Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Stalking

WP:Wikihounding is:

the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

Here's a textbook case:

1. User:Travelmite opened an account in January 2015, making 92 edits, mostly on two days, where he added articles to a category using an existing list, and shuffled text around in an article. See [1] and [2] for examples, here for the complete list.
2. At the end of January 2016, this account's behaviour abruptly changed from making trivial edits to actively targeting two editors: myself and User:Miesianiacal, whom he attempted to WP:OUT, claiming a conflict of interest here.
3. In February 2016, Travelmite made 246 edits, some aimed at Miesianiacal, but most (198) directed against me via the Australian head of state dispute article, which I created in 2011 and has a handful of regular editors on this rather specialised topic. Examples of his behaviour here, here, here, here and many others. Only a few edits during this time were on other matters, such as support for Brianhe's failed admin request here and some triva concerning Ugg boots here.
4. In March 2016, all of this account's 101 edits were aimed at me via the head of state and related articles, continuing the previous month's behaviour.
5. This account quietened down during April, May and June, apart from two edits at Talk:Panini, taking a predictably opposite position to mine. I had been called there via an RfC request. Travelmite simply followed me there.
6. In July 2016, out of 52 edits, 49 were again directed at me via the School of Economic Science article, which has been a subject of some interest to me. Travelmite again caused disruption, mainly via another WP:COIN topic here.
7. In August 2016, after I attempted to raise this matter discreetly in other forums, the account's behaviour abruptly changed, with edits after 16 August moving away from me.

Out of 569 edits made by the Travelmite account in 2016, 393 (or 69%) were directed against me via articles I edit, or through various other harassments, such as the WP:COIN issue. Fot most of 2016, this account has followed me around Wikipedia for the purposes of harassment, making few edits that were not connected to me in one way or another. Looking at this account's edits, I think that the charge of WP:Wikihounding is clearly demonstrated. Again, I quote:

The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

This account edits via Chinese proxies. It is apparently not connected with any other Wikipedia account, as determined by discreet Checkuser requests. (The requests were made discreetly for legitimate reasons I am unable to disclose here.)

I suspect that this account is fraudulent, based on the fact that its behaviour changed abruptly in late January 2016 from making a few sparse innocuous edits to being concerned almost exclusively with myself and Miesianiacal, disputing over various articles, talk pages and noticeboards day after day. This is not the usual manner in which editors begin their service here.

In late January 2016, there was some discussion here about an interaction ban involving four editors, one of whom was myself. I opposed the application of an IBAN then, but I am seeking one now, between myself and Travelmite. I don't mind if Travelmite makes constructive edits (and he shows a good deal of familiarity with wikipractice), but I do find the continued stalking offensive and disruptive.

I request the attention of other editors here to consider my request for an interction ban. --Pete (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Definitely a reasonable request. Until an IBAN can be implemented, I recommended you try and WP:SHUN the user for now. Better yet, I think this long-term wikihounding warrants a block. I haven't observed this user's contributions closely, but from what you've written, and from the diffs, there is a possibility of a WP:NOTHERE case. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 14:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I am a person of the highest principles and integrity. The accusations above are all false, including the details and statistics. You won't find a single other editor to confirm these accusations. I deal with hundreds of issues on Wikipedia, only three involving Pete/Skyring. Why three? Pete/Skying's incivility towards other editors has unfortunately generated incalculable complaints and counter-complaints. And everyone sees them here on the dispute pages - that is the only way I know about them. Travelmite (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Travelmite: Please could you provide evidence that Skyring has been uncivil (diffs)? Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 16:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are many. Let's start the 23rd March where I am called a "troll" when defending against false accusations against another editor [3][4] and here making further unfounded accusations that I am "dedicated to disruption" [5]. A few uncivil/baiting comments towards User_talk:Py0alb regarding spelling of Panini, with this diff [6] being one example. User:Roberthall7 is under a bit of a personal attack here [7] which led to the discovery Pete/Skyring was a member of the organisation in the article and making sympathetic edits. But there's more than just my dealings, because this block from 8-August shows a more serious attempt at making accusations, [8] but I don't know the details of that. Travelmite (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Also from the same page: [9] Travelmite (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

"I deal with hundreds of issues on Wikipedia, only three involving Pete/Skyring." Maybe. That's like saying our planet has thousands of landmasses, only seven of which are continents. Looking at Travelmite's contributions, we see how much attention is given to various issues. 45 edits (totalling 14 212 characters) on School of Economic Science, one (17 characters) on Tragedy of the commons. The pattern is clear. --Pete (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

What has happened recently, to suddenly warrant an Hounding report? GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I've not heard from Pete/Skyring for about a month. From User:Roberthall7, I learnt he was blocked due to some other dispute. I guess the block has ended and well ... this. Travelmite (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The two of you are clearly not seeing eye to eye. I think you should agree to disagree, and get a two-way IBAN. You obviously aren't able to collaborate in harmony, and what's happened has just caused animosity between you. Until then, you should just deny all communication with each other. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 19:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I see you were summoned here GoodDay, through one of several canvassing edits here, misleadingly headed "Beacon Reader". I've done my best to ignore Travelmite since March, WP:SHUNing him as per Linguist111's comment. I could see he was putting more effort into trying to irritate me than I was in being irritated, but he made one reversion too many, and I decided to get more eyes on the subject. It's like having a stalking ex, and applying for a restraining order. Wikipedia's equivalent is an interaction ban, and that's all I'm looking for here. --Pete (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It is akin to workplace bullying and corruption, with a duty on all of us to help stamp it out. We have seen the accusations are false. Although I've been involved a mere three times, it has been confirmed above that the overriding issue is how other editors complain and request help from the community (via the dispute pages) to deal with harassment, bad faith, tenacious arguing and ignoring existing consensus positions, outstanding conflict of interest complaints and so on. (Note: Currently, due process is also at issue here. See Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard#Right_to_defense.) Travelmite (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Travelmite has above demonstrated the problem in the relationship. A look at his contributions from late January on shows very little else but a focus on my activities. He claims "hundreds of issues", but apart from a few, every post has been concerned with two topics:

• The issue of the Australian head of state, through the lead article here (171 edits totalling 60 714 characters), an RfC about the Australian head of state (79 edits totalling 29 925 characters), and some related pages. Contributions here.
• The School of Economic Science (45 edits totalling 14 212 characters) and related pages. Contributions between 15 July and 16 August.

Both articles were, prior to Travelmite's involvement, stable articles maintained by a handful of editors each. Travelmite's edits in article space were either destructive, or modest and superficial, his edits in talkspace fixated on my doings. His contributions list demonstrates the facts, rather than his wildly inaccurate clams, and may easily be checked through the hundreds of edits. This is not the "mere three times" claimed above! It is an unhealthy fixation, and his dishonest denials of the problem's extent underscore this. I think a two-way interaction ban would fix the problem, allowing Travelmite to pursue other targets. --Pete (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

"You won't find a single other editor to confirm these accusations." Er, I am a single other editor who will confirm the accusations. Travelmite was not only sternly warned against making further unfounded and bad faith accusations against me, he threatened and then attempted to WP:OUT me, first by trying to have COI and OUTing rules changed and then by creating a page off-Wiki and linking it to my talk page (that edit was permanently stricken from my talk page's history). He eventually left me alone due to, I assume, a combination of the warnings and my ignoring him.

I didn't fail to notice from time to time that Pete/Skyring had indeed become the new permanent target of Travelmite and his obsession with and misunderstanding of conflict of interest. I recognize the behaviour, as I made an AN/I report about Travelmite myself for the same reasons. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Mies! On looking at the previous ANI link I notice that Travelmite was attacking you in an outrageous fashion, earning a 48-hour block and several warnings in the process. The use of Chinese proxy addresses was also noticed by two editors, as well as the "out of nowhere" approach that caught my eye. He likewise made a spurious COIN report and badgered you on your talk page; familiar behaviour. I strongly suspect this account to be run by someone with a longer wikihistory than meets the eye, using proxies to avoid scrutiny. --Pete (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the interactions, none of these are accurate. I never outed Meisianiacal nor did I try. I did not create an off-wiki page or link it - that doesn't even make sense. Maintenance of privacy was always taken into full consideration. Requests from others to explain my information on-wiki were refused, because I didn't trust them enough. Fortunately later, Meisianiacal made a solemn declaration to an admin, which took the COI issue away. Meisianiacal, just to let you know that this incident report is not a problem. You didn't open it. Your privacy remains an absolute priority. Travelmite (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

This is blatantly untrue. Travelmite made a specific identification, and threw in allegations of a sexual nature. Some evidence of this remains on-wiki. For obvious reasons I shall not comment further, though I can back up my statements privately to senior Wikiofficials if need be.--Pete (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Linguist111, I'm brought out of my major off-Wiki commitments at the moment after User:Travelmite messaged me and you reverted that message on my Talk page. Your issue with his message may well have merit. Is it in keeping with standard WP practices for WP editors to remove material from each others' talk pages? Assuming it is, please explain your edit. Also, do you have a history of dealing with the editors in question, or is this your first interaction with them? Turning to the issue of this ANI:

• Due to my major off-Wiki commitments I don't have time to become fully involved.
• I know nothing about Travelmite's alleged connections to other accounts (that happen to be in China), a serious matter if true. Nor do I know about his full record of editing WP and attitude toward User:Miesianiacal which from the description, if accurate, appears to be in need of change.
• What I do know is that Travelmite's issues with Pete/Skyring have merit in at least one article. I recommend observers take a very close look at the School of Economic Science Talk page, before drawing any conclusions about Travelmite and this ANI. He, I and Pete/Skyring have for months been the most active editors on that article. Pete/Skyring has self-identified himself as a member of the School of Economic Science, an organization variously described as a church, school, cult or new religious movement.
• On that Talk page Pete/Skyring has been identified by afair Travelmite, myself and User:Fiddlersmouth as disruptive, and afair the three of us ceased to assume his good faith and identified his personal attacks. On the Talk page there, you'll see a repeated allegation from Pete/Skyring that I am a WP:SPA, and my explanatory response to it, including notice of my disengagement due to the discussion becoming both personal and adversarial. Until now, I have maintained that disengagement, averted edit-warring and direct Talk-page debate with Pete/Skring. Nevertheless Pete/Skyring has continued to bait me; one tactic appears to be a switch to referring to me in discussions with other editors as female ("she" , "her" etc), when nobody else on WP does, and despite my username being Roberthall7. I haven't taken the bait. There's plenty more problematic behavior where that came from.
• On that Talk page, afair User:Keithbob recommended Travelmite, myself, User:Fiddlersmouth and Pete/Skyring going to ANI instead of undertaking lengthy Talk page discussion about behavior. Travelmite replied that he hoped it didn't get to ANI, presumably because he wanted to keep things cool. So it may be that Travelmite's refusal to go as far as ANI was well-intentioned, but that resulted instead in a sort of vigilante 'policing' behaviour by him to deal with Pete/Skyring. That may have caused a negative impression about Travelmite to be formed. He might indeed have been better off going to ANI in the first place, as Keithbob advised.
• For the record, I have had involved content disagreements and differences of opinion with Travelmite. Even at their most entrenched, I not once found his editing or comments to be disruptive, manipulative or uncivil, which seems to be the final test of all allegedly inappropriate WP behavior. On the contrary, he has been meticulously even-handed, sometimes appearing to at least partially support Pete/Skyring, while disagreeing with me. The result has been establishment of consensus and stability to the School of Economic Science article, for which Travelmite is due for acknowledgement and praise.
• If Travelmite were to get blocked, administrators would need to observe what Peter/Skyring then does at the School of Economic Science article without Travelmite being there to provide balance. It may be that this ANI was launched by Pete/Skyring to tactically remove the balance that Travelmite has provided to that article, for a while at least.
• Pete/Skyring has a long history of blocks due to disruptive behavior, and he has just come out of a two-week block. It's conspicuous that he would choose now, of all times, to cast aspersions about Travelmite with an ANI. Is it some kind of emotional retaliation? Aside from Travelmite, I and afair at least one other editor, Fiddlersmouth, having ceased to assume Pete/Skyring's good faith on an article in which they interacted at length. As such, Pete/Skyring's ANI about Travelmite should not be concluded without further scrutiny of Pete/Skyring himself.
• At the School of Economic Science Talk page Pete/Skying has made deceptive edits, to the extent that I am skeptical about his allegations against Travelmite here.
• If the allegation about Travelmite using Chinese proxies turns out to be true, and I note that he has immediately denied them, one solution to think about might be a combination of an interaction ban for Travelmite as well as a topic ban for Pete/Skyring that stops the disruption which may have prompted Travelmite's vigilante 'policing'.
• Either way, I would now support an ANI scrutinizing Pete/Skyring's behavior at the School of Economic Science article, in which I would expect and welcome scrutiny of myself.
• Based on past form, Pete/Skyring will attempt to undermine my observations on the grounds that I'm a WP:SPA. I'm confident that administrators know disruptive behavior is the test of editors' conduct. If I've been disruptive, then please show me where and I'll apologize and make amends.
• I'm getting back to my off-Wiki work now, and give notice that I'll be preoccupied with that for the next couple of weeks. Thanks and good luck, -Roberthall7 (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Roberthall7! Perhaps you could provide a diff for Travelmite's "immediate denial" of editing via Chinese IP proxies? That would be interesting, given that his contributions show him claiming the edits made by several such proxies. You seem to applaud Travelmite for (in your words) "vigilante" behaviour. We don't support vigilantes on Wijipedia. We have well-established policies for dealing with disruption; one example is this noticeboard. Could you clarify your statements above on these two points, please? --Pete (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the 'School of Economic Science' article & haven't been involved with it. But in my past dealings with Travelmite, I've found him to be an honest fellow, who cuts through the baloney. GoodDay (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, GoodDay! On the issue of honesty, what do you make of his claim to have interacted with me a "mere three times"? As you know, the true figure would be in the hundreds, and this may be checked by looking through his contributions. This is why I make the charge of WP:Wikihounding. Would you be in favour of an interaction ban? --Pete (talk) 10:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

IBANs tend to be problematic & short term solutions. I'm not sure how to solve this disagreement between 2 editors. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, we two have some disagreements from time to time, but I think we get on amicably enough, wouldn't you say? I don't go hunting you around the wikipedia to comment on what you're doing and to !vote against you. Wikihounding is a serious business, and most of what Travelmite has done here is to harass Mies and myself. I think an IBAN would solve that immediate problem. Others here are in agreement on this point. Perhaps I'll open up a vote section. --Pete (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The three interactions are Australian head of state dispute, Panini (sandwich) and School of Economic Science. Actually, it's two because I simply voted for Panini spelling under an RfC and didn't interact with anyone. Travelmite (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The Panini thing was a clear example of stalking.

1. I was summoned to that RfC by Legobot on my talk page here on 3 May 2016. This is the sandwich, rather than the reknowned Sanskrit grammarian, Pāṇini, of course. I found a proposal to bastardise a perfectly good Italian word, which appalled me, and I !voted in favour of grammar on 5 May.
2. I also found one of those interesting people who "care too much" and had some enjoyable time with him, which was naturally reflected in my contributions. When someone battles over some trivial word, I find it fascinating. There were some interesting people in the "winningest" discussion in January.[10]
3. Travelmite followed me there on 13 May - he was watching my contributions - and !voted the opposite way here.
4. Travelmite does not subscribe to any RfC notification service. Nor does he participate in !votes of any kind unless I am involved in some way. Not one. That's stalking. --Pete (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Travelmite, you say "The accusations above are all false" meaning that you deny that you used proxy accounts. Does that mean the alleged 'Chinese proxy accounts' were simply your IP addresses created automatically by WP because you hadn't signed in (an oversight which you then corrected)? Or do you have any other explanation? The use of the phrase 'proxy' is an accusation of puppetry, which won't be taken lightly at ANI. -Roberthall7 (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Robert, you're entirely correct. I'm not a network expert, but I certainly don't deliberately use proxies and don't use them as far as I am aware. But let's allow Pete/Skring to make the accusations, because that won't be taken lightly either. He is a member of the School of Economic Science, but somehow free of COI restrictions [11] and seeking an interaction ban. Travelmite (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to believe you, but in that case, could you explain the three diffs above that show you signing your name on edits made using Chinese proxies? It's not possible to "accidentally" use those IPs unless (a) you are in China, or (b) you are trying to hide your actual IP address. Those aren't an "accusation", but a simple fact. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It's (a) being in China, and I accept that from you, it's not an accusation. I am extremely fortunate that my explanation is simple enough, as the tactic of Wikipedia:Casting_aspersions and getting others to be suspicious is highly effective. Most people in China are affected by the Censorship of Wikipedia and need to use open proxies (policy here ), but this has not been a problem for me. Furthermore, there has been no activity in the forum to warrant mentioning it in the first place. I deny all allegations, and draw your attention to Pete/Skyrings recent block and, to be fair, his response [12], but I don't know further details. Travelmite (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Travelmite, if you were located in China when doing those IP edits which you then corrected, then it would appear that you did nothing wrong and may have been in receipt of a false accusation of malice. One could also ask whether the word 'Chinese' was used pejoratively to sensationalize the accusation. On that note, have you received fair warning that your activity was being perceived as stalking, prior to this ANI? In other words, have you been given fair opportunity to explain and/or change your behavior before being forced to by Administrators? It may be that this is the first time you've heard the stalking allegation. If so, a formal warning may be more appropriate than an interaction ban, and Keithbob's recommendation not to be shy of using the ANI noticeboard may be the new course you should take, instead of dealing with problematic editors on a piecemeal basis. -Roberthall7 (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

These are new allegations. Furthermore they are false. At some point, you were being attacked for being SLA and the page called out about disruptive edits and management of COI issues. Travelmite (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I might have been improperly canvassed, but I might as well comment as I've come to the page. I was involved in the debate at the Australian head of state dispute page. That article has questionable merits, as it seems to have been created to promote a fringe view that the Queen is not Australia's head of state. It had effectively become a debating forum, with endless discussion pages in which the same points were raised time and again. A lot of the discussion was counterproductive and frustrating. Criticism could be made against many of the participants, including me. I don't think Travelmite stood out as doing anything objectionable. I can't comment about his behaviour on other pages.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack! We're not rehashing specific debates. Editors are entitled to their views and we have procedures to deal with diversity of opinion. Seems to be working fine so far, judging by the result. The problem is that Travelmite's contributions since late January consist mostly of him following myself and another editor around the wikipedia on a range of diverse topics, always with a contrary position, always creating discord. I'm looking to put a stop to that. WP:Wikihounding is the topic here. --Pete (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Like Jack, I too question the existence of the Australian head of state dispute article, but of course that's something to discuss 'there. Anyways, I'm going to go neutral on the IBAN & allow other editors (who've not been involved much with either yourself or Travelmite in the past) to decide this one. GoodDay (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's important to look at the context. Pete accused Travelmite of being disruptive of the Australian head of state dispute article in March — [13] — pointing to Travelmite's initial post in January. However, Travelmite's post is recorded in Archive 5. I had started contributing to the Talk pages in September last year, at which point the discussions began to become voluminous. Pete followed this up by calling Travelmite a troll: [14]. Note that Travelmite was essentially saying that the Queen was head of state. Hardly disruptive behaviour in itself. The article now has 8 talk page archives. Travelmite is only featured in a few. All of them feature Pete. This seems more like a case of ownership than trolling.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Be fair. I created the article, and maintain an interest. Two other editors also appear in every single archive, and together, with rthree diverse viewpoints, we found a reasonable stability. You came lately, but I don't accuse you of trolling, Jack, because you express a genuine interest, and you haven't followed me around to other unconnected articles. Your behaviour is, on the surface similar to Travelmite's, but I don't accuse you of trolling, now do I? There must be something I see in you that says authenticity. It it is because you come across that way. --Pete (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Interaction edit counts

Using one of the tools available from the WP:Wikihounding page, I have compiled a table of interactions here. --Pete (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The table (all periods) confirms the interactions relate to three issues: Australian head of state dispute (Jan-March 2016), one RfC vote on spelling Panini and the School of Economic Science (July 2016). The table of interactions over the past four months, when the Head of State Dispute was concluded is as follows:Editor Interaction Analyser

The analyser demonstrates beyond doubt how the allegation is false. Travelmite (talk) 10:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

To be honest I had already done the edit interaction analysis and found that about 250 (140 the dispute page + 80 wikiproject + 40 their usertalk) of Travelmite's 790 edits are specifically congregated to 3 pages, that 400 or so of the total 790 are on pages that Skyring and Miesianiacal have also edited and that while there is a shocking amount of overlap it doesn't appear to me to be indicative of immediate Wikihounding, especially give that the overlap is across a total of 17 pages for all three editors, 19 for TM and Miesi and 33 for TM and Skyring (which is admittedly a lot), but, taking into account all the time lines; 7 of the overlaps with Miesi are in the past 24 hours with all of them being rather expected, however, this changes drastically in the case of Skyring where about 20 of the overlaps with Pete are in the past 24 hours with one of those being uncharacteristically out of place; Talk:Panini (sandwich). So, I'd discount Wikihounding with respect to Miesi, but, am not so ready to do so in the case of Skyring. Note, of the 20 overlaps I'd consider 15 of these to be entirely expected due to this report, the specific user talk pages, and the mutual interest in politics. It's possible that Panini is an unfortunate outlier and not an intentional following. A better pair of eyes with greater experience is needed to draw a definitive conclusion though, and this is merely my two cents based on what I am seeing and expecting to see. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr rnddude! I think we may discount some edits right off the bat, such as most of Travelmite's contributions on his own talk page. I wouldn't discount any of the Australian politics edits; they all concerned the one topic of Australian head of state. I see the Panini edits and the Brianhe RfA as smoking guns, rather than "unfortunate outliers". It is impossible to explain them as random chance. Travelmite saw them on my contributions, followed me there, and lodged a contrary !vote. --Pete (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Twelve articles and/or talk pages, totalling 256 edits.
• Nine Wikipedia project pages, totalling 157 edits
• Eight user talk pages, totalling 59 edits.
• Twenty-nine pages in total, of which Travelmite followed me there twenty-three times. 472 edits combined.
• Of Travelmite's 723 edits on en.wikipedia.org during that period, that's an intersection of 65%.
• So of Travelmite's entire Wikipedia contributions, two thirds involve overlapping contributions. If we discount Travelmite's 96 contributes before 26 January 2016, the ratio rises to 75%.

Two things are crystal clear:

1. Travelmite has focused his attention squarely on me to an astonishing degree.
2. Travelmite's claims to the contrary are risible.

I think readers will understand why I find it impossible to believe anything Travelmite says. The facts simply do not support him. --Pete (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

There's no smoking gun. Brianhe RfC is easy to explain, because someone suggested I look at that page, and the words are "To see what I mean about community opinions on privacy and managing COI, and about "content not contributor", please have a look at this RFA, especially the concerns raised in the questions and in the oppose !votes" [15]. I didn't know he voted. I voted to spell Panini, because that's how everyone spells it, not because Pete/Skyring spells it Panino. That came up on a list of RfCs. It is inevitable that you will cross an editor who gets involved in thousands of articles every month (Total edits over 4 months: 16,932!).

Several editors hear have more interactions with Pete/Skyring that I do! Skyring also makes tenacious arguments building up the raw edit count, on the two occasions we interacted. On other pages, edits go smoothly and rarely followup is required. Broad statistics must be analysed properly. Thanks Mr rnddude for your conclusions. Travelmite (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the Brianhe reference. That's plausible, but it raises the question of what you were doing arguing COI at all. Looking at your contributions, it's as if someone just flipped a switch in late January. The behaviour of the account changes radically, and suddenly instead of making rare trivial edits, you're a COI warrior. The character of the edits in articlespace changes. Even the language used on talk pages changes from almost non-existent and strained (see [16][17][18] for examples) to fluent, confident and plentiful. The difference in character is marked. What happened - you suddenly discover grammar?

I don't buy the Panini story at all. The only RfCs you've participated in have been those involving me. Three of them. I've just reviewed your entire contribution list, and there's no other examples. Not a single other instance of you joining a random RfC discussion. A normal person, looking at the list of current RfCs - and there are hundreds open at any one time - will see many that will pique their interest. In nearly two years you apparently only found one of these interesting enough to participate in, and it just happened to be one where I'd spent a week in animated discussion. Right.

And how do you explain your sudden interest in the School of Economic Science? There's only one explanation. You open up my user contributions to see what I've been doing, and you jump in, aiming to annoy me. That's stalking, and I want it stopped. --Pete (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason that one vote, once, would annoy a person. A person cannot expect to annoy someone by making one edit. This is not what stalking is and it does not make sense. That would mean any person who happened to vote would annoy you, and that it not their problem. My interest in School of Economic Science was not sudden. The COI issue was there since 2015. This is already documented on the COI noticeboard. Travelmite (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You stalked me by following me to the Panini RfC. You claim that you selected it from a list - of hundreds - after I'd been engaged there for a week of spirited discussion. I reject this as implausible for reasons given earlier. I think you looked at my contributions list, noted my activity, and followed me there. To mark the lamppost, as it were.

The same thing happened with School of Economic Science. You saw my activity and followed me there. How else would you even have been aware of it?

That's stalking. I'd like it stopped. --Pete (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the statistics, there is a major error in what Pete/Skyring presents. If he is trying to present "stalking" he must have a start date. His start date is prior to our first discussion. His statistics include our first discussion and everything that followed. He also includes this complaint. Apparently, meeting Pete/Skyring and dealing with these complaints all counts as stalking. Therefore the statistics are vastly exaggerated and cannot be relied upon, as per my original reply. Every other interaction (of which there are two) has now been explained. Travelmite (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Whether some of the explanations are able to be swallowed is a different question, I think. Travelmite makes a vaild point here in the beginning and ending points. However, the tool looks at pages edited by both, and isn't the definitive answer. I'd put a narrower definition of stalking than Travelmite does, and say that it constitutes following another user around the wiki to cause disruption.

If we re-run the tool, setting an end date of 16 August, rather than 31 August, we can exclude this discussion we are having now, as well as Travelmite's talk page. I'll keep the same start date of 1 January 2015, because otherwise the tool labels Travelmite as visiting some pages before I did, such as Australian head of state dispute, and that is clearly wrong, because I created the article many years ago, spinning off content from its parent at Government of Australia. I think we can reasonably ignore any line showing more than a week between contributions as not being an interaction. The tool's revised output now shows Travelmite made 346 edits to the same pages as I did, about half his total. --Pete (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for Interaction ban

Skyring feels that Travelmite has been wikihounding him, and has presented evidence supporting same. He proposes a two-way interaction ban between himself and Travelmite in order to end this nuisance. What are the feelings of other editors? Should a two-way IBAN be imposed?

• Support IBAN (as proposer). Possibly Miesianiacal could be included, given the outrageous wikihounding by Travelmite against him in January and February this year. --Pete (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Travelmite's contributions to Talk:Australian head of state dispute were somewhat problematic, without doubting good faith there, while Pete/Skyring has been consistently tenacious (not necessarily a fault). But given the facts presented above, the proposed IBAN may be helpful to all interested parties. Qexigator (talk) 08:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nom The two of you clearly can't work together in harmony, so I don't see why not. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 16:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Commnet - An interaction ban will do nothing to prevent Wikihounding (Please read on as I explain why). I think I need to explain what an interaction ban is and what it does so that both of you (Skyring and Travelmite) are aware of what restrictions it will impose. An interaction ban will impose two main restrictions on the two of you, first you will be barred from each others' pages (meaning talk, user, sandbox, etc) and second, probably more usefully, you will be barred from commenting to each other, pinging each other, commenting about each other, reverting each others' edits and thanking each other (through the thank user for their edit) function. What it will not do is prevent you from overlapping on any article page; you will both be able to edit any article page and join the same discussions on article talk pages. This is the main sticking point for my current oppose comment, Skyring, I believe you want to avoid not only interacting, but, overlapping with the other editor. An IBAN will not impose such a restriction and your concerns about Wikihounding won't be reasonably addressed by an IBAN. The reason I bring this up is because of Panini and Brianhe, neither of those incidents would violate an IBAN because neither of those incidents actually involved an interaction. It is because of this that I see little value in an IBAN. I think that you should (probably will have to) both wait for an administrator (Black Kite is one) or significantly experienced user to join this discussion. So far, Linguist and myself appear to be the only completely uninvolved parties to comment here and I don't think either of us meet the "experienced" threshold for this situation. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr rnddude! I've read your comments and appreciate the thought you have put into them. Yes, you are correct: the IBAN restrictions wouldn't prevent Travelmite from following me around and !voting in whatever RfCs etc. I participate in. That's not a problem, to be honest. All these public votes are open to all Wikipedians, and I believe the right for all Wikipedians in good standing to participate in our consensomocracy is something worth fighting for. Even if I personally disagree with the opinions expressed.

I raised the Brianhe and Panini examples as evidence of wikihounding. Travelmite gave a plausible explanation of the Brianhe RfA, and the evidence checks out. But he was unable to explain how he followed me to the Panini RfC. Well, he said he picked it from a list, but I don't believe this; since early 2015 he's participated in only three RfCs, all of which have involved me. I think I would have participated in maybe a dozen or so over that time - perhaps someone can check - out of the hundreds, maybe thousands of RfCs raised. Chances of complete congruence, if we posit only a thousand RfCs in that period, are 12/1000 * 11/999 * 10/998 , or one chance in 755 000. So I find his answer a little hard to swallow!

I want an IBAN for the following reason. In late January 2016 I accepted an IBAN (against my wishes, for the sort of reasoning you outline above). If I may be excused a minor indirect reference, both sides have adhered to the conditions, and the ANI drama dropped off. Since then I have this Travelmite thing popping up, and I'd like the same solution applied. --Pete (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I was out when you responded, and have been aware of your response for a few hours. I think I see what you're referring to, mostly what you want is to not have to interact with Travelmite regardless of whether you two end up on the same pages or whatever. I can see how this may be beneficial, even if you are being followed at least you're not also being forced to interact. I can see this being beneficial to both parties, but, only if both parties are willing to adhere to it. Otherwise the outcome will be further drama and another report either at AN/I or one of the other administrative noticeboards. For the time being I'm going to demote my Oppose vote to a Comment. I'd like to see a mutual agreement to an IBAN as this is generally the only way to avoid further drama. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support IBAN - In early August I gave Travelmite a warning on his talk page because of his/her unwarranted aggression towards Pete. It's clear from this thread alone that both parties are fully invested in this dispute and there is a strong charge between them. An IBAN is the prudent thing to do to avoid further escalation. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC) PS I also gave Pete a warning in mid-July so neither of these parties has clean hands. I strongly support an IBAN.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I think your comments to me were directed at a different topic (which could well be explored here under a different thread), but never mind. It wasn't Travelmite's edits as such I found objectionable, merely the fact that he'd come after me again and again. It's like having some kind of persistent parasite. --Pete (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Civility / personal attacks / End of request

In writing and responding, Pete/Skying appears to be breaching talk-page guidelines. This is a stressful series of ongoing accusations now going over four days. Various refutations of the allegations, which I have provided, have done nothing but caused increased incivility, perhaps even paranoia. Anyway, this has become an ongoing public attack, dressed up as an IBAN request to make seem acceptable to support. This is not solving harassment - this is the harassment. Details of offensive language, aspersions etc... are detailed below for the record.

1. WP:CIVIL Civility: "I find it impossible to believe anything Travelmite says", "What happened - you suddenly discover grammar?", "his dishonest denials", "this account is fraudulent"
2. WP:CLAIMS Excessive claims: "most of what Travelmite has done here is to harass Mies and myself", "Both articles were, prior to Travelmite's involvement, stable articles", "you jump in, aiming to annoy me", "It is an unhealthy fixation", "Travelmite has focused his attention squarely on me to an astonishing degree" (So Freudian!)
3. Wikipedia:Casting_aspersions: "always with a contrary position, always creating discord", "it's as if someone just flipped a switch", "This account edits via Chinese proxies" (wrong), "not subscribe to any RfC notification service", "This is not the usual manner in which editors begin their service here."
4. WP:TE Tendentious editing: "That's plausible, but it raises the question of what you were doing arguing COI at all", Replying to most comments with the same information, Refuting all comments that disagree
5. WP:FAIT Erroneous Conclusions/Fait accompli: "There's only one explanation" (there's more), "It is impossible to explain them as random chance", " I see the Panini edits and the Brianhe RfA as smoking guns" (they weren't).
6. WP:OUTING (partial): The country where I work was revealed due to WP:DOX Doxing
7. Wikipedia:Inaccuracy Statistics erroneously included this complaint and the initial interactions.

That's more than enough to get the idea. Someone should have picked up that this was happening. In conclusion, the IBAN request is moot. My "punishment" is a self-imposed block, so I can get real work done. Bye!

P.S. Linguist111 - good luck as your experience builds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelmite (talk • contribs) 22:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel upset. I'm just trying to clear up the differences between us. You say you have refuted the points I made, but on examination, this turns out not to be the case. Let's take your points one by one.

My comment, "What happened - you suddenly discover grammar?" was not a personal attack. There is nothing wrong with your grammar now. However, the contributions of this account prior to late January were very different. It is plain to see. It is as if a different person were contributing, one who wrote in a very different way. (See [19][20][21] for examples). Likewise in Wikivoyage, we see tortured, stilted English, such as this example. The contributions in articlespace were very different to what followed. Most of the year's contributions came on two days, and they were markedly different from anything done since. So what explains the vivid change? --Pete (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Skyring: "What happened - you suddenly discover grammar?"—that was a personal attack, and with the comment above you appear to be gaming the system by "walking it back" instead of apologising. Travelmite, I'm sorry for suggesting you should be blocked; I was too hasty and didn't address the situation properly by listening to both sides first and looking closer. On observing the situation, what's evident is that we have someone who feels they're being hounded, and someone who feels they're on the receiving end of false accusations. The two parties are not reaching any common ground, and this is turning into a battle between them. If Skyring feels an IBAN is necessary to cut off all contact from Travelmite and put an end to this dispute, then I see no reason not to go ahead with it. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 11:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry? How is that a personal attack? I'm asking for an explanation of the two very different styles of English before and after late January 2016. I've provided samples of the first style; it is strained, the syntax and punctuation (particularly commas) are ungrammatical, it doesn't flow. Try reading it out loud; it is choppy and stiff. In comparison, the account shifts to a more natural and grammatical style in late January. I won't say it's poetical, but it certainly reads more fluently. The change is immediate and dramatic. Combined with a likewise dramatic shift in contribution patterns, it seems to me that this one account has been run by two different people, and I'm wondering if there is some explanation for this, perhaps something to do with the use of Chinese proxies. --Pete (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems like a personal attack to me. It looks like a sarcastic comment about someone's intellect. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 12:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a comment on grammar, not intellect. We can see for ourselves. Before:

There such a long discussion about it. There must be someone here who is objecting to it being changed? Look, let me put it this way. At the moment, your are thinking only in US current-affairs mode. In South Africa, white people once got an unequivocal privilege to vote, so that alone is probably enough to justify the wording. If there is a political proposal, fictional world or legal case involving or clearly allowing such privileges, it's also enough to justify the wording. I also checked also how it's handled in other articles.[22] - 21 December 2015

After:

None of the sources support this notion of a dispute except for some minor monarchist-republican debate in the late 1990's. If it was just that, no problem. But the government position is clear. The Queen's position is clear. The academic position is clear, in that they reasonably distinguish between de jure and de facto roles.[23] - 28 January 2016

The difference is clear. --Pete (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Whatever it was, it was still an attack. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 18:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Not intended as such. Perhaps more my sensitive soul being injured at the mishandling of the English language I see in the early Travelmite contributions. To my eye, such prose grates. At least the later contributions are easier to understand. --Pete (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Statement to Travelmite: I support your closing statement above. Perhaps you could have been more polite in your defense. But you are not the main troublemaker here squandering community time and good will, Pete/Skyring is. You’ve understood that the way you have attempted to deal with disruptive behaviour may be counter-productive and can jeopardize your own standing. Your decision to disengage from Pete/Skyring from now on is the right thing to do. If it comes to any more of his disruption, please now go straight to ANI rather than ignoring it. Your contributions to School of Economic Science have moderated Pete/Skyring’s disruption there, and have therefore made Wikipedia a better place. I don’t know of your past missteps, and assume you are as capable of changing your ways as anyone is.
• Statement to Administrators: I am not going to participate in Pete/Skyring’s vote proposing the imposition of equal discipline on both him and Travelmite. First of all such a double ban would appear to be a way of consoling Pete/Skyring, by getting someone else disciplined with him soon after he was last disciplined: [24] Secondly the vote could be a case attention-seeking; per WP:DEM, Wikipedia is not a democracy and afaia ANI is a place for Administrators to take action, not to spend hours in debate about whether "he did it too". Travelmite says he wasn’t given a warning before this ANI, so he'll take this as his first warning. Besides, he has now voluntarily disengaged from Pete/Skyring, as I did several weeks ago.
• Possible action part 1: A future step could be a topic ban on Pete/Skyring to stop him disrupting the articles where Travelmite attempted to stop him causing disruption. On that note, Panini was a Sanskrit scholar; Sanskrit is taught by the church, school, cult or new religious movement known as the School of Economic Science, which Pete/Skyring says he is a member of. So the two articles are part of the same area of interest. Something needs to be done to prevent his continued disruption to this project. If Travelmite is stepping back, an Administrator needs to step up, otherwise this ANI will not be the last of it.
• Possible action part 2: It is important to assess whether some of Pete/Skyring’s allegations against Travelmite in this ANI have been false, defamatory to him and time-wasting for the community. The allegations have involved a personal attack, as explained by Linguist111 (who had been supporting Pete/Skyring’s case). Pete/Skyring then argued with Linguist111 about it being a personal attack. These allegations also come so soon after Pete/Skyring’s own last block, which he told the sanctioning Administrator Floquenbeam “was a little hasty”, that one of their assumptions was “plain wrong” and therefore asked to be unblocked: [25] It matters little whether Pete/Skyring is deceiving himself, or attempting to deceive others, or both; he’s clearly not learning to change his ways, despite ample opportunity as indicated by his long block history: [26] Another multi-week block may be in order. -Roberthall7 (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

One thing I've noticed is that both Travelmite and Skyring are saying "I've done nothing wrong. It's all [the other editor]'s fault.", so it's hard to tell who is actually in the right here. Skyring has made blatant personal attacks. Travelmite has been accused of stalking and hounding. If Skyring feels they've been hounded, I don't feel I'm in a position to say they haven't. It may have been Travelmite's intention to hound Skyring, or there may have been no intention at all. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 16:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Um, I don't recall saying I've done nothing wrong. I'm as human and fallible as the next person, and I frequently make the most appalling errors. Just ask my wife. I'm a big boy and can accept that. What I want is for Travelmite to cease his vigilante quest against me. Let him seek other targets. Clearly he is a person of some intellect and determination. --Pete (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me say this about Roberthall7's contribution above. S/he only edits on one subject, and s/he has some distinctive views. I would dearly love to get a busload of neutral editors to go through the School of Economic Science article, untangle some of the sources, and provide a counter-balance for any extremist voices. --Pete (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

What I meant was you both seem to be putting the blame on the other person. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 18:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think I have good reason to be critical of Travelmite's actions. From my perspective, he's come here, seemingly out of nowhere, and launched attack after attack on me. After seeing Travelmite's outrageous attempt at outing Miesiniacal, I think I'm justified in being wary. I could list the many personal attacks Travelmite has made on me. Would that be useful, do you think? --Pete (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 09:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Further statement to Administrators: With this edit [27] Pete/Skyring slipped in the above new section heading. He has positioned it immediately above my comment, which now gives observers the impression that the section heading was added by me. So he's edited my comment. As indicated in my comment, I was specifically replying to User:Travelmite's closing remarks his section entitled Civility / personal attacks / End of request and addressing Administrators about it; I had no wish to comment outside that section. Moreover Pete/Skyring's section heading is a phrase that he has homed in on from my comment, and a question mark added, which appears to be yet more sarcasm. It doesn't reflect my full comment and distracts from it. If ANI discussion is treated the same as Talk page discussion, then this goes against WP:TPO, WP:TALKNEW section 'Keep headings neutral' and WP:VANDAL section 'Talk page vandalism'. -Roberthall7 (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Roberthall7! You began your contribution on the left margin, rather than following the indentation rules, so I assumed you were responding to no previous comment, just opening up a new section. So I gave it a heading to avoid confusion. No offence intended, just trying to keep things straight on what is becoming a complex discussion. I liked one of the phrases you used, thought it kinda catchy. Never mind. I've deleted it now, fixed the indentation, all sweet. --Pete (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to clarify what Pete's allegation against Travelmite is. The claims about the change in grammar and the use of Chinese proxy accounts imply that Travelmite is a hijacked sock puppet. Based on the grammmar, Pete seems to think someone else (with better grammar) took over the original Travelmite account. I'm not sure why someone would do this when they could just create a new account. As I understand it, the reference to Chinese proxy accounts implies that someone is trying to hide his or her identity. However, it appears Travelmite is actually in China, and has made China-related edits. I don't think Travelmite has been behaving like a sock puppet because when he started editing Australian head of state dispute he appeared to have just found the article, and made an inaccurate statement he had to retract. I would have thought that a sock puppet would be used by someone familiar with the article. The obvious suspect for puppet-master would be me, as I appeared on the scene a few months before and got into debates with Pete. Is that what Pete is suggesting? If not, then the talk about grammar and the Chinese accounts seems irrelevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Well, kind of. I don't think the account is hijacked, but the only explanation that makes sense to me is that it was set up as a "sleeper" account, and for a year it made nothing but trivial edits - adding articles to a category using an established list, and moving some text around in another article. Basically, the account had two days of editing in its first year. And then suddenly everything about it changes. The nature of the edits, the frequency of contributions, the style of language used. It's a metamorphosis. Nothing I've ever seen before.

Using Chinese IP proxies allows the account to operate without the usual sort of checks. Because of the nature of Chinese internet, proxies are used to reduce the chance of being arrested for what we would consider normal activities. There's none of the freedom of expression we in the West take for granted, but of course there is the desire to express freely. Chinese IP proxies are readily available and ever-changing. Just do a search and you'll find lists of dozens. These can be used by anyone in the world.

This sets up a conundrum for Wikipedia. We don't want to stop a huge and increasingly sophisticated population from contributing to our shared effort, but these accounts must necessarily operate outside the normal Checkuser procedures. There are ways to avoid even more intense scrutiny, and with the very real chance of being disappeared and used for organ harvesting, these ways are employed.

So it sets up a loophole for those who want to operate outside Wikipedia's regular procedures. Use Chinese proxies, be careful to use the right privacy tools, and you can avoid detection through technological means. I think that there is a market for this sort of thing. Not just Wikipedia, but packages of established email addresses, social media accounts, software setups and so on. You want to play multiple accounts in a MMO game, just buy the kit from a friend of a friend who knows someone who does this.

In this case, I don't think the article was the target. Travelmite's contributions didn't show any familiarity with the topic. They showed two objectives: to irritate Miesianiacal and myself.

I don't know who or why, but I do know that there are editors on Wikipedia who are driven by urges beyond the desire to contribute to the world's store of information, and I've certainly encountered a few of them in my career here. I'm sure Mies has as well. Buying or establishing a second account to satisfy some inner personal desire for revenge or whatever seems plausible to me. Not normal, but there are people on the internet who do bizarre things for bizarre reasons.

Anyway, whatever it is that is driving the Travelmite account to follow me around Wikipedia isn't really my concern. I just want the stalking to stop. --Pete (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Jack. My comment above didn't address your question. No, I had never considered you as the sockmaster for a moment. I'd always regarded you as an honest, straightforward person. Taking a contrary position to mine on one matter, but that's no sin; I think we share views on most other Australian political issues. If I had thought you were running this account, I would have filed a report at the sockpuppet investigations page. But no, I'm honestly unable to name anyone I suspect is the sockmaster. --Pete (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't feel that this was directed at me, but I couldn't think who else the sockmaster could be. As you said, the Australian head of state dispute is a fairly obscure article. Yes, people do bizarre things, but we have to look at the balance of probabilities. I think Travelmite is a bona fide editor. His early edits show a knowledge of and interest in the neighbourhoods of Beijing. This seems to confirm that he was indeed a resident of China, which explains the Chinese IP addresses. I haven't done a linguistic analysis, but I don't think that there is a significant change in language in Travelmite's contributions. His prose might be sloppy at times, but that's normal. And I don't see the relevance of this. I also don't see how you can say he came "seemingly out of nowhere". Wikipedia is not "invitation only". His story checks out. He says his interest in the topic was prompted by Australia Day (26 January). He began editing at Republicanism in Australia the next day, and then moved on to the Australian head of state dispute, probably following the link. Many people are prompted to contribute to articles based on events, anniversaries, etc. He started out making the following comment, which he had to retract: "I have checked the history of this article, and it is written by two monarchists non-Australians." Now, based on the evidence of the discussion, you are an Australian and a republican. Yet you started the article. It doesn't appear Travelmite knew you at all. He didn't arrive there to target you. It appears he stumbled on the article and was outraged at the apparent monarchist POV-pushing. I understand that, because I felt the same way. On the evidence, it appears that your darker suspicions of Travelmite are groundless.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

"It appears he stumbled on the article." My italics. If you are running a sock, you don't usually want to get found out. Hence the plausible narrative. I don't think it stacks up, becuase the edits for the whole preceding year were so very different. Basically all of the 96 edits for 2015 came on two days: 21 January and 21 December. Those in January were on Chinese articles, for sure, but needed zero knowledge of China. They were just adding articles to categories according to the list already existing here. And the December contributions had nothing to do with China at all. Just a matter of moving text around. Then, nothing until 27 January, and within a day he's a full-blown warrior making attacks every day on Mies and myself. Day after day all through February and March. Displaying a familiarity with wikiprocess not explained by the unconroversial edits preceding. That's a massive change in the nature of the account. I've never seen anything like it.

But, be that as it may, Travelmite went on to follow me to various other articles. His explanation for joining the Panini RfC is thin and implausible, and no explanation at all was given for attacking me at the School of Economic Science article. Neither of those are explained by an interest in Australian political subjects. It's entirely personal. And I'd like that sort of stalking ended. --Pete (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

User:SwisterTwister

SwisterTwister (talk · contribs) has incorrectly stated to users that an interation ban is in effect when no actual formal interaction ban has occured. An example from today is located here, and another recent example is here (see also, user response here). It is inappropriate to state that interaction bans exist when they have not occurred via formal processes, which amounts to casting WP:ASPERSIONS against other users. I have noticed that SwisterTwister frequently uses the "silent treatment" against users to limit communication. Here are some diff examples in addition to those above: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36].

These behaviors could be potentially perceived as Wikipedia:Gaming the system, using such statements in an intentional manner as a technique to avoid any type of criticism, essentially trying to silence any opposition or concerns, because if a user then attempts to communicate directly about genuine, important concerns, (even in a calm, civil manner, as I have always done), the user can then just point to behavioral guidelines and threaten to go to ANI and such. I'm not stating that gaming is certainly occurring, but it could potentially be. While I understand that the user apparently just wants to be left alone, it is reasonable that questionable deletion nominations, prods, etc. will be challenged. Also, the user nominates a great deal of articles for deletion, and per this high rate, it is reasonable that some editors will have questions or concerns. The user has also requested to not communicate with me at this AfD discussion, which I have respected.

Inre this diff, it is concerning and inappropriate for the user to make demands to another user to not deprod articles they have prodded. Also, users have repeatedly asked the user to consider slowing down over a significant period of time, to follow proper procedures, etc. at ANI (here, here and here) and other than at ANI (e.g. [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]).

In regard to performing AfC reviews, the user has many queries on their talk page from users, but rarely responds to any of them. This is concerning because reviewers should be open to providing input regarding reasonable queries from other users in relation to their AfC submissions.

Additional discussion regarding this user is located at User talk:E.M.Gregory § Re: thank you for noticing, which includes discussion about the user's AfD nominations and other matters. The discussion includes commentary from several users, including three administrators in addition to myself. Seeking community input at this time about this user's behaviors and actions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I have notified users on their talk pages about this discussion who contributed to/were pinged to User:E.M.Gregory's talk page and those in the links above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

A request from one user to another not to comment on each other is usually honored, tho it is not a formal interaction ban. Even a request to let other people be the ones to deal with someone's work is not altogether unreasonable, if it can serve to decrease interpersonal problems. . Even a request to let others be the ones to deprod articles can be justified. Most of us do avoid taking even routine action against any particular editor with who one is at odds, to avoid any feeling that there might be some degrwe of prejudice or personal involvement. But I do know I would never make such statements, certainly not in the manner ST is making them--as the event proves, they are much more likely to arouse interpersonal hostility than to reduce it.

There is no formal obligation to respond to another editor whose article one has tagged for deletion . But most people do, even if all they say is "I only tagged it, please take it up with the admin who deleted it." In general it is a good idea to respond to anyone other than an obvious troll, because we want whenever possible to make sure people understand we are considering each article for its merits, not acting indiscriinatly or mechanically. (This is different from the obligation of an admin to respond about articles they have deleted, where it is considered necessary to give a good faith explanation, but that is not in question here.) It's difficult to say when carelessness in this respect becomes a problem, but I think ST needs to be much more careful here; it is indeed necessary to remove bad articles, but it is not up to any one of us individually to hold the dike; each person should do only as much as they do carefully and respond to properly. DGG ( talk ) 08:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for notifying me about this Northamerica1000. I often frequent AfD and AfC to a lesser extent, but I only noticed ST's peculiar behaviour at AfD when performing non-admin closures. I find it concerning that he uses the same ambiguous argument for each deletion discussion in which he partakes. Although ST describes himself as a deletionist, it is definitely concerning for me when he continues to !vote to delete articles where other editors have taken the time to improve the article. For example, here and here. The lack of care and attention really is striking and the failure to revisit deletion discussions is a disappointment. AfD is not a vote; it's a discussion, something which ST does not adhere to. I posted on his talk page as per the link above, but I received no such reply about his AfD contributions. Every editor should be open for constructive criticism for their edits, but, not in this case it seems. --st170e^talk 12:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment SwisterTwister came to my attention over time as I began to recognize his name because his frequent iVotes at AFD were often literally unintelligible, because his opinions were so clearly contrary to evidence that I or other editors had presented, and because articles he so often brought articles to AFD with an assertion that his searches have found no significant sources, and yet by even doing something so simple as clicking HighBeam in the tool bar in Swister's nomination statement proved the contrary. [[45]] He edits so incredibly fast that I am almost persuaded that he simply takes pages with a smallish number of sources and editors, and throws them up at AFD without searching at all - or even without reading some of them. And that his iVotes at AFD are exactly what they look like: opinions rendered without querying the sources. (Copious examples brought by several uses in discussion on my talk page [46].) The problem with all of this is not only that it wastes a tremendous amount of editorial time, but that it makes WP a frustrating and unpleasant place to work. One editor in that discussion states [47] that Swister's "belligerence" is one reason why he has stopped giving his time to editing Wikipedia. I am in strong sympathy with that sentiment. Swister cannot, in my experience, be swayed from a deletion position once taken. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelley Webb, the AFD where I lost my ability to WP:AGF when dealing with Swister, I was clearly exasperated by the time of my Aug. 3 edit, the one that starts "A confession and an hypothesis..." Swister's arrogant, stubborn refusal to consider that he might have acted hastily show why I have come to the conclusion that SwisterTwister's editing is a problem that needs to be addressed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Question - I agree ST's "stay away from me" comments, objecting to deprods and comments/questions at AfD, are completely inappropriate. It seems that's what this thread is about, but it seems to also be about other ST-related issues? My question is whether ST saying "ok I won't do that anymore" with regard to self-imposed "interaction bans" would resolve this thread, or if this is more of an RfC/U sort of thing? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I am very familiar with SwisterTwister because I do a lot of work at AfD. I will limit my comments at this time to the issue NorthAmerica1000 raises: the supposed "interaction ban" that ST likes to invoke. As far as I can tell there are no formal interaction bans involving ST. It is not possible for a user to create one simply by telling the other editor to "leave me alone". It IS possible to say to someone, "stay off my talk page," and such requests are usually expected to be honored. But that's a user's own talk page. Things like "don't de-prod things that I have prodded," "don't comment at AfD's I nominate" - that kind of demand is invalid and frankly a little ridiculous. (Example: "Stay away from me, that means anything including DePRODing. You repeatedly violate time after time".[48]) People who routinely patrol PRODs and AfDs are going to continue to do so, and no user has the right to say "don't do that on anything I initiate". In fact, if a user feels there is a systemic problem with another user's nominations, they are entitled and perhaps obligated to seek them out for evaluation. (In ST's case, the record shows that only 58.7% of ST's AfD nominations actually get deleted, which may be a valid reason to subject them to special scrutiny.) My reaction to this report is that ST should be instructed not to claim an interaction ban when none exists, and he should be told to stop personalizing the deletion process in this way. I did comment on ST's participation in the AfD process at E.M.Gregory's talk page, but that is not the issue being raised here. --MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Responding to Rhododendrites' question, SwisterTwisters dismissive response to questions raised by other editors is a problem, a particularly destructive problem for the project when he is interacting with new and new-ish editors. But it is only one of the serious problems with this editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• To be clear, I know there are a number of issues. My question was primarily to clarify the scope of this thread, as bringing in his style of AfD comments and AfD stats broadens the topic from behavior towards other users to the content/style/manner of project contributions. ST has a number of detractors, based on previous ANI threads, and without a clear scope this might spin out of control and end with an overly complex or radical proposal fails to find consensus. FWIW. Maybe I'm wrong, though. :) Might be useful to have subsections for the different issues if they're all to be tackled at once, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with MelanieN, and would add that not wanting to interact is one thing, but outright stating that one is on a ban when they are not, especially on a forum that potentially the whole community will see, is bang out of order. That can do severe (perhaps irreparable, as some people really do believe there's no smoke without fire) damage to their reputation. When he said I'm on such a ban, I assumed he had me confused with someone else; had I been aware of the other cases, I'd have brought it to ANI myself. I have other issues with ST (such as apparent WP:OWNership of edits, as others have mentioned), but I think that's the main one being addressed here, so I'll leave my comment at that for now. Adam9007 (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• My personal feeling is that this discussion should be just about the so-called interaction bans. Rather than expand this into a huge discussion of all the issues that people have with this editor, that should probably happen in a different venue (possibly AN?), and with a more comprehensive introductory complaint.--MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• The one-sided auto-established interaction bans (of whom I am one of the members) are just a minor part of User:SwisterTwister's long term WP:IDONTHEARTHAT attitude. Actually, while there are a lot of problems with this editor, the worst thing is their consistent refusal in engaging any sort of discussion and their apparent rendering any critic as an annoying drama or as a personal attack, because this dismissive approach precludes anyone from improving their contributions and understand their mistakes. When someone tries to engage a discussion in their talk page, the usual response is ST's ignoring the message, deleting it or accusing others of having a personal grudge against them, then in a mixture of self-absolution and victimhood the next step is ST's asking others to stay away and not deprod or vote in AfDs started by them because the votes are in bad-faith. For anyone thinking this could be true, I just looked at my interaction record with ST, and 100% of my keep votes at AfDs started by ST were eventually confirmed by the final outcome. What I requested to ST during my discussions monologues basically was 1) making a minimal WP:BEFORE before nominating articles for deletion 2) Notifying the articles' creators of his prods and AfDs 3) Slow down their activities, including do not mass voting AfDs but on the contrary making more meaningful and relevant comments in the discussions. Not just I have not received any answer to the issues I raised, in spite of the same issues being raised by dozens of experienced editors and admins I have not noted any minimal improvement. I keep in seeing a very bad record as AfD nominator with articles often kept per lack of WP:BEFORE, a lack of notification both for prods and AfDs, and mass-votes at AfDs generally consisting of an ultra-vague and often unintelligible sentence. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone has a potential for significant improvements, but in a collective work such as WP this unwillingness to discuss, the inability to hear others and the proofed refusal to improve their behaviour are massive problems. Cavarrone 15:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment My personal read is that User:SwisterTwister's behavior is tolerated by WP policies. You can nominate and propose for deletion as much as you like. Vote to delete everything. You can ignore and be rude or belligerent to other editors. You can be incomprehensible and make stuff up. You don't have to worry too much about policies such as WP:BEFORE because it is difficult to get a consensus that you've violated them and there is disproportionately small consequence for violation. On the other hand, everything I read in the WP:DISRUPT lead appears to apply in this case (including especially the WP:AGF statement in the second paragraph). Policies aside, we need to try to make WP a better place and so perhaps we need to look at applying the remedy described in the WP:DISRUPT nutshell: "Disruptive editors may be blocked or banned indefinitely." ~Kvng (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

A 6 month topic ban from all the deletion-related areas should cover it. They can use that time to try and be more productive elsewhere. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I would urge everyone to limit their comments to the topic laid out in the complaint, namely, telling other editors they are not allowed to comment on anything he does. No evidence for this kind of remedy (block/ban) has been established here, either in the introductory complaint, which was pretty much limited to the "interaction ban" claims, or in followup comments. As I said above, this broader discussion would need a different type of thread, possibly at AN, with a more comprehensive introductory complaint. I have an opinion on the block/ban suggestions and would state it at a more appropriate venue, but IMO this is not the place. --MelanieN (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

May, April, February. SwisterTwister has been here repeatedly this year due to people having issues with them. This is not an isolated incident. Generally the complaints are the same, ST works too fast, does not take enough care, not open to discussion, does not perform due diligence etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The original WP:GAME complaint brought here is an individual instance in a pattern of WP:DISRUPTive editing. I think it is more productive to discuss the pattern here. We have had previous ANI discussions to deal with the individual instances. If we continue with the same approach, we should expect similar results: discussions that fail to reach consensus. ~Kvng (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The U5 was by a user massively removed my Draft nominations who never even consulted with me. Second, a topic ban is not solving the case where I was politely and firmly asked that the user distance themselves to which they agreed to at the Comfort Keepers AfD, stating they acknowledged and understood my thoughts. The subsequent following of me and even rollbacking my contribs thus notifying me in the notifications, took away the purposes of said agreement. SwisterTwister talk 17:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Alternately, repeatedly making shoddy nominations which you know are going to be picked up by someone who regularly comments at AFD is inviting trouble. Dont want someone commenting on your AFD's? Stay aware from AFD. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Offer Hi all, sounds like maybe I've had less interaction with SwisterTwister than others have, but in the extent to which ST and I have worked together, it's been pretty constructive (e.g. successfully resolving an issue of a rejected draft in one case and a contested redirect/merge in another), and at the same time WP:BEFORE is an issue that's been on my mind a lot lately, so if I can be of help to talk this out to a resolution that satisfies everyone, I'm happy to volunteer myself to try. (Partly I'm also motivated to try to assist in this way because I share Kvng's desire to improve the overall WP atmosphere.) I'll leave a message on ST's talk page to this effect in case ST does not see it here. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• I'll note I have even spent time away recently as my contribs will show and also then focusing with AfC in hopes the user would not come near me, yet it continued so my message had not gone through. Thus, after my repeated requests and comments, I was not confident anything would get the message through, especially if I have noticeably noted it causes me stress, something someone should take to mind, especially if they have agreed to it themselves. SwisterTwister talk 17:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

SwisterTwister, you are talking as if this was just about one person, and claiming they agreed to stay away. But this is not an isolated thing, not about just one person. In the nine links posted above by NA1000, I find "you have been told to stay away from me" comments to five different people (most of whom respond with something like "Huh? When did that happen?"). In one case you put something that sounded like a threat in your edit summary: "I have specifically told you to stay away, final time"[49] In addition to those five users to whom you said they were banned from interacting with you, there are two others and an IP where you were are less assertive but still saying "keep away from me". This is a pattern with you, and the message you need to get here is, YOU CAN'T DO THIS. Stop pretending you can impose some kind of interaction ban based on your say-so alone. It doesn't work that way. You can't tell people they are not allowed to remove your PRODs or comment at your AFDs. We are looking here for some assurance from you that you understand this and won't do it any more. --MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes I know it involves more than one person, but the person most severe here still insists in being around me and my contribs when they know they are not welcome to be that close to me; I am certainly willing to assure and have this closed; but I want it to also be understood that I can't work calmly knowing a user is following me that closely and insistent, because it has become WP:HOUNDING. SwisterTwister talk 19:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Even if it you have an issue with one person in particular - what about the other seven people you said the same things to? You need to get the message here that this is a PATTERN with you, that it is NOT ACCEPTABLE, and that the community is likely to take some kind of action if you persist in not hearing what people are telling you. --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Your accusations of hounding are baseless and bordering on unsubstantiated personal attacks. They are not following you. If you raise an AFD, anyone is eligible to comment on it who is not under a restriction from doing so. That you do not want them to is irrelevant and something that is your problem to fix. Either by editing in an area you know they do not frequent, or learning to interact with people you disagree with. Even if you were in a formal interaction ban with another editor, this would not prevent them necessarily responding to an AFD you have created, provided they abide by WP:IBAN Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• User:SwisterTwister, unsurprisingly that's exactly the kind of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT frustrating response which I described hours ago in my post above. Instead of addressing the issues which were raised here (first of all, accusing editors of violating interection bans which do not exist) or elsewhere, your replies just ignore the issues, depict yourself as a victim and accuse the others of bad-faith and wiki-hounding. Will ever there be a chance of accepting a critic as genuine, and discussing it, and starting/trying to improve, let alone admitting some of your actions were maybe wrong? I am frankly skeptic. Cavarrone 19:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ektron (4th nomination) to the data set, where I explain to ST that WP:CONSENSUS is a policy, and ask for an explanation of the "talking to the closer" routine.  What I think will be found with analysis of the circumlocutions, deflection of discussion, and vague to non-existent deletion arguments, is a conscious effort to avoid statements that can be reduced by the force of reason.  I stand by my statement there to ST, "I suggest that you put more effort into preparing a high-quality nomination..."  That would include visible use of WP:BEFORE including at least one WP:DEL-REASON in deletion nominations.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Unscintillating, why am I not surprised to find you commenting about something that is not relevant to this main thread? Please stay away from discussing things pertaining to AfD, per CIR ("keep because it was kept before" is a pretty good indication). Drmies (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
    • The nomination before the 4th nomination is the 3rd nomination, which is a No consensus.  The nominator states that the article "was deleted the previous AfD".  ST could have redacted himself, but didn't.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• SwisterTwister (talk · contribs), admin here. It's simple. You claim interaction bans prevent some editors from commenting on you or, worse, dePRODding articles you PRODded. No such bans exist, so you cannot invoke them. Is that clear? As much as I've worked with you and appreciate your good work, I will not hesitate to block you if you falsely invoke such a claim again--those claims are disruptive and unsettling. Please don't go there again.

  I will give you another unasked for piece of advice: rightly or wrongly you are under continued scrutiny for your work at AfD and at AfC. This problem here is of your own making, and the result of it is more continued scrutiny. Bad idea. If problems are of your own making, perhaps you should try making them go away. Maybe you should consider a mentor, someone to talk to. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Some thoughts: Telling someone to leave you alone is not a ban on them in any way, and SwisterTwister should not be treating that as though it is a ban. I understand how annoying it is to have people following you around objecting to everything you do but you can't forbid them from doing that just by telling them not to. Regarding the previous ANI threads regarding ST, consensus at all of those was that ST wasn't doing anything wrong. Those threads shouldn't be used as ammo against him now; they prove nothing except that he gets inclusionists' dander up, and that's more often a good thing than a bad thing. ST had a weird way of expressing himself, but I seldom have trouble understanding what he means. Those claiming he's "incoherent" are overplaying their hand. I'd like to see him put more thought into their AfD comments, sure, but I have also observed that we seem to have infinitely more patience for bizarre and nonsensical keep votes than for bad or formulaic delete votes. Reyk _YO! 11:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me? Please look at the comments above, which are replete with links to SwisterTwister's comments at AFD, comments that truly do range from meaningless to incoherent. Many minor articles are closed with a tiny number of iVotes, which all too often includes an iVote by SwisterTwister that exhibits no evidence of having searched for sources, and no evidence of familiarity with the topic. And are you seriously claiming that getting editors "dander up" at AFD is a positive good? From my perspective, the intransigence and BATTLEGROUND attitudes at AFD are among the most repulsive aspects of the project, one that certainly drives editors away.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of "overplaying their hand", Reyk, you are misrepresenting the case when you say that at the three previous ANI threads, "consensus at all of those was that ST wasn't doing anything wrong." There was no such consensus at any of them. The actual closes were "no consensus" May, "no consensus to implement topic ban at this time… The short of it is that there is a problem, but it hasn't yet reached the point that a topic ban is required" April, and "NO ACTION" February. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm basing my opinion on a reading of the whole discussions, not just the closing statements. The one from February, for instance, closed as "No action" because there wasn't anything resembling a legitimate complaint. Reyk _YO! 17:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Even ignoring your battleground mentality and the lack of AGF, describing the previous ANI discussions as "deletionists vs. inclusinonists" querelles is also a plain mischaracterization, the issues of ST in other fields than AfDs (eg. patrolling new pages in two previous ANI threads and failures in interacting with other editors in the current thread) show how the problems go beyond your simplified and inaccurate depiction. Side note, WP is full of "inclusionists" and "deletionists" who do not crash with other editors, raise criticism or collect ANI threads. Cavarrone 18:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Well that's unnecessarily hostile. Reyk _YO! 20:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• The aspersion at the first example I provided atop remains in place at the open AfD discussion. It would be nice if the user would consider striking the offending part ("interaction ban"). If not, perhaps an uninvolved user (e.g. not myself) would consider doing so. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Without implying opinion on this ANI discussion nor any thoughts regarding any statements made here, I have striked out the statement in the AFD. Regardless of how this discussion ends or if anything comes of it, I felt that in the pure context of the AFD discussion itself and in order to help keep the discussion on-topic (aimed towards building a consensus regarding the article's deletion rationale), as well as bearing Adam9007 in mind (he violated no interaction ban), I agree with Northamerica1000 (as an uninvolved editor) that striking that statement out and declaring that no interaction ban exists is the appropriate and right thing to do. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• I support either (a) mentoring or (b) a temporary limit (2 months) on SwisterTwister nominating more than 15 articles per week. This is due to his reckless nominations causing a tremendous amount of time loss. Having gone through a chunk of his edits, I'd say he is a extreme deletionist. I view his editing style as being detrimental to the confidence of content creators who are newbies. Alternatively, I'd say a 1 week block is in order. If SwisterTwister is allowed to continue editing as normal after this thread, I will view that as a sign of contempt towards content-creators by the wiki community. 92.19.186.75 (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • IP, blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. A one week block would do nothing but punish SwisterTwister. You haven't even attempted to give any evidence that his patrolling isn't a net positive, and you've completely ignored the fact that most of his work, is in fact, very good. Omni Flames (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
    • What we'd like to prevent is further disruptive editing. I agree that SwisterTwister makes positive contributions. I think it is clear from this and previous discussions that there are also negatives. We're not trying to assess his net contribution; There is no formula for that. We're trying to decide if administrative intervention is appropriate to address the disruptive editing. I expect this pattern to continue and so I believe it needs to be addressed. A ban on delete activities will potentially allow us to see proportionally more of the good contributions from SwisterTwister. ~Kvng (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I just stumbled on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deirdre Macnab SwisterwTwister iVote in an AFD he asserts that he had PRODded. I do not want to chase productive editors off, I have been inappropriately attacked on this board, and it feels awful. I truly do not know how to handle this. But I increasingly see it as a sort of WP:OWN]], not unique to SwisterTwister, but perhaps too prevalent among editors who have worked so long and hard on these pages that they have seen it all and think they know it all. I do know that it is wearisome, discouraging, and probably chases new editors off and makes others so fed up that they leave.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Voting to delete something he prodded (I subsequently deprodded it and MSJapan then AfD'd it) seems consistent and reasonable. What's the foul here? ~Kvng (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• The issues largely arise due to ST's deletion-related activities, and communication with him with respect to these. The quality of ST's PROD and AfD contributions is poor, to the point of appearing to indiscriminately claim subjects are clearly non-notable and lack coverage simply because the articles concerned have have maintenance tags on for some time, in some cases with sources that strongly suggest notability available on the first page of a Google search, and usually with a deletion rationale that makes little sense. This is disruptive, as is ST's refusal to interact with/take notice of anyone who challenges his behaviour, and is wasting the time of a lot of other editors. A topic ban from deletion-related activities as suggested above would likely allow ST to focus his efforts in areas that cause less stress all round. --Michig (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

na1k is a inclusionist. st is a deltionist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:76 (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an "inclusionist". For example, I have performed over 5,700 page deletions on Wikipedia in an administrative capacity. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• A topic ban on all deletion discussions, broadly construed, is warranted. The users history of contributions in AFD are, as a whole, not constructive. Further participation in AFD by this user would be damaging to the healthy discussions required for AFD to function. The user repeatedly shows a lack of understanding on deletion guidelines and policies, a combative attitude and it is now reaching the point of disruption. Best would be for SwisterTwister to voluntarily agree to such a ban, and continue as a wikipedian in good standing that contributes constructively in other areas of Wikipedia. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose any permanent or longterm topic-ban for ST. For one thing, any TBan for him should be short-term like three to six months (because he does in fact contribute constructively in AfD discussions he has not initiated, and is sometimes one of the few people who !vote on many discussions), and for another thing, as MelanieN has pointed out, this is not the scope or the point of this ANI. Softlavender (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The scope of this ANI discussion needs to be the pattern of disruptive editing in deletion activities. If someone needs to start a new entry here with that scope, so be it but we're here and deep into it now so let's finish this thing. There have been alleged instances of carpet bomb style delete voting with marginally comprehensible justifications by ST. The fact that he is sometimes the only one to comment in AfD discussions makes these potentially disruptive contributions more concerning, not less so. ~Kvng (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Softlavender. As I said above: there is no justification for discussing a topic ban or block in this thread, because no evidence has been presented IN THIS DISCUSSION to support such an action. Some people are recommending this, apparently based on other previous discussions where other evidence was presented, but those were all closed as No Consensus or No Action, and no new evidence has been presented here. If somebody thinks there is justification for a topic ban, either from AfD discussions generally (which I would oppose) or just from nominating articles for deletion (which I might favor), they would need to start a discussion on that subject, probably at AN rather than ANI, with diffs and other evidence to support the recommendation. What we are waiting for in this discussion is 1) a recognition from ST that he cannot unilaterally ban other people from interacting with him and 2) a promise to stop talking that way. ST has not commented here in several days, and if he doesn't respond satisfactorily soon, I would recommend this be closed with an official warning from the community: that he will receive temporary/escalating blocks if he makes this kind of comment again. --MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I know that I'm probably heading off topic here but, from your description, I find it concerning that so much concerted effort is required to address a pattern of abuse. I would like to see it addressed and I have the wherewithal to complete the work you have requested but I am a WP:VOLUNTEER who would prefer to spend my time improving the encyclopedia. Collecting or searching out and reporting evidence against a disruptive editor is the kind of notfun project that tends to dampen my enthusiasm for working on Wikipedia. I suspect others may have similar feelings and so the disruption will continue. ~Kvng (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, you can make it a formal proposal (subheading) here if you want, based on past history and without a massive collection of diffs. There are certainly others who feel the same way. Personally, if ST doesn't respond here in the next couple of days, I am going to formally propose what I suggested above. --MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I am aware of this and I hope you did not miss my point that I prefer to spend my time improving the encyclopedia over addressing disruptive behavior of other editors. For the sake of the project, I do feel strongly that this behavior should be addressed, and I beleive that's why we have a policy about it. Is there someone interested in negotiating these procedural hoops. Is this an administrator responsibility? ~Kvng (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

To me, a relatively new editor, this response more or less tells me that long-standing editors who do a lot of editing on Wikipeida will be protected by other very active, long-standing editors no matter how poor or destructive the quality of their actual editing is. It makes me very glad that the building I work in is not inspected by structural engineers working according to the professional standards upheld and enforced on this board.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this is a new vs. old editor thing other than an a more experienced editor may better appreciate that enforcing policies requires a consensus and it is difficult to reach consensus. ~Kvng (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it is time to round off this discussion with some actual proposals, and I am about to put mine here in a subhead. Kvng, I didn't mean to imply that you had to round up the material for a full-on AN report. (That is not fun; I did it once and it took the better part of two days just to put the report together.) Rather, I would invite you and anyone else here to put an actual recommendation into words, just based on what has been said here, and post it in a subhead of this discussion to see how much support it gets. --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying next-steps and for putting something out there. I will do a little reviewing of the discussion here and and maybe work up a second proposal. ~Kvng (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• I had not caught some of these issues, but I will say that over the last few months, even while using my alt instead of this account, I've been actively watching ST because some of his actions were problematic. To say someone deprodded an article in violation of an interaction ban when you know that an interaction ban does not exist is a bad faith casting of aspersions, and unquestionably actionable when it is part of a larger pattern. This is gaming the system in a nomination to gain favor with those that agree with deletion of an article. This says nothing of the merits, only of the methods. There have been many problems with ST and article deletions and other areas (I'm wanting to say NPP or AFC a few months ago). We are dangerously close to strong editing restrictions at the meta level. We have spent too much time discussing this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Dennis! Great to see you back! 0;-D A question: Back in May you closed this ANI report (which was mostly about NPP), saying "Closing as no consensus to implement topic ban at this time … The short of it is that there is a problem, but it hasn't yet reached the point that a topic ban is required. IF ST does indeed follow DGG's advice and guidance, then hopefully we won't be back here." Do you have anything to add to that now? --MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• My sense is that overall SwisterTwister's participation in AfD discussions is not constructive. I've stopped reading ST's comments, and my hunch is that closing admins don't weigh them when making a determination; it is almost as if ST is a deletionist robot. I support limiting or banning ST's ability to open AfDs or close them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• "I find it concerning that he uses the same ambiguous argument for each deletion discussion in which he partakes." (St173 above)

"... SwisterTwister's participation in AfD discussions is not constructive. ... it is almost as if ST is a deletionist robot. I support limiting or banning ST's ability to open AfDs or close them." --Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Very much agree with these two statements. SwisterTwister does not contribute usefully to deletion discussions. I sense that there is good intellect underlying ST's decisions to comment or not comment, and that there is a language barrier, but for a long time, and after a lot of comments, ST is failing to improve his rationale to the level of useful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

A proposed closure: Warning about "keep away" orders

This discussion has gone on for the better part of a week. It has been thoughtful, and various courses of action have been mentioned. But the discussion has not been focused, and as such it is likely to lead to another "no consensus" outcome. I think it's time to propose some actual wording for the outcome or conclusion of this report. People can "support" or "oppose" each suggestion, and let's we can see if we clarify consensus for one or more recommendations.

Here's my proposal: NorthAmerica1000 has clearly shown the existence of a pattern whereby SwisterTwister orders another user to stay away from him, and then "warns" them that they are "violating an interaction ban" if they remove a PROD or comment at an AfD where ST is involved. NorthAmerica provided links showing ST making such demands on eight different people. Consensus here is pretty much unanimous that this kind of demand is invalid and inappropriate. ST's response was to blame one other user for "causing him stress". ST has not acknowledged the existence of the pattern, has not recognized it as a problem, and has not committed to stop doing it. ST has not commented here since August 30, even though he has been active at Wikipedia every day. I therefore recommend this be closed with an official warning from the community: that he must stop trying to impose "interaction bans" or "keep-away orders" against other users (except requests to stay off his talk page), and that he will receive temporary/escalating blocks if he makes this kind of comment again.

This proposal does not preclude other ideas. People could support this (rather minimal) outcome and also stronger measures. NorthAmerica mentioned problems with AfC reviews (too many too fast, failure to respond to concerns at his talk page), and others here have raised issues in the areas of article deletion and NPP. If someone wants to propose some wording, an actual recommendation, to deal with those problems, I suggest they do it here in another subheading, so that we can focus on resolving this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Otherwise this could all be brushed under the carpet. Adam9007 (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I also think something needs to be done about the pattern of low-quality contribution to CSD, PROD, and AFD but the three discussions at ANI this year came to no-consensus on those, and the present proposal seems like a bare-minimum control on ST's misbehavior. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

David Eppstein, you are right that this proposal is the absolute minimum that ought to come out of this discussion. There is room for more. If you can come up with a proposal for what you think should be done, please post it here as "A proposed closure" subhead, and see if it finds support. I think one of the reasons these things keep coming up "no consensus" is that there is never an actual, concrete proposal to discuss - just a bunch of vague waves at possible, undefined topic bans. You or anyone else could help solve that problem by defining a proposed solution and posting it here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. To reduce the likelihood that similarly troubling behavior and unfounded accusations will continue, I propose that the warning be extended to encompass not just the self-imposed "keep away" orders but any on-wiki accusation of harassment made outside of ANI. If SwisterTwister believes someone is harassing him, he should make a complaint here; he should not be allowed to use such allegations as a debate tactic or to embarrass others. Rebbing 20:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I would support that extension of the warning: that he must not accuse anyone of harassing him, stalking him, hounding him, etc. at any Wikipedia talk page or edit summary, but only here at ANI. --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• MelanieN should get credit for keeping focus throughout this process.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support  WP:CONSENSUS states, "When agreement cannot be reached...editors...try to work out the dispute through discussion."  Unscintillating (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Obviously. If this continues, a block is necessary, but for now, just a warning. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Acting as if you can unilaterally stifle discussion is pretty antithetical to the project. TimothyJosephWood 23:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• comment Perhaps something could be done along the lines os the current discusion on this board of JohnPackerLambert, to restrict the number of articles that SwisterTwister can PROD or bring to AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• I think I prefer not to ¡vote on this, but since I've already said something similar on ST's talk page I feel comfortable repeating it here: I too have a sense that something that goes toward reducing the underlying source of friction (while still allowing participation) would help produce a good outcome for everyone. This has understandably become a significant stressor for numerous people, and I think dialing back the opportunities for conflict would be a good way to give everyone a breather, get back on firmer friendlier ground, etc. I'm not sure a warning or a block is likely to have that effect. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support Editors don't have the ability to propose their own interaction bans. If they did this would certainly be gamed. The community and ARBCOM can place an interaction ban. This is more akin to fillebustering in an attempt to keep PROD's from being challenged.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support SwisterTwister may not ask others to leave him alone, as there is a history of problems. If SwisterTwister feels harassed by any user, I suggest inviting MelanieN to offer to mediate for SwisterTwister. I think that in most cases, it is SwisterTwister who needs something explained. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, but I decline. Maybe somebody else will take it on. --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. I don't see the problem as the "do not comments here" but using the term "interaction bans." I feel like the issue is beyond the communication one to a greater point about the editing behavior but that isn't at issue right now. I don't think they are productive but I don't see an actual problem with this edit (probably the summary though) and I don't see how that's actually different than what a lot of other editors do. The truth is, that exact same comment could (and was) be made on the article talk page following the deprod. Now, I agree that a warning against using the very specific term of "interaction ban" should be made as that's a specific term that isn't appropriate at the AFD but I think a complete ban on noncommunication is unnecessary. I agree that it's not productive if you are going out there PRODing articles and AFDing them to decide not to respond to particular individuals but that's ultimately going to hurt ST's ability to convince people not anyone else. If people have an issue about ST's prods, well we seem to have a weekly ANI discussion about that but that's not this issue today. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support to this (minimal) action, uniterally banning editors from deprodding articles ST (often wrongly) prods or from voting to keep articles he nominated for deletion, and warning them for that, is not just inappropriate, it is not acceptable. The only purpuse I can imagine for this actions is to discourage such experienced editors from reviewing ST's questionable work, and to dismiss their arguments. Lack of response by ST in spite of multiple requests (and pingings) to provide a relevant comment here are enough evidences of the issue still existing and potentially repeating. His only two comments in this topic were complaints about a non-existing WIKIHOUNDING, with nothing addressing his actions or suggesting he understood the problem. A mentorship would be also useful to prevent further ANI theads related to other issues. Cavarrone 05:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. MelanieN's carefully thought out proposal is a minimal but effective manner of preventing disruption caused by ST's unfortunate pattern of false statements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Question - What is an offical warning and what would be the consequences of ignoring such a warning? ~Kvng (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

An official warning is one delivered to him by an admin as a result of this ANI discussion. The consequences would be temporary/escalating blocks if he makes this kind of comment again. --MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support - but only because to oppose would result in no action whatsoever, again, and reinforce the perception ST must, by now, have that there will never be any repercussions for his problematic behaviour. The poor-quality contribution to CSD, PROD, and AFD will need to be addressed eventually, as evidenced by the regularity with which deep concerns about their negative effects are expressed - but today, it seems, is not to be that day. -- Begoon 15:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

See Kvng's proposal below. --MelanieN (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Note that in at least some instances, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberto Gagliardi SwisterTwister's lonely and unsupported opinion can indeed (contrary to some opinions above) trump editors bringing The New York Times and the London Evening Standard as evidence of notability (AFD on bio of minor figure in the art world).E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

A proposed closure: Topic ban on deletion activities

According to MelanieN, multiple resolutions may be proposed here. I have tried to write this one as a step beyond what she has proposed above. There should be no conflict supporting one, the other or both proposals (though I assume most editors supporting this proposal would also support Melanie's).

I beleive the behavior described in this thread including accusations of WP:GAMING, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, WP:OWN and ongoing reports of failure to follow WP:BEFORE clearly constitutes a longstanding pattern of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. The reported disruptive behavior is associated with deletion-related activities in WP:NPP, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, WP:AFC and WP:PROD. The user has been reluctant to discuss criticism and shown no intent to change behavior. To prevent additional disruptive behavior a topic ban on deletion-related activities is appropriate. My proposal is a 30-day ban on the following activities where the disruption has been reported:

1. Nominating articles for deletion through WP:AFD or WP:CSD
2. Proposing articles for deletion using WP:PROD
3. Declining WP:AFC submissions

I propose that the user be allowed to continue participating in AFD discussions started by other users. I am hopeful that the official warning proposed above will adequately address disruption in these discussions. ~Kvng (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• I am leaning toward support of this proposal. It addresses the issues brought up by many people, but it does so modestly. It is limited in scope to the proposing or nomination of articles for deletion, where his record is frankly dismal (less that 60% of his AfD nominations result in deletion), and to declining AFC submissions which is a similar activity. It allows him to continue to comment on AfDs nominated by other people, where his commentary has received some criticism but is not disruptive. It is limited in time to 30 days, which is not punitive but more of an attention-getter and an inducement to improve. Assuming he resumes such nominations after the 30 days, his work could be evaluated; if it is still disruptive, the topic ban could be extended or possibly made permanent. I would also like to see him start a Twinkle log of his CSD and PROD nominations, so that they can be evaluated more systematically, but I don't suppose we can compel him to. --MelanieN (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment- Just to remind people, WP:BEFORE is not strictly mandatory. This has been discussed in the past and, though it's considered good advice and strongly encouraged, consensus has been that making it strictly compulsory would cause more problems than it would solve. Wikilawyerish shutdowns of AfDs on obviously hopeless articles, and deliberately trying to infuriate deletion nominators are the big two problems that have been identified previously. Reyk _YO! 19:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

user:Mathsci not respecting 'in use' template

• warning (17:10, 31 August 2016) not to do so after a first removal of the {{in use}} template at Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her" (17:00, 31 August 2016)
• removing the template again (17:13, 31 August 2016)

Pinging Bishonen as I read something about editing conditions on Mathsci's talk page which seems like Bish knows more about, and I'm not going to investigate (probably totally unrelated to this, but nonetheless). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Mathsci notified --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Can an admin undo this edit and explain to MattschiMathsci to please respect "in use"? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Francis Schonken's current editing restrictions resulting from his edits to articles on Bach's sacred music. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive925#Francis_Schonken's_disruptive_conduct_is_preventing_content_creation_on_Orgelbüchlein

I am the principal creator of Canonic Variations which has stayed in a stable state since its creation at Christmas time in 2009 (when I learnt to play the variations on a famous German Christmas carol). In addition I created the lilypond files from which the midi audio files were created (now on commons). Francis Schonken is not creating new content but fundamentally modifying a stable article to suit his own preferred format for sacred organ music by Bach. He has not sought any consensus. As fate would have it, I am the main editor on wikipedia who has created content on sacred organ music by Bach. I reverted his edits per WP:BRD because I did not think his changes benefited the reader in any way. He did not respond on the talk page but reverted. That is not how BRD works. There has been no prior discussion and I fundamentally disagree with his edits. Why has he not explained himself?

On a previous occasion (see the link above), Francis Schonken made similar edits to BWV 625 in Orgelbüchlein, one of the 46 chorale preludes described in detail in that article. As a result of my ANI report and his disruptive editing on other articles on Bach's religious music (eg BWV 4), he was limited to IRR per month. He has tried here to circumvent this by adding an "in use" tag to the article while not adding new content. Then as now he was simply removing material he dislikes (text and images) and reformatting my content. Why has he not had any discussion on the talk page of the article to explain what his thinking is (beyond what he wrote about BWV 625)? This particular article has stayed stable since its creation in 2009, so the large scale reformatting without adding new content is unprecedented. I do not own the article but I disagree with the changes Francis Schonken made. He has given me no opportunity to discuss his radical changes to a stable article. He is repeating the conduct that led to the previous report. (Orgelbüchlein is still being created as the to-do list on the talk page indicates.)

I am currently busy editing BWV 39, at present creating hundreds of lilypond files off-wiki which result in audio files like these:

These take a long to time to create because every note of every instrument (including the figured bass, for which I use two recent scores) has to be encoded, checked, voiced with a soundfont and modified for barqoue articulation/dynamics, etc, etc. The new techniques I have learnt in this exercise apply equally well to the audio files in Canonic Variations which can be recorded as permanent ogg files with baroque organ sound fonts. Unlike midi files these ogg files do not rely on readers' software. BWV 39 was originally written using CD liners instead of academic books. I am gradually correcting that. I have made just under 450 edits to that article. I started by adding a large number of new sources to replace the CD liners.

I have no idea why Francis Schonken has not entered into a discussion on the talk page of "Canonic Variations". Escalating things to ANI is a strange thing to do, without prior discussion. His editing restrictions arising from his edits to articles on Bach's sacred music are still in place. The same type of edits as he's making now were what precipitated those restrictions. Perhaps he could explain here why he has not started a discussion on Talk:Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her". I know the material and sources very well and am surprised to see a stable article so radically changed in this way. I'll keep asking the same questions. Why has he not discussed this on the talk page? Examples of new content are edits like this on BWV 39: [50] and this on Orgelbüchlein: [51]. In that case I add in use tags for the sections. Mathsci (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Which "recent scores" are you using for the figured-bass realisation, Mathsci? Are you sure that they are out of copyright? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

In all I have consulted six sources, including old and new vocal scores, but have invented the figured bass myself as rudimentary chords, using what I was taught as a schoolboy about realising a figured bass. Two recent explicit realisations, which have complicated right hands, have been useful for guidance; equally well Bach's own autograph manuscript, written a full tone lower. The right hands have to be simple and unobtrusive so as not to interfere with the two alto recorders. Mathsci (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Again, can an admin please undo this edit and explain to MattschiMathsci to please respect "in use"? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

No. Have you read Mathsci's comments above, posted half an hour before you repeated your request? The only way this will be resolved at all is for you to discuss the matter. So discuss. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Re. "Have you read Mathsci's comments above, posted half an hour before you repeated your request?" – Yes, they are totally unrelated to my request. The only slim analogy I see is that Mathsci asks to be left alone when working on articles: that's what I ask too, for a few hours (when there is an {{in use}} template). --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I say no, too, and concur that discussion is the way. Since Francis Schonken pinged me: yes, I know about Mathsci's editing restrictions, I formulated them (at the behest of the community) and here they are. It doesn't look to me like they have any relevance to this kind of conflict. Bishonen | talk 22:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: there I read:

"I would be far more careful not to overreact. I would state problems with edits dispassionately and carefully avoid any personal comments about editors. I would be careful to show that my edits on talk pages are there to help other editors as much as to discuss improvements to the article. I would strenuously avoid giving the appearance of belittling other editors with different skills."

At WP:TALKNEW I read:

Don't address other users in a heading: Headings invite all users to comment. Headings may be about specific edits but not specifically about the user. (Some exceptions are made at administrative noticeboards, where reporting problems by name is normal.)

Then, these are MatschiMathsci's talk page comments [52], starting with the section header "== Francis Schonken's edits ==", followed by his opinions against me. That doesn't look like "dispassionately and carefully avoid any personal comments" to me. Could you please address this situation? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• This is obvious gaming. Francis, you can't use the in-use template to evade your 1RR editing restriction, namely "Francis Schonken is restricted to one revert per page in any calendar month. The restriction is to last 6 months and applies to all pages except his own user and user talk pages." [53]. Mathsci is indeed by far the principal contributor (97%) to the Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her": [54]. The in-use tag and this ANI filing constitute classic WP:GAMING, and if I were you I'd withdraw this ANI before it WP:BOOMERANGs on you. You're merely re-engaging in the same disruptive editing which got you that 1RR editing restriction in the first place, and on an article by the same editor [55]. Pinging Johnuniq and Voceditenore for further review. Softlavender (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for providing those links which show that FS needs to proceed differently. Nevertheless, Mathsci should follow the "dispassionately and carefully avoid any personal comments" advice above—there is no need for an article talk page to have a section with a user name in its heading. I can understand Mathsci's frustration, and his suggestion about the six articles that might be created is good, but both sides need to reduce drama and find a way of making the same content points without the commentary. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, these two can't seem to stop insulting each other. Mathsci just reverted Francis on Orgelbüchlein with the edit summary "it's not very bright classifying organ music as instrumental" [56], when in fact organ music is obviously instrumental (not vocal), since an organ is a musical instrument. I believe this violates the promises that were the conditions of his unblock [57]. Pinging Bishonen, who unblocked and made those conditions. Softlavender (talk) 06:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, come on, Francis. No, you shouldn't address other users in a talkpage header. But people do it all the time, because it's one of our least-known rules. When people do it, it may be appropriate to ask them to stop. But it's not a "situation". Bishonen | talk 04:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC).
• The problem is Francis is under 1rr which means they *cannot* revert any reversion when they are working on an article. Mathsci is perfectly well aware of this so knows that a single revert will prevent Francis from continuing when working even when making minor changes. The use of the 'in use' template is a reasonable response by Francis so they can work on an article without having to resort to offline editing. 'In use' is used extensively precisely to prevent knee-jerk reverts from interfering when an editor is making changes - clueful editors know to wait until they are finished then judge based on the final result. I dont see from the edit-cycle above that there has been a reason provided for reverting other than 'I dont like it, you need to justify making changes', which is pretty much the essence of ownership. In Francis' case it means if anyone just ignores the in use template, he has to stop working straight away. At this point I think a 2-way interaction ban between the two should be considered, its clearly becoming disruptive, and as Softlavender points out above, has degenerated to insult edit summaries. Either that or topic ban them both from the area and let someone else deal with it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Isn't Only in death taken from the same fantasy novel series as Anroth? I already privately discussed your editing with arbitrators (and Bishonen), particularly the false allegations you made about me in a previous ANI request. This is more of the same. Mathsci (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Oh what a surprise, you once again (I think this is the second or third time actually) make reference to an account on another website in a blatant outing attempt. But by all means, continue to attempt to out me in violation of policy. Shame your 'report' has gone precisely nowhere because it was completely baseless. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
      • You've lost me there. Are you talking about www.bach-cantatas.com? Mathsci (talk) 10:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, Francis added the in-use tag while making a completely undiscussed 1,000-byte deletion [58], as if the tag would somehow give him impunity from reversion of his undiscussed mass deletion and subsequent complete re-working of an article Mathsci has built from the ground up. This is exactly the same sort of mass disruption and bulldozing he was engaging in on Orgelbüchlein, which got him his 1RR restriction [59]. Mathsci rightfully reverted the mass re-working once he logged on [60], and Francis spuriously "warned" him in an attempt to circumvent his 1RR (not to mention WP:BRD): [61]. The major and mind-boggling infraction is Francis's and he should get a further sanction beyond his six months of 1RR. Mathsci probably needs some sort of warning or sanction for his ludicrous edit-summary insult (and for the gratuitous "Isn't Only in death taken from the same fantasy novel series as Anroth?" above), but the problematic editing is by far Francis's on this particular article. I don't know that an IBan would work because they rarely do and because of the two editors' overlapping interests; and since the offending party is clearly Francis here we may want a one-way IBan or a topic-ban on Bach's sacred music as was proposed in the last ANI: [62]. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

A two-way iban would prevent either from reverting the other. If anyone *else* has issues with Francis' changes, they will soon show up. Large edits are not by themselves 'disruptive' and I have still yet to see a credible reason against Francis' work (which would be out of scope here anyway as a content issue). BRD is for unrestricted editors, when you apply it to editors under a 1rr restriction its completely pointless because all the reverting party has to do is not discuss and there is nothing that can be done about it. Really the only alternative that would stop the issue between them is just to ban one or both of them completely from the topic area, as anything else (as has been clearly shown) is just going to end up in gaming the system. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

There was no gaming in Mathsci's two edits -- Francis made massive undiscussed changes and Mathsci reverted him to the status quo ante. This was completely acceptable under Francis's 1RR restriction (which was designed for just such undiscussed mass changes and bulldozing that were the reason for it in the first place). The gaming was all on Francis's end, and I'm beginning to think he added the nonsensical in-use tag for his massive undiscussed changes specifically in order to bring Mathsci to ANI (in this silly unwarranted thread) and to goad him. The problem from the beginning has been Francis, and in my opinion Mathsci should not be IBanned because of Francis's misbehavior. Softlavender (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I find it odd that FS wasn't immediately blocked for essentially admitting, by opening this discussion, to trying to game the system in order to get around his editing restriction. My reluctance to call for harsh sanctions against long-term contributors who usually act in good faith (even if they are wrong a lot of the time and can be incredibly aggressive in defending their wrong edits) is the only thing causing me to say he should be given a block of between one day and one week, and keeping me from suggesting that the restriction should be made indefinite, or broadened. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

As someone who doesn't know much about the history here I have 2 comments. Firstly I agree with Ultraexactzz that it seems to me this should have been discussed more rather than brought here.

But I'm also not sure I see a reason not to respect the 'in use' tag. The edits don't seem so harmful that they require immediate reversion like BLPvios. If Francis Schonken and Mathsci were editing at different times, it seems to me the dispute over inuse would never have happened. (Well I don't know how often each person edits but I presume theres at least ~ 7+ hours a day when they generally don't edit when sleeping, eating etc.) Mathsci is free to revert edits they feel are harmful after Francis Schonken has stopped presuming Francis Schonken isn't asking for an unresonable timeframe for the inuse tag.

If Francis Schonken makes a large number of edits and quite a few of them are harmful and it's too difficult to assess each one they may have to accept wholesale reversion of their edits. It's the risk they take whenever they are editing (since it's always possible no one will notice their edits) but even more so when they are insistant on people respecting the in use tag. (In other words, I'm assuming Francis Schonken understands the isuse tag means if they can make some clearly helpful edits along with others which seem more questionable ones, there's a risk it's going to be difficult enough to sort the good from the bad that all their edits will be reverted and isn't going to come here complaining about all their edits being reverted when they are the one who partially created the situation by making a large number of edits and asking people not to edit while they were doing so, meaning that others didn't notice the problems until they were done and it was too difficult to try and sort the good from the bad.)

Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Re. "...this should have been discussed more rather than brought here" – Note that MatschiMathsci immediately removed the talk page section I had opened about this on their user talk page (17:17, 31 August 2016), which they are of course perfectly allowed to do, but indicates "not open for discussion about this on my talk page", ANI being the logical next step.

Re. "... I'm assuming Francis Schonken understands the isuse tag means if they can make some clearly helpful edits along with others which seem more questionable ones, there's a risk it's going to be difficult enough to sort the good from the bad that all their edits will be reverted and isn't going to come here complaining ..." – Of course, I understand completely. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Re. "...unresonable timeframe for the inuse tag..."

Re. "...presuming Francis Schonken isn't asking for an unresonable timeframe for the inuse tag" – I think a few hours is not unreasonable, and I propose no more for my edits. Here's what I consider unreasonable behaviour for keeping an {{in use}} tag in for two weeks (!) and then starting a slow edit war (!) with the bot that removes an {{in use}} tag after 24H of inactivity:

• MatschiMathsci places an {{in use}} tag 04:33, 10 August 2016
• ...keeps it in virtually without interruption until 17:01, 23 August 2016
• JL-bot removes the tag 21:05, 25 August 2016
• MatschiMathsci reinstates {{in use}} tag 18:46, 27 August 2016
• JL-bot removes again 22:38, 1 September 2016
• MatschiMathsci reinstates {{in use}} 06:30, 2 September 2016
• JL-bot removes again 12:13, 3 September 2016
• MatschiMathsci reinstates {{in use}} tag 19:03, 4 September 2016

(all of this on the same article, see history). MatschiMathsci's excuse: I'm busy with audio files at commons... which has nothing to do with possible edit conflict during a major restructuring (what the {{in use}} tag is for).

In the above I didn't suggest to come down on MatschiMathsci like a ton of bricks, and I still suggest no such thing, but could someone please explain to MatschiMathsci *what the {{in use}} tag is for, that it shouldn't be abused like they appear to be doing, and should be respected when others use them for a few hours* Please. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Ahem, I thought I'd chosen the user name Mathsci, not Matschi. Matschi sounds German, whereas Math-sci has a very English pronunciation. Frau Matschi sounds like a shady character Lotte Lenya might have played, with a steel knife ready to spring out of her hob-nailed boot.

Blanking audio files Since 27 August the talk page of BWV 39 has had a section explaining that I am in the process of preparing content for BWV 39#Movements. I have been extremely busy preparing files like this:

together with miniscores, some of which are already in the article. This audio file took over a week to create and is only in a preliminary imperfect state. This 2 minute 40 second file is an excerpt to illustrate the intended commentary on third section of the first movement. Just like the other two audio files in this thread. The talk page of BWV 39 clearly states that I am preparing that content and the encoding of the score is part of that process. So why—without any warning of any kind at all—did Francis Schonken precipitously remove these files while I am obviously still in the process of editing? A slow and scholarly process. I even said the process would be slow; it is very time-consuming. From his edits, Francis Schonken wants to blank all of these audio files and presumably all the other audio files I have created for Bach articles since 2009. But there are audio files everywhere. I have helped others write lilypond code for midi files within wikipedia articles related to Bach chorales. Nobody has ever raised an objection to my audio files: only Francis Schonken this afternoon. He wasn't interested in discussion or on how the article was being edited. He knew somebody else was actively editing the article.

Francis Schonken's wikilinks in section titles Francis Schonken criticised me yesterday for using a wikilink to an article title in List of organ compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach. But when he created that list in February 2016, he added wikilinks in the section neaders to all wikipedia articles that had so far been written (probably 60-70% of that content is by me).[63] I started creating Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530 today, already having written content on it 6 or 7 years ago in Clavichord#Pedal clavichord and elsewhere. I simply followed his example in the list when I added the wikilink. His response was that he had not added wikilinks in the headers when creating the list. But the diff shows that to be false. How can any discussion proceed in those circumstances

Blanking audio files without discussion (they have been displayed here for a week with no objection and others have been in WP articles since 2009) is also just disruptive. His WP:IDHT attitude regarding the conventions he himself had introduced in his list is also disruptive. But this is the same conduct which got his editing restricted last time. I am editng in my usual plodding and meticulous way, being quietly aided and encouraged by Graham87, the musical wikignome. Wikipedia has all the advantages of multimedia and for some readers audio files in music articles might be a pleasant surprise. Graham87 thanked me for adding audio links to Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530 (it sprang form an idea of his). I am also going to make my own ogg files. Mathsci (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

MatschiMathsci corrected. Other than that, Mathsci's comments are –again– off-topic: e.g. the audio files are a content matter, not discussed on this page, but on the article's talk page.

The point being, from the outset of this thread on ANI, that Mathsci doesn't know how to deal with {{in use}} tags, so I still ask the same: that someone explains the purpose of this template to them, explains to them what is excessive use of this tag that should be avoided, and that the {{in use}} tag should be respected when others use them correctly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Francis Schonken knew that I was editing the section BWV 39#Movements at a relatively slow speed, but he deliberately chose to disregard that. There is content to add to the article. He has been told that repeatedly, yet refuses to understand. I've explained what that involves often enough and will not repeat it now. Francis Schonken cannot dictate the speed at which other people edit. Elsewhere I don't know why he's criticising me for things which are due to him.[64] It is a strange thing to do. He has created similar problems with many other editors and his editing style, sometimes dogmatic and by edict,[dex.php?title=Talk:Brich_dem_Hungrigen_dein_Brot,_BWV_39&diff=737814612&oldid=737745106] has resulted in his current editing restrictions. He recently created a confusing template which was deleted by consensus although he was certain it as the right thing to do. He tried to write Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530 on a list page. Suggesting that my audio quotations had no place on wikipedia was an unpleasant thing to do.[65]

The files have a clear educational purpose/value. Francis Schonken announced that he thought one of them almost satisfied his own standards. On the commons page it is described as mimicing the sound of a positive organ. It was created be encoding each of the four snging voicesand then using an old bland ocarina sounfont from expats, Clicks caused By repeated note s had to be removed by manually encoding dozens of microrests into the parts (including repeated notes between separate parts). The initial crackle on ogg files is a linux-related problem: the timidity/debian/ubuntu bug, due to one simple coding error, has been reported on wikimedia pages[66] which seem to be administered by WMF staff like jdforrester. It might also be something to do with wikipedia software. There is no simple workaround for a linux user apart from recompiling another version of TiMidity++ away from the original package. Mathsci (talk) 07:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, you're wrong there. An {{in use}} template doesn't give you the right to own a page for 24H, 48H, two weeks or whatever other amount of time (even when accompanied with more or less extensive talk page statements). An {{in use}} tag is for "avoid[ing] edit conflicts" when the page is "actively undergoing a major edit for a short while" and should be removed if the "page hasn't been edited in several hours" – adding a media file every few days is *not* a "major edit", nor is that a "reasonable timeframe for the 'in use' tag".

How many and which media files will be contained in an article, is not appropriate discussion material for this board: it is not a behavioural issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

New content is being slowly created for the article—miniscores are being meticulously created by me, along with audio extracts, images, etc. While that elaborate and time-consuming process is happening, you have been leaving very negative and irrelevant comments on the talk page. On the other hand you have absolutely no idea about my intended content. I will take all the time I need to create it as the content is not straightforward.

You have been told multiple times by administrators and other editors that your conduct is disruptive and inappropriate. That is the reason that your editing is restricted.

I am slowly and quietly editing one section BWV 39#Movements of BWV 39. Why are you concentrating on my editing of BWV 39/1 and the creation of audio extracts like this:

and musical extracts like this:

Couldn't you please let me edit in peace for while? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I sought a third opinion about the above audio file. I was told that the current version has no crackle at the beginning, was of reasonable quality and that it was fine for illustrating the article. That's good to know. Mathsci (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Johnpacklambert

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

---

I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Beauty pageants yesterday to create a central place to view AFD nominations relating to beauty pageants. Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs) @Johnpacklambert: has listed approximately 70 biographies for deletion over the past week or so - that is only those that are open and not those that have already been closed of which there are many, many more. There is a consistent pattern here of nominating articles en masse (not a mass nomination but 5+ can be nominated in an hour, as an example) with significant issues - a person's state is mentioned incorrectly [67] (person was Miss Alabama USA not Georgia), [68] (person was Miss Colorado USA not Nevada - name also spelled incorrectly), or the title is incorrect [69] (contestant was in the Miss America system not Miss USA) - evidencing that little effort has been put into reading or researching the article at hand. There are numerous examples of other editors questioning these AFDS [70] [71] [72] [73] [74]. Johnpacklambert is extremely dismissive and appears biased towards the subject and often ignores the sources available - a prime example is nominating an article about the current Miss USA national titleholder [75]. Some of the notifications - like that of Natalie Pack above [76] completely overlook the main reason for notability and show zero evidence of even a simple Google search.

He is currently making claims as to how to view their notability and acting on them without any prior discussion - e.g. "For state pageant winners we should require sources that cover the person without any regard to their winning a state pageant." [77]. There are accusations made about sourcing in these articles that are blatantly untrue - see [78] where he claims "Others are from Diamond Bar sources, which is where she is from, and is the ultimate in local coverage. Another is a media interview with her. Interviews with the subject do not count for passing GNG, only articles about the subject." whilst ignoring articles from People and Daily Mail.

Numerous editors have tried to discuss this with him but he invariably just deletes the discussion from his talk page. I will admit I did revert one instance of this earlier today without realising that that is not allowed - I've taken a very long hiatus from Wikipedia and wasn't aware of that. However I find this behavior very poor because in my eyes he's trying to dodge attempts at discussion rather than engaging on it. See [79] [80]. He has a habit of doing this on other issues as well [81].

It looked like attempts to reason with Johnpacklambert to slow down and allow editors to assess and work through the backlog of AFDs had succeeded as there were none made between 28 August and today, however it has started again with six created today, including one nomination that does not explain what has changed from a previous AFD that is only a few months old [82]. With every day - literally every hour it is getting harder to get control of this out of control AFD situation and work through and research each article. At the current time there are 77 open AFDs. I accept that not all meet WP:GNG but they are all being treated by Johnpacklambert as though they are equally non-notable with dismissive nominations which in many cases contain inaccuracies and evidence of no attempts at research. The Wikiproject has been exploring a guideline but thus far isn't getting anywhere [83].

I will be the first to admit I haven't always handled myself very well in this situation - I've said some things that weren't overly polite which is poor. However I'm frustrated and feeling like I've been hit with the proverbial hurricane with this battering of AFDs and trying to cope with so many. We badly need some time out to take stock of where we're at with this without further AFDs being created at such alarming speed and I request assistance with this. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 07:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

So, what are you asking us to do? Ban Johnpacklambert from opening AFDs because their opinion as to who meets GNG differs from yours? The above are all listed as separate AFD pages, so anyone is free to express a conflicting opinion on any or all of these pages (it's not like a mass RM where a bunch of dubious requests were piled in with some good ones with the clear intention of forcing them all through together). None of the pages will be deleted unless there is consensus to delete them (or at least, I don't think the majority of admins would delete an article based on a nomination that they determine to be flimsy and that received no traction among other editors). If it turns out that a lot of people agree with your interpretation of GNG and disagree with Johnpacklambert, then maybe opening a bunch of AFDs with a rationale that others disagree with can be brought up as a reason for potential sanctions, but I'm not seeing anything here but one user's opinion that this or that article should not be deleted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC) (Comment withdrawn 13:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC) )

• I support a block or a moratorium on the amount of nomination Johnpacklambert can do. Or a temporary topic ban from nominating pages for deletion. His editing pattern seems disruptive because the rapid-fire nature of his nominations appear to suggest he has not done sufficient research on whether a page is notable. Inevitably this leaves the researching to the content creator who may have a short wiki-break and may not be able to contribute. Or it leaves the hard work to editors who may wish to save the pages. However raid-fire nominations are almost always bad because trying to save a single page takes enough time as it is but trying to save dozens or scores in a matter of days is impossible. He also deceptively engages in double voting (see here). Such editing patterns exhibit a disrespect for content creators and frankly I believe that not doing anything about Johnpacklambert is a disservice to content creators. Pwolit iets (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment yes a block or moratorium or both is exactly the sort of thing I am requesting. Sorry it wasn't more obvious, I had thought that would be clear but I guess not. And yes a lot of my frustration comes from the fact that if he channeled all his time & efforts into being constructive and improving articles he sees issues with we could get somewhere, instead I'm spending a large part of my spare time at present sourcing articles and dealing with this stuff - where it's clear he hadn't even bothered to ready or consider an article on its merits and is still arguing the point in the face of overwhelming opposition and what seems like clear common sense it gets pretty irritating. Not everything is worth saving there are definitely those that don't have enough coverage to pass GNG and they can be deleted or redirected., I'm putting time into those where there is a clear claim to notability but I simply cannot keep up with the stream of new nominations to figure out what belongs in which group and then make the necessary edits. 77 nominations is clearly a huge backlog and it seems never ending because it jumps every day. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
• Wow, bad editor makes bad edits. We're talking about a guy who was almost indeffed for the Amanda Filipacchi mess he created, and then almost indeffed for BLP violations and edit warring. And now he's AfDed more pages in a month than I've AfDed in two years, or than most people AfD ever. While AfDing a lot of articles in a short amount of time isn't in and of itself a reason for sanctions, there are a number of troubling things here.

1. Most of the AfDs are in a single topic, burdening people like PageantEditor who edit in that topic
2. Factual errors in the AfD such as not even getting the state of the pageant right
3. Nominating people solely because they won a state beauty pageant, even if their noteriety comes from other things
4. Renominating articles that have been kept kept (i.e. closed as "keep" rather than "no consensus") within the last year
5. A complete lack of WP:BEFORE that segues into a complete ignorance of GNG. Even if you don't do the Google check for sources, you should at least examine the sources in the article. He's nominating articles that are sourced from such places as People and Vanity Fair magazines, the Today Show and CBS. It appears his mass AfDing is motivated by a personal belief that state-level beauty pageant winners don't belong on Wikipedia even if the source material in their articles would pass GNG. (And, FWIW, @Hijiri88:, there IS a strong backlash by editors to this interpretation of GNG)

At a minimum, I support Powlit iets's suggestion that a moratorium be placed on his AfDing, and perhaps that a moratorium of 2-4 weeks be placed on his editing period. pbp 13:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't actually look at many of the AFDs, and the topic area is so far outside my area of interest that I don't think I would have understood the rationales anyway. I just didn't see much of merit to the OP's essentially saying "this user made a bunch of AFDs in a short period of time and I don't think the pages should be deleted". Obviously I agree that, at least in theory, opening a bunch of AFDs at the same time is not a good idea, but sometimes people have opinions about GNG that can actually prove the better interpretations of the policy, so sanctions solely because of a bunch of AFDs that haven't been closed yet seemed inappropriate.

That said, I wrote the above without trawling through the subject's prior edit history so I had no way of knowing, for instance, that he narrowly escaped an indeffed twice. You appear to know more about this than me, so I'm gonna guess that you're probably right. Stricken.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:Fait accompli would seem to apply here, which came out of a similar situation of mass AFD noms in the same project area. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Masem: Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't the application of this something like, "Just because one article is deleted, doesn't give an editor license to nominate similar articles for deletion so quickly that they can't be fixed or even assessed?" pbp 17:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Going off the first diff in the second paragraph above ( specifically [84]), I read this as Johnpacklambert asserting there is clear grounds to delete these based on an established guideline, and going at nominating en masse, despite several problems with said nominations (either easily fixed things in articles or improper nominations) that cannot be addressed reasonably en masse at the volume they are being put to AFD, thus forcing the fait accopli. --MASEM (t) 19:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I want to comment as someone who has dipped a toe into this arcane and highly contested area after coming in via AFD. I see the fundamental problem as a conflict between a very small number of editors who are intensely committed to beauty pageants, and what appears to me to be an even smaller number of editors who cannot see notability here, and who get so irked with editors who create pages on pageant winners that they sometimes work to delete without assessing the individual beauty claims (honestly until I waded into this I had no idea how many beauty pageants there are, most are multiplied by 50, and are annual, so....). I personally view winners of state and of minor national pageants as non-notable - except as a list of names on a page for the pageant, but when I happen on one I do try to assess it honestly, because some of them have a quirk that garners extraordinary coverage, and others go on to have significant careers. But here's the point: I always regret weighing in; the Sturm und Drang in some of these discussions is extraordinary, and to me it always feels like a great fuss over a very insignificant quesiton. The ONLY solution I can see is to BEG more editors to look at that discussion, in the hope that by bringing in enough people with a wider perspective and no horse in this race, we can come to some sort of consensus on what the outcome should be in a typical AFD in which a young woman wins a state pageant title, is covered in her home state and in one handful of national articles, then is mentioned a year or 2 or later in the context of the title she once won. e.g. Kaitlyn Tarpey, a current AFD. Perhaps a significant number of editors weighing in could create a consensus and reduce the recurring ability of this area to waste time and generate an enormous amount of anger and resentment.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Having seen this sort of thing with several tiers of Filipino pageants and lists of unrelated participants I AfDed (mainly due to the fact that they were promotional for the "franchise holder" more so than they had useful information to ascertain the level of the pageant as required), there are specific policies in place for notability of beauty pageant contestants, and what happens is that the people who really like the whole pageant thing disregard them entirely. We have many articles that say literally nothing about a contestant other than she won a state-level pageant and competed in Miss USA. Our policies say that isn't acceptable (one needs to place, if not win), and as a general rule, being a contestant doesn't guarantee an article. A lot of these contestants fade into relative obscurity afterwards, so there's just nothing there that isn't effectively FANCRUFT from dredging personal data. What this is indicative of is a war of content - you either have content that should be here because it exists somewhere, or you have content here because it meets the policies set forth for content. Instead of nitpicking at an AfD for an incorrect state, maybe that's indicative of a basic factual problem with the article? Multi-noms certainly mean other people had issues with the article in question as well. In short, an editor's behavior and the quality of an article are two different things, and if the article itself is not in accordance with the policies it should be in accordance with, then any editor has the right to AfD it, regardless of what their behavior is perceived to be. If the articles are bad, they'll disappear. If they aren't, they'll stay. MSJapan (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I have no issue with articles where there is little or no coverage and thus no hope of passing being nominated, most are being redirected at present and that's fine. That's not the issue here. What there is a problem with is that in amongst the 70 odd nominations are many that are being dismissed out of hand by JPL, where there are plenty of sources, and notability can be established, but with so many to trawl through they are falling through the gaps. We need time to sort out the current lot. Often we're told that there is no news coverage in the nomination yet I can find 10+ articles. Some of the nominations are for clearly notable people but he's made up his mind that because they are titleholders there's no notability - ignoring many other factors. See Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Deshauna Barber Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Natalie Pack, Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Nancy Redd Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Nicole Johnson (Miss California USA). --- PageantUpdater (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

IMO, the piece de resistance is still Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talyah PoleeWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talyah Polee (3rd nomination), where he a) nominated something that was only recently closed as keep, b) mixed up the states, and c) initially misspelled in the nomination. Two and a half weeks in and with eight keep votes and only JPL expressing a deletionist stance, I don't understand why Nancy Redd was still open. I have closed it as SNOW keep. pbp 22:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I actually can't believe I forgot that one but that's a symptom of how many there are and how hard they all are to keep track of. Agree that Talyah Polee is the best example of his clear bias here --- PageantUpdater (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talyah Polee (3rd nomination). Nil Einne (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that. pbp 22:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

As far as bias goes, all I'll say here is to check out the language used here in this AfD nomination. FWIW, there were references from NPR, People Magazine, the BBC, the UK Daily Mail, the New York Daily News, the London Daily Telegraph, and Today that were already in the article at the time the AfD nomination was opened. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• I do see what you mean, I weighed in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Redd and it is a perfect example of what goes on with these articles, not least the fact that the article was kept because of the random fact that I stumbled on it and invested time looking for sources sources; something that happens less often than one might imagine. JohnPackerLambert not only brought it to AFD, he returned at my request only to dismiss what I thought were persuasive sources, but did not return again when I brought even more persuasive sources and requested that he take a 3rd look. However, there is less than exemplary behavior on both sides. User:NewYorkActuary weighed in with this comment [85] not only at Nancy Redd, but at what I took to be every pageant-related AFD then active, but note that she did not leave a link ot the discussion she mentioned. This has the effect of making editors back off, but does not bring editors into the tiny circle that discusses these issues at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• I referred above to an active RFC on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants, which drew only 8 editors, 4 pro and pro con. I truly think that a few more editors weighing in might establish some sort of consensus, or rule of thumb on what it likely to make a pageant winner notable. Or not.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Done, and, I likewise encourage others to do same. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment A-the notice of this discussion was placed in a manner that I had to scroll way down the page to find it. B-the attempt to say that making a mistake here or there should disqualify my participation in AfD as a nominator ignores the fact that over and over again these pages that I have nominated have been deleted. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelyn Butler, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robyn Johnson, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Ann Young and I could go on and on and on. Attacking me on the Tara Wheeler nomination is particularly odd since in that case the article was deleted because the article was found to not be worth having. On the more general issue of stating my views on inclusion well, A-I stated them at an RfC seeking a general consensus on this matter, B-there is no rule against stating a coherent policy, and it is better than just leaving people in the dark as to your thinking. Considering in the case of the Natalie Pack article I mentioned and linked to source not in the article, claiming this shows no evidence of any searching is incorrect. I am still not sure how it is "blatently untrue" when I correctly state the sources include extremely local coverage and a source that is just an interview with the subject. Making incorrect edits on Wikipedia is not grounds for banning a user. To treat nominating articles for deletion as something we should penalize is a horrible idea. It is far too easy to create articles on Wikipedia, much easier than to delete them. It does not require editing 3 pages, posting some sort of reasoned reason, and waiting weeks to see if there is some sort of consensus. Nominating articles for deletion is so difficult that for years I would come across articles that I was 100% sure came no where near meeting the inclusion criteria but I would do nothing because the 3 step process is so much a hassle. So allowing such a discussion to exist just as an attack on someone for nominating lots of articles for deletion makes no sense at all. The "numerous" editors mentions are 3, one of which has previously been told to stop placing any edits on my page, and this one engaged in such behavior as calling me "childish" and saying I needed to grow a "spine". Purplebackpack has again showed his hate toward me. He previously called my intrepretation of GNG "perverted". Now he has called me a "bad editor". This is the editor who created a nomination to block me from editing Wikipedia on Christmas day, in a way that suspiciously suggested he was hoping to rush it through during the hollidays. He comes back and is constantly trying to drum up hate against me. How else can I interpret him refering to me as a "bad editor". It was recently shown in the discussions on Hugo E. Martinez and Carol F. McConkie that his interpretation of GNG is not the one that is generally accepted. A review of those discussions will show Purplebackpack engaging in hounding editors with whom he disagrees. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenda Brabham shows a discussion where I make a nomination and never make any sort of comment in response to later comments. So if we have someone engaged in disruptive behavior, it is not me, but Purplebackpack. If we have someone engaged in behavior that should not be allowed, it is PageantUpdater who calls another editor "childish" for removing insulting posts from his talk page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Only three editors? Since August 16, the following editors complained about your AfDing of articles, or the related issue of mass-redirecting pageant holders, at your talk page: 1 (MYS77), 2 (Fenix down), 3 (NewYorkActuary), 4 (PageantUpdater), 5 (me), 6 (GRuban), 7 (PratyushSinha101). Maybe you've lost count because you delete the comments on your talk page without addressing their concerns. Setting aside the fact that you've nominated 77 articles for deletion this month and I've nominated 50 articles in the past two years, I can point to plenty of discussions where similar articles to McCorkie and Martinez were deleted. But my behavior isn't the issue here. Yours is. And, yes, considering your block for a gross BLP violation (a BLP violation that would have gotten most other editors indeffed), I think the characterization of "bad editor" is quite fitting. Considering your push for deletion of articles that are sourced from such sources as GQ, People and Vanity Fair magazines (at least one of which was in the article you claim had only local coverage, hence PageantUpdater's blatently untrue), "perversion" of GNG seems appropriate. It speaks volumes to me that you haven't even address the most egregious allegations (namely, the complete shoddiness of your nominations), instead basically saying "Hey, look over there!". pbp 02:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC) PS: deletion is a lot faster with Twinkle

• • A - I copy pasted the coding above. I'm sorry if I hurt your scroll finger.
  • B - That's not the issue. The issue is the speed with which you are nominating these articles without regard to checking for sourcing etc. You're making it impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff. Not all articles are worthy of being kept but some are and you're making almost no effort to check for that. Re the Tara Wheeler deletion - my comment is nothing to do with the result of the deletion, simply that it's further proof you do not read the article properly before nominating as you have very clearly put the wrong competition. It wouldn't have made a difference in the outcome but it shows how indiscriminate you are.
  • C - I do find it highly childish that you choose to delete unfavourable comments on your talk page. But I have stated at least five different times that I was totally unaware about the policy surrounding this. I am sorry for the undo but I did not know that I was not allowed to do that. I do accept that policy but I don't have to like it. I find it disturbing that it allows you to present a very one sided and false image to those who visit your talk page. The very many disagreements that other editors have from you have essentially been expunged to show yourself in a more positive light. Well that's how I view it anyway. I would have had more respect for you if you had engaged in the discussion rather than deleting it. Those are simply my views though, the only part of that relevant to this discussion is that you choose to delete discussions rather than discussing with other editors. You might have the right to do that but it shows a lack of willingness to cooperate with others. As PBP says, maybe that's one reason you can't remember just how many other editors have taken issue with your deletions.
  • D - I'm not asking you to stop making deletions indefinitely, just to hold off to allow the current backlog to be properly researched. And I'm asking you to be more careful in making nominations and to actually bother to do some research yourself first per WP:BEFORE which you clearly have not been following. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -- I would not support a ban for someone doing AfD work; it's counterproductive (one look at CAT:NN will suffice). However, I would suggest letting the backlog at beauty pageants page work itself down to at least half of the current size before nominating more (let's say 35). It appears that several editors have some frustration that there are too many nominations to be able to review them properly.

Side comment: It's a shame that participate at AfD is so low; I would encourage everyone reading this thread to take some time and review a few nominations a day. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• • I wouldn't support a ban for someone doing AFD work either but that's not what we're talking about here: we're talking about abusing AFD work or at the very least being highly negligent with their AFD work. Otherwise I agree with your comments. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 05:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• I do not find the editor's work to be "highly negligent". That's an over-statement, IMO, having observed their nominations for a while. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment It is really time someone calls Purplebackpack on his continued insulting of other editors. His calling people "bad editors" is just not acceptable behavior. I sometimes think that some of his bigotted and hateful language only appears that way, but when called on it he never tries to explain that he did not mean it to be as insulting as it came off as, he always just tries to justify it. And yes, his behavior should be called into question. If people can object to creating AfD discussions then they should expect other people to call them on the attack behavior they engage in. Multiple editors specifically called Purplebackpack's behavior with regards to the deletion discussion on Octaviano Tenorio unacceptable attacks on editors with the potential effect of diminishing contributions. That is the sort of behavior that should be talked about here, not typos in nominations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

While I did make a lot of contributions to that AfD, you'd have to twist NPA to find anything that was a personal attack. As I seem to recall, JPL, there were a lot of people who weren't a fan of your behavior on Octaviano Tenorio either. Or of Carrite's (who went around refactoring my comments for kicks). Or of a lot of other peoples'. And instead of addressing why it was somehow acceptable to do the things you've done, you've called me bigoted without any diffs. pbp 13:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Carrite did not do it for 'kicks', they did it because you kept Bolding your Delete comments which gives the impression of voting multiple times. Given your badering there, (and yes you were not the only one) that was the least of the issues. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

What's all this then? pbp 13:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment As is common from Pageantupdater he engages in disingenous bait and switch tactics that are designed to be as insulting as possible. Some of the people he mentioned above said absolutely nothing about nominations related to beauty pageant winners. They were related to one line, one source articles on football players. If PBP is going to insist that the one and only criteria is GNG, then there is no way these articles passed GNG, and thus no way for him to attack my nominations. However more to the point, this was about articles related to one particular topic. To through in nominations related to another topic is entirely unfair. Of course fairness is not expected from a person who at one point joined in trying to ban me from Wikipedia because I had added to the a pornographic actress category a person whose biography said in the text of the biography they were a pornographic actress. Closely connected to this is the assumption that saying that about a person is a BLP violation, yet if one expects articles on pornographic actresses to actually be held to BLP standards and need sourcing from reliable sources they are accused of trying to "censor Wikipedia."John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment at issue is your abuse or negligence of the AFD process. I can only speak on the issue of pageants because that is where my interest likes however it is highly relevant that others have reported similar behaviour regarding other topics. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 05:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what pornography has to do with this. Also, diffs please instead of just innuendo. As for football players, the reason they are getting kept is that there is an SNG, based in the fact that, while the sources may not be in the article for even "cup of coffee" players, they exist somewhere. Did you even try to look for the sources before AfDing? pbp 13:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - having read some of these articles, they really often aren't of notable people. I don't think winning a non-national beauty pageant makes you notable on its own, any more than winning a state prize for best watercolours or best athletics performance would. To PageantUpdater, I suggest discussing the biographical details of these winners in the articles for the pageants they won. Blythwood (talk) 08:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with you, that's not the issue here. The thing is some are notable for other things or for some other reason and they are being given the same treatment. The afd-Ing is too fast and indiscriminate. Each page is not being given due consideration before being nominated. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 08:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Although, the comparison you made isn't valid. With those two examples, the competition is a one-off, when it's over it's over. These titleholders win on one night, but then spend months making appearances, doing media etc. And they also go on to compete a second time in a nationally televised event. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 09:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
    • and he's at it again, with the wrong state mentioned in a comment. Which just goes to show he's not taking enough care [86] --- PageantUpdater (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Blythwood: Do you believe that even if there's a lot of source material? Also, why don't you vote in more of those AfDs? pbp 13:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: JPL isn't really answering the accusations here. In particular, he hasn't given a reason why so many articles need to be deleted so quickly (See the note about Fait accompli above) that you can't even spell the name right and get the right state of the pageant. It's not like Bill Shaheen, which had to be deleted after 24 hours as an attack page that violates BLP policy. It's not like adding language which violates BLP policy to an article about a U.S. Senator. No, waiting 2-3 weeks (thereby giving PageantUpdater or GRuban more time to try and fix them) instead of just one seems reasonable.

Instead of defending his bad editing, JPL's doing what he always does when criticized: make spurious accusations. He's accused me of being a bigot above without any diffs to prove it. IMO, calling somebody a bigot without any diffs is the kind of personal attack that warrants a one-week vacation (Maybe more, since he's done it many times. Also, that would solve the pageant backlog, provided he didn't nominate another 6 dozen articles immediately following unblock). pbp 13:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Well, there is a reason so many articles need to be deleted so quickly. In some of the Discussions on winners of Miss USA state competitions in 2004 the fact that we had articles on virtually all winners of Miss USA state competitions in 2004 was used as justification to keep the particular article. This type of circular argument from what existed was being used to argue for keeping not very good articles. So it seemed logical to nominate more no good articles for deletion. Also, the circular argument was propped up by the fact that a lot of the articles that exxisted as links from the template were really redirects to the page for that particular state competition. In searching out which articles were redirects I kept on coming across truly not notable articles. Biography of living people principals dictate we should not keep articles on non-notable living people. Add to this some of these articles litterally had severe content problems that begged for immediate action. Some of them were plagued by tabloid prose about the subject having been seen dancing with some sportsman in dance formation others thought was too intimate. I could multiply the issues involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment To hunt down the diffs would take a long time, and the last time I tried to find diffs I could not even figure out how to transfer them when I found the edits. However the basic gist is he has said things like '"Latter-day Saint writers tend to be of poor quality", but his exact wording was much more inflamatory. The attempt to define a whole set of writers in a negative way based on their religion, and then use this as an argument to delete articles on people who fit that discription because you presume people of that religion do poor writing is to me a bigoted argument. The whole issue is largely built around the exact wording. Thus he has persisted in saying I have a "perverted" interpetation of GNG. That is a strong, attack word. True, a lot of my negative reaction relates to his strong attack words, but as I said I could not figure out how to come up with diffs when I last did the search. However since "bad editor" is a term he used in this discussion, I think I have every write to react negatively to it. My point is that GNG engages in overly attack language, calling other people "bad", and saying they have a "perverted interpretation". The first is a direct modification of the person, which is attack language. The later is so inflamatory a word, that even if in theory it is being used about ideas it comes off as an attack. Beyond this, PBP is dredging up events from April of 2013 and misrepresenting what happened there. I was also one of the key people in creating and filling categories like Category:20th-century American novelists, which made it so Category:American women novelists would not be in violation of principals to not overly seperate out articles into only ERGS based categories. I also created and supportede nominations to upmerge some ERGS categories that were not easily workable with our policies. In some of these discussions I was called sexists because I didn't think a category like Category:American women essayists was a good idea. While there may be valid arguments that women essayists as a group create different work than men, the arguemtns that Filipacci engaged in, which was that putting women in a different group as women while leaving men in the general category, implies women are not "fully essayists" would if anything be more potentially inflamatory. The fact that over three years later a selective understanding that misrepresents my contributions to the whole matter is used to attack me is totally out of line. More on this in a little.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: I'm not sure you quite understand what the word "perverted" means. Wiktionary gives its definition as "deviating from what is normally considered right, normal or correct". The way you apply (or don't apply) GNG to AfDs deviates from what is normally considered right, normal or correct. The way you apply (or don't apply) basic checks on sourcing on your AfDs deviates from what is normally considered right, normal or correct. As for this ridiculous claim of bigotry, a) where the hell are the diffs? Diffs or it didn't happen, and b) why's it a bad thing to be suspicious of an article on a mid-level LDS church official coming from sources all associated with the LDS church, especially if said sources have been routinely criticized for lack of neutrality? If this were a band or a business executive sourced from similarly not-independent sources, it would be summarily deleted. Also, I'm pretty sure GNG does not engage in personal attacks. pbp 15:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You consistently ignore the issues of how the words you use feel. It is the tone invoked by saying someone has a "perverted" anything that is at issue here. Dictonary definitions do not capture the full length of meaning. "sources all associatedwith the LDS church" and "routinely criticized for lack of neutrality". I still challenge you to produce anything anywhere where someone claims that the biographies the Deseret News creates are anything less than factual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not necessarily an issue of factuality, but one of independence and neutrality. I don't necessarily dispute the factuality of what's on a bands's page or a company's website, but I still wouldn't use it as the only source of an article about a bandleader or executive. And I can find challenges to the scholarship of the LDS Church (of which Deseret News prints press releases almost verbatim) and of BYU pretty quickly and easily. As for challenges, I also challenge your claim that I only nominate articles because they are of Mormons. There are plenty of non-Mormon articles which I have voted delete on, whereas there are not very many (perhaps very few) articles on other religions which I have voted keep on. And there are a great many Mormon articles I have not deleted, nor have any intent to do so, because they are sourced well enough to pass GNG. pbp 15:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I just want to clarify since I have seen numerous comments which misconstrue my intent: I understand that many, if not the majority of articles may not meet GNG and are good to be deleted. I do not take issue with that at all. What I do take issue with is how fast these have been nominated with little attention paid to WP:BEFORE evidenced by articles being nominated with inaccurate details or in close to a dozen situations now where it is clear no research has been done or sourcing considered. There's wheat and chaff here and at the speed JPL was nominating no time to separate the two. I would like to see: (a) censure for the sloppiness of this work - I maintain either abuse of process or negligence (b) a promise to slow down in future and pay due consideration to each article nominated (c) a promise to consider WP:BEFORE rather than simply taking the blanket belief that pageant contestants cannot be notable in any sense. We've already seen the slowdown mentioned in (b) which is positive but that has happened previously and he later resumed in the same fashion. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment  I did some more review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Johnson (Miss California USA).  Nicole Johnson and her baby have been featured recently on TV in the coverage of the August 2016 Olympics, in association with all-time Gold medal winner Michael Phelps (reference: Google news search on ["nicole johnson" olympics NBC].  This nomination makes no pretense to having done anything more than review the sources in the article.  This is exactly where it is the responsibility of editors to improve the article.  WP:BEFORE B1 states, "If there are ...notability...concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." WP:BEFORE D3 states, "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination."  So we have it on record that JPL is making improper nominations.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

JPL's proposal

• Proposal I am going to not nominate any more articles related to pageants for deletion until the current number of nominations goes down. Last night in going through the lists at Miss Kansas USA and Miss Michigan USA it was all I could do to not nominate some of these articles, especially one line, one source articles, for deletion. I was going through the pageant lists because from doing so I learned we still have a few links that go to articles on people who had nothing to do with the pageants, and having on the order of 50 red links from one page is just not a reasonable way. If a user feels that an article should be created, recreating the link is easy, whereas from what I found this massive number of fake links ends up at times creating links to articles on people who were not the competitor in the pageant but some other person who just shared the same name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

That's a start. And if you want to remove bad red links, I don't think anybody would have problem with that. I believe BLP policy actually encourages the unlinking of red links to presumed BLPs. pbp 15:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

A halt to the damage is commendable. We should also stop the proceedings on all those existing AfDs, divide them up so they can be tackled in a reasonable manner. JPL is a sufficiently experienced editor to know this many nominations in the same subject would overwhelm any sort of defense. It was a deliberate attack on the subject, to achieve an WP:AGENDA. In the least, this kind of bad behavior should not be rewarded with success. Additionally, this was done making incomplete representations at best, though with his agenda to remove non-intellectual content from wikipedia en masse, I think it is more malicious. If a WP:BEFORE was done, it was at best poorly done. I've only had a chance to sample the articles. I have been able to add significant sourcing to every one I have sampled. Lets take Mekayla Diehl. JPL says: I think it is now agreed that winners of Miss Indiana USA are not notable for that in and of itself. The article hypes that Diehl is Native American. However since 0.3% of Indiana's population is Native American, it would not be unexpected that no winners of Miss Indiana USA had been Native American until the pageant had existed for over 200 years. Since Miss USA started in 1951 and not 1816, this does not make her notable. I also do not think the gossipy sources about her body size constitute the type of RS sources we would need to justify actually having an article. The gossipy sources he dismissed include every major American television network CBS, Fox and Friends, The Today Show, Good Morning America and Entertainment Tonight. And these were generally not casual mentions but involved on camera personal interviews. I sourced every one of them from a simple google search. Since he mentioned them, he had to have known about them but tactically neglected to add them to the article, I suggest deliberately in order to make for a weaker presentation of the subject at AfD. Every article I have looked at so far now has ten or close to ten sources. I've added most of them. None of them should fail WP:GNG, which is our ultimate standard, although JPL has North America dittoing his nominations with the same kind of thoughtful consideration that these nominations were made from, sarcastically meaning they both ignore the sources that are available from a simple google search. In our very low traffic court of AfD opinion, he could very well get away with this pack of disingenuous nominations. Don't just throw up your hands and give up WP:Fait accompli. Something additional needs done both to protect these specific subjects that he nominated in bulk, and to prevent future bad behavior. Trackinfo (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: Feel free to notify me of any discussions I have !voted in that you disagree with on my talk page. I'm always willing to reconsider. For example, see this AfD discussion. I consider many of these to be WP:BLP1E situations when sources only cover the subject in the context of one event. When sources that provide significant coverage are available about more than one event, then it's not a BLP1E situation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment There is no reason to halt the proceedings. The article on Jaci Stofferahn has 6 sources, one is facebook, and she actually ran for the US house. Abby Norman has 4 sources. The claim about "10 or close to 10" is not true, and even if it were true, that is not the same as saying 10 sources that are reliable, 3rd party and not from extremely local publications. It is multiple people who agree with the fact that many of these people are not notable. In the case of Abby Norman 9 editors have supported the notion that the article should either be redirected or deleted, one has said "keep for now", but not given any policy based reasons to keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, I recounted and it is 8 editors who have supported deleting or redirecting the article. Still this is as opposed to one who has supported keeping the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Even Talyah Polee who some people seemed to think was an open and shut case so much that they argued to speedy keep the article has seen a delete vote that presents various reasons to delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• I think that this response is offensive to editors trying to get you to see what you are doing.  First, I want to put this Polee AfD in context. 

  On 12 Aug 2016, you redirected Talyah Polee, without discussion on the talk page, to Miss Colorado USA.  An editor reverted, citing that notability had been confirmed at AfD. 

  On 1 Sep at 01:55 , you close a discussion on your talk page to slow down the rapid fire nominations. 

  By 1 Sep at 02:20, you've posted the Talyah Polee AfD. 

  Your workmanship was sufficiently flawed that you've misrepresented both the article and one of the AfDs.  (However, to be fair, to show enough work to make two mistakes is probably above average quality for an AfD nomination, in spite of the previously mentioned lack of a good faith attempt to determine notability.)  There is a third error in the nomination because it believes that this is a one event, when the article references five different beauty contests, one of which came with a one-year reign. 

  When the problem with reading the article is mentioned, your reply is, "This is clearly a sign of failing to assume good faith. The first line is very confusing mentioning Miss Nevada before mentioning Miss Colorado.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)"  "Very confusing"?  No, I trust that your English reading skills are just fine, and that you are deceiving yourself more than anyone else here, but for the rest of us the concern is that you've not been able to reflect that the messenger was not the problem.  What was wrong with an "Oops, my bad, I'll plan to be more careful."? 

  But the denial continues with the misrepresentation of one of the AfDs, "The way the second nomination is written makes it on first glance make it look like it is a mass nomination... John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)"  Again, to be fair, the fact that you've responded in detail to the concern is appreciated, and it is easy in this situation to be an arm chair quarterback.  But what was the problem with "Uh oh, a second mistake in my nomination, sorry about that.  I don't like to see that and want to avoid such in the future." and then plan to double check facts in AfD nominations?

  Now here is this response at ANI drawing attention to one delete !vote, while disregarding a Speedy keep statement from an administrator, "The previous AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talyah Polee (2nd nomination)) established notability, and the nominator makes no prima facie case for what has changed since then."  Technically, this ANI response doesn't show understanding of the difference between a speedy keep, and a strong keep.  Where is the feedback process?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Then there is the articles on Natasha Barnard which still has as its only source a link to facebook.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The was only one source why? Because you didn't look for any support before you nominated it? Challenge accepted, I've added 14. Sure there isn't a lot of substance to the article, she's a model. Her notability does not come from her intellectual pursuits. I'm not searching for a Nobel nomination. However, she clearly is a notable model. Trackinfo (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Shaletta Porterfield has 5 sources, which is no where near ten, and one of them is actually about Miss Wisconsin USA with no reference to Porterfield, it is there to explain who franchises this organizations, in a total act of coatracking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

You are kidding, right? You couldn't find the reports of her arrest and resignation? The story was already in the article. You suggest that bizarre situation, reported in multiple sources doesn't make her notable? And now you point that out as an example of an article that needs sourcing. Its like shooting fish in a barrel. It just goes to show how little you know about the subjects you are nominating for AfD even now. Trackinfo (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorta getting the feeling that JPL has started with the blanket assumption that all of these articles are non-notable, then, when challenged on it, grasps for reasons that each article must be deleted. If he had not rifled these off so quickly without greater examination of the sources available, he would not have this problem. pbp 01:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Exactly correct. Personally, my time is very limited. I am not choosing to defend the articles that have few sources to back them up. But I do my research first. What offends me, often, is the thoughtlessness of editors like this, who do not do the due diligence of looking for sources, of informing themselves about a subject they are commenting on. Its been on my user page for years Many of the "delete" respondents didn't even know about the subject. If you are able to read the article and understand the subject, then you should be speaking about its content. If you don't, butt out. Trackinfo (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Just like this editor who voted delete whilst repeating JPL's incorrect statement that the titleholder was from Georgia [87] --- PageantUpdater (talk) 03:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -- I do not support suspension of any AfDs in progress, as many have already been !voted on. I believe editor Johnpacklambert has shown plenty of good faith by suggesting they do not nominate further articles while the backlog takes care of itself. In any case, the real problem is that there are too far many BLP articles on (apparently) non notable individuals, the problem that JPL is addressing. Slowing down the process in progress is counter productive. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. I wouldn't mind JPL's mass-Afd-ing machine-gun style of beauty pageant articles if (1) JPL did a minimal amount of beforehand source checking (even a quick minute on each one and (2) listened to other contributors and was open to changing his mind when a particular subject met the general notability guideline. Nuff said.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment And the article on Porterfield has now been closed as a redirect. I never bothered hunting down information on the criminal charages against her, because charges of identity theft against an individual almost never make the person perpetrating the crime notable. There was probably a source on the issue at an earlier point, but some editor, not me, but probably wisely, had decided to remove the whole mention of the criminal charges on the grounds that having it in the article was a violation of our rules on sourcing and undue weight for negative information on living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment JPL has repeated numerous times that "well x y z articles have closed as delete so what I'm doing is justified". I'd like to present the other side to that:
  • Julie Donaldson closed as keep - 3 keep votes/0 delete votes - nomination by JPL: "Donaldson is a former Miss Florida USA, but this on its own is not enough to make her notable. Donaldson's career in journalism is just not at a level to make her notable. The article is a horrible example of coatracking, which is one reason to avoid articles on unnotable people. Half the article goes into allegations against her non-notable then boyfriend. It is possibly a violation of biography of living people guidelines, since such guidelines apply to defamatory material against non-subjects as well as subjects. Wikipedia's purpose is not to right great wrongs, which means that Wikipedia articles are not the place to carry out diatribes against those accused of domestic abuse."
  • Nancy Redd closed as keep - 6 keep votes/1 weak keep/0 delete votes - Redd is notable for basically 2 things. One she was Miss Virginia, but it seems consensus is moving that winners of state beauty pageants are not notable for such. The other is she wrote a book, but there is no evidence that she passes the notability guidelines for writers
  • Katie Blair closed as keep - 8 keep votes/0 delete votes. - "Blair was Miss Teen USA in 2006. I do not think there is any indication that the winners of teen titles like this are notable, and no other coverage of her comes even close to showing her to be notable."
  • Tami Farrell closed as keep - 6 keep votes/0 delete votes "is only really notable for being Miss Teen USA, but that is not enough on itself to make her notable"
  • Natalie Pack closed as keep: 6 keep votes/1 strong keep/0 delete votes "At some level I wish we could keep all articles on female doctors. However, Pack is not a female doctor as far as I can tell, and clearly no where near being a notable one. She was in her 3rd year of undergraduate studies at UC Irvine in 2012. She might be in her 3rd year of medical school, although the interview I found with her from 2014 in a totally non-reliable source did not seem to suggest she was in medical school, it mainly spent time posting pictures of her in bikinis. Her role as Miss California USA is not enough to be notable, and her role in America's next top model, does not seem to cut it either. Her modeling career to date also does not seem to rise to the level of notability" (see comment by Gruban: "I haven't even looked at the subsequent pages, these are three non-trivial articles by three national publications, over three years. And she was Miss California 2012. And she was on America's Next Top Model, a national TV show. Honestly: "I wish we could keep all articles on female doctors"? She's not a doctor, she's a model. Sure, she doesn't meet notability standards as a notable doctor. Well, neither does Barack Obama meet notability standards as a lawyer. Strangely enough, not everyone becomes notable as what they went for university for. That's not a reason to delete an article about someone who clearly meets WP:GNG")

I think these are clear evidence that an open mind and appropriate research have not been employed before nominating these articles with what amounts to boilerplate. As I've said numerous times before: many if not the majority of these articles do not meet notability but there are others that do and they are not being appropriately filtered by the nominator, buried as they were amongst an overload of nominations --- PageantUpdater (talk) 03:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm probably one of the few commentators here who has not already decided whether state-level pageant winners are notable, being cursed as I am by seeing merit in both sides of the debate. But I see no reasonable debate as to whether Mr. Lambert's actions have been disruptive. They most certainly have been, and on a massive scale. But rather than echo many of the comments that have already been made, I'll restrict myself to an observation that seemed to have been overlooked by others.

Aside from the disruptive nature of these nominations and re-directs, I'm struck by the fact that they are utterly pointless. We have already begun a centralized discussion about the issues raised by these articles. No one here can predict precisely what will come out of those discussions over at the Beauty Pageant project, but something will. And when it does, all of the associated articles are going to be conformed to that consensus decision. And what does it matter if it takes another month to reach that consensus -- there's no deadline here. But rather than respect the time-honoured process of building a broad consensus, Mr. Lambert has chosen to inundate us with dozens of individual deletion nominations and an almost-equal number of undiscussed re-directs, and has continued to do so at the same time that the centralized discussion is taking place. This is an enormous waste of volunteer resources, the more so if the consensus that emerges at the Pageant project calls for the restoration of any articles that have been deleted or re-directed. It is unclear to me what exactly Mr. Lambert hopes to achieve by not waiting for the centralized discussion to run its course, but it is clear to me that his actions demonstrate his disdain for that consensus-building process.

In view of the long-established finding by ArbCom noted at WP:Fait accompli, sanctions against Mr. Lambert, such as blocks or topic bans, are entirely appropriate. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I say let's just close the open AfDs as "no consensus pending ongoing debate" and if JPL agrees to not nominate any more beauty pageant articles (or maybe just any more USA beauty pageant articles) for deletion until a consensus on notability is reached, I see no reason for sanctions now. He overdid it, but I think he actually had a sincere intent of clearing wiki of cruft, ad god knows we do have a cruft problem here. But frankly, we also have VERY inconsistent application of GNG standards...I was surprised at how hard it can be for a full professor at a university to get an article here, while a fairly obscure pageant winner is in like Flynn-- that disconnect isn't right, but it does take the pageants project, working with WP:N folks, to sort out a consistent policy. Montanabw^(talk) 06:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -- I would not support closing existing AfDs as "no consensus" for two reasons: (1) god knows how difficult it's to get an article through AfD and some have been open since mid-Aug; (2) I would not support any SNG/essay that would override GNG, and that's what the current articles in AfD are being evaluated on. So let's the AfDs proceed as they are, and deal with the essay / SNG separately. I actually advocate an essay, to make any guideline align with GNG. I started a thread on this on the project page here to discuss further. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Pageant Updater's Proposed solution

Since this thread has now got very long, and appears to be in limbo despite a number of editors agreeing there is a history of disruptive AFD-ing, here's a proposal:

1. That John Pack Lambert is reprimanded for his inappropriate use of the AFD process.
2. That he is restricted to a maximum of 10 AFDs a week in a single topic space.
3. Such AFDs are to consider each article on its merits and with appropriate use of WP:BEFORE.
4. Any violation of this be met with a ban on AFDs or editing block as appropriate. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Strong support: pbp 16:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Pwolit iets (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: JPL is far from the biggest mass-deletion nominator. AfD in general has a lot of issues with a lack of BEFORE on the part of a number of people, but there is a legitimate reason to delete a lot of the rather useless cruft that does get created... people's obituaties, pet biographies, garage bands... Montanabw^(talk) 05:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose -- please see the below section for more details. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Alternate to Pageant Updater's Proposed solution

1. John Pack Lambert is reprimanded for his inappropriate use of the AFD process, while recognizing that he has put the effort to show his work in his nominations.
2. He is restricted to a maximum of 10 AFD !votes and nominations a week in a single topic space.
3. Each !vote to delete or AfD nomination shall specify a WP:DEL-REASON.
4. WP:DEL8 (notability) opinions shall show visible work for WP:BEFORE D1 (minimal Google searches), and WP:BEFORE C4 analysis (redirect and merge alternatives).
5. This sanction shall be in place for eight twelve weeks.  A determination of a violation by an administrator shall result in a complete AfD ban for nine sixteen following weeks, at which time no formal restrictions shall exist.

Submitted, Unscintillating (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

What happens if he violates the sanction, serves the nine weeks, then goes back to his old ways? What happens if he violates the sanction and then violates the AfD ban? pbp 17:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

(1) The goal is behavior change without someone looking over his shoulder.  If we don't get that, then it has to come back here.  What is the point of a permanent restriction?  Maybe I'm missing something. 

(2) As for violating an AfD ban put in place by an administrator, that would be up to the administrator.  I expect that the community would have little tolerance for such behavior.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I think I could support this bit wanted to point out a couple of things. Firstly, nothing from this discussion gives me any inkling that JPL accepts his behaviour was disruptive or wrong. If he cannot recognise the problem, it's going to be difficult to expect changed behaviour. Secondly, whilst trying to assume good faith, the last time we reached out to him before it came to ANI it appeared he suspended nominations. No sooner had this been pointed out, then the rush started again. My concern is that eight weeks isn't long enough for him to get the message and that he will go on to be a nuisance for editors specialising in another topic. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

True, the literal part of JPL's proposal was to wait until one AfD had been closed before resuming.  And after all of this discussion, he couldn't wait to AfD articles for notability because they had one-line entries, as if he still doesn't know that notability is defined outside of Wikipedia.  But that is part of the WP:BEFORE D1 requirement, by which he would have to report external results from several searches for every AfD.  Another point that is disturbing to me is that he believes he has a role to complain about, not to fix, problems in articles, especially for merges.  I don't have a proposal for that part of the problem.  As for the eight weeks, I'm not a professional, but a professional told me one time that a behavior a person can change for eight weeks can become permanent.  I'll move it to 12 weeks for the sanction and 16 weeks for the optional AfD ban.  I don't think the numbers matter much from 8 to 26 weeks for the sanction.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

If I understand the above correctly, this is attacking me for stating the view that I used a lot of restraint to avoid nominating the article on Alicia Cabrera for deletion. I think some of this animosity comes from the fact that I did not fully explain it was that article. I am the person who created the article, so am well aware of the full nature of sources involved on the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

For the record I have no actual intention of nominating the article on Alicia Cabrera for deletion anytime soon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I almost certainly could make a G7 author request delete on the article on Cabrera since all the edits did by others only altered to categorization of the article and never made any change at all to the text itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I would see no harm in that, there's not much in the way of sources available, if any. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 08:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• support. I support this proposal. Pwolit iets (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support  as proposer.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support - It seems pretty obvious that some kind of official sanction (or threat of a future sanction) has to be put in place to resolve this kind of disruptive behavior. Guy1890 (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support: pbp 00:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support as amended. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose -- I've observed JPL's nominations and most of them have been spot on. The real problem is that there are too many poorly sourced, WP:PSEUDO BLPs on pageant winners. This proposal would have a chilling effect on other editors who are thinking of contributing to AfD. One only needs to check CAT:NN to see the backlog of 60 000+ articles tagged for notability. JPL has shown goodwill in voluntarily halting the nominations, and further sanctions are unnecessary. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: His batch of AfDs included people notable for something else entirely who also happen to be pageant winners. Several of his AfDs have been rife with factual inaccuracies, impinging people's ability to assess the AfDs properly. Also, per fait accompli, you just can't nominate articles faster than they can be assessed or fixed. pbp 14:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: JPL has shown willingness to let the general discussion play out. Plus, we all know there are a lot of franchise cruft articles out there, I'm kind of appalled at how many not-even-notable "pageants" exist. So let's put away the torches and pitchforks and let the process play out. Might be wise to close the pageant AfDs en masse as "no consensus based on ongoing GNG debate." 05:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The bias against the topic across Wikipedia is utterly appalling. If you and others don't see the issue with the nominations I highlighted above or the fact they were buried among 70 other nominations, or the other disruptive behaviour that others have highlighted then I really don't know why I bother with this place. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 08:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. While JPL's nominations violated the fair accompli principle, he has agreed to stop, and recognizes the community's concerns. There has been absolutely no showing of general abuse in participating in the AFD process, and limiting his ability to !vote in AFDs would be a punitive action unjustified by any evidence. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: You don't consider factual inaccuracies to be "general abuse?" pbp 14:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. JPL has agreed to ease off. Sanctions would be punitive. I agree with K.e.coffman about the real problem here, and echo the call that torches and pitchforks be put down. -- Begoon 13:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment directed at those voting oppose: JPL's past history is that of a volume editor who makes edits rapidly and on a large scale. What's going to stop JPL from nomination 100 articles next week? He was asked by User:PageantUpdater to stop before: he stopped for 24 hours and then nominated another big batch of articles. What's going to stop him from creating AfDs so fast they are rife with factual inaccuracies? pbp 14:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

A Different Viewpoint: Need for a Notability Guideline

In looking over this issue, it occurs to me that the underlying problem is that there are no ipso facto notability guidelines for beauty pageants. Some editors, including User:Johnpacklambert, have a history of nominating articles on pageant winners for deletion as not notable. He isn’t the only editor who thinks that many beauty queens are not inherently notable, but there are other editors who think that they are notable. I haven’t yet read the case against JPL a second time, and so don’t have a well-formed opinion as to whether he has been negligent or reckless in his nominations. However, this case is symptomatic of the larger problem, which is the lack of a notability guideline. My suggestion is that, rather than or in addition to sanctioning a particular editor, someone or a group of editors should put together a draft notability guideline, and then run a Request for Comments to make it policy. I don’t have an opinion at this time as to whether state title holders should be notable, but there should be a notability guideline that minimizes contention about deletion of articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed A simple solution would be create a subsection to WP:NPERSON dealing with Beauty Pageant contestants. I think it could be written to parallel WP:NSPORT on Olympic athletes that I deal with so often. Certain pageants, just as certain sport specific events or leagues, are the highest level for these performers. Each entrant to the highest level gets massive coverage as a condition of getting to that pageant. This is demonstrable and repetitive, but it is always individualized so it is not WP:ROUTINE. These major pageants have a long standing tradition. Their established history could certainly e used to demonstrate the significance of advancing to that level. And the advancement process, the requirement to be selected from a chain of previous tournaments (City/State/National) eliminates the oft incorrectly cited WP:BLP1E. All of these steps in each performer's history receive coverage, usually in local press, so WP:GNG is always met. We can state that in the guideline and reverse the onus for future AfD nominations; Prove there is not GNG for this individual. Trackinfo (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Except, to me, pageant contestants seem more similar to American college athletes than they are to Olympic athletes in that Olympic athletes are often full-time professionals, subsidized by national governments.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Reply discussions have been underway for a number of weeks at the Wikiproject. While the discussion is still underway, JPL has AFD-ed well over 70 related articles (that was just the number open at one time, there were plenty that came before) and redirected many more without any discussion whatsoever. Whilst most were justified many were not: some of those articles closed as keep with no votes to delete, evidence that the nominations were flawed. Requests to him to slow down met with only the briefest of hiatuses. This flood of activity whilst discussion is ongoing is ripe to cause massive headaches later. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I was the one who opened an RfC about the creation of a WP:NPAGEANT page. The discussion has been derailed on the topic of state pageant contestant notability, but the proposal is precisely what Trackinfo suggests. Montanabw^(talk) 05:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

And I should add this was just a poor attempt at summarising NewYorkActuary's previous comment --- PageantUpdater (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Either two or three editors told me I should engage in unilateral redirecting of the articles, and I believe that happened before anyone felt like opening the more broad discussion. After some other people made it clear that they did not agree with the redirects, I went back to nominating articles for deletion. The chronology involved is far more complex than the above comment suggests.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• • Comment: I think JPL is making a good-faith effort to engage on this issue, and I recommend that people put away the torches and pitchforks. Montanabw^(talk) 05:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment Because JPL approached me on my talk page, and some may construe that as canvassing, I will neither support nor oppose any sanctions at this time. I have disagreed quite forcibly with this editor's conduct on a couple of occasions. On the other hand, I have agreed with JPL on some matters, especially when he was being besieged by sanctimonious opposers, as I saw the matter. I have never doubted his good faith or his commitment to building this encyclopedia though his overly emotional reactions sometimes cloud the evidence for it. I encourage JPL to recommit to WP:BEFORE and scrupulous accuracy in AfD nominations. And I encourage his opponents to avoid vehemence in defense of articles which fail to comply with our core content policies. Any proposed "special notability guideline" for beauty pageant winners which encourages the creation of new articles which do not comply with our core content policies does a disservice to this encyclopedia. Sincere, respectful debate is always better than throwing down the gauntlet, and that piece of advice is directed at both sides here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is proposing a " "special notability guideline" for beauty pageant winners which encourages the creation of new articles which do not comply with our core content policies " and the fact that other editors are still making that suggestion is frustrating and shows a lack of understanding. Nor can I see the "vehemence in defence of articles which fail to comply" of which you speak. Would you like to give examples? --- PageantUpdater (talk) 07:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The phrasing we use in WP:NSPORT is likely to meet the general notability guideline, What that means is people meeting these standards will usually have sources that will support their notability. It saves unnecessary AfD nominations and labor to prove a repetitive fact. I am not suggesting any sort of "special" treatment. I've sourced many of the articles in question. I know what is there . . . in most cases. Certain newspapers and websites do thorough coverage of certain major pageants. Each contestant gets their own photo series, so it is not a casual mention. Most of their prepared bio is repeated in various forms, so their vital statistics, which frankly is what they are known for, are well distributed. Depending on the pageant, when there are upwards of a dozen of the same sources available for every contestant, GNG is going to get met, the likelihood is fulfilled. And we don't have to go through the headache of chasing down a mass of articles. With each major pageant, there might be several dozen local pageant winners, qualifiers to each. 50 states and more entities to Miss America and Miss USA; and many countries to Miss Universe or Miss World. The guideline should define which pageants get this kind of coverage. And the local winners to such a high level major pageant will get local coverage of their win and the publicity events of the one year reign, all adding to the sources and GNG. If there is a fluke subject that does not meet the standard, then challenge that one, but don't challenge the entire class of subjects. Trackinfo (talk) 10:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

CFB similarities

How does College Football relate to pageants? Simple! The Wikipedia College Football Project has gone through a similar incident in the past (September 2008). It's not exactly the same, but I encourage interested editors to review WP:CFBWEST which outlines the details of the "West Incident" case. In this matter, 79 articles were nominated for deletion and 62 were actually deleted after one article Walter J. West was deleted and then cited in AFDs as "precedent" in many of the discussions. Since that time 100% of the articles were either restored or merged. I hope we can all learn from it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Could you give us the short course on what sort of guidelines apply to notability for college athletes. I can see some similarity between a college ball player and a pageant contestant (similar age; both are more like a student activity than a career). @Paulmcdonald:E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The above claims include the "or merged". Since many of the beauty pageant winner articles were merged, that is an odd thing to mention. Beyond that, the first articles deleted or merged were done so no later than January of this year, but I think it was atually early 2015. Even my contributions to the deletion discussions begin in June of this year with my nomination of the article on Sloan Bailey, which I also created many years ago. The college football players example is also misleading because the fact that we have articles on the people now in no way proves that they were notable back in September 2008. A sizeable number of college football players go on to play professionally, and in many cases such people are only notable once they start playing professionally. The fact that a person is notable today does not mean they were notable 8 years ago. On an example I know a whole lot about, when I began the article on Mia Love she was the mayor of a city with 16,000 people in Utah. She may or may not have passed the GNG then, I believed she did. That was in January 2010. Today that city has 26,000 or maybe a little more people, but since Love is now a member of congress she is without question notable. If the article had been deleted back in February of 2010, it would have been surely recreated no later than January 2015, and probably in November of 2014 if not sooner. That would not be at all evidence that the deletion in February of 2010 had been a flawed action. We can only judge articles based on present situations. I will fully accept that some of the non-notable Miss Nebraska USA or Miss Illinois USA winners will be notable in the future, but we cannot at this time know which ones they are and thus cannot maintain these articles with a lack of reliable sources just because at some future point we may have enough sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Response the cases highlighted above were centered around college football coaches--specifically coaches at smaller schools. And no, it's not a perfect fit. And yes, it includes "or merged" articles. As for notability for college football players, we have an essay at WP:CFBN that helps but the most common reference for the last few years is the general notability guideline. The notability essay has helped many of us come to a general understanding of what GNG means through the framework of college football. There is still disagreement from time to time, but we tend to avoid a large number of AFDs all at once.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
    • The precedent was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West. The article was restored afterwards because only then it became clear that he had played professionally in the National Football League. Many of the others were also restored for similar reasons. None were restored because there was a consensus that being a head coach was sufficient or that the notability essay from College Football was acceptable. We still have AfD debates about these, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N. H. Skyles. Using the West precedent here would mean that all pageant contestant articles should be deleted until the contestants can be shonw to be otherwise notable. I don't think that was your intention. By the way, your 100% restored or merged includes things like Joe Banks, which was redeleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Banks. Fram (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
      • My intent was to show a reasonably similar situation and how it was handled so we can learn from it. Feel free to ignore it if you like.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• The main similarity is that mass AfDs created a massive headache later on. They so often do. That's why mass AfDs are discouraged. pbp 14:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

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

JustPsymo (repost)

Original Post: JustPsymo (talk · contribs) is changing music genre to various artist pages, adding genres following his opinions, also removing sources. I suspect he uses the IP 183.171.181.117, because he did this and 2 days after the IP did this. Other changes here and here. User was reported here -it:Wikipedia:Utenti problematici/JustPsymo- for the same problems, including the removal of sources and the write-only. --79.12.1.50 (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

JustPsymo (talk · contribs) is changing music genre to various artist pages, adding genres following his opinions, also removing sources. I suspect he uses the IP 183.171.181.117, because he did this and 2 days after the IP did this. Other changes here and here. User was reported here -it:Wikipedia:Utenti problematici/JustPsymo- for the same problems, including the removal of sources and the write-only. I repost it because I posted it wrong, not to the bottom as required, sorry.--87.3.18.172 (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Just to repeat my longstanding proposal that if we simply eliminate coverage of four low-value subjects -- footy, music genres, beauty pageants, and professional wresting -- traffic here at ANI would be reduced 30%. EEng 23:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC) P.S. Oh, and porno actors/actresses.
  • Are you seriously proposing that we eliminate coverage of Ludwig van Beethoven, Duke Ellington, Blind Willie Johnson, The Beatles, and everything else having to do with "music genres"? Shirley jesteth thou. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Forsooth, I merely proposeth removing the genre categorizations in infoboxes and leads, my liege! (I suspect that discussions of genres buried in the text proper are too much trouble for genre warriors to find. They all seem to be idiots.) EEng 03:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC) And no, I'm not serious. At least not completely.

What fools these mortals are! And calleth me not Shirley.
Seriously, while User talk:JustPsymo remains a red-link, it seems there will be no immortals administrator action taken here. Can someone who groketh WP:ANI closing tags please close this?
Pete "Seems, @User:EEng and @User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, nay it is; I know not 'seems.'" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by RolandSupreme

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

---

Ever since this user came onto Wikipedia, he/she has been making pointless and disruptive edits that have wound up being undone. Literally his/her entire history is made up of such edits. While a number of editors have undone his/her edits, ZeEnergizer has dealt with this user the most.

For example, RolandSupreme made this edit, claiming to be fixing "missing info", but the sources do not seem to verify this and ZeEnergizer ultimately undid the edit. He/She also seems to have a temper tantrum, judging by the edit summaries of these edits.

RolandSupreme has been here for a day and already is he/she causing problems for every article he/she has edited on. Of course, it can be attributed to him/her being a new user and being unaware of the rules. But this disruptive practice has been pretty consistent so far and I think it's already time for him/her to learn the consequences of his/her behavior, whatever that may be. Parsley Man (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The first thing I notice is a total absence of any attempt to communicate with this new editor on their talk page to try to help them - just a welcome, followed by an ANI notification. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note also, the time between the welcome and AN/I notifications is literally less than 24 hours. Here's a several step solution that should have been enacted prior to bringing them to this noticeboard. Step 1, talk to the editor. Step 2, if the editor refuses to communicate drop them a personalized message on their talk page that they are being disruptive and should try to communicate with other editors. Step 3, notify a friendly admin and see if they can't possibly give a helpful suggestion or leave a note on the editor's talk page. Step 4, if the disruption has continued and is continuing after all of the previous steps have been taken, bring it to the administrator's noticeboard. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Good point Boing. Also, I think we should cherish anyone who is willing to work on the Transformer articles, which suffer from a serious dearth of interested editors. We're missing out on a lot of content. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
• And seriously, we have 181k worth of List of Transformers film series characters? Drmies (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. I didn't notice it at first, but yes, it does seem like communication hasn't been established with the editor first. Sorry. I advocate for this discussion to be closed now. Should this user continue to be disruptive even after a warning, I will bring this back to ANI. Parsley Man (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked indef for vandalism. Nakon 04:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Pardon me, but why, when the conversation was "OK, let's be sure this new user understands how we do things here, we'll meet back if there's further disruption", does suddenly the user get blocked 30 minutes later, having made no further edits? EEng 05:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Dane2007, I can't believe I'm saying this, but I seem to agree with EEng on this one. Is there some additional context missing here? TimothyJosephWood 11:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

This is maybe the third time today I'm getting the "Impossible-as-it-may-seem-I-agree-with-EEng" treatment. When did I become the personification of heterodoxy? EEng 15:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

You can...come off as...abrasive... TimothyJosephWood 23:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I prefer to think of it as being "direct". Have you visited The Museums? EEng 02:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

You can...also...come off as...self absorbed. TimothyJosephWood 00:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Your comments compel me to undertake a searching and fearless moral inventory of myself – crowd-sourced, of course [88]. EEng 01:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Nakon, I'm questioning your block. Have you lot heard of WP:BITE or did that one float by without anybody noticing. The user was bitten by one user who went from "welcome" to "warning" in less than 24 hours. Now, rather than try to talk to the editor, an admin joins in the fray and bites the editor's head off completely with an indef block. Since when do we go from no block to indefinite block for non-blatant vandalism. That is a poor block. Please consider reversing it, new editors have enough to deal with, without rash actions by an administrator. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
• Yep, that's pretty bad. There was clearly an understanding here of what should've happened and what was intended to happen, and that crappy block just rides roughshod over the community. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
• I feel compelled to point out that this isn't the first time this has happened. EEng 15:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, quite. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• I've unblocked the editor and will leave a message on their talk page apologizing for biting and regarding the need to discuss these edits. Thanks, Nakon 15:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Gaming the system? (Needs Admin Closure)

Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016 after surviving an AfD and a deletion review. now has another AfD (The failed AfD closed on 24 August 2016 (no consensus), the deletion review was closed on 2 September 2016 (endorse close) and the new AfD was filled on 2 September 2016). Also the entire article has been deleted and replaced with a paragraph about a 1964 essay that has nothing to do with the specific topic of the 2016 US presidential election. I tried to restore it but was reverted. Could we please have some uninvolved admin eyes on the article, and especially on what I believe to be gaming of the system?

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016[89]
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 August 26#Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016 (closed)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016[90]]
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor
• Previous ANI discussion, Aug 25
• Page before it was gutted
• Page after it was gutted

(Note the "United states" vs. "United States" in the above URLs) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Note the closer (User:Sandstein's) comment: "Because of the close outcome, a relatively quick renomination (on the order of days) might be appropriate." (my emphasis - VM).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! That makes the second RfD just an easily-fixed formatting problem (it should say 2nd nomination with a link to the first). However, changing this well-sourced article and reducing it to this blanked article when there was no consensus to delete was, in my opinion, gaming the system. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

"The following Monday the National Enquirer ran a front-page feature titled "Hillary Clinton's Secret Health Crisis" while the Drudge Report posted a photo showing Clinton tripping on a flight of stairs, in which it was insinuated the accident was a result of medical issues". Well sourced my butt.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

What? That's about as good as sourcing gets for a comspiracy theory, unless you want a source from Breitbart or Alex Jones or something. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Some of the removed material was sourced to NPR, NBC News, Harpers, Scientific American, CNN, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, Snopes.com, The Guardian, The Los Angeles Times, CBS News, BBC, and The Intercept. I stand by my assertion that well-sourced material was deleted and politely decline Volunteer Marek's offer of his butt -- thanks but I already have one. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the visual. EEng 08:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Note: I added AfD: Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor as a related AfD above, as relevant to this discussion. I also added Previous ANI discussion, Aug 25, which was started by the article creator. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

There are already two other threads about this here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election.2C 2016 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Articles for deletion. Can they please be consolidated into one to try and avoid a huge mess. Also please note that it is a holiday weekend in the US so some editors (involved or not) may not be around to respond quickly if pinged. MarnetteD|Talk 04:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

It is appropriate to renominate no-consensus afds, even quickly, in the hope of obtaining consensus. It is usually more helpful to wait a while, because this increases the chances of actually getting consensus. Of course,in this particular case the interest in the article is to some extent time limited--myself, I think it will indeed be permanently of interest, but I think the arguments here will be less heated.

But the blanking or partial blanking of the article was not appropriate, perhaps to the point of being disruptive and outrageous, and should be reverted. I'd do it myself, except i have a overall opinion on the matter. DGG ( talk ) 07:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The article is objectively better in its stubbed form than it was previously, though. jps (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not better or worse that way; it's just empty, thus the stubbing is equivalent to out-of-process deletion. — JFG ^talk 14:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The article is better stubbed than it was before. Who are you to say that it isn't? jps (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Nobody cares who I am or who you are. You are saying that an essentially empty article is better than an article dedicated to contentious contents. That's just your opinion. I happen to think that our encyclopedia should not shy away from reporting well-sourced controversial contents. We are WP:NOTCENSORED. Excessive WP:CRYBLP protection doesn't cut it for such prominent WP:PUBLICFIGURES who chose to come into the election fight for the highest US public office. They are much thicker-skinned than you and me. — JFG ^talk 17:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Agree this is being discussed in 3 different places and it should go down to one. Also agree with DGG on everything he said (except I've already reverted once). Finally, yeah, this was _very_ well sourced. I think "disruptive and outrageous" is correct. Hobit (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Suggest WP:BOOMERANG against Guy Macon (talk · contribs) for tiresomely bringing this to AN/I. This is a dispute that does not belong here. jps (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Boomerang suggestions when the person targeted did nothing wrong have a tendency to boomerang against the person making the suggestion. I'm just saying. -Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• You've done plenty. Your petty vindictiveness and penchant for escalating non-issues into dramatic conflicts is well on display at arbcomm even as we speak. jps (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• • While I have no love for the subject matter this is entirely an appropriate place to bring out gaming of the system and disruption concerns. As the article has been completely gutted and replaced with an anti conspiracy essay from 1964, I would consider that as meeting both those concerns. Deleting large sections of articles can be done occasionally but that's like me taking a religious article, deleting everything out of it, then replacing it with an Atheist talking about why religions are wrong essay. Tivanir2 (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
• As the editor who first raised a red flag about this on the talk page of the article, I will state my agreement with Guy Macon that what has happened here is disturbing. The community debated an article that was, and is admittedly controversial. But we could not reach consensus on whether to keep it or not. Then a handful of editors decided that there was enough consensus among themselves to go ahead and delete the article in all but name and reduce it to a POV stub. That is bad enough. But after strong objections were raised by other editors there persists to the present moment fierce resistance to restoring the blanked material. For the record I am no fan of fringe material on the project and have personally nominated many articles for deletion I believed were non-notable and improperly being used to promote tin foil hat ideas. And I also readily concede that this article is not an easy keep or delete. Sound arguments were made on both sides at the original AfD. It may well be that the article will end up being deleted at the new AfD. That would disappoint me, but I would respect the outcome because that's the way this sort of things should be done. If you want to delete an article fine. But unless it is a clearly non-controversial situation, which this obviously is not, do it at AfD. The pro-deletion side came very close to carrying the debate last time around and may well do so at the new AfD discussion. In summary; stubbing an article that the community just said it could not reach consensus on, by deleting all relevant material and then claiming "talk page consensus" formed by a handful of editors who failed to persuade the community at a well participated AfD discussion is, IMO, improper. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Regardless of anybody's opinion on the need for Wikipedia to have this article, the blanking of all significant contents, section by section, with blanking editors cheering each other up, was totally inappropriate, especially as a no-consensus deletion review was underway. I would advocate a fresh start: restoring the full extent of the article and having a wide-open RFC during which the page would be fully protected, then let people edit away taking into account RFC results. Full disclosure: I once restored a section which had been blanked by an editor in violation of 1RR, and was counter-reverted by another editor with an offensive comment; I abstained from further intervention. — JFG ^talk 14:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I'm torn. On the one hand, I wholeheartedly agree that this is gaming the system (I !voted delete, by the way). An article that does not achieve a consensus to delete should absolutely not be stubbed when the AfD is closed.

On the other hand, I still stand by my !vote to delete. This is too soon to have an article about this subject! When the election is done and folklorists and journalists are writing about the totality of the conspiracy theories in this election, we will finally have an article worth writing.

Now, getting back to the subject of this, I have two things to say.

1. This is absolutely gaming the system, disguised as a content dispute. I usually avoid speculating on the motivations of others (and I actually have a great deal of respect for those who blanked the page), and I will not start now. However, the facts are clear: there is obviously no consensus to blank the page, as anyone can see from looking at this thread. Let alone the article's talk page. The page should be restored to the version I railed against at the AfD. If full page protection is necessary to keep it that way, so be it. We can then go through this new AfD and see if we can't decide what to do with it.
2. That should damn well be the end of it here at AN/I. The justification I see above for a boomerang is... Well, actually I don't see any justification. I see the assertion that this should boomerang, but no reason why (beyond the dangerous suggestion that opening an AN/I case in order to get admin attention is a problem). Furthermore, I see no evidence that the stubbing of this article was done in anything but good faith, by editors who've demonstrated repeatedly their desire to improve the encyclopedia, motivated by concerns that are perfectly coincidental with my own concerns about the article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

That's the tough part all right. I too agree with what the out-of-process deleters are trying to do, and will continue to do what I can to convince the community to form a consensus for deleting the article, but on the other hand I oppose gaming the system in this way even when the end result is what I wanted to happen. We all need to follow consensus even when it goes against us. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

For the record, while strongly disagreeing with the back door attempt at deletion, I do not question the motives of the editors involved. I have worked with some of them in the past on other articles, especially via FTN, and think they are all good editors with honorable intentions. But I do believe in this case their zeal got the better of them. I see this as a case of poor judgement, not malicious editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I support the above conclusion. I don't think anyone meant to do a backdoor deletion, it just happened, a piece at a time. That being said, I do hold those individuals who have used the revert button to undo attempts to restore the material responsible, and I have a low opinion of anyone who supports deleting material sourced to NPR, NBC News, Harpers, Scientific American, CNN, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, Snopes.com, The Guardian, The Los Angeles Times, CBS News, BBC, and The Intercept just because some other material in the same article is sourced to the National Enquirer. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Based on the above comments and those on the talk page of the article I am satisfied that there is at the very least no consensus to substantively blank the article. To which end I have reverted the article to the most recent attempt by Guy Macon to restore the controversially deleted material. I have also requested full PP to last until the close of the ongoing AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it highly inappropriate to claim consensus on the basis of whining on WP:ANI. If an admin wants to move in and protect the page or something, let them. jps (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

And I've done just that, for a week. Airplaneman ✈ 16:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I believe large-scale content blanking in this context is disruptive, see Arbcom guidance. JerryRussell (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The article has been blanked yet again despite the fact that there is clearly no consensus in favor of this action and arguably there is consensus against it. I am starting to view this as deliberate disruptive editing and believe that an admin should step in. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Note It's now been fully protected by Airplaneman. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

An admin has stepped in and protected the page. Now let's get back to actually discussing the actual content rather than citing arbcom cases that are 9 years old. jps (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

In this ANI discussion, are we really here to discuss the content? Or are we here to discuss whether content blanking is disruptive? It actually would be nice to have some policy guidance about that. Unfortunately, 9 years old was the best I could do. I'm not questioning the motives of the editors here, but I find it alarming when this sort of thing happens. JerryRussell (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

C'mon, man, do you really think that citing 9-year-old precedent (best that you can do for a reason -- Wikipedia has evolved much since then) is helping us answer the question of what to do when editors WP:BOLDly stubbify an article that was documented to have many problems in an AfD closed as no consensus? Content discussions absolutely should trump (excuse the pun) this kind of stuff. jps (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I could also have cited Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#One_who_deletes_the_pertinent_cited_additions_of_others or Wikipedia:Content_removal#Consensus_on_removal, but those are just essays. Or there's the template text itself, which says that articles shouldn't be blanked. It seems to me that removing all but a stub, is not much different from blanking. If the concern is BLP issues about Hillary's head injury, that content could be removed or edited to improve neutrality. The article contains several other sections. If, on the other hand, there's a community consensus at this point that massive sourced content removals immediately after failed AfD's are just fine and dandy, well, I stand corrected. JerryRussell (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Stubbornly stamping one's foot and declaring fealty to made-up processes on Wikipedia is an increasingly problematic aspect of the culture here. What is worse is that there really are no rules per se that explain what you are supposed to do when a discussion about deletion ends in no consensus. The normal thing to do at such point is to return to normal editing. That could include bold rewrites of an article and this is not the first nor the last time that such has occurred. By insisting on ninny-ism that seeks to sneer at editors working to remove problematic content from an article for which there was no consensus to delete, you are contributing to an atmosphere that values process over content, rules over quality, games over encyclopedia. jps (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem isn't the topic, the problem is that it was written as a giant BLP problem with a predetermined POV. When the article describes the opinion of doctors with descriptors that undermine their credibility and then identify them as part of a conspiracy. That is not okay. Same thing with mentioning unrelated indictments without conviction. When one side of a campaign calls an issue legitimate and the other calls it a conspiracy theory (with a a long history of labeling all criticism as part of a "vast right wing conspiracy"), these issues are simply political campaign issues and not something we can cover real time or make conclusions about. The press will cover it from every aspect including legitimate concerns and conspiracy theory. We don't carry their water. There's a reason why Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor was deleted. The content was literally copied to an article with "conspiracy theory" as the title. This didn't make the content better, more encyclopedic, more neutral or anything else in WP's interest. If we want to cover candidate health, put it in their bios. If we want to cover the question of health as a campaign issue, put it in the campaign articles. Topics like this evolve and even this weekend, "new revelations" of minutiae will be discussed. We don't need articles on it keeping score and we don't need sections that disparage living people that offer opinions that are sought out by ever hungry press. If there is "Gaming the systtem" occuring, it is by editors creating articles titled from a campaigns talking points and then trashing the detractors. It needs to stop. --DHeyward (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• I truly have no opinion about the merits of the article. I haven't read it and don't intend to participate in the AfD. But it was restored with an edit summary stating that it should not be blanked again; there is an AfD running, and articles should not be blanked while at AfD, as the template itself states; and then it was blanked again and immediately after that was full protected. I went to the talk page to ask that it be restored but I see a statement there that this discussion supersedes the talk page discussion on the blanking. So here's my request: revert the blanking, please. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • My God. WP:WRONGVERSION is something everyone who hasn't read should take a moment to read. There is currently a discussion on the talkpage as to whether there is decent sourcing for claiming that the Hillary Clinton "health rumors" are a conspiracy theory about the presidential election. They may very well be, but the sourcing needs to be addressed). jps (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• I suppose this article is eventually going to be kept. But, if it is, it needs to be kept on a short leash and forced to only mention things which are reliable. pbp 18:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Really? Have you looked at the AfD? I am rapidly losing any hope that the article will be kept. And with the blanked version now locked with little hope of being able to restore the material deleted (despite the clear lack of consensus for the mass redaction) I am more or less resigned to its being deleted. Indeed I am very close to voting for deletion in the AfD myself given the current article is just a POV coatrack and no longer has any real relation to the subject of the title. If you have some reason for your optimism I wish you would share it. I could use some encouragement right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Always darkest before the dawn? I think the current version is less of a POV-coatrack than the version you preferred. In any case, there is a discussion at the talkpage. If you are despondent over this, let's try to come up with a better idea of what a good article on this subject would look like. jps (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ad Orientum: I wouldn't necessarily call it optimism...more like realism or cynicism. COATRACK articles have become harder and harder to delete of late. Plus, 2nd nominations generally trend more keepist than 1st nominations do. pbp 19:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• (1) once an AfD is closed, normal editing resumes, (2) the content that was removed was discussed on the talk page, (3) editor's upholding one of our core policies, WP:BLP is not an attempt to game the system, (4) an argument based on "but it's reliably sourced", still doesn't override our BLP policy, (5) in a contentious topic area under DS, I would expect to see a firm consensus to keep, the first AfD about HC's brain rumor article resulted in delete and the most recent AfD was no consensus, (6) I agree with Dheyward that the topic is not the problem here, the content that was removed per BLP didn't stay focused on the aim and scope of the topic of the article; instead, it drifted off to unacceptable material that focused too much on the individuals. The material was cherry-picked from RS and then used to synth this content together, which resulted in a massive BLP violation, that's unacceptable. Does anyone think The New York Post is an acceptable source for contentious material about a living individual, (7) Clintons campaign article has a section on her health, and Trumps campaign article has sections on Cruz/controversies/fringe/conspiracy theories, there's no reason to create a POV fork full of BLP violations.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
• Observation The reason an article goes to AfD is usually that it comprises a predominance of unsourced or poorly-sourced statements. When they fail AfD, we should expect and welcome the efforts of editors who continue to remove the disqualifying content. The ones who are "gaming the system" here are those who insinuate that this kind of normal article clean-up is "back door deletion" and the like. Next one who plays that card should get a time out. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment They removed content, they gave a clear policy basis for the removal, and they discussed it on the talk page. There's a talk page section for each item deleted. A good first step in restoring the Ted Cruz related conspiracy theory would be discussing why it should be restored. Same for the other sections that were removed and discussed on the talk page. What happened instead was an accusation that an end run around the AFD process was being made and without discussing the merits of the removal the entirety of the material was restored. An AFD was made that resulted in no consensus. A DVR that endorsed the "no consensus" followed. A new AFD attempting to achieve a consensus has been made. None of this amounts to gaming the system. Removing items from and article and attempting the discuss it doesn't amount to gaming the system.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I looked at that "They removed content, they gave a clear policy basis for the removal, and they discussed it on the talk page" previous discussion for the section I am currently discussing on the talk page, and all I see is a WP:CRYBLP claim that any coverage of Hillary Clinton's health is a BLP violation. The closing AfD admin ruled against the claims of a BLP violation, and the other admins endorsed the close at deletion review. The BLP argument was made during the first AfD. If the closing admin or any admin reviewing the close had found a BLP violation, that would have resulted in an instant delete per Wikipedia policies. "BLP" isn't a magic word that lets you get your way without actually establishing that there is a BLP violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I may have missed it but in the close it seems as if it was ruled there was no consensus. I didn't catch where he ruled out the BLP. The BLP is not a magic word. Typing WP:CRYBLP on ANI doesn't remove your obligation to use the talk page of the article and make your case that there is no BLP violation. 1 person opened a discussion that the section on Ted Cruz was a BLP violation. 2 people concurred. It was restored without any actually discussion other than the position that they were making an end run around the AFD. There is a BLP Noticeboard and seen people take discussion there. But for some reason, I suppose since you are "right", you have no obligation to discuss this. And it's not that I am saying you are wrong and there is in fact a BLP violation, I take no position on this. BLP or not, thats a content matter. ANI is for conduct. IMO, there is no case here for any conduct issues. If there is no BLP issue you should have no problem making your case, whether on the talk page or at BLPN.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not material about a conspiracy theory regarding Hillary Clinton's health violates WP:BLP has already been decided, and I am not going to re-argue the point with you. If there had been a BLP violation, the closing admin and reviewing admins would have been obligated to immediately remove the material as soon as they identified it. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which is part of WP:BLP. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, it's already been decided that the was no BLP with that section before it was removed? Then link that discussion. Oh, wait, no that's not what you're saying at all. You are saying that admins have God like powers and you have no obligation to engage in talk page discussion because admins have perused that article. Bullshit!-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• When an article has survived a deletion discussion and a DRV, blanking it and then protecting the blanked version is an obvious end-run around our processes. A few editors spamming the talk page with a massive quantity of text does not constitute a consensus that overcomes these processes; in fact, the sheer quantity of text and its argumentative tone is a very effective deterrent to other editors joining in and helping out. The outcome here has been severely suboptimal, and yes, I'm well aware of WP:WRONGVERSION and I'm disregarding it with all due forethought.—S Marshall T/C 16:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Guy Macon just made the same point I made at the article talk page. In my book, that sneer about the "vast right-wing conspiracy" statement comes uncomfortably close to a BLP violation in itself, and while I've heard bad things about the editing environment at our US politics articles, I'd thought that was a canard. Now with all the sneering and assumptions of bad faith, I'm glad I have to deal with these editors relatively rarely.. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

RE:@Guy Macon:Mr. Macon has asked me not to post on his talk page, so I am linking a comment I placed there in a forgetful moment. Here it is. Mr. Macon has a recent history of disruptive and battleground editing on American Politics. GuyMacon's BLP-violating edit I asked him to undo was, fortunately, immediately undone by a passing Admin, @Acroterion:. Other recent lapses by Mr. Macon at the Seth Rich article include the following: PA edit comment battleground, esp. vs. editor @Steve Quinn: goofy threats failure to engage on talk page threats again etc. etc. At some point, a TBAN from American Politics would seem appropriate. I have posted this here because of @WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94: jps' suggestion of a boomerang finding regarding Guy Macon. I have unhatted and clarified relevance here. SPECIFICO talk 17:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I personally oppose the punitive action you are suggesting here. I can not see this as anything but a good faith question about questionable practices. While it is possible to say some of the article falls foul of BLP I sincerly doubt that the entire thing would qualify. The essay replacement of that information is pointy at best and disruptive at worst. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not proposing it, I'm endorsing jps' recommendation. It is not punitive. It is preventive. Please don't complicate the discussion with "punitive" SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Strongest Possible Oppose to any suggestion of BOOMERANG sanctions against Guy Macon. There is absolutely no evidence of bad faith in raising the issue of the improper blanking of Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016. Those concerns have been echoed by a very large number of highly respected and experienced editors. The above post by SPECIFICO appears motivated at least in part by a heated, but unrelated dispute with Guy Macon. Attempting to use unrelated threads, the legitimacy of which is beyond serious contention, to advance one's side of a personal dispute is pushing the envelope of propriety and could be seen as FORUMSHOPPING and or CANVASSING. The comment which does not in any way address the issue raised in this thread should never have been posted here. I take no position in the dispute between these editors as I am not familiar with it and have no intention of getting involved. But this is not the place to resolve it.-Ad Orientem (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

If WP had the same functionality as Skype, you all could see my WTF face right now. Usually I edit with a bit of a smile (or sometimes a blank look, complete with drool), but right now, I'm dumbfounded. The 'evidence' given above by SPECIFICO of Guy's supposed poor behavior is beyond specious. In some of those links, I'd venture to suggest that the motivation was to imply wrongdoing while knowing full well that the diff didn't illustrate any wrongdoing. AGF is important, but I really can't reconcile how someone can take that first diff as a personal attack in any way. The only possible explanation I can imagine is that the user damn well knows it is not, but doesn't think anyone will check. In every other link, the claim of bad behavior is either arguable or just a clear misunderstanding of what was being said. This is ridiculous and this thread needs to be closed before it creates any more pointless drama. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, this thread needs to be closed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

If jps and I am wrong, then this thread will meet no further support. If Guy Macon has in fact shown a pattern of disruptive editing on articles related to ARBAP2 then other editors will voice their views. Either way, the community doesn't close a thread after a few minutes because a couple of editors don't like the subject. As you'll note in Mr. Macon's instructions to me on his talk page, he prefers I raise this at ANI rather than offer him a collegial warning such as the one I copied here. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It needs to be closed because it's utter nonsense. While I view Guy Macon's claims here as wrong (but very reasonable), I also clear that they are genuine. He in fact thinks that folks are trying to game the system. There is no reason to believe that he is here in anything but good faith. If the community agreed with me, that his position was wrong, we'd set a piss poor precedent by banning him without some justification of bad faith. Your diffs are unrelated to the topic at hand. I won't bother discussing them other than saying that I doubt any community action and they shouldn't be discussed here. Ciao.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

PROCEDURAL COMMENT: Could an uninvolved administrator please split this off into a a separate section and give it a neutral title? Specifico has every right to file an ANI report about me, but he should not hijack an existing discussion to do so. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• My Final Comment There has been a lot of discussion on this thread. Some of it good and some not so much. More than a few seem to view the merits of the article as the issue. But that's not right. The only issue here is whether or not a handful of editors, likely acting in good faith, should have effectively deleted an article only days after it survived an AfD via blanking of all relevant material. From WP:BLANK...

Under normal circumstances, Wikipedia articles should not be blanked. If you think an article has no useful content, then either fix it, or else leave it in its present state and propose it for deletion. However, it is acceptable to blank an article for libel or privacy reasons as an emergency measure, as described in the policy on biographies of living persons. It is also sometimes necessary to blank an article which is a copyright violation in its entirety – for instructions, see Copyright problems.

I respectfully argue that what was done, was grossly improper. And the impropriety was compounded when the blanking was rigidly enforced by edit warring even after other editors objected. If an Admin wants to take some formal notice of what went on here, fine. If not, life will go on. In the end it's likely moot. The life expectancy of the article is probably no more than days given the current state of the ongoing AfD. Arguably this entire argument was pointless since the blanking was a fait accompli and the article is all but certain to be deleted anyways. But I believe an important principle is at stake here. Namely that no single editor or group of editors has the right to unilaterally delete an article by blanking all of its content (save in the few exceptions admitted by the guidelines).

This issue has now been discussed or debated by my count in at least four different places and it's time for me to move on and drop the proverbial stick. I support the motion to close this thread and invite any uninvolved admin to do so and if so inclined make any judgements. I will have no further comment on this issue here or elsewhere. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

66.235.36.153 on Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations

66.235.36.153 has been active on Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations for quite some time. Recently they have been making particular contentious edits. Last month they were warned twice for adding that the accusations were made without evidence with no source.[91][92] A similar edit was made without a source today[93], though after being reverted they did finally provide a source.[94] Over the past few days they have been in an edit war over whether to list Cosby's status as a civil rights leader in the lede of the assault allegations article.[95][96][97] The last three warnings on his talk page are from making incendiary comments about other editors and general talk page misuse. After my procedural revert of his last addition to the article in question, he posted this rant on my talk page, saying that other editors have ganged up on him and, after referencing Hitler and George Orwell, said I was piling on as well.LM2000 (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• A short block for edit warring seems appropriate here, at the very least. Their edit warring has been slow, but it's edit warring nonetheless. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Page semi protected. That's all that's needed here for the time being.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • • Hello Folks First, let us get something straight, when there has been a request to go to talk about a subject this good faith editor has done so. This was pointed out to LM2000 before they came here whining about being 'picked on', this good faith editor merely pointed out other editors at Cosby biography talk had deleted RS and deleted a reply to an editor who rambled on about the 'good' Hitler did and Cosby was like 'Hitler'...you can confirm this at Cosby bio talk. Pointing this out to LM2000 is not a 'rant' it is a fact, easily confirmed.

When it was requested this editor provided the proper RS for the painfully obvious fact that Cosby is noted for aspects of his civil rights activity it was provided. That was what, is, being referred to as 'slow edit warring' of which there is no such thing. This editor requested numerous times that the Cosby allegations article have some kind of protection as every time there was some juicy gossip in GAWKER or even the NATIONAL ENQUIRER some editors would rush in drooling to get it into the article...so it is rather hilarious to request article 'protection' when entering a fact of a Living Person is placed in the article with a proper RS, an RS cited in the biography of that person. There is the expressed concern in the Cosby allegation article that the Cosby legacy is being suppressed by means of the allegations, part of that legacy is notable civil right activity, activity some editors have deleted multiple times even in the talk section. With deep concern...Sincerely 66.235.36.153 (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)A Contributor

I'm afraid page protection may not be enough in this case. 66.235 denies slow edit warring exists and continues incendiary comments by saying that I was "whining" by coming here, a claim they doubled down on in their edit summary.[98] 66.235 has discussed the civil rights issues on the main Cosby article but not the allegations article, that's a separate dispute and is no justification for edit warring. 66.235 has done good work on both articles and brings a different perspective but has recently ignored policy and their talk page behavior has elevated tensions.LM2000 (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• • • Hello LM2000 Thank you for acknowledging this fellow good faith editor has done 'good work'...when the edit about the Cosby civil right legacy is restored with the proper RS that 'good work' will continue. What has 'mounted tensions' is pointing out that editors who compare Cosby to 'Hitler' and drone on about the 'good Hitler did' were deleting posted RS from the Cosby talk page to be perused by other good faith editors such as yourself. They would then rush over and threaten this editor with being 'blocked' if the editor then reposted the various RS at Cosby talk to be reviewed for the article....soooo get your story straight before joining editors who ramble on about the 'good' Hitler did and threaten fellow good faith editors with being blocked...this an archived site so all can be confirmed at the Cosby talk pages. Yes this editor considers it 'whining' when another editor does not return a conversation at the proper talk page and runs to get a fellow good faith editor disciplined for doing what editors are suppose to do...provide edits that improve the article with proper RS. With deep concern 66.235.36.153 (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC) A Contributor
      • • Hello LM2000 This is a sort of PS to you of the above...the only 'perspective' this editor has is to stick to wiki standards of neutrality. Pointing out that editors who compare Living Persons to 'Hitler', delete RS from the talk pages and threaten editors with being blocked is a very, very, very proper subject to comment on ...at the proper talk page. Sincerely66.235.36.153 (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC) A Contributor
      • Hello Folks Just to make things clear to any who may read this an editor who added, at the request of another editor, a proper RS about Cosby's civil rights activity is labeled 'slow edit warring'. The article is then put 'under semi-protection'. Keeping any IP editors from improving the Cosby allegations article, even temporarily. Yet editors who deleted RS from Cosby talk, deleted responses in Cosby talk and editors who edit from a bias that here is a 'mountain of evidence' that Cosby's civil rights activity should be censored from any wiki articles, Cosby should be treated like 'Hitler' and Hitler did some 'good'. Those 'Hitler' editors are suppose to be able to run the content of articles about a Living Person while IP editors are shut out. With deep concern 66.235.36.153 (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC) A Contributor

At the very least someone needs to instruct 66.235.36.153 to tone down the rhetoric here, on article and user talk pages, and anywhere on Wikipedia. Accusing editors in a content dispute of censorship and describing editors as "whining" and "drooling" interferes with reasonable discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• • • Hello Sundayclose What is better than your demands for teatime talk at wikipedia would be to confront editors who state that Cosby should be treated like Hitler and that Cosby civil rights legacy should be censored. Your time would be better spent demanding to know why RS sources were being deleted. Yes there were editors who were high fiving at every piece of gossip from TMZ, GAWKER and even the NATIONAL ENQUIRER that got into the article ...and yes they were drooling to get it in. Simply put better enforcement of wiki neutrality, instead of threatening to block fellow good faith editors...as you have done. With deep concern Sincerely 66.235.36.153 (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)A Contributor

ArbCom Enforcement Needed

User:79.180.125.113 made edits [99] to Qasr el Yahud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which may be construed to be in violation of WP:ARBPIA3 with regards to the "reasonably related" clause, given the anonymous editor's edit description reading: "As of today, 4 September 2016, there is no state of Palestine. This area is within the state of Israel." RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 11:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Ineluctably. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

If one construes it that broadly, then ECP should be slapped onto the article. I'm undecided whether it falls within ARBPIA3 though. Others may have differing opinions. Blackmane (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

ECP should not be added. The article itself is not ARBPIA, but any edits that are ARBPIA related are subject to ARBCOM sanctions. But we don't need to protect the whole article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Abkhazia

I closed that RFC on the page some time ago(the IP that closed the discussion was me, obviously) The closure was reverted, without any reason against the closure itself, the only reason being an argument against me. After an Adminstrators noticeboard discussion(Link) it was said get an account. I even did it to avoid further complications, and after nothing happened, I reclosed it. It got reverted even then, and User:Favonian denied to revert himself.[link

1. Assuming someone is involved just because he or she is an IP/has a low edit count is assuming bad faith
2. Someone with a high edit count could be involved in the discussion with another account as well. We don't assume that everytime a discussion is closed by someone with a high edit count.
3. Wikipedia:Closing discussions does not set any restrictions on edit counts for closing RFCs
4. These who didn't like the closure didn't even talk with the me, and presented no reasons why the close would be bad
5. Further reverts are not helpful, talking to the reverters didn't help, so I went here instead.Lurking shadow (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've notified Sro23 for you. On a sidenote, that is some top-notch knowledge of policy for an account so new. SQL^{Query me!} 15:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you were able to notify them - removed mine. SQL^{Query me!} 15:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It is best when experienced editors close RfCs. This one is for the moment still open, and it is listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Abkhazia#RfC on Infobox. The RfC was opened on June 21, but was still receiving a few comments as late as Aug. 26. The status of Abkhazia as a breakaway from Georgia is obviously controversial, and the infobox contains wording about status. If it had to be closed today, the RfC would probably would be deemed to be no consensus (numerical vote is about 17:13 for the new infobox), but a good closer would come up with suggestions for what to do next. For example, raise more precise questions about status. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

If someone closes a discussion, you do not revert if it isn't vandalism or such. You talk to the closer, and if you do not convince them, you go to WP:AN to challenge the closure. But you don't revert closures until someone closes it in the way you like.Lurking shadow (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Admin (and sometimes very experienced users) will revert closes when doing so is with the understanding the larger consensus would agree that there is a policy problem with the close. This is standard procedure. Reverting that close back yourself without a larger discussion is considered a form of edit warring. You lack the experience to be closing any discussions, frankly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Gravuritas

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

---

• Impact of the privatisation of British Rail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Gravuritas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mathmensch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After being asked not to do so, User:Gravuritas broke the three-edit rule (diff) with an inappropriate summary line. Furthermore, his response on his talk page was not the most polite of all, and I consider it to be inappropriate, violating Wikipedia principles such as WP:AGF and addressing me as "sonny", and I'm not sure whether this already crosses the line of an insult, albeit a very harmless one.--Mathmensch (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule: Violating this rule "often leads to blocks"--Mathmensch (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, it may be not the first time: User_talk:Gravuritas#Peak_oil--Mathmensch (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Gravuritas and User:Mathmensch have each got up to three reverts and are risking a block if either of them goes further. Mathmensch has applied a WP:PROD template to this article which is not very sensible, since it's a decent article on an important topic. If you disagree with the article content try to get agreement on how to change it. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I only did two reverts [100].--Mathmensch (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston has since agreed that I only did two reverts. --Mathmensch (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The offended editor believes the whole article to be "bullshit". He edited the article in such a way as to throw doubt on pretty much all of it, with a single source. When reverted he seemed to believe that if he postulated something on the Talk page, that would constitute the entire discussion. Further, any opposition to one of his edits appears to engender a belief that it can only be due to ideological opposition to his own position. As he has been temporarily slightly thwarted, he would now like the entire article deleted.

Gravuritas (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the PROD. Clearly it was not going to be an "uncontroversial deletion" Meters (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gravuritas: You are really not being nice. I don't know what else to say.--Mathmensch (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mathmensch: Well, I've been less than polite: the triggers being that you've imputed a load of opinions to me that I haven't expressed; and you've tried to educate me that 'correlation does not mean causation'. I suspect I learnt the latter before you were born, so posting it on my talk page was pretty insulting. How about saying sorry?

Gravuritas (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Despite being somewhat discontent with the behaviour of Gravuritas, I have to retract this complaint due to a misunderstanding of the 3RR on my part: I thought three edits were already the threshold, but apparently, four are. I would like to apologise for any unneeded effort.--Mathmensch (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Although this edit could be rated as offensive and, perhaps, more. --Mathmensch (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

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

AFDs on a number of olympians and other notable articles

Wasabi,the,one (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems, after having been blocked for disruption, come back with a clear intent of getting as many articles of clear notability deleted on flimsy grounds ("not notable other than playing in the olympics".

Examples include

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ragnar Hargreaves
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beal-Gaillard House
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Expulsion (film)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellerbeck Peak
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jor (music)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chen Chi-hsin

Seems to be a WP:POINT issue in reaction to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Healy. Obviously a block has had no positive inpact. Also approaching the editor has shown no improvement. I would suggest a topic ban on AFDs. Agathoclea (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

My gut feeling with this user is they're a sock of someone else, based on apparently being a "new" account, that went to going to AfDs pretty quickly after being created. Most of those AfD rationales are incredibly poor (look at Beal-Gaillard House, for example) and I'd support a topic ban in that area. And on top of that, they create articles like this! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I did a quick tune up on Dyken Pond. It's still a stub, but it now has an RS source and I think it passes GEOLAND. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• I gave what should be seen as a last warning on his page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • And I can't argue against your gut feeling in this case, Lugnuts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• The general disruption, the activity at AfD, the creation of articles like the one linked to (Dyken Pond) and the rest of the edits they've made (I took a quick look at their contributions) all match what Evlekis has been doing for quite a while now, making me believe it's yet another of his socks. And if it is there's most probably one or more other socks here too, because he usually has two or more socks active at the same time... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• These accusations of sockpuppetry were made in good faith, but I just don't see it. Like Agathoclea said, I believe this is nothing more than a new editor being disruptive to make a WP:POINT after the result of the Matthew Healy AFD. Sro23 (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Repeated WP:NPA and WP:Civility violation

• Ktrimi991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

With this comment comment (diff) Ktrimi991 wrote to another editor: assuming you are not mentally disabled....

I politely explained them (diff) that this comment is violation of WP:NPA and Wikipedia:Civility. Instead to acknowledge the issue with their editing and/or refrain from repeating it, they replied (diff) with a comment about the same editor: Only someone who has problems with their brain control can do such things. and this (diff) It is not your fault, everyone knows what means to come from a country like Serbia, a society which is mostly famous for nationalism and propaganda.

I notified them with this edit (diff).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• "What means to come from Serbia"? Are they paying attention to what they're typing? White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 19:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Looking at their posting history, they're an Albanian nationalist, which could explain why they seem to hate Serbs so much.74.70.146.1 (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I have been told to die and fuck off, but this is extreme. Guess they won't like me since I am part Serbian. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• EdJohnston just gave him a clear warning [101] and there have been no edits since. I suggest leaving this open a day or two, as the line has already been clearly drawn and anything that encroaches on WP:NPA now will likely result in a block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

IP user edit warring on multiple accounts

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

---

IP user 86.187.169.29 , 86.187.162.52 , 86.187.171.148 , 86.187.170.137 , is edit warring on the Mini-14 page.[102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108]--RAF910 (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Per User:BilCat This sockmaster has a long history, see User:Guliolopez/Draft. [109]--RAF910 (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• It's actually a different sockmaster - mentioned here and in numerous ANI reports redux. Black Kite (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

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

USER:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Violating WP:AGF,WP:TPO, general incivility

USER:Erpert filed a request for closure stating "This was relisted a week ago but there still is no consensus. For at least three reasons I can't close it as such myself (lol), so I request an uninvolved admin to do the honors." USER:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz edited Erpit's comment, calling Erpit's comment an "obvious WP:CANVASSING violation. I am a completely uninvolved editor, I have read through AfD in question, and it appears to me a closure with a result of "no consensus" would be entirely appropriate in this situation, and/so I see no evidence of canvassing in Erpert's closure request comment. Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's editing of Erpit's comments is a violation of WP:TPO, and his accusation of canvassing fails to assume good faith. I reverted Wolfowitz's initial edit with an admonishing to AGF, [110] he reverted me, so I posted a warning on his talk page for both the AGF and TPO violations, and restored Erpit's original text. Wolfowitz posted a comment on my page where he told me not to post warnings on others' pages where I don't understand the policies and accused me of incompetence. This indicates to me Wolfowitz has no intention of ceasing to edit other users' comments inappropriately, or of returing to assuming good faith. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Additional Comment - looking through the ANI archives, it seems that there is bad blood between HW and Erpert going back at least a couple years, and Erpert has requested an IBAN at least twice, but no action has been taken. If these two can't interact collegially, perhaps an IBAN should be revisited, but in the meantime, editing the comments of someone you already have a negative history with is not really a very wise move and weakens the assumption that your motivations were unbiased and without malice. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Mmyers1976 does not understand the guideline he cites. WP:TPO expressly refers to talk pages, not to noticeboard pages. Erpert, an involved editor, used a request for closure to lobby for their preferred outcome in a deletion discussion. I redacted the lobbying. Requests for closure are made on noticeboard pages, not talk pages. The page at issue. WP:AN, is a noticeboard, not a talk page. WP:NOTICEBOARDS, the governing page, does not prohibit the removal of disruptive material. It is common practice to cap and hat disruptive posts to noticeboards, and my action was less drastic. I've removed/redacted inappropriate material from noticeboard posts before, uncontroversially. It should be evident that using a request for closure to canvass/lobby for one's preferred outcome in a contested deletion discussion is contrary to practice and a disruptive form of forum shopping; none of the other pending requests do such a thing, and I've never seen it done before. (It may well have been done, but it's far removed from acceptable practice.) My actual post to Mmyers's talk page said that quoting a guideline regarding talk pages "as though it applies to noticeboard posts betrays either extraordinary careless or a lack of competence". That is, frankly, quite accurate if blunt, and for an editor who has been active since 2007 not to recognized the difference is extraordinary. And it's certainly no worse than Mmyers's casual, and groundless, accusation that I ignored WP:AGF. (Mmyers' comment that disputing his interpretation of a guideline on his talk page indicates a lack of good faith is illogical at best and a rather clear example of the failure to AGF on his part. I'd also note that Mmyers edited my post to his talk page to remove all of my discussion of applicable guidelines, then posted a reply implying that I wasn't familiar with those pages. Editors have a great deal of leeway in maintaining their own talk pages, but selectively editing another editor's post in order to gain an advantage in an argument is clearly not acceptable behaviour. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

TPO DOES NOT only apply to article talk pages. Re-read the top of the Talk Page Guidelines, which states "When talk pages in other namespaces and userspaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually apply," and "All guidelines here also apply to Wikipedia discussion pages, such as articles for deletion." As for your continued accusation of canvassing against Erpert, I leave it to the volunteers and administrators here to determine if there is any merit to it, but WP:CANVASSING DOES NOT allow you to respond to suspected canvassing by deleting it, it states "The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices, possibly using {{subst:Uw-canvass}} on their talk page. If they continue, they may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents, which may result in their being blocked from editing. Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning, if such an action is deemed to be necessary." The Talk Page guidelines allow for removal of others' personal attacks, copyright violations, libel, posting of personal details - ie, comments with legal ramifications. Canvassing is not such a legal concern, and as the Talk Page guidelines say: "Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived". And to clarify, I accused Wolfowitz of failure to assume good faith when he accused Erpert of canvassing, I did not accuse him of failing to assume I was acting in good faith. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

As I pointed out, it has been common practice to cap and hat or redact inappropriate content on noticeboards. Even if TPO applies to noticeboards, it is a guideline allowing reasonable exceptions. The fact that a particular form of insppropriate behaviour is not included in a list of examples does not make it appropriate, and WP:TPO allows the removal of various forms of "prohibited" and "harmful" material. Attempts to use requests for closure, which should be neutrally phrased, as forum shopping to open a forking discussion of the merits of a proposal, if tolerated generally, would be disruptive and timewasting, which certainly strikes me as harmful, as it will many if not most reasonable editors. WP:TPO also allows editors to "hide" off-topic material -- and the merits of a particular proposal are certainly off-topic in a request for closure, which should deal only with whether a discussion is ready to be closed. It also strikes me that redacting disruptive material which is also a clear violation of standard practice is preferable to escalating to a noticeboard discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 20:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see the problem with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's edits here; I can see why Erpert's request would be viewed as canvassing for a closure in line with his favoured outcome, and redacting certain posts has long been allowed in cases like this. Number 57 21:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I wasn't canvassing at all; and I requested that an uninvolved admin do the honors, not "do the honors and close as no consensus". Said admin can close the discussion however s/he sees fit. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• How do you explain inserting "[redact obvious [[WP:CANVASSING]] violation]" inside Erpert's text without leaving any attribution?  Is this neutral wording?  There is accusatory language in both the "CANVASSING" and "violation", and an intensifier by the use of the word "obvious".  Is it not a concern to you if someone edits your text without attribution?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• I looked at WP:CANVASSING, but I don't see your meaning in there.  Canvassing seems to involve getting editors to show up at discussions unfairly, not suggesting an outcome to closers in advance of their closing.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• WP:TPO states, "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection."  Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Another example of an accusation of canvassing, from today HW has made another accusation of canvassing since the first incident, this time at [111].  I replied at [112], but haven't received any explanation.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Another editor, User:MichaelQSchmidt, has weighed in with this diff.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Regarding the word "another" in the words, "...another display of improper WP:CANVASSING.", there is no antecedent.  WP:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack? lists "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence."  The essay Wikipedia:WikiBullying identifies such accusations as a "serious personal attack."  Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• I agree completely with the OP: WP:AGF, WP:TPO, general incivility.  I'm adding WP:No personal attacks, WP:TPO edit warring, and false attribution.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. Is it common practice to use the AN/Request for Closure for an AfD ?

Off-topic discussion about a different editor and a different incident. Should be reported in a separate report

I am also weighing in here with a diff. Unscintillating's action in this AfD appear to be canvassing from my perspective - and that's seven years on Wikipedia. It can be seen that they are pinging all "keep" Ivoters from the previous AfD pertaining to Nicole Aniston [113], [114]. In my opinion, this is inappropriate and seems extravagant for an AfD. Currently, this is the second AfD nomination for Nicole Aniston. Also, although Unscintillating points out that User:MichaelQSchmidth appears to have opined, Schmidth is an involved editor [115] who showed up after Unscintillating's pinging of "keep" Ivoters had occurred.Steve Quinn (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Preceding para fails to mention that there was only one Delete in the previous AfD, and that person had already !voted in the current AfD; therefore they were aware of it and did not need to be notified. Thus the user notified everyone who !voted in the previous AfD who wasn't already aware, and it's not his or her fault the previous AfD was a unanimous-minus-1 Keep. After reviewing WP:APPNOTE I disagree with the assessment of canvassing (although that's only 3 years on Wikipedia). ―Mandruss ☎ 13:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC) That's patently inaccurate. Unscintillating didn't ping the nominator of the prior AFD, only the keep !voters. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Point taken. Read bad faith in that if you wish. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC) @Steve: There are no rules against bringing a closure of AfD request to ANRFC. I did it the first time because the AfD ran over seven days (after which it was relisted by a neutral admin); and then I did it the second time because it ran over fourteen days. If discussions like that stay open that long, it can really mess up the backlog. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict) The paragraph also doesn't mention that he is the OP for this sequence, and is on record for objecting to giving the targets of his comments a chance to respond, diff, and this diff.  The later diff comes after he was notified of the Wikilink WP:APPNOTE.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Those comments say nothing of the kind. Vague aspersions against editors you disagree with do nothing to further reasonable discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict) WP:APPNOTE also states, "particularly if the discussion concerns complaints about user behavior."  Unscintillating (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Talk about jumping to conclusions at best. There is no way that I on record for objecting to giving the targets of my comments a chance to respond. This is idiotic! Unscillintating is making assumptions about motives that I don't have, as a rationale for canvassing. Unsintillating is exceeding the editing parameters conferred to Users by Wikipedia. In other words, this person appears to be acting in a manner that he or she knows other's nonexistent hidden motivations, that he or she has special authority to ping others to come to an AfD, and that he or she has special authority to exceed policies and guidelines by doing this. My view is - this is, at best, irrational behavior. This is also evinced by seeming battleground editing behavior before they summoned others to this AfD; to wit: First, Unscintillating asserts "Notability was confirmed at the first AfD, and notability is not temporary" [116] (This is not a problem - it is simply an assertion). Second, User:K.e.coffman replies "I don't believe that AfD discussions 'confirm notability'. Instead, their purpose is to determine consensus on whether an article should be retained or deleted. Such consensus can change" [117]. (This is simply a reply - no problem). Next, Unscintillating says, "So there was no discussion of or consensus regarding notability at the previous AfD?" [118]. (This was already answered by coffman and I see no merit to asking this question}. Then coffman rationally replies [119] as follows: "Previous AfD did not include a discussion of sources, for example: Keep "Looks to meet WP:GNG [1] for her industry coverage (no pun intended)" (link to Google search) Keep "Nom did not present a reason for deletion" Keep "Trolling by the nominator" Keep "per X & Y" Keep "looks to pass GNG", etc. Thus, the first AfD did not introduce any new sources or offer convincing arguments, just opinions". Next Unscillating repeats themselves - "So you believe that there was no discussion of or consensus regarding notability?" (to me this seemed pointlessly argumentative and seeming to engage in a battleground editing style). After this I stepped in by agreeing with coffman - "The prior AfD Ivotes noted by k.e. coffman had some seriously non-policy based arguments. I'm not seeing these as valid arguments for keep. I agree with k.e. coffman, the prior AfD has the appearance of merely being a vote, and of voicing unhelpful opinions." [120] This was followed by Unscintillating calling in other keep Ivote editors [121]. (This might or might not be another salvo commensurate with battleground type behavior). Steve Quinn (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Also, Unscintillating stating that I was "on record for objecting to giving the targets of my comments a chance to respond" is inaccurate. There were no targets of comments. I was addressing the comments, not the editors. This is not appropriate to misconstrue my editing or my behavior. Again, Unscintillating is attributing to me motivation or underlying perceptions that were not present. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC) @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Words have meanings, and you have above used the word "patently" to describe your ability to determine who I pinged and who I didn't ping.  For the record, there were three editors I didn't ping: a keep !vote, you, and the nominator.  Subsequent to your report here, I have pinged the nominator.  Also for the record, the nominator has not edited at Wikipedia since May 2015, log.  The definition provided by Google on a search for [Patently] gives "clearly; without doubt".  If it was so "clear and without doubt" to you that I had not pinged the nominator, and that was the only ping that was needed, why did you not make the ping?  Unscintillating (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Well, Unscintillating, it's pretty clear you're not disputing the accuracy of my word use, only making an odd complaint that Bad Old Wolfowitz didn't correct the screwup you hadn't brought yourself to admit. And while you now point out that the nom hadn't edited recently, that can't be the reason you didn't ping them, because you pinged Scalhotrod, a long and notoriously permabanned by the WMF sexual harasser, as well as VandVictory, a banned sock. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC) |} Personal attack by user Malik Shabbaz The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Hi, I am an anonymous Wikipedia editor and yesterday I have started a COI thread against Dan Eisenberg, suspecting he may be an antisemite and bringing the issue to discussion at COI. The issue I want to report here is an offensive behaviour of user Malik Shabbaz who called my original COI threadpost a "load of horseshit" and asserted that my opinion belongs to "trash". Here is his offensive comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConflict_of_interest%2FNoticeboard&type=revision&diff=737607196&oldid=737593291 I don't know who he is and why he behaved so desctructively (probably he thought that an anonymous user won't find where to file a complaint against him) but I ask you here to overview this personal attack by him and punish him in accordance with Wikipedia's Civility Guidelines, which may have been violated here. As for me being anonymous: I don't edit Wikipedia, and thus I see no point in the creation of a user account. This is totally my right and I strongly warn anyone against acting abusively against me and my anonymity and warn you against forcing me into the creation of an account which I do not need. I urge everyone to stay civilized and calm. -- 37.44.65.39 (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC) I don't edit Wikipedia, WP:NOTHERE. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC) The IP doth protest too much, methinks. You "don't edit" Wikipedia but know your way around it very well. Yeah, okay. Recommend speedy close. --NeilN talk to me 23:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Wait, wait, wait, not too fast. So if I don't edit Wikipedia, but I read it and sometimes intervene when I see POV push, like it happened here and I get verbally attacked I have no way to defend myself? Sounds unreasonable. Confirm this or decline this -- 37.44.65.39 (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC) It's been declined because your claim that you don't edit Wikipedia is being viewed as unlikely to the point of impossible. How do you know about the Conflict of Interest noticeboard if you've never edited here? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 23:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC) Because I read Wikipedia sufficiently long enough to know more or less how it works. Remember that all Wikipedia: prefixed pages are available to anonymous users as well, and this is what you exactly see when you see me editing these pages. So are talk pages available for everyone. And so is every user's contribution. Yesterday I started searching through pages with search queries like "abusive users" and eventually came across COI. Today when I saw MShabbaz's incivility I started searching through pages like "Wikipedia incivility" etc and came across this way. This is not rocket science to find these pages. What I see right here is a shocking discrimination against anonymous users, which I urge you to stop and review my case and get it to a lawful resolution, not rude disregard simply for the fact I am anonymous. Anonymous users exist for a reason. -- 37.44.65.39 (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Legal threat by Dogs1420 The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Dogs1420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Removed sourced content (I have not verified) and left a legal threat in the edit summary: There was defamatory information included. If it is added again legal action may be pursued. Exclude it. Jim1138 (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC) Blocked. Source is high quality and backs up article content. --NeilN talk to me 23:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. New try to force the rule of incivility being upheld against MShabbaz The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. As the previous argument was closed one-way without even letting me explain anything and a shocking incivility by user RunAmiga, who reverted my reply with a comment similar to "blabla you are not convincing anyone we don't listen" I ask you to carefully read that discussion and consider it from the point of Wikipedia rules, not your personal preferences. My explanation of how I know about these Wikipedia: prefixed pages (that user RunAmiga has rudely erased) goes as following: Because I read Wikipedia sufficiently long enough to know more or less how it works. Remember that all Wikipedia: prefixed pages are available to anonymous users as well, and this is what you exactly see when you see me editing these pages. So are talk pages available for everyone. And so is every user's contribution. Yesterday I started searching through pages with search queries like "abusive users" and eventually came across COI. Today when I saw MShabbaz's incivility I started searching through pages like "Wikipedia incivility" etc and came across this way. This is not rocket science to find these pages. What I see right here is a shocking discrimination against anonymous users, which I urge you to stop and review my case and get it to a lawful resolution, not rude disregard simply for the fact I am anonymous. Anonymous users exist for a reason. -- 37.44.65.39 (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)− It's in fact frustrating to see Wikipedians being so sure that all their tools are only available or, what is even more frustrating, can be understood only by them. Guys, all this engine is PHP, all the inner workings (which I, to say, don't know) even of the wiki engine can be understood by any php coder in the world in the matter of an hour or two, this is the most widespread web programming language in the world. Wikipedia is no exception to this rule. This is simply a CMS written in PHP that everyone capable of some cognition can get a good grasp of in a matter of few hours if not less. And I am reading wikipedia for years. smh I ask for wider arbitration. I also ask for precise rules that were used to make final resolution to be listed. My complaint now also includes user RunAmiga who allowed such an abusive comment against me. If you have any further questions about how a guy can know how to edit Wikipedia and yet not be an editor but a reader - be free to ask them. Though I don't know what could not be possibly clear from my previous explanation. Wikipedia is not a rocket science to learn how to use it almost instantly. My original complaint was that user MShabbaz called an opinion of another user (me) a "horseshit" and "trash", which can not be tolerated I guess. When you make a decision explain why this can or cannot be tolerated in Wikipedia. I expect such kind of words to be heard on the street from some uncivilized people, not from the editors of Wikipedia. -- 37.44.65.39 (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC) You can argue about whether or not it should be tolerated but at this point, you're still claiming you've never edited here before and you don't seem to realize why you need to stop. I can't put this any plainer: nobody believes that. It's actually funny: whether or not it's true is beside the point. What matters is that you're doing an absolutely terrible job of convincing anybody that you're not editing under a sockpuppet identity. If I were you, I would drop the issue since it only takes one admin to run out of patience with you and issue a block. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 00:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC) 37.44.65.39 just a personal observation here... I have always believed that when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you want to do, is stop digging. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. Definitely WP:BOOMERANG material. This seems like it could be a sockpuppet with the way they know wikipedia policies. -- Dane2007 talk 01:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Without speculating on the legitimacy of the complaint, the wall you are running into here is "suspension of disbelief". Several editors have responded here and not one thinks that there is even the most remote possibility that you have never edited Wikipedia. It may only take a few hours to learn how to do it, but, that still requires a few hours worth of actual editing. I could possibly be convinced that you came across the noticeboards by using the search engine, I could possibly even be convinced that you reviewed our policies and guidelines before posting, but, what you cannot convince me of is that you figured out how to do this without even a single test edit, and that you did it near perfectly without even forgetting to sign or having to do even a single copy-edit for some error. I've seen brand new editors on this noticeboard many times, not one of them figured out how to link a diff, not one of them had reviewed our policies (let alone to the depth which you seem to have) and very few of them actually knew how to, or at least remembered to, sign their posts. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 85.74.31.101 Saying rude stuff about admins. Also made violence threat on my talk page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomPerson81 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Who, what when and where? We need some 411 please. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC) No contributions from 85.75.31.10 (talk · contribs) but recent activity from 85.74.31.101 (talk · contribs) including on your talk page.-- Dane2007 talk 04:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC) I show that this IP has been blocked for 31 hours by Widr, so I think this can be considered handled. I do see they are editing their talk page to make further commentary, might be worthwhile to revoke talk page access as well. -- Dane2007 talk 04:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC) This in particular is not acceptable and if there is even a hint of that kind of editing in the future I would support a very long term enforced vacation from the project for this IP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC) I added RandomPerson81's talk page to my Watchlist so I can look out for it since i'm pretty active on here. If the IP Vandal returns under a new IP address, might need some semi-protection for those pages until the activity subsides. -- Dane2007 talk 04:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Thanks. I am also somewhat confused by this. It's past my bed time... sigh. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Just a typo I think, I got a similar post. -- Dane2007 talk 04:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC) After following up with comments like this, I'm not sure 31 hours is enough. I know that IPs can't be indeffed, but can an IP user have his/her talk page access revoked? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC) I think we should block his /1 for being rude to admins. We're not putting up with that, except on days with a Y in the name. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Well so much for their magical IP change...they just restored their talk page. I think a longer block and a talk page revocation are in order. -- Dane2007 talk 01:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Done. --NeilN talk to me 01:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Bomb threat The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. There has been a threat made here: [122]. I've taken the liberty of emailing the Wikimedia Foundation. Dschslava Δx parlez moi 05:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC) DeltaQuad/Amanda appears to have dealt with the situation; the threat has been oversighted and the user's been blocked indefinitely. Thank you for acting quickly to bring awareness of this situation to the WMF and WP administrators; I suspect they were trolling, but we're always better safe than sorry. Kurtis (talk) 06:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Side to Side (song) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Side to Side (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This article has been recreated yet again after AfD consensus to delete. A requested move is currently in progress, I suggest a procedural close as it's not the right venue for this, it should be taken to WP:DRV. (And a move would be problematic anyway with so many different parallel histories, not sure how that mess is going to be sorted out, probably just the new one moved to the main title and the rest retained as {{R with history}}.) – nyuszika7h (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Your link is bad. Looks like AFD had consensus to redirect and it is a redirect. If they make a local consensus of a dozen people to recreate, that won't override the larger consensus at AFD, and you might tell them that, but right now there isn't anything for an admin to do. If they think the AFD was defective, I guess they could take it to WP:DRV. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC) That's because I redirected it, though now I reverted myself because it seems it isn't exactly the same so might not qualify under G4 either, but I don't mind if someone else redirects it again either... I did leave a note there too, suggesting to take it to DRV. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC) I redirected to reflect the closing of the AFD in an administrative capacity, don't really care about the content one way or another but it should match the AFD for now. Left a note, more or less saying what you said, DRV is the right venue. Two people saying as much should get it steered to the right place. This is really not an admin issue and instead a content issue, so I'm guessing we're done here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. User:Pablothepenguin violation of topic ban (second time) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Topic banned in early May on the topic of Scotland in relation to Great Britain/United Kingdom, broadly construed, after disruptive editing on the subject. Warned on May 9 reminding him of his topic ban, after violating it. Violated it again next month and was blocked for it. Violates it again today: [123], "ordering" someone to stop posting about a poll on Scottish independence he doesn't like. He isn't very active besides violating his topic ban and this would be his fifth block in 2016 for all sorts of disruption. At some point we have to consider WP:CIR, especially considering this is the behavior after returning from an indefinite block in 2014.--Atlan (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Continues even after being notified of this thread[124].--Atlan (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Looks like a case of persistent and deliberate violations of a TBAN as well as disruptive editing. I note the TBAN is for six months. perhaps it should be made permament. I also think a long term block (at least 30 days) may be in order. I'm not a fan of indef blocks as a rule but if Pablothepenguin refuses to take the hint, that may be all that's left. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Edit summaries like this confirm to me his/her refusal to get the point. And considering that s/he had been indeffed before but then returns and continues the same kind of behavior, I also support another block (but with no standard offer). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. SPAs removing content and references from Sinar Mas Group article Hilda ayuanita (talk · contribs) SinarmasID (talk · contribs) The above red-linked SPAs have been removing content and references from Sinar Mas Group, which has been twice restored, the second time by me 30 minutes ago. Here is the revision history for the article [125] because it would be cumbersome add 8 or more diffs here. Probably need semi-protect for this article and if someone is so inclined - check for socks. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Well, this is an interesting turn of events. SinarmasID has just created a content fork of Sinar Mas Group on his/her user page. [126], [127]. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)  Note: SinarmasID was blocked indefinitely by Seraphimblade for "Promotional username, promotional edits" --Cameron11598 (Talk) 04:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Disruptive editing by Jytdog; possibly article ownership or edit warring The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I am reporting the following incident of disruptive editing: Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has reverted me 2 times without stating any justification in the article Empathogen-entactogen (diffs: 1, 2). Before his second revert, he received a warning on his talk page (diff). He insists that this content dispute should be settled within his favorite wikiproject which appears to be WP:MED. Per WP:Local consensus, Wikiprojects have no power to decide unilaterally the content on article-space pages nor to require that discussion of article-space content is held within its talk pages. The discussion should be held at the article's talk page, as I told to Jytdog (see my comment in his talk page and my edit summary) but he refuses to do so. (added 02:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)): Apparently this editor has been blocked per ARBCOM decision and subsequently unblocked after an appeal. Also, the editor has recently received a warning for disruptive editing (additional note: I did not participate in that dispute; therefore, I can not comment on the significance of this previous user warning). Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC). This is not the correct venue for this content dispute. Your edits were reverted, so the onus is on you to achieve consensus for them. I suggest continuing the discussion at WT:MED. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC) The initiating editor has made bold changes to an article; they were reverted, and a discussion on the edits has been opened in a relevant location. Rather than engage in that discussion and gain consensus, the editor has chosen to open an ANI filing complaining about the reverting editor. I suggest this be closed with no action, and the editor be directed to gain consensus at the relevant talk page, or in the alternative, to open a discussion on the article talk page (though this would seem needlessly duplicative). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Mario Castelán Castro I suggest you read Don't template the regulars while not policy it sure does make those of us who have been around a while a lot more open to discussing things. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 04:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC) I am challenging the closure of this discussion. I request that this case is addressed by an administrator. This is the administrators' noticeboard for incidents after all. My report is about user behavior, not content. The main point of my report is that Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insists that a consensus is determined within the scope of his favorite wikiproject, which is a blatant violation of WP:local consensus and WP:ADVICEPAGE. Note that I invited the editor to hold a discussion at the talk page of the article in question (diff), but he refused, insisting that the discussion is held within his favorite wikiproject (diff). Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC). The categorytree issue appears to be a content dispute broader than one specific article, so it's reasonable to discuss it in a more centralized place. Feel free to post a neutrally worded pointer to wherever that centralized place is on the talkpage of another project or two if you think it deserves input from a wider range of voices. The issues of objection being raised do not seem highly related to the pharm/med aspect, but instead include concerns about sitewide guidelines and technical features of WP software, so I'm not seeing inherent localconsensus problems. That the discussion unfolding on a localproject's talkpage has gone in that direction is evidence that that project is not its own fiefdom running in conflict or to the exclusion with others, but instead does recognize the broader picture. But that does lead to some obvious other projects that might want to participate "wherever that discussion is". DMacks (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Jytdog's behavior seems entirely appropriate and in accord with WP:BRD. Mario's bold edit was reverted, so now it is time to discuss, and Mario's second diff shows that Jytdog directed him to the discussion which is taking place on this issue. It makes sense since this is an issue that affects multiple articles to build consensus in a central discussion instead of having several unconnected local discussions. Reverting to the last uncontroversial edit (the one before Mario's) is exactly in compliance with WP:BRD. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Vandalism of Victoria Bitter article The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Bitter "A hard earned thirst once needed a VB, but after the 55 CUB workers were sacked after refusing a 65% wage cut, the product has been boycotted by working Australian men and women until the 55 are re-instated." In Australia there's industrial dispute with the brewing company (Carlton & United Breweries),that owns Victoria Bitter, the Electrical Trades Union posted this on their facebook account. Maybe protect associated articles until the dispute is over? --Previous unsigned comment left by User:101.167.45.21. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Homophobia by 100.34.209.153 The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. IP 100.34.209.153 has left quite a vile, homophobic comment at Talk:Nathan Wyburn (see [128]). I see the editor has had multiple warnings about inappropriate behaviour on Talk pages, and would appreciate if someone could block the account, or at the very least remove their recent comment from Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC) I've redacted the commend and revision deleted it, as it seemed to be denigrating the article subject on top of being homophobic, i.e a WP:BLP vio. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC) The IP is now repeatedly blanking the IP Talk Page, which contains previous warnings and the link to this discussion. So maybe a further warning and/or a block may be required? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC) There is nothing wrong with them blanking the talk page. It signifies that they have read the warnings. There are very few things that can not be removed from a talk page and none of the items that they are blanking are required to remain. -- GB fan 10:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC) As far as I am aware, the only thing IP editors cannot remove from their talkpages are notices that the IP may be shared. Otherwise the usual talkpage rules apply. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Looking at the hate mongering and such, I've added a one month block on their static IP as it seems they have been using it for at least a month. There is plenty of room for differing opinions and debate, but not hateful bashing of others. That isn't part of building an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC) @Dennis Brown: Seen. Although since the attack was three hours ago, and they have made no edits since for three hours...? Muffled Pocketed 11:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Being three hours or twelve hours is meaningless for this type of violation. They had plenty of prior warning. Had they been a registered user, I probably would have indef blocked them until a dialog could be had. Because they are an IP, this limits the amount of time I can block, but it doesn't prevent me from doing my best to treat IP editors and registered editors as equitably as possible when it comes to setting a block for hate mongering. They are still free to appeal the block, just as any registered user may. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Breach of Wikipedia:local consensus and WP:own from Jytdog and Doc James The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The editors User:Jytdog and User:Doc James are enganging in WP:disruptive editing by requiring that a content dispute is settled within their favorite wikiproject which is WP:MED. I have invited both of these editors (diff 1, see my edit summary; diff 2) to discuss the matter on the article's talk page (as is the custom per the WP:BRD essay), but they refuse to accept any consensus other than the reached within the realm of their favorite wikiproject (diff 1; diff 2, see his edit summary). Per WP:local consensus and WP:own a single editor or group of editors, including wikiprojects, can't hold their locally reached consensus to apply Wikipedia-guide. That is exactly what these editors attempt to do: To reach a local consensus in WP:MED and then hold it as binding for article-space content. My claim is that the content dispute should be settled in the talk page of any of the involved article-space articles or any one of the Wikipedia-wide dispute resolution venues, not locally within any wikiproject (although wikiprojects can be used to notify possibly interested editors). This dispute is not wikiproject-specific and WP:MED does not owns any article-space page. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC). The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Poor behavior, POINT, and POV issues with OliverBel The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. OliverBel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I encountered an edit by OliverBel last night which continued an edit war/disruption campaign on David Irving. The article is contentious because Irving is a holocaust denier (ref) and a number of IP users want this description removed and replaced with "historian". Upon reviewing OliverBel's talk page and edits, I'm convinced they are no longer here to build an encyclopedia and cannot edit on politically contentious articles in a constructive manner. Since the end of March 2016, they've made 12 edits, nearly all of which have been disruptive. On or related to David Irving 12:04, 29 March 2016 - Restored IP comment on talk page insisting Irving is a "historian". Comment included the text "I am aware of the large Jewish presence on Wikipedia so to avoid conflict of interest I would kindly invite Jews to withhold from commenting." 12:08, 29 March 2016 - Followed up with comment that "I suggest Nick-D has his administrative privileges revoked. Reverting an addition to a talk page and banning a user for raising a point on a talk page is fascism and has no place on Wikipedia. Highly unprofessional and childish behaviour." 12:35, 29 March 2016 - On David Irving, replaces "author" with "historian", removes holocaust denier, and removed html comment about not editing per consensus on talk page. Uses edit summary "I assume no disagreement since attempt to obtain consensus was closed" User was blocked by JzG at 13:18, 29 March 2016, for 31 hours for "disruptive editing". 23:21, 2 April 2016 - On The Destruction of Dresden, authored by Irving, removed referenced text claiming the book was not considered authoritative. Edit summary was "Vindictive bigotry" 23:23, 2 April 2016 - On David Irving, removed "author" and added "historian" with edit summary "His books have been reviewed in national newspapers. He IS a historian, whether you personally like what he says or not. Keep bigotry and political correctness outside of Wikipedia." User was blocked by Nick-D at 23:50, 2 April 2016, for 1 week for "disruptive editing" 03:58, 6 September 2016 - On David Irving, again removed "holocaust denier" and replaced it with "historian". Edit summary was "He is an historian, dummies. Stop letting politics get in the way of fact. This is Wikipedia, you are supposed to be neutral." This was the exact same edit by an IP user ([129]) made at 00:38, 6 September 2016 with the edit summary "removing political correctness. He is a historian, even if you don't like him." which resulted in Acroterion semi-protecting the page. 05:21, 6 September 2016 - Doug Weller warned them with a level-2 template. Added comment "You knew you'd be reverted, you've tried this before." Other edits 21:27, 30 March 2016 - Removed sourced infobox label "conservative" from UK Independence Party with edit summary "Not conservative in any way". 06:58, 14 May 2016 On Stefan Molyneux replaces "blogger" with "philosopher" in lead. Molyneux is known for anarcho-capitalist and libertarian writings as we as being part of the men's rights movement (which is under general sanctions). 05:17, 26 June 2016 - On Paul Nuttall, changed sourced statement of "climate change denier" in lead. Edit summary was "Removing blatant leftist bias that infests Wikipedia". 17:54, 20 July 2016 - On Paul Golding, a British nationalist politician, removed "convicted criminal" from lead with edit summary "Removing leftist Wikipedia bias." I'm not sure what the best course of action would be. Related general sanctions to the edits are WP:ARBAP2 and MRM general sanctions. Frankly I'm leaning toward indefinitely block given trend in recent behavior. The most recent edit ([130]) warrants another block since it's an escalation of the previous two blocks. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC) I absolutely agree, and have blocked indef. The user edits infrequently, but every edit and summary reeks of wrongteous anger. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Good call, given the user's neo-Nazi/antisemitic editing and commenting history. This is a classic case of a user clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Neutralitytalk 18:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Legal threat/legitimate copyright concern? Can I get a second opinion on whether this constitutes a legal threat or a valid copyright concern? My instinct is that the complaint is baseless, since the images in question seem to be clearly long out-of-copyright, but it's safe to say that Dutch copyright law is not my forte so I'm a little reluctant to start dishing out blocks and warnings (in either direction) without a second opinion. ‑ Iridescent 15:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment) According to List of countries' copyright lengths, the Netherlands copyright term is author's life plus 70 years or 70 years after publication if the author is unknown. Based on that, all the pictures look to be in the public domain (though asking at commons:COM:VPC couldn't hurt). This looks more like a dispute over the terms of use of the website. I don't know if the website owner can legally restrict the use of public domain images just because those images were taken from their website. They would have to show that they own the copyright of the images. clpo13(talk) 16:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Well the deep-linking argument has been made previously and been rejected every time it came to court (that I am aware of) so it can be safely ignored - content owners keep trying however. Deep linking has some details. RE legal threat over copyright - Depending on jurisdiction, people who feel their copyright has been infringed are first required to notify the (alleged) infringer before legal action can be taken (in order to give a chance for the material to be removed). Its not a notification they will/are taking legal action, its saying 'you are infringing my copyright, please stop, if this is not stopped, legal action may be forthcoming'. Which is a reasonable request (if someone feels their copyright has been violated) While an argument could be made it falls under the chilling discussion, there are very few ways to notify wikipedia/editors they are potentially breaking copyright law without some reference to legalities. On the face of it, the allegations should be investigated. If some of the images are out of copyright, but only available through a private collection, as far as I am aware it would still violate WP's policies on image use? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Regarding the last question, that would certainly be a question for Commons, where the images are hosted. There's also the matter of the difference between date of creation and date of publication. If the author is unknown and it can't be shown that an image was ever published, then it might not be public domain. clpo13(talk) 16:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC) I was literally just about to post the same thing - if the photos etc are in a private collection which has not been 'published' per the definition, the reading of the Netherlands law would mean its not public domain. WP:Public_domain#Publication states "In short: A work is published when tangible copies of it are made available to the public at large." Hosted in a private collection for use by researchers etc only is certainly not 'public at large'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Thank you for that (talk). It also means that the article User:Fentener van Vlissingen refers to is not applicable here! (Michel Doortmont 19:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)) What about the fact that the picture has changed? It's now a digital image and it might be under new copyright, similar to how old movies on DVD are copyrighted from time of DVD not time of production. If I scan in an old picture and preserve it, what is the copyright status? Sir Joseph (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC) It depends on what has been done to the picture (see commons:COM:SCAN). If it's a faithful reproduction, then it retains the original copyright status. If there have been enough enhancements to suggest a significant level of creative input, then that might warrant a separate copyright on the enhancements or even as an entirely new work (if, for example, an originally black and white photograph is hand-colored). clpo13(talk) 16:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Much of this sounds like the same situation from National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute, with the only question and unclear nature being if the original images are in the PD due to age or not. --MASEM (t) 18:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Well the key difference there is of course, the art is available to the public through the NPG regardless. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC) From my understanding of WP:NLT, even if someone is right about a copyright violation occurring, and even if they are required by some authority outside of Wikipedia to state that they will take legal action if the copyright vio is not removed, they still must be blocked indefinitely until they remove the legal threat, because: To prevent damage to the project, this policy removes editors who make legal threats on Wikipedia. The editor is not blocked just because "it's a legal threat", but because the block: reduces scope for escalation of a bad situation, reduces stress and administrative burden on the wiki, reduces disruption to articles and the editorial environment, prevents a situation in which someone is seeking to be a collaborative partner while setting themselves up as a legal adversary. I'd also note that the person making the legal threat did not just threaten to take civil action, but also accused a Wikipedia editor of "theft under Dutch law". Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Can I just note the falsification of history in a claim made on the website, "European men and African women struck up lasting relationships, that were both an expression of personal cross-cultural intimacy and a means to build a common social, economic and even political structure"? Shouldn't this simply say "European men frequently stole and raped African women"? I know, not a matter for ANI. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Completely off topic, Drmies. As it calls my academic integrety in question, I do think a short response here is in order, perhaps to continue teh soapboxing elsewhere. Colonialism in any form indeed led to rape and other atrocities, I do not deny this. However, when you care to read the materials and maybe register for the website and read the stuff there, you will notice that not all relationships were of a violent nature. And that is what that project is about. (Michel Doortmont 19:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)) Is that, like, reverse political correctness? clpo13(talk) 18:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Don't make me have to block you for soapboxing, Drmies, I've been itching to block an Arb for years. On a more serious note, I also dropped a note off explaining some and asking them to withdraw the threat. I prefer to coax them in the right direction rather than swing the ban hammer carelessly into the void. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC) I agree. Thanks Dennis. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC) I'm the user involved. I just want to say I acted in good faith. It was my understanding of copyright law that those images are in the public domain. It seems I may have been wrong, and if so I apologize. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC) We need to hash it out at [Wikipedia:Files for discussion]] calmly. My gut says that if the images are in the public domain, you have violated the terms of use of the website (so he can ban you there) but there isn't a legal standing. That doesn't mean I'm right, just that it isn't cut and dry. That is why we settle it at CV, with legal@ only as a last resort. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Pinging Moonriddengirl as this may require her expertise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC) This article (in Dutch) suggests that those unpublished works cannot be copyrighted under Dutch law since late 1995. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Article 39 of the Dutch copyright law also seems pretty clear: "Voor werken, waarvan de duur van het auteursrecht niet wordt berekend naar de bepalingen van artikel 37 en die niet binnen 70 jaren na hun totstandkoming op rechtmatige wijze zijn openbaar gemaakt, vervalt het auteursrecht." Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC) I agree that the original works are out of copyright. But I'm also getting the impression that Mr. Doortmont does not share our point of view regarding PD-art. Per Wikimedia policy (and US law), faithful reproductions of out-of-copyright 2-dimensional artwork cannot be copyrighted either. There may be constrasting views though. De728631 (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Good faith meaning not reading / complying with the regulations of the website and not registering before using the materials? I am sorry,but I find that hard to believe User:Fentener van Vlissingen. As for the images that come from the website direct, these were / are photographs from private collections that never have been nor are now in the public domain. They only ended up there, because they were illegally acquired from a closed website. The fact that they now seem to be in the public domain does not change that legal position. With regard to the previously published photographs, these were also not in the public domain at the time they were published, as they were part of a copyrighted publication of which the author was still alive (most likely at least) by 1942 or 1943. The materials have a retrieval date on them in Wikimedia Commons. So this is at least an issue for further debate at least. Legal "threat" removed from comment. The copyright law for the previously published photographs is that of Ghana or the UK (place of publication is obscure, but either one), and in both cases it is 70 years after the death of the author (i.e. 1942 or 1943 + 70, most likely). As these photographs were taken from the republished new edition of 2004, and not the original edition of circa 1928, there is another copyright question to be answered: does the re-publication in a compeletely different format revive the copyright or perhaps institute a new copyright? I believe it does. But my real beef is with the private photographs which were taken from the website repository without permission, and which are not in the public domain (Michel Doortmont 18:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)). Thank you for removing the threat. We don't concern ourselves with the policies of other websites, only the legal status of the images. As Jo-Jo pointed out, the images are actually hosted at Commons so you need to go to commons:COM:VPC to file the complaint. I can assure you it will be investigated in a reasonable time frame. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC) I will do that. Currently my complaint about infringement of the right to use the texts from the website, as well as the way of linking to it, is with Wikipedia. I felt compelled to lodge the complaint, because in most articles the copyrighted materials are not easily removed. Although an editor of Wikipedia articles, I do not feel the urge to undo the work of another editor who infringed on my, or other peoples rights, in good faith or otherwise (Michel Doortmont 19:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)). Can you show us some examples of text that was taken from your website? So far we have only debated images here, but if original text from your website has been used in Wikipedia articles of course we need to check this too. Or do you just object to links being set from Wikipedia to your site? De728631 (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC) If I may defend myself: I have not taken over texts literally from Doortmont's website. I have only incorporated the information given on his website (dates of birth/death, family relationships, administrative career) in my articles, which I have written in my own words. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC) This discussion has focused on whether the complainer's copyright claims are valid. But the original question was whether their edits constitute a legal threat. I would note that WP:NLP says "A polite complaint in cases of copyright infringement is not a legal threat" and goes on to explain the proper channels for pursuing such claims. And I don't think we can quibble about what appears to be a normally worded legal notice of infringement being somehow "impolite."--agr (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Copyright violation of Willem George Frederik Derx I have now also been accused of copyright violation for the text on Willem George Frederik Derx. I did not copy any of the text of Doormont's website, but merely cited his website as the source of the information of dates of birth/death, family relationships, administrative career, etc. The article has been written in my own words. I don't see how I violated his copyright. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Request to review closure of report of incident. The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Following the relevant procedure, this is a request to review the close at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Breach of Wikipedia:local consensus and WP:own from Jytdog and Doc James. I discussed this with the closer here. The comments received in the discussion before closure have been unhelpful and completely evaded the point. This is a matter of user conduct, not content. Like I have stated in that report, I have invited Jytdog to discuss the issue in the talk page; however, he refused to hold the discussion anywhere but in his preferred wikiproject. The report is about Jytdog's refusal to discuss the issue on the talk page and his insistence in discussing it at WP:MED; therefore it is about behavior. It is not about the content of the article, as the closer incorrectly assumed. The course of action in which Jytdog insists would only arrive at a local consensus pertaining to WP:MED and therefore holding this local consensus as binding for an article-space page is a breach of WP:local consensus. Note: Since the closure, Doc James appears to have ceased in his claim that a local consensus is reached in WP:MED. Nonetheless, the report against Jytdog stands. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC). This is the third time you've tried to push this. You're Forum Shopping here, and if you don't drop this, you're going to get yourself blocked. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC) This is disruptive. User:Mario Castelán Castro appears to be unable to drop the stick. I would like to propose a topic ban of Mario from the area of medicine and pharmacology widely construed for 6 months. I have never made a claim that a local consensus could be reached at WT:MED. What I did state is here They have been told multiple times by multiple people to take it to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)[131][132] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Persistent copyright violation New editor User:Rash014 has been repeatedly pasting large chunks of copyrighted text from medical journals to oral cancer ([133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139]). I've posted at his/her talk page three times, politely asking for an end to it, but I've not had a reply so far. Little Will (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Hmm. For their first edit, the copyright notice on the WHO page "Extracts of the information in the web site may be reviewed, reproduced or translated for research or private study". Straight-up copying the entire text is not presenting an "extract", so I do believe that to be a violation. Their copying this page, which you reverted after their first batch of edits, is also a copyvio ("© 2016 The Oral Cancer Foundation. All rights reserved"). So I will nix all the versions from the history, and will the leave the rest for the next admin. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)