Boundarylayer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic banned from articles related to abortion. I have just issued a one-time warning. Numerous recent edits violate the topic ban: [1], [2], [3], [4] are unambiguously related to abortion. This restriction should be understood as being broadly construed, but in this case even a narrow construction shows this to be in the scope of your topic ban.

Any further edits in this area should result in an immediate block. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link to pertinent discussion-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to now have this ban overturned, as usual, it was orchestrated by a member of this encyclopedia apparently well known to the community for following a particular copy-and-paste, "get other editors banned" strategy, in the exact farcical manner that I experienced. Indeed with respect to Jytdog, who I had initially considered was a neutral party. Instead I by chance stumbled across a revealing comment left by User:Andy Dingley on the Sustainable energy talk page. "| Then feel free to simply go away(Jytdog). It is not all about you. Yet again you are taking another invented content dispute with an editor and turning it into another round of Jytdog's superhero wikicrimefighting show. You are not Batman. It is not all about you. Before long you will (inevitably so - we've all seen your behaviour before) move this to ANI with a variety of wild accusations, then probably create Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roberttherambler, because harassment by fatuous SPI is another of your favourites."

If this ban instigated by jytdog, is not seen for what it is and overturned, I do not see a future with the project. As to remind you, there was never a case of 3R. Or edit warring. We always took it to the talk page, indeed that was the charge in essence, a distaste for - my writing replies on talk pages and then waiting for other editors to get back to me-. That however is not a bannable justification. Moreover some independent editors who looked at my edits both then in the initial ANI and now, also disagree with this unjustified ban. Despite, I might add, not being at home that weekend to have the opportunity to reply on the initial ANI. Which as you can imagine, was less than a "rewarding" surprise on returning home.

Indeed, with respect to why I got banned. I believe Guy you even thanked me for talking to Mark Z. Jacobson at my usual length, on his talk page, when he was engaging in a lawsuit and a BLP. So even on matters such as these, I do not change when I searched to try to find a WP:NEUTRAL wording acceptable to both a BLP and to readers. However I hope this is not a case of it serving your/the projects interests in that case yet in other cases "BAN"? I've picked up the unfortunately clear impression, that I am thanked for hashing things out on talk pages, but when not serving particular admin politics, I get banned from the topic. It is from this and other observations. That I have developed a deep sentiment of hypocrisy here. Indeed no one ever notified me as to the apparently well known MO of User:Jytdog in how they have, for years, gone around and created an apparent television series of a "variety of wild accusations", that they then "move this to ANI". So why exactly is this prolonged "round of Jytdog's superhero wikicrimefighting show" continuing?

Boundarylayer (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The support for your topic ban was near-unanimous, and those who supported it are hardly just the usual suspects. If you want your ban overturned, the way to do so is to appeal it (probably at WP:AN) on the basis that it is no longer necessary to prevent disruption, not by simply violating it repeatedly. Your having violated it repeatedly essentially reduces your chances of having the ban overturned now to zero, I would guess. GoldenRing (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you see yourself as a victim and also that you see me as some kind of kind of crazy person. I empathize with you being very passionate on this issue; I have some things I can get very fierce about, too. But you need to be aware that this is part of your character and self-manage it. You failed to do that on the abortion stuff and became disruptive, so the community took action to protect itself -- and you. I hope you gain some self-insight and are able to be resilient and find a way to stay. You do make many good edits in fields where you are not overly passionate. Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add, that since we are now in the very intense run-up to the Ireland abortion referendum your internal pressure gauge has probably exploded. That must be very difficult. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: I cannot find where the original topic ban was recorded. Was it logged? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Boundarylayer: Please stop violating the topic ban. If you can edit non disruptively for 6 months, starting now, you might be able to appeal the ban then. One does not violate a topic ban and then seek to have it overturned when one is caught violating said topic ban.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time to propose an indefinite block of Boundarylayer. The link between their edits on the 36th Amendment referendum and the problematic edits on Death of Savita Halappanavar and related topics are so crystal-clear that they cannot be any good-faith misunderstanding. Boundarylayer's statement here makes it equally clear that they have no intention to abide by their restrictions or to respect other editors in any process. They clearly cannot edit collaboratively or constructively. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They've been warned, they haven't edited on the topic since the warning. An indef at this point would be premature. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that an indef block is more than we need. Boundarylayer will kindly stop violating their TBAN before a block becomes needed.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Violated it Repeatedly"? Can you clarify where? Unless you're talking about something else. I made one stream of edits on the "8th amendment" article and I left it at that. Edits that I didn't consider to be really even under the remit of "Broadly construed?" Considering this farcical "ban" was over the articles PPROM and Savita Halappanavar, not anything political on Irish voting or a referendum but on medical evidence. No one got into a discussion once I made these recent amendment edits, I was busy writing, editing and getting the article Terufumi Sasaki through the creation process, in the last few days, if you actually care to look at what I was primarily doing instead of creating more of your quaint little fantasies about "pressure gauges"...Jytdog? In fact my last edit there, I left a talk page comment. Any polls conducted on just female voters? to build the article to reflect actual factual information.

Indeed in my last month of editing. If you really want to go "broadly construed". I've penned the entirety of the -Atomic bombings#Birth defect investigations a section, as broadly construed as "abortion" should be, is this medical information also a "violating" of my ban and should it be removed too? Moreover, I also added a small study in Chernobyl abortion requests recently. Though I take it, you all like that information. However the way you have all responded, it is clear that it is only when I add any factual information into what the political editor-User:Bastun, what they prefer to class as "broadly construed"? Only when I take it is anything got to do with jeopardizing their George Soros hero? That's the only difference in theme, they pretty well admit as much here this change all of a sudden, to enforce a ban down to doing "edits on the main article on the imminent Irish election". The main article? that's not abortion the actual "main article"? For someone with a topic ban on "abortion" then? The "main article is the election" that is how they view my ban. As a political tool. So only now then I find myself here at an Admin noticeboard over this farcical ban. Why now exactly? I think it pretty obvious what my "ban" genuinely is truly about and specificallly who and what it was always intended for. Which is anything Bastun doesn't like. A pretty cozy affair they have.

So exactly where do you want "broadly construed" to end? So I can know not to "violate" this farcical ban again? Can I have clarity? Indeed This User:Bastun seems to have a bit of a history of also hounding others editor, as like jytdog, claiming others are socks. It seems all preceived "opponents" are targeted and the truth a casualty. Two editors, 2 independent editors now, don't think this other user is a sock. Yet, look here they're indefinitely blocked, all thanks to user:Bastun. leftwinguy92.

Since my "ban" began. You will find that I have not edited the PROM article, after adding the 2017 Cochrane medical review(which is still there by the way, this is the farcical part that shows through. My last edit on the very article that would then follow with an onslaught of wild accusations and "ban", my last edit which suddenly I was banned without any opportunity to say a word before it was enshrined in wikilaw. The last edit I made for allegedly being "distruptive", not a single editor has removed nor challenged my last edit on the "direct broadly construed" topic, that I was allegedly distrupting? That is why this ban is a transparent farce.

Is anyone else being to see how transparent this is? Or is it really just me?

Boundarylayer (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be pretty much you. I haven't seen so much blaming of others in quite a while.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you didn't also make a weird post on my talk page recently that completely misrepresented Savita's husband, Praveen? And you didn't make a series of edits regarding funding of Amnesty Ireland (who are campaigning for a Yes vote)? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also - yes, leftwinguy93 was found to be a sock by a checkuser... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That user is not a sock. You falsely accused them of being a sock of one account. The checkuser didn't find any evidence of that but presumedly found the same IP of some entirely different user. They're now blocked as per your direction however.

On Oct 20 you wrote "You might let me know when and where this RfC is taking place, so I and all the other people operating accounts for Mr Soros can turn up."

I never even knew who "Soros" was in Oct 2017, you were accusing me of being American and a whole load of wild things, I even asked in Oct 20, as you can read "who is Soros, and how are they relevant"? I think I know why now. The story broke in Dec 2017 that some fellow named George Soros was actually attempting to influence and pay for campaigns. After that news broke, you've both been censoring , who you actually admited, is your paymasters name, out of the Amnesty International Ireland page. In just the 1st page of edit history, three other editors have added his name and you 2 have consistently removed it. You've both been at the downplay game, the political spin-doctor game. The paid editing game. Your actions, "jokes" and even this ban...I know who you are and what this is about now.

Boundarylayer (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Editors may also be interested in this Conflict of Interest thread... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I just want to note that a minute before BoundaryLayer wrote their second long attack on this page (diff) above at 20:04, they wrote this at Guy's talk page. BoundaryLayer is showing no intention of respecting their TBAN. I think something like a month-long block might be useful here, to prevent further disruption and try to help them understanding that the TBAN is not optional? Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction ban

Per the above and [5], I propose a one-way IBAN betwefen Boundarylayer and Bastun: Boundarylayer to be prohibited from interacting with or commenting on Bastun other than in the context of formal dispute resolution processes, including arbitration but not including noticeboatd threads. Guy (Help!) 12:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. Guy (Help!) 12:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've blocked Boundarylayer for 48 hours for filing the SPI, which I've also deleted. @JzG: For the sake of procedural niceties, please clarify that you are proposing that a one-way I-ban be imposed against Boundarylayer for interactions with Bastun. I've also changed this to the usual non-numbered style rather than RfA style. Otherwise, it's difficult to leave standalone comments like this one. Hope you don't mind.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I agree on all counts. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support although I think an indef is coming here rather quickly. all aboard the noticeboat! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I hate to see things go down this path, but it appears necessary. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Dan56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sorry this is a few days late, but Dan56 has been engaged in disruptive editing for quite a while now. First he opens a petty RfC over something we'd been arguing about and does so without even notifying me. Then we get into a needlessly lengthy discussion that went pretty much nowhere about a minor edit I made ([6]; I mistakenly thought it would go somewhere), and he does things like this:

• Accuses me of "misrepresenting publications/sources" ([7])
• Says things like this ([8]) when I say we should wait for more input because it isn't going anywhere
• Accuses me of not giving guidelines ([9]) when I clearly did ([10])
• Accuses me of having an agenda ([11])
• Claims not to understand what I'm saying when I've made my position perfectly clear and additionally implies that the whole thing makes no sense ([12], [13]; my position: [14], [15]; note the "0_0" at the end of his first comment)
• Opens a petty RfC about it and words it in an entirely non-neutral way
• Refuses to give up on it four months later and then claims there have been no attempts made to address his concerns ([16])
• Makes questionable assertions at best ([17])
• Says things that simply aren't true ([18]; see [19], [20], and [21])
• Plays dumb ([22], [23])
• Accuses me of saying things that aren't entirely relevant ([24])

Especially in light of his past behavior (see this and this), if this isn't an attempt to exhaust my patience and discourage other editors from engaging in discussion with him, I don't know what is. Someone please do something about it. Esszet (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just on the first point, while the RFC was exceedingly small, he may have thought it was necessary to gain consensus as you had been repeatedly edit warring to keep an instance of bad grammar in the article. Fish+Karate 14:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I realize we were edit warring (to an extent), but what? Bad grammar? I don't know what you're talking about, and you don't need RfC's for bad grammar anyway. Esszet (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that? See here and here for examples of the sentence without the verb (as well as lots of others). Esszet (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the fact that the |all_writing= parameter in {{album ratings}} yields "All tracks written by…" Esszet (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

…Did I do something wrong here? Esszet (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was being impatient, I'm used to getting very quick responses here. Esszet (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fish and Karate: Did I do something wrong here? Esszet (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems like a fairly innocuous content dispute that is being dragged out not by Dan's bludgeoning, but in the failure of the RfC to garner a consensus after a full run and a relist period, as determined by an uninvolved editor. Dan wants the publication's title, you want the actual column within the publication's title, but as of May 2018, the impasse has continued. After being relisted a second time, a third opinion was proposed, with the reasonable solution that both titles be used, which Dan said he was open to a compromise. You're stonewalling the proposed compromise, because using both "seems a little excessive" and it's not precedented, as far as we know. But does that really matter? It's so minor. Would anyone care if we did so? This incredibly minor dispute has been going on for four months, and you're still unwilling to accept an obvious compromise solution? Also, given that Dan was slapped with a boomerang 1RR restriction the last time he complained about you, shouldn't you be happy that he's using RfCs rather than edit warring, however "petty"? Compromise is an essential part of dispute resolution, especially when formal consensus-building methods aren't helping. You claim the RfC should be abandoned and closed in favor of a 1-3 consensus, but it has already been determined that there is not a sufficient consensus, and that has not changed since the second relist. What has changed, is that Dan has proposed a compromise, an obvious middle ground. I think maybe you just need to let it go and settle on a compromise. FWIW, I've reviewed your diffs, and I don't think there's anything actionable there. Swarm ♠ 22:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You really think Dan's bludgeoning isn't dragging this out? You really don't? You think it's just fine not to give up on a petty RfC four months later? And you're saying I should be happy because he's opening RfC's like this and used to be even worse? Since it is so minor, please tell me why it's acceptable for him to bludgeon the hell out of it and for him not to let it go. What you're saying is that stomping your feet for months on end should not only be accepted in this case, but approved of because it used to be even worse. Really? I really think you have something against me for some reason. I'm not here to try to resolve the dispute itself; if it closes in favor of "Village Voice", so be it. But if you think his behavior isn't part of an obscene attempt to drive away productive editors, I don't know what to tell you. I really don't. Esszet (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, Dan's comments are too concise for me to view them as attempted "bludgeoning", and in spite of the length of the dispute, the sheer number and volume of comments has not crossed into the territory of being disruptive. Bludgeoning is what we see here; endless debate, replies and discussion that makes effective dispute resolution impossible. I understand that it must be incredibly frustrating to be involved in a minor content dispute that drags on for that obscenely long, but I don't agree that Dan is intentionally disrupting the dispute resolution process. Dan did not choose for the 1-3 RfC to not be closed in your favor; it was an experienced uninvolved editor who made that call. Swarm ♠ 00:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three things: 1) the RfC hasn't even closed yet (although someone did call for it to be) 2) it should be pretty obvious that he is just trying to drag this out for as long as he possibly can and make it as frustrating as possible 3) even if it is in…good faith (and I highly doubt it), as the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This is disruptive behavior, even if he somehow doesn't realize it. Something needs to be done about it. Esszet (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) The RfC hasn't closed because an uninvolved editor has relisted. Dan had nothing to do with it. 2) Dan didn't extend the RfC, but he did open the door for a compromise, which you closed. 3) Your individual diffs do not represent a pattern of disruption, IMO. Of course, other admins are here to disagree, so I'll bow out and you can wait and see if you have any luck with someone else. Swarm ♠ 19:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He sure as hell could have given up on it, even if he didn’t extend it per se (pointing that out seems a little bit like Wikilawyering). That’s all I’m gonna say about that. Esszet (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ideological bias on Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Netoholic has spun out a section from criticism of Wikipedia. He is rather determined to include an off-wiki personal attack by Brian Martin (social scientist), a promoter of conspiracy theories, the debunked OPV-AIDS hypothesis and anti-vaccinationism, who was upset that I edited our article on him to be less flattering than Gongwool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left it (Gongwool turned out to be a sockpuppet, imagine that). He asserts that "Most of the items you removed were copied there from within other articles already about Wikipedia", but the section on Martin does not appear to be anywhere else, but instead to have been written by Netoholic himself.

He's also pushing criticisms by the Discovery Institute and Conservapedia. There is a clear lack of consensus on Talk for including this stuff, but he seems to think it should go back in "per WP:NPOV" ([25]). I disagree.

I also commented on an AE case he raised against SPECIFICO, noting that the case, combined with an earlier one, might amount to vexatious abuse of process - as a result of that thread he was restricted from abuse of noticeboards. So he's edit warring to include an off-wiki attack on an admin with whom he's in dispute. That does not seem like an especially good idea. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify a point from JzG, Gongwool had nothing to do with Martin. That account and their socks added multiple BLP violations to an already negative article, and did not make it "less flattering", but more of a BLP nightmare. - Bilby (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair, I was misremembering. I had also forgotten how determinedly you downplayed the antivax bullshit in that article. Which pissed me off quite a bit, but I think that in the end it was mainly better. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I made the mistake of trying to make it compliant with BLP. - Bilby (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable people may differ on how specific content may be shaded in an article. I hope we are both reasonable people. I don't doubt your commitment to BLP, but am still disquieted by the extent to which you have defended antivaxers and charlatans. However, we can discuss that article by article, as we always have - in the end if we both edit an article it is generally better than if only one of is did, or neither, in my view. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote up about this study and several other scholarly studies when creating the new article "Ideological bias on Wikipedia". Here is the source of the study written by Brian Martin (paywalled, but reproduced here) and User:JzG is specifically identified and criticized by the author. This represents a very clear WP:Conflict of interest and JzG should distance himself from this topic. I believe his complaints about other content are potentially valid, but I think his COI is interfering with his overall objectivity with regards to other content of the article (like Conservapedia, a section which I did not wrote, but incorporated from other articles on Wikipedia). I tried to address this with JzG personally, but they've now recently gone around and removed this study from several pages it was mentioned on. They've also has opened Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Ideological bias on Wikipedia and now this. I bear no ill-will to JzG. This has nothing to do with any prior interactions I've had with JzG. My edit of this study (22 May) predates his comment on the AE thread (23 May) and so has nothing to do with that. In fact I respect his fair take on that AE and would never take any opportunity to attack him, and that respect led me to go to him personally, but I was told obliquely to "fuck off". -- Netoholic @ 21:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a "scholarly study". Some of the ones you included are - they examine numerous articles and analyse trends, using objective measures over time. This is an article subject saying "look how much more flattering this other article on my rival is" and taking a pop at a named editor (yes, me) for reflecting the mainstream view of his promotion of the debunked OPV-AIDS hypothesis and other antivax conspiracist claptrap. And even where the work you cite is scholarly, you have cherry-picked from primary sources. In fact, your article on ideological bias in Wikipedia is starting to look an awful lot like your personal essay based on your recent repeated failure to gain traction in a number of articles where you assert that Wikipedia has an ideological bias. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What a troublesome situation it would be if all one had to do to disqualify a Wikipedian from a topic was to criticize their edits on that topic in an off-wiki paper. If JzG were to begin approaching these subjects in a different way (e.g. if he had been writing about Martin positively, but then took a negative view after publication of that article, or if he had not previously edited Martin's biography and received criticism from Martin on a different subject, then began criticizing Martin directly -- neither of which is the case, as far as I can tell), there would be a problem. Continuing to take the stance that got him mentioned by Martin to begin with is just being consistent and in no way constitutes a COI problem. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue that should be raised here, separately from anything about the Martin issue (with which I am not familiar), is that it is emerging at Talk:Political views of American academics#Paul Hollander and Talk:Political views of American academics#Representative presentation of sources that Netoholic appears to have been misrepresenting sources (cherrypicking) in order to push a conservative POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Netoholic is under an AE TBAN, logged here at 04:08, 24 May 2018, against using admin boards to further a content dispute. Their above at 21:10, 25 May 2018 in which they chose to carry on the the content dispute with Guy, expressed not even a nod toward that TBAN, and was unnecessary and unwise at best.

Guy said of Netoholic: "So he's edit warring to include an off-wiki attack on an admin with whom he's in dispute. That does not seem like an especially good idea". I agree with that. As Netoholic actually had the cohones to try to use COI as a bludgeon, to warn Guy off from removing this lunatic fringe paper (as Netoholic described differently in their comment above). Completely unaware of their own' COI, both with respect to WP itself and with respect to their conflict with Guy. Abusing one's editing privileges to use WP to attack an admin with which one was in a dispute, is, in my view, beyond "not ...an especially good idea" but rather clueless and .. well, just plain bad, and they also express no awareness of the badness and is somewhere between BLPCOI and HA.

With respect to Trypto's note about cherry-picking, I just analyzed their sourcing and use of sources at Ideological bias on Wikipedia in this diff, and the same thing is going on there.

I don't think this person intends to honor their TBAN nor are they here to build an encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:JzG should be topic-banned from any mention of Brian Martin

About 3 weeks ago User:Alexbrn proposed Criticisms of medicine for deletion. After 2 weeks of discussion, an administrator ruled for deletion. Believing that there was no consensus for deletion and that strong policy-based arguments had not been presented for deletion, I appealed that decision. Yesterday an administrator overturned the deletion decision and restored the article. Within minutes User:Alexbrn made 18 deletion edits to Criticisms of medicine, reducing it to an incoherent stub (from about 19KB to about 1300 bytes) and immediately again proposed it for deletion in the vandalized form. The new AfD discussion has many new delete opinions, is confused and pointless. I'm a new editor, but even I can see that this refusal to accept the consensus of the deletion appeal process is contrary to Wikipedia policy. NightHeron (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The one thing that is clearly absent here is consensus. The overturn was to no consensus, basically. There is nothing wrong with another discussion of this article, given the problems identified elsewhere. Maybe this time there will actually be a consensus. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, that was messed up. I can't see that as anything other than an attempt to alter the AfD outcome. But that aside, it's been restored, it doesn't look like any of the current opposers are doing so based on the fact that it was mostly blanked like that. Do you disagree? (Just as a procedural note, the DRV consensus was to change the closing admin's reading of the discussion to "no consensus". It was not a consensus to "keep" in itself.) Swarm ♠ 15:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a real concern if the article is again discussed at length in AfD. Editors have already spent 3 weeks discussing deletion (2 in AfD + 1 in appeal). There was obvious consensus (with a few dissenters, including User:Alexbrn) that the topic is appropriate for Wikipedia. Of course it needs improvement, as would any new article written by a newcomer. I've found two new sources to add for that purpose as soon as we pass to a constructive phase of improvement rather than quarreling about deletion.

In addition, I'd much appreciate it if experienced editors could think about a procedural issue that I, as a newcomer, don't have any idea how to deal with. A fairly large group of like-minded editors, most (not all) of whom are members of WikiProject Medicine, apparently have the article and related discussions watchlisted, so that they can immediately jump in to any discussion. That's perfectly compliant with policy. However, I cannot try to alert people who have views closer to mine about an article, because that would violate WP:CANVASSING. So any such discussion is likely to be lopsided. This came up in discussions about Alternative medicine (those discussions resulted in my being advised to write a separate article about Criticisms of medicine). For this reason I've been warned by an experienced editor that it'll be a waste of my time to try to edit the polemical tone and slanted content of the alt med article. That particular article has also been the subject of an off-Wiki complaint (see the discussion of the article on the NPOV noticeboard), where it was used to illustrate a general criticism of Wikipedia. Using the alt med article as the basis for a general criticism of Wikipedia is unfair, because the article is an outlier. Even though I'm a new editor, I've been reading Wikipedia for many years, and I'm unaware of any other article that is so polemical and slanted (except for ones that are quickly deleted or else edited to remove the POV).NightHeron (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was raising this same issue yesterday and was badly chastened by many other users saying "I am seeking suicide by cops" and "sinned", but after calmly considering all points, I think I had new ideas which I am glad that ANI was closed rightly yesterday.--Quek157 (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was off-wiki for the previous AfD and DRV and I'm participating in the current AfD. For what it's worth, my comments over there are based on a reading of this version, which I suppose is the version NightHeron wants us to consider — or at least not the stub-ified version. From reading some of the other comments, I don't think I'm alone in that. A Train^talk 17:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The OP disclosed on 21 May that it is an alt account and that they edit about abortion. Looking at their contribs they edit a lot about alt med too. So.. alt account for two topics with DS.

User:NightHeron, is your other account under any sanctions related to medicine, abortion, or CAM? Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Absolutely not. As I say on the NightHeron userpage, there is no overlap whatsoever between the topics edited under my true name and those edited under NightHeron. I made it clear at the beginning that I am an "outsider" to the health sciences -- that's not my field. My true name account does not edit there at all and never will. I also have no involvement in the CAM world, either professionally or otherwise, and will never edit anything related to CAM under my true name. I was led to the alt med page from the abortion subtopic of herbal abortifacients. Thanks for asking rather than jumping to incorrect conclusions. NightHeron (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The only consensus here is that the first discussion did not generate a consensus to delete, as the closing admin felt it did. The second discussion is yielding a much stronger consensus, so I think it would be wrong to close that discussion based on a procedural rationale, even if one existed. I'm not convinced that such a procedural reason to close the discussion even exists, as no policy-based reasoning has been cited. Unless there's any clear policy guidance I'm not aware of, this thread be closed as declined. Swarm ♠ 22:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swarm is quite correct -- I'm not sure what purpose this ANI report is serving. The discussion isn't going to be procedurally closed. I'd wrap this myself but I'm involved over at the AfD. A Train^talk 23:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: You're wrong to minimize the process issue, which is the refusal by the nominator Alexbrn to accept the clear consensus of the appeal discussion and the decision of the closing admin for the appeal. That decision was that there had been no consensus to delete after the 2-week-long AfD discussion. By now, well into the 4th week, many are just tired of the whole thing. I've read comments of editors who feel that it's a waste of time to continue debating people who refuse to accept consensus. I fully sympathize with their feelings. It's reasonable to feel that 3 weeks are enough on this. It is mainly pro-deletion people who seem happy with the illegitimate new AfD, so of course there will be a strong consensus among them. It's like a sham election in an undemocratic country: if opposition voters believe that the process lacks legitimacy, they'll stay home and those in power will win the "election." It's very strange that the pro-deletion people seem unable to point to a single place in Criticisms of medicine that violates policy, e.g., by editorializing or citing a pseudoscience source. If one such place were found, it could be deleted or corrected through the usual editorial process. But as far as I can see, they don't have any specific place in mind. Rather, they seem to think that the whole idea of having an article on criticisms of medicine violates WP policy, although they seem unclear on which policy it violates and have run through an alphabet soup of possibilities. Meanwhile, I point to specific egregious violations of core Wikipedia principles (such as accepting consensus and no disruptive editing), and am told that I have "no policy-based rationale".NightHeron (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the relevant bit of policy is WP:DP#Deletion review, which explicitly states that "Overturned deletions may go to a deletion discussion if someone still wishes to delete and chooses to nominate." Swarm ♠ 01:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and why not first butcher-edit the article (I was told by the nominator not to use the word "vandalize") so as to confuse people and make the whole discussion as complicated and ugly as possible (notice all the cross-outs and confusion about process). Only the diehards will remain, and then you'll get your consensus to delete. A brilliant strategy to censor an article that offends the group's POV.

Since I'm an inexperienced editor, I really don't even know whether or not Wikipedia has a process to appeal a successful campaign to censor a topic. It's really more a topic than an article that's being censored, since the case for delete is not based on anything specific in the article, but rather on the very idea of having such an article. What I do know is that if the censorship is picked up off-wiki, then nobody there will be interested in your lawyerly defense of it by misusing a sentence in WP:DP#Deletion review.NightHeron (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are deleted, not subjects. Actually, if you left the article in stub form, and it was deleted, you could recreate it since the full length article would not have been decided upon at AfD. Yeah, our rules here are pretty quirky like that. What do you mean by “if the censorship is picked up off wiki?” Are you threatening that deletion of an anti-science article will effect the reputation of a pro-science project? Seems a little grandiose of you. Swarm ♠ 17:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for appearing grandiose to you; my intention was to say something simple and ungrandiose. The alt med article is a fairly important one that attracts a lot of attention and has already been the subject of off-wiki comment. It is also, as I said before, an outlier and an attractive target for anyone who wants to criticize Wikipedia for NPOV failure or to criticize the medical project for confirming a common stereotype of the medical profession. Since the suppression of the crit of med article is closely related to the rejection of attempts to fix the NPOV problem in the alt med article, that might also attract off-wiki comment at some point. Another thing to realize is that academics who work in areas like sociology of science and sociology of medicine can use such things to support a thesis they might have about the supposedly biased nature of the scientific and medical professions. And, as pointed out elsewhere by another editor, aggressive promoters of CAM can also benefit because their success depends in part on being able to portray mainstream medicine as closeminded, polemical, and biased. So I'm not trying to be grandiose when I speculate that the medicine project might in the future come under more off-wiki criticism than it already has.

Two corrections: I was not "threatening" anything, just speculating about what might happen; and my article is not "anti-science" -- please look at the sources before you say that.

Interesting point about rejection of a stub not implying rejection of the full article. And there's been some unclarity, especially at the beginning of AfD#2, about what version of the article was being discussed. FYI, I wasn't the one who replaced the stub by an earlier version. Someone else did that at some point.NightHeron (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally, the subject isn't being censored. Hundreds of people get their articles deleted every day. There's never any guarantee that a good faith article will stick. It's part of the process of building the encyclopedia. You can respond as members of the community are expected to, request to have the article userfied, salvage what you can and try to make a new article that addresses the complaints of the deletion discussion, go through AfC, solicit the help of a relevant Wikiproject, and try to make something better. Or, you can be that guy who singles himself out, cries "censorship!", discredits himself as a member of the community, never gets taken seriously on-wiki again, and is left with nothing but his righteous indignation off-wiki about how unfair and tyrannical Wikipedia is. I know neither of those things sound as good as just having your article kept in the first place, but it's looking like there's a consensus to delete, and your procedural appeal isn't going to hold up due to that annoying bit of hard policy I "lawyerly" "misused" earlier. Swarm ♠ 20:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the excellent suggestion, which I hadn't thought of before. Finding a Wikiproject to join is the obvious way to circumvent the no-canvassing policy. I was struck by the effective use of this tactic for the purpose of deleting my article, but I hadn't thought of doing the same thing myself. Can you tell me where on Wikipedia I can find a list of all projects? Thanks.NightHeron (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this may have what you are looking for. Icarosaurvus (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icarosaurvus: Thank you, that's useful -- perhaps not for editing related to the present discussion (since I would not be welcome in the medicine project), but WP:WikiProject Women's Health would clearly be an appropriate project for editing abortion-related articles.NightHeron (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing is the general act of attempting to bring biased participants into a discussion. There is no way of circumventing the "no canvassing" policy. Using a Wikiproject to canvass is still a severe offense. Wikiprojects are a way of finding other editors who are interested in editing the same topics—that's it. Your jump to "circumventing policy" is quite alarming. Swarm ♠ 04:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While a wikiproject is good for finding a community, I strongly recommend against canvassing unless one is trying to find an expedient way to get oneself banned; I should have clarfied this above, and appreciate that Swarm did so after me. Icarosaurvus (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to think that there is disruptive editing going on related to this AfD after all. NightHeron's. Every post makes me less convinced that they are here to build an encyclopedia. A Train^talk 07:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of canvassing, and I've never done it. I might (or might not) join the women's health wikiproject. That's all. Yes, I'm here to help build an encyclopedia, mainly by editing articles I find curious or interesting and very occasionally with a new article that I think fills a gap. In the context of med-related articles I've been subjected to various accusations of bad faith, but that hasn't happened anywhere else (e.g., when I edit abortion-related articles). That was unexpected and seems strange to me.NightHeron (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NightHeron, you've spent the last several days comparing a pretty bog-standard AfD discussion to "a bogus election in an undemocratic country", "a travesty", "a rigged election", an act of "censorship", and (this is the really good one) the Soviet Union. Yes, how terribly strange and unexpected that editors are doubting your good faith. A Train^talk 16:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem now as I see it is that NightHeron does not appear to accept that the article in question needs deleting because it is a terrible article that violates a number of our WP:PAGs, but instead sees it as a worthy piece of work which has been been subject to a deletion effort by virtue of unfair "tactics" by "diehards". If this combination of poor editing and WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude continues, then we are going to have problems. Alexbrn (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:A Train Let me explain better what I find "unexpected and strange." The 17 experienced editors currently voting for deletion (you informed me that they "have collectively been editing Wikipedia for more than a hundred years") apparently do not believe that it's disruptive editing for the nominator to make 18 rapid-fire deletion edits followed immediately by a deletion proposal for the incoherent stub, all taking place within several minutes of the overturning of deletion by administrative consensus. These experienced editors apparently do not believe that this conduct was in bad faith or that it taints the process. Meanwhile, I (with less than 3 months of editing experience) am continually being accused of bad faith (starting at the beginning almost 4 weeks ago when the nominator accused me of having a "problematic agenda"). Again and again I've been accused of wanting to promote quackery and pseudoscience, never with any evidence given to support that charge. I told you that I was not insulted by your edit summary telling me to "find another hill to die on" (although the admin who initially removed it was correct, because you had no way of knowing how I'd take it). However, I'm deeply insulted by the accusations that I'm anti-science and pro-quackery. Editing abortion-related articles, I have yet to encounter that degree of hostility, except from IP-vandals.

I'm sorry you're offended by my analogies. Since AfD2 started (not before) I've objected strongly to an unfair process. I could have avoided making analogies, but I thought that since I'm expected to be thick-skinned about comments I don't like, that means that other people, especially veteran editors, should also be thick-skinned.NightHeron (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not offended, buddy. I'm just sorry that something you've poured so much effort into isn't going to work out the way you wanted. Even sadder is that people have been trying to hip you to that fact for days and you just won't listen. A Train^talk 21:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'm listening, and I'm hearing loud and clear that the overwhelming majority of those participating in this 4th week are for deletion, unlike in the earlier stages of discussion in the first 3 weeks. What I've been listening for and not hearing is any specific evidence that I'm promoting fraud and quackery in that article. It's amazing to me that veteran editors would repeatedly make such vicious accusations without offering a shred of evidence. I, along with other editors who have contributed, am trying to write an article that is pro-science using only pro-science sources. Why do I encounter such hostility? It's very strange.NightHeron (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reporting a user Koppadasao who has been notified of conduct issues several times within a short period
this edit (and accompanying edit summary) are starting to get uncivil.

• There's a pattern of soapboxing going on and various editors have mentioned this to the editor who typically reverts any notifications made to his or her talk page within an hour or so as shown here
• Editor also seems determined to utilize the Tommy Robinson talk page to start non article related discussions.
• Also worrying is a tendency to misquote or misrepresent Wikipedia policies to other editors, as shown here
• In summary this editor is doing everything within his or her power to disrupt and stir up trouble among a group of editors on a controversial issue. I'm personally worried about the in-wiki canvassing and don't like the incivility or the abrupt refusals to communicate with editors who disagree or notify him or her about conduct issues. A scantily mitigating factor in all of the above is that (flatteringly) the editor appears to be under the impression that I'm an admin. Edaham (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• As Koppadasao feels Wikipedia is a "left wing propaganda site", I think he serves an outside agenda and is thus WP:NOTHERE. I'm at work, so I won't be adding more dif's soon, but I feel a pattern is emerging.Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 10:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that I have blocked this account indefinitely for using Wikipedia as a mean to engage in soapbox and revoked talk page access after continued battleground approach on their user talk page. Alex Shih (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying this wasn't a good block but you revoked talk page access because he undid edits? That seems wrong. --Tarage (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) The block may be good but I'm confused by the removal of talk page access. Am I missing something? AFAICT, the only thing they did there are being blocked was removed a bunch of content via reversion (and standard reversion summaries) [27]. This included the block notice. It did not include any declined unblock requests. Therefore this seems to comply with WP:BLANKING and the removals should have been left to stand and talk page access could also have been kept. Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tarage Nil Einne Another uninvolved administrator is free to restore the talk page access if a simple consensus emerges here, I will have no objections. To comment on WP:BLANKING; I have absolutely no issues with blocked editors removing comments on their talk page appropriately using the edit button; however I disagree that aggressive use of undo button ([28]) against several recent edits with no edit summary makes an appropriate case for blanking; in my opinion, this is more of a reflection on the battleground approach which is consistent with their recent contributions. I am happy to self-revert if consensus is against my understanding. Alex Shih (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the nothereness of the meta user page, might need more global cleanup.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I need to undo something from an article I am wont to spam undo if there have been a ton of edits. I don't think that's justification for removing the talk page access. It's their talk page. --Tarage (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked an obvious sock, User:KoppaFreeTommy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway to block and delete the user page globally?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dlohcierekim, Xaosflux has kindly deleted the meta user pages and blocked both accounts on meta. So it is fine now. Alex Shih (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the socking and the use of the meta to further their soaping/disruption, removing talk page access was preventative and reasonable.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: and @Alex Shih: - those meta actions have been disputed. If you want to follow up you can at meta:RFH. You certainly can deal with any aspect that is approriate on enwiki here (user block, page delete, page blank/protect). — xaosflux ^Talk 11:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I commented there as well, but had little more to add. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fan of block justifications after the fact but whatever. I guess I'm fighting a lost cause here. --Tarage (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Huaka'i Emerson (talk · contribs)

Ongoing removal of sourced material contrary to consensus, ongoing violation of 3rr, unwillingness to discuss topic on talk page, and skewed edit summaries.

Editor is removing sourced text, now text with 5+ sources making false claims such as: Using an inaccurate birth year for Emerson, thus claiming he was 2 years old at the time of alleged signing "Dr. Emerson was not a part of the conspiracy to overthrow the Hawaiian Kingdom."- the removed text does not say he was "He was a historian & a doctor, not a sharpshooter "? Maybe a Dr. McCoy joke? Emerson's name is not on the document, so he could not have been involved, again the text removed doesn't make the claim that his name is on the document. "Dr. Nathaniel Bright Emerson was not a author of the Bayonet Constitution!" the text in question doesn't say that he was "The Hawaiian league was NOT founded by Emerson! " the text removed does not say that he was

With at least two violations of WP:Civil [[29]] and his response when I tried to explain WP:CON- [[30]]

This person claims to be a relative of the subject of this article, and I honor that to discover these strong allegations about an ancestor must be challenging.... and this is becoming a waste of a number of editors time, energy and attention. This has been going on for 2 weeks and one block did not change users behavior. I do not believe this person is here to build an encyclopedia based on consensus, but is here to protect their family name or perhaps is trolling. TantraYum (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've EC protected the page. Huaka'i Emerson (talk · contribs), you need to discuss on the article's talk page and seek consensus there for your changes. It is not likely that content reliably sourced will be removed unless the change can be reliably sourced. As a relative, you may have a conflict of interest that clouds your editorial judgement.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dlohcierekim (talk · contribs), though I think it is a short term solution... hopefully I am wrong. TantraYum (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. In their frustration, user has resorted to petty vandalism HERE and HERE. But not in discussion here.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This conflict is still a thing? Jesus. I thought we had that nicely solved. Now the editor wrote "STOP SLANDERING OUR FAMILY WITH MISINFORMATION" (emphasis mine) on Dlohcierekim's talk page, which might at least explain the stamina expressed here. Extended confirmed protection appears to be a reasonable decision. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been patient with the expectation that the editor would discuss the disputed content calmly. If they cannot and will not do so, they will need to be blocked.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per this, Sahansdal admits that he's Robert Wahler, author of "Misreading Judas", which is self-published through AuthorHouse and therefore not a reliable source.

These results are just from 2018.

• Post that's not related to the topic at hand.
• Outright spam for their website.
• More spam for their imagined credentials as a mystic, including I understand the Gospel of Judas better than anyone I know about or have met and then going about how the smartest person he met doesn't know what he knows.
• Addition beginning with "Others of a more mystical persuasion disagree," and getting different uses of the word "apophasis" mixed up citing a source that doesn't mention the article's subject at all, which is a recurring problem, as they've used the same mistaken reasoning in removing claims from someone who can write reliable sources.
• Insisting (against mainstream consensus) that Gnosticism should be labelled the source of Christianity, not on the basis of any mainstream academic source but an outdated source that doesn't mention Gnosticism, a Theosophical site run by followers Samael Aun Weor, and *a Theosophical one.
• Spamming his own book again, posting his personal beliefs as some sort of objective fact.
• Posting what are either "requests for opinions, predictions or debate" on the Reference Desk, or else rhetorical questions in favor of his own belief.
• Replacing one unsourced statement with another that fits his views better.
• More spam for his book and website.
• Unsourced original research, more unsourced original research.

A topic ban is needed if nothing else. A glance over their prior contributions suggests that a minimally adequate ban would cover everywhere they've been editing so far, though, which kinda suggests WP:NOTHERE applies.

This is not a content dispute. If anyone in academia cared about Wahler's theories, and someone besides the author was just citing his claims (with due weight), that wouldn't be an issue. Instead, we have a self-proclaimed expert who rejects academia because they don't "understand" his theories who is acting like he's the only authority we'll ever need, with the occasional attempt at trolling ([56] [57]). Ian.thomson (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse TBAN on Christianity and the various gospels at minimum. This looks like an 11 year history of self-promotion, so a nothere block is justifiable.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TBAN per Dlohcierekim as a minimum, but I really rather think that in view of his editing history a Not Here block would me more appropriate. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support at least TBan but probably rather an indef NOTHERE block. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban on all articles related to Christianity, with an indefinite block if disruptive conduct spreads elsewhere. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• What Cullen328 said. I am prepared to give this user just enough slack to find out if they have any purpose here other than self-promotion, but I am not holding out any hope, based on long experience. Guy (Help!) 07:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FloridaArmy (talk · contribs) is currently subject to an open report at WP:AN3. NeilN queried their lack of response to it, and EdJohnston had previously suggested that they should respond to it. The reply from FloridaArmy has been rather vague.

As the AN3 report and copious notes on their talk page (some now deleted) make clear, there are a bunch of people who have raised issues relating to FA's editing. They're certainly rushing around creating articles but a lot of them are proving to be problematic and are leading to extended discussions at AfD etc. They've been edit warring, per the report and comments to it, and seem unwilling to apply even the most basic stub-creation norms, such as categorisation and project templates. I am not the only one to have spotted substantial factual errors, eg: the paragraph they wrote and then amended here ended up with a discussion about accuracy where they actually tried to wriggle out of the mistake, while their creation here lead to this one. Plenty of other examples.

I'm not sure what to do here but something needs to be done because they're showing little inclination to collaborate, to deal with basic issues raised, to paraphrase sources satisfactorily etc, and they're showing a tendency not to accept valid criticism, no matter who raises it and how it is phrased. Whether this sort of stuff falls under WP:CIR is not something I'm sure about but the overall effect of what is going on is highly disruptive and has been pretty much from the get-go. I would appreciate thoughts.

I am banned from their talk page but will post the appropriate notice of this report anyway. - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AN3 report now closed due to this report being opened. - Sitush (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I get the sense that FloridaArmy is presenting a significant strain on Articles for Deletion. FloridaArmy has a remarkable 63% Keep percentage at AfD [58] which, in itself, is fine. However, their match rate is only 60%. And, drilling down into the actual discussions I get the sense their singular "keep" !vote is often the difference between a definitive close and No Consensus. Further, we both have roughly the same edit count (12-13K), but FloridaArmy has an astonishing 497 articles created - an incredible 46 of which have been deleted. [59] And, from looking at their talk page, many more than that 9% are regularly being subject to CSD and AFD. In short, the entirety of the editing pattern is placing a momentous strain on AFD and monopolizing copious quantities of editor time. Finally, because many of their articles use bare URLs and have no categories [e.g. [60], [61], etc.), it takes a lot of time for everyone (particularly poor Deb and CaroleHenson) to follow FloridaArmy around on the clean-up crew. If they could maybe think about holding-off on the speed-production of stubs for a few months it might give everyone a bit of a breather. Chetsford (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

• Do the recommendations from Atlantic306 at the Articles posting or my recommendations from me at Edit warring report posting on the user's page make sense?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also tried to offer recommendations on a couple occasions (here [62] and here [63]) and was told off. However, it's possible yours may see more fruit. Chetsford (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crickets (nothing, so far anyway).–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the limited sample of this user's articles I have seen I think the suggestions are good. The user should not be creating one liner stubs in article space. Meters (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Murray Hoag was a fascinating discussion. FloridaArmy couldn't even figure out who the subject of their own article was! ansh666 22:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I forgot about that. I was the one who nominated it for deletion as he created a bio on a single person by merging details on two to three different people. Fortunately other editors were able to disentangle it all into a real person instead of a fictional composite person. I don't know if there are other composite characters nestled in the other 495 articles or not. Chetsford (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There was information about an old fortress (now a separate article Rockfort (Jamaica)) that was mixed in with information about a section of Kingston, Rockfort (Kingston, Jamaica). There was also an issue of a source being used that didn't contain the referenced content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• FloridaArmy is certainly a problematic editor. Given the large amount of low-quality articles and lack of response to suggestions, is there any support for a topic ban on article creation? Of course articles could always be created as a draft and someone else can move them.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there is, it might be worthwhile extending it to also include a moratorium on commenting on AFD. A great many AFDs are decided by just 2 or 3 editors so even a single editor who is significantly and consistently outside the mainstream on their !votes can cause a lot of otherwise definitive closes to go into the netherworld of No Consensus. Chetsford (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article Creation and AfD ban-I'd support the AfD ban too, Most of the comments are just votes with little to no explanation.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article Creation and AfD ban - for the reasons stated above, and understanding that articles could be created in draft mode and moved by someone else to article mode when they are ready.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article Creation and AfD ban - permitting FA to continue to create articles through AFC. Chetsford (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article Creation and AfD ban - Obviously let him be allowed create articles through AFC.Per above.~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as above, but how is this going to be enforced? This editor has no intention to follow Wikipedia's collaborative process - I don't expect them to even bother commenting here. They'll just carry on depositing awful articles like a puppy who isn't house trained, forcing people to follow them around with a pooper scooper until the inevitable ban. They were banned for 48hrs and it had absolutely no effect. Exemplo347 (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It was a block, mainly for "ridiculousness". - Sitush (talk) 06:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As to enforcement, iff the proposal gains community consensus and shall FA choose to not honor the restrictions, blocks can be imposed and the topic-ban-violating content be removed, per WP:BANBLOCKDIFF. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support both I have engaged with them a few times and while they are eager and polite they simply do not listen. After months they still are leaving bare references etc. That this early inattention has grown to one-line sub-stubs, factual errors and generally problematic articles is disturbing.
  They obviously have the time and inclination to contribute and hopefully the structure of AfC will help them learn how to write acceptable articles and curtail their enthusiastic but problematic submissions. I fear they may instead move to 'improving' existing articles with the same enthusiastic carelessness. Jbh ^Talk 06:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article Creation and AfD ban for a minimum of one month. I have kept out of this discussion until now because I felt involved. I've previously had some flak, notably from User:Doncram and User:RoySmith (both of whom may have some contribution to make here) for being too "harsh" with FA. I admit I have made some mistakes in dealing with him/her. I can get "wound up" on the rare occasions when contributors behave like this, i.e. in a manner that, on the surface, appears helpful but is actually disruptive, and I've possibly gone too far in trying to enforce good practice. My problem with FA is that he/she seems to be capable of making useful contributions but chooses not to do so - a waste of ability rather than a complete lack of it. Deb (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article Creation and AfD ban I'm not sure if this is all CIR or if some of the behavior has a tinge of gaming of the system to get his or her material in (my initial interaction with this editor certainly looked like gaming), but either way the behaviour is disruptive. Meters (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both Seems a net-drain to users to clean-up after this editor. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both, especially creation. This user should never move their drafts to mainspace, it should always be left to an independent reviewer. The long, long list of drama on the talk page shows that they have no idea when an article is ready for prime time. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Jbh, he's probably just going to go continue the disruption somewhere else. Let's not start a game of whac-a-mole here. ansh666 07:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly, We will have to deal with any other form of disruption as and when it happens. It bothers me that they are so obviously ploughing their own furrow here and seem almost always oblivious and/or dismissive of concerns raised, including to the point of making ridiculous arguments or simply ignoring. Not everything they do is poor but enough of it is to create a massive timesink. If that sort of thing spreads elsewhere then CIR would definitely kick in. Or perhaps even NOTHERE. - Sitush (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the comment just added at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John R. Holmes regarding moving that article seems to be another demonstration that FA is moving way too fast when creating stuff. It turns out that John R. Holmes is the subject, so no wonder prior commentators could find no sources other than the passing mention added by FA under the original article title. - Sitush (talk) 08:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That wasn't FA's fault, it was the another user who confused the similar names John R. Holmes (d. 1892) and Joseph R. Holmes (d. 1869), both from Charlotte County, Virginia.

• Oh, maybe I misunderstood... moving too fast in creating an article of someone not notable, and only one source could be found.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• My point was that their rushing to create micro-stubs such as this appears to be based on the flimsiest mention and no further attempt to find sources. That has been causing all sorts of problems. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely!–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have run into more FA articles tonight, though, in the NewPagesFeed and the sources were horribly unreliable blogs / other sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note There have been two occasions in AfD discussions where FloridaArmy has !voted keep based on sources that they couldn't provide, and the worst part was that an admin actually fell for their argument and followed them down the rabbit hole, also !voting keep because they said FloridaArmy had sources. Thankfully those hilariously weak arguments were ignored by the closers. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the main problem is the unfinished and sometimes inaccurate articles (their not all bad) so suggest the proposed mainspace article creation ban be enforced technically by moving FA to ip status and removing page mover function. Carole Henson has kindly offered to help FA and could move their articles to mainspace when she judges that they are ready rather than relying on AFC where the reviewers that are not familiar with US history may not spot inaccuracies, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 09:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support restriction to AfC and AfD as proposed above. I'd rather a relaxation of the AfC restriction was undertaken only if there is agreement to do so at a future date (eg: they could appeal to an admin or WP:AN). It is not unreasonable to ask them to prove their learning. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support AfD ban, no opinion on AfC. I will only comment on what I've personally seen of FA, and that is a lot of white noise participation at AfD. Long, impossible to parse comments that remind me of another erstwhile writer of impenetrable AfD monographs: User:SwisterTwister. FA is a net negative at AfD, which is a shame because the forum could use more participation in general — just not this sort of participation. A Train^talk 10:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the idea that they should be forced to use AfC when creating articles. I've been active in cleaning up a few articles they've produced and have recommended repeatedly that they ensure articles they create be cited and encyclopedic and have been unable to get a clear response that they understand and intend to do better (most recent such comment is here). I don't see forcing someone to use AfC as a punishment or something to be ashamed of - I use AfC for some of my articles at times for various reasons. It is a reasonable way to ensure that one's new articles are conforming to the community consensus for what is needed to have a new article in the main space. There seems to be a consensus that FloridaArmy is not quite reaching that level in their new articles (even after a grace period for article construction after creation, problems persist), and AfC seems a simple and fair solution. I would suggest on top of that FloridaArmy be limited to submitting one article per week to AfC for a period of four weeks or something like that. FloridaArmy often creates multiple new articles in infancy, and this behavior would not be prevented simply be requiring the use of AfC. Such a restriction would help keep them focused on improving their new article to a good state before submission. Regarding AfD, most articles at AfD are deleted and they and I !vote keep on a number of similar articles, so I would be sorry to see them restricted in that forum. As my feelings are fairly strongly influenced by this personal relationship, I do not feel I should make a suggestion about restriction in that matter. I do agree that FloriaArmy's !votes are sometimes so non-sensical that they are likely to be ignored by a responsible closer and I also agree more AfD participation by other users would be preferred. Smmurphy^(Talk) 10:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Juicy Oranges (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I told this user numerous times to stop harassing me on my talk, and yet he keeps ignoring it.[64]-[65]-[66]-[67]-[68] Even when another user reverted him,[69] he simply re-instated it again.[70]. He has a history of edit-warring on articles, and now he's edit-warring on my talk page. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now Oranges Juicy is harrassing the user (@Wikaviani:) who removed his unwanted stuff from my talk page.[71] - LouisAragon (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is in violation to WP:TALKO and this is a legitimate warning. The claim of harassment towards Wikaviani is false. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:REMOVED. On the user's talkpage, they have the right to remove comments as they see fit, unless it's a denied active block request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All right I may have been wrong there but there is no way a TALKO warning can be likened to harassment. It just happens to have been done in error. Seems to me that editors can remove whatever they wish and claim WP:REMOVED. Personally I don't want any third party editors removing comments from my space. I would rather decide on how I wish to respond. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ps. I just read your summary. It wasn't removed by the addressed editor but by another editor. He stated afterwards that he has been given the right to stalk the talk page but my point was that what I did where Wikaviani is concerned is not harassment. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I can point out at this stage that I have no further comments I wish to relate to Louis Aragon. Please note that the first comment was in response to a rude comment directed towards me in a revert summary, and from there on the editor provoked responses by addressing me within the summary. These comments were not to the effect of "I take your point" nor were they presented in the form of a thread. The mannerism is a clear civility issue. As for harassment, I expressly deny this. The method used for the final comment was such that Louis Aragon could not respond to unless he were to re-open a thread or head to my user talk. And so he has resorted to false accusations. Note that I never even touched his recent revert of me. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with LouisAragon, and i would add that Orange Juicy obviously shows an aggressive behavior with other users.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Examples? Or is it proof by assertion? --Juicy Oranges (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AND i inform you that users can allow other users to stalk their talk page so that my revert was by no mean a TALKO violation. For example, Oshwah (a veteran admin) allows experienced users to stalk his talk page. I would suggest you to moderate your aggressive behavior on this community encyclopedia.

You pointed that out to me after I reverted on TALKO principles. After that I never involved myself with you expect for the warning. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this is the second time in the thread you mentioned "agressive behaviour". I invited you to provide examples and am still waiting. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Examples ? just check LouisAragon's diffs. Since you confessed being wrong, it's ok for me. Now i think we're done here. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I am in a dispute with the User:NewYorkActuary due to the editions made by me in the article Miss Universe 2018.

The user insists that the references used by him to argue that Miss Bergimay Karybekova will represent Kyrgyzstan in Miss Universe 2018 are valid and clear; the references do not even agree on whether the girl won a contest or was designated. The user, even, brought a fake Facebook page of the Miss Universe Organization (of course, by mistake). In my case, I have given arguments to maintain that this information is a possible hoax, and I have erased that information, arguing and asking for patience, because if the information is true, it will come to light. I have tired of explaining why we should not take the inclusion of references so lightly, but the user seems to be infatuated with the inclusion of this delegate.

This has caused the user to report me under rule 3RR, instead of seeking a third opinion. The editor who answered your complaint is User:EdJohnston who has only threatened to block me, and has not been able to intervene in the conflict; he discuss with me on his own page, without resorting to mine.

Both insist that there is a consensus to keep the delegate of Kyrgyzstan on the list of contestants, when, from any perspective, a discussion of two people does not form a consensus.

On the other hand, I have warned both of them that I do not have a domain of the English language, but both ignore it and do not really explain to me what I am doing wrong.

Any wrong action on my part, I accept it, as soon as I am really told what I did; but it is clear that the other two users have proceeded in a partial and capricious manner.

I need someone to intervene to clarify all this. --Alex Duilius (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think a link to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Alex Duilius reported by User:NewYorkActuary (Result: Alex Duilius Warned) is in order. ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  00:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Here are some more links on the prior history of this dispute:

• Alex Duilius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Miss Universe 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• AN3 complaint
• Warning I left for Alex Duilius
• Discussion on my user talk with Alex Duilius about how to resolve the dispute

• Alex wants to remove the entry for Miss Kyrgyzstan from the list of entrants for Miss Universe 2018, apparently because he doesn't believe the sources. They include a web site called angelopedia.com and the India Times. People on the talk page who are familiar with the Miss Universe contest claim that these sites are reliable. Alex was reported at AN3 because he was warring to remove the entry for Kyrgyzstan. The punch lins is probably this message I left for Alex: "..Your arguments at Talk:Miss_Universe 2018#Kyrgyzstan indicate you are either not familiar with Wikipedia policy, or that you disagree with it. If you plan to edit here, you are expected to follow our policy regarding sources..."

• User:NeilN closed the AN3 as 'warned' based on the message I left for Alex. This ANI post appears to be an appeal of the AN3 closure, but on grounds which are not clear to me. I am guessing that he wants an admin to make a 'content ruling' that the Kyrgyzstan entry should be removed from the article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from NewYorkActuary. Alex Duilius has an unusual edit history -- edits take place in only a few months each year and they are almost always to the article on the then-current edition of Miss Universe. This suggests to me that the topic is of singular interest to Alex and that he has likely developed a good personal knowledge of it. And this, in turn, leads me to think that Alex truly has a good-faith belief that he is right and that everyone else is wrong. But this good-faith belief will not be sufficient to overcome some of Wikipedia's peculiar rules and processes. Of foremost relevance is our notion of "verifiability, not truth". If at any point in this disagreement, Alex came up with a reliable source that contradicted the existing identifications of Kyrgyzstan's delegate, the discussion would have proceeded along a very different line. But no such source has been forthcoming. Another of Wikipedia's peculiarities is its distaste for resolving disagreements via edit-warring. I continue to encourage Alex to resolve this matter via one of Wikipedia's dispute-resolution procedures (perhaps WP:DRN). I hope that he will take that route. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Related but unrelated - that whole section is a minefield and year-in-year-out subject to sourcing issues, crystal ballery, edit warring etc. Getting rid of the whole section may be an even better approach but that's not a subject for ANI ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  03:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On user BallenaBlanca.

There is ongoing litigation w the above editor related to a number of behavioural problems. The issue is overall with disruptive editing, Wikihounding and one-purpose, POV editing (I hope I am in the right place here). The editor in question claims in his personal page to be focused on medicine, still since approximately September 2017 his activity stands out for litigating on red hot controversial national issues nowadays at the very center of political life in Spain and media, often accompanied with misleading edit summaries. It really looks like WP:NOTHERE.

I had a first contact and numerous discussions in Catalan independence referendum, 2017, where the editor in question almost automatically reverts to extenuation edits that do not suit his views, even verified information, with content blanking. I got fed up in that article, and then I found he is jumping onto my area of interest doing highly controversial edits. Admittedly he has irritated me and my reply has not been at times the most level-headed. Thanks

• [72] Alteration of main information to conspicuously focus on fringe information], misleading edit summary, citing "consensus". [73] Check source here

• [74] Removal of supporting material, content blanking (references) and misleading edit summary

• [75] Removal of inconvenient WP:IJDLI depiction (check picture), is an artwork vetoed from article for being 'subjective'?]

• [76] Straight disruptive, POV editing] One of a series, browsing Basque articles to remove Basque and often add instead Spanish.

• [77] Idem, remove Basque and add Spanish

• [78] Idem, one-purpose ideological editing, on articles I have edited recently.

• [79] Idem, one-purpose ideological editing, on articles I have edited recently, remove Basque and add Spanish.

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Jos%C3%A9_Ibarretxe&diff=842624942&oldid=840419229 Idem, one-purpose ideological editing, on articles I have edited recently, remove Basque and add Spanish.

The editor in question has refused talk on his page. It has followed instead in my talk page.

Iñaki LL (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1. For some time I am kindly asking Iñaki LL to stop personal attacks, to respect the Wikipedia policies and to comment on the topics of the pages and not on the users per WP:TALK#USE WP:TPYES, without success. See a few examples [80] [81] [82]

As we can see here in his message above, he are again judging my attitude and labelling me, also violating WP:AGF.

He is reverting me with edit summaries that are considered personal attacks, misleading, inappropriate, and uncivil per WP: SUMMARYNO. A few examples (and there are several more): [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90]

"The editor in question has refused talk on his page. It has followed instead in my talk page."

Iñaki LL left a message in my talk page, [91] that I removed per WP:HUSH. After this, I left a message in his talk page and we talked there. Again, I asked him to stop personal attacks User talk:Iñaki LL#You are committing personal attacks.

Maybe someone can explain me where I make personal attacks in these messages... ? User talk:Iñaki LL#You are committing personal attacks.

I will reply point by point to his objections (his text in italic):

• 1 [92] Alteration of main information to conspicuously focus on fringe information], misleading edit summary, citing "consensus". [93] Check source here

I do not understand the objections here, it is more detailed information and adjusted to the source, which explains "[El Ministerio del Interior ha decidido trasladar a la Fiscalía General del Estado las acusaciones contra la Policía Nacional y la Guardia Civil formuladas por la alcaldesa de Barcelona

Misleading edit summary, citing "consensus"? The content of the page was hardly discussed here Request for Comment (last comment 21:48, 18 October 2017) including this section on Violence and injuries. I restored the content to the version as it was at the end of this RfC. You can compare both texts:

- 23:50, 18 October 2017 "The Spanish Ministry of the Interior instructed the Spanish Attorney General to investigate whether the accusations of police sexual abuse against protesters made by Mayor of Barcelona Ada Colau, who had mentioned the councilor's statements, could be considered a legal offense of slander against Spanish Law enforcement organisations.[172]"

- 12:33, 20 January 2018 "The Spanish Ministry of the Interior instructed the Spanish Attorney General to investigate whether the accusations of police sexual abuse against protesters made by Mayor of Barcelona Ada Colau, who had mentioned the councilor's statements, could be considered a legal offense of slander against Spanish Law enforcement organisations.[208]"

(And in the meantime you can see again in this latest edit summary another one of the Iñaki's multiple and continuous accusations, in this case "POV", and violations of WP: SUMMARYNO)

• 2. [94] Removal of supporting material, content blanking (references) and misleading edit summary

This refer to the content that starts with "On 18 January 2018, the Spanish Home ..." In my edit summary I was referring to this user Edgarmm81 Edgarmm81 - legal threat I will not to extend in explanations here about how this user were continuosly violating WP:NOR WP:SYNTH, this is not the place. You can read more about this here Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017#Edits by Edgarmm81

• 3. [95] Removal of inconvenient WP:IJDLI depiction (check picture), is an artwork vetoed from article for being 'subjective'?]

This image has no place on a page about politics (may be fine on a page about art), it is a work of art that offers the author's own version, therefore a primary source and does not comply with WP: RS.

• 4. [96] Straight disruptive, POV editing] One of a series, browsing Basque articles to remove Basque and often add instead Spanish.

The accurate information is what I left after my edit in the page, Amaiur, that "Baztan in the autonomous region of Navarre in Spain". In fact, if you do a search on Navarra's own page, there is not a single link to Basque that I removed from Amaiur.

• 5. [97] Idem, remove Basque and add Spanish

No, what I did was to complete the information with more accurate and adjusted data, also adding information and a link to the Autonomous Community in the infobox, which only contained the population and the country, but not the Autonomous Community.

• 6. [98] Idem, one-purpose ideological editing, on articles I have edited recently.

Look at my edit summary “Unsourced. Please, feel free to re-add this information supported by a reliable source”. Unreferenced content can be deleted without further explanation. I think all of us know the WP:RS policy.

• 7. [99] Idem, one-purpose ideological editing, on articles I have edited recently, remove Basque and add Spanish.

Look at my edit summary “Adjusted nationality as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. The Constitution of Spain only admits one nation, which is the Spanish Nation.” There is no such thing as " Basque Spanish" nationality, it not exists and nobody uses it. This is an invented term that violates WP:NOR.

And I now add something that I did not write in this edit summary, which is that in this way duplicate information is simplified and avoided reiterations (see the following content: "He became the second elected Lehendakari (President of the Basque Country)") Also taking into account that the lead section must be a concise overview per MOS:LEAD.

• 8. [100] Idem, one-purpose ideological editing, on articles I have edited recently, remove Basque and add Spanish.

I am very happy that you put this example here so that everyone can see that you are even withdrawing the nationality from the infoboxes.

You can see more about this here Talk:Carles Puigdemont#Nationality

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 00:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2. I wonder if this can be considered as WP:CANVASS, since they are not cited nor involved here, just me, and they edit in the same line as Iñaki LL, [101] [102] [103]. If not, I apologize for my mistake. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 02:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been noticed about this discussion and I haven't followed all the events surrounding it, but I have seen the editions made by BallenaBlanca in order to promote certain agenda. Even when notified that his POV can be challenged with other articles about Kurdish, Flemish, Taiwanese or Sardinian people he has changed them all, making his editions point in one and only one purpose: trying to use the opinion of the Spanish Constitutional Court as the point to determine how an article in Wikipedia should be written, even for people from other countries and nationalities. I think that this attitude is utterly disruptive. Maybe this section is out of the scope from this Incident, but he is even trying to change all the "Basque Country" links to "Basque Autonomous Community", and we all know that they are not the same. It seems that this user is following a plan to deliverately promote certain views. -Theklan (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 4.@Theklan: you are saying “Even when notified that his POV can be challenged with other articles about Kurdish, Flemish, Taiwanese or Sardinian people he has changed them all, making his editions point in one and only one purpose”. I'm sure you're writing this in good faith, but it's obvious that you're confusing me with another user. Can you please provide diffs to prove this assertion? I have never edited on pages about Kurdish, Flemish, Taiwanese or Sardinian people.

I am always editing assuming good faith, including references and respecting the policies about verifiable sources WP:MEDRS WP:RS. See for example this 500 edit summaries.

I'm always listening the opinions of other users, editing collaboratively, using the specific talk pages, and arguing from a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. You can see here that 17% of my global contributions are in Talk pages and 73% in Main pages, while the rest in miscellaneous.

And if I'm wrong, I have no problem recognizing it. See for example this Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017#Last edit by BallenaBlanca and how I did the reversion myself (Restored previous version, trimmed primmary source per talk) and also the same in Operation Anubis (Reverting to revision of 17:06, 30 April 2018. Trimmed content supported by a primary source per WP:RS). This only an example, and obviously does not fit with a POV pushing editor.

About your last comment, once again, I repeat that my edits were intended to comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context. I adjusted as stated on the main page on Basque Country (autonomous community). See the edit summaries [104] “The Basque Country is officially the Basque Autonomous Community. See Basque Country (autonomous community).

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 12:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yourfav (talk · contribs) started adding commentary into Peacebuilding yesterday and was reverted by Bonadea [105] and myself [106] and warned about language like "No known solution exists for the problem that NATO's anti-chicken training [emphasis in the original] doesn't work, so Obama's global approach of small footprint SOCOM, super-killer mindset bases in more than half the countries on earth remains viewed by US leaders as the optimal peacebuilding strategy." and so on [107] [108]. Things have gone downhill from there, with edit summaries like these [109] [110] and talkpage engagement like this [111], culminating in this sparkling gem [112]. Since I'm apparently an agent of repression who is actively working toward the death of millions, would someone not in league with darkness like to do the necessary? Acroterion (talk) 01:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, as long as you're doing your thing "bitterly & senselessly", what do you expect? Drmies (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, I can't read all of that gem (life is short), but I got to the part where they go "I have not had a chance to either read or understand any relevant Wikipedia policies". Since they're continuing to edit war, I'll gladly give them 31 hours to read up. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also making "intense, pointless difficulties that you create, for your entertainment - just for your whimsical fun" Just another evening for me on Wikipedia. They're not edit-warring exactly, but they're getting awfully shrill. Acroterion (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm surprised that the admin who dealt with Yourfav's unblock request didn't up the block to indef:

      Acroterian says that she is actively working toward the death of millions. She correctly states that that is in fact what she is attempting to accomplish. I'm glad that she noticed that. But, obviously, she should be prevented from doing so. It would appear from Drmies instant wrong decision that Drmies did not read, or at all consider the many attempts that I made at peacebuilding on the either the peacebuilding talk page or Acroterian's talk page or mine. Please, notice that I did not reapply the edit that Acroterian falsely complained of. & in the interests of peace, would anyone reading this please take it as a priority to provide an edit of the sentence about NATO training that Acroterian is complaining about. Also, would you please then reapply all of my other edits to the peacebuilding page, so that I don't have to further attempt to defend them to Acroterian. With your edit to that sentence, can it not be clearly discerned that she is contrarian to all edits on that page for no reasonable cause? Except she keeps wrongly excusing herself for the consequence of those wars. She is accountable for it, because she keeps choosing to use her admin powers (granted by wiki) for the purpose of preventing anyone from consideration of peacebuilding in North Korea, Iran, Syria & Afghanistan. Wiki is an important tool for peaceful communication in the world. May the true God perform justice publicly, 'soul for millions of souls', just as law requires.Yourfav (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

      Doesn't seem to me to be someone who works and plays well with others. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: But can you compare with the dangers of DHMO?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• After seeing that unblock request, I have made the block indefinite. I've also explained what we'll need for the block to be lifted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna peanut gallery and say that they also placed a legal threat before all this went down. "You completely disregard the value of editors time, as though other peoples' time was of utterly no value to them. That's so disgusting!!! It is pure fantasy on your part that any party in the US is not compelled by the Bill of Rights. That's the purest fantasy. Guess what? Wiki's in the US. I recommend that you ask your local US District Judges what they think about whether they think that your admin activities are subject to the US Congress' Bill of Rights." --Tarage (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec) I'm afraid I dismissed them as a troll early on - their initial edit to Peacebuilding, linked in Acroterion's first post above, is indistinguishable from intentional disruption, and this astonishingly in-your-face confrontational post to my talk page did it for me. (It's not as bad as what they said to Acroterion, but there are some minor gems in there.) Actually there is something in the repeated comments about being a newbie, combined with knowledge of things like page protection and how to use citation templates correctly in their very first edit that makes me wonder how new they really are. I don't have any specific sockmaster in mind, and it could very well be a brand new user who has done some very selective reading on how WP works, but I still wonder. --bonadea contributions talk 06:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Good block. Basically a troll. Guy (Help!) 07:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nowadays it seems that demanding references and confronting soapboxing on Wikipedia make one personally liable for wars in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and North Korea. They also make one female (I'm not), although that's at least a change from the standing assumption that everybody on the Internet is male. I think this is just someone who is On A Mission and is unwilling to hear about anything else, but thinks it's fine to say absolutely anything about strangers on the Internet to have their way. Acroterion (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ZH8000 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is maintaining a list of 'problem' users contrary to the provisions of WP:POLEMIC. I removed the list in accordance with the provision given at WP:POLEMIC. ZH8000 has restored the list claiming I should have not removed it ([diff]. WP:POLEMIC clearly states that such list are permitted provided they are used in a timely manner. As the list was created in November 2016, I would suggest that any timely use is long passed and the list should be deleted. TheVicarsCat (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheVicarsCat: A link to said list would be helpful.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need administrator attention for this article AlphaZero, which is being vandalized - same edits being added and reverted over three days. Banedon (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, first I apologize for my terrible writing style and I'm not sure the message is in the right section.

I am a member from RC Patrol on the French side and I noticed several SPA adding contents on the Piaget SA article (strongly promotional) and cancelling edits from normal users. I submitted RCU (see here). The RCU was positive about Goldtean = Corliose = Dupegill = Langwenn = Maraola = Pourdiana - (check here).

A request to admins was written to block the sockpuppets and protect the page temporarily so that we could clean up the advertisement stuff. Both requests were accepted (read here).

I noticed the same stuff happens on en wiki, thought I'd let you know.

Kinds regards, --Bédévore ^{[knock knock]} 12:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]