Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 213.205.198.246 (talk) at 22:37, 2 August 2017 (→Talk:Requiem (Duruflé)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    Please review Light2021's behaviour at AfD

    Last year we had this discussion at AN/I. Please review that discussion, and then consider the same user's behaviour towards Cunard at this AfD. Personally, I think Light2021 is in need of further support and direction from our admin corps; your mileage may vary.—S Marshall T/C 17:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I can only applaud your delicacy of phrasing, S Marshall  ;) — fortunavelut luna 17:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @S Marshall: This thread appears to be disappearing into irrelevance, so let me revive it. I have seen Light2021 nominate a great deal of CSDs, some of which don't meet the criteria, and a lot of AfDs for not particularly significant companies. While many of the AfDs appear to close as desired, some don't, and a lot of the debates see a three-way Mexican standoff between Light2021, Cunard and SwisterTwister in the discussion. Light2021's standard of English is not great, and he does seem to be a "one trick pony" on a mission to delete all the articles on Wikipedia he doesn't like. I know he's been blocked before, so I'll keep an eye on his CSD logging, and if he makes too many mistakes I think we should revive this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for starting this discussion, S Marshall (talk · contribs).

    I know he's been blocked before, so I'll keep an eye on his CSD logging, and if he makes too many mistakes I think we should revive this. – Ritchie333 (talk · contribs), I have posted my observations of Light2021's actions below.

    The close of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021 says, "further repetition of inappropriate behaviour will be met with incremental blocks at admin discretion that will not necessarily require further long-winded discussion here".

    Cunard (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Previous blocks

    1. In April 2016, Light2021 was blocked multiple times by Randykitty (talk · contribs) and Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing, personal attacks, vandalism, and abusing multiple accounts.
    2. Light2021 was blocked for one month in November 2016 by Kudpung (talk · contribs) per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021.
    3. Light2021 was most recently blocked for two months by Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs) on 31 January 2017 for "disruptive behavior" and "WP:CIR issues".

    Personal attacks and uncollegial hostility

    1. Against Timtempleton (talk · contribs), Light2021 wrote on 3 July 2017 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Ferrazzi: "Was just going through your profile. Several times you have found in the category of Paid editor. complete violation of Wikipedia, and clears your intention on writing about this individual without having any of the coverage proof. As there are none."

      Timtempleton replied: "I did not create this article, nor did I add any promotional information, so I'm not sure how you are coming to the conclusion that I'm somehow a paid editor. It's obviously clear that the deletion discussion is not going to be anything but a no consensus close at worst. Go with consensus and please stop making baseless accusations."

    2. Against SL93 (talk · contribs), Light2021 wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZoneMinder, "You must be joking about such sources". SL93 responded, "Can you do me a favor and stop being so combative?"
    3. Against SoWhy (talk · contribs), Light2021 wrote:

      Do you seriously ignore Delete vote discussion or its not visible to you at all? you ignored major consensus on Delete. These are only two incident I am citing, You are an Admin I guess. You are only Keeping these articles with baseless notability and no authentic media is present for them except the Online blog people write on daily basis.

      Or you must be Keep admins here. Nothing against it, but just going through your decision and find it little biased. You are an admin and know better than me. Just my observations. Thanks!

    4. Regarding Light2021's hostility against my posts, this has happened multiple times in addition to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moglix (2nd nomination) and casting aspersions against me was a concern raised in November 2016 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021. I generally avoid replying to Light2021's comments to me at AfDs because of the hostility.

    Canvassing

    Kudpung (talk · contribs) warned Light2021 not to canvass on 20 January 2017:

    Hi, you have been warned about not respecting policies and you have also been blocked several times. You will not get your own way by canvassing. Please note that any further abuse of editing privileges may result in an extended block, and without the necessity of a discussion at ANI.

    Here are recent instances of canvassing:

    1. 37signals was renamed to Basecamp (company). At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basecamp (company) (2nd nomination), Light2021 pinged users at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37signals who had supported deletion (as well as several other editors that I don't know how he found). But Light2021 did not ping users who had supported retention at either Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37signals or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basecamp (company). Light2021 did not understand why the canvassing was wrong after this discussion with Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs) on his talk page.

      He also canvassed here, pinging editors, many of whom had no involvement in the article or AfD. One of the editors was a user he had given a "No Spam Barnstar" to. Light2021 wrote, "I need your help to know how we can make Wikipedia better. I am asking here as this article is going toward No consensus or Keep by baseless Press coverage."

    2. At Talk:Keith Ferrazzi, Light2021 pinged users who largely had supported deletion at Light2021's AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travis Bradberry. Light2021 wrote, "Need your suggestions on This one. Complete promotional articles getting protected and just going for No-consensus. Not even a single coverage is found on Notable media. Editing is clear Paid." The pinged editors later participated at Light2021's AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Ferrazzi.

    Reverting AfD closes

    1. Light2021 reverted Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs)'s close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airside (company) as "speedy keep".
    2. Light2021 reverted Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs)'s close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presans as "speedy keep".

    Tag bombing

    Light2021 frequently tag bombs articles. Here are several examples:

    1. Basecamp (company) (added eight maintenance tags)
    2. Forever (website) (added {{BLP sources}} to an article about a website)
    3. Sri Krishna Sweets (added {{One source}} to an article that has multiple sources)
    4. Leonard Abramson (added {{One source}} to an article that has multiple sources)

    Declined speedy deletions

    The declined speedy deletions below are all between 28 June 2017 and 15 July 2017.

    1. Light2021 added a speedy tag to Crowdspring two minutes after he nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowdspring (3rd nomination). The speedy was declined by RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs).
    2. Light2021 added a {{db-corp}} speedy tag to Show-Score. The speedy was declined by Atlantic306 (talk · contribs) because "has rs coverage Broadway World, ABC".
    3. Light2021 added a {{db-corp}} speedy tag to Ask Ziggy. The speedy was declined by RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs) because there was a clear consensus to keep in 2013 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ask Ziggy Inc..
    4. Light2021 added a speedy tag to Airside (company). The speedy was declined by The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), who wrote, "BAFTA nominated?!!!!!"
    5. Light2021 added a {{db-spam}} tag to 10,000ft. The speedy was declined by GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs), who wrote, "Speedy deletion declined. Criterion G11 does not apply: Not unambiguously promotional".
    6. Light2021's {{db-person}} tag for Thad Ackel was declined here.
    7. Light2021's {{db-person}} tag for Sarkis Acopian was declined here ("decline A7, 'There he designed and manufactured the first ever solar radio' is enough")
    8. Light2021's {{db-a7}} tag for Peter Barnes (entrepreneur) was declined here ("decline A7, has sources, try PROD / AfD").
    9. Light2021's {{db-corp}} tag for Picaboo was declined here ("decline A7, name dropped in the WSJ").
    10. Light2021's {{db-a7}} and {{db-g1}} tags for Astro Studios were declined here ("decline A7, linked to notable products, trim puffery and unreferenced content").
    11. Light2021's {{db-g11}} tag for Core77 was declined here ("speedy deletion declined since the entire article was not outright promotional; removed one peacock word").
    12. Light2021's {{db-a7}} and {{db-g11}} tags for Stanley Foster Reed was declined here ("Decline speedy delete, founder of a magazine and journal with articles is a claim to sginificance and not unambiguous promotion")
    13. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for Gamil Design was declined here ("Not quite G11, but could use a lot less 'product info'.").
    14. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for 23 Envelope was declined here ("declined speedy deletion - article has been edited by numerous individuals over ten years, does not appear to be unambiguous promotion and claim of notability seems valid")
    15. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for Vaughan Oliver was declined here ("declined speedy deletion - article has been edited by numerous individuals over ten years, does not appear to be unambiguous promotion and claim of notability seems valid").
    16. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for Rick Poynor was declined here ("declined speedy deletion - article has been edited by numerous individuals over ten years, does not appear to be unambiguous promotion and claim of notability seems valid").
    17. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for 75B was declined here ("Decline speedy, don't really see blatant spam here. File at AfD if desired.")
    18. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for RKS Design was declined here.
    19. Light2021's {{db-person}} tag for Ravi Sawhney was declined here.
    20. Light2021's {{db-repost}} tag for FlipKey was declined here ("you can not request a speedy deletion after you just started an AFD for this. It was also recreated three years ago and things have been added").
    21. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for DragonLord Enterprises, Inc. was declined here.
    22. Light2021's {{db-a7}} and {{db-g11}} tags for AlchemyAPI were declined here ("'As of February 2014, it claims to have clients in 36 countries and process over 3 billion documents a month.' seems notable to me.).
    23. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for Active Collab was declined here ("Speedy deletion declined. Criterion G11 does not apply: Not unambiguously promotional").
    24. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for Agnantty was declined here ("Speedy deletion declined. Criterion G11 does not apply: Not unambiguously promotional").
    25. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for JForce was declined here ("Decline CSD. Not purely promotional.").
    26. Light2021's {{db-web}} tag for Mental literacy was declined here ("not in the appropriate class of topics for A7").
    27. Light2021's {{db-spam}} tag for MindMapper was declined here ("Decline CSD. Not purely promotional.")

    Cunard (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I close a lot of AfDs within WP:DSI and in the process I go through most of the listed AfDs in detail, even if I'm don't close them or consider closing them and I've found Light2021's behavior at AfDs to be perplexing to say the least. On one article with a few independent sources they'll !vote delete and then on another with almost no sourcing they go on to !vote keep and question the credibility of the other participants. This is clearly a case of not showing the level of understanding of our policies, guidelines, and processes or something more fishy. An indefinite topic ban from any deletion process seems to be in order. —SpacemanSpiff 04:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have a ton to add other than that the one speedy deletion by Light2021 that I declined in the list above was not the only one. See [1], [2], [3]. I do appreciate that they later took the articles I declined to speedy delete to AfD. There are lots of articles that should probably be deleted but that don't meet the CSD; though Light2021 should have known not to nominate these three for speedy deletion, they were correct to take them to AfD. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, can we go with Spaceman Spiff's "indefinite topic ban" rather than Power's "temporary topic ban" and expand "deletion-related processes" to "processes related to content removal"? Would be nice to restrict the tag bombing and inappropriate merge nominations as well.—S Marshall T/C 17:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The editor's comments to me at the ZoneMinder AfD were frustrating. First, his response had to do with him thinking that I said that the self-published book showed notability (I didn't). Then, of course, the editor said that the sources that I was referring to do not show notability and asked if we were creating a directory. He is very combative in AfDs and it seems like he wants the last word. Magazines like Infoworld do show notability for tech and such sources definitely do not count as spam as the editor told me. SL93 (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    My Version

    I understand all the above concerns, I have nothing but one thing to say. Judge me after April 2017 Events. Above you have mentioned 27

    articles, but isn't it little biased where you missed how many were deleted, and many of them from 27 articles are on AfD and they will do their course. I do understand its a human nature to like or dislike someone, here its clearly a case where facts are presented selectively. Cunard is an admin, its good, but the way he makes and Keep argument with lengthy copy-paste job, does not look mature. second his Keep arguments gets less than 50% results, means he might be wrong also, but I am also not perfect 100%, I am getting closed to with my Afd. Whatever community decides, be independent, unbiased, and check the behavior after April 2017. I have not abused anyone, it is very normal to ask questions, some people get offended when they have been asked about their behavior or decision. It is also fine. Thanks. I am just making my part. Its obvious all Past arguments/ blocked will be brought again and again and again. It is irrelevant to judge the present by past! In the above discussion, its more about my past than present, where I am getting better. Admin makes so many mistake, I am also learning.

    • As for fair investigation. Cunard comes to every AfD with copy paste job by making a Keep Vote, without even analysing the sources are exatly Press coverage or Corporate Spam. Isn't being Personal from Cunard ends, here also he selectively and cunningly mentioned sources as if I am the one holds all the fault. Now he will say, I am making comment against him. He has all the power being an Admin.

    Be fair, and don't bite if you don't like someone. Light2021 (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Deliberate attempt to prove my selection wrong. These are selective and biased admins who just want to keep any kind of Spam just for the sake of being into war field. in his talk page, he commented on me, and made a perception about me. No body questioned such admins.

    Here is the such example. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlipKey (2nd nomination) . On what ground he kept one paragraph articles? Just to prove my AfD wrong, and many such cases. No doubt by such Corrupt and biased admins we are screwed and compromised as a Wikipedia. Now he will have an option to Ban me. for speaking the blunt truth. That is correct, such articles are protected not by Paid editors but by such admins who are corrupt in doing their work. Speaking strongly will be deleted or banned by such Admins. Good Luck!

    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presans nominated by me, kept by admin, generally he relist all my article when delete is in majority till he gets many votes. here he kept it for no reason. later got deleted thankfully. my selection are not wrong, Non-consensus does not mean a bad nominations. It was definitely doubtful one. I am making over 95% good AfD (From last 200 only/latest). Not bad for making This wikipedia spam free, right? Light2021 (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Cunard is not an admin.
    • " Cunard comes to every AfD with copy paste job by making a Keep Vote, without even analysing the sources" Actually, even if I don't agree with him, Cunard is one of the few AfD regulars that does analyse the sources. So this is nonsense as well.
    • "These are selective and biased admins who just want to keep any kind of Spam just for the sake of being into war field." and "No doubt by such Corrupt and biased admins we are screwed and compromised as a Wikipedia". Apparently this means "they didn't agree with my opinion".
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presans was kept because you didn't provide a valid deletion rationale. Not for any other reason. Black Kite (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ironically, sometimes I agree with Light2021, and there are too many editors willing to spam low-quality keep votes to any old promotional garbage that a paid editor wants to throw up, but there are limits to behaviour, and Light2021 has crossed them. Agree with the topic ban mentioned above. Black Kite (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • On my behavior to straight forwardness, you are also simply stating what you feel like, as we all are free to say what we have to say. Shall we also judge your behavior on similar ground. Neither I have abused anyone here, but every-time this Ban, Ban and Ban comes in as if I am doing some non-sense here. My analysis are not random, they are Spam filled in Wikipedia. From the previous Ban I have learnt a lot, and I never went ahead to any of the contributors here, Yes, I can ask questions as we all do, as you did, and the language you used its simple and straight. Thats how people express. And I have never said everyone is corrupt here. There are many Senior admins Who agrees to me sometime and sometime do not, it does not mean I am just misbehaving, I accept their point as well. Every time this Ban will not be any good to Wikipedia, as Wikipedia will seriously become a PR Host/ another Blog where Paid editors known very well how to maintain these articles. Proudly I am just one of them who are tirelessly working on making Wikipedia Spam free. Other are just making money keeping just nonsense here.
    • Can you state me Only one example after April 2017, where I have misbehaved with any one the contributors or discussed in any harsh manner? Simply Ban is not an option. people learn here. It is simply an attack and nothing else. i have learnt a lot. I don't just nominate articles I do not like. Its the global companies or products. It is baseless accusations and Ban is not right where I can learn things. and my AfD are not wrong, it is over 95% accurate (From last 200 only/latest), if you count No - consensus. As we all know how to make articles as No-consensus. By paid media or some contributors works for this.
    • On Cunard detail analysis. What happen to KISS Logic? can't he just give the link so people can read going on the source, unnecessary making an discussion so lengthy that it repels the contributors, as it seems so authentic, whereas it simply copy-paste the Press coverage from the Blog, sometimes its from Good media, but most of the times its just Copy-paste, where in my opinion I doubt he even reads them. He just open the link, Copy whatever he gets and paste on Discussion. How come its a good analysis? His Keep votes gets No-Consensus where he gets the majority of success. Its not substantial ground for analysis. Eventually articles are kept even by means of No-Consensus. Light2021 (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Request your advise and guidance on repeated Ban on me. How it is justify on my time and contribution here? How I can contribute fighting this Biased opinion on me? They drag me personally, makes a case like I am guilty, ignoring all my works, every one express here, when they express blunt, its acceptable when I do, they makes an Ban issue? I have never abused anyone after April 2017. Please analyse my behaviour after this time, as above discussion is misleading by quoting Past examples. Need Opinions and Pinging senior contributor here. Just for note they agree and disagree with me several times, but they teach me good things, and do not just become attacking me. DGG, David Gerard, K.e.coffman, SwisterTwister, Lemongirl942, Grayfell, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง,Bejnar, Jimfbleak, Lankiveil , RHaworth, Brianhe, GorillaWarfare Light2021 (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • One Suggestion from all of you. As I understand this discussion and Ban thing, these people have problem with my Language, but My selections are not bad for Wikipedia. I can just nominate AfD/ Speedy, participate in Votes. And I will not counter present my points, I will be as details on AfD as it should be. That way I can avoid the feeling for these people who got hurt by words. and that way we can make it work. Just my suggestions. you can track my activities, I will never make or ask any question of a any kind, I am doing simple task to contribute to Wikipedia. If that allows and accepted by everyone. I am happy to do that. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Light2021's recent and long term AfD stats are running better than 75% for exact match and even better for effective match. He votes Delete a lot and nominates a lot of pages. An analysis of his own noms shows a very good success rate as well. [4]. User:Cunard votes Keep an awful lot, nominates few pages, and is running around 72% match to the exact result. [[5]. The two editors evidently have very different approches to AfD and deletion. It looks like Cunard is trying to disable a pro deletion editor that does not fit their inclusionist viewpoint. I don't find Light2021's highlighted comments especially uncivil and have had far worse things said to me with no action taken against the editors who said it. Legacypac (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Light2021, let me make a blunt but polite observation. There are two problems that I see. 1. You get blinded by what you think is "right", and get sloppy with your rationales when voting and nominating deletions. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presans is a perfect example. It is insufficient to be right, you have to provide a policy based rationale to prove it. and 2. You don't know when to shut up. I don't say this to be mean, and in in my youth I also did not know when to shut up. Sometimes I still don't. But you really get off track and stick your foot in your mouth too much. As far as Cunard's habit of posting long, detailed "keep" votes, it is unusual, but when Cunard posts something, you know it is honest to the sources and is the best available material. He gives you something to either change your mind or it gives you something to refute, so he's kind of doing you a favor, even if you find it annoying. In a nutshell, sometimes you act like a jerk. You should stop doing that. I could easily call for a tban, but my singular opinion is that you need to voluntarily step away from deletions for a month and do some soul searching about how you communicate with others. If you don't modify this behavior soon, I would be forced to support sanctions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another last chance to change? Last time I checked, this user had exhausted several of his last chances, and got into escalating block territory. And now he's quite some way up the escalator. Do Wikipedians ever run out of last chances?—S Marshall T/C 17:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm just one voice. Unless he says something below my comment to convince me he has had an epiphany, I wouldn't be that difficult to persuade. In the end, however, it is always my hope to rehabilitate rather than swing the ban hammer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    * Just as you stated clearly the concern with my behavior. It is not with my AfD selections but how I write to them/ contributors. I Understand. I can change it, as I am quite good with your blunt observations. Yes! I might need to shut up, and that is what I should do for next 30-45 days (or probably more). 1. I will only nominated with giving Detail rationale to it for AfD. 2. I will not counter any of the contributors, no matter what they write, or how they write (To avoid any of the language or behavior problem). 3. I will only vote with my opinion, will not get on anyone's opinions. 4. That way I can be respectful to the community, as I am unknown to all, as they are to me. Nothing is personal here. I am happy to contribute with my rationale, right or wrong, its community work, and not individuals choice. I hope my points are clear. and you all are observing me, if by mistake I deviate from my promise, you have the rights. thank you. Light2021 (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't stop another admin from taking action here, understand that. And understand that you are probably going to be under a microscope for a while. I think you have a lot to offer, it just gets drowned out with rushed replies that are more centered on emotion than fact. If you can do all that you say, everyone is better off. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nearly echo Dennis Brown.While there are enough negatives about his/her contribs.--(specifically blatant canvassing along with ridiculous two-word nom statements--both of which seemed to flow unabated.), the sole reason I am opposing a Tban is that his/her work has not entirely shifted to a net-negative zone.I am inclined to offer a last-chance.And Light2021 will probably do well to abide by the self-imposed restrictions.And above all, please improve your communication skills, know how to bluntly accept a mistake(For one, I didn't even slightly buy your arguments rel. to ignorance of canvassing policies at your talk!) and cease to act like a jerk.Winged Blades Godric 04:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Last chances"

      I agree with S Marshall (talk · contribs) that "this user had exhausted several of his last chances":
      1. April 2016: Randykitty blocked Light2021 for 31 hours for disruptive editing.
      2. April 2016: Randykitty blocked Light2021 for 48 hours for abusing multiple accounts. A number of sockpuppets were also blocked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Light2021/Archive.
      3. April 2016: Boing! said Zebedee blocked Light2021 indefinitely for persistent vandalism.
      4. June 2016: Ohnoitsjamie unblocked Light2021 and wrote, "Given the exchange below, it's reasonable to give you another chance, though I would like to note some concerns."
      5. November 2016: At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021, Kudpung wrote in the close, "further repetition of inappropriate behaviour will be met with incremental blocks at admin discretion that will not necessarily require further long-winded discussion here".
      6. January 2017: Ohnoitsjamie blocked Light2021 for disruptive editing.
      At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021, when there was strong support for a block, Light2021 wrote in November 2016, "I understand that the problem is that I have not respected the community and other members of the community" and "I will respect consensus decisions". These are broken promises. Light2021 also wrote:

      I will follow as advised by people here with pure heart. Even after that if I fail to my commitment and assurance made here. I will never ask for forgiveness. and I must leave my contribution on WP without wasting community time on discussions about me. Community time is more important than me.


      Continued canvassing

      In the November 2016 topic ban discussion, Light2021 canvassed seven editors.

      In this very ANI discussion about a topic ban, Light2021 canvassed 13 editors. This is despite Kudpung's 20 January 2017 warning to Light2021 to stop canvassing. This is also despite my post in this ANI discussion about Light2021's canvassing.

      Continued misunderstanding of speedy deletion

      At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamil Design, Light2021 wrote, "Speedy Delete Blatant Promotions" even though Light2021's earlier {{db-spam}} tag was declined by Seraphimblade. Light2021 still does not understand the criteria for speedy deletion. An article is not eligible for speedy deletion under {{db-spam}} once an admin has declined the speedy.

      Cunard (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cunard:--Well, I personally felt the ban-hammer to be a little heavy.Anyway, the speedy delete option is viable and I fail to see any policy violation in the quoted !vote.Many of the frequenters at AfD replicate the same behaviour at AfDs(incl. me) of subjects having a declined CSD.And I am unable to contribute on his relative knowledge/application of CSD without the log.Winged Blades Godric 06:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Light2021's support in the AfD for speedy deletion under {{db-spam}} even after Seraphimblade declined the speedy deletion reflects a continued misunderstanding of the policy Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. As Seraphimblade has said in the November 2016 discussion, "And I'm not exactly well known for being lenient on spam, promotion, and CVs, so if I think your G11 requests are out of order, there's probably a problem."

    Cunard (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    G11 is an area where there is a wider range of interpretation. Voting to Speedy per G11 after a decline only means that someone disagrees with the Admin's decline. I just had an MfD where an Admin declined a G11 and all three people that voted expressed surprise it was declined as G11. Legacypac (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC). Note the decline said "Not quite G11, but could use a lot less product info" so it is very unfair to say that Light2021 misunderstands CSD's based on that decline. You should know better Cunard - your examples are undermining your case here. Legacypac (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is not Light2021's !votes. I think he's erratic but he's entitled to his opinion and his !votes. This thread is about aggressiveness, his highly personalised targeting of Cunard, his tag-bombing and his canvassing.—S Marshall T/C 16:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the key problem is not the votes--G11 especially is tricky to interpret, and the interpretation is often disputed. The standard for whether we delete or fix spam is similarly controversial. In practice I don't think Light is any more extreme on his side than some editors are on the other (but it must be admitted that I have a position myself which is fairly to similar Light's view of things) But I would consider it a COI to try to block someone who often opposed me at AfD. The key problem at this point is the canvassing. If that were to stop completely, I think that would be enough. DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not particularly active at AfD, though I agree with DGG that the most concerning behaviour is the canvassing there. The other issues raised about the way he contributes in deletion discussions I think can be overlooked - I'm not convinced of how much trouble he's really causing but I'll leave that to people who are more involved at AfD. What I can comment on is my experience with him at CSD, and a lot of what he does there seems similarly erratic and unpredictable. He nominates a lot of articles for CSD, particularly for G11, which is a difficult criterion to interpret and everyone's view will differ, but his nominations are very hit-and-miss. In addition to the list compiled by Cunard above I have declined G11 nominations of his on these three occasions. He has a particular habit of nominating articles which have been in existence for several years have been edited by many contributors. He digs up a lot of promotional articles which probably should be deleted, but floods the queue with a large proportion of poor nominations too. I'm not sure any of this really rises to disruption, but altogether it does give me the impression that he doesn't really know what he's doing and his edits probably need watching closely, but I'm really not sure the good parts of his editing justify this. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 19:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Cunard you seem to be throwing up every allegation you can think of in hopes something sticks. You evidently don't like Light2021's views on deleteion. Suck it up and try policy at AfD instead of trying to railroad an editor you don't agree wity. User:Light2021 make sure you turn on your CSD log under twinkle preferences. That will help you refute the alleged CSD mistakes. We all get CSD declines, the question is are they a big percentage or not. Legacypac (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I support topic-banning Light2021 from deletion processes because of their pattern of inadequate application of policies and guidelines related to deletions. They create a lot of unnecessary work for other editors in reviewing deletion nominations, as well as risking unnecessary deletion of many articles, which is not good for Wikipedia. In their contributions to AfD in the past few days during this ANI discussion, I see inadequate application of WP:BEFORE combined with rapidly nominating many articles for deletion. I went through several of their recent AfD nominations where the nomination reason was based on lack of notability and sources, and I saw sufficient sources to support a keep vote for six: Qwikcilver, Wrike, Mavenlink, Rightware, Eckovation, Paymentwall. I couldn't find sufficient sources for three, but I did find additional sources that weren't noted in the nomination: Olympusat, PurpleTrail, FusionForge. I didn't review all their recent AfD nominations, but out of those ones, it's not a good ratio. (For the record, XfD Stats for Dreamyshade says 80.8%.) Dreamyshade (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from deletion process, per WP:CIR. Despite numerous cautions and blocks, Light2021's deletion rationales rarely make much sense. Sure there is a problem with business promotion on Wikipedia, but there are plenty of other Wikipedians working on the issue that have a much better grasp of deletion policies and who are capable of constructing cogent (and coherent) arguments. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have just had to decline another G11 nomination, again for an article that has been edited by several contributors since 2011. I think that, if he is not sensible enough to keep a low profile and reign in his nominations whilst an ANI discussion is ongoing, it is highly unlikely that Light2021 is going to be able to edit in this area in a constructive way. At this point I would strongly support a topic ban from the deletion process. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 12:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose he is doing a good service with no one presenting evidence his nominations are regularly outside policy. NO we don't have enough users working on removing SPAM and we should not be removing a deducted SPAM fighter. That G11 decline was borderline and the page is in fact SPAM. Had the page been newer with fewer editors it would be an easy G11. Legacypac (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - The editor has had numerous chances to adjust and fix their mistakes but instead they continue with the wrong CSDs, AFDs etc etc so an indef topic ban is the only answer, Temporary won't work because they'll just go back to how they were and we'll all be here again. –Davey2010Talk 16:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban, support block the next time they canvass. As has been pointed out above, their G11 tagging is not that far off the mark especially since the standard is so variable and neither is their AfD !votes. We should not be clubbing the opposition, even if I disagree sometimes with them. I am equally supportive of the position that the editor should be summarily blocked again if he continues to make personal attacks. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban - despite being warned and making promises to the contrary, he continues to attack and tag bomb articles. Strike 1 was changing my discussion title in the talk page to accuse me of being a paid editor. Strike two was tag bombing the article. Strike three was canvassing, which resulted in two delete votes. Srike four was just adding new tags [[6]] despite being warned here. There are other critical editors like DGG, SwisterTwister and K.e. Coffman, but they are all civil and non-disruptive. Here's where he badgers DGG for doing an afd delete closure - a rare one where Light actually wanted to keep the article. [[7]] He's making it unpleasant for the rest of us and needs to stop. He can't help himself and will need to be banned to stop. 18:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)TimTempleton (talk) (cont)[reply]
      • Just for note: You (others to check his claims) can go through the discussion made on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Ferrazzi. I am sure my AfD was justified as still not convincing with No-consensus was a bad nomination. Reason for his disappointment with me. He has been questioned for being a paid editor for the way he made his contributions (Undisclosed paid editing revisited). On his talk page. or like this article NJFX, questioned for being promotional. and many such cases. I don not want to add into this ANI. Nothing to say more.Light2021 (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC) thanks. Light2021 (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • And this continues to make my point. Those of you saying that his toxic behavior is worth it because he rapidly identifies and deletes so much bad content, ask yourselves if the site is better because of him. How many editors will he drive away? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 06:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • These attacks are continuing here. Here is an excerpt from Light2021's longer post:

            I think eventually this pathetic Paid Keep army will win the race, and Wikipedia will become another PR host and eventually a threat to biggest notable source of knowledge. These contributors make the reputation participating on random discussions so it will look neutral, and get paid for their work with all corporate spams. No doubt some of the admins are also involved. This dirt can not just come from users alone. Do not want to name any admins here. This is corruption of high level.

            AfDs participants like TimTempleton and me are not part of a "pathetic Paid Keep army". We are volunteer editors.

            Cunard (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow you read and twist everything he says in the worst possible light. There is no personal attack there. He is commenting on the state of paid editing that is introducing unrelenting spam here. Many editors share these concerns. Legacypac (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, If I am too blunt and direct. This is humiliations of my work and contributions. I Must speak clearly here. I have to write this. I have to defend my dignity as a contributor also whether he likes me or not. Here is the the complete thought, which has been selectively presented with Quote. Seems like a disturbance to someone. I have never used Cunard or anyone's name. Why they are so much bothered if they are just contributors here? and why making Personal attack? As far as I can see this ANI is dedicated to Cunard where from my past contributions to present he has given so much work. He covered 70-80% of this ANI. I do not understand his problems with me personally, there are several people who disagree to me, but I also accept my part, No one is doing or making such ridiculous attacks as he is doing. I also disagree or agree with people. I am not making such attacks as I have been accused of. Deliberately going on every AfD I have done, making irrelevant lengthy commentary just for the sake of it. Evidently clear by other contributors also, he does not know what he is copying or pasting or from which source? where I can be wrong, but this is way beyond anything and personal attack. One Good Question to ask, has he ever ever made a Delete comment on any of my AfD, he claims to my AfD are so bad, the results and works shows otherwise though. if they are so neutral and great contributors, isn't they be neutral on participation? others agree to me and disagree to me. but these are the one, no matter how bad is article, they will go Keep, or No-consensus to every contribution I made. isn't that personal attack?

              I am shutting myself down completely. But just for note on updates on my contributions. I am not paranoid but something is definitely going on making a personal attack on Every AfD I have done (not in terms of language, but deliberate keep votes/ discussions to justify anything by any means just because I am involved, they definitely not like me much), No-consensus is also a Keep, these people can do anything. I do not want to tag anyone here as it would be wrong. But It is evidently clear, sometime with 2 votes they close the discussion with Keep, they do not care to relist them. many times they relist the delete driven AfD, till they get their army and lengthy piece of Copy-Paste into AfD to mislead it, and they close by no-consensus. They know good how to keep an articles with using Wikipedia Policies only. Its just I am helpless as their army is bigger than my thoughts and they drag me and attack me and I can not do anything to justify. and letting this Wikipedia doomed with such people. I think eventually this pathetic Paid Keep army will win the race, and Wikipedia will become another PR host and eventually a threat to biggest notable source of knowledge. These contributors make the reputation participating on random discussions so it will look neutral, and get paid for their work with all corporate spams. No doubt some of the admins are also involved. This dirt can not just come from users alone. Do not want to name any admins here. This is corruption of high level. But what we can do ? We have limited platform to justify or make an appeal, these people knows well and how to use them. and they will blame on my language or counting numbers of something. They are afraid that their shop is going to shut down by contributors like me. It is just a wake up call, where we really want to go with Wikipedia? As such people are definitely in abundance to exploit this platform by any means. i am glad they got a real hit with my work.

              Light2021 (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support T-ban, rapidly moving into Indef territory with the PA immediately above. John from Idegon (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no PA - there is selective quoting and a false allegation of a personal attack. Legacypac (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the person who started this thread, in a change from my previous position I think I would now oppose a blanket indefinite topic ban from AfD. That's too strong, I feel, and we do need people who'll nominate spam articles at AfD. The problems here are about excessive zeal and needlessly personalising disputes, but I do feel this is someone who's basically here to improve the encyclopaedia. A sensible and proportionate remedy would consist of a parcel of less drastic measures. I've reflected some more and I would suggest (1) no pinging people or posting directly on their talk page to attract their attention to deletion discussions; (2) no G11s; (3) no speedy deletion nominations on articles about corporations (but PROD and AfD are permitted); (4) a positive requirement to provide intelligible rationales when nominating for deletion; and (5) a one-way interaction ban with Cunard, appeal at AN/I permitted after six months of good behaviour.—S Marshall T/C 22:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Site ban as per implied expectation of Light  Light has reported an intent to disrupt Wikipedia until banned, by writing (grammar and capitalization errors in original), "As such people are definitely in abundance to exploit this platform by any means. i am glad they got a real hit with my work."  Note that I am an involved party here as I have recently identified and reverted Light's personal attack, by the use of tag bombing, on multiple content contributors at diff.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indef. block At this point, I don't see the editor's behavior improving. If the load of blocks didn't work, I don't see how this editor can restrain from violating a T-ban. This is just a simple case of WP:NOTHERE. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban. There's a current discussion at WP:NCORP#How to raise NCORP standards? which discusses similar concerns as expressed by Light21 and many others at company AfD. The more I learn about paid editing, the more prevalent the problem seems to be. Some editors subsequently banned for undisclosed paid editing and / or misuse of multiple accounts have been known to participate at WP:AFC -- ouch. WP:ARTSPAM is an on-going problem, unfortunately, and banning a contributor in this area seems counterproductive. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What's wrong with that edit? Rentier (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • i have read this long thread and looked at many of the diffs. About the deletion nominations, Legacypac's comment above, here, is dead on point. That data are very relevant and they are not bad.
    That said, Light2021 is way too passionate - the excited comments, the canvassing, the accusations against people who take different perspectives (and I do see a lot of personal attacks). This is a case where the passion that drives people to contribute (wherever there passion leads them) comes back to bite them, and everybody else. Mostly them. Their block log is as long as my arm -- 12 blocks since April 2016!
    Folks here are torn because Light2021's passion is very much about Wikipedia being a high quality source of knowledge (I disagree very strongly with comments that claim that Light2021 is NOTHERE). Light2021 is very much on-mission, in this regard. very much.
    But an essential part of being a WP editor is learning how to work in a community, and we all do that primarily by focusing on the content issues - on sources, policies, and guidelines. Light2021 is too personalized and plays wikipolitics too much, which is what all the canvassing is about. They apologize and say they will change, and they don't.
    Their last block was 2 months. I am going to recommend a repeat two month block, the same as the last one (they have stayed unblocked since January, which is great for them), and the reason pretty much comes down to WP:FOC and WP:CIVIL.
    Light2021 the meat of this case is that you are too passionate and focus too much on attacking other people and trying to "win" by socking and canvassing. Calling people's attention to issues with deletion nominations of various kinds is fine, and once you get people's attention, you need to just make the best arguments you can based on sources and the policies and guidelines; good arguments are what persuade people. The rest is noise, and it hurts you and the community. If you don't learn during this block, you can expect me to !vote for indef if we have to revisit these issues. I say that unhappily, because your eye for finding and nominating promotional pages is great, in my view. But people who cannot adapt to working in a community, cannot stay.
    And about your long note above - the conspiracy theorizing is very unhelpful. You are in trouble because of your own behavior. Focus on that. Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • A appreciate your views and opinion about my work. I want to work on community as every good contributors. I will go ahead and implement what you suggested. But there are few things I beg to differ, First, I learnt a lot after the blocking by few people, that I should be humble presenting my views. But the case here is very different, the major part of this AN/I dedicated to my past block behavior and twisted facts, this should not be done, focus should be made on my present behavior after April, the people who Supported this have no substantial claims that I misbehaved in a way I must have done in past. People are misbehaving and more uncivil and attacking than I am. I have to defend myself, Can't just be shut because I am part of AN/I. They humiliated me like anything. I have been Accused of Canvassing and Socking, I am nowhere using socking. Please give single example of Socking after April. This is wrong accusation. Canvasing means tagging people in my Talk page to learn more, or in AFD. I understood and It will not be repeated anywhere in future, I accepted this part and suggestions. there are few handful group of people, not all, I can go further and name them also. Who will come to my AfD deliberately, Canvassing the discussion, go ahead and ask their Group to come to my AFd, make a lengthy unnecessary commenting and distract the whole Discussion. They will attack me personally, or in group, these people and their behavior has been avoided, just because I have history of Block and I am here on AN/I. This whole discussion made a ridicule of my work and nothing else, people above made 70% commentary to do what? neutral contribution or highest degree of personal attack with baseless accusations, and ridiculously protecting and commenting on CSD where it is a matter of 100% Spam. I know What I am doing, and they also know how to protect themselves by getting rid of people like me. I am defensive as I can not allow such people to degrade my work. You also have views but you are explaining me something that I can learn about, and there are many others who make me learn and disagree to me. But these group of People, NOT EVEN A SINGLE AFD WITH DELETE vote has been found? Why? If they are so great and know how to behave ? Why not go with Delete vote on my work sometimes? Just because it is my work? Their shop is on fire? Check the Cunard Talk Page. How one admin commented and asking him to participate on my AFD, as I have been accused of Canvassing, so what we call that if not canvassing going to Talk page and ask to comment on my AFD? Why such Bias? When they do it, its policy, I do its misbehavior and canvassing? These people are making mockery of my work and twisting policies of Wikipedia for their personal gain and nothing else. They do canvassing, participate on each and every AfD I do with Keep vote without checking anything. Ignored all rules, just citing GNC selective policies. Nothing notable media, no global coverage. I am surprised how come they just Relist sometime till they get some Keep votes and just make No-consensus, eventually they win and trying to prove my work random or bad nominations, where No-Consensus is also a good work. These are the people, paid editors, they have been accused many times for writing bad articles, promotional, non-notable contributions. Check their talk page. It is evidently clear what they are doing, and why they are so much afraid of me. They are very strategic, where they make CASE STUDY of how they saved one article from deletion by making it NO_CONSENSUS. My concerns are Genuine. But I learnt that I should not be Canvassing, I should make detail remark on AfD. I am not participating on AfD after I said on my Talk page. I will work on what you said and in community with better behavior. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 06:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose Close

    No one has proven Light2012 is off policy on CSD or AfD - in fact he is pretty accurate. He's turned on his CSD log so in the future there will be no debate on that. A whole lot of inaccurate attacks against him have been made here. He does have some behavioral issues but his post just above goes a long way to show he understands that. The humiliation here is enough for now. A Tban lacks sufficent support. This should be closed with no action against Light2021 but he needs to take the advice given here to heart. I'd strongly suggest he nominates pages and lets the discussion run. No arguing with others, no pinging others, no commenting on others. Just make the case at nomination time and forget about that AfD. Go on to identify the next deletable junk because that is what Light2021 is good at.

    User:Cunard on the other hand is leveling unfair attacks on Light2021 and I see no remorse just additional unfair accusations. It streaches my good faith in his fairness or reliability. If we see any more of this behavior sanctions should be imposed. Cunard should stay away from commenting on Light2021 in any way which will really reduce the drama. Legacypac (talk) 08:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC) Note  Two edits have modified the previous sentence, with the 2nd a quiet edit that appears to be a disregard of WP:TPO.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Saying that Cunard is levelling unfair attacks on Light is exactly the wrong way around. This thread contains links to numerous examples of Light badgering and making direct, personal attacks on Cunard in AfDs, starting with the very first post by me. To the best of my knowledge, this thread is the only place where Cunard has responded. I would object to any close that doesn't contain a behavioural remedy defending Cunard from Light2021's inappropriate personalisation of content disputes.
    Light2021 has promised to change his behaviour before, of course. I can only admire your exceptional ability to assume good faith in the face of all the evidence. At minimum I also expect other behavioural remedies that prevent him from canvassing, using G11, using any CSDs on corporations or products, or making incoherent or unintelligible AfD noms. Where we agree is that it's not needful to block him.—S Marshall T/C 14:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I'm not convinced, but I can support your willingness to try.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't contest many of the examples show poor behavior, but my point is some Cunard accusations are really really inappopriate ones unsupported by diffs. He should really learn to focus on actual proven problems not throw up random accusations with diffs that don't support them. Legacypac (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The actual proven problems are:- Light2021 initially became involved with Wikipedia when he was attempting to promote Exioms, a business based in New Delhi with which he rather obviously has a COI. During that very first AfD of his, a number of new accounts did show up to agree with Light2021, and I'm going to go ahead and say that he was socking. Transparently. That article was deleted despite his impassioned attempts to prevent that. Since then Light2021 has remained active on Wikipedia, concentrating on a very focused way on deleting articles about corporations and products. He often takes a strongly deletionist stance (which he is legitimately entitled to do), but is inconsistent about this, sometimes actively trying to retain articles which other editors would like to be removed. He canvasses and inappropriately personalises content disputes, for which he has been blocked, on several occasions and of escalating duration. He is sometimes so incoherent that some of the editors participating above have bluelinked CIR ---- personally I would say this has more to do with English not being his first language, but it's a significant concern in this thread backed up by evidence. He jumps on bandwagons (which is one of your behaviours as well, by the way, Legacypac). And he's outspokenly targeting Cunard with repeated instances of hostile commentary, in a whole succession of AfDs. This last behaviour urgently needs reining in. Cunard is meticulous and detailed, and sometimes he has a lot to say at AfD, but everything he says is focused on the sources and on the subject. There is absolutely no evidence at all of Cunard ever doing anything that falls below Wikipedian behavioural standards.

      Basically Light2021 is angry because Cunard disagrees with him and produces lots of evidence. Although I've suggested we use a complicated package of measures to avoid a block or topic ban in this case, Light2021's behaviour is well over the threshold of hostility that leads to blocks on Wikipedia.—S Marshall T/C 17:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    * Again I must say, Past has been quoted, nothing here to present my history with Present after the blocks. This is unfair statement. Even the criminal can become a better person, but here it seems like you want to haunt me with past examples, I have got my punishment for that already, how many times you want to hang me? If I would have been any ill intention here as stated above, I would have created another account to do my work without showing and bad past history. But I am continuing with my history and same account, not doing any socking. I have learnt a lot from back then. Secondly I have been accused as if I am the one who disagree with him, He humiliated me, made false accusations, every AfD I did, which is far good from the contributors point of view, where he wanted to Keep with Lengthy Press coverage or Copy paste job. I merely stated my view, and here cunard made every attempt possible to make a personal remark or quoting from past. Are we still discussing my past behavior or is it something new? I agree that I should be more careful, not making any counter discussion, just nominate and let it take the course whatever it may take, and Cunard and I should never participate on each other work to avoid the waste of community times and this whole drama. there are thousands other places he and I can contribute independently. i have zero interest debating him, he is good or bad, I do not want to judge him or waste my time on his behavior. I am here for Wikipedia for sure not on debating whether he is wrong or right and on My AfD there are good amount of people who can present the views and take the decisions without making any personal attacks as he did. I am not angry with him. here it may seems from this ANI that he is deliberately coming to every AfD I have done, where it can be avoided if he does not like me. I learnt my version. I am not here to fight or waste community times, I am here to contribute under my limit and with good behavior. As I understand it is community who decides how I should do without any biased and I completely agree to your suggestions and others as well, and I will do my best. Lets avoid this drama and fight of Light and Cunard. Enough of explaining my self and justifying the Past. As again and again quoting the past matter, irrelevant to present, as this present case and discussion has no substance to carry on except personalized attack on me over the past. I have taken your and other suggestions very seriously, and ready to work that way. In good faith you have to believe me that part. nothing else to add here. Thank you.Light2021 (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for diff(s)

    Arthur Rubin, an admin, has accused me of "lying" (and/or "misstatements" etc) on half a dozen or more occasions, along with stating that I'm incapable of understanding basic English a couple of times. This relates to the curious case of the legitimacy of the official Wikipedia guideline status of WP:RY. [8] [9], [10], [11], [12]. He has then accused me of redacting the claim I made which he found so outrageous. In all cases, I have asked at least eleven times for diffs of the "lies" and the subsequent "redaction". [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] Rubin has stated that he will only present diffs in a formal setting, so this is it, simply a request for him to provide the diff(s) of my "outright lies" and the diff(s) of my "redaction" of said outright lies. I had hoped it wouldn't need a trip to the drama board to sort this out but apparently not. Other editors appear to have made direct and overt statements calling the status of this guideline into question, yet they have not been subject to similar accusations from Rubin. Now I know this is going to spiral out of all control, because this is Wikipedia, this is ANI and I'm TRM, but I'd like, just for once, to focus on the matter at hand please. Other corollary issues which I'm sure will be brought up to divert from this should be placed in their own section. This thread needs to focus on whether this is appropriate behaviour from an admin since such unfounded accusations easily constitute personal attacks and since so many unresolved requests for evidence easily constitute a failure of WP:ADMINACCT. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Some of these go back to the beginning of July and might be considered stale at this time, the most recent diff were from July 19th, Arthur Rubin;s been editing as of yesterday. I would still like to hear his side, however, considering all of the diffs are fairly old, unless there's some pretty damning evidence, I'd move to close this as punative.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 14:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    KV, it's a continual mystery to me why you make this kind of post when you obviously have no clue what you are talking about. You used to have a sanction against doing so, I think. Has it expired? If so, please point me to where you were permitted to behave like this again so that I can properly object. Begoon 15:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you actually read the complaint? The diffs are showing repeated requests from TRM for Arthur Rubin to provide the evidence required, they're not "stale". Honestly, I agree with Begoon - don't comment here if you don't understand what the issue is. Black Kite (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @KoshVorlon: The fact that they "go back to the beginning of July" is perhaps suggestive of establishing a pattern, rather than being stale! — fortunavelut luna 10:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Too many edit conflicts. I'll reply when I have some time at home, in about 21 hours. Diffs will also show that I told him I could only generate the diff links when I'm on my desktop, that I considered his talk page and ANI the only appropriate place to put them, and that I offered to give him the diffs on his talk page, but he had previously "banned" me from his tall page, and refused to "allow" me to post the list on his talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I will also provide diffs which show that he considers any editor who disagrees with him WP:BULLYing, and that his demand for my not using his talk page was caused by my giving him credit for pointing out problems, and posting requests to fix them in the proper venues. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a longer reply, but I had edit conflicts, and I cannot easily recover it on my desktop. I also attempted to redact TRM's identity from the complaint, but I further alleged that the misstatements require an admin close for an RfC in Talk:2017; further redaction would make my request for an admin close meaningless. I shouldn't have named TRM as the liar in that venue, but having done so, further redaction is absurd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter, the point is that you refused to supply links for the past week or two yet continued to promote this "outright lying" campaign at most venues you could. You didn't need a "formal location" for such diffs, any location you chose to repeat the personal attacks would have been fine. You have certainly been able to respond quicker, and per ADMINACCT, you have failed in that duty. Per NPA, you have also repeatedly attacked me at various venues across Wikipedia with your accusations of (a) me "lying" and (b) me "redacting the lie" while (c) allowing a number of other editors to apparently say the things you accused me of without any recourse. How odd. And yes, as I noted, you'll be attempting to divert scrutiny over your failure of admin duties by providing other spin, do that in another thread because this is simply about your refusal to supply evidence to support the many personal attacks you have made despite multiple requests, per NPA and ADMINACCT. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. You have had weeks to get this information together, yet you abjectly refuse. That's not good enough. With your selected attacks on me across multiple venues without evidence, you should resign your mop immediately. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    More nonsense. Your personal attacks against me are quite relevant as to why I didn't redact complaints about your editing, which I posted in the wrong venue. I am willing to apologize for posting them to the wrong venue; however, absurd statements being made about the content and status of WP:RY at Talk:2017 require an admin close of the RfC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Who said anything about personal attacks on you? The only issue being dealt with here is your refusal to supply diffs for weeks and weeks despite you using every venue across Wikpiedia to personally attack me. I'm not interested in your "redactions", I'm interested in your evidence that I "lied" and your evidence that "I redacted that lie" and your reasoning for not supplying this evidence for at least two weeks and your abuse of your position. Now then, I don't care about RY, I don't care about "venues", I care about NPA and ADMINACCT. Address those issues please, and stop trying to obfuscate the issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, a couple of things about the ability (or lack of) to post "diffs". Firstly, I tried it tonight, while walking, with a three-year-old iPhone, and copied a diff to my sandbox in around thirty seconds. Secondly, I recommended to you that you seek technical help with accumulating and posting diffs, from someone with the capability to do it in a timely fashion. Thirdly, it would have been so simple to just say "your lie is found at page X with date/timestamp Y". Yet, despite your position as an admin, your requirements per ADMINACCT, your obligation per NPA, you refused to do any of these for more than two weeks, so here we are, wondering why you should be an admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, it's time to stop this thread, before it does indeed "spiral out of control". I strongly suggest that comments stop until Arthur Rubin posts his response, as he has above said he will do sometime tomorrow. At that point, either his response will show that he has or has not any evidence for his comments about TRM. At that point, we can continue forwards. Thank you, Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure, so Rubin has had two weeks to post a response and refused to do so. I just wanted others to know that I had given him many, many options on how to proceed before we ended up at the drama boards. Yet again, it needs to be assessed in the context of his position as an admin. And now we wait while he gets to pick when and how he wants to continue. Bravo. 20:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Rambling Man (talk • contribs)
    • That's fine - if he doesn't post a response tomorrow, then the situation can also continue forwards. But there is nothing to be gained from a continual back-and-forth between the two of you with no useful outcome, frustrating as it might be for you. Black Kite (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the point has been missed. It's clear from Rubin's edit history that he has been online here every single day since my first request to provide evidence to substantiate his personal attack. He didn't, he hasn't, he's repeated the same attacks across Wikpiedia. It's now actually too late to apologise, redact etc, what we're examining here is his abuse of position, NPA violations and ADMINACCT fail. That needs nothing more from him. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Since this incident involves an admin refusing to even acknowledge their behaviour - there's a clear case to be made for removal of the admin tools. Possibly via arbcom if need be, but nobody here wants that. As such, I would like to make the following proposal... Twitbookspacetube 04:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Never mind, then! I'll start putting together a case - I'll wait 48 hours before filing to allow for response - They've already had weeks so I feel that I'm being generous here... Twitbookspacetube 04:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to comment on my close, Twitbookspacetube, I strongly believe community-based desysopping should exist in order to ensure adminship isn't such a big deal. It's been repeatedly proposed and shot down, though, so meh. As it stands, a discussion on desysopping wouldn't be actioned by the beauracrats or stewards, so it's not possible. (This is not a comment on the specifics of this case; I haven't read anything about them.) ~ Rob13Talk 05:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also by way of observation -- if you do put together a case to bring to ArbCom, they're very unlikely to take it up unless you show a history of misconduct or abuse of the admin tools. I think that a single instance would have to be particularly egregious before it qualifies as the basis for a desysopping case. (In fact, I'm not sure if I've ever seen them take a case brought to them based on a single instance -- as opposed to when they themselves react to a instance of misbehavior, and desysop on their own initiative.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    30+ hours since this was filed and no sign of any appropriate response from Arthur Rubin. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    To be fair, he said he will respond in about 21 hours, 25 hours ago. I've been also waiting for the input though. Alex ShihTalk 19:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been waiting three weeks for the input. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But Alex why did it require multiple requests by TRM and an ANI report to compel Arthur Rubin to provide diffs? He is not a few hours tardy; he's missed the mark for two or three weeks now. As a person who edits almost exclusively on a mobile device, I find his smartphone excuse unconvincing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I seem to be running a fever. My next edits anywhere on Wikipedia under any of my accounts will be a personal status update or the diffs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (As of 21:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC), Arthur Rubin has held true to this) pbp 21:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody has said anything different. Thanks for the note. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Nudging this thread to prevent premature archiving. Of course, the discussion over why it would take three weeks for an admin to provide evidence to substantiate the various personal attacks can continue regardless, the diffs themselves are, by now, almost irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Nudging again, to ensure thread stays on notice board. Once again, regardless of any diffs that Rubin might supply, the case of him not supplying them to support his various personal attacks despite nearly a dozen requests to do so can surely be discussed without his presence. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Well sure, it can, and it should. Sadly, all you can really get here is "Arthur has done wrong, and is reminded not to do wrong again", and a record that you tried to resolve the dispute, so that arbitration requests don't get rejected as premature. That truly sucks, and I sympathise. For the record, though, I do think the failure to provide the requested diffs, after repeated requests, is a breach of WP:ADMINACCT. -- Begoon 11:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, the community's acknowledgement that the admin offered unfounded personal attacks over a span of weeks and yet refused to supply any evidence, contrary to ADMINACCT and NPA, can be established right away. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree with this being regretful, and sets a dangerous precedent for ADMINACCT. Hopefully the case will have a proper closure soon. Alex ShihTalk 18:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Nudging the thread once again to ensure it is addressed properly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    TRM, I started to place a DNAU on this thread yesterday but found someone else already has. It will not be archived and no one should manually archive this either. You won't have to nudge it and we will expect the response from AR per WP:ADMINACCT.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, thanks for the note about the archiving. However, what is important is to allow the community to decide as to whether this behaviour is commensurate with an admin, regardless of whether or not Arbcom wish to do anything (which, because it's about TRM, is highly doubtful). A resounding community endorsement of the infractions would go a long way to giving Arbcom the wakeup call they need as they continue to defend and coddle admins who routinely abuse their position with impunity. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removal of admin tools from Arthur Rubin

    This is not permissible under current policy. If you want administrator access to be reviewed, file a case request with the Arbitration Committee. ~ Rob13Talk 04:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


    Due to conduct unbecoming of an Administrator including, but not limited to, violations of WP:NPA and WP:ADMINACCT, Arthur Rubin is to have their tools removed. If they resign due to this proposal, it will be considered to be 'Under a cloud' and they will have to go through another successful RfA to regain the tools. Twitbookspacetube 04:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Support
    1. As proposer Twitbookspacetube 04:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose
    Neutral comment

    In principle, I totally agree that this should be a thing that's available to the community at all times - the ability to reach consensus and desysopp a user. Unfortunately, this is not going to go anywhere; there are no community policies or guidelines that make this allowed. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    ARBCOM case

    As instructed above, I have waited 48 hours after my last comment here, then filed a case at arbcom which can be found here. Twitbookspacetube 05:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Same Admin has made many serious accusations against me and refused to provide any evidence. He even pulled a user right without evidence. Worst Admin here. Legacypac (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Not that you'd reflexively dive on a bandwagon, of course... -- Begoon 19:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well Rubin did instigate an involved block a few weeks ago and accused a good faith editor of being a vandal, so it's pretty clear that my experience is not unique. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, sorry, perhaps my comment was a bit harsh, but, without any additional diffs provided, the coveted award of Worst Admin here seemed pretty strong. -- Begoon 02:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I guess Legacypac could offer some of those diffs here or at the Arbcom case to substantiate such a claim. Although Legacypac isn't an admin, we still expect to see diffs for such statements. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    See the next section (I moved to User:Legacypac/AR) TRM's treatment by AR sounds very familiar. Legacypac (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the quick response and provision of diffs Legacypac, perhaps you should consider RFA! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thanks for the quick response, Legacypac, and my apologies, again, for my brusqueness. -- Begoon 10:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    AR has established by his behavior we can say anything nasty we like about him without any proof of misconduct. Heck we could even remove his bit without any evidence like he did to me. I operate on a different standard. Legacypac (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This topic cannot be handled at ANI and the whole section should be closed. Please keep evidence for the Arbcom case that will not proceed until the subject returns to editing. Johnuniq (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this ANI thread should be closed yet. The Arbcom case may not be accepted. And in any case there would seem to be aspects of this situation—separate from any Arbcom case—which might be addressed here. And in particular, Arthur Rubin has promised to respond here to the request for diffs—as soon as he is able– and I for one would like to see his response (or lack thereof) before this section incident is closed. Paul August ☎ 11:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. It would seem a bit "Catch-22", when a requirement for an ARBCOM case is that all previous dispute resolution steps have been exhausted, to close this attempt now. I'd like to see Arthur's response too, and I hope he will soon recover and return, but, equally, I don't think we need to wait indefinitely for that before deciding if there was already an ADMINACCT issue here, prior to his illness. -- Begoon 12:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above However, what is important is to allow the community to decide as to whether this behaviour is commensurate with an admin, regardless of whether or not Arbcom wish to do anything (which, because it's about TRM, is highly doubtful). A resounding community endorsement of the infractions would go a long way to giving Arbcom the wakeup call they need as they continue to defend and coddle admins who routinely abuse their position with impunity. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbcom have now hatted the case because although Rubin is editing elsewhere online, he's too ill to edit Wikipedia. Coddling the protected admins, the admins who use personal attacks and fail to abide by ADMINACCT, day on, day out. Disgraceful. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Presumably the "hatting" will only be temporary. @The Rambling Man: How do you know Arthur Rubin is editing elsewhere online? Paul August ☎ 23:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paul August: this question may be somewhat difficult for The Rambling Man (or any other editor) to respond to, because of the implications regarding WP:OUTING. —Sladen (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I'm a little confused here. TRM's complaint seems to be that AR has made accusations against him and then failed to provide any evidence. If that is so, it strikes me as odd that TRM would choose to make an accusation against AR that he cannot substantiate without running afoul of the policies on outing. Lepricavark (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to be confused. Like here, Rubin edits under his own name across the Internet, it's not hard to establish that he is only too ill to edit Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no opinion on the users involved here, but am I correct in assuming that the only way an abusive administrator can be desysopped is through Arbcom action, which they they can defeat by taking a wikibreak? If so, that might explain why abusive admins say "go ahead, try to get me desysopped" as they know the process. Coretheapple (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the Arbcom case, I commented that the filing was premature but that was only because I had faith Arthur was telling the truth about his timely illness. However, if what TRM says is true and Arthur really is active on other websites, just not Wikipedia, then Arbcom should proceed. There simply is too many excuses by this admin that I can poke holes in and if this gets swept under the rug, I can not even begin to describe my level of disgust.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    After what the arbitration committee did to kww on your behalf, I think you're the last person who should be whining about them. That said, it is true that the ArbCom has in the past been too indulgent of people feigning illness to avoid an arbcom motion; remember A Nobody, anyone? Reyk YO! 00:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious... are you saying that ArbCom is too lenient in recent years compared to the A Nobody request or that they were too lenient then? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Too lenient back then. IIRC that editor feigned a very obviously fictional kidney complaint just as his arbcom case was starting, which did not prevent him socking here or editing heavily at Wikia including blocking people there who'd annoyed him here. And the arbitration committee rather meekly seemed to accept this "illness" and stick the case on the shelf. I was annoyed at the time that arbcom did not even attempt to question the extremely obvious deception. In the end A Nobody was permabanned at ANI, which got arbcom off the hook a bit. Now we see another case where someone may be dodging an arbcom motion allegedly on health grounds while still being heavily active elsewhere. Now, I haven't looked deeply into the Arthur Rubin situation so it might be unfair of me to compare him to A Nobody; in that situation I was being personally maligned so I took more notice of it. My only point is that arbcom has previously taken blatant malingering at face value and I'd like them not to do so again. Reyk YO! 00:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the first I've heard of the A Nobody request, since I wasn't particularly active then and probably didn't even know what ArbCom was. It looks like ArbCom indef banned him until such point where he would agree to return and participate in a case... Is this what you find too lenient? Did I miss something? (Genuine question. ArbCom case requests that don't turn into cases are difficult to look through these days, and they weren't better seven years ago. Let me know if you want me to take this to your talk page, btw, I'm not sure it's particularly germane to this discussion.) GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the delay in replying here, had to commute. We hatted the case until Arthur Rubin returns, as we've done in the past with other cases focused on a single party where that party is not editing Wikipedia. We'll unhat it when he returns. I have no idea where Arthur Rubin has been elsewhere online, though I don't think it's reasonable to assume that because he is not so ill he can't operate a computer, he is well enough to have the energy to come back to Wikipedia while he's the focus of an ArbCom case request.
    @Coretheapple: No. If an abusive administrator were the subject of an ArbCom case and took a temporary wikibreak, we'd just resume it when they returned. We had a case a while ago (Toddst1, I think), where an admin stopped editing. The case was never resumed because Toddst1 didn't return until after he was desysoped for inactivity. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @GorillaWarfare: Is that same courtesy extended to ordinary users who are hauled before arbcom? Coretheapple (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. At least, I can't recall any cases we've held against someone who was completely absent – I hope I'm not wrong. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Coretheapple - Speaking as a disinterested party with zero ties to Arbcom: it is indeed a common practice to recess from activity when a participant, regular user or administrator, is unable to effectively participate in an Arbcom process. This reality has been gamed from time to time, I strongly suspect, but it remains a fact. Carrite (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for clarification

    Without implying anything either way on the particular users and behavior being discussed here (I have not examined the evidence myself and thus have no opinion on that) is it actually true that, if Arbcom declines to accept a request for desysopping, that ANI can do nothing, no matter how good or bad the evidence is? Surely that was not the intent of the policy. If the admin's behavior is bad enough (again, I have no opinion as to whether this is true in this case) ANI could decide on a community block or a community recommendation for desysoping, right?

    Now in this case, Arbcom (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Arthur Rubin and WP:ADMINACCT) has put the case on hold for reasons (hasn't edited for five days) which would customarily not be accepted as a reason to put an ANI case on hold. Should we put this on hold as well, close it with a request to refile if Arbcom doesn't act in X days, or continue on with it?

    BTW, this may be an example of the Super Mario Effect.

    Background: In Mario Brothers, When Small Mario takes a hit, he dies. When Super Mario takes the same hit he turns into Small Mario. The obvious analogy would be a case where when a regular user misbehaves badly enough he is site banned, but when an administrator misbehaves in the exact same way he is desysopped and becomes a regular user.

    There is also an even larger and far rarer Giant Mario, who can walk over and destroy everything in his path, including the largest and most powerful enemies. Eventually Giant Mario reverts to being Super Mario. The analogy here is left as an exercise for the reader. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition to your very apt analog: given that the entire process is dominated by administrators, it strikes me as a case of regulatory capture in an almost comically exaggerated sense. Coretheapple (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    the community can't take away admin rights but the community can block or ban. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir Joseph is right. The community can't desysop, but they could impose sanctions or block/ban the administrator. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If I am not mistaken, The community can recommend desysopping, and if there is a strong consensus behind the recommendation (again, not established in this particular case) it is likely that an followup request to Arbcom will result in them doing the desysopping. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    One would hope that would be the case, but, in reality, ARBCOM will do whatever its members decide. Policy says the community may not desysop, and ARBCOM, theoretically, will not "make" policy. So an ARBCOM discussion can easily override, or just plain ignore, your "strong consensus". As I said above, that sucks, and we should seek to change it. -- Begoon 14:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly, and when the wronged party is considered persona non grata by Arbcom then it's even more likely that it would be ignored. However, that's precisely why I want this discussion to continue, we don't need permission from anyone to discuss this behaviour, we don't need Rubin to be present to discuss his behaviour, and a consensus is growing that he has not only made multiple, unfounded personal attacks, but that he has summarily failed in his duty as an admin to respond to the dozen or so requests. Where we go when this discussion is done is another matter. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:ADMINACCT says in part "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their administrator rights removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for: ...

    • Bad faith" adminship...
    • Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility...)
    • Conduct elsewhere incompatible with adminship (not applicable)
    • Failure to communicate– this can be either to users (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought). (For weeks, then this thread and ArbComm)
    • Repeated or consistent poor judgment

    AR recent conduct meets 4 out of 5 past reasons for sanctioning or stripping Admin powers. He is unquestionably continuing to breach point 4 right now. Legacypac (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed block

    I, for one, find it awfully convenient that AR suddenly fell ill to the point where they can type, but not use CTRL+C and CTRL+V. In addition, the mobile editing excuse does not hold up as edits from a mobile device are tagged. As such, I would like to request that, until AR provides the evidence that has been requested for a month and counting, they are to be blocked from editing due to the blatant disregard for WP:ADMINACCT and the repeated failure to provide diffs constituting a violation of WP:NPA. Twitbookspacetube 00:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    edits from a mobile device are tagged I am not sure of the exact combination of browser, app, etc. that cause edits to be tagged as mobile, but not all mobile edits are tagged as such. I occasionally edit from a mobile device and I don't recall ever having any of my edits tagged. At any rate, I don't see what would be accomplished by your proposed action. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What I hope to achieve is to enforce the standard of conduct expected of a standard user, never mind an administrator that should be held to an even higher standard to remain as such. If arthur was not an admin, they would have been blocked by now. Hell, I've seen users facing a community ban for less than what this thread was started on! Twitbookspacetube 03:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I would assume that the reason why Arthur Rubin hasn't been blocked where a non-admin editor would be blocked is because we've all been hung up on the fact that he is an admin, rather than it being a result of the administrator cabal protecting their own. (Good faith, ahoy!) Given TRM's clear evidence (supported by diffs) of Arthur Rubin's accusations and blatant refusal to provide diffs, Arthur Rubin is clearly in breach of WP:NPA, as he has made repeated "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." As Legacypac has experienced remarkably similar (and much more egregious) behaviour from Arthur Rubin and Rubin's quite frankly ridiculous and insulting avoidance of this issue, any possible block for breaching WP:NPA should not be the end of the matter, and his adminship should continue to be evaluated. Cjhard (talk) 06:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would Oppose any block or ban that makes it impossible (as this proposal does) for Arthur Rubin to supply on Wikipedia the diffs being requested here as well as respond on Wikipedia to the requested ARBCOM case. As I said above, I for one want to see the promised diffs, as well as see Arthur Rubin's response to the ARBCOM case request. Paul August ☎ 10:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • A block would not prevent diffs being provided on AR's talk page as long as he is allowed to retain the right to edit it. The block could also be lifted with the condition that the lifting is purely to permit participation in the Arbcom case if that were to go ahead. Mjroots (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, any other (non-admin) editor would be blocked for so many personal attacks without evidence. His talk page was and still is a perfectly legitimate venue for the evidence that has been requested a dozen times over the past month. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So User:Paul August can we count on your support now? Legacypac (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well so far the Twitbookspacetube's proposal remains unchanged. My main concern is that nothing prevent Arthur Rubin's suppling the promised diffs here, as well as prevent the ARBCOM case request from moving forward, while the current proposed block does both. In any case, as a purely practical matter, a block or ban would have no effect as long as Arthur Rubin remains away. Paul August ☎ 14:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paul August: Well. The important thing is that diffs are supplied. And if they are to be supplied here, and they are blocked, then per usual process, they can put them up on their talk, and an editor of good standing places them here for the community's consideration. which is what usiually happens; the alternative is that someone is unblocked on condition that they only edit here or at ARBcom- again, there's a demonstratble process for this situation. As for your second point, their absence is part of the actual behavioural issue under question; arguably, it is the fact that they (so suddenly?) are 'away' that has exacerbated the original issue, and heightened opinion, as far as it seems to have. — fortunavelut luna 14:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support He's not editing anyway so the block is not going to hurt too much. The community can block anyone and Admins block editors all the time based on just one Admin's opinion of wrong doing. This is the only sensable action given the circumstances. Action was already taken to ensure the thread is not archived - so do we carry on discussing until he comes back to post diffs that don't exist? There is lots of proof of misbehavior. His (undeserved and abused) Adminship (See User:Legacypac/AR)is the only reason he has not been blocked yet. When I'm sick in bed I up my editing activity, not decrease it cause I'm bored and can't do much else. Hopefully he gets over his case of ANi Flu soon. If he returns he can appeal the block on hos talkpage with the diffs requested by TRM or a full admission and apology for his misbehaviour and perhaps a resignation of adminship. Admins refuse unblocks all the time when the editor refuses to admit they are wrong so why should AR's case be different? When he appeals, the community can look at his appeal and decide. Also, I'm very confident the needed diffs don't exist. What editor in their right mind would take something to ANi and ArbComm complaining of unfair personal attacks if there were diffs proving otherwise? That would be super risky. Please Support the Block - it's the only fair way to deal with this situation if we really believe Admins are just community members who are trusted with extra tools. As an Admin AR should be held to a higher standard not given a free pass. Legacypac (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Firstly, admins need to be held to a higher standard. Not because they are better, but because they represent Wikipedia and need to abide by the rules. In addition, I find it odd that he has temporarily disappeared from Wikipedia. The cynic in me thinks that is done hoping this will go away. If he's gone, there is no harm in blocking and if he returns, he can still edit his talk page and resolve this and request an unblock. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support in part per my resp @Paul August above, but also in the interests of preventing community processes to be hamstrung in the face of behavioural and accountability issues. — fortunavelut luna 14:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As an outsider looking in, I’m not sure what I’m finding more unbelievable; (A) Arthur’s ‘illness’, or (B) people still expecting diffs for an accusation that was so obviously false. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Amply justified. The double standard that elevates admins above the hoi polloi is corrosive to the project and needs to end. Either act against abusive administrators or formally adopt the principle that being an admin is a very, very big deal. Coretheapple (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Arthur's objectionable behavior needs to be treated with the same standard as any other editor. I commend TRM for his patience and civility during his simple request for diffs. With all the suspicious cop-outs Arthur has given so far, I would not be surprised if there were no diffs to begin with that support his claims.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose can't believe no one has noted that since he's not editing, the block would be purely punitive. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I feel this is all based on prejudice against administrators, I can see no other reason for this vehement overreaction. Also a procedural close with Twitbookspacetube is guilty of WP:FORUMSHOP with the ArbCom case request on hold. Honestly it has the feeling of mob mentality all over it, with rhyme and reason all left behind. As such it should dismissed by any closer as a prejudicial attempt to subvert WP:BLOCK with a punitive rather than preventative rationale. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Not at all. Did you read the opening post where this admin made half a dozen personal attacks against me and despite me requesting around a dozen times for evidence to substantiate the claims, he refused, so that's an abject failure of WP:NPA and a definite failure of WP:ADMINACCT. There's no "mob mentality", just a community fed up to the eye teeth of admins and Arbcom protecting one another. It's time that stopped, it's time all editors were held accountable, admins more so, per ADMINACCT. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The record is replete with behavior the likes of which has gotten plenty users blocked. I agree that admins ought to be held to a high standard but that's irrelevant here. AR is not breaching any higher standard. He, repeatedly, breaching the basic standard of behavior. A lot. Participation in the ARBCOM case is a red herring. It should stay on hold until AR indicates that he's now healthy and ready to participate. As long as he has talk page access, he's got a way to notify us of his recovery. Then, he can offer evidence on his talk page or the block can be lifted only for the purpose of participating in the ARBCOM case.
      Really, this oughtn't be a hard call. The behavior is pretty egregious, the refusal to provide diffs bespeaks the unliklihood that such diffs exist and the onset of the illness strains credulity. David in DC (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I've struck through my support for this block because I've been persuaded below that the editing restriction proposed below is sufficient and more likely to achieve consensus. David in DC (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Admin tools are used to protect the encyclopaedia. Since Arthur Rubin is not currently editing, there is no urgent need at this time to use the admin tools. That said, Arthur does have questions to answer and he should do so on his return to editing. I would not be opposed to a restriction (a ban?) on editing until he does provide answers. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can anyone just use this tactic when they are brought to ANI with conclusive evidence of bad behavior -- claim they can't provide diffs for two/three weeks and have a timely illness (Wikigitis?) to avoid a block? Or is this reserved primarily for admins?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Admin tools are also used as threats against users. Blocking edtors isn't related to whether they have the admin tools or not. Urgency is not the issue. The refusal to provide diffs relating to half a dozen personal attacks over three weeks, despite a dozen requests, is the issue. A normal editor would have been blocked days/weeks ago. This admin is being afforded very special treatment, way beyond what is given to the rest of us. And Arbcom are backing him up too by ignoring the flagrant abuse of his position, somehow claiming he needs to be present to answer for his overt failings. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      You say you would not oppose a restriction on editing until he does provide answers, yet you just did so. This proposal is not to take away admin rights. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment blocks are often used to enforce a site ban (which you do support) so the difference is semantics. Site ban him and use a block to enforce sound better? His refusal to edit is a large part of the reason for the block/ban. Legacypac (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Call me biased, I don't care. I was involved with the admin and TRM at Talk:2017. I don't think my dislike for the admin is hidden. At first, the discussion only involved the same users. I was first appalled by TRM's behaviour. It was rather childish. Then Arthur Rubin appeared and it was just worse. Admins are expected to be held at higher standards, but this admin was way low from that. They were feuding with TRM and I just stopped because it got so ridiculous. They made comments that were not backed up even after being asked to provide diffs. They never did so despite being asked a bunch of times. You expect so much more from an admin, and this behaviour was just so ridiculous. Had this been a regular user, I am sure they would have been blocked by now. Admins are expected to be treated the same as other users. Having administrator tools doesn't give you immunity. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 02:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There were comments on the RFAR (possibly deleted by now) that AR has been editing other sites while claiming to be too ill to supply diffs here. If that evidence can be supplied in this section, I think that would be sufficient cause to insist that AR begin to supply the requested diffs within 72 hours or face sanctions such as a block. (By the way, if he were blocked, he could still supply the diffs on his talkpage.) It's been six days since he claimed "I seem to be running a fever." Softlavender (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't do humiliation at Wikipedia. Vandals might be blocked for their actions, but we don't give them a deadline enforceable with a block. Blocking anyone requires evidence of past and ongoing problems that require a block to avoid further disruption. Those who don't skim Arbcom pages every now and then apparently do not realise what the current situation is. If AR chooses to be absent for more than 12 months, he will be desysopped as part of the normal cycle that applies to any admin inactive for that period. The result would achieve the same outcome being called for here, and would not involve undue humiliation. If AR returns within the 12-month period the Arbcom case will be resumed. At that time, people can provide all their evidence, and can discuss that evidence, and can make recommendations about desirable outcomes. There is no problem that requires attention at ANI, and there is no problem here that ANI can solve. Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    the real humiliation is the gross and brutal unsubstantiated personal attacks and pulling tools without reason. I respect your judgement, but if we apply your argument to other situations blocks of non-vandal editors would be cut by 90%. His failure to account is an ongoing problem. There is zero evidence he will stop the personal attacks which is an ongoing problem. The community can deal with this, at least in part, and another Admin needs to carry out the block. As Dennis Brown told me,[24] a community sanction happens because the community decides, its not the call of the Admin that carries out the block. Legacypac (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't examined the evidence that has been posted so I do not know whether what has been said has a good basis. I have had Arthur Rubin on my watchlist for a long time along with a few other similar BLPs of editors—I do that to help repel misguided attempts to discredit the subject by people who don't like the editor. That's all I know about this case. I hear your frustration but it's rare for an old personal attack (if such a PA has been demonstrated) to result in a block. It's extremely rare that such a block would occur when the editor has gone on a wikibreak. It is true that some people use wikibreaks as a tactic to avoid scrutiny, although none of us know what's going on here. It has been said that AR is posting on some forum or whatever—that is not evidence of anything because it is very easy to make such posts even if ill. On the other hand, facing up to a frenzy of opposition at Wikipedia is not easy and an illness could definitely make an editor want a wikibreak. The difference between this case and others involving wikibreaks is that AR is at Arbcom, and that case will not expire—if AR were absent for 11 months and then did a single edit to fix a typo, the case would be reopened. It's not going away. Johnuniq (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Respectfully User:Johnuniq since you admit "I haven't examined the evidence that has been posted" you need to strike all your uninformed opinions in this tread. You can't fairly say from a position of ignorance this is a misguided attempt or that there is nothing to do here or that this is about an old personal attack. Legacypac (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Although, not due to any recent encounters, but certainly from past encounters and edits of theirs, particularly over political or controversial content. If anyone requests diffs I'll be happy to provide them, but they are admittedly from previous years. I'm not surprised it has come to this, just that it hasn't happened sooner. DN (talk) 05:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that it would be unusual for an admin implementing a community consensus to block AR (if there is one - I have no position on this donnybrook) to face any sanctions from ArbCom. ArbCom might overturn the block if it finds that the community acted outside of policy (which I think it would be unlikely to take up), but it's part of an admin's remit to implement community decisions without overly inserting their own opinion into it, so I doubt that the hypothetical admin would find themselves in hot water. After all, it's not like AR has a squeaky clean slate and this is a one-time aberration, so a reasonable argument could be made that such a block would indeed be preventative and not punitive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    see [25] I already see more consensus here for a block then for many sanctions that flow from this board. According to User:Dennis Brown's logic, he is already blocked by the community. Which Admin is going to implement the community decision? Legacypac (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you might be premature, and without giving context, most wouldn't understand your comment, that "my logic" is that the community decides to block, and the blocking admin is merely enforcing the will of the community. It is leaning that way, but participation is rather light, plus there is an Arb case on hold complicating matters. To be clear, that wouldn't stop me from implementing a block, but there needs to be more time for a larger consensus to form. 9 support votes is insufficient to stop discussion for this kind of case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is unnecessary and of no use to block AR while he is away. What good would it do? If AR returns, and if no satisfactory response is given, then a block might be considered. Paul August ☎ 13:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      But that's just it, there is no satisfactory response. The multiple personal attacks without a shred of evidence provided, despite multiple requests over a three-week period. That's all there in black and white, and Rubin himself has Admitted as much. Even if he returns and does provide those fateful diffs, it's too late. Regular editors wouldn't be given anywhere near such latitude. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So what are you proposing exactly? That AR be blocked permanently? (That's not what is being proposed above by Twitbookspacetube.) Paul August ☎ 16:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I find AR's illness to be quite suspicious​, if not totally faked. However, plenty of ANI cases have ended as
      Stale
      because on inactivity. Laying low till the "mob disperses" is a favored​ tactic of those who are in the wrong, and frequently it works. The only block I will support is a procedural (few days-1 week) smear on the block log for personal attacks. I think this ANI section should be collapsed and DNAUd until things resume. (not using ATOP/bot because it is okay if discussion continues in the interim. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users is a core Wikipedia policy, and has been formal policy been since January 2006. Since Arthur Rubin is not editing Wikipedia then by definition he's not damaging or disrupting. A dozen people on ANI don't have the authority to unilaterally overturn a policy this fundamental. If you want the blocking policy changed to allow punitive blocks in absentia, RFC is thataways although I wouldn't bother since in the unlikely event you managed to get consensus for it, the WMF would almost certainly overturn it as an office action. ‑ Iridescent 16:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose only because I think the proposal below is better. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support For choosing between these two proposals, the question I have is whether an ordinary user (non-admin) be allowed to make accusations like this and fail to provide diffs for so long without being blocked. I doubt they would. As to the idea that AR isn't being disruptive because he's not currently editing, I see the disruption as ongoing as long as AR fails to provide diffs or withdraw the claims. kcowolf (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose the proposal below is better. Lepricavark (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed editing restriction

    I've been following the above discussion and it seems that we as a community may not be able to block AR from editing. However, It seems to me that he does need to respond to the reasonable requests to provide diffs. Therefore I propose the following sanction for the Wikipeda community to discuss.

    Arthur Rubin is community banned from editing any pages on the English language Wikipedia, with the exception of his own talk page, this page and any pages connected with The ARBCOM case.

    The restriction to be lifted after he has provided diffs and the ARBCOM case is either rejected or concluded. Mjroots (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'd have no issue with that, although I'd make it clear any pages connected with the arbcom case is to be very broadly construed—I wouldn't have any issue were he to want to talk to an individual about the case on their own talkpage (for instance, to ask someone he knows IRL to confirm that he's been ill). It shouldn't need to be said, but I'd also explicitly say that he's not to use admin tools (which don't technically count as "edits") until the case is either rejected or concluded. ‑ Iridescent 18:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment no comment on the actual proposal, but why do you think the community can't block AR? This is the place for a community sanction and we as a community have every right to block based on Wiki policies, even if he's a mighty admin. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Iridescent, and with those provisos. This seems appropriate, under the circumstances. -- Begoon 18:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Iridescent's "very broadly construed" addendum. I was pinged here (and opined above) but see blocking as very problematic. Yes, the system can be gamed, no, I can't say with certainty whether it is being gamed or not, but this is the best temporary solution and achieves the same end goal without the political baggage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support There has to be some kind of action, and this is probably the most rational option. Alex ShihTalk 19:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I also want to clarify that I based my above oppose on the fact the block would be "cold in the pot, 5 days old." If AR becomes "healed" and tries to ignore this issue (doing so would be forbidden by the ban) then I support hammer action. Also, re: Iridescent's comment, I agree, action on other users' talk pages is ok, provided it is regarding this case in some manner. I think we as a community and any admins who wish to enforce this ban will be able to figure out any attempts to out-lawyer or squeeeeeeze around this ban, and would act accordingly. Personally, I think higher of AR than for him to try any tricks, he should know we're done with him if he does.L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Although I disagree that the community can't block AR (I think this was settled in an ArbCom case, but I'm not going to expend the energy to find it), this appears to be a reasonable solution -- not that I think it's likely that when AR returns he would try to just start editing as if nothing happened. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - But what is going to happen when AR doesn't have any diffs to support his claims? I hope we can trust Arbcom to act accordingly to weeks of attacks on TRM.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second choice - Prefer a block for the reasons stated above. kcowolf (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I'm persuaded that this is a better option. I'll go strike my support under the block proposal. David in DC (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I've supported the block above. The community seems to find this sanction more acceptable, I don't think it's too much weaker than the block proposal, and there is value in its specificity. Cjhard (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – Seems a reasonably elegant solution, with the added advantage that there is a clearly defined path for WP:CBAN lifting—and so the added incentive to proactively participate in any Arbcom processes. —Sladen (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support superior to the draconian proposal above. Many of you keep saying that a non-admin would be blocked for what AR has done. That may be true, but would these theoretical non-admins have been blocked indefinitely, or would they have instead been given escalating blocks, perhaps starting at a length of one week? In the urge to bend over backward to avoid giving an admin special treatment, let's not go too far. Lepricavark (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone suggested he be banned indefinitely. Cjhard (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Need some admin eyes on a few Afds

    Hello all. I've been closing Afds and came across the following Afds related to the music group Phase, which seem to have the same editors+ips (at least two who seem SPAs) commenting on the same things, and in some cases, literally with the same words (copy paste moves of their comments); and voting keep multiple times in the same Afd. At least one of the editors MusicPatrol has been warned about attacking other editors who voted delete. Premeditated Chaos has also commented on obvious SPAs in one of their closures. But the mass of keep voters (apparent SPAs) is there in many Afds. The Afds are as follows:

    I'm pinging TParis and Premeditated Chaos who closed two of the Afds, JamesBWatson, Bearian, Amberrock, Night of the Big Wind, SubRE and TenPoundHammer who have left significant comments within these Afds, and Asouko and MusicPatrol who seem to be the main keep protagonists (I'm separately notifying these two on their talk page too). I wanted to request for some admin eyes to check the validity of some of the !votes. Thanks. Lourdes 01:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (Pinging JamesBWatson and TenPoundHammer again as I messed up the pinging earlier. Thanks. Lourdes 01:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]
    Looking back at the contribs of both Asouko and MusicPatrol, I'm starting to think they might be the same person. There's this complete and utter focus on Phase as a band with very few edits elsewhere, language/grammar issues with each, and a worrying tendency for both to go running to music-focused editors asking for "expert" help preserving the Phase-related articles.
    If you look at MusicPatrol's early contribs they're all copy-pasted tag bombs and baseless CSD tags on other bands. The tag-bombs MusicPatrol adds were identical to a set of tags that were placed on the Phase article when it was nominated for deletion in 2012, both in what tags were used and the order they were put in. All that was changed was the date: Original vs. MusicPatrol bombs: [26] [27] [28] (there are more at the bottom of MusicPatrol's contribs page, and more that are visible to admins in their deleted contributions). And yet MusicPatrol never edited the Phase article until 2017, so how did they find that specific tag pile to copy/paste if they weren't keeping an eye on the page? I'm thinking the MusicPatrol account was created as a bad hand to Asouko's good hand, as some kind of POINT-making tit-for-tat exercise ("if our band gets tagged so does everyone's"). They did a little more of that behavior when they initially returned in 2017 as well.
    As an aside, MusicPatrol didn't participate in the original AfD for Phase, but a user called User:Hibaghanem did. Hibaghanem also only ever edited Phase-related content and did participate in the Phase AfD, complaining that Phase wasn't any worse than a bunch of other bands, many of whom were among those tag bombed by MusicPatrol as noted above. Hibaghanem's first edit is to add Phase to the discography of Duncan Patterson ([29]), and Asouko's second edit (after creating Phase's article) is to wikilink that addition to point to Phase (band) ([30]). Later, Hibaghanem nearly blanks MusicPatrol's talk page, removing a huge amount of "speedy-declined" template messages. Then Hibaghanem leaves a message that complains about MusicPatrol's tagging of the now-deleted Black Winter page, which Asouka had edited but Hibaghanem never had. While that's not proof positive of anything prohibited, the behavior of all three accounts strikes me as massively sketchy at least. Hibaghanem is stale now though. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    {moved from User talk:PMC. Lourdes 01:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

    I see you've raised concerns about me... I appeared on wikipedia to correct what I thought of being dodgy in here, pretty much like SubRE done but after admins talked me into correcting articles I have done so. I crossed Phase as I was browsing Anathema's page and then checked Asouko's edits and logged in and tried and revert the edits unsuccessfully. And it ended up being some sort of Vendeta. I don't know what's wrong in that really. MusicPatrol (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Also I noticed you've done a great job Reading all the logs and that which I had done the first three days of the thing my self, it appears that Hibaghanem was a photographer from Syria and the account being not used makes sense, Syria being a warzone. All the edits she's done where changed by Colonieschris. About Asouko I don't think being protective over an article you've created, and SubRE can be proved useful for wikipedia if he is reading the guidelines before he is waiting anything. But that's just me again. MusicPatrol (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What raises my eyebrows is that you showed up, supposedly as a brand new user, and no more than 10 minutes after you registered your account, you started tag bombing other bands with the exact same tag combo (even in the same order!) as had been placed on the Phase (band) page. That's extremely unusual behavior for new editors. Most n00bs will copyedit here or there, add in little factoids, or maybe try to create a new article. But turning up out of nowhere and slapping piles of maintenance tags and CSD tags on a slew of articles all in a row? It's unusual to the point of absurdity.
    Both you and Asouko have extremely similar writing patterns, with grammar and spelling errors and overuse of ellipses, you have the same obsessive interest in a select few articles, you have the same tendency to go running to other music-focused editors asking for "expert" help. You guys are not passing the duck test in my opinion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly enough for an SPI, imo. Snow let's rap 06:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I one learns from observation... go and check SubRE's behaviour and you will notice how he did clumsy edits and then started changing the patterns copying other editors' behaviour after being told... I've been using wikipedia for ages before I stepped in... Anyhow I don't see why I should even be defending my self on that, it feels a bit silly if you are asking me... You can go ahead and do whatever you feel it's proper. You were appointed as an admin after all! what I couldn't take was trying to talk somebody into not doing something I was told not to do either and it all kicked off from there. I trust you will do what's best for wikipedia, I might as well carry on adf-ing pages after that if that's the correct way to go after allMusicPatrol (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And thank God we did ask for admins to see these else nobody would see the logs. The whole argument seems like an Ad Hominem rather that checking the facts you are attacking me personally. Let me know if there's any chance to send you my phone number privately and talk, because arguing on line doesn't itch any scratch for me MusicPatrol (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if it might be procedurally appropriate, but I'll request DoRD (if they agree) to check the said Afds for any socks. Thanks. Lourdes 18:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've opened an SPI with a CU request: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Asouko. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Please view Shady59's behavior at C. Ronaldo

    The article has been fully protected, and the content dispute is being discussed on the talk page. Paul August ☎ 21:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Could someone please view the behavior of user Shady59 at the page of C. Ronaldo. There has been a thorough discussion about a particular sentence in the article and the majority disagreed with him. Still he's trying to push his opinion by constantly reverting the changes that have been made. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Majority disagreed? When did that happen? The experienced users have the same opinion as me where as some relatively new accounts created during the start of the discussions are the ones who disagreed. Max Eisenhardt is trying to push his POV whereas others are stating as per citations. Shady59 (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously, stop lying! We requested an RfC on the talk page and after 30 days by far the most people who commented on this issue thought it was completely inappropriate to refer to C.Ronaldo as 'the greatest footballer of all time'. You simply don't have any sources that state he's the greatest of all time. And stop accusing me of POV, while you're the one who's constantly trying to push his own POV agenda. Also, stop this nonsense about 'experienced' users'. It's simply about the arguments you give and the majority (which happens to include a lot of experienced users) don't agree with you. Stop vandalizing the page! Max Eisenhardt (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Most people who commented? Majority of experienced editors with around 100,000 edits agreed to keep the statement, whereas you & some new user accounts disagreed. I wouldn't even mind to go as far as thinking there could be sock puppets involved. Shady59 (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is laughable! The most experienced users? What the hell are you talking about? I'm not experienced enough so my opinion doesn't count? Also, there are plenty of experienced users who are against you and your POV, and you now this very well. We already summed them up at the talk page: 'the amount of users who are not in favor of the current introduction: scope_creep, Pincrete, Icewhiz, Collect, O'Flannery, Prayer for the wild at heart, Nabla, Erik0609 and myself. So stop this ridiculous behavior. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've full protected the article and removed the sentence to the talk page so the editors may work towards achieving consensus. This is still a content dispute and the edit-warring has been halted. Go work it out. No further admin action necessary at this time.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Rangeblock for Hillingdon UK to stop the Frenchie vandal

    IPs blocked. Paul August ☎ 20:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    At Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Frenchie vandal you can see that some IP6 addresses from Hillingdon are being used by the vandal. I would like to see a rangeblock set for 2A02:C7D:14EC:9300:xxx if possible. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that these are all block-evading IPs, as Special:Contributions/79.78.129.41 is blocked for six months. Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Six-month hardblock for the /64 range.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also noting the range contribs and that the earliest IP in that range began editing on March 10 here and that every single edit within that range since that time has been him which is why I chose the lengthy block time.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent work. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Pincrete, TheGracefulSlick and the Malmo arson attack

    (non-admin closure) The AfD is now closed and the involved parties have had something of a meeting of the minds here. In any event, there is no further action being requested by an party and none that appears necessary. Snow let's rap 01:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    An article I started 2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson was brought to AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Malmö ISIS-related arson earlier this month and kept. That first AfD was started by CrispyGlover, an editor with all the hallmarks of a sockpuppet, but I have no idea whose and am not accusing anyone. After being kept, the article was aggressively edited by Pincrete in what I regard as a POV manner. Next, it was brought ot AfD by TheGracefulSlick, an editor with whom I have disagreed on a series of terrorism-related AfDs. Eariler today, I did a careful revision of the article. Then, 5 hours ago TheGracefulSlick closed the article as Keep, withdrawing her nomination. She did not, however, do a proper close. This enabled Pincrete to follow her to the article 6 minutes after TheGracefulSlick closed it, iVoting Keep. Pincrete also reverted the article to the version last edited by TheGracefulSlick yesterday when she brought it to AfD. After which TheGracefulSlick returned, reverting her comment to reopen the discussion. I would like an administrator to take a look at the Afd.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Diffs: The Malmo article after my last edit [31], the Malmo article after Pincrete's reversion [32]. Some examples of my edits that Pincrete eliminated: [33], [34], [35].E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding CrispyGlover, I quite honestly have no idea who he is, and that is why I am accusing no one. I brought it up here because he started the first of the two AfDs on this topic. He shares behaviors with blocked sockpuppets who have been banned after discussion here, two of whom I knew well - to my sorrow. For example, his 4th edit was opening this user page [36], his 5th this talk page [37], he then weighs in at an AfD [38], demonstrating a familiarity with WP:GNG, although he edits occasionally, he very often edits at AfD, where we met in May at an unusually heated IP and terrorism-related AfD [39]. I looked him up because while that that AFD had a large number of editors, almost all of there are regulars in the IP area, he was an unfamiliar name at a AfD that attracted sockpuppets, leading to this interaction [40]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • TheGracefulSlick's behavior in first closing [41], then 5 hours later, reopening [42] this AfD is just strange.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    I don't know anything about this particular conflict, but posting diffs that illustrate the problems you're talking about would probably help. Alephb (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @E.M.Gregory: please don't post accusations without evidence, and saying "X has all the hallmarks of a sockpuppet, but I'm not accusing anyone" is really disingenuous. You also don't seem to have alerted a single one of these users that you've mentioned. I guess I'll do it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may I would like to prove some constructive criticism.... Gregory you at times go into overkill when it comes to keeping articles. You have valid points but I feel it would be best if you let other editors speak for themselves as well, try toning down at responding to every comment. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you can assert "at all times," you have not looked at my editing record. Admittedly , I get hot under the collar when discussions of terrorism get political, but even there when being repeatedly insulted by TheGracefulSlick at multiple simultaneous AfD discussions, I was insistent, but not rude. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @E.M.Gregory: Knowledgekid 87 said "at times", not "at all times". Doug Weller talk 05:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Terrorism is a political issue here in the United States (even though it really shouldn't be). If you feel that you are insulted then do your best to try to focus your edits on the AfD rather than the editor (This can be hard, I am not saying it is easy). Remember that each comment is weighed at the end by the closing admin. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am quite happy to go into detail both about why I reverted specifics, and what support my position has received from other editors, should anyone wish. Would E. M Gregory care to explain why they added textual claims that this was (Islamic) terrorism when they know that a Swedish court has decided it was not. Would they care to explain what he knows that the court did not and why they are indifferent to making such claims about an acquitted individual to whom BLP applies, since the acquitted is identifiable, even if not identified. Pincrete (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Acquitted individuals can be proven guilty by evidence that surfaces after the trial. The Malmo arson attack article was created at a point when the accused arsonist had not only been acquitted by a Swedish court for insufficient evidence, but had been immediately transferred form police custody to the custody of the Swedish Security Services to be investigated for suspected ties to the Islamic State (with a possible penalty of deportation). The article was started after the high profile arrest of an ISIS operative in Germany, an arrests that was covered in-depth by major world media because it revealed important aspects of how ISIS operates in inciting terrorist attacks outside the Middle East, and those articles include detailed material on this case - detailed in the additions to the article that I made and that Pincrete deleted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Re:"Acquitted individuals can be proven guilty by evidence that surfaces after the trial", in some jurisdictions they can, but only IF CHARGED, no source suggests this person has been or will be charged. The individual is being held for possible deportation, not for retrial. The rest is pure fantasy on your part which everyone who has read the sources agrees with. Pincrete (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment who exactly is being accused of what here? I'm one of the named, but even I can't work that out. Pincrete (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you guys should just work this out on the article's talkpage. Start an RfC or something on the matter.. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe Pincrete is being accused of violating NPOV guidelines (an accusation generally not actionable on this board), but nothing else. Some of the other editors involved need to be advised to follow AfD guidelines, but I don't think any of the un-orthodox behavior here is actionable. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - E.M.Gregory can we just close this thread and move on? I closed the AfD in the first place because I felt I was being pressured by you with your constant comments about me -- not the notability of the subject -- at other AfDs. You yourself do not have clean hands with your constant WP:BLUDGEONing and recent casting of asperations. For what it's worth, I'm finished nominating unnotable terror attacks for awhile. Too much WP:UNCIVIL behavior for my tastes.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The AfD has been closed as Keep by User:TheGracefulSlick, so I am more than willing to have this discussion closed. It would, however, be useful if some generous and skillful editor would go to [[43]] and make a link to the AfD that closed on 1 August appear. The link to the AfD is [44].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User Umair Aj is harrasing me since several days

    The user Umair Aj is been harrasing me since several days. My first encounter with them was when they were promoting Pakistani singers on the article of singing. Since then they are following me and are deleting my contributions and removing well sourced contents and references. And mass tagging Afd on my reliably sourced articles please do something. User was previously blocked for sockpuppeting, Please see the users sockpuppeting investigations Anoptimistix Let's Talk 12:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It is really surprising. I just edited Arjit Singh as per impartiality of tone and undue weight, peacocking, and overuse of quotes but being a fan of Arjit Singh, User:Anoptimistix felt offended. I invited him on the talk page of Arjit Sigh to resolve the issue and also requested the admin to raise the protection level of the article as User:Anoptimistix was persistently adding promotional material which was also removed by other editors. Last but not the least proposing an article for deletion which fails WP:RS is not a harassment.-Umair Aj (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's interesting, but you've been blocked for using multiple accounts to evade scrutiny before. Are you saying you didn't do that? -- Begoon 13:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You can report me for sockpuppeting but are you saying that under discussion issue is not per the guidelines or is there any violation?-Umair Aj (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I'm asking a simple yes/no question. You can respond either way, not at all, or anything inbetween. That's entirely up to you. -- Begoon 13:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Then we should restrict ourselves to impartiality of tone, undue weight and peacocking which is obviously removed by me.-Umair Aj (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional question: Why don't you want to answer the above question? -- Begoon 13:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You are also avoiding my question. Is there any violation of policy on my part?-Umair Aj (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know. That's what my questions were hoping to establish. At a guess, yes, you've got "POV sock" written all over you, but I won't make the judgement. -- Begoon 13:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Then don't guess because he who guesses always creates impediments. My question is simple, removing promotional material/proposing deletion is a violation?-Umair Aj (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "he who guesses always creates impediments". Thank you. I collect bizarre stuff like that. Today I saw on some packaging: "MSG has not been invited". I'm indebted. Have a nice day. -- Begoon 14:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You are welcome. From your questions it is pretty obvious that you are indeed a collector of bizarre stuff like this I'm "getting at" nothing. You also have a nice day. By the way you did not answer my question?-Umair Aj (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit conflict: Begoon, I believe Umair Aj's confusion (and my own) is about the relevance of your line of questioning about his use of multiple accounts. He received a ban for it almost two years ago, there's no indication he's done it since, there's no suggestion he's done it recently, and he hasn't claimed that he was innocent of the first offence. What are you getting at? Cjhard (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Then it should have been an easy question. I'm "getting at" nothing. Thanks for turning up. -- Begoon 14:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Umair Aj were persistently deleting references and contents from the article of Singh for which I reported them at WP:ANEW. Further they were intentionally misinterpreting peacocking, as the guide says only unattributed contents are peacocking and also misinterpreted MOS:Quote and violated Original wording policy by removing direct quotes. Administrator CambridgeBayWeather restored the content.Umair Aj wanted to deceive other users that I am not interested in the discussion by not pinging me on the talk page of Singh, and were using uncivil language while interacting me on my talk page. Further they were stalking my contributions history to wait for an opportunity to take my newly created articles for Afd. The sockpuppet user might also use multiple accounts in past and future to harass other users if not restricted now. Anoptimistix Let's Talk 14:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Please check the following songs by Arjit Singh. It will be clear that Anoptimistix is a fan and doing promotional stunts. "Phir Bhi Tumko Chahunga", "Uska Hi Banana", "Aayat", "Raabta", "Ae Dil Hai Mushkil", "Muskurane", "Laal Ishq", "Kabhi Jo Baadal Barse", "Samjhawan", "Suno Na Sangemarmar", "Ilahi", "Sooraj Dooba Hain", "Sanam Re", "Soch Na Sake", "Mast Magan", "Bolna", "Sawan Aaya Hai", "Gerua", "Janam Janam", "Nashe Si Chadh Gayi", "Khamoshiyan", "Hamari Adhuri Kahani", "Enna Sona", "Dilliwaali Girlfriend", "Palat", "Dharkhaast", "Kabira", "Zaalima", "Yeh Ishq Hai", "Alvida", "Baatein Ye Kabhi Na". This user also used IP addresses to add promotional material.-Umair Aj (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment by Anoptimistix: Show me the evidence, where I used IP address. Many of the song's article like "Sooraj Dooba Hain, Man Mast Magan, Suno Na Sangemarmar, Kabira, Samjhawan we're not mine, neither I edited it. I have created many articles about many topics, I am also a music lover I frequent creates notable songs article with reliable references, which are quite popular in India. If you have any problem with music or songs sung by Singh or dislike them., then I cannot do anything to change your taste. I have started many articles according to policies and guidelines backed by Reliable sources. Started songs articles are not crime. Further most of them are not indexed by search engines as pirated and unpirated files are indexed, so your doubts about promotion should be clear. These songs articles which I started had been used by many editors for inlinking purposes.

    Umair Aj is attempting to divert the discussion, as they have been reported many times for sockpuppeting, vandalism, edit warring, the user neither neither creates contents , nor adds contents in existing articles. Their only job is to damage the articles and harrass users. Anoptimistix Let's Talk 14:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Anybody around to do a quick range block?

    Please see the history page of IP 99.53.112.186. A number of IPs within the same range are vandalizing this IP. I've blocked three. I think they are a government server in France. Anyway, they're targeting one IP. — Maile (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    They were initially targeting user:Lomita, but turned on me when I started to intervene. If you look at user:Lomita, you will see that this vandal has been around for at least a week. If you do a range block, there will be multiple ranges to cover. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice at User Lomita that actually left an edit summary with a profanity meant for you. Per admin below, would you like me to semi-protect your talk page? If so, how long? — Maile (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's quite an extreme range block to perform, but possible (with 16 separate range blocks) at a real push, and not for any real length of time. It's about a million IP addresses - semi-protection seems the better option here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not want my talkpage semi-protected, otherwise, I could not edit it. However, I already added a semi-protection request for user talk:Lomita. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst I appreciate that, if it's a choice of semi-protecting your talk page, a /12 range block, or expiry from extreme boredom, then your opinion will have been counted but your talk page is likely to be getting locked. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am okay if you can't do a range block, but I do not want my talkpage getting protected. I would rather put up with these socks targetting me than not be able to edit my own talkpage.99.53.112.186 (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was looking at how weird the ranges are. I'm pretty sure the first one I opened showed the French government. Some of them now say it's the United States government. And one of them comes up rather international, the US government, the Canadian government, UK Parliament, and the Wimedia Foundation ... all rolled into a range for one IP 37.169.66.131. Spooky stuff. — Maile (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds suspiciously like the sensitive IP list. I figure all this range comes from Free Mobile, in France. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a lot for your action - --Lomita (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Aceruss slow-motion edit war

    Aceruss (talk · contribs) has engaged in an eight-month edit war on Rudy_Giuliani. By my count, Aceruss has made 28 edits reverted by seven editors (MShabazz, Objective3000, Volunteer Marek, Oshwah, General Ization, Bbb23, and WikiDan61) in this article. The editor has also made similar changes to: Crime_in_New_York_City, Mayoralty_of_Rudy_Giuliani, David_Dinkins, History_of_New_York_City_(1978–present) with additional reverts by additional editors. All of these edits are variations of the same subject; which I won’t bother describing since this filing is about a behavioral issue, not a content dispute. Very few of these edits were preceded by any attempt at gaining consensus and no consensus for these changes exists. A sampling of diffs: [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64].

    The user’s talk page includes nine related warnings for edit warring, disruptive editing and vandalism. I believe the article is under discretionary sanctions and may also be in AE’s bailiwick. Objective3000 (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This user apparently doesn't get it & shows no indication that he or she will make any attempt to understand how we do things here.Joefromrandb (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I agree that this constitutes edit warring as the user is repeatedly reverting changes to these articles and in-place of engaging in proper dispute resolution practices - that's what defines the spirit of the policy. There are discretionary sanctions imposed for many of the articles this user has been edit warring over. Given the number of times that this user has been warned for edit warring, as well as the notice left informing the user of discretionary sanctions applied (diff), I'm prepared to apply a topic ban for this user from editing any pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States, broadly construed. This won't fix the issue of the edit warring behavior in its complete entirety, but it'll at least start by placing sanctions and keeping problematic edits out of this topic area. Are there any objections? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That would appear to cover virtually all of the problem editing thus far. Objective3000 (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Happy to respond. There are two or three editors who act like they own the Rudy Giuliani page. They have expressed extreme dislike for Rudy Giuliani. There have been several other editors who have said my edits should stand. I am simply adding facts and balance with very reliable sources. I have used the talk page extensively as you can see and been very friendly to all, and been met by insults, threats, reverts and other unpleasantries in return from these two or three editors. Let me get to the heart of the matter here and then I will answer any questions you have for me.

    In October 2013, David Dinkins autobiography was published. In it he proclaimed he is the greatest crime fighter NYC has ever known. The next day editor PK800 started making edits on at least seven Wikipedia pages about these effusive uncorroborated claims. He was reverted multiple times and many editors spoke out against what he was doing, including Malik Shabazz. (see David Dinkins talk page). No one spoke in his favor. Yet he just kept re-reverting until others grew tired of this. Fast forward to NOV 2016 when I started editing. They did not welcome the newcomer, they chewed my head off.

    PK800 only used the talk page on one of his seven plus pages he put these claims on, the David Dinkins page. He achieved no consensus at all. The only source that says "Under the Dinkins administration, crime in New York City decreased more dramatically and more rapidly than at any time in New York City history" and other effusive claims is Dinkins autobiography.

    I and other editors put up literally dozens of RS: NY times, NY magazine, NY post, Time magazine etc all contradicting this autobiography. They never argue facts! They just revert and threaten.

    Here are two examples of what these guys are doing:

    1) page: David Dinkins I made an edit on 7-31-17 and stated the fact that the source does not say "Under the Dinkins administration, crime in New York City decreased more dramatically and more rapidly than at any time in New York City history" which it doesn't- it doesn't even mention Dinkins name once! see for yourself. Malik Shabazz reverted saying "it's what the source says"

    2)I added to page Rudy Giuliani the fact with solid RS that crime went up to record levels during Dinkins administration, yes it did go down some from that point at the end of his term which I left in. Objective3000 and Malik Shabazz continually revert my factual well sourced edits, which are balanced and add proper context.

    3) I have asked them both, why must PK800s edits with zero consensus, and corroborated only by Dinkins effusive factually incorrect autobiography stand as the only edit permissible?

    Why are my well sourced factual edits constantly reverted entirely mainly by these two editors?

    Thank you, I have more to say but will wait to hear from you, I have never been through this process before and look very much forward to clearing the air here.Aceruss (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Aceruss, do you understand what edit warring is? Yes or no? --Tarage (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t intend to respond to this unless someone thinks I should. I think the diffs and warnings from many editors speak to the issue. Besides, to be fair, there are worse outcomes than a Tban, and the editor may not realize the dangers in using a shovel here. Objective3000 (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If the user doesn't understand what edit warring is, I'd prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt and educate him instead of throwing a topic ban at him. This would be much more beneficial for everyone if resolving this issue is as simple as that... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I bow to anyone that is willing to take time to educate. But, the editor has got to learn to stop making unproductive comments like: They have expressed extreme dislike for Rudy Giuliani. That and most of what was posted above by the editor is simply false. And the heart of problem may be that the editor doesn’t know it’s false. I may be overanalyzing and leave it to more experienced editors. Objective3000 (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    PK800s edits had no consensus at all. Why must his edits be considered untouchable? Look at the disputes he got in long before I was around on the David Dinkins page. NO ONE agreed with him. Do we care about well sourced facts at all?Aceruss (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Aceruss - I understand that you have disputes and disagreements with some of the content added to these articles, but reverting these changes in a repeated back-and-fourth manner is not how to go about properly resolving them. Have you started discussions on the articles' talk pages with your concerns and pinged those involved so that they can comment and discuss it with you? Have you worked with them to come to a consensus with what the content should be changed to? These are some of the different parts of proper dispute resolution practices - things that you should do in order to properly sort out any disagreements. If you engage in repeated back-and-fourth reverting of content in articles as you've been doing (the diffs provided here clearly show this), and in place of following the processes outlined in the dispute resolution guideline, it's considered edit warring - which is absolutely not allowed on Wikipedia. Although there is a policy that serves a rule to judge what would be undoubtedly considered a violation of the edit warring policy, there is no time constraint or "rate limit" in principle; if you're repeatedly reverting others' changes on the article instead of following the dispute resolution guideline, you're engaging in edit warring. That's the best way to explain how this policy works.
    My honest goal here is to resolve this ANI discussion without having to resort to any sanctions or other actions; I really want to be able to close this discussion knowing that simply explaining this policy to you was all that was needed, but I need your acknowledgment that you understand these policies and what I've explained, and I need your commitment to discuss these disputes properly and no longer engage in any more edit warring. Can I trust that you understand these policies and that you'll follow them without allowing further incidents and disruption to occur? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t know PK800. But, I have to respond to this. I may be wrong, but the edit by PK800 that Acerrus refers to was three years ago and was removed quite a while back from the Giuliani article. Continuing references to this makes no sense. Objective3000 (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps that is something we can do. I have noticed on all modern NYC mayors articles (1965-present) there is absolutely no reference (not counting election results) to any other mayors accomplishments, good or bad, except all these Dinkins comments on Giuliani's pages put in by PK800. How about restoring the paragraph's relating to crime on Rudy Giuliani and Mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani and the Giuliani section on Crime in NYC back to their pre-PK800 readings (basically eliminating any Dinkins edits good or bad) and I posted my suggestions on David Dinkins page, but will leave that page for others to decide how to proceed there and if agreed I will also not edit the Giuliani sections in question for at least a year, we can all move on to other things, catch a breath, perhaps collaborate (or not) on other topics. Sound reasonable?Aceruss (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oshwah thanks for responding. There is something missing here. Have you taken a look at the Rudy Giuliani talk page? I might have used up too much Wikipedia bandwidth using it. Yes, I have. And the two or three of them will not allow ANYTHING to be changed on that page. And I am not reverting others changes they are reverting mine. I almost never revert an editors good faith edits wholly. I argue a point or two and we work it out to improve Wikipedia. I have done this on many other pages. I have educated myself on all Wikipedia guidelines. I follow them. These guys make up there own rules and gang up on me.

    1)is it not a rule to not bite the newcomers, they did to me 2)is it not a rule to argue the central point and not name call- they dont argue any points or facts they just threaten me and insult me 3) is it not a policy to assume good faith-they NEVER do to me 4)is it not a guideline to not give a significant/ insignificant minority viewpoint undue weight? A clear majority viewpoint is Giuliani lowered crime in NYC yet they treat any mention of it like a fringe theory 5) They use an auto-biography as their RS I use a ton of solid RS and they say theirs takes precedence 6)How about Grahams hierarchy of disagreement they are always in the bottom 2 or 3 never at the top refuting the central point 7)The statement Dinkins lowered crime more than anyone else in history is a complete falsehood. If I put Giuliani lowered crime more than anyone else in history (much closer to the truth) they would erase it in one minute 8) many other editors have supported me and as I said many said the same things against these guys before I arrived


    So yes I am trying to follow the Wikipedia rules and guidelines. But these 3 editors are making up their own rules.Aceruss (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Aceruss, you have not yet let us know that you understand what edit warring is or that you understand that edit warring is not allowed. Most importantly, you have not made a commitment to refrain from edit warring behavior in the future. This is troubling. You accuse other editors of making their own rules, yet you have so far failed to convince anyone that you understand this essential rule. Please explain your understanding of edit warring and your personal commitment to avoiding it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    SimonTrew at RfD

    SITE BANNED
    SimonTrew is now site banned from making any edits, anywhere on Wikipedia under any and all circumstances, based on the consensus reached in this discussion. Whether or not this sanction is subject to standard offer has not been discussed, and it is an unlikely option due to the nature of the user making explicit legal threats on multiple occasions. Alex ShihTalk 04:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I quite regret making this report as the editor I am about to report and I have collaborated with civility in the past, but I guess those days are long gone...

    SimonTrew (more commonly known as Si Trew) has violated their indefinite RfD topic ban: see the previous ANI discussion and/or search for their name at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions for details regarding their ban. See July 31's RfD page (and/or its history) for their blatant breach of their ban. After interacting with him on his talk page, I concluded that it was time to bring the issue here. Steel1943 (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I shall reply to this in the most honest way I can. Steelq1943 has already told me on my talk page that I had an an indefinite ban from RfD.
    • I believe that ban is unjustified. The disruptive behaviour is not byy me listing stupid index entries, but by User:Eubot making them. All I am trying to do is to fix them, that is to sau, to make the encylopaedia better.
    • It does no good, or indeed no goed, to have seven times as many entries in the index to the encylopaedia, that is to say the redirects, as there are articles. Two or three are ok for misspellings and such. What an encyclopaedia should do, I think, is let people who know that they don't know, look it up. It requires a very basic education to look up a dictionary, go to a library, or check an encyclopaedia.
    • It says on the front page, orr used to, "The encyclopaedia that anyone can edit". Apparently I cannot edit it. Or rather, I cannot make it better in the best way I know how to. I can translate articles, but not many articles come up at Wp:PNT that I can translate. I did two today.
    When User:Neelix listed ten thousand redirects it was given the WP:X1 concession. I actually argued against it being needed for User:Eubot needing the same concession, though others were arguing for it. I said we can handle it.
    • It seems to me that all I get is essentially the flak from User:Eubot creating these redirects, and my listing them.
    • Do you want to make the encylopaedia better or worse?
    1. If worse, just ban me.
    2. If better, we have to somehow manage these User:Eubot creations. I can get rid of the stupidest, and I can keep and reclassify the good ones. I tend, and have said at WT:RFD, it is about 60% keep, 30% delete, 10% don't know. I then get pulled up on not doing my homework on the 10%. I already did ninety percent of the work. Can't you do a little?

    And I didn't invoiliate their indefiinte ban. I invoilated, if i did, his indefinite ban. Don't pluralise me. Si Trew (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought my ban was for two weeks, I stayed away for three months. I do not need this farrago. But it is no surprise to me how Wikipedia loses intelligent, multilingual editors.

    00:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

    And Simon Trew did not inviolate their indevfnite ban. If he crossed the line, he inviolated his indefinite ban. I am not a plural. In any case, "indefinite" does not mean that it lasts forever. It means it lasts until someone says it doesn't. I say, it doesn't last now. Who is to tell me that it lasts longer? I have voluntarily stayed away to let the air cool. If we are going to get through the other 27,459 then someone has to do it. Throw your shit at Eubot, not at me. Si Trew (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked the user for 72 hours for multiple blatant violations of the topic ban. Based on the rhetorics above and previous community discussion, there should be another discussion about enforcing the later two options suggested should further violations take place without proper appeal. Alex ShihTalk 01:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject of any kind of ban does not get to decide when the ban ends. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Community ban discussion

    Noting here after the fact: the text of KrakatoaKatie's close implementing the community ban: "[User:SimonTrew] is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and all RfD-related pages, subpages and activities, broadly construed, and from nominating redirects for speedy deletion. This topic ban does not cover refining a redirect to point to a section of the page it already pointed to, nor does it cover other redirect-related edits such as tagging." Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The "later two options" mentioned by Alex Shih are these, from the close of the previous AN/I discussion by Krakatoa Katie:

    At this time, no consensus exists for an indefinite block or a site ban. However, if Si Trew continues to cause disruption or violates his topic ban, one or both of these two options is likely to follow.

    It's not clear to me that SimonTrew's current violations are sufficient to justify either of these options, but now that it's been made abundantly clear to him that his topic ban is indefinite and the only the community can lift it, any additional violations would, I think, be enough to start that discussion going. I hope the current block will suffice to steer him away from dealing with redirects in any fashion, even those things allowed under his topic ban, since it appears he cannot do so without wanting to take steps which violate his ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't changed my mind, but it's worth mentioning that a read of SimonTrew's talk page indicates an incredible amount of anger and arrogance on his part, and what seems to be a willful inability to collaborate and cooperate. Apparently, SimonTrew is never wrong, and anyone who crosses him by disagreeing with him or upholding policy by blocking him is always out to harm Wikipedia, because Wikipedia cannot (it seems) survive without SimonTrew's contributions. These behaviorial quirks should also be taken into account if and when the discussion about additional sanctions is begun. In the meantime, an admin would probably want to consider removing TPA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Good lord he is pounding on that keyboard isn't he. Holding on to shift for dear life. Yeah... it's time to remove him from Wikipedia. This is a temper tantrum. --Tarage (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, he is venting in all caps and is so emotional that he is not checking his spelling. I suggest that we let him try to cool off during his block, and see whether he complies with his topic ban upon his return. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well quite, but he has done this quite a lot over the years. Almost every time he is thwarted in fact. He does something, doesn't get his way, throws a tantrum. Some people just do not have the emotional maturity to handle rejection. Do you honestly believe he has learned his lesson this time? Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't buy this "I don't understand what 'indefinite' means". If he honestly doesn't understand that, and decides the only way to figure out is to 'test his ban', then he doesn't have the competency to edit. Either he is a fool or thinks we are, and neither is worth it. --Tarage (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added in the text of the ban above. FWIW I believe Si Trew when he says he doesn't understand what indefinite means. He has had difficulty interpreting guidelines like this in the past, which I believe is innocent but gets him in trouble anyway, especially his angry reactions when other editors try to explain things. If he would just listen and discuss when the community criticizes his edits, instead of digging in and stubbornly, angrily refusing to consider his own behaviour is the extent of the problem, he could be productive at RfD like he was yesterday at PNT and he has been in other places. It doesn't bode well that he violated the ban on his first day back and in particular that he's still preoccupied with the specific redirects which brought him to a ban in the first place. I'd like to wait for his current block to expire to see if he'll respect the ban after having the terms explained again, but I'm not very hopeful that this thread won't end in a community ban. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    His response [65] to my explanation on his talk page of the meaning of "indefinite" is not in the least encouraging, as it's full of finger-pointing, blaming others for his problems, the refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the community, and self-righteous flag-waving on his own behalf. As I said above, he seems incapable of believing that anything he does could be detrimental to the project, or that any decision he's made could possibly be wrong. In the end, this would seem to be a person who just isn't suited to editing here, regardless of the quality of any particular contributions. We shall see what happens when his block is up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ivanvector, like you, I tend to think Si could be being genuine in his professed misunderstanding of "indefinite". For a guy who's been editing here for so long, though, that does raise obvious, other issues. The bottom line question, though, seems to be "Can Si change his behaviour and fit in, enough that he isn't constantly causing shitstorms like this?" I don't know the answer to that. -- Begoon 13:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, I've increased the block to indefinite per NLT, based on what is pretty unambiguously a legal threat. I guess I should revoke talk page access too, but...I dunno, I don't really like doing this. As always, any admin is free to change the block in any way they feel necessary (and I welcome any criticism from anyone about it). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh sweet marinara, he's back on his "clean hands doctrine" nonsense. This is his third indefinite block for responding to good-faith polite criticism with an explicit, specific legal threat. Clearly he is not listening, won't listen, doesn't understand what this project is about, and shouldn't be here. Support indefinite ban per WP:CIR. I would strongly suggest indefinitely revoking talk page access as well, he's only going to use it to whine about the Eubot redirects that only he thinks are an issue worth any kind of urgency at all, and/or to issue further specific personal attacks and legal threats. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - As noted below, that comment about the "clean hands doctrine", if he thinks that erasing his talk page has anything to do with it, suggests incompetence or dangerous ignorance. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Support indefinite full site ban per my comments in the previous ANI discussion. The following is my response to Thryduulf regarding the proposed ban on Si Trew (which eventually became the topic ban Si Trew has now):

      Rather clear definition ... but will probably be breached at some point. Per my comments regarding implementing a full site ban on SimonTrew, given his history of blocks and actions, my ability to have confidence that such a ban will be followed is, unfortunately, very low. As I stated above that my opinion that SimonTrew should have a full site ban is "somewhat regrettably", it's because as Thryduulf and Ivanvector have alluded, he really is performing all of the edits on RfD in good faith and belief that he is making improvements to Wikipedia. However, the actions he takes following most edits he performs at RfD causes commotion that results in blocks (such as legal threats). If a RfD ban is the route that we are going to take (which I say is rather lenient at this point), then due to his history, after the first offense of breaking such a ban, the response shouldn't be a limited time or indefinite block ... it should immediately be a full site ban. Steel1943 (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

      ...I have interacted with Si Trew for years over RfD, and with his recent history of blocks and behaviors, I had very little confidence that he would be able to honor the community-enforced topic ban. Unfortunately, for the past year or so, his behavior has become so erratic that it is causing issues with community collaboration outside of RfD, most issues stemming from his talk page. In my opinion, he needs an indefinite full site ban to allow himself time to recompose, considering that all other methods performed thus far to suppress these behaviors have apparently been ineffective. That, and worse case scenario, if he cannot ever recognize his behaviors that result in issues with the Wikipedia community and/or cannot convince the community that he truly has a mindset to avoid troubles with the community, the site ban prevents such problems (such as the one that convinced me to start this discussion) from ever happening again. Steel1943 (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

     Comment: I've revoked talk page access and courtesy blanked the legal threats. Alex ShihTalk 17:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sadly support full ban. I've not been active at RfD of late so the ping above from Steel1943 was the first I was aware of this issue. Reading through this thread, I was all set to recommend leaving the 72 hour block as a final chance, with any further violation of the topic ban explicitly resulting in something like a 1-year block with an inverse topic ban after that (i.e. allowed to contribute only in a specific area). That was until I saw the legal threat. As this is the second time he's been on the receiving end of a block for making legal threats, in addition to all his other blocks, I'm unable to justify why he should be allowed to edit again. The community does not have infinite time to invest on one editor, and no matter how good his contributions may be to PNT overall the behaviour that resulted in my bringing him to this board a couple of months ago, to which he seems to have immediately re-engaged in on his return, is a significant net negative to the project. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support full ban - I've read this entire thread as well as his talkpage - I would've been happy with a 72hr block however unfortunately he couldn't keep his mouth shut, He's been blocked for threats before and I believe he promised he wouldn't do it again, There's alot of leniency when it comes to venting over blocks but threats are on another level and is certainly something that shouldn't be tolerated, Angry or not legal threats shouldn't be made,
    If unblocked he'll only violate his RFD ban again or again make another threat and the CIR issues certainly aren't helping so in short this place is better off without him and a community ban is the only best option for him and for us. –Davey2010Talk 22:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Joefromrandb: For those who are familiar with Si Trew and his actions (such as myself ... I've been interacting with him for almost 3–4 years), there are not any remaining alternatives. Si Trew has been given more WP:ROPE than most editors receive, and I can guarantee you that at this point, any alternative to a full site ban will not be effective. As Thryduulf roughly stated, Wikipedia should not have to carry the burden of dealing with Si Trew's bombastic actions whenever he resumes editing; his erratic attitude was what led to him being topic banned, and sure enough, he immediately breached his topic ban the day he started editing again. The only remaining option is a site ban. Steel1943 (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) A "zero-tolerance" ban was essentially the type of topic ban the community imposed on him. And if I recall, Si Trew in September 2016 had an indefinite block, including losing the ability to edit his talk page, due to legal threats (though his talk page access was restored about a week or so later.) As others have said during this thread, Si Trew has revealed a rather problematic WP:CIR issue that seems very unlikely to go away; he keeps repeating the same behaviors that lead him into issues with the community. Also, even when he takes prolonged breaks of 2–3 months (he has a few times now), once he comes back, he jumps right back into the confrontational attitude that puts him at odds with the community. At this point, I have very little confidence that he is capable of respecting the Wikipedia community as a whole. (I truly say this with regret since Si Trew and I were able to respectfully collaborate at WP:RFD in the past, but I don't think those days will ever return.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Site-ban based on the legal threat as well as the rest of the general history. The idea that keeping one's talk page clean has anything to do with the clean hands doctrine raises competency issues. Support a full site-ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban - I've read pretty deeply back into SimonTrew's history, and there' a lot going on there. I think there's somewhat of a linguistic and cultural problem which contributes to his POV concerning Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community, but it's not enough to explain it entirely, and, whatever its root causes (about which I won't speculate) it manifests itself as an inability to edit cooperatively and collaboratively without routinely going off the deep end. You can call this a competency issue, or you could say that he just doesn't get it, and seems incapable of getting it, and you'd be right either way. It's not enough, Joefromrandb, to have the goal of improving Wikipedia, one's idea of improving Wikipedia has to correspond (at least roughly) with the community's idea of what improving Wikipedia is, and one has to be able to go about it in ways that don't result in being antagonistic to the community; and if conflict with the community does occur, one cannot inflate the problem with self-congratulation, insults, and legal threats. This pattern of behavior from SimonTrew is absolutely clear, and there are no indications whatsoever that he will change, or that he is even interested in changing. As I said above, this is fundamentally someone who is unsuited to edit here, so a site ban is entirely justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Beyond My Ken: FWIW I don't think there are linguistic issues at play here, or at least not what is usually meant by that on Wikipedia. Si is a native English speaker (he's British iirc) living in Hungary, who speaks several other languages fluently (and some others less comprehensively than he seems to think, based on his rambles at RfD before he was most recently topic banned). I get the distinct impression that he does not get to speak English in person as often as he would like, which may be a contributing factor. When he is at his best, working with (not against) other editors and sticking to the point he can be a very valuable editor. Unfortunately this is only the case for some of the time, and while it used to be almost all the time it's now almost none of it. Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for that information, which I did not know. Nonetheless, I see something off about SimonTrew's use of language that I can;t quite put my finger on. Maybe, as you suggest, it has to do with not using English with frequency. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban I'm surprised at the amount of rope thrown over into the abyss. Stikkyy t/c 00:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support full ban per Wikipedia:Competence is required#Some common types (Social). It suffers from Only An Essay disease, but it concisely summarizes most of what has been said here with no backup in behavior policy or guidelines. Not that that basis is hard to find, we could start with WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NLT. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support full ban. I am not intimately familiar with Si since I don't spend time at RfD, but having read this thread, and the ranting on his talk page, it seems clear that enough is enough. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support full ban but I would not be at all surprised if this isn't the end of this... --Tarage (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban The amount of WP:IDHT on display here is staggering. Of even more concern is this user's apparently firmly-held belief that the community's wishes (up to an including community sanctions) are irrelevant so long as they do not see them as justified, which means the community has literally no leverage to forestall further disruption other than a block. Other comments here and behaviours discussed above paint a picture of an editor who doesn't not embrace (or even seem to fully understand) the collaborative nature of this project. I defer to the opinions of contributors who have wrestled with this user in the past as to whether he is likely to reform behaviour in the slightest, and whether a longterm block would be better than a site ban, but I have no hesitation about supporting removal from the project for the time being, whatever form that has to take. Snow let's rap 02:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban per the user's disruption and failure to adhere to the topic ban. —MRD2014 Talk • Edits 02:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban Having read through this discussion and his talk page and also the discussion earlier in the year that led to his RFD ban, Simon made it clear that he suffers from some mental illness. I will not patronise him by saying I understand, as I clearly cannot unless I suffered from the same affliction, but along that vein, the WP community tolerates a great deal. Many editors here have various sorts of conditions that make their everyday life hell but somehow, for the majority, they are able to get along with others. For those that cannot, especially in cases where there condition has clearly gotten the better of them, WP is not a medium that is in any way adequately equipped to manage that. In such times, including this one, all that can be done is to thank the editor for their contributions over the months/years and show them the door. Blackmane (talk) 03:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block. Clearly there is an intransigent WP:CIR problem that the community cannot waste any more time on. Softlavender (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Filipina user adding vanity edits to articles

    Could've reported this to SPI instead or perhaps to AIV, but I seem to notice a similar pattern here and here. Both use what I presume to be either a real name or perhaps a pseudonym, and both user's editing patterns seem to match up, i.e. jacking an existing article and replacing its contents with a vanity page either in Tagalog or broken English. Could it be just a coincidence or do I smell something fishier? Blake Gripling (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably just some kids being silly, not anything organized. You can ping me if there's more trouble, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User RexxS inserting himself into conflict and escalating an Edit War

    Softlavender : "someone please close this as completely non-actionable". Done. No good can come of this remaining open. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    RexxS has been entered into an edit war to retaliate against me for posting on a his friend's web page.

    First some background:

    From, back last January: "You can expect people you've had content disagreements with, like LynnWysong to be just as disruptive as they were last time." he apparently holds a grudge against me for my actions in Montanabw's last RfA.

    And, when in my frustration over MBW's lack of any real effort to engage on the talk page of an article, I posted on her talk page for the first time in almost 18 months. Upon seeing this, RexxS went over to the article in question, one that he has never edited before, and reverted my edits. I went to his talk page, and [66] called him on it. Instead of responding to me there, he wiped off my post, and ran over to my talk page, and tried to justify his initiation of an edit war basically admitting that had done it to retaliate. I tried moving the discussion back to his talk page, but he just deleted it. I then asked him that, since he had made it clear that his only reason for reverting my edit was too retaliate, would he please reverse his reversion. He wiped that off his talk page, and came over to mine and accused me of trolling, at which point I told him that any more retaliatory edits would force me to bring the matter here.

    I then let things cool off for several hours when I went back to the talk page, copied over my statements from MBW's talk page as she had requested, and reversed RexxS's reversion. Within two hours, he came back on, again reverted me accusing me of edit warring, and tried to make the case that the problematic paragraph I had identified earlier "was far superior". I replaced the problematic paragraph, telling him that, if he wanted to contribute constructively, he should address the issues I had brought up several weeks prior instead of escalating an edit war and possibly tag-teaming. He again reverted, and just repeated his statement that the paragraph "is superior" and accusing me of imposing my "own POV."

    As I stated on my first (first ever!) post on RexxS's web page, the only time I interact with him is when he feels the need to defend MBW, an editor which I'm sure most people agree is capable of taking care of herself, when I am in conflict with her. The first time was here, when he felt the need to come on my talk page for the first time, to chide me for doing what he had invited me to do. I can only guess what his motives are in escalating this situation the way he is, but I ask that he be told to back off. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I would also like to point out that RexxS violated the 3RR rule, his second reversion coming 13 hours after his first, and his third coming less than four hours after that. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Pedantic note—I have no horse (so to speak) in this race as I know nothing about horses and care less, but since RexxS has only ever edited the page three times then by definition it's impossible for him to have breached WP:3RR. ‑ Iridescent 12:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see that. Figured he would be smarter than that. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Another pedantic note: If you are reverted, you don't revert back (unless in a case of clear vandalism), but YOU use the talk page, please. WP:BRD is a smart guideline, meant to de-escalate. Be smart and follow it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Gerta for your input, but please read more carefully, especially before you make condescending statements telling me to "be smart". As I had stated, I was using the talk page, but, after several weeks, did not get a constructive response. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to point out, for all you BRD lovers out there, that I find that guideline to frequently abused, by editors that revert, then either disappear rather than engage, or if they do engage, do so in filibuster type manner just to try to get the other editor to give up and go away. So no, much of the time, following is NOT very smart. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Although, the basic dispute has been going on since 3 June, so to some extent, all concerned parties would appear to have been disappearing on and off without subsequent engagement. — fortunavelut luna 13:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And why would I edit if I thought the article was okay? The other editor would come, revert, then leave. I would revert back, and finally after her next to last reversion, I took it to talk. But, this is not about what took place befor RexxS came on the scene. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "The other editor would come, revert, then leave. I would revert back, and finally after her next to last reversion, I took it to talk." Seems to me, in passing, that the "taking it to talk" might profitably come a little earlier than that. No opinion on the rest of the dispute. -- Begoon 13:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe so, but in retrospect, the experience just reinforced my previous ones with BRD, which is why I'm not real quick to bother to go to talk. But, that's not at issue here. Please tell me what you think about what RexxS is doing. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What Rexx is doing? "Reverting changes which have not gained consensus on the article talk page" is not going to get him a slap on the wrist while he abides by 3rr. Especially since other editors also disagree with your contributions. If you mean "going to an article he hasn't edited before after seeing a dispute on a page he watches" - that's also unlikely to get him more than a finger-wag. Part of the eventual dispute resolution process is seeking third opinions from elsewhere. Think of this as a short-cut. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to go back months into the article to try to show which changes did not have consensus-but I'm not accepting your interpretation of the situation that it was mine that didn't. So, trying to let him off the hook but twisting the situation like that is not going to fly. But the bottom line is, his behavior regardless is unacceptable-at least in a community that plays by grown-up rules, which, I would hope would be the case here, if not elsewhere on the project. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well ultimately if you are not going to, no one else is either. From a quick skim of the last month of revisions on that article, its clear content has been disputed by multiple parties, of which Rexx is merely the latest to engage. Which means consensus is required on the talkpage. Complaining because someone *else* disagrees with you when they have neither broken or even bent Wikipedia policy is not going to go anywhere over a petty content dispute. Even a cursory glance of the above responses should indicate to you by now that Rexx is not likely to get sanctioned or even a formal warning. If your goal is meaningful resolution to the conflict, I suggest you to take it to the article talk page. If your goal is to remove one of the parties to the dispute, you will need far more evidence of disruption than you have provided so far. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not real quick to bother to go to talk. Lynn, you should probably reconsider that part of your approach. No opinion on the rest of the dispute. -- Begoon 15:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (EC) If the other editor does not engage then BRD has worked not failed. You open a discussion, wait for the other editor to engage and when no one does so, you're fully entitled with the realms of BRD to revert back. If you've opened a discussion, you come out looking a lot better than if you did not do so. In fact, when you fail to do so because you think you tthink the other editor is not going to properly engage, you're basicallly guilty of WP:Assuming bad faith. All in all, it doesn't help your case in any way. Even if the editor actually reverts again without discussing, while this is not necessarily an excuse to revert back, it does generally mean you're heading towards the stage where you can legitimate ask for an edit warring block because the editor keeps making the change without discussion when you yourself have made attempts to discuss.

    As for "filibustering" well first one persons filibuster is another person's fair discussion. More importantly, if a person is going to filibuster they're going to filibuster. By you actually opening the discussion you've demonstrated good faith and you can use some form of dispute resolution which is much more likely to be favourable to you when you've actually made a good attempt to discuss. OTOH if you get into a revert war, what's likely to happen is both of you will be blocked and no one will give a damn about the dispute because all they see are two idiots who don't know how to collobrate via discussion.

    Finally, it's intrisic on both sides to discuss and yes this includes initiating a discussion. If you come to ANI to complain, no matter whether you may say it's about WP:Hounding or revenge or whatever, you've automatically harmed your case by failing to initiate discussion. Actually many of us automatically ignore most cases where someone comes to complain about another editor's behaviour but has not actually initiated discussion themselves.

    In fact, it's even worse if it's a BRD type situation, and you reverted a second time rather than initating discussion and the other party then initiated discussion. Since while arguably a person should initiate discussion straight after reverting the first time (provided there seems to be a legitimate content dispute and not an error, vandalism etc), it's definitely clear that a person reverting a second time by themselves should initiate discussion generally before reversion. Since the behaviour of everyone involved may be inspected when you come to ANI, you should expect that your failings are going to harm your case, no matter if you feel, even if justifiably, that they are irrelevant. Let alone where they aren't actually irrelevant. Yes as I said earlier, it's still intrinsic on each party to initiate discussion, so both parties are going to come out looking bad if they keep reverting without discussion in a BRD type situation it comes down faster on the party in the B corner even if their failure to initiate discussion before reversion isn't generally a good reason to revert again before discussion has takenn place.

    Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    So, what would you call refusing to address specific criticisms on a paragraph, instead just flippantly saying in one's opinion, "it's superior". Sounds like filibustering to me. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But that is not the case here. I had initiated discussion weeks prior. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not insert your comments into the middle of my sign comment, it's unnecessarily confusing. Incidentally, I have no real interest in discussing this further. I have particularly no interested in analysing the details of whether something is or isn't filibustering other than to say I think you've misunderstood my main point. Whether something is filibustering is often going to be disputed but even if there is unanimous agreement it is, there's also going to be almost unanimous agreement that this doesn't excuse someone failing to initiate discussion, especially since there is no way to reliably predict how the discussion will evolve. Also precisely what time this happened is mostly besides the point. BRD means bold, revert, discuss. So making a bold edit may be fine, but if someone reverts then you discuss. If you were bold and were reverted weeks prior then you should have discussed weeks prior before you reverted again weeks prior. The fact you failed to initiate a discussion before reverting again weeks prior is never going to come out in your favour even if you did later initiate a discussion after the second revert. (Actually initiating the discussion is a positive but it doesn't excuse the initial failure. And it's even less justifiable when your reason for failing to do so appears to be because of a poorly thought out rejection of BRD.) As I already said, I'm not particularly interest in he precise detaisl in time frames involved, I'm more concerned about your dismissive attitude towards BRD and have tried to emphasise why it's both harmful to wikipedia, and harmful to your editing for you to fail to observed it. Nil Einne (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I'm still fairly confused and can't be bothered clarifying the precise time frames involved, I'll emphasise another point I already made. If you initiate a discussion and receive no reply, after a while it's usually fair to reinstate the change with an appropriate edit summary (e.g. "No objections to talk page comments so assuming consensus"). But once someone has reverted the change again, having initiated the discussion and failing to receive a response isn't generally an excuse to straight away reinstate the change again. Instead you need to give time for the person to respond on the talk page and you then need to participate in the discussion. Yes it's annoying when you've waited and received no response but it's easily possible someone just missed the talk page discussion. In this sort of case you'll probably be perceived less harshly than if you had taken ages to initiate a discussion but it's still no excuse to keep trying to force the change through despite their being objections on the talk page. (And again this is regardless of how long it took these objections to come up.) Remember that WP:Consensus should always be the goal, and there are plenty of options for dispute resolution if you get stuck. And ultimately even if not viewed so harshly, the fact of the matter is trying to force through a change despite objections even if you've already waited and the objections only came after the first justifiable reintroduction is still not going to be seen positively, especially when you display a dismissive attitude towards BRD. Nil Einne (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. Just as a quick comment, I haven't looked into the actual dispute. Also one thing I forgot to emphasise is it's easily possibly a person will quickly come round to your side during discussion. Ideally revert wars shouldn't actually harm that, but in reality human nature likely means in some cases if you only get around to making your points after the person has gotten annoyed with you for continuing to revert, they're going to be less willing to come round to your POV. In other words, BRD is recommended for good reason. By failing to observe it, very often you're harming your goal, not helping it. This is a colloborate project which means discussion is a key part of participating. Nil Einne (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    From my perspective, when LynnWysong posts complaints about content issues on another editor's talk page, then she really ought to expect talk page watchers to notice, especially when she announces "I am reverting back". That piqued my interest and I looked at the current state of the article and its talk page, where LynnWysong had not replied to the points made by Montanabw (whose talk page she had posted on). She has now gutted the introduction in the first paragraph of the section Free-roaming horse management in North America #Land use controversies four times [67], [68], [69], [70] against the objections of both Montanabw and myself (although only the last three were within 24 hours). This kind of battle-field mentality and forcible change through edit-warring ought not to be rewarded. I have consistently asked LynnWysong to engage on the talk page to seek some kind of consensus, with little success. From her comments there, it seems to me that her stance on the article is "my way or the highway", and I'm not at all keen to see that gain sway as a means for article change. --RexxS (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    On what planet would one have to live to think that I was not engaging on the talk page????? I wrote a specific set of criticisms of the material I reverted on July 9, only to be reverted three weeks later with vague implications of POV pushing and edit warring. I referred you to those criticisms, which you ignored. The points you are saying were made by Montanabw were made by ME! Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Gerda Arendt: and @LynnWysong: (pinging LynnWysong second because they may merely have been misled by earlier comments in this discussion) please take note of the fact that, contrary to your comments above, WP:BRD is just as much not a guideline as WP:CIR is not. Please avoid referring to it as such, in order to avoid confusion. MPS1992 (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: Sorry to confuse you, and to concern you with my dismissive attitude towards BRD. But it is not a guideline, merely a suggestion. When it works, great. When it doesn't work, it shouldn't be used to hammer someone. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: And, just a polite suggestion, when you are making a multipoint criticism of someone, maybe you should sign after each paragraph. Makes it much easier for someone to defend themselves. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for my sloppy way of using the term "guideline" in a broader sense: I mean it as a good model for behaviour that prevents escalation. I live well on a voluntary 1RR, sometimes even stick to 0RR, and can recommend to try it: when you are reverted, don't change the article but go to the talk page and find consensus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the reasons I don't like BRD is because reverting is basically a hostile act, especially after someone is told to be bold. Much more collaborative to ping the editor first, and tell them you have problems with their edits. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "reverting is basically a hostile act". That's an attitude you'll want to drop if you want to avoid disputes like these in the future. Cjhard (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your opinion. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The opinion is shared by most people on wikipedia, so you should take it on board if you want to survive here. Nil Einne (talk) 04:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @LynnWysong: The first revert is a hostile act only if you choose to see it that way. I choose to see the first revert as (by far) the easiest way to say "I dispute this edit, and here's why in 25 words or less." It also (1) removes the disputed edit immediately, instead of waiting perhaps days or weeks for a consensus to be reached, which is a good thing, and (2) conveniently sends the other editor a notification of the challenge (if they are a registered user editing logged in). Editors who view things this way work quite nicely together. It could be said that your position on this violates WP:AGF, since you would incorrectly assume that my routine first revert is hostile to you.
    As to especially after someone is told to be bold, you might want to actually read WP:BOLD beyond its title. The second paragraph begins with "Don't be upset if your bold edits get reverted." It even boldfaces that so you won't miss it.
    (No need to thank me for my opinion.) ―Mandruss ☎ 06:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As said before, I can't be bothered responding to anything else but this suggestion is simple enough. The answer of course is there's no reason to do so. Just respond after my signed comment like everyone else does. My comments were intended to be read as a whole and explicitly not divided into parts. It should be fairly obvious what you are responding to if you comment is clear and in those few cases where it's not you're free to quote a small part of my comment. Nil Einne (talk) 05:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    BTW since I read one of your other responses to me, I'd note you seem to be concentrating way too much on flawed wikilawyering about the words. The point about BRD is if often works. When it doesn't you haven't made things worse by following it. Failing to follow it however very often makes things worse for everyone involved. Even if you don't care about anyone else which is a very bad attitude to have on wikipedia, you should care that as this case has amply demonstrated, your failure to follow it significantly harms any complaint you have. And yes this applies even if it's a legitimate one.

    The point about BRD is that while it should nearly always be followed, it's often not helpful to take action (whether against the editor or in the article) because someone didn't follow it, it just makes things worse. There's no enforcement mechanism and rightly so and it's already supported by existing policies and guidelines.

    But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be followed or that the person failing to follow it isn't harming wikipedia or their own case. Note as the page says, it's neither a guideline nor a policy but rather an explanatory supplement to how things work, see also the linked Wikipedia:Project namespace#How-to and information pages. In other words, there's nothing about it which means it's something that should beignored because you don't like it and it's explicitly not a mere suggestion. Treating it as such is likely to significantly harm your career here on wikipedia.

    Nil Einne (talk) 05:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    So, basically

    As it finally comes out here, @RexxS: read my comment on Montanabw's talk page, came over the article talk page, and through careless reading of the talk page, assumed that Montanabw had made the points that I had made, and to which in three weeks she had not responded to but simply reverted my edits and made a quick response implying that the issues were with my POV and sourcing issues (Yeah, right, BRD just works great). He then took up "her" cause, thinking that it was I, not her, that was gutting the lead paragraph, and kept reverting to the "gutted" version, saying it was the "superior" version. This is what happens when people just jump in is situations in which they have no history to defend their "friend", and really don't care enough to be sure that said friend is in the right. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    No, basically

    It certainly does come out, LynnWysong, but in your haste to battle, you never bothered to read properly, did you? I never said anything about the lead. My complaint is about you gutting the first paragraph of the Free-roaming horse management in North America #Land use controversies section as anyone can verify by reading my comment above, and my comment on the talk page: "The section on Land use controversies contains several themes: how free-roaming horses are viewed by the interested parties; the nature and extent of problems arising; and how management might solve those problems. I believe that the version with six paragraphs has a far superior introduction, which sets the scene for the rest of the section and the themes it encompasses. Without that introduction, the alternate, shorter, three-paragraph version seems to me to flit from one idea to another in a less structured way, which is confusing for the reader. I see no reason for an edit war to force one editor's preferred version over one that is easier to comprehend." (RexxS) Here are the four diffs again of you removing that content: [71], [72], [73], [74]. You have made no attempt to address either Montanabw's comments nor mine, beyond your misreading of the point I made: "I disgree the lead paragraph is far superior, for the reasons I gave above. I've replaced it." (LynnWysong). And that sums up your behaviour. You didn't bother to properly read what I wrote; you jumped to a mistaken conclusion, and decided that you knew best, so reverted back to your preferred version of the article as your natural reaction. You're an edit-warrior who is disappointed at not getting your own way, and are now trying to smear all of the folks who don't agree with you. Perhaps it's time you read WP:BOOMERANG? --RexxS (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Um, could you please tell me what Montanabw's comments are? Oh - and I concede to your minor point. You did say "introduction in the first paragraph of the section Free-roaming horse management in North America #Land use controversies " and I replaced it with "lead", but <edit> obviously <end edit> meaning the same paragraph <edit> since that is the one I replaced <end edit>. Now, just what were Montanabw's comments? Please copy and paste them here. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @RexxS: I forgot to ping you on my last question. And, since I don't want to keep everyone in suspense, here's a dif to Montanabw's only edit to the talk page since 2015: [75] The one I responded to on her talk page. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Trout or Boomerang to the OP; someone please close this as completely non-actionable

    There's nothing actionable here. No 3RR was breached. This is so far some sort of content dispute that was inappropriately discussed on a usertalk page and someone else saw it. There's no evidence of longterm behavioral problem in the reported editor. Please keep all content discussions on article talk and nowhere else. Utilize WP:DR and/or WP:ANEW as necessary. Trout or boomerang the OP for wasting everyone's time over a single run-of-the-mill everyday occurrence; no breach of policy. Softlavender (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Late to the party here, but in a nutshell, I am really appalled that LynnWysong (SLW) has chosen to go after RexxS, who is well-respected across Wikipedia for his level head and insightful commentary. I can state unequivocally that I did not ask RexxS to look into this particular article nor to intervene on my behalf. SLW brought this one upon herself by posting an attack at my talkpage, and in doing so alerted my 300-and-some talk page watchers to the issue. I agree with Softlavender that the complaint here should be closed. RexxS did nothing wrong, and in fact attempted to bring the article in question into compliance with WP:NPOV policy. Montanabw(talk) 04:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    gentlecollapse6 and his editing of Channel Pressure

    Recently, I've been working on the article about Ford & Lopatin's album Channel Pressure. This has included adding a fair amount of essential analysis and opinions about the record for reliable sources to showcase the album as great as possible, not too much unlike other high-quality album articles like 21, Revival, and this featured article about a record by The xx. However, a user named gentlecollapse6, who I've seen also work on a fair amount of Daniel Lopatin-related articles, has kept turning my edits into short, weak general summaries, removing numerous essential and useful facts about the records for invalid, absurd, and non-guideline-related reasons such as, in his words, "overzealous fan sticking his interests in the face of everyone else," "ridiculous and annoying," "geeky fan page," "nerdy detail vomit," and "it's an article on a cool, slightly obscure side project that you've now made totally un-obscure by wringing every piece of writing you could find on it, thereby misrepresenting its scholarly significance in general." Not that I mind the WP:UNCIVIL tone of what's he saying that much (heck, I've been guilty of that, before) but it's very clear he's trying to change the article how he personally thinks the article should be rather than how album articles should work based on how a normal and experienced Wikipedian would view the quality of an article. I'm really not seeing what he's trying to go for with not having an article "compile every possible written fact about relatively obscure subject." I think an article should cover all minor but essential viewpoints about a subject no matter how "obscure" it is. My addition and expansion of information to the article is like how any other high-quality article is detailed, and gentlecollapse6 needs to understand that information from independent will not be removed just because he thinks it's "geeky" and "vomit." He's also shortened the lead too much and even has gone as so far as to make an entire section into a small note citation because he thinks it unimportant...... not even joking. These are not productive edits this user is doing. editorEهեইдအ😎 16:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Imo, the article is absolutely fine as it is now. EditorE has made some valuable additions but generally gets carried away, to the point of including remarkably over-detailed track-by-track analyses noting every individual influence and element of the tracks in addition to a separate music and composition section (the former of which I've moved to a note so as not to delete all EdE's work—the latter #music section summarizes it all quite well), largely cribbed from the artists' own track-by-track interview article, of an album that has no more than 14 professional critic reviews total to date. That's excessive, and makes the page look like an inaccessible mess.
    Wikipedia editors are supposed to exercise editorial judgement about when some information is too much information—when information is too specialized for a given topic relative to its scholarly noteworthiness, and when an influx of gushing detail threatens to betray the neutral, encyclopedic tone of Wiki. The Encyclopedia Brittanica sure wouldn't have a separate 600-word track-by-track analysis for its entry of an obscure album that didn't chart, was met with lukewarm reception, and hasn't been shown to be a particular influence on any larger cultural developments. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to say that I understand that Gentlecollapse6 has good intentions in what he's doing and he's not a bad user, I just feel he's taking the not-too-inaccessible guideline a little too seriously, which is why I've started this discussion. editorEهեইдအ😎 23:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a classic content dispute that should be resolved through discussion at Talk:Channel Pressure, or through dispute resolution. I see neither a request for administrative action nor anything requiring administrative action at this time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this is a case of gentlecollapse6 making disruptive edits. What he's doing, as well as improperly changing my section naming in Returnal, is unproductive and needs to be exposed. editorEهեইдအ😎 09:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC) editorEهեইдအ😎 09:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    SPECIFICO at Louise Mensch

    (non-admin closure) No admin actions seem to be forthcoming. The horse is now officially DEAD, so it's time to do the humane thing and bury it. Kleuske (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    NB: Some users are complaining about the length of this request. However, the crux of my argument is contained in just two of the five paragraphs that follow, namely paragraphs 2 and 3. If you're short on time, just read those two.

    At Louise Mensch, SPECIFICO has spent the last several months edit warring; engaging in personal attacks; misrepresenting sources; and displaying serious WP:OWN, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior. Some form of admin intervention, such as a topic ban, is long overdue. For those unfamiliar with Mensch, she is a former British MP who has seized on the public's anxiety over Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections to accuse literally hundreds of politicians, journalists, and media figures—from Matt Taibbi to Bernie Sanders—of being Russian "agents of influence." She is also a fixture on Snopes.com for propagating fake news including that France covered up torture at the Bataclan and that Russia funded the Ferguson protests. However, SPECIFICO has racked up many dozens of reverts to purge Mensch's article of reliably sourced criticism, all of which, she insists, violates WP:BLP in some unspecified way. Here is a partial list of SPECIFICO's reverts:

    A careful analysis of SPECIFICO's edits raises serious concerns about her approach to engaging with other editors. Many of her edit summaries appear to consist of mere repetitions of policy acronyms, such as "BLP Smear weasel," "BLP violation. Weasel, defamation," and "SYN UNDUE BLP vio." She frequently misapplies policy, for example when she asserts that "IBT and Daily Beast are not RS for controversial for extraordinary claims. See RSN discussions of both. Please find coverage in RS," referring to the International Business Times and The Daily Beast. As Guccisamsclub noted, SPECIFICO's invocation of WP:EXCEPTIONAL was invalid: "not WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims; these are her public statements." In addition to the IBT and The Daily Beast, she flippantly dismisses sources as diverse as The Intercept and The New Republic as "Not RS" and "poorly sourced." On the talk page, SPECIFICO responds with trolling, one-word retorts like "fail," or outright denial that other editors actually mean what they say: "Sweetheart, I know you don't respect Taibbi anywhere near enough to cite his opinion as a noteworthy fact relating to Ms. Mensch." As that last comment suggests, SPECIFICO has launched a sustained series of WP:BLP violations and personal attacks against Mensch critic Matt Taibbi, who she states "is a marginal source in a fringey publication ... (with) no standing as a 'russia expert' among the literate and well-informed public." In between the odd disclaimer ("I have no opinion of him"), she has further opined: "I'd hardly call Taibbi a 'journalist'"; "He is not widely respected as a journalist"; "Of course Taibbi's editors at The NY Press did not turn out to be 'astute' enough when they fired him over his infamous humour piece on the Death of the Pope. I think however that the comparison of Taibbi to Joe McCarthy is unwarranted" (SPECIFICO was the first and only one to make such a comparison); and "by his own admission he is erratic and sometimes irresponsible and unduly dramatic" (SPECIFICO provides no source for these characterizations). During a BLP/N discussion in which her WP:BLP concerns were widely dismissed as unfounded, SPECIFICO often ignores what is being said and goes off on tangents such as "She (Mensch) appears to enjoy being provocative and will not apologize for being an assertive and flamboyant 21st-century female. In my experience, many such women's BLPs suffer the same sorts of issues that I found in this article." (SPECIFICO has an established pattern of bringing her gender into her Wikipedia disputes; see, for example, her personal attacks on Darouet and Thucydides411; she said the former was "outright misogynist" and told the latter: "Thanks for the mansplaining, kind sir. IMO, you have some gender education in your future. I hope it's not too painful." As NeilN will attest, SPECIFICO was the only one making gendered remarks during that exchange.) Through it all, SPECIFICO is impossible to nail down; she constantly alludes to a "broader analysis of (Mensch's) writing," and "increasing numbers of balanced RS discussions" with a more favorable view of Mensch, but, when directly asked for her sources (e.g., "As for the 'many RS discussions' that you say you would prefer to use, could you link to some of them?"; "Anyway, could you actually try to be constructive for once and point out, as suggested, which of these numerous pieces that include more balanced coverage you think would be useful here instead?"), she flat-out refuses, offering only cryptic non sequiturs in the vein of "It's all about sourcing and what the RS actually say, not the connections or inferences we make or lead readers to make" or just "don't make goofy edit comments. It's a policy violation on this project. Thx." (There is one exception, The Oregonian, which I shall return to in a moment.)

    On several occasions, SPECIFICO has not merely been content to dismiss well-sourced material with a poorly-chosen acronym; rather, she has actively introduced errors into the article. Sometimes these errors are petty, like when she changed the description of Mensch's ex-husband from a "property speculator" to a "real estate developer," misrepresenting the cited source, which refers to him only as a "a 39 year-old property speculator of Italian origin." (Perhaps more interesting is her initial attempt to pass off this change as a "Copyedit (minor)"; after Guccisamsclub pointed out "The SOURCE calls him a speculator," she "remove(d) 'speculator' smear.") Far more serious, however, is SPECIFICO promoting Mensch's dubious allegations about a FISA warrant on Trump Tower in Wikipedia's voice: "The existence of a FISA Warrant was later confirmed in reports by the BBC, the Washington Post and other media." SPECIFICO's "source" is this article in The New York Times, about a wiretap on Carter Page that had been revealed by The Washington Post; the source says nothing about Trump Tower and does not contain even a single passing mention of Mensch, much less declare her reportage "confirmed." Yet, in her edit summary, SPECIFICO actually accuses N-HH of violating WP:SYNTH!: "Remove SYNTH defamatory and unsourced BLP smear falsely stating that US media did not confirm Mensch's scoop regarding FISA Warrant." For the record, here is what the Post's resident fact-checker, Glenn Kessler, has to say on this topic: "Interestingly, as far as we can tell, only two other reports have touched on this FISA claim, and they also have British connections. One is a report in the BBC from January, which the White House cited as a source. ... Separately, McClatchy, in a January article mostly focused on whether money from the Kremlin covertly aided Trump’s campaign, reported one source had confirmed 'the FBI had obtained a warrant on Oct. 15 from the highly secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court allowing investigators access to bank records and other documents about potential payments and money transfers related to Russia.' This echoed the BBC report, but is much different than the Heat Street (Mensch) account." N-HH's summary—"The existence of a FISA order was later separately reported by some other media, but American media outlets have not corroborated the details of the claims made in the Heat Street report"—was therefore not WP:SYNTH—let alone a "defamatory and unsourced (sic) BLP smear"—but a carefully measured restatement of the facts outlined by Kessler. N-HH tried to explain "Er, as explained 5x now, this is not my 'SYNTH' but precisely what the Washington Post analysis says. The NYT piece is about a different FISA warrant," but SPECIFICO would have none of it, reverting again with the summary "remove unsourced SYNTH blp smear many American mecia (sic)." Likewise, SPECIFICO cited two articles from The Oregonian as supposedly drawing a sharp disctinction between Mensch's "true reports and not-confirmed reports," complete with genuine WP:WEASEL wording about unspecified "additional revelations ... that were later confirmed," but her summary bears little resemblance to the articles in question, which describe Mensch, e.g., as an "aggressive conspiracy theorist." When N-HH confronted SPECIFICO about her (mis)use of this local newspaper, stating "I don't think it's unfair to say that you were cherry-picking sources and cherry-picking the content from them in order to suggest in WP's voice that (Mensch) is having lots of her precise claims confirmed," SPECIFICO made the truly astonishing claim that "You may not be familiar with the American journalism sphere, but let me assure you that the Oregonian is a higher journalistic stature than either the New Republic or the Guardian."

    SPECIFICO has previously been topic banned from the Ludwig von Mises Institute (and then Austrian School, because she violated the narrower ban) for similar behavior to what I have outlined here, including BLP violations under the guise of mere copy edits; Netoholic compiled an authoritative list of SPECIFICO's "Lack of editorial balance" and "Insertion of errors into articles" here. Many of Netoholic's observations could just as easily apply to the conduct before us today: See, e.g., "Looking just at the month of May 2014 (which comes after his ArbCom decision), he [SPECIFICO] made 77 article edits from May 1-30. Looking at that the red in that list of edits should make it apparent that he is mostly preoccupied with removal [of] information, and that indicates an unbalanced approach to editing. In none of these edits did he locate an original reliable source and add the citation to Wikipedia. ... Not only is his style confrontational, and his edits contentious and based on personal opinion without reliable sourcing, but even when sources are provided, he inserts errors into the articles." Indeed, a quick glance at the revision history shows that nearly all of SPECIFICO's 68 edits to Louise Mensch involve her removing content added by other users, much of it impeccably sourced.

    In my view, as with Austrian School, SPECIFICO has conclusively demonstrated that she is unable to edit constructively on the topic of Louise Mensch; a new topic ban is in order. If anything, SPECIFICO's antics have flown under the radar for far too long because she is not more overtly uncivil and generally refrains from violating 3RR, but it's hard to see how anyone could study her actions at Louise Mensch and come to any conclusion other than that she has been a net drain to the encyclopedia.

    To get a better sense of the magnitude of the problem, what follows are choice excerpts from months of attempting to reason with SPECIFICO at Talk:Louise Mensch and the aforementioned BLP/N entry:

    From Talk:
    • "So cite the sources and change the language. Jeez."—Guccisamsclub, 20:51, 26 March 2017; "I am under no obligation to delete well-sourced, notable and uncontroversial material. This material consists of Mensch's own statements, as quoted by numerous RS, which invariably and explicitly characterize them as conspiracy theories. No sane person, never mind a reliable source, has disputed this characterization."—Guccisamsclub, 08:24, 27 March 2017; "Just because you called them 'BLP smear violations' does not mean they are. You've already had ample time to 'dispute' the content. Have you have disputed that these are — as the sources say — 'conspiracy theories'? No. Or have you disputed that Mensch actually said those things? No. Have argued that the sources are being misquoted? No. Have you tried to explain why this content might theoretically be contentious? No. Here's what you have done: you have deleted sourced content with a false edit summary; threatened me with DS and then refused to explain why; cried BLP without bringing up a single specific source or claim. None of these are valid ways of challenging sourced content."—Guccisamsclub, 15:13, 27 March 2017; "It should be mentioned that SPECIFICO has fought about this endlessly, both here and on BLPN. Since the material consists entirely of Mensch's own statements as quoted in RS, her concerns got absolutely no traction. But she still keeps trying to delete the content she doesn't like, after the consensus ruled against her. This amounts to vandalism."—Guccisamsclub, 10:44, 18 April 2017.
    • "The content in question is not denigrating. It simply documents, in a perfectly reliable source, what she is on record (and it seems not at all ashamed of) openly doing. What 'smears' are involved exactly? I'd accept that there would be a problem if we were simply citing empty critical commentary on Mensch – eg comments describing her as a shill or whatever – but this is not what the content consists of. There are no BLP concerns. Your frankly bizarre comment about Taibbi 'hardly' being a journalist skirt closer to a problem in that regard."—N-HH, 06:24, 18 April 2017; "I'm not sure why you're still going on about 'smears' and 'opinions'. As has been pointed out several times now, the material taken from the Taibbi piece is not his commentary, but an account of Mensch's own comments, explicitly cited and referenced to her own writings by Taibbi. This really isn't a complicated or obscure distinction, generally speaking or in this case."—N-HH, 17:48, 18 April 2017; "Journalists writing for mainstream publications are, in fact, prima facie reliable sources for WP purposes, and you've shown nothing to disprove that assumption in his case."—N-HH, 21:02, 18 April 2017; "How is citing Mensch's own claims, and a secondary-source debunking of them, a 'BLP' violation or smear? Please stop just flinging these accusations around about every bit of content you want excluded for whatever reason."—N-HH, 09:49, 7 June 2017; "'Cherry-picking' only applies as a problem when there are lots of other texts that say something radically different about her. Are there? As for the 'many RS discussions' that you say you would prefer to use, could you link to some of them?"—N-HH, 08:30, 1 August 2017; "Anyway, could you actually try to be constructive for once and point out, as suggested, which of these numerous pieces that include more balanced coverage you think would be useful here instead? Literally every contribution of yours on this page consists of you saying 'I'm right, I'm not going to discuss it other than in meaningless general terms, this material is in or out depending on whether I say I want it here or not'."—N-HH, 11:18, 1 August 2017; "Now, for the third time, which more balanced sources out there do you think we are missing out on here, which could be used for content and which would also clarify whether this one is an outlier?"—N-HH, 13:52, 1 August 2017; "Talk page stonewalling and literally ignoring simple requests actually intended to help you get the perspective you say is missing from the page don't help WP much either."—N-HH, 15:18, 1 August 2017.
    • "While articles should not denigrate people, they should present them as they are perceived in reliable sources. Mensch has made claims that go beyond what the mainstream media has found credible and characterizes Trump and others in an extemely negative light again, even by the standards of mainstream media. Readers should know that."—The Four Deuces, 14:08, 18 April 2017; "I think the current wording provides her with a credibility that reliable sources do not. They say that she routinely writes conspiracy theories, but in one instance was right. Even a blind pig sometimes finds truffles, as one source says. (Don't worry if that metaphor bothers your.) She's basically similar to other right-wing journalists, even working for the Murdoch press, except she doesn't like Trump. That's no reason to give her a free pass."—TFD, 17:31, 17 May 2017; "This is the same Heat Street that spread Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy theories while run by Mensch. Over on that article you are calling it propaganda, while here you are defending the same sort of theory."—TFD, 22:20, 6 June 2017.
    From BLP/N:
    • "I haven't been involved in this article but examining the talk page I'd ask why you brought this here instead of responding to this comment, addressed to you ... Wherever it's discussed you'll have to identify which specific claims you believe to be BLP violations and why."—James J. Lambden, 22:14, 27 March 2017.
    • "Can you explain why you've removed sections sourced to articles by, or interviews with, Mensch herself in reliable sources? If there's one reliable source for people's views, it's their own words.—Black Kite, 22:29, 27 March 2017.
    • "The Independent is hardly some random website, but more importantly their story quite literally has a video of Mensch on the BBC saying exactly what they claim. I dunno that one can get much more reliable than being able to watch her express precisely the views ascribed to her, and it's hard to claim it's UNDUE to repeat something she was willing to go on national television and say. Are the rest of these 'extraordinary claims' going to turn out to be just as evidently true?"—Pinkbeast, 02:37, 28 March 2017; "You're also straying a bit off the BLPN topic here. The burning issue for BLPs is, is it _true_? There's no doubt about that. What you're now arguing is an ordinary content dispute (where the other editors who have commented seem to agree the material should be included)."—Pinkbeast, 12:42, 31 March 2017; "Leave it in. As said above, the idea that there are BLP violations here is one that SPECIFICO has come up with (no matter how many other users agree there isn't)."—Pinkbeast, 01:32, 6 April 2017.
    • "While your at it, you may want to consider that a BLP exception to edit warring is pretty clearly not a justification when the edit war concerns fairly minor grammatical changes of comparatively little consequence. There's nothing in this thread as far as I can tell to the effect that the difference between 'promote' and 'put forth' is of earth-shattering BLP importance."—Timothyjosephwood, 19:14, 3 April 2017; "Oh Christ. Get off it. Go open an RfC maybe. And how about we close this, and stop trying to discuss the article in so many different places no one can follow what's going on."—Timothyjosephwood, 15:21, 5 April 2017.
    • "Specifico, in the Andrew Neil interview she does say that she believes that murder allegation. She tweeted it, and she stands by it as a belief."—SlimVirgin, 23:07, 2 April 2017; "As for 'promoting' versus 'putting forth' [conspiracy theories], there's barely a difference, but she is (as I understand it) the original source not simply a promoter, so 'putting forth' is more accurate. And it's not her political commentary that is being criticized, it's her, so 'Mensch has been criticized for putting forth ...'."—SlimVirgin, 00:32, 5 April 2017.
    • "You have not cited single source: not in the article, not on the talk page, not anywhere. Stop wasting people's time. Seriously."—Guccisamsclub, 21:24, 28 March 2017; "What did you honestly expect with this edit? Your vague and perpetually shifting 'concerns' are completely without merit, a fact that's been pointed out to you over and over and over again. You routinely delete factual and uncontroversial content with edit summaries like 'removed BLP smear', suggesting that you either don't know what a 'smear' is or that you don't care."—Guccisamsclub, 01:49, 31 March 2017; "This is getting annoying. On what planet are Independent and the BBC 'weak'? On what planet is a brief mention (literally a sentence fragment) [of] the subject's own words, covered in numerous RS (on top of the BBC and Independent, if you can be bothered to read any of them) 'UNDUE'? This is one of the more salient bits in the whole bio. If this is 'undue', so is everything else in the article. Your complaint is utterly baseless and has gotten absolutely no traction, so just drop the WP:STICK will you."—Guccisamsclub, 13:28, 5 April 2017.
    • cf. SPECIFICO's smearing of Andrew Neil, who had the temerity to ask Mensch hard interview questions: "I think that Neil had her on his show for the purpose of disparaging her. And Neil's reputation for that kind of BLP-noncompliant infotainment is pretty well established."

    Enough is enough.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban proposal

    • I support banning SPECIFICO from any further edits relating to Louise Mensch.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Umm... 1) I've managed to stay away from ANI for a little while now, and its been great... and 2) if you expect anyone to read through that grotesque wall of text you are kidding yourself. I'm sure as hell not. TimothyJosephWood 01:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I see a total of 5-6 edits in the last 2 months. None of them seem to be consecutive, or otherwise indicative of "edit warring" (except the most recent involving TheTimesAreAChanging). Am I missing something? DN (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Darknipples and TimothyJosephWood. This looks like some sort of heavyhanded railroading in order to eliminate or silence an editor one has a generalized content dispute with. The proper venue for content disputes, broad or specific, is some form on WP:DR (breaking each item down into a separate issue). Particularly since the editor in question has made no more than six edits to the article in the past two months. Trout and possible boomerang to the OP. Softlavender (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, TTAAC's conduct is even more problematic than that. He was topic banned from American Politcs at Arbcom Enforcement under ARBAP2. He socked briefly to evade his TBAN and was blocked for that. He then sat out the minimum time for his TBAN. He wrote what we now know was at best a misleading email to @Sandstein: [111]] promising good behavior and disclaiming much interest in resuming POV disruption at American Politics articles. He immediately became active in several American Politics-related articles, introducing POV content that other editors removed. Louise Mensch, the article he cites in this complaint, is a BLP about a controversial figure in the American Politics and matters relating to the Russian interference in the 2016 election. It thus relates to two areas under ARBCOM restrictions. SPECIFICO talk 04:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. The staggering wall of what he thinks is evidence against me suggests some kind of obsessive fixation. He was warned about this previously when an editor, I forget who, discovered TTAC's creepy diary about me on his Sandbox here [112]. SPECIFICO talk 04:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose and suggest boomerang action be considered. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • To expand on this after a reference to "one sentence votes" below: SPECIFICO removing the claim in this diff [113] is clearly the correct thing to do, no matter how many times he must do it. I also agree with SPECIFICO in the most recent dispute. WIthout a more concise case, there is definitely no reason to sanction SPECIFICO. Power~enwiki (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, but support both BOOMERANG restoration of TTAAC's topic ban and deletion of TTAAC's sandbox -- my understanding is that pages such as that are allowed for only a limited duration while a complaint is being prepared. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I've actually observed some battleground behaviour from Specifico in the past in RfCs I've been bot summoned into for articles in the vein of American national politics. So when I saw that list of diffs, I thought I was about thumb through a huge blow-up at some Trump/DNC/what-have-you related article. But as I opened diff after diff I found instead...nothing particularly worth noting. Certainly nothing outright disruptive or sanctionable. This is before I even realized what lay bellow the diffs. Holy moly. There are walls of text and then there is that. But I've seen ugly situations in the past on this project that would have required multiple long paragraphs to explain, so I gave TheTimesTheyAreAChanging the benefit of the doubt and dug in. I still found nothing remotely worth this degree of obsessive chronicling of another editors behaviour. If there are signs of problem editing on SPECIFICO's part (that rise to the level of needing community action) anywhere in that report, said signs have been completely obscured by the yawning shadow of that wall of text. I would not be surprised if there's some WP:edit warring going on here, but clearly the report itself is more disruptive than anything Specifico has done to encourage this feud. Snow let's rap 06:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Oppose a WP:BOOMERANG for TTTAAC: Hmmm, alright, so I've looked through the talk page in question, as well as the the revision history of the article itself, checking out a couple dozen edits going back to the beginning of June. There are indeed problematic behaviours on both sides. Specifico has dominated almost every thread on the talk page with posts, despite being outnumbered in the consensus discussions of most of the issues being discussed there. Looking at the revision history over the same period, there are certain editors who specifico seems to have reverted on almost every occasion they contributed to the article in the last two months (the same editors, by and large, that Specifico is locked in debate with on the talk page--and for almost every revert, Specifico uses the phrase 'BLP smear' or something similar, which feels talismanic to me.). Then there's the BLPN discussion, where most of the uninvolved editors who commented seemed to have issues with Specifico's WP:WEIGHT stances.
    All told, this isn't as one-sided as I at first thought, from TTTAAC's fumbling approach here. There's definitely entrenched positions on both sides, that have given way to outright tendentiousness. However, I still oppose any sanction here. This battleground is clearly characterized by two sides, and there is just no recovering a decent argument for calling out Specifico in this report. But given the degree of acrimony on that page, I oppose sanctions against both parties here. Instead, these two need to be trouted like no trouting that has come before and then sent back to the talk page with a mandate to RfC/DR the content matters. Which is clearly what they should have done two months ago. Snow let's rap 07:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Snow Rise: Too many T's, twice. It's only a close approximation of the Dylan title. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, noticed that soon as I started to write the next message below! Woops! Just save me the embrassment and courtesy edit that crap away next time. ;) Snow let's rap 07:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah. Somebody else would revert me per TPG. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, that is at once the funniest and truest thing you could have said there. Snow let's rap 07:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure how I got tagged on this one, but - I spotted SPECIFICO's original complaint about Louise Mensch on BLPN when I happened to be watching it; specifically, as far as I could make out, a complaint that people were editing silly things she'd said very publicly into the article just because she happened to have said them. The later history on the article and their contribs elsewhere doesn't inspire any more confidence in SPECIFICO. Whatever TTAAC has been up to, if Mensch becomes notable for saying ridiculous things and SPECIFICO can be relied upon to elide them from the article and write hagiography about her, SPECIFICO's editing could use attention - which is not the same as saying it merits a ban, but they're grinding a big axe and most of their editing is grinding that axe. Pinkbeast (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To respond to that: Every silly or apparently/presumably inaccurate or controversial tweet doesn't belong in a BLP, any more than every silly or apparently/presumably inaccurate or controversial tweet that Donald Trump writes belongs in his article. These things are applicable to a BLP only if the particular tweet or statement has had repeated mention and extensive commentary in a number of neutral reliable mainstream news sources. Otherwise they are BLP violations. That's the problem with Twitter: a public figure's tweet can garner a lot of ridicule or controversy in various quarters, but all of that is irrelevant unless multiple neutral reliable mainstream news sources have specifically covered it in depth. During this election cycle and beyond, mentioning people's tweets on Wikipedia has become a major problem. Tweets are trivia unless they generate sufficient noteworthiness from unbiased sources. Softlavender (talk) 09:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Softlavender: I think we need a policy citation for that rather remarkable statement. I think you are confusing WP:BLP with the WP:GNG. What the policy says is that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation, and that primary sources may be usable where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source. Note in both cases the singular indefinite article. Wither this talk of "extensive commentary in a number of neutral reliable mainstream news sources"? GoldenRing (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Tweets are trivia unless they generate sufficient noteworthiness from unbiased sources". True, but her tweets *have* generated a lot of coverage. What SPECIFICO has been trying to remove is accounts by secondary sources of her tweeting, fraudulently citing BLP, while also happily approving selective and WP:SYNTH accounts of her supposed genius. And they have edit-warred and bogged down the talk page to make sure that all happens. N-HH talk/edits 10:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't read the material that's being inserted or reverted, but we've run into this problem on various other BLPs. To take Donald Trump as an example, he has tweeted thousands of crazy comments, but they don't all belong in his BLP, even if one reliable source comments on any given tweet. Since tweets are by nature highly numerous, short, offhand, and relatively trivial and ephemeral, there has to be a strict sense of editorial responsibility which excludes any sort of partisanship or polarization of sensationalism in sources (and God knows Mensch is polarizing, from what I've seen). We have to stick to sane neutral sources and measure the weight and importance of coverage. If she offhandedly tweets something wild but no source on the level of WaPo covers it in depth, so what; that's the same as Trump. If (for example) her list of possible Russian agents/collaborators is covered by a source on the level of WaPo, then OK, especially if two or more sources on the level of WaPo cover it. But otherwise, her article and Trump's (and dozens of other BLPs) would be drowning in tweet mentions. Softlavender (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you've said that and I agreed with it. I also pointed out already why it's the exact opposite of the point at issue here, and that we do have secondary source coverage, so I'm not sure what expanding on it is achieving. Perhaps you should have "read the material" first? N-HH talk/edits 10:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, by virtue of his business interests, being President of the USA, alleged corruption, etc., Trump has a great deal of notability beyond his bizarre tweets. In Britain, of course, we know Mensch for a variety of reasons, but I get the impression she is gaining notability in the USA primarily as an originator of ridiculous conspiracy theories. If that is that case, it is far more appropriate to include those ridiculous conspiracy theories in the page, even if they were tweeted. (Yeah, I know, this is about page content, but the only context I have for SPECIFICO's conduct is this page's content...) Pinkbeast (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaning to support here. The complaint is indeed almost unreadable but that's down to formatting (sort of bizarrely, I first read it in diff form, which is actually easier - something of an achievement, that). Reading through the diffs supplied, there is clearly some WP:CRYBLP going on here. It does vary somewhat: some of the reversions are removing negative material that is clearly sourced to non-RSes; some of it is removing well-sourced material that is negative to the subject; some of it is removing primary-sourced (and frankly bizarre) things the subject has undoubtedly said; some of it is adding in positive material not supported by the sources; and some of it is removing well-sourced material on downright false pretences. What pretty well every edit SPECIFICO has made to that article over the period the diffs cover has in common is that it's positive to the subject and in my view it amounts to POV-pushing. GoldenRing (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm generally opposed to banning people after a pile-on at ANI, but SPECIFICO's conduct on that page over months has been utterly disruptive and unhelpful. They remove anything they don't like, and insert anything they do like, citing various policies ("that's a BLP violation; that's not NPOV") while wilfully disregarding what those policies actually say or mean. They have literally bogged down the talk page with non-sequiturs and bizarre claims about what sources are supposedly OK or not and what those sources supposedly say. They appear literally to not read or understand what other people are saying to them. It's made trying to edit or improve that page pointless. N-HH talk/edits 10:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Once we've reached the point that a user, such as SPECIFICO, has "made trying to edit or improve that page pointless," it's difficult to see that there is any alternative but "a pile-on at ANI." And I did this knowing full well that SPECIFICO and her allies from American Politics would attempt to distract from the underlying misconduct with retaliatory and unwarranted WP:BOOMERANG requests against me. If this proposal fails—in part because SPECIFICO's subtle, months-long disruption requires more copious documentation than the community has the attention span to study in detail—then you and I will probably have to give up on improving Louise Mensch, just as Guccisamsclub seems to have done already. But it was worth a try.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, just stop. You're not doing yourself any favours by not owning your (not insubstantial) mistakes here. A) you could have, at any point, RfC'd these issues or pursued any number of community solutions, rather than tussle directly with Specifico, as you have done on multiple articles in the same subject area before. B) Most everyone criticizing your conduct above is an uninvolved party, not some "ally of Speecifico's" out to tank you out of some cabal loyalty. C) If you think the failure to take your claims seriously is a matter of poor attention span from the community, you are deep into WP:IDHT (maybe irretrievably deep). There is a way to structure and present a complaint to the community here at ANI and it's not "aggregate every possible action that the editor has taken in the dispute that I disagree with, plus anything anyone has said over the same period that is vaguely critical of them, and then smash it all together into unprecedented walls of text, without organization or context. And then expect every community member to follow up and piece together every part of it." Nor are you blameless in the acrimony between you two, on that page or elsewhere. If you avoid a boomerang at all here, it's on account of no help you gave yourself, but rather because editors took the time to investigate the matter and see this was a two-way street, despite that embarrassment of a post up there that you self-charitably call "documentation", not because of it.... Snow let's rap 11:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm referring specifically to Darknipples and Power~enwiki, both of whom seem to have followed SPECIFICO here and whose one sentence "votes" demonstrate little or no familiarity with the Louise Mensch article, SPECIFICO's activities there, or my complaint. (Darknipples, for example, has left three WikiLove messages on SPECIFICO's talk page in the last two months: [114], [115], [116]) I usually do have to resolve my differences with SPECIFICO via RfCs, and am currently considering a new RfC related to her total deletion of Vladimir Putin's official response at Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia, but I am amazed you don't find anything disruptive about the fact that SPECIFICO would force every uncontroversial statement of fact about Mensch's views—backed by impeccable RS including The New Republic, The Guardian, and so many others—to RfC. Some of us volunteers don't have the time and energy for that level of drama.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Boomerang topic ban TheTimesAreAChanging from the Louise Mensch article; and/or reinstate his topic ban from American Politics

    Given what SPECIFICO wrote above regarding TheTimesAreAChanging's AE topic-ban from American Politics, his subsequent socking and other evasions of the topic ban, and his disingenuous promises to Sandstein, and the clearly trumped-up Everest of "evidence" he has submitted to try to railroad SPECIFICO, etc., I think it is clearly appropriate to topic-ban him from the Louise Mensch article, since Mensch is a British-American former politician who is now a journalist exclusively devoted to American Politics. Softlavender (talk) 07:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support topic ban from Louise Mensch at the very least, and support re-instatement of topic ban from American Politics broadly construed (which would include Mensch) if there is sufficient consensus. Softlavender (talk) 07:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose. I probably would have supported this, had I continued to base my decision on the supreme mastery of own goal that is TTAAC's above filing. But having decided to ignore it an look into the matter myself, and especially having seen that talk page, I don't think I can support it now. TTAAC's truly epic verbosity blunder here notwithstanding, in the actual content discussion, he seems to have acted in good faith and mostly reasonably. Reading those discussions, looking at the story told in the edit history for the article, and weighing the perspectives on the actual sourcing issues shared at the BLPN, it looks to me like both parties were inflexible and needlessly confrontational, but a bit below what I consider deserving of a topic ban, even considering both have had the community step in due to intractability in the past. I'd rather each got a warning from an admin (yes, especially TTAAC, given the fixated way in which they have come at this situation) promising to watch the situation closely, and then make them RfC out every issue that they can't give ground on. Snow let's rap 07:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. We don't boomerang for well-documented, well-founded complaints, however poorly-formatted they are. GoldenRing (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been pinged. As the author (and then lifter) of the previous topic ban, I do not express a view on the merits here, but note that the topic area of modern US politics is subject to discretionary sanctions (WP:AC/DS), and that requests for enforceable sanctions including topic bans can be made at WP:AE. Any ban decided on here would be a community-based sanction, in the administration of which I am not particularly interested.  Sandstein  09:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. TTAAC has barely been engaged on the Louise Mensch page. It would be absurd for a couple of edits to be treated as grounds for a ban. N-HH talk/edits 10:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • GoldenRing and N-HH, I think you've missed the point: The point is that TheTimesAreAChanging was indefinitely topic banned from American Politics and closely related people on January 12, 2017, for repeatedly attacking SPECIFICO and racking up a stern AE warning one month previously: [117], [118]. He sockpupetted as You'llNeverGuess (talk · contribs) to evade the topic ban, and was blocked for one month and his TP access and email access had to be blocked as well. On July 12 he emailed Sandstein to appeal his block, promising to refrain from "the vitriolic talk page rants that got me in trouble" on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections [119], but the next day went back to apparently doing the same thing on that same talk page [120], [121], [122], [123]. The endless attacks on SPECIFICO here are more of the same that got him topic banned in the first place. Even Beyond My Ken thinks his topic ban on American Politics and related people should be reinstated. Softlavender (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care what people did in the past (and tbh I don't see "vitriolic talk page rants" in those last diffs). SPECIFICO's conduct on this page has been, as I said, disruptive and unhelpful while superficially polite; TTAAC's has not. It would be a joke if the outcome of a complaint about the former was a ban for the latter. N-HH talk/edits 10:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit conflicted with the preceding, as I was also saying I don't see any vitriolic rants in those 4 diffs. Softlavender, perhaps a bit more caution in your use of diffs? We're not just throwing s*** at the wall to see what sticks. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You may be right: I'm going by Casprings's comments on TTTAAC's usertalk thread there and SPECIFICO's comments in the section above. I didn't have time to read through those discussions at length but Casprings certainly objected to them, and further since TTTAAC's attacks on SPECIFICO were what got him topic-banned in the first place, and he (TTTAAC) seems to be headed down the same road, he had better engage in civil discussion with SPECIFICO and/or engage in WP:DR instead of heading straight to ANI with a mountain of diffs without giving SPECIFICO any chance for discussion on the talkpage; TTTAAC has only made four edits to the article talkpage (only three in the past month): [124]. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. So you're proposing an indefinite topic ban on the basis of... what exactly? Hearsay? I don't think it's unreasonable to expect someone proposing such things to have read the evidence on which they are (allegedly) based. It's time for someone uninvolved to close this; let's just forget it happened. Is a doubleboomerang even a thing?. GoldenRing (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the diffs listed above are "vitriolic talk page rants". Perhaps the practice of "diff-bombing" should be frowned upon more seriously than it currently is. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Softlavender Please stop playing at admin. This proposal is not a good one. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's try not to let the hostile tone of the dispute infect the meta discussion here, huh? No one is playing at anything: any member of this community is free to make a proposal in this space--that part of the process has never been the province of admins (exclusively or even especially; most proposals come from non-admins, I think), and SL was not the first person to suggest a boomerang in this case. This whole situation has been a fustercluck from word go and that's not particularly the result of anyone responding here, so please avoid bombastic statements directed at good faith contributors attempting to parse the issues. It certainly won't improve anything for anyone, so just lodge your !vote and move on. On a side note, the correct syntax for pinging someone is "{{u|username}}". I presume you were going for "[[User:Softlavender]]"there, rather than "[[User|Softlavender]]", which is what you entered, but even if you had used the former, the ping would not have been sent.Snow let's rap 19:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess that comment hit a bit too close to home, huh? Mr. Ernie's observation is spot-on, and it's hardly just Softlavander that needs to stop. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Good grief, what on earth are you talking about, "hit to close to home"? I was the first person to oppose a boomerang for TTAAC, and the first uninvolved editor to dig into the talk page and suggest that this situation is a two-way street, after he shot himself in the foot with the filing. You two need to trust me here: you are doing TTAAC no favours by lashing out indiscriminately at anybody who doesn't feel he is 100% in the right here and Specifico 100% wrong. Snow let's rap 19:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. I and others objected to Softlavender's carelessness with diffs, above. But generalized aspersions about motives are a different matter and are disruptive to this process. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure about your explanation of ping. WP:PING says "Mentions: When your user page is linked to on any talk page or on a page in the Wikipedia namespace by another user." Agreed the link to the disambig page User was a fail, but tell me if you get this: User:Snow Rise? The system tells me it was sent. -- Begoon 19:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand corrected User:Begoon; ping received. Though I don't think it was always the case that the Wikilink pinged the user in question, seems it is the case these days. Snow let's rap 19:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. The funniest thing is, until now, I'm not sure anyone successfully pinged Softlavender -- Begoon 20:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops good catch User:Snow Rise. And no, I'm not "lashing out indiscriminately" - I've very specifically directed it at one user. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough; I shouldn't lump you in with someone else. That said, the distinction Mandruss made above is good advice: the observation that Softlavender's proposal was not a good one, as you saw it, is a fairgame kind of comment. The admin comment less so. Snow let's rap 22:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I feel TheTimesAreAChanging is more at fault than SPECIFICO here, but see no case for any admin action yet. I'm familiar with Louise Mensch as a person more so than the editing history on that page; I feel emphasizing her career as an author and as an MP over the details of her Russia-mongering is correct and that both her claims and her rebuttals on that topic should have minimal weight in the article. In the most recent editing dispute ([125]), I feel SPECIFICO is in the right, though the "BLP" objection is more sophistry than substance. As far as a general heated tone, this is inevitable for pages related to current US politics, and neither editor should be sanctioned for it. Power~enwiki (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Trout and Mediation

    This is a case for mediation (WP:RFM), not ANI. I don't feel involved enough to open a case myself, but I hope somebody else does. If that happens, I propose that this case be closed, the two editors be hit by a WP:TROUT, and no administrative action taken against either of them. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Excuse me, I decline your trout. I am an innocent vegan in this matter. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Discretionary sanctions

    The article is now under BLP and American politics discretionary sanctions. I'm still trying to get the discussion at Wikipedia talk:AE#Updating Template:Ds/talk notice to make it clearer to make a decision so that these notices are clear to everyone, not just those who know where to click. Doug Weller talk 18:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Can someone kindly put this thread out of its misery and close this? There is pretty clearly no broad support for either proposal, the article is now officially under DS, and... the poor souls who won't actually spend the time to read through this thread and sort this out will thank us. If there are future issues, hash them out at AE where there is a gracious length limit to reports.
    Maybe drop certain people a reminder that if you are obsessed enough about one editor that you're willing to write a small novel about them at ANI, then maybe it's time to reconsider your priorities and go unredlink some of the few thousands of articles we don't have on flowering plants... or I dunno... there are exactly 479 stubs on rivers in France and 550 on geological formations in Canada which should be able to keep folks pretty busy. TimothyJosephWood 21:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Nurseline247 repeatedly reinstates content on multiple character lists, deletes warnings

    Since they began editing last year, Nurseline247 has made a habit of adding unencyclopedic, frivolous and out-of-scope content to character lists and after it's reverted, they put it back in with misleading edit summaries. I typically veer away from bringing verified users to the noticeboard, but this is not an isolated incident and Nurseline247 has not heeded advice whatsoever-- they have only removed the warnings from their talk page and continued onward.

    There are a number of pages in which this has played out. For example...

    1. Spider-Man in film: Nurseline247 has repeatedly added content about the animated films to a page strictly reserved for live action productions. They've re-added the content with misleading edit summaries... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (I may have missed some).
    2. Beauty and the Beast: On this page, they keep on re-adding the Direct-to-Video specials that Disney produced that the other editors have reached a consensus not to include, but Nurseline247 apparently doesn't realize that... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
    3. Alien (franchise)/List of Alien characters: Before the release of Alien: Covenant, Nurseline247 began adding the advertisements for the film to the franchise page and referred to them as "short films", which was way out of scope. After a number of editors, including myself, removed the content from the page, Nurseline247 simply re-added it to the characters page list, which put it at risk of losing its Featured List status.
    4. Frozen (franchise): They keep adding out-of-scope content about Ralph Breaks the Internet: Wreck-It Ralph 2, despite that not being a part of the franchise. 1, 2
    5. List of fictional shared universes in film and television: Nurseline247 apparently disagrees with the parameters of what a shared universe is, with other editors arguing it needs to have inter-connected concepts and characters... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
    6. Arrowverse: Other editors argue that only characters that cross over between the series should be included, but alas... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and there are more, but I believe everyone can get the idea by this point...

    Those are a few of the examples just right off the top, from the last month. Over the last two weeks alone, they have been warned many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many times- with several of those being final warnings- but it appears as if that doesn't warrant adjustment on their behalf. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 01:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I was notified by the filer regarding the thread. I am dropping here my two cents since I am quite involved with the reported user. Nurseline247 has/had (I am unaware of their previous edits) of adding unsourced edits at Spider-Man: Homecoming. I got involved when I saw this edit summary on my watchlist. I have used Twinkle for three now and this statement was false right off the bat. I went out to correct the user per one of the diffs above. Going back, Nurseline247 made a bold edit but was reverted. They then readded the content, which was reverted by me. This was a slow mo edit war per this and this. The content isn't exactly the same with every edit, but it was similar regarding the timeline. My issue with their edits there was that timelines should be discussed at the talk page. It involves original research and it's unsourced. Plus, a user can easily make a mistake with the timeline. I warned them and told them to take it to the talk page. They didn't feel like it. And it appears they were involved in other disruptive editing on other articles. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 01:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor Nurseline247 made → this edit regarding an Alien franchise castmember supposedly in the film Alien: Covenant. This name had been erroneously placed there by another editor in the past and removed. I informed Nurseline247 that this was a crewmember's name which appears approximately three minutes and 40 seconds into the screencredits for that film. That position within Covenant's screencredit hierarchy did not warrant the position Nurseline247 was attempting to place onto that name by including it in the chart. I went on to state on Nurseline247's talk page in this edit herethat the person's role as movement artist in the production of Alien: Covenant was no more important than the hundreds of other artists, assistants, technicians, compositors, etc. found within the screencredits, and that including it in the article's cast list served only to inflate this person's contributions to the film. I ended by stating that it ought to be considered vandalism should that name reappear again on the list in the future. I never received a response on either Nurseline247's or my talk page. Recently, I noticed that what I had added to Nurseline247's talk page and several other editors had been removed (which is that user's right to do), although I placed the WP:OW template on Nurseline247's talk page to let future editors know that not only were my concerns and others deleted, but that they were left unaddressed by that editor. — SpintendoTalk 15:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like since this was posted to the noticeboard, Nurseline247 has continued their behavior at the Aladdin (franchise) and Diary of a Wimpy Kid (film series) pages. The I.P. editor 86.46.205.88 added out-of-scope content, including short films, which was reverted at the Diary of a Wimpy Kid page. After Zucat reverted them, Nurseline247 incrementally added the content back. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 19:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    While I have had my issues with Nurseline247 (mostly concerning shared universes), I think they can learn if they receive some appropriate punishment like a longer block.★Trekker (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If the editor is not willing to communicate, I think a block would be the appropriate action to take. This just might be another simple case of WP:NOTHERE. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Supermann

    Supermann (talk · contribs) has been a productive editor, with good intentions on improving our coverage of films in China. Some of the recent discussions however may require intervention from this community.

    There is an ongoing dispute here in Film censorship in China since June 2017 in intervals. To paraphrase from the original poster, the dispute is focused on whether or not runtime columns should be included in this article. The discussion was initially a content dispute, in which TenTonParasol and several other editors from WikiProject Film pointed out the problem with several films inserted in the article as being censored, without the support of secondary sources (see revision history). The consensus was that any claims of censorship has to be supported by a reliable source that documents what has been censored.

    The original poster however, argues that by documenting the difference between original runtime and the runtime in China, it serves as the direct evidence of censorship due to the political nature in China ([126] [127] [128]). This soon turned into battleground mentality ([129]). I was previously contacted, and decided to respond in the same thread ([130]).

    In response to the inability to substantiate claims of censorship, Supermann frequently invokes "June 2017 notice from SAPPRFT" to support the idea that any runtime differential is the result of censorship. For those unfamiliar with the notice, here is the context. The Chinese government issued a public notice in June 2017, which basically reiterates "television, radio and Internet distributors are forbidden from broadcasting "uncut" programs that have not been first reviewed by authorities" (Source: [131]). The following are direct quotes from the original poster in various places where this discussion has been appealed.

    • But movies that got minutes lopped off is a form of censorship that needs to be well documented. (from the request for mediation)
    • This is not to mention Wikipedia itself has been and still is a censorship victim in China. I shouldn't even have to invoke the late Dr. Liu Xiaobo here to beg for the consideration that censorship should be properly documented. (from the request for dispute resolution)
    • It's illegal now to watch any movie whose runtime is longer than the one approved by censor. Basically by supporting me, you support making this page the last sanctuary and historian of censored films. (from the request for comment)
    • This is like attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed. I can't explain it well. But I beg IAR to come in place. (from second request for mediation)

    For those of you interested, I'd like to ask you to visit the current discussion: Talk:Film censorship in China#RfC about the runtime columns if you have time, as it is a fair representation of the conversation that has been going on repetitively for the past month and half. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 03:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    My reading of the discussion can be boiled down a few things.
    1. A blatant violation of the fundament of WP:POV. Supermann's main thrust is that the difference in run time is evidence of censorship and that it should be given a place in WP. This is politicisation of content.
    2. In this diff, dating back to June, their very statement that he doesn't don't want to get into "Right Great Wrongs" is truly ironic since all his subsequent edits smacks of WP:RGW and WP:ADVOCACY.
    It is obvious that Supermann has a passion for film and the freedom of film as an artform, but that very passion is blinding them to the fact that they are trying to use WP as a platform for those beliefs. Blackmane (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I believe that this behavior extends beyond the Film censorship in China article and has extended to individual film articles, notably those films he believes were subject to censorship like The Mummy (2017 film) (see Talk:The Mummy (2017 film)#Release), Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice (see: Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice#Plot Summary and BvS: Dawn of Justice at DRN), and a couple of film soundtrack articles (see: WP:FILM#Music not included on the soundtrack) Supermann's battleground mentality, unwillingness to accept secondary sourcing, tendency to engage in original research, politicization of editing (yes, also in the BvS and soundtracks disputes), and advocacy editing are apparent there as well. I also draw attention to his most initial comments at Template talk:Infobox film#Runtime, where the earliest indications of tendentious editing and warnings against it were made. It's probably worth noting that Supermann filed two DRNs in a single week and probably nearly took a third unique dispute there, which is indicative of his battleground mentality, difficulty accepting consensus, and rejection of core Wikipedia policies. Also very important to note is that Supermann believes that IAR is the highest tenet, above all other policies, and so IAR has been invoked repeatedly, inappropriately: [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] Mostly, as someone who has gone back and forth with Supermann near constantly over the past six weeks in two unique disputes (my userpage, WikiProject Film for soundtrack dispute, DRN for same soundtrack dispute, the entirety of the film censorship talk page, the film censorship DRN), in both of which Supermann displayed the same patterns of behavior, my concern is beyond the scope of the censorship article. It's something endemic to Supermann's entire approach with editing, even when the content has nothing to do with censorship. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 11:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I believe TenTonParasol is not reflecting the best Wikipedia that has yet to offer to the underpresented Chinese readers.1 She is making it an authoritarian place that I don't think the founder Jimmy Wales would approve. Filing two DRNs in a single week only means I am willing to follow procedures and policies to compromise. Filing RFC is per moderator suggestion. Filing mediation is only after experienced editors don't represent chinese readership. The BvS content disputes in terms of the additional soundtrack and Arlington cited above have all come to great compromise after spirited discussions that TenTonParasol refused to acknowledge would improve Wikipedia. Same for The Mummy runtime of 107 vs 110 min. All are now thoroughly cited to great secondary sources. Even a discussion on whether we call Anthony Scaramucci a lawyer has come to a great finale last night.2 As for the accusation of soapboxing and advocacy, they are simply false and persecution, since I have never advocated overthrowing the communist party. If I could take US as an example, this means I got to respect the other half of the Chinese population who wants to see communists to stay in power. Therefore, all i have been asking is proper documentation of censorship which are fully backed up by facts and has been done throughout wikipedia for a variety of authoritarian countries.Supermann (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The BvS DRN ended up getting resolved in the way that the two other parties were suggesting in the first place. The small dispute at Scaramucci appears to me to be a small back and forth as you interpreted a primary source as "practices law" without support of a secondary source and insisted on it for a little, though, it is as you said, you compromised in the end. However, please note much of this ANI discussion focused on your tendency to prefer personal interpretation of primary sources over secondary sources, and that you don't seem to understand that personal interpretation of primary sources is never appropriate. I bring up The Mummy dispute, and the others, as an example of how you argue and defend your positions—because that's what's really up for discussion here. Your comments attempting to refute soapboxing and advocacy here just lead me to believe that you do not understand what either of those mean, despite multiple editors linking you to the policies on them multiple times. In general, I always find it interesting that I am not the only editor who has firmly disagreed with you and your editing practices at the censorship article, though I do admit that I'm among the most vocal and have been editing at the film censorship article since near its creation, but you constantly single me out as if I'm the only oppositional party. It just feels even more battleground to me, and it feels like it's you ignoring that you're editing against a larger consensus, not against me and my personal opinion. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "You ever think about the fact that wikipedia built the modern library of alexandria using nothing but nerds' need to correct each other?"1 The BvS Arlington DRN dispute comes down to whether we should mention Arlington in the plot summary with presence of secondary sources substantiating. The editors involved are similar as you are in terms of not accepting IAR as an equal policy to override MOS to improve. Arlington has every right to be in the filming section regardless of their suggestions, once my labeled "battleground mentality" found the special effects company which confirmed it. In the face of mounting evidence from vfx company, the editors had no recourse other than compromise. It is a four way compromise, though it is still weird not to mention Arlington in the plot summary, leaving curious readers scratching their heads. As for Scaramucci as a lawyer, had i not insisted, it would not have been npov.2 Whether nys unified court system is a primary source, i leave it for further discussion. i don't think i interpreted it to the extent of inappropriateness as you had insinuated. The larger consensus you have found so far does not represent half of the 700mm chinese internet users that wikipedia has yet to penetrate. You wonder why i singled you out? I have to wonder why you had to pick on me when you said I don't really have the means, for lack of a better word, to research and add new content at this time (lots on my plate in that area) I am of course grateful for your copy-editing, but the censorship page needs a leader. Otherwise it would be dilapidated as i go back into fulltime gainful employment next week. If you are actually asking for a block, you should reveal it. Maybe it's best this way so that I could focus on real gainful employment. I will maintain the film censorship list privately and never share it with narrow-minded editors.Supermann (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at Film censorship in China, the very first thing I saw in the history was Supermann citing Deviantart as a source. I'm not even going to look any further into this; Supermann, if you're not willing to abide by Wikipedia's rules on reliable sourcing, particularly on a politically sensitive topic, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. (You've been here eleven years; you don't get the benefit of the doubt we extend to good-faith newcomers who haven't yet had time to read the policies.) Regarding I will maintain the film censorship list privately and never share it with narrow-minded editors, you're spectacularly missing the point—if the list isn't sourced to reliable, independent, non-trivial, secondary sources we do not want it. ‑ Iridescent 17:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iridescent: How did you jump to Deviantart so fast? Do we have a policy against it as a secondary source? I was citing a Texan book author who put his opinion there. Had I known he had put that down somewhere more reputable, I would have used it. I found out his identity here.1 Since he said he is a book author, which i verified, I felt comfortable of citing his insight. It is all for the contextualization that TenTonParasol demands from day 2. If Ben-Hur 1925 and 1959 had been banned, of course I wonder if 2016 is censored too, due to Christianity. Back to your question of being here for 11 years, i literally only got educated on all the other policies/guidelines/essays earlier this year when i started to contribute more. Imagine half of the 700mm Chinese internet users have yet to be here, editing. The contextualization on the list is sourced to great secondary sources to the best extent of my ability. Pls let me know which one you don't like and I could try to find an alternative. Again, i think the runtime columns, sourced to state censor approved figures, is the best quantitative tool to document censorship. Textual analysis from the secondary sources would have been more available, had journalists not have a tough economic environment.Supermann (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Through the cunning ploy of looking at the recent history of the article? If you really need to ask Do we have a policy against [DeviantArt] as a secondary source?, I've nothing further to say to you—per my comments above, from a good-faith newcomer I'd think they didn't understand the nature of Wikipedia but given that you've been active for over a decade we're squarely in WP:CIR territory if you think there are any circumstances in which DeviantArt could ever be considered a reliable source for anything. ‑ Iridescent 19:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Could I use Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves as a one-time exception for the book author? He had published 23 books. But if you insist on removing Ben-Hur 2016 from the list, pls go ahead. The current list is not comprehensive to begin with, thanks to the absence of runtime columns which would have shown Ben-Hur 2016 is shortened by 10 minutes.1 I can't tell you why, because no English news media have written about it. And this is how it is lost in history permanently. Yes, I have been here more than 10 years. But pls take a look of the number of edits over the years:lackluster.2 I appreciate the patience people have extended to me.Supermann (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Or Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Exceptions for this Chinese column[1] at the Christian Times1, which was, according to translation for your perusal, "founded in 2008 by Beijing Gospel Times Information Technology Co., Ltd., which is not affiliated with any church or church organization. It is a Christian comprehensive information website based on Chinese local church and Christian, cross-denomination. Since the founding of the present, the Christ Times attaches great importance to content construction, based on the truth of the Bible, uphold the principles of "taking the church and using it to the church", and publish daily Christianity and gospel, such as church, international, social, cultural, Sexual information, services, the majority of the needs of the audience. The Christian Times wants to be a platform for church and church, church and society, church and government, church and believers, believers and believers to understand each other." At the bottom of the columnist's article, there is a translated caveat "(This article is the exclusive manuscript of the Christ the Times, the text of the views of the speaker on behalf of the stand, the Christ Times remain neutral. Welcome to personal browsing reproduced, other public platform without authorization, not reproduced!)" Supermann (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Lude, Wang. "【观察】梅尔·吉布森新电影《血战钢锯岭》引中国基督徒关注和热评". Christian Times (in Chinese). Retrieved 2 August 2017.

    User of IP addresses vandalizing President of Russia, possible sockpuppetry

    (non-admin closure) Both IPs temp-blocked. Please use WP:AIV to report clear vandalism. Potty language is a strong indicator. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    There are IP addresses vandalizing the Wikipedia article, and I suspect that it is actually one operating user using multiple accounts. We have User talk:2600:8805:5800:2100:b871:8496:aa33:72b6 and User talk:2600:8805:5800:2100:a831:bcde:b100:5590,with edits such as this. He also got even with this user, as which I was operating since I wanted to quickly revert the change. I suggest you investigate. Gamingforfun365 04:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    72b6 already reported at WP:AIV, suggest you add 5590 to that report. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Page creation blocked

    CREATED
    Page with title on title blacklist created. Nothing else to do here. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 Talk • Edits 13:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'm trying to create a page (a redirect, in fact) for the early Disney short Cleaning Up!!? (IMDB ref), but creation of that name is blocked. It's to be a redirect to List of Disney animated shorts#1921. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:GwentWatch

    Contributions fixed just in time for a game of cards. Amortias (T)(C) 22:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    GwentWatch (talk · contribs) appears to be a single purpose account devoted to removal of the word "Gwent" wherever he/she sees it. Is this allowed? If so, why? Apologies if this is the wrong location for this question. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • No, you're right - I'm just on my way out, but could someone more tech-savvy than me mass-revert all of their changes? There are obviously huge numbers of Newports (for example) in the world and removing the qualifier makes the article unclear. Black Kite (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • ✓ Done All reverted. In some cases, GW's removals will actually have been correct—Gwent is a relatively recent invention, so some of the historic figures will actually have been from Newport, Monmouthshire—but there were far too many to sift through them individually checking which were legitimate. ‑ Iridescent 19:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And to think all this time I thought we were talking about a pretty fun side quest RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Croatian Air Force and Air Defence

    Please see this topic ... user FOX 52 acts as if it was his theme on wikipedia and writes nonsense, for example, a propeller plane PC-9 is "Electronic Warfare aircraft" and anyone who writes correctly he deletes

    The information in the table is based of this source, which is downloadable to view. Further IP user 78.0.202.213 was warned about sourcing and edit warring - and was subsequently blocked. Now user IP 93.136.110.152 appears to a sock of previous IP user - FOX 52 (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    please explain how is pc-9 "Electronic Warfare aircraft"?

    ANI isn't a place for content dispute, besides, you are indeed a sock per WP:SOCK. After viewing Croatian Air Force and Air Defense history, you've been editing with multiple IPs way too similar to that of yours for quite sometime. IPs starting with "93.1" and "78.0" located in Croatia. More specifically, IPs starting with "93.1" have a history of heavily editing the article since...2016, 2015? Here's a very similar edit from November 27, 2015 and a more recent one from August 1, 2017. Now I haven't viewed every single edit and some of the similar IPs might also be other people editing from Croatia as well. But better safe than sorry, I recommend the article be protected for a very, very, very long time...like forever from IP editing. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It is better to close this article better than it is not exactly written..bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.110.152 (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:47.190.47.120

    47.190.47.120 (talk · contribs) has been edit warring and has now resorted to discussing my life outside of wikipedia.

    Example: Talk:Billy Mitchell (video game player))

    • It is easy to see your public conversations on the internet, from your forum and social media posts to your interesting Reddit threads. It is easy to see you have a personal friendship and bias toward Mitchell. My request for fact checking with a noted expert that you dislike for some reason is not relevant to the point at hand.

    Datagod (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    When you post a link to your personal website on your user page it's not "doxxing" for somebody to follow it, especially given that you only removed the link a couple of weeks ago. There's potentially a user conduct issue here in that the argument should be on the merits not the personalities, but it's certainly not doxxing. ‑ Iridescent 20:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading this discussion It seems like the IP wants to make the dispute more personal which is not appropriate per WP:PERSONAL. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree it is not doxxing, I did not mean to imply it was. But discussing my personal life and making claims of membership on other websites certainly is crossing the line. Also the various posts about my thought processes, my posts on social media, and the contents of personal conversations is bordering on creepy. Datagod (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you actually attempting to deny that you are the same Datagod seen here as a Twin Galaxies founder, along with photos of you being friends with the very people you keep editing Wikipedia articles in favor of? It even has some of the same photos you have posted on here. This is valid infomation as it shows a clear conflict of interest to where you should not be editing articles involving this topic. http://www.twingalaxies.com/member.php/31794-datagod47.190.47.120 (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User Datagod seems eager to play victim while exhibiting the same behaviors he takes note with. He is constantly claiming I am or am related to a person he has some sort of personal squabble with. The fact that he appears in photos and at events with Billy Mitchell all over the country is very valid considering that he keeps editing Wikipedia in Mitchell's favor, including continually re-editing in a false historical claim about being the first to a Pac-Man split screen. I have posted on that page's talk page multiple links that prove he was not. Datagod, the same person who added a photo of himself with Mitchell into Wikipedia, should not be editing a page for a person he has a personal relationship with anyway.47.190.47.120 (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Requiem (Duruflé)

    Could a grown up look at the talk page of Talk:Requiem (Duruflé), and at the edit summaries surrounding the edit warring over the inclusion of an infobox. I will admit my actions have not been great, but when faced with lies, bullying, baiting and name-calling by a pack of registered editors, it would take the patience of a saint not to bite back. 213.205.198.246 (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    An editor posted a question about my involvement on the talk page, then removed it as I had editing as part of a range. He removed his own post, but I thought I would let my explanation below stand in case others also have the same query. 213.205.198.246 (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am the only IP editor on that page over the last few days. For some reason my phone providers have been using dynamic IP addresses which has switched me around (to the confusion of a couple of people who think I have been responsible for long-term vandalism. I have not, but that's a problem with dynamic IPs. It's been an excuse for various people to accuse me of vandalism, cowardice and several other spiteful names. I always thought wikipedia had a civility policy that stopped such direct abuse. Is that still in place or has the encyclopedia become a nursery?) 213.205.198.246 (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As the other half of that argument, I suppose I ought to register my distaste for this IP-hopping anon who clearly is a registered editor avoiding scrutiny. This is the same IP who has made the same reversion four times at Requiem (Duruflé) against three different editors other than me, then has the nerve to call my sole edit to the article "edit-warring". Unlike the other contributors, he has failed to make a single constructive edit to the article talk page, and now complains here that his trolling on that page has attracted a kick-back. --RexxS (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already stated do not have an account. I have edited on and off for a while with small edits as an IP. I am sorry you think it a crime to be an IP editor, but as you have had this explained to you several times, I do not know why you repeat the lie that I have an account. As to others being constructive on the talk page, you have to look carefully to find anyone being "constructive" there (perhaps only two people,can't claim that). Too many lies and too many insults have come from the keyboards of you and your cronies, all of whom have miraculously "appeared" there where there has been so little activity for so long. 213.205.198.246 (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If that "miracously appeared" is supposed to mean anything, it shouldn't. I have seen plenty of page lie dormant and then a glut of editors show up at a time. Also, some of the edit summaries would attract attention from any recent change patroller. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]
    Plus, this page was recently mentioned on User:Cullen328's talk page—as someone who just passed RFA this week, he'll be having a lot more visitors to his talk page than usual, and at least some of them will have taken a look to see what the fuss is about. ‑ Iridescent 22:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In answer to your edit summary, no, I make no accusations of socking on the page, just that one of the editors has been going round several talk pages posting a link to the thread. 213.205.198.246 (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You do know that on a wiki, claims like that are checkable? That thread has been linked on a grand total of four talk pages; one of those was by you, and of the other three one was to Ceoil who is agreeing with you and one was to Martinevans123 who's not once commented in the thread? ‑ Iridescent 22:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=793620906"