To the administrator, If you agree, could you please apply the appropriate sanctions to user RAF910 for what I consider non-collaboration, incivility, personal attacks, harassment, supposition and aspersions.

I requested the user assume good faith, stated to the user twice, I consider the user's statements personal attacks and harassments, but they continued.

Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Difference files showing the user statements, please click on the link then read the right side.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles&diff=next&oldid=741118844

"I given you my answer, if you don't like, then find something else to do with your free time".--RAF910 (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)"

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ruger_Mini-14&diff=next&oldid=741209444

"I given you my answer, if you don't like, then find something else to do with your free time" RAF910|talk]]) 16:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)"

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ruger_Mini-14&diff=next&oldid=742239645

"Who knows, like a Pokémon Go player, maybe you just got caught or carried away in the moment and you don't realize that you've crossed the line."--RAF910|talk 14:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)"

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ruger_Mini-14&diff=next&oldid=742344735

my error, a repeat

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms&diff=prev&oldid=792120156

… "CuriousMind01 has a habit of endlessly arguing his position, Wikilawyering and ignoring consensus that opposes his position. So, it will most likely be reverted again." RAF910|talk 17:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

"As predicted Curiousmind is ignoring consensus and reverted the changes to the Bushmaster XM15 page, as well as the SIG MCX. He clearly does not care what any of us think, and is pretending that this discussion where an overwhelming majority of his fellow editors disagree with him is meaningless. And as usual, he is trying to intimidate anyone who opposes him by accusing them "personal attack and harassment." " RAF910 Revision as of 11:55, 24 July 2017

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms&diff=prev&oldid=804529223

"CuriousMind01 attempting the change the rules in order to override consensus at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council page

My fellow editors CuriousMind01 is at it again this time at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council page, where he is attempting the change the rules in order to override consensus and make the Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms meaningless. So that he can add "Criminal use" sections to as many firearm pages as he can get away with. I encourage my fellow editor to comment there" --RAF910|talk) 16:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council&diff=next&oldid=804562757

"*OPPOSE CuriousMind01 is a tenacious edit warrior obsessed with adding "Criminal use" sections to firearm articles despite massive opposition. About two months ago he lost a discussion on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms by a 10 to 1 margin. Unfortunately, he has a win at all cost mentality. So, now in typical fashion he's ignoring consensus, forum shopping, wikilawyering, and gaming the system. He even attempted to unilaterally make this change himself, because he believes that silence equals consensus. He will most likely accuse me of personal attacks and harassment again for daring oppose him and pointing at his questionable behavior, a normal intimidation tactic of his. I will inform my fellow Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms members that he attempting to override consensus and make the Project meaningless." --RAF910 (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor comment to the above:

Please don't inject personality-based criticism and supposition/prediction; it's not helpful... See WP:ASPERSIONS. …. SMcCandlish 9 October 2017 (UTC)

User notified https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RAF910&diff=prev&oldid=806595798 CuriousMind01 (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of these are a year old. I don't see harassment or personal attacks. I'm curious to hear if RAF910 has anything to offer here. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, could you please see recheck, I showed the text below the above links, which I consider rudeness and false aspersions: like obsession, edit warring, ignoring consensus, wikilayering,forum shopping, etc. The statements are all in the past 13 months. Please allow me several days to respond to the comments below. Many result from levels of consensus and local consensus does not override community consensus. (sorry, add the text lost the numbering) Thank you.CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...I forgot to mention that he is incredibly argumentative and constantly Wikilawyering. See above statement.--RAF910 (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing more than a case of sour grapes. CuriousMind01 is obsessed with adding "Criminal use" sections to Firearms articles, against massive opposition. He is also very upset that I’ve pointed out that he ignoring consensus and that he is continuously forum shopping.

His most recent activity’s, started in July of this year, when he lost a discussion on the “Criminal use” topic at the WikiProject firearms talk page by a 10 to 1 margin. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms&oldid=803378307

On August 15th, he started forum shopping at the WikiProject council talk page with this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Council&type=revision&diff=795679904&oldid=793877524. His intention is to overturn the 10 to 1 consensus against him on the WikiProject firearms talk page.

However, nobody thought enough about it to even respond. So, on September 27th he unilaterally made the change himself, with this edit, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide&diff=prev&oldid=802568241 which I reverted.

On October 9th he continued forum shopping and started a new and separate RFC discussion at the WikiProject council talk page on the very same subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Council&type=revision&diff=804434393&oldid=803706627

He also went forum shopping at the Wikipedia Village pump page with this edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=prev&oldid=804435002

Please note, that he is currently losing the RFC discussion at the WikiProject council talk page, again by a 10 to 1 margin.

I am not the only one to question his behavior. Other editors, have also pointed out that CuriousMind01 is ignoring consensus and forum shopping at the WikiProject council talk page discussion.

• ”Oppose this end run around the consensus at the project. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)”
• ”Oppose This is a perfect example of forum shopping. What’s next an appeal to Jimbo? --Limpscash (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)”

CuriousMind01 has an a agenda. If he cannot respect two separate discussions, with 10 to 1 consensuses against him, then he doesn’t belong here. Therefore, I recommend that he be indefinitely blocked. If not, he will waste more of our time on another page.--RAF910 (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• RAF, this is helpful (though please use fewer paragraphs), but we need more, from more editors, to issue a block per NOTHERE or whatever. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• CuriousMinds has battled this issue of including criminal use many times, refusing to accept consensus. Like this RfC result (which had quite a few participants) [1], then again in another discussion at the same article [2]. Continually forum shopping. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:57, 23 October

• If you review User:CuriousMind01 edit history, he seems obsessed with adding "Criminal use" sections to Firearms, Automotive, and other articles. As other editors have noted, he is a very aggressive editor and will endlessly argue his position against overwhelming consensus. I agree with RAF, that he is ignoring consensus and WP:Forum shopping. He is also WP:edit-warring on the Bushmaster XM15 article, with these edits [3][4][5]. He is also Wikilawyering with these edits [6][7], where he basically claims that his fellow editors cannot make changes to the Bushmaster XM15 article. In essence, that he is right and everybody else is wrong. He has launched personal attack with this edit [8]. My experience with User:CuriousMind01 left such a bad taste in my mouth that I stopped editing. Please see "Advice" discussion [9] at User talk:AmaryllisGardener. I also recommend that he be indefinitely blocked.--Limpscash (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies in brief response: I think the comments above may originate from users not knowing some Wikipedia rules.

Like the Recent Example cited above: WikiProjects Firearm project took an internal vote to remove criminal use from gun articles then amended their advice page. I voted no as a violation of WP:NPOV. Then users RAF910 and Limpscash twice tried to delete community/RFC consensus, criminal use text from 2 articles 1, 2, which I and another editor twice restored, trying to explain in edit summaries and project that "local consensus" is not binding.

Having seen wikiprojects incorrectly try to impose their criteria on articles, I thought it would be helpful to add an additional criteria educational example to the Wikiproject "such as" examples, not a rule change. Using proper WP steps, talk page, be bold, RFC, commenters explained my example was not needed, because wikiproject rules already exist, like:

• “WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations, nor can they assert ownership of articles within a specific topic area. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles.”
• "Advice pages: "projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope,". "and that other editors..get no say.."because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay."
• [[Local consensus]] "among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. ...WikiProject advice pages,...have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay."

Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait--if all else fails you claim the others don't know policy? :::I did not mean it that way, sorry if the words read that way.

BTW all y'all REALLY need to learn how to do proper indentation and paragraphing--these sections are clear as mud, esp. when editors start citing other editors. Anyway, I wish y'all had pinged me when that proposal came up (and RAF, I see 8 to 2, not 10 to 1--ansh666 was also an "oppose", and I see only 8 "support"s, but that's by the by. Again, anyway, CuriousMind, "Local consensus" etc, sure, but if you're the only one adding some section that others oppose, you're still guilty of editing against consensus. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies it is the opposite, I and another editor were restoring the community+RFC consensus, I was not adding any section, and have never added anything against consensus. My understanding of Wikiprojects policy wording is local consensus is equal to a single editor opinion not a group of persons, and local consensus cannot override community consensus like 2 RFCs, if editors wish to change community consensus, they can through community processes, but not just by an internal wikiproject vote unknown to the community, and then try to change community articles. Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: if anyone still cares - to be fair, my oppose was in the other direction, "this doesn't go far enough" type. I would prefer "criminal use" out of these articles completely. By the way, isn't there a gun control arbcom case sanction thing that this could possibly fall under? ansh666 02:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a far more than local consensus. Wikipedia articles about things generally do not center on, or even touch much on, the externalities of their use or abuse. Anmccaff (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• How has this not been closed yet? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So a handful of gun fans vote behind a closed door to mollify firearm articles and this Curious guy tries to stop it? Sounds like he had the right idea to me. And trying to get more eyes on something isn't forum shopping. Saying that guns should be treated the same way as cars, or shoes, or hats is Big Gun playing small games. Cars are for driving, shoes are for walking and hats are for wearing. It would be stupid to remark on their criminal use. Guns are for killing. The End.62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reason to have one: to defend yourself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also for shooting sports. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 17:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Where was this closed door vote? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The above statement by IP user demonstrates why the Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms opposes "Criminal use sections". As they are little more than a political soapbox. As for the issue at hand, I still recommend that CuriousMind01 be indefinitely blocked for edit warring, ignoring consensus, wikilayering, forum shopping, etc. As his above statements are basically an admission of guilt, with a "I'm right and everyone else is wrong justification." --Limpscash (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Akocsg (talk · contribs) and block log
• Blocked on German Wikipedia [10] (Ethno-POV-Account on a mission)

This user removes the contents which he does not like and replace them with his own personal opinions. He always uses misleading and false edit summaries.

• I mention some of his edits for the comparison:
  • WP:BATTLEGROUND and misrepresentation of sources[11][12]
  • Removing sourced text and replace it with his own POV[13]
  • POV and labeling his edit as minor[14][15]
  • Removing any non-Turkic info which are based on the sources[16][17][18]
  • Disruptive edits like[19]
• The recent issues:
  • Ashina Removed sourced content of article by providing a misleading edit summary,[20] then started edit warring and inserted his personal opinions.[21][22][23]. Then switched to IP-hopping.[24][25] That IP-range is from Germany and since this user was active on German Wikipedia, then I'm sure it's him. IP's edit pattern and edit summaries matches with him too. IP targeted related articles[26][27][28][29][30][31] and finally wrote a personal attack on my talk page.[32]
  • Baghatur Repeated his old way: Removed the content which he does not like and replaced it with a random non-English citation.[33] Then after 2 month, he repeated it again (non-English sources).[34] And this one.[35]

It's a nationalistic mission/quest by him on English Wikipedia just like German Wiki. Is it necessary to provide more evidences? --Wario-Man (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would first like to state how surprised and astonished I am by this deceptive behaviour of this user. None of his accusations are true whatsoever. If you check his recent repeated edit diff in the article Baghatur you can see how he simply deleted a statement which was provided with three different academic sources. They simply got deleted by him with the excuse that they are not English and hence not reliable! That's cherry-picking. And not constructive behaviour at all.

The very same case can be seen in the article Ashina, where again a poorly written and unsourced passage was improved and corrected by me backed with sources. He simply reverted them all with the accuse that it's POV, which is the main accusation based on the same examples here! The result was that my objection got a result and the passage was finally removed after an input by another neutral user in the talk page. See here: diff2, the adding of sources by me: diff, then he does it himself what I said should be done, deletes the whole passage: diff3. As you can see, what he first accused me of turned out to be right.

And those older edits, which I mostly can't even remember anymore, where mostly backed by sources back then. Most of them are minor edits anyway, and not destructive in any way. They were definitely not POV pushing or a "nationalistic mission" or whatsoever. This user apparently wants to simply get me blocked because of personal reasons, it seems. See the Baghatur article, where sources simply get deleted on his whim... If you check my personal histoy here in the English Wikipedia, you will see that I made at least thousand edits and created/wrote many new articles. Most of them in the field of sports. Based on this fact alone one can see that I am not a POV-pushing User on a mission, like this user wants to make you believe.

But this part of his report is the best. Please do check this out, it's important and shows how he is trying to manipulate you (if he is aware that it's not me):

"...and finally wrote a personal attack on my talk page. 23"

That was made by some totally different user. By this one: User:2003:6:212f:ef43:40f0:fbd0:1966:e577 You can confirm that by checking the history in his talk page. That was not by me! But it is simply reported by him as if it was me. This is a serious accusation!

And that IP user is not me nor does not have anything to do with me. Please do an IP check or whatever is necessary to clarify this case. And as a major part of his accusations are based on that dubious IP account, one can see how this reporting is based on practically no consistent foundation. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller and EdJohnston: Would you (or other admins) please look at this report? 72H has passed and I see no replies from the admins. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can the admins please make it clear that comments like "What is it with Turks and their extreme nationalism?" are not acceptable - since when is it ok for IP editors to post racist comments on ANI? I'm not involved in this content dispute but a comment that all Turks are extreme nationalists easily fits the dictionary definition of racism, canard, racial stereotyping, etc. If someone wrote "What is it with the Jews and their shystyness" I imagine there would be a round of objections. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the comment in question. To be clear: No, comments like these are not helpful to resolving a discussion and they not acceptable to make. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out once again that all the accusations in the passage "the recent issues" of Wario-Man are from that already blocked IP account (2003:6:212f:ef43:40f0:fbd0:1966:e577) mentioned above. They have nothing to do with me. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Submitted on 28 October 2017 and still no replies from admins. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Chas. Caltrop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm writing to clarify the validity of the edit history of this user User:Chas._Caltrop. This user has a very strange style of editing and interacting with others. Their edit summaries are extremely uniform (mostly "CE; completed the sentence"), they seem to have little use for consensus or civility, and appear to have been re-structuring articles to their liking since April 2016 (they may have been confirmed too early, without developing the proper skills).

They've recently blown up at me personally; pasting as if from another user (on my talk page, and The Frankfurt School talk page). I've discussed and confirmed this with that user here. This strange overreaction by User:Chas._Caltrop appears to be in response to my politely warning them on their talk page that they should form a consensus before making drastic changes to The Frankfurt School page (due to its controversial nature). I believe this editor is attempting to intimidate me, and that their longer term behaviour may be detrimental to Wikipedia's cultivation of long standing content.

At the very least, they've failed to come to terms with WP:TPG, WP:CIVIL or WP:CONSENSUS.

This user has come to my attention due to their edits on the Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory page. Where they've broken the section anchor a few times, at one point had multiple "Cultural Marxism" headings, and would prefer the section contain difficult to decipher sentences like:

Proponents of conspiracy-theory Cultural Marxism claim that the existence of liberal social-ideologies — such as feminism, anti-white racism, and sexualization — are real-world negative consequences of critical-theory, despite such unresolved social problems dating from the 1920s.

...as you can see, they're also including some strange political terms, eg. anti-white racism and claiming it is a liberal social-ideology?

Anyways, their political language and editing style is strange, as is their failure to use talk pages correctly or respect consensus. They seem completely incongruous with Wikipedia's general ethos. I would like to see them banned from further editing The Frankfurt School page, and request they be investigated further (by someone more skilled and responsible than myself) for WP:Tendentious editing. Particularly if they are doing so in partisan 'teams', as this note on their talk page suggests.

Thank you for any help you can render with this strange issue (I've certainly not seen anything like this before). --Jobrot (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears other users have also had simmilar issues: 1, 2, 3. --Jobrot (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: It seems this user has now started causing similar issues on the Critical theory page, edit warring, inserting their subjective viewpoint, and malforming copy (see the edit summaries here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Critical_theory&action=history). Indeed, on the related talk page they appear to be trying to provoke other users as well.

I suspect this user is very gently trying to vandalize Wikipedia over a long period of time with a somewhat political motive. It's an ongoing problem which has effected multiple users, and who knows how many pages. It will continue on this way without intervention or a remedy of some sort. I personally would ban them for violating WP:VANDALISM, WP:EDITWARRING WP:CIVIL, WP:TPG, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:TEND, but I am not an admin. --Jobrot (talk) 07:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not familiar with the articles cited above, but this same user embarked on a fundamental and unconstructive rewrite of McCarthyism, adding 26,000 characters, which is about 6,000 words, without word one on the talk page with the exception of a smarmy response to a note from me on the page. It required considerable time and trouble to undo his general cluelessness, in particular an RfC in which the unanimous verdict was that his rewrite stank. (See this section and the one following it.) He has a complete contempt for other editors, as evidenced by his condescending posts and failure to participate in discussions. He didn't even deign to speak up in favor of his own rewrite. I think that Caltrop is not here to edit constructively but seems to have his own personal vision that he attempts to advance. I recommend a good long hiatus from the project, perhaps permanent, as he is a net negative. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 02:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

he is a net negative. - agreed. A copy editor who introduces obvious mistakes in grammar and flow (whilst claiming to be improving those things), is a very strange phenomena. There's a lot of this sort of thing (the bold text being what Chas. Caltrops introduced): "The critical theory school of thought was established by primarily by..." - "Max Horkheimer said that a theory as critical insofar as it..." ...and then there are the more political edits, such as changing "Concern for social "base and superstructure" is one of the remaining Marxist philosophical concepts in much of contemporary critical theory." to "Despite such intellectual evolution, contemporary critical theory retains the social concerns of Marxist philosophy, with the base and superstructure of society.[4]" (inverting the meaning almost entirely). Also there's the ironically fact they've deleted headings of the Anti-intellectualism article to serve their own politics (removing much of the left liberal perspective).

Still, very early on in their edit history they greatly expanded the plot summary of The Turner Diaries! Interesting that they've gone from that, to plying their deletism to left-wing articles and perspectives. --Jobrot (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, my mistake, they're not entirely deletionist, here they've introduced famed libertarian economist Murray Rothbard's opinion as an expert on the socialist Sino-Soviet split. This editor is WP:NOTHERE for the right reasons - and hence needs to be banned permanently (WP:SOAP, WP:NOTHERE). --Jobrot (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have a rewrite in progress, for no apparent reason and not a word on the talk page, at Sino-Soviet split. See [36]. I do not see these edits improving the encyclopedia. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with Chas. Caltrop's behavior. The way in which this user interacts with other users is definitely irritating, but at the same time, it wasn't so bad that I thought there would be any point in complaining about it. The main problem I can see with his edits is the insistence on using vague, generalized edit summaries such as "grammar, flow, npov", no matter what article he is editing, and no matter what the changes that he is making. The vague edit summaries don't justify or explain those changes, and they make it that much more difficult to see what is really being done to the articles concerned. The user could at least be encouraged to use more informative edit summaries. I have noticed that his changes at at least one article (on The Turner Diaries) introduced outright factual errors, but I have not followed his editing closely enough to see whether that is typical or not. Looking at some of his edits, I have the impression (which may or may not be accurate) that some of his changes are semi-random in nature and are being made simply for the sake of changing the article in some way, rather than being properly thought-through improvements. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here we are. Short of arbcom, there is no other place in Wikipedia where one can raise issues of this kind. I am in agreement that complaining about such users rarely results in any positive outcome, but fortunately someone stick their neck out and did so. Clearly this user has created headaches at multiple articles. We can kick the can down the road or not. The user in question has been notified of this discussion and has been active while it is pending, indicating to me that he would consent to whatever action is taken. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something needs to be done about this editor. An indef block would be ideal, but failing that, he could be limited to adding new sourced material, with an accurate edit summary, and prohibited from copy-editing or removing other editors' work without first gaining talk page consensus, for a period of say 6 months. This would give him the opportunity to improve his editing skills while protecting the encyclopedia, and avoiding wasting other editors' time. zzz (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely be in favor of a requirement that Chas. Caltrop use accurate and informative edit summaries. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My TMobile smartphone's dynamic IP address is being blocked from editing (as anonymous), for "disruptive behavior" (had to look up what that was) by user Graham87, I don't know when.

The max extent of my edits is typos, and occasionally turning plain text to a hyperlink - so I'm confident I'm not the source of the disruptive behavior.

The pop-up that informed me of that, was not formatted (visible formatting symbols) on my Samsung 7 Android phone (default browser), and doesn't stay up long enough - ideally it would stay up until I clicked OK.

Here's my IP info - I'm editing now by connecting via WiFi (different IP), but I hate to think others will be blocked when they are assigned this address: 66.249.79.90 2607:fb90:2928:e8fe:4d16:35c7:d6bf:cd63

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.198.147 (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most T-Mobile ranges are blocked as collateral damage from a long-term abuse account. You won't be able to edit from your phone unless you're connected to WiFi. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's this LTA case. If you create an account, you should still be able to edit. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the block reason to {{rangeblock}}, which gives people a better explanation of why they can't edit and how to request an account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is it really true that "most T-Mobile ranges are blocked" as mentioned above. ~70 million T-Mobile subscribers are prevented from editing Wikipedia in order to stop one person? Deli nk (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To my understanding, you can get around an IP range block by registering. Gabriel syme (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. A few small ranges are blocked, but the vast majority are not. Black Kite (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few small ranges, including 2607:FB90::/32, which is assigned to pretty much all LTE users with iOS and Android phones. It's probably worthwhile given the severity of the LTA, but it's a much bigger deal than you're making it sound like. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It is an anon-only block which means you can edit WP by creating an account. 75.139.181.181 (talk) 07:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, account creation is blocked as well. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 07:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case, find an IP adress that can create an account. There shouldn't be a login block. TomBarker23 (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FleetCommand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been disruptive, incivil, and WP:ASPERSIONS-casting, without evidence, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.

• [51] FC Attempted to hide my rebuttal of an argument he offered; he provided a bogus rationale: "You are not here to satisfy me. Hence, you are off topic."
• [52] Did it again, with aspersions: "obsessive, compulsive"
• [53] Did it again, with an incivil edit summary of "Reverted edit by an editor who is going to be Microsoft's bitch!"
• [54] Did it again (with a false accusation of personal attack), after I demanded that he stop per WP:TPG [55]
• [56], [57], [58] Spammed my user talk page with a pile of reundant edit-warring templates, for daring to object to him screwing around with my posts.
• [59] False accusation against multiple editors: "You people are just labeling he who disagrees with you as non-native speaker." But "non-native speaker" doesn't appear anywhere in the discussion but his own post.
• [60] Did that again, after it was pointed out to him [61] that his accusation is false.
• [62] Restated the same incivility: "Repeat: You're gonna be Microsoft bitch! Ha ha!"
• [63] Disrupted ongoing RfC (which he opposes) with an off-topic wall of text, which includes more "the bitch of publishers such as Apple and Microsoft" stuff, a false accusation that I have "attacked the editors opposing" me (I simply described his position as prescriptive grammar which he explicitly conceded is true [64]), and worst of all accuses all his opponents of "a racist act" and "evil" for not giving him his way (this, after he suggested that widely source-attested usage he doesn't like may be due to "writing by underpaid Chinese employees, which are pervasively hired"[65], plus all that "bitch" talk, which is widely regarded as sexist).
• [66] Disruptive, borderline vandalistic, and certainly WP:POINTy alteration of the proposed text that is the subject of the RfC, with more "Microsoft and Apple's bitch" stuff.
• [67] False accusation of ad hominem (pointing out that an administrative action was taken in response to editwarring about the same matter only a few hours earlier is not an ad hominem attack, it's an observation of relevant fact). Ironically, this post included another WP:ASPERSIONS attack by FleetCommand: "you have ... no respect for WP:CIVIL" (i.e., it's another false accusation that it's me attacking him).
• [68] False accusation of lying about him. I received no response to a request to back up this accusation [69], nor has any evidence been provided for any of his other bad-faith-assumptive and incivil claims.
• I could go on, but that's probably enough for the main issue.

There are other sorts of problems in this editor's posts and behavior at the same locus and at WP:MOSCOMP, where this started (and, I'm told, elsewhere, but I'll just address what's going on today, in this discussion), including:

• Really strange prescriptivistic (i.e. WP:SOAPBOX) original research and PoV-pushing, e.g. stating that Microsoft is "wrong" in how they choose to write about their own products and "must" do it some other way (already diffed above, [70]).
• When confronted with the fact that Microsoft's own documentation didn't agree with him that "the" cannot be used before ".NET Framework", he literally lobbied Microsoft to change it [71]. This is part of what appears to be a WP:TRUTH / WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:ADVOCACY problem, evident across all the diffs provided: FleetCommand is convinced that usage he doesn't like is wrong and must be eliminated. These antics won't have any effect on the RfC (other than drowning it in noise), because it's based on general usage in reliable sources (e.g. this pile o' books [72]), and isn't about .NET or Microsoft in particular anyway. The fact that the Microsoft page in question is one that the company permits outside users to edit (subject to staff review) makes it WP:UGC, so it's not even relevant anyway.

Background: The ultimate source of the whole mess is MOS:COMP, an essay FleetCommand created [73]. Much of MOS:COMP's content is problematic, and it was labeled a guideline rather than an essay [74] without any WP:PROPOSAL process, as far as I can tell. Among its problems is an attempt to ban the use of the word "the" before the name of any software product or service, except in constructions where the name is used as a modifier (e.g., it declares "the Mac App Store" to be "incorrect"). Seeing that MOS:COMP is primarily edited by only a handful of people, has had virtually no input from MoS regulars, conflicts with the site-wide MoS, on this "the" point in particular has been subject to previous dispute on its own talk page recently, and led to an editwar a day or two ago at an article, I opened a revision proposal about its "Definite article" section (for starters) at the main MoS talk page, then FleetCommand showed up and did all the above. As a side matter, I had recently also WP:BRDed two undiscussed additions of entire sections of new "rules" to that "guideline", and opened talk page threads about them. Those additions had been made by FleetCommand, and this may have triggered the hostility documented above, though I can't say for sure. Another factor appears to have been an argument with one of FleetCommand's buddies about the same stuff, in user talk [75].

Discretionary sanctions, in particular for civility, apply to WT:MOS (per WP:ARBATC). However, FleetCommand had not received the {{Ds/alert}} template within the alotted year (Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log). This has been rectified [76].

I leave it up to editorial consensus here what remedy or remedies should be applied. User has a long block log, mostly for incivility and disruptive editing, the most recent earlier this year.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I remember FleetCommand being told off back in September over personal attacks, wherein he called someone one of our most stupid editors and said of this editor When he dies, I will certainly celebrate. (diff; ANI thread) Even if the outcome of that thread was a bit of a boomerang, it was clear from the discussion that FleetCommand was warned about incivility. I think we're definitely to the point that sanctions are necessary, though I am not sure what those sanctions should be. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I would suggest a short-term block. Maybe a week. Then it might be a good idea to IBAN them for a further few days. –Sb2001 21:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  IBANs generally don't do anything useful, unless they're long-term and in response to long-term interpersonal problems that can't be resolved any other way. AFAIK, I've never interacted with this editor before. I think this is more of 1) a temperament/competence matter, given the exact nature and length of the block log and the failure of the behavior to change after years of blocks for the same stuff; 2) a topical matter of style "rules" about computing; and 3) a related SOAPBOX matter of forcing WP (and the rest of the world, if possible) to accept style-trivia pronouncements that the editor insists "must" be done versus are "wrong".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I would also be opposed to an IBAN, if only because there's no clear "focus" of FleetCommand's incivility here. Rather, FleetCommand's problem appears to be with many others. I agree that a block may be appropriate. Going forward, I think this case is a candidate for a civility restriction, as described at WP:EDR. I don't really have a comment on the MOS behavior, other than that it does look like misbehavior. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And woah, hold on a second, I took a closer look at SMcCandlish's diffs above... is FleetCommand calling SMcCandlish a racist here? What the hell is up with that? Or at least that prescriptive grammar is racist and evil... which is flat out wrong, though a common enough misconception. Prescriptivism is just another linguistic phenomenon which descriptivism itself would seek to describe, rather than supplant. I mean, a manual of style is inherently prescriptive: It prescribes certain usage as being "correct" and to be preferred over other usage. At any rate, I think the spurious accusation of racism or of furthering a racist cause, insofar as establishing or maintaining a manual of style for Wikipedia could be considered a racist cause, is enough on its own to merit sanctions, whether on its own merits or under the discretionary sanctions authorized by ArbCom. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Note the "evil" dig in the same post.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Aside from the above-proposed civility EDR, I'm thinking at this point that (inspired by a recent close above), FleetCommand should be topic-banned from MoS for a stretch. A new development is that an increasing number of respondents to the RfC propose that his pet pseudo-guideline MOS:COMP be merged (to the extent any of it is salvageable) into MOS:COMPSCI – or just be outright deleted. It's unlikely that he wouldn't resist this with an escalation of the same sort of pattern, since he totally blew his stack over a minor clarification proposal to just one section of "his" page. This is a classic case for "sanctions are meant to be preventative not punitive". (I'm skeptical that a block will be useful, since it hasn't been with him to date.) The "must" and "wrong" WP:TRUTH PoV he tries to impose on the English language, in the face of all evidence against his preferences, is fundamentally incompatible with MoS-editing, anyway. There's a clear precedent (see [77] and related noticeboard actions about that other user right before and after that action) for an MoS TBAN for this sort of thing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a MoS TBAN for FleetCommand. FleetCommand's rhetoric as discussed in the diffs above is unacceptable and will only inflame what is already a perennially tense situation in MoS discussions. We don't need people throwing around baseless accusations of racism or of being evil, or saying that the other side's preferred outcome would make Wikipedia or the editors on that side someone's "bitch". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I would not be heartbroken to see FleetCommand receive a substantial block for all these continuing personal attacks, but for now I Support a topic ban from anything related to MOS (and so allow a more collegial discussion on the fate of MOS:COMP). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments by involved editor, User:Codename Lisa. One hour ago, not knowing this case was open, I filed an ANI case against SMcCandlish, for exactly the same charges: Being disruptive, incivil, and aspersions-casting, without evidence, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. However, in my own ANI case against SMcCandlish, I mercilessly ranked FleetCommand as an equivalent disruptor to SMcCandlish. They both engaged in disruption, non-collegial actions and poisoning the atmosphere of the aforementioned discussion. If I am asked to say which one is the worse, I refrain from replying directly and instead mention a fact:

FleetCommand is a reactive offender while SMcCandlish is a proactive offender. During 2012 and 2013, I endured 6 admin investigations, 2 CheckUser investigations and 1 Commons CheckUser investigation of whether FC is my sockpuppet. One of the reasons that made more sense than the rest of the nonsensical ones was "FleetCommand has never attacked me." (It was of course, not strictly true.) But the reason was simpler than being the socks of each other: I never insulted FleetCommand; he never insulted back. Even during this whole dispute, it was SMcCandlish who started uncivility preemptively. FleetCommand's initial response was cheery and civil: Revision 808212623 through 808215743.

I am not defending reactive incivility. Incivility is wrong. Incivility is a cancer. Nobody deserves incivility, not even FleetCommand or SMcCandlish. And incivil people must not be held to double standards: Even in the other ANI case, which Mendaliv mentioned, I both mentioned that the reporting user was guitly of baiting incivility and that both behavior from either of them is unacceptable.

I say the same thing again: Incivility is unacceptable; both SMcCandlish and FleetCommand must behave themselves. Any sanction against either must be enacted against the other too. The fact that if we keep SMcCandlish in check, FleetCommand is less likely to be uncivil is just a convenient tool for us and does not entirely absolve FleetCommand from his responsibility. Right now, SMcCandlish has harassed me worst than everyone else in my entire Wikipedia career combined. Nevertheless, I reiterate you must not think in terms of who has been uncivil more often, longer, more severely, or more proactively. Instead, think to the treatment that participants of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style derserve: a clean, collegial atmosphere. We have no such policy as (pardon my language) Wikipedia:Be the lesser jerk! Our policies are Wikipedia:Civility and Meta:Don't be a jerk.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a very unfair false equivalence to me. What I'm seeing is FleetCommand over-reacting to perceived slights (even where there really aren't any) with massively escalating personal attacks - while refusing to listen to reasonable discussion. Your "they're as bad as each other" angle is simply not supported by the evidence. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to have started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Bring MOS:COMPUTING back into line with MoS and reality. I see nothing uncivil in SMcCandlish's proposal or the way it is worded, but can you see where the first incivility comes in? To me it looks like "I question the motivation of the nominator ... Is the nominator truly here for a tangible improvement and a change with benefit, or because he wants to get back at Codename Lisa with whom he had a nasty argument earlier today? Are you going to make life a living hell for the future generation of editors just because an editor hurt your pride by contesting your change with a reversion?" from FleetCommand, which is blatant ad hominem personal attack. Had I seen it at the time, I would have redacted the attack and issued a stern warning - and I would have blocked FleetCommand had the attacks escalated in the way they actually have. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I'll quote one complaint from you (now in the subsection below)...

Sometimes, the comments are pure mocking or perjorative.

• "[...] when are you going to schedule a meeting with Bill Gates & co. to "correct" their grammar about their own product? [...]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  18:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)"

  Outcome worth the attention: [78]

• "Thanks for making it clear (so I don't have to try to prove it) that your position is a prescriptive grammar one (which WP generally doesn't entertain, per WP:NOT#SOAPBOX). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  18:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)"

That was a direct response to the above personal attacks, yet you make no mention of that whatsoever! A massive breach of WP:NPA by FleetCommand gets not even a hint of disapproval from you, yet a very restrained response that contains perhaps just a bit of mild sarcasm at most is worthy of your censure and your demands for sanctions! I'm truly astonished. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FleetCommand was not the subject of that ANI case from which you are extracting this. And I have already said — repeatedly, in boldface — that I don't approve of FC's action. Furthermore, I do not care if it was direct response or not; we don't have a Wikipedia:No personal attack, unless it is a retaliation of a personal attack policy. (Of course, if we had, I'd have taken into consideration that the first personal attack came from SMcC.) —Codename Lisa (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know you have since said you disapprove of FleetCommand's action. But the point is that FleetCommand launched a gross personal attack on SMcCandlish, SMcCandlish responded in a really pretty measured manner, yet at the time of your complaint you cherry-picked SMcCandlish's response in order to make accusations against him while ignoring the attack to which he was responding. You were trying to show SMcCandlish in the worst possible light you could rather than trying to be fair and balanced. That's hypocrisy and dishonesty, and I'm appalled - so please forgive me if I don't bother listening or responding to you any more. Oh, and kep your "jokes" away from my talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Am not supposed to do exactly that? In the "SMcCandlish" heading, I restrict my discussion to myself (plaintiff) and SMcCandlish (defendant) and in the "Editwarring, incivility, etc. by FleetCommand", I restrict my discussion to SMcCandlish (plaintiff) and FleetCommand (defendant). In one of them, I am a plaintiff, and in another I am a collateral damage. It is called being on-topic.

"You were trying to show SMcCandlish in the worst possible light you could rather than trying to be fair and balanced. That's hypocrisy and dishonesty". Is anyone here under the impression that SMcCandlish's openning complaint above is not trying to show FleetCommand in the worst light possible? It is not hypocrisy. It is called having a complaint.

Indeed, has anyone here ever opened an ANI complaint in which he or she has written equal measures of praise and complaint, not just about the subject of the complaint but also about the uninvolved third parties that does not concern him?

Please, my fellow Wikipedians, refrain from name-calling. You do not agree with me, and it is quite likely that I am in the wrong and you in the right. (I am not ruling it out.) But calling your fellow editors hypocrite just because they have filed a complain (perhaps in error) is beneath you.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This text-wall by Codename Lisa is rehash of the separate ANI that editor opened about me below, which was headed for a WP:BOOMERANG until withdrawn. [Material removed; will reuse it in a moment in a separate place.] I was actually preparing an ANI about Codename Lisa when the disruption by FleetCommand began; this thread is about FC not CL only because FC suddenly overtook CL in incivility about the exact same matter and became more pressing to address.

  I'll ignore the bulk of what CL wrote above, but address one bit: "If we keep SMcCandlish in check, FleetCommand is less likely to be uncivil" makes no sense at all (aside from the fact that there's no demonstration of wrongdoing on my part); I have no interaction history with FleetCommand, who has had civility and disruption issues that go back a decade and which never change. It's a bit like saying, "If you kick your neighbor's dog, then cod populations in the Atlantic will magically recover more quickly."
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC). Trimmed: 04:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• First time I have looked at MOS:COMP. Needs to be delisted as a guideline - not fit for purpose. Probably should have started with that rather than get bogged down in arguments over specifics of it. If any of it can be salvaged it can be re-listed as a guideline once its been pruned. It current has 4, 5? direct conflicts with the wider MOS, as well as a number of issues that are not explicit but done differently anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems to have been unilaterally promoted from Essay to MOS Guideline here, and I can't find any consensus to do that, which suggests that "It is a generally accepted standard" is perhaps not true. Unless there is such a consensus that I have not seen, I'd say any editor who disputes that move can demote it again and require an actual consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I wouldn't have an issue with that, except it happened in 2012. Its a bit late for 'seek consensus' for a change when no one has complained for 5 years. It is the defacto standard, even if I suspect like myself, no one has paid attention to it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee and Only in death: Just for the record, I objected to to it. Well, not by a reversion, because one of the rights and responsibilities of admins is to detect consensus. And Ruud Koot was well within his rights to do it. I only asked if he had though it through. And he said yes. (Oh, oh! I was supposed to not come here. Well, technically it is a different discussion.) —Codename Lisa (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to ping me every time, thanks, as I'm keeping an eye on the discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I expect the MOS discussions will sort it out. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm copying the following two comments from the closed section below (which was previously a sub-section of this one), as they are clearly part of this discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)...[reply]

• I've read the statements above and a fair chunk of the discussion at WT:MOS and come to essentially the same conclusion as User:Boing! said Zebedee above; SMcCandlish's "well-meaning but excessively bold (and long-winded, typo-filled, opinionated, redundant-with-other-guidelines) changes to the guideline" is not full of praise for another's work but it is not uncivil. Moreover, he then took a civil, reasonable proposal for how to move forward to the talk page. This was met with stonking assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks (point 3 of this comment is totally inappropriate). I propose a 3 month topic ban from MOS, broadly construed for FleetCommand. If he'd had a DS notification earlier in the process, I'd seriously consider just imposing it myself. GoldenRing (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ooh, I learned a new word. I'm definitely adopting stonking.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• An Australianism which, ten years later, I'm yet to shed. GoldenRing (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Repeating what I said above, I support a topic ban for FleetCommand from all MOS issues. However I oppose any topic ban for SMcCandlish, whose patience I find to have been admirable in this case in light of all the baiting that FleetCommand has been doing. This is even in light of all the diffs Codename Lisa provides above. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Request or admin closure: I think this has run is commentary course. FleetCommand has refused to participate, and the responses seem to consistently favor a clear outcome here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  14:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish

Codename Lisa

• C._W._Gilmore (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries)
• Newwikiaccount666 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries) (likely sock)

User:C. W. Gilmore has been making a series of edits to Ridgefield, WA, repeatedly re-introducing false information, accusing other writers of canvassing, violating BRD, and, in my opinion, trying to coatrack the article to be an offshoot of Removal_of_Confederate monuments and memorials. There also may be some socking; this low-output, interestingly named, single purpose account appears to share writing style with him. Anmccaff (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Returning the article to it's original condition while the section in RFC discussion[131], appears to be the issue for Anmccaff as they have repeated attempted to delete the entire section.[132][133] This is very disruptive.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's repeatedly re-introducing false information, accusing other writers of canvassing, violating BRD, and, in my opinion, trying to coatrack the article to be an offshoot of Removal_of_Confederate monuments and memorials. There also may be some socking, as seen 4, 5 lines above. Anmccaff (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The section before it was repeatedly deleted [134] is what I was attempting to maintain while the RFC discussion proceeds. It is Anmccaff, who is being disruptive and deleting the section in some kind of edit war.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also asked Anmccaff to specify sight anything I posted that might be in error and all I got as response was a threat of ANI action. This is most troubling and non-productive.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And, not surprisingly, we have a repeated accusation of canvassing, I'm curious whether by cavalry [brought] in from as far away as Swastika, Ontario he means User:Cullen328 or User:Kleuske this time. Anmccaff (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Anmccaff.[135] You and the others had no interest in this article, until John from Idegon pointed you in it's direction. You don't need to be so hostile, I'm an honest contributor and no 'sock puppet'; just ask and I will be happy to clarify any question you have. I do however, object strongly to your false accretions, thanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno if that's mendacity or conveniently poor memory on your part, but I was involved in a conversation with you here, about five days prior. That's on the same page, with you directly responding to me. More importantly, JfI and were discussing the larger problem of POV-pushers circumventing restrictions on political topics by coatracking them on other articles, viz:

Anmccaff, do you have any idea if the arb American Politics discretionary sanctions decisions apply to political content in what should be non political articles? John from Idegon (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you are on to something here. When the subject is pretty close to an obvious political subject, it's gonna get noticed and brought up, but if, say, folks keep adding borderline stuff to Swastika, Ontario "because bacon Hitler!", and so forth, it's not going to be seen that way. I don't think there is any formal policy that covers this. Anmccaff (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

When JfI mentioned It's gone to RfC now, I'd assumed "it" was a request for clarification of whether the arb American Politics discretionary sanctions decisions apply to political content in what should be non political articles?. We had already discussed your coatracking days earlier, remember. Anmccaff (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was only mentioning that JfI, you and others do a great job tag-teaming to push you POV; from Swastika, Ontario to Ridgefield, Washington. The cavalry was called and you did a great job responding, thus the natives from the area, like myself, have no chance. Great work to you and your friends. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not close friends with anyone involved, although I try to be friendly with everyone. I just took a look when the matter was brought up here, and commented on what I saw as foolishness. The only POV that I push is that we should all work together to build a better encyclopedia. The notion that "natives from the area" ought to have some special status when editing articles about cities and towns is erroneous. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The local sources have know that this is not just a blimp blip in the news cycle, the issues surrounding the Jefferson Davis Highway markers began in 1998 with the Vancouver city council, when they removed the stone. It again became an issue in 2001, and again in 2006 when it was removed from public land for the last time. Thus the park was built in 2007 for the purpose of displaying the marker and for the education of confederate heritage. Those of us close to it have seen it play out in the local media: [136][137][138][139][140][141][142]http://www.kptv.com/story/36153519/some-calling-for-removal-of-confederate-flag-at-ridgefield-park][143][144][145][146][147][148]. The problem is when those that do not familiarize themselves with these local issues, take over control of wiki to the point of whitewashing them out of the local history. None of this was directed at you, Cullen³²⁸, only those that are pushing their agenda from outside the area that have not educated themselves to this, almost 30yr issues in Southwestern Washington. Ridgefield city government has asked the county historical society to remove the stone markers just this year, but all this started in 1939. I do appreciate that you, Cullen328, have an opinion and I respect it, and I also know that these over editors will get there way with this site as they are in force. So it will be, but I do object most strongly to the false allegations of Anmccaff, that I am someone's sock puppet, or a single purpose account (SPA) or that my account name, which is my name, is some how questionable. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the questionable assertion that it's just then pointy-headed outsider troublemakers causing the problems at your lunchcounter town, I am not saying that you are a sock-puppet, I'm saying it looks like you use them. Any objection to a checkuser looking at the edits in question? Anmccaff (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"There also may be some socking; this low-output, interestingly named, single purpose account appears to share writing style with him. Anmccaff" -"I am not saying that you are a sock-puppet, I'm saying it looks like you use them. Any objection to a checkuser looking at the edits in question? Anmccaff"

Your spurius allegations are what I object to and consider an intimidating tactic that goes against the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, and are not worthy of response. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anmccaff: Either file an SPI or drop the allegations of sockpuppetry. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I think this has disagreement been resolved via the RfC. Separately, I invited C. W. Gilmore to create a stand-alone article on the subject, which they are in the process of doing. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but Anmccaff is not through with me as he has begun a 'sockpuppet' investigation.here I do hope that they will leave me alone after this, but I get the feeling, that's not their style. This really does make for a hostile environment to try and contribute. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• For context, you may want to see that this RfC was created at my advice at the Teahouse, see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_687#Changes_to_article_and_consensus.2C_how_long_should_a_discussion_stay_open_on_Talk_page.3F. Since then, CWG has started two related threads on my talk page.

AFAICT none of this is improper, but if CWG's conduct in that RfC comes under consideration, the background may matter. I will not follow this, ping me if further input is needed. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)[reply]

Thanks, but Anmccaff is searching for anything to pin on me, and has been going through my old posts back to 2011 as well as starting a 'sockpuppet' or 'meatpuppet' investigation into me, along with going around to that Administrator's TP to besmirch my name with accusations. [149] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is about

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

The pages being disrupted are:

• Death of Savita Halappanavar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Premature rupture of membranes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• University Hospital Galway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Savita Halappanavar went to University Hospital Galway in Ireland having a miscarriage and died several days later of a heart attack caused by sepsis from an infection of the sac around the fetus, which also caused the miscarriage. She and her husband had asked the medical staff to terminate the pregnancy when it became clear she was going to lose the baby, and the medical staff said "no" as the staff did not see her life as in danger at that time (their understanding of Irish law). Her death become a rallying cry for changing Irish abortion law. Subsequent investigations found "death by misadventure" and blamed the medical staff for failing to diagnose the sepsis early enough to treat it.

Boundarylayer has been disrupting the heck out of that article and related ones. Looking at the editing stats for the talk page of the article about her death, Boundarylayer has added 138 KB in 89 edits; the next highest person has added only 26 KB and the next is 21KB - so Boundarylayer has 5x the nearest person and has just been bludgeoning the hell out of that page, as you can see a quick scan of Talk:Death of Savita Halappanavar

It is hard to discern what Boundarylayer's issue is, exactly, but they apparently object to the death of Halappanavar being discussed as an abortion rights issue, and have been trying to focus the article on her actual cause of death, which was the doctors not treating the infection/sepsis.

Prior to my getting involved they were making edits like this with edit note Stop the spin, the facts are in. And Boundarylayer was the subject of ANI thread opened on Oct 22 here, about their overfierce editing which included personal attacks. That thread ended with a block, given here at their Talk page. Please see the several unblock requests and the long thread below that, where they continued battering the issue.

Since I started paying attention, they have been trying to force content into the article, based on their own application to the situation of Royal College guidelines about bacterial sepsis in pregnancy, as in this diff. Yikes! I have also given them several warnings on their talk to slow down and edit more carefully.

Boundarylayer more recently turned do the Premature rupture of membranes article, and I have seen their edits there from the getgo. I am showing the kinds of edits/arguments that people have been dealing with at the Death article:

• Boundarylayer added content based on that Royal College guideline, here.
• This guideline like many is based on the principles of evidence-based medicine and each recommendation has an evidence level; in this case the recommendation level is "4" - the lowest - based on expert opinion and not evidence. This is all explained, within the ref itself. I expressed that in the content saying "based on expert opinion and not clinical evidence" here.
• Boundarylayer reverted that here, with edit note: Removed unsourced POV editorializing
• and continued accordingly at the Talk page here, where they jumped right to an RfC and continued to characterize this as unsourced and POV, as well as "bizarre".
• I explained very clearly here what the source said and what that meant.
• Boundarylayer ignored that and again insisted that the ref doesn't say what it does, and then further asserted that it would unethical to get clincal evidence (this is not true, as observational studies are ethical and are a form of clinical evidence).
• At that point I warned them that they were pretty out of ROPE and further bad arguments editing like this would lead me to call for a TBAN.
• They then replied again, again asserted the ref does not support the source. And most recently has written this tl/dr screed. This is heading directly into the situation that everybody has already been through at the "death" article.

Boundarylayer has also made this series of edits to University Hospital Galway, which I have not analyzed. But this is clearly a campaign they are on.

In any case, Boundarylayer is very clearly passionate about this topic, is bringing a very strong POV, and is not competent in the medical stuff and is unwilling to learn and follow the sources. Their participation is a time sink and I think they should be topic banned from anything related to pregnancy. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose topic ban: I hate to say it, Jytdog, but I don't see particularly disruptive conduct on Boundarylayer's part. I see a content dispute. Moreover, I don't think Boundarylayer is wrong. The presentation and phrasing of the EBM evidence level, which is (as here) mostly buried in an appendix, gives the synthetic impression that the claim by the guideline is unreliable or improper. That said, Boundarylayer needs to cool the rhetoric (as in the way the RfC presents the dispute); that is problematic, but in my opinion, not problematic enough to merit sanctions. I was ready to support something against Boundarylayer because of how outrageous his or her conduct was in the last ANI thread, but this behavior just doesn't rise to the level of meriting sanctions. At least, not yet. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to oppose this, then I suggest you start putting your own time and effort on the line dealing with this time sucking behavior. it is an exact continuation of what they were doing before. Jytdog (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like it to me. What got Boundarylayer in trouble in the last thread was calling people he disagreed with schizophrenic and then defending that insult by claiming it was factually true. And, as I say, I don't think Boundarylayer is wrong on the content in this one instance. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mendaliv, what got Boundarylayer in trouble that he is way too intense and is not really engaged with the policies and guidelines. If your review his talk page, you can see he has a pattern of locking his teeth onto one issue, often taking a contrary stance, and battering the hell out of articles in the topic to try to implement his contrary stance. In the fall of 2012 into summer 2013 it was energy (nuclear and coal), which brought him a block for making legal threats (and while he was blocked, he socked), and many warnings. Now it is this. The combination of over-intensity, not listening to to others, and only kinda-engaging the policies and guidelines makes his presence on the topic a time-sink. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban: There comes a point where one can no longer blindly assume good faith. The reality is Boundarylayer is hell-bent on introducing an anti-choice PoV to Wikipedia. A "victory" on Premature rupture of membranes article (via the sledgehammer method of a full RfC on one sentence rather than even once raising the issue on the talk page!) will be used to feed into changes to the Death of Savita Halappanavar article, presumably in preparation for articles relating to Ireland's forthcoming referendum to Repeal the Eighth Amendment to Ireland's constitution. As evidence, please see the staggering volume of contributions by this one author - in terms of both number of edits and wall-of-text size of those edits - to the premature rupture of membranes article, a 'sandbox' page to rehearse arguments, and in particular to Talk:Death of Savita Halappanavar. Forum shopping has been used (without following the requirement of notifying all other involved editors), wikihounding of at least one other involved editor has taken place, and a block for personal attacks has been issued.

On the issue on which a non-neutrally worded RfC had been called (also without notifying all other involved editors), level 4 evidence is expert opinion. Not drawing attention to the fact that it is not based on clinical trials would - per Pincrete and Jytdog - serve to mislead the reader. That should not happen and I can only conclude that the intention was, in fact, to mislead the reader.

Boundarylayer seems to not quite get sourcing, at least in relation to medicine, pregnancy and abortion. E.g., they have previously argued - erroneously, and at length - for only WP:RSMED to appear in the Death of Savita Halappanavar article, which couldn't happen for obvious reasons; and, for example, that the Irish newspaper of record and other broadsheets are "tabloids" and not RS... at least until such time as he found a pro-life opinion piece in one and apparently wants to use a quote sourced to "a nurse friend" of the journalist to attack the standard of public healthcare in Ireland, in which case it presumably stops being a "tabloid" and becomes a RS broadsheet again. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you get there. I mean, I fully admit we have someone who has strong opinions, but that is not in itself disruptive or unacceptable for Wikipedia. Nor is discussion which grasps multiple points of view. Frankly, I find the qualification of the EBM guideline source as "not based on clinical trials" or however it was written, highly questionable, especially as an attorney who has worked extensively with evidence based medicine guidelines. The phrasing used is the sort of argumentative phrasing one finds when opposing counsel is trying to argue that the opposite conclusion should be reached: That because the guideline is not based on clinical trials, it should be considered false. This is absolutely the impression the phrasing gives, and the understanding an average reader will draw from it. It's exactly the sort of convenient placement of "neutral information" that quack physicians and their lawyers use to counter arguments against their pet procedures. You can see this sort of thing constantly from the electrotherapy industry. In any event, this is not a discussion that is appropriate for ANI. It's a content dispute. It belongs at WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN. Apart from that, I don't see anything so objectionable about this instance of Boundarylayer's conduct that merits a TBAN, and no real nexus with past misconduct to conclude that there is a longstanding pattern of misconduct so significant that it jeopardizes editing. Yes, Boundarylayer is loquacious. That's not a bannable offense. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We've both had our say so I'm not going to add anything further, except to say the particular wording in the RfC could easily have been discussed as normal on the talk page; at least three editors supported a form of words that I believe addressed your concerns. That can still be discussed on Talk:Premature rupture of membranes. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, my only involvement was limited to suggesting an alternative phrasing at the RfC at Talk:Premature rupture of membranes. Hopefully a wording that would satisfy the medical people's demand for 'exactness', but which would be clearer to the layman. Bastun and Jytdog were perfectly amenable to somesuch compromise, BoundaryLayer was not. Why, I cannot say, but the reasons offered were 'odd' and unconvincing. Pincrete (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I know I said I wouldn't contribute further, but Jytdog, above you said you hadn't checked the University Hospital Galway series of edits. It might be worth checking... I looked over them last night. The edits include:

• Addition of criticism by the Mayor of Galway complaining about UHG's triage system (the source does not refer to triage at all);
• Criticism (from the same newspaper report) "opining that the rate of improvement was too slow" - omitting any response from the hospital, which is available in the very same source;
• Claim that patients were left on trolleys for 2 days "without being seen" - the source actually says patients were left on trolleys for 2 days without being admitted (a huge difference!);
• Inclusion of newspaper report on a six-year-old Healthstat survey of Ireland's 29 Acute Hospitals (but no direct link to the actual report) which ranked the hospital "worst-performing in the country". Very much an WP:UNDUE cherry-picking exercise - the HSE have ceased the practice of ranking hospitals, saying "It is not intended that these reports are used to make comparisons between hospitals or hospital groups. Hospital activity will vary from hospital to hospital depending on the size and type of hospital, the services provided, clinical activity and the complexity of the care the hospital provides to patients." (Source)
• This apparently "resulted in political calls [plural] for the Minister to intervene"; well, maybe, but the source only talks about the Mayor issuing such a call.

So, in summary, yes, an agenda being pursued across multiple articles. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban: Boundarylayer is editing with an agenda, or at least with a highly idiosyncratic opinion, and is brushing away criticism of the spin he places on articles with walls of text on the talk pages. Here is an example (more on request) of editing with the space of 48 hours, typical of their approach at Death of Savita Halappanavar – I must make it clear that the topic of the article is not notable simply for being a woman's death through medical error, but for being a trigger for extensive protests about the legal situation in Ireland:
  • Removing mention of the legal uncertainty [150] with edit summary: Removed nonsense spin, abortions had been preformed before her death, the only new law is this new suicide clause being within the remit of "threat to life"
  • Replaced the words "requested an abortion" with "Savita was to infamously request an abortion" [151] with edit summary Stop the spin, the facts are in.
  • Removed the words "after having been denied an abortion" three times more [152] [153] [154]

  And that's just one small part of their editing: a glance at the talk page Talk:Death of Savita Halappanavar will show the extent of the problem in trying to discuss the issues. An immediate example is the section started by Boundarylayer is titled No WP:RSMEDs argue that "denial of abortion" played any part in her death, which turns out to be completely untrue (the HSE enquiry and report into her death is MEDRS and clearly makes recommendations about the denial of abortion). Reading through that talk page will give an idea of the tactics adopted by Boundarylayer.

  I'm sorry, Mendaliv, this has gone far beyond a content dispute. This is a single editor who is tendentiously pushing a POV against all the advice and concerns expressed by multiple other editors. They even tried to call it a fringe theory in an attempt to remove any mention, and you can see the time-sink it caused at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 58 #Death of Savita Halappanavar, where two other editors gave their opinion that it wasn't a fringe theory, only to have Boundarylayer argue the toss with them, instead of listening to the other editors' opinions. It now seems the same problem is spilling onto other pages like Talk:Premature rupture of membranes where he preemptively jumped into an RfC when he wasn't getting any agreement with his spin. He titled the RfC RfC On describing RCOG guidelines, should it include the curious insinuation that they are "not based on clinical evidence"? which is about as far from neutral as it's possible to get. This editor has no clue about how to edit collaboratively and has no respect for any opinion other than his own. To be frank, he's a menace on any article and talk page where he has a strong opinion, and the editors on those pages should not have be subjected to it. --RexxS (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban: Having considered the recommendations of the folks above and having examined the evidence, I think it is abundantly clear that Boundarylayer is trying to push their own viewpoint, even in the face of contradictory reliable sources. I think a topic ban is clearly needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban: Having been initially involved only as an innocent RfC-er, but now having examined the evidence, it is clear that Boundarylayer cannot attempt to be neutral in this topic area. What swayed me was the inclusion of 'mud-slinging' opinion pieces as fact in WP voice in the lead. If any of this material deserved to be included AT ALL, WEIGHT considerations dictate that it should be in 'controversy' or somesuch further down the article and attributed. What makes the agenda-pushing doubly distasteful, is that it concerns a young woman's death. Some topic areas demand higher standards of behaviour and Boundarylayer is not a net contributor in this area. Why should we believe that this is going to change. Pincrete (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban: they don't seem to be particularly keen on collaborating with others to achieve an NPOV synthesis in this matter. -- The Anome (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban I should start by stating I was in a dispute with this editor over whether the Death of Savita Halappanavar was a topic for the FTN. That said, this editor's only response to any advice, disagreement, or anything other than complete support of their position is to attempt to drown other editors in walls of text. He evidently conceptualizes any lack of total agreement as "the other side" on this issue and can only respond with combative attacks. The content of the arguments they then deploy apparently matters little compared to the vigor with which they use them, as they will say completely inconsistent or even directly contrary things about the same topic depending on the argument they are having. These issues are either ones that this editor has not yet shown the ability to maintain any semblance of neutrality or otherwise comply with the WP:CCPOL. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have struck out my comment above because a sock of this sock tagged me when they brought this up again ([155] [156]). Now that I know this was a sockpuppet, my attempt at WP:AGF is clearly no longer relevant. Marianna251TALK 21:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huerfanoedits has removed the speedy deletion tag multiple times [157], [158], and [159] from KSBK, a page which this user created, without providing explanation. In my edit summaries, which restored the tag, I notified the user that the notice should not removed from pages that they have created themselves. This warning was ignored. Rather than edit war, I wanted to take the issue here. 17:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This station is a Broadcast relay station which duplicates the programming of KSPK-FM, so I created a redirect as a better alternative to deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested a merge on the KSBK's talk page but a redirect works as well, thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Can someone with more knowledge of the subject than me look at KSPK-LP, from the same author, as well? The leading sentence ("KSPK-DT is...") doesn't even match. Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a look at the sources. There are two things I should point out: KSPK-DT is a sister station, so it's probably just a mistake, and the article is fine otherwise, if a bit short. I will go and sort the title out. TomBarker23 (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sumair1981 has removed the speedy deletion tag four times from Muhammad Sumair Kaleem's page [160], [161], [162], and [163] and has been warned both in edit summaries and on his talk page. To prevent edit warring, I'm taking the issue here. Meatsgains (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And before anyone says this isn't the right board (which it might be? It might not be? I don't know), maybe a passing administrator could, in the spirit of whatever ANI is, delete the article. CityOfSilver 02:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per his stated on talk page intent of creating a promo page, deleted per A7 and G11. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: Per his sandbox it's blatant selfpromotion by an editor who took the wrong turn and ended up here instead of at LinkedIn, so you might want to delete his sandbox too (per CSD:U5, blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host), to make it a little bit harder for him the next time he decides to recreate his CV here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas.W: You might want to tag for g11. You'll get a quicker response. I'm off today. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few months ago, I started having problems with GeoJoe1000. He was a rude, aggressive and altogether disruptive editor. Despite repeated warnings from admins, he did not change his behaviour even after attempting to start over as GeoJoe10000. He was subsequently blocked for having sockpuppet accounts. One of his favourite things to do was edit the talk pages of editors who discussed his behaviour, trying to remove criticisms. He returned as GregJohnson1245 and continued this behaviour; he was blocked again. He made several edits to my talk page from an IP address, and I responded by requesting temporary semi-protection. He has since returned overnight as Whatashame0 and has resumed editing my talk page, accusing me of being unable to work with other editors and causing untold damage to the site. At no point have I been referred to the admins for the way I handled the situation; nor have I been subject to any sanctions. It would appear that my only "crimes" (as they were) were calling him out for his behaviour and refusing to accept his apologies (he had previously "apologised" as a way of escaping punishment). His latest string of edits appear to be threatening further disruption, stating that "there's more trouble to come". This is a clear pattern of harrassment by this user. If you check the edit history of his original account, you will see abusive tirades and deliberately disruptive behaviour. If GeoJoe1000 got in trouble, it was all his own doing, as I am sure both Tvx1 and Spintendo will attest (I hope they don't mind my mentioning them here). This harrassment needs to stop. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have put in an RFP for full protection on both my user page and user talk page, but given GeoJoe1000's behaviour, I am a little concerned about where he might start causing disruption if he cannot access those pages. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Whatashame0 as no Checkuser is required to show that they're not here to build an encyclopedia; a review of their contributions makes that pretty plain. Sounds like this needs a wider SPI though, and that will require an admin with more experience in that area than me. A Train^talk 07:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that some of his early edits were to establish a facade of legitimacy. His GregJohnson1245 account directly edited my talk page (and Spintendo's) and referenced old conversations; there was no way he could know that without being GeoJoe1000. Now he's making edits where all he does is shift white spaces around and then undo his own edits. It looks like he's trying to set himself up as a legitimate editor before turning his attention to my talk page. It's a worry because it means he's learning, trying to find ways around the rules. It does make me more concerned about how he might act if my RFP goes through, especially considering his threat. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry too much. As facades of legitimacy go, that wasn't exactly Frank Abagnale. A Train^talk 08:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I start an SPI, and what are the long-term effects of it? It's all well and good to shut down each of his socks as they appear, but there seems to be little to stop him from simply re-registering with another account and starting the process over. I'm hoping he'll eventually grow bored, but going by his edit history, he a) holds grudges and b) refuses to learn. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another article inundated with BLP violations. Subject has been accused of criminal activity, and the bile is unrelenting. This needs immediate protection and probably some attention thereafter for content. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Has been protected. Thanks. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I've removed the Controversy section because the supplied link did not work - anyone can reinstate it with a working reliable source. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Section has been reinstated with a working source, and I've rev-deleted the BLP violations - I think I've got them all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:The C of E has been pushing an effort to put the "N" word on the main page through Template:Did you know nominations/Tawhai Hill, Kānuka Hills, Pūkio Stream, for which he created three articles that barely scrape by notability so that he could propose a hook (which would appear in the DYK section of the main page) repeating the slur three times. This provocation predictably led to a fairly swift consensus against including the slur in the hook, but he continues to advocate for including it against this consensus. On this matter, I am calling a duck a duck and proposing that the The C of E's entire course of action here appears to be a WP:POINTy effort to troll Wikipedia with a sophomoric stunt to get a racial slur on the main page. If this effort is not malicious, then it still evidences such astoundingly poor judgment and disregard for the welfare of this project that this editor should no longer be allowed within a mile of the main page. I therefore propose that The C of E should be indef topic banned from participating in DYK. bd2412 T 16:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I completely refute that. I wrote these hooks with the intent of getting them views with the potential that they may be improved as a result and I felt that using their controversial original names would be a good way to do that. I will say that as a regular contributor to DYK with over 340 DYKs I find it a bit of an overreaction to have me banned because I edit in a controversial topic area. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you did this because you "felt that using their controversial original names would be a good way" to get page views for these utterly marginal topics, then that would be exactly the kind of astoundingly poor judgment and disregard for the welfare of this project to which I referred above. bd2412 T 17:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Wikipedia is not censored, this includes the word "nigger" so long as it is not being used in a personal attack. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether the word should be used when it needs to be, but whether we should use it as advertising. - Nunh-huh 17:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, unless there's long-term evidence not presented here for disruption of DYK. One could argue that greater visibility for these name changes would lead to similar changes in the future. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I'm not seeing a pattern of repeated TROLLy behavior here. It's just one nomination and it looks like The C of E won't get his way. It certainly does not call for an indef. Also, that's an improper application of the WP:DUCK test.--WaltCip (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I see no reason that the normal DYK processes can't handle this; all the actions are in the course of a single proposal. If a wider discussion of how DYK functions is necessary, it should probably be at the Village Pump, not here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm not sure what good they thought they might achieve by doing this as it certainly looks a lot like a blatant trolling attempt on the face of it: I think any further questionable edits by this editor will resolve the issue of whether we can WP:AGF any further. -- The Anome (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related query: does User:The C of E have a history of racially charged editing? Abyssal (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @WaltCip, where are you getting I'm not seeing a pattern of repeated TROLLy behavior here from? This editor has been playing this particular "let's see how many inflammatory terms I can slip onto the main page" game for the better part of a decade—see Template:Did you know nominations/Sheep shagger, Template:Did you know nominations/Shyte Brook, Template:Did you know nominations/Fucking sign, Template:Did you know nominations/Little Cockup, Template:Did you know nominations/The Winker's Song (Misprint), Template:Did you know nominations/Top Totty, Template:Did you know nominations/Woman card, Template:Did you know nominations/Segar Bastard, Template:Did you know nominations/Fugging, Template:Did you know nominations/Fucking Hell, Template:Did you know nominations/Two World Wars and One World Cup, Template:Did you know nominations/He Bowls To The Left, Template:Did you know nominations/You're Gonna Get Your Fucking Head Kicked In… ‑ Iridescent 18:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iridescent, at least two of those links above are specificially tagged for April Fool's Day. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • What, and our policies are magically suspended on 1 April? Despite the number of people who appear to believe otherwise, the only difference in the rules for main page content on April 1 is that people are allowed to use incorrect capitalization in DYK and OTD for the purposes of misdirection (TFA and ITN don't participate in April Fools), but even in DYK and OTD the hooks still have to comply with policy. ‑ Iridescent 18:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iridescent I appreciate you providing the above DYK diffs. They were sorely missing from the original complaint.--WaltCip (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And speaking of April Fools, this is the same editor who wanted to run an article about marital rape on AFD for comedy value. ‑ Iridescent 18:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a significant difference between the sort of "tit, bum, willy, poo, wank" hooks and puns that are appropriate for All Fools' Day, and the shoe-horning in of a word onto the front page that is redolent of extreme racist abuse. DuncanHill (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This reassures me a lot. It looks like he's been actively advocating for content that might otherwise be censored or treated with prejudice rather than having some kind of ideologically racist axe to grind. Abyssal (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • All I had been doing was creating content in controversial areas that not many people wanted to go to as I felt there is still encyclopedic merit in those areas, even if they may make some people uncomfortable. Indeed I created the article on the flag of apartheid South Africa because I thought it is a controversial topic that has double-meanings and should have its own page for further discussion and for those who wanted to find out the history behind it. The work I do, I try to do for the benefit of Wikipedia and if that means i have to lean on NOTCENSORED from time to time to improve it, it is sometimes necessary. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems more like a campaign in the spirit of Banned Books Week than disruption. Looking at their editing history, these types of articles are a low percentage of their work overall. If it was just these types of articles I can see your point. However, these articles have been kept and deemed encyclopedic. Even these articles need love too. 129.9.75.194 (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No, he doesn't have a history of racially charged editing, but he does have a history of creating articles which might have naughty words or things in them for kicks. It's mostly harmless, but at times a little childlish, not bannable though, though I agree the N word thing is inappropriate..♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Blofeld; we block and ban for behaviour that is disruptive, not foolish. — fortunavelut luna 18:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• An unfortunate Freudian slip under the circumstances? ‑ Iridescent 18:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It looks like this potentially racially offensive DYK nomination is part of a long-running campaign to promote content that might otherwise be censored. I find such a campaign commendable and noble however necessarily distasteful it will seem at times. Abyssal (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a right way and a wrong way to go about that. Using the low-context environment of a DYK hook to throw up seemingly gratuitous repetition of racial slurs is definitely the wrong way. I also notice that none of these potentially censored content relates to slurs directed against Caucasians. bd2412 T 18:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BD2412: I agree that the repetition was gratuitous. Abyssal (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• BD2412, if you mean my list, Two World Wars and One World Cup is a racist chant directed at Germans, who are as white as they come, and there are others like Template:Did you know nominations/Billy Boys which is an anti-Irish/anti-Catholic term. (My list was a quick dip-sample, not an exhaustive list of CoE's contributions.) FWIW I don't believe that CoE is being intentionally racist; I suspect he (I think we can safely assume this is a he) is very young and gets a kick out of upsetting people by whatever means come to hand, rather than being actively driven by specific prejudice. ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Per all of the above. –Miles Edgeworth ^Talk 19:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose while seconding Mendaliv's comment below. I don't see any long-term issue. But C of E should be trouted for the proposed hook in my opinion. NOTCENSORED is not a license to plaster slurs on the front page. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose while The C of E should have used better sense in this instance, a full-fledged topic ban is extremely excessive. Lepricavark (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal

In light of Iridescent's findings, I would like to propose a narrower alternative. I think The C of E has already enjoyed a lifetime's worth of pushing dirty words and shocking hooks onto the main page. I therefore propose that he be banned from participating in any future DYK that would involve placing racial slurs on the main page. bd2412 T 18:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose again. This is a solution in search of a problem - I don't see any other racial slurs in Iridescent's list. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does it matter if there are other racial slurs in the list? There is one repeated three times in the primary objection. Should we give provocateurs free license to perpetuate the image of Wikipedia as a place that is unfriendly to racial minorities? bd2412 T 18:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Repeated three times" -- um, that's because there were three locations that used the offensive name, and they were all combined into the same DYK nomination. Hmmm, wonder if I should go expand Big Moose Mountain.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The DYK nomination was still gratuitously and unnecessarily worded to repeat the term three times. bd2412 T 19:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose One little thing out of over 340+ and you want me topic banned? Despite the fact that the community with the admins believe that is not appropriate on this, you still want to push a topic-ban-lite on me? Might I humbly suggest WP:STICK might apply here? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should not be !voting on your own potential topic ban. A narrower proposition is entirely appropriate in light of additional commentary developed during the discussion. Let me ask you directly, will you in the future try to get racial slurs on the main page through DYK? bd2412 T 19:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • A) It's never been against WP practice not to vote on your own sanctions, and 2) Stop badgering. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine, I am stepping away from the discussion. bd2412 T 19:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose but I think if there's an actual practice at DYK to disfavor slurs in hooks it ought to be codified in guidelines or policies. But, no, I don't think C of E merits a TBAN of any sort. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: I think the proposals here are misguided. I am not sure why Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 142#Using the "N" word multiple times in a hook doesn't seem to be linked anywhere in this thread. I invite interested parties to take a look at the arguments presented in that discussion, and then re-visit the list presented by Iridescent. The core issue here from my perspective was highlighted in this edit: persistent disregard of clear consensus and misuse of community time/DYK process to push for personal preference after their justification have already been refuted by multiple editors over a month. It was never about abuse/censorship. Alex Shih (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Shih: Thanks for the links. That does show a bit more than a single instance of judgment error. I'm wondering if this is long-term though. I would be not think a TBAN appropriate unless the disruption is a trend, even if the user dug a deep deep hole in this one case. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While wading through stubs today, I've noticed huge numbers of sub-stubs being created over the past month by Dutchy85, most of which are sourced only to IMDB. Obviously, as they stand these are all technically non-compliant, and there are so many of them that it's impractical to do the full WP:BEFORE treatment on all of them—however, given that the films in question almost certainly do exist, the bulk deletion nomination I'd usually perform in these circumstances would seem a bit counterproductive since at some point they'd all need to be re-created with proper sourcing. Can I get some other peoples' thoughts on whether we ought to be applying the letter of the law in these circumstances, or quietly turning a blind eye? (Note: while I'll obviously give D85 the correct ANI notification, I've not given the usual {{uw-unsourced1}} or similar; this is someone with 50,000 edits, not a newbie who doesn't understand Wikipedia policy.) ‑ Iridescent 17:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tag them with a request for a non-IMDB source? Abyssal (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have considerably better things to do with my life than wade through well over 500 articles adding tags, particularly if there's consensus that these pages shouldn't be deleted. ‑ Iridescent 18:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant with a bot or something automated. Abyssal (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Iridescent... to explain what I've been doing, is usually I'll go through a filmmaker's filmography, and note what films there are no wikipedia pages up for. I do up a quick wikipedia page for the film entry (I feel all theatrically released feature films deserve a page especially if they have notable talent in it). I always try to give at least two sources, normally IMDB and TCM but also at times BFI. Then I go back later and try to flesh out the article with references to newspaper articles... by which time often people in the wikipedia community are kind enough to have added contributions to the entries to help out. Unfortunately some times it takes me longer to get back to the entries than I would like. I don't mean to contravene any policy - certainly I don't do it consciously - I'm just keen for Wikipedia to be as comprehensive as possible when it comes to covering cinema. It all comes from a good place. But absolutely all the films do exist. Dutchy85 (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This same issue with this user has come up before, specifically at the Film Project in June 2016. This was their talkpage (note the warnings, prods, etc), before they cleared it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to cause any offence. I might hop off editing for a while. Apologies for causing any extra work it was not my intention. I feel every feature film released theatrically is inherently notable.Dutchy85 (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnuvardhana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Vishnuvardhana is a reasonably new user who has mainly edited articles on Indian films and Indian actors/actresses. Unfortunately, they're turning into a problematic editor, linking to copyright infringement [175][176], making unsourced changes with particular POV [177][178][179], unsourced changes with BLP issues [180][181][182], removing sourced information [183][184] and changing sourced information [185]. More in their contribution list.

They've gotten various warnings on their talk page and I've left a couple of personalized messages directly asking them for a response to discuss the concerns that have been raised. They haven't responded to anything. At this point, I think at a minimum they need a block to force discussion. Review of their edits, suggestions and possible admin action would be appreciated. Ravensfire (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User notified here. Ravensfire (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]