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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

my error, a repeat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another editor comment to the above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm still waiting for administrators and their comments (since 28 October). --Wario-Man (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus is clear for a sanction here, but the precise details of duration are slightly wriggly. The most precise description hasn't been objected to, however, so: By the consensus of the Wikipedia community, FleetCommand is topic banned from Manual of Style issues for a period of three months. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

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

• [37] FC Attempted to hide my rebuttal of an argument he offered; he provided a bogus rationale: "You are not here to satisfy me. Hence, you are off topic."
• [38] Did it again, with aspersions: "obsessive, compulsive"
• [39] Did it again, with an incivil edit summary of "Reverted edit by an editor who is going to be Microsoft's bitch!"
• [40] Did it again (with a false accusation of personal attack), after I demanded that he stop per WP:TPG [41]
• [42], [43], [44] Spammed my user talk page with a pile of reundant edit-warring templates, for daring to object to him screwing around with my posts.
• [45] False accusation against multiple editors: "You people are just labeling he who disagrees with you as non-native speaker." But "non-native speaker" doesn't appear anywhere in the discussion but his own post.
• [46] Did that again, after it was pointed out to him [47] that his accusation is false.
• [48] Restated the same incivility: "Repeat: You're gonna be Microsoft bitch! Ha ha!"
• [49] Disrupted ongoing RfC (which he opposes) with an off-topic wall of text, which includes more "the bitch of publishers such as Apple and Microsoft" stuff, a false accusation that I have "attacked the editors opposing" me (I simply described his position as prescriptive grammar which he explicitly conceded is true [50]), and worst of all accuses all his opponents of "a racist act" and "evil" for not giving him his way (this, after he suggested that widely source-attested usage he doesn't like may be due to "writing by underpaid Chinese employees, which are pervasively hired"[51], plus all that "bitch" talk, which is widely regarded as sexist).
• [52] Disruptive, borderline vandalistic, and certainly WP:POINTy alteration of the proposed text that is the subject of the RfC, with more "Microsoft and Apple's bitch" stuff.
• [53] False accusation of ad hominem (pointing out that an administrative action was taken in response to editwarring about the same matter only a few hours earlier is not an ad hominem attack, it's an observation of relevant fact). Ironically, this post included another WP:ASPERSIONS attack by FleetCommand: "you have ... no respect for WP:CIVIL" (i.e., it's another false accusation that it's me attacking him).
• [54] False accusation of lying about him. I received no response to a request to back up this accusation [55], nor has any evidence been provided for any of his other bad-faith-assumptive and incivil claims.
• I could go on, but that's probably enough for the main issue.

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

• Really strange prescriptivistic (i.e. WP:SOAPBOX) original research and PoV-pushing, e.g. stating that Microsoft is "wrong" in how they choose to write about their own products and "must" do it some other way (already diffed above, [56]).
• When confronted with the fact that Microsoft's own documentation didn't agree with him that "the" cannot be used before ".NET Framework", he literally lobbied Microsoft to change it [57]. This is part of what appears to be a WP:TRUTH / WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:ADVOCACY problem, evident across all the diffs provided: FleetCommand is convinced that usage he doesn't like is wrong and must be eliminated. These antics won't have any effect on the RfC (other than drowning it in noise), because it's based on general usage in reliable sources (e.g. this pile o' books [58]), and isn't about .NET or Microsoft in particular anyway. The fact that the Microsoft page in question is one that the company permits outside users to edit (subject to staff review) makes it WP:UGC, so it's not even relevant anyway.

Background: The ultimate source of the whole mess is MOS:COMP, an essay FleetCommand created [59]. Much of MOS:COMP's content is problematic, and it was labeled a guideline rather than an essay [60] without any WP:PROPOSAL process, as far as I can tell. Among its problems is an attempt to ban the use of the word "the" before the name of any software product or service, except in constructions where the name is used as a modifier (e.g., it declares "the Mac App Store" to be "incorrect"). Seeing that MOS:COMP is primarily edited by only a handful of people, has had virtually no input from MoS regulars, conflicts with the site-wide MoS, on this "the" point in particular has been subject to previous dispute on its own talk page recently, and led to an editwar a day or two ago at an article, I opened a revision proposal about its "Definite article" section (for starters) at the main MoS talk page, then FleetCommand showed up and did all the above. As a side matter, I had recently also WP:BRDed two undiscussed additions of entire sections of new "rules" to that "guideline", and opened talk page threads about them. Those additions had been made by FleetCommand, and this may have triggered the hostility documented above, though I can't say for sure. Another factor appears to have been an argument with one of FleetCommand's buddies about the same stuff, in user talk [61].

Discretionary sanctions, in particular for civility, apply to WT:MOS (per WP:ARBATC). However, FleetCommand had not received the {{Ds/alert}} template within the alotted year (Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log). This has been rectified [62].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Update: Aside from the above-proposed civility EDR, I'm thinking at this point that (inspired by a recent close above), FleetCommand should be topic-banned from MoS for a stretch. A new development is that an increasing number of respondents to the RfC propose that his pet pseudo-guideline MOS:COMP be merged (to the extent any of it is salvageable) into MOS:COMPSCI – or just be outright deleted. It's unlikely that he wouldn't resist this with an escalation of the same sort of pattern, since he totally blew his stack over a minor clarification proposal to just one section of "his" page. This is a classic case for "sanctions are meant to be preventative not punitive". (I'm skeptical that a block will be useful, since it hasn't been with him to date.) The "must" and "wrong" WP:TRUTH PoV he tries to impose on the English language, in the face of all evidence against his preferences, is fundamentally incompatible with MoS-editing, anyway. There's a clear precedent (see [63] and related noticeboard actions about that other user right before and after that action) for an MoS TBAN for this sort of thing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a MoS TBAN for FleetCommand. FleetCommand's rhetoric as discussed in the diffs above is unacceptable and will only inflame what is already a perennially tense situation in MoS discussions. We don't need people throwing around baseless accusations of racism or of being evil, or saying that the other side's preferred outcome would make Wikipedia or the editors on that side someone's "bitch". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I would not be heartbroken to see FleetCommand receive a substantial block for all these continuing personal attacks, but for now I Support a topic ban from anything related to MOS (and so allow a more collegial discussion on the fate of MOS:COMP). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments by involved editor, User:Codename Lisa. One hour ago, not knowing this case was open, I filed an ANI case against SMcCandlish, for exactly the same charges: Being disruptive, incivil, and aspersions-casting, without evidence, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. However, in my own ANI case against SMcCandlish, I mercilessly ranked FleetCommand as an equivalent disruptor to SMcCandlish. They both engaged in disruption, non-collegial actions and poisoning the atmosphere of the aforementioned discussion. If I am asked to say which one is the worse, I refrain from replying directly and instead mention a fact:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sometimes, the comments are pure mocking or perjorative.

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

  Outcome worth the attention: [64]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SMcCandlish

Withdrawn by the author of the complaint, in accordance to WP:SNOW principle. It appears several people, whom I deeply respect, believe that I was wrong. Therefore, it stands to reason to accept it as the final verdict and make amends. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Hello

On 1 November 2017, I had a little dispute with SMcCandlish (talk · contribs). It is said that one must not read too much into the bitterness of discussion and instead, take some distance from it. Doing so defuses the situation. So, on 2 November 2017, I stayed away from the discussion entirely, having no exchanges with this person, implict or explicit. Proof: Literally, nothing on 2 November 2017 on the whole "Wikipedia talk:Namespace", not just the heated discussion.

What happened in return? 20 hours and 19 minutes after our last interaction, he launched a preemtive strike: In revision 808421381, he implied that I am engaged in "Making false accusations of personal attacks", which "definitely qualifies under the civility breaches subject to [discretionary sanctions]."

So, what has happened between us?

• On 1 November 2017, in revision 808052437 (and two subsequent revisions) pertaining to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Computing, he used unnecessarily harsh language to chastise a fellow editor's action, for which there is no evidence of being done in bad faith. "Rundancy" and "personal opinion" are quite enough. But "hand-waving" (a perjorative word), "rambling" and "magically special" are definitely uncivil. What's worse is that the chastised editor is none other than the notorious FleetCommand. (See sidenote 1.) Sensing a storm coming, I supported SMcCandlish's right to revert but not his harshness. But he assumed the worst in me, misinterpretted the concept of due respect (a requirement of civility) with endorsing ownership or Wikipedia and vested interest.

Sidenote 1

FleetCommand is notorious for sub-optimal civility, but he has never been uncivil to me. This has elluded no one's attention, causing no less then six admins and two CheckUsers in Wikipedia, and one CheckUser in Commons, to check whether he and I are sockpuppets. The reason is far simpler: FleetCommand responds uncivility with uncivility. (It is wrong; I know. Not defending it.) I was never uncivil to him; he was never uncivil to me.

• SMcCandlish started the User talk:Codename Lisa § MOS:COMP discussion. From the very beginning, the experssion "pot calling the kettle black" came to my mind. He is chastising me for starting a preemptive attack on him, but in reality, it was he who made the first uncivil comment. To my surprise, he has used WP:KETTLE in his message to premptively defuse my use of it. He accuses me of being in a bad mood that day, while it is him who is overreacting and assuming bad faith.

In the end, I told him that I will disengage from the whole dispute; in return, he must not come to my talk page for 24 hours. (I hoped he would calm down and stop antagonizing me if we are not in touch.) Guess what he did? He sent me an email, effectively keeping in touch to escalate the situation, without technically coming to my talk page.

• With a direct and explicit invitation from SMcCandlish, I participated in the discussion of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. In my comment, I talked of unneccessary compliance with the rest of the world, unneccessary complexity, and the benefit of a rule-based system over an indecisionate one. He responded with the first clear-cut personal attack; instead of commenting on complexity, lack of necessity, and benefit of a rule-based system, he called me an edit warrior. He said an admin has protected the page only to stop me. (In reality, admins block the user for that purpose. If both editors are suspected of edit warring, both are blocked. Page protection is for more benign case)
• Finally, there is the templating I mentioned above.

Q: "Codename Lisa, don't you think you are reading too much into bengign behavior and it is you who is assuming bad faith? For all we know, all of this could be simple overreactions. Are there complementary evidences?"

Indeed there are. SMcCandlish and FleetCommand are poisoning the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Bring MOS:COMPUTING back into line with MoS and reality with immature and less-than-collegial behavior. It is not just me saying it; other editors are saying it too (permanent link):

• "Could we please talk TO each other, and stop talking ABOUT each other. Blueboar (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)"
• "I completely understand what you are saying, FleetCommand. SMcCandlish does have a tendancy to respond badly when people do not agree with him. He is passionate about what he is saying, and considers it very carefully. He told me, also, that I must be a non-native speaker of English, and that I push for prescriptive grammar. [...] –Sb2001 19:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)"

SMcCandlish is resorting to the deceitful tactic of words in another editor's mouth. Examples for permanent link:

• "Re: Codename Lisa's redundant request for sourcing, I'll just copy-paste my response to FleetCommand, above: 'Of course we have proof that the "the" you don't like is used regularly in English, and you've already been provided with it; here it is again: [43][44] Please see WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:FILIBUSTER."

  I certainly didn't ask anything that those links show; I was not even talking to him. Another editor said something about a certain grammar rule for which I asked for a source.

• "Repeat: No one said "non-native speaker" other than you. See straw man."

  It was implied, through the use of "native speaker". See:

  • "Nothing is simpler or more practical than using English the way native speakers of it use it in fairly formal writing. [...] — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  19:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "[...] as any native speaker of the language would expect. [...] Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)"
• "I didn't use the term festival [...]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  20:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)".

  What the original author had said was: "Please cut the peacock term festival". The noun phrase "peacok term festival" is metaphor for "over use of peacock terms".

• "No one I'm aware of said FleetCommand is a non-native speaker. No one in this discussion did so; he just made that up."

  FleetCommand didn't make anything up.

• "Forgot a bit: Of course we have proof that the "the" you don't like is used regularly in English, and you've already been provided with it; here it is again: [39][40] Please see WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:FILIBUSTER. [...]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  16:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)"

  The author to which this reply posted never asked for a proof that it is "regularly used", nor said that it is not so. As he/she says in the subsequent reply: "Oh, I hear you quite well. I just think we must do the opposite. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 17:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)"

Sometimes, the comments are pure mocking or perjorative.

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

  Outcome worth the attention: [65]

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

  Name calling.

  In linguistics, "prescriptive grammar" has become a perjorative term for sour-faced linguistic conservative that hampered evolution. Something akin to "deletionist" in Wikipedia.

  Also, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX forbids no such thing.

• "More fringe prescriptivist OR. I don't think we need to entertain this any further. [...]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  15:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)"

  Well, no one forced him to reply to everything, and certainly not with name calling.

Summary: I am not saying that my fellow SMcCandlish is a devil incarnate or something equivalent. But I am saying that he dangerously wandered off the path of collegiality, civility and cooperative editing, and must be stopped, even with a block if needs be.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Short version I WP:BRDed two undiscussed additions of entire sections of new PoV-laden "rules" (by FleetCommand) to a guideline page, and I opened discussions about them. Codename Lisa few off the handle about it, made various accusations and uncivil comments, all on the pretext of claiming I was being uncivil (sound familiar? See ANI about FleetCommand above; these two engage in the same tactics and come to each others' defense when challenged). Then CL played the "I'm not attacking you when I make unsupported accusations, you're attacking me and my tagteam buddy when you say anything I don't like"-style victim game. Then encouraged a dispute between FleetCommand and me while pretending to do the opposite. And editwarred on a WP:CONLEVEL-violating basis (article got full-protected to put a stop to it), and even tried to "ban" me from leaving required user-talk notices like {{uw-3rr}}. Etc. Most of the diffs above do not actually show what CL says they do, and CL seems to (or more likely pretends to) have difficulty distinguishing between criticism of edits, arguments, sourcing, actions, and policy interpretations, versus criticism of an editor's person, mentality, or motives; I do the former, CL does the latter. It's my bed time now; I'll address all this with another diff pile in the morning. If this is even still open. As with FleetCommand, above, I have no history of dispute or even any real contact with this editor before yesterday; the dispute with FC and with CL are in fact the same dispute.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  09:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very interesting comment:

    Codename Lisa few off the handle about it, made various accusations and uncivil comments.

    Throughout the whole 1 November 2017 hoopla, when he felt most strongly about my actions, he never said such a thing, i.e. he never labeled what I wrote as "accusations" and "uncivil comments". The worst thing he said was "Trying to personalize this matter" and "WP doesn't need you or anyone else to act as the self-appointed Editing Police". (Revision 808194151) So, it seems while I have been away, something has demonized me. (Or, SMcCandlish had some semblances of honor and civility, which are now lost in the poisonous atmosphere of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and now he is used to outright deceit such as this.) —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I've examined the first few accusations and I see no substance in them, and I'm not going to waste any time on the remainder of this. I'm also seeing personal attacks in this complaint that could quickly trigger a boomerang effect (eg the "SMcCandlish had some semblances of honor and civility, which are now lost in the poisonous atmosphere of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and now he is used to outright deceit such as this" comment). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Boing! said Zebedee: As much as I hate using the word "lie" (both because it is uncivil and because it always upsets the discussion against me), it is now an elephant in the room.

However, I implore you to see the picture in whole. You can never see a jungle if you focus on seeing one of its frail trees. The reason you didn't see any substance in it is that I wrote them in chronological order and things get worse as you reach the bottom.

Thanks for your time.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, after checking out some more of your claims (and having examined the MOS dispute), I'm still not seeing it. What I'm seeing is fairly reasonable responses to an extremely tendentious battleground approach from another editor which includes repeated personal attacks - and I'm surprised that you appear to be seeing it as one-sided from the opposite side. I also suggest someone should merge the two sections as this one is just a continuation of the discussion above (I won't do it myself as I have already commented here). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I started at the bottom as they appeared to contain direct quotes, and what I found was someone repeatedly trying to get it into another editors head that Wikipedia does it the Wikipedia way. Not any other. Also sarcasm is not an actionable issue. If it was, we would have maybe 3 admins left.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee and Only in death: I see. That is very interesting. Your assessment, I mean. FC and SMcC both violated WP:NPA but are treated much differently owning to use of the word "bitch", which is childish. So, incivility and disruption is allowed, if it has a more mature tone? Gross insult is not allowed but pestering is? Or is there something in the history of FC that has aggrevated both of you?

Of course, one of the most persistent criticsms of Wikipedia is that it generously allows harassment and even encourages it, and that its administrators have become apathetic, not feel bad behavior anymore and must resort to blind computer-like heuristics.

One thing is certain. Double standards are being used here. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Curly Turkey has just used the term "fuck" against me. Is he going to be treat like FC? ([66]) —Codename Lisa (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming this is the diff you intended to use, then no, I'm not going to take the slightest action against Curly Turkey for it since "did you just fucking write that?" is an entirely understandable response to your WP:IDHT claims. Wikipedia is written in English as it's actually used, not as you wish it were used if you could rewrite the rules of grammar. ‑ Iridescent 12:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: Indeed that's what I assume to be the correct action. Also, in regard to FC using the term "bitch" and SMcC not using any profanity at all.

Althogh, just a clarification, I am not engaged in IDHT. I have provided evidence recently the English is actually used differently. I am sorry to see that you assume bad faith in me and purpose. I blame no one but myself. Perhaps I have done something wrong.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Codename Lisa, I don't know why this got split out again after having been merged, but I responded to your comment in the thread above. All I'll say here is that your inability to see any wrong in FleetCommand's appalling behaviour while looking for fault in every word SMcCandlish says is so staggeringly biased that I'm sure everyone can see it for themselves. But one thing I do agree with is that double standards are being employed here - is that a plank I see in your eye? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: I see apalling amount of wrong and fault in FC's part. I have explicitly said that. Repeatedly. But I am also seeing equally or more amount of fault in SMcC. —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'll just add that your dismissal of the use of "bitch" is both disingenuous and transparent, as context always matters and it is not just the use of the word itself. The full context is seen in these, quoted directly from FleetCommand, which I reproduce here so others can see how deceptively selective you are being:

1. "Reverted edit by an editor who is going to be Microsoft's bitch! " [67]
2. "It seems one way or another, you are not going to be able to put "the" before ".NET Framework", regardless of whether or not your proposal for Wikipedia to be Microsoft's bitch passes consensus." [68]
3. "Repeat: You're gonna be Microsoft bitch! Ha ha! Unless Wikipedia shoots down your proposal." [69]
4. "makes Wikipedia the bitch of publishers such as Apple and Microsoft" [70]

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: I would like to offer my sincerest appology for unwittingly having undone your move. I clearly didn't handle the edit conflict as I must have. It appears my conduct here has caused you, Iridescent and Boing! said Zebedee to look at me as "just another combatant". For that I am very sorry.

As a way of appology, I will leave ANI and won't return. Again, I am sorry. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll re-merge this section back again, as its splitting out again seems to have been accidental - please give me a moment or two to do that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC) Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've read the statements above and a fair chunk of the discussion at WT:MOS and come to essentially the same conclusion as User:Boing! said Zebedee above; SMcCandlish's "well-meaning but excessively bold (and long-winded, typo-filled, opinionated, redundant-with-other-guidelines) changes to the guideline" is not full of praise for another's work but it is not uncivil. Moreover, he then took a civil, reasonable proposal for how to move forward to the talk page. This was met with stonking assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks (point 3 of this comment is totally inappropriate). I propose a 3 month topic ban from MOS, broadly construed for FleetCommand. If he'd had a DS notification earlier in the process, I'd seriously consider just imposing it myself. GoldenRing (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Repeating what I said above, I support a topic ban for FleetCommand from all MOS issues. However I oppose any topic ban for SMcCandlish, whose patience I find to have been admirable in this case in light of all the baiting that FleetCommand has been doing. This is even in light of all the diffs Codename Lisa provides above. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Codename Lisa

Closing this before others get involved, because I'm inclined to take at face value Codename Lisa's response below and here. If the result of the ANI would be distancing CL from the topic, and CL is going to voluntarily insert some distance before we get around to discussing this, there's little reason to spend the time on it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  12:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

details ...

The diff pile I promised yesterday. Background I WP:BRDed two undiscussed additions of entire sections of new PoV-laden "rules" (by FleetCommand) to a guideline page, and I opened discussions about them [71]. Codename Lisa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – hereafter CL – reacted to this completely routine action with unreasonable and escalating hostility and off-topic nonsense, such that I was already preparing this ANI two days ago, until FleetCommand (FC) ramped it up so much I ended up addressing FC here first. Since then, CL has perpetuated the same problems, including here at ANI, so we might as well get into the details now. As with FC, I have no prior history I can recall with CL. This is not a "this editor and that one simply can't get along" matter. Disruption at WT:MOSCOMP Diffs Codename Lisa (CL) leapt to the defense of FleetCommand (FC), as usual, in ad hominem terms that have nothing to do with the proposed material [72], including an accusation of "abusing" FleetCommand, and off-topic digressions into CL's opinion of FC). Argued for WP:OWN / WP:VESTED deference to FC as the author of the original essay behind MOS:COMP. Maked false claim that I reverted material without opening a discussion about it. Did a tit-for-tat revert of completely unrelated material, and tried to shoe-horn that into the discussion [73] I corrected the false claim about not opening a discussion, and objected to CL's personalization of the matter and injection of off-topic material; I asked for a return to discussion of the substance of the proposed guideline material. [74] CL instead does all following in one post [75]: Makes a false claim that doing a BRD revert is WP:VANDALISM Blatant personal attack: "I will let your coup d'tat [sic] of taking over the ownership of this page to proceed as planned." Repeats the accusation of reverting without discussion after already being pointed to the discussion – WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Returns to emotive accusations in defense of FC ("You just used three-blue links as a mace to beat them away"). Explicitly refuses to get back on-topic "No. I was not here to talk about the substance in the first place." Directly tries to foment a dispute between me and FC, yet claims to be trying to prevent one. There was no disputation before CL created one; even FC did not object to the BRD revert, just to not being pinged [76]. So, this is all pointed manufacture by CL of WP:DRAMA for its own sake. Engaged in weird histrionics: "Clearly I failed and probably lost a friend too ... Heartbroken." See also this pseudo-selfdeprecating edit [77] This appears to be a CYA game; see more on this pattern below. All because I BRDed undiscussed major changes to a guideline by CL's buddy, a perfectly normal thing for anyone to do. Unjustified editwarring at .NET Framework Diffs I replaced telegraphic writing at the article with normal English [78]. CL reverted with a doubly bogus rationale [79], claiming that the change was "deliberate grammar violations" and "violation of MOS:COMPUTING". I put back a slightly different version, pointing out that MOS:COMPUTING didn't address this but that the rest of MoS does, in favor of my edit. [80]. I then tried a compromise edit that might should have resolved the matter CL reverted again, on the same basis (but without the "grammar" claim) [81]. I re-reverted (my first actual revert), pointing both to actual guidelines, and already-provided proof that CL's assertions were incorrect, plus a discussion demand.[82] CL reverted again (3rd), this time with just a WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationale. I reverted (2nd), pointing to two open discussions at which CL could make her (already disproved) case. I then asked for page protection at WP:RFPP, and left a 3RR warning for CL. In true TAGTEAM style, TC (not CL) left me an incorrect, tit-for-tat 3RR warning [83], and acted as CL's proxy to do a 4th revert [84], again with the bogus "grammatical mistake" claim. I just left it as-is; I don't need to "claim my third revert". The page was fully protected (belatedly) in response to my RFPP request. More incivility and drama-mongering in user talk Diffs I took it to CL's user talk [85] with a request for explanation. CL's response is (get ready for this) to shift blame onto me for not helping CL "to dissuade FleetCommand from personal attacks". This is followed by another false claim that I attacked FC, and the theory that "we are all uncivil people who use a link to WP:CIVIL as a stick to beat each other". [86]. I certainly don't see it that way, and said so. I addressed CL's civility/attack accusations, and asked them to stop. The short version: "You're mistaking specific criticisms of content for some kind of personal animosity (and not even about your person)." [87] CL's behavior in ANI yesterday/today indicates this was ignored, since CL repeated the same accusations and ramped them up further. More ICANTHEARYOU. CL's response? "Oh, you are the one picking the fight. I was trying to prevent it." Followed by another attempt to actually generate a dispute between FC and me: "I will leave you and FleetCommand to kill each other". There was no dispute between FC and me up to that point. One started at WT:MOS shortly thereafter, so mission accomplished. CL claimed I needed a 24-hour cooling down period, which appears to be projection. [88] This is a return to the "I'm being so reasonable, everyone else is the problem, woe is me, it's the end of the world" pattern used at WT:MOSCOMP. I left the required {{uw-3RR}} in response to the editwarring at the article [89]; CL falsely claimed I was not permitted to leave it [90]; a similar bogus objection was made here in ANI later about the {{Ds/alert}}, another prescribed template. I informed CL (via e-mail) that "I don't want you on my talk page" sentiments cannot be used to evade mandatory templates, per WP:TPG. I also offered a conciliatory desire to end the disputation. CL is free to post that message here in full (without e-mail addresses). CL has twice falsely claimed this is WP:Harassment [91], [92]. Editors cannot completely evade normal inter-editor communication, and the above attempts to do so appeared to be a buying-time mechanism, to prepare the ANI CL posted yesterday. My intent was dispute resolution; last I looked, that's why we have user talk. Later problems, at WT:MOS Diffs Describes observable, provable English usage as "madness" that we're here to prescriptively "defy" with "principle-based grammar" [93] (i.e., principles CL and FC are inventing, and to which others are consistently objecting. I've yet to see a single other editor agree with them. Edited someone else's most (in a sarcastic way not permitted by WP:TPG) [94]. Accuses someone of "inventing a rule", when the entire thread provides enormous amounts of evidence for it. So, both aspersions and more ICANTHEARYOU. [95]. Takes the opportunity to make that dig even worse rather than retracting it [96]. Weird misdirection: claims that MOS:COMPSCI, the page to which MOS:COMP (the focus of all this dispute) has been proposed to be merged (in part, and the rest deleted) doesn't even exist any more, when of course it does [97]. This fits the pattern of several prevoiusly diffed CL posts on this page being a bunch of odd hand-waving that do not substantively address the discussion, same as at the WT:MOSCOMP thread. I and other editors [98],[99][100][101] have repeatedly explained why CL and FC's position is defying reliable sources, is OR, and a straw man (going back to at least May, I've discovered [102]), but these two just will not hear it. The self-declared mission to correct the world's "madness" and "defy" it by having MoS imposing CL- and FC-created "principle-based grammar" pseudo-rules is a clear indication this person needs to be kept out of MoS-related editing. Especially since the majority of this person's edits of any serious length that I've seen so far are littered with grammatical errors. This was also pointed out others in the ongoing WT:MOS discussion. Civility problems in CL's ANI against me This (since retracted) included various uncivil aspersions not supported by the diffs provided (which often contradict what CL is saying), many were not diffs but links to entire pages, and others just had no alleged evidence: Diffs "he launched a preemtive [sic] strike ... [103]" – mischaracterization of delivery of the {{Ds/alert}} template required by ArbCom; we're not even allowed to edit it, only add a note (e.g. about why we think the editor may be unaware that DS applies to the topic.) "he used unnecessarily harsh language to chastise a fellow editor's action ... definitely uncivil" – unsupported supposition of motive, and false claim of incivility, later repeated: "it was he who made the first uncivil comment". "he assumed the worst in me" – unsupported accusation of WP:AGF breach. Did it again: "it is him who is overreacting and assuming bad faith". "clear-cut personal attack" – false WP:NPA accusation, which didn't even come with a diff at all, much less one with proof. "he called me an edit warrior" – I did not; I said "edit warring", filed a WP:RFPP, and the responding admin agreed. "resorting to the deceitful tactic of putting words in another editor's mouth" – false claim; the "evidence" provided has nothing to do with such a claim, and support nothing but that the sources I provided allegedly don't address CL's concerns. Me: "[FC's] position is a prescriptive grammar one". CL: "Name calling ... perjorative [sic]". Just patently false; an editor is not the argument they have presented. Nothing about the term is pejorative, just distinct from linguistic description, the opposite of prescription. False accusation of harassment (repeated here) CL withdrew the ANI against me, which was headed for a WP:BOOMERANG, and included a statement that CL would "make amends" [104]. CL also stated at 12:33 UTC that they'd drop the stick [105] Instead, CL kept at it: 13:18 [106], 13:24 [107], and 18:15 [108]). Boomerang should thus be considered back on the table. It's disingenuous WP:SANCTIONGAMING to pretend to retract to avoid a boomerang, then continue making or defending the same rejected aspersions in another thread. That this is gaming is essentially self-admitted: "Oh, oh! I was supposed to not come here. Well, technically it is a different discussion."[109] (Except it's not, as it was merged at 11:40 [110]). Strong evidence of a civility problem (even one that someone takes pains to disguise) is inability to avoid engaging in incivility in a noticeboard where one's own behavior is going to be examined. Tagteaming Codename Lisa and FleetCommand are a classic WP:TAGTEAM. I was not aware of this until two days ago, when someone warned me in e-mail (by which point it was too late.) Details Comparing their contributions pages side-by-side shows an almost unbelievable level of overlap and mutual backup, including tag-team editwarring (as at .NET Framework the other day, where FC got "meta:The Right Version", moments before the page was edit-protected, by acting as CL's 3RR proxy). This behavior is consistent over time, especially at software and computer articles and at MOS:COMP. See also the (slow) Editor Interaction Analyzer results [111]. These two engage in the same tactics (other than FC tends to be directly hostile while CL plays pseudo-civility games) and come to each others' defense when challenged. Their hostility is frequent, but they exempt each other from it. As Codename Lisa put it, strangely drawing attention to the concerns: "This has elluded [sic] no one's attention, causing no less then [sic] six admins and two CheckUsers in Wikipedia, and one CheckUser in Commons, to check whether [FC] and I are sockpuppets." [112] And: "During 2012 and 2013, I endured 6 admin investigations, 2 CheckUser investigations and 1 Commons CheckUser investigation of whether FC is my sockpuppet." [113] CL's claim that all this happened simply because CL and FC don't attack each other is absurd on its face (and "not strictly true", says CL, anyway). Thousands of editors do not attack each other, yet no one is convinced they're sockpuppets. That happens when two accounts make the same pattern of edits, against opposition, and defend each other habitually and unreasonably. Since it's been proven these two are not socks, that only leaves TAGTEAM. Any dispute involving one of this pair tends to involve both of them, in lock-step, and proxying for each other. See previous noticeboard disputes and editing patterns at computing-related pages, plus the current ANI threads involving both of them, and their talk page histories, and .... Other examples of anti-collaborative histrionics and faux-civility Diffs "he dangerously wandered off the path [of] collegiality, civility and cooperative editing, and must be stopped" [114] "our esteemed colleague SMcCandlish", after verbally attacking me on multiple pages. "My sincerest apologies! ... Please forgive me" over a very trivial matter [115] – but never when it might count. CL does this frequently. "With all due respect sir, .... Thanks in advance." No question or request was made to which "Thanks in advance" could apply, making me wonder if these are being copy-pasted from a file of random platitudes. I saw another one recently, something like "crushed" or "devastated" in response to some minor argument, but I've misplaced the diff for it. I haven't trawled CL's editing history, but have a strong suspicion these behaviors are habitual. The dual effect of this pattern is 1) CYA smoke-screening (as in "See, I'm always so nice, so it must be you who drove me to do something inappropriate"); and 2) increasing the heat and length of dispute, through hyperbolic mischaracterization of trivia as things that make CL or FC a victim. See also previous diffs: "a mace to beat FC away", "taking over the ownership" (which sounds rather like an admission of current WP:OWNership), "preem[p]tive strike", "harassing", etc. Conclusion The content dispute is basically a WP:1AM matter (except the "1" is "2"). Both CL and FC insist that, e.g., Apple and Microsoft are "committing a mistake" (CL [116]) and "wrong" (FC, diffed earlier) when they write "the Mac Apple Store" or "the .Net Framework". Yes, this whole kerfuffle is, almost unbelievably, just about trying tell the entire world that "the" somehow cannot be used here. I couldn't make this up. It's WP:GREATWRONGS, WP:TRUTH, WP:POV, WP:SOAPBOX on steroids. And CL at least has declared a mission to impose this idiolect by "defying" the "madness" of real English. For this reason, and because MoS is already under WP:AC/DS for civility in particular, and because of tagteam/proxy behavior, I propose that Codename Lisa should be WP:TBANned from MoS for the same period as FleetCommand, and subject to the same likely WP:EDR civility restriction. It is not okay for this editor to continue to dive into gross incivility, behind a smoke-screen of the pretense of excessive politeness, as a tool for disrupting consensus discussions at guideline talk pages. Especially over trivial style demands that have no sourceable basis, and which have already been disproved by multiple editors. This is a case where WP:LAME style disputation has fused with WP:FRINGE. I don't think a block is warranted, because it probably won't work, and CL, like FC, is generally productive when they stick to content work.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  05:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply] Update To the editor's credit, Codename Lisa posted this on my talk page while I was writing this ANI, and I didn't notice it until after the ANI was opened. It's a nice gesture (and I think CL struck some stuff here and elsewhere, too, though I haven't gone diff-digging for it – I thought it more important to post this positive bit immediately). That said, my concerns remain about the editing patterns; this ANI isn't at all about whether I felt personally offended by something. (People say uncivil and off-base things about me all the time.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  05:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply] Hello, SMcCandlish Hello, my fellow Wikipedians Thanks SMcCandlish for adding the update above. If you hadn't seen my apology message for nine hours, then you must been working on this ANI for that long. I am very sorry to put you through this. Please allow me to be frank and truthful here. Frank truth hurts, because it is frank and not embelished with pleasantries. But I think you will want the truth here, not feigned softness for politeness. (Note: The so-called "joke" in a certain admin's talk page was actually a complaint with feigned softness for politeness.) My initial reaction (emphasis: initial) was (emphasis: was; no more) that everything you did was hostile, rude, battlefield-minded and retaliatory. When no less than five people tell me things that can be interpretted as "Codename Lisa, you are wrong!", I can do two things: (This part is going to hurt. But it is the truth.) Not listen; refute them, defensively hold up magazines and newspapers that blame the environment of Wikipedia as hostile and shout to myself "These are the people these articles are talking about! Corrupt admins, uncivil editors! I am a Roman stuck among Barbarians." Consider that they could be right after all. What is the chance of the whole world suddenly backing you up when there is no benefit in it for them? It must be me! I chose the latter. And it seems the Wikipedia reacted positively. I have received "Thanks" singals on my notification board from people who indicated to have been disgusted with me. (Ok, well, not disgusted; it is a strong word... I don't know. They clearly didn't approve.) Two of them have actually written them in words to which we can link. (I am not going to; it would be total hubris on my part.) I am not boasting; logically speaking, these are signals that I am in the right dirction... at least I hope. So, I now know what I must do, I think: I have to clear my head. I have to take a vacation. Then I have to carefully analyze our interactions and find out why and how I have been so wrong about you. I have one request though. I will want you to write another complaint; but not to ANI this time. For me. It is going to be simpler, with less diffs, and focus on the crux of the matter. I want to improve myself. In IATF, we have a saying: Problem is a good thing; when there are none, there won't be any improvemnts. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply] Nine hours? No, just doing other stuff. I have an enormous monitor, so the "you have new alerts" icon is a little blip in the corner, and sometimes I ignore it all day (usually it's just some mention or revert; I try to stay focused on a task at a time). I understand your bullet list above; have been through the same sort of thing, and took a near-total wikibreak for about a year (I thought I was actually retiring from editing). The time provided a lot of perspective. I think you got the ideas about me that you did because of random human differences in communication style. I'm a tell-it-like-it-is [in my perception] sort of person, but I mean what I say rather literally (unless I'm being obviously arch, like "Call Bill Gates and get him to change his mind" jokes). If I say a draft guideline addition seems ranty and rambling, this not some kind of catty code for "you are an anger-fueled polemicist, and cannot focus and produce tight prose, so get lost". I mean that I reverted it because it's not guideline-worthy in that state and needs tone and focus work (often hard work). I explained that in more detail on your talk page but you persisted in accusing me of having made personal attacks when I just did a routine BRD; trying to extract a confession of wrongdoing from me appeared to be more important than getting back to what we're here for. [I am sometimes an ass; little pressure is needed to get me to say so. But I won't concede to an accusation that isn't accurate.] I suspect another factor (judging by the amount of intense argument against your and FC's "the" stuff at MOS:COMP#Definite article), is the I-feel-put-upon effect of weathering a long string of opposition to something one feels strongly about. It makes every new critic of the same idea appear to be part of a conspiracy, but it's one that doesn't really exist. As for this ANI: Per AGF, we should all presume every editor we encounter is here to improve the encyclopedia and has the skills to do it (not always in the same areas and ways), besides obvious WP:SPADE / WP:DUCK stuff. However, we can't indefinitely presume someone is suited for a particular focus if what they're doing and saying indicates otherwise. There are various red flags that someone's temporarily lost perspective or has a topical neutrality problem (dismissal of evidence without actually refuting it, dwelling on interpersonal matters instead of the content and the work the page is about, advancing of preferences/beliefs as if universal truth, etc.). People usually mean really well when doing such things, but it's still not productive. Yet very common; we're kind of defying human nature in making this project work. This is why I so often oppose blocks (the go-to remedy) at ANI, and instead suggest temporary topic bans. Taking a voluntary wikibreak should have the same distance-and-perspective effect, so I have no issue with closing this ANI, as you requested in user talk. When ANI works, it's about solving a problem, changing a behavior, not about punishment or winning.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  11:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Returning the article to it's original condition while the section in RFC discussion[117], appears to be the issue for Anmccaff as they have repeated attempted to delete the entire section.[118][119] This is very disruptive.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The section before it was repeatedly deleted [120] is what I was attempting to maintain while the RFC discussion proceeds. It is Anmccaff, who is being disruptive and deleting the section in some kind of edit war.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I was referring to Anmccaff.[121] You and the others had no interest in this article, until John from Idegon pointed you in it's direction. You don't need to be so hostile, I'm an honest contributor and no 'sock puppet'; just ask and I will be happy to clarify any question you have. I do however, object strongly to your false accretions, thanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The local sources have know that this is not just a blimp blip in the news cycle, the issues surrounding the Jefferson Davis Highway markers began in 1998 with the Vancouver city council, when they removed the stone. It again became an issue in 2001, and again in 2006 when it was removed from public land for the last time. Thus the park was built in 2007 for the purpose of displaying the marker and for the education of confederate heritage. Those of us close to it have seen it play out in the local media: [122][123][124][125][126][127][128]http://www.kptv.com/story/36153519/some-calling-for-removal-of-confederate-flag-at-ridgefield-park][129][130][131][132][133][134]. The problem is when those that do not familiarize themselves with these local issues, take over control of wiki to the point of whitewashing them out of the local history. None of this was directed at you, Cullen³²⁸, only those that are pushing their agenda from outside the area that have not educated themselves to this, almost 30yr issues in Southwestern Washington. Ridgefield city government has asked the county historical society to remove the stone markers just this year, but all this started in 1939. I do appreciate that you, Cullen328, have an opinion and I respect it, and I also know that these over editors will get there way with this site as they are in force. So it will be, but I do object most strongly to the false allegations of Anmccaff, that I am someone's sock puppet, or a single purpose account (SPA) or that my account name, which is my name, is some how questionable. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, but Anmccaff is searching for anything to pin on me, and has been going through my old posts back to 2011 as well as starting a 'sockpuppet' or 'meatpuppet' investigation into me, along with going around to that Administrator's TP to besmirch my name with accusations. [135] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is about

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

The pages being disrupted are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support topic ban: Boundarylayer is editing with an agenda, or at least with a highly idiosyncratic opinion, and is brushing away criticism of the spin he places on articles with walls of text on the talk pages. Here is an example (more on request) of editing with the space of 48 hours, typical of their approach at Death of Savita Halappanavar – I must make it clear that the topic of the article is not notable simply for being a woman's death through medical error, but for being a trigger for extensive protests about the legal situation in Ireland:
  • Removing mention of the legal uncertainty [136] with edit summary: Removed nonsense spin, abortions had been preformed before her death, the only new law is this new suicide clause being within the remit of "threat to life"
  • Replaced the words "requested an abortion" with "Savita was to infamously request an abortion" [137] with edit summary Stop the spin, the facts are in.
  • Removed the words "after having been denied an abortion" three times more [138] [139] [140]

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

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

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

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

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

Huerfanoedits has removed the speedy deletion tag multiple times [141], [142], and [143] from KSBK, a page which this user created, without providing explanation. In my edit summaries, which restored the tag, I notified the user that the notice should not removed from pages that they have created themselves. This warning was ignored. Rather than edit war, I wanted to take the issue here. 17:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Sumair1981 has removed the speedy deletion tag four times from Muhammad Sumair Kaleem's page [144], [145], [146], and [147] and has been warned both in edit summaries and on his talk page. To prevent edit warring, I'm taking the issue here. Meatsgains (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tvx1 has already started one. A Train^talk 10:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see at User talk:Look2See1, I have recently had two run-ins with this user and posted multiple times asking him to 1.) explain his edits which were confounding and 2.) please stop editing one small section of a much larger category tree to make that scheme inconsistent. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Look2See1&oldid=809266735#Album_categories for a conversation where he made many edits which were not only incorrect but hardly even intelligible and now https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Look2See1&oldid=809266735#Category:Lists_of_countries_in_Africa where he insists on changing list categories to being "lists of lists" when they aren't. I really don't know what to do here. @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: since you helped me talk some sense into him last time. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look2See1 certainly needs to be educated on how categories work and is encouraged to look at how existing schemes are set before embarking on creating their own schemes because they make sense to them. Before making mass changes of a similar nature, L2S1 should attempt to discuss these on appropriate talk pages and with experienced editors, especially those who do a lot of category maintenance. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me}

Look2See1 seems to have a tendency to change things that are just fine the way they are into some idiosyncratic form they prefer, but nobody else does. On Commons, they were prone to take perfectly understandable prose category descriptions and unnecessarily convert them into a list of bullet points, despite being asked numerous times not to do so. [160],[161],[162] Eventually, their continued overcategorization and "injecting entropy" [163] into the category system there [164], [165], etc. got them indef blocked. [166]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This user also has a long history of inserting geologic time templates in inappropriate locations. Abyssal (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This uses has a long history of ignoring any comments or requests that edits be discussed, and only when reverted will they occasionally respond. See the conversations at WP:Geology, WP:Categorization and essentially all of @Look2See1: own talk page and archives. As noted its a systemic problem that has resulted in an indef block on commons, and hundreds of hours of clean up here.--Kevmin § 00:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At it right now, populating Category:Flora of the Cape Provinces with the use of a "." to top sort the articles being added. It's unconventional but is the categorization appropriate? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the United Kingdom (specifically in England and Wales), "suicide" is legally-speaking a verdict, which can ONLY be returned by a quasi-judicial officer carrying out his judicial functions called a Coroner (himself or himself with a jury) in the Coroners' Courts, in an Inquest...in the UK, just because someones has apparently taken his own life, that doesn't mean that you are allowed to say that the person has actually committed suicide...anyone who doing this who is not the coroner is in effect commenting the results (the verdict) of an inquest in advance, and if the person is actually a resident, resident or ordinarily resident in England and Wales, he is in fact guilty of the criminal offence of contempt of court under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (1981 c. 49) [167], which also covers coroners, Coroners' Courts and Inquests.

"Commenting on the results of an inquest could prevent a future criminal trial as the defendant may not be able to get a fair trial." [168][169]

To put it simply, Carl Sargeant, in his country of death, and legally under the laws of the same country of his death, CANNOT be said to have committed suicide at present. "Had apparently taken his own life" a maybe (just), but "suicide" definitely a no. -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• BBC An ex-Welsh Labour minister who faced a party investigation into allegations about his personal conduct has taken his own life, it is understood.
• Telegraph: Welsh Labour minister Carl Sargeant takes own life days after being suspended over allegations of sexual misconduct
• The Guardian: Sargeant, a 49-year-old married father of two, is understood to have killed himself. North Wales police said on Tuesday that the death was not being treated as suspicious.

The Telegraph explicitly states "takes own life". I.e. suicide. Jim1138 (talk) 09:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, please note that because the WMF servers are located in the US, UK law is not controlling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not controlling the WMF, Beyond My Ken, but very much controlling for UK-based editors :) — fortunavelut luna 12:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I'm aware of that, and almost included that point in my comment, but decided on not confusing the two issues. It's only a potential problem for UK-based editors who actually edit the article to say something which opposes UK law. And the "potential" is exceedingly small, in this non-lawyer's opinion - even supposing that the IP's point is accurate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really an issue for ANI, but to the extent that there's a distinction between "take own life" and "committed suicide," we should go with what the sources say. In this instance the sources in th article use the phrases "took own life" and "killed himself," but don't use the word suicide. In which basis I've changed the article to "took own life."Agree with others here and in the talkpage that the specific legal issue seems unlikely to arise in Wikipedia's case. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say we were going beyond the sources in alleging suicide, which I see has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before the coroner. The intent to die must be proven as well as the act which caused death, both by that standard, and the UK sources seem to be avoiding the word "suicide". There are BLP concerns regarding his survivors, who might be grieved further on seeing the allegation here, which may never be proven. I think it was appropriate for the OP, who is probably not an experienced editor, to bring it to the attention of administrators.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But experienced enough to know that you can't say someone (in the UK) have committed suicide before the Inquest has concluded (even regardless of what the family might say or might have said, or the family's feelings), that there can be no argument. ---- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question was raised whether this was the best venue for the concern. I am saying "good enough". I bring up the family because I am less convinced by English law in its own right, than in our WP:BLP policy, specifically WP:BDP. English law convinces me only that using the word "suicide" prior to any proving of same may cause harm to living people; I looked at a journal article that indicates that families will go to some effort to avoid a suicide verdict being returned in favour of an open verdict, for example. That's what convinced me there was a BLP problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this IP has been spamming a similar message to many of the article contributors, as well as the article talk page. Dragons flight (talk) 09:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will just ignore that remark! --- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pasting the same message to many editors' talk pages is indeed spamming. I made no edits to the article about his death, and didn't need a message on my talk page about it. Next time, post your message to the article's talk page, and use Ping there if you feel that several specific editors need to be aware of what you posted. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The change is I am afraid not good enough. Even the BBC only went so far as to report that "An ex-Welsh Labour minister who faced a party investigation into allegations about his personal conduct has taken his own life, it is understood" (emphasis added). And User:Euryalus obviously is not aware of instances when the UK Press had got it horribly wrong [170]...UK online news articles these days (even from supposedly reliable news publishers) are (because of the 24-hour news cycle) no longer all automatically checked by in-house ex-solicitors (lawyers) before publication as they were 15-25 years' ago, until their legal departments actually receive angry telephone calls from the Attorney General's Office or from the Crown Prosecution Service. (I am afraid, if false allegations were made in the first place against the deceased, and the complainants were to be charged with involuntary manslaughter at a later date, their defence might e.g. then be able to use editing history in Wikipedia (amongst other evidence) to try and argue that their clients would not be able to receive a fair trial.) --- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended it somewhat. What is your thought now?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Christopher Jefferies analogy is overblown. But Wehwalt's version looks ok to me. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm agreeing with Euryalus on this. I think the press have a pretty good idea of their legal position. Deb (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has posted this sort of guff on a lot of user's talkpages (example) and it has the vibe of a WP:LEGALTHREAT - "...is a fine not exceeding £2,500 or 2 years' imprisonment, or both..." Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted some gentle advice on the IP's talk page; we'll see if it has any effect. GoldenRing (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GR. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a view on WP that "UK law is not relevant to Wikipedia", held even by quite experienced editors. This is just not true. WP does not exist in a vacuum. WP is not on a par with the UK legal system (as it clearly considers itself!) and does not get to make legal rulings on issues like monkey selfie copyrights. Nor, in this case, does WP avoid the legal constraints that newspapers are bound by.

We should not use the term "suicide" in a case like this until it has been ruled as such. This should be so obvious that I am amazed to even see it at ANI. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: I would have appreciated a notification that you intended to indirectly criticise me here, in a matter entirely unrelated, for reasons entirely unknown. I absolutely stand by my reasoning that the British legal definition of a political party is irrelevant. Wikipedia is based and hosted in the United States. The British courts and legal system have jurisdiction over Britain. Before going after us, maybe you should go after the reliable sources in Britain, such as the BBC, that have been saying Sargeant "took his own life". AusLondonder (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing in the linked sources (or elsewhere at first glance) which says that you can not or may not call it "suicide" legally, but you may say "took his own life" without any problem. One source linked above[171] says that "commenting on the results of an inquest could prevent a future trial", but makes no distinction between using "suicide" or "taking his own life" or any other way to say the same. It seems to me that the problem isn't with the word "suicide", but that technically we (or the BBC, Times, ...) shouldn't speculate about the cause of death in any way or shape. This seems an untenable position. Fram (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And to that end, we're at least saying "reportedly took his own life", not a firm/conclusive statement, but equivalent to what the reliable media is saying. We're fine - this is how we handed Robin Williams' suicide before it was ruled that (which took several months before it was confirmed). --MASEM (t) 15:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have no problem with handling it this way, but I was amazed at the claim "We should not use the term "suicide" in a case like this until it has been ruled as such. This should be so obvious that I am amazed to even see it at ANI." when I couldn't find any indication that the term "suicide" is the problem, and not the "alleged" vs. "definitely" aspect. When there is reasonable reason (from reliable sources) to presume suicide, it is perfectly allright to write "presumed suicide" or any of the other terms for the same. Avoiding that single word seemed weird, but was alleged to be a problem (and even an obvious one). Fram (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What's a "veiled death"? EEng 03:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 220.101.50.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Already warned)

This IP address added multiple copyright violations to Hellraiser: Judgment, including a link to a pirated movie and a copy-and-pasted summary. Can an adminstrator revdel these edits (specifically the ones involving pirated material)? DarkKnight2149 16:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Since their other contributions don't seem particularly disruptive, I haven't blocked but have left a warning at their talk page. Hopefully they'll learn from the experience. GoldenRing (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Them learning would be the ideal outcome. Hopefully they continue editing in a constructive manner. DarkKnight2149 16:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need Admin eyes on Lucky For You. User is not heeding warnings, uploading possible copyvio's, breaking infoboxes, forcing image sizes. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have temporarily deleted recent uploads by this user as spot check indicates they are consistently tagged with incorrect license and invalid fair use claim. Alex Shih (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hallward's Ghost is edit-warring and otherwise disrupting an ongoing good-faith content dispute at Talk:Carter Page.

• Two editors, Abierma3 and myself, believe that certain content recently added to Carter Page is presented non-neutrally (my rationale summarized here). Two other editors, Billmckern and Volunteer Marek, believe that the content is neutral and should be left as-is. The talk page discussion wasn't making much progress so I tagged the paragraph while Billmckern started an RfC.
• All fine and well, until Hallward's Ghost came in and removed the tag three times ([172][173][174]), falsely claiming a non-existent consensus to do so while not even bothering to weigh in on the merits.
• Hallward's Ghost then flatly rejected my good faith attempt to discuss on their talk page.
• Meanwhile Hallward's Ghost insists on cluttering up and disrupting the RfC with needless bickering over the tag ([175][176][177]) that belongs elsewhere.

Hallward's Ghost's participation appears to be aimed at ramming through their content preferences while subverting the dispute resolution process. I am hoping an admin will tell them to stop. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, this is mostly Dr. Fleischman edit warring against several editors and trying to sprinkle "magic RfC dust" to protect "his version". Disruptive behavior is by OP (WP:BOOMERANG), not Hallward's Ghost. Volunteer Marek  18:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're in black-is-white territory. I've let "your" version stand. The only "version" I've tried to protect is the tag. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with what Marek says here. I came upon that article yesterday or the day before, and noticed an odd, completely unsupported tag. I removed it, and went to the talkpage, where it seemed clear that Fleischman was engaging in POV pushing. He has attempted to expand the dispute to my talkpage, even after being asked to let the discussion be contained on the article talkpage multiple times. He threatened me with ANI should I remove his tendentious tagging, and here we are. Edit to add: Fleischman has also attempted to hat my comments at the RFC, apparently considering himself some sort of moderator, when he's clearly not. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 19:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Additionally, this seems to indicate that "Abierma3" made their first edit in six months to support Fleischman's odd interpretation at the article in question. Something smells pretty fishy about that. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 19:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPI me then. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I edit Wikipedia for pleasure. I have no interest in descending into the political muck. But it's a pretty clear WP:DUCK quacking if anyone else has an interest in taking it to SPI. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 19:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now a personal attack by Hallward's Ghost. This is basically bullying. See WP:POV RAILROAD. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another personal attack by Hallward's Ghost and further disruption of the RfC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Unconnected editor monitoring the ANI board. I traced through the edit history and this looks like WP:BOOMERANG. Accurately sourced info doesn't merit a POV tag. The burden is on the nominator to first prove POV, essentially by creating reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the sources, which has not been done here. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Just because you disagree with with the OP doesn't make this a boomerang. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang applies when what you are doing is what you are accusing others of doing. Adding a POV tag is a form of POV, especially if it's not warranted. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, boomerang applies when the OP has committed a sanctionable offense. It is not an accusation that should be made lightly. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing with everyone. I was completely uninvolved at the Carter Page article, and now you're trying to present me as some sort of POV warrior. Tim Templeton was uninvolved, now you're vaguely threatening him because he warned you about the possibility of this ludicrous "report" BOOMERANGing on you. The problem isn't everyone else. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 21:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A third personal attack here. This is textbook POV railroading. Hallward's Ghost has added literally nothing constructive to the content dispute. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You asked a question, and I answered it. And putting your words in bold doesn't make them any more convincing. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 22:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused about what you considered POV. The placement of the tag makes it appear that you had an issue with the last sentence. Had you tagged the whole section, it would have been clearer. Nonetheless, I recommend that if you feel the section has a bias, rather than putting in the POV tag, you might consider adding info that substantiates your claim, with proper sourcing. There's no reason you couldn't add something to the effect "Other media sources have reported that there are no connections to the Trump campaign and no inconsistencies in Page's testimony", or whatever your concern is. And I know you'll be prepared for the sources to be challenged if they are known for bias. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. Another constructive approach might be to discuss the issue on the talk page, yes? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) Comment as uninvolved: I see no personal attack in the bolded diff that DrFleischman linked above. If we are going there, I would support a WP:BOOMERANG. Also, bolding diffs does not make them more convincing. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 01:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshi24517, how about accusations of sockpuppetry that lack evidence? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He said he wasn't fully convinced of it. Yes, he did say it was fairly obvious, but he did not want to feed the fire more. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 01:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshi24517, are you suggesting in good faith that this comment, which Hallward's Ghost said, in an RfC, "I'm fairly certain we're dealing with one actual person, not two, with regards to Fleischman and Abierma3," was not an accusation of sockpuppetry? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am. I see nothing wrong with his actions. WP:BOOMERANG. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 01:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It is standard procedure for POV warriors to try to get their edits into an article, then fallback to adding a POV tag when plan A fails. Tags in contested articles are merely ways of poking opponents, particularly since it appears there is an RfC about some content issue. If the disputed text is a BLP violation, remove it and report why at WP:BLPN. Otherwise, stop using tags as weapons. Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq, what is the basis for accusing me of adding the tag as a weapon? And are we not interested in examining the Hallward's Ghost's conduct? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remember DrFleischman, all conduct is analyzed when you drag somebody to ANI, not just who you're complaining about. Including yourself. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 01:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like it. Only my conduct is being analyzed here, and not rigorously at that. I have complied with all policies and guidelines, Hallward's Ghost has not. Please respond. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The possibility could be that it's because your actions are in the wrong here, and his are not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, could be. So educate me. Or do you prefer to go with the herd? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved, just passing by and saw this. The very least you could do, Dr. Fleischman, is stop badgering everyone that says anything that could be remotely construed as negative about your editing. It kind of reflects negatively on you. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 02:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So let me guess: if a group of editors agree with you, it's consensus; but if a group of editors disagree with you, it's "go[ing] with the herd"? That's a tad self-serving.

Perhaps you could spend less time Wikilawyering over a tag and more time discussing the issue you think makes it necessary. --Calton | Talk 02:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The accounts in question are Mundzuk (talk · contribs), Bidoistvan (talk · contribs), Newaccount1810 (talk · contribs), and possibly Leveskockaa (talk · contribs). Since mid-October, the first three of these accounts has been active on the Jobbik article, significantly expanding it with consistently descriptive edit summaries and highly similar behavior; these additions, compared to the previous content of the article, can largely be described as whitewashing. While I am personally aware of Jobbik's attempts to realign itself as a more mainstream right-wing party and distance itself from its far-right roots, the content added by the editors has largely had the appearance of attempting to paint the party in a much more flattering light. Two have also made significant contributions to Gábor Vona demonstrating similar behavior. All four accounts use VisualEditor frequently and utilize identical reference formatting and choice of reference parameters. I'm unsure how to describe this behavior as anything other than highly NPOV and suspiciously similar.

Newaccount1810 has uploaded images to Commons that have been handled by OTRS volunteers; how this image was verified may offer some insight into these accounts.

Leveskockaa appears to have been inactive for nearly three years, returning this month to make two edits, one of them also related to Hungarian politics which appears slightly critical of a small Hungarian liberal party, and has some behavioral similarities. The account was attached to login.wikimedia.org on 4 February 2017, en.wiktionary.org on 6 February 2017, and commons.wikimedia.org on 9 February 2017, without any logged actions in that period.

Mélencron (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Confirmed to each other
• Bidoistvan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Newaccount1810 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mundzuk (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

•  Possible to the above:
• Tzollee (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) same IP, close UA
• Leveskockaa (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) same geolocation as above but different ISP and UA.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Previously, AJ Pachano (talk · contribs) was accused of edit warring on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Changes to Infobox services. I was also subject to a personal attack on their talk page. I figured the user had quit wikipedia, but I found PhilEvolution (talk · contribs) had started editing and creating similar templates. Both users share a lack of proper grammar, and were editing the same types of articles. One of the 50+ examples on the second account is Jackson Park station. Cards84664 (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a separate noticeboard for socks. I was going to bring AJ Pachano here for disruptive editing but that may not be necessary now. I'll just add that Armanjarrettp (talk · contribs) is probably the same guy. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Confirmed to each other
• AJ Pachano (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Armanjarrettp (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• PhilEvolution (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• I've blocked the older account Armanjarrettp 72 hours for socking and indeffed the other two.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:AN3

There is a somewhat heated discussion ongoing on Talk:Nazism, it involves closure of open ongoing discussions, reversion of the closures, and so forth. Depending on how you define it, I suspect two of us are well past 3RR.

The entire mess starts here; to get the full flavor, you gotta just plough through it.

So, my question here is:

Does repeatedly closing a discussion, despite the fact that at least 4 other people are actively participating in it, constitute edit warring? Anmccaff (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, unfortunately Talk:Nazism distressingly often gets inquiries or statements concerning the Nazis actually being part of the political left, and not the political right. These questions/statements have been answered each time they come up, and the standing consensus on the talk page is that the vast majority of mainstream historians consider the Nazis to be part of the right, and not part of the left, despite some strands of "socialism" in the party's formal (but not practical) agenda. (The Nazis being part of the left appears to be a current Alt-right talking point. [181]) So, when this question came up today, I answered it, and then closed the discussion, to enforce the standing consensus on the talk page.

Unfortunately, Anmccaff seems to be the holder of a WP:FRINGE ahistorical position that the Nazis only became considered to be part of the right after the war [182], and for this reason he doesn't want the discussion closed. I opened an RfC on the talk page [183] to further confirm the standing consensus (which can be easily found by anyone simply by reviewing the page's archives) but this doesn't seem to satisfy Anmccaff's need to re-litigate the question that has already been asked and answered numerous times.

The operative concern here is not edit warring, it's Anmcaff's refusal to accept the standing consensus on the talk page, due to his desire to espouse his fringe viewpoint. As such, this complaint really should be on ANI, as it's an issue of Anmcaff's behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anmccaff and Beyond My Ken: Hope you two don't mind, but I moved this to ANI, as it really does seem like the better place for this kind of discussion. SkyWarrior 03:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyone who places Nazism on the left needs a CIR block. EEng 03:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: In my opinion, there is no cause to close down a good-faith article-talk discussion, much less in less than 24 hours. In addition, if the issue has been previously discussed, it behooves those pooh-poohing the query to link to those discussions. Thirdly, there is never a case for closing down a less-than-24-hour-old good-faith article-talk discussion and immediately opening up a snarky so-called RfC with the question "Has the question of whether the Nazis were part of the political left been sufficiently discussed on this talk page in the past, so that when the question comes up again, the response can be brief and to the point, and there is no need to have an unnecessary additional full discussion?" -- Softlavender (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You think that ""Has the question of whether the Nazis were part of the political left been sufficiently discussed on this talk page in the past, so that when the question comes up again, the response can be brief and to the point, and there is no need to have an unnecessary additional full discussion?" is "snarky"? Interesting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it's snarky. You think it deserves a 7 day discussion? Interesting. --DHeyward (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Well obviously, we hold somewhat different notions of what is and isn't "snarky". If I had intended to be snarky, I might have phrased the question as something like "Are we required to accommodate every wingnut who shows up here trying to establish that the Nazis were lefties?" Now that would have been snarky.
  As to whether I thought the actual question I posed required a 7 day discussion - no, I did not. In fact, I don't think it required any discussion at all as being obvious on its face, but I was trying to accommodate an editor who thought otherwise by giving him a chance to establish a new consensus. All it will take is a consensus of "no" !votes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Conversation is warm and friendly but it is also a weapon to drive away editors with a genuine interest in the topic. I have seen several articles where fringe stuff is repeatedly raised and shutting it down quickly is the only way to avoid losing control of the talk page. How do you close a discussion after people have started enjoying it? Actually, it's not really a discussion, it's a list of fringe claims versus reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) I think the second part of the RfC question (starting from ...so that) should be rephrased to something like "how should we approach if there are recurring discussions on this topic?". Opinionated input would probably be better placed in the threaded comments section. Alex Shih (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anyone who thinks this, prewar, was a fringe claim simply can not have read any of the leftian commentary between the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and Barbarossa...no, make that between the suppression of the POUM and Barbarossa. Writers under party discipline during the immediate prewar era were damn near fawning over Hitler, and touched on exactly the same points raised more recently regarding social policy. (This, of course, led to the first major wave of disillusionment with Stalinism.) Anmccaff (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]