XPanettaa (talk · contribs)

I originally saw this editor after they repeatedly used {{OTRS permission}} tags illegitimately. I asked them to stop adding those tags and they did. But it doesn't seem like the issues have stopped there. XPanettaa has repeatedly stated that images have had permission when they don't have it. They have repeatedly changed non-free tags to free tags illegitimately. Regardless of the number of times they have been told to stop. This person is blocked on Commons for repeated copyright violations and now it looks like they have taken that here. Either they need to be blocked here as well for the same issue or they need to be banned from the file namespace entirely. This has to stop. --Majora (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Majora: Look, I made a mistake. I'm sorry. I promise not to do this again, please. XPanettaa (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite clear that you don't plan on stopping. I wouldn't have brought this here if I thought you would. --Majora (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Majora: I am now editing articles rather than editing files. I promise to stop doing what you said. However, it seems that I made a big mistake. XPanettaa (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know about this particular matter, but I've been running into this editor and, while I'm still staying on this side of AGF, I have my doubts about their competence, esp. in regard to what are reliable sources. Like in this edit--it only takes a quick look at http://2-dutch.nl/ and the rest of the sources to know that this subsequent edit was invalid. There's a bit more in the history of that article (like this edit summary), but I have hope that it won't end in disruption. They seem to be a fan of a particular genre of music, writing up every artist they run into. That's great, but given those edits and others I've seen them make (like comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TV Noise (2nd nomination)), they are just not well-schooled in policy and guidelines. I just hope that rather than protest they will take the opportunity to learn. Drmies (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The promise to stop editing files lasted about 12 hours. An edit to a fair use image on an article [1] increasing the size of it which shouldn't be done and a subsequent edit to that file's page [2] adding information that is not confirmed by anyone. As stated above, I have zero confidence that they will stop doing what they are doing without administrator intervention at this point. --Majora (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. And this is not to be marked as a "minor" edit. XPanettaa? Drmies (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know it really is to be marked as a "minor" edit. XPanettaa (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A minor edit is one which does not change the substance of a page. Adding/removing a tag from a page/media item is never a minor edit. See WP:MINOR Mike1901 (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• XPanettaa you do need to start taking advice and following the rules. Drmies had a word with you on your talk page about external links and you didn't take any notice at all and are still doing it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• XPanettaa continues to violate copyright as well as mark edits as minor when they shouldn't be. See the history of A Rodent Like This. This is starting to get into IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. Could an admin please put a stop to this? --Majora (talk) 05:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• With regards to Kudpung's comment above, I just cleaned a dozen or so articles of some gratuitous external links, although some of these may have predated Drmies' warning. I confess the feeling is that some degree of "link-farming", deliberate or otherwise, is the result of all of these social media links added to borderline notable artists and record labels, especially when many of the labels seem to be aliases/trading names/subsidiaries of the same entity. I'm not an expert on this type of article, but the huge discographies without many bluelinks seem as though they might be excessive to me, in a "cataloguey" way, but I'll leave that judgement to others.

  On the positive side, I see no further image issues, and, despite no actual response, they have not repeated the copy/paste copyvio I warned for, or similar. Marking non-minor edits as minor is still happening since the warning, but it's not every edit, as it was previously, so perhaps a small improvement there. XPanettaa does not communicate about this stuff, though - so it's really difficult to know quite what they have taken away from this discussion and the various warnings.

  Majora may have a point with the diagnosis of WP:IDHT - it was certainly a factor in the Commons block, which has spilled over to some persistent "walls of text" in their en.wp edits - [3], [4]. I guess XPanettaa can communicate when they want to... -- Begoon 02:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• addendum: just to note that since my post above, XPanettaa has made a couple of dozen edits without inappropriate tagging as minor, a significant change in behaviour, so I think it's safe to say they are paying some attention, even if still uncommunicative. One odd thing is that a few of those edits are to User:AnonymousMusician/sandbox/Magnificence (duo), a draft in another user's space, but that's probably just some collaboration, and there's been no objection. I'm not sure the need for admin intervention exists any more, unless the problematic issues resurface, so perhaps this can be archived for now? I think XPanettaa now knows that a return to earlier behaviour, especially image/copyvio related, is very likely to be looked at less leniently. -- Begoon 03:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A IP address added a comment to the talk page for Zika fever with an edit summary of "not about improving this article." [[5]]. This is extremely inappropriate and inexcusable for a veteran editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorDownUnder (talk • contribs) 01:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

False positive? The IP did have a history of unconstructive edits; however, the comment made by the IP today was about the status of the article. It also looks like it was probably a class assignment made by an editor who hadn't logged in. Nonetheless, I'd give Jytdog the benefit of the doubt. (And I do agree with the editor who restored the comment.) —C.Fred (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EditorDownUnder, whatever your beef with Jytdog is, [6] making frivolous reports to ANI is not acceptable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editordownunder seems to have a vendetta against jyt [7]74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction Ban for EditorDownUnder

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

This AN/I request seems to be a boomerang in my opinion. EditorDownUnder appears to be harassing Jytdog since May 7, 2016. The diffs show that EditorDownUnder is unable to work with Jytdog in a manner that will improve the encyclopedia. Many of the diffs show the comments are not constructive in resolving any type of dispute with the content. Eight diffs in this section plus this AN/I, I would suggest an indefinite interaction ban on EditorDownUnder to prevent further harassment of Jytdog.

More diffs:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7

That's my thoughts on this AN/I anyway. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Would also support regular ban if EDU refuses to abide by I-ban.74.70.146.1 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Block as WP:NOTHERE, otherwise IBAN with zero tolerance. EDU is a waste of bandwidth. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I came this close to simply enacting a NOTHERE block, but the editor has done some work that's not related to following, hounding, and harassing Jytdog--but not a lot. Especially the edits pertaining to Philippe_Cousteau_Jr. are striking: they follow Jytdog, who had been reverting an editor inserting basically spam/promotion in a biography, all the way to the edit warring noticeboard to try and screw him over, in this edit. EditorDownUnder, please see WP:IBAN and note where it says "A one-way interaction ban prevents user X from interacting with user Y". That's what you have: a one-way interaction ban with Jytdog. Don't follow him, don't comment on him, don't talk to or about him, et cetera. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. I do not see any harassment here. I just had a look at the diffs and editordownunder's comments and I do not detect malice, rather simple disagreements. We should not be punishing newer editors for disagreeing with old-timers. Also, a simple look at Jytdog's talk page suggests plenty of people disagree with his editing practises. Furthermore, such an action will merely make Jytdog more entrenched in his routine dismissal of criticism towards his editing style. Pwolit iets (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd suggest any closing admin ignore this vote based on the conversation below. This Editor is on their way to a block themselves.74.70.146.1 (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block EDU needs to leave Jyt alone.74.70.146.1 (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The user Spshu (talk · contribs) have an intransigent and bad attitude on the Talk:List of films based on Marvel Comics and revert my good faith and procedent edit on [8].OscarFercho (talk) 03:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. You revert without comment,[9] say nothing to the user whatsoever, file this AN/I, then fail to notify them of it (which I have done for you). Do you think that maybe, I don't know, even attempting to discuss the issue with the user could have been a better move than coming here? Doc talk 08:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barring the filer's complaint, I don't think Spshu has the competence required to participate constructively as an editor. He has refused to own up to the fact that he violated WP:TPO by editing another user's discussion comment, has made incendiary remarks about other editors, has made grammar and spelling errors in articles, and has a lengthy block log for edit warring (7 counts of it, to be exact). Also, his unblock requests reek of WP:NOTTHEM. Make of all that what you will. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 08:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the block log when digging. Certainly not ideal editing behavior. Perhaps they will respond here... Doc talk 08:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. My edits its of good faith, and I no need to notify to all contributors of that article, a list in fact, cause its updates of current info, in this order, my edit you cite wasn't a revert, was a new edit.OscarFercho (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith edits can be reversed. That isn't a defense to have it how OscarFercho, or any other editor wants it. General speaking, in an argument on WP, both sides can make good faith edits and still make opposing edits. That is why there are talk pages. OscarFercho, you should not talk about an "intransigent and bad attitude" that is exactly your attitude. And you can not even seem to grasp the issue. The general issue, of making minor edits that don't really improve anything, was already under discussion although directly about the reception info (now expanded to included box office receipts). Then you go ahead and make a similar edit then complaint that you were reversed, deciding that I am "intransigent" then declaring me hostile because I am discussion the issue? I have been civil but frustrated do to the lack of understanding and basically OWN like statements made there (which I have ignore for civility's sake) like he is the final authority. I requested that he not remove reliable sources for primary sources, OscarFercho, said OK then when reverse the edit with out retain the reliable source. I am not going to change my mind just because you for a flimsy reason, argue or don't. Just because you don't understand my reason doesn't make my reason wrong.

Electricburst1996, I would not talk if I were you about competence. From the first time we met in a BRD, you repeatedly don't or hardly discussion any issue and run to 3RR (for example: [10]). We were rejected for 3O do to your refusal to discuss that first issue. Yet, you were reverting my own edits to my talk page and fail to know that the other editor in changing his edit made it look like I incorrectly quote him (I could be considered incivil under WP:IUC: 2. Other uncivil behaviours (e)). I did what it recommends. So, you have done worst in attempt to force me to agree that I did some wrong for the other editor failing to WP:REDACT and Electricburst1996 being bureaucratic, which WP is not suppose to be.

Spelling and grammar? Really, Electricburst1996? Editors have different strengths.

So I am not allow to point out error in the administrator's judgement? One of the "NOTTHEM" was in regards to a administrator who choose to not give me any chance to defend myself before the block is issued, so defending myself is NOTTHEM? I dare Eburst not to defend himself at a noticeboard when he is called to task. Electricburst1996 decided that he did not like the punishment which Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive908#BOOMERANG_for_User:Electricburst1996 boomeranged against him. He has hounded me since over the six blocks and now the seven he planned. (So asking editors to show up on talk pages is wrong (that is BRD)? While they get away with another edit to game the system? In one case, an administrator who know a sock was involve allowed himself to be a meatpuppet of sock in choosing to block me in edit war with another sock.) He even seemed to have planned to get me and himself block for an edit war hoping for an indefinite block as I when out of my way to edit in area we both don't edit in. warned at that block by the administrator: "I don't like the pattern of removal of comments at WP:AIV by Electricburst1996." So you edit warred and TPO all in one at AIV. Spshu (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That boomerang was thrown by Cebr1979, who was/is a problematic editor. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cebr1979. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 19:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Others joined in, Electricburst1996, and said the boomerang was correctly thrown. You have become a problematic editor: not discussion disagreement and running to the noticeboards first (do you want a list?), purposely getting a block & getting some one else blocked, taking editors to noticeboards because you did not think the block wasn't long enough. cong

I am no more problematic in the short term than you've been in the long term. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spshu, you've been around since 2006, which is long enough to the point where you should fully understand Wikipedia policy. From WP:TPO: "Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request." ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 20:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again that is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY since in effect they did the same to me in making that edit, which don't seem to care. Spshu (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Signal boost

If possible, I'd like u|John from Idegon, u|Swarm, u|KrakatoaKatie, u|Huon, u|Bearcat, and u|Darkwind to weigh in on all this. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 20:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you may not recruit other that may be biased to such a discussion per WP:Votestacking. Spshu (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I do not edit in the subject area of either comics or movies and have had no significant interactions (to the best of my knowledge) with any editors involved here, the mere act of pinging me (canvasing me?) here is in itself disruptive editing. Just sayin'. And with that I'm out. Please don't do that again. I pick the fish I fry, and my pans are full. John from Idegon (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On top the pinging, Electricburst1996 choose to remove the above subsection indicating he was wrong to do so, which John did not recommmend. This is also one of the tactics that brought down the boomerang, as he removed talk page discussion I started in which I was not allowed to defend myself thus a block. Spshu (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not clear on why I was pinged, as I've had no involvement with the dispute here — and while I've sparred with Spshu on a couple of recent AFDs (the only reason I can see why my participation might have been invoked), it hardly approached the level that would have caused me to have any sort of longterm interest in reviewing their longterm edit patterns. So I have nothing to say and no idea why anybody thought I would. Bearcat (talk) 03:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc9871: Here's the attitude that I said.OscarFercho (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What showing that Electricburst1996 improperly removed post is bad attitude. Or not rolling over for you or Electricburst1996? I don't think your going to change my attitude that I am here to build an encyclopedia. Spshu (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. This report is basically "malformed". There's no remedy requested, and the "problem" seems to be ill-defined and not actionable here. I recommend this be closed. Doc talk 08:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the others who were pinged, I have a rather good idea why I was chosen, and I'm not happy about it. I'm particularly concerned about this. Expecting to be blocked for one's own conduct in the hopes that the other party gets indeffed? Seriously? Electricburst1996 should re-think their approach to collaborative editing. Huon (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: Valid concern. I would like you to look over this entire report, though, and decide what action needs to be taken. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 18:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the editors you've pinged want nothing to do with this. There's no action recommended, and no one is going to decide what action to take by dissecting the report. If someone doesn't close it officially it will just get archived once people stop commenting on it. Doc talk 12:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine. The user stop his intransigent attitude on the war edit.OscarFercho (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will someone please help out with the edit war started by Keith-264 on Battle of France? He's pushing some kind of really weird POV where the French didn't really lose the battle because the Allies won WWII or some such nonsense. He's got a bunch of fished-out sources with cherry-picked quotes where scholars elaborate on the fact that Germany ultimately lost the war, and he's disrupting the article by "interpreting" them as supporting his removal of "German victory" from the infobox.
I mean the whole affair is just borderline-comical.. can we get the page reverted to status quo and protected for a while? -- Director (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly a content dispute with a heathy dose of edit-warring thrown in, so shouldn't really be at this board. I will mention the EW on his TP though, just as a protocol. I note that a discussion has been taking place, on the talk page, and that the other editor has not reverted since 13:28? today. I also wonder- in passing- why Keith-264 has suddenly focussed on the result: he has been editing the article for months (at least) and even as recently as five days ago he was content with the status quo; as he was in February...? Why the sudden volte face? _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've full protected the page for a week. If it goes back to edit warring after that, I will liberally hand out blocks. These aren't newbies, these are experienced editors that should know better. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this but my comment from about half-an-hour ago disappeared

• I have not started an edit war but I am being ganged up on and as the comments above demonstrate, my attempts to improve the NPOV of the article are being maliciously used to blame the victim; I've even been abused for agreeing with one of the other editors for heaven's sake. I keep asking the people who disagree to canvass the RS but they won't and interpret my suggestion as evidence that I'm a devious, manipulative folk-devil. Over the last couple of days, strangers have appeared and joined in the abuse, which is even more unfair and smacks of orchestration. I wouldn't mind but it really insults my vanity to be attacked by people who behave like third-rate generic managers, with a belief that NLP is a satisfactory substitute for communication. I have copied the list of RS that I began last year and asked for opinion on the milhist page. I'm going to step back from the infobox again and concentrate on the Analysis section (there isn't any analysis in it) and put my findings on the talk page in the hope that wiser counsels prevail. Thank you Keith-264 (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith-264: What about my questions above? Just out of curiosity really. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"It's clearly a content dispute with a heathy dose of edit-warring thrown in, so shouldn't really be at this board. I will mention the EW on his TP though, just as a protocol. I note that a discussion has been taking place, on the talk page, and that the other editor has not reverted since 13:28? today. I also wonder- in passing- why Keith-264 has suddenly focussed on the result: he has been editing the article for months (at least) and even as recently as five days ago he was content with the status quo; as he was in February...? Why the sudden volte face?"

This isn't a question, it's a denunciation couched as a question; you haven't asked out of curiosity but offered another example of rank bad faith. Try unloading it.Keith-264 (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It / they is / are questions; do you know how they can be recognised? It's by means of a question mark closing the sentence. I'm sorry if that's too complicated for you. You, Keith-264... The one unloaded upon. _Muffled ^Pocketed 21:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FIM, editor is clearly distressed. Cut them a little slack. Keith-264, the question was asked in good faith. It hasn't appeared to be a problem for a while, now it has, hence FIM's question(s). If you edit anything like me I focus on the IB last. So, it could just be that you've only just now got to it. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasn't as even a cursory look at the wording and the reply demonstrates (Would you like me to spell it out?). What are FIM and IB? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This entire dispute is a nearly-identical rehash of discussion in archives 1, 2 and 4 of the article talk pages. Not all the editors are the same but the issues mostly are. The personal attacks/snark are new, however. DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The insults are coincident with the new editors.Keith-264 (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What new editors? _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keith-264, FIM -> Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (aka Muffled Pocketed) and IB -> Infobox. Fine, I'll unload FIM's question for you. I personally found nothing rude in it and read it three times.

It's clearly a content dispute with a healthy dose of edit-warring thrown in, so shouldn't really be at this board.

Meaning that content disputes belong on the article talk page only and that any report of edit-warring should be at WP:AN/EW and not here.

I will mention the EW on his TP though, just as a protocol.

Meaning that FIM is mentioning EW on your talk page as standard procedure. A warning is necessitated. Templating unnecessary, but, WP:AGF. I doubt FIM is after your head. Unless you can demonstrate that there is "bad blood" between you. That said, FIM, don't template the regulars it wasn't needed especially considering this. Also, since I looked at the article, you entered the edit-war as well FIM, would you prefer a template or can I just say that you could have handled it better without joining the action. I know it's tempting, wars are fun, but, dramatics get too heated far too quickly. I prefer if nobody burns themselves for no reason.

I note that a discussion has been taking place, on the talk page, and that the other editor has not reverted since 13:28? today.

Meaning, that there is a discussion on the article talk page and that the edit-warring seems to have stopped 13:28. Now officially false due to the edit warring of the past day, but, eh, it was valid at the time.

I also wonder- in passing- why Keith-264 has suddenly focussed on the result: he has been editing the article for months (at least) and even as recently as five days ago he was content with the status quo; as he was in February...? Why the sudden volte face?

Two pronged, 1. It's unusual that the result has come into dispute now, given that you have been editing and improving the article for months (since at least February). 2. Volte Face -> why the sudden change in position. You hadn't brought up the result until recently, so what happened?

I re-read it yet again, I don't see anything offensive or lacking in good faith. I stand by what I said, the question was asked in good faith. I also looked at the warning on your page and your response; There is no edit war but you seem to be trying to impute one. So explain this series of edits for me; reverts on 11 Sept at 20:45 and 21:17, on 13 Sept at 01:03, 01:03 (again), and 08:27, on 14 Sept at 01:20, 01:43, 02:37, and 07:00, on 15 Sept at 04:12, 06:34, 07:22, 13:27, 13:28, 16:26, 16:37, 16:40, 16:44. Article page protected for six days with admin only editing access. That looks a hell of a lot like edit-warring to me. In fact that is edit-warring at its very core; Edit wars are when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. There are a total of 18 reverts on that page over the course of 5 days. All parties are however responsible for the edit-war as it is impossible to edit-war without at least two people tangoing (in this case at least five; FIM, you, Director, Irondome and KevinNinja). Now, FIM's reply was snarky no question about it. As was yours Keith, you failed to assume good faith with this; it's a denunciation couched as a question; you ... offered another example of rank bad faith. It was far more heated than anything FIM had said in their question, take it down a notch. "Denunciation", tell me where in that were you denounced? was it the warning template? since that was about the only thing I am seeing as being unnecessary. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was edited by Keith, I have left a copy of the changes below, and restored my comment to the way it was before the changes were made. No changes to meaning were made, only notes put in next to things I said.

Now, FIM's reply was snarky no question about it. As was yours Keith, you failed to assume good faith with this [no I didn't there was plenty of evidence by then of bad faith]; it's a denunciation couched as a question; you ... offered another example of rank bad faith. It was far more heated than anything FIM had said in their question [no it wasn't], take it down a notch [set me an example by owning your judgement]. Nor, was it a fair assessment of their comment [yes it was]. "Denunciation", tell me where in that were you denounced? was it the warning template? since that was about the only thing I am seeing as being unnecessary. [Look at the talk page and the insults directed at me] Mr rnddude (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly a content dispute with a heathy dose of edit-warring thrown in, so shouldn't really be at this board. I will mention the EW on his TP though, just as a protocol. I note that a discussion has been taking place, on the talk page, and that the other editor has not reverted since 13:28? today. [I also wonder- in passing- why Keith-264 has suddenly focussed on the result suddenly and focussing are inferences not questions]: he has been editing the article for months (at least) and even as recently as five days ago he was content with the status quo; [content with the status quo another inference and an implication that I disturbed the status quo] as he was in February...? [another inference] Why the sudden volte face? [an inference and a judgement followed by a question mark. This is a disingenuous way of getting someone to account for his/her inferences, all of which are self-serving]. If this is straight, what does bent look like?

On a brighter note, what is your opinion of my decision to trawl the RS to make a list of those who use decisive German victory and those who use German victory? I'm plugging away but it would speed the process if other editors with different sources joined in. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a brighter note, your crappy accusations are not standing up. Self-serving? Bent? Where do get off? _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll focus on the brighter note. Yes I did look at the talk page and notice walls of discussion. I honestly agree that decisive victory throws out any semblance of nuance. That the Germans managed to push to Paris in mere months is quite amazing. That is indisputable. The suggestion that the story ends with the capture of Paris and capitulation of the French just doesn't stack up though. Wikipedia is based on RS, this is how it should be. If you find RS that dispute the claim of decisive victory then of course I could only support the RS. Whether or not it turns out to be a time sink, ironically, only time will tell. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Btw; Keith, can I ask that you don't edit my comments. Not because you put anything rude in there, but, because it confused the hell out of me. Your notes are duly noted and I've separated them down for anybody who wants to check them. I do have a question about them; [set me an example by owning your judgement]. What do you mean by this? Are you referring to one of my own outbursts, I know I've been ticked off with other editors. I never claimed my judgement was always on point and I am happy to be called out on it as needed. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion about decisive but as I keep pointing out to other editors, it's irrelevant, we're here to describe what the RS have to say about it. I have added more commentary from RS in the talk page, despite the odd reluctance of several editors to accept it, throwing accusations of Wikipedia:Cherrypicking, even though it is cited and open to scrutiny. The bibliography and further reading sections have dozens more so it should be easy to to add the examples I've cited, what's stopping the naysayers? Notice also that Horne does use decisive, so there should be a few more. At first I expected to be a little red-faced at the end of the exercise, on the assumption that quite a few recent writers would use lazy adjectives and adverbs, decisive being a way of writing big rather than war deciding (the Clausewitzian sense) but not as yet. You wrote It was far more heated than anything FIM had said in their question [no it wasn't], take it down a notch and I glossed it. Who are you to decide what is heated? You could have asked. Who are you to say it was worse retaliation than the perpetrator's abuse? Who are you to tell anyone what to do? You could have suggested. This is where I think you failed to own yourself and put it on me. Notice also is[the] abusive reply from FIM above; it's tempting to resort to the Stephen Fry defence. Keith-264 (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to (almost) everyone in this thread: Since you're obviously having problems understanding each other (and this old limey is having problems understanding most of you...), skip the lingo and write in plain English, because as it is it's more like something out of Monthy Python than a proper constructive ANI-discussion... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oi! I'm English ;o)) do you mind offering a few examples of "a proper constructive ANI-discussion"? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a proper constructive ANI-discussion is a discussion where all participants write, and explain things, in a way that can be understood by everyone, whether they're regulars here or not, so that we get a dialogue and not just a number of parallell monologues, and where everyone listens to what others say. Because this board is for solving problems (with editor behaviour, not article content), and if people can't explain the problem in a way that is easily understood by others and/or can't give advice in a way that is easily understood by those who are being given advice, no problem will be solved. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the trouble is, who decides? Complaints about me were made here to recruit allies not resolve anything, because the dispute is about the relevance of RS, if you look at the France talk page you'll see what I mean. There's been some movement over the last couple of days so it may be that "German victory" is what most of us will settle for in the infobox but I won't hold my breath. In the meantime I'm working on an analysis section of the aftermath. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be wise to have another look at the talk page. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please would someone review the recent edits on the talk page, particularly the abusive edits and threats by User:Director, this is getting beyond a joke. Keith-264 (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I was kidding, trying to lighten the tone - I apologize. I really meant no offense. And come on, you just now threatened to continue your edit-warring after the article was unprotected, in spite of previous explicit warning. But you're here about Family Guy? -- Director (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, seriously, clearly not helping. A typo as an accident is fine (Kieth v Keith) but to make jokes out of it can be insulting and degrading to the other editor. Especially if that is their real name. Otherwise, all of you, go to the article talk page, discuss till you're blue in the face, and if no consensus comes out of it WP:DRN is that way and WP:RfC is on the other block just behind the grocery store, next to WP:CON. If you keep going that way you'll eventually find it. Otherwise, this is just the dispute boiling under the pot, bring it down to a simmer and carry on. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The guy didn't read his username correctly (not a native speaker?) and Keith-264 made a  p o i n t  of correcting him, so I tried to lighten the mood (since it looked like it was getting personal). At the end of the day, who cares about your username?? Call me Diewrecktor if you want.. (just please, for your own sake, don't call me by my unpronounceable Eastern European name, I'm kind of like Spock in that regard).

But for the love of Jimbo, Keith - don't look for different venues in which to beat this dead horse... Morpheus brought you sources, nobody agrees with you.. Lets end this. -- Director (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Director, Kevin didn't misspell it once but twice - both are probably accidental. I know it was meant to be light, it also clearly backfired, ah well. Carry on. On a lighter note; tvoje istocno evropsko ime nemoze biti nesto teze meni izgovorit nego moje. (Hopefully all correctly spelt, I speak it, don't necessarily write it) Mr rnddude (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but that's Serbian spelling. Serb death squads murdered my pet tortoise. Please apologize now.

But yeah.. my name is actually incredibly easy to pronounce. Wish I was Polish..-- Director (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quarter Serb, so, have a quarter apology. Polish, I'm not even going to touch, I see zegarmistrz swiatla purpowy (I am obviously not confident in the spelling of that) and I am out of there. Way to many consonants to vowels ratio. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the fair play Mr Rude Dude (?) might I point out to all that there are 208 page watchers 47 "watchers who have visited recent edits", I think most of them are waiting for some real editing not this orchestrated campaign of denigration and youtube smears. Keith-264 (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if joke, but, R-n-d dude. It's short for Random Dude. It's not the first time this has happened, just a few months ago EEng called me Mr Nude Dude. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was R&D dude. carrying on Blackmane (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't resist the assumption that you were Rude Dude (Viv Richards) in Private Eye. ;o)Keith-264 (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Nude Dude. EEng 12:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, only adding this based on the edit-summary; "?". Mr rnddude (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poodleboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently returned after what is, in essence, a ten-year hiatus following a short arbitration enforcement block in 2006. His main focus of editing has been climate change, where he has been combative and edit-warred (e.g. [11], [12]). His comments align ideologically with climate change denialism (e.g. [13]). This was the kind of editing that led to the AE block.

In the last few days he has taken it upon himself to wage a one-man war against the characterisation of Intelligent Design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as the pseudoscientific view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.". This text has been in the lede since at least April 2014 and has been discussed on Talk several times. Four consecutive discussions demanding removal of the (sourced) characterisation "pseudoscientific" exist on Talk, three of these were started by Poodleboy. All four were closed (by three different editors) as no consensus for the change. On closure of the last, Poodleboy immediately started a new thread again demanding the change.

Several people have engaged thoughtfully on Poodleboy's talk page, but he does not seem to have taken on any of their advice.

Bluntly, Poodleboy appears to me to be here to Right Great Wrongs. His constant wrongteous anger is wearing to everybody else involved in these discussions. I propose a topic ban from topics related to both Intelligent Design and climate change. Guy (Help!) 09:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we go for something succinct rather that blunt. Would it be fair to paraphrase the offense I am accused of, as "Poodleboy continued to respond to some commenters (perhaps half a dozen or more) after two or three people tried to terminate the discussion."?Poodleboy (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't edited on climate change since that recent block and I'm a supported of the climate change consensus, not a denier, evidently JzG is going for a twofer. What he is bluntly stating is not truthful or objective. The discussion on ID was not a one man war, there was another arguing for a more encyclopedic voice, and there was good and civil, give and take in the discussion, until a biased and involved editor started edit warring on the talk page, using closure and deleting a comment on the talk page [User:Binksternet] and issued a warning this warning to me [14]. Notice that this editor User:Binksternet unilaterally claimed there was no possibility of the discussion bearing fruit. The discussion had been continuing and was substantive in exposing the positions and correcting assumptions. Binksternet's bias is shown by his warning only one participant in the discussion and by his sudden panic at the thought that a graph long in the article might lend credence to the topic.[15] Note that I have not edited the article and instead worked to try to achieve consensus on the talk page. I will notify Binksternet that his name is being mentioned. Unilaterally closing discussions should not be acceptable discussion behavior. Note that he was not a participant on the talk page, there he no evidence he actually read it. Notice also, that I considered the discussion on the ID talk page complete and even proposed retention of that discussion to avoid needless repitition before this unjustified ANI was started. Unlike the past ANI, I have been a model of civility. Regards. Poodleboy (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you said that you're a supporter of evolution too, but strangely all your edits to related topics are aimed at watering down the scientific consensus, just as all your edits to climate change topics were aimed at watering down the mainstream view. On Wikipedia, you tend to be judged by what you actually write, rather than what you say you believe. Calling Oreskes' work "an embarrassment to science" and defending Heartland as "equally valid" sure as hell doesn't look like a supporter of the reality-based view on climate change.

You have failed to address the core issue, which is that four separate discussions showed no consensus for change (and there are plenty more in the archives that also have no consensus for change, as was pointed out to you), yet your response was to start a fifth thread. That is beyond boring. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You neglect the core issue that two of those four were before the last ANI, and that you were involved in one of the recent closures, when others, including eventually yourself, saw there was more to discuss and the discussion continued. I wasn't repeating myself, and if I my points repeated others that have been archived in my responsiveness, then the other participants must not have read those archives, because they did not seem to anticipate the problems with their points.Poodleboy (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, my Heartland comment was not about climate science, but about the attempt to portray them as holding the position they do because of corporate influence. Their response about the internal controls and standards in place are what was equally valid. Oreskes is not justified in drawing the conclusions that she does from just analyzing the abstracts, such opinions are most likely to be expressed in the discussion portion of the articles. Her students conducting the evaluations were inconsistent in applying the standards. The methodology was poor. Poodleboy (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that JzG chose to mischaracterize my position at ID, I don't oppose the statement he mentioned, and I never demanded removal of the pseudoscientific characterization, just that it that it not give a biased, unencyclopedic impression by being in the first sentence. Poodleboy (talk) 10:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Face it JzG/Guy, you were an involved admin unilaterally closing ongoing discussion on an article under discretionary sanctions. Acting as an admin without disclosing that were were an admin, and you, yourself continuted discussing after your failed close attempt. Perhaps you just wanted the last word.Poodleboy (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic bans I am involved in that I moved a comment by Poodleboy into a collapsed section using the edit summary "extend close: article talk pages are for actionable proposals to improve the article based on reliable sources" (diff). Poodleboy's response (diff) was to post a new section with a heading taken from my edit summary, and with a convoluted comment indicating a hard-to-follow dissatisfaction. An article talk page, particularly one with an "Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience" box, is not a place for interminable attempts to make a case. There is no sign the attempts will stop without ANI action. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't consider this comment, posted before I was aware of any ANI a "sign" [16] ? It is pretty clear that I was through with the discussion. This dissatisfaction was with your erroneous edit summary characterization. Why couldn't you come up with an excuse you could defend for using a premature close to cut of an on-going discussion with multiple participants?Poodleboy (talk) 10:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The second of my two diffs is your "sign" link. Article talk pages are not intended for on-going discussions merely for the sake of discussion (WP:NOTFORUM). As stated, talk pages are for actionable proposals to improve the article. Perhaps everyone else is wrong, but Talk:Intelligent design shows there has been no consensus for your proposal since July—a topic ban is needed as you are still promoting the idea despite the Arbcom discretionary sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  So you just chose to ignore the evidence that I considered the discussion complete and sought to avoid a repeat, and lie by stating there is no sign? Ironically, the ANI came after it had already stopped. That would have been clear, if there hadn't been such a rush. Poodleboy (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic bans - this editor's response to a DS/alert I left for them as well as their comments above, are examples of how this editor is only here to show how clever they are, and not to build the encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you able to contribute without deceiving others or perhaps yourself? You did not leave a DS/alert for "them", you were closing the discussion that others were participating in, it wasn't like I was commenting on my own, yet you only left an alert for me. Face it, you were biased and involved, and devolved into edit warring on the talk page, when a civil and substantive discussion was ongoing. Poodleboy (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban on climate change and evolution. This person is poison to the project, working to diminish the scientific position wherever possible, especially by denying a consensus and instead attacking individual elements that contribute to consensus. A divide-and-conquer strategy. Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess that is how you define "the project", you are involved in a pick-them-off-one-at-a-time strategy. Have you even read the Global Warming page? The "scientific position" follows where the science leads, it isn't fixed. The IPCC lowered the climate sensitivity range from 2.0C-4.5C down to 1.5C-4.5C in AR5, and refused to give a best estimate for the sensitivity as in the past because of a divergence in the evidence. Recent publications have reinforced the lower end of the range again. The next reports range is likely to be even lower. The fact of the matter is we don't know whether the net feedback from the water cycle is positive or negative over the time frame of interest, even though the increase in water vapor is a positive feedback contribution.Poodleboy (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support evolution topic ban, no opinion on other proposal – I've been following the discussion at talk:ID and Poodleboy's arguments have been flawed and display either an agenda or a serious lack of competence. Arguing that pseudoscience is not a defining characteristic of ID is unsupported by logic and evidence and lacks objective understanding. Refusing to listen and to drop the stick shows that change is highly unlikely. Poodleboy, demonstrate that you can work collaboratively somewhere else on WP as you can't manage it in this area. EdChem (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  You misunderstood the logic. Others were arguing that pseudoscience was intrinsic or inherent in ID. I pointed out that more than the definition was required to reach such a judgement. One can define ID without mentioning pseudoscience, in fact, other encyclopedias manage whole articles without mentioning it. One could argue that it is a matter of empirical necessity. You ignore the evidence when you stat that I refuse to listen. My responses were on point which is difficult to do if I didn't listen. The whole discussion was collaborative. Don't you find it, just a little bit strident that so many editors feel they must have the pseudoscience opinion in the first sentence? After all that is the whole point of the attempt to improve the article. If you are so confident in your position, why don't you see if that sentence can survive a featured article review? Keep in mind that only two of us in the recent discussion were actually trying to improve the article, everyone else was for the status quo. It wasn't like we weren't open to all kinds of alternative language suggestions. There was only one side unwilling to compromise.Poodleboy (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic bans The bludgeoning on ID has to end. The point that other encyclopedias don't use the term is ridiculous. They in fact go further into depth and assign ID the very definition of pseudoscience. At WP we have the luxury of simply linking it and not having to go into the definition. Capeo (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Evidently, you didn't notice that I had already stopped on the ID talk page and that I had never edited the topic page at all. I did recommend that the excellent discussions that were had there be preserved and not archived, so the others don't fall into the trap of trying to improve the article. It will help them to see the quality of effort that has already been given, and not think that it wasn't just incompetence that prevented a reasonable compromise. As for me, I had already given up. Poodleboy (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You edited the talk page today. Capeo (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are quick, it is the content of that edit that is the admission that it is over and the recommendation I have been mentioning. If JzG/Guy had waited a few days, this whole whatever-it-is-called wouldn't seem urgent or necessary. Regards.Poodleboy (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic bans I edit climate, but not ID. I support the TB because (A) Poodleboys responses in this very thread demonstrate his penchant for attacks and difficulty with AGF,

example from above thread, you are involved in a pick-them-off-one-at-a-time strategy

example from above thread, :Are you able to contribute without deceiving others or perhaps yourself?

Also, (B) the other reason I support the TB is specific to the topic of ID and it is this - Poodleboy apparently has self-imposed at TB already, as evidence by his above comment "I had already stopped on the ID talk page and that I had never edited the topic page at all..... I have already given up" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Penchants for attack on this page don't count, this is an attack page. I haven't been uncivil on any topic or topic talk page since the last thingy-me-bob. Each comment you cite above from this process is either mirroring a similar attack on me, or points out evidence that the characterization is true. You are spinning rather selectively. Poodleboy (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support that is some of the most in depth and persistent IDHT I have seen in a few years. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  It is most complete, that is why I felt finished. I couldn't think of any further arguments, and the other side was left only with their locally superior numbers. If that discussion wouldn't convince the others then there is no hope. No one on the other side ever proposed a compromise. I would like to retain the ability to vote on the page, if ever the community were to change. After all, implementing bans on people one by one, doesn't allow an alternative community to accumulate.Poodleboy (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban on ID generally: I was involved in the ID discussions. I have trouble in assuming the good faith of someone whose professes that X is totally a Y, but one should not say so right away to preserve the "appearance of objectivity". If I recall, a total of two other editors were convinced by his argumentation. Despite that, an ungodly amount of time was wasted beating that horse. Thus I strongly support the ban on ID. I haven't followed climate change. My general impression is that Poodleboy delights in wasting people's time -- and has proven adept at it. Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Correct me if I am wrong, but 17 comments over 3 days on the ID talk page is hardly an "ungodly amount of time" and some of those probably shouldn't count because of the edit war [[User:Binksternet] started on the ID talk page, and has continued even during this ANI process. He has deleted comments on the ID talk page again. Could someone please restore that last comment of mine that I have been referencing during this process. It will test whether he really does want to get himself banned as he seems to indicate with his recent behavior. I suspect I may be less than a third to a quarter of the comments in the discussion. Ungodly, not!! Poodleboy (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the hill you want to die on? The only one who is going to get himself banned is yourself. --Tarage (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't surprise me if Binksternet gets little more than a wink and a nod, despite is far more severe abuses.Poodleboy (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for inviting me to correct you, Poodleboy. You fired your first salvo July, 22. I would say that's a bit more than 3 days ago. The discussion mercifully died while you were blocked, and resurrected a little time after you came back. If "ungodly" irks you so, would you be satisfied with "shockingly disproportionate to the quality and range of the arguments that have been advanced"? Even if the vast majority is wrong -- that happens -- and you are right -- I'm making a strenuous effort of imagination here, but I suppose that might occasionally happen in some universes -- it should have been clear that the way you were going about it was not going to be productive. Also, some of your over-the-top claims ("I doubt anyone editing the pages I'm involved in is a more knowledgeable supporter of evolution"), cast doubt on your sincerity, to my mind. Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with going back 20 times as far, is that the number of comments only increases by 16, for a total of 33 and some of these were mere correction of typos or word choice and a couple others were reversing comments others had deleted. Poodleboy (talk) 08:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poodleboy: ok, I finally got what's wrong with your statistics. You are counting only your own edits on ID talk. I said you were wasting people's time. You are evidently free to waste your own however you want, I won't give a single solitary murid's behind. But all edits on ID talk since your arrival, about 160 if I count right, were in response to your necromantically resurrected threads. Plus all the nonsense on the Talk pages of some of the involved, and now we're on the bloody drama boards. That's a lot of entropy being generated for a completely trivial and trivially doomed proposal. There have been many similar proposals (content-wise) in the few years I've watched that page but that's the first time I see such a tempest in that particular teapot. I never accused you of being inefficient at causing other people to waste their time; obviously you're good at it, if that's your intent, for I'm doing just that right now. Your answers seem to somehow always miss the point in a way that invites correction. In your last answers here only, you just offered me a number that's obviously wrong, so that I'd have to check, then find your count missed the point, then explain it; then your answers to MjolnirPants and Yoshi24517 just beg for an explanation of the value of uninvolvedness. Most of your posts come with built-in hooks, and I'm just not sure that's accidental; the more I interact with you, the more I get the impression that you are deliberately setting things up to generate drama. Either that or you're a natural. If anything, I think the case against you is currently understated. I'm altering my support to include the ban on climate change. I would support a permablock if that came up. Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 09:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was counting only my edits and even overstating them because I included them whether they were just typo corrects or reverting a comment that one of the talk page edit warriors deleted. But I can't take credit for all those responses, because a few were by the one or two backing the more encyclopedic voice for the first sentence, so those comments, and those responding to those comments should not be included. What you call "hooks" in my responses, are where I made seemingly strong points either debunking their points or making the case for the more encylopedic voice that others were not willing to let stand. Frankly, I think both positions were clarified, and would be clear to any readers to come, and that was why I was satisfied and finished at the end. Those who were prematurely trying to end the clarification and full exposition of the arguments must be responsible for the noise they added trying to argue that there was a consensus and that everything had been said, when a clear majority were not through discussing, even if you blame that on my "hooks". I found this paragraph unsigned, I sign it now, but keep in mind the date/time is later than originally posted. I don't know if it was oversight on my part or someone elses mistake. Poodleboy (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban Just on the basis of the back-and-forth in this thread and the diffs presented herein. I'm completely uninvolved, by the way. Never interacted with Poodleboy or edited either of the two articles in question, to my recollection. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Do I have to paste the whole talk page in here to get you to read it? Poodleboy (talk) 08:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have absolutely no understanding of the hole you have dug for yourself, that you are so intent on digging further. If you have any semblance of sanity, stop digging. Stop replying to every single person who is voting. You are only making it worse for yourself. --Tarage (talk) 09:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Poodleboy: I want to be clear here. I know you will respond, and I don't care because I'll be done after this. I'm only responding because I believe my initial vote could use some clarification. I based my support entirely upon what you've said here, how you've said it, and what you've said in the diffs provided. I considered it before commenting, and in my opinion (an opinion you have absolutely NO ability to affect by arguing with me here) that alone is enough evidence to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that you lack the ability to meaningfully contribute to these topics. I read where you explicitly claimed to be pro-climate change and pro-evolution, and I have read where you made arguments or suggested edits which were clearly anti-climate change and anti-evolution. Even assuming some legitimacy for those positions (there is none), the fact that you willfully lie about your own beliefs strips the credibility from any defense you put forth. Furthermore, I have seen you display a complete refusal to admit any wrongdoing throughout all of this thread. I have additionally seen you make a point of responding to each and every support vote in this thread. Finally, I have seen a large number of editors, some of whom I know to have good judgement all supporting a topic ban (and many calling for a site ban), with none in opposition. To be completely honest, I would fully support a permanent site ban, just based on your behavior in this thread and the provided links. Poodleboy (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is all I have to say. You may, of course, respond, but I ask that you not ping me in your response, because I will not reply further, in any case. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't lied about any of my beliefs, and while not admitting wrong doing on this ANI, on the previous one I did admit wrong doing. Frankly, I don't see any wrong doing on my part of this latest episode, except perhaps I should have brought an ANI against Binksternet instead of reverting the comment deletions he made on the talk page. However, that ANI, like this one, would probably have wasted far more time than has been expressed as a concern based upon my discussion on the talk page. If wasting time is a fault, it more strongly lies with those who brought this ANI and those who support it. As to climate, I usually clearly state that I am part of the consensus, and if I elaborate further I detail that it is the 97% peer reviewed consensus based upon the responses to two questions. Lukewarmer/skeptics like myself are part of that consensus. The lies I have identified on this ANI are substantiated and your inference and accusation can not be substantiated. Poodleboy (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban. Per MjolnirPants. Also uninvolved. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 03:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  You two might be the first that are that uninvolved. Hopwfully you at least read the talk page, there is something to be said for at least having an informed opinion.Poodleboy (talk) 08:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poodleboy, I am uninvolved but scientifically literate / educated. I read your arguments, and understood them. Your arguments are flawed, however. And even if they weren't, WP works on a consensus model which says you are welcome to make suggestions and try to persuade but in return you are expected to abide by the consensus conclusion so long as it is policy-compliant. Fighting as you have since that became clear, and here at ANI, are the reasons you face a topic ban. EdChem (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose topic ban Poodleboy is right about the pejorative tone in the first sentence. I agree with Capeo that "The bludgeoning on ID has to end": everyone who raises the point of bias gets bludgeoned. I disagree with Capeo that "The point that other encyclopedias don't use the term is ridiculous": our argument is not whether or not ID is a pseudoscience, but what the proper encyclopedic tone is for explaining what is it. We believe it should first be defined in its proponents' terms and then be explained in the light of academic consensus.

The article of Palmistry is the model I believe the ID article should follow.

I have noted on the talk page that the NAS, the Encyclopedia Britannica, the NCSE--for heaven's sake! (a partisan think tank dedicated to debunking creationism)--and UC Berkeley use the encyclopedic tone I wish to see here. YoPienso (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 0RR restriction + maximum of 2 edits per week per article talk page for the two topic areas. This will allow Poodleboy to make any edits he wishes to make and put forward any arguments in defense of his edits and give his response to comments, but it makes it a lot easier for the other editors to deal with edits by Poodleboy they don't agree with and all the associated talk page arguments. 0RR means that it's pointless to make an edit that isn't going to stick, and there wonlt be protracted arguments on the talk page, if you can make only two posts per week there, you want to reserve one for a reply, that leaves you one posting to make an argument, so you'd better get that argument to be a good, constructive one as judged by the other editors. Count Iblis (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea; Poodleboy has raised a couple criticisms I have agreed with and I'd like to see an outcome that prevents past problems while retaining his input. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Totally unfair, the number of edits, few as they are, should be considered in the context of the other editors. The ID talk page and even the discourse here show that they fail to assume good faith, instead, not only do the make POV pushing accusations, they are poor at inferring what the POV is and get it wrong. Such a severe restriction on edits of the talk page, would unfairly leave such false accusations and characterizations incorrectable. Sure I could try to correct them on the editors talk page, but you've seen the contributers here. How many have gone back to the talk page to retract or correct their accusations and inferences? The expectation is that the editor himself would do that if they were erroneous or untrue.Poodleboy (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Poodleboy. You'd better stop yapping or you'll get sent to the doghouse big time. YoPienso (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TBAN for both topics. I think if it were just behavior in the topic spaces alone I could get on board with something like Count Iblis is talking about above. The contentiousness and adversarial tone that this thread has taken leads me to think that this isn't behavior that is going to end. I have read this thread up to this point and I have read everything on the ID page as it was going on. --Adam in MO Talk 01:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic bans. As Adam notes in the immediately preceding comment, Poodleboy's approach is problematic. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

I feel compelled to defend myself as a strong supporter of evolution and opponent of Intelligent Design. I've been an avid follower of evolution starting in the 60s with the works popularizing evolution by Robert Ardrey, Phillip Wylie and Desmond Morris, and consider Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" and "The Extended Phenotype" contributions and classics that have stood the test time. I think my arguments against ID are less encyclopedic but more persuasive than the pseudoscientific opinion expressed in the first sentence at issue here. I quote myself from my own talk page here:

" I doubt anyone editing the pages I'm involved in is a more knowledgable supporter of evolution than I am. I'm so confident that evolution is the best explanation of the evidence that I'm not afraid of giving other hypotheses a fair hearing, and believe that we do evolution and science a disservice by acting so fearfully to suppress other views. Do you really think Intelligent Design has legs to stand upon? How intelligent is the design that has mammal losing the ability to regrow limbs and that has primates with a vestigial pseudo-gene for synthesizing vitamin C? How intelligent was using the same genetic code for humans as for other species, making inter specific virus transmission easier? How intelligent is a design that a species like ours with only 10,000 years of civilization behind us, can see the flaws in and will shortly be able to improve upon? How intelligent is a design that resulted in you making such erroneous characterizations?" [17]

Furthermore, I have a strong continuing interest in the evolvability characteristic of life that has itself evolved over time. I hope to make a contribution here in that area, I quote myself again, this time from the evolvability talk page:

"internal homeostasis, developmental homeostasis, sexual recombination/redundancy and niche reduction"

The way to make beneficial genetic changes more likely is to make detrimental changes less detrimental and the the organism more robust to detrimental changes. The genetic changes that made the human infant a noisy, slow, weak incompetent organism, were made less detrimental by the niche reduction of parental care. The young human did not have to be evolutionarily fit throughout growth and development and in a variety of environments, but just within the niche of parental care, until viable at adulthood. The redundant genes at every location involved allow genetic variation to accumulate until it might prove beneficial or detrimental in new combinations or environments. Internal homeostasis through active metabolism and related partially redundant pathways, allow genetic variation to be tolerated and yet viable conditions maintained. Families of related enzymes from past genome replications are an example of this evolability. Developmental homeostasis enables a genetic change in, for example, bone length to be survivable. It won't fail because changes in the genes for the length of blood vessels, muscles and nerves did not simultaneously happen. A change in genetic or enviromentally caused bone length can be accomodated by the robustness of the developmental process. Far from being merged with other articles, Evolvability is arguably one of the most important concepts for understanding and communicating evolution. The major breakthrough in evolution was evolving evolvability. Evolution was probably a slow process until enough evolvability had accumulated. I think these topics are not covered well enough (some not at all) in the article, and expansion under this topic is warranted. Poodleboy (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)"[18][reply]

regards. Poodleboy (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above WALLOFTEXT illustrates why I earlier supported the TBAN and boils down to Poodleboy just not getting this place and is apparently immune to feedback.

1. Problems due to claimed expert status Frequently Poodleboy expresses his own WP:Original research without citing RSs, and he seems to think this is OK because, as in the above post, his self-image goes like this "I doubt anyone editing the pages I'm involved in is a more knowledgable supporter of evolution than I am." Despite multiple feedback remarks from multiple eds (example thread from July) he's still speaking based on his own claims of expert knowledge instead of RSs.

2. POV-PUSHING In the above comment Poodleboy admits he is not trying to be encyclopedic but persuasive. That's the definition of a POV-PUSHER. His words were "I think my arguments against ID are less encyclopedic but more persuasive than the pseudoscientific opinion expressed in the first sentence at issue here." Personally, I am expressing no opinion on the Intelligent Design content dispute per se and the content dispute is not the issue. The issue is that Poodleboy describes himself as our #1 expert in this area and says outright that he is trying to use our platform to persuade others based on his expertise rather than build a neutral RS-based encyclopedia.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Logic fail, the less encyclopedic but more persuasive phrase, meant I realized that those arguments could not be used in the wikipedia article. I was so objective that most responding here erroneously concluded that I was pushing ID and opposed evolution. How much further from POV pushing could I have gotten? What is this criticism about lack of sources? You don't need sources for admittedly unencyclopedic material that you are NOT trying to put into wikipedia. As to "evolvability", I have plenty of sources, that was just some explanation of what I thought was missing or not well explained in the article, i.e., a more informative and helpful "needs work". And this was on the talk page. Poodleboy (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As to the example from the Global Warming talk page, leave it to you to pick an example that readers here would have to dig deep into the discussed sources to understand. I was discussing and understanding the sources, so I didn't need sources for that. Eventually, when a sentence used in the review article was found that mistated the earlier evidence in the articles being reviewed, I yielded, since I couldn't dispute that. Unfortunately, errors like that slip through peer review. Just like in the Doran and Zimmerman article where the wrong denominator was used and the "consensus" that I was part of should have been 94.9% instead of 97%. Poodleboy (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NewsandEventsGuy, I must protest. Your comment is typical of the ad hominem attacks used to shut down discussion.

• Poodleboy was NOT claiming expert status in order to edit the article, but as a defense against being called a creationist.
• Here's a diff for the accusation of creationist as a response to pleas for an objective tone: "Another is that creationists will never be content with an objective view of ID. . ."
• You utterly misconstrued Poodleboy's comment, "I think my arguments against ID are less encyclopedic but more persuasive than the pseudoscientific opinion expressed in the first sentence at issue here," into "Poodleboy admits he is not trying to be encyclopedic but persuasive."
• Gamall Wednesday Ida understood our intent but not the definition of "objectivity" when s/he said our argument was "a pure matter of convention, taste, and temperament." Yes, pretty much; that's how I understand WP:IMPARTIAL. YoPienso (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yopienso's comments opposing a TBAN (see prior section) is mainly about the intelligent design content dispute but this filing despite being here at ANI is really a question of arbitration enforcement because it's about the principles laid down by the ARBS in the ID case ruling and also the climate change ruling. Poodleboy in his own words claims ID expertise. For whatever the reason or context, he claims ID expertise. In the ID ruling experts are explicitly denied special consideration. Both rulings forbid original research. Many of his arguments omit the RSs on which they are based. In my opinion, this should have been filed at WP:AE instead of here at ANI. But in any case, its hardly an ad hominem to ask for enforcement to prevent future problems. That is, after all, the whole idea of of our approach to sanctions. I don't really know about community TBANs as distinct from long blocks. Maybe a long block in the name of reform is in order, but I'll trust others who know more about that stuff. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, when Guy opened this discussion, it was regarding talk page discussion about content--specifically, on calling ID pseudoscience--not regarding arbitration enforcement. Your assertion about Poodleboy claiming ID expertise is bogus. YoPienso (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, Guy identified the content dispute that serves as the context, but he then complained about problematic behavior. Poodleboy claims expertise as a "supporter of evolution", not "intelligent design", you're right... but it doesn't alter the application of the ARB "principles", most importantly the prohibition against repeatedly speaking on the basis of personal knowledge, aka original research. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC) PS By the way, I like having experts around, and I hope Poodleboy can figure out how to speak through RSs, make better use of WP:DR, and learn grace in the face of feedback. We need more experts, but not at the expense of our basic collaborative process. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does alter the application of ARB "principles", because such errors, mischaracterizations and mistatements are frequent, so it shows how unfair a numerical edit restriction would be, although a dozen over 3 days seems like plenty as long as people aren't deleting talk page comments. So much was accomplished on the ID talk page despite POV pushing accusations and other edits that did not address the substance.Poodleboy (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The consensus here is solid. Close? Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems prudent.74.70.146.1 (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems like it is time to close this thread and log the two tbans.--Adam in MO Talk 23:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Shrimpton (talk · contribs) is Michael Shrimpton, a lawyer and an ardent proponent of what reliable sources describe as "conspiracy theories". He was the subject two previous autobiographies here on Wikipedia, both of which were deleted in 2012 for lack of notability and sourcing. (See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Michael Shrimpton and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Shrimpton.)

After these deletions, Shrimpton became notable by virtue of his moderately publicized criminal convictions for child pornography and a bomb-threat hoax at the 2012 Summer Olympics, and also because some of his conspiracy theories (upon which the bomb threat was based) were covered in the press and in The Rough Guide to Conspiracy Theories. I therefore created a new Michael Shrimpton article from scratch based on all the apparently reliable sources I could find. (I was not involved in creating, editing, reviewing, or deleting any of the previous incarnations of the article. I never even saw them.)

The problem is that User:Michael Shrimpton is once again turning the article into a poorly sourced autobiography and edit-warring to keep it that way. He is supplementing or replacing well-sourced information with unsourced or poorly sourced material that argues against his criminal convictions, or that paints him in a positive light. In many cases the new information he adds directly contradicts what is stated in the original sources, effectively whitewashing his biography. Compare this version before his edits with the current version. Note in particular:

He is also now using the article to cover in detail his own conspiracy theories relating to climate change, the death of David Kelly, the De Havilland Comet, etc. This is a resumption of behaviour that he was previously blocked for. Back in 2007, several users attempted to educate him about WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NPA, WP:VANDALISM, and WP:3RR, which culminated in several warnings and a block: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37][38] He was completely oblivious to these warnings and to all requests to provide reliable sources. He stubbornly insisted that he was "aware of the Wikiepedia [sic] rules" and that the real problem was other editors "vandalising" his work [39].

I've made several attempts to engage him [40] [41], though he has never replied other than by attacking me and other editors in his edit summaries.

I submit that User:Michael Shrimpton is not here to build an encyclopedia. He's here to right great wrongs by promoting his own conspiracy theories and whitewashing his own biography. I suggest that he be blocked until such time as he demonstrates an understanding of, and willingness to comply with, our policies and guidelines, particularly ones relating to verifiability and reliable sources. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Psychonaut, with respect, whose name I do not know, and who is hiding behind a cloak of anonymity, clearly has an agenda. He wants to abuse his Wikipedia privileges by using a LPB as an attack piece. He appears to be obsessed with the notion that I am a "conspiracy theorist", which is a crude smear. When in the space of a couple of lines I explain my published theory on the death of Dr Kelly, instead of attempting to deal with my analysis, he resorts to an attempt at censorship. As drafted the biography accurately reflects my published work on the Kelly assassination. Gordon Thomas has confirmed in his book "Gideon's Spies" that some of my analysis on the Kelly assassination is taught in Mossad's training school.

The points I have made, so far from being a conspiracy theory, represent sound intelligence analysis, based on detailed discussion with experienced physicians and pathologists, and one of HM's Coroners, to which there is no answer. He cannot have taken coproxamol as the blood ratio was wrong and the stomach contents cannot be reconciled with the number of empty slots in the blister pack placed beside his body. Psychonaut may not like the fact that I have spotted fatal flaws in the suicide theory, but I have. Any balanced biography of me should refer to this intelligence success.

I do not know whether Psychonaut is anti-semitic or not - I do not even know who he or she is - but it is a possibility which may be worthy of investigation. Because I am a strong supporter of Israel and have worked with their excellent Mossad, to the point where I am now referred to in a standard work about the agency, I frequently experience attack from anti-semitic Internet trolls. Psychonaut admits involvement in the disgraceful incident in 2007, when a determined group of editors successfully suppressed the fact that the Gloster Meteor F Mk 1 was the world's first operational jet fighter (616 Squadron, RAF Manston, July 1944 - the first 262 unit, even then not a regular line unit, did not go operational on the type until October 1944) and used Wikipedia as a vehicle to recycle discredited claims of the German Propaganda Ministry, when it was under Nazi control. This group would not even permit a reference to the published research of John W R Taylor, then Editor of Janes All The World's Aircraft, who exploded this particular Nazi myth in 1965. I am not of course suggesting that Psychonaut is a Nazi sympathiser, however he admits to being partially responsible for Wikipedia being used as the vehicle for the continued publication of a false claim first made by the German Propaganda Ministry, with the approval of the Reichs Minister, Dr Josef Goebbels, in 1944. Wikipedia, with respect, must decide for itself where its priorities lie - in the truth, or in the dissemination of Nazi propaganda.

The Bucks Herald engaged in tabloid journalism. They did not make any meaningful attempt to talk to me and printed several major factual errors. They could not even get the name of the Secretary of State for Defence right, It was the Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP, not Philip Dunne. The prosecution case at my trial was that the Secretary of State's Private Secretary, Barry Burton, rang me, not the other way round. That is factually correct, as are the other references to my prosecutions, each of which is under official investigation.

The change to 'male teenagers' accurately reflects both the prosecution case - the ages given were teenage - and the ongoing factual dispute about the ages of the models used by the police and the prosecution in the now failing effort to discredit me. It transpires that the models in question were probably adults. The police claim that they found the memory stick in my bedroom is one of the matters being inquired into by the CCRC. It is a fact, admitted by the police in open court, that the memory stick they claim to have found, when examined, was not found to contain any fingerprint or partial fingerprint of mine. A fair and balanced summary of the case needs to contain that information, along with the learned judge's characterisation, on the record, in open court, that the charge was "not particularly serious".

It is also a fact that the serial number of the hard drive used by the police cannot be matched to my Dell laptop computer. I have given the CCRC reference numbers, enabling Wiki-users to verify if need be.

The climate change reference is brief and accurately reflects my published analysis, and the views of my late friend Sir Patrick Moore, indeed Patrick and I shared a platform on this, some 20 years ago. It is characteristic of those pushing the man-made global warming hypothesis, such as Psychonaut, with respect, that they are unable to engage in rational debate and resort to crude censorship, or smears.

With respect, Psychonaut needs to stop using Wikipedia as the vehicle for personal vendettas, show more respect for the facts and stop hurling abusive comments such as "conspiracy theorist" at other Wiki editors and users. It he who should be blocked, not me.

There needs to be urgent editorial intervention on the Me 262 and Meteor pages to ensure that they do not contain Nazi propaganda. They may of course refer to disputed Nazi claims, since it is a fact that the Nazis claimed that their jet fighter, which I am told by pilots who flew it was a pig to fly when asymmetric, was first. John Taylor's published research should also be referred to, however. In order to be fair the entry should make it clear that the "first" claim was a Nazi claim, and is disputed.

The DH106 Comet page simply recycles official gibberish about metal fatigue, with respect. I shall do my best to try and make it more balanced and factually accurate, but the current entry is almost beyond redemption and smears the reputation of a fine aircraft and a fine company. Again it is a matter for Wikipedia - do you wish to indulge in anti-British smears or do you want to be fair and accurate? Michael Shrimpton (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Shrimpton (talk • contribs) 10:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indefinite block ban. Shifting stance slightly to take into account Shrimpton's last actions, for which his TPA was revoked: now of the view that threatening members of the community is an attack on the community, and therefore any appeal should be to the community. User is clearly only here to promote himself and his self-view of certain events. And thanks to the user for proving it with the above bombastism: clearly, being unable to rewrite the article to their satisfaction means the community's time must be be absorbed with rehashing the same stuff here instead. If anything convinced me, it was probably the almost immediate recourse to accusations of anti-semitism on the part of the filer. Such instant and absolute WP:ABF demonstrates exactly what we don't want around here. Edits such as this seem to demonstrate WP:BATTLEGROUND rather clearly. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I Support a block and would even raise this to a ban. This user isn't here to improve the encyclopedia. In the above I see OR, battleground mentality, fringe, NOTHERE, and other concerns; the worst part is I see those in what he posted in reply and didn't even need to go to a link to find them. Tivanir2 (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Especially given the legal threat below. Abuses editing privileges to promote his own work, battleground mentality, personal attacks... Block, ban, forget. Kleuske (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Indef block. These are clear legal threats and are done to create a chilling effect. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The editor continued the legal threats, even after his block, and compounded them with personal attacks on Psychonaut here. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support block and ban. No change in behaviour from 2007. Legal threats and baseless accusations of bias against other editors, extensive use of original research. Fences&Windows 19:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef, ban, whatever, per NOTCRAZYISREQUIRED. EEng 19:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• SiteBan - per diff cited by FIM above, which on top of further legal threats, appears to indicate he is going to violate WP:OUTING. Also general not here, violation of both WP:COI and WP:TOU and general pain in the butt. John from Idegon (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside, shouldn't TP access be pulled for further legal threats? John from Idegon (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support block per Point #4. Oppose NOTHERE as lazy, as well as a site ban, which is excessive. Doc talk 09:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• support site ban nine years of disruption. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban as a single-purpose account whom isn't here to build an encyclopedia and whose sole purpose is to make sure every Wikipedia article about himself is his own preferred version. This is entirely contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia in maintaining a neutral point of view, in that, he is unwilling to put his own conflict of interest aside to the best interests of Wikipedia. On top of that, the legal threats this user has made. Editor is probably de facto banned anyway, but just to seal the deal here, I support a formal community ban. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 11:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ban Quite clearly. Legal threats, COI issues, clearly NOTHERE. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Post Block Support He has been indeffed. Problem solved. It's time to close this and move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That filter should have the 1- removed as some publish numbers without this, and add this number to it. My searching shows the number is not safe. I'm about to take off and I might not have access to the internet for the weekend. Not sure who to ping here to make sure this gets done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]