Summary: Over a year after I last interacted with him, Wwallacee today used the opportunity of an unprovoked attack on Apollo The Logician to label him and me as a certain highly political but loutish element in the Irish Wikipedia editing force". I asked him to withdraw the attack, but he posted to the same page without responding.
Background: In April last year, Wwallacee took exception to an innocuous edit of mine to an article he was editing, and posted to the talk pages of over twenty articles on which he was not previously involved (apparently by going through my contributions), warning them of my "political bias" and asking users to "monitor me". This discussion at ANI followed which led to him being blocked. Far from being deterred, two weeks later he opened this thread at ANI with a 4,000-word essay in which he went through a huge number of my edits on articles and talk pages that had nothing to do with him, claiming that they were disruptive. In both discussions, every one of the responses from neutral editors said that my editing was and always had been unproblematic. The failure to close that second discussion without any admonition to Wwallaccee led me to withdraw from Wikipedia for several months. Nevertheless, and despite the fact that I didn't interact in any way with him again, he continued with his attacks: this, after the second ANI discussion had been archived and I had retired (notice that comments at ANI were "attacks against me by Scolaire's supporters, whom he must have contacted outside of Wikipedia somehow"), this in November ("Scolaire's disruptive and coercive behavior"), and now the "highly political but loutish element" comment today.
Just to re-iterate, apart from a couple of edits on "his" article – which were in no way intended to provoke him – and the ensuing drama, Wwallacee and I have no history whatever. The reasoning behind this persistant campaign baffles me.
I am asking for Wwallacee to be indefinitely blocked unless or until he acknowledges that what he is doing is contrary to WP:NPA, and promises never to do it again. Scolaire (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the threads linked above, I really don't think Wwallacee is ever going to comprehend that his conduct needs to change. His strategy is to attempt to discredit anyone who disagrees with him, all while accusing Scolaire of doing precisely the same thing. Lepricavark (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that was completely uncalled for and his not dropping the stick is problematic. --Tarage (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In favor of a one-way IBAN? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This complaint appears to be resulting from an edit by User:Wwallacee on his own talk page. i think User:Scolaire probably needs tougher skin. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the evidence presented in the complaint? Wwallacee has some very problematic editing habits and it is time to address them. Lepricavark (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea of the case history, but this has already been on ANI according to the complaint, and the only new edits discussed are on WWallacee's talk page. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know about the case history, you probably shouldn't be so dismissive of Scolaire's complaint. It's not a good look for an inexperienced editor to tell an experienced editor to grow tougher skin, especially when you haven't really reviewed the matter. Lepricavark (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can handle my own look. Do you agree or disagree with my statement that the only action Wwallacee is accused of that hasn't previously been adjudicated here is editing his own talk page? Power~enwiki (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't review the case, but you did give a far more experienced editor some condescending advice. And let's not use a strawman to distort Scolaire's complaint. It's not a simple matter of Wwallacee editing his own talk page. It's a matter of Wwallacee using his own talk page as a device for attacking another editor. Lepricavark (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To put it even more bluntly, this board is for editors to seek assistance from admins and experienced editors, which you are obviously not. Blackmane (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am belatedly joining this discussion, having only become aware of the complaint today.

I agree with Power~enwiki that Scolaire's complaint concerns only a reference to himself on my own talk page. Moreover, the language Scolaire objects to does not even directly concern him.

The context here is that a constructive edit by User CanK9 to the page Francis Sheehy-Skeffington had been reverted without reason by another editor named Apollo The Logician. CanK9 then wrote to me on my talk page to ask me to intervene, as I had a prior history of editing the Francis Sheehy-Skeffington page, and his own edit had altered something I myself had inserted. I looked over the page history, found I agreed with CanK9's new edit, and reinstated his change using a more diplomatic language. I replied to CanK9's message on my talk page with some reflections as to why his constructive edit had been reverted. In my reflection I wrote that Apollo the Logician's behavior "sounds like behavior typical of a certain highly political but loutish element in the Irish Wikipedia editing force. I well remember such behavior from the controversies surrounding Scolaire." This does not in any way imply that Scolaire is a "loutish element" - it merely states that during my prior controversy with Scolaire I came across such loutish elements.

To be clear, I do not regard Scolaire as a loutish element. I do however regard him as having (at least in the past) wanted to exert an authoritarian role in Irish Wikipedia pages. I have provided abundant evidence of this in a previous AN/I complaint against Scolaire.

I feel that Scolaire's message to me, his opening of a new AN/I complaint against me, and his request of an indefinite block against me, constitute threat and harrassment. Rather than discuss this further here, I intend to open a counter-complaint against Scolaire on AN/I. -Wwallacee (talk) 08:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to shoot yourself in the foot just when you were about to get off scot free. Lepricavark (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what "loutish elements" did you come across "during your prior controversy with Scolaire"? I don't remember you mentioning them at the time. On the contrary, it seemed like everybody else on "Irish Wikipedia" was a victim of my behaviour. Scolaire (talk) 12:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IBan Proposal

I am unarchiving this because I think ignoring the problem will not make it go away. Since the problematic behavior is one–sided, and since the community will likely not suffer if Wwallacee is deprived of the ability to continuing commenting on Scolaire, I propose a one–way interaction ban on Wwallacee. Lepricavark (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. All I'm asking is that he not periodically attack me. Scolaire (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging editors who were involved in the previous ANI discussions: Wwallacee, Thewolfchild, JzG, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, OpenFuture, Serialjoepsycho, Onel5969, Edmund Patrick, Hohenloh, Blackmane, TU-nor, Tarage, Power~enwiki. --Scolaire (talk) 08:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm a bit dubious about a one way iban. They tend not to have the intended effect and my experience as a fairly regular passerby on ANI has tended to find that one way ibans escalate more than they de-escalate. I'd be more inclined towards a final warning and escalating blocks. Blackmane (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not really au fait with this dispute, but certainly we all know (or should know) that there is no excuse for personal attacks.Hohenloh ⁺ 11:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and would add that if the iban is broken it should lead to a block of Wwallacee. It is unacceptable that the kind of harassment displayed towards Scolaire should be allowed to run unchecked, and it is deeply saddening that constructive and productive editors should be driven into retirement through fear of being attacked. --bonadea contributions talk 06:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Uni-directional interaction bans are only imposed in exceedingly rare circumstances. I don't pretend to know the details of this situation, but a single comment, a full year after any previous incidents, is not grounds for a one-way interaction ban. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural oppose ArbCom didn't give me one and my case was exceptional. I don't see any evidence that a two-way ban would probably be gamed by Wwallacee, and even if this evidence were present I would still probably oppose as this actually happens quite a bit when two-way sanctions are put in place because of one-way disruption. The proper way of dealing with this, in my experience, is to place a two-way sanction initially, see if it works, and if the one causing the initial disruption continues, and does so in a manner that implies gaming of the two-way sanction (say, for example, claiming that it was put in place because of two-way disruption), then a one-way sanction can be imposed, and the two way sanction perhaps lifted (if that's what Scolaire wants). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two-way ban?? But I've literally never interacted with the guy except to protest when he bad-mouths me. Why would you slap a ban a ban on somebody for being attacked? Scolaire (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scolaire: I have to date been subject to four mutual IBANs. Of these, one was imposed by the community because my disputes with Catflap08 (talk · contribs) kept showing up on various noticeboards and people took the easy way out rather than trying to figure out who was right on the substance; the other three were all the result of me requesting a two-way sanction to protect me from harassment. If what you say (I've literally never interacted with the guy...) is true, then an IBAN could only be beneficial to you. I am not proposing you be "slapped" with any kind of ban you don't want. If you don't want a mutual IBAN, that's fine. You can't have a one-way IBAN without trying a two-way IBAN first, though. Them's the rules. I didn't write them, and (believe me) I wish as much as you do that they were different. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal may deserve the opposition it is receiving, but a two–way ban is monstrously ridiculous. We don't ban people for being the target of abuse. Preposterous. Lepricavark (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lepricavark: You either did not read or did not understand my comment. It's not my intention to propose any monstrous or ridiculous sanctions. If Scolaire doesn't believe the disruption is yet at the point where an IBAN is warranted, that's fine. If Scolaire thinks that an IBAN would improve his situation, that's cool too. But we don't make exceptions in unspexceptional cases, and it's difficult to believe that WW, who has made less than 700 edits in the past two years, could have done anything warranting such an extreme exception to the standard rule on IBANs. If you think WW's behaviour warrants any kind of one-way sanction (a TBAN, a block, or some such) then you should propose one of those. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did read your comment, although I may very well have not fully understood it. It wasn't especially clear. Lepricavark (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I oppose all one-side I-Bans as being prone to being unjust and liable to inflame not calm things. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This could all be put to bed if an admin would just put a friendly note on his talk page telling him not to do it any more. Scolaire (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I became aware of this complaint just today, and I have posted my reply to Scolaire's complaint in the section above. -Wwallacee (talk) 08:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Final warning and escalating blocks per Blackmane due in part at least to the retaliatory thread below. This suggests that Wwallacee is not making a concerted attempt at treating the community with good faith, but is unable to WP:DROPIT. If Wwallaccee voluntarilly removed themselves from Scolaire's proximity, than these sanctions would not be nececssary; but it strikes me that there has been plenty of opportunity for this to happen- and it has not. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

O Fortuna, the complaint against me here has to do with a casual mention of Scolaire on my own talk page, in a manner that was not derogatory towards him, and a year after the last interaction with him. My thread below is not a retaliatory thread, but rather an attempt to reframe this incident as an attack on me, by Scolaire, and very much in keeping with his prior pattern of intimidation of other users. It is Scolaire who should be sanctioned for his frivolous use of AN/I as a way to intimidate people. By the way, I had no prior history of any involvement with AN/I prior to my controversy with Scolaire last year, whereas Scolaire has a long history of AN/I complaints both by him and against him. -Wwallacee (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page comment was not derogatory towards him? I hope you don't seriously expect anyone to believe you. I agree that you are attempting to reframe this incident in a manner that portrays you as a victim. I can't say I'm surprised as this isn't the first time you've used that strategy. And it is hardly surprising that an editor with 21.5K edits (Scolaire) has been to ANI more often than an editor with 1.5K edits (you). Lepricavark (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? You think that saying CanK, what you describe in your note to me on my talk page sounds like behavior typical of a certain highly political but loutish element in the Irish Wikipedia editing force. I well remember such behavior from the controversies surrounding Scolaire (my emphasis) in [this] diff is not derogatory? I think I the cluebat has been misplaced. Blackmane (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I was pinged again on this topic, so I'll !vote. Wwallacee is not helping his cause and may need a formal warning; but I still don't think any IBAN is needed. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't think an IBAN is needed here, just escalating blocks if Wwallacee does not stop the harassment of Scolaire - the current one-week block is a good start. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• In the light of these developments, I withdraw my proposal for a one-way Iban. Lepricavark (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wwallacee responds with more personal attacks

Wwallacee has now opened a new ANI thread, Harassment by user Scolaire, accusing me of harassment because I complained about his continuing attacks. Some quotes from that thread:

• Scolaire has a prior history of disruptive editing and harassment of other users
• I ask that Scolaire be issued a non-removable warning on his talk page, to the effect that he has been cautioned against threatening, harassing, and authoritarian behavior
• Given Scolaire's propensity to erase criticism, something like this is required so that future users are able to learn about his prior history and are empowered to question his authority (emphasis added)
• Scolaire's behavior needs to be flagged so that others are not intimidated by it, as has been the case in the past

All of this is completely untrue. I have no history of disruption, still less harassment or intimidation; I have never in 12 years on WP been cautioned about threatening, harassing, or authoritarian behaviour; and I do not erase criticism, except to delete the blatant personal attacks on multiple talk pages for which Wwallacee was blocked in April last year. Therefore there is no need for "future users to be able to learn about my history" or be "empowered to question my authority". What authority anyway? I'm just an ordinary editor who wants to be left to edit in peace.
What is it going to take for an admin to say "You can't do this. Stop."? Scolaire (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scolaire, you were totally left to edit in peace. It is you who initiated an attack against me for a frivolous reason. As to the statements I made about your prior history of disruptive editing, harassment of other users, and erasure of criticism, all of that is well documented here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwallacee (talk • contribs)

Documented where? In that thread where the other participants agreed that Scolaire was not guilty of wrongdoing? I don't see how that helps your case, mainly because it doesn't. Lepricavark (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As I gave Wwallacee a final warning to drop the stick yesterday [1], but he instead chose to repeat the same accusations [2][3], I have now blocked him, for a week. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest close. Now that he has been unambiguously told by two admins that he is in the wrong, I am happy for this to be closed. Scolaire (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

A single-page editor is continually making the same argument on Talk:Breitbart News in a disruptive manner. He's been making the same argument roughly once a day for several weeks, and has been warned multiple times to make more constructive contributions, both on his talk page ([4]) and on the Breitbart News page ([5]). He's also discussed this topic on WP:NPOV/N; he is aware of [6] and refuses to listen to the consensus there.

I request he be banned from editing the Talk:Breitbart News page for at least 1 week.

Power~enwiki (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power~enwiki, I am not a single-page editor. I am not re-hashing an old argument; The archives do not discuss the question of whether leaning contradicts far. There is no consensus about the answer to that question. Técnico (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the User contributions log, you made your first edit on May 28, 2017. (to Talk:Breitbart News) Your first edit not related to that page was yesterday, after a consensus developed against your proposals on WP:NPOV/N. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power~enwiki, now I am editing more pages. Anyway, there is not a consensus on WP:NPOV/N on whether leaning contradicts far. If leaning contradicts far, then the current Wikipedia article on Breitbart News is clearly violating WP:BALANCE. If you have something constructive to contribute to the question about whether leaning contradicts far, please contribute at WP:NPOV/N. Técnico (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tecnico, no one is obligated to respond directly to your arguments. A consensus was established a few months ago on the content issue and you refuse to abide by it. Realistically, there is zero chance you will change that consensus. I have humored your arguments long enough; it is time for you to drop the stick before you are sanctioned. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Fleischman, yes, no one is obligated, but some have responded to NPOVN. A few editors even concur that leaning is not a superset of far. However, there is no consensus about that point there or in the archives. Thus, it is false to say there is. Will you help me to find a consensus about point 6? Técnico (talk) 06:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I request a full ban for 1 week. He's clearly either trolling, or not competent to participate on Wikipedia. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power~enwiki, please read WP:PERSONAL and please stop attacking me. Técnico (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Técnico: Although discussing editor behavior rather than articles and content should generally be avoided, it is different at administrator noticeboards or on personal user talk pages, when done civilly. Casting aspersions should however also be supported by evidence if the claims are questionable (see the WP:ASPERSIONS information page). These are not personal attacks. —PaleoNeonate - 07:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Técnico says he's not a single-purpose editor, so let's give him the benefit of the doubt and see it. But the re-hashing at Breitbart is a consistent pattern. I support a topic ban of up to one month. If he moves on to similar behavior in a related topic, we can expand the topic ban or consider a full ban. —Guanaco 04:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guanaco, I am not re-hashing. The archives do not address the question of whether leaning contradicts 'far'. Técnico (talk) 04:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)These new edits seem to me as:

• Hitting the "random article" button
• Making pointless formatting changes (such as adding &nsbp-tags)

SPA is an abbreviation of single purpose account, not single-page account — hence these edits do not change the singular purpose of the account. Instead, to me they indicate WP:BADFAITH and WP:NOTHERE. They might even be enough to indicate WP:SOCKPUPPETRY, as this technique is often not exhibited among newer users.

These issues are in my book more than sufficient for a topic-ban. A 1-week ban will be entirely ineffective and only result in a new report here in 2 weeks time.

A topic-ban solves these issues, and the risk of being WP:OVERSIGHTed and permanently blocked if the behavior persists on a new account should be enough to dissuade the creation of sockpuppets. Carl Fredrik ^talk 04:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carl, you seem to committing the ad hominem fallacy. If you think that far is a subset of leaning, please explain why at NPOVN. Técnico (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I support a topic ban although Wikipedia is generally weak when trying to deal with agenda-driven accounts who have learned the art of civil POV pushing, and this noticeboard may want to see a lot more wasted time before sanctions are imposed. I noticed a report at NPOVN. After investigation I left some pointy comments but talk is easily deflected. Técnico is here to counter the consensus position regarding a particular topic, and talk will not stand in the way. Johnuniq (talk) 04:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq, there is no consensus on whether leaning contradicts far. Go to NPOVN and constructively contribute. Técnico (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What should the topic ban cover? Post-1932 politics of the United States, as per the Arbitration rulings? —Guanaco 04:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guanaco, there is no consensus on whether leaning contradicts far. I haved checked the archives. If there is a rational, reasonable, discussion allowed, then I think we can reach consensus. If you would like to constructively participate in reaching a consensus, please contribute at NPOVN. Técnico (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technico, enough. We get your point, now move on. Do something constructive, per your own advice. You are advising long-standing users to edit constructively when so far all you have done is refuse to drop the stick and shove your POV into other users' faces. Enough. Move on. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 05:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Callmemirela 🍁, I am not shoving my POV. I am asking for an objective resolution to the question of whether leaning contradicts far. Do you think that leaning contradicts far? Share your analysis of whether or not far is a subset of leaning at NPOVN Técnico (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• support TBANsite ban and indefinite block from Post-1932 politics of the United States. Here to campaign; WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC) (NB - update per behavior here and MrX's remarks. Jytdog (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Is not part of building this encyclopedia ensuring that it adheres to WP:BALANCE? You seem to be committing the the ad hominem fallacy. If you would like to help us reach consensus about whether leaning contradicts far, please visit NPOVN Técnico (talk) 05:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are all talking about your behavior. NPOV means that you set aside what you believe, read the strongest reliable sources you can find, and summarize them in WP, giving WEIGHT to what they say. You are not coming even close to doing that - you arrived with a very strong and very clear POV and have been bludgeoing talk pages and discussion boards trying to force it into WP. This is unacceptable behavior here. Read WP:SOAPBOX (policy), WP:YESPOV (policy), WP:ADVOCACY (helpful essay), WP:TENDENTIOUS (helpful essay). You are not the first person to abuse Wikipedia this way, and you will not be the last. Jytdog (talk) 05:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, what is a good way to have a reasonable, rational, objective discussion about whether or not an article is violating WP:BALANCE? I apologize if I am doing something wrong. I am just trying to do what is correct. There is no consensus about the question of whether something that is leaning can also be far. Técnico (talk) 05:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are starting backwards. You are starting with the assumption that Breitbart is X. You have been arguing from the stance. You have not been engaging with the strongest, independent, reliable sources. They are where everything starts here. Jytdog (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, where am I going wrong in the following line of reasoning?

1. WP:BALANCE says, "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance."

2. CNN is a reputable source.

3. CNN calls Breitbart far-right.

4. The New York Times is a reputable source.

5. The New York Times calls Breitbart conservative-leaning. [7]

6. Leaning contradicts far.

7. Therefore, reputable sources contradict.

8. The New York Times is relatively equal in prominence to CNN. (It can be argued that NYT is much more.)

9. Hence, by WP:BALANCE, we need to describe both points of view and work for balance. -- Técnico (talk) 05:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is not yet another place for you to argue this issue. You need to listen to other experienced editors and understand why your arguments are being rejected. More to the point, the issue is settled and it's time for you to drop the stick. If you can't accept that a decision has been made that you disagree with, then you need to find something else to do with your time. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can cherry pick two sources and play them off each other in this way; it is not compelling. Working in WP especially on contentious topics means doing actual work. Do your homework - find every reference to Breitbart in non-opinion pieces in the NYT and in CNN in the last year, actually read them, and find some way to note what they say with some nuance, honestly. Then try to summarize it, honestly. Presenting the data and the results of that work and inviting others to review it and then discussing, would be both compelling and consensus-building. What you have been doing, even here, is tedious and trivial. I am not responding to you further. Jytdog (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, thank you for the guidance; I need to do more work. I agree. For example, I should have emphasized that The New York Times article is the Times' premeir encylopedic article about Breitbart. The Times article is entitled "What Is Breitbart News?" [8]

I should have also made very clear that I was not rehashing an old argument. The old argument was about whether right-wing also meant far-right. My question is about whether leaning is a superset of far. Thank you. Técnico (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban from post-1932 US politics — Técnico, if you're truly here to contribute to the encyclopedia constructively, you'll find some other, hopefully less contentious, topics to edit for awhile, you'll gain a better understanding of our policies, you'll develop skills in discussing and negotiating consensus with other editors, and you'll learn why, exactly, your proposed edits have been rejected (hint: it has to do with WP:RS and WP:DUE). If you really are here only for the single purpose of beating this dead Breitbart horse, then you're not here to build a collaborative Internet encyclopedia and you should find something else to do with your time. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, do you see what I mean? It seems very difficult to have a reasonable, rational, objective discussion. I think it is clear that you can answer at NPOVN my question about point 6. Técnico (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is increasingly impossible if one defines "reasonable, rational, and objective" as "agrees with me". Carl Fredrik ^talk 06:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Fredrik, please read WP:PERSONAL and please stop attacking me. Técnico (talk) 07:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NorthBySouthBaranof, please go to NPOVN and let me know what you think about point 6. Técnico (talk) 06:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban — Although I didn't participate I have been following this discussion. All along, it seemed clear to me that the consensus was to not reopen the RfC and that most reliable sources describe it as far-right. All along, this editor was WP:LAWYERING others like if they were the ones not building consensus or following policy. I think that a topic ban is a good first alternative to a complete WP:NOTHERE block and would allow the opportunity to learn and edit in less contentious areas. —PaleoNeonate - 07:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:PaleoNeonate, you are mistaken about the RfC It was about a different question. That RfC was about right-wing vs far-right. My issue is about conservative-leaning vs far-right. Since those two questions seem to be easily confused, my discussions about WP:BALANCE have been getting cut-off. Thus, please base your decision on the truth. Técnico (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• SUPPORT (TEMP) - While I somewhat empathize with new users (I was one once), it seems that from the start, they have failed to recognize the importance (and methods) of building a WP:Consensus. A competent editor on Wikipedia requires things like nuance and the ability to interact, perhaps even tenacity in certain regards, but Técnico has yet to understand the importance of such vital tools. I must support, although, I think things might have been different if they had chosen to try to find compromise and connection, rather than demand and disengagement. Their page does not say much, but it is all they have earned, unfortunately [9]. Perhaps they will listen after responsibility is given, perhaps not. Let them decide. DN (talk) 07:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban per WP:SPA, WP:NPOV, WP:IDHT, WP:CIR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken, why ban me for WP:NPOV when I am trying to promote WP:BALANCE? Técnico (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment My interactions with Técnico were minimal, and I will refer to wiser editors, and or, those that have dealt with them on a more consistent basis. DN (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment I also have only dealt with him over the one issue of Breibart being far right or not. But the issue is whether "Conservative leaning" excludes or contradicts "far fight", not about the meaning of the words "lean" and "far" (except in the sense of saying that one does not contradict (based on context) the other).Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indef topic ban from post-1932 US politics broadly construed. Técnico is indistinguishable from a troll. He disruptively demands that editors continue to argue about content matters that were settled months ago. He shops the same arguments at multiple fora, just as he has done here. He demands consensus against straw man arguments ("there is no consensus on whether leaning contradicts far."). I strongly suspect that he is a sock of a previously blocked or banned editor. I would also support a site ban as I see no evidence that he is here to help build an encyclopedia and the disruption-to-constructive-contribution ratio is too high. The unfortunate reality is that other socks will soon appear on scene to continue to disrupt talk:Breitbart News and well-intentioned editors will continue to feed these trolls.- MrX 12:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indef topic ban from post-1932 US politics - I've been half way watching the discussion on the BB talk page for a while now. I appreciate their... enthusiasm, but they need to learn that this is a damned big place with a lot to be done, and that arguing ad infinitum about comparatively minor word choice is not a strategy for doing that. Hopefully editing in non-controversial areas is a route to learning that, because eight mainspace edits into ANI is not a promising sign that the user is here to build an encyclopedia. If they can show that they are an asset to the project, then they can always appeal the TBAN in a few months and maybe try again. TimothyJosephWood 12:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There's no question that Tecnico is showing WP:TE behavior, and that can be problematic, but at the same time, they have not engaged in anything that looks like edit warring (all of 2 edits to the Breitbart article), and while they have opened several threads at the Breitbart talk page, the only venture of the topic outside that was NPOV/N, which definitely isn't forum shopping (that's exactly where dispute on neutrality should get more eyes). This seems like using talk pages for their designed purpose, though I certainly would caution them to avoid rehashing arguments. But separately, I'm finding the people speaking against Tecnico are editors that have shown little love towards Breitbart or other topics in this area in the past, and are operating in a group mindset, most likely unintentionally, circling the wagons around the result of the survey and not allowing it to be challenged, and then turning the tables to call out Tecnico as an SPA and disruptive, and possible a banned sock without evidence. This was all behavior seen from GG that lead to the ArbCom case (which I was at the center of it, so I'm very well aware of the issues with WP:TE), and the trend is all mirroring that. Even with the NPOV/N posting there's some question of the validity of how the selective nature of sources was done, and I think Tecnico needs to use the advice there along the lines of surveying the sources per Jytdog's comment above (06:13, 22 June 2017) to come at challenging the result with strong statistical evidence that supports their point. (Using one or two sources against 38 is not going to cut it, but there's seemingly 1000s more out there to do just that). To that end, I do think Tecnico needs at least an enforceable, if not voluntary, short break from the Breitbart page (even the whole post-1932 US politics) for perhaps 30 days, which would allow them time to develop a stronger argument to present. But trouts around to those refusing to have any reasonable discussion of the point of the matter about the debate. Talk pages can't be walled gardens, and when editors work unintentionally to make them like that, they create these types of editing behavior problems, rather than being more accommodating as we're supposed to be. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is well said. Except that Tecnico's reply is a perfect example of the problem - they give a head fake toward the advice, and then keep right on at what they were doing before. And on that note, especially on emotionally laden topics (like alt med or politics) we get people who show up here driven by clear agendas, and when people treat WP like a nail that needs to be hammered (and Technico's actions here are mind-numbingly hammerlike) they need to restricted. This is even more true of alt-right topics where there is an army of online trolls who will just suck of oceans of volunteer time; volunteer time is the lifeblood of this place. "Bite" takes on a whole different meaning when you are dealing in a topic full of vampires. Jytdog (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know we (WP as a whole) are fighting alt-/far-right outside brigading, a mix of trolls and emotionally invested people. There's no question that the DSes in post-1932 US politics are needed. But you have to ask, why are they doing this in these areas? Personally, I would argue it is because of instead of adopting a more central/middle-ground view, WP presents a more leftist view due to a combination of what are considered reliable sources, and a combination of experienced editors on the site editing in these areas that average out to a leftist view, which has all the potential of creating an echo chamber - we have all the possible elements in place that we could end up as being similar to the walled garden of Conservapedia but on the left side, if we are not careful. That's going to draw trolls and emotionally-charged editors to hassle existing editors, no question, but its also going to draw earnest editors that are trying to break through the echo chamber but can't. That's why I'm not thrilled with the idea of silencing an editor that is asking policy-based questions about a past consensus, particularly since they haven't engaged in any other typical behavior that SPA/IPs that are trolling and not here to build the work typically do. Hence my suggestion of a voluntary time out from post-1932 Politics. Give them time to learn the ropes elsewhere and establish a better argument over a month or so. It they break that time out, or come back without any change in their TE behavior, or requestion without new arguments, then we can talk hard blocks/bans. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Masem: I would say your analysis is off. The problem is that the so-called "liberal media" is biased towards reality, and the alt-right is biased towards anything that supports their ideology, which is, generally speaking, not reality-based. We are an encyclopedia, therefore we reflect reality, not any ideology. The right sees this and says "Ah, see, Wikipedia is supporting what the liberal media says, therefore Wikipedia is biased towards the left," but that's only because they see things through the filter of their POV, while we do our very best not to be biased towards anything except what is real and verifiable. The alt-right media are not, for the most part, reliable sources, since they have been shown to have been wrong again and again and again, and have an overall tendency to report whatever they believe, regardless of its relationship to reality. Thus we are forced to use reality-based media, which the alt-right sees as liberal or "leftist", which is actually ridiculous, since no mainstream American media outlet is anywhere near being left-wing -- but, then, the alt-right makes no differentiation between "liberal" and "leftist".

In short, it is wrong to point the finger at Wikipedia as being the genesis of the problem, which originates in the minds of the ideologues of the right. There is no "leftist view" to Wikipedia, that's an artifact totally created in the perceptions of rightists. Our viewpoint is centrist, just as that of the "liberal media" is. The fault is not in us, it is in those who cannot differentiate their ideology from reality. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I side with BMK in this particular (very interesting) discussion. Having focused most of my recent editing on alt-right articles, I can say for certain that most alt-right POV-pushers are angered/motivated much more by what they see as systemic media bias being baked into our articles than by editor stonewalling, wagon-circling, or any other editor conduct. And I think it would be wholly inappropriate for the community to somehow adjust how we apply bedrock policies like WP:V and WP:NPV to reflect the fact that some folks on one end of the political spectrum believe that the libtard media is biased against them. That would not only blatantly violate WP:BIASED, but it would go a huge step further by saying, "Well, this source might not actually be biased, but some people think it's biased so we're going to call it unreliable or give it less weight." Bullshit. It is not creating a walled garden to apply our standard policies and guidelines (such as WP:CONSENSUS) to politics articles. All we can do is to patiently explain our community standards to these people, and if they don't like them they can go elsewhere. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge about Breibart for various reasons, but what bothers me the most from this ANI thread is Tecnico's behaviour here. They are always replying to user who either agrees to the ban or makes a comment about his behaviour with "Why don't your participate in the discussion at [[WP:LINK]]?", which really bothers me. It's unnecessary and excessive. We're not here about a content dispute; we're here about their behaviour. They don't get it, but they still go at it with the same messages. They also keep using the same arguments such as "There is no consensus" and whatnot. It doesn't matter if there is consensus or not, we're here about the behaviour not whether the edit was valid or not. It's not a case of IDHT, it's more like IDGAF. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Tecnico is annoying, at least here, but I agree with Masem that this topic ban is a bit much in a short period of time. They don't fit the mold for who we normally topic ban. I also agree that if Tecnico was smart, they would volunteer to stay away for 30 days and brush up a bit on policy here, so this would be less likely a problem in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We routinely indef or restrict users who are a net negative to the project. This user has wasted a huge amount of other editor's time by obsessing on a single issue that has already been thoroughly discussed over a seven month period. He has refused to drop the stick, repeats the same weak arguments over and over, trolls[10], and has failed to gain consensus for any of his propositions.- MrX 17:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except that their behavior here seems to be partially created by trying to break through the walled garden that that talk page is. I read those diffs and their talk page contributions, and that seems like someone frustrated that no one has honestly answered their question, only mass refusal to even discuss their questions. If their questions were answered fairly or at least some attempt of compromise, we'd not be here. Yes, they need to learn not to be tendentious, but that seems to be only issue of their behavior in question based on the Breitbart talk page, while a large number of editors are engaging in stonewalling. This is exactly the behavior that led to the GG case. Again, the best solution is for Tecnico to voluntarily step back for a good period, work outside the politics area, and get a feel for how WP works and come back with a stronger argument (if possible) for that specific page, and trouts for everyone else on that talk page for creating a closed, hostile atmosphere. --MASEM (t) 04:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey now Masem, I take exception to being included among the troutees. I have devoted a sickening amount of time to listening and responding to Tecnico's campaign. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Troutbackatcha Masem. If you would quit leaping to the defense of trolls, SPAs, socks, and POV pushers that happen to share your own political perspective, it would go a long way toward dissipating the disruption. The content issue was resolved months ago by us following dispute resolution. We are not required to keep giving up our volunteer time for every random person on the internet who gives not one shit about this project and who wants to WP:REHASH settled disputes!- MrX 19:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't share their POV in any way, I consider myself left of center, nor am I trying to support them in trying to push POV. What I am worried about is the growing tendency of groups of editors with the same ideological mindset in a topic area to push subjective language as fact or at least present it in a way that violates neutrality and WP:IMPARTIAL, and not let that result be challenged. Are there sources that call Breitbart far-right? Absolutely, no question, it should be included at some point. Do all sources call Breitbart far-right? Not from the quick-and-dirty GHIT analysis I did, and certainly nowhere close to a majority. Thus we should be taking WP:YESPOV and simply assigning attribution to the statement, which is not that difficult to ask for. This is where Tecnico I think is trying to go with their line of editing, but they're new to WP, and tangling with established editors. So instead of getting answers, they're met with a wall of replies that block them out of discussion and feed into Tecnico's WP:TE. POV-pushers and SPAs and IPs are bad, but this type of behavior is just as bad. These walled gardens are becoming more common across WP and they do need to be dismantled and prevent that type of behavior. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the thing is, your exact line of reasoning was fought for and rejected by the consensus in an RfC. As was explained to Tecnico. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the better past RFC to point to is this one [11] 7 months ago (and I would strongly suggest a FAQ on that talk page). I agree that barring any new evidence or different argument, that that RFC should stand, but that does mean that editors have to be open to discussing new evidence or a different argument. Instead, like with Tecnico here, they're being shut down and refusing to allow a challenge. That's the same behavior prior the GamerGate case. But in terms of GG, at least there was some reason to be defensive due to offsite brigading trying to influence the page. While there are IPs and SPAs and all that on those talk pages, many are actually trying to bring some element of valid points that should be discussed, but just like with Tecnico here, they're shut down and chastised, rather that worked with. I'm not saying that Tecnico's own behavior is beyond reproach - the TE-ness absolutely needs to stop, but that's not the only problem in behavior alone going on here. --MASEM (t) 22:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tecnico's most recent argument argument is strikingly similar to the one squarely addressed the second RfC, which was about whether we should include a full analysis of the different ways various RSs have labeled Breitbart News. Not every slight variation on raised arguments previously rejected by consensus merits discussion, let alone a reopening of the consensus. Realistically there was (and is) zero chance that Tecnico's argument would disturb the consensus. Moreover, you might not have dug this far back through the discussion, but before raising the NYT "conservative-leaning" argument, Tecnico presented a grab-bag of much weaker arguments, including contending that we shouldn't describe Breitbart as "far right" because (1) a far-right blogger said, "I suspect we are seeing the end of Breitbart," and (2) far-right politics are associated with anti-Semitism, and anti-Seminitism is evil and Breitbart has objected to being called anti-Semitic. So no, an editor who is resisting the consensus should not get to take a kitchen sink approach and force extended discussion on each and every point that could have been raised in a previous RfC but wasn't. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor that had not been involved in an RFC completed some time prior has every right to ask questions about it. An RFC is not a binding contract, as consensus can change. I do agree things have come to a head with Tecnico's tendentious editing, and between their talk page and this ANI they should get the message to stop that or potentially face enforceable topic bans, but the rush to enforce the topic ban now on a new editor that is not otherwise causing editing disruption on mainspace is very very BITEY given, on good faith, this is a new editor frustrated with trying to make their point in a hostile environment. Having them back off voluntarily, now that the matter has been discussed more openly, and come back after learning the ropes is hopefully the best solution for all. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he had a right to ask questions — but no one has the right to ignore answers are they see fit, only accepting what is in line with a certain political conviction. This isn't about asking questions, this is about dropping the stick, and asking the exact same question over and over again, demanding answers every time. It is disingenuous to make it out to be anything but WP:DISRUPTIVE, and even newbies get banned if they show that they cannot participate in the collaborative process. Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is "stonewalling." The fact of the matter is that the subject was discussed to death, a clear consensus was reached and everyone now needs to accept that consensus, whether they agree with it or not. What's disruptive here is endlessly attempting to relitigate closed issues; while consensus can change, editors are not required to re-argue every single issue each time a single editor (particularly a single-purpose editor) questions it. We are not running a debate club here, we're trying to write an encyclopedia. The consensus has been extensively explained to this user, but they refuse to accept it. That is textbook tendentious editing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof here. Some editors have been quick to silence challenges to the consensus, and in some cases that is unwarranted and creates a backlash among the challengers. But this is not one of those cases. By and large editors treated Tecnico with respect and carefully and thoroughly explained to Tecnico how the consensus-building process worked. It was only after that that Tecnico's continued pressing and failure to listen became disruptive. Different editors have different, reasonable levels of tolerance for such disruption, but I think we are way past the point where editors can be accused of stonewalling in this particular case. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I request the topic-ban mainly for disruptive incompetence; note the sheer number of times he's said "far-right v. leaning" in this thread alone, often in response to a completely unrelated comment. 7 days should allow discussion of the outstanding topics on the board; right now every thread on Talk:Breitbart News is derailed by him and it's impossible to discuss anything. I would also note that, while Breitbart News is under the post-1932 discretionary sanctions, he's only edited the Talk page and I believe the sanctions only apply to article pages. Consensus from the admins appears to be that an indef topic-ban is too much, I see no argument against a single-page ban though. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the DS is not article-based, it's edit- and page-based. WP:AC/DS says: "All edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed. (American Politics 2), so Tecnico's behavior is definitely covered by it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As nominator, I request this be closed. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to be clear, are you asking for an uninvolved admin to close the discussion based on the commentary, or are you withdrawing the complaint? If the former, I concur, if the latter, I disagree - the extent of the commentary has been such that I don't believe it can reasonable be withdrawn at this point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• To be clear, I'm requesting it be closed because t is obvious nothing will happen as a result of this thread the discussion is done. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you open a thread on a noticeboard, if it has substantial participation and polling, you cannot simply request a close because you think "it is obvious nothing will happen as a result of this thread." See WP:PRAM. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not at all obvious. It seems like there's a clear consensus for some sort of topic ban. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment updated. While several uninvolved admins have suggested this isn't action-worthy, after further inspection I agree it isn't unanimous. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two admins do not get to override a unanimous community consensus. Softlavender (talk) 06:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And consensus does not need to be unanimous to result in a topic-ban. Admins have no more power to influence the discussion than anyone else — however they may act upon it. For now no one has, but that does not mean no one will. And in fact, neither are you able to retract/request closing of this thread — it will run its course now, and as I see it everything points to an indefinite T-ban being placed. A 1 week ban is pointless for a WP:SPA, as we've seen over and over again. WP:COOLDOWN does not work. Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaware as to whether the consensus assessed on this page is supposed to be of all editors, or of un-involved admins. Is there a formal page discussing this? Power~enwiki (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CBAN. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support TBAN Holy mother of WP:IDHT. I almost NAC'd this one, but for the fact that it involves a sanction (the consensus scope of which has to be tailored from several subtly different proposed variations--better left to an admin). Hopefully a close is eminent though. I come into any WP:BAN discussion needing and expecting a lot of convincing, and I can't remember the last time the contributor in question did such an efficient job of convincing me all on their own, consistently more and more with each repetitive battleground post.

That said, I'm not sure a TBAN as broad as some of those described above is warranted on the basis of behaviour on this one issue. Tendetious as Técnico's conduct may have been up until this point, bans are meant to be preventative, not punitive, and thus I tend to believe they should be narrowly tailored to areas of proven problematic bebahviour. It seems to me that we might start with a page ban or consider a TBAN relating to political news media; post-1932 political topics is just way too broad (touching on too large a fraction of the encyclopedia's total content) to be considered for more than the absolute worst offenders in this area, imo.

On a side note, looking at that talk page, I see that Técnico is not the only editor to have made needlessly aggressive and inappropriate comments in the relevant discussions. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well reasoned. I agree that a page ban is more appropriate. Tecnico has been laser-focused from their first edit one issue--namely, getting rid of the two words "far right" in Breitbart News. A long-term or permanent page ban would push them off that issue and accomplish the goal (well stated by NorthBySouthBaranof) of seeing whether they can edit productively in other areas. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - page ban per DrFleischman above. I am an uninvolved editor who wandered in from an different entry on NPOVN, which looks like it is getting resolved, slowly. Not an admin and not really familiar with the criteria for various sanctions but a) this account sounds a lot like someone who is paid by the hour and seems very sophisticated as to WP policy for the purported number of edits b) on the other hand, let's throw in AGF and ok, he/she claims to not be a single-purpose account -- let's see. My .02 Elinruby (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Koala15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Koala15 (talk · contribs) is changing sourced content and blanking citations when he disagrees with them. For example: blanking citation and changing sourced content; mass blanking; blanking and changing sourced content; blanking and changing sourced content.

This is the same problem as outlined above with another editor, who apparently got off with several "final" warnings. I am sick and tired of editors who blank citations when they disagree with them, then change sourced content to values not found in the citations because their original research tells them the citation is wrong. Koala15 has been given a final warning for disruption and was told that consensus is that we go by the sources for this content, yet he persists in changing reliably sourced content. Can someone block him please? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am now involved. I have undone an edit. I am just too lazy to check the other edits. I've been involved with Koala15 ages ago over removing a template tag. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the last people who left the final warning template on Koala15's page a few days ago- since then, there have been several warnings given. I keep seeing their name popping up on the change logs for film pages and I'm puzzled, as I don't believe it's vandalism-related, but there is a complete disregard for consensus. I don't know what to say, really. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, OK, I'm starting to see the problem here. Take for example their recent creation Thieves (TV series), which I'm presently looking over. In the lede, Koala15 has "The series aired from September 28, 2001, to December 14, 2001, on ABC." with Variety and The Washington Post sources attached to that. The problem – the two sources only verify the premiere date, not the "last aired date". Indeed, the airdates included in the episodes table for the last two episodes are apparently fraudulent – in fact, Brooks & Marsh (and in a more roundabout way Epguides) show that the show aired its last episode on November 23, which means the last two episodes certainly did not air on the dates indicated in the article (at the very least, they did not on ABC, and there would need to be sources showing that they aired elsewhere on those dates). So, at the least, we have a misuse of sources here, and potentially we have a more serious problem with fraudulent content. And that is just the first Koala15 created article I looked at. Unfortunately, I see something very similar at Local Heroes (TV series). Koala15 is a very prolific content creator. But I'm concerned if this is level of oversight going into the creation of their articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're an amazing content creator and very productive. I just am puzzled as to why they've been bulldozing over edits over the recent past. If they could just communicate, this would probably be an entirely different picture. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 02:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not out of place for me to comment, I don't think this is a "recent" problem. Koala15 edits a bunch of articles on my watchlist, and seeing edits that are obviously not vandalism, especially by IPs, get reverted without even a brief explanation has long been a common occurrence. Many editors (including myself) have requested Koala15 start using edit summaries, but without much luck. I just scanned their contributions, and at a quick glance, I only saw 1 edit in the last 500 that had a non-auto-generated summaries (I'm sure I missed a couple). Communication would be a good start. --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Koala15 is still removing sourcing because he disagrees with them, but now he's replacing them with other sources. The problem is that there's consensus at WT:MOSFILM#Sourcing for production companies that we should use sources that explicitly label content like production companies. He's replacing the sources with ones that don't explicitly label them. This consensus was established to avoid original research. Since Ad Orientem has just recently dealt with an editor who was doing the same thing, I've asked him to take action here, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 24 hrs. This does look like a case of persistent disruptive editing. And I also have to take note that well over 24 hrs into this discussion that have not chosen to make any response. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: I am confused; they immediately resumed the behavior that resulted in the 24-hour block. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... thanks for the heads up. Looking into it now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DarthBotto: & NinjaRobotPirate Ok. I have dropped a note/warning on their talk page inviting them here to discuss this. If the disruptive editing continues w/o any response here let me know and I will reblock them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What did I do? I didn't do anything to deserve the block in the first place. If your talking about me reverting stuff its hard for me to give a reason for everything I revert. Its mostly vandalism and nonsensical edits etc. I only reverted @DarthBotto: once because he didn't use a source but he seems to be holding it against me. Koala15 (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Koala15. Thanks for joining the discussion. I would encourage you to read the above comments. You can also take a look at the comment left by NinjaRobotPirate on my talk page which expands on some of those concerns. I think one thing I would note, setting aside for the moment the specifics of what a number of editors saw as problematic editing, is that you got warnings posted on your talk, including by an admin, followed by an ANI notice that you ignored and you went on doing what multiple editors on two different pages were expressing serious concerns about. In my experience when I have a bunch of really experienced editors telling me that I'm wrong, there's a better than even chance they are right. But even if I am really convinced that I'm right, and they are all wrong, I'm gonna at least stop doing whatever it is they are getting spun up over until we get it sorted out. Disengaging form the discussion and just ignoring everyone is a really bad choice 99% of the time. Anyways, you are here now and that's a good start. Hopefully we can sort this out and avoid any further unpleasantness. I will let Ninja speak for himself, which might not happen until tomorrow (Monday) given the late hour. Speaking of which I am off to bed myself. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm a little concerned that he sees nothing wrong with his behavior, including blanking and restoring unsourced content, but at least he stopped doing that. Koala15, the problem is that there's consensus that production companies require explicit sourcing. This means they need to be labeled as such by the source. This is to prevent original research, such as what you've been doing. When the American Film Institute says that Sony produced and distributed a film, but the billing block has Columbia's name and/or logo on it, we go by what AFI says. There's consensus that the billing block (which Variety reproduces in their reviews) is not good enough. Variety maintains a database, Variety Insight, which does label the companies involved. I've put in a request at WP:TWL to have this opened up to Wikipedia's use, but it could take a while to get an answer from Variety. If you don't understand any of this, just stop screwing around with sourced content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Koala15: Come on, man. If you're going to be reverting everything, could you please at least leave an edit summary, so everyone can at least understand your rationale? I keep getting blips on the recent reversions for media articles and you're all over them. And, more editors, such as Beeteegee, are noticing this, as well. Being defiant is a nuisance, but can be understandable, as there are plenty of bullish editors, but without edit summaries, it doesn't fly at all. Just, at least explain yourself when you're doing it and people will assume good faith. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 20:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DarthBotto: Obviously I have no problem with them, and from time and time again I could make a mistake, but I am also addressing Koala here: edit summaries don't take a long time to fill out. After all, they are brief, and essentially explains why you edited or reverted back. It would've saved me the trouble of complaining about that (although I feel it was simple, was just something I had to mention) on your talk page when I made a new section talking in correspondence about my edits. Beeteegee (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also say I've had dealing with Koala, and it's frustrating, because you often are fighting against a wall. and I do feel some of the articles here suffer because of this type of behavior. I know there are a lot of times where I want to help improve an article but then I see that Koala's reverting everything and just won't bother. If I could offer some advice to @Koala15: himself, I'd ask him to wait and be less reactive about reverting edits, and maybe not revert as much as you do, but rather attempt to edit what you like about an article in with what the other editors like about it. --Deathawk (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could I please get a couple more pairs of eyes on this page? It's not entirely clear what's going on there, but it looks... messy. Thanks, GAB^gab 13:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May have something to do with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Itskumudhk. GAB^gab 13:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a short term solution, I full protected for 3 days. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Good catch, GAB. Comparing a few dozen contribs convinced me that you were correct. Sock blocked, article unprotected. Diannaa had already revdel'ed the copyvios I missed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:185.59.158.22 has made over 5,000 edits in a short time, none of them with edit summaries apart from the automatic section heading. User:Arjayay questioned some of these at User talk:185.59.158.22#Defaultsort but their advice was rejected.

The IP seems to have some previous knowledge of en.wikipedia but a shaky grasp of English. Several RMs they have raised ignore WP:AT and simply cite personal opinion.

I considered a short block to have a better look at this activity but I'm not sure whether policy allows this, or whether it would be effective anyway. Andrewa (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello. Basically I have worked with correct categorizations of the pages. Any problems with my edits? Show wrong diffs please and we will discuss it. Or number of edits is a wrongdoing per your opinion, yes? 185.59.158.22 (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying. Please see wp:mixed indents for the problem with the way in which you have! (But please don't fix it now I've replied.)

It's the volume of edits, coupled with a certain attitude (this diff and the notice on your talk page for examples, many other talk page diffs could be cited) that concern me. Taken together with the fact that you are displaying a very patchy knowledge of policies and guidelines, this may represent an enormous amount of work to repair. In the two RMs which you have raised and which I saw in the ellapsed listings section and considered closing, you have completely ignored the article title policy. Andrewa (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the article about Diego Maradona, my edit was absolutely correct: [12] Yes, Maradona is a manager of Fujairah as of now. The warning from that user was wrong. Simply he didn't read the last news. Another wrong diffs please? 185.59.158.22 (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have not answered that one. Interested in other views on all of this, that's of course why I raised it here. Andrewa (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, the RM disscussions in question are Talk:2017 Men's Euro Winners Cup, Talk:Sevens Grand Prix Series and Talk:European Women's Sevens Championship. All competitions have the new names, and I don't understand why user Andrewa voted against. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do you understand the talk page guidelines obviously. But more important, you seem to be making no effort to do so. It would be good to discuss this and many other things on your user talk page, but you do not seem to be archiving it, instead just deleting the many previous attempts to discuss things there.

And it is somewhat ironic that you request others to type on your talk page rather than using templates, but do not use edit summaries yourself. Andrewa (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• First or all, my talk page is for me, ok? Non-actual discussion were removed, any problem? You have attacked me without any reason, without trying to talk on the talk pages. Second, I use the edit summaries where it's really nessessary, today's diff for example [13] And third, show the wrong diffs or good bye, don't waste my time. And I will check all your edits tomorrow also. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, 185.59.158.22, your Talk Page isn't just for you. It's where any other editor can discuss your edits with you. If you insist on just deleting questions raised on that page by other editors, they will eventually have no option but to raise the questions on a noticeboard like this one. You see how that sequence works, don't you? Second, you should use edit summaries every time, not just when you feel like it. Third, that's up to User:Andrewa, isn't it - it's in his discretion to provide or not provide, But either way, I don't think you just to get to say "goodbye" as if none of this matters, do you? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Simply read the rules. WP:OWNTALK: Personal talk page cleanup: Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. I answered all questions from all users and removed the old threads. Any problems with this? 185.59.158.22 (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @185.59.158.22: Because you are using an IP instead of actually registering for a personal account, the User talk:185.59.158.22 page is not your "personal talk page". Also, you may not remove the SharedIP template at the top of the page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Show the rules. And its a not shared ip. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@185.59.158.22: Well, if it's not a shared IP, then indefinitely blocking it will only block you. Since you seem completely unwilling to work with anyone when they bring up a concern on your talk page, then perhaps indefinitely blocking you is the best option. Editors here, including anonymous IPs, must be willing to work with other editors, and they definitely must be willing to change behaviors that go against establish policies, guidelines and procedures. If you continue down this path, that is where things will go. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I think my worst fears are confirmed. This is an intelligent and hard-working editor but with no concept of collaboration. They are quite possibly making some constructive edits, but I'm afraid that the overhead of cleaning up after the others is going to be considerable and ongoing. Andrewa (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, please show the unconstructive edits. Try to find one-two at least. Your personal attack is without any reason. Very good 'welcome' from administrator. "Short block" for what? You voted against all my RM propositions without any real arguments. Do you want me to stop any editng in wikipedia? 185.59.158.22 (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a personal attack, and that unfounded accusation is itself disruptive. (Note that disruption can be unintentional.) Andrewa (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the three RMs [14] [15] [16] were based on the article name policy despite many, many heads-ups in the process asking for this. Anyone can make this mistake and many do, but the response [17] fails to get the point. Andrewa (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try to read this diff [18] and this post [19] from another users. You have no arguments why competitions' old names are better than new ones. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again you are failing to get the point. Irrespective of the subsequent arguments and RM result, the nominations were flawed. Andrewa (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Honestly I don't understand your position. There is no answer to the abovementioned posts? In all threads, you didn't say any words about the competitions itself! ...if the FIFA World Cup was moved to FIFA Men's World Cup, this would never stand and would be reversed. Correct or not? 185.59.158.22 (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Irrelevant. This is not the place to discuss the RM, just your behaviour. The RM was not properly raised. That is not serious. You won't accept advice about doing better in the future. That is serious. You are making thousands of edits per week, and consistently refuse to accept any advice on any of them. That is very serious. Andrewa (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, I am making many minor edits (mostly related to the correct categorization). And what? I check your contribution, but you are making about zero edits (besides some renamings) in the article space during the last months. And what? My RMs are the correct propositions. Some users are in support. And saying "refuse to accept any advice on any of them" is absolutely false. I read all posts related to my edits and answered all of them, until your today attack. And again, show wrong diffs if you find it. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • For all I know most of your edits are great. Or not. That is not the point. Some of them are not so great, and you consistently refuse to discuss this. And if you wish to discuss my behaviour, the place to do that is on my user talk page in the first instance, not here. Andrewa (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • I hope I will discuss your behavior on the desysop page in the future. Finally, I only noted that user Andreva have started this topic without any words on my user talk page in the first instance. Bye! 185.59.158.22 (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No, he left this and this which you blanked.
                     — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                  • (edit conflict) I posted on your user page as required [20] and you subsequently reverted the notice. I did not attempt to discuss with you on your user page before coming here because of the enormous number of edits involved. There were many other factors in that decision, but it was the sheer number of edits you have made over a short time that decided me on coming here sooner than I would have otherwise. And in view of subsequent discussion here, it was a good decision IMO. Andrewa (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, 185.59.158.22, just create an account. It would solve a lot of these complaints, and there's really no downside. —Guanaco 23:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No, thanks, it's a my choice. But thank you for proposition. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since this discussion started, the IP has made only one edit other than to this page and their user talk... again without an edit summary. [21] So it may not be as urgent as I feared, but I think it does require some sort of resolution. I've raised the matter of their talk page usage at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#IP user talk page and would welcome input there. Andrewa (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And in reply it has been pointed out that Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings (a section to which the IP has themselves linked in justification of such edits) reads in part A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes: ... For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address and/or to whom the IP is registered, although very old content may be removed. (my emphasis) I will point this out on the user's talk page. Andrewa (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the IP has now posted a retired template on their user talk page, [22] I think this incident can be closed and archived.

Thanks to all who have participated. It is not an ideal outcome obviously but in glorious hindsight I can't see how we could hope for any better.

After the archiving has occurred, I intend to clean up the user talk page unless anyone objects or (preferably) someone uninvolved offers to do it. The Shared IP|Datsyuk Valentina Mykolaivna in Ukraine template giving the IP registration should stay indefinitely IMO, and a link to the archived discussion (this discussion) should be added.

The retired template should stay for a while, as the IP claims the address is not currently shared [23] and we have no reason to doubt this, but should be removed at some time in the future... how long?

The rest of the user talk page contents can go IMO. Andrewa (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As this has not yet been closed or archived, I think I should make a (possibly final) comment.

It seems to me that this is likely to have been a cross-cultural problem. I said at the start that the IP seemed to have some knowledge of en.wikipedia, but on reflection I might have been wrong in this. They may instead have had experience in another Wikipedia... Ukrainian Wikipedia or Russian Wikipedia (or both) are the obvious ones.

Users of other language Wikipedias often assume that the policies and practices (or even rules) are exactly the same here. In fact the broad principles are the same, but there are many important differences across the various language Wikipedias too. Andrewa (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Chang, User:Timmyshin is keep using so-called "dark histories" of me in Wikipedia community against me, trying to use that as a "reason" for deletion (which was actually cannot be used as a valid reason for deletion according to policies and guidelines), despite of other participants' opinions and even consensus. The user's behavior made me have to recall, disclose and explain numerous of my sad memories before. The user's behaviour is also very likely for political reasons as I explained in that page. As a result, it already let me being very depressed and nearly devastated. I have already suffered PTSD including symptoms of depression and anxiety due to my experience of political persecution and harassment, and this WikiBullying is making my symptoms more severe. I hope I could got some helps from here.--Shujen Chang (talk) 05:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An examination of the AfD shows that you gave as good as you got, so I don't know what your grounds are for feeling "bullied". The discussion has been strong but not uncivil. You're also not extending AGF to Timmyshin by suggesting motivations other then the obvious one that he thinks the article should be deleted on policy grounds. Would you be happy if I did the same, if I suggested that your purpose in coming here was to win sympathy for your position and potentially attract !voters who would help keep the article about you? I don't think you would appreciate that, so please be so good as to not do the same to Timmyshin.

If you are upset by the discussion, then I would suggest you withdraw from it, considering that you've already stated that because of your obvious COI you won't be !voting. Just stay away and let the community reach its consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was based on what happened on Chinese Wikipedia before. In April last year Jsjsjs1111 started an AFD on Chinese Wikipedia for the Chinese article about of me, after a report published on WeChat from a local Chinese media in Brisbane closely connected with Chinese Government judging me with numerous misleading information which already brought lots of troubles to me at that time including some death threatens to me from Chinese patriots (such as a person on WeChat said he was familiar with Vietnam gang and will let me "disappear" from Brisbane). Jsjsjs1111 (Weibo ID: 费城染色体 (szjdts)) commented on Weibo for that repot by disclose so-called "dark histories" of mine on Chinese Wikipedia community and saying I was a "psychiatric patient" ("这人我认识，精神病人来的。。。曾经在中文维基百科上因盗号被永久封禁" on 2016-4-24 23:09, which he later admitted on Chinese Wikipedia). Then he submitted the AFD which I just mentioned, and later on an AFD on English Wikipedia. Now Timmyshin is doing the similar thing according to prejudices from Jsjsjs1111 as I mentioned and ignoring my explainations. I did AGF innitially thought Timmyshin was just misled by Jsjsjs1111, but later Timmyshin's behaviours made me have to not to cotinue AGF.--Shujen Chang (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What does your feud with User:Jsjsjs1111 have to do with me? I didn't want to respond, but let's see: You are pissed he called you a "psychiatric patient", but you also suffer from "PTSD including symptoms of depression and anxiety" and you were "nearly devastated" by my comments which caused "more severe" symptoms? Aren't these psychiatric problems? If you were "nearly devastated" you should see a psychiatrist and not look for more WP:DRAMA. Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. Timmyshin (talk) 07:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I had a read of WP:DRAMA and it seems actually talking about your behaviours. You are "spreading of conflict and strife" between me and Jsjsjs1111, as in the AFD you are based on his prejudices as I said and always refer what he said to against me. In addition, "psychological problem" is different to "psychiatric problems". By the way, I already had psychologist from QPASTT and had frequently consultations with my psychologist.--Shujen Chang (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's a suggestion, why don't you, @Shujenchang and Timmyshin: both back away from the AfD discussion now, because you've both made your positions clear and I don't see anything more you can offer that will influence the outcome at this stage, and leave it for other editors to offer their opinions on notability? Simply carrying on fighting with each other, with neither one even trying to listen to the other... well, it needs to stop. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll second that. User:Shujenchang and User:Timmyshin should both leave that AfD alone for the duration. You've had your say - at far greater length than is necessary - now leave it alone. GoldenRing (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thirded. A combined 161 edits (not joking) on a single AfD should be plenty enough for everyone to get their point across and let others weigh in without needing additional, at this point probably pointless commentary. Lord have mercy on whomever closes that. And besides, the much of this report seems to concern things that have happened off of en.wiki, and there's not really much we can do about that, whether it's real life issues or things on the Chinese Wikipedia.

I could probably add that whatever deletion discussions occurred on other projects is pretty much irrelevant to the English Wikipedia, and it's a tiny bit disingenuous to say that you're not going to !vote on an AfD because of a COI, and then proceed to flood the page with thousands of words trying to sway people's opinions. TimothyJosephWood 13:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I would concur as well, as an extension of my suggestion above that Shujenchang should consider leaving the discussion; instead, both editors should do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Bailey (PR advisor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page has been subjected to a variety of probable CoI edits under a variety of names and IP addresses. On 10th June 2016 Private Eye ran a story to that effect, after which further editors including myself have repeatedly removed a lot of puffery, of references to the subjects own website (some of which required admin access to that website in order to be viewed), and have inserted some details of the subject's position in the contentious "Delegation for Great Britain and Ireland of the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George". The main registered CoI editors have gone quiet, but IP editors have since last year been busy reinserting puffery and unsatisfactory references, and removing the contentious points. There is extensive discussion on the talk page, and of course a rather long history. The current IP is 2001:8A0:7BDD:FA01:DA9:A4FF:AEED:46A6 and I have put a notice on their talk page.

I'd be grateful if an admin could offer the page semi-protection, autoconfirmed users only, and preferably indefinitely since I doubt if the subject will ever lose interest in it. That won't solve the problem completely - another new editor has just turned up on the talk page - but should keep it within manageable bounds. Hunc (talk) 10:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hunc: Given the disruptive editing going on, I've semi-protected the page for two months. I'm somewhat against indefinitely protecting articles, as it goes against the whole "Encyclopedia that anyone can edit" thing, but if the disruption continues when the protection expires then of course it can be extended -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 12:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that this article is being protected as I have only suggested changes to enhance the article. The predominance of of irrelevant and ill and unrelaiable sourced information on what is supposed to be a biographical encyclopedic text Is what is at issue here. I have attempted to point this out but Hunc (talk seeks not to answer my concerns. These relate to the subjects clear and prominent Antiguan role and the gossip nature of the comments re the Constantinian Order. The nature of the disputed grandmastership is well documented and is referred to in the relevant article. Is it really relevant on a bio page? These are legitimate observations and is by no means an attempt at vandalism Wonderground (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wonderground: My decision to protect the article isn't anything against yourself personally - you can use a edit request on the article's talk page to request a change be made -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:J.T.W.A.Cornelisse has been vandalising articles related to Belgian nuclear plants on both the Dutch and English Wiki. After being warned by multiple users on multiple occasions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J.T.W.A.Cornelisse#Doel_.26_Tihange_Nuclear_Power_Plants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Doel_Nuclear_Power_Station https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg:Kerncentrale_Doel#Veiligheid

He's now engaging in an edit war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tihange_Nuclear_Power_Station&action=history

And reverting to islamophobic racism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Doel_Nuclear_Power_Station#nowhere_safer_reactors_.3F

The agenda of this user is clear and its not providing worthwhile, objective content.

MCvarial (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This all above is written by somebody, who only can see positive elements in nuclear energy.

He has taken away all pleasure in editing wikipedia for me.

He does not allow anything to report about the protests against the prolonged use of the Belgium reactors...

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Previous ANI for context. Seems like this has been an issue for a while now. TimothyJosephWood 15:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you are heavily involved in an edit war. I see you've taken discussions to the talk page which is good, but even so you've both been reverting while those discussions are taking place. Talk on the talk pages, don't edit war. I've given you both 3RR warnings as I'm not sure if you've had them before but I notice these articles are pretty much the only articles you edit on the English Wikipedia and this has been going on for some time.

Also both of you, this is the English Wikipedia, please make all article talk page comments in English (also keep them to point as the talk page entries I've read have been going all over the place and beyond the scope of those article's talk pages.) Canterbury Tail talk 17:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're way beyond talking, the user in question has been vandalising articles for months now. Multiple users have complained its time for some actions against him.

MCvarial (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At best it is POV pushing, which it very well may be. Vandalism has a very particular meaning on Wikipedia. And anyway, if this at some point has gone through dispute resolution, in particular probably WP:3O, WP:RFC, or asking for outside comment from related WikiProjects, then I'm not seeing it. TimothyJosephWood 18:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that User:TheMagnificentist acts against consensuses changing on his own en mass categories "X music groups" to "X musicians" even in cases where article is about a band/group/musical project.[24][25][26][27] He also removed the content of a number of categories: [28], [29], [30], [31], +many other, and a lot of related categories becames empty (e.g. Category:English electronic music groups). Thousands of changes done with AWB - and in a number of pages he made by several consecutive edits,[32] replacing by one category at a time; isn't this a bot task? The summary used is misleading ("clean up", ORLY?). This looks to me like an abuse using mass-editing tools.

Sample of edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/TheMagnificentist&offset=20170627110319&limit=500&target=TheMagnificentist

Being controversial, their edits should be rollbacked. --XXN, 11:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notified TheMagnificentist about this discussion. I think this is controversial categorisation as well and should be discussed first before such wide-reaching changes are implemented by AWB or any other automated tool. Ss112 12:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out below, he also emptied categories outside of the WP:CFD process and outright blanked them--I have no clue what the purpose would be of that. I thought that he was trying to change instances of "synthpop" to "synth-pop" since the article was moved but no. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I came across one of his edits here when CNBLUE was moved from Category:Electronic rock musical groups to Category:Electronic rock musicians. Not only was the execution messy (the latter is still categorized under a "rock music groups" parent category), it appears these edits were made unilaterally without any prior discussion. I agree that his edits should be reverted and I strongly advise him to suggest any changes to the current category scheme by properly listing them at WP:CFD. ℯxplicit 05:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was only attempting to combine categories of "X music groups" with "X musicians". I apologize for unilaterally doing this myself without consensus, but it was done per WP:BOLD. I thought it was uncontroversial because many of the categories weren't sorted properly. It was a huge mess and many articles in 'electronic music' had redundant categories. Some had both "X music groups" and "X musicians". I intially planned on cleaning up categories of electronic music because many of its subcategories had little articles so I thought merging them with bigger categories would make things neater. I blanked some of them because they had no pages and I wanted to request speedy after 7 days to have them deleted so that the redundant categories (X groups) wouldn't confuse other editors. I removed or changed categories of "X groups" to "X musicians" per consistency with similar pages.

The edit summary "Clean up" was default and I didn't change it, assuming AWB would update it per my edits. When this ANI report was posted, I wasn't done with the categories yet, which was why the parent categories are still there.

If it is decided that my edits to the categories should be reverted, I am willing to do it myself and undo them all because per guideline, I am responsible for the edits I make via AWB. - TheMagnificentist 06:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheMagnificentist: Please make note of this WP:AWBRULES when every time you're using AWB, if you think that categories should be request an speedy deletion, you need to via the WP:TALK page to make the new section first, by discussion an consensus with other editors to make an collaboratively decision on that, and should not be blank it like this in anyway, hopefully you'll acknowledgement on that, regards. SA 13 Bro (talk) 12:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many of Zee money's article creations have issues. For example, Zhang Bu (Xin dynasty) does not have many links or sources in it; Liu Yong (Xin dynasty) does not have many sources; and Vasily Flug and Pyotr Lomnovsky have maintenance tags at the top. I thus propose that the user has its autopatrolled right removed. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with GeoffreyT2000. Zee money has a habit of creating a large number of unsourced stubs. Quite a few users, including myself, have warned him many times before, to little lasting effect. And I've fixed (and completely rewritten) several of them (such as Zhang Qinqiu, Hu Di, and Qian Zhuangfei), which probably took more effort than starting from nil. His recent creations seem even worse than before, as they are rough machine translations which make no sense. For example, the lead of Zhang Bu (Xin dynasty) says: "The character is Kumon. Chinese is a person from the evil County of Xuzhou. My brother is Zhang Hiroshi". And Pang Meng is the same. I believe the user's autopatrolled right should be removed, and they should be forbidden from creating new articles without adequate sources. -Zanhe (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree, this is an experienced editor we're talking about here. Yes, the Zhang Bu article is a mess, yes it looks like he did a machine translation from Chinese to English., however, other articles he started, like Maxim Stepanov look great. I don't think his autopatroller status has anything to do with that , but perhaps a note on his page might be in order.
 К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 18:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with GeoffreyT2000. I think we need some sort of punishment consequences so that Zee money does more than the minimum on his articles - that is, actually taking the time to find references for his articles, and that the improvements in article creation that he temporarily makes after being warned actually last. By the way, the Maxim Stepanov page was unreferenced at the beginning, too. I've had similar experiences to Zanhe in dealing with this user, as I've fixed some of his articles, like Pyotr Pumpur and 4th Cavalry Corps (Soviet Union). Kges1901 (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do punishment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't, but we also don't give auto-patrolled to editors who are making articles that clearly need attention from reviewers, and being "prolific" is not in and of itself isn't qualifying. Pinging @Schwede66: for their input. TimothyJosephWood 20:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before we do anything else about autopatrolled, KrakatoaKatie should be given a chance to comment. Schwede66 20:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see I granted the user right 18 months ago, but honestly, I don't remember it. If Schwede feels it needs to be removed, I have no objection. Katie^talk 22:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KoshVorlon: The version of Maxim Stepanov written by Zee money is completely unsourced (see this). It was Kges1901 who fixed it and made it great. I just found another article Liu Yong (Xin dynasty) which is a machine-translated mess. An experienced editor like Zee money should have learned how to create properly referenced articles by now, especially after receiving so much advice and guidance from other editors over the years. -Zanhe (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zanhe Kges1901 added in a reference, the rest of the article was fine (yes I know we need references) point is, this article wasn't a mess, the chinese articles are. Once again, this isn't anything to do with his autopatroller rights. Still Opposed
 К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 21:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KoshVorlon: According to WP:Autopatrolled: "This permission is granted only to accounts that have extensively demonstrated their knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". After numerous gentle reminders from other users, Zee money has not demonstrated the ability to follow WP:Verifiability, one of the core content policies. -Zanhe (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as autopatrolled goes, it's not a "behavioral issue" per se; it's not a "punishment" at all. It's a procedural issue of whether these articles get some proper maintenance and integration into the project that will allow them to stand alone in the meantime, be connected to interested editors in the long run, and offer a feedback channel to the editor themselves to help them make better new articles in the future. It is, at its heart, a way to make sure we make better articles and we make better editors. There's no prejudice toward whether the right can be granted again in the future, but right now it doesn't seem like it's helping either the project or the person. TimothyJosephWood 22:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that, however, since the problem wasn't anything to do with his autopatroller status, removing it would be punative and that's also not right. Yes, the articles mentioned at the top of this report are junk, so a short block may be in order, this would prevent further junk articles, but take away the autopatrolled status , that does nothing to stop the problem.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 22:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I... don't think you understand the purpose of autopatrolled. TimothyJosephWood 23:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that autopatrolled is according to the WP guideline for "prolific creators of clean articles", but the unreferenced stubs that Zee Money is creating half the time are not "clean" articles. If the autopatrolled right was taken away the articles would have to go through the new page patrol review process, where they could at least be filtered.Kges1901 (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but there is no argument that starts as "these articles are junk, but they should not be patrolled" that makes any sense whatsoever. I appreciate that Kosh is trying to play the devil's advocate here, but the right needs to be removed, and it needs to be removed basically now, and it would make everyone sleep better at night if Katie were the one to do it. Too easy, close thread, go back to editing. TimothyJosephWood 23:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After investigating further, I agree that at least the last few articles created are nonsensical and would require huge cleanup at least and deletion at worst. Accordingly, I have removed the autopatrolled user right. Katie^talk 00:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too easy, close thread, go back to editing. TimothyJosephWood 01:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I believe Zee money should also be banned from creating new articles without reliable sources. -Zanhe (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. That's what WP:NPP is for. If you feel that strongly about it, you're welcome to join us. We can use all the help we can get. TimothyJosephWood 01:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood: I've patrolled thousands of new pages myself, and that's how I got to know about Zee money's creations. It's perfectly understandable for new editors to make mistakes, but not for an experienced user who refuses to follow the WP:V policy year after year, after numerous editors have tried to point him to the right way (see User talk:Zee money). -Zanhe (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zee money creates many articles with dubious notability. He has created 2009 articles.Some articles have notability. Lack of sources is a major problem. Marvellous Spider-Man 12:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, when an editor has made 2,009 articles, of which nine have been deleted, that's a pretty strong argument against curtailing their article creation. Then again, about half of that has been done since they were granted autopatrolled, so that may skew the numbers a bit.

I think it would resolve a lot of the problem here if Zee money would... acknowledge that this thread exists. Their conspicuous absence here, combined with a less than stellar history of being responsive on their talk page gives me more pause than anything. Machine translation is right out, and needs to stop. But in a lot of the situations, it looks like the biggest problem is that they're just not bringing over the foreign language sources when they translate into English. The most painless thing to do here would simply be for them to just agree to bring sources over in articles that they translate. TimothyJosephWood 12:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not the problem, but verifiability is. Almost all articles Zee money created are notable, but he just don't bother to add sources, after repeated prodding over the years. And the situation is only getting worse, now that the user is resorting to machine translation to create new articles. -Zanhe (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Timothyjosephwood, I"m looking at what will stop the problem. As I said, I'm familiar with the autopatrolled right.
The problem here - Zee money is creating junk articles
The solution being requested - Remove his autopatrolled rights

The problem with that - Per Autopatroller The autopatrolled right will not help you create articles. , so removing his autopatroller right does nothing to stop him from creating new junky articles. It's not a solution, merely a punative strike, if you want him to stop creating junk articles, you could
a.) block him for a determined length of time
b.) place a discretionary sanction on him from creating new articles or
c.) block indef
Any of these things address the problem, removing autopatroller right doesn't. The only thing autopatroller right does is mark an article that he's created as "patrolled" and push it to the new articles pages. Sorry, this is a bad move all the way in that it doesn't solve the problem.
 К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 14:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indef? Sure. I guess you could indef, or I guess you could... I dunno... maybe give them a barnstar or something. I've gone through about 50 of their articles at this point, and... well... I haven't started any AfDs today if that's any indication. In fact they're basically auto-notable because they either blow WP:SOLDIER out of the water, or they're divisional level military units. They pretty much all need tagging for cleanup and stub sorting, which is exactly the kinds of things NPP can do, and is why they shouldn't have autopatrolled.

The recent machine translation articles are right out, and rightfully should probably be deleted if they can't be stubified. There's solid long standing consensus that machine translation is worse than nothing. But if large unsourced machine translations are a persistent pattern then I've not gotten there yet, because what I'm seeing are pretty much legitimate stubs on clearly notable topics that rightfully should be created and linked to their more developed counterparts on non-English projects for translation. 14th Landwehr Division (German Empire), which is what I happen to currently have open in another tab isn't a "junk article"; it's a stub, and if you took it to AfD you'd probably get laughed out of town.

NPP will see any new articles created and address them as needed. But if you want to indef someone because around 0.0044 percent of the articles they've created deserve to be deleted, then you need to get the hell away from drama boards and go build an encyclopedia somewhere. (Indef.. christ almighty.. the user has almost as many articles created as you have mainspace edits...) TimothyJosephWood 15:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in here in support of Timothyjosephwood's position. Autopatrolled is not a reward or a hat to be collected; many experienced and respected editors don't reach the necessary number of newly created articles, or attract an admin's attention for doing so ... until they pass RfA, it's one of the rights bundled into adminship. It's intended to reduce the work at NPP. (I've been told some NPPers still check my new articles anyway, because I'm so eclectic. And I don't mind because I could always slip and make a mistake on one that needs fixing.) Zee money has been creating articles that need checking; I'm particularly concerned by the mention of machine translations, which need to be reported at PNT as soon as possible before some poor reader tries to consult them (and which impose particularly lengthy clean-up tasks on the community). But the reason we have NPP is that new articles can have all kinds of problems. Apparently that goes for Zee money's work, too, so it shouldn't be automatically marked as not needing checking. @KoshVorlon: It's not a matter of punishment, and it's also not a matter of stopping him. It's a matter of whether the articles need checking, like the vast majority of new articles. However in any case, KrakatoaKatie did go ahead and remove autopatrolled. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

speaking for PNT we do not have any spare capacity and do have a huge backlog, made worse by a diversion of resources to the recent CTX kerfluffle. And Chinese isn't among our strengths. I think we may have a couple of regulars who are zh-1 or zh-2. That's it. So it's not a good problem for us. Withough getting into what I think of the machine translation policy I'll just say that having taken a really deep dive in some bad machine translations I am of the opinion that at least half the problem could be eliminated by better scrutiny of a handful of problem editors. Removing autopatrolled privileges would seem to be a good start in this case. Please keep some eyes out for any future problematic contributions. Zh-->En does not seem to be something that machine translation understands very well yet, at all. Elinruby (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indef would be gross overkill. As mentioned above, I believe Zee money should be given a formal warning not to create more articles without adequate sources, and not rely on machine translation when creating new articles. -Zanhe (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Several days ago, I nominated a file for deletion [33] based on another sock block of an indeffed user. Before his indef, the user had been topic banned from uploading files. It occurred to me today that because the file had been uploaded by a sock of an indeffed user, WP:G5 would apply. I noted this at the deletion discussion [34] after putting a G5 CSD notice at the file page. It was promptly removed by an editor [35] who had stated at the deletion discussion that he felt the file should be kept [36]. His rationale for removing the CSD tag in the edit summary was "regardless of the violation this file is properly sourced and has a valid fair use so I think deleting would just be a waste of time".

I went to that editor's talk page and asked him to self-revert [37]. He refused [38] [39]. It should be pointed out that this editor ignored the procedure for dealing with a speedy delete tag and did not even attempt to discuss his dissent at the file's talk page.

Could an admin intervene, please? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm happy to see you ask instead of reverting, WV. Question: let's say the file is speedy deleted, and 2 seconds later Salavat re-uploads it with his own fair use rationale. You wouldn't believe the file should be speedy deleted then, right? Because G5 no longer applied? So, since Salavat has added his own fair use rationale, the current situation is functionally indistinguishable from this theoretical situation. So let's save some time and energy, pretend it did happen that way, not make Salavat jump thru pointless hoops, and move on with our lives. Getting annoyed that a file MaranoFan unloaded is actually potentially useful is playing right into MaranoFan's hands. Don't be his puppet. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Of course I didn't revert, Floquenbeam. Why would I?

(2) If Salavat uploaded it after it were speedy deleted, that wouldn't be an issue because Salavat isn't indeffed due to sockpuppetry (and other things) and doesn't have a topic ban against uploading files.

(3) It's not the file that's the issue, it's the violation of policy (violating the topic ban and block evasion).

(4) G5 exists for the very reason(s) I requested a speedy delete (block evasion chief among them), does it not?

(5) If we keep everything or anything in opposition to the reason why G5 exists, then G5 is useless and, as policy, should no longer exist.

(6) MF's articles created as Beachey were deleted by Bbb23 because of block evasion. Why shouldn't the file be deleted for the same reason?

(7) This is about the principle as well as getting a serial sockmaster to understand that if they create articles, edit articles, and upload files via a sock account, it will be a complete waste of time because after they are once again caught, everything they did will be removed. That's a deterrent to future socking ideation and activity. Isn't that part of the reason why G5 as policy is in place?

-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment)...so, in order to make a point to a banned user, you should waste a good users time? Anmccaff (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Waste" of time? Two minutes? Sorry, I don't see an issue or any alleged waste. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There mere existence of a thread at ANI takes up a full hour of editor time, just for the eyeballs of 500 people to pass over the thread even if they don't stop. If there's any reasoning by which an ANI thread can be avoided, it should always be applied. EEng 19:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If chastising needs to happen here - which you appear to be doing, EEng - it seems to me that the person who needs to be chastised is the now-serial-sockmaster MaranoFan, not those who bring the fallout from his socking to noticeboards so it can be dealt with according to policy. Of course, that then brings me back full circle to the reason why G5 exits: to assist in deterring the indeffed sockmaster from socking again. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment)For what it's worth, in the future, I'd think a removal of the quick-kill tag by an established user looks an awful lot like a substantial edit[s] by others in some cases. Anmccaff (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The key thing here, to me, is WP:BURO. The policies about reverting or deleting contributions from blocked or banned users exist to enable quick cleanup and response to further disruption, as well as the deterrent value. They allow the quick removal of bad content, but they don't force the removal of good content. They also cover scenarios where good content might get reverted or deleted as part of a mass cleanup (mass deletion of new pages, or mass rollback); so that the mere existence of some good content in a sea of bad does not inhibit rapid cleanup of the bad. To me, the G5 nomination is not wrong or inappropriate, but it's something that any user in good standing can remove if they see value in the content (the restriction on removing a CSD tag only applies to the creator of the page (and their obvious / confirmed socks)). Similarly any reverted edits which a user in good standing decides were actually constructive can be reinstated (I encounter this occasionally when reverting vandalism, where I revert an edit because the majority of the user's other edits have been clearly bad, then someone in good standing and with subject knowledge reinstates it). Such decisions are probably best made by well established users, best avoided by new or inexperienced users, and should always have a clear explanation in the edit summary (and talk if more detail is needed). Murph9000 (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A good explanation. I don't agree totally, but a good and rational explanation nonetheless. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to know how many Facebook followers a professional sports team has per Houndground (talk · contribs)? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This board is not for content disputes like that. You should discuss the matter with the user on the relevant article talk page or WikiProject talk page, and if that fails to settle the issue, move to the dispute resolution procedures available. 331dot (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I'm not going to take this to each individual article talk page. no one is disputing the accuracy of the content, but this is not what Wikipedia articles are for. I've brought it here as a user competency issue. Feel free to remove it if you think it's inappropriate. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying you should take it to each individual page; as I indicated, it could be discussed at the relevant WikiProject or even just one article talk page. 331dot (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, regardless of the fact that this is the wrong venue, this is pointless and unmaintainable trivia; I've reverted all the examples I can find, and left a warning on the user's page. If you find any more sporting club articles with references to "number of Facebook likes", feel free to remove them as well. Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a number of this user's edits are completely incompetent (i.e. [40]). Definitely worth keeping an eye on. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I was initially concerned over the rate of editing. Mass addition at such a rate would IMO be a problem (although they should be asked to stop before being brought to ANI). But looking more closely it's not so simple. Some of their edits are simply adding Facebook follower numbers. Others are updating those numbers (perhaps added by them before, I don't know). Yet other seem to be changing stadium capacities or other figures, generally without sources not that the figures generally have sources. Occasionally they have added not very good sources [41] [42]. (They've generally sourced the follower numbers to the Facebook page albeit sometimes the mobile variant.) Other times they've added various details. While not as concerning as if they were solely adding Facebook follower figures, IMO the speed of editing is a problem considering the questionable quality and they probably should be blocked if they don't slow down after being given a warning. (Which I'll do so.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I forgot [43]. Technically true but it really needs a source and either attribution or explaination. Nil Einne (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One final point, the changing existing Facebook figures got me thinking. I explored this example Karachi United where it seems it was added here [44] by Special:Contributions/Fussbolfan. This editor was never blocked and has not edited since Houndground started but it's still concerning considering there are multiple warnings on their userpage. I've asked for clarification on their connection and mentioned this ANI case. Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To add my two cents, I am very concerned about this editor which clearly shows lack of competency and no attempts to talk. The editor has been mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football and editors there have expressed concerns but without any response. Qed237 (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Black Kite, Nil Einne and Qed237 for following up. Admittedly, this was not my preferred venue, but the editor was on a roll and I sought a quick response just to slow them down and revert at least some of the edits, a number of which were made at protected articles. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This reply: [45]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what they said there, I've tried to explain again why they need to slow down and also directed them to the teahouse. I've also asked again for clarification on their connection to the old account, as the comment "I only use this account now" seems to imply an old account, but not clearly stating so or which one. The comment suggests perhaps there is hope. Maybe direct mentoring would be particularly beneficial if anyone is willing to volunteer. If not it's on them to read and seek help. Considering how long it took them to say anything in response, it's probably only a faint hope so no major loss either way. (Especially if the other account is them and the timing strongly suggests it is; with only a single comment on talk pages before that I can find [46] discounting a semiprotected edit request.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a quick update, Houndground has confirmed editing using the previous account and place a declaration on their user page as I suggested so there's IMO not longer any direct concerns about the 2 accounts. Nil Einne (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There might no longer be a concern regarding the two account but I am very concerned about the competence. Qed237 (talk) 09:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Houndground once again created bogus article and I am now unfortunately ready to suggest a block. What do you think @331dot, Black Kite, and Nil Einne: who have participated in this discussion? Qed237 (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin please compare Assassination threats against Donald Trump with the two previous, deleted versions of the article and let us know if the current article is sufficiently identical either of the previous versions? Many thanks.- MrX 20:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Mop goggles" ... it's not a thing... but I'm gonna make it a thing. It just rolls off the tongue. TimothyJosephWood 21:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not substantially identical to the two previous deleted versions, and I do not feel it qualifies for G4. Let the AFD play out. Katie^talk 22:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I was just going to say the opposite; it's pretty much the same general thing as the version deleted August 2016 (it is different than the version deleted January 2017). I guess I should type quicker. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess we'll let the AfD play out. Thanks all, and EEng for cleaning it up.- MrX 22:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a disparity I have noticed with administrators - who tend to fall into one of two camps. Either the article has to be identical, wording, sources etc, to qualify - or some admins take the approach if it covers the same areas even with different wording, its substantially identical regardless of the differences. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's definitely a judgement call to be made with G4. It's particularly tricky because the person nominating it can't see previous revisions, so declining it because it's still rubbish but not substantially identical to a previously-deleted version can be seen as time-wasting WP:BUREAU. It seems pretty clear to me that Assassination threats against Donald Trump falls into this category - at least in the state it's currently in. It has substantially different content to the deleted version, even if most of the new content is actually about something else. In that case, it's up to the community to decide deletion, not an individual admin. There's always the temptation, when you see a really terrible article tagged for speedy deletion that doesn't quite fit the criteria, to think, "It's never going to get through AfD - why waste the community's time? We'll just stretch the boundary of G4 (or whatever it is) and no-one will ever know." In my view, it's a temptation to be resisted. For those who can't see the deleted version - in both versions, the only discussion of actual threats is an un-sourced first sentence, and even then it doesn't mention any specifically. The latest deleted version then goes on to discuss security arrangements, particularly during Trump's candidacy, while the new version discusses an attempted assassination (however ham-fisted it might have been). GoldenRing (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GoldenRing: Before suggesting that people (like me) who think that G4 applies in this case are trying to sneakily delete it out of process, you should compare the version that was there when the current (3rd) AFD was started to the version that was deleted after the 1st AFD. Your description of what the deleted article looked like only applies to what was deleted after the 2nd AFD. While some of the names of the particular people accused of making "threats" are different, the construction of the 1st AFD'd article and this 3rd AFD'd article are essentially the same, and this article has exactly the same problems that were already identified in the first AFD. I don't care too much if another admin thinks they weren't quite similar enough for G4; as OID says, opinions differ on how close they have to be, and it looks like it's about to get redirected and salted anyway. I certainly don't question Katie's competence or motivation. But your incomplete description of the deleted version, and your assumption that I either don't understand the purpose of G4 or (worse) I'm trying to usurp the community's decision-making processes, are not appreciated. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article's subject has been a controversial subject in the news lately, and so I'd really appreciate a couple more sets of eyes. Thanks as usual, GAB^gab 01:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not for the faint of heart. EEng 03:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not written in a very encyclopedic way, but what other issues do you have with it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a polemical history, with Mideast nonsense mixed in as well. EEng 10:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's "not for the faint of heart" only if poorly written articles give you chest pains. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to get in the middle of a group of lesbians arguing about whether Zionism is racism, be my guest. EEng 17:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) The only discussion one should engage in is whether or not it is WP:UNDUE, the rest is WP:NOTFORUM. I've deleted the excessive blockquotes from non-notable sources and have the thing on my watchlist. HTH, HAND. Kleuske (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will keep an eye on it, too. Yintan  11:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More eyes might be needed before I run into 3RR. Just saying. Yintan  18:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

68.198.160.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), (now blocked 3 months) added quite a few edit summaries such as All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent... These were done during often-disruptive edits to sex-related articles. Would it be possible to have the bible verse spamming REVDEL per DENY? Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not only articles related to sex/sexuality/genitals, but also to articles about various religions - and they have been doing it since February. I agree that it is quite disruptive and it should be removed from the article histories. --bonadea contributions talk 06:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the edit summaries from some of their articles (ones I imagine would cause distress from those edit summaries). I realise in some of my revdel reasons I linked to the incorrect ANI thread, so I'll leave a note on my talk page just in case anyone notices -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 09:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some of the IPs below but the /16 range is high traffic LTA, a continuation of this.

• 83.31.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) Annual rangeblock is needed because of: special:contribs/83.31.1.46 special:contribs/83.31.13.56 special:contribs/83.31.43.125 special:contribs/83.31.45.80 special:contribs/83.31.75.34 special:contribs/83.31.80.210 current monthly pattern, it is the same as w:m:Global block of Orange ranges (2015). I suspect that he will be popping out of more IPs soon.

Favonian seems to have some experience with this IP range. Should we range block it? It does seem troublesome. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! The comment below was placed below on June 25 to the help desk by 101.182.141.22; however, as this is an edit war, I have reposted the query below for admin follow-up. Thanks! Daylen (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original message I have voiced my concerns on the Talk page of this article - but an edit war is on! User talk:Esemgee is an editor who will not accept the various details - published in respected books (recent and historic) and in many verifiable citations - concerning the Lupton family, who feature on this page. Any suggestions? This warring has been going on for some time. See above "verifiability" query too please. Cheers 101.182.141.22 (talk) 3:52 am, 25 June 2017

I've reverted User:Softlavender's close; it seems to me pointless bureaucracy to redirect someone to another noticeboard. Yes, technically ANEW might have been the best place for this, but since it's here, let's deal with it here.

@101.182.141.22: You're going to have to help us out a bit more here. I've looked back through some of User:Esemgee's edits to that page and I'm not seeing anything terribly objectionable. Have I just not looked far enough? The most likely thing I can see is removed refs to the Daily Mail. You may not like it, but the established consensus is that the DM is not a usable source, especially not for BLP's. I may happen to think consensus is just a bit mental on this point, but that's the consensus and until it changes, that's the way it rolls. If there's something specific you'd like us to look at, please post some diffs back here. GoldenRing (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing, ANI does not deal with WP:CONTENTDISPUTES, nor is it a help desk, which is why we point them to the correct venue(s) when content disputes or edit wars are posted here (otherwise, every content dispute or edit war will end up here). Nor can IPs be pinged, nor does the IP even know this discussion is being carried on here. I am going to repeat my close here, as the person who opened this thread (Daylen) appears to lack understanding of how things work:

Daylen, ANI is not the correct venue for content disputes and edit wars. Please report edit-warring at WP:ANEW after WP:WARNing the user on their talkpage. Please utilize the talkpage of the article, and institute any dispute resolution practices desired, for content disputes. Please direct any interested editors to the WP:TEAHOUSE for further assistance if they need it. Softlavender (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just for the record, I did a mass rollback of the edits which had not already been reverted. Murph9000 (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, please search Dr Sana premji by clicking this a lot for a while, then once in a while. Thank you! Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anna Frodesiak, can you explain why that needs to be done, and what it has to do with the preceding closed discussion? Also, this thread will be manually archived in about half a day, so if this instruction needs to stay on this noticeboard, it should have its own thread. Softlavender (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Softlavender. Sure, if a few of us check here and there, we may stop articles having this text for a long time, and can quickly block. This can mean frustrating the vandal so he goes away and can mean a lower chance of having to protect articles. Whomever has seen this by now and remembers to do the search is probably adequate. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Frodesiak, it's still not clear how this relates to the reported user, who was merely removing wikilinks. Who was adding the text you linked? Softlavender (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhhh, I see. I've mixed up two matters I was working on. The link to search is for this fellow. :) I'm so sorry, Softlavender. I need more coffee. :) Okay, now, if I'm correct, I blocked Abrish211 and then he socked with HPinjani afterward. Black Kite's 24-hr --> indef is what I was about to do to wrap this one up and he beat me to it.

I guess that's that. Oh, and still search that link if you can a couple of times for a day or two. :) Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following the latest bout of nonsense stemming from an unnecessary almost-edit-war at this MFD page, I am proposing an IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. For some reason they cannot seem to get along. As seen in the above links as well as random sniping at various discussions and this ANI thread, there is some sort of beef between them and they simply cannot agree on anything.

I know the above ANI closed as no consensus for an IBAN, but given the most recent activities I believe it's necessary to avoid pointless infighting on both sides. SmokeyJoe apparently has more/better diffs available to illustrate the issue, hence the ping and slightly-less-than-stellar diffs (my apologies).

I propose the following:

Legacypac and Godsy are hereby prohibited from interacting with each other, broadly construed, with the usual exceptions. In addition, each one may !vote once on an XFD started by the other user, or both may !vote on a third-party XFD, but neither may comment or otherwise respond to the other's !vote (either by proxy or by inference).

As a note regarding point #5 the additional exemption - this is because I noticed that both spend a fair amount of time in the XFD spaces, and completely prohibiting interaction on an XFD page could be more disruptive than useful.

Also, it should be a fairly obvious request, but I expect Godsy and Legacy to keep their interactions to a minimum in this thread to avoid needless back-and-forth, barring gross misbehaviour. Primefac (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other relevant diffs as they pop up

• this MfD and the MfD's associated ANI thread

Support

• Support as proposer. Primefac (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. None of the above prevents either from working with drafts or productively contributing to MfD discussion. These two editors have quite oblique perspectives and approaches, but both are valuable to draft page management. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree to positive sentiment towards both editors separately, and this is not in anyway about "punishment".
  I would add a ban for either to close, or perform any administrative function, on any MfD initiated by the other. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support not as any sort of punishment, but to stop the fighting. Pretty much every year, there's been a "fight of the season" of some sort where a pair of editors, or more, get all riled up about something and then it's blow by blow on ANI for weeks if not months on end. Usually over some petty thing. This is analogous to bystanders stepping in to stop two people fighting on the streets. The bystanders aren't there to punish anyone, just trying to stop the fighting. Blackmane (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I have positive sentiment towards these editors separately, but this bickering has gone on long enough. The basic outline here is sound; I suspect there might be minor changes requested and support any changes that Godsy, Legacypac, and Primefac agree on. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes please. Guys, contrary to both your beliefs, you're not each others' worst enemies; you're your own. This is in both of your best interests. —Cryptic 03:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I do my best to stay away from the ANI dramahz, and also generally stay out of draft space unless it involves copyvios or building articles on 17th century things before moving them to mainspace, but even I've noticed the constant back and forth going on between these editors. Its a mini-feud (maybe a full feud). Support this topic ban to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a two-way ban, immediately if not sooner. Also strongly support adding a restriction that prohibits them both from editing each other's comments for any reason, indentation issues or not. I also propose modifying restriction 3 from simple prohibition on reversion to some kind of restriction that fully prohibits both of them from editing the any article the other one last edited, or less strictly, prohibiting cosmetic edits to articles the other one last edited, if either of those is feasible. Commenting at XfDs or other discussions would be exempt obviously, I'm talking about going to an article and making a little tweak just so it shows up. Those little "I-see-you" edits were a major cause of the last ANI blowup and I don't see this dispute burning out unless something gets done about that. Edited to add: I also support SmokeyJoe's proposal for no closing of the other's XfDs. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to stipulate that; that is an obvious part of any WP:IBAN. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck some parts of my comment in favor of Cryptic's "broadly construed" wording way below. Being specific does invite gaming; "broadly construed" is much better. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Who cares which one is correct—what is needed is for the posturing and disruption to stop. If there really is a problem with Legacypac's work, someone other than Godsy will notice. Just stop, indefinitely, subject to the usual appeals. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - With apologies to both editors, it seems to me that things have gotten to the point where this is the only reasonable solution. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Even then, it probably won't end, but at least the B.S. comes with consequences. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 04:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: with the proposed prohibitions implemented, I dont see any loss to either of the editors. With the restrictions, they should move on. That will certainly further improve their editing, and it will also put an end to such feuds, and conserve time of other editors. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Net benefit. -FASTILY 05:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Involved Editor Comment in Support I just became aware of this thread 2 minutes ago. I've stated my concerns with Godsy's behavior in the last ANi and will not repeat myself. Since then he has wholesale rejected that he has harassed me or that the Block he received was justified. (many diffs available, start on his talk page). I perceived the community and Admins were unwilling to protect me from someone who has made it a personal mission to make my time on Wikipedia miserable for over a year. Given complaining about Godsy behavior brought no resolution, I decided to deal with his activity well within the bounds of what he defined as acceptable behavior. To the extent that has has offended anyone, I apologize. I should be a bigger person than that. I appreciate User:Primefac bringing this ANi for action and wholeheartedly endorse an IBAN. I'd like nothing better then to edit in peace and this is a path forward that accomplishes that. Legacypac (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There seems to be an obsession on the part of both editors to meddle in each other's business. This seems like an unfortunate but needed outcome. --Tarage (talk) 06:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support No doubt one of them will go out via suicide by cop. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Godsy's inability to drop the stick has convinced me that this is necessary. The community cannot waste any more time on this. Softlavender (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Legacypac agrees, judging by his comment above, and unfortunately this appears to be the only way to stop Godsy. It's a pity it had to come to this but I can't say I'm surprised. Yintan  07:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, this dispute has wasted enough volunteer time, spreading to WP:REFUND and WP:MFD. It seems clear that these two won't stop needling each other, so someone needs to step in and put a stop to it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Support and admonish Godsy for the canvassing that appeared on my talk page. Nick (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair to Godsy, I could hardly be said to be a partisan on their behalf, and they still summoned me. I think this was less a case of "canvassing" than it was wanting to get broad input, although that does seem to have backfired from what I think they were expecting. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    • I agree considering that there was discussing of an iban only about a month ago, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with notifying everyone who participated with a neutral message. They probably should have said something before doing so or let someone else handle it but meh, it's not worth worrying about. Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. They're almost as bad as each other (though I see more intransigence on the part of Godsy), and this horrendous timesink needs to stop. (updated) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support much as I hate to say it, a Iban appears necessary since Godsy won't just voluntarily leave Legacypac alone. That being said, I unequivocally disagree with Legacypac about the original block Godsy received. It was hasty and improper, and I suspect that block contributed to the issue by making Godsy feel that Legacypac was trying to intimidate him into changing his editing habits. Lepricavark (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I opposed the one way iban in the recent discussion thinking the draft ban may solve things. I was seriously wrong. I initially thought this was about the Draft:Medieval jobs MFD which as I said at the time was silly on all sides but wasn't quite enough for me to change my mind especially since Godsy tends to be seen as the worse offender but their behaviour there wasn't quite that bad. But seeing this nonsense just a few days later is enough to convince me. And frankly I think I should have realised this would happen since their interaction areas and history are too wide to avoid it although I think a two way is probably better than the previous one way anyway. (Even if Godsy is more often the initiator, it does seem LegacyPac responds too much and too severely such that I'm not sure a one way would work properly. And LegacyPac to their credit does agree to the iban unlike Godsy.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, provided that there is some venue where they can report violations of this IBAN on each other's part. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, with Od Mishehu's proviso, and I would even go further to allow an appeal to an impartial administrator for both sides to raise concerns by the other editor. Errors in wikipedia do need to be fixes, and while I'd prefer if both editors did 100% disengage from each other, the oversight of your greatest critic can ensure that we are upholding our purpose in making the encyclopedia better. I have very few doubts Legacypac will disengage, but I would carve out this further exception to give Godsy an opportunity in which to demonstrate what they care about more: Being "right" or improving the encyclopedia. I think the next stop on the restriction train is a limited cban as their efforts have (in recent memory) been a significant net negative to the entire project. Hasteur (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I do not work in the spaces that these editors work in, and I actively avoid ANI; and yet I'm still aware that this dispute is wasting the community's time. I'd say this is overdue. Vanamonde (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I suppose we can't send them to their rooms without supper too? All joking aside, this is just a waste of time for too many editors. If two editors can't avoid causing drama about each other, then we have to step in and stop the disruption. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support broadly construed. This reimagining of Hell in the Pacific needs to stop. Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The disruption needs to stop. —MRD2014 14:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Enough. This is taking way too much time, in way too many areas, for way too many editors. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This should have been proposed last time rather than the ill thought out one way I-ban on Godsy. Wikipedia is a big place. Find something else to do. If something egregious happens, someone else will no doubt spot it. AniMate 19:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I supported the one-way IBAN before. Godsy needs to walk away from MfD, and draftspace more generally, because the whole purpose at this point seems to be a campaign to stop LegacyPac's efforts to address stale drafts. Unfortunately, it seems that Godsy took the failure of consensus to emerge in the one-way IBAN discussion as an affirmative authorization of his continuing war against LegacyPac. I don't think LegacyPac has done anything particularly egregious with respect to Godsy, but if it'll take a two-way IBAN to get any sort of relief, then I will support it. I agree with the sentiment above, and have no doubts that LegacyPac will obey the letter and spirit of this restriction. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Strong Oppose any restriction on Godsy (myself) per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Proposal: One-way IBAN on Godsy towards Legacypac. It has not been demonstrated that I've done anything contrary to policies or guidelines and I've remained civil. Legacypac continues to make personal attacks against me (e.g. here). I started Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Legacypac reported by User:Godsy (Result: Withdrawn) because they were repeatedly substantially changing a comment I made at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Dollop. I should not be punished for their continued misbehavior. Legacypac has led campaigns against me including Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Godsy Disruption & GAMING the System and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it?. The first led to Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring where the community came down hard against their positions, the second led to them receiving a boomerang topic ban. The community has never found my actions to be inappropriate. Legacypac's false allegations have already led to me receiving a hasty bad block. This sanction would reward them for unduly disparaging me and causing disruption across Wikipedia, and allow them to avoid due scrutiny, by giving them what was basically the goal they stated in their opening post of the second an/i I mentioned which they started against me. Had that not occurred, their egregious moves of inappropriate drafts to the mainspace may not have been brought to light as they were (i.e. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Propose "topic ban" for Legacypac which passed). If they were creating the inappropriate pages instead of moving them from the userspace of others, the pattern would've probably been noticed long ago, and they'd likely have changed their behavior or be indefinitely blocked right now. That aside, this would create complex conundrums due to the nature of my contributions. Just one example: I commonly close discussions at miscellany for deletion; could I close a discussion which Legacypac started when a page has been speedily deleted?; what if they're just a participant?. It'd even be very hard to simply participate in miscellany for deletion discussions without being able to openly address the nominator's and others rationales. All those questions are problems as they've started at least ~50% of the discussions there over the past few months and participated in others. This would unduly inhibit work I enjoy when I've done nothing inappropriate, while its clearly, explicitly been shown that Legacypac has. This proposal would set a dangerous precedent if it passes: it would encourage users to start conflicts with and attempt to provoke those who they often disagree with and who have demonstrably shown their behavior to be inappropriate in the past in the hope that a two way interaction ban will be issued allowing them to continue their sometimes subtle subversions of process that may otherwise go unnoticed and perhaps just barely get away with other more noticeable inappropriate behavior because one voice whose especially familiar with the history has been drowned out. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Godsy, in my opinion you are merely proving the point (the need for the IBan) by your protestations. You have led just as many, or more, campaigns against Legacypac; in fact your interactions filled up nearly a dozen threads on ANI between mid-March and mid-May 2016. May I remind you that your RfA failed because of your vendetta against Legacypac [57]? If Legacypac does something amiss, let someone else deal with it. The sky will not fall, and Wikipedia will survive. Moreover, the community will be spared the endless drama caused by your pursuit of another user. Softlavender (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Godsy, Legacypac is correct that you should not be editing a post after it has been responded to, as you just did here: [58]. Please read WP:REDACT and follow those guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 07:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Godsy, the example you mentioned above would indeed be a "huge problem" if you were the only editor capable of closing Legacypac's deletion discussions. Or if you were the only editor capable of participating in one. However... Yintan  07:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Godsy, again, do not edit a post after it has been replied to, as you have done yet again here: [59] and here [60], unless you follow the guidelines at WP:REDACT. The best policy is to post new thoughts or new comments in a separate post at the bottom of the thread. Softlavender (talk) 08:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC); edited 08:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: Yes, yes, in regard to my comment here you are correct. However, I've followed the rules here to a T for a long time, and learned that doing so offers you no protection. So, on this one occasion, I'm not going to bother following the "best practice" (which is what the guideline calls it, "best" not "mandatory"). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The mythology of your following the rules here to a T is getting really really old, and your obstinacy and self-justification is why you are accruing sanctions here. At the very least, you need to add ;edited ~~~~~ to the end of your post when you add substantively to your comments, to show the date and time you added new material. Softlavender (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Seems unnecessary, now that Legacypac is banned from moving articles into mainspace. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Given that their interactions appear to encompass a lot more than moving articles (eg, this would not have been prevented by Legacypac's ban from moving articles into mainspace), I'd like to understand how you think that ban can be sufficient? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about those edits which were a failed attempt to point out hypocrisy to an editor who justifies his harassment by claiming he is following policy "to a T". Legacypac (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly inappropriate edits by Legacypac, regardless of Godsy's edits, but it appears the choices are

1. Block Legacypac. (Not appropriate just for this thread, but possibly, due to the multiple inappropriate complaints being made by, and appropriate complaints about, Legacypac)
2. Block Godsy (and at least 3 other editors, for consistency)
3. Institute some form of IBAN.

I'm not convinced that this is the best solution. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Both have valid-sounding complaints about the other, but I am yet to see a complaint worthy of investigation that is not solved by this direct interaction ban. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I know the current proposal already would prevent them from undoing each other's comments, and this next point would not need to be made under any normal circumstances, but:

please let them be banned from editing each other's comments on talk or discussion pages, for any reason.

Wikilawyering and badgering centered on this particular sensitive spot seems to be to be a huge part of the problem. I can find diffs if necessary, but some of them were posted in the recent AN3. Newimpartial (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, please make sure you're following general THREAD conventions. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think just a 2-way ban on them editing (or reverting) each others' comments on talk or discussion pages would address a big part of this. VQuakr (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel and I gave final warnings to Legacypac about this behavior about a year ago, nearly simultaneously and for the same edit. [61] [62] [63]. I'd have blocked had I seen any of the diffs at Primefac's "latest bout of nonsense" link in isolation, let alone together. I haven't seen Godsy doing the same, just diffs of him restoring his own comments, and would welcome evidence to the contrary. —Cryptic 03:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't exactly what you're looking for, but Legacy's latest "Godsy is hounding me" ANI included diffs of Godsy performing unwanted formatting changes on Legacy's talk page, possibly on Legacy's own comments there. Then I believe it was Legacy who then edit-warred with Godsy on subject headings in Godsy's talk page. I am too tired to look for the diffs right now, though. Newimpartial (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. Fixing formatting is permitted by WP:TPG, even if in this case it was extraordinarily stupid to do so. —Cryptic 04:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it permitted to fix formatting on another user's talk page, after that user has indicated that the editor concerned is not welcome to interact with said talk page? I am not sure on this point. Newimpartial (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a "letter of the law" vs. "the spirit of the law" thing. It's technically allowed as in there's no formal rule that absolutely says you can't do it, but it doesn't mean it's not "extraordinarily stupid" behavior, as Cryptic eloquently put it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The closure history of this MfD and the MfD's associated ANI thread merit mention and linkage. VQuakr (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. Added to the list. Primefac (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In the last giga-thread, I noted this diff [64] (now deleted) by Godsy as a pure-whitespace diff to a doomed page, likely only to annoy Legacypac. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm concerned about gaming the IBan. They both seem to have an interest in some of the same areas. Historically Godsy has generally been the one hounding or harassing Legacypac (in fact, this cost him his recent RfA [65]), and while I do not always agree with Legaypac, his reactiveness around Godsy is in many ways a reaction to this longterm predation. I would therefore recommend, if an IBan is implemented, that it be time-restricted to six months. It seems like that should be a long enough time for them both to attain new interests and learn to lay off of each other. But because they appear to edit in some of the same noticeboards (XfDs and so on), I think the issue ultimately needs to go to ArbCom, because at this point it is quite hard to make out who is the aggressor and who is merely reacting to pressure. Perhaps the solution is a 6-month IBan, and if that doesn't resolve things, then ArbCom. They should therefore both be on notice that if this does end up at ArbCom, they are both likely to come away with sanctions that are worse than an IBan. Softlavender (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree. I recognise their unfortunate personality and perspective clash. Neither is well labelled as "the aggressor", they inherently antagonise the other. This iban should be indefinite. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I would be happy to see it succeed, so we might as well try it. From what I've seen though, including two solid months of endless multiple ANI threads from mid-March to mid-May 2016, it's going to take some brain re-wiring for them to stay away from each other. Softlavender (talk) 03:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Softlavender when I returned to editing after 6 months away largely because of the harassment, I studiously avoided contact with the editor I'd rather forget. He cranked up the harassment. With great happiness I'll be returning to ignoring ... what user what that? I've already forgotten them. I also will not be canvassing editors. Legacypac (talk) 06:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe I've notified everyone that participated at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Proposal: One-way IBAN on Godsy towards Legacypac. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon further thought, I believe I've notified everyone who participated at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it? instead of just that section. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Case-in-point. Godsy genuinely can't help it. A hard rule is needed. Godsy's post here will be banned as it includes a direct mention of the other. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Godsy's post here will be banned as it includes a direct mention of the other." What does that even mean? How can you "ban" a post? And you can't grandfather in an IBan that does not exist. Softlavender (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point being made is that if the interaction ban were in place, Godsy's above oppose would breach the iban because it includes gratuitous mentions of the other editor. The "case-in-point" was to say that this discussion illustrates the need for an iban. Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know that trying to enumerate everything forbidden is a good idea; that just encourages gaming. I'd certainly consider the whole of Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring/B4 clarification, when taken in its full context, as breaching any sort of interaction ban, for example. Let's just take a page out of arbcom's book and call the ban "broadly construed". —Cryptic 04:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Cryptic, the main reason why I enumerated the restrictions is to provide the small exception in point #5. I suppose it could be changed to a generic "broadly construed iban except at MFD" but when you start spelling things out you keep finding exceptions that need mentioning. If there's a point above which is missing and/or needs modification to avoid gaming, I'm all ears. Maybe it should be amended to say "they are broadly ibanned, including:"? Primefac (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I thonk it would be best to go with "broadly construed iban except at MFD, where" followed by a rewording of #5 above. This would explicitly deal with one issue which bothers me in this proposal - if one of them violates the IBAN, the other one needs a place to report it. ANI is generally the place where this happens in normal IBAN cases, but the wording above makes it look like that would be no good here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I agree. Enumerating the aspects of the ban just invites wikilawyering and finding situations the drafter didn't think of. "Banned from interacting with each other, broadly construed, with the usual exceptions and a special exception that they may !vote once on MfD discussions started by the other." Or words to that general effect. GoldenRing (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  GoldenRing, I've taken your suggestion and modified the proposal accordingly. Thanks for the input (and to Od Mishehu as well). Primefac (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Involved User Comment. I posted the question of how to report a violation to Primefac's talk page. As drafted, there is basically no way to report or enforce against a violation as I can't mention the user anywhere. I will not be looking for a violation, and don't generally check Godsy's edits except as they pop up on my watchlist or he pings me. Sadly, I have near zero confidence the harassment will stop, so the time to consider this is now. How about this:

  Involved User Proposal 1. Perceived violations of the IBAN may be reported by posting diffs on up to three Admin's talk pages of the user's choosing (to prevent Admin shopping but allow for Admins that may be away or unable to consider the matter. An Admin may take the matter to ANi or discuss the matter with the parties. Any further dispute or the imposition of a block will be decided by three Admins - one chosen by each user and a third chosen by those two Admins. No blocks should be made without a reasonable discussion. I'd hate to see a block over an accidental or purely technical violation.

  Involved User Proposal 2. IBAN includes participation in any XfD started by the other user except for an XfD against a page started by, substantially edited by or handled (reviewed/moved) by the other user where that user is expected to explain or defend their editorial decisions. Legacypac (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Legacypac, we ec'd but I didn't get a warning, oddly enough. I think you'll find the updated proposal meets your concerns. Primefac (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes thank-you. Following WP:IBAN and WP:BANEX is cleaner and clearer, though I appreciate the thought that you put into drafting the first version. Too bad WP:IBAN does not explicitly prohibit WP:HOUNDING in some of the forms I've been experiencing it. Hopefully in any future case the spirit of IBAN rather then only the letter will be considered. Legacypac (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why User:Rockypedia and User:Synthwave.94 are having the oddest edit war I have seen in a longtime. Seems to be about vertical or horizontal reference style over multiple articles ....as seen here or here Both making sure not the revert 3 times in 24 hours.....gaming the system? Can we get someone to take a look....see if we can get the edit war ended...lock pages involved..or whatever. Not suggesting blocks....just a resolution to this behind the scenes problem that has zero effect for our readers. --Moxy (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll just move the affected refs away using {{reflist|refs=...}} syntax. May or may not end the war. —Guanaco 06:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. [66][67][68] I think that's all of them. —Guanaco 06:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's going to help; part of this edit war is over citation style. Anyway, in this post, DrKay already warned them a week ago that they would get blocked if they didn't stop edit warring. Because I'm a pushover, I'll give each yet another warning. And then I'll block them if they continue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, here's a synopsis: I added valid sources to three particular pages that are on Synthwave's watchlist (and mine). I happen to use the vertical format of the <ref> style for my cites. Synthwave doesn't like vertical format; he likes horizontal. He made no substantive changes to my cites, but insists on changing the format to horizontal. I reverted those changes and started discussions, per CYCLE. He insisted on continuing to make his changes to the formats, without consensus that his changes were valid. I don't change any editor's cites that are horizontal to vertical format; I only ask for the same courtesy in return, as I often revisit cites that I've added, especially pages on my watchlist. I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation. I'm happy that an admin has taken action and told both of us "leave it alone" - that's exactly what I've been asking of Synthwave the entire time. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars... /thread. TimothyJosephWood 16:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by User:Materialscientist GoldenRing (talk) 11:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Quickly delete User:Mattdonedick. 173.236.139.249 (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just looking for some other admin's views. I've come across User:Ardnashee2014 who has been removing references from articles without any commentary. Fine, that can be dealt with. The reason here is I checked their userpage and came across this comment " This is my third Wikipedia account as I can't remember the password to my first one and my second was blocked. 'Nuff said. (drops mic)." Should we just be blocking this account for block evasion straight off? Thoughts? Canterbury Tail talk 19:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think people are welcome to a fresh start (assuming they are editing constructively). It's worth running by a checkuser though. -- John Reaves 19:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming I found his other account (just searched for his name on user pages), it looks like his blocked account (Ardnashee School and College) was done for a username vio, so they're probably ok. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Disneylandlover2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I will going to impose an indefinite block for Disneylandlover2006 and I should ask the SPI clerk or CU for a indef block for a real sockmaster Disneylandlover2006 for this sock pinging NinjaRobotPirate or a Clerk to implement an indefinite block for socking with DobleKaraNumber1Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Disneyworldlover2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please ask Gab to await an admin action at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Disneylandlover2006 for now 66.87.65.139 (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After I blocked Disneylandlover2006 for disruption, two sock puppets continued the same disruption. It's kind of typical behavior from younger editors who don't understand how Wikipedia works. I was kind of hoping that going easy might encourage better behavior. If people think I'm going too easy on a disruptive editor, I could indefinitely block. Or someone else could. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate and GeneralizationsAreBad: I think an indefinite block is possible to do it and wait for GeneralizationsAreBad to await an administrator action for now. 66.87.65.139 (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]