Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    POV-pushing on multiple Balkans-articles

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

    You forgot to mention that I stated reasons for removal of "sourced" content in edit summary. 91.148.77.114 (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Reasons that are POV and not valid. As you have been told you need to discuss it on the talk page and get support for it there, before removing it. On at least one article you are also repeatedly falsifying content, by changing text to say things that the source does not say (see comment on IP's talk page), which is as POV as it can be. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I can say the same thing about you - reverting back to suspicious and POV content, without bothering to understand the issue. 91.148.77.114 (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are reverted, just redoing the same edit and repeating the same edit summary again and again is not enough. I think you need to use the articles' talk pages to properly explain the reasons you think your edits should remain. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    When I edit, I'm a vandal, when I state in edit summary the reason for removal of the content I get reverted and accused of vandalism. I may have made some mistakes, but I am no vandal. And when I go to a talk page nothing gets done. Too bad Thomas.W cherry picked through my edits, avoiding articles where I contributed. 91.148.77.114 (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You personally feeling that something is wrong or biased isn't a valid reason for removing properly sourced content, or rewriting sourced text in a way that doesn't properly reflect what the sources say, and especially not a valid reason for doing it over and over again, after being reverted by several different editors. As you have done, using more than one IP for doing it. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you ignored what I said. As for your claim of "personal feeling" I can say the same about you. 91.148.77.114 (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    One good edit doesn't excuse 99 POV-pushing edits. And I don't have any personal feelings when it comes to the Balkans since I'm not from there and have never been there, I just try to uphold the rules here. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Which is why I want the IP to discuss it on the talk page of the articles, instead of just repeatedly removing anything they don't like. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes,, that is clearly a way to go. FkpCascais (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Then (Thomas.W) why not take your own advice, and the initiative, and use the talk page? The last post there (talk page of NATO bombing of the Radio Television of Serbia headquarters) was on 14 feb, by me. Given the absence of talk page usage by the complainant, I don't see validity in raising a case here. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tiptoethrutheminefield: I thought that was obvious: I have no opinion fore or against the edits, and quite frankly don't care if it's one way or the other, I'm just reverting an IP who is repeatedly removing and/or falsifying sourced content just because they don't like it. And the reason I posted here is that I feel that repeated (as in over and over again no matter how many other editors revert them) removing sourced content, using one IP after the other, and having been blocked for the exact same thing multiple times before, deserves a block. An opinion others here apparently don't share. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if you don't personally have an opinion on the content, by repeatedly reverting and without making anything as a talk page post, aren't you behaving in the same way as the IP by doing nothing to break the cycle. Without first trying to resolve things on the talk page, bringing a case here looks premature. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ??? Are you seriously claiming that anyone reverting blanking, falsifying of sourced content etc etc needs to spend hours on discussing every single revert on the talk page of the article in question? Do you have any idea how often this happens here, and how many editors like the IP there are? - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is asking you or expecting you to spend "hours" discussing "every single revert", though sometimes contentious material on difficult subjects will need that amount of consideration. But you have not even spent minutes discussing it, as far as I can see. Looking at your recent edit history I see lots of revert edits, many with brisk edit summaries, and many "warnings" posted on other editor's pages, but almost no use of article talk pages. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you check what the edits were, or did you just look at the list? Don't judge anyone without checking what the edits were, and the page history of the article the revert was made on. Reverting vandalism, such as fanboys repeatedly inflating numbers without sources on articles about the armed forces of various minor countries (or in a case earlier today lowering the numbers for country A and at the same time increasing the numbers for neighbouring country B, without sources of course...) doesn't need any discussion, it's also difficult to discuss things with IP-hoppers, who often change IPs several times a day. Nor does reverting repeatedly made changes from "Kiev" to "Kyiv", made by editors who already know that we use the name that is in common use in English, and also has been discussed ad nauseam on Talk:Kiev/naming need any discussion. A janitorial job on a side of Wikipedia that most people here, apparently you included, never see. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No I haven't looked at the individual edits in your history that are not related to the case here, and I am not questioning your good motives in any of the edits. I am just trying to say that I think going straight from reverting content deletions to here is hasty without first trying to resolve the situation through article talk pages. If the IP doesn't respond there, to your prompting, that makes the case for bringing them here much stronger. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Notice This IP has targeted my edits. They asked FkpCascais to have a look on my edit at Kosovo War and the later editor undid my changes. The later is currently reported by another editor. The report is some sections above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course you were reverted Ktrimi991, you removed an entire well sourced paragraph about the expulsion of Serbs and other non-Albanian civilians (your edit I reverted). You are making an euhemiism saying they wre displaced instead of expelled. FkpCascais (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: The same editor, now as Special:Contributions/91.148.93.114, is still doing the same type of edits, and is now also edit-warring on Serbian Air Force and Air Defence to restore an older version of the article with outdated sources. A previous IP they have used is Special:Contributions/212.178.251.41 (check contributions), so this is an IP-hopper with a long history of edit-warring, blanking and POV-pushing on multiple articles, over a long period of time, getting away with it time and time again because of knowing how the system here works, switching IPs, swiftly removing all warnings and other talk page messages they get, and knowing how to make their pro-Serbian POV-pushing look like simple content disputes, even though it isn't... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 08:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I really appreciate all those accusations. Very constructive of you. Also, nice cherry picking of my edits. 91.148.93.114 (talk) 09:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said earlier here, one good edit doesn't excuse 99 POV-pushing edits. And I didn't cherry-pick, I just picked one of your many IPs at random, if I had wanted to cherrypick I would have picked an IP like Special:Contributions/212.178.238.187, blocked on 10 March 2017 for wikihounding FOX 52, an editor you had edit-warred against on Serbian Air Force and Air Defence, reverting all edits they had made, on a considerable number of articles. But since I have your attention, would you mind telling us which registered account you once had? That is before you started to use, or were forced to use, IPs for your editing... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 09:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple of more IPs you have used recently, with the exact same edits and exact same behaviour: Special:Contributions/212.178.241.183 (blocked in February 2017 for vandalism), Special:Contributions/91.148.93.34 (an IP that really shows your repeated edit-warring...) and Special:Contributions/91.148.93.212. All from the recent page history of a single article, Serbian Air Force and Air Defence. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Never had an account. Like I said, nice cherry picking. 91.148.93.114 (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, why dont you consider creating an account? FkpCascais (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you're right. I'll consider it. 91.148.93.114 (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on their contribs, this user has been using a string of IPs, of which I've at least put together:
    That's enough for me. I'm blocking the latest IP for repeated block evasion, violation of the multiple accounts policy, and prolonged, egregious edit warring. Admins should not hesitate to treat in the same manner if the user pops up on another IP, and I can recommend some ranges if it comes to that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Recent personal attacks/battleground-editing

    Recent IP socks used

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

    Recent Copyvios

    OR/Agenda pushing

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

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

    Clearly not competent to edit Wikipedia with such an attitude. Simply NOTHERE. --QEDK (愛) 10:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I will attempt to answer all these ridiculous claims one by one. First off, go through my entire edit history before making a remark about me being not "competent" enough. Pakistan Railways for example I've been working on for months and have had no problem. The problem seems to arise whenever "Persia" is mentioned. This LouisArgon character shows up literally out of nowhere and starts making really ridiculous edits. It's almost like he's desperately trying to make Persia a European country or something, judging from his edits, but that's another argument and debate altogether. This entire kerfuffle arose in Overseas Pakistanis article. He removed mentions of migrations that took place during colonial era and the Middle Ages. He brings up Albanians and Macedonians (which are ethnic groups) and then compares them to Pakistanis (which is only a nationality representing several ethnic groups). He assumes that Pakistanis didn't exist until 1947 and the ethnic groups that make up the country all popped out of thin air in 1947. He offered no reason as to why he made those edits either...he just thinks because he's an established Wiki editor, he can do whatever he wants. Is this the way Wikipedia operates? Where are his edits in Overseas Chinese and Non Resident Indian articles which practically do the same thing as Overseas Pakistani article? Where are his edits in Overseas Vietnamese? India didn't exist until 1857. Vietnam didn't exist until after Pakistan. And nobody was calling themselves "Chinese" during the Ming Dynasty either, so what his argument om about? LouisArgon, IMO, has a very unhealthy obsession with Pakistani wiki articles and employs double standards. He's made a mess of History of Pakistan too in the past and continuously reverts template edits without offering any logical explanation. Secondly, regarding my IP address, I've recently moved to another country hence the change after March 7, 2017. And many occasions I forget to login. It's not a malicious attempt to hide myself as LouisArgon is claiming. It's not hard to find out who's who anyway. Why would I hide myself? In Pakistan Railways I've done the same thing many times, simply because I just forget. For those Wiki editors who seem to have a level headed approach, look at my Wiki edit history and it speaks for itself. I don't go around looking for fights, instead they come looking for me it seems. I have no personal quarrel with LouisArgon, but his edits in Overseas Pakistanis was ridiculous to say the least. If this is his view, I expect his edits on Non-Resident Indians, Overseas Vietnamese and Overseas Chinese. But alas, no edits were made on those articles. The reason is simple. LouisArgon is biased and employs double standards. Thank you for reading my response, Have a great day.--PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me put it simply. If you can't properly conduct a conversation without using personal attacks, I am not obliged to prove you as a helpful member of this community. --QEDK (愛) 11:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @QEDK: What personal attack have I used in the paragraph I wrote above? I'm stating an opinion and presenting my argument about how I find LouisArgon's edits as disruptive and unproductive. It was done out of spite, not for the betterment of Wikipedia. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • What affects me is that you already used personal attacks, ...Indian vandalism, ...because it makes you feel better about the craphole you live in, et al. You're being purposefully vile and as BSZ states later on, it's only a matter of circumstance that you haven't been blocked yet. Here's my advice to you: take a BREAK, reflect on your own actions and return when you're competent enough to work as a member of this community. Also, one of the golden rules on this site is, assume good faith and anyone can clearly observe your repeated failures at that basic rule. You hold a baseless animosity towards India and her citizens and that's very concerning considering this site is considered to be a repository of neutral and verifiable information. --QEDK (愛) 15:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @QEDK: Look at the old template I edited, and the reverted version and tell me which one reflects the History of Pakistan better. When Indian wiki members continuously vandalize our articles, then you should expect a response. You have no idea how many time I've had to clean up vandalism and reverts of Pakistan being called "Porkistan" and "Pakibastardland" and stuff like that. But that's okay according to you. Heaven forbid if we actually respond back...oh the outrage. My only mistake was not reporting it. They have an entire group of people who literally skim over every Pakistani article to insert "Indian subcontinent" which isn't even valid anymore since South Asia is used. I have no hatred for India or Indians...I have a hatred for Indian ultra nationalists who are not aware that a border exists between India and Pakistan. I'm also against the notion that 92 odd years of illegal British occupation with there experiment "British India" somehow erases 9000 years of Indus history and culture. If you want to ban me, go right on ahead. I'm not shying away from what I have said...I said it...if I have to be banned, then I'll take it. But I am not wrong in my edits that I have made. Look at my edits in Pakistan Railways and the various articles I have written on connection including railway stations, lines etc. Read MY edits in Overseas Pakistani, History of Jews in Pakistan and tell me what I have done that is so outrageous that they had to be reverted? I have provided sources, used proper grammar, cleaned up the article and just made it better reading experience overall. I've doubt you've even looked at my edits. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not see why that would affect your editing capability. You have to learn to distinguish between people who are here to edit and people who are there to vandalize, while I understand your situation, you're letting yourself get away with your attitude. I'm afraid I can't sympathize with you. I can only request you stop this while you still can, with the little bit of ROPE that BSZ has given you. I pray you shall continue to be a good editor. Cheers! :) --QEDK (愛) 16:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He just reinstated the same material on the Overseas Pakistani people using another sock IP. Just look how the IP, with the exact same geolocation as his other IPs, reinstated PAKHIGHWAY's edit word for word verbatim. Gotta admit, this is quite the circus act. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @PAKHIGHWAY:--Well, there exists a procedure in Wikipedia called no personal attacks and establishing consensus.That you have created some good articles hardly gives you a lee-way to harass other users who are far-more experienced than you are.And please don't bring your ethnic rivalries over here.Any-way it's high time you look at your behaviour before telling others unhealthily obsessed and employing double standards.And may-be you don't know that we are serious about WP:SPA and serial WP:COPYVIO violators.Cheers!Winged Blades Godric 13:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Winged Blades of Godric:-- I have a right to share my opinion, that's not called "harassment". Being singled out by a Wiki editor because I called him out on this talk page is harassment actually. Also being far more experienced doesn't give someone the right to simply make foolish edits and not give reasons for it. What's the point of an edit summary if LouisArgon won't use it? He made those edits out of spite, not for any logical reason and he has a long history of this mind you. I simply asked that if Overseas Pakistani article can't mention anything before 1947, why wasn't the Overseas Chinese or Non Resident Indian articles edited? Why can those articles talk about the middle ages and colonial era and not article in question? Nobody in the 12th century called themselves Chinese or Indians. I have yet to receive a response from you or LouisArgon over this query. Furthermore, refer to my last edit on History of Jews in Pakistan and compare the entire article to the current horrible status of the article right now. Which one is better? Mine or the reverted version? The answer is pretty simple. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @PAKHIGHWAY:--You have the right to free speech as long as you don't repetitively transverse certain boundaries guaranteed by WP:NPA and take those rules for a toss.As to why I/Louis did'nt edit the other articles, remember --We are all volunteers over here.Winged Blades Godric 14:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Winged Blades of Godric:--That's no excuse whatsoever. We're all volunteers here so that means one can be biased towards one particular ethnic group or nationality? The point is, if those articles are mentioning it, then why shouldn't the Overseas Pakistani article be mentioning it. If it's invalid, then all of them should be deleted. It wouldn't take too long. Infact, I'll go ahead and delete all mentions of colonial and middle age history in Overseas Chinese and Non Resident Indian? I'm assuming you will support my wonderful volunteer work, correct? --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Winged Blades of Godric:--Also, I am not repeatedly using personal attacks against anyone. Have I used a few in the past, sure...but this isn't my daily way I do things. I've been on here since October...I've probably had a few run ins. I usually mind my own business and try to contribute to Wikipedia and don't get into edit wars. When editors like LouisArgon show up and make literally disruptive edits and just delete things without saying why, what do you expect the writer of that article to do? It's extremely annoying. Shouldn't editors be leading by example? How can he get away with simply deleting things he doesn't like? That's completely uncalled for. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @PAKHIGHWAY:--I understand your frustration and it may be heartening to hear that I did not took any sides at Overseas Pakistani.I plainly reverted because there appeared to be some fishy collusion between you and some IPs and since he opposed your addition, the onus was on you to prove you're correct.And in the regasrd just follow boeing's way-out.As w.r.t History of Jews in Pakistan & Pakistani Jews in Israel,I don't support your edits.Winged Blades Godric 14:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Winged Blades of Godric:-- Okay that's fine, how do I go about starting a consensus debate on the talk page? Do I just start a section and write my opinion? Which editor will read my side? Or do I have to post a template or something on the talk page to get an editor involved. I'm not sure, I'm new to this because I've never had a Wiki editor breathing down my neck 24 hours a day. And furthermore, how can I report a certain wiki editor for disruptive edits? To be honest, I'm not in the business tattle tale, but I am not one bit amused about LouisArgon's editing and his lack of insight and not wanting to help new wiki members out. Classic bully in my opinion and I intend on making this an issue of this. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @PAKHIGHWAY:--Yeah, just start a section, write your opinion and wait for people to chip in.If the discussion is just between you two and still do not lead to productivity, there's WP:RFC, dispute resolution etc.
    And to make an issue(lodge a complain), just create a section about your grievances at any particular editor at this very page,But, be wary of WP:BOOMERANG.And, I don't personally feel that it will be a very good step.Cheers!Winged Blades Godric 15:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I'll see how this current situation unfolds. I'd rather that LouisAragon just stop following me around Wikipedia and tend to his life. I'm confident that my edits are reasonable enough for logical level headed people to understand and see where I am coming from. I've written my complaint here Talk:Overseas_Pakistani#Emigration From Pakistan section edit war. I hope you and other editors reading this will look into my grievances and see my edits and see how I did nothing wrong. I provided full sources and simply put I made the article better.--PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • @PAKHIGHWAY: You are edit warring with two other editors on that article to reinsert your preferred text. Some admins would have blocked you by now, but instead I have protected the article just for one hour to try to avoid the need for that. I have no idea whether or not the text you want included is appropriate and I'm taking no side in the content dispute, but you really do need to stop the edit war and seek a consensus. So please, start a discussion at the article talk page and let others offer their opinions - and if you get a consensus in your favour, you can add the content. If, instead, you continue the edit war after the protection expires, you should expect to be blocked. (I have no comment on the incivility issue as I have not looked into that.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Boing! said Zebedee: Thank you for explaining the procedure. I don't expect you to take my side, I just want my side heard. None of the other commentators explained what to do. They just ganged up on me and began bullying me because I had the audacity to question a Wiki editor who took things too personally. Can you please explain how I can go about starting a consensus debate on this on the article talk page? Do I have to write a special code or something? Template:WP ABC? An example would be great. Thank you. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing special needed, just start a new section at the talk page and explain the text you want to add, and let the discussion commence. And you really should stick to just discussing the content and leave out allegations of bullying and ganging up on you - it can often seem like that to those unfamiliar with Wikipedia's methods, but it's usually an incorrect interpretation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I've done that here Talk:Overseas_Pakistani#Emigration From Pakistan section edit war. I hope you and other editors reading this will look into my grievances and see my edits and see how I did nothing wrong. I provided full sources and simply put I made the article better. I still have no idea why he simply deleted everything for no reason. Ridiculous --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Add obvious lack of WP:COMPETENCE to that indeed as well ("They just ganged up on me and began bullying me" -- kidding me?...). Even after these loads of insane, grievous personal attacks, the copy-vio's, the persistent IP socking, he's still continuing with his WP:NOTHERE editorial pattern, as we speak.[2][3] Objectively speaking, not a single article protection is gonna solve anything here. I've seen a lot of disruptive editors during my time, but the lack of competence shown here in combination with the rampant curriculum, is truly baffling. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also (the muppet show is seemingly never ending); it's beyond me how he asks here "how to start a talk page discussion". So....how exactly did he know how to start and participate in talk page consensus discussions here, here and here?.... Literally nothing matches up. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem a little too over excited. I think you should read what I wrote again. I never asked anything about how to make a talk page. I asked how to get attention of other editors to my grievances so your biased edits could be reverted and condemned. I know very well how to use the Talk Page, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. I'm just not well versed in using the Talk Page to get a obsessed wiki editor off my back. Read before you call people incomptenet and muppets? Are these not personal attacks now? What "Competence is required" does not mean * It does not mean "come down hard like a ton of bricks on someone as soon as they make a mistake." Wikipedia has a learning curve. We should cut editors (particularly new ones) some slack, and help them understand how to edit competently. Mistakes are an inevitable part of the wiki process. * It does not mean perfection is required. Articles can be improved in small steps, rather than being made perfect in one fell swoop. Small improvements are our bread and butter. * It does not mean we should ignore people and not try to help improve their competence. * It does not mean we should label people as incompetent. For example, we do not say "You are incompetent because you don't know anything about the subject of this article." * It does not mean that Wikipedia's civility policy does not apply when talking to incompetent people. Rude and uncivil comments may discourage the motivation of the targeted editor, raising their psychological barrier against recognizing their own mistakes or seeking to improve their skills. * Finally, it does not mean we will give any good-faith editor an infinite number of opportunities to make themselves useful. If, after an appropriate amount of time and coaching, someone still isn't competent, don't make a heroic effort to defend them. Cut them loose, and focus your mentoring efforts on a better candidate. So next time read what's written before trying to lump me as "incompetent" and a "muppet". Is this not personal attacks?--PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And what is this sock you keep calling me? I've already stated that I forget to login at times when making edits and that I recently moved to another country which explains why change in IP. You really need to tone it down. I'm baffled at how you were even made an Wiki editor with a tongue and tone like that. You jump to conclusions and get way too over your head. Calm down, drink a glass of water. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe PAKHIGHWAY earned themselves a block for edit warring or incivility, but I see a glimmer of hope. This fits the pattern of "aggressive but well-meaning newbie, who might learn to edit constructively over time". Since the bulk of the problem seems to be a paranoiac belief that LouisAragon (and their minions) is out to revert them, maybe a one-way WP:IBAN would solve it? TigraanClick here to contact me 17:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seeing the developments of late, I feel an one-way IBAN between Pakhighway and Lois will serve good.Winged Blades Godric 05:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Civility

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

    That's quite the accusation, one which ought to be corroborated with extraordinary evidence (in the form of diffs and quoting the exact passage that's presumably racist). El_C 05:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is one outright racist comment in the original post with two further comments that while not explicitly racist, indicate the editor is focusing on other editors racial background instead of the content. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would block right now, but it seems that another admin is already attending to this, and that they are even more forgiving than yous truly is (wow, who knew!). El_C 14:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C:, as far as I understood, BSZ explicitly mentioned and showed in his first comment here, that he'd only deal with the users' content-related problem with respect to one article, not with all the personal attacks/all other stuff. Btw, I just picked several of the recent incivility diffs in my original post. There are more of them, e.g. "Learn Urdu or fuck off.", and "Don't even know how to write UNIVERSITY in Urdu and you call yourselves "educated".". But, I believe that the point was illustrated more than sufficiently with the original post. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    The Wiki Ed welcome mat

    Last month I posed a question on Adam (Wiki Ed)'s talk page and got no response. Nor have any of the students & instructors who have left queries since 29 December. Nonetheless his account is still churning out welcome messages (around 8500 in the last 15 months) which don't vary, and haven't been interrupted by any signs of human activity in some time.

    I also see no other interpretation than that Adam is running an unauthorised, unattended bot.

    He's not responding on his personal page either.

    If Adam's no longer responding perhaps another account should be doing the welcoming? The present situation does no favours to WikiEd, Wikipedia, the students, or the instructors. Cabayi (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Entirely agreed - @Adam (Wiki Ed): please respond here at your earliest convenience, as I can't help to agree that it appears you're running an unauthorised bot. Although we don't really have much say as to the services Wiki Ed supplies I do think perhaps the welcoming aspect of it could be improved somewhat -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 08:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging Protonk, the personal account, since I mentioned it. Cabayi (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note, this task would generally not be approved even for a bot, see Wikipedia:Bots/Frequently_denied_bots#Welcome_bot. — xaosflux Talk 15:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    At 19:14, 3 March 2017 (within that one minute timestamp), the account welcomed 40 different editors. Many of the timestamps seem to occur at roughly the same times, suggesting an automated program running on a set schedule. There's been no activity outside user talk from this account for a while and no response to inquiries about these welcome messages. It seems extremely likely that this account is being run as an unauthorized bot, so I'm blocking it until the human editor returns and explains what's going on. ~ Rob13Talk 16:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Technicalz isn't my dept., clearly; but isn't there a way of finding out what's actually being run on 'our own' site? Wouldn't it have to run from a subpage? or because it's open source, can it just run from a home PC and not be embedded? But that 19:14 timestamp seems to clinch it- one every 1.5 seconds?! — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 16:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: No bots run on our site. They run off some other site, server, or computer and interface with Wikipedia. There's no way to tell whether something is automated or not except via behavior, at least not in a way that has no false positives and can't be gotten around. The closest we get to running something on our own site is Tool Labs, but even that's really another site that the WMF just provides. Most bots don't use that. For example, my own bot uses AWB and runs entirely off my personal computer. ~ Rob13Talk 21:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @BU Rob13: Thanks very much for the information. Interesting stuff. I understand now, cheers. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 21:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • note, Adam's account has been blocked which at least stops the ongoing botting Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Ian (Wiki Ed) has taken up Adam's welcoming workload using the same bot. He has at least been interacting with students on his talk page. (Ping Guettarda, his alternate account) Cabayi (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi! Part of the Wiki Ed support system for classes is that User:Ian (Wiki Ed) and User:Adam (Wiki Ed) provide support for student editors. The welcome messages get posted (automatically) to the talk pages of users soon after they enroll in the class, by whichever Wiki Ed staff member is supporting that class. Adam has been intermittently sick for the last couple of weeks. We generally have someone else help out when someone is out sick, but these talk page messages slipped through the cracks.

    The welcoming of users is something we previously did manually, but switched it to be automatically done by the dashboard at some point. I didn't think of this welcoming feature as a 'bot', separately from the general OAuth approval system, which is why I did not go through the bot approval process at the time that feature was added. I can do so if folks think that's necessary.

    I will follow up in more detail later today. In the short term, I've removed the 'greeter' flag from Adam's account (but not Ian's), so the dashboard won't make any further welcome edits on his behalf.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sage (Wiki Ed): I think it would be useful if you could clarify whether the dashboard makes these welcoming edits automatically, or if the user (i.e. Ian or Adam) have to manually approve each welcome. If it's the former, then that would fall under using a non-bot account as an unapproved bot. Bot Policy requires that a separate account be used, and that it be approved before running. If each welcome is being sent manually, and simply being sent from the interface, there shouldn't be a problem. Sam Walton (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Samwalton9: at the level of individual user welcomes, it's automatic. The manually approval happens at the level of a course, but once the course itself is approved, the welcome messages are automatic for each new user that joins the course.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Welcome messages disabled

    I've disabled the automatic welcome messages from Ian as well now. It would be pretty simple to convert it to a dashboard-assisted manual welcome, but that seems pretty pointless since we want to make sure every Wiki Ed student editor gets a welcome ping from the person supporting their class, and the sooner after joining the class they get it, the better. I'll put up a BAG submission soon.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    BRFA is up: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Wiki Ed Dashboard student greetings.
    User:Cabayi: Thank you for opening this discussion. It pointed out a hole in Wiki Ed's support procedures that we'll figure out how to patch, for when staff have unexpected time AFK.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity: the BRFA has been withdrawn (with automatic welcome messages still disabled). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Dashboard

    (may be related to the above?)

    Question: is the WikiEdu Dashboard ( https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/ ) considered a bot? And if so, has it been approved by en.wikipedia bot-related approval processes?

    I bring this up while there has been a problem that from that dashboard en.wikipedia pages can be updated (overriding any content that is on the page) without the dashboard editor being responsive to in-Wikipedia user talk page or project talk page comments by concerned in-Wikipedia editors. Example:

    Although nothing much happened any more since last year in this example it got stuck in my head as an unresolved issue. Possibly I lost my cool somewhere along the line, but what I remember is that there was a pile of cleanup after the project had passed through Wikipedia – and, frustratingly, no way to contact the people messing up. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I would call it an alternate editing interface. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW. I think that it is rather strange that WikiEdu asks people to edit something in the dashboard, and then doesn't even allow sysops to actually do so on their pages... That's definitely something that should be rectified. It's not the wikiway. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Re. "I would call it an alternate editing interface" – yeah, so is AWB I suppose... the question is not whether it is an alternative interface (it is, no doubt about that), but whether it is a bot, and if so, whether it went through due process.
    The worrying aspect (as I saw it in the experience described above) is that you can ping a dashboard editor, or write on their Wikipedia user talk page or on the talk page of the project as much as you like, none of these messages go through to the "alternative interface" (so the editor there ignores it all, not even knowing a concern has been raised). Thus these dashboard editors continue editing Wikipedia via that interface without being aware about any concern voiced through Wikipedia's usual channels. In that sense it is bot-like: it steam-rolls whatever concern and overwrites Wikipedia content automatically with whatever the Dashboard sends out. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In as much as it allows Wikipedia to be edited via WikiEdu's tools, and cuts WikiEdu users off from the concerns of Wikipedia's wider community (in effect censoring what messages get through to the WikiEdu users), it's a type of WP:OWN. Cabayi (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Really the dashboard needs to go both ways, in that anything on the wikipedia end is copied to the off-site project and vice versa. Its not really acceptable for an offsite dashboard to be in control of a wikipedia page and overwrite it regardless of what wikipedia editors have done in the meantime. Its a core tenet of wikipedia that communication is required *here* between editors. Not referring them to external websites. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Re. "... it's a type of WP:OWN" – that is indeed how I experienced it. So the question can be rephrased thus: do we allow https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/ to WP:OWN pages such as Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of North Carolina School of the Arts/History of Musical Styles I and II (Fall 2015, Spring 2016)? I, for one, can not remember ever having agreed to that, and suppose for instance Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval would be a place where such agreement can be negotiated. And indeed "two-way communication", as mentioned by Oiddde, would seem a minimal requirement for such approval to be possible. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea with the dashboard on-wiki course pages, like Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of North Carolina School of the Arts/History of Musical Styles I and II (Fall 2015, Spring 2016), is that they provide an on-wiki mirror of the dashboard.wikiedu.org content, so that things like 'what links here' can be used to easily find out which editors are connected with which other editors through these courses. Two-way editing of those is not practical, because the content isn't structured the same way. Those are the only pages that the dashboard quote-unquote 'owns'.
    In terms of approval process, the system itself went through the OAuth application approval process for the technical side of things, and there was a lot of (well-advertised) on-wiki discussion about the basic concept and using subpages of Wikipedia:Wiki Ed as, essentially, a replacement for EducationProgram extension that was the previous basis for course pages.
    The dashboard does not allow arbitrary editing of other pages, and all the actual article editing, discussion, etc, still happens the usual way. --Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I had already understood that much. Your last words ("... discussion ... still happens the usual way") gloss over the fact that project to project (i.e. between "Wiki Ed" and "en.Wikipedia") communication is structurally near impossible, leading to frustration on both sides (frustration from Wiki Ed project participant's side is for instance documented here). So take the interface to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, which is about more than the mere technical approval, and for instance also about how the interface blends in with the English-language Wikipedia. I suppose it should be possible to send notifications about a relevant on-wiki discussion to the relevant page in the dashboard interface when a Wiki Ed project setup causes problems in the encyclopedia (like in the Wikipedia interface we get a notification with a clickable link when someone pings us or writes something on our talk page).
    Several Wikipedia editors, including myself, posted suggestions for a smoother interaction (which ultimately should result in better mainspace content, and better learning curves for Wiki Ed project participants) for future Wiki Ed project setups. I wonder what has been done with those suggestions? (if your reply would be that you didn't see such suggestions, that is kind of a confirmation of my earlier point that the project-to-project communication has in practice proven near impossible). --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Francis Schonken: In general, adding more and better support for communication — such as notifying users on the dashboard about on-wiki communication they should know about — is definitely something I want to do at some point. I've thought a lot about this myself, and I've followed plenty of on-wiki discussion related to it. That said, I'm not sure what specific 'suggestions for smoother interaction' you're referring to here. I'm also not clear what you mean by "communication is structurally near impossible". The Wiki Ed system guides student editors to draft their work on-wiki, communicate about each others' work on-wiki, and interact with other editors on-wiki.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Re. "... at some point" – how about now? Re. "... on-wiki discussion related to it" – linking to some of these (if there are that provide insight) might be helpful.
    Suggestions for smoother interaction / structural problems with project-to-project communication – apart from "see above" and "click on some of the links I gave above", here are some points I remember: there were some flaws in the setup of the North Carolina project mentioned above (leading to WP:CONTENT FORK problems etc.). Despite several efforts (by myself and others before me) we could not set up communication with the persons responsible for the project setup, in order to correct these flaws (the North Carolina professor...); Then there was the problem that almost all of the issues caused by the project showed up in a period of one or two days (on a few dozen pages), just before all of the South Carolina project editors disappeared from Wikipedia (a few remedies to avoid that in the future were proposed, e.g. timely publication of the due delivery date of the students' work on the project page; work from draft namespace instead of from user talk space; point students to guidelines that are specifically applicable for the topic area where they are going to edit; contact WikiProjects in the area where the editing is going to take place when setting up the project – instead of leaving the cleanup to Wiki editors when communication is no longer possible while everyone who was connected to the Wiki Ed project has left the building, etc...). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Re. "The Wiki Ed system guides student editors to draft their work on-wiki, communicate about each others' work on-wiki, and interact with other editors on-wiki." Again, you're missing the (direct) project-to-project communication for addressing Wiki Ed project setup issues. Also, for the over two dozen pages I reviewed when cleaning up it was clear that either there had been no communication between the student and regular wikipedia editors (where such communication seemed indispensable), or, in the very few cases when there had been such communication, that communication was highly problematical (see student frustration link I gave above). So, whatever the interface was supposed to do in that respect, it wasn't working. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Francis Schonken: Thanks. That cleared things up for me somewhat. The core issues, I think, are the same ones that have been the hardest ones for the education program all along: getting newcomers to engage in communication in the ways the Wikipedia community expects is hard. I think there are some ways that improvements to the dashboard can help — especially around facilitating on-wiki communication — but it will take a lot of design and development work to do that right. When you said "project-to-project communication", I at first was thinking in terms of communication between wikipedia.org and dashboard.wikiedu.org. But I think the problems you are pointing to are more fundamentally about how to get editors whose entry point to Wikipedia is the education program — instructors and students — to think and act like experienced editors. My view is that we've gotten a lot better at this over time, and the structure provided by the dashboard is a big part of that. Over the last year, we worked with significantly more classes and students than in previous years, with fewer of these kinds of communication problems. When such things do come up, and people post about them to Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents, we often find ways of improving the process — occasionally technical ways, but usually more along the lines of changes to our training content, our help materials, and our processes for vetting courses and monitoring courses.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Some points:

    1. The "automatic welcome messages" BRFA was withdrawn after a comment that ended with "... Wiki Ed [...] looks like a separate organization and it wouldn't supersede anything on Wikipedia" – if the same is applied to the Wiki Ed project page updates that overwrite all the content on such Wikipedia project pages, this would become impossible by the same reasoning... So that functionality should be disabled immediately, then kept disabled until it passes a BRFA. I'd think (after an initial setup of the project page with the basic content of who is responsible, what the project is about, what the delivery dates are etc), that the talk page of such project page should be used to post incremental messages saying something like "the dashboard page of this edu project has been updated on <date>" (of course with a link to the related dashboard page).
    2. The BRFA for the Dashboard should explicitly include all aspects of (semi-)automatic updating of pages in Wikipedia originating from the Dashboard system. Thus far we've had two: automatic welcome messages (disabled, BRFA withdrawn), and automatic updating of project pages (should immediately be disabled per WP:OWN, see above) – are there any other (semi-)automatic updating functionalities generated by WikiEdu programs we don't know about yet? If so, ask permission for them via BRFA.
    3. Re. "getting newcomers to engage in communication..." – a quick fix that should at least alleviate some of the problems was proposed above: instruct the students that new articles are better started in Draft: namespace (and not in their user talk namespace where they are usually under the radar of Wikipedia communication until the content is transported to mainspace). Draft: namespace is monitored and students will get feedback, will often be pointed to WikiProjects that have experience in the topic area (leading to more communication), all of that long before the "due date" (which is typically the date when students move their new content to mainspace, after which they typically immediately stop editing Wikipedia). Rewrites/updates of articles that already exist in mainspace should likewise better be kept out of user talk namespace, and should take place directly in mainspace (or via update proposals on the article talk page), where of course there will be, in most cases, immediate feedback, and thus communication, too.
    4. Re. "... — instructors and students — to think and act like experienced editors" – err? I think they should think & act like newbies (which gives extra protection per WP:BITE). A part of the problem now seems to be that instructors and students, after following the WikiEdu introduction course, think they behave like experienced editors (with the tinge of arrogance that comes with it – excuse my French), but act in ways that upset regular processes and procedures, and write questionable mainspace content (e.g. in a page on a Vivaldi composition they think it is necessary to write a full Vivaldi bio, instead of just linking Antonio Vivaldi, give an overview of the composer's work, his style and whatnot, writing maybe ten percent of the new article about the composition at hand – without a single reference) – all of which isn't helped when editing from a "I'm an experienced editor" attitude, instead of from "I'm new at this, could I get some assistance?" approach. At the end of the introduction program they should know they are still newbies, so need to keep in touch with more experienced editors to address all sorts of practical issues (e.g. how to add proper references).
    5. Re. Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents – didn't know about that. How about providing a link to that page in the {{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment}} box? That box would be the first place a regular editor learns about a student's involvement, so they should know where to go when issues need to be sorted. Also, this helps for early "regulars"–"students" communication (assuming the /Incidents page is not for internal Wiki Ed communication exclusively).

    All of this said, I will repeat what I said before: Wiki Ed is imho a great thing, that's why I think it is useful to take some time to hash out its issues. The program should give new editors some gusto for editing Wikipedia beyond their class assignment, which it currently only very rarely does: too often, currently, it ends in frustration, so let's do something about it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Still another thought:

    2. In the introduction for Wiki Ed instructors it should maybe made clear that the professors/teachers should not primarily expect to test a student's ability to write an essay via Wikipedia (there are more appropriate venues for that, within their institution): what they are really testing in a Wiki Ed setup is the student's ability to work together with people they don't know, within their field of interest. Are they able to learn from that interaction? This is future-minded: the idea of a single scholar working in his study surrounded by books, undisturbed by the outside world, is overhauled in a wiki setting where there is immediate feedback: how do students cope with such feedback without getting sidetracked? ...seems more like the thing that is tested in a Wikipedia setup (hence my suggestion above to keep prospective mainspace content out of user talk namespace staying under the communication radar). Which entails instructors being instructed how to read edit histories and talk pages (how did the student react to input by others? what did they learn from it in their topic area? did they manage to stay on topic? did they learn something about assessing on-line and paper reference works in a WP:RS approach?). Seems like a setting that will gain momentum in future approaches to research, so today's students would do well to prepare for it (e.g. distinguishing fake news from solid information based on source assessment & input from others is a hot topic nowadays: better learn students cutting edge approaches on how to do that than learn them to write essays old style, which their schools and universities are surely better equipped for).

    --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Francis Schonken: If a single edit in the WikiEd interface leads to a single edit on Wikipedia, then that sounds like an alternative editing interface, not automatic editing. That's perfectly acceptable under the bot policy. It's when the WikiEd interface is set up to automatically edit with no oversight from the editor in question that we have issues. ~ Rob13Talk 14:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Tx, the problem is, however, with the alternative interface not accepting feedback: i.e. it doesn't pass feedback on to the editor who accesses & edits Wikipedia through the alternative interface, that is, without logging in into Wikipedia. In that sense the Dashboard operates as a bot, churning out dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of Wikipedia edits blindfoldedly. We wouldn't accept any bot to do that: the bot would be blocked immediately, until it accepts feedback from human Wikipedia editors. Imagine being able to edit Wikipedia with AWB, without being notified of pings, user talk page messages, or whatever initiates normal in-wikipedia communication... That wouldn't last long I suppose, even if you would only make an edit in this way every few days.
    For me it makes no difference whether this is approached as a "go through BRFA to get approval for this functionality", or whether, alternatively, we block all external-Dashboard-generated edits to pages for which the Dashboard claims ownership, because it goes against WP:OWN to let it continue this behaviour. The first approach does however seem to have the advantage to offer a way out. The second approach is fairly simple and straightforward: Dashboard can't own a page in Wikipedia, thus exclude it from operations on Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The dashboard only makes edits on behalf of logged-in users. You must log in to Wikipedia in order to log in to dashboard.wikiedu.org, and we expect instructors to be responsive to problems that come up related to their courses. If you run into trouble with an unresponsive instructor, you can ping a Wiki Ed staff member and/or post to WP:ENI. The 'owned' dashboard pages on Wikipedia are a convenience for other editors to easily connect the dots with active courses. It would be easy to change the system such that it only posted essentially an initial version, and then made no further edits (so that it would never overwrite changes in the meantime), but that would defeat much of the purpose; it would just mean that the on-wiki page would not include up-to-date information about which users are doing what, and what the instructor's latest assignment plan is. I think I'll make some updates to the edit notice (Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Wiki Ed) to make it more clear how to address problems (ie, contact the people involved rather than edit the automatically-updated course page). I'm not aware of any problems with these course pages for quite a while, though. The case you noted was more than a year ago.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think the lack of talk page messages getting through/pings is an issue, you're welcome to start an RfC on it, Francis Schonken. I'm undecided (or possibly just apathetic) on that issue. It doesn't violate our bot policy, certainly, and I'm unaware of any other policy or guideline related to the issue you've identified. The editors making edits without access to feedback are responsible for their edits (including responding to feedback, as necessary), and they could be blocked if a lack of response to feedback becomes disruptive. There's nothing about the interface itself that crosses some bright-line in policy, though. ~ Rob13Talk 22:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The editors (who are brand new editors relying on experienced WikieEd instructors) should not be blocked for not giving response to feedback. The people responsible for encouraging new editors to edit through an interface which effectively disables the feedback from reaching these editors are the ones that should be blocked for it in such a case. Fram (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes and no: it is not my aim to get anyone blocked. Editors monitoring WikiEd processes, i.e. the ones with "(Wiki Ed)" in their username, are doing a great job. But, (1) they should seek permission if they want to override WP:OWN for specific pages, and (2) true, when they strive to get students and their educational instructors to get more engaged in wiki-interaction they might reflect that the way the Dashboard application is set up it rather works against such interaction, than that it supports such interaction. For these reasons I think it best that, unless the permission is obtained (which is in no way a case decided in advance), the Dashboard interface should be prevented to operate any edits to en.Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Unable to edit because of misidentification with a blocked user

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

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

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

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

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

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

    So Jamenta does not stantd for William James? But both of you have an interest in parapsychology...? What administrative action are you seeking. Please be brief. El_C 23:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure sounds like a duck to me. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] --Guy Macon (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just happened to be passing through ANI (ugh, why did I do that) and it's somewhat surprising nobody more invested in this issue has noticed this, but: it is obvious from Jamenta's early contributions how his username came to be, and El C's hypothesis is incorrect. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    • Who was it that just removed my last post here? : “Create an account and then you will no longer be anonymous”. Wikipedia:Why create an account? --[[User:Aspro|Aspro]] ([[User talk:Aspro|talk]]) 01:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Was it anonymous user 71.167.134.66 ? --Aspro (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And too bad, because it's the intuitive thing to ask: why not register an account? It only takes half a minute. El_C 02:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • 71.167.134.66 - Whether you are Jamenta or not, we cannot take your word for it that you are William James. You could go to WP:OTRS and ask them how to go about providing them with the information they need to prove your identity, but (I'm not absolutely certain, but I think) you will probably need to create an account to do that, since we can't have the proven "William James" flitting about from one IP to another, that would set up a situation where just about any IP could say that they were William James. On the other hand, if anyone is really convinced that you are Jamenta, they can file a sockpuppet investigation report (SPI), and if admins decide the evidence is sufficient you can be blocked from editing, whether you have an account or not.
      If anyone has corrections to this information, please feel free to jump in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your time here. I can create a user name with my real name, but what is to keep my real name from being identified with this Jamenta person? Should I just disown the identity when I sign on, and make my appeals about it therefrom? One other concern: My sense is that NPOV is not always enforced when it comes to parapsychology. Can an Administrator override a trigger happy editor like Mr. Macon here. Can a pile-on of obscure critics really not be answered by one well-sourced renowned critic? If you find my changes serve the interest of fair play can you revert them now? That would be encouraging. There is little point in my continuing to try to balance out a pile of negative references with one positive reference if it will always be reverted by those, like Mr. Macon and company, who apparently does not believe parapsychology deserves a NPOV.71.167.134.66 (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    That isn't the role of Administrators and probably belongs at WP:NPOVN. Doug Weller talk 11:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your edit was reverted because I believe (see WP:DUCK) that you are blocked user Jamenta, and additions by blocked users editing as an IP in order to evaid the block may me deleted on sight. The question you ask above is not for this noticeboard. I would also note that, when you posted at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Violation of fair and balanced policy you did not limit yourself to the question you asked above, but instead repeated your "I am not Jamenta" song and dance, a topic which belongs here.

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

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

    • Jamenta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Jamenta's favourite two people were William James and Frederic Myers) Jamenta was banned for inserting repeated fringe content, swearing and finally making legal threats.
    • 208.194.97.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which 71.167 has admitted being was blocked by two different admins as Jamenta. This IP was pushing fringe content of William James at Watseka Wonder. Check this IPs talk-page. This IP registers to a law firm.
    • 71.167 has also been creating sock-puppets. These are him which he admitted: myerslover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), psychicbias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He said he forgot his password but this is false. He later logged in on psychicbias to leave a comment, but then left another comment on his IP to pretend to be two different users. Check the history at Frederic W. H. Myers.
    • It is aslo likely this user has other sockpuppets on the Myers article. My conclusion is that this user is Jamenta or at a minimum associated with that individual. In his defense his wrote that over 800 people worked in the building he was working at on his own IP, but really? Two people have the exact same interest in James and Myers and moan about "sceptic bias"? Whoever this person is, he is not honest. I am all for letting people use wikipedia who make constructive edits and giving people a second chance, but this user is nothing more than a pseudoscience promoter. He fails to understand wikipedia policies on fringe material, he seems to think over a hundred years old opinions from credulous paranormal believers like Myers are reliable sources of information. He has no decent edits, not here to build an encyclopedia all he wants to do is push fringe content. He will never give up doing this, every edit he will make will be controversial and just stir up repeated arguments like he has done before. He is now stirring on another noticeboard. I think it would be best if this guy Jamenta was blocked. 82.132.242.74 (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to concur with 82 above. All those IPs are Jamenta or closely related somehow. I've never seen anyone else with the obsession for James and Myers and the willingness to try to argue that "evidence" over a century old outweighs more current sources. Does this have to go to SPI or can an admin just DUCK block these accounts? I'm not sure how viable a range block is. Maybe protect the effected articles for a bit? Capeo (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    82's analysis is very convincing. I would think the best option would be that all the accounts be duck blocked, and the editor's IP edits continue to be deleted as block evasion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    {{checkuser needed}}  Clerk declined - CheckUser will not disclose the IP address(es) of a named account. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    SPI clerk comment: 82's analysis is missing diffs, and I can't find where 71.167 supposedly admitted to operating any other accounts. I completely agree with I am One of Many that this user's edits bear very little similarity to the angry rants and legal threats of Jamenta. If there's something I've missed, please make a report at WP:SPI. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    You were the person who deleted my entry. I was advised on this site to take my request for reversion to the NPOV noticeboard71.167.134.66 (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, several people -- not just me -- have deleted your contributions as being made by blocked user Jamenta. Please stop singling me out. Again, your claims that you are not Jamenta belong at ANI, not NPOVNB. Again, your question as to whether there is a "pileup of Myers detractors" which violate NPOV does belong on NPOVNB (ANI does not rule on content disputes), but that wasn't what you posted to NPOVNB, and that wasn't why your contributions were deleted. They were deleted as block evasion by blocked user Jamenta. And your behavior is a classic example of the law of holes. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The IP editor and Jamenta are not the same person. It's obvious from examining the writing styles of both editors. And of course there are William James scholars. We really need assume good faith here. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks to me like someone purposely changing his writing style in an attempt to get away with block evasion. I won't reveal all of the things I noticed (no point tutoring him on how to evade his block) but I will point out one: What are the chances that someone who writes "I have no idea what a sock pocket is" would also also write "I once used a public computer apparently used by someone called Jamenta" and "The reason I did not fight the misconception when it arose was because it was a public computer and I did not want to involve the company"? On the one hand, he implies that he has never read WP:SOCK, yet on the other, he is making excuses for using the same IP as Jamenta before anyone here has identified the two as posting from the same IP (While doing that 71.167.134.66 inadvertently revealed that he has also posted as 208.194.97.5 [13]. Also compare [14] with [15]). So he knows that checkuser exists but doesn't know what a sockpuppet is? What he didn't realize is that most admins are not checkusers and that those who are checkusers won't reveal or even check Jamenta's IP against any IP editor -- blocked editors still have full privacy right on Wikipedia, and linking a username to an IP address is a serious breach of those rights. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't see where else this discussion can go. Can it be closed?--Aspro (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not unless you want a clone of this discussion to be opened by this or some other Jamenta sock in the near future. If I and the roughly dozen other editors who have been reverting the steady stream of "new" users who just happen to be pushing the same fringe content about William James and Frederic Myers that Jamenta was pushing are wrong, we need to have an administrator tell us that so we can stop doing it. If we are right, then this latest sock needs to be told that complaining to ANI isn't going to stop the reverts. Again, can we please have an administrator sort this out and make a decision? Pretty please with sugar on top? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The evidence of sockpuppetry is signficant, but not conclusive. I would like to propose as a resolution of this matter an application of WP:AGF and WP:ROPE: let this editor openly create an account from which to continue editing. His edits will undoubtedly be subject to substantial scrutiny, and can be judged on their merit. The situation is likely to resolve itself on those merits. bd2412 T 04:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support too. I suggested (above) that the OP created an account which would not only support his declarations of no-wrong-doing but would (if he has the wiki-spirit of co-operation) help us. No response – wants to reattain anonymity and out of reach, letting us jump through his hoops of his creation. OP says, quote: “Once again, I am an Academic with a significant publication history.” unquote. An academic's livelihood depends on s/he's work being widely disseminated. He hasn't even bothered to reference his credentials. --Aspro (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    And yet, after three editors have supported a solution that involves 71.167.134.66 registering a user name and 71.167.134.66 seemingly agreeing with that solution,[16][17] he continues arguing his case editing as an IP.[18][19][20] --Guy Macon (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Blocked for restoring a question at the humanities refdesk

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

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

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

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

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

    If you look at Special:Contributions/Azimuth2469 you can see that the new editor posting the original had already been blocked. As the RefDesk does have a resident troll with just such a posting style, then I'd support that block. As you were innocent (and per AGF I'm required to believe that of you anyway) then I can only apologize on WP's behalf that you were caught in the crossfire here. It wasn't personal though - it was conflating your post with the same troll, in an environment with just terribly few clues to be going on.
    I'd suggest that if you're interested in WP, it's worth creating an account. An account is just an anonymous as an IP (in fact, more so) and it allows you to establish some reputation as a genuine editor, which helps to avoid such situations. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Favonian, you need to communicate with the blocked editor when levying a block; blocking without explanation was the basis for desysopping longtime admin Can't sleep, clown will eat me a while back. I'm not trying to threaten you or suggest that one incident warrants some sort of sanctions against you — I mention this simply as grounds for saying that you must explain your blocks, if nothing else with {{uw-block}}. Nyttend (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nyttend: Heck, no. Do that for the usual cases, sure, but for LTAs who use thousands of IPs that's actually counter-productive. There's no need to leave a block message for some innocent user to see as the LTA instantly flips to a new IP. --NeilN talk to me 12:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As for "not trying to threaten", you could have fooled me. ;) I must apologize to the IP for the miscarriage of justice, but agree with Neil regarding the utter futility in communicating with the legions of socks, knitted by the likes of the Ref Desk Antisemitic Troll and Nsmutte. Sorry for the late reply – I was temporarily Irish yesterday. Favonian (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Winkelvi block

    If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended. - WP:BLOCK#Unblock requests

    I would like to recuse myself at this point from further action on this block, and would instead like the community to decide on what to do with Winkelvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). They have a long history of edit warrior behavior, now at 6 blocks for breaching the policy on edit-warring. I personally do not think they are going to change this pattern, and do not see any pragmatic reason to think otherwise. I suggested at most lifting the block and replacing it with a 0RR (with exceptions for blatantly obvious vandalism/spam), but there's still not evidence that this will be a net positive decision. As such, I would believe it is best if more eyes look at this and am giving my full endorsement to any community decision, even if that is a complete reversal of the block (which I do not anticipate). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reduce the block to something far shorter (maybe a week, but I have no strong opinions)
    This was raised at ANEW by a pop-up disposable IP account, and concluded with 1 day and a 3 month blocks for two parties in trivial and fairly symmetrical edit-warring (Yes the edit-warring is real, I don't dispute that). I cannot see that such an unbalanced conclusion is at all appropriate, whatever the track record of the editors. I am particularly concerned at how it was raised! Edit warring is a problem, but disposable socks to cause trouble is a far greater one. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit warring is a problem, but disposable socks to cause trouble is a far greater one. I'll say. Granted, I don't actually agree with you on what should be done in this case, more because of personal editing philosophy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse three months or perhaps indef Raise to indefinite block. If and when unblocked or it expires, 0RR indefinitely. How many chances do you give an editor? Five? Six? A dozen? I first ran into Winkelvi in Bess Myerson a couple of years ago, and it's the only true nightmare I experienced on Wikipedia. Enough already. Coretheapple (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Amended, per subsequent comments. Coretheapple (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose if anyone goes to WV's talk page to investigate, they'll see there are at least 6 admins who already support an unblock with an indefinite 1RR restriction, which I'm planning to enact on Monday, if no one has done it before then. Coffee opposes that and so brought it here. There was some vague accusation that WV was adminshopping before this was brought here, so it's worth pointing out that among the admins supporting this are an unpinged admin who has previously blocked him for a month (me), an unpinged admin who has previously declined a more lenient unblock request (LB), an unpinged a pinged (sorry, my mistake, she was pinged) admin who, I believe, has previously issued WV a topic ban (Bish), and another unpinged admin (Ritchie). None of the admins who were pinged by WV are supporting a straight unblock, and none of them have reputations for shady behavior or favoritism. It seems to me that 6 admins all agreeing on a course of action for an unblock, and only the blocking admin opposed, is pretty close to as good a definition of consensus as you're going to get around here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A 1RR restriction cannot be unilaterally placed by a single administrator unless the user is editing in a topic area that's under WP:AC/DS, or if it's approved by community consensus. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence why this is the most appropriate venue for this review Bbb23 (in reply to your comment at this editor's talk page). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a single administrator, it's 6+. And anyway, yes a single admin can impose 1RR as an unblock condition, if the blocked editor agrees. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah: Errr... yes it can. WP:CONDUNBLOCK --NeilN talk to me 21:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    NeilN, Floquenbeam - You're correct; if the editor agrees, then yes it's perfectly fine. Sorry, should have made that clear. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah, Bbb23, and NeilN: "If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended. (WP:UNBLOCK#Unblock requests) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not making this shit up as I go along you know... — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was replying to Oshwah but did you add the right wikilink? --NeilN talk to me 22:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It would appear that I am making shit up as I go along... tsk tsk. WP:BLOCK#Unblock requests — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well somebody elsewhere just pulled a cowboy unblock that I disagreed with, yet I didn't feel the need to haul them to AN and make a song and dance over it; I'm going to let it go. (And I realise writing this is ironic). Likewise, 5-6 administrators have reached a consensus of what to do, why can't you as blocking admin just accept that sometimes things don't go your way and move on? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad he didn't. It's a chronic issue that deserves daylight, not the shadows of a user talk page that nobody is watching. Keri (t · c) 22:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ritchie333: Because it has nothing to do with me. I'm doing what I think is best for the community and encyclopedia's interests. I'm not "hauling" anyone here but the action itself, so I'm not sure where that came from. I'm confused though why any administrator would have an issue with their decision being brought here, if they actually thought it was the correct one per the community's wishes. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Floquenbeam: "[I]f anyone goes to WV's talk page to investigate, they'll see there are at least 6 admins who already support an unblock with an indefinite 1RR restriction ...." I don't see 6 admins supporting that. I see four admins: two friendly admins that WV pinged, one admin known for their extreme leniency and cowboy unblocks, and one with a longterm feud with the blocker. I also see a number of admins there disagreeing with that plan. Softlavender (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In this particular case, the claim seems pretty untenable, but there can be a real question about exactly counts as a first revert. But when it comes to a 3rr rule block, you were edit warring either way, so you aren't likely to get off on the technicality. Monty845 22:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Especially given this edit WV made to his user page about 1RR. Keri (t · c) 23:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse either continued block, 0RR, or both. I don't think this user intends to do ill, but the aggressive editing style and sometimes discourteous mode of personal interaction has exhausted the patience of the community, as seen in his block log. Speaking in my capacity as an involved editor, not an admin: just a few days ago, at Ben Carson, WV (1) edit-warred to restore challenged material of dubious relevance; (2) did so without first posting on a talk-page discussion that I had already begun; (3) failed to give a substantive rationale once he did show up at the talk page (merely "I happen to disagree" and then, once pressed, that the content "worth noting"); and (4) blindly reverted a subsequent, separate edit; inaccurately called it a revert; and failed to acknowledge the mistake. That pattern is not promising. If unblocked, then 0RR with the usual exceptions (blatant vandalism/spam), as Coffee has agreed to, would be called for. Neutralitytalk 22:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the admins (except Coffee) called for 0RR; we all called for 1RR instead. I'm unsure as to whether you missed this or whether you do genuinely prefer 0RR as an option. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcome to the "community" (of people who are not watching WV's talk page). Keri (t · c) 22:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh please. You want everything handled on ANI? Drmies (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, just prolific, tendentious repeat offenders. What a fucking stupid question. Keri (t · c) 01:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What happened here to bring people like you out of the woodwork? First you're clamoring for openness, and when I ask if you want everything out in the open you say that's a "fucking stupid question". Learn some manners, child. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nowhere have I advocated for "everything to be handled on ANI". Your mocking tone and straw man ad hom tells me everything I need to know about you. Given that I have never advocated bringing "everything" to ANI, it is a fucking stupid question, designed purely to belittle me and undermine my opinion and dripping with trademark passive-aggression. As is your pathetic trolling/baiting attempt with "learn some manners, child." What's next, "your mom" jibes? As for "What happened here to bring people like you out of the woodwork?" And what exactly are "people like me"? You mean "other editors"? The "community"..? And "the "woodwork"? You mean working on the encyclopedia and not daring to question your judgment, like good little drones? What a thoroughly unpleasant little man you come across as. Keri (t · c) 18:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    At about the same time as Drmies was insulting Keri, he left an abusive post on my talk page in which he stated that my "condition" (i.e,, my Asperger's, which I just mentioned in a comment) is more "excusable" than Winkelvi's.WTF? Coretheapple (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity - I do prefer 0RR, as supported by Coffee and Keri. I think it's more than justified in light of the prior blocks/sanctions. As usual, it would not apply to blatant vandalism or spam. Neutralitytalk 22:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse the initial block as a reasonable exercise of admin discretion. But also Support Unblock with 1RR, indefinite duration, with an expectation that it wont be eased for at least a year. Personally, I don't think 0RR is a reasonable solution outside very active and controversial areas. Monty845 22:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse and frankly 1rr is not really an incentive to not edit war. 0RR or dont bother. -edit- And after reading his talkpage, that excuse was laughably unbelieveable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Coffee's wrong in counting five previous edit-warring blocks. Before this latest one, Winkelvi had been blocked six times for edit-warring, and two of them (including the one I levied) were removed by the blocking admin well before they would have expired. Swarm unblocked with a rationale of Sock involvement demonstrated post-block, edits exempted from 3RR (i.e. WP:3RRNO), while I unblocked and then left a comment of Winkelvi was in the middle of discussing the situation; I wouldn't have blocked if I had seen this. I'd say you should count this as four EW-related blocks. Whether or not four-versus-five-versus-six should affect anyone's vote or anyone's contribution to this discussion I won't say; I just hope that people consider the entire block log and not just the blocks themselves. In particular, don't count all of the [admin] blocked Winkelvi lines, since at least my second block of him (the one-second block) was done just to add an apology to the block log; I'm thankful that nobody, so far, has carelessly just counted the number of lines. Nyttend (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason for the included number is the pattern of behavior itself. Just to clarify. :) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, that makes complete sense, and if I were voting here, I'd focus on the behavior pattern in my argumentation, regardless of how I voted. I just wanted to ensure that everyone inspecting the block log understood what was going on. Nyttend (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, perhaps the block log and blocking admins' comments deserve closer scrutiny. For example, this: "I made it clear in the last ANI that the community has had enough of this... previous blocks of up to one week have not been enough to get the point across." or this: "If you don't understand that, perhaps a month is too short, because we cannot keep indulging you in your near constant battleground behavior with everyone. Your behavior is nearly constantly disruptive. You do it even when warned, except apparently you think as long as the disruption is with some other person it is OK. Every single time you are blocked you say you've seen the light and will change, you never do. IMHO, next block for the same behavior should be indef." Keri (t · c) 23:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Its worth noting that in the last year they have also been blocked for deliberate harrassment of another editor and 'feuding' with other editors. Both conduct issues. That is aside from the edit-warring blocks. At what point do we accept Winkelvi is either unwilling or unable to play nicely with others? Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    All that I'm asking is that you consider the block log carefully; if that consideration leads you to think that it's time to believe that he can't play nicely with others, I won't attempt to dissuade you, just as I won't if the consideration leads you the other way. Just trying to make sure that everyone understands the facts well. Nyttend (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think 0RR may be justified here, given that WV's default mode is complete entrenchment in a given position without willingness to really listen or discuss -- as exemplified by Neutrality's example. This kind of behavior would be expected of a newbie, but it is unacceptable for someone who has been here 5 years and made 25,000 edits, and there has been no indication of any longterm change. I hate to say that because WV can be a good ally if he happens to agree with you, but the longterm edit-warring, tendentious editing, and personal attacks really need to be stopped. Softlavender (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocking administrator comment - Winkelvi is once again (cleverly IMO) admin shopping/canvassing: [21]. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)edited — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why didn't you just say in a neutral way that he has made a new post on his page?? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because, I've never found it necessary to call a spade by any other name. This is this editors 10th block for disruptive behavior, in 4 years. I can't be asked to simply assume good faith without merit at this point. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • This pinging habit of WV's is a bit irritating, but calling it canvassing here is overblown. 01:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs)
          • Coffee, you are not asked to assume anything different than anyone else. Your record of poor blocks and lack of discretion is as egregious as your description of Winkelvi. That is why we are again discussing, with much drama, your block. I would have hoped that the last reproach would have instilled a more thoughtful approach to blocking but it seems that is not the case. In any event, your block has caused much more disruption than Winkelvi. Please reflect on that and moderate your behavior and maybe take a break, say a year, from blocks. --DHeyward (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • I suggest you open an ANI thread, or go to ArbCom if you actually think that you have any chance of convincing anyone of your aspersions (without evidence). I'd also like to point out that while you may think that my integrity is why this thread exists, you are actually discussing this matter because I asked you to. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)@DHeyward: You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Coffee made a bad block and we're here to discuss or overturn it. In fact, the opposite is the case. Coffee opened this thread himself to ask for review, and there appears to be near-unanimous endorsement from everyone who wasn't canvassed. In addition, your casting of aspersions here is unwelcome and unproductive. The WordsmithTalk to me 04:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you User:The Wordsmith. DHeyward, really? Drmies (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll add myself to the list of admins who supports an Unblock and indefinite 1RR - I have not dealt with Winkelvi before as far as I can remember. Black Kite (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've seen plenty of Winkelvi, and he of me. This edit warring is an unfortunate habit. The talk page discussion is so long that I can't even tell if he really got it--that this was a violation and a blockable one. Can any of you tell me if he posted that he gets it? Anyway, I supported, or maybe even proposed! an unblock with a 1R condition for three months--I'll settle for anything that resembles that, and if there's a majority for 0R, I suppose I'm OK with that too.

      Softlavender, I hear you--I think Winkelvi is one of those editors that just can't help himself when given the latitude editors think 3R give them. I don't want to be the psychoanalyst here or anywhere else, but that's what I think, and I think we have quite a number of those editors, most of whom function quite well though sometimes with restrictions, and you understand I'm not naming names here. His edits, as far as I remember, aren't tendentious; sometimes they're just...persistent. That's not good either, but it's not irredeemable. He's no POV warrior, for instance. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    My use here of "tendentious" to describe WV's behaviour is intended to reflect that of WP:TE: "On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions" (my emph). WV's edits certainly meet those criteria. Keri (t · c) 01:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was torn whether to use the word "tendentious" or the word "WP:BATTLEGROUND". If you like I can change it to that, as it is a more accurate, yet stronger, description, and has been noted by various admins like Floq (e.g. in the diffs provided by Keri). In terms of "getting it", I don't think anyone who has filed, and/or been subject to, as many ANEW reports as he has, over the past 4 years years [22] (I count at least 75, including one a week ago), can maintain any semblance of credibility after repeatedly claiming that (he thought that) the first revert doesn't "count" in 3RR: [23], [24], [25]. He knows the drill perfectly; yesterday he clearly warned a user who had made three reverts for 3RR, and then when the editor breached 3RR with a fourth revert Winkelvi reported him [26]. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC); edited 03:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant nothing personal, by the way--and I meant "tendentious" in the strict sort of POV sense. I agree with you on the ANEW experience and I find the whole thing rather baffling, but I'm paid to AGF, sometimes to a fault perhaps. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite 1RR regardless of unblock and neutral, leaning support on unblock Frankly, I think the project would be better off if everyone was subject to 1RR except in cases of obvious vandalism, etc. The 3RR principle, that everyone is allowed edit-war up to a certain point, runs counter to AGF, since we should be assuming as soon as we are reverted once that the reverter is acting in good faith. 3RR also places an arbitrary numeric value on what counts as an edit war, and so encourages gaming of the system by users who don't engage in talk page discussion but edit carefully to make it look like they do. The only exception I can think of is where the reverter's edit summary made it clear that they had, in good faith, misunderstood your original edit.[27] So yeah, I would probably support an unblock and indefinite 1RR for just about anyone, but given the repeated nature of this offense, and especially that the last block was repealed with a 3-month 1RR restriction I am a bit more ambivalent on an immediate unblock, and can't see how anyone could oppose the 1RR restriction regardless of whether they agree with my personal philosophy. (Full disclosure: ArbCom subjected me to 1RR in late 2015 for some edit-warring that had happened in early 2015. I had immediately regretted said edit-warring and happily accepted the 1RR restriction. It will be the last restriction I appeal, if I decide to appeal it at all.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to say Hijiri 88 that I'm impressed by your disclosure here. I've not known many restricted editors to be so forthcoming, without requirement (at least I don't know of a requirement... correct me if I'm wrong). It is definitely appreciated by all of the reviewing editors here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't mention it. Honestly the disclosure was more of an afterthought. I actually think it kinda hurts my case, as it means that my case-relevant argument (that Winkelvi was subject to a fixed-term 1RR restriction as a condition to his last unblock) is sandwiched between two long pieces about me and my principles, and so is likely to be missed. I honestly hate when people !vote in these discussions based exclusively on their own principles (or their like/dislike for various participants), so I really hope no one thinks that's what I'm doing here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Too much drama. Conditionally unblock and close this kerfuffle. --DHeyward (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block as a valid action of admin discretion. Given the extensive block log, I find the length to be perfectly reasonable and in the same situation, I likely would have imposed a block of similar length. Since the issue of unblocking with a 1RR condition has come up, I strongly oppose that. It almost never works, especially not in editors with an extensive history of edit warring like we see here. We'd be back here in less than a month. He has given some indication that he understands what he did wrong, so I would Support an unblock (or reduction in block length) with a 0RR editing restriction. The WordsmithTalk to me 03:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wordsmith, hello. I'd like to point out the Winkelvi has a long history of saying that he "gets it" after a block, before reverting to the same type of behavior after being unblocked or having the block expire. Check out this message [28] that he wrote in January 2016 after receiving a 1-week block for edit-warring. After reading it, consider his behavior since then, and please tell me if you still trust him when he promises to stop. Also, I would encourage you to read these edits from May 2016 after he was blocked for feuding with another editor. [29] They demonstrate clearly Winkelvi's history of saying after a block "I didn't know what I did was wrong, but now I do, and I won't do it again." I think we're at the point where we can stop giving him the benefit of the doubt. Due to this, and also his repeated history of behaving inappropriately on talk pages, I politely and respectfully encourage you to modify your position to supporting an indefinite block. Display name 99 (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Display name 99: I have seen that, yes. I understand that he's said that before, which is why I only support unblocking with the mandatory 0RR restriction. I'm big on forgiveness , so I'm not going to outright switch to supporting nothing but an indef, but I wouldn't be heartbroken if that's what needed to be done. Consider me Neutral on that. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems to me we should note all of the admins that Winkelvi has been ping-canvassing from his talk page [30], [31]: MelanieN, Diannaa, Bishonen, JamesBWatson, Anna Frodesiak, Drmies, Bbb23, Laser brain, NeilN, Ponyo, Ritchie333, Floquenbeam. (Those are "nopings" on my end.) Although I think Coffee is being a bit aggressive in his insistence not to accede to the other admin opinions on WV's talkpage, those admins were all canvassed except Floquenbeam and Laserbrain, whereas it is the community at large who bears the brunt of WV's behavior, and therefore the community should probably have a voice in this matter, given the very long history, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is quite in fact why I brought this here. I don't have enough energy to try to discuss this matter with that many people all at once (by myself), and it is my personal opinion that these admins do not a consensus make. I believe firmly in the community's ability to decide what is best in matters like this, and as such have deferred this matter to you all. Laser brain declined the original unblock request and another formal one was not made, WV instead decided to use a system of pings to get unblocked. Obviously, I have grave concern for such a system... and WP:ADMINSHOP shows that our community does as well. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)UTC)[reply]
        • Huh. I'm normally inclined to agree with Drmies in cases like this, but I don't here, as that definitely looks like canvassing. I've never quite understood why something can only be called "canvassing" if the users were specifically contacted on their talk pages, especially in cases like this where that is impossible and pinging on one's own talk page is all one can do. That's way too many people for Winkelvi to be pinging. The fact that all or at least most of them are respectable Wikipedians who aren't likely to come to his aid just because he canvassed them doesn't change the fact that he did canvass them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC) (edited 04:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]
          • Hijiri88, I don't think Winkelvi can expect me to agree or jump to his defense if the position is indefensible--in this case, the block itself was justified and I said so. BTW, I don't think that canvassing need come by the way of some sort of notification; a ping will do as well. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • My apologies for the lack of clarity. I meant that in this particular case I don't agree with your assessment that calling it canvassing here is overblown since whether or not the apparent intent or actual effect resembles legit votestacking, accusing someone who pings that many users of canvassing/admin-shopping can't possibly be overblown. I didn't mean to directly equate you with the "if it's only a ping, it can't be canvassing" crowd. Clarified accordingly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wow, yeah, (apparently) bypassing WP:UNBLOCK in favor of pinging 8 friendly admins is not good. Softlavender (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • A year ago Winkelvi was given a 1RR restriction for three months as a condition of an early unblock: [32], [33]. He doesn't seem to have learned anything from that sanction. That would seem to indicate that whatever happens with this discussion, the sanction should be longer and/or stricter. Softlavender (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block Endorse block, support indef There's only so much WP:ROPE you can throw out. It's been shown that 1RR can't do much, so I really doubt the effectiveness of 0RR at preventing the same WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 05:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 0RR for a duration of one year and unblock (after which WV can appeal the sanction in a community discussion and if failed, every six months thereafter) 1RR clearly hasn't cut it before and I doubt that increasing the duration is helpful. I agree with Anna's judgement of the editor, I've seen them elsewhere but I think it's better if they stay away from any kind of reverts for a while. --QEDK (愛) 05:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I was curious about Coretheapple's mention above of his "nightmare" encounter with Winkelvi on Bess Myerson two years ago and checked that out. It does indeed seem to have been a nightmare, and in my opinion is representative of Winkelvi's inability to, and refusal to, brook disagreement. He appears incapable of letting go. Winkelvi arrived at the article here: [34], and made 120 edits to it in 2.5 days, including massively, heedlessly, endlessly, and obstinately edit-warring with Coretheapple and Alanscottwalker (edit-warring begins here: [35], clicking "Next edit" from there on out is quite instructional). This resulted in Winkelvi being reported at ANEW [36] and the article being locked for a week, at which time Winkelvi left the article completely. Not however before covering the article talk page with endless IDHT walls of text [37] (from top to bottom of that talk page, 79 edits and tens of thousands of bytes in 6 days: [38]) and leaving behind two very frustrated, be-numbed, bewildered, and resentful editors. If Winkelvi is unable to edit collaboratively, and needs outside intervention on such a regular basis, this is a real problem and needs a major solution.

      I'd also like to state that, for the record, I don't know how long it has been going on, but Floq and Coffee have an obvious feud going on (I noticed this in re: the TRM AE discussions), and so Floq should not be implementing any change here in my opinion. And also for the record, Winkelvi knows very well which admins he can curry leniency from, from having interacted with them in the past, and several of those were indeed the admins he pinged in his first round of pings, so the discussions on his talkpage should not be seen as binding or representative, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      • I was waiting for someone else to point this out organically before I commented on this, but Floquenbeam has no place in reviewing any of my administrative decisions ever as he has a clear lack of neutrality regarding me. If he makes any action here whatsoever, he's going to have to answer to the Arbitration Committee. (Of course I highly doubt he'll actually make any action on this at all; he has baited people to try to make them respond out of hand in the past, so I'm sure that's likely what's happening here [since he's very aware of our current standing]. I will not be falling for such a trap.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Softlavender is correct in every respect. One of the most frustrating things about Winkelvi is not just his serial edit-warring and cluelessness, but his ability to game the system, finding admins he can coax into giving him "just a second chance" or a third chance or a fourth chance. I don't know if this was a factor in the recent hostilities, but he also claimed to have a medical condition that somehow contributed to or "explained" his edit-warring and tendentious conduct. His lengthy block record only hints at the burden he is to the project, as he is constantly being dragged before this or that drama board. Search the drama boards and you can see for yourself. Here is one, an encounter with User:Tenebrae from 2014 that I just picked at random. Read that. No action. It just goes on and on and on, and he keeps on getting a pass until finally he gets blocked. Personally I am surprised that he has not been indeffed by now, but he always seems to find yet another sympathetic admin to give him yet another second chance, so that he can return to his old ways until he gets yet another second chance. Coretheapple (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my impression, also. The gaming of the system is very clearly demonstrated by this diff from a couple of weeks ago, which should be read in its entirety. WV always claims to be shocked and surprised when bought to account for their actions, but their words there demonstrate complete clarity about how "the system" works, and how to game it. The irony is breathtaking. Keri (t · c) 16:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Give them the choice, stay blocked 3 months or agree to 6-month-to-1-year 1RR as unblock condition — While 3 months reflexively seemed a bit much when I first stumbled across it (but then checked the block history and totally understood why), it's also a strong incentive to agree to an unblock condition of WP:1RR. To be perfectly clear, his revert history at Billy the Kid clearly and obviously violated WP:3RR, and is doubly damning considering he's reported other people on AN3 before (I actually patrolled one of the reports the other day). What's worse is the fact that he was unable to acknowledge his error directly after the block, disputing the technicalities of what constitutes a revert—and to be clear, he's wrong. This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of 3RR, as well as the concept of WP:EW as a whole. This, first and foremost, needs to be rectified. I've always been a fan of imposing 1RR over blocking when possible, and on a completely tangential note, it might be a good idea to start an RFC to allow admins to unilaterally impose 1RR restrictions on an editor (without needing an WP:ACDS) in place of, and for durations proportionate to, normal blocks (subject to same appeals process as blocks). This would have been a prime case where an immediate 1RR restriction could have saved everyone a bunch of time and would have been pretty obviously supported. --slakr\ talk / 09:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The thing about imposing 1RR instead of blocking, without community discussion, is that nobody knows that the 1RR exists except the people who happened to be watching the user's talk page at that time. So the user can freely violate 1RR and nobody knows and they do not get reported. That's why drawing the community's attention to the discussion and also allowing input and buy-in into sanctions other than blocks is very important. (And it's not the case that Winkelvi does not understand 3RR -- he has reported or been reported at ANEW at least 75 times -- see my and others' posts above.) Softlavender (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse (I was pinged above) If there is an unblock condition should be 0RR, if anything, because 1 RR has already been tried. Winklevi needs to get with the program, and the more rope that has been extended, the more they seem to not get with the program. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock with indefinite 1RR (with an exception for WV's own talk page) as proposed at user talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse with the only chance of unblock early being 0RR for at least 6 months, but I think a year is best. I think it's pretty clear that Winkelvi has issues with reverting. Hopefully a 0RR would keep the positive contributions without allowing wiggle room. I read the Bess Myerson talk page posts and am impressed with the paitence shown by the other editors. I might have blown a gasket with that level of edit warring and wall of text posting. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite block-I stumbled across this discussion and decided to give my opinion. I've interacted with Winkelvi a few times, most notably at Billy the Kid in early 2016. This was the first GAN that I reviewed, and I committed a few embarrassing mistakes, for which I take responsibility. But what I saw from Winkelvi was a persistent battleground attitude that included not only edit-warring but persistent hostility, questioning of motives, WP:Ownership, and vindictive behavior towards anyone disagreeing with him. By examining the history of his block log and the talk page and AN/I discussions concerning him that have taken place since then, I have found no reason to believe that he will change anything. Perhaps the biggest mistake that I made at that article was not failing it immediately after the edit war, which was largely out of guilt for originally passing it prematurely. What ensued after that was also a sort of nightmare, aided somewhat by my lack of knowledge on GA reviews and occasional immaturity, but rooted largely in Winkelvi's near-constant battleground attitude which alienated most of those who worked on the article.
    On his talk page, pinging Drmies, Winkelvi said that he "gets it." He has a history of saying that sort of thing after a block, but then somehow we always end up at the same place as before. A 1RR has been put in place before. Now he is back to the same type of behavior, so it's time to take it up a notch. But even a 0RR would still result in Winkelvi being able to continue his accusatory, battleground, and non-AGF behavior on talk pages. He may even resort to doing that more often, knowing that if he reverts and is caught it would likely result in a longer or indefinite block. What I saw on the Beth Myerson talk page is disturbing, and we could see more of that sort of talk page drama if Winkelvi knows that he can't revert anymore. That's why 1RR and even a 0RR won't work well enough. It also doesn't help that I find Winkelvi's excuses about not knowing the technicalities of 3RR to be totally unconvincing, considering his experience, history of edit-warring, and history of reporting other users for edit-warring. I'm not buying it.
    Winkelvi has been given plenty of chances. He has thrown away all of them and in the process has caused the WP community an enormous amount of time and anguish. I don't think that there is enough non-destructive behavior from Winkelvi to outweigh this. That's enough to say that he is a net negative and that an indefinite block would be in order. Display name 99 (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Block, support indef block - As far as I recall, I have no involvement with this editor. Reading the above, I think there is plenty of evidence to not only support the three month block but to extend it to an indef. Enough is enough. Jusdafax 16:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I wasn't going to comment here, but in view of a couple of comments above, I will. User:Coretheapple, Winkelvi has had the aspergers userbox on his page for as long as I've known him, and your "he also claimed to have a medical condition that somehow contributed to or "explained" bla bla", is shameful, as if it was a new thing and most likely something he made up. "Medical condition", bah. You will answer me if you wish, naturally, but I have no more to say to you. @Softlavender:, when you say if there isn't an ANI discussion, "the user can freely violate 1RR and nobody knows and they do not get reported", you're assuming bad faith in a way that'll be like a knife to Winkelvi. He's on the autism spectrum, as he points out himself every now and then — it's no sort of secret — which colours his interactions with others. I understand that Wikipedia is not therapy, and I have certainly seen him behaving atrociously on talkpages. But he's actually big with rules, and I don't for a moment believe he'd violate a personal, specific sanction "freely" just because "nobody knows". Please compare the section "About me and editing" on his userpage, where he says among other things "Because those of us on the Spectrum are unfailingly "rule-followers", we are also honest to a fault. When we are accused of lying or intentionally being disruptive or not acting in good faith, it's quite hurtful." I've found that to be very true, both parts of it: Winkelvi follows rules, as long as they're very, very exact and spelled-out rules, and he's dreadfully distressed if he's accused of shady dealing. (Compare his reaction to Coffee in the first discussion, right under the block notice, and btw I think Ritchie333's comment on that discussion was excellent: "... when I block somebody I generally punt any conversations about the block off to reviewing administrators... picking a fight with an editor you block is generally counter-productive." How I wish Coffee had worn his listening ears for that.) Also, never mind the autism spectrum, which people obviously aren't obliged to know about, it's a nasty thing to imply about anybody, that they'd cheerfully violate a restriction they had agreed to. That's what WP:AGF is for: because we know so little about anybody on the internet that we're commenting on.
    While I'm here: I've advocated unblock + indefinite 1RR on Winkelvi's talkpage, but I won't record any sort of bolded !vote here, because I'm not sure about the unblock. That's because Winkelvi does behave badly sometimes even apart from of edit warring, and I can certainly sympathise with the people who have experienced a "nightmare" interacting with him. That's far from something I'd wave away. But I do want to say, please don't unblock on condition of 0RR. One of Winkelvi's latest comment on his page, here is rather convoluted, which of course doesn't serve him well, but the takeaway from it is that, while he's fine with 1RR, he hates the idea of 0RR so much that he'd rather ride out his 3-month block. So please, people, don't do that; either keep him blocked, or give him an indefinite 1RR restriction. (On balance, I believe the 1RR restriction would be more helpful going forward than the block, but I think both are acceptable.) Bishonen | talk 16:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    Oh please. You're acting as if he just has a userbox and that was that. How dare I mention that! What you didn't mention was that when he was doing his number in the Myerson article, and in other of his many disputes then and afterwards. he was constantly "playing the Asperger's card," citing that alleged condition as an excuse for his actions. Yes, it is a claim, no it is not verifiable, yes, it is irrelevant, and yes, it is one of the many ways he gamed the system. was claiming that he Asperger's is the cause of his conduct. He has two entire sections on his user page devoted to describing how his Asperger's is the cause of his conduct, and he has brought it up in defense of his actions. In this exchange with Jehochman he said "I'm not clueless, I have Asperger Syndrome (as is broadcast at the top of this page). People with Aspergers are generally quite intelligent with high-IQs. So, no, not clueless, just asking for specifics (something Aspies need at times to understand what someone is referring to vaguely)." The "broadcast at top of this page" comment refers to the fact that he has a notice at the top of his talk page referring to his Aspberger's "If you've had any kind of issue or misunderstanding in your dealings with me," So no, it is absolutely not just a user box. "People on the autism spectrum need to be aware that pulling the 'Oh, but I'm a poor misunderstood Aspie/Autie' card out of the pack is a bad move! There are a lot of us in here, and we can tell when someone's using it as an excuse!" Coretheapple (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC) (additions and strikeouts, since I've heard objections to use of the term "playing the Asperger's card") Coretheapple (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Bishonen, thank you for your message, but I'd like to point out a view things that I object to in your comment. You say "Winkelvi follows rules, as long as they're very, very exact and spelled-out rules." Um, no. The 6 blocks for edit-warring (not counting the one with sockpuppetry) show that this isn't the case. Take a look at this quote from WP:3rr:
    "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period."
    That seems pretty exact and spelled-out to me.
    That's also not to mention the constant disruption that Winkelvi has caused on talk pages and drama boards during his 3+ [5] years contributing to Wikipedia. In a previous block, resulting from a long-term feud with another editor, an editor (possibly Floq, but I'm not entirely sure) called attention to the fact that Winkelvi seems to think that it is acceptable to, after being warned against feuding with one editor, to instead feud with another one, or (this may be from someone else) to "regularly change [his] mode of disruption." That's not Autism. That's called gaming the system by pretending to be clueless so that people will take pity on you and keep giving you chances. Display name 99 (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    PS, I should know. I have borderline Asperger's. Display name 99 (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha! I do too, not so borderline. Other stuff too. BFD. Coretheapple (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bishonen: "Winkelvi follows rules, as long as they're very, very exact and spelled-out rules." - I have loads of respect for you (as you know, and I hope at least some of that is mutual), but WP:3RR seems like an awfully cut-and-dry, spelled-out, exact, clear, (whatever other synonym to refer to blatantly easy you deem necessary) rule. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Coffee: yes, I respect you too. Bishonen | talk 23:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    Bishonen, I disagree with your conclusions, but I will contact you via email so as to avoid prolonging the drama here. Softlavender (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are two main concerns expressed by the editors above - edit warring and talk page bludgeoning. 1RR is the obvious solution to the first concern but I foresee two problems. First, according to the "rules", Winkelvi can revert once a day on an article ad infinitum. Second, this allows anon IPs to troll Winkelvi as they have done in the past. For the talk page issue, I would suggest he be limited to one post a day but that may lead to walloftext posts. What is really needed is a mentor that Winkelvi has to go to whenever he runs into a conflict. However that could potentially be quite a demanding job and I don't know if anyone would volunteer to take it on. --NeilN talk to me 17:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe mentoring has been attempted in the past. Coretheapple (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahem. I think we can discuss this without getting into NPA territory when it comes to Winkelvi and his userbox. I also think we can disagree with with Coffee without making him out as some rogue Nazi admin--he is not. I also think we can disagree with Floquenbeam without thinking we'll end up at ArbCom. And I think we can disagree with, for instance, Bishonen's assessment without being rude. Winkelvi broke policy; the block was justified. Coffee blocked and others disagreed; that's fine, that's what we're here for. Discuss it without criticizing the blockee, the blocker, the hypothetical unblocker, the proponents of more blocking, etc. Keep it civil please. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm only commenting here because I noticed WV posted to my talk page the other day seemingly accusing me of being responsible for his latest block (which I'm not). Anyway, I strongly strongly endorse this latest block because this is the sixth time he's been blocked for this same offense. Aside from what others have said, it's important to note his last block was for harassment of Calibrador (talk · contribs) -- the name used by photographer Gage Skidmore. (See here for more. WV's first edit following that block's expiration -- literally his very first main space edit -- was to remove a photo Skidmore had taken from an article [39] and he has continued to do so since [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]. Ultimately, I think we should just indef block him and get it over with, instead of having this discussion again every five or six months. Calidum 19:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block, raise to indef: I'm another user who has been harangued and pursued by Winkelvi, much as Coretheapple and other describe, when he inserted himself into a discussion for the sole purpose of personal attacks and to stir trouble, and participated in an edit war about which he knew nothing in an effort to prosecute some old (and in my case, imaginary) grudge, most recently at The Crown (TV series), but also in at least one other article. He's also done the same with Calibrador in recent days. He works the "I'm on the spectrum" card for all it's worth, but speaking as someone with Ph.D.-level expertise and 30 years in the field, his social and communication skills are far too developed for a person with Asperger's syndrome. People, as uncomfortable a thought as this might be, some people with disabilities do actually abuse their disability rights, and Winklevi does so. How long will our bleeding hearts protect him, at the expense of how many editors he hassles and harangues? How many chances will it take before the community realizes he is a lost cause, and should be indeffed? --Drmargi (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict)@Drmargi: Please clarify your comment his social and communication skills are far too developed for a person with Asperger's syndrome. Are you saying you don't think he actually has it? This would appear to contradict your statement that Winkelvi is abusing his "disability rights" as you put it, implying he does have Asperger's. If you think he doesn't, how can you claim to refute a diagnosis solely over the Internet? I know a person in RL with Asperger's who I am confident could conduct themselves to an excellent standard on Wikipedia, as indeed do many other autism spectrum editors here. BethNaught (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not diagnosing anything; I can't do that over the internet, nor would I care to if asked to. I'm simply commenting on characteristics and behavior as I see them. --Drmargi (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment As someone who has also had the misfortune to be on the brunt of Winkelvi's unrelenting wrath, I vouch for Drmargi's statement above. Winkelvi embodies what Wikipedia should not be. Preventing other editors from ever having to interact with them would be a great accomplishment for this project. Calibrador (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw what you experienced recently, which was worse even than what I have, and was appalled. I was glad to see a block was applied in your case. I mine, Winklevi's behavior barely caused a blip. --Drmargi (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume this is related to the Carrie Fisher 3rr image issue? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block, support unblock with indefinite 1RR restriction. - Coffee's block was proportionate and reasonable. I believe that Winkelvi has the best intentions, and that his contributions are a net positive. That said, his doggedness is his Achilles heel. Since he is rule-bound, following a one revert restriction should be no problem. Personally I follow 1RR except in the most extreme situations, which I find avoids a great many conflicts. Winkelvi could benefit from the realization that any truly bad edit will probably be addressed by another editor, so he should not feel it imperative to correct it himself. My advice to Winknelvi to go out of his way to be accommodating to regular editors who push back. As to NeilN's suggestion, I thing a mentor would be beneficiaL. Perhaps someone like the esteemed Drmies would be equal to the task. I also see Bishonen as an inexhaustible font of wisdom and practical advice.- MrX 21:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Extended content
      • MrX, I can barely raise my own children, and I don't think I should be in charge of making coffee let alone "mentoring" a real human being, but I will do what I can. But please don't let any unblock be conditional on my or anyone else's offers to help out: the merits of the case, that is, to which extent the community has faith in Winkelvi, should be the deciding factor. You said it well, "his doggedness is his Achilles heel", and I hope he recognizes that. Personally, I have faith, though I understand that Winkelvi has made some enemies here. But I really always have faith, even in editors I've blocked myself or been in disagreement with, even in some of the most serious cases brought before ArbCom. I can't help it. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Drmies: I fully trust you to make me, for the record. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Drmies has opined on his talk page that Winkelvi "can't do all that much about his self-disclosed condition."[49] I don't think an editor who holds such an opinion should mentor this user (and I believe it has been tried in the past). Besides, If that assessment is correct, no mentor would do any good. I don't think we are in a position to make such a judgment. But I do believe that for whatever reason or no reason, his behavior will not improve. It's important to note that this is a problem that stretches back ate least two years.This massive ANI case from January 2015 was what I was referring to in my comment when I used the term "nightmare," that and the talk page issues referred to by Alanscottwalker below, Coretheapple (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • We've also noted that one of the problems with WV's behavior is his tendency to ping numerous friendly admins hoping that he will get some support. So I'm not sure why we should appoint one of his favorite admins to "mentor" him. I don't mean to offend Drmies. It's WV's behavior that is concerning me. Also, can we please stop calling him "rule bound?" WV uses the rules when he thinks they will help him. But when they don't, he ignores them. Those 6 blocks for edit-warring tell the story very clearly. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Display name 99, I think you misunderstand "mentor". It means a friendly but possibly strict coach; it doesn't mean "cop who keeps someone on a leash". That I'm supposed to be "friendly" to Winkelvi is yet to be determined, and at any rate that's your assessment of Winkelvi's hypothetical assessment of my attitude toward Winkelvi--do you understand my point? You don't know, and neither does Winkelvi. But let's say I am in fact "friendly" to them (that I'm an admin has nothing to do with it)--why on earth would you want to give someone a mentor who is unfriendly to them? Isn't that just like taking out an insurance to make sure they'll fail? And can I repeat that I am not seeking to be anyone's mentor or feel qualified to be anyone's mentor? Drmies (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • Drmies, of course I wouldn't want the admin to be "unfriendly." My concern was the possibility of either bias in the admin or WV deciding to think that he had someone he could use to come to his rescue in the event of an argument, and nothing more. I understand your lack of enthusiasm for the job. I personally don't think that it will work, and repeat my statement that, due to the persistent and severe behavioral problems occurring over the past years and in spite of repeated warnings, an indefinite block is by far the best way to solve this crisis. Display name 99 (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • That's not what mentors do, typically. I just got done sending a long email to my friend and colleague Coffee, with some details about someone from a while ago, in a case somewhat similar. This editor, who had similar editing behavior, got indeffed on the spot for all the right reasons and has worked themselves back into the fold, now without any restrictions and problems. I don't think I was necessarily their "mentor", but we had discussions via email, they'd ask me what I think they'd should do, and I'd tell them what, to the best of my ability, I thought was a good thing to do. Mentors, in my experience, don't necessarily go and jump in the middle of disputes; mentors aren't advocates, though they'll act in the best interest of their protege. So, I don't know about Winkelvi, there's no guarantees, but he's a human being and he's been here a while, and he's done some good (IMO much more good than bad), and I'm not going to give up on someone as long as they have an interest in improving our beautiful project. I will confess to something: in modern US parlance, I'm a liberal, I suppose, and that means, to me, that I don't easily give up on people. Frequently one gets very disappointed that way, and there are no ribbons or medals for getting it right, but I suppose I was Born This Way. And if 0R is the best I can get out of it, that's fine, though I prefer 1R, because 0R really means "we have no faith in you whatsoever"; 1R means "we don't trust you to stop on time". That's a big difference. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Drmies, I understand not wanting to give up on people. But there comes a time when one must consider the common good. In this case, it is the interest of the project and the well-being of its contributors. If the person in question has shown a consistent failure to follow directions and change disruptive behavior, and causing countless other people a huge amount of anguish in the process, and has not given any indication that the behavior will change, any concern for that person must be made secondary to doing what is best for the community.
    You say that a 0R means "we have no faith in you whatsoever." And what reason would there be to have faith after 6 edit-warring blocks in 3 years? It's a good thing to not want to give up on people, but you also need to use some common sense to deal properly with abusive people who clearly aren't going to change. And because the abusive behavior extends beyond edit-warring, and includes extensive harassment, bludgeoning, and other forms of aggressive behavior on talk pages, it should be clear that a 0RR won't even come close to solving all our problems. Only an indefinite block, made after years of smaller blocks and warnings and countless hours spent by countless editors sorting through drama and trying to find a solution, can put this unwanted behavior to rest. Display name 99 (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad I don't feel that way. What I do or do not need is between me and my creator. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Winkelvi has more edits than I do and has more time in the project (24,000 edits and nearly five years). We're beyond the point at which mentoring would do any good. It's been years and years and blocks and blocks. Even if mentoring was capable of working, I believe the mentor would have to believe that the editor in question was capable of changing his behavior and dealing with whatever behavioral issues he may have. Drmies has already indicated he has no such confidence, as I observed previously. Note this exchange with Jehochman. And I agree that he does seem to be a partisan and that it would not help. Coretheapple (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coretheapple, please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say I have no confidence Winkelvi can change his behavior; au contraire. And I'll say the same to you that I said before: you can't be a mentor if you're not sympathetic. That is not the same thing as "partisan"--a. it puts everything in the context of conflict, which is the wrong way to work in a collaborative project and b. a mentor is not a punisher. If you are somehow worried that this evil Winkelvi's mischief is going to go unnoticed because partisan admin Dr. whoever is shielding his misdeeds from the world, you're mistaken. All edits are out in the open, and by last count there were some two zillion editors in this very thread who want Winkelvi blocked indefinitely and will be keeping a close eye on him. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You told me on your talk page that Winkelvi "can't do all that much about his self-disclosed condition"[50], by which you mean his Asperger's. If so the situation is hopeless because Winkelvi blames his behavior on his Asperger's. For instance, in this exchange with User:Jehochman, he said "Jehochman, I'm not clueless, I have Asperger Syndrome." On his user page he has two entire sections on the subject. One says "If you've had any kind of issue or misunderstanding in your dealings with me, there is an excellent article/essay on Wikipedia editors with Asperger Syndrome found here that might help." Immediately below that, in a section entitled "About Me and Editing," he goes on and on about his Asperger's and how it influences his editing. He has another Asperger's notice at the top of his user talk page.

    If we take him at his word that his behavior is caused by Aspergers, and if we accept your belief that he can't do much about it, then mentoring will not work and he needs to be indeffed for the good of the community. It isn't fair to expect that the community bear the brunt of this person's behavior, whatever its cause, if self-control is not in the cards. "Some people, whether on the autism spectrum or not, just don't belong in Wikipedia. Vandals, trolls, and abusive and disruptive editors can be blocked or banned, and being on the autism spectrum is no excuse for unacceptable behaviour."

    I realize that you have a lot of empathy for Winkelvi, but you need to have empathy for the people who have to deal with him. The reason there are a "zillion people who want him indeffed" as you put it is not that we are evil, but because of his behavior. You have never had to put up with bad behavior from him, because he shows a different face to adminstrators. As numerous editors have pointed out, he's extra-nice to you guys (unless you block him). The rest of us don't have that advantage. Coretheapple (talk) 05:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    entirely arbitrary break

    • Just to be clear, the problem with my long ago interaction with Winklevi, was yes edit warring, but also his unbelievably and intentionally ignorant arguments (eg, admitting he did not read sources) and offensive long drawn-out fights (over basically nothing, at all) and gross accusations (over less) - Winklevi needs be told straight out that he harms Wikipedia. He just has to shut down this manner of interaction, which begins with reversions, 0RR actually takes care of all that, if he can buy into it - read Anna's comment on his talk page, about going to write something worthwhile -- that is what he needs to do, (don't go near others work) if he has any hope, beyond the block. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indefinite block. I was involved in the Myerson issues referred to above. The continued prevalence of identical issues is discouraging. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 01:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block Back in 2015, I had a rather acrimonious encounter with Winkelvi when he reported another editor for edit warring. I will admit that WV's prediction that the other editor would continue to edit war did prove true so I'll give him that much. That other editor ultimately got himself indefinitely blocked for edit warring and socking, but that's by the by. I've generally avoided WV after that encounter. However, the argument does show that WV knows full well what it is to edit war and that any sort of prevarication is basically bullshit. Anything less than a 0RR restriction upon expiry of the block would be too lenient. Blackmane (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I won't weigh in with any particular recommendation, because to me it just seems like a quibble about degree. But I would add that, just recently, I too had a rather difficult encounter with Winklevi. I found him to be unreasonable, illogical, stubborn and unwilling to engage in meaningful discussion. When he made up his mind, he was like a bulldog with a bone and that was it. So the question is, if that's someone's personality, is there really any administrative action that could reasonably be expected to change it? As we've already been down this road many times before - isn't the past, predictive? X4n6 (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a perfect way to describe the situation. The Myerson incident above might be the egregious example, but it's far from the only case of WV taking it upon himself to be prosecuting attorney, judge, jury and executioner. See this discussion in 2014 about Breaking Bad. Or this 2015 one regarding Taylor Swift. (Whether female musicians are singer-songwriters or merely singers and songwriters is apparently a cause celebre for him: See here for another example.) For a more recent example, see multiple threads at Talk:Ilias Psinakis or Talk:Madonna_(entertainer)/Archive_19. Calidum 22:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Calidum: Yes, come to think of it I received a note from User:Robert McClenon over that odd issue. [51]. Evidently there was an RfC on that nonsense in a project some time before, and I was summoned by bot to participate. Coretheapple (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Multi-war veteran. Happened to see this and noticed some comments from editors who haven't been directly involved with him, yet are weighing in. While I've been subjected to a series of edit wars with him in Dec. and Jan., I don't want to offer any opinions unless invited, since this seems to be an admin board. Another veteran, who became a casualty, is User:Pauciloquence, FWIW. --Light show (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Extended content
    Light show, I'm not an admin either. Non-admins regularly contribute to this board, so feel free. Coretheapple (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My impression was that besides the hounding by immediately going to articles I started working on, his edits were clear provocations to edit war for pure joy. By the third article in a row, it was pretty obvious that he was treating edit wars as a form of sport. He also had some kind of clear backstage pass, since he got that other editor speedy blocked w/o notice and got me speedy blocked twice in a row at Commons on a near fabrication while edit warring at En/WP. He had no fear of admins, most of whom seemed to be his buddy.--Light show (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Light show, given his block record, I doubt very much that most admins seem to be his buddy. Sorry, but that's silly--he just got blocked for three months so please--backstage pass? Your link is to Commons, where apparently you are blocked indefinitely for serial copyright violations; here, you have been blocked for edit warring by Courcelles, for more edit warring by Future Perfect at Sunrise, and for more edit warring by EdJohnston, and by Moonriddengirl for violating a topic ban (uploading copyrighted images, I think?). Kindly tell me which one of these bans and blocks are Winkelvi's fault. I see now that I closed that community ban in 2014, so maybe that's the sour grapes?

    Anyway, since one of the participants here now thinks I'm a passive-aggressive cunt, I should probably stop weighing in. If y'all think Winkelvi is irredeemable and you want to throw him out indefinitely, please do so without false representations and personal attacks. You'd appreciate that if it were ever your turn. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Jesus! I'm not a member of the Light Show Fan Club, we've had a series of disputes over Melanie Trump within just the past week, but he sure as hell showed more civility than you have in this entire discussion, with your steam-out-of-ears tone and now a gratuitous personal attack on Light Snow. You are in zero position to lecture anyone on personal attacks, sir or madam. And you do realize that your flailing about here contradicts the point of your missive--which is that Winkelvi has buddies in the admin corps? Without which we wouldn't be here? Coretheapple (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Does "cunt" count as a personal attack? Why isn't your buddy blocked for saying that? Did I miss you warning him? As for Light show, the attack (on Winkelvi and the admin corps) is his--I merely asked which of his many blocks are supposedly caused by Winkelvi. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That other editor I first mentioned, who hasn't been around since December, is apparently reading this and sent me a request. Since Winkelvi got them speedy blocked w/o notice, he/she has been trying to get unblocked. So if any admin has a few minutes, maybe they can review his case and help them out. For a newbie, they were making some very good quality improvements to a number of bios. --Light show (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Light show, I read through that investigation. [52] It appears as though a Checkuser never confirmed the connection. I think that's a major problem. Every person accused of sockpuppetry should be entitled to a Checkuser search. This way, the sockpuppetry is confirmed, and so the indefinite block would not be based exclusively on circumstantial evidence. I'll admit that the circumstantial evidence in this case does seem to be strong-I've interacted with one confirmed WS sock before, an account by the name of Jilllyjo-and I have observed some similarities. Yet this shouldn't be enough. Finally, the connection is listed as "Likely." Then it was closed. Nothing else happened. In a criminal court, being able to argue that the defendant "likely" committed the crime is not enough for a conviction.
    It's also worth noting that the blocking admin, Bbb23, was pinged by WV. Bbb23 also protested Coffee's decision to open this thread, so it appears he may be a bit sympathetic to Winkelvi. Thus, although it is beside the original point here, I support the investigation being reopened so that a CheckUser may be brought in to investigate. Display name 99 (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That is incorrect: a CheckUser (Bbb23) did investigate, and Pauciloquence is checkuser-blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ivanvector, I have one quick question before I strike my comment supporting the reinvestigation. If the CheckUser did indeed confirm that the two accounts came from the same IP address, why does it only say "Likely," and not "Confirmed," as it did, for example, in the Wordseventeen/Jilllyjo investigation? Display name 99 (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only guess since I wasn't involved with that investigation and don't have CheckUser access myself, but my interpretation is that a "likely" result indicates a strong likelihood of connection on a technical basis (versus "confirmed" which is definitely the same user), but still a positive result when the user's behaviour is also similar as it seemed to be here. Or more to the point: a CheckUser placed the block, so it's a CheckUser block. I trust Bbb23 would not annotate the block log in that way if there were any doubt. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This whole thing is of questionable relevancy anyway, Display name, just to clarify one point: many if not most SPIs do not involve checkuser because they are WP:DUCK situations. Such as, for instance, the same promotional article being re-created. Coretheapple (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK then. Display name 99 (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You guys are getting a little worked up - maybe you could take a step back? HalfShadow 01:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Drmies has been worked up over this for the past couple of days, so I'm glad someone noticed. But just to answer his question, which is a fair one: no, I did not warn the editor in question over the word "cunt." Drmies was throwing around words like "asshole" so I figured that word was OK with him. Coretheapple (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Coretheapple: Drmies is not the subject of this thread, nor has he done anything to deserve the blowback he is getting here. Can everyone please focus on the question at hand, which concerns Winkelvi? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I said "assholish quality of y'all's discourse"--a comment on content, not on an edit. Coretheapple, Keri, and now Display name are having a little coterie on User talk:Keri, where [Keri referred to me as a cunt. The comment is still there for these boys to snicker over. Core is simply trying to get under my skin, but has not been able to turn Light show's lies into anything substantial against Winkelvi. And from the other editors here, who all seem so concerned with behavior, crickets--at the very least you'd think someone would say something over this "cunt" business, for which the civility police wanted Eric Corbett's head, or the false accusations re:Winkelvi and the admin corps by a serial edit warrior and copyright violator. Community, where are you? Drmies (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • It would be best if you all took a step back. Your apparent emotional attachment to the issue is distracting and disruptive to the many editors already involved here who are working toward consensus. For what it's worth: @Drmies: "assholish quality of y'all's discourse" may be a comment on content but it contains a blatant and IMO very unnecessary insult to the person contributing that content; @Keri: the next time you associate an editor with your "mental list of 'cunts whose opinions I disregard'", it will be noted in your block log. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking as one of the editors you refer to above, I wasn't aware the term was used. Why? Because it was in another thread on another page. It only got here because you chose to bring it here multiple times, in the most inflammatory way possible. So if anyone should be called to task for its presence on this thread, it's you, Drmies. Otherwise, we'd have been none the wiser. Here, it does nothing but stir people up and deflect from the matter at hand. --Drmargi (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Facepalm Facepalm I don't know what you all don't get about being told to drop it, by more than one administrator. The next person I find trying to prolong this side dispute is going to find themselves blocked. Enough already. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indefinite block. As someone who also had a nightmarish encounter with Winkelvi, I knew it was just a matter of time before his behavior came into light. He is quick to accuse other people, but when someone challenges him on his own behavior, he gets extremely defensive and cries "personal attack". With Winkelvi, he can do no wrong and its always someone else's fault. His problem is much bigger than edit warring. He was recently given a two month block([53]) a few months back and the first thing he did when it expired was lash out at two admins.[54][55] Does this look like someone who learned his lesson and can change his behavior? Despite a lengthy two month block, he was still defiant and told the admin he was wrong and learned nothing. I don't know how he got away with that and I am not sure if the admin ever read his comment. This is a user who can not admit that he is ever wrong and will never change. He also knows the rules clearly and is always reporting other users for edit warring, so no one should buy his excuse about being confused about the rules. Due his battleground behavior and earlier feud with me(long story), he even reported me at WP:ANEW here over a time stamp which was quickly dismissed as probably the most ridiculous and pettiest report ever on Wikipedia. This is the kind of editor that does more harm than good to the project and what Wikipedia doesn't need. He has been given plenty of chances. Enough is enough. TL565 (talk) 07:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've not had any dealings with Winkelvi (that I recall), so I can't really comment on their conduct, or who they might have rubbed up the wrong way. However, I'm more concerned that the starting point of this block was a malformed report at the edit-war notice board by an IP who appeared out of nowhere to only disappear again. Apologies if that's already been brought up in this thread, but there's a lot of text here already, and I find that to be a major part of this which appears to be overlooked. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 08:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't see anything wrong with it. It was just an IP who noticed the hypocrisy of Winkelvi's report on another user for violating the 3RR when he had just as many reverts. It's a good thing the IP brought attention to it because he would've gotten away with it too. TL565 (talk) 08:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I'm off to watch repeats of Scooby Doo. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 08:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, in most cases I have seen (perhaps not this one -- I haven't checked) the real hypocrisy is claiming that the only thing that matters on ANEW is the number of reverts, as I mentioned (somewhat vaguely) in my earlier comment. Again, I haven't looked into this most recent edit war, but for the sake of argument imagine that Winkelvi had been desperately pinging the other user on the talk page and presenting reasonable arguments for his version, and the other user was either ignoring said comments completely and not posting on the talk page at all or posting variations on "You're wrong" or "I don't care" (or even "You are a stupid poopy-head" -- I've seen it happen). In this scenario, Winkelvi would still be wrong to revert multiple times (he should have just come to ANEW first), but he would clearly be the less guilty of "edit-warring". If Winkelvi, after edit-warring back, then decides to go to ANEW, that still is not hypocrisy on his part -- it's him doing what he should have done to begin with. Again I should specify that this is only in response to TL565's comment above; I am not saying definitely that anything like this scenario happened here. It's just that since it has happened before. I once narrowly escaped a block for having taken bait like this (since there was tag-teaming/meatpuppetry involved, the other party hadn't even technically breached 3RR yet), so it's kind of a pet peeve of mine. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case both users did post to the talk page here, though WV's only justification appears to be "I think they are not improvements" and you need to observe BRD with no other explanation. Of course, when he filed the report at AN3, WV claimed the other editor involved had not attempted to discuss the matter [56] despite the ongoing discussion. Calidum 12:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear: by "malformed" all it means is that the IP didn't follow the correct format for reporting a 3RR violation [57]. If you examine the edit history of the Billy the Kid article[58] you can see that it was clearly a 3RR violation. But what's striking is what he was edit warring over. Here is the diff of the edit in question. These are piddling, inconsequential, trivial wording changes, such as changing active voice into passive. (E.g., changing "reviewed the photo" into "the photo was reviewed"). This is identical to his behavior in Bess Myerson 26 months ago, down to the last detail in the sense that he pushed the revert button repeatedly over trivial, inconsequential semantic issues in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Sorry, I didn't even notice the word "malformed". I took Lugnuts' comment to be more about the (malformed or no) report being filed by an IP who appeared out of nowhere to only disappear again, as Andy Dingley said at the top of this thread. I'm usually inclined to cut people slack when it comes to failure to conform to templates like that because, honestly, a lot of the instructions on Wikipedia noticeboards and the like are really difficult to follow, especially when it looks like ANEW works essentially the same as AN and its other subpages like this one. Frankly, it's increasingly hard to assume good faith on the part of the users who write some of those instructions, as from time to time when questioned they seem to indicate that the goal is to make it difficult to use such-and-such process and so decrease the rate and which said process is used (I'm not talking specifically about ANEW here). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The debate here is mostly in reference to this ANEW entry: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive338#Winkelvi (Result: Blocked). A new IP address appears, alleges, "Winkelvi made four reverts in 11 hours on the same page" but doesn't even say which page this was, so that's unverifiable, and Coffee blocked them for 3 months within an hour and without any sort of discussion or clarification as to what had happened.
    This is a bad block. Not because Winkelvi wasn't edit-warring, but because on-demand long blocks by passing socks have traditionally required IRC or requests at Wikipediocracy, not just an unformed handwave at ANEW. That is a much worse thing than anything Winkelvi was doing. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that an IP not abiding by proper format makes it a "bad block." There's no question that was a terrible 3RR report, in the sense of not even mentioning that it was in Billy the Kid. But to figure out what he meant, all one had to do was look in Winkelvi's recent edit history, and there it was. This was not an accusation of sockpuppetry, just something very obvious. Keep in mind too that people are blocked for edit warring all the time, without any ANEW report being filed. Coretheapple (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Extended content
    Hijiri88 "Perhaps" not this one? Rather than taking a quick look at the actual circumstances, you propose an alternative scenario so that you can bring up a pet peeve that does not apply? I am the other editor who was edit-warring with Winkelvi over simple copy edits involving minor stylistic changes (mainly using passive-voice constructions vs. active-voice). It started when I reverted Winkelvi's reversion of an IP editor's copy edits (which were completely valid). I've had other run-ins with him at the same article, and found Winkelevi's intransigence to be the single greatest impediment to the article's progression toward GA status, which was strange, considering that he was the nominating editor. His interactions with the poor reviewers who accepted the thankless task of dealing with him were a sight to see. I can only say that in the years (since 2011) I've been editing, Winkelvi is by far the most unpleasant person I've ever tried to work with, inside WP or outside. The history of his behavior in the many negative encounters he's had on WP speaks volumes. I would certainly have pointed out Winkelvi's hypocrisy (after the expiration of my 24-hour block) if the IP hadn't. Carlstak (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone (TL565) made a general statement that was (in general) wrong, I replied in general, and while no one complained another user (Coretheapple) corrected me on something that was really peripheral to what I had written (it was clear that no one was particularly concerned with the malformed nature of the ANEW thread), so I replied to that. I am under no obligation to comment any further on this particular case than I already have; I presented my opinion on what should be done in this case (which was a very popular opinion, not an "alternative scenario [...] that doesn't apply") three days ago. I said "perhaps" merely because I was not sure either way (as far as I am concerned, it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference regarding what should be done here), and for the purpose of what I wanted to write I was under no obligation to find out. It was NOT meant to imply that I had looked into the specific details here and was unable to figure out whether or not what I said applied. The rest of your comment beyond the second sentence has nothing whatsoever to do with me, and so I will not address it. (For the record, I too have interacted with Winkelvi in the past and found his behaviour unpleasant. That has nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote. Frankly, with Winkelvi blocked at the moment, I'm a little more concerned with how unpleasant you are being with the above highly belligerent remark.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Highly belligerent"? Please. Carlstak (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does Scooby Doo have ad breaks? I'm selling a bridge. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Zoinks! Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 15:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The IP didn't even make a separate report. It was supposed to be in the same report at Wikinelvi's [59] Some one else later separated them and it got archived seperatly. TL565 (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right - that does make quite a difference then. An interesting theory has been hypothesised for this, but that is Wikipediocracy's mud, and they can fling it themselves. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a helpful clarification, but I really don't believe it is all that consequential. Coretheapple (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block as well within admin discretion. Coffee ought to be admonished for bringing this here: a pretty clear consensus had already developed below Winkelvi's unblock request and this thread is a very transparent attempt to forumshop the result he was the only one not agreeing with. That said, we're here now and other issues have come to light. Having read both threads I support unblock with indefinite 1RR restriction with the standard WP:3RRNO exemptions. This will not affect WV's anti-vandalism activities as blatant vandalism can be reverted anyway, it will only prevent WV from getting into the revert wars they have such a tumultuous history with. So I hope, anyway. Any second revert on any page anywhere would result in an immediate and indefinite block. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ivanvector, after the block, Winkelvi continued his habit of pinging friendly admins to try to bail him out. Knowing from experience which admins he can gain favor from, it's a pretty clear case of "admin shopping" and thus shouldn't be seen as representing any kind of general consensus. Most of the editors on the talk page agreeing to a 1RR were canvassed.
    Appealing to the community was in truth the best decision, because it is we who have to deal with Winkelvi's behavior. We shouldn't be forced to let a group of hand-picked administrators decide what to do with Winkelvi. In a place like this, anybody, no matter what their previous interactions (if any) with Winkelvi, can see and comment on the proposals. Display name 99 (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the end but not the means. Anyway, arguing about it beyond this point is not going to aid the discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ivanvector, Coffee should be thanked for both the block and raising it here - you, perhaps, should be "admonished", for your raise the heat, "admonishment" - raising it publicly is policy and actually much better process for multiple reasons (someone above actually says your 1rr will work better now, because we are all suppose to be imposed upon to watch him). Did you read Anna's last comment on the talk page? You want to leave temptation? So, an indef can occur. Better to remove temptation (or mistake), entirely. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I said let's not pursue this, and instead you pursue it by threatening me? That doesn't jibe well with your missive about not raising the heat. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's absurd. There is no threat. Unless, you are claiming your original comment was a threat. My comment was even milder than yours. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I interpreted your "indef can occur" comment as directed at me. I see now what you were referring to below. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Sincerely, thank you, for that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Hey y'all, let's not get upset on my account. Ivanvector, there's simply no logical way you can call a deliberate selection of favored admins: consensus. If this was the case every single editor here, when blocked, would never use the {{unblock}} system anymore... we could all just ping who we wanted to be on the panel of our fate. This is why the policy states: Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended. Furthermore, it looks like you may be accidentally misreading what Alan wrote. I (and Alan can correct me if I'm wrong) believe he was merely referring to what impression your comments might make upon WV and what affect that might have on him (e.g. a future indefinite block due to unhindered disruptive behavior). At any rate, I'd rather we not blow this up too far out of proportion; I've already fully explained my reasoning for coming here. If certain editors decide they don't want to believe me, so be it. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Coffee: in the end, however this came about it's coming around to probably be a proper outcome. However, it does honestly look to a neutral observer (or to me, maybe I'm not as neutral as I think I am) like you only posted here to get around the emerging consensus to overturn your block. But you're right that admins were canvassed, and you've already explained the situation, and you posted in the right forum, but the other discussion is still going, and there's all the different talk page posts, but ... I don't know, it's all a mess. Let's all agree that this got to where it needed to be and leave it at that. To that end I've struck my comment above, I don't honestly see the point in admonishments anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivanvector: I want to assure you that I did not come here to avoid a consensus, I came here to avoid a cherry-picked consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I know. I get it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    not so arbitrary break

    Reading through the above a few times, I think there are two main courses of action editors are recommending:

    1. An indefinite block
    2. An unblock with an indefinite 0RR or 1RR editing restriction.

    It'd be helpful when judging consensus if editors stating a preference above could indicate if they could live with the other option. --NeilN talk to me 17:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Remove temptation, from someone, who behaves as if they cannot handle it, and then gets into obnoxious BATTLE over their reversion: Block and 0 RR, sure if they take the 0 RR, I am neutral on ending block early. (1RR has already been tried). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indefinite block It'd be a matter of days before the 0RR/1RR restriction is broken - not because the editor would deliberately do it, but because their temper enthusiasm would get the better of them. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As indicated above, I'd definitely prefer indefinite. However, I could live with letting the block expire after the full 90 days and then going with an indefinite 0RR after that. However, there's no way I could do 1RR. It's been attempted already and didn't come close to solving all of the problems. Display name 99 (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I favor an indefinite block, and I think an immediate unblock with a 1RR or even 0RR restriction would be a mistake and would be unfair to the editors in subject areas in which Winkelvi is a prolific contributor. It's kicking the can down the road. It's not just reversions and edit warring, it's a general cluelessness, a refusal to "get the point." Even without reverting, an editor can wreak havoc on talk pages, driving away editors by filibustering and wall-o-text rants, very much as Winkelvi did at Myerson and as he began to do at Billy the Kid. And over what? Nothing. Passive versus active voice. Little turns of phrase. Whether someone should be called a "singer-songwriter" or a "singer and songwriter." In fact, even if a 0RR restriction had been in force in January 2015, the nightmare that he inflected on other editors on the Myerson talk page would have been just as awful. He's been shown plenty of compassion and given multiple chances. Time to show compassion for the rest of us, Coretheapple (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with an 'indef block' is that a)its not a ban and so not subject to community input to lift, and b)any admin can unblock in the future based on whatever Wink can convince them of - as they have an extensive history of saying 'I'll change' this is clearly a suboptimal solution. So regardless of their block length/when they are unblocked, he needs a 0RR restriction which can only be lifted by community consensus. He is well aware of 1rr, 3rr etc and since he has repeatedly (there is ample evidence above) shown no interest in not edit warring despite knowing full well what it is and all the details around what constitutes a revert, only 0RR has a hope of working. I say working, but I mean 'cause less disruption to other editors'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good points. What about a site ban? It's the same thing. OR an indefinite block that can only be lifted by community consensus, if there is such a thing. Please see my comments above re talk page abuse. Coretheapple (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Only in death: Actually, a community imposed indefinite block cannot be unilaterally lifted by any single admin without community consensus to do so. Blackmane (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You may want to review WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN. As written the policy states any non-arbcom indefinite *block* can be appealed in the usual manner via an unblock request. Only community *bans* are required to go back to the community/arbcom. Granted any admin who did unblock after the community voted for an indef block would likely end up here, but the editor could not be reblocked without accusations of wheel-warring. Its the weakness of blocks vs bans for persistant offenders. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indefinite block. Let's just recap the situation. He was blocked in June 2014 for edit warring. January 2015 for edit warring over multiple pages. Twice in March 2015 for edit warring and disruptive editing. July 2015 for edit warring (overturned on a technicality). November 2015 for edit warring (ditto). January 2016 for edit warring. May 2016 for feuding with multiple editors. September 2016 for harassment. March 2017 for edit warring. That's ten blocks in the period of 1,000 days -- one every three months. It's clear this behavior has not stopped and I don't see any positives to outweigh the many negatives other editors have described above. (Note that he could still ask the community to have the block lifted in the future -- indefinite isn't infinite -- and it might be good if he were the one saying what he would do differently to avoid confrontations instead of us offering him lifelines in the form of revert restrictions.) Calidum 18:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - neutral with regard to indefinite block, it's not my preferred option but Winkelvi has clearly exhausted the patience of many editors. I oppose 0RR in any case as I've only ever seen it lead to gaming the definition of a revert followed by more dramah (I mean generally, not just in this case). I also think a site ban is unduly harsh for this and do not support it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is true, isn't 1RR, even more so? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ... what? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indefinite block. It's clear that there is a significant body of administrators who can be manipulated by Winklevi, leaving me with no confidence that the 0RR/1RR restriction and subsequent mandatory indef would be enforced. Worse, were Coffee to do so, he'd be subject to a quick hauling over the coals by at least some of his administrative peers. Moreover, it's clear that the experiences of those of us who have been on the receiving end of Winklevi's behavior are of little consequence to the group Winklevi has wrapped around his little finger, and we will continue to be pursued, harangued and hassled by him. Given that, the one and only acceptable choice is to indefinitely block him. --Drmargi (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - A site ban may be overly harsh in this situation. Why not finish his current block then 0RR indefinitely? That would be a step-up from the last attempt to reason with him, while avoiding a site ban. This solution, however, would be his last chance to reform, at least in my opinion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    TheGracefulSlick, the biggest issue with that is Winkelvi's equally consistent hostile and combative behavior on talk pages. Talk:Bess Myerson and Talk:Billy the Kid are the two best examples. Display name 99 (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Display name 99 good point. I was trying to suggest an in-between from the two most said proposals. If an indef block is decided by consensus, I would not object because I have no personally experience dealing with this editor.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indefinite block is my preferred solution, which I support with great regret in this and other cases. I have spent a lot of time reading all of the background information in the past several days and that has been a depressing process that has failed to convince me that a more lenient outcome would be better for the encyclopedia. In the sake of disclosure, I had a brief and unpleasant interaction with this editor a couple of years ago, and have steered clear since. Of course, I could live with another solution because I accept consensus. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've started to post in this thread a couple of times now, and deleted what I wrote because it made me want to bash my head into a wall, and then come back to it to find it even worse. I see I waited too long and we're now in the "Requests for Banning" phase. This whole thing, from top to bottom, is basically How Not To ANI: The Thread. The tendency of ANI to escalate drama and work up a crowd is well attested. I think it's often underappreciated how frustrating and distressing editors can find these long threads in which people show up to pick apart the subject's perceived personal faults as exhibited over the last several years. (Likewise with frequent comments from the blocking admin on the blocked editor's talk page. Best to let others step in.) The original plan worked out by a group of admins familiar with the situation - unblock after some time to think + 1RR - is a sensible one. Most of the comments here overlook the fact that 1RR did work pretty well in the past, but the restriction expired. So renew it. (There's also a lot of pixels spilled on the length of the block log, but "gets blocked once every six months for 3RR" is really not the kind of thing that breaks the wiki. He's hardly the only established editor who occasionally goes over that line.) Since he says he'd prefer to wait out the block than work under a 0RR restriction, I suppose those are my second and third choices. The proposals for an indefinite block or siteban are unwarranted. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what you mean by working up a crowd, as virtually all the editors posting here have had experiences with this editor, aren't just kibbitzers dropping in for blood sport. Also the focus on edit-warring has overlooked the talk page issues noted by some editors here. 0RR would not address them. Coretheapple (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. I think 0RR is worth a try. Indef, just means until someone unblocks - it is often quite short. The reason 0RR would work, is it takes away the incentive to enter these BATTLES, at all.Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    True, there is that possibility. But if you have 0RR, there would be no impact on talk-page concerns such as you I believe noted. That's why a site ban makes sense. Reading CBAN, it seems specifically tailored for this kind of situation. Coretheapple (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I think the talk page BATTLE stems form the reversion warring, and trying to "protect" his re - version using his battle tactics. Remove reversion temptation at all means remove the reason for BATTLE - means he goes and does something else, like create articles on on his own or with someone, as Anna suggested on the talk page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But all 0RR means is that the battle shifts to the talk page. He has his preferred wording. He puts it up there. It is reverted. Now instead of revert-warring he takes it to the talk page and calamity ensues. I believe this happened when Myerson was protected, as I believe it was. Yes, hopefully he would stop that behavior. But he won't.. I trust you know how hard it is to deal with such situations. It's not like 3RR, which is cut and dried. We just had a situation like that in another article, involving a small group of editors who went against consensus.
    So there is a talk page nightmare. You come here. You know how hard it is to convey to third parties that a tendentious editor is being tendentious. Meanwhile, the protection corps materializes. He gets another chance. More promises. More time down the toilet. It's like the man said --- like beating your head against the wall. Sorry to be so gloomy and dismal, but that's just how it is. Coretheapple (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He no longer has the ability to force his view in article space, he must get consensus on the talk page - he is most unlikely to get consensus if he takes his BATTLE stance, and being ineffective is probably his best teacher, here. It's plain there will not be a ban, at this time - and as someone else said the step-up is 0rr, and I think it takes away almost all his incentive to Battle. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Remember this exchange about "plagiarism" in Talk:Bess Myerson? Which did not exist? He was unable to force his view on that in article space but it made no difference. 0RR doesn't address this kind of talk page situation. Only self-restraint. Which ain't happening. Coretheapple (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

    I do remember, it began with a his desire for reversion of the stupidly alleged plagiarism, and it was around the same time that he admitted he did not read the sources, all which goes against his desired version, and makes it all ineffective. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And an accumulation of that kind of thing is why there is an interest in indefinitely blocking. I agree, though, that the elephant in the room is that whatever is done here might be reversed by admins who are sympathetic to WV and not to the people he encounters. I would suggest that an indef, after a discussion like this, would not be casually overturned. Coretheapple (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, the world won't end whatever the outcome here. The test, I think, is what causes least additional stress and time wasted for the community, defined as "editors who might encounter him." What will result in the least drama in the long run? So let's say he's indeffed. Then the burden is on him to come back after a period of time and make commitments, and subsequent to such a return there would be less incentive to be troubling. As a person who myself has struggled with ... well..... [60] I believe that this makes the most sense. Coretheapple (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But, no. If there is an indefinite block, with no required consensus instruction on how to lift it, it is just left to the lifting admin to do what they think best. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well there's our answer - an instruction. Coretheapple (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And the choices, at present, are 1RR or 0RR. Alanscottwalker (talk)
    No, I think it's premature to judge the outcome of this discussion. The last one in which I participated in ANI concerning this editor went on for many days. Softlavender suggests a talk page restriction, for instance. Coretheapple (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Come now, Opibina, your "bashed head" is drama to the max. This so-called "group of administrators" includes, at least 1, where the last comment on the talk page was essentially, 'maybe you should stay blocked then, you need to find something else to do, because you can't handle it' That's working it out, too, but just not in your way, no point in your bashing your head, silliness. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Opabinia regalis: Re: "The original plan worked out by a group of admins familiar with the situation - unblock after some time to think + 1RR - is a sensible one." That plan was "worked out" by two friendly admins WV pinged, an admin known for his extreme leniency and cowboy unblocks, and an admin with a longterm feud with the blocker. It was not worked out or agreed to by anyone who has had to deal with WV's disruption (and those that have not had to deal with WV's disruption would include you: [61]). In terms of ANI, you are on record as stating "Nothing good happens at ANI", but in your four years active on Wikipedia you have made only 75 edits here, even though you have been an admin for most of that time: [62]. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yeah, why would I hang out in a place I don't like? "The food here is terrible - and such small portions!" ;)
    And yeah, if I've ever crossed paths with Winkelvi, it was forgettable. Not part of the "protection corps" supposedly hanging around. That's how this is supposed to work - independent review by uninvolved people with fresh eyes. Some of the stuff here - joining in to reanimate a minor two-year-old content dispute - well, that's a little bit like the "not letting go" behavior Winkelvi's accused of, I'd say. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Like DHeyward, you're missing the point. The reason there is so much agreement on this thread is because hundreds of good-faith editors have been at the receiving end of Winkelvi's obstinate, relentless, heedless, and highly disruptive behavior over the past several years, often multiple times in different venues. The Bess Myerson article is just one example out of several hundred. If there were an ArbCom case, people would present dozens more (I myself have several examples). If you have not been on the receiving end of Winkevli's harassment (and very few admins have; WV knows better), then you do not have the same experience others here do. And ANI is not "supposed to work [by] independent review by uninvolved people with fresh eyes". It is for knowledgeable and experienced editors to give their best recommendations. Lastly, if you think the Bess Myerson article example is a "minor" content dispute, then you have not examined it thoroughly. Either that, or you do not understand extreme edit-warring and WP:BLUDGEONING. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse Block + indefinite 1RR. I am not a fan of indefinite blocks and I also don't think we need to unblock at this point in time. I too, like many editors, have had my run ins with WV and I think while the block was 100% righteous, we can give WV some rope. WV states that he responds well to cut in stone rulings, so we can do that. When he is able to edit again, it should be under indefinite 1RR restrictions. Further edit warring and attacks should result in laddering of blocks. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • What a mess. Of the options presented, I favor unblock with indefinite 1RR restriction, although if the consensus was for 0RR instead of 1RR, I can understand that POV. I do not believe that an indef block is justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indefinite block. Yes, it's a mess. End it. The endless saga has to end. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock with 1RR as the admins on his talk page suggested. Are we really going site ban someone over 4 edits to Billy the Kid and two year old reference to a kerfuffle at Bess Myerson? This ANI thread has been more disruptive and been more of an "administrative burden" than anything Winkelvi has done. He's a passionate editor over a very small topic area. That's the type of editor we want to rehabiliate and retain, not site ban. Since the caustic nature of this ANI post has driven many of the contributing admins away, there is no way to form a consensus that changes the status quo. He's been blocked for 3 months because of a 4th revert to that highly watched, hotbed of controversy article of Billy the Kid - apparently the cause of much "administrator burden." Oh and two years ago, I understand that people were upset with his talk page comments at the article Bess Myerson. I could probably get more detail if I read those articles. He has not participated in this ANI mudslinging contest which has actually caused more disruption than anything Winkelvi has done. Keep in mind, we are NOT at ANI because of Winkelvi. Winkelvi was given a 3 month block which was not contested here or brought here by him or anyone seeking a change. Had he been lucky enough to have received an Arbitration Enforcement block, this ANI would have been closed as out-of-process. Think about that: our highest burden articles would not have allowed this process to occur, yet there are editors that think he should receive harsher punishment. Unbelievable. --DHeyward (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Are we really going site ban someone over 4 edits to Billy the Kid and two year old reference to a kerfuffle at Bess Myerson?" No of course not. It would be because of the 10 total blocks (not counting the sockpuppetry one because of the technicality) that he has accumulated over the past three years, and his lengthy history of bullying other editors on talk pages. And yet you single out those two incidents and act as though if these were the only two major things that Winkelvi ever did wrong we'd still be having the same sort of discussion. Unbelievable. Display name 99 (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The Billy the kid revert is why he was blocked for 3 months. I did not bring up Bess Myerson but those seeking his ban surely did and they hold a two year old grudge as if he was still actively editing it. For reference, the two year old "talk page bullying" is much smaller than this ANI as well as being much more civil. The entire ten year history of the Bess Myerson talk page is smaller than this ANI. Winkelvi has no authority or rope to bully anybody and no evidence has been presented that he has done so - specifically the editor that he was edit warring with was blocked for a day for the same issue and the same "administrative burden." Beth Myerson was not a "nightmare" by any stretch of the imagination. If those are the strongest indicators of his poor behavior, there is a problem with the system, not Winkelvi. Those were lame an tedious but a real yawner in terms of drama. I care less about the number of blocks and more about circumstances and if the 4th revert on Billy the Kid and talk page kerfufle on [[[Bess Myerson]]] that occurred 2 years ago and is so small, the entirety of it hasn't been archived in nearly ten years.. If the 10 blocks are as lame as those examples, he's not a problem that needs banning or anything more than a revert restriction. His biggest crime on Billy the Kid was that he was forcing BRD when others were not and they edit warred until both broke 3RR. Happens every day. For that, Winkelvi was described as "most unpleasant person (they)'ve ever tried to work with, inside WP or outside." After an edit war over copy edits. That's just doesn't get past the BS meter. Methinks they doth protest too much. --DHeyward (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    DHeyward, you are misrepresenting me. My statement, "Winkelvi is by far the most unpleasant person I've ever tried to work with, inside WP or outside" was based on this instance and several prior encounters with him. I would ask you not to draw conclusions without doing your due diligence, which you obviously haven't done. Carlstak (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    DHeyward, you're missing the point. The reason there is so much agreement on this thread is because hundreds of good-faith editors have been at the receiving end of Winkelvi's obstinate, relentless, heedless, and highly disruptive behavior over the past several years. The Bess Myerson article is just one example. If there were an ArbCom case, people would present dozens more (I myself have several examples). If you have not been on the receiving end (and very few admins have; WV knows better), then you do not have the same experience others here do. Softlavender (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To put Softlavender's comments in perspective, I suggest that editors go to ANI Archive 871 and scan down to No. 26, "Winkelvi." I do believe it is much longer than this ANI, stretched on over some days, and involved multiple articles and many editors, including some, on both sides, to be found here, including the same defenders. It began with an alleged polemic on his user page, continued with User:J. Johnson's concerns re 2014 Oso mudslide, moved on to Bess Myerson, at which point a topic ban was discussed (the discussion indicates he consented to absent himself from that article and then reneged), went on to an accusation of canvassing (Drmies closed the discussion by agreeing, but called it "mild"), moved on to his user name, then Meghan Trainor, the result of which was that Winkelvi and two people he was in a dispute with were blocked for 48 hours. Coretheapple (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not unblock except under 0RR. A long block (3 months) does not seem unreasonable in light of the long history of problems. I don't think indef is the appropriate action (yet) but it seems clear that the community has reached the end of its patience. 1RR has been tried before and has not produced lasting improvement; so 0RR is the logical next step. Regardless of how this turns out, however, the next block should be indefinite. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leave block as is and indefinite 0RR on expiry per my earlier statement. Blackmane (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm personally not seeing a consensus to unblock among people who were not pinged by Winkelvi. Also, while I understand an indef block is on the table, I think there should be an ArbCom case before that eventuality is enacted. I personally think the three-month block is defensible given that the last block was for two months. In terms of what should happen after the block ends or expires, I suggest both 0RR and some sort of agreement (similar to TRM's in his AE appeals) not to draw out article-talk disputes. (I'm not sure how to achieve that, but perhaps something like an agreement not to post more than twice in any given disagreement.) We really need to cover article-talk discussions in the sanctions, since WV can bludgeon even a simple well-cited RfC discussion into infinity with endless irrelevant arguments. Softlavender (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC); edited 07:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This discussion was framed as a choice between two polar opposite alternatives, blocking indefinitely and unblocking while imposing editing restrictions. Perhaps the solution is to affirm the three month block and at the conclusion thereof impose an 0RR restriction plus an article talk page restriction of some kind.
    Also I just noticed a comment from Winkelvi on his talk page, in which he said that in this discussion there have been "outright lies, a lot of half-truths, (and) total mischaracterisations". That's a serious matter and I wish I had noticed it sooner. I think it is essential that Winkelvi be given the opportunity to enumerate those "lies, half-truths and micharacterizations." Coretheapple (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I offered him the opportunity to have a statement copied to ANI. He declined, but the offer remains open. BethNaught (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's a serious accusation. I'm surprised he wasn't held to account for that on his talk page, as it is an attack on the integrity of editors posting here. He should either substantiate that accusation or withdraw it. Coretheapple (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Break for a different point

    • Comment There is more than one way to create mayham and harasse another edtor. I had an unpleant entanglement with Winkelvi back in the first quater of 2015. It happened because Winkelvi edited an article on my whatch list and we went through the usual dance of an editor making a BOLD edit and then not following WP:BRD. However that is not the reason for this comment (as such behaviour has been covered by many other editors). This comment is to highlight something else. For reasons now obscured in the mists of time (ie. I can not be bothered to look into the history of many articles to find the root cause), Winkelvi became involved with a disptute with user:Kbabej. Winkelvi targeted many articles that user:Kbabej had created, or had made more than a trivial contribution. If the article had a significant history Winkelvi would change them, and then edit war to keep the change (see for example the creation and a section on the talk page: Talk:Robert Hastings Hunkins#WP:UNDUE). But another tactic employed by Winkelvi was the use of AfDs targeted at articles created by user:Kbabej whether or not there were reasonable grounds for doing so. 0/1RR only tackle edit warring in article space, they do stop other sorts of harrasment: links to relevant AfDs in particular look at the period 03:16–03:46, 6 March 2015 when Twinkle was used by Winkelvi to create about 20 Afds. -- PBS (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    www.beerglasses.eu

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

    It's also being added to beer glassware. You can see it on the range contribs. Coffee semi-protected pint glass, but we might need to do a range block if it spreads to other articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If the spam rate gets out of hand, you could also consider temporarily blacklisting the URL for a bit :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I found and removed an older example of it at Breweriana [63] left by 2605:e000:1525:c089:4005:8164:f476:bfcf. Since it's over a month old, and as I understand it IPv6 addresses change more often than the weather, is there any point in leaving them a notice about this discussion? BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'd say it's kind of pointless to alert a stale IP address. The IP addresses above are from Cyprus, and this IPv6 address geolocates to the US. It could be this is simply a popular website in its niche. This search can locate any further external links. Oshwah's idea about the spam blacklist sounds like the best solution if this becomes a burden. Sometimes, though, you just have to scan through the linksearch and revert spam. It's tedious, and you don't get barnstars for doing it, but someone has to clean up the spam that's not disruptive enough for blacklisting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Nergaal at ITNC

    User appears, so far, to have got the message. This report can always be restored if such editing reoccurs. Black Kite (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

    Notification made [73] 331dot (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    What I am supposed to do now? Nergaal (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Drop the stick, stop making pointy comments, and move on. --NeilN talk to me 20:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that. If not, I imagine the next step is to seek for a topic ban to prevent you from contributing at ITNC. After that, it'd be more widespread, i.e. you get blocked, then banned. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I endorse this ANI discussion. Nergaal can't seem to stop talking about the Leekfrith Torcs and how we need to feature other things, along with how Wikipedia has an Anglo-British bias or something along the lines. This seriously needs to stop. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Further edits along this subject line seem to have stopped, and I doubt anything further will come from this discussion. Suggest close.--WaltCip (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @WaltCip: - I didn't want to be the one to have to defend this, but I think that we should do something about this. It just doesn't stop and it's purely disruptive at this point. I think a warning is too weak because of how previous warnings failed, but a TBAN is too strong because he hasn't done anything on that scale where it needs to result in a topic ban. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Edits seem to have stopped and we don't do punitive blocking.--WaltCip (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As the person who started this, I will say that if this discussion motivated Nergaal to stop, I'm content with that. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Seeking a one way IBAN re Andy Dingley

    For a while now, Andy Dingley had determined that I am a baleful influence that he has to set right and has parachuted into disputes I am having with other editors.

    Following on the Vipul paid enterprise matter, I and other editors have been starting to clean up effective altruism advocacy in articles those editors worked on per this COIN thread (I will be bringing a more pointed RfC about that matter soon). Unsurprisingly, other EA advocates have been pushing back here and there.

    Andy who, for clarification, is not one of the Vipul editors nor an EA advocate as far as I know, continued his BATTLEGROUND behavior against me and just interjected himself into one of the article discussions here and here, apparently having seen the EW notice one of the participants there left on my talk page. He has never before edited the article or its talk page. (user-search at article, user-search at talk page)

    Dealing with advocacy is hard and here we have unpaid advocates teaming up, and are also dealing with content generated by the network of paid advocates who had teamed up. The last thing we need in this effort is HOUNDING wiki-politics complicating things.

    There has been a nice calm period since they were blocked for 31 hours, (block notice), back in November 2016 for hounding me at EWN. That was after I had warned them here in November 2016. (see diffs there)

    That was after I had warned them here in April 2016 about interfering with SPIs I had filed on a serial-socking hounder. That had followed a very hot period in March per this and this.

    I am now requesting an Iban. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC) (redact to clarify, for those who are not reading carefully Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]

    • I'm a vegetarian. A news story this week has been on Memphis Meats, who are vat-growing animal cells to make a "meat". So I went to see if we had an article on it, and guess what I find - Jytdog and his perennial bullying tactics and 2RR edit-warring tatics [74] [75]. I have not edited this article, I commented at Talk:Memphis Meats.
    In return I get this, User talk:Andy Dingley#Hounding, again, and now here.
    I am sick of Jytdog's behaviour to any number of other GF editors, particularly new editors. His history speaks for itself. He also has a very thin skin, if he calls a disagreement on an article talk page "hounding". And no Jytdog, I didn't "follow you" to that article, I'm a vegetarian (and have often mentioned this) and I'm interested in vat-grown meat news. We are both editors who have been here some years: yet it was you who opened an SPI on me, even after you'd said you wouldn't do such a ridiculous thing. Let alone awarding me a "moron diploma".
    As an editor who does "good work" in rigorously enforcing MEDRS, Jytdog has some powerful friends. So a few months back I was even blocked by one of those admins for pointing out at ANEW, also Talk:, that 4RR was a brightline block, even for Jytdog. An admin who then ignored my requests to discuss this. Now you appear to be conflating me with a paid editing scheme - is there any valid reason to bring that up here, or to attempt to connect me to it, or are you just flinging mud?
    Unsurprisingly I oppose IBANs. I would like Jytdog to damn well behave himself though, to me and others. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have enough experience on WP to know the policies for this situation, but I want to provide my perspective as a new user who is very frustrated by Jytdog's behavior, which seems both like very strong advocacy against certain viewpoints (perhaps motivated by inappropriate behavior from those viewpoints, but it's still advocacy) and like very rude, unprofessional, perhaps even harassing behavior. I hope someone who knows more about WP policy is able to do something about this. Utsill (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And Andy's post at the article has succeeded in attracting one of the AE advocates that I was trying to work with at the article where Andy inserted himself. See their contribs. Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "one of the AE advocates" - or as most of us would describe them, the same editor you've been busy reverting at that article. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Andy as usual when we interact, you are misrepresenting the situation -- I didn't say you were connected to the Vipul thing, at all. I said you have parachuted into a complex, much bigger set of issues, complicating them with your grudge against me.
    More relevant to folks reading here, here is an inappropriate use of an article Talk page by Andy to continue the dispute. Classic WP:BATTLEGROUND. I will not say more here. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "as usual when we interact": every post, a sideways slight at your opponent.
    Why post about a paid editing scheme in an ANI post you have raised about me? If you are alleging a connection, then say it. If you are not, then you are simply slinging mud. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • More personalized BATTLEGROUND at the article talk page, here. The disruption is clear. Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's battleground about that? You started this by demanding an IBAN, and casting aspersions in your post by implying that there's a connection between Andy and Vipul, a paid editing enterprise, so of course he has to be allowed to defend himself. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry you don't understand. Article talk pages are for discussing article content. Andy is creating drama there attacking me, instead of addressing the content issues there. Not appropriate and Wikipedia 101 level stuff per WP:TPG; he should know better. This thread is the place to "defend himself". And my OP did not connect Andy and VIpul. Please stop continuing Andy's misrepresentation. I have added a clarification above. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I do understand, and don't try to talk down to me, the way you always seem to do in all discussions you get into, no matter who you get into a discussion with, it only makes yourself look bad. You have IMHO no case for an IBAN, and yes, your text did try to connect Andy to Vipul, without a shred of evidence, which also makes you look bad. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • So just WHY 'did you feel the urge to include a paid editing scheme in an ANI post against me? You're right, I don't understand. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey Jytdog since you know a lot about Wikipedia (probably more then me) can you tell us what "Boomerang" is ?? Jena (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • ....... yah ok .. I think he has to stay away from Andy but ... I think in 6 months he is looking at a block Jena (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ach, I also see that in addition to posting about this at the article talk page, Andy WP:CANVASSed Utsill to this discussion, here. And Utsill being a newbie, fell right into that. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that you're using ANI to slag them off as an "AE advocate", apart from them being the editor you're busy reverting at Memphis Meats, it's only fair to inform them too. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, this thread is solely focused on your BATTLEGROUND behavior. The only reason I mentioned the context is because you carrying your grudge against me into this specific situation exacerbated a much larger issue that has already consumed a lot of the community's time. You are again diverting and misrepresenting the problem. If you actually read the links in the OP about the Vipul matter and the COIN thread you would understand what you interjected yourself into the middle of. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Seems like you're the one who is hounding Andy, and not the other way around, checking every single edit he makes, and then quickly posting here, trying to make him look as bad as possible. This thread is not focused solely on Andys alleged battleground behaviour, BTW, your behaviour is also fair game here... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 23:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just how am I "in the middle of" this paid editing thing? Please, humour the diploma-carrying moron here. I'm just talking about meat substitutes, I don't understand this other thing you're accusing me of. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You are really not taking the time to understand. The article into which you interjected yourself (and Thomas I already showed that Andy never edited the article, and went to it after an EW notice was placed on my talk page - he followed me to the article, not the other way around) was created by a sockpuppet of an EA advocate as shown here. The two editors with whom I was talking, both edit EA topics as you can see from their contribs and I have already started interacting with them on other articles as part of the cleanup of Vipul's enterprise before discussions happened at this article. Vipul's entire enterprise was EA driven, if you take a few minutes and actually read the links and I anticipate there will be further issues with the already present EA advocates in WP as that cleanup continues. You are not even trying to understand what you stepped into the middle of in your hounding of me and canvassing of a newbie editor. The latter is especially bad form as you are actively trying to screw up the head of a newbie. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Another PA struck out.
    Jytdog, as I've already told you, I'm a veggie so I'm interested in vat-grown meat and Memphis Meat (which you've been pruning as NOTNEWS) has been all over my newsfeeds this week. If you're calling me a liar, then come out and say so directly. After all, you've already called me a sockpuppeteer (or was it a puppet?) and today you're dropping me into some paid-editing fracas. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your protestation about what led you to get involved may or may not be true. Others might believe you but give your history with me, I don't, and you came in swinging there with the same things you always say and made a mess of this just as you did the SPIs I linked to above. Your pattern of hounding me and making messes is clear. And even if what you are saying is true, given that history and your already having been blocked once for hounding me, you should have restrained yourself, but you didn't. So you walked right into this, either way. Also, I have removed the edit that you made to my comment above in this diff. You are just going for the trifecta of behavior violations aren't you? HOUNDING, canvassing, and now editing others comments. Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are outright calling another editor, me, a liar? Thanks for that. It sits nicely along the paid editing attacks. As to "making a mess of your SPIs", the only SPI I encountered you at (apart from the one you filed on me) was poor old CaptainYuge whom you hounded off the project in a month, after you'd made such a hatchet job of the RepRap project page that external press started to cover it. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you are explicitly lying. Your interference with the many SPIs on Biscuittin is there in the history (your contribs here) and some of your hounding comments (and my responses to them) there were reverted by an admin here. I am asking the community to keep you away from me. The block you received did not wake you up, so this needs to be imposed on you. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. I check Jytdog's user page and find a link to a GMO topic ban. Memphis Meats wants to grow in vitro animal products. In other words, MM wants to use the genes that produce product and skip the genes that grow other stuff. Does that hit the broadly interpreted GMO predicate? Glrx (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt it. AFAIK, the vat-meat people are avoiding GMO (either because they don't need it, or they don't need the inevitable bad press). It's a problem of getting (genetically) unmodified cells to grow in the vats.
    I have no wish to catch Jytdog out on some contrived technicality - but I do wish he would back off his aggression to everyone. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I second the motion that jytdog back off his aggression. DennisPietras (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I note his recent reversions of you at Induced pluripotent stem cell and clearly that only slips through, "all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted" because it's an and, not an or. Now that's brinksmanship. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Without commenting on the bigger issues, IPSCs aren't GMOs, even under a broad interpretation. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jytdog, can you explain how Memphis Meats is part of the Vipul paid-editing enterprise, which you stated in your OP? For those wondering about a topic ban violation, WP:AE is that way. I have no comment or opinion on the Jytdog/Andy feuding. Softlavender (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not part of the Vipul paid enterprise. I didn't say it was. It is part of the EA advocacy that has gone in WP, which Vipul's enterprise falls within, and which we are going to run into a lot from non-Vipul affiliated editors, as we go to clean up after the Vipul enterprise. (The Memphis Meats article fits into the EA universe b/c one of the EA movement's targets is alleviating animal suffering; Memphis Meats aims to grow meat in vats, from cells, solving the problem with technology.) The MM article was created by a sockpuppet of an EA advocate as shown here. The two editors with whom I was talking, both edit EA topics as you can see from their contribs (here and here, and Utsill especially was strongly resisting removing promotionalism from this article. The killer thing is that Kbog had proposed a decent compromise when Andy stomped in, stalking me, and blew it up, attacking me and the content argument I had been making there. I hope that is more clear. I apparently explained this badly in my OP. My apologies to everybody. Jytdog (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your OP states "I and other editors have been starting to clean up effective altruism advocacy in articles those [Vipul's] editors worked on per this COIN thread .... Andy ... just interjected himself into one of the article discussions here and here ..." (underscoring mine). Softlavender (talk) 08:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Argh. I first encountered Kbog when I was cleaning up Giving What We Can, which is an article that the Vipul editors worked on. Kbog at first fought the clean up. In discussions with Kbog on their Talk page, Utsill joined in. In that discussion at Kbog's Talk page, Kbog started understanding the problem Ustill did not. Then Utsill added promotional content to Memphis Meats, which I reverted, and that started a conflict at that EA advocate article. Which Kbog had just about resolved, when Andy brought his BATTLEGROUND with me there, complicating the problem. Like I said already, there is a set of EA advocates and we are going to keep running into them at other EA-related articles. The Vipul set of EA articles is a subset of the EA articles in WP. Jytdog (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Front-loading your IBan request with all that irrelevant self-congratulatory misleading material was gratuitous. That said, it's clear that Andy came to the article via the edit-warring notice on your talk-page (edit-warring notice at 12:23, 18 March [76]; Andy's first edit at 18:48, 18 March [77]), and not through a "news story this week". Andy, I'd advise taking Jytdog's talk page off your watchlist and stopping tracking his edits. Softlavender (talk) 09:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    dang. I was trying to explain why it was so frustrating when he did it this time; i view the cleanup work as something many people are doing, that i am part of. Andy butting in here hurts the whole effort, in my view. I wasn't aware of being self-congratulatory - thanks for saying that you heard it that way. It is clear that i communicated badly and i appreciate you taking the time to try to figure out what i was trying to say. Jytdog (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lute88 regarding Ukrainian collaborationism with the Axis powers

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

    Lute88 reverts all the edits which potentially may be perceived as contradicting pro-Ukrainian POV. They rarely bother to provide a reason.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ymblanter: The IP has not, however, pointed out the diff in question. Their change doesn't actually make any sense within the context. Both versions are awkward, but the IP is edit warring their changes. There's an article talk page for discussion of the phrasing. I think it needs modification, but 'Soviet' is not a replacement for 'Russian' for starters. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not object against blocking both of them for edit-warring. I do not like any of the versions either, both look like original research.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP hopper was trying to delegitimize the Holodomor, but lost track of what he was doing.--Lute88 (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To entirely eradicate the word "genocide" from these events is a white wash. While there may be a difference of opinion as to the application of the word "Genocide", the fact of the controversy is incontrovertible. This is a content dispute that should be worked out on the talk page of the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I just don't see an editor behavior issue here, that's all. I have no opinion on the content issue. Coretheapple (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Edits by 70.44.233.118

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

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

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

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

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

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

    At the start of that safety topic, there are 6 sections, with approximately 90% of the references not meeting the MEDRS guidelines followed by my addition of...
    The first published report of a person treated for macular degeneration with a cell-sheet derived from iPSCs was reported in 2017 in the New England Journal Of Medicine[61]. That publication and other research was reviewed independently in Science, which pointed out that the procedure was at least safe.[62]. The same issue of NEJM published a perspective about the benefits and risks of stem cell therapy.[63]
    61 Mandai M, Watanabe A, Kurimoto Y, Hirami Y, Morinaga C, Daimon T, Fujihara M, Akimaru H, Sakai N, Shibata Y, Terada M, Nomiya Y, Tanishima S, Nakamura M, Kamao H, Sugita S, Onishi A, Ito T, Fujita K, Kawamata S, Go MJ, Shinohara C, Hata KI, Sawada M, Yamamoto M, Ohta S, Ohara Y, Yoshida K, Kuwahara J, Kitano Y, Amano N, Umekage M, Kitaoka F, Tanaka A, Okada C, Takasu N, Ogawa S, Yamanaka S, Takahashi M (2017). "Autologous Induced Stem-Cell–Derived Retinal Cells for Macular Degeneration". N Engl J Med. 376 (11): 1038–1046. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1608368. PMID 28296613.
    62 Normile D (2017). "iPS cell therapy reported safe". Science. 355 (6330): 1109–1110. doi:10.1126/science.355.6330.1109.
    63 Marks PW, Witten CM, Califf RM (2017). "Clarifying Stem-Cell Therapy's Benefits and Risks.". N Engl J Med. 376 (11): 1007–1009. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1613723. PMID 27959704.

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

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

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

    We're not blocking someone for someone trying to following guidelines and explaining that to you: Talk:Induced_pluripotent_stem_cell. Note you've gotten zero support from other editors for your proposed change. --NeilN talk to me 03:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally new editors know they are new and ask for assistance rather than tell others how things should be. There are few good editors who keep medical/biology topics clear of news-of-the-day factoids and my suggestion would be that DennisPietras should be topic banned or indeffed if they do not start taking advice very soon. The discussion at WP:VPP is unhelpful and misses several points. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your missing the whole point, utterly and completely. DennisPietras is not realigning on news-of-the-day factoids. He,other editors need to be able to cite the best research available. --Aspro (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aspro: I think you missed adding "according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." to the end of your last sentence. --NeilN talk to me 15:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that was not part of a forgotten thing. Part of our credo is to create the best encyclopedia ever. Think JW has achieved that already. Still waiting on VPP for a determinative this is not allowed by way of policies and guidelines when primaries are acceptable under policies and guidelines. --Aspro (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Then it is you who is missing the point. WP:MEDRS states (in bold, no less): "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content." The talk page discussion isn't going to alter that and Jytdog isn't going to be blocked for following that. Very few things are absolutely disallowed on Wikipedia but if you're advocating generally editing against a guideline, you're likely to get nowhere. Better to work on getting consensus to change the guideline instead. --NeilN talk to me 16:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ”generally “. Yet, what is one to do when there are no other good source? Leave it to other editors to resort to news-of-the-day factoids? Does that make for a good informative encyclopedia? For a convincing augment one's premise have to be coherent. No longer simply and only general is it? As Solon the Lawmaker of Athens (638-558 BC) quoted (and has oft been subsequently misquoted): “Laws are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools”. Where are the WP laws banning editors from using primaries when they are the best references for the article?... Where are they? --Aspro (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Generally" means "The editor who wants to break this rule needs to show why breaking it helps," not "the editors who want to enforce this rule need to prove that enforcing it helps." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • From my interactions, I really think that Dennis has it in him to be a good editor in science-related topics, but he keeps getting stuck in WP:IDHT with respect to the community norm that we don't base science content on "cutting edge" reports that have yet to become widely recognized as correct. Wikipedia isn't a science journal. He's been threatening Jytdog since their first interaction, and needs to take a good look in the mirror instead. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I didn't see this on VPP, but yes. This specific issue is a content dispute. DennisPietras, this is the wrong place for this. Good places to ask for feedback on edits about human biology are WT:MED and WT:MCB. To venture a tiny bit into the content aspect, the argument you both should be making is about whether this content is due weight. It will always be appropriate, if an article says "It has been reported that X", to reference the source in which X was reported. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @NeilN:OK I accept your decision not to block jytdog. Bye. DennisPietras (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved

    Disruptive Editing by 107.191.1.166

    This IP address has changed The Cabin in the Woods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) genre from horror comedy to horror 4 times, without any discussion. This goes against the hidden message left on the page which states: "DO NOT CHANGE THE GENRE WITHOUT DISCUSSION ON THE TALK PAGE. THERE ARE NUMEROUS SOURCES CALLING THIS FILM A HORROR COMEDY". I have reverted their edits 3 times and they have reverted mine 3 times so I believe that neither of us have edit warred. However, the current revision of the page (see [78]) is their version of the article which states the genre as horror. I do not want to revert this edit because of obvious reasons of not wanting to edit war. However, as said earlier, I believe they have not edit warred themselves so I cannot report them to WP:AN3. I have tried to bring up a discussion (see [79], 2nd to last message) but they have not responded. So, what should I do? Does this warrant a block? Or have I misunderstood the definition of edit warring, and that they have, in fact, edit warred. I would like some help on this matter. Thank you. Tompop888 (talk) (contribs) 05:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:JFG Edit warring/Disruption

    Closing as no action as proposed--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Notified:here SW3 5DL (talk) 07:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking about starting a section here about SW3. Now that s/he's done the honors, I hope s/he is not shooting himself or herself in the foot. When SW3 says "I made extensive use of the talk page", that probably means "I went to the talk page sometimes and no one agreed with me but they were mostly wrong anyway so let me do whatever I want".Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My response is here. You made a series of edits. They were challenged. You have not gotten talk page consensus for them. End. None of the rest matters. You've been around that article easily long enough to understand how this works. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see where mentioning Trump entered Fordham as freshman and transferred to Wharton as a junior were challenged. Nor any of the others, for that matter. Only Anythingyouwant went on about the 'ancestry' section. You've shown up after the fact, like JFG. And JFG did not bother with the talk page. He rolled back all my edits without even looking at them. SW3 5DL (talk) 07:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If that Fordham stuff is your best example of material that should have been restored, it's unconvincing. The BLP already says "Trump began a two-year stint at Fordham University in the Bronx. He then transferred to the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania". I fully support the revert by User:JFG.08:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Anythingyouwant (talk)[reply]
    SW3 5DL made a series of edits over a few hours which restructured significant parts of the article. Several of his changes were objected to by Anythingyouwant in Talk:Donald Trump#Jumbled chronology. One of those changes was reverted by Muboshgu. I found this major reshuffling excessive and confusing to readers. I reverted in bulk and explained on the talk page that such major changes should be discussed and get consensus first. I do not object to restoring selected edits caught in the global revert, provided they do not alter the structure of the article. If SW3 can point me to such edits, I can restore the parts of his work that are non-controversial. However, in the spirit of WP:ARBAPDS and {{2016 US Election AE}}, any edits that are contested by other editors must be discussed further before being restored. Finally, nowhere have I accused SW3 of vandalism; Twinkle is just a tool and I commented on my revert "Recent reshuffling looks messy; see Talk". — JFG talk 07:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    SW3: Per the remedies, the reversion is all that's required to challenge. The challenger is not required to "bother with the talk page"; that burden is on you. This is one of the few cases where, thankfully, the instructions are clear enough to avoid arguing about process. And yet we're arguing about process. JFG is an 18K-edit editor with a clean block log and no reputation (that I'm aware of) for disruption. Actually, in my experience at that article I've found him to be one of the two most collaborative regulars there, and he is one of the few editors I've ever come across who doesn't regard "compromise" as a dirty word. Under these circumstances I would suggest you withdraw this complaint and discuss your edits. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    @SW3 5DL: WP:Casting aspersions doesn't help your case… and I've seen you fall into accusatory behaviour several times when editors happen to disagree with you. Please redact your claims of bad faith and editor collusion, or face consequences. — JFG talk 07:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is block worthy behaviour and you know it. SW3 5DL (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Proposed WP:BOOMERANG

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

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

    When given an opportunity to resolve the content dispute, (If SW3 can point me to such edits, I can restore the parts of his work that are non-controversial.) SW3 ignores it and accuses fellow editors of vandalism and collusion. When given an opportunity to retract his inappropriate aspersions, SW3 digs in and resorts to insults. Enough! — JFG talk 09:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support reluctantly, for the reasons described by everyone above. I honestly have appreciated a lot of SW3's edits during the past several months, especially deletions of unessential or biased material. I hope some time off will be relaxing and will dissipate hard feelings.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - For not listening to fellow users, battleground, pointy counter-proposals below, and casting aspersions. A lengthy block will hopefully get them back on track.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see his justification on the talk page: He justifies his rollback of ALL my edits as, “Recent reshuffling looks messy.” What? Copy edits are messy reshuffling? Adding new material with RS cited, is messy? And as I said, they’ve left the Ancestry right where I moved it. This rollback is not justified. SW3 5DL (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And what about Twitbook? He just reverted my edit here at ANI. This was no accident. SW3 5DL (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    SW3 5DL I'm sorry but my opinion has not changed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as per [80], and the blatantly retaliatory posting below. Which is not just completely childish, but clearly WP:IDL and WP:IDHT at the same time (an achievement, that, in its own way), and verges on trolling this board. Further edits such as this illustrate a problem not only in how SW3 5DL interacts with other editors but also highlights an imprecise view towards policy; the placing of DS notices regarding a relevant page can hardly be dismissed as 'trolling.' — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 09:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How is that comment "revenge?" SW3 5DL (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose both suggestions from SW3 - see above. Twitbookspacetube 08:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    And I used the talk page and asked JFG to revert himself. As I pointed out, they've left the section I moved right where I moved it. So that's moot. That leaves my other edits, but he would not revert himself. He doesn't dispute all my edits, then why not restore them? And I did use the talk page for my edits. SW3 5DL (talk) 09:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And please don't even count Twitbook. He reverted one of my edits here. That's a bit audacious I think. SW3 5DL (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: Apologies for coming here, but as you can see, it's been a bit of a ganging up and I can't sort that on my own. SW3 5DL (talk) 09:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And I did use the talk page for my edits. That is not what the remedies instruction says. You have no talk page consensus for the edits. I've been hesitant to Support a boomerang block, hoping you will back away, allow the adrenaline to subside, and take a fresh look at this later. At this point all I'm seeing is a determination to miss the point. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Propose and support indef block of SW3 - It has become abundantly clear that this whole fiasco is simply another manifestation of a long term problem which needs to be resolved before they can reliably edit here. Twitbookspacetube 11:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on "abuse of Twinkle rollback". No, it's the basic Mediawiki rollback that is for reverting vandalism only, and that's because it does not allow you to leave an edit summary. The same prohibition does not apply to Twinkle rollback (which is unfortunately ambiguously named and repeatedly results in this confusion), as Twinkle does allow you to leave an edit summary. JFG's revert included an edit summary, and was not an abuse of Twinkle. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Twinkle Vandalism rollback function doesn't provide an ES. Twinkle AGF and Twinkle Rollback do allow user custom ES.L3X1 (distant write) 14:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but Twinkle Vandalism rollback wasn't used here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-admin com. It is a hard life here on Wikipedia, esp. if you are content related. I support 2 month block for SW3.L3X1 (distant write) 14:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Suggest no more discussion for a couple days while SW3 considers how he is destroying his own case, and that SW3 then (or preferably earlier) retract his complaint. Objective3000 (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Note that whereas SW3 5DL has a non-zero block log she has not been blocked since 2014, and, before that 1-week AE block, since 2010. One or even two months seems like an overkill to me. Note that I am not commenting on the incident, or even on the necessity of a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This thread looks pretty much like a POV pile-on content dispute. I edit this article very little, but looking at the history and the talk page I see, first, that OP is regularly engaged in talk there, in an articulate and reasonable manner. I also see that there's a editors of a certain stripe are strangely disproportionate in this ANI festival. I am going to put a neutral note on the article talk page so that everyone there is aware of this thread. SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The diff in the proposal isn't a personal attack, but Twitbook referring to SW3 5DL as an idiot definitely is. However, I already asked Twitbook calmly not to do it again. I am only making this comment in case he does, or if this is not a first offense (I haven't been keeping tabs on this discussion, so I wouldn't know). DarkKnight2149 00:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Nobody needs to be blocked for anything. Support liberal use of the trout, particularly on SW3 5DL for bringing it here in the first place, and on Twitbookspacetube for fanning the flames. Recommend this entire thread be rolled up into a ball and archived post haste. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose BOOMERANG at this time. WP:IDHT talks about an editor who "perpetuates disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on would be more productive" (emphasis added). I don't recall SW3 having engaged in long-term disputes of this kind. WP:BLUDGEON says "It is not desirable to reply to every comment in a discussion." No quantitative data have been provided to support any such charge. WP:BATTLE talks about other editors having to spend too much time cleaning up someone's mistakes. SW3 hasn't been making an inordinate number of mistakes. The policy also talks about someone who carries on ideological battles. SW3 appears to have engaged in fewer ideological battles than a number of past and current contributors to the article. The policy also talks about someone who holds grudges. SW3 obviously does develop a grudge rather quickly, but I haven't known him to hold onto the grudge once the perceived provocation ends. He does however seem to become comparatively sensitized to a subsequent perceived provocation by the same editor. In a typical case, such conduct would merit no more than a one-week topic ban -- if the editor in question can be persuaded to acknowledge his misconduct. It's our duty to give SW3 some persuasive evidence that he can use to assess whether he is in fact guilty of at least one charge. I'm not sure we've done so yet. Meanwhile I recommend that he reevaluate his complaints about other editors' conduct, using the feedback he's received. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Firstly, I want to thank the admins, @El C, Boing! said Zebedee, and Ymblanter: for not blocking me for months. I appreciated their comments for pointing out what I should have done, Twinkle's ambiguity, and taking into account my infrequency of blocks since 2010. Those measured responses reassured my faith in the system here. Secondly, I thank my fellow editors on the article for coming here to speak to both my faults and my better nature. @Objective3000: Thank you for being the first reasonable editor to post, asking for a pause to the comments so that I could rethink things. That was a very thoughtful thing to do especially given all the negativity that was being generated at the time. It helped a lot and I very much appreciated that. @SPECIFICO:, thanks for being the first in to comment on my editing on the article, and for posting to the article talk page. It is not easy to stick your neck out here on ANI, especially when things appear to be turning dark, and I admire that you did that. @Scjessey:, We don't always see eye to eye and yet you came here to speak where others might well have given it a miss. That speaks very well of you and I thank you for that. I'll take that trout if you want to put it on my page, because you're right, I should not have brought this here. The article talk page is where to resolve this. @Dervorguilla:, I appreciate your thoughtful analysis of my editing and your valuable feedback. This has been a valuable learning experience and I see my fellow editors, and this process, in a new light. I will strike the proposal for the block for JFG. The rollback of my edits are best managed on the article talk page. If the admins are satisfied that this is resolved, then perhaps one of them can close this case. Thank you all. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @SW3 5DL: Knowing your usual level-headed demeanour, I was really surprised to see you file this complaint, quickly escalate from a content dispute to aspersions, and even refuse the helping hand that I handed you. In turn, my reaction to your stubbornness was excessive, and I should have waited a day before supporting a lengthy boomerang block. I believe that the specific content issue has been resolved in the meantime, but if you have further remarks or suggestions, feel free to ask me or the community on the talk page. I also thank the experienced admins for calling a truce, I support the close of the dispute with no action and I wish everybody happy editing! — JFG talk 17:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Recommend closing with no further action. Looking back on this today, I'd say it was an over-reaction to a content disagreement strengthened by misunderstanding - editors creating new content here can be passionate folk, which is all part of it, and we should all be trying to cool things down here rather than pouring more fuel on the fire. Unfortunately, I see some unnecessary aggression in response here, with one editor even urging an escalation to an indefinite block and engaging in personal attacks! (I don't want to take that any further here, but, clean-started user, you know who you are and I suggest if you want to contribute here you should try to resolve disputes by de-escalation, or you should stay away from ANI and leave it to more experienced and wiser heads). There's been enough fish served up, the initial complaint has effectively been withdrawn, and the comment above by SW3 5DL shows there's nothing we need to prevent now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Counter proposals by SW3 5DL

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The OP is supporting the OP's own new proposals, not supporting a boomerang. So a subheader is needed to avoid confusion. See the edit history showing two editors have inserted the subheader "Proposals by the OP" but the OP (SW3) has repeatedly deleted the subheader.[81][82] Oy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I've moved it again, and if they really want to edit war me on it, so be it. I'm not going to allow such vandalism to obstruct readability. --Tarage (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP close of a contentious RfC

    The RfC at Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for comment on our proposed policy for users remaining in redlinked categories was recently closed by an anonymous editor. That shouldn't be bad in itself. WP:NAC allows for editors in good standing to close such discussions, but the IP in question has a prior history containing only a single edit. Their close also weighs in so heavily on the extreme end of the range of opinions that were presented during the discussion, that it appears like little more than a humorous (tongue-in-cheek?) supervote. Their close has already been reverted by several different editors, but they go on reinstating it. – Uanfala (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • The IP, which is dynamic, is at 4RR on this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I wanted to talk about this in a venue like this, too.. but Uanfala was faster.

    The problem here is evident: These editors persist on irregularly reverting a closure via reverts, to the point that we have to discuss this here instead of my talk page or WP:Adminstrators noticeboard itself. Closures should not be reverted if they aren't clear vandalism or similar. The reason is simple: If they could, then everyone could continue reverting until a closure is made they like, giving those editors who are more revert-happy an advantage. That is the reason why you must go via the closer's talk page and then ANI to get a consensus against the close, if it was indeed made in error. But the way these editors went is clearly disruptive to the process(but at least they don't seem to be bad faith actions).109.43.1.204 (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Whatever else, if you're really on 4RR I don't see how that falls under any exemption. Nil Einne (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    3, my mistake. I was counting the IP's original close: [83] plus three reverts to restore it: [84] [85] [86]. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consensus and longstanding precedent support closes of non-contentious discussions by non-administrator editors in good standing. Is this an editor in good standing? Who, having never apparently attempted to close a discussion before nor even participated in project space at all before yesterday, just happened to decide to try their hand at closing a huge discussion with likely disruptive implications (concerning what all users can and cannot post on their own user pages)? Or is it an editor who participated in the discussion and is logging out to try to force a close that favours their opinion? Or a banned editor trying to disrupt the project? I don't know, I have no idea and neither does anyone who looks at this now or reviews the discussion later, but judging the outcomes of such controversial discussions is not a good situation for assuming good faith. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And several editors have already observed that the close gives an air of bias, which I agree. Closes of controversial discussions where the motive of the closer is in question are not likely to be respected by the community. This should be re-closed by someone with a demonstrable history of closing controversial discussions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And what is exactly the reason for not discussing this with me and then, if necessary, at the noticeboard itself(as opposed to Incidents), but instead trying to force this by reverting? If you think that this decision really has an air of bias, then you can surely try to find and identify this bias and tell me or at least this venue what exactly is, in your opinion, the problem with this close. It does not create exceptional workload, it can show you that you imagine a bias that isn't there, or it can help in correcting the close and, if the case is indeed reopened, prevents a close that has these problems, if they indeed exist, to be made again. Reverting, on the other hand, does not help closing the debate at all. Experienced editors with an account and a history of good closings in controversial discussion apparently didn't close that discussion even when the debate slowed down, so I closed it instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.43.1.119 (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • IPs (and inexperienced registered users) should never close contentious RFCs, and especially not RFCs about Wikipedia policy. Period. Such closes should always be made by admins and very experienced long-time registered users. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then find those admins and registered users with long-time activity and very high experience, and ask them to help with those closures. If there were enough extremely experienced registered users closing discussions in a normal time, I would probably not close those discussions. It doesn't seem like that though. If there aren't enough admins and very experienced registered users doing closures, then either someone else- like me- does that task or it is not done at all.109.43.1.119 (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • You'll likely find yourself blocked the next time you revert an admin re-opening your RFC close. --NeilN talk to me 14:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is no good reason for me to revert that again anyways, we are discussing this right here. What I propose here is that the discussion is indeed reclosed, and that the complainants are directed to complain about the closure the usual way, and to use arguments in that discussion instead of unsourced and unexplained accusations like "It seems biased". However, someone else will look at this and decide, after the arguments come to a conclusion. So no, I won't revert again, but thanks for the warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.43.0.140 (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The arguments and actions of the reverters conflict with WP:NAC, which allows "any editor" to close RfC; both WP:NAC and WP:Closing discussions explicitely say that the reason that the closer is not an admin is NOT sufficient,

    and they conflict with WP:Closing discussions, that sets the correct method of challenging closures; first discuss with the closer, and then, if necessary, go to WP:AN. Reverting closures without discussing and getting consensus at AN/with the author is wrong if there were any arguments provided beyond simple votecounting, and if the other usual exemptions don't apply(Vandalism, legal reasons...). There is a very good reason for all this: Reverting empowers editors to try to circumvent consensus until someone closes it the "right way", especially if consensus is determined to be with the minority of votes(because a large number of the majority votes were against policy/had no reasoning and/or core policies would be violated otherwise). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.43.0.140 (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Read the page you linked to (WP:NAC) again, especially the line that says "Additionally, per this RfC, any non-admin close of an RfC should not be overturned if the only reason is that the closer was not an admin" (my emphasis). Your close was reverted because of weighing in "so heavily on the extreme end of the range of opinions that were presented during the discussion, that it appears like little more than a humorous (tongue-in-cheek?) supervote" (see first post in this thread), not because of being made by an IP. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also adding that WP:NAC allows, in its second sentence, non-admin closes by "registered editors" (bold in the original text), not any editor. – Uanfala (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore WP:NAC makes it clear that discussions should be closed by someone with the appropriate experience, including experience of Wikipedia's policy and workings. If we're to believe that this IP isn't a sock then they apparently have few or no prior contributions at all. (And if they are a sock then they definitely should not be closing RfCs.) I don't think anyone's suggested that this discussion has to be closed by an admin but a contentious RfC on a guideline like this one does need to be closed by an admin or a non-admin experienced editor in good standing. And the IP should note that the fact that nobody who has commented thinks this closure was a good idea is a strong signal that such a result wouldn't be seen as acceptable. Hut 8.5 17:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will agree with other editors here that the IP has been acting inappropriately in these edits. I am one of the editors who reverted, and I explained in my edit summary that the close was a supervote, so for the IP to complain that we all just reverted without explaining the problem is untrue and disingenuous. On the contrary, it has been the IP who was edit warring. It really was an outlandish close that did not reflect the actual discussion, calling among other things for editors who have unapproved categories on their user pages to have their user page editing access removed. And I also think that there is a clear smell of some blocked/banned but experienced user editing logged out. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Infopage or essay, whatever. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We probably should actually promote that page to guideline. We quote it and make decisions based on its advice as though it's policy. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Probrooks

    The proposed topic ban on alternative medicine has been enacted. --NeilN talk to me 15:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This came about because some editors wish to proclaim that "Acupuncture meridians are not real." My assertian is that there are scientists who are researching acupuncture meridians, it would be unwise to be so firm and definite in the wording, as it actually looks quite foolish and disrepectful to mnay people. I don't discount the existence of meridians, as it is an oriental system of medicine which is growing around the world and many find benefit in. I do not believe wikipedia should be telling people what to think, re: meridians and only wanted to point out the extent research on this matter.
    As for the rest of it, this is just putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying flower essences cure disease, if you actually read what I say, I say they may be able to treat emotional conditions. I'm not claiming crystal healing is going to cure cancer, I'm saying it is not a science in the first place, and so how can it be "pseudo-science"? What are you really saying about toxins? Are you disputing there are not synthetic chemicals in our food stuffs? Did you not read the links provided there? These are not "magical toxins", but real toxins that are produced by industry that find their way into food.
    I am simply trying to help wikipedia be more neutral, look into respectful and appropriate usage of language when it comes to contentious topic areas and help maintain a balanced point of view. I believe as many do that Wikipedia is let down by its coverage of "alternative medicine", I'm not pushing for "magical thinking" as you so inelegently say here, but actually trying to play by the rules, trying to help wikipedia not be so biased and one sided in communicating information.
    Probrooks (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just in: 1, 2. I think we may actually have a WP:CIR-issue, here. Kleuske (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record: This closed section was my previous interaction with this editor, in which they showed up at an article talk page to (by their own admission) proselytize for the highly fringe, conspiracy theory-laced subject of the article, and not to propose or discuss any changes to it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed topic ban

    • Propose topic ban from alternative medicine, per WP:ARBCAM. When reliable mainstream scientific publications document a shift in the scientific consensus with regard to alternative medicine, Wikipedia will write about it. The community has rightly lost its patience with editors who sit here trying to civilly (or not) push other points of view regarding science and medicine, based on internet blogs, "stuff that everyone knows", and things that "some scientists believe". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Probrooks == WP:PROFRINGE. A topic ban would be for the good of the Project. Alexbrn (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree of coure, wikipedia should be neutral and fair to all points of view, I believe. There are many points of view, some of which are relevant and valid in any discussion. What I see happening a lot of the time, is wording and the pushing of an overt point of view, which is not balanced, fair minded or respectful. I am not necessarily trying to "push" a fringe point of view, but I think it is important to keep in mind how controversial content is communicated, a lot of time a line is crossed when sentences like "Meridians are not Real" are used. Who is actually keeping a check upon this kind of editing, which results in articles which I think most intelligent people are going to have a hard time taking seriously, when a particular point of view is pushed, even though that view may be predominant in mainstream science. Mainstream science is not the end all and be all of what is real, to think otherwise is called scientism. When it comes to acupuncture, which is a part of the global human culture, I think there is a certain level of respect and civility towards other people's beliefs and practises which is important in a community minded endeavour like wikipedia. Probrooks (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you've got it completely wrong. Wikipedia does not provide what you call "neutral and fair" (i.e. equal) coverage to all points of view. We consider what the consensus of reliable sources say to be true, and we reflect that in a "neutral and fair" (i.e. balanced) way. You say that "meridians are not real" is wrong, but science disagrees with you. You say "mainstream science is not the end all and be all of what is real", but reliable sources disagree. You say "there is a certain level of respect and civility towards other people's beliefs and practises (etc.)" and you are right about that. It's perfectly decent and respectable to say that acupuncture is a form of alternative therapy that some cultures have practiced for thousands of years, and it's perfectly decent and respectable to say that modern medicine finds no merit in these therapies; those two facts are equally true. What's not respectful is misappropriating a cultural practice to tell people that there's magic lines under their skin that can be manipulated to cure their cancer, because there's not and they can't. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahem, Ivanvector, "meridians are not real" is not something that science disagrees with. ;-) --bonadea contributions talk 18:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bonadea: clarified what I meant ;) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you make the assumption that there is no possibility that acupuncture meridians are not real? Why do the lines have to be "magic", perhaps they are actual? Perhaps they exist as thousands of practitioners say they do. So you are saying all these practitioners are deluded? I would suggest that logic would tell us there is some element here which is true, otherwise how could acupuncture be growing around the world if it was just placebo?
    What you are saying about modern medicine finding no merit in acupuncture is incorrect. Many medicial doctors around the world utilise acupuncture and in Brazil for example, acupuncture is mainstream medicine that is recognised by the government as any other form of medicine. I'm not saying that people can cure their cancer with acupuncture as I actually do not believe it is that useful in the treatment of cancer. All I'm saying is that there is a fairer line than "Meridians are not real anatomical structures: scientists have found no evidence that supports their existence", and it is: "Mainstream modern science has yet to discover any evidence to support the existence of meridians." THAT line is the consensus of reliable sources in a "neutral and fair" (i.e. balanced) way.
    What modern day science understands in 2017 is obviously not the actual truth and should never be painted as such, especially when almost no science has been carried out to actually discover meridians for example. And yet there are some scientists who have been exploring the primo vascular system as a candidate for the meridian system in Korea starting from the 1960's. I'm not saying this should necessarily be included in the article, but its useful to know there are some scientists working on this, if you at all care about exploring this matter. Probrooks (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Probrooks: - I'd just like to point out that, in relation to your 'thousand practitioner' comment: There are thousands of people who adamantly believe the earth is flat. Thousands believe that we never went to the moon. There are probably over a million people who believe that global warming is a 'Chinese hoax'. Just because a large majority of people belive something doesn't mean it's true. The entire continent of North America could say that it's possibly to land on the sun and build a house; doesn't mean it's correct or factual. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support As soon as "western cultural imperialism" is invoked and (unnamed) other editors are accused of hijacking wikipedia, we have an issue and a remedy is called for. Kleuske (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Obvious. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reluctant Support I think Probrooks means well, I really do; but we cannot give equal or even significant space to hypotheses that have zero scientific support behind them. That's classic WP:UNDUE. "Scientists are working on them" is a specious argument; once they find some hard evidence, we can talk about it. Until then, I fear that the rest of us are wasting too much precious time making sure that readers understand that things like meridians are hypothetical at best, at least at the present time. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. When someone has such a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works, all that ensues is a huge time sink for those who do understand and are trying to get on with it. Blackmane (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Le sigh. A perfectly nice person, but unable to either understand or abide by our policies on fringe subjects, and by this point it doesn't matter which of the two it is, because patient efforts to explain are getting nowhere. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I cannot tell you how offensive that anti-vaxxing claim is. No more. --Tarage (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I've noticed Probooks taking a pro fringe stance for some time now. It's never disrupted any discussion I've been in, so I've never had reason to take it here, but the diffs provided above paint the picture of an editor who has an agenda to pursue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So, he's trying to turn the place into Hippypedia? ... Yeah. I'll...um...I'll show myself out. HalfShadow 00:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey! What's wrong with hippies? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    They're filthy and they smell funny!!! ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support at a minimum. My reasons are given above. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Advocates should not be given free rein to waste the time of good editors with suggestions that meridians are anything but an interesting idea from many centuries before medicine became a useful discipline. Please think about how articles on other topics should be written—would you want to read about a topic you were unfamiliar with knowing that it is based on views contrary to evidence? Johnuniq (talk) 06:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - I'm just scrolling through and this discussion caught my eye. I was wondering if this TBAN extends to fringe science and protoscience, or possibly religious topics? I don't think we're specifying the extent of this TBAN well enough. Anybody can be banned from pseudoscience topics and go right to the articles of whatever religion they get their ideas from and disrupt over there. An entire ban from religion and science would be grossly inappropriate, but a weak ban would be just as ineffective. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Procedural support I didn't think it was necessary to comment here given how obvious the outcome, but once I started clicking on the links (I actually thought from reading the OP that it seemed really weird that this problem hadn't come up before, and before I noticed how new the account was I started down a rabbit hole) I discovered that the Meridian (Chinese medicine) article had a coupla problems that seem to have absolutely nothing to do with Probrooks. When I tried to fix a few of them, one of my fixes was reverted by a user who appears to be on the right side of this dispute (although they have not posted in this thread yet). I pinged them on the talk page and am awaiting a reply, but I'm a little paranoid now that some people might misinterpret my motivations as a result of this, so I might as well cast a !vote here if only to demonstrate that that's not the case. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Am I allowed to vote here as an experienced editor or must I be an admin? If I can't, just ignore. This is getting out of hand. This user is involved in a massive discussion at Meridian (Chinese medicine) where (I think he) spouts fringe theories and links to 'sources' of experimentation done by pseudoscientists and the country of North Korea. He then goes on to accuse another editor of trying to TBAN him because he believes in alternative theories, and how the TBAN will be done solely as a punishment rather than to preserve the article space. This user also states (as seen above) that if 'a thousand practitioners' believe it then it must be true; A weak argument, saying that climate change denial and Flat Earth Society have thousands of believers. This user just causes way too much disruption by trying to make fiction into fact and a TBAN is in order to stop this nonsense from continuing to occur. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @UNSC Luke 1021: Am I allowed to vote here as an experienced editor Yes. or must I be an admin? No. I'm not, and neither are a bunch of the other people who already !voted before you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88: - Ok, thanks for clarification. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, not to mention support for anti-vaxxing, claiming that Wikipedia is being 'hijacked by incompetent editors', saying that extremely reliable scientific journals are 'fringe theories' and (I think I said this) claiming that North Korean scientists are much more reliable than scientists that aren't in fucked up countries. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN - Took me all of five minutes to determine that this is either necessary now, or going to be necessary very soon. Pushing absurd fringe theories about medical topics and complaining that "mainstream science" just hasn't caught up or otherwise on par with said fringe theories tells me just about all I need to know. Key for me here is the western culutral imperialism is the arbiter of truth comment. Which reminds me, you all might want to decolonize your mind just in case you haven't done so already. The Great Juju up the Mountain would greatly appreciate it. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

    Pages disrupted
    Filmography and awards of Stanley Kubrick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Martin Scorsese filmography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Paul Thomas Anderson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Paul Thomas Anderson filmography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    The Last Temptation of Christ (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Users being reported
    Diffs of the users' edits
    1. (for Filmography and awards of Stanley Kubrick): 14 February 2017, 14 February 2017, 15 February 2017
    2. (for Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio): 17 February 2017, 18 February 2017
    3. (for Martin Scorsese filmography): 18 March 2017, 19 March 2017 (edit summary contains false statement about BBC Culture list, which was ranking only American films), 19 March 2017, 19 March 2017
    4. (for Paul Thomas Anderson): 16 March 2017, 17 March 2017, 16 March 2017
    5. (for Paul Thomas Anderson filmography): 18 March 2017
    6. (for The Last Temptation of Christ (film)): 17 March 2017, 18 March 2017, 17 March 2017
    Comments:

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

    I'm an involved admin because I've (at least) rolled back some of the edits and handed out blocks when this user was caught evading prior blocks. I don't monitor all the pages that AndrewOne identified, mind you, meaning most of the hard work has been done by others. The IP addresses, whenever I've checked, have geolocated to Italy, though not always to the same location in Italy. I believe the appropriate action is to semi-protect all of the articles listed. --Yamla (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to thank AndrewOne for starting this discussion and Yamla for his input and his administrative actions in response to this anonymous editor. Some of the articles above are already semi-protected precisely because of this editor's actions. Andrew and I, as well as other editors, have tried multiple times to address these issues with the anon., but he has not listened, instead choosing to see himself as the victim of bullying. I agree with Yamla that long-term semi-protection is the only appropriate action. There are too many IP ranges to effectively block him. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 22:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have found more undesirable edits to other pages for Scorsese-directed films: see here and here. AndrewOne (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Jpop73

    Situation handled. Neutralitytalk 03:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    I left the user a one-and-only warning about personal attacks and threats to dox. El_C 02:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Kinda cool. 'Cause he was kinda a jerk. HalfShadow 03:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Beat me to it. El_C 03:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Vipul

    (non-admin closure) No admin action required, trout issued. Kleuske (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    Can we add "marketingland.com" to the spam blacklist? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there evidence that Vipul's work relates to the links they used? You can email me evidence that cannot be placed here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've yet to see any evidence that Vipul & Co. were adding spam or referral links. Plenty of accusations, but little evidence. Sam Walton (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the editor himself has admitted openly that he's paid a certain amount per 500 page views - I don't see how that's an "accusation." Exemplo347 (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Exemplo347: Could you provide a diff or link? I must have missed that. Sam Walton (talk) 11:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, firstly there's his user page, and secondly his own site details his scheme. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Quote or diff the exact passage, if you will. *** I put all the links up on COIN—Dive in! El_C 11:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) That page doesn't say what you think it says—it says he paid Wikipedia article writers by view of the Wikipedia page (e.g. he rewarded people for creating high-demand pages) and says nothing about external links. I'm struggling to see how Adweek and Marketing Land could possibly not be considered legitimate sources for an article about online advertising, especially in light of the fact that they weren't replacing existing legitimate citations but being added to support a previously uncited statement. ‑ Iridescent 11:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that the editor is still attempting to drive traffic toward pages he's created for payment. He's been very open about everything he's doing, so why has one of his employees been indef blocked while he's still able to do exactly the same thing? Exemplo347 (talk) 11:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "the editor is still attempting to drive traffic toward pages he's created for payment" You appear to be shifting the goalposts here. What do you mean? He didn't create that page, and while it's true Riceissa made a large number of edits to the page, I'm struggling to see anything wrong with Vipul's edit, so I have re-added it. Sam Walton (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, he's included it on his list of pages here - User:Vipul#List of pages I have explicitly sponsored creation of or contributions to... Exemplo347 (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I can tell, Vipul agreed to stop paying other users for their edits for the time being, he didn't agree to stop contributing himself, so I still struggle to see a problem here. Sam Walton (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit seems unexceptional to me. An ANI report on this matter was just closed. Opening another ANI again so quickly is out of line. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Well, at the very least, there should be some sort of warning for Vipul, preventing him from editing articles that have been created or edited as part of his scheme. Per WP:COI, editors with a declared Conflict of Interest are supposed to be limited to making suggestions on Article Talk pages. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Does Vipul have a COI in regards to Google Surveys? He paid someone else to write content there, which is now fully disclosed at the talk page. I can't see that he serves to gain anything by editing that article, so I'm not actually convinced he has a COI there. Regardless (even if he does have a COI) there's nothing prohibiting him from continuing to edit the article given that he has declared anything remotely resembling a COI already. I can't help but feel like you're looking for any reason to stop this user making edits, but right now he appears to be making sure every edited article is properly tagged with a COI/Paid notice and is making entirely uncontroversial edits like the one you flagged here, which seems quite reasonable to me. Sam Walton (talk) 11:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he's paid someone else to write content there. Yes, it's disclosed. That means WP:PAY applies to his edits there. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PAY would appear to apply to Riceissa, I can't see that it applies to Vipul. He does not have financial ties to Google Surveys, and is not being paid by them - or anyone else - to make edits to that article. Sam Walton (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PAY would actually cover someone who pays someone else to make edits, if you read the wording of the first paragraph. The reason it subsequently concentrates on the recipients of payments is that is the most common form of COI we deal with. Saying that, I agree entirely with you that there is nothing wrong with those edits anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I recommend that this thread be closed as there is nothing to act on presented in the OP and this risks becoming a long distraction. With a trout for Exemplo347, who is well-intentioned but has made several unsupportable statements here; more smoke than fire. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Big nuisance vandalism at Template:Infobox person

    (non-admin closure) User blocked, template protected. Kleuske (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    It was only the documentation subpage, but still, the user got blocked. I've applied some semi. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Yh00157 - inability to read talk page, constant unsourced and undiscussed moves/edits

    I have some concerns re the above user re apparent disregard to talk page notices regarding marking edits as minor, the first dating back to 2014, and the most recent being a bit more than a fortnight ago. The user is also now moving pages without consensus and no visible proof regarding the moves - I have (un)moved Stadler Eurolight to its original name of Vossloh Eurolight as no proof was offered for the name, other than the summary "factory ownership change"; the main Vossloh article citing that ownership was changed but nothing saying branding would be too. I have a feeling that the user may be a sock of blocked user D47817 but cannot find too many similarities other than inability to read their talk page and topic similarities. Would an uninvolved admin/experienced editor care to investigate and evaluate what action should be brought forward? Thanks all. Nördic Nightfury 13:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is either incompetence or just blatant vandalism. Either way I think that the user should be prompted to respond, lest they banned from Wikipedia entirely should they continue to ignore warnings. I don't like to suggest banning right off the bat, but this seems like long-term nonsense going on and sanctioning should occur. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had concerns with this editor going back six years (earliest at User talk:Yh00157#Update tag). They have never replied to one of my messages on their user talk page; in fact, their only edit to that page was 09:49, 12 February 2011. So there is a definite communications problem here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A block is needed here; from their contributions log, they know that their user talk exists since they removed a less than polite note from an editor asking what on earth Yh00157 was doing, and only a block will force this user to confront and discuss their problems which date back a number of years. Listing every single edit they make as minor when some are very much major changes is not helpful, but doing it for several years is a problem that requires a block. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I definitely see a lot of page moves and edits without consensus, and many warnings on the user's talk page that have gone ignored. Since this ANI thread was started and the user notified after their latest edit, I say we wait and give the user an opportunity to respond here. If the user proceeds with making edits or page moves like this and without discussion or consensus, I support blocking. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    For info - he has started editing again today. I see Redrose has fixed a DAB link put in by the subject. Nördic Nightfury 12:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have blocked the user for 31 hours for continuing to mark non-minor edits as minor, and ignoring warnings on their talk page and the discussion here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hounding by User WilliamJE

    No admin action needed. Always good to try for the easy fix/check rather than stirring up drama. Applies to all editors. --NeilN talk to me 15:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This morning I reverted a couple of edits by User:WilliamJE. In one of them[87], he stated that Dak Prescott, the NFL rookie of the year, didn't have a page and wasn't notable, which calls into question his basic competency. Since then, User:WilliamJE has started hounding me, templating me[88], and repeatedly editing my sandbox[89][90][91], despite my request that he not do so.Jacona (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    In his sandbox edit, the complainer calls me disruptive. That is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:NPASAND. The hounding taking place is against me not vice versa. I have not made personal attacks against this User but instead have been the target on multiple occasions of personal attacks by this complainer....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me also point out that this complainer never posted an ANI notice on my talk page. Which is a clear violation for ANI complaints even if the User has been told to not post on a talk page again....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not fast (like removing entries without reading), it took me a couple of minutes to figure out how to post the ANI warning, not something I do. Jacona (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit summary is clearly inappropriate, and the writing in JaconaFrere's sandbox claiming a long-term editor is disruptive is also unacceptable to be retained in the userspace long-term. WilliamJE, it's better for you to grab an admin to deal with the sandbox than remove something about yourself. I don't see any action as necessary here except a warning to JaconaFrere that they act in a more civil manner in edit summaries and on talk pages. ~ Rob13Talk 14:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Rob, my talk page has been the target of multiple attacks on me over the last year as seen by its protection log and on in the history of talk pages such as here[92]. Some of those are going on at this very minute by an IP causing me to have to request protection for my talk page again.
    Note Jacona did finally post an ANI notice to my talk page but NOT till after I mentioned his failure here. Too late....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @JaconaFrere: Why stir up unnecessary drama with that edit summary and this ANI report when you could have simply wikilinked the name without comment? --NeilN talk to me 14:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the edit summary he used showed not just a complete failure to look for sources, but the false assertion that the page did not exist, and he had removed the content post-haste. Jacona (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And User:NeilN, you are right, restoring the information and wikilinking would have been more appropriate. I apologize for being a little snarky in response to the user's edit. Jacona (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as the note for myself in my sandbox, I merely referenced an ANI discussion which asserted exactly that. How can that be a personal attack? Jacona (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC) It's not searchable, and just for my use. Jacona (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You're complaining about "no effort" when you added an unlinked name with a citation needed tag from January 2014? --NeilN talk to me 14:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You called an editor disruptive and Uncivil at the sandbox without proof violating WP:NPA....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a point, when I undid the change I should have added a reference and removed the tag. But removing the NFL Rookie of the year, claiming there was no article, and no notability. That's an extreme lack of diligence! Jacona (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And absolutely no reason to make personal attacks and make false accusation of me doing one towards you. Where is the WP:BOOMERANG?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    revert war on Korean dialects, disputes regarding language family categorization

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

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

    • Changing the language family color from "Altaic" to "isolate"; I justified this change because of the discrediting of the Altaic language family.[1][2][3][4]
    • Adding estimates of speaker populations and the relative accuracy of those estimates. I reached my estimates of estimated speakers for each dialect by using South Korean population data from 2014, North Korean population data from 2008, and Korean diaspora population estimates from 2015 (with regards to the proportions of dialect speakers in the diaspora, I admitted in my edit explanations that there is a substantial fudge factor involved; I estimated that within the diaspora, at least half spoke the Standard Korean/Gyeonggi dialect, maybe a quarter spoke the Gyeongsang dialect, and smaller proportions spoke the other dialects, I didn't attempt to reconcile these proportions with the large number of ethnic Koreans in the diaspora who can't speak Korean at all).

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

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

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

    1. familycolor Altaic is not about an language family. It's just an areal classification along with Khoisan, Amerindian, Papuan, Australian, Caucasian, and Paleosiberian. See Template:Infobox language family.
    2. There aren't any statistics about the linguistic demography published by the SK government. Ecthelion83 has misunderstood each SK province's population data as each dialect's population data. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Using familycolor Altaic to the Korean language was already accepted. See 1 and 2 --117.53.77.84 (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the link for Altaic (areal) on Template:Infobox language family links to Altaic languages. Again, the Altaic classification is discredited; we should begin discontinuing its use. There is no rationale on Template:Infobox language family that provides any sort of published authoritative documentation for the use of the Altaic tag in any form for Korean, only an exhortation that the language family tab be appropriate. The appropriate language classification for Korean at the moment is language isolate.[1][2][3][4] The one change by User:Florian Blaschke is justified by "we use Altaic as a colour for the areal group" - it should be noted that he is a scholar in Indo-European linguistics, and as far as we can tell he has no relationship to Korean, so it is unclear what he means by "we," and as he is not a primary researcher in Korean (and even if he was), he provides no published documentation for this arbitrary classification.
    • I haven't confused population data for speaking population; if you even read my original discussion here, you should note I am well aware of inaccuracies in making estimates as I did (but, since you clearly missed it, I repeat: the point of estimating the number of speakers was not to obtain a highly accurate estimate but rather to provide a sense of relative scale of speaking population; I am aware that a provincial population estimate does not necessarily translate into an accurate estimate of the number of speakers of thats province's local dialect - I just did a best-guess or "ballpark" estimate because those dialects' infoboxes lacked these numbers).Ecthelion83 (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Altaic (areal) means the colour is just an areal classification, not about a language family. So there is no reason stopping to use it.
    2. Population of each Province doesn't mean each dialect's population. For example, people from Western South Gyeongsang (e.g. Jinju, Sacheon) and Northern North Gyeongsang (e.g. Andong) use somewhat unique dialects. These dialects aren't as same as mainstream Gyeongsang dialect. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    3. We don't have to fill in the gap about 'speakers'. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, even the areal classification for "Altaic" is questionable, as the entire hypothesis has been discredited.
    • You are just repeating what I have already noted. The Korean dialect pages refer to provincial-level variances in the spoken Korean language; I believe that the fact that a high degree of accuracy in the number of speakers is difficult to obtain (especially given the large size of the Korean diaspora) does not mean we should leave the estimated number of speakers in each dialect's infobox blank. In addition, for an estimate of speakers based on provincial population to be so inaccurate as to be invalid, the degree of permanent migration in and out of each province would have to be substantial, and as far as I know most migration within Korea is not of the permanent kind (with the exception of migration to Seoul and Busan), so using population estimates to partly approximate a number of speakers is reasonable. If anything, given the degree to which many Koreans can easily speak multiple dialects (usually one's home dialect plus Standard Korean, i.e. the Gyeonggi dialect spoken in Seoul), the number of speakers of some Korean dialects may exceed the population of the provinces from which they originate.Ecthelion83 (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should add that the other editor's rationales do not justify mass reverting behavior. We have been "talking," so to speak, on each other's talk pages, but we are basically reiterating the same argument we are having here.Ecthelion83 (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes...that is why it is called an edit-war. You need more eyes on this as mentioned below; please also use the link I left when I denied your protection request. Lectonar (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take a breath Folks, this is clearly a content dispute and Administrators are unlikely to pick sides. Have you tried discussing the changes on the Talk page of the article? If so, your next step should be to start a Request for Comment discussion on the talk page. If that fails, Dispute Resolution is the next step. I'm not sure who advised you to bring this here, but it wasn't the best advice they could have given you: having a very public content dispute on this page will probably end badly for everyone involved. In summary: (1) Discuss on talk page. (2) Request for Comment discussion. (3) Dispute Resolution. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is more than 1 page whose content is in dispute, but I'll do what I can to generate a discussion on each page.Ecthelion83 (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    references

    1. ^ a b "While 'Altaic' is repeated in encyclopedias and handbooks most specialists in these languages no longer believe that the three traditional supposed Altaic groups, Turkic, Mongolian and Tungusic, are related." Lyle Campbell & Mauricio J. Mixco, A Glossary of Historical Linguistics (2007, University of Utah Press), pg. 7.
    2. ^ a b "When cognates proved not to be valid, Altaic was abandoned, and the received view now is that Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic are unrelated." Johanna Nichols, Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time (1992, Chicago), pg. 4.
    3. ^ a b "Careful examination indicates that the established families, Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic, form a linguistic area (called Altaic)...Sufficient criteria have not been given that would justify talking of a genetic relationship here." R.M.W. Dixon, The Rise and Fall of Languages (1997, Cambridge), pg. 32.
    4. ^ a b "...[T]his selection of features does not provide good evidence for common descent....we can observe convergence rather than divergence between Turkic and Mongolic languages--a pattern than is easily explainable by borrowing and diffusion rather than common descent," Asya Pereltsvaig, Languages of the World, An Introduction (2012, Cambridge). This source has a good discussion of the Altaic hypothesis on pp. 211-216.

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

    Disruptive Behaviour

    Apollo The Logician has been involved in edit warring and disruptive editing behaviour. Most recently at Religious views of Adolf Hitler. No reasoned offers for discussion are taken on board and 'his' combative attitude continues to disrupt the editing process for editors. See [[93]] and [[94]] and [[95]]. I have experienced his combative editing previously but let it go. But this time I would like him to be formally warned or other sanctions to be taken against him so he doesn't repeat his disruptive behaviour. Robynthehode (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Repeated Copyvio

    (non-admin closure) Offending pages revdelled and user blocked for a week. Kleuske (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Revisions deleted and user blocked for one week. As RexxS says, the user has had previous contributions deleted for copyvio, and in this case completely ignored the warning. BethNaught (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Blocked user vandalizing their talk page

    (non-admin closure) talk page access revoked. Kleuske (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Not sure if this is the right place to report this, but an IP user(2.96.247.3) keeps vandalizing their talk page, see [96], [97], and [98]. XboxGamer22408talk to me 22:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is fine for this sort of issue. I've revoked talkpage access. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Legal threat (against Wikipedia Spain)

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

    Yes sound reasonable. Have removed their talk page access. Some people believe WP should function the same as FB :-(
    Have deleted their talk page comments per their request. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Battleground conduct by User:JaconaFrere

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

    Lol. After an earlier ANI discussion today, Lepricavark has appeared to be attempting to confront me, editing the last two pages I had edited, (both of which he had never edited before) and making a snarky comment on the Charlottesville list more or less stating that he's going to get me for starting an ANI discussion. He obviously had no interest in the Starkville, Mississippi page other than to seek me out, as he repeatedly misspelled the name of the article in his edit caption. I'm leaving for tonight, I am not seeking any confrontation with this individual. I apologize that he is offended by any action that I have taken, and I promise that I will not follow him around the encyclopedia.Jacona (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how you can construe removing irrelevant content from an article as an attempt to confront you personally, and there was nothing snarky in my comment in which I absolutely did not imply being out to get you. Note that I made that comment, which it now seems you intentionally reverted, after you made a personal comment about me. I misspelled the article name because I though that was how it was spelled. It's hardly the first I've had a misspelling etched into my brain. It did occur to me you might not appreciate my edit on the Starkville page, but you do not own that article. You have a tendency to take things personally, yet you laugh it off when someone else objects to your personal commentary. Lepricavark (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I make mistakes sometimes. Sorry. I hope you have a nice day. Jacona (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Question

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

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

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

    Until now.

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

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

    • Non-admin comment - I tried to undo the inexplicable Talk Page move, and return it back to the user's actual Talk Page. Unfortunately, it's not letting me. Small problem, but I apologise nonetheless for my inability to do so. DarkKnight2149 03:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Weird...I just tried that now and it let me. Is that maybe a thing admins can do while non-admins can't because of the vandalism potential? Bearcat (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would assume so. One final thing of note - while I have no experience with this user, I do have experience with vandals. The user's Talk Page currently consists exclusively of a link to a seemingly random diff. This could possibly be evidence of intentional trolling or WP:NOTHERE. That's just an observation, though. DarkKnight2149 03:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's the diff of the last edit I made to the earlier CJ Ramsay talk page, so it's not entirely random. But yeah, trolling or "I'm outta here bubbye" might be possible explanations. Bearcat (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks OK to me. Hopefully the salting will stop the activity, but if it doesn't then I don't think it would be unreasonable to start issuing longer term blocks. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

    Fangusu range block request

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

    That's a really large range... I think the best solution to this is to block as we see them. Unless anyone else has input? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There aren't very many edits. I think collateral damage is probably more important than the size of the range. I'm not really familiar with this vandal, though, and it's not easy for me to tell which ones are Fangusu. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this is Fangusu, or at least not only her. A couple of her usual ranges WHOIS to a university which counts several known trolls as its students, including your end date change vandal. It's been a long time since I've seen Fangusu try to add anything new to the encyclopedia, she's been obsessed with restoring her old edits lately. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In the range you posted, it looks to me like these users are the date change vandal:
    I don't think any are Fangusu. Several are random unrelated vandals. This isn't enough to construct a range, so I mined the range's contribs through 2016 as well. We've got a user who likes Wrestlemania, one that's into The Eagles, one that likes to update lists of Nickelodeon broadcasts, but none that stand out as any of these LTA cases. One-off IP blocks are probably fine here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    AfD is up and we'll take it from there. El_C 13:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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


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

    Firstly, I am Ms. Brooks' biggest fan!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    information Administrator note Just let the Article for deletion process run its course, then we will be able to tell whether the entry conforms to our notability guideline. In the meantime, you are encouraged to continue improving the article. Thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia. El_C 10:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks El C. I probably was jumping the gun with this & should have left it until the AFD was over, it just seemed there were more issues than just the notability of the article here. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You misunderstand, my comment was for Missalusa. Sorry for the confusion. I'll go ahead and close this as I think we're all on the right track now. El_C 13:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

    Thanks in advance. El_C 09:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Newcomer Being Mistreated

    (non-admin closure) Not a Wikipedia issue. OP directed to proper venue. Kleuske (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Shouldn't this be on Commons? El_C 10:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Clevermercury - en.wikipedia has nothing to do with how commons is run. You need to take this there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Reporting a problem

    We don't take admin actions to punish, only to prevent, and we're not going to sanction anyone for a single comment made a year ago. My advice is to heed the words of the wise ~Oshwah~. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Anyone can welcome a user, not just administrators. Wikipedia is not like other websites; there is no central authority to report issues to, everyone here is a volunteer. If you need assistance in using Wikipedia, try the Help Desk. This is the correct place to report an issue regarding user conduct- though you should(not sure if you did or not, as I write this) attempt to discuss the matter with the other party first. Maybe the person could have been nicer, but I'm not sure that is "verbal abuse". 331dot (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And it happened more than one year ago, btw. What admin intervention do you expect? Lectonar (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed; this is very stale. Why did you wait so long? I doubt any administrator will intervene, and they will likely close this soon. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Garrison9656, I agree that the user's conduct when communicating with you was not appropriate and that experienced editors should be expected to communicate in a civil manner and refrain from making personal attacks... but this occurred much much too long ago for action to be taken now (almost exactly one year ago). Next time someone repeatedly engages with you in an uncivil manner and/or repeatedly makes personal attacks at you, you need to ask for assistance and get help at that time. My best advice to you is to move on and don't hold any grudges. The fact that you waited so long and are reporting this now... it concerns me that you might be. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:SummerPhDv2.0/Wikipediholism trolling

    Prior case: [99]

    Summary: Over the past three years, this editor has been blocked at least 30 times (that I found...), evading each one. In the last AN/I case, their non-answer answers basically said: "Gee, maybe I didn't make all of those edits."

    A brief rangeblock, a sock case finding they might or might not be another long-term vandal followed, with a month long range block.[100] More nonsense soon followed.

    Yamla feels they are de facto banned.[101] I think it's time to make it official. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support official ban obviously. --Yamla (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Ban - Enough is enough. If a user is blocked over 30 times with countless sockpuppets, they've obviously never been here. Get them out. (Side note: originally I thought we were trying to ban SummerPhD, which made me go 'wtf' for a few seconds.) UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support official ban Pretty obvious here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Simple as that. Lectonar (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the community has exercised sufficient patience. Lepricavark (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Thirty times?(!) This one has slipped through the cracks. El_C 14:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - easy call. They have no business being here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit-war/vandalism; korean nationalist use sock pupped

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

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

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

    He is using unenzyclopedic way.

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

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

    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=771442306

    Leave a Reply