading toward an indefinite block, and your continued claims of harassment and bad faith are making that block more likely. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is thoroughly off the rails. I request an un-involved admin close it with no action against any editors. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the template from {{hat}} to {{cot}} to prevent edit warring. But hopefully off-topic discussions can stop here. Alex Shih^Talk 04:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, with Lynn's divergence being now hatted, I must disagree with your description of the discussion and with your recommendation. There are real and substantial issues still being addressed here, and (Lynn aside) all of the community members who have responded to this thread are roughly of the same mind that the behaviour in question is problematic (even if no clear solution / response from the community has been proposed). Morty has responded to every halfway critical appraisal of his actions with cries of "harassment", even while under community scrutiny and while responding to admin directives here at ANI. If he's willing to shout accusations in the faces of admins trying to restrain him, how can we reasonably believe he's about to change his approach when dealing with the rank and file in disputes on some random article--especially the highly charged socio-political ones he favours? I don't see the point in closing this thread when it's virtually certain the user will be back here at ANI or back spamming SPI before we can blink. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic Show me an ANI thread with this much activity that wasn't off the rails after 36 hours. I'd honestly like to know what that looks like. Absent some kind of ground rules, firmly enforced, there aren't any rails to be off of. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My point also. The ANI was filed in response to what was called an "Attack Page". Now, I didn't see the page, and I don't know if there was anything on it that could be termed an "attack" rather than part of compiling an SPI case, but it sounds like that was what it was, and that it wasn't a frivolous case, as per Volunteer Marek. "Not frivolous" as opposed to "valid"...I'm not making judgements on the validity of Morty's suspicions, but it does seem to me that he was doing what he was supposed to do when one has suspicions of socking, and that is to file an SPI. Sounds like he filed a couple, ended up with egg on his face, and was being more cautious with the third, when all of a sudden his hand is forced. So, he files the SPI in response to that, and now he's being attacked himself on all fronts, for one being accused of "spamming" SPI. This is the problem with ANI. This thread went off the rails as soon as it stopped being about the "Attack Page" and whether or not it was okay to have it. Which means it went off the rails in lines 2-5 of the thread, when Guy Macon started bringing up the recent ANIs that had been brought against Morty. And, as to how long one should be allowed to maintain a page of difs related to sockpuppet suspicions, what is the "timely manner" (quote from policy) in which it should be used? The answers are: "It depends on whether or not you've recently been brought to ANI" and/or "It depends on what editor is keeping them, and who they are keeping them on," neither of which is an objective, rationale response that is going to diffuse an editor that is already feeling persecuted.

So yes, this should be closed without action. If another ANI is opened, there should first be a perusal of Robert's Rules of Order by all parties. The dogpile method that ANI currently uses is not just dysfunctional, it's something out of Lord of the Flies. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cjhard has now been closed: "Checkuser finds nothing interesting connecting Cjhard with any of these accounts or with any problematic accounts at all."

Meanwhile, the previously listed problem behavior ([22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]) has continued with [33][34][35][36].

There is a broad consensus that the behavior of Morty C-137 is problematic. Everyone who criticizes Morty C-137 in any way is accused of bad faith, harassment, or sockpuppetry. If this is closed without administrative action, someone will open a new report when the behavior continues. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Proposal

Morty C-137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now editing 2017 Unite the Right rally, and while he has managed to technically avoid violating 3RR (because some of his reverts are of obvious vandalism), editing that page at all during this discussion is a sign of incredibly poor judgment on his part. As a friendly offer to him, I suggest that he voluntarily agree to a post-1932 American Politics TBAN for the next month. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note that I can't promise that other editors will consider this sufficient. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I note that I think that the object of the ANI has been met, which was to address the "Attack Page." It's gone. But you're right, he probably should walk away from articles like that for a while (why 1932?). I, for one, wouldn't touch one of those types of articles with a 10 foot pole (My focus is on the fur trade and nice, un-contentious articles about horses Oh, wait) My observation is that anyone who does edit those ends up getting regularly brought to ANI and blocked. Just part of the whole "encyclopedia anyone can edit" scenario. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: Have I made any bad edits on that page? Can you point to any? I'm willing to bet you can't. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not the right response Morty. He didn't say you made questionable edits, but that your editing the page was questionable. You need to walk away from all this for a while. Believe me, I know what it feels like to be dogpiled, and that's why I took hits here calling that out, but if you don't settle down you're going to be right back here and it will probably be for the right reasons next time. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there is no "right response", ever. No matter what policy is complied with, there's another contradictory policy. Trying to report harassment results in more threats; filing quickly when there are likely sockpuppets gets attacked, trying to put it all together to get it right gets attacked the same way. Whatever I say, whatever I do, someone with an agenda will twist it and misrepresent it in some way. They won't do shit about people who hunt me page to page, they won't do shit about the people constantly making new accounts to harass me, but they'll go after me nonstop. Morty C-137 (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And your belief that is the case is a good reason for the proposed TBAN. Your non-political edits seem to be stress free for you but your political edits have you seeing boogeymen at every turn. That's a problem for all of us much more than any problems you are dealng with. --DHeyward (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And there's a reason someone who stalked my edits trying to irritate me will have no impact on my opinion. Morty C-137 (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. Being blocked from editing Wikipedia has been show to be an effective method for impacting the opinion of editors like you.

You are claiming that it's always someone else, never you. For some inexplicable reason dozens of people who don't know each other have somehow gotten together and decided to harass poor, innocent you, while the vast majority of editors get along fine with everyone else.

The fact of the matter is that we do care about those who legitimately harass you, and we are putting in our absolute best effort to identify them and stop them from posting to Wikipedia. But none of that changes the fact that your behavior is a problem as well.

Here are some diffs. Study them, and identify the things that you are doing that others here are not doing. Then stop doing those things.

• "Bullshit and WP:WEASEL words"[37]
• "The repeated dishonesty ... just designed to try to irritate and provoke "[38]
• "Rudely and dishonestly misrepresenting ... false accusation"[39]
• "Fraudulent ... in bad faith"[40]
• "Obvious bad faith"[41]
• "Inappropriate and done in a manner calculated to harass."[42]
• "That proves this whole listing is in bad faith"[43]
• "You'd prefer to beat me up. Now I see why admins are considered suck stuck up jerks on wikipedia."[44]
• "What a load of harassing crap."[45]
• "Go away. You know you only posted that garbage to harass me."[46]
• "But hey, go ahead and roundly misrepresent everything."[47]
• "Not sure what game you're playing or if you just decided you hate my guts for some reason."[48]
• "Such a sad individual."[49]
• "So many personal attacks."[50]
• "Stalking my edits and reverting me wherever he can find me, in an attempt to get me angry."[51].

Free clue: The thing you keep doing that is pissing everyone else off involves accusing others of harassment, accusing others of bad faith, and in general acting like a total jerk.

I propose a short block for the above behavior, followed by longer and longer blocks if he keeps doing it. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know full well you decided you hate me and want me blocked, and you won't shut up nor stop misrepresenting my edits till you get your way. Such as your rank mischaracterization of when I noted the many personal attacks from DHeyward after he launched a flurry of them including calling me "ban-boy". Morty C-137 (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, bad behavior (real or imaginary) by others does not excuse your behavior. If you think that either I or DHeyward have misbehaved, file an ANI report with diffs supporting your claims. Your continued assertions that it is never you, always someone else are making it more likely that you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Morty C-137, your post right above is an example of the behavior Guy was pointing out. It probably isn't really helpful to your cause. May I suggest you consider moderating your behavior some? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've already posted the diffs here. LynnWysong was right about one thing, Guy Macon posted this just to cause a dogpile because this board isn't for resolving things, it's for a bunch of vultures to get their fill ripping into victims and engaging in DARVO. Morty C-137 (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Votes on action against Morty C-137

• Support short block Enough of this. This has wasted way too much time and the editor, even after a failed malformed SPI, still doesn't get it. --Tarage (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support short block as a minimum option to deal with Morty. Hopefully it'll cause him to look at the criticism he's received here and correct his behaviour, but his levels of IDHT are through the roof, so the more likely outcome is that he will add this to his list of grievances by the harrassers at Wikipedia and we'll be back here when he resumes editing. Cjhard (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then what's the point? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also support a topic ban on political topics as a measure which might be more effective in preventing Morty's disruptive behaviour in the long term. Cjhard (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• OpposeThis ANI has been a cluster. The fact that it started by characterizing Morty's draft SPI report as an "Attack Page" fatally flawed it from the beginning. Process should mean something. Even if you have to let someone off the hook that probably doesn't deserve it, you can't use flawed process to justify retribution. Let's piece the conch back together and do make people do it right. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support both block and TBAN - As a pending changes reviewer, I am witnessing the reversions made on Jenny McCarthy in opposition to Morty's acts. A temporary block will stop D.Pearson's hatred, while the topic ban will prevent further attacks. I also recommend page protection for any affected articles that Pearson is attacking Morty on, including the one I mentioned. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support either or both short block and topic ban. Morty C-137 has clearly indicated that he will not stop his disruptive behavior unless forced to do so. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support block and AP2 topic ban. --DHeyward (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support short-term block and (especially) topic ban from AP2 topics. The IDHT is off the charts here and Morty seems incapable of distinguishing community concerns from genuine harassment. In my opinion the troll who has pestered him (presumably after locking horns with him on some article or another) has only exacerbated an underlying and pronounced difficulty with the collaborative process that seems to be fundamental to Morty's approach on this project. In other words, I'm quite certain that Morty's battleground attitude is a feature of his general attitude while editing here, and that it has been (and will continue to be) present, even in the absence of any kind of actual provocation. A preventative block to temporarily disengage him from his current feuds, combined with removing him from the especially contentious areas until he has demonstrated an understanding of our behavioural standards stands the best chance of forestalling further attacks on passers-by. Personally I would have started with a much more narrow ban from SPI, but the AP2 topic ban being the one put forward, I can support it without qualms. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban of some kind, no opinion on a possible block. I think that a tban from SPI (broadly construed to prevent Morty from throwing about these blanket accusations regarding others being socks in general - we're smart enough to be able to get rid of the two sockfarms when they pop up) would be better than a tban from AP2, but if that's the consensus there's no opposition from me. ansh666 05:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Per comment below, I'd also support a lengthy block at this time. ansh666 05:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - both block and TBAN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose a TBAN most definitely as nothing in the above discussion warrants it. As far as a "short block"... well, Morty does need to chill a bit although having to deal with such a situation is understandably stressful.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose topic ban, I agree that would be overkill. He hasn't edited in weeks and isn't disrupting anything. A short block may have been appropriate at the time, and if someone wants to add one just so it's in the block log, I'm not opposed. But WP:NOTPUNITIVE and since Morty hasn't been editing at all anyway, what's the point? Mojoworker (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for Snow Close

It is clear that there is community consensus for a short block followed by a topic ban.

I propose that this report be closed with a short block followed by a six month topic ban from filing new sock puppet investigations and from all edits about and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States, broadly construed. This should be accompanied by a warning about accusing other editors of harassment or bad faith, and an explanation that any further accusations should be in the form of ANI reports, not inline comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not as a WP:SNOW close. However, I do support your proposal. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a block, that would purely be punitive; TBAN is another thing. By the way, any admins thinking of closing this might want to first examine the rev-del'd edits a few minutes ago to this section. Black Kite (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A block would not be punitive if the behavior is ongoing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...Which opens up a golden opportunity for User:Morty C-137. Are you listening Morty? All you have to do is give us the slightest indication that you understand why eight people just supported having you blocked and/or topic banned and indicate that you will make a good-faith effort to change. Pretty much everyone here (including me) would love to close this with "no administrative action required" and move on. Just give us a reason to think that things will change. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, that's good advice, and I've left a note on Morty's talk page urging him to heed it. It doesn't look like he's edited since you left the offer – let's see how he responds before this proceeds further. Mojoworker (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is good advice (though I'll bet you double nickels on the dime that this will be WP:GAMEd at some point by some bad-faith user who's gunning for Morty. Just putting this here so at some point (if I'm paying attention) I can come back and say "I told you so".Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For those of us who were unable to see the rev-del edits, can you give us some understanding as to how they pertain to this? --Tarage (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was a grossly uncivil comment against the editor in question from a likely sock. Alex Shih^Talk 02:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A CU confirmed (by me) sock. There have been two unrelated sets of socks attacking Morty. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D.H.110/Archive stopped in April. The ones mentioned there in June are part of this set: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D.Pearson/Archive. They are definitely unrelated other than the target - the second set is mimicking the first. Except at the beginning, when D.Pearson suddenly appeared to defending Morty and to help him edit war, leading to a possible/inconclusive SPI.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morty C-137/Archive. Doug Weller talk 08:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's another one on there right now. So childish. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So is User:Morty C-137 laying low or reappearing in different form after contemplative period? --DHeyward (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I've been wondering. Sro23 (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe waiting for the next exciting Rick and Morty episode? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All joking aside, he was with his grandmother in hospice, and then attended her funeral. He won't be editing anytime soon, so the compassionate thing would be just to close this as unnecessary, or simply let it archive. Mojoworker (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the appeal to compassion, but sanctions on Morty remain necessary. Morty has retired before, only to be back shortly later. I'm certain that "anytime soon" will be in the span of one or two months, and the behaviour and disruption will continue as it has. I accept that the short block may be unnecessary, but if there's consensus for an AP2 ban, that should be instituted. Cjhard (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No you don't no they don't. You're just trying to twist the knife in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It pains me to say it, but I think an indef block is necessary here. Morty should do a clean-start under a new account if he ever feels like contributing here again. I hate to suggest something that seems to reward the most abusive and nasty troll I've seen on Wikipedia, but after Morty's last comment [52], I think the situation is irreparable. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd wager most people would be willing to look the other way on the PAs because of the circumstances, but at the same time Wikipedia is not therapy, and I think Morty would certainly benefit from not participating in a project that seems to cause them so much stress at such a stressful time in their life, at least for a while. So yeah, I'd agree with that. Although technically it wouldn't be a valid clean start due to ongoing sanctions, and like Guy Macon I do have a suspicion that this wouldn't be their first time doing it. ansh666 05:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note this [53].Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When there is back and forth edit warring, and content deletion without giving editors a chance to justify their edits, and when some editors can barely catch their breath because they watch a number of these articles, I just don't see how these mass deletions are helpful (unless cutting WP:BLP violations and/or unencyclopedic content). Pinging the following involved editors: SNUGGUMS, FrB.TG, Krimuk2.0, Mattbuck, Sundayclose, RektGoldfish and FlightTime. I'm sure there are more editors, but I haven't yet looked at all the other recent deletions Hillbillyholiday has made and whether there have been objections and edit warring regarding them. Also, Hillbillyholiday already knew that I would be starting this thread. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was only involved with the Jennifer Lawrence page. Regardless of overall article quality, Flyer is right that mass deletions (except for things like blatant BLP violations) should at least be discussed beforehand. Edit warring only makes things worse. I thought about bringing Hillbilly to WP:AN3 for it, but wasn't sure at the time if the user had reverted enough to warrant a block. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this thread. It's particularly outrageous when such mass deletion is done for high-quality FA-class articles, and in the case of Lawrence, when it was featured on the bloody main page! On top of that, taking a snarky dig at my support for feminism is outrageous. I understand if this editor has issues with the sexualisation of women in mainstream media, but does Hillbilly really think that attacking well-meaning editors will help solve the issue? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing new to add here, my comments can be seen at Hillbillyholiday's talk, I am here to support Flyer22 Reborn concerns and the starting of this thread. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had problems with Hillbillyholiday on Amanda Bynes, where Hillbillyholiday removed the "Personal life" section almost in it's entirety (about one-third of the article). Hillbillyholiday's only explanation was in an edit summary: "way too much coverage of mental health issues, perhaps deserves reporting but briefly and in a sensitive manner with good sources". This subject's mental health issues have been in the forefront of her public life for the last five years; she has not worked as an actress for the last seven years. The content that Hillbillyholiday removed was sourced to NBC News, CBS News, and the L.A. Times, among others. Hillbillyholiday has not made any attempt at discussion. Hillbillyholiday has deleted the same content four times in the last three days, including the most recent revert of RektGoldfish. Hillbillyholiday seems to have ownership issues with a number of articles; when told that there might be a discussion here, Hillbillyholiday's response was "I doubt I'll be participating". Sundayclose (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, per that response, I don't think Hillbillyholiday is taking the problems others have expressed with his or her mass deletions seriously. Like I recently stated, "That supposed lack of concern, as though it's fine and dandy to keep doing this, is one of the problems. [...] Hillbillyholiday's reasons are not always very good. Hillbillyholiday often removes stuff on a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT basis, which is not how we should edit. See this dispute at Talk:Jennifer Lawrence? I agree with those who challenged Hillbillyholiday. Some stuff that Hillbillyholiday removes is very relevant and should be retained or simply trimmed or reworded, not deleted altogether. Some may not like that Jennifer Lawrence is a sex symbol, but it is a part of her notability and public image. For some removals across these articles, I don't think that Hillbillyholiday is completely in the wrong, but I do think that he or she is often going about them in the wrong way. When multiple editors disagree and are reverting you, for example, you should not keep removing the content unless there is some WP:BLP violation or some other serious issue. Edit warring is disruptive, and edit warring against multiple editors usually results in that lone editor getting blocked; so, if the editor does have a valid case for the deletions, then nothing is resolved except for the disruption.'" Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS, FrB.TG, Krimuk2.0, Mattbuck, Sundayclose, RektGoldfish and FlightTime, it's likely that the best thing to be done in this case is report Hillbillyholiday's edit warring at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard. As seen with this edit, Hillbillyholiday has reverted yet again, this time at the Shia LaBeouf article, despite the section I started at the Shia LaBeouf talk page. Hillbillyholiday clearly thinks he (or she) can do what he (or she) wants in this case, as is clear by the editor still taking hatchet jobs to articles and not even bothering to comment here. Hillbillyholiday is clearly waiting for this WP:ANI thread to blow over. If none of you want to start the case at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard, I will. After that, you all can weigh in there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(It's he.) Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User has been reported at AN3. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: When someone's edit history comes up a sea of undiscussed massive deletions [54], including of cited information, and undiscussed (or snarkily and dismissively discussed) edit-wars to keep the material deleted, that's a problem. If it doesn't stop, I suggest a topic-ban on direct editing of BLPs (at least until the crusade dies down). Softlavender (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You'd keep stuff like this? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a massive deletion. And we all know that the Daily Mail is a poor source for WP:BLPs; it's been discussed to death, after all, and we had a big RfC on it earlier this year. Hillbillyholiday started that RfC. The problem is the massive deletions of non BLP-violating material by Hillbillyholiday and edit warring over it. Hillbillyholiday has a very strict and over-the-top view on what BLP violations are, and it all started around the time a certain editor/administrator was recklessly removing content sourced to People magazine and similar and Hillbillyholiday was emboldened and jumped on the bandwagon. Hillbillyholiday was wrong then, and he (or she) is often wrong now. A lot of decent content is lost because of Hillbillyholiday's odd views of WP:BLP and also because Hillbillyholiday simply removes anything he or she does not like. And the editor is still edit warring. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I'm done with this editor, their constant "I know what's best" attitude and WP:OWN issues are too much. I suggest they replace the {{retired}} on their talk and take it to heart. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer, you have said that it is fine to have a section on a BLP entitled "Mental health" which uses sources such as msn.com and usmagazine.com to provide facts about the subject's "depression", "paranoia", hospitalization, and diagnoses. (Talk:Kanye_West#Recent_deletions)

You think saying someone had a "public meltdown" in Wikipedia's voice is acceptable. (WP:BLP/N#Britney Spears)

Forgive me if I don't put much store by your comments when it comes to appropriate sourcing for BLPs. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how anyone can evaluate the sourcing on these articles so fast. --Moxy (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hillbillyholiday, so you have finally graced us with your presence. Like I relayed before, get your story right when reporting on what I've stated. To repeat what I stated at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard: "As for the Kanye West matter, I clearly stated [...] The sources for the Mental health section of the West article are solid, except for one source. The sources are WP:BLP-compliant. So I am right about the sourcing. Whether or not the content should stay is another matter." I did not state that the section was fine. I stated that sources in that section are WP:BLP-compliant. I also stated that I had been concerned about the section before and had almost removed it. I also stated "we can ask about it at the WP:BLP noticeboard." If we are judging the section purely on sources, those sources, except for consequenceofsound.net, are fine. Here is a Billboard source from the section; it notes that West stated that he contemplated suicide. Not a WP:BLP violation. This The Los Angeles Times source states that West was persuaded by authorities to commit himself to a hospital. Not a WP:BLP violation. This Entertainment Tonight source states that West is formally undiagnosed. Not a WP:BLP violation. And this CNN source states that West was released from the hospital. Not a WP:BLP violation.

And I've explained the Spears matter well enough.

Stop trying to make it seem as though your massive deletions are normally removing egregious BLP violations and therefore you should not be sanctioned; that simply is not the case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never said CNN, Billboard, et al. were unreliable or BLP violating -- stop putting words in my mouth. I simply asked whether msn.com and usmagazine.com were acceptable sources for a subject's mental health issues, and you said they were ok. You also reckon "meltdown" (source: MTV) is a suitable descriptor. If you can't see how these opinions are problematic, I think you may need a topic-ban from BLP-related articles. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And how exactly is MSN a BLP-violating source? Same goes for Us Weekly. Like I stated to you before, Us Weekly is the same category of sourcing as People magazine, which I remind you yet again was deemed to be generally fine for WP:BLPs. As I noted back then, that People RfC should not have focused solely on People since the disagreement was about People magazine and sources like it.

And, as you have no doubt seen, EdJohnston has also stated that he does not consider the Spears matter to be a WP:BLP violation.

The only topic ban here should be yours. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• My recent edits speak for themselves. I'm done here. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You state that you are done, but I guarantee that you are going to wait for this matter to cool down and then start up your disruptive deletions and edit warring again, which is why I think that EdJohnston or some other administrator should propose an immediate block if (rather when) you start back up again. The slap on the wrist is not enough. I've seen this type of disruption from a number of editors. They almost always start back up again after things have cooled down. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hillbillyholiday does and has done valuable work in refining and enforcing our most important rule. While I recognise that the intentions of Flyer22 Reborn are undoubtedly good, edits like this one and this one are problematic (note the edit summary on the latter). I caution this user that they are likely to be blocked if they attempt to edit-war material that they themselves acknowledge breaches BLP into articles. There are better ways to challenge a deletion that you disagree with. --John (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thank you John for putting this into the correct perspective. He "does and has done valuable work in refining and enforcing" and it is out of order to label him as a vandal; little doubt why so many well-intentioned, enthusiastic editors walk away from Wikipedia. Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones (The Welsh Buzzard) 20:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • • John, you are WP:INVOLVED. Should I point to all of the ways that you are WP:INVOLVED, like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive812#User:John and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLPs), or User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Archive 14#Continuing disruption by User:John on biography articles, or this comment from I JethroBT noting the following: "John's arguments were not persuasive during the RfC and they shouldn't be elsewhere if that is the basis for disagreement."? A number of editors, including NeilN, Binksternet, NE Ent, Rivertorch, Johnuniq and Herostratus were of the opinion that you either acted disruptively and/or were WP:INVOLVED when it came to me. So I was waiting for you to show up since it was your massive deletions and misguided BLP assertions, as seen in that ANI case, that inspired Hillbillyholiday's disruption. It was also you, as the sole editor, who voted "No" to People magazine, while everyone else voted "Yes."

Neither this nor this are WP:BLP violations. In the latter case, the only supposed BLP violation that Hillbillyholiday noted is "public meltdown," but editors, including EdJohnston, disagree with Hillbillyholiday that use of "public meltdown" is a BLP violation in the case of the breakdown/meltdown that Spears acknowledges she had.

So nice try when it comes to trying to point the finger in my direction. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm. So what did A lot of this is not WP:BLP violations in any way. Do stop mass deleting content, especially on WP:GAs or WP:FAs. mean then? I suggest you modify your own behaviour, or it'll get you blocked. I can't really make it any simpler than that. --John (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so you interpret me stating "A lot of this is not WP:BLP violations in any way" as stating that there were some BLP violations in the content? I was not. I was giving Hillbillyholiday the benefit of the doubt even though I did not see any BLP violations. And, as we can see, the only "BLP violation" he cited is "public meltdown," which is something others do not agree is a BLP violation. And even if there had been a BLP violation, it does not justify his mass deletions at that article. That is why both FlightTime and Softlavender also reverted. It is why EdJohnston stated, "If it turns out that Hillbilyholiday engages in edit warring on other articles such as Shia LaBeouf, then someone could file a new AN3 report specifying that article. Massive content removal from BLP articles on the grounds of general article quality isn't supported by WP:3RRNO as an exception to our edit warring rules. Such removals need editor consensus."

So your threat of blocking me is uncalled for. Not only that, it is in direct conflict with the WP:INVOLVED policy. Just like all those years ago with your silly threats about blocking me over use of People magazine, you are back to threatening me. I see that you haven't changed. And let's not pretend that you are talking about someone else blocking me; your tone, including in your edit summary, clearly shows that you intend to be the one doing the blocking. I suggest you modify your line of thinking, or otherwise be sanctioned for administrative abuse. Any block you throw on me would be undone in a matter of minutes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining what your edit summary meant. As for the rest of it, you've been warned and should now either retire and reconsider or save it for the unblock request. Your choice. I won't reply to you again here. --John (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So not only do you not admit that you are wrong, you double down on your block threat? I repeat: A number of editors found you to be wrong all those years ago and noted that you are WP:INVOLVED when it comes to me. You were wrong all those years ago. And you are wrong now. You have not at all shown how Hillbillyholiday is in the right. You are simply here making baseless threats that are obviously unbecoming of an administrator, all because of your silly grudge and your skewed interpretation of what BLP violations are. You really think you are untouchable, don't you? You remember that NeilN was one of the main editors challenging you before, right? You do know that he is an administrator now, don't you? Do you think that he would not unblock me if you blocked me? Because I'm willing to bet that he would. I've been waiting for you to retire for years, but we can't all get our wish. Either way, block me and see what happens. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22, I am very surprised to hear this kind of taunting coming from you. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's understandable when dealing with taunting such as "I suggest you modify your own behaviour, or it'll get you blocked. I can't really make it any simpler than that." and "you've been warned and should now either retire and reconsider or save it for the unblock request. Your choice. I won't reply to you again here." Both of the comments make it seem like I was the one being wholly disruptive and that I am a detriment to BLP articles. John did all this years ago because I was using and defending People magazine. It took NeilN starting an RfC about People magazine to stop the block threats (John's misguided threats to block me) and John's mass deletions of material sourced to People magazine. And now he's portraying this matter as though Hillbillyholiday is in the right and that I'm halting Hillbillyholiday's good contributions, despite all evidence to the contrary, including what EdJohnston stated at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard. I think you've seen me be frustrated before; my above responses to John are tame in comparison to some things I've stated about him before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There has to be a middle way here. EdJohnston says the Britney Spears material isn't a BLP vio; I take them at their word. However, it is hard to deny that even the non-BLP violating material in these articles is just egregiously excessive, and even when not sourced to the Daily Mail or papers like that, it's gossip tabloids. No one, least of all me, wants to go through those articles and their endless chatter about boyfriends and girlfriends and whatnot, though I did remove the names and dates of birth of children in Megan Fox--even if verified, that kind of information is just totally unnecessary; "leave the children out of it" is a matter of convention, as far as I'm concerned. And while Hillbillyholiday may have been guilty of 3RR, we should note that in Amanda Bynes none of his reverters had a decent explanation--"read BRD" is not a decent explanation, it's just tag-teaming. I reverted the last editor, who also gave no explanation, and who seems to have no interest on Wikipedia besides that one single person (a lot of this stuff is just creepy, really).

  We should really look better at such content. "Not a BLP violation" does not mean that certain BLP info should be in our articles. "It's verified" (by People, US Weekly, etc.) doesn't mean it should be included. Even if HBH is incorrect in this or that article, he is not an idiot r a vandal and should be taken seriously. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I wholly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Hear, hear. We are not a bureaucracy and should be careful of any tendency to force an editor with clue and taste away in favour of retaining creepy tabloid kludge about "celebrities". Be better if no tools had to be used but looking at some of the behaviour, my hopes aren't high. --John (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Drmies, I agree that we should not be including any and everything. I certainly was not arguing that. I have made big cuts at celebrity articles over the years, but not in a way that anyone has deemed disruptive. And the cuts were never based on me simply not liking the content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for Amanda Bynes, Sundayclose (above) did give a rationale for reverting Hillbillyholiday, before Hillbillyholiday had responded on the talk page at the WP:BLP noticeboard. I haven't been involved with the Amanda Bynes article, but I do think that the content should have been significantly trimmed instead of deleted completely. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I tend to agree with drmies here, a lot of the stuff that goes into some of our pop culture articles is often entirely too much detail and reads like a gossip sheet rather than an encyclopedia. It appears that things have become a bit entrenched on both sides, but calling each other vandals isn't going to help matters. Try discussing the actual content and justifying why it needs to be included rather than being upset that another editor has removed it. The world will not end if something gossipy stays out of an article for a while ...Ealdgyth - Talk 12:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth, thanks for weighing in. Discussion, or at least discussion first, is what I and others are asking of Hillbillyholiday. Look at the aforementioned Jennifer Lawrence discussion. Editors were trying to discuss/reason with Hillbillyholiday, but he kept reverting. And that article is FA, and it didn't become FA years ago; it became FA earlier this year. Experienced editors brought that article to FA by working together, and more care should be taken with FA articles. Like I stated at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard, Hillbillyholiday is only interested in discussing if his version of the article is in place, or if he intends to revert again anyway. It often takes Hillbillyholiday being reverted by multiple editors before Hillbillyholiday even decides to take the matter to the talk page. Although editors tried to reason with Hillbillyholiday at the Jennifer Lawrence talk page, it is like he was not truly listening and was bent on having things his way. See Krimuk2.0's account above; Krimuk2.0 was insulted by Hillbillyholiday in one instance. The content being cut at these article is not simply gossip; a lot of it is a part of what has made these celebrities notable or is a significant aspect of their notability or public image. One aspect of Lawrence's public image is the view that she is physically attractive. And Amanda Bynes is known more for legal troubles than acting these days. I am not opposing cutting gossip; I am opposing sweeping, drastic cuts, especially when they include material that should be retained, and edit warring to keep the cuts in place. I edit with editors who make significant cuts; SNUGGUMS is one, but SNUGGUMS is always pleasant to work with, even when we disagree. SNUGGUMS takes the time to listen. And, like I recently stated, is one the best editors we have keeping these celebrity articles in check. At John's suggestion and my support, the Britney Spears article is now undergoing a WP:GA reassessment started by SNUGGUMS. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Reborn, please forgive me for commenting. I already said that I wouldn't, as I have had no involvement in those particular articles. But can't we all now agree that the deleting and reverting behavior that you have raised here has now stopped? Or are you now seeking some kind of punitive action to be taken against Hillbillyholiday? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martinevans123, I stated above (my "15:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)" post) and at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard that I think that Hillbillyholiday will resume this behavior. For years, I've seen editors do this -- stop the disruptive behavior and let the matter cool down and then resume afterward. I've seen Hillbillyholiday do this as well; he is no stranger to slow-burn edit wars. Hillbillyholiday has shown time and again that he believes that he is right and that everyone else is wrong and that he will continue to make sweeping deletions even at the objections of multiple editors, sometimes incorrectly citing that there is a WP:BLP violation. So I stand by my earlier statement that I think that an administrator should propose an immediate block if (rather when) Hillbillyholiday starts back up again. But I know that since he has stopped the disruption for now, it is likely that this thread will be closed with no action. I have no doubt that we will be back here again in the future, however. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you now seeking some kind of punitive, or "pre-emptive", action to be taken against Hillbillyholiday now? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to reply, but since FinalPoint1988 pinged me below, I'll go ahead and state that I feel that I've been clear on what I think should happen. Yes, I believe that Hillbillyholiday should receive a stern warning to not engage in this type of disruption again; this affected multiple articles, not just one. But, again, I am not expecting that any action will be taken since Hillbillyholiday has gone into temporary hiding. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So sad to see such overreactions between established/very valuable contributors such as Hillbillyholiday, Flyer22 Reborn, Martinevans123 and John; like Gareth Griffith-Jones said, such things can trigger the sudden absence of great editors like Hillbillyholiday (also an overreaction), In my personal POV, if some established editor removes some "doubtful material" in the future, (providing good reasons in the summary), it would be a good idea to take the matter to the talk page, before reverting him/her, I agree with Drmies, not all the sourced info should be included, there are tons and tons of fan sites and gossip magazines for such chattery...and of course, none of you is a vandal for reverting others..Take it easy...and happy to see Flyer, John and SNUGGUMS taking actions on the matter. FinalPoint1988 (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I'm not quite sure how my input counts as "overreaction". I was just seeking some clarity. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I certainly don't view my and others' views of Hillbillyholiday's disruption to be overreactions either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing 1RRs (Hillbillyholiday removes 1 or more large segments, someone restores all or partial, Hillbillyholiday removes again, another restores, and that's it, no more reverts), so I'm not sure if this is necessarily edit warring. I think it is appropriate BOLD behavior on BLPs with questionable material, but not the type of BLP material that 3RR exemptions would apply to (that is: it is sourced, and not necessarily contentious, but is it really appropriate/necessary to include in a BLP?) I think Hillbillyholiday should be trouted to avoid the 1RR and take to talk page when things are reverted, or better, take to talk page after removing such large parts of the article, just to let other editors know their concerns beyond the scope of an edit summary message, but the removals all do appear to be within proper good faith of what BLP is meant to help protect. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The number of reverts by Hillbillyholiday at Britney Spears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Amanda Bynes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) show differently. And WP:Edit warring is not defined solely by WP:3RR anyway. And it has been applied to edit warring across multiple articles. As for things that should be retained, I stand by my "13:06/13:11, 21 August 2017" commentary above. And I see that editors are disagreeing at the WP:BLP noticeboard regarding the Amanda Bynes case. I am pleased that TonyBallioni took the time to analyze the matter and restore some of the material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Short break and back at it - FlightTime (open channel) 22:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The user has mass deleted sourced information on the page for Jeremy Meeks and due to multiple edits, it's not possible to revert back the information that's been deleted. AnonUser1 (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's "possible to revert". One would simply edit and save the version prior to the consecutive edits, or use Twinkle's "revert to this version", with an edit summary. Simple. Of course, I'm not saying you should do that - you should talk about it first - I'm just saying that your implication that multiple, consecutive edits make reversion harder isn't really correct. You had 8 consecutive edits just prior to Hillbilly's 4, and there's nothing wrong with that at all. -- Begoon 11:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly recommend anyone wishing to retain their editing privilege not to revert this series of edits. I'll go further; anyone who even thinks this was a loss to the article should not be anywhere near a BLP article. John (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John: Regardless if you're correct or not it is very un-administrator like to make a blatant community threat such as this. Are you open to recall ? And before anyone goes off on me, I've been here almost 9 years and this is the first (and last, hopefully) time I've called anyone anything. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Community threat? This is me doing the job I was chosen to do! The tabloid trash that was removed from this article on a living person should never have been put there. Removing it was a good thing. Restoring it would be a bad thing, and knowingly restoring it would be a blockworthy act. If you genuinely don't know good from bad, or what BLP means, it's far better to stay completely away from biographies of living people. John (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to think John is right here. And I'm pretty sure we can't say "regardless" like that? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hillbillyholiday is back to removing a lot of material that he does not like, such as at Rihanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but it can be argued that the material he removed at the Rihanna article needed a significant trim. The Jeremy Meeks stuff was sourced to a lot of tabloid sources -- sources that the Wikipedia community has repeatedly deemed unsuitable for BLPs. So Hillbillyholiday is making some good edits; I never disputed that. It's the sweeping/indiscriminate removals, edit warring and incorrect BLP justifications I have had (and still have) an issue with. As long as he is willing to discuss more and revert less (unless a serious BLP issue is occurring), I don't think that there will much of an issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was "a lot of material that nobody likes very much"? It looks like you may soon be asking for this thread to be closed? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Rihanna article, I can't judge the material that way since it was added there, presumably, by a number of editors and had been there for some time. So it seems to me that some people care(d) about the material. Maybe even a lot of people since the subject is Rihanna. When it's substantial material, even if about a lot of tattoos, I think it is often better to discuss the removal first. See again what SNUGGUMS stated above. In some cases, some features of a celebrity have received substantial media attention and are a part of that celebrity's public image. In the Rihanna case, I would not have added that much detail about her tattoos; I would have perhaps named a few, the ones which seem most relevant, judging by sources on the topic, and included a bit of author commentary on the matter and a bit of commentary from her, if available. I take more of an analytical and WP:Preserve approach, assessing whether or not the particular aspect is significant with regard to the subject or whether it is WP:Undue. Not just for celebrity articles, but for all types of articles.

As for this thread, I obviously still think there are issues with Hillbillyholiday's editing; so I don't regret starting this thread. And I do think there will be problems with Hillbillyholiday's big deletions in the future. So I won't request that the thread be closed. Be patient. It will either be closed or be archived without being closed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you make some very cogent, reasonable and valid points there. I'm not sure Rihanna's tattoos are worth preserving in an encyclopedia but, hey, what do I know. I guess there's a place for most things. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Hillbillyholiday has a fundamental issue of not understanding WP:BLP guidelines and in, fact, not understanding basics of Wikipedia. Please see the complaint about BLP noticeboard on Amanda Bynes, in which Hillbillyholiday pastes the part he/she wants deleted (which was the entire personal life section) and includes its 24 sources, yet calls it, "A blow-by-blow and primary-sourced account of her troubles, with no perspective, no attempt to summarize or weave it into the story of her career. No decent secondary sources." However, there is not a single primary source included, so it appears he/she does not understand what that means. He/she says "No decent secondary sources" although the majority of the sources are from The Los Angeles Times, and others includes CBS News and NBC News. These are among our most reliable of reliable secondary sources. Additionally, Hillbillyholiday complains that there is "no perspective, no attempt to summarize or weave it into the story of her career" — it is NOT our place to "add perspective" or weave these events into the story of her career!!!! This is not what we do in Wikipedia and especially not for WP:BLP. I don't know if there is some kind of Wikipedia101 course Hillbillyholiday can take but I would suggest a topic ban because it appears to be some sort of crusade based on the edit warring and mass deletions without discussions. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimandia (МандичкаYO), Hillbillyholiday did recently remove a lot of material that he did not feel like sorting out. As noted on that article's talk page, Tenebrae, TonyBallioni and I will be working on that matter, trying to save some material, per the WP:Preserve policy. Some of what Hillbillyholiday removed in this case were valid removals; so I didn't revert. I simply asked for outside help. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was pinged: policy is that we get consensus for restoration of material that has been challenged even if it is verifiable, not vice versa (see WP:ONUS, part of WP:V, which is our most core content policy). In BLPs, I think this policy makes even more sense. The consensus at BLPN was that the removal of the content from Bynes was largely justified: we're working towards restoring some of it in line with the BLP policy, but even the small parts I restored were not universally uncontroversial. Re: the behavior as a whole, I agree that this seems like a trend of being BOLD without discussion. At the same time sometimes it is a lot easier towards working to restore from history, especially with BLPs. I'd encourage Hillbillyholiday to be more conservative with their removals, and if they feel the need to blank for BLP concerns to immediately open a talk page discussion or BLPN discussion to see what people can reach consensus to include. This seems to be the best way to manage the tension between ONUS and PRESERVE in these cases, especially when there are legitimate BLP concerns. I also don't see any need for sanctions at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the articles can always be improved (ie add better sources, and cutting out stuff that as time has passed we can see it's not really of any real importance, etc), but Hillbillyholiday is removing huge chunks of articles because WP:IDONTLIKEIT and because he/she apparently has no understanding of what reliable sources are and wants it included "with perspective added." This is the behavior that needs to be addressed, otherwise this cycle will continue and we will be right back here again. Hillbillyholiday needs a tutorial in what reliable sources are and what the difference is between primary and secondary sources, and to understand that we are not here to "add perspective" on incidents that occurred and "weave them into stories." Bold edits made out of ignorance of Wikipedia rules are not helpful. It would be like if I went to an article on some physics theorem and removed six paragraphs because the way it was written made it too complicated and I had never heard of those journals cited, and then put the onus on other people to have to explain on the talk page why it belonged in the article. You think they would allow that? Of course not. And it shouldn't be allowed here either. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting, TonyBallioni. And, again, thanks for helping. When it comes to preserving content via pulling material from the edit history, my concern, as was my concern with a blanking case I brought to WP:ANI last year, is that many editors do not check the edit history for material that has been removed. I might look on the first page for material that may have been removed, for example. But I usually don't look pages back unless I know that I'm looking for something. This has been an issue when it comes to preserving content, which is why editors advise others to preserve the material by posting it, or a link to it, on the talk page (except for any of the BLP violations, that is). But, really WP:Preserve states, "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for WP:ONUS, there was recently a big debate about that. I stayed out of it. But I do not think WP:ONUS can support an editor going to an article and removing what they want and us not being able to revert until we make our case. Otherwise, we'd have a lot more articles in bad shape. I haven't seen WP:ONUS work that way. I have seen it work in the opposite direction -- an editor attempting to add content to an article and multiple editors disputing the content, and the onus being on that editor to justify inclusion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize Hillbillholiday's behavior was so egregious. He removed an entire, profusely cited Personal-life section at Tila Tequila with the outrageous edit summary "not worth sorting out". Just because one editor can't be bothered to "sort out" something doesn't mean he can unilaterally remove a huge, cited biographical section. If that editor doesn't want to "sort it out," no one requires him to. Others may choose to do so. If there are specific uncited personal-life claims, we remove them, obviously. But we do not summarily erase entire sections because we're too lazy to "sort it out" or to ask other editors for help. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources.

I do generally look out for better sources when improving a section but the "Personal life" of Tila Tequila is of little to no importance. Any valuable information can be incorporated into an career section if needs be. Where were the required high-quality secondary sources? Answer: There were none. Or maybe you happen to agree with Wikimandia's frankly laughable and rather insulting comment that I need "a tutorial in what reliable sources are and what the difference is between primary and secondary sources"? --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can outline what your belief of a secondary source is? To some (me included), you have an odd focus on secondary sources. Review your commentary at the Jennifer Lawrence talk page and what others stated to you about secondary sources. If, for example, a celebrity's legal troubles are reported in high-quality news sources, why are you expecting the material to be covered in academic sources? Most of the book sources on celebrities are unauthorized biographies, tell-all books, or some other type of book source that is of relatively poor quality. For celebrities, the best sources are going to be media sources. So what type of secondary sources are you expecting? Even in the case of our political articles, most of the sources are going to be media sources because either the books haven't caught up and/or the editors have not thought to replace the media sources with book sources, or they don't see the need to replace them. You stated that you "do generally look out for better sources when improving a section," but your edit history generally does not reflect that. So your idea of a better source is one of the issues with your editing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User has picked up his edit warring behavior again. Is an administrator going to get involved in this continued behavior? He averted a block last time by taking a couple hour "wiki break," but returned just to continue his behavior. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as I predicted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go on then, I'll indulge you. I recently looked at Dane Bowers who was involved in an incident over the use of the word "pikey" (not his words, btw). And after a quick search I found this: Kalwant Bhopal; Martin Myers (2008). Insiders, Outsiders and Others: Gypsies and Identity. Univ of Hertfordshire Press. p. 207. ISBN 978-1-902806-71-6. A decent, academic publication that not only looks at the matter, but puts it in some kind of context!

Your mischaracterization of my work (and canvassing and regular diversions into irrelevant ancient history) is becoming quite tiring. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a rare instance of an academic book covering such a matter about a celebrity. Go ahead and review again the book you attempted to provide as justification for your arguments at the Jennifer Lawrence talk page. I stand by my statement that "Most of the book sources on celebrities are unauthorized biographies, tell-all books, or some other type of book source that is of relatively poor quality." And, really, I should know since I actually look to build articles, rather than tear them down, and rely on academic sources for other types of articles (meaning that looking for such sources is not lost on me), and since I keep the WP:Preserve policy (yes, a policy, not simply a guideline) in mind. And either way, there is no guideline or policy that academic book sources are preferred for celebrity articles. You are going around chopping articles partly because of your idea of what subpar sources are and because you want these articles to be built to your "high-quality" standards. That is disruptive. As for your WP:Canvassing claims, pinging involved (or previously involved) editors is not a WP:Canvassing violation. And ancient history? Bringing up your past behavior and rationales from years ago (meaning how and where all of this started), or simply a few or several days ago, is relevant. Anyone interested in building a case against someone's behavior at WP:ANI knows that past behavior is context, if relevant. And, as is clear by your edit history, and others' testimonies above and elsewhere, I have not mischaracterized your behavior at all. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just another example of Hillbillyholiday not taking any of the concerns expressed by me and others seriously. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the edits at Michael Michael and Cristiano Ronaldo and I have no major concerns about HBH's editing, except that I wish they would consistently explain in article talk what they are doing and why. On the other hand, if you are still coming to terms with the ramifications of WP:BLP and WP:BLPSOURCES and you express this by reverting poorly-sourced material into an article about living person, you risk getting an extended period for self-study. Don't do it folks. --John (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John: Some of us are more concerned about the blatant edit wars he is getting himself into. These are not BLP worthy reverts; these are content reverts as the majority of it is sourced. One can't just take a sledgehammer to an article, cite WP:BLPSOURCES and then move on without explaining what he's doing when there is a chorus of editors questioning him (and then reverting editors upwards of 5 times on an article). Other policies on the wiki exist for a reason and are still applicable. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOT3RR. --John (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. You mean that part where it suggests discussing instead of edit warring? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was thinking more of the sentence before that. BLP trumps everything, including user conduct policies like 3RR. --John (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fairly precarious position given that this user has invoked BLP when it may not have been appropriate. I think the better area for you to link to is WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE; however, I am concerned with the lack of civility and increased disruptive editing this will cause down the road, as evidenced by this rather large ANI thread. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we should be expecting you to block Tenebrae over this then. But, yes, let's review those two articles. In the case of the first one, we can see that he removed poor and decent sources. Looking at the "Murder of Charlie Wilson" section, it's clear that some of that material could have been retained. Mainstream Publishing seems to be a decent publishing company. And History.com is a WP:Reliable source. Some of the content at the other article could have been retained as well. And why remove this content? What, because it's sourced to goal.com? I don't know much about goal.com, but I do see that it is used in a lot of sports or athlete articles. And as for the non-English source, English sources are preferred on Wikipedia, but they are not mandatory. Hillbillyholiday commented on "a hodgepodge of primary sources," as if primary sources are automatically disallowed or are poor sources in BLPs. You condoned Hillbillyholiday's editing in that latter case, but not all of his removals were justified. Clearly, this editor keeps removing material because he does not like it. Making the good removal here and there does not justify the questionable and/or bad removals. Hillbillyholiday showed his "I don't like it" rationale again when he nominated the Norma Stitz article for deletion and gave an "I don't like this" rationale; Malik Shabazz validly speedily closed the matter, and, as seen at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 23, Hobit and KGirlTrucker81 endorsed the close. Now Hillbillyholiday will try to delete the article again; hopefully, he gives a valid rationale this time. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the closer of this AFD subjected to this ANI discussion, where he reverted my close and then re-revert closures again and taken to DRV. I'll vote keep once he renominates this article again. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 20:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with any editor arguing at article talk that some of the removed material satisfied both WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:WEIGHT. I have no problem with any editor politely asking HBH at his user talk to be a bit more conservative in his removals. But neither of those is a fit matter for WP:AN/I. As far as editor behaviour goes, I agree that HBH has not been perfect (see Masem upthread), but while I am certainly not looking to block anybody, someone knowingly reverting in noncompliant material on a BLP because some of it was ok is a red flag for me and I will block for that after a warning, to protect our encyclopedia and the subjects of our articles, and to enforce WP:BLP. --John (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, clearly I and a number of others disagree with you that Hillbillyholiday's disruptive behavior is not a matter for WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing: Hillbillyholiday was not simply removing possibly noncompliant content. He was unilaterally erasing entire sections which, as User:TonyBallioni and other careful, responsible editors have shown, actually contained well-cited and pertinent biographical material. All it took was a little collegial discussion and some judicious cuts. Anyone going through Wikipedia with a sledgehammer is incredibly, needlessly disruptive and appears to not want to play well with others. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give another example: At Michael Michael, where he has been edit-warring blatantly, Hillbillyholiday removed passages with completely RS book and History Channel citations. We cannot have an editor going around with a chainsaw and no judiciousness whatsoever. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Despite clear warning, Tenebrae has just made this edit

X is an English career criminal of Greek Cypriot descent,<ref>Rat shopped wife mother, brother and lover http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/144139/Rat-shopped-wife-mother-brother-and-lover.html?print=yes</ref>

Another part of that edit was to re-add a section heading Murder of Charlie Wilson, an area in which the subject is only tangentially involved. (As far as I can gather. The sources given are notoriously unreliable.) It was not some drive-by "sledgehammering" on my part, it took some delicate rewording to bring a semblance of neutrality and accuracy to the article. Tenebrae needs to be, at the very least, temporarily banned from going anywhere near BLPs. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I've been here 12 years and have created well over 100 biographical articles and have stood up for BLP, especially with purported birthdates, countless times. How dare you, after the few years you've been here, presume to attack a longtime, highly responsible editor out of your own petty pique. You are exactly demonstrating the issue multiple other editors have with you, which is that you seem to lack basic civility or any capacity to behave in a collaborative manner. You're also clearly guilty of WP:OWN at Michael Michael and possibly elsewhere. When multiple editors are in agreement that your editing is careless, bludgeoning and own-ish, maybe it's not everyone else that's the problem. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have over 130,000 edits??!! I am truly appalled. You know you are currently edit-warring to restore a MASSIVELY BLP-VIOLATING version, right? You should do if you've been here that long. Why? 'Petty pique', I suspect. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll repeat, since you seem guilty of I-can't-hear-you: At Michael Michael, you are edit-warring to remov passages with completely RS book and History Channel citations. You don't have a blanket right to edit-war; I don't know why you think you do. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are as responsible an editor as you claim, then the reason for your current edit-warring can only be sheer spite. You've just re-added a section Murder of Charlie Wilson which neither mentions the subject of the BLP, nor the murder of Charlie Wilson. Twice. In 1990, the former treasurer of the Great Train Robbery Charles Frederick "Charlie" Wilson had moved to Marbella, Spain, where he was suspected to be involved in drug smuggling.[4][5] Engaged to launder some of the proceeds from the Brink's-Mat robbery, he lost the investors £3million.[6] Astonishing. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I was going to add an "expand section" tag, but you were edit-warring so swiftly and vociferously I didn't have a chance to lest I over-revert. That's the collaborative way of doing things, and you clearly have no interest in behaving collaboratively with any of the multiple editors here and on the edit-warring noticeboard. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is as blatant a BLP violation as is possible to get. You twice put in a section heading: "Murder of Charlie Wilson". With no details of the murder! The subject of the BLP was not involved in the actual murdering as far as we know, and no source says he was. In response you claim because there is a book and the History Channel (lol!) you are justified in edit-warring. It's simply incredible. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a pattern developing here? Is most of the content being deleted is embarrassing content related to women? Is there wiki-wide consensus that all the sources being deleted are unreliable? QuackGuru (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The case is beyond women, including supposedly embarrassing content related to women, and unreliable sources. As noted above, valid content is being removed as well and edit warring is happening across a number of these articles partly because of that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is not for AN/I then it is for WP:ARBCOM. If any admin is supporting edit warring then that too could end up at WP:ARBCOM. This whole thing seems weird. I mean really weird. If I was edit warring like that without gaining consensus then I would of been blocked or banned. Even if an editor believes they are right or even if they are right that does not excuse edit warring and if any admin supports edit warring then that might be seen as unhelpful. QuackGuru (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The mass content deletions have continued. Not all the sources are unreliable. I am not going to try to restore any content. I know editors are being warned if they edit pages they have edited. For medical content we have MEDRS. We don't have specific policy covering each and every source for BLPs. Editors have different opinions what is or what isn't reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed site ban

Proposed one-week block

Pinging all participants in the site ban proposal. If anyone wants to scan the parent section for other participants, they have my blessing to knock themselves out. @Hillbillyholiday, Moxy, KGirlTrucker81, Blackmane, Cjhard, Hobit, Winkelvi, Rhododendrites, AlexEng, TonyBallioni, Flyer22 Reborn, MarnetteD, Martinevans123, Ealdgyth, Gerda Arendt, and Sundayclose: ―Mandruss ☎ 15:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - 1. What is "two respectable admins"? Is there a Respectable Admins List that I'm unaware of? 2. Getting some BLP right does not give one carte blanche to trample accepted standards of editor behavior. This editor clearly believes that it does, and only an involuntary wikibreak seems likely to stand any chance of correcting that misconception. This is preventative. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Question What would the proposed block achieve? I am struggling to see where the editor has done anything coming close to requiring a block. Which part of WP:BLOCK are we talking about? --John (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLOCKDETERRENT. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We would not be discussing a block if this editor had made any kind of acknowledgement that his/her behavior needs modification, agreed to partake in talk page discussion, and will brush up on sourcing basics etc. Instead, editor continued edit warring despite warning, with insistence that he/she is right, so it doesn't matter, and using the excuse that 3RR doesn't apply because everything is a BLP violation in his/her view. (See the edit-warring report here where Hillbillyholiday pops up to continue to argue.) There is especially troubling behavior to me in that this editor continually cites his/her removal of text by claiming things like "No RS" or "all primary sources/no secondary sources" even though that's demonstrably false, which means one of a few things: this editor does not understand the basic tenets of WP sourcing, which would suggest a competency issue; this editor is being deliberately dishonest and just hoping nobody will challenge assertions; or even possibly a third possibility, this editor has such a toxic case of WP:OWN and WP:IDONTLIKEIT that nothing counts as a reliable secondary source unless Hillbillyholiday personally likes what it says. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John: it's pretty clear to me that the intention is to prevent disruptive behavior in the form of edit warring per WP:Blocking policy#Disruption. Was that not clear to you from the discussion above, and the AN3 thread? AlexEng^(TALK) 21:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support two weeks for both HBH and Tenebrae (who was also edit warring at the same time and knows better per his block log and the comments left by the last two blocking admins "The [three-revert] rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times."; "Edit warring: Across multiple BLP's - clearly refuses to understand either EW or BLP"). A longer block will hopefully get the message across and give them both time to think about why they were blocked and that such actions leading to the block will not be tolerated. In addition, I suggest that there be the assurance that there will be escalating block lengths for future similar behavior or any attempts for either to game the system. If other editors are not in agreement with two weeks, support one week as proposed, but only for both editors. If not both, it should be neither. This was an equal effort by both and I believe Tenebrae actually contributed to HBH's behavior by edit warring himself and just placing warning templates and "communicating" via edit summary rather than actually trying to talk. This is a common theme for Tenebrae that has proven over time to do nothing but escalate the edit warring scenarios he frequently finds himself in. -- ψλ ● ✉ 18:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Alex Shih has blocked the editor for 24 hours for edit warring. But knowing how Hillbillyholiday behaves, I doubt that 24 hours will be enough to drive home the point that his behavior is disruptive. I'm not sure anything will. And he already voluntarily stopped for a short time and resumed his disruption afterward. There is also a proposal below. Pinging editors I initially pinged above: SNUGGUMS, FrB.TG, Krimuk2.0, Mattbuck, Sundayclose, RektGoldfish and FlightTime. And pinging Softlavender, Wikimandia and Tenebrae. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support at least one week block and then indef – I didn't comment above before it was closed, and while I wouldn't have agreed with a site ban, there needs to be something done. I would much prefer a temporary topic-ban related to BLP and celebs, but the edit-warring are violations of overall WP guidelines. I think one week is to lenient given the belligerence and arrogance here, and that this editor was blocked for the same thing in 2013. I had mistakenly thought he/she was a newcomer who just didn't understand the rules. I have looked more at this user's other edits. See my comments below about the proposed sanction as to why I am saying indef after this. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support one-week block in addition to current block for failure to communicate when edits are challenged and for a pattern of edit warring. Sundayclose (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support one-week block the severe edit warring over mass deletions warrants much more than just a 24-hour block. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Mainly due to the fact that, even at the ANEW, HBH was still refusing to understand or accept that there could possibly even be an issue with their editing behaviour; this is entwined with the fact that they have been somewhat overplaying the WP:3RRBLP card, to the extent that it seems they may not actually understand its (deliberately) tight constraints. — fortunavelut luna 15:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Any block, but anything less than 30 days, would just have Hillbillyholiday laughing as a joke. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support at least a one-week block in addition to the current block and to the revert-limits proposed below. I think anything less will be simply a slap on the wrist and make a mockery of an extensive discussion involving collective hours and hours of editors' time. While I understand Hillbillyholiday's good intentions, it pales beside his unrepentant combativeness, incivility and ownership tendencies, which are destructive for Wikipedia as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenebrae (talk • contribs) 16:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with sanctions - The community will decide in the place of administrator inaction. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think any consideration of the length of the ban needs to factor in what they told the admin who applied the 24-hour block: "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! What a shit-shamble of mongsters! ...You're an absolute embarrassment." This is just simply remarkable, and it shows in clear-cut terms, by their own words, the kind of person we're dealing with. They have no respect for Wikipedia, for fellow editors, for admins .. for anyone generous enough of their time to volunteer for this task. If that's the essential personality, that's not going to change any more than expecting someone to become "more presidential" if that's not their personality. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae, I'd see HBH's intemperate language as a sign of his frustration, not of some deep-seated psychopathic personality trait. You know what happened to HBH when he proposed the ban on Daily Mail, a while back, all for the good of this project, don't you? I too thought that 24-hour block might calm things down. But then I actually read the diffs, and then I too was embarrassed. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the reason matters. Whether a schoolyard bully is frustrated or has parents who beat him, the kid he bullies still winds up on the ground with a bloody nose, a black eye and ripped clothing. The bully needs to be kept away from others — whether in treatment or in juvenile hall doesn't much matter, as long as he can't continue to bully others. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support two week block per my previous comment above. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 17:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless there's a pattern far longer than one angry and recent comment in response to a block, this is excessive. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power~enwiki, yep, there's a pattern; he's being doing this for years. And he clearly is not going to stop unless something is done. This is not about his egregious response to his 24-hour block. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal was created 23 minutes before HBH's comment in response to the block. The proposal for site ban was created 15 hours before the comment; the ANI complaint was opened 5.5 days before the comment. I fail to see how you could perceive this as being about the comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I did imply that. I felt that there was no reason to even consider supporting this without noting his angry comments. The normal blocks for edit-warring are sufficient and this definitely won't encourage him to use talk pages more. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This is purely punitive. GoldenRing (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing, in what way, given this editor's level of disruption? Really, how do you propose this disruption stop when this editor continues to edit war across multiple articles, including over material that is not a BLP violation, and when he does not listen to others, and when he repeatedly belittles others, and when he often is not willing to discuss his changes? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And how does a one-week block solve any of that? GoldenRing (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For one, it lets him know that his disruptive behavior will not be tolerated by the community. Two, it is one step for further sanctioning. And this thread has repeatedly shown that there is a need for sanctioning in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: WP:BLOCKDETERRENT. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. There is no net positive in retaining an editor who edit wars across multiple articles, does not discuss his changes unless essentially forced to do so after being reverted by multiple editors, belittles editors (admins and regulars alike), disregards all opinions but his own and those who disagree with him, and misinterprets the BLP policy this much. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as proposed. The violation of 3RR was egregious in this case and the attitude in response to these discussions shows nothing but contempt for policy. A week-long block will give the editor time to cool down and return to productive editing. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose In all the discussions above, Hillbillyholiday has referred to specific issues in content, while his opponents have replied with vague references around "is 'x' a reliable source" (to which the answer is "it depends"). I am disappointed to see editors restore BLP violations to The Sun and would remind everyone that the burden of proof over whether something belongs in an article is with the editor who adds or restores it. Not everything that is reliably sourced needs to be in an article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, you know that this is not simply about protecting BLP. What BLP violations are at the Jennifer Lawrence article? How is the legal material that was validly restored at the Amanda Bynes article after the WP:BLP noticeboard discussion a BLP violation? This is editor is removing valid content as well and edit warring over it, causing all types of disruption across numerous articles. And he will keep doing it because he thinks that his behavior is perfectly acceptable. And why wouldn't he when he has a few admins backing this disruption? It's not about including everything that can be sourced either. Editors have given valid reasons for why some of the content that Hillbillyholiday is removing should be retained. He does not care. I am disappointed that a number of editors are allowing the removal of valid content that should be retained per WP:Preserve. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Amanda Bynes, there was too much emphasis on her mental health issues; we are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. I had never heard of Tila Tequila, but my conclusion from reading the article is that this is a person who is seriously mentally ill and who I'm prepared to believe is not a genuine fascist. The article absolutely needs a sensitive hand and not reporting every time she opens her gob and says something stupid. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about retaining all of the Amanda Bynes material. I asked, "How is the legal material that was validly restored at the Amanda Bynes article after the WP:BLP noticeboard discussion a BLP violation?" The section needing a trim -- any section needing a trim -- does not justify an editor taking a chainsaw to the whole section and removing all of it, especially simply because he does not feel like "sorting it out." An example of cooperation is me asking editors on the talk page if any of the Tia Tequila material should be restored and us working it out. Hillbillyholiday has not shown that he can do this in the case of BLPs. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend my approach on Talk:Brad Pitt, where I summarised a compromise to a dispute between you and John, that took time and effort but was a good attempt to resolve things. From my experience, John and Hillbillyholiday are fine as long as you don't go into a dispute with guns blazing, and chopping out a section can be a valid application of WP:BRD - it's not personal. Although here we are, four years later, arguing over exactly the same sort of thing so I'm not going to hold my breath. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We both know that I won't be agreeing with you on John. My history with him, and his BLP views repeatedly being out of step with the community's views on BLP, as shown by more than one RfC, are reasons enough. And I cannot agree with you on Hillbillyholiday; Hillbillyholiday makes it personal every damn time. Editors (including myself) have tried to reason with Hillbillyholiday with no guns in hand, to no avail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose as per User:Ritchie333. Did I just hear someone say "cool down"? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool down? He did that before. And went right back to his disruption. And he will do it again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is "cool down" a valid reason for issuing a block? Your insistence on answering every !vote here makes it look a bit like you have launched a crusade against HBH based on a personal grudge, rather than seeking admin action based on policy. I suggest you just let folks make their !vote and then let the closing admin decide what action, if any, is appropriate. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I and others have been over why issuing the block is necessary. It very much lets this editor know that his disruption will not be tolerated. And it is the first step in the sanctioning process. Rewarding an editor for bad behavior is not. Insistence on answering every !vote here? I have not. And if even I had, if there is a valid reason to respond to a vote claiming "BLP exemption," I see no issue challenging the matter, especially when coming from an admin like Ritchie333, who has time and again shared John's odd BLP views. And you acting like this is based on a personal grudge shows a lack of clue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting that your approach here is doing your case no favours. But could you please tell me, is "cool down" a valid reason for issuing a block? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My approach here has alerted a lot of editors to mass disruption, and it has resulted in a number of editors agreeing with me and a minority opposing. Given that, and that this ANI report will be used against Hillbillyholiday in the future, I see that my approach has done just fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"this ANI report will be used against Hillbillyholiday in the future" That sounds quite vindictive, I must say. I had assumed that you saw discussion and/or sanctions here as a way of encouraging him to change his editing style. I'm going to ask you (and User:AlexEng) just one last time: is "cool down" a valid reason for issuing a block? HBH is now unblocked and I don't see any frantic return to mass deletions. I feel like I'm wasting my time. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you view any editor trying to get this ridiculous behavior to stop by following the appropriate protocols to be vindictive. This editor is unlikely to stop unless he knows that his behavior is unacceptable. A one week-block does drive home that point. Or attempts to. And it also stops his disruptive behavior for a week and gives editors a chance to breathe and actually calm down. If the disruption continues after that, editors continue to pursue stopping the disruption, including by linking to this case. That is not vindictive. You are asking us to trust that this editor is willing to change when he has repeatedly shown that he is not willing to change, and already took a brief break only to continue the disruption. As for wasting time, we are wasting time replying to each other about this editor since I do not see our opinions on him changing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, you know as well as anybody that a "no action" here will be interpreted as a community validation of the behavior, ensuring that it will be continued by HBH and anybody else of similar bent who is aware of the result. If you know of something besides a block or ban that will avoid that, I'm certainly all ears. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss, perhaps you could give us your understanding of the phrase "this ANI report will be used against Hillbillyholiday in the future"? If you coud do so without putting words in my mouth, as Flyer22 Reborn just did, I'd be very grateful. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitate to speak for Flyer22, but I read that as "this ANI complaint will become part of the record, and it does not reflect well on HBH even if the result is no action". I don't disagree with that. I also don't see it as vindictive so much as an accurate reflection of the way things work around here. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks. I had read it as a part of the mantra "this editor is no good", "this editor will never change", "it's only a mater of time before this editor has an indef block", etc. If not vindictive, I find it wholly presumptive. And I don't really see a one week block as being necessarily the best prospective sanction to impose in any case. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martinevans123, since you addressed me specifically, I'll answer you. The term "cool down" is my paraphrasing of WP:BLOCKDETERRENT. I'm completely confused by your ostensible misunderstanding of this motivation for a block. To my knowledge, it is in fact the only acceptable motivation for a block. We block users to prevent problems from happening. It's really easy to sit here, 2 days in the future, and say "look, the problem isn't happening anymore, so there's no reason for this block." At the time this was proposed, there was a good reason for the block. The reasoning hinges on the fact that this behavior is repetitive, inappropriate, and disruptive. The user hasn't made a single edit (positive or otherwise) since the block expired, so I'm not sure on what basis you're assuming that they won't go right back to mass deletions. You're not the only one who feels like he's wasting his time. AlexEng^(TALK) 23:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Alex. I was also confused since, as I'm sure you know, the section headed "Cool-down block" at WP:BLOCK says specifically: "Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect." Yes, as you say, HBH hasn't made a single edit (positive or otherwise) since the block expired. Exactly the same effect as if he had been blocked? Is it possible he's having second thoughts about his actions? I'm assuming he's read all this discussion. But I admit, I could be wrong about that. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about a nice WP:COOLDOWNBOCK? EEng 10:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, Martin, it's not the same as if he had been blocked. I remain bewildered that so few experienced editors understand that sanctions are the only somewhat effective way for this community to say that a certain type of behavior is not acceptable, that yes, Wikipedia behavior policy is more than window dressing.
As for why HBH has gone quiet, I think that's exactly what any animal with opposable thumbs would do while their behavior is under intense scrutiny at ANI. Absent a clear and convincing statement from HBH, I have no reason to believe their mind-set has changed at all. Call me cynical. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it's only skin deep. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

• Strong oppose. User:Ritchie333 is entirely correct. It is also not the responsibility of the editor who removes dubious content from a BLP to scour the internet for better sources for the bits of salvageable content in the manure piles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, an IP came out of nowhere to allege that you are Hillbillyholiday. Maybe someone alerted you to that thread on my talk page? Or this one? But, as seen on my talk page, I defended you, stating, in part, "The difference is that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz removes a lot of unsourced, WP:SYNTH, WP:Copyvio and WP:Non-free content criteria stuff (commonly stating 'fails NFCC#8'). This is a broader range than Hillbillyholiday. Yes, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz removes 'briefly dated' stuff. Sometimes he might remove 'currently dating' stuff, but he usually leaves in clearly significant personal life material, such as a married couple or a life partner, or other long-term couple, and the fact that they have children. He only cuts the Personal life section when it is a BLP violation (and that includes poorly sourced material) and/or when it only includes 'dated in the past' material. [...] Hillbillyholiday edits from an 'I don't like it' viewpoint significantly more often than Hullaballoo Wolfowitz does. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is also mwe careful with his cutting than Hillbillyholiday is, and has a better understanding of BLP than Hillbillyholiday does. He's not out there complaining about primary sources, or supposed primary sources, and asking or demanding academic sources for celebrity articles, when, like I stated at WP:ANI, 'most of the book sources on celebrities are unauthorized biographies, tell-all books, or some other type of book source that is of relatively poor quality. For celebrities, the best sources are going to be media sources.' Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is more willing to listen and engage when challenged. And given that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is a significantly more established editor, with support from some editors, one would need to wonder why he would create the Hillbillyholiday account." So it is not like I am opposing the removal of poorly sourced material. I am opposing the mass disruption and see no end in sight unless we stop it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Per Ritchie, also: what do you think will a week of being blocked (or any other duration) teach someone who has disappeared for months? - I thanked Alex Shih for the unblock. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support See my other support below. This is not a BLP issue. Would people please read the diffs at the top? Jim1138 (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The user needs to take issues to the talk page. Yes referenced content can take some time to adjust. Edit warring is not the solution. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - for the sake of brevity, I'll limit my reason to a block in this instance being unwarranted, punitive, and seemingly vengeful. I agree that TP discussion is a better alternative, at least in most instances, but I take a rather stern approach when it comes to correcting noncompliance with BLPs. I have little patience for tabloidism and find it a refreshing change to see editors who are willing to correct it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Since when is edit warring across multiple articles okay? QuackGuru (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (second choice). I don't imagine that a weeklong block would magically fix everything, so I prefer the proposal below this one. However, I do believe something other than admonishment is needed to resolve this, and this qualifies. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed sanction

An alternative view

I am genuinely baffled to see so many editors, including some whose level of cluefulness I generally respect, collectively get the wrong end of the stick. Apart from Drmies, Masem, Ealdgyth and Martinevans123 who appear to have actually taken the trouble to read the diffs, I am pretty much left shaking my head here. WP:BLP is our most important policy and cannot be subverted by user conduct policies like WP:3RR.

I'm afraid I can't disagree with Hillbillyholiday's reaction to his perverse block. This whole affair brings the Wikipedia community into disrepute. I am ashamed of you. Martinevans123 asks a good question here. I challenge the hanging mob that has formed here to read the history of Michael Michael and argue that HBH's edits were not justified under the BLP exemption to 3RR. Whether it was optimal to make so many reverts rather than report to an admin noticeboard is another question, but these edits were in line with policy. The edits against him were not. I was hoping that the matter could pass off without any blocks, and to block HBH (who was right and following policy) and not Tenebrae (who was wrong and carelessly edit warred to restore libellous and inaccurate material to a BLP) cannot be allowed to stand. HBH may need some coaching about the style he uses in interacting with others, but this block is unjust and the notion of sanctioning someone who is hard-working and understands BLP (as so many commenting here appear not to) is untenable. --John (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect — and I didn't respond to your previous comment on my talk page out of respect for your hard work as an admin and your own rightful respect of BLP — your characterization of my edit is highly out of context.

I restored because I saw an editor edit-warring who was taking a chainsaw approach — and I immediately went back into the article to remove passages cited to Daily Mail and other non-RS cites. But by then Hillbillyholiday had already slammed the Undo button and I got an "edit conflict" when I tried to save. He outright WP:OWNs articles by not giving other editors a chance to edit before he hits the revert buzzer. I think if one would have taken even a cursory look at my editing history, one would have seen edit summary after edit summary saying things like "Claims of birth date / birthplace / middle name require RS citing. WP:BLP" and "Unless an interview with the subject him/herself, Daily Mail is not RS." Saying "carelessly edit warred to restore libellous and inaccurate material to a BLP" tars me unfairly.

And your own hyperbole with the term "hanging mob" is equally unfair to all the hardworking editors who have had to put up with Hillbillyholiday's demeaning, bullying, combative behavior, which is not good for Wikipedia, as well as his ownership tendencies and his edit-warring. I think you disrespect those of us who have taken the time to comment in detail and provide copious examples regarding someone you seem to be excusing for mistreating and belittling others and who refuses to collaborate — collaboration being a cornerstone of Wikipedia.

I should also think you would stand up for a fellow admin whom he needlessly insulted and laughed at. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You did wrong and should be ashamed of your lack of care to our project, our values and our subjects. I hope you have learned from your mistakes. If you have finally realised why your reverts were wrong, at the least you owe HBH an apology. Have you, though? It isn't obvious from reading your response. --John (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae--"There's no BLP loophole when you revert RS sources"? Drmies (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To John: I tried treating you with respect and got none in return. You are in the distinct minority for allowing HBH to get away with bullying, intimidation, ownership and edit-warring, and I think you owe me and the vast majority of us an apology — me for your horrifically out-of-context tarring of me, and the many others for unconscionably name-calling us a "hanging mob." And your attempt at intimidating me and, I gather, others with your threatening template shows a gross misappropriation of admin power and privilege. I think it's time to bring up admin revocation. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: 3RR doesn't apply to reverting BLP vios. However, when an editor starts edit-warring over material containing RS sources and removing personal-life claims just because he doesn't like them, 3RR does apply. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae, sorry, but I think what you're saying is that I'm right. I don't want to be right, but I want this point made: BLP is a valid excuse until the claim is proven invalid, and you can't just say "editor X doesn't like it". You've been here a while; you know that's a lame reason. Next time, if the shoe is on the other foot and you, with some reasonable explanation, invoke the BLP, I will be on your side. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Not sure I follow. I think we agree, but from what you wrote, I'm honestly not sure. That's OK; we're talking about HBH's behavior. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"He doesn't like it" is not a valid argument. 3RR did not apply given the invocation of the BLP, with at least a few admins agreeing on that; that some others disagree doesn't make it invalid: we err on the side of caution. RS or whatever has nothing to do with; reliable sources don't always get it right, and reliable sources aren't always used properly. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae, have you apologised to Hillbillyholiday yet? Do you intend to repeat your behaviour of edit-warring BLP-busting material into an article? It's understandable and very human that when when you're caught doing wrong you cast about and blame others, but at some point there has to be honest self-reflection. The alternative is that you won't be able to edit BLPs. Think about it. --John (talk) 06:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your continual haranguing on my talk page and here is verging on harassment. You have now sunk to threatening me — and, may I add, over a single edit. I will ask you to stop addressing me, stop coming to my talk page and stop threatening me. Your intimidation tactics make you unfit for adminship and if you continue it will lead this issue to ARBCOM. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. --John (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No really, shame on you User:John. You are pulling a diff out of an angry edit war (again - here is the history) and flogging it - this is very transparent propaganda technique. I showed below that the content clearly did connect to the subject of the article at one point and in any not-battleground context would have remained so. What you are doing here is terrible behavior. Really - shame on you. And people who are buying into this half-truth/ad nauseum rhetoric that John is flogging here, shame on you for falling for it. This is the last time I am going to post in this morass. But John, what you are doing here is remarkably terrible. Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm. I'll see your dodgy rhetoric and raise you some facts. This was the article before HBH touched it and this was the version Tenebrae reverted to. Neither of those versions comes close to passing our existing policy WP:BLP as clarified by WP:ARBBLP. This could almost be used as a test; if you can't see what's wrong with those versions, you really should not be editing BLPs. Reverting to either of those versions was and is blockworthy. --John (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So by seeing Jytdog's "dodgy rhetoric," you're adding your own? At no point did somebody claim that the article was a stunning example of a BLP. The discussion has always been about whether the reverting behavior was acceptable and in line with policy. Even for BLP reverts, one needs to tell other editors that one is reverting because of a BLP violation. Removing a ton of content because "Yikes," and then edit warring over it without comment is unequivocally disruptive to the encyclopedia. I also noticed that you haven't yet retracted your statement that somebody was accusing the article subject of murder – which is blatantly false – yet expect people to apologize for their behavior in a less-than-civil fashion: It's understandable and very human that when when you're caught doing wrong you cast about and blame others, but at some point there has to be honest self-reflection. The alternative is that you won't be able to edit BLPs. I ask that you remember WP:ADMINCOND when discussing blocks with other users. You're in a position of power, and they're right that it could come off as intimidation. AlexEng^(TALK) 01:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, John. You're in the camp that believes that being in the right justifies, even requires, all manner of disruption (and it's been shown that this editor's BLP judgment has been far less than perfect anyway). Many of us disagree, and we are going to have to live with the fact that you are ashamed of us. You minimize and excuse, we don't. We recognize that there are ways to accomplish these ends that are not disruptive, although they often take longer and require some patience and self-control. It's unfortunate but this battle has to be re-fought again and again on this page because these opinions arise from personalities, core beliefs, and worldviews that don't change. For policy support for our position, you can start at WP:BATTLEGROUND; I'm not aware of an exemption there for being in the right; nor is there is a "this is a superpolicy that overrides all behavior policies" clause at WP:BLP. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned the disruption has been caused by a group of editors who care more about Wikipedia's internal rules (which in the big scheme of things don't matter a damn) than they do about falsely accusing a living person (who would have the right to sue us for defamation) of having been concerned in a murder. If this is the "camp" you are identifying with, you have no place on the project, or at least should not come within a mile of BLPs. --John (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel compelled to personalize this with derogatory comments about an editor you know nothing about outside this subsection, and this will end our interaction, but for your information I've collaborated quite peacefully at the Donald Trump BLP for about the past year. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to hear. If you saw someone accusing Trump on his article of being a murderer based on some sources which didn't mention him, would you be fine with that? Especially if removing it might cause "disruption"? Because that is what we are talking about here.--John (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John, what are you talking about? At what point was This person "falsely accused" of having been "concerned" in a murder? What is the defamation? Mentioning a murder? I don't know who either of these people are, or where exactly you live, but Wikipedia does not fall under the jurisdiction of Fantasyland. You have to have actually, you know, defame someone to be guilty of defamation. Mentioning a murder is not accusing someone of doing it. There are many incidents and things that are tied together in many ways that do not involve anyone actively doing anything, they are just somehow associated. If the incident is a crime, people can be involved as witnesses. They could have been a secondary victim. It could have occurred on their property. How many on here have subsections about the 9/11 attacks? Hundreds? Thousands? Does that mean they are accused of plotting with al-Qaeda? —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So that's a normal thing, on a neutral BLP, to discuss a murder of a third party, without any of the reliable sources connecting the subject with the murder? I'm not convinced you have thought through the implications of this. --John (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly question its relevance, but maybe it was somehow relevant. Maybe the guy whose article it was about was suddenly back in the news because he gave 700 interviews about the murder offering his opinion. But I would not claim it was falsely accusing someone of murder and subjecting to Wikipedia to a defamation lawsuit. On what grounds would that be defamation? That's completely absurd and it must be called out as such, because you are using such a claim to defend this editor's pattern of behavior in violation of Wikipedia's rules. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Maybe" isn't good enough. It would definitely be potential defamation to link this living person with a murder using tabloid sources, though IANAL. Newyorkbrad, you might know better than me. (I can't believe we are seriously discussing this, by the way. It certainly falls foul of WP:BLP and WP:ARBBLP in any case.) --John (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there is actually a controversy about whether a murder should be mentioned in a BLP without any explanation of what connection there allegedly is between the BLP subject and the murder, the answer is obviously not. I'm not going to speculate on whether a court would find it defamatory (the answer might vary anyway depending on the jurisdiction), but it's not appropriate article-writing on Wikipedia. Not commenting on other aspects of this situation in case it winds up at ArbCom. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Newyorkbrad To be clear, the diff that John presented above was explained by Tenebrae way above here - apparently that bit was being fiercely edit warred over (from the history that is obvious) and Tenebrae was going to tie it in. If you look at a bit older version of that article just before the edit warring, say here, you can see where the content did clearly relate the subject of the article to the topic of the murder. Sourced to The Sun, but tied in. One needs to be very careful making judgements with apparently-egregious diffs in a case like this, and I think John is acting badly by slinging that diff around that way. Jytdog (talk) 04:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The diff speaks for itself. "I was going to add an "expand section" tag" is not an acceptable justification for adding potentially libellous material to a BLP. "Sourced to The Sun" is just as good as "totally unsourced" for our purposes. --John (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the diff speaks for itself: Here it is. There is no Sun here — there are two books and the History Channel. You continue to make false allegations, which no editor, let alone an admin, should me making.--Tenebrae (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh. So you really still don't understand why that was an egregious breach of BLP. I recommend staying away from BLP for a while. My gob is smacked. --John (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you. My record over 12 years speaks for itself. Your argument is that after more than a decade of creating and editing BLPs that I stop because of a single edit you find objectionable? How dare you. And may I remind you that you are harassing me after you agreed above to stop doing so — and making false accusations as well. Go to the diff. Go to it. There is no Sun there. You are actively lying about me. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, my recommendation, which stands, is that if you feel it is ok to revert material linking a living person with a murder using sources which do not mention that person, you should refrain from editing in this area until you rectify your carelessness. --John (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

actually one more post. User:Tenebrae what you are not hearing, is that the diff that John has pulled out and is beating to death, was very bad editing. In that diff, you actually did add content to an article about a living person about a murder, and the content said nothing about the subject of the article. That is bad. In a normal context I reckon you would have added content from the source cited there -- ISBN 1845960351 mentions Michael Michael five times. And I reckon you would have not used this source at all (which is not about the great train robbery but has been hijacked or something and is just gobbledegook). You are making all this worse by not acknowledging the content that you added to Wikipedia was bad, and yes, even a BLP violation in that it didn't discuss the subject of the article. This does not make Billyhillyholiday's edit warring any better but you are actually giving them support by continuing to defend your actual edits.Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

actually one more post. User:John you need to go back and strike every place in this morass where you have made the false claim that Tenebrae used sources which do not mention that person. And I mean that. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your reasoned post, which not everyone here seems capable of writing. John is choosing to ignore something I said earlier, and since it's become lost in this morass it's understandable you didn't see it: I saw a rogue user chainsawing multiple articles. I restored, I believe, three sentences that were cited to books and the History Channel. I was about to put an "expand section" tag on it and research / write more then and there, but User:Hillbillyholiday immediately reverted in a clear example of WP:OWN. I don't believe any reasonable person would look at two book cites and a History Chanel cite and think that this wasn't a relevant passage vetted by two authors and a channel devoted to history.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tenebrae I know that you said that. The thing is, that you saved an edit that violated BLP. Period, fact, done, and diff-able. I understand clearly that you were in a hot editing war, but especially when BLP is being stated as the reason, it was very unwise of you to not actually address the problem and add well sourced content tying the article subject to the topic before you saved the edit. It was right there in the source and very do-able. You let the context drive you to save a bad edit. You own that now. What would allow the steam to come off you would be for you to actually acknowledge that you are very aware that the edit that you saved was a BLP violation and was a mistake you made in the midst of a hot editing war. Continuing to skip around that only feeds the fire. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was no BLP issue. The two sentences said 1) Wilson (not now a living person) moved to Spain, where according to two authors he was suspected of drug smuggling, and 2) Wilson lost some investors £3million, cited to the History Channel. Factual, RS-documented statements. And we're not even talking about a living person, so I'm not sure how BLP applies. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes that is the correct, there were two sentences about the murder of Wilson. In an article about Michael Michael - with nothing tying the content to Michael. That is why it is a BLP violation - you cannot just go adding content about murders to articles about people, as the obvious assumption a reader takes away is that the article subject had something to do with it. Acknowledge that already.Jytdog (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And as I've said for now the third time, I restored a properly cited passage that a rampant edit-warrior had removed, and was about to put an "expand section" tag and immediately go to work on it when that editor WP:OWNed the article and refused to let anyone else work on that section. When two authors and the History channel are talking about this subject, no one would have any reason to believe that authoritative, RS sources are making things up or not indicating any sort of relevance. I'm not so hubristic to think I know better than professional historians. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of those authors was Algarve Daily News? But what connection exactly did Michael Michael have to the murder of Charlie Wilson? It seems somewhat tenuous. Non-existent even? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to the block for edit-warring here, but don't feel any ANI-based action is called for. Using the talk page is the desired way to make large changes such as this, not repeatedly reverting. Even in the case of an IP editor restoring questionable (but long-standing) material that may be a BLP violation, some discussion on the talk page should be expected. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power~enwiki, this editor does not discuss the matter unless essentially forced to. It takes multiple editors reverting him to even get him to the talk page to try to justify his edits. And even when he discusses his edits, he still plans to revert and often does revert afterward. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, User:John, are you saying that you "can't disagree" with this reaction even including the part of it that uses what Wikipedia describes as a derogatory term for a person affected by mental disorder? MPS1992 (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't identify with the tone of the comment, but then I have never been wrongly blocked as a result of a campaign against my correct edits, so I don't know how angry I would be. I do identify with HBH's annoyance. He is right to be annoyed. --John (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but agree with John. I've read through every edit made by HBH in the past two weeks in the articles linked in the complaint. As far as I can tell, they were all justified on BLP grounds. They were all removing either egregious BLP violations or swathes of gossip-column rubbish, mostly sourced to tabloid newspapers. They did indeed remove entire sections of articles; that is because those articles had entire sections of crap. We should be supporting this type of editing. What is disruptive is re-adding this material without discussion. Where material is challenged on a BLP, the onus is on those in favour of inclusion to establish consensus for it; this is BLP 101. I am sorely tempted to hand out six month topic bans from BLPs to several editors involved here to drive that point home. GoldenRing (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"They were all justified on BLP grounds"? Not true at all. No BLP violation here. No BLP violation here (as noted by an admin later on). Editors felt that the material in this case should be trimmed, but the material was not deemed a BLP violation and some of it was kept. No BLP violation here. No BLP violation here. Just a lot of "I don't like it" removals. When it comes to Hillbillyholiday, there are various cases like that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? WP:BLP says Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. How is describing someone as one of the "sexiest women in the world" sourced to primary sources not a violation of that? And describing someone as having a "public meltdown" in Wikipedia's voice? Your characterisation of the BLPN as "not deemed a BLP violation" is just wrong; nearly every editor commenting there agreed there were problems. The policy says, BLPs should not have trivia sections. How does a list of Rihana's tattoos not violate that? As regards Cristiano Ronaldo, you've cherry-picked one edit out of a series that included removing the names of his children. These are clear BLP issues and if you can't see that, you shouldn't be editing BLPs. GoldenRing (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All those are cases of being BOLD in light of what BLP recommends: the initial wholesale removal, and likely the 1st removal re-revert by HBH is completely in line with policy because they are questionable BLP material. Now, after some discussion some of this material has been deemed by editors to be appropriate (I have my doubts on some of these, but let's assume there was consensus after debate), so removing it again after that point would be blatantly disruptive. But that I don't see being done by reviewing their history.

What is of issue is definitely the lack of starting discussion by HBH after being reverted or re-reverted. I don't think the initial removals need to be explained (but it would be advisable to start a talk page section on such massive cuts), but re-reverting to remove should be an automatic trigger to either start a new discussion or engage in a new discussion to gain the consensus or whether to keep or not. That's not been happening so some cautionary sanction to get them to participate in discussions more is needed. That said, it would also significantly help that if HBH has done one removal, that those re-adding should start a discussion/continue one on why the material is okay. There's a general lack of communication overall here, edit warring by edit summaries is not helpful.

Separately, I do think there needs to be a review of BLP in relationship to "gossip" news as most of those are. They aren't gross violations of BLP but they step over a line I think an encyclopedia should be handling. The fact that many editors think this okay material to include is troubling. However, that's beyond the scope of this. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: HBH was removing content in accordance with BLP. He has every right to do so. It is the responsibility of those re-inserting the material to start a discussion and seek consensus for it. To sanction HBH for their failure to do so would be perverse. Moreover, HBH did start discussions on Talk:Jennifer Lawrence and WP:BLPN and participated in discussions at Talk:Megan Fox, Talk:Shia LaBeouf, Talk:Kanye West and Talk:Britney Spears - so I'm not sure I see the problem here. GoldenRing (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He started those discussions after edit warring. And, no, articles should not be held hostage by his skewed view of BLP violations and because he removes things he does not like. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing, yes, really, which is why a respected admin did not find the Britney Spears matter to be a BLP violation. Spears has acknowledged the breakdown/meltdown; it happened and is described as a breakdown/meltdown in numerous reliable sources. There is nothing contentious about the bit at all. The bit is about inspiration for a character specifically based on Spears's breakdown. You asked, "How is describing someone as one of the 'sexiest women in the world' sourced to primary sources not a violation of that?" Do read the Jennifer Lawrence talk page again. Being perceived as physically attractive is a significant aspect of Lawrence's public image; it should be covered with WP:Due weight. Using WP:In-text attribution to note that a magazine listed Lawrence as "sexiest [whatever]" is not a WP:BLP violation in any sense of the word. Rihanna's tattoos are a significant aspect of her public image; so some mention of them should be covered in her article. As much as some of you hate it, celebrity looks, whether their physical attributes or fashion, are often a big deal. We have sex symbols and fashion idols. And when these aspects are covered by numerous reliable sources, we give due weight to those aspects. We do not ignore it because we do not like it. I agreed above, in the initial part of this thread, that the tattoo material was overkill. I stated, "Regarding the Rihanna article, I can't judge the material that way since it was added there, presumably, by a number of editors and had been there for sometime. So it seems to me that some people care(d) about the material. Maybe even a lot of people since the subject is Rihanna. When it's substantial material, even if about a lot of tattoos, I think it is often better to discuss the removal first. See again what SNUGGUMS stated above. In some cases, some features of a celebrity have received substantial media attention and are a part of that celebrity's public image. In the Rihanna case, I would not have added that much detail about her tattoos; I would have perhaps named a few, the ones which seem most relevant, judging by sources on the topic, and included a bit of author commentary on the matter and a bit of commentary from her, if available. I take more of an analytical and WP:Preserve approach, assessing whether or not the particular aspect is significant with regard to the subject or whether it is WP:Undue. Not just for celebrity articles, but for all types of articles." And as we can see with this edit, Martinevans123 replied, "I think you make some very cogent, reasonable and valid points there. I'm not sure Rihanna's tattoos are worth preserving in an encyclopedia but, hey, what do I know. I guess there's a place for most things."

My characterization of the BLPN discussion is on point; where are all editors there stating that the material is a BLP violation? "Some problems" does not equate to "BLP violations." As for the Cristiano Ronaldo article, that is not cherry picking; that is me pointing to one edit that is not a BLP violation since you incorrectly asserted that all of Hillbillyholiday's removals are BLP violations. Judging by your comments in this thread, you simply do not want to include "looks" and "fashion" material because you do not like it; Wikipedia does not work that way. Thank goodness we have editors working on these celebrity articles who know what should be included per WP:Preserve and comprehensiveness. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You quote from WP:Preserve and WP:UNDUE repeatedly through this discussion, but you have completely failed to interact with the policy at WP:BLPN. I don't care if Lawrence's appearance is significant or not; the policy explicitly states if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources. The statement was entirely primary-sourced. Describing a "public meltdown" is tabloid trash and it was sourced to a single source (mtv.com). I can't believe we're even discussing this, but at that BLPN discussion, Collect, Ritchie333, TonyBallioni and Tenebrae either objected to the material on BLP grounds or wrote words equivalent to "I agree with HBH". Wikimandia was the only editor at that discussion to argue there was no BLP problem with the removed material (SundayClose appears to have accepted that there were BLP problems but thought the removal was too broad and DIYeditor didn't express an opinion). Policy is clear that you must not re-insert material challenged on BLP grounds without consensus; that some of the material is not (or may not be) a BLP violation is no excuse. In that case, you re-insert only the parts that are not a violation. Again, I can't believe I have to explain this to you. I've seen other editors arguing that they were re-inserting so that they could then edit the material down; this is again explicitly disallowed by the BLP policy; The idea expressed in Wikipedia:Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. Wikipedia works by following our policies, BLP is among the most important of them, and on all of the above points, policy is excruciatingly clear and you are simply ignoring it. GoldenRing (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us tried to "re-insert only the parts that are not a violation." HBH refused to allow even that, and edit-warred, without discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You stated, "You quote from WP:Preserve and WP:UNDUE repeatedly through this discussion, but you have completely failed to interact with the policy at WP:BLPN." No, I haven't. You simply are misinterpreting WP:BLP. At the Jennifer Lawrence talk page, SNUGGUMS, FrB.TG, Krimuk2.0, and Mattbuck were/are all correct. Hillbillyholiday was/is wrong. This is why if you take the case to the BLP noticeboard, no one will agree that the Jennifer Lawrence material is a BLP violation. I'm not going over the Spears matter again with you. Regarding Amanda Bynes, you are somewhat incorrect. There was no agreement that all of the material should stay removed; this is why some of it was restored. In fact, some of it was restored by TonyBallioni. We are having this discussion for valid reasons. Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exemptions states, "If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert. Instead, engage in dispute resolution, and in particular ask for help at relevant noticeboards such as the Edit war/3RR noticeboard." In some of these cases, Hillbillyholiday should not have been reverting. Including material about a celebrity being perceived as physically attractive or being known for their fashion sense or tattoos is not a BLP violation when sourced to high-quality primary or secondary sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Including material about a celebrity being perceived as physically attractive or being known for their fashion sense or tattoos is not a BLP violation when sourced to high-quality primary or secondary sources. (emphasis mine) This is simple IDHT. I've pointed out to you repeatedly that WP:BLP states, in simple language, that secondary sources are required for BLPs. GoldenRing (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is WP:IDHT...on your part. Let's take the matter to the WP:BLP talk page and/or the WP:BLP noticeboard and see how many editors agree with you. Let's see how many support de-listing our FAs that include material about a celebrity being perceived as physically attractive or being known for their fashion sense or tattoos when it is WP:DUE and is sourced to high-quality primary or secondary sources. I have far more experience on these matters than you do, which should be clear by my history at the BLP talk page. WP:BLP does not state that "secondary sources are required." That is your skewed interpretation. WP:BLP states "a reliable, published source." The New York Times fits that description. If it reports on a favorable or less than favorable matter on a celebrity, we can include that source with due weight. Look at some of our political articles, like Barack Obama or Donald Trump; there are tons and tons of media/news/primary sources in those articles for all sorts of things and no one is crying "BLP violation." Barack Obama is a FA article. WP:PRIMARY states, "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.^[1]" Nothing in there about primary sources being forbidden. And notice that it does not focus on media/news sources as primary sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that all of HBH's removals were justified is absurd. As I have pointed out, a big clue that HBH is not acting in good faith is his ENTIRE removal of the personal section about Amanda Bynes which he/she then claimed was all primary sourced, with no secondary sources and had no reliable sources. Not ONE single source was primarily sourced. And the majority were sourced to the LA Times, with the rest CBS News, NBC News, and a few People mag (which is not considered tabloid) and I think one or two E! Online. HBH also claimed it was a "blow-by-blow" retelling of Bynes issues, which is an absolute lie, since Bynes' troubles went on for years and there were dozens upon dozens of other widely covered incidents that were not included. And on top of that bullshit, HBH complained indignantly that there was no attempt to "add perspective" or "weave it into the story of her career!!!!!" Where oh where in BLP guidelines are we instructed to add personal perspective of criminal arrests and medical incidents as it relates to their careers? And HBH superfans, please explain, was HBH lying, or does he/she not understand what a primary vs secondary source or what meets the definition of reliable source? —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: I suggest you go and read the policy at WP:NOR, the supplementary material at WP:PRIMARYNEWS and then come back and strike the above comment. News articles (such as all those cited in that section) are, according to our policies, primary sources. GoldenRing (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The key language of concern is from WP:3RRBLP: Removing violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. Very little of what HBH removed fits "libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material", meaning that HBH cannot edit war to retain. The material falls under the second point "what counts as exempt" and which is "controversial" (for example: this discussion shows that there is question if the material is of this type). Thus, after being BOLD, and the edits reverts, continued edit warring without discussion is a problem. Again, I think there is also a larger problem of what is being considered acceptable under BLP, but that's not this board's purpose to solve. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily we don't have to solve it, Masem, as WP:ARBBLP already clarified: Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached. I would argue that all or almost all of HBH's edits fell into this. --John (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom findings of fact unfortunately are not really enforceable. I still think that further discussion on where celebrity gossip-y type material (not TMZ-type levels but minor arrests, drug rehab/etc. type stuff that other more reliable sources might cover) should fit into a BLP picture to be clear if this is truly controversial and falls into material that allows 3RR exceptions, or not. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom findings of fact are as enforceable as we make them be. DS allows for this. Hence the notifications which seem to have ruffled a few feathers. Once editors have received the notifications, any future noncompliance can be dealt with by topic bans. GoldenRing seems to have right idea here. --John (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since John seems to be threatening all the editors with whom he disagrees, I would remind him that Wikipedia has processes in place to prevent rogue admins from doing anything they please to anyone anytime just because they've place a DS template. It's not a license to kill. And if he continues to harass me — as he's done on this page after agreeing (at 13:39, 25 August 2017) not to address me, which shows his word means nothing — or Wikistalk me, that will be responded to under the proper processes. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When BLP says quite plainly that certain classes of dubious content whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion it is against policy to argue that removal of that material requires discussion. That so many editors here are ready to undermine BLP is disturbing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is purely punitive. GoldenRing (talk) 2:14 pm, Today (UTC−4)

With all due respect, threatening punitive blocks to users of the community (especially after you called the block vote punitive itself) is wildly uncalled for and inappropriate, especially when the community is trying to reach a consensus where the admins failed to. WP:ADMINACCT. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to parse this. Can you explain what your point is? --John (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening to block users in a situation in which one is involved is uncalled for. Justifying it with a reason he used to oppose a different block is concerning ("punitive"). — nihlus kryik  (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is just bizarre. I'm not involved. I didn't threaten to block anyone. Do you have any other points to make? Or perhaps you'd consider striking this? GoldenRing (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. If we are talking about GoldenRing, what makes him INVOLVED in your opinion? And a six-month topic ban is not a block. I agree that we need sanctions against the worst offenders here. BLP is too important to allow those who do not understand it anywhere near it. --John (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I apologize as I misread topic ban for block. I won't strike it out as to not change the meaning of my original sentence. However, a unilateral topic ban is uncalled for at this point in this discussion, as you've stated it would be done to make a point. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where has GoldenRing stated that? --John (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"...to drive that point home." — nihlus kryik  (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find that strange considering that you yourself referred to WP:BLOCKDETERRENT at 15:44. If HBH is to be sanctioned I think there are a whole swathe of people who should also be. --John (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree. I think there are two users who edit warred alongside him; however, I believe HBH is the crux of the problem and the most important to resolve first. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a ban to make a point; this is perfectly normal topic ban for editors who have consistently edited against policy under BLP DS. GoldenRing (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious (since I genuinely don't know), I thoughts bans can only be handed out unilaterally by administrators via discretionary sanctions, right? Are BLP articles included in that? (I couldn't find anything on it so I don't know.) — nihlus kryik  (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Found it. That's what I get for searching BLP and nothing else. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) @Nihlus Kryik: see WP:ARBBLP. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised. GoldenRing (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Then I wouldn't be opposed to them on certain users as long as HBH was included. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself, I will not sanction someone for upholding BLP policy. There is a fundamental difference between reverting violations out of an article and reverting them back in. GoldenRing (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we can respectfully disagree on the events that took place and who is responsible for what. However, you don't need my support or approval to enforce Arbcom sanctions. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Very concerning that so many here are missing the main point......even if every edit was justified and all agree that all edits where BLP compliant. We as a community have behavioral expectations .......one of the main ones is communication ....especially when asked to do so by others. What we as a community are looking for are those with the abilities to talk things out and explain to others what reasoning there is behind edits. Read WP:EPTALK - WP:UNRESPONSIVE - WP:CAUTIOUS.--Moxy (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not supporting or opposing any of the proposals because I don't believe this will be resolved at ANI. Frankly, this is one of the worst train wrecks I've seen in 11 years on Wikipedia. Coincidentally, many of the other train wrecks have involved the same issues: BLP, failure to communicate, and INVOLVED. I have little use for fancruft, gossip, and the like—even when it's well-sourced—but I wouldn't dream of edit-warring to remove vast passages of an article. Doing so is disruptive. Hillbillyholiday's approach seems rather like using a nuclear bomb to destroy an anthill, and citing BLP to justify this sort of thing seems rather disingenuous. Removing 2500 bytes of content to kill a 25-byte BLP violation? I guess it might be incompetence, not deliberate disruption, but the effect is certainly disruptive, all the same. Once again, BLP is being used as a sort of trump card, as if invoking one policy gives a user carte blanche to ignore other policies, including CONSENSUS. In the wake of all this, enter an administrator with a history both of disrespecting consensus on BLP sources and of clashing with the principal complainant over the same. Thus, fuel is thrown on the fire, and any possibility that this situation can be deescalated flies out the window. And in the wake of that, a vast number of users, some of them normally quite levelheaded and several of whom I respect highly, feel the need to stick up for Hillbillyholiday—positive past interactions apparently being sufficient to excuse present disruptive conduct. Hell, I've had positive interactions, or at least neutral ones, with Hillbillyholiday, but that has nothing to do with this ANI complaint. Small wonder so many of us dread coming to ANI. File a substantive complaint in good faith, as Flyer22 Reborn did, and wind up getting threatened with blocks and bans for your trouble. Is this really the best we can do? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show a diff for Removing 2500 bytes of content to kill a 25-byte BLP violation please? --John (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, John. Likely I could, but I want to go through my watchlist before I go to sleep, and I'd much rather not spend the next half hour examining diffs and counting characters. I invoked bytes by way of reinforcing what I said about nuking an anthill, so unless I'm led to believe that finding a diff approximating those numbers will lead to a happy outcome, perhaps you'd better consider that sentence metaphorical. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may take your time within reason to find the evidence for the allegation you have made, but you should be aware that in the context of making allegations about a user at the admin's noticeboard, allegations which are not able to be evidenced may be held against you. This is really not the place for "metaphorical" allegations. Either it happened or it did not. You should find evidence (one or more diffs) or else strike through that part of your statement. --John (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was not going to respond since Rivertorch's eloquent and accurate commentary stands on its own, but it's easy to see that he was referring to something like this Britney Spears matter, in which Hillbillyholiday removed a lot of material while voicing his belief that the "meltdown" portion is a BLP violation. You know, the same "meltdown" portion that was ruled not to be a BLP violation? Any exaggeration that Rivertorch made is hardly an exaggeration. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Flyer22 Reborn, the diff was slightly off but it helped me to understand the problem better. --John (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John: You're exceptionally diligent in addressing editors you disagree with and making them "aware" of things. Scarcely an opportunity do you miss. What you might want to consider is that you're not the only one in the community with a satisfactory working knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and what's more, some of us are quite able to grasp not only the letter but the spirit of such rules. While I stand by my use of metaphor here—the nuke, the anthill, and the units of binary data—I recognize that occasionally a reader will fail to recognize metaphor or dispute its usefulness as a rhetorical device. Since you apparently fall into that camp, I shall endeavor, in the unlikely event that I make any further comments in this thread, to employ absolute literalness in every sentence. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 21:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rivertorch, when you say "absolute literalness in every sentence", do you literally mean absolute? Do you absolutely mean every? Just for future reference. EEng 01:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rivertorch, your wording was rather too elegant there. So for my part, I will clarify. If User:John made less use of veiled threats to try to force other editors to kowtow to his preferences, then he would find his views taken more seriously by ordinary editors. This is a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia, and editors who have such easy resort to threats are not behaving collaboratively. MPS1992 (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody since at least the days of Aristotle would take as a veiled threat a request to back up one's assertions with evidence or not be taken seriously. Flyer22 Reborn answered this question at 17:35 yesterday, it was a good question and a good answer, and here you are at 01:38 the next day trying to make trouble about it. "Kowtow to his preferences"? Really? --John (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining that you mistakenly wrote may be held against you (followed with a demand that another editor strike part of their post) when you actually meant to write "not be taken seriously". As for "01:38 the next day", you can be called out for failing to act collegially here even after an interval longer than a mere eight hours. MPS1992 (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Yes, it's called the burden of proof. Glad to have been of service. --John (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John's chilling effect tactics

EEng 23:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

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

---

No, closed does not always mean closed. I suggest you cool it with the I'm-the-sheriff crap. EEng 14:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Closed means closed. GoldenRing (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

There is nothing wrong with giving DS alerts; it is explicitly authorised by policy. GoldenRing (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Do note John's'chilling effect here, here, here, here, here and here simply because he is not getting his way. This is ridiculous. He knows damn well, as mentioned at the beginning of this thread, that he is WP:INVOLVED with me (and likely others) and should not be threatening editors in this way, given that a number of editors disagree with him above. Apparently, we are all violating BLP and are all vandals, despite the BLP policy showing otherwise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boilerplate notifications are hardly chilling lol. So long as you ain't violating blp that is. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This isn't really the place for this. Arbcom does not restrict alerts to uninvolved editors or admins. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are when he is WP:INVOLVED and intends to block for content that is not a BLP violation. If he is going to be upholding all of Hillbillyholiday's problematic edits, that is a problem, as outlined quite well by Hobit, Martinevans123, and numerous others. This matter might just be going to WP:Arbcom. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbcom notice is required for sanctions to be placed. There is no indication the sanction will come from him, as placing sanctions is the only thing WP:INVOLVED restricts in this scenario. If there are sanctions to be had, they will surely come from someone else. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As others have noted, and as the template clearly says (This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.), there is no implication of guilt in placing the notice. It's just an administrative notice as you have to be made aware of an Arbcom restriction in case you breach it. Only by breaching it after the notice would you be at risk. And it probably wouldn't be me placing the restriction or block. Nothing to worry about. By the way, you're supposed to notify me if you start a discussion about me. I've taken the liberty of correcting the spelling of my name, I hope you don't mind. --John (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Did I "outline that quite well"? That's news to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: I did wonder how you would feel at having your name taken in vain. Flyer22 Reborn has repeatedly taken your comment earlier in this discussion as support of their position. GoldenRing (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean to ping Mandruss, not you.

As for the rest, I think it is abundantly clear why John added the templates. He views us as in the wrong and believes he is in the right, despite a number of editors disagreeing with him. As noted near the beginning of the thread, he wrongly templated me before years ago, in what a number of editors saw as a chilling effect tactic/inappropriate threat. I don't see that he has yet added the template to the talk pages of others. He has so far chosen a select few. And given his history with me, adding the template to my talk page, as though I am some newbie and/or disruptive editor, all the while protecting a disruptive editor, was completely inappropriate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyer22 Reborn: you really need to drop the stick. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After having your assertion of the essay BLUDGEON as a call for boomerang shot down in flames, you persist in abusing well-known and well-understood editing principles. STICK applies when the target is in a clear minority, usually a minority of 1. Please stop throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what the magic words are. Flyer22 Reborn is on a crusade to get this user banned permanently at ANI, and he's past the point of being reasonable. If he doesn't let other editors discuss this, somebody should take action against him. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've had the policy that explicitly allows any editor to place these templates explained to you. Repeating the false allegation is a personal attack. Stop. GoldenRing (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sighs. I learn from history. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Clarification

Hillbillyholiday edit warring at my talk page