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 2.25.45.251 (talk) at 08:18, 10 August 2017 (→Blocked in violation of policy: reply). 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

    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. [1] [2], [3], [4], [5]. 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". [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] 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]
    And personally, I think that's the way it has to stay. WP:NOTMANDATORY is just too important a principle for a volunteer community to not be weakened, even if the rare problem editor takes shelter under it. Life happens and I don't think it's reasonable or smart to give an incentive to editors in disputes to go digging into evidence of what is going on in eachother's lives. None of that should matter. Whatever the nature and authenticity of Arthur's illness (or anyone stated need for needing to disengage with Wikipedia) it shouldn't be a topic of discussion here. The AE report isn't going anywhere and Arthur either has to stay away or face the music once he comes back. No harm results to the person alleging misconduct directed against them in either of those scenario's and we keep this community out of a sticky area it wisely chose to avoid early on and consistently ever since. Snow let's rap 23:08, 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

    While it could be argued that there is consensus for this, the second option below has stronger support and Arthur's return somewhat undermines many of the support rationales here. So I'm closing this section with no action. GoldenRing (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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,[17] 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]
    @Legacypac: I did not examine the evidence but a glance at AR's contribs told me there was no ongoing disruption. It can be extremely frustrating, but WP:NOPUNISH is a strongly supported policy (I don't find it frustrating because I think it's quite charming, but it would be frustrating to victims of abuse). I have now examined the first three diffs at the Arbcom case request and the first three diffs presented by some others here. I did the same at User:Legacypac/AR. I understand that being treated like shit by a passer-by who believes he has God-given powers to remove the new page reviewer right based on his judgment would be frustrating. I see that an extremely well-respected admin restored the right per their very thorough comment here. However, IMHO, AR did enough in that discussion to mean that Arbcom will not weigh the rights removal action as warranting a desysop. The discussion shows an explanation of an honest belief, allbeit a naive and unwarranted belief—WP:ADMINACCT is probably satisfied. Other diffs I looked at involved claims that ADMINACCT was violated because AR did not supply a requested diff, but I did not see any related admin tool use, so ADMINACCT is not applicable. The first three diffs at the Arbcom request show nothing other than a difference of opinion. Possibly there are diffs showing a sanctionable problem, but they would have to be winnowed from the others, and that can occur at the Arb case when it resumes. Johnuniq (talk) 05:43, 3 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 [18] 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]
    Yes, I'm not saying we are quite ready to close, but responding to the assertions above that an Admin could be sanctioned for implimemting. a block here. Also if he started editing today, in violation of this pending community block and nothing was done about it... there better be consequences. There are 9 more votes than he had for taking my tools away, but you know he is "trusted". Legacypac (talk) 23:32, 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]
    his failure to WP:ADMINACCT is causinv continuing damage. Legacypac (talk) 00:09, 3 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]
    • Oppose In a word, overkill, given we are working from assumptions about the delay in Arthur's engagement with this thread and the AE report. WP:TIND applies here as surely as it does content matters; the AE report will remain open until Arthur returns, unless ArbCom decides to act on it, which decision is there privilege. In the meantime, nothing preventative is to be gained by this block, making it counter to our WP:CBAN guidelines. Most importantly, I just don't think we should feel comfortable speculating about off-wiki life of our contributors, let alone basing sanctions on that speculation. Snow let's rap 23:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We have the evidence already we don't need anything from him. Legacypac (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Legacypaqc, I realize you hold an animus towards AR, but please stop WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion, it's quite unnecessary, and annoying (as BLUDGEONing alway is). Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Make your case in your !vote and refrain from making it again and again in response to others. There's discussion, and then there's pointless redundancy. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose not because the community cannot impose a block on an admin -- it can -- or because such a block in this instance would violate WP:NOPUNISH -- I don't think it would -- but because the editing restriction proposed below will suffice to insure that if and when AR returns he will address this and the Arbitration Request, and any additional sanctions can then flow from there. I will also comment that if the suggestion that AR is editing elsewhere on the Internet while holding that he is too sick to respond here is true -- evidence of which should be presented if and when the Arbitration Case is accepted, or even as evidence that it should be accepted -- then that is behavior which should result in being desysopped, since how can the community trust someone who lies to us like that? If, however, it is not true, then those spreading that false information should be sanctioned for that action, regardless of whether the underlying charges against AR are justified or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per WP:PUNISH. Is AR vandalising, trolling or otherwise disrupting WP? No. Does their absence damage WP? No. Does his failure to account for his actions damage WP? Nope. Does it do damage to himself? Irreparably so. Blackmane (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I know this cannot happen but I'm adding my name here anyway in the hope it might or could happen, Basically the same as my comment below - Ars behaviour is unbecoming of any admin and they deserve to be blocked for it - No editor or admin would get away with it so why should they?. –Davey2010Talk 11:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    [Consensus to enact, as amended] Proposed editing restriction

    Amended - last sentence added, following discussion at WP:AN#CBAN Clarification request. GoldenRing (talk) 10:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    That's as good consensus as you'll see from almost any discussion here. The objections of those who favor a block are noted, though Arthur's return and participation in the arbitration process makes that option much less workable. Arthur Rubin is community banned from editing any pages on the English language Wikipedia, with the exception of his own talk page, WP:ANI and any edits connected with the current request for arbitration and any case that develops out of it]], broadly construed. This restriction will end once the request for arbitration is rejected or any case that develops out of it is concluded.

    GoldenRing (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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]
    I can't guarantee there are no diffs supporting TRM attcks but I know there are non to support his attacks on me. This editing restriction is likely the end of his editing career. Legacypac (talk) 00:02, 3 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]
    A regular editor would have received escallating blocks by now. He's got Admin armor. Seems impossible to block him. Legacypac (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, because admins are never blocked. Ever. Lepricavark (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no call for an indefinite ban. Admins are not exempt from being blocked either. In this case, as noted above, there are good reasons why a block at the moment may be problematic for the blocking admin, hence this proposal. Mjroots (talk) 05:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    See Legacypac's above comment about this likely being the end of AR's editing career. I find such a comment troubling, as I believe such an outcome would be excessive and vindictive. Hence my comment above and my support only being weak. I am relieved to hear from you and Cjhard that an indef doesn't appear to be on the table. Lepricavark (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentIs this second proposal supposed to replace or supplement the first one? If replace, perhaps the first should hatted? L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second choice. I would oppose hatting the section above. As for this proposal, either admins are treated equally with other editors or they are not. There should be some kind of block, but if that fails then there can be this. Coretheapple (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I agree with a majority of the above opinions and statements. DN (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose. This proposal has a somewhat more reasonable scope, but I still don't see the point. As soon as Arthur returns he will have to report to AE to explain this mess (he can hardly evade doing so, since someone will just take the matter there themselves if he does not). ArbCom is the only appropriate space to discuss the desysop issue. Meanwhile, the community here is still free to discuss a community block or ban (immediately or at some point down the road) based on Arthur's conduct, and in such a discussion, each community member is completely free to draw their own conclusions about whether or not his silence indicates that he cannot justify his actions, same as we would under any circumstances. So it we are going to block him, let's have a straight up and down discussion/!vote about how likely it looks that there was misconduct here that rises to the level of a block (putting his admin status to the side). But these present proposals, which appear to be predicated on the assumption that we need to force him to break his silence or else box him in when he returns (so that he cannot evade AE) are flawed, imo, because we don't need a ban to achieve that result; he'll be channeled into ArbCom regardless. Snow let's rap 23:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second choice - while a standard editor would be blocked, this is effectively the same thing without the block log reflecting their breach of expected standards of behaviour. All because they're an admin. Twitbookspacetube 23:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that may not be 100% accurate; contributors very, very regularly get away with casting aspersions regarding misconduct while failing to provide sufficient (or any) evidence. It happens 40 times a day on this exact page and rarely is that violation met with a sanction. (Very frequently, it will hurt their standing in the behavioural discussion, of course, which arguably you could say led indirectly to a block on the topic they were nominally here for). But being blocked explicitly under the WP:PA provision that accusations of misconduct have to be presented alongside evidence? Exceedingly rare. I can't even think of a single community ban ever where a user was blocked just for that. The reason this issue is (justifiably) getting more scrutiny here is because Arthur is an admin, not in spite of it. Snow let's rap 23:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Paul August ☎ 10:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a throwaway line that Rubin used in a single debate, this is multiple violations of NPA over a period of weeks and at a variety of locations, combined with an abject refusal to provide any evidence to support the NPAs with any diffs on a dozen occasions. And this is from an admin. The comparison is false. The damage has already been done, regardless of any diffs Rubin may re-appear and supply at some point in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying these issues are not worth looking into, especially insofar as they involve an admin. I'm just questioning the stated assumption that Arthur received special protection with regard to the allegations, by virtue of being an admin. Insofar as I've seen in this discussion, his admin status actually became the fulcrum by which it was viewed important to address the matter, and thus, far from being something that insulated him from community attention, actually became the focal point for that interest. Snow let's rap 20:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said. TRM complained preemptively about how admins get special treatment and Legacypac jumped aboard with a personal vendetta. I suspect the cleanstarted Twitbookspacecube has a prior history with AR as well, as evidenced by their dedicated efforts to see some sort of sanction. All of these factors combined to ensure that AR has not at all received favorable treatment, and the "admin armor" gripes are misleading and tiresome. Lepricavark (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, did you miss the bit where I'd spent three weeks trying to resolve the situation, with this admin, and yet not one admin came to support that. Perhaps you missed the point where an admin told me "fuck you" and maybe you missed the point where an admin called me an "asshole" and maybe you missed the point where Arbcom leapt to the defence of an admin and IBANed me (while emailing me links to oversighted material).... There's not one jot of pre-emptiveness about my statement. I live in the real world, and have occupied the Wikipedia world for more than 12 years, my experience shows that I'm right and you are wrong. "AR has not at all received favorable treatment" - why would he? He's the one running around calling me a liar with no evidence. What are you talking about? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second choice with protest. Had this softer gentler no permanent record sanction not preempted the block discussion, it would have passed today. Admin armor again. No such consideration given to regular editors who are insta blocked on the decision of one Admin only. Anyway it's SNOWing and this needs to be implemented. Enough drama. Legacypac (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a note on the punitive nature of the first proposal—a community ban enforced with a block—versus the second proposal—a community ban that is not enforced with a block: I think too much focus is being given to the idea that blocks should not be punitive, rather than the more general principle that sanctions should not be punitive. Other than the existence of an entry in the block log, there's very little difference between the two proposals, as in both cases the editor is being directed to limit their edits to a specific topic. If one proposal is punitive, so is the other, or contrariwise, if one is not, neither is the other. (There can be of course other grounds for preferring one proposal to another, such as allowing for greater flexibility in responding on multiple pages rather than solely on the user's talk page.) isaacl (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • This proposal is actually for a community ban that can be enforced with a block. It is not punitive; the intent is to get AR to respond to the allegation that he has made personal attacks on a number of editors or to refute the allegation by providing the diffs that have been asked for on many occasions. That AR is an admin is not the reason that he is not blocked at this point in time. If AR was not an admin and in this very position, an admin blocking him could potentially face sanctions for breaching the NOPUNISH policy. If AR cannot provide diffs because there are no diffs to provide, then he should have the guts to say so, and face the music both here and at ARBCOM. This does not mean that he needs to be removed from the project permanently. Mjroots (talk) 05:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Arthur Rubin has made a statement at the ArbCom case page. Black Kite (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That he has provided the diffs should not prevent this sanction coming into effect. It looks like consensus will pass, and the sanction can be imposed once the proposal has been up for 24 hours. Mjroots (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Oh I would love to see them blocked however unfortunately that cannot happen so this is the next best thing I suppose, The behaviour of AR is unbecoming of any admin and does need discussing - No editor or even admin for that matter would get away with that so why should AR?. –Davey2010Talk 11:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support with the addition of using admin tools. Arthur should be restricted from editing until we have an acceptable response. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment @GoldenRing: The ban should include the conditions for its lifting, conforming with the Mjroots' proposal that: "The restriction to be lifted after he has provided diffs and the ARBCOM case is either rejected or concluded" Paul August ☎ 10:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see consensus for that. I didn't consider that provision part of the proposed restriction, more an explanation of how Mjroots saw things progressing in the future. I think it's better left like this; when AR thinks this is all resolved satisfactorily, he can come back to the community to have the restriction lifted. Any provision for automatic removal is, in my view, too prone to wikilawyering, from both sides. So I'm leaving it as it is — indefinite, which as we all know does not mean infinite. If you seriously disagree with that, then please request closure review at AN; I won't vociferously oppose changing it if the community disagrees, but IMO it's better like this and we don't need more drama coming out of this. GoldenRing (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I did indeed mean that the community ban would expire either at the rejection of the request by ARBCOM, or at the conclusion of the case at ARBCOM. It is "indefinite", but defined in precise terms. At the conclusion of the case (if heard) AR would be free to resume editing, subject to any sanctions imposed by ARBCOM, without the need for further drama here getting the CBAN lifted. Mjroots (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's how I understood the proposal, and that's how I would presume most other editors who opined presumed. I really think that language be added to the restriction.Paul August ☎ 20:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's certainly the wording that was placed in the proposal itself and thus we must assume it here (we can't implement a ban where there is even a shadow of a doubt that it is (much) more restrictive than those voting for it may have intended). I believe most the support !votes above were voting to restrict Arthur's actions until he provided the promised diffs and had his behaviour examined by ArbCom and the community (as the proposal directly stated); I do not believe most of !votes are likely to reflect (or in any event, can be proven to have been based on) the opinion of the commenting editors that Arthur had definitely violated policy, that this fact had absolutely been established to their satisfaction, and that extent of his actions meant he should be community banned indefinitely. I'm glad you brought this to attention, Paul, because it's been bothering me ever since the close, and I was contemplating the best way to broach it with GoldenRing. Notwithstanding GoldenRing's good-faith objections, I don't think their close accurately reflects the consensus and, with all due respect to their initial response here, I'd argue that the best way to avoid the further "drama" they are concerned about is for them to implement the narrower interpretation of consensus that seems to be to be pretty explicit in the wording of the proposal. If not, I think this just has to (as a matter of procedural integrity) go to closure review, with every editor who voted on the proposal pinged, and that hardly seems like the "quieter" option here. Snow let's rap 21:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw, and just for the record, I was RfC'd to the underlying content dispute that set this dispute between Arthur and TRM off. And I became very concerned about how Arthur was presenting the facts/policies in that discussion and how he seemed to be leveraging his position as an admin in a way that did not seem to me to be entirely appropriate. So I'm all for an inquiry into his conduct (now best left to ArbCom, in my opinion, TRM's lack of faith in them not withstanding). But I think a close that declares sanctions needs to err on the side of caution (and if necesary, in favour of the party being sanctioned) when there is any doubt as to just what the respondents !voted for. Snow let's rap 21:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @GoldenRing: Based on the above would you please reconsider your close?. Thanks. Paul August ☎ 12:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paul August: and Snow Rise this is how GoldenRing reacted to being asked to reconsider his close so I doubt any of you will get much headway here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked at WP:AN#CBAN Clarification request for clarifiation that the CBAN has a defined set of circumstance under which it will end, without the need to return here for another drama-fest. Mjroots (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As a result of that discussion, GoldenRing amended the restriction as requested. And, in fact, the CBAN itself has been lifted. Paul August ☎ 09:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Almost moot

    (non-admin closure) I doubt the claim of a pre-close violation of the ban is going to gain traction, so the ANI side of this dispute appears to be concluded. We certainly don't need ANI for play-by-play commentary on the ArbCom case. I'll leave it to an admin to close the parent thread, but this part is a no-brainer. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    So Rubin has recovered and added some diffs to the Arbcom case (and then edited two dozen articles) so I guess all this is almost moot now. I'm grateful to the community for their input and analysis of the ongoing issues. As we all know, there ain't no party like an Arbcom party, so "come on over" to my place, bring more popcorn. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    There's no reason why the community restriction above cannot be enacted by an uninvolved admin. Per WP:CBAN, more than 24 hours has elapsed, and there is overwhelming support for the restriction, with the relaxation proposed by Iridescent. As I've commented in the Arbcom case request I consider myself involved now. Mjroots (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I think we both know that's not going to happen now, because what if Rubin edits outside that? Who's going to block him? No-one has the balls to go against a potential Arbcom shitstorm, so this is all somewhat academic. Of course, Arbcom could simply dismiss the case (after all, that way the admin walks free and it just looks like it was sour grapes on the mere editor who had a month of personal attacks levelled against him, poor minion). This discussion was nice, illuminating, and who knows, maybe Arbcom will actually take into account the strength of feeling of the community on this one, but most likely, they'll just take the opportunity to craft a method to rid Wikipedia of someone else. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've marked the proposal as "consensus to enact". Let's see if that has any effect. Mjroots (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "So Rubin has recovered and added some diffs to the Arbcom case (and then edited two dozen articles)". Yes, including STILL casting aspersions at TRM [19]. Black Kite (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, upon his return, one of his first edits was to tell me that I hadn't lied, on that particular occasion. This is getting too much, it seems clear Rubin has learnt nothing from the discussions both here and at Arbcom, and perhaps needs further guidance from others on how conduct himself given the current situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The community ban was decided before it was closed. The closing Admin only formally enacted the ban. By editing outside ArbComm or here while there was such a strong support for the BAN, he basically broke the BAN. His posting at ArbComm is a doubling down on on calling TRM a liar and the timing appears very convenient to undermine a BLOCK. Was really sick? Hard to tell when he has been posting so many false (ie unsupported by diffs) statements about other editors. Legacypac (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The CBAN has been enacted, AR has been notified and the restriction has been [logged. Mjroots (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Infringement of editing restrictions

    Rubin has made this edit in direct infringement of his restrictions. Even at a good faith stretch, this edit doesn't comply with what Rubin is currently allowed to do. Please, someone action this. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say "meh" unless he keeps it up—I imagine he's assumed that my I wouldn't have any issue were he to want to talk to an individual about the case on their own talkpage comment above forms an implicit part of his community ban, and this edit does fall within that—any edits connected with the current request for arbitration and any case that develops out of it, broadly construed is in the wording of the ban. (His claim is nonsense unless he's using some truly weird phone or a pre-2009 iPhone that hasn't had its software updated since—any iOS device running iOS3.0 or later and any Android device will let you do a point-a-to-point-b text selection, as I'm sure he knows perfectly well.) Unless he either goes back to editing material unrelated to the case, or carries on throwing unsubstantiated allegations around, I wouldn't want to block for that. ‑ Iridescent 19:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fucking marvellous. This really is "protect an admin" day. Please note, Rubin's edit relates to the ANI thread, which is not included in the legitimate areas of discussion Rubin can participate. Either this CBAN exists or it doesn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    TRM, unless I am misunderstanding you, the ban specifically allows the editing of ANI. And admins do get blocked for high jerkiness often enough. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]
    He didn't edit ANI, he asked someone else to do it for him, even though he is fully capable of doing so himself. This is way beyond stupid. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Since ANI is included in the list of pages he can edit, if he's merely asking someone else to copy something across to here, I don't think it's a problem (though as Iridescent says, why on earth he can't do it himself I have no idea, and why he wants to do it at all is a mystery, since we're pretty much done here). If he starts editing completely outside his restriction, it will be a different matter. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ARGH, that's the whole point. He's editing a talk page of another user, not any of the pages he's entitled to edit. The CBAN wording should therefore be updated to included "Any user talk page Rubin chooses to edit to make requests to copy and paste details to ANI or the Arbcom case, despite the fact he can simply type that information in at those permitted locations himself." What a joke. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He's avoiding scrutiny at every single cost - He's an admin for fucksake so why can't he just copy it himself" - Needless to say he was temporarily restricted from editing any page on this entire website except Arbcom and so therefore this should be enforced .... Not be a case of "Oh it's a talkpage nevermind" - We should enforce this regardless of what page he edits period. –Davey2010Talk 20:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I give up. This is now becoming de facto standard, the admin has it their way, the rest of us just get blocked without discussion. Bravo. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm about to leave him a note making it really obvious what the restriction means. If he edits in any way outside it again, I'll block him myself, regardless of whether I've commented at the ArbCom case. Black Kite (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter any more. This is just how it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He's not allowed to edit articles right now. Indefinitely. And the admin who imposed that sanction, contrary to the proposal that attained consensus, imposed it such that even the closure of the Arb case won't remove the ban. He has effectively been indeffed and he has several editors graciously watching his every move, ready to pounce on anything that appears amiss in the hope that he will land in even more trouble. If he wasn't an admin, he probably would have been blocked by now. In fact, the block might have already expired. Instead, because he's an admin, he's indefinitely prohibited from contributing to the encyclopedia and he's been subjected to a large-scale public humiliation. Under his real name, no less. I'm not asking or expecting you to have any sympathy for AR, but I do implore to consider that he simply is not getting off easy. Lepricavark (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He subjected himself to public humiliation. Legacypac (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And you've generously given of your time and energy to make that humiliation as painful as you can. I believe we might consider that being "part of the problem". Lepricavark (talk) 11:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    To be technical he made 3 edits outside his restriction [20] ignoring the earler ones he made to the RY pages where this whole thing started and other pages while the community had already BANNED him but no admin had closed and enacted the ban. The decision was also to BLOCK him but that was not implemented (I can respect the close there), but given there was a storng possibility of a block too, his editing of various pages is pretty gutsy. Legacypac (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    That's one way of putting it. He's just laughing at all of us. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Legacypac: The CBAN did not come into force until AR had been notified that it had been agreed upon. Therefore any editing before notification was not in breach of the ban.
    Re his editing on a mobile phone, it may be the case that he finds it difficult/impossible to cut and paste part of a page. I've got a smartphone, but there's no way I could edit Wikipedia on it, although it has the capability. I can just about manage simple editing on a Kindle Fire, but need a "proper" computer for serious editing. Mjroots (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Certain phones have a stupendously annoying tendency to make the keyboard so big you can't actually see the edit window. My previous phone, when I tried to edit a new line, would jump the view up to somewhere else in the edit window while I was typing. Quite frankly, mobile editing of WP is fraught with problems. However, counter to what AR says, it is possible to copy paste provided you tap and hold where you want to start your copy, then drag the markers to highlight the text you want to copy. It's clunky and horrible, but it is doable. Blackmane (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Remove CBAN

    The CBAN has been removed (see below). Paul August ☎ 09:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    It's not being enforced, so what's the point of it? That Rubin could edit ANI himself yet chose to canvass another sympathetic editor to do it for him seems like an obvious way of gaming the CBAN, but it's been sanctioned by a couple of admins here, so there seems little point in continuing with the charade. Allow Rubin to edit as he likes, allow him to continue to attack me and allow him to continue to deny any wrongdoing and facilitate his escape from any kind of sanction. Either enforce the CBAN or dissolve it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't understand how getting someone to proxy edit ANI does AR any good, or how it games the Ban. If he is trying to make us look stupid that won't workL3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It already has. The ban is effectual, QED. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    At least one admin has said that they will enforce the ban if there are any additional breaches, so let's see what happens. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    On reflection, and now Arbcom are moving into acceptance of this, we should definitely allow Rubin the usual latitude. Innocent unil proven guilty etc. See my section below. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request to allow Rubin to continue to contribute until Arbcom case is concluded

    The community ban on editing has been lifted per the WP:SNOW consensus below. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:30, 7 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 here in good faith to request we allow Rubin to continue to be a regular admin until such a time that may change as a result of the Arbcom case. Since Rubin has recovered from his serious illness and since the Arbcom case is now at the threshold of acceptance, it's abundantly clear that any and every edit he makes hereafter will be subject to more scrutiny, and the man's no idiot, so there's nothing for Wikipedia to gain by preventing him from editing as usual. Indeed, a couple of editors have made a case for the helpful edits Rubin has made in specific and specialist areas which are usually under-represented. I humbly submit to the same community who asked for Rubin to be prevented from returning as if nothing had happened to allow him back to normal editing, obviously subject to the result of any Arbcom findings. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support rescinding the restriction enacted above, since it is no longer serving a useful purpose. This is the least bureaucratic solution, and like others with mathematical interests I appreciate the benefit AR brings to these articles. If someone is hesitant to go that far, I also support modifying the restriction so as to automatically expire when Arbcom either opens the case (at which point they can place any temporary injunctions or longer-term editing restrictions should they be necessary) or would decide to reject it (i.e., remove it from RFAr). Martinp (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The editing restriction has served its purpose, lifting the terms now will speed up the process toward resolution. Alex ShihTalk 02:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support this very congenial & highly commendable proposal by TRM. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per everything that has been said above. Lepricavark (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reluctant support - The arbcom case will, indeed, be accepted. As such, I am willing to assume more good faith than any admin would assume if the situation was reversed as such blatant and continued personal attacks have led to indef blocks of regular users. I await arbcom's remedy in a few months time if the case is accepted. If not, yet another admin has their actions endorsed by the community with no real punishment whatsoever. Twitbookspacetube 03:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the unban to leave final action to ArbCom although I had nothing to do with the prior action that amounted to a de facto partial site ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. My understanding was that the purpose of the sanction was to guarantee that when AR returned to editing, he dealt with this issue, which he has done. This being the case, it no longer serves a purpose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: ArbCom is going to accept. If there is ongoing disruption, they may enact a temporary injunction. In the event AR walks away mid-case, ArbCom will hold it in abeyance until his return, resulting in a de facto siteban. And in the unlikely event ArbCom does not accept, then we're just back here anyway. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I'm sure ARBCOM will deal with this situation appropriately. This circus should end. Paul August ☎ 09:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Now that Arthur has responded, the restriction has served its purpose and is no longer needed. Arbcom seem to be on the way to accepting a case and that is the way forward now. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support to undo the community's lunacy in the first place. Banning an editor from editing entirely due to allegations of violating admin-specific policy is nuts. ~ Rob13Talk 12:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I'm pretty sure ArbCom will take the case as well. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support It is very rare for a user to be subject to an injunction during an Arbcom case, and this c-ban is more a general injunction, not a focused t-ban. Arbcom is best situated to impose such an injunction, or any injunction, if needed. Regardless, if the c-ban is over-broad or more than needed to begin with, for several reasons, including that we already had a commitment to respond, it seems it was meant to 'force' him to respond - those merits, whatever their value, have been served. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - The restriction was to force AR to go to Arbcom and to fully explain himself however instead he's completely ignored it all and seemingly thought if he left for a few days "it would all disappear" ... no chance!, Anyway Arbcom are going to accept it and hopefully alot more will happen than just admonishment so I agree with most of the above it may aswell be removed as per the Arbcom case, –Davey2010Talk 15:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support but he'd be a fool to use his Admin tools under the cloud. I was less than impressed to see him make additional personal attacks on his return. If he continues that behavor the block he just dodged should be reconsidered. Legacypac (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment time to action this, it has unanimous support and is a no-brainer. Please, some good admin, cancel the CBAN and inform Rubin he's back up and running. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - have been thinking this over agree that the CBAN should now be lifted. Mjroots (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support and a giant WHALE to those who ramrodded the initial proposal through thinking that ArbCom did not have appropriate tools of user behavior modification. Hasteur (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: I understand why the ban was imposed, there have been too many situations where an admin avoids scrutiny by disappearing, and ensuring that AR responded to concerns was a reasonable goal. He has now done so, is engaging at ArbCom, and it appears a case is a near-certainty. Preventing ArbCom case parties from all regular editing is not standard practice, and requiring it of AR is neither justified by any evidence I have seen nor reasonable as a general proposition. TRM is to be commended for initiating the removal of this ban while the case proceeds. Hopefully, in future, such bans will be better tailored to prevent avoiding scrutiny by disappearing, while not also becoming punitive when the admin does engage with the issue and dispute resolution proceeds, as AR has done. This ban has become punitive and should be lifted as soon as possible. EdChem (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It probably does not matter to this, but for the record, I just have to say "What?" or perhaps, 'multiple citations needed' to this claim about "too many situations" - just, for the future, it just does not sound accurate. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:59, 6 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]
    There had been problems with the addition of the name of a minor-level crewmember for the film Alien: Covenant being inserted into the cast section of the Alien franchise page. The name had been previously removed, but the editor Nurseline247 made → this edit re-emplacing the name onto that page. I informed Nurseline247 that this was a crewmember's name which appears approximately three minutes and 40 seconds into the screencredits for that film, and how that position within Covenant's screencredit hierarchy did not warrant the position Nurseline247 was attempting to place onto it by including it in the list. 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]
    Jeez, how long has this been here? In my defense, my edits to Alien (franchise) restoring minor level crew member Badego was simply because the absence of a name meant the Character column did not line up with the Cast. (See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alien_(franchise)&oldid=785944130), an dbecause I believed that Badego did indeed play a neomorph in the film. Now, in regards to Spider-Man: Homecoming, my edits there simply stated what year the film was set in, something I saw as necessary to clarify due to various online disputes I read about the topic. As I said in those edits, the criminal record of character Aaron Davis shows the film takes place in 2017, at least at that point in time, which ret. I'm not sure what the Arrowverse problem is exactly; from the links I viewed, I never added a non-Recurring character to that list. Are you talking about Constantine? Or maybe Harrison Wells?
    In regards to "Nurseline247 has repeatedly added content about the animated films to a page strictly reserved for live action productions", I'm afraid that I haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about. What animated films? Since when have there ever been animated Spider-Man films outside of the Miles Morales one that was added to the page by someone else? Were you referring to the "Sony's Marvel Universe" films? True, it has yet to be confirmed whether Spider-Man will be in Venom or Silver and Black, but to my knowledge, it has yet to be denied either, hence why I put TBA. If it has been denied since I edited that page, my bad! Sorry about that.
    Back to Alien (franchise), I changed "Short films" to "Promotional Short films", because that IS, in fact, what they were. The Prologues to Alien: Covenant had beginnings, middles and ends; none of the footage in them was intended to be in the final film.
    And I know exactly what makes a shared universe, The Earth Day Special and A Million Ways to Die in the West perfectly fit the definitions, as does Hercules and the Arabian Night. I'm sorry I don't atypically read my talk page by the way. But I did take note of what was written there before I cleared it up. Will clarify at Diary of a Wimpy Kid (film series) that Class Clown is a short film. Thank you very much for your feedback.Nurseline247 (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You've misremembered exactly what changes were made to that cast list. There has never been a dispute over the addition of Bolaji Badejo, rather, the revision that you made shown here is of a person whose name had been removed nine days prior to you adding it again. And while we have this rare opportunity to speak with you regarding your edits, could you possibly elaborate on your page moves shown here and here, one of which has already been reverted and the other which was done w/o consensus? I ask because the reasoning behind your various article redirects performed over the past year (close to 80 of them) are rarely — if ever — expounded upon elsewhere. I believe it's these explanatory moves by you (or a lack thereof) which is bothersome, and that increasing the level of dialogue from you with your fellow co-editors on the changes you make would benefit us all.SpintendoTalk 17:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If you look at the poster for Sinister II, you will notice that it does NOT, say Sinister 2 but rather Sinister II. Back to the Future Part II isn't called Back to the Future Part 2 after all. I was just following what the poster said.
    On Killer BOB, I wasn't aware of any consensus, it's just that any time I've seen BOB written in text on Twin Peaks, Fire Walk With Me or The Return, it's been in all caps rather than small. Even in that Diary of Laura Palmer book from a while back, BOB is never spelled with anything other than all caps. Are these explanations satisfactory?? Nurseline247 (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    While you're justifying yourself here, you manage to continue to edit war with Zucat at Diary of a Wimpy Kid (film series), doing the exact same thing that prompted scores of warnings. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 20:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can comment mainly on the recent edits by Nurseline at Spider-Man in film (and also Spider-Man: Homecoming). At DarthBotto listed and linked, many of the edits to that article added or changed more than they described in the edit summary. While I am not as concerned by this, I am with what these extra edits include. Much of the time it was very excessive and unnecessary table coding, as well as WP:OR material regarding actors and characters they are playing. Also, regarding behavior of material at Spider-Man: Homecoming (see this edit). Not only was this largely WP:OR, Nurseline attempted to source such claims with statements, not reliable sources. Nurseline was warned countless times regarding this behavior, and encourage to engage on talk pages (users or articles') but did not. These edits also alerted me to the user's behavior on other article that was very similar. I've sadly come to the conclusion that the edits by Nurseline are generally more disruptive than helpful and they ultimately may not be here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is my understanding that consistency sets the agenda with regards to a film's nomenclature. In the case of Back to the Future, the sequels have been consistently set in Roman numerals in everything from posters to DVD clamshell packaging. This has not been the case with Sinister 2, as seen in packaging used on Amazon or in their promotional materials in other languages. In the case of Killer Bob, it would appear that a consensus should have been sought for the change you made simply due to the longstanding nature of it being disputatious. That being said, when one looks at the pendulum of editor preference for either style over the last 12 years of the article's existence (as shown below) it could be argued that the time had come for the pendulum to swing to the other, all-capitalized style. — SpintendoTalk 04:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Killer BOB.....2005-2008
    2. Killer Bob......2008-2012
    3. Killer BOB.....2012-2016
    4. Killer Bob......2016-2017
    5. Killer BOB.....2017-????

    Now you're back at re-implementing the contents you added to List of fictional shared universes in film and television that were previously deleted? Do you have no respect for what people have been advising you about for months? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 01:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Could @Nurseline247 please confirm whether or not they are editing under the username Impending IP? These two usernames share similar edits on similar subjects, even sharing the same idiosyncrasy of marking all edits as minor. Please clarify. — SpintendoTalk 02:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The same goes for 86.46.205.88. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 03:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't mark ALL my edits as minor; at least I don't intend to. I have full respect for what people have been advising me about, thank you very much! I hadn't looked at the page List of fictional shared universes in film and television; and I saw what you were talking about in regards to certain things not being "shared universes". However, I noticed that several genuine shared universes were deleted from my initial edit, so I re-added them in a considerably neater way. Sorry for the inconvenience.

    Now, A shared universe is created when two or more characters come together into one film.
    Now, A shared sockpuppet is created when two or more usernames come together under one editor who makes edits in their names.
    I'll take your sidestep of my question (WP:IDHT) as confirmation that you're using this second account. Of course, using multiple accounts is your own prerogative (WP:VALIDALT). The expectation is on you to clearly delineate in those account's talk-page spaces that the other ones exist, using the Alternative account template or other such notification, in order to ensure WP:SCRUTINY. Since you're experienced at page redirects, may I suggest that redirecting one of your account's talk pages to the other one would sufficiently act as notification to other editors.
    However, I'm afraid that restrictions on crossover editing of articles and topics might prove too cumbersome for you — if not downright impossible — given this edit in particular. Now that you've been informed of the expectations, I would note for future reference that any innocuous intentions expressed by you regarding crossover editing won't suffice as an excuse, and without any kind of alternative account notifications would likely be viewed unfavorably. — SpintendoTalk 21:14, 9 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 ([21] [22] [23]). This soon turned into battleground mentality ([24]). I was previously contacted, and decided to respond in the same thread ([25]).

    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: [26]). 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: [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] 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[2] 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. ^ Exclusive: Why The Mummy needed Brendan Fraser trilogy Easter eggs, according to director Alex Kurtzman
    2. ^ 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.
    • Comment - I tried to mediate this dispute at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I had to caution User:Supermann about soapboxing about censorship of movies by the PRC. (The fact that the PRC censors movies is not in dispute, and is the whole subject of the article in question.) I thought that the dispute had been resolved with agreement that it wasn't necessary or appropriate to include runtime columns in the article, and I closed the DRN case as resolved. However, it wasn't resolved; Supermann just didn't reply in 48 hours. It really does appear that Supermann is forum shopping, with both an RFC that is going against, and a second RFM. I will ask Supermann to please re-read talk page guidelines against soapboxing and to re-read the guideline against forum shopping and to read the dead horse essay. Your horse won't carry your banner about Chinese movie censorship any further. Your horse needs burial. Stop bludgeoning the horse. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon: Before I impose a self-exile and swear not to touch the film censorship article in my lifetime, i want to reiterate what i had said on your talk page already:I monitored the DRN daily, but I wasn't pinged about another third stmt request from you. Therefore, I thought the opposition was still modifying her second statement, but I was already expecting a moderation result. Never mind. I have followed your suggestion to initiate RfC. I don't know what can of worms I am getting myself into though. The DRN is not resolved in my eyes. Still, I am grateful for your time. Others had said the same thing and we lost in technicality. Furthermore, I am not forum shopping. I only used RfM after stall on rfc. I simply wanted to see if someone could really live up to the fifth pillar: Wikipedia has no firm rules. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. and give me one specific example where IAR did work.Finally, i was simply not soapboxing. Just to give you an example. When you guys thought I was anti-Communist by bringing up Liu Xiaobo, you had no idea that i put in his comments which alienated half of China to achieve NPOV. These comments include his past saying Chinese are impotent and his support for Bush's iraq war. it's all in the page history. I wasn't lying. Since no one is willing to come forward against the current establishment, I'll shut up. Supermann (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal time?

    • Comment - I have no idea what User:Supermann is trying to say there. I know that they are passionate against Chinese movie censorship. I am not aware of any other editor who either is in favor of Chinese movie censorship or denies that there is Chinese movie censorship. They say that no one is willing to come forward against the current establishment, but I don't even know what establishment they are talking about. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally, in my understanding, Supermann believes that by keeping films that are ostensibly censored off the film censorship in China article, through the denial of the runtime columns, users are refusing to stand up to the communist Chinese government. There's several comments on the talk page there about it, though I'm mobile and cannot readily grab them all. But Supermann has made comments like that in the past: [33] [34] [35]. Seeing as Supermann has seemed to make good on his self-exile promise, what now? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree on the topic ban idea. They certainly like to WP:BLUDGEON their point, and from what I've seen doesn't listen. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support it. When Supermann asked me(? the community?) if a block was being requested, I thought to suggest a topic ban at the time. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Grudgingly support. "Grudgingly" because given the attitude towards sourcing demonstrated above, this will just be transferring the problem to a different area, but I don't feel comfortable blocking/banning altogether so this seems the least worst option. (Incidentally, Supermann, unless there's a huge discrepancy in the runtime you can't consider it as evidence of censorship—movies regularly have different runtimes in different countries both because the credit reel is a different length depending on its language, because edits for different markets sometimes have expository lines (aka "idiot lectures") to explain things that are obvious to viewers in one country but won't necessarily be to people elsewhere, and above all because movies are often shown on film in their original market but in digital projection in translation (digital is easier to overdub) and Hollywood movies are traditionally shot at 24 frames per second but for historic reasons based on the evolution of videotape digital projection is often at 25 FPS which knocks 3–4% off the runtime right away.) ‑ Iridescent 16:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – This is unfortunately a situation that I have seen many times before. An editor is somehow tendentious, and there is discussion here, and the editor then says that they will be taking a long wiki-break for some reason, either because no one is listening, or because they need to heal their wounds after the many personal attacks that never happened, or for whatever reason. Simply allowing the WP:ANI thread to be archived would be a mistake, because the issue will resume sometime when the editor returns, so the thread must be acted on. Unfortunately, I still don’t have a clue what User:Supermann is saying, but maybe User:TenTonParasol is right and a topic-ban is necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a topic-ban from all topics related to film. (If they won’t clarify, we can’t narrow.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I have done what I could to explain why the runtimes cannot be used for the purposes of this article, but I was taken as somehow favoring censorship in China. None of my explanations had any effect. Meanwhile the article on the censorship in China has evolved and shows now a lot more important information on the topic that wasn't there before, but this doesn't seem to be of any value to the editor unless the runtime is included. I do not think User:Supermann is inclined to understand the five pillars and the other policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and to work accordingly. Instead this editor seems to keep campaining for an ideal, even in ways that go contrary to the rules. I don't think that a topic ban will change this, but at least it will let other editors free from having to respond to endless and irrelevant arguments. I am against blocking Supermann from Wikipedia, unless this editor continues such behavior in other areas as well. Hoverfish Talk 22:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This editor has taken to WP:FORUMSHOPping WP:WIKILAWYERing and treats discussions like a WP:BATTLEGROUND. This is but one example of their commenting on the contributor rather than content. This needs to stop. Again and again other editors have tried to explain the policies and guidelines that we all try to abide by and their response is WP:IAR. MarnetteD|Talk 01:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, though I fear that the battleground/bludgeoning behaviour will be carried over to other areas (which, to some extent it has done, for instance at Talk:Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia). One thing that would help might be if Supermann could be less focused on WP:IAR, and less inclined to treat it as a rule that should ideally trump all policies and guidelines, like here and here, not to mention here (including the edit summary). If the topic ban is enacted, that also affects Supermann's existing topic ban on articles related to a specific movie production company - that ban is indefinite but can be appealed in December [36], but that will obviously not be the case with this topic ban on top. --bonadea contributions talk 09:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a topic ban from all articles related to Chinese media. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Robert McClenon Blackmane (talk) 02:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Closure

    There seems to be a consensus for a topic-ban. Can an administrator please close? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 8 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]
    It isn't miraculous at all. The IP is opposing an infobox on this article, you could not find a more contentious issue to jump into on this whole site. Certainly there are at least two editors opposing the IP there who I see on every discussion about infoboxes on classical music but never edit classical music articles otherwise, they appear to care nothing about classical music,they just try to force those boxes into every article. Unquestionably they follow each other around whenever (which is almost always) there is an infobox issue.Smeat75 (talk) 12:24, 3 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]

    I should have made it clearer: the thread or the article. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Opabinia_regalis/Archive_15#Forget_cat, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Claudio_Monteverdi/archive1#Comments_from_Gerda. And that is not taking into account the email system (it seems odd that the Montana chap had been absent for a couple of days, but their very first action was to revert me on an article they had never visited before. The additional lies in his edit summary are also disgraceful) 213.205.198.246 (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You know there's nothing "miraculous" about how editors find pages. If you had the courage to log in with your registered account, you could enable navigation popups and see – as I did on a hover over his name – that Ceoil has just passed 100,000 edits. We've had our arguments in the past, but I have a lot of respect and affection for him, so I went to his talk page to leave him User talk:Ceoil #Céad míle some congratulations. Follow the link and look for yourself: the thread immediately above it refers to Gerda having issues with an IP. So I watch-listed the article and saw your disgusting behaviour there. It should not be surprising then that I eventually decided to revert your fourth revert, and to take you to task for your unconstructive and offensive attitude on the talk page. If you had a stable user talk page available, I would have posted there, but you choose not to reveal your logged-in account name, so I could not. The only thing that's surprising about this whole incident is that you're still allowed to edit Wikipedia after your blatant edit-warring on the article and trolling on the talk page. --RexxS (talk) 12:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, everyone could just have stayed out of it and let Gerda deal with it constructively, instead of jumping and escalating the situation. She did make the change to the stable article, and she's a big girl and could have made her case for the change. I just don't get the mentally of wiki-heros that swoop into conflicts like Underdog (TV series) and start reverting away. If you want to help, mediate, don't escalate. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So, just let me get this right. After bringing a "complaint" against an editor which was summarily dismissed and is still on this page, the bogus basis of which "complaint" was that said editor got involved in "unrelated" disputes and "escalated" them, you're coming to another dispute, where the guy you just accused is involved, and in which you were not involved, and "escalating" it? Or trying to make some sort of point? I'm lost. Begoon 15:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ummm excuse me, but I believe ANI is a forum that people don't have to be involved to legitimately voice their thoughts on a matter, right? That's why you commented on the previous ANI, right? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You're excused. Sure, but people are also not stupid, and treating them as such is generally inadvisable. They will see your motives. -- Begoon 15:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're referring to your question, I didn't find it so much "stupid" as hostile. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I know. You should work on that tendency. It's doing you no good. -- Begoon 16:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll bring up with my shrink at my next appt. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Do the accusations re: socking and the name calling-"troll", "disgusting", "coward" etc., ever stop or is this a continuation of the hatted segment of the article's talk page? Someone was upset about the IP editor using the term "nasty individual"-judging from what's on the talk page and here, small wonder it was said. We hope (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like you still don't understand how wikipedia works. Wikipedia is a collaborative work so more feedback from other editors is generally something to be welcomed, rather than something that's harmful. If someone notices a change they support, then they should be encouraged, not discouraged, from voicing support for the change. In fact, in some cases it may not even be necessary for the person who made the change to comment if it's already became clear there is WP:Consensus for it. It doesn't matter whether the person who initially made the change is a "big girl and could have made her case for the change". Big girls and boys can also rely on others to help them in a collaborative work, hopefully not because of personal feelings these other editors have to the big girl or boy, but because these other editors saw something they feel makes wikipedia better, and is here to make wikipedia better and feels willing to dedicate their time in this case to making wikipedia better. Of course care needs to be taken to avoid piling on to a discussion, but that's mostly a problem when it's editor behaviour that's being discussed. Editors need to remember that massive support for a change they oppose is not generally something that should be taken personally. Perhaps more importantly, piling on is only a concern when there is already a lot of support. If consensus is desired but remains unclear, then it's not piling on to offer feedback. In particular, it's not piling on to offer feedback when none has yet been left, in other words, repeating what I said earlier, there's zero reason to wait for the editor who made a change to express their view before you offer your own view. If you want to work at a project where only a person who makes a change gets to express a view on the change or gets to express the first view, you need to look for something else rather than trying to work on a collaborative project like wikipedia and then getting annoyed because other people are offering feedback on a change. And as I said below, if feel I've misinterpreted your comment, you're welcome to explain what you meant, but please note I'm only going by what you've said, not what anyone else has said. Nil Einne (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also possible that it's President Trump, not wanting to reveal his identity. Whoever it is, making that accusation here should be cause for a block. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortunately, you really don't have a clue what you're talking about. I'll take this as yet another retaliatory comment from you (there's another one just up above) in return for my expressed opinion in the thread where you were roundly lambasted by numerous editors for adamantly refusing to drop the stick. I would suggest that you give up this particular tactic of yours while you're still (barely) ahead, as it won't stand you in good stead, and will eventually get you sanctioned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's how you should take it. After being the victim of framing and gaslighting, I feel like I should speak up for other editors in the same situation. If I get blocked, so be it. I would rather be blocked for doing the right thing than to cower from the toxic atmosphere here. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your advice, but I wasn't asking (or concerned) about how I should take it: I knew what to think. Here's what you should consider: in your effort to "speak up for other editors", you are not helping to end the "toxic atmosphere" here, you are assisting in creating it. When you insert yourself into a situation you know nothing about, and "do the right thing" on behalf of an IP who is likely to be an LTA, a massive serial socker, and who is permanently banned from Wikipedia (but has no compunctions about coming back again and again to bother people and disrupt the project), you are not helping anything, just providing cover for a vandal. Please stop doing that, and take more care about who you support -- Wikipedia doesn't need a self-appointed gadfly and ombudsman who doesn't know what they're doing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why you keep bring up framing. AFAICT it was your own comments that you made in the thread that caused the reaction from the community in the thread. At least in my case, and I strongly suspect for many other commentators there, it had little to do with what others had said about you or the dispute. Unless you're saying you've been a victim of your own failure to frame you responses correctly. Nil Einne (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems clear from your comments here, and the little I looked at in the article talk page, including the fact that you involve yourself in such a high profile dispute with clear knowledge of the history, that you have extensive experience with wikipedia. So even if your statement that you've never had an account is true, you should know based on your experience that given all this, people are naturally going to be very suspicious when you show up in a dispute like that. You should also know that, for better or worse, even if there's no conclusive evidence that you have used an account or are otherwise WP:Socking no one is likely to be sanctioned for voicing suspicion that you have had one, even if it's repeated once you've denied it. As for the rest, well I see a lot of not ideal behaviour from both sides, as unfortunately is the norm with these heated infobox disputes. Since you provided no diffs other than the article talk page link and the links to the alleged canvassing, it's difficult to call this anything other than another messy infobox dispute which we can only hope does not boil over into another one where sanctions are called for. Nil Einne (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to try to address all the dis-jointed comments above. I am going to summarize my thoughts here, and call it good.
    Jumping into content disputes by making your first edit to an article a reversion of an edit by someone who is in dispute with your friend, can do nothing but escalate the situation into a behavior issues (edit: particularly in an article that you've never edited before, on a subject matter in which you have expertise and have never showed any interest in editing before. That is what RexxS did in both circumstances). Even Gerda seemed to think the conflict was unnecessarily escalated. RexxS's comment "At the end of the day, one has to make a decision about where to draw the line in tolerating bad behaviour such as the IP demonstrates. I draw mine pretty close to zero-tolerance for the attacks he made on two of our most respected and well-intentioned women editors on that page." pretty much just sums it up that he was playing "wiki-hero", protecting the little wimm'n folk, rather than thoughtfully entering into a debate. He had done the same to me, then came to the ANI complaint framing me by leaving out most of the relevant information in the dispute, and implying that I had changed status quo verbiage without discussion. He had jumped in and just started to revert me, without knowing the background of the dispute, which is summarized here. Then, in his second go round for the same complaint about him by the IP, he came onto this thread, and double-downed with accusations and name-calling, as per the comment by We hope.
    As for the possibility that the IP is a sock, it is gaslighting to make that accusation in this context. The IP came to this forum with a legitimate complaint which should be evaluated on its own merit. If someone believes that he/she is a sock, the proper way to handle it is to file an SPI. To make that accusation while calling for a boomerang against the OP is so inflammatory and destructive that I think it is behavior that is cause for a block of the accuser. The fact that such behavior is tolerated here at this notice board is one of the many reasons I say it has a toxic atmosphere. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it "gaslighting"? I googled that term and got "manipulate (someone) by psychological means into doubting their own sanity." Please explain that specific objection in terms of this discussion. Honestly, your tendency to make knee-jerk reactions here is becoming very tedious. -- Begoon 12:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Gaslighting, in a broader form, is to destabilize the truth. In this case, to divert from the ip's complaint by bringing up suspicions that they are a sock. (edit: Or, like what you are doing, accusing me of having knee-jerk reactions making it plain your question requesting clarification of a term is only a lead in to the destabilization of the discussion.) Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a note on semantics here (so we don't end up with a situation with two parties misreading eachother's attitudes), "gaslighting" has a very broad range of potential meanings, and is not necessarily as hyperbolic as it might seem to somebody reading the dictionary definition for the first time and then seeing Lynn use it as she has. Traditionally the term narrowly referred to serious and meticulous efforts to toy with the mental or emotional state of another person. In more contemporary usage, however, it has taken on a broader meaning, that has to be read from context; it is not infrequently used to refer to any circumstances in which someone is trying to obfuscate the truth, especially by obscuring the record on some matter, and thereby frustrate the other party. So, a type of trolling if you will (or even just an effort to cover ones tracks and make the other party look bad or incorrect)--not just grand schemes of psychological manipulation like the one from which the term derives. Snow let's rap 23:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see. Not a particularly useful term then, with so many diverse meanings. No doubt "trendy" though, and "useful" for vague accusations. That probably explains its recent "popularity". Thanks. -- Begoon 23:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's like any word that's been around long enough; its idiomatic uses eventually become broadened. I actually think it can be an effective and useful description, though I agree with you that it's not coincidence that it has grown into its newer meaning in the era of the internet (and particularly in the new era of people truly mastering misinformation on the medium). That said, I think people should be careful about using it until its contemporary meaning becomes a little more thoroughly dispersed in the contemporary linguistic zeitgeist. I very nearly used the term on the project myself a couple of months back when I responded to a community discussion where I found an editor pretty blatantly lying about the contents of sources. I decided not to use the term specifically because I was worried that someone might be familiar with only the older usage. And also because I decided that it was (as usual) better to avoid commenting on the possibly bad-faith behaviour, sinc ei could address the same matter through the content itself. Snow let's rap 00:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Except that it's completed expected the behaviour of all parties will be evaluated in any ANI discussion. This isn't just an ANI issue either. It's ridiculous to expect people to sanction one editor for poor behaviour but completely ignore the behaviour of another editor, such as the editor complaining. Especially since we do not WP:PUNISH editors.

    SPI is normally the route to deal with socks so generally mention of socks should be limited at ANI, but in this particular case, it seems clear that realistically nothing is going to come from an SPI for the simple reason even if it is true, it's not clear who the IP editor is. Of course editors are sometimes blocked without it being precisely clear who they are although most commonly that doesn't happen at SPI but ANI or elsewhere anyway.

    In any case, the socking issue was an aside, the block was called for incivility not socking. The socking accusation wasn't new, it was I think partly what brought the IP here. So realistically anyone actually looking into the dispute (i.e. anyone actually proposing sanction on some other editor) would already know of it. And I said, above for good reason even if there isn't sufficient evidence for block of the IP, no one is going to be sanctioned for suggesting socking was involved in a case like this.

    You seem to be harping on about RexxS, but the IP was clearly complaining about multiple editors joining the discussion not just RexxS. As I said above, the input of multiple editors should generally be welcome not discouraged on a collaborative project like wikipedia edit: that operates by consensus. (As I noted, uninvolved is generally what we want. In fact not involved editors with hardened views points joining is one of the few cases when more editors can make things worse. Yet you seemed to be complaining about the former even though the later was what happened.)

    Also I find it hard to believe RexxS did not have any experience in this area since it's basically an infobox dispute and RexxS has a userspace essay (or whatever you want to call it) which I found form the discussion you linked to, that's about 1 month shy of a year old now User:RexxS/Infobox factors. Personally, I'm with Snow and many others that I'd much rather those with entrenched positions in the infobox disputes (to be clear I have no idea whether this applies to Rexxs, maybe they're one of the outsiders who is trying to help sort out the mess) but that's not going to happen so meh.

    In other words, your accusation that this was predominantly an attempt to play wikihero seems to be groundless, and frankly offensive. Your quoted comment does suggest they may have considered concerns that women editors were being targeted and responding to that to some extent but since there is strong evidence this has happened on wikipedia, and it happens elsewhere I'm not willing to criticise that. While true whiteknighting may be undesirable, editors, whatever their gender identity should stick up for other editors who are often unfairly targeted for whatever reason. I mean after all, is that what you claim to be doing here?

    This does of course mean that sometimes and within reason, you stick up for an editor if you feel it is helpful, when you're not sure if they're being targeted in this particular instance, because you're aware given their frequency experience of being targeted it's likely to be hard on them. It's offensive to suggest that women should be expected to put up with being unfairly targeted for being women, because they are "big girls" or that other editors aren't allowed to respond when they are concerned about someone else's behaviour towards another editor. (Edit: Which is not to say other editors can't defend themselves by themselves. Of course they normally can and it any case it's regardless of their gender identity. The point is editors should feel welcome to defend other editors when it's called for not because the other poor editor can't defend themselves but because it's the right to do, especially on a collaborative project like wikipedia that operates by consensus. And even more so if the editor has to do a lot more defending on average for reasons that shouldn't affect them. It's possible to defend another editor without escalating a situation and just because some cases this doesn't happen doesn't mean editors shouldn't be encouraged to help out when it's called for.)

    As a final comment, I would add that I'm sure I'm not the only one who I had no idea about the gender identity of anyone involved until your final comment above (I thought maybe big girl was just a general way of speaking). It's not something that generally concerns me and knowing it doesn't change how I feel about anything. While it's true you're not the first person to bring it up in this dispute in general, I don't see that harping on about it here is helping anything. As I said, even if it's true one editor did raise it, the IP editor was clearly complaining about multiple editors, and I'm assuming some of them identify as male, maybe some even something else. I've seen no evidence for even one, let alone multiple editors joined the discussion because of the gender identity of participants. As I said before your reply, and others have said, all evidence is that this is a typical infobox dispute issue. (Frankly in some ways it would be nice of everyone taking part was doing so because of the gender identity of some of the initial participants. At least it would be a change.)

    Nil Einne (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    One final comment before I'm done with this. While editors need to familiarise themselves with the issues including reading other comments, and looking at sources, and sometimes doing their own research; previously uninvolved editor participating in disputes is a cornerstone of resolving disputes on wikipedia. While being subject matter experts can help, sometimes it can make it worse and often it's not really necessary when the problem is general disagreement rather than finding good sources etc.

    The big problems tend to occur in walled garden type situations were only people with hardened views participate. As I've noted above and below, this is actually a key problem in the infobox area rather than the participation of uninvolved editors being a problem. (Yet ironically as I also noted, from what I can tell this doesn't even apply to the editors you are complaining about. They are regulars at infobox disputes.)

    Joining a discussion to help your friend can be a problem, but this can be complicated. I sometimes find issues from visiting the talk pages etc of editors I know. Sometimes I may find I often clash with this editor, sometimes I may find I often agree with the editor. But the primary factor that makes me look into a dispute is interest in finding out what it's about.

    I definitely do not go into disputes to try and help out friends. And as far as possible, when I look into a dispute, I to my best to avoid any personal feelings towards editors involved clouding my judgement. (And personally, since a lot of my experience with editors is from outside general editing, it's often just as much that I may agree with editor I clash with or disagree with an editor I normally agree with.)

    The point is, ultimately it's simply not wise to say an editor shouldn't look into a dispute simply because they noticed it on a friend's page because uninvolved editor participation is what we want on a collaborative project like wikipedia edit: that operates by consensus, and is a key part of resolving disputes on wikipedia. Now if an editor has a history as demonstrated by diffs of joining disputes simply to help out a friend, without regards to the merit of the dispute, then this would be a problem, but this would need to be demonstrated over time rather than coming from one single issue. (Or two.)

    Nil Einne (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Nil Einne for taking all the time you did to write all that. (edit: Since I don't have the time or the patience to try to pick out and quote the points that merit response, I'm afraid they will have to remain unrequited.) Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    A more general observation about the longterm issues here

    Putting aside for a moment the question of whether or not the IP is a sock of a registered user or not, I'd like to comment on why this whole affair feels like oh so much deja vu for (and a large number of other editors here, I suspect). Every so often, I get RfC'd to (ro stumble across a notice on a community forum to) a contentious debate on whether to include an infobox in some BLP or classical music-oriented article. I never have to guess which 6-10 names I will see there, already locked into WP:battleground ranks, before any single outside observer or respondent has had a chance to comment. Pretty much all of the parties in the current case are on that list (perhaps including the IP, but who knows). And unless I'm mistaken, most of you were a party to the original ArbCom case on this issue, correct? And some of you have been sanctioned multiple times in relation to discussions on infboboxes.

    I will say this much for these two partisan groups of edit warriors (and I use that term to reflect your apparent attitudes, regardless of whether you any longer regularly break 3RR in pursuit of your goals): I think you've all found ways to ensure that you are not technically violating the letter of WP:CANVASSING or prohibitions on off-wiki collaboration. I think you all know exactly which forums to post notices in so that the others will see, or else scan eachother's contributions to keep abreast of any debates your allies or the "opposition" are engaged in. Then you all dutifully present yourself for discussions which (insofar as I have seen) are invariably long, vitriolic, characterized by a jarring lack of WP:AGF, and just generally disruptive to the larger community. It used to confuse me as to why you even bothered, knowing the other side was doing the same thing. Then I realized the obvious pattern; because each side knows that they are roughly evenly matched, they know that most of these discussions end up no consensus--in which case, whichever party acted first may get their desired outcome grandfathered in, provided they summon enough support to stonewall discussion from the other side. Which itself explains why most of these discussions now devolve into the question of who was WP:BOLD first. At the same time, I've noticed that the RfC requests have become less frequent, presumably because the involved editors have begun to realize how impatient other community members are with the entrenchment and tendentiousness they find when they respond to those requests.

    As I said above, I don't think you all are technically violating WP:CANVAS, but you sure as hell seem to be oblivious as to why we have that policy in the first place. I have fairly well-defined opinions as to when an infobox is or isn't called for in an article, but I stopped answering the RfCs in this vein years ago, because I found the debate within them distasteful and caustic. Frankly, I'd be embarrassed to be any one of you and still be so militantly engaged in so many of these discussions over the years since the last ArbCom case, making an ever-bigger mountain out of one of Wikipedia's oldest molehills. And I say that despite knowing and liking some of you in broader terms. I'm sure all of you feel that you are operating in good faith and within community guidelines over an issue which you think is worthy of this degree of debate, and I'm sure that some of you are more courteous and measured than others in how you present your argument; some of the heat in those discussions is there simply because some of the involved parties just don't have a particularly civil debate style to begin with. But I've taken the time to write this long-winded observation to tell you that (mostly owing to the lack of civility inherent in your years' long battle of wills), none of you come off particularly well from your dedication to this issue. This has gone to ArbCom in the past, and it could again. Personally, amongst those names that I have seen at 10-20 or more infobox discussions, I'd be happy to see you all topic banned from ever editing on or discussing an infobox again. That could realistically happen if you all can't find a way to turn down the heat and compromise more often. Snow let's rap 00:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    "Pretty much all of the parties in the current case are on that list" - I don't see that. I share some of your sentiments about infobox wars and their needless toxicity, though. -- Begoon 00:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I should clarify that some of the parties I am referring to are involved in this thread, while others have commented on the talk page and others have edited the article itself. But regardless of what angle their involvement is coming from, I see a half dozen familiar faces involved in the dispute that I expect to see at every contentious infobox discussion. Snow let's rap 01:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you that the infobox disputes are a mess. It would be nice if all the regular participants with hardened views just stay away from them but I guess realistically that's not going to happen. I don't follow them enough to be able to identify regular participants but have seen enough of them to know they're one of the many areas I don't want to touch. Unfortunately that is a common problem with these hardened disputes. Less involved participants who don't care that much are even less likely to participate since they look at the dispute, probably say "fuck no" to themselves and never come back. Nil Einne (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, that about summarizes my thoughts; there's intermitent edit warring and other types of disruption regarding the content itself, but it's the way they talk to eachother that really leaves me aghast and which will probably take most of them back to ArbCom again eventually. It would be great, as you say, if the hardcore on both sides would just take a step back. Even if the anti-infobox group agreed not to remove any infoboxes for a year, nor remove content from an infobox and the pro-infobox camp agreed not to add infoboxes or content to an existing infobox, the aggregate effect on the project would come out to be about exactly the same (since they presently cancel eachother's efforts out, more or less), except that the time that would be freed up between them would be substantial massive (and the amount of community disruption far less). When you consider the knowledge base of some of the involved editors on musical matters alone, and then contemplate the amount of expert hours they then waste just to counter-act one another, it's both stunning and depressing. Snow let's rap 09:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If I thought both "sides" would agree to this, I'd suggest it in a heartbeat, but unfortunately I doubt it'd happen. I find myself agreeing completely with your first post also. Trying to mediate the dispute would be like entering a shark pit or maybe a shark pit with piranhas. I've never understood why so many people have chosen this particular hill to make a stand on... wouldn't it make more sense to make a stand of this magnitude about something vital like using reliable sources or similar? And this is one area where even I find myself wanting to slap people with civility blocks... I wish the editors who are so invested in the dispute would wake up and realize that they are alienating so many other editors with their behavior. (I almost typed "toxic behavior" and it's getting to that point, people. It is possible to be "right" and have people support you and still in the end decide that the whole area is something that doesn't need particular editor's input. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "wouldn't it make more sense to make a stand of this magnitude about something vital like using reliable sources or similar?" Well, not really - the requirement for reliable sources is obvious, and not really seriously disputed anywhere I've seen. Infoboxes are, on the other hand, a style choice and style choices have led to some of the silliest, most intractable arguefests here. See dates, or hyphens, or icons, or diacritics, or commas... Ultimately, it's not surprising, really, that the people writing this body of work have the most intractable arguments on what are, in the end, often just points of semantics or opinion. It kind of comes with the turf. +9000 to it being done with less toxicity, though. -- Begoon 13:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Trust me, as someone who does a lot of source reviews at FAC, "the requirement for reliable sources is obvious" is NOT obvious to large chunks of our editors. Not that FAC is that bad, but some of the sourcing for the "drive-by" nominations is enough to make an editor despair. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point, but that's more about education, publicity and policy enforcement. "Taking a stand" on that side of things would be good. My point was that it's dissimilar to arguing about infoboxes, commas or hyphens in the sense that we already have a clear policy on RS, whereas infoboxes are a style argument. In the end, I probably agree, the time is badly spent when there are bigger issues. But folks will do what they feel is the best use of their time, rightly or wrongly in your, or my opinion. -- Begoon 13:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    One of the problems with this and other situations where ArbCom has been asked to weigh in on intractable debates (and I say this as one of the involved parties) is that they seek a "now you all just get along" or "everyone is equally at fault" solution where all that happens is that the battleground moves from a project's local consensus to an article-by-article battleground but nothing actually changes, not the key points of debate, not the nature of the comments, nothing. There is no progress toward consensus, no middle ground granted (I once suggested collapsable infoboxes as a compromise -- to the dismay of both sides), and hard feelings only get worse instead of better. I think the problem is that infoboxes are the symptom of a deeper underlying debate over how information is conveyed and at what level. Without a project-wide discussion of those deeper issues, the infobox wars will never end. I see these core issues at the heart of the problem:

    1. The question of whether to offer simplified information at a glance at all and if so, in what format.
      What goes into an infobox is a content discussion independent of the infobox/no infobox debate.
    2. The value of wikidata and if infoboxes are the most useful way by which it can be applied
    3. The question of whether infoboxes are too complicated in syntax for the average user to use and if that is the "real" reason some people don't like them
      (creating an infobox wizard the way we have wikilove and warning quick editing tools wouldn't be the worst idea in the world...)
    4. The question of whether the lead and an infobox are purely duplicative or if they serve different purposes, and what they are
    5. The overall consistency of style and layout of wikipedia articles in general versus that for specific subjects (this being an issue raised with the stats that well over 50% of all WP articles above stub level do have infoboxes)
      The infobox wars had the unfortunate result of completely destroying the sometimes-legitimate ability of wikprojects to set any kind of guidelines to reflect WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, even when doing so might actually be logical. In other areas (I'm thinking of some the capitalization battles as an example), the results have been an absurd "house style" for WP that doesn't help its image of being an amateur's playpen.
    6. What to do when there are sincerely good people on all sides of an issue.
      and what to do when frustration levels breach WP:CIVIL on the part of talented editors who simply reach the end of their rope.

    In short, the infobox wars aren't actually about infoboxes. But the problem is that the underlying issues have been pushed to the side. Montanabw(talk) 20:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course, your edit warring and false accusations of vandalism here and here, along with misrepresenting your edits under the guise of BURDEN and status quo ante, (one did not apply and the other meant no infobox until a discussion), means you are probably the worst culprit here, summoned by email to back up your little friends. You are right about frustration: false accusations and lies are about as uncivil as you can get. 213.205.194.67 (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Another prime example of knee-jerk defense of one's "friend" without taking time to assess the facts. Of course, they can be counted on to do the same for you. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hounding by Trekphiler

    Note: I agree with Andy's hatting of the conversation so far, as it has indeed gone off the rails, but I've proposed something below the hatting. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm closing this, as there is no interest from admins in the original issue and now it has turned into a slanging match against others. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Enough's enough. I've had a week of this, I've ignored abuse from three different editors, but there are limits.

    I've known of Trekphiler (talk · contribs) for some years. Apparently here and here (as he reminded me today), where he was deleting Donald Campbell from the Land Speed Record article. Nothing I've seen from Trekphiler since has changed my view that he is a half-knowledgeable editor with no understanding of how little he knows. Unfortunately our interests overlap, so I've seen too much of this.

    Things kicked off here: User_talk:Parsecboy#Edit_war.3F, where a trivial issue of linking/overlinking at Stirling engine became a 4RR edit-war [37][38][39][40] because he was insistent on mis-spelling Stirling's name, even after this was pointed out. I have no interest in the original linking question and wouldn't have pushed it, but (as is characteristic of Trekphiler's edits and reversions) his "red mist" clouds out the fact that he's pushing in a obvious howler of an error. Trivial stuff, but why (even for someone busy with another edit-war [41][42] against Deniss, as he notes at Parsecboy's page) how does he then find time to canvass up a few friends, both on-wiki and off-wiki.

    I then did some tidying to Ernest Eldridge and his racing car, the Fiat Mephistopheles, moving it from the obvious mis-spelling at "Mephistofeles (car)". Now the naming of this is awkward, as an "Italian" car built by a British driver swaps around from Mephistopheles to Mefistofeles, depending on the source. But never Mephistofeles, with a mix of both 'ph' and 'f' . Unless you're Trekphiler, who then gets angry about someone changing his spelling of a few years back, and proceeds to start renaming it himself. See User_talk:Parsecboy#Edit_war.3F again.

    There's a reversion against a new editor over at T-34 as "uncited, masquerading behind another source, & (AFAIK) incorrect" (of course, it isn't incorrect) which I don't even bother to restore (although the other editor hasn't been seen since) but that's still enough for Parsecboy to accuse me of being "snide".

    Now we get to Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow and [43] where he makes an unclear sentence even worse. Around this time, 1957, "missiles" were replacing "manned aircraft" and defence planning like the Sandys Report was rather infamously cutting back aircraft heavily. However this was still pre-Sputnik: anti-aircraft missiles were replacing fighter aircraft (like the Arrow), but the shift from bombers to ballistic missiles wouldn't happen for a few more years yet. But to reword this to keep the confusion, then to editorialise by adding some OR and excusing that by putting it inside a HTML comment (??) is not a useful change. He then reverts me as " fact tag, resto hidden (just can't stand anything I put in anywhere, can you? & you're wrong)" and "you'd notice, if you didn't hate every single edit I make, the only people who can see it are other editors, not readers". Another 3RR edit war. Trekphiler seems to be confused by now as to whether Bomarc is a ballistic missile or a cruise missile. So he goes off on another canvassing run to try and... well, I have no idea what he's trying to do here:

    He gets an answer anyway; and replies, "So I goofed. I have felt stupider, but I can't think when. ", " I've gotten away with some stupid stuff I should never have done. My karma must be in amazing shape today. :) " I get the answer from Parseboy that I'm "hounding" him, because Avro Arrow can't be on my watchlist. I have no idea how Parsecboy knows this: I have >50k articles on my watchlist, this has been one of them since I edited it. But, according to Parsecboy, I shouldn't be watching articles if I haven't edited them within 6 months. According to Bilcat, I'm just a drunk.

    Yesterday I see an interesting question at Talk:Lotus 12, so I reply to it. Then start doing some work on the article. Maybe a section in that article, maybe a whole new article. Queerbox is a well-known, but obscure and poorly-understood topic in 1960s motorsport. It belongs somewhere, but it will be hard to produce and I'm the schmuck who has the opportunity to do it. Trekphiler takes exception to this and again starts reverting. Brings out that whole " says somebody who's edited this page exactly once, more than a year ago, since it was created" I shouldn't be editing "his" articles thing again. Turns out that he created this article originally, so WP:OWN. And just yesterday I'd added a talk: page reply that was bigger than the whole article was, so what do I know?

    I've ignored as much of this as I'm willing to. My opinion of Trekphiler is where it has always been. But the overt canvassing as a response to a minor disagreement, scaling the reichstag by ballistic missile when he's challenged again, and implying that editors are drunks - it's not on. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    ♠"Hounding"? I'm not the one warned off by a neutral observer...
    ♠The Campbell delete was entirely legitimate, & remains so; adding a superseded record, when no other superseded efforts were included for any given year, is absurd--& yet that was what Andy wanted, & what he appeared ready to edit war to get. He offered no reason.
    ♠The spelling error on the Stirling page was a direct product of Andy's irrational restoration of a redundant link & redundant name, an induced error that would never have happened had he not rv'd me to start with. "I have no interest in the original linking question" Then why, pray tell, did you keep rv'g me on it? To provoke an edit war?
    ♠I'd have been happiest with Mefistofeles, but Andy's preference was for something else, & he stubbornly insisted on it...
    ♠The T-34 edit? "of course, it isn't incorrect"? Of course it is, & Andy's own edit demonstrating the math (which was intended to show I didn't understand the issue, but didn't) proves it. And the original edit was making out the cited source was saying something it was not, in fact, saying.
    ♠The CF-105 dispute, I'll acknowledge, was a product of misinformation on my part. It's hardly "hounding" to disagree--& at no time did Andy bother to take it to the talk page. Besides which, at this point, he'd rv'd me on the Stirling engine page, the SdKfz234 page, & the CF-105 page...
    ♠And on the Lotus 12 page, I rv'd a claim that, like the T-34 edit, was masquerading behind an existing cite; the cited source does not say what Andy's edit would have had it claiming, & he offered no independent sourcing. I later asked for a citation for Andy's (unrelated) substantive add, nothing more; he deleted the tag, & I rv'd that.
    ♠"Own"? Really? I watchlist all the pages I create. When did that become a crime? Except to you? Take a look at another of Andy's recent "projects", SdKfz 234, which has improved rather a lot since I created it. Or were you looking for one of mine, Andy, one where you think you can add unchallenged? Because in the history of the Lotus 12 page, between its creation in August 2007 & now, Andy edited the page...twice (once 2011, once 2012) before 2016, & twice (Sept & Oct 2016) that year, before he "stumbled" on the question yesterday--within a day of getting warned off about me.
    ♠You'll also notice this latest "dispute" was initiated on a page I created, presumably because Andy knows I won't take it of my watchlist (since he's evidently reading my every post on BilCat's talk page).
    ♠Now take a look at where he's getting his information from: BilCat's talk page? How much attention is he paying to my activities, exactly? And isn't that the very definition of hounding? You'll also notice, I never implied he's a drunk. I'd consider him many things, none of them complementary, but I have no way of knowing which one is the appropriate one.
    ♠Bottom line: this accusation is ridiculous, & a clear effort to extract revenge for his own misbehavior. I shouldn't even waste my time answering it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen Andy around for years; he may be a bit of a grump, but I've never seen him cross the line into personal attacks, he contributes enormously to the project and he's usually right about stuff. On Lotus 12 I see him doing all the heavy lifting on the article while TREKphiler edit wars over a {{fact}} tag. At User_talk:BilCat#Gone fishin' I see two editors slagging off someone they don't like with a number of personal attacks - just because somebody isn't in the room with you, doesn't give you a license to bad-mouth them in public. I haven't looked any further but I think Andy's complaint has merit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Ritchie. Yes, I'm a grump - although not the AndyTheGrump. There is stuff here where I could be said to be edit-warring, or not defusing the situation better. But if I have one virtue in this, it's that I don't keep digging the holes deeper. If I've goofed over some fact, I won't keep pushing it back in, or canvassing talk: pages to have the world changed around my opinion.
    I'm not going to go through these point by point, no-one wants to read that and most are already answered in the thread on Parsecboy's talk: A few:
    • The SdKfz234 has been a long running vandalism issue (although not at that article, or by Trekphiler), by an IP editor making just the same change on related articles, and also dealt with by Denniss and me. I've no animosity to Trekphiler over this, but that really isn't a good change to be making.
    • Avro Arrow: "at no time did Andy bother to take it to the talk page.": Talk:Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow#Replacement with missilies? To which Trekphiler replied with " Why don't you stop trying to provoke me into an edit war by being self-righteous & ignorant?", whilst at the same time loudly confusing Bomarc (an anti-aircraft missile) with ICBMs and cruise missiles. Trekphiler went off on a four page campaign to get support for his "Bomarc was a ballistic missile" claim, and was roundly rebuffed because it's nonsense. This is Trekphiler and his red mist problem all over: he's right, the opposition are wrong, he has to hoot his trap off about it as loudly as possible and then afterwards he slinks away quietly when everyone else tells him that he's completely wrong over the facts. Donald Campbell not holding a Land Speed Record. Mephistofeles. Sterling engines.
    • Lotus 12. I've not made large edits to this article before now because I consider motor racing to be mostly boring (less boring back then) and I'm only interested in the engineering of it. This was not a good article: one source, from that most fly-away of lightweight coffee table books [44]. The Twelve has three important innovations in it though, and so far I've written the rather more substantial articles on two of them, wobbly-web wheel and Chapman strut, now working on Queerbox. Even though Trekphiler created this article, I utterly reject his claim here that I'm in any way not a fit person to be working on his article, even when it comes to clarifying the link on Chapman struts. And reverting my changes or tagging for unsourced in a paragraph that already has more sourcing than the rest of his article did - really?
    Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ♠You've done all the heavy lifting at Lotus 12? Then your rv, in what appears to be a snit, is, what, exactly?
    ♠You're factually wrong on Campbell. The pass was superseded by Breedlove's earlier record before Campbell ever ran, as this clearly shows. Every other record on the page is the latest & fastest; you wanted an exception, for reasons never made clear (or, at least, they were never clear to me).
    ♠You complain about lack of sourcing on the Lotus 12 page, & your solution is to add a whack more unsourced material? That makes sense how?
    ♠"I utterly reject his claim here that I'm in any way not a fit person to be working on his article" I don't suggest "unfitness", just absence; it's your timing that troubles me.
    ♠So what we have, here, is Andy making a claim of hounding based on an edit war he started, a mistake (already admitted), & a request for citation on a page (by Andy's own statement) lacking in them. If that's hounding... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 12:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hounding is when, after a minor disagreement over linking, you run off to friendly admin's pages and start hollering for them to help you out. It's when you shoot your factual foot off, then canvass every related project board you can find for support, only to then have to admit you'd goofed. It's when you have a massive and long-standing OWN problem on "your" articles, to the point that you reject any change to them, even positive ones. Even after all this, you keep doing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ♠"you run off to friendly admin's pages and start hollering for them to help you out" That was after several rv, by you, & I wanted a neutral observer. I picked Parsecboy, with whom I've had virtually no contact to date, on that basis.
    ♠"to the point that you reject any change to them, even positive ones." Did you even bother to look at the SdKfz 234 page at all? Or the Mark 6 exploder page? Or LBD Gargoyle? Or Hirohata Merc? They're all better now than when I started them. I do want to maintain a standard, but seriously, if somebody wants to add to Ferd Napfel, or "Cloak of Mystery", or Yellow Fang, & they've got the sources to back it up, I'd welcome the adds. I might be less welcoming if they came from you, since that seems to bring its own WP:OWN issues, as witness Cambpell.
    ♠As for my conversation with BilCat, who is paying so much attention to my edits he'd immediately notice that...? And that was an FYI to BilCat, if you'd actually bothered to read it; then again, you've mischaracterized a lot of what I've done, so no surprise you did with that one, too. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 13:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • On SdKfz 234 You changed the link so that instead of pointing to the page for Nazi-period Germany, where it belongs, it then pointed to the page for the Federal Republic of Germany, and Germany across history. I can see your point that dumping "NAZI" over everything is a bit much, so I even used the piped link for it, but kept it at the right target. And on the PzKpfw I, II and other Nazi armour articles, there's a long running sock problem with just that edit, which Denniss and I have both been dealing with.
    Now I see that as a good edit on my part. I can't see what your problem is with it. But there's not even any discussion from you over it, just hysteria on an admin's page. Why? Why didn't you try to start some rational discussion as to what was best? I'm listening, I've always been listening - but from you, it's just squealing and abuse.
    "Cloak of Mystery"? What does that have to do with anything? Do you want some sort of pat on the head? Recognition that you might have done something good? Congratulations. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Some of Trekphilers edits aren't friendly, they are rather the opposite of friendly. They are sometimes way beyond WP:NPA. Unfortunately, "sometimes" seems like it has become "often": ♦fuck you, too ♦go fuck yourself ♦Go fuck yourself ♦go to hell ♦fuck you ♦fuck you too ♦fuck you too ♦go to hell ♦go to hell ♦so go screw yourself ♦someone needs to get screwed ♦or is it just because you want to screw with me in particular?

    Even though this is enough for an indefinite block already, I also want to explain Trekphilers misbehaviour and comment further on this.

    ♦I believe that Andy Dingley just wanted to reply to an interesting question on the Lotus 12 talk page since I encountered him replying to "interesting questions" on talk pages in the past. So I don't think he would want to hound another user.

    ♦Accusing other authors of being snide is inappropriate.

    ♦Regarding the Sonderkraftfahrzeug 234: The term Nazi Germany is what refers to the German term Drittes Reich which would translate to Third Empire. In German speaking countries, the words Nazideutschland and Hitlerdeutschland are widely accepted, however, the most "neutral" word would be Drittes Reich. Since this term does not really exist in English, the proper English term for Drittes Reich is in fact Nazi Germany. This term is not wrong. However, changing Nazi Germany to just Germany in the SdKfz article implies that this vehicle was used in the Federal Republic. Such edits must be reverted.

    ♦[Trekphiler] is a half-knowledgeable editor with no understanding of how little he knows – Andy Dingley.
    I think Andy's complaint has merit. –Ritchie333
    I would not disagree.

    Proposal: Indefinite block for User:Trekphiler since insulting is not acceptable at all. At this point, it is no longer important how much this user contributed to this project and which quality his contributions have. Insultive behaviour has a tremendously negative effect on Wikipedia and we must protect this project and other authors. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not seeking any specific sanction against Trekphiler here. I just want him to back off. Down with this sort of thing. I see the "red mist" as the main problem: when opposed, at any level, his judgement flies out the window. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Language is an issue on WP. There was a time when such language wasn't accepted, under CIVIL. Nowadays it seems that it is. I see this as a bad change, but it's not a change due to this one editor, so lets not blame him for it. I would like to see "unparliamentary language" recognised as an issue though, and policy set more clearly against it. We can work either with it or without it, and I'd rather be without it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How did I know it was going to come out this way? Somebody starts out with what I'd call disruptive behavior (starting an edit war or deleting a page I created without a word of discussion on it) & when I take exception to that, & get warned with blocks for something I never started, I am, perforce, in the wrong. How did I know I had no prayer of an actually fair hearing? And when somebody who, by all appearances, has gone out of his way to provoke me brings a complaint, I am the one in the wrong. Do what you want. Since it's obvious you're willing to tolerate other editors harassing me, I'm clearly not welcome here anyway., TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "deleting a page I created without a word of discussion on it"
    Which is? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    An edit war requires at least two parties. Always. It does not matter who started, it does matter who is involved. Maybe you should start a discussion if the other party does not. That other editors might be harassing you is not the topic of this discussion. Feel free to start another discussion about the editors harassing you. But something really bothers me, you think that we are tolerating other editors harassing you while there is enough evidence that you ignore WP:NPA. Andy Dingley supposed that you are a half-knowledgeable editor with no understanding of how little you know. Since your reply does not contain any form of apology, I really doubt he is wrong. Do you even understand that it is not allowed to insult other users? Do you know what harassment is? If not, read your own edit comment. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ♠An apology? After provoking an edit war, suggesting i'm too stupid to be editing at all, & charging me with hounding him? I should apologize to him? Seriously? Your comment suggests you're perfectly willing to accept Andy's continued misbehavior because you have an excuse, thanks to him, to be rid of me. So be it.
    ♠I'm also wondering why it is, if I'm hounding him, there haven't been more of my edits on pages on his watchlist. Then again, if he really has watchlistd 50K pages, you'll probably use every edit of mine that turns up on any of them as evidence of stalking, won't you?
    ♠And given Andy's careful study of my editing history, his claim not to know which deleted page I was talking about is disingenuous; his remarks about the "Cloak of Mystery" page are just another effort to pretend he doesn't understand, or that I've got some ulterior motive. (Should I have used "C-16", instead? Or would he just treat that as some kind of threat? How about Brutus? Or is that another personal attack?) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:26 & 22:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you are accusing me of deleting your pages, then post diffs. Because I have no idea what you're on about, and my mere editor powers don't let me delete pages anyway. So just what are you on about?
    Nor have I called you "stupid". That was your own description. I have called you half-knowledgeable and hysterical, and I think I've given enough examples to demonstrate what I mean. If anyone still needs convincing, look at Torpedo, where you go off on another 4RR edit-war because you don't understand what a shock wave is, why the speed of sound would be relevant to such, and so you want to redefine reality to match your limited understanding. As you point out above, I have a lot more of your inane and inaccurate edits show up on my watchlist, I just don't list all of them here. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I shall pretend being a broken record: You insulted other users with disgusting edit comments, I gave sufficient evidence for that above. Such behaviour is not acceptable and due to your unwillingness to understand this and apologize, I seriously doubt that you would change your behaviour and refrain from insulting other users. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I was mentioned in the original complaint, I'll weigh in here. First of all, I find it odd that Andy is complaining about Trek WP:HOUNDING him, when it seems clear to me that, if anything, the reverse is true. There are several mischaracterizations here, beginning with the fact that Trek hasn't violated 3RR in any of the instances Andy alleges he has. Second, these altercations have all taken place where Trek has a long history of editing (and in fact, creating the articles in question), where Andy has little to no history of activity. Lastly, anyone can look at the histories and see that these disputes have arisen when Trek makes an edit, and Andy reverts him. Time stamps don't lie, Andy.

    As for my description of Andy as having made "snide" comments, and the appropriateness of said description, if someone can read this comment and come away from it with a more favorable label for it, I'd be surprised. @Jojhnjoy: - I find it odd that you think my comment is inappropriate but repeatedly insulting the intelligence of another editor is perfectly fine. Care to explain that?

    On "But, according to Parsecboy, I shouldn't be watching articles if I haven't edited them within 6 months." - there's no way for anyone to know what another editor has on their watchlist - you made one edit there before the altercation there with Trek, and it was to revert a vandal you had started reverting elsewhere first. Explain why you think it's reasonable that I'd assume that you watchlist every article you revert a vandal on, once, a year ago. And on a semi-related note, why you think a watchlist with 50k pages on it makes any sense at all - that'd be completely unusable, and if you just want to watch for vandals, there's an app for that. Put another way, assuming you hadn't watchlisted the page and were simply following Trek's edits is an eminently reasonable conclusion given your lack of history on the article.

    As I have said repeatedly since this dispute was brought to my attention, there are better things we could be doing with our time. Andy, here's an idea: if Trek makes an edit on an article in your ungainly watchlist, and you don't think you can fix whatever problem you identify without the undo button, maybe don't look at it. As I told you at the time, the Stirling/Sterling issue could have been fixed without so much fuss if you had simply fixed the misspelling and moved on. The little red box that tells you your edit has been reverted is known to increase blood pressure by 20 points - this is by no means an excuse for Trek's poor behavior (but neither is his poor behavior an excuse for your overuse of the undo button) so maybe don't use it unless you have a good reason. Honestly, I feel like I've been trying to mediate a dispute between my 4-year old and my 2-year old here. Look, I don't care that she bit you, you can't slap her back. And you, stop biting. Parsecboy (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    "I shall pretend being a broken record:" True. Also not what's at issue in this instance. Neither am I going to be apologetic about something unrelated to this in an effort to curry favor. If you can't judge this instance fairly on its merits (such as they are), without bringing that into it, there's really nothing I can do about it. Neither can I offer you a guarantee it won't happen again; anyone who does is lying. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 13:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Parsecboy: If this is not a violation of the 3RR rule, I don't know what it is. You might be right about Andy Dingley's edits in "Trekphiler-articles", however, his edits there weren't bad. For instance, as Andy Dingley explained above, Trekphiler confused Nazi Germany with the Federal Rebulic. Andy Dingley had to fix it. Trekphiler doesn't seem to understand that it is not okay to insult other authors. How would you call that? ″When Trekphiler says "AFAIK", it really doesn't count for much″ is not a snide comment. Also, it doesn't count for much for anyone since this entire Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. See WP:NOR. Parsecboy, do you overlook Trekphilers disruptive edit comments on purpose? Why don't you comment on them? Do you think it's okay to tell other users such things? If there is any problem with Andy Dingley, just start another discussion. This is not the right place for that. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jojhnjoy: - you do know that 3RR requires that you make more than 3 reverts, right?
    His edits weren't bad? How about the dispute that started this whole situation, at the Stirling engine article? Reverting to insert a redundant link in violation of WP:OVERLINK is justified if you're fixing a typo? What he should have done was simply fix the typo, which I told him at the time. And again above. Let me spell it out again: reverting a partially incorrect edit is not collaborative. It is needlessly confrontational and, frankly, childish.
    I'm still waiting for you to explain why my calling Andy's comment "snide" is inappropriate, but calling Trek an idiot is perfectly acceptable.
    I do believe I said I'm not defending Trek's poor behavior, so take your strawmen elsewhere.
    There's no reason to have a separate thread. WP:BOOMERANG is a thing for a reason. Parsecboy (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, those were only three reverts, I made a mistake there since it looked like four reverts. Anyway, there was an edit war.
    Well, reverting might be childish but as I said, the edit in the SdKfz-234-article was necessary.
    Andy Dingley did never call anybody an idiot. Please, give evidence.
    I did not say that you were defending poor behaviour, I criticized that you overlook it by not commenting on it.
    Well, if there is no reason for a seperate thread, please explain precisely what Andy Dingley did wrong and what you would propose to stop this bad thing. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and two people are required for an edit war. So if Trek is to be sanctioned for it, so should Andy.
    Sure, so we have one justified edit - what about the others? And since Andy and Trek seem to have problems with each other, is it really wise for Andy to be the one to do the reverting? Surely if Trek's edit is problematic, someone else will see it and fix it.
    C'mon now, playing games should be beneath us. What do you think "When Trekphiler says "AFAIK", it really doesn't count for much." means? Or try scrolling up in this very thread - is "half-knowledgeable editor with no understanding of how little he knows" an acceptable way to describe an editor? And if so, how is my calling such remarks "snide" over the line?
    You do realize that's a distinction without a difference, correct?
    I did explain what he did wrong. And I have repeatedly proposed what he ought to do to defuse the situation. Did you bother to read my initial comment here? Parsecboy (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have never called Trekphiler stupid or an idiot. I have called him ignorant (well, half-knowledgeable) - there is a difference. Ignorance is forgiveable, especially on obscure subjects. What is not acceptable though is to use that ignorance to edit-war in something incorrect, even when others are telling you that it's incorrect. This is what Trekphiler does: shock waves, Bomarc as a ballistic missile, Mephistofeles, the list above. I am not prepared to "walk away" from these, nor is Trekphiler permitted to embed them. Even if you do not take accuracy seriously, I do. If I "think" something is right, then I either demonstrate it with sources, discuss it on talk: or I do walk away (because that's the WP:V requirement upon us all). I do not push my subjective opinion onto stuff if opposed unless I'm not only right, I can demonstrate that I'm right. Trekphiler does not follow that. Reversions are a personal slight upon him and merely for opposing him, someone is now in the wrong. And as a result, yes, "When Trekphiler says "AFAIK", it really doesn't count for much." When I say "AFAIK", it's likely to have footnotes (or at least not be used in article space as if it's RS). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we set the defensiveness aside long enough to agree that calling another editor ignorant is going to go over about as well as Trek's "fuck you"s?
    As for reverting when you can't demonstrate you're right, one need look no further than the Stirling engine article - as I pointed out on my talk page, Trek was right to remove the repeated link, per WP:OVERLINK, yet you felt the need to edit-war over it. On the Avro Arrow article, the other editor was more than capable of providing the citations Trek requested, and I don't really see how you can justify the merits of this revert; asking questions like that is the whole purpose of editors' comments (and curiously, the other editor did then add a mention of the Bomarc here). And you weren't even correct in the first place - if you had bothered to pay attention to what he actually changed, Trek watered down the comment about ballistic missiles replacing bombers. He did not insert that material out of nowhere, which your edit summary seems to suggest.
    On being prepared to walk away - the point is, you don't seem to be able to solve disputes with Trek without edit-warring. Here's what it ultimately comes down to: if Trek is that bad of an editor, someone else will notice. It's not your responsibility to fix his errors. Parsecboy (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "if Trek is that bad of an editor, someone else will notice." I think they have:
    ♦fuck you, too ♦go fuck yourself ♦Go fuck yourself ♦go to hell ♦fuck you ♦fuck you too ♦fuck you too ♦go to hell ♦go to hell ♦so go screw yourself ♦someone needs to get screwed ♦or is it just because you want to screw with me in particular?
    Andy Dingley (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am well aware of his foul mouth and seeming inability to control his temper. Where did I say I was defending him? My interest here is preventing you from, as far as I can see, actively provoking him and then running to the drama board to get him sanctioned. You know he has a temper, and yet you repeatedly start edit-wars with him. Why? Parsecboy (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    " Where did I say I was defending him? "
    Pretty much from when he ran to your talk page, whining to collect a scalp, and then onwards.
    You have accused me of repeatedly edit-warring against him. You have "explained" that he does not edit-war, because these are "not" edit-warring.
    Torpedo
    1. [45]
    2. [46]
    3. [47]
    4. [48]
    Stirling engine (and not "Sterling" engine)
    1. [49]
    2. [50]
    3. [51]
    4. [52]
    We can all count beyond 3RR. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, are you not aware that 3RR requires more than 3 reverts in a 24-hour period? And that you are also edit-warring? If you want him sanctioned for edit-warring, prepare for a block yourself.
    What I have accused you of doing is starting edit-wars with him. There is a subtle, but important distinction. And edit-warring over the Sterling typo instead of just fixing the misspelling was, frankly, childish and should embarrass you. That's my biggest issue - Trek has admitted his mistakes, but you seem dead-set against the idea that you might be just as much in the wrong. Parsecboy (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Go on, use the phrase "Trekphiler's edit at Torpedo and Stirling engine were not edit-warring." We can see you want to. No-one will believe you, but you clearly want to say it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, let me break it down for you again. If Trek was edit-warring on those pages (and he was), so were you. The both of you have been acting like children here, and Trek at least had the sense to acknowledge his poor behavior and stop participating in this stupidity. I guess I ought to stop holding my breath that you'll do the same. Parsecboy (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I say that Andy Dingley should not be sanctioned?
    Someone else will see it and fix it, yes, but it won't prevent Trekphiler from reverting, as seen here.
    Yes it is an acceptable way to describe an editor if there is a serious reason for that. And there is. It is not insultive.
    I have read your initial comment and you safely ignore Trekphilers disruprive behaviour. You remain mute about it. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but to borrow your logic tactic, you are ignoring his misdeeds...why?
    Sure, but that is then someone else's problem. And if it becomes enough "someone else's problems", the community will handle it. There is no need to take on a crusade against an editor oneself (and in fact, if you do, then you're probably HOUNDing them).
    No, calling another editor ignorant is not acceptable. We comment on content, not on the contributor - for example, how would you take it if I suggested that perhaps your opinions here aren't relevant, since you're inexperienced (i.e., less than 500 edits in over 4 years' time) and clearly lack of understanding of core policies (i.e., NPA)? Would you find that offensive?
    Perhaps you need help: "this is by no means an excuse for Trek's poor behavior". Parsecboy (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Whos misdeeds do you mean? Andy Dingleys or Trekphilers?
    Very interesting opinion: I know there is a problem with a user, but I ignore it as long as nobody complains.
    Well, what would you propose then? Trekphiler replaced Nazi Germany with Germany. Doing that on purpose is historical revisionism. Assuming that he just didn't know what he was doing (=assuming he is ignorant) is fair.
    What I would think is not important here. (It wouldn't bother me since I am a much more experienced user than it might seem.) If this is not an excuse for Trekphilers poor behaviour, how would you like to stop this behaviour? I propose an indefinite block, what do you propose? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy's, obviously. C'mon now...
    No, that's not what I said. Try again.
    As I recall, we were discussing whether personal attacks were fine, and under what circumstances you appear to be fine with them, not what Trek changed with regard to a link to Germany. And no, that's not revisionism.
    Experienced on de.wiki, perhaps, but de.wiki is not en.wiki. Frankly, I don't care about what happens to either one of them, apart from the fact that I've been dragged into the mess. If the community believes Trek's behavior warrants a block, so be it. But I would urge against sanctioning only one side in a dispute that obviously requires a second half. Parsecboy (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If changing Nazi Germany to Federal Republic of Germany is not historical revisionism, what is it? Ignorance? Let me be clear: I would not disagree on your last point. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Support ban for Trekphiler. Admittedly biased as you can see from Parsecboy's talk page here that I asked for admin support against Trekphiler after he was uncivil and attacked me after I put a couple of templates on his talk page. This was following his obvious WP:OWN of a couple of pages he claimed were his and did not want Wikipedia MOS standards applied to. I apologized for my actions, but the admin who responded essentially forgave Trekphiler for his actions while telling me that I deserved to be abused. Since the MILHIST admins are obviously biased for Trekphiler, wider community ban should be imposed. Llammakey (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ♠"did not want Wikipedia MOS standards applied to" There's a difference between thinking the MOS is idiotic on spacing for calibers (which no other source does) & thinking it should never apply. There's also a difference between a default approach (mine, based on years of not adding spaces) & being unwilling to adhere to MOS. As for "my pages", if I've created them, how should I refer to them? "Yours"? And you're right, changing the link pointing from Nazi Germany to (in effect) FRG was ignorance; after seeing discussion of the repeated adds of "Nazi" by another editor, a simple rv (without checking the link) seemed like it was good enough. In retrospect... However, that also seems to demand perfection. Yes, I have a temper, & yes, I over-reacted to a page deletion; I'd have been less exercised, I'm sure, if it hadn't seemed so arbitrary. So am I solely to blame? I'd argue not; when is it ever so simple, in dealing with other people? Do you want a guarantee of no future bad behavior? You won't get one from me. I will not, cannot, make blanket guarantees. (For that matter, neither can anyone else. Not to a certainty.) And, at the risk of being partisan, let me make a suggestion: if you ignore Andy's actions (here & before), when he does it again (& it will be when, not if), you'll have made yourselves effectively complicit. I am firmly of the view that, if you reward him by banning me, you'll actually encourage him to do it again, & worse. Does that make my situation any better? No. Just something to think about. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:42 & 18:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "yes, I over-reacted to a page deletion; "
    That is the third time now that have accused me of deleting your pages. Now either name that page and explain how I, a non-admin, "deleted" it, or else shut up going on about it and strike these accusations. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have encountered Andy before and while we have disagreed on definite articles before ship names, he has never abused me. You, Trekphiler, on the other hand, I believe should be thrown from this project for your behaviour and never welcomed back. There is no difference to your behaviour and verbally abusing me on the street. In this case it is worse, because it will forever be logged here. As it stands I hope for a close, disregarding Parsecboy's and any other MILHIST admin as statements for what they are, an attempt to shield one of their friends from the rules. Llammakey (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Give me a break, Llamma - no-one's trying to shield anyone (and how you can attack Trek for his personal attacks while having made comments like this one is beyond me - it seems Andy's not the only one around here trying to pretend like his shit doesn't stink) - Trek is not my friend, and as I have said several times now, I don't oppose a block. And as I have said earlier in this thread, what I am here to do is prevent Andy from trying to game the system, yet again. Parsecboy (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So one of your admin friends tells me I should be abused, which is a disgusting belief, while protecting Trekphiler and you think that I was in the wrong? WTF is wrong with the admins here? Parsecboy should recuse himself from this debate as you can see, he believes this kind of behaviour should be acceptable on wikipedia, furthermore, admins should tell people to accept abuse because their friends are involved. Do you have a vendetta against Andy? I thought we were discussing Trekphiler's egregious behaviour here? I think Parsecboy you should disengage as you're obviously blinded towards Trekphiler's poor behaviour, which is multitudes worse than Andy's, behaviour that is repetitive with many editors and for which he refuses to apologize or conform to WP's standards. At least Andy can follow WP policy. Llammakey (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Llamma, one wonders what discussion you're reading here, or the thread on my talk page. Ed never said you deserved to be abused - provide a diff that he did, or drop it. What he told you was you shouldn't have escalated the situation like you did. Which is a fair observation to make. The fact that you didn't like your own mistakes being identified is not Ed's problem, nor is it mine now. Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Here you go, [53], where I was chastised for putting a template on Trekphiler's talk page, but Trekphiler and I quote "is not exactly blameless". Either you are to blame for the abuse you create, or you are not. The rest of that comment goes on to excuse Trekphiler's actions, asking only that he not let the "red mist" descend next time. (Allowing that this time it was warranted) He even gave Trekphiler a smiley face. At no time, was Trekphiler warned about his actions, criticized for the way he behaved. I apologized for my actions Parsecboy, he did not, and your continued defence of Trekphiler and now ed17, makes me believe you're now as culpable as they are for the continued abuse and permitted actions of Trekphiler. I read the conversation. Which conversation were you reading? I really think you have a vendetta against Andy now, because you're continued defence of Trekphiler's actions is proving that you have a bet on a horse in this race and the horse's name starts with T. I ask once again, that you recuse yourself. Llammakey (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see "you deserve to be abused" anywhere in that diff. I do see, in Ed's first comment in the thread, that he said Trek's attacks were blockable, which sort of seems like a criticism, doesn't it? As does his second comment, where he said Trek losing his cool "doesn't justify the edits [he] made". And his third comment, where he said "there's no time where it's necessary or even useful to leave messages like you did last week" and "Someone not following DTTR doesn't give you a license to tee off on them". Anyone can read the thread and see that you're grossly exaggerating. While we're making requests, Llamma, drop the histrionics already. Parsecboy (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @The ed17: - since you've been mentioned (and dragged through the mud) here, I figure you might want to be made aware. Parsecboy (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Are blockable, but only in isolation", of which the entire first comment was criticizing me. Let us not cherry pick here shall we. I apologized right after that comment too, so let's not mischaracterize my actions either. In his third comment, right after saying I shouldn't have been on the end of the invective sent my way, he then turns around and blames me again for escalating the conflict, as if abuse was the only reasonable end to that conflict. I do not deny that I escalated the conflict, for which I already apologized further up the thread! At no time in that entire exchange or here, have you demanded Trekphiler's apology! He even states in this thread that he will not apologize and will continue to act in the fashion that has landed him here. You are allowing Trekphiler's actions, which have been abusive, against WP:Civility, to go unpunished because I put a couple of TEMPLATES on his talk page. ed17 even argued against punishment! At what point do you understand what you are defending here? Do you wish me to apologize again Parsecboy? To come grovelling at your feet, begging your forgiveness and Trekphiler's for putting a template on somebody's page? At what point does the abuse stop? That is why we are here, to remove an editor who has outlived his usefulness to the project. As seen by Andy's claims, he adds mistakes (which means he is no longer being useful in an information way), claims pages as his own to which no one is allowed to edit without his explicit permission to anything but his own standards and is now abusive. At some point organizations have to part ways with employees or volunteers, no matter how good they were in the past. Llammakey (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Give it a rest already - in a nutshell, Ed told you both that you handled the situation poorly, that you (Llamma) escalated things needlessly, but that did not justify Trek's attacks. If you want to read whatever you want into Ed's comments, that's your right, but you're not going to convince anyone else. Ed did ask you both to apologize - you did, sort of, and Trek did not. But not apologizing when someone asked you to is not a blockable offense. Since it seems you are not aware, blocks are preventative, not punishment. If Trek was actively attacking you, and made no indication that he was going to stop, then yes, Ed should have (and presumably would have) blocked him. But what you're asking for is beyond the responsibility or right of a single admin - community bans require...the community...obviously.
    On defending Trek - how many times do I need to say it before it sinks into that thick skull of yours: I am not defending him. My interest in this discussion is twofold. 1: preventing Andy from gaming the system, and 2: the fact that he and others attacked me without the courtesy of informing me. Which I think is something they criticized Trek for doing on Bilcat's talk page. Quelle surprise.
    As for Andy, he also adds mistakes. He also tries to game the system. At what point do we block him also? Parsecboy (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC
    I care not one whit about gaming the system. It's the system. You live with it. However, Trekphiler is abusive. Therefore he needs to go. You are defending him by attacking a person who put in a request in line with WP policy. Therefore, you are defending him by trying to punish the accuser by using WP:Boomerang against him. Its another form of defense of Trekphiler's actions, attempting to prove Trekphiler's innocence by claiming Andy's culpability. So, yes, in essence, you are defending him by trying to cow Andy in giving up this complaint by threatening to block him too, as you did on your talk page. Llammakey (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Bullshit. Manipulators like Andy are just as much of a problem as foulmouths like Trek. Probably moreso, since the latter are easier to get rid of.
    The funniest thing about this whole idiotic thread is the fact that you're doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. Ignoring Andy's fuckery because he's on your "side". At what point are you going to stop acting like a child? Parsecboy (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not ignoring Andy's behaviour. I think he acted within WP's policies and never attacked anyone. Do I agree with his interpretation, no. Do I think we should ban him indefinitely, no. You are arguing for the same punishment for both out of some vendetta against Andy because you see him "gaming the system", an interpretation of events that you solely hold to. On the other hand, three editors think Trekphiler is a bad editor, yet you continue to attack those set out to remove him. You side with someone who has abused someone. I came here not to defend Andy but to remove Trekphiler. You seem determined to ban Andy and keep Trekphiler, yet Andy has done nothing beyond some reverts that should maybe get him a 24-hour ban. At some point we're going to need to question your status as an admin here. You seemed absolutely determined to defend an abuser. I do not understand what your problem is, since now you're attacking me with personal insults, like "selectively illiterate" and "childish". I'm starting to see why you accept Trekphiler's behaviour. Hence, I reiterate for the fourth time, recuse yourself from the discussion. Llammakey (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you are. All of the disputes between him and Trek were initiated by Andy reverting his edits, seemingly out of spite. That's called WP:HOUNDING (ironically, the very thing Andy accuses Trek of doing - is that not a bad-faith report?) On coming here not to defend Andy but to remove Trek - do you not see that's the same logic you reject, when I say I came here not to defend Trek but to prevent Andy from gaming the system? On being childish - you hold a grudge against Ed based on a misinterpretation that no one else shares, despite the fact that Ed already clarified what he meant (and apologized for the misunderstanding). If that's not childish, I don't know what is. Parsecboy (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Andy reverting his edits, seemingly out of spite."
    Where? I have never reverted any of Trekphiler's edits "out of spite". I have reverted some over minor and reasonable differences of editing opinion (Trekphiler is welcome to discuss these, but he does not engage on talk: pages, merely uses them for abuse), mostly because Trekphiler has been pushing in unsourced factual howlers. I would revert these if any editor added them. I will continue to do so. Trekphiler himself was surprised how stupid he had been over some of them (and used that term), once he stopped for long enough to actually consider what he was doing. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ♠"That is the third time now that have accused me of deleting your pages." Why don't you quit pretending you haven't been tracking my every edit & don't know exactly what I'm talking about? Why don't you quit trying to make out I've got some kind of vendetta against you?
    ♠"There is no difference to your behaviour and verbally abusing me on the street." And there's no difference between your accusation of vandalism based on a disputed edit & the false claim made elsewhere. Yet you seem to believe I should have ignored that, while you're entitled to extract punishment for your hurt feelings. And you want to use a completely unrelated matter as your excuse, which also, you'll notice, rewards somebody else's bad behavior. Presumably that's fine with you; it's less clear to me why it would be.
    ♠I can only speculate why Andy picked me out, but by appearances, it didn't start with the Stirling engine page. Neither do I believe it will stop here, if you reward him. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 10:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As for you, you've obviously shown repetitive behaviour issues with multitudes of editors. An accusation of vandalism does not allow you to abuse me. In any workplace in the world, including volunteer workplaces, your behaviour would have had your employment terminated on the spot, and you would have been escorted out by security. The fact that we have to discuss it here is beyond me. Llammakey (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Trekphiler - I have no idea which page you are talking about, when you refer to "the page which I deleted". Certainly those other editors reading ANI won't know what it is. Now this is the fourth time you've made this allegation, yet you keep refusing to identify it. That's now to a disruptive level at ANI: making an allegation that cannot be reasonably discussed or refuted, just because you refuse to say what it is. So either say that, or strike your allegations. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "In any workplace in the world" So any disagreement between "employees" is grounds for firing? Or is that only because you've got the authority to do something about it & I don't? And I come back to my initial position: I had no expectation of getting a fair hearing on the matter raised, &, so far, I've been right. And at the same time, you're prepared to reward trolling & stalking. I'm better off elsewhere, then. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:27 & 02:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Any disagreement between employees? Of course not. But I've been managing employees in a relatively lax, but professional workplace for over 20 years. If I had an employee, and the complaint against them was communicating using the phrases fuck you, too, go fuck yourself, Go fuck yourself, go to hell, fuck you, fuck you too, fuck you too, go to hell, go to hell, so go screw yourself, and someone needs to get screwed; then it would have been the simplest termination decision I'd ever made! Heck, any two of them would have had them on a final warning (assuming they weren't both just go to hell, and the third would have been out the door unless there was a blatant medical issue involved. Truth be told, I've seen nothing that blatant. But I've seen action (warnings) taken on a simple useless fucking procedure, which isn't even getting personal (though perhaps the volume it was screamed didn't help). Why not just simply answer the question of which page you are talking about, rather than I was never going to get a fair hearing. That you weren't instantly blocked at the beginning of this discussion once those nuggets came out, surely is evidence that the hearing you've received is more than fair (if not way too soft). Nfitz (talk) 04:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Request

    Before we continue, I request a deletion of these edit summaries: ♦Special:Diff/790019118 ♦Special:Diff/790409750 ♦Special:Diff/790409518 ♦Special:Diff/790395964 ♦Special:Diff/777697157 ♦Special:Diff/777695432 ♦Special:Diff/777695254 ♦Special:Diff/790395032 ♦Special:Diff/790394847 ♦Special:Diff/691864936 ♦Special:Diff/679541270 ♦Special:Diff/792454896

    Also, I still support an indefinite block. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Best to turn this into a sub-thread. As to the question at hand, "'ordinary' incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations" is specifically ruled out at WP:REVDEL. Parsecboy (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose deletion, as Parsecboy would be able to continue to defend Trekphiler and ed17's actions. Thank you Jojhnjoy though for the kindness. Reiterated support for indefinite block. Llammakey (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Llamma, I'm having hard time assuming good faith at this point. Are you ignoring everything I say, or are you selectively illiterate? Parsecboy (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny, I assumed bad faith on your part the moment you started supporting an abuser and the admin who backed his actions. Now you are insulting me as well with "childish" and "selectively illiterate" remarks. I did not come here to defend Andy, I came here to remove a bad editor. No wonder you support Trekphiler, since you seem to have the same problem. Maybe you should step down as admin, since you're now resorting to personal attacks. Llammakey (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SPADE. You either ignored my comments in this subthread or read them but did not parse them (i.e., selectively literate - you know, kind of like selective-deafness, like when my 2-year old pretends she didn't hear me tell her to clear up her toys). There isn't a third option. Well, I guess there is. You might have read my comments, internalized them, but decided to smear me anyways. Your choice. Parsecboy (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    All I'm hearing from you, since you are now equating me with a two-year old, is continued justification for abuse and support for Trekphiler, since you have yet to unequivocally call for his removal from the project. You seem to call people names when people don't agree with your interpretation. Like I have said, consider stepping down as an admin, because I no longer see you fit for holding the position. The difference between Andy and Trekphiler's actions is that one is an abuser and the other is not. One just uses the system to his advantage, which I find nothing wrong with. Abusers, and those who victim blame, such as yourself and Ed, should be the ones removed. Your continued insistence on insulting people should allow those judging the outcome of the bans and your boomerang request for what it is, support for your "friend" Trekphiler.Llammakey (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's have a little wager. Explain how you A, read my comments about REVDEL, B, internalized them, and C, had a valid reason for pretending like I didn't make them, and I'll recuse myself. Hell, I'll hand in my bit. If you can't, I expect you to recuse yourself. I'll be waiting on bated breath.
    For the record, before this whole dispute was brought to my talk page (after you brought your dispute with Trek to my talk page, incidentally), I have had zero interaction with Trek, as far as I can recall. He's not my "friend". Parsecboy (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You still refuse to call for the unequivocal removal of Trekphiler, now changing the goalposts to explanation of my interpretation of your REVDEL arguments. You continue to attack me, blaming me for all these problems you have with this entire page. I did come to you for support and help after being attack, which ended in Ed suggesting that I shut my mouth and take it. You then supported Ed's comments here, reiterating them and continuing to attack me, and on top of that, continue to act like Trekphiler has done nothing wrong because "Andy started it". This is the second time Trekphiler has entered into a revert fight on pages he thinks he owns in less than a month. You continue to support his actions, by undermining my complaints by calling me childish and illiterate and others, calling them paranoid. You no longer discuss Trekphiler's actions, only those of Andy's. If someone defends someone consistently and attacks the other parties in a discussion and continues to change the subject from Trekphiler's actions, then yes, I would call you his friend because if friend and ally is not an accurate term, then I do not know what is. No one has taken up your standard that Andy is at wrong. I asked you to recuse yourself for your personal attacks, and yet now you want me to stand before you to be judged. Not going to happen Parsecboy, I will not be victimized by you and your cohort of Trekphiler and Ed again. Llammakey (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, I thought we agreed if you couldn't justify your smear against me (and Ed), then you'd recuse yourself. Since that isn't going to happen, how about you strike your attack? And no, this is not "moving the goalposts", this is responding to a wholly unsubstantiated attack that you made.
    Yes, I supported Ed's comments. Because they were entirely fair. To be blunt: you screwed up with your dispute with Trek. If you hadn't escalated things with him, you would have been 100% in the right, but you went and labeled his edits "vandalism" (they weren't) and posted condescending templates on his talk page. Which is not, to be abundantly clear, saying that you deserved a stream of "fuck you"s. But you did have a hand in creating the conflict - if you can't see and accept that, then yes, you are behaving childishly.
    No, I am not excusing Trek's attacks "because Andy started it". What I'm doing, if you bothered to read anything I've said (instead of superimposing your own biased narrative on my comments), is presenting the fact that Trek did not lash out at Andy in a vacuum. Andy came here to get Trek blocked with a self-serving representation of the events in question. I came here to correct that representation. That is all. Parsecboy (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You have continually misrepresented me throughout this. At no point have I called for a block, or any sanction, on Trekphiler - I merely want him to stop behaving like this. I haven't even raised the issue of his language.
    Trekphiler, for his part, keeps accusing me of deleting his page(s), yet still won't say which page.
    Two weeks ago, Trekphiler went to your talk: page, as his friendliest admin, and started complaining of me. I replied then, "accuracy is secondary to your bruised ego, and you really don't have a fraction of the knowledge you think you do" and I still stand by every part of that. Even since then, even since this issue was under some scrutiny, he persisted in doing it. Any opposition to him is seen as a personal slight to be reverted on sight and he cares nothing about whether he's accurate in doing so or not. If he's dragged off to a talk: page, we see comments like "Can somebody weigh in on the Arrow talk page & straighten him out?". This isn't someone interested in simply getting the content right (whatever one's own view might have been), this is canvassing for a few more to join his "side" in an argument, whether right or wrong. Trekphiler needs to stop reacting to other people disagreeing with him with just instant reversion, abuse, and ignoring reality in favour of just defending his own previous opinion, right or wrong. Open discussion and sourcing would help too. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Where have I misrepresented you? Can you point to a single instance where Trek reverted one of your edits first? Can you square the fact that you can't provide that evidence with your opening complaint about Trek HOUNDing you? Can you then see why I have characterized you the way I have, given that it appears to me that you deliberately misrepresented the situation to gain an unfair advantage in your disputes with Trek?
    I'm not his "friendliest admin" - we have never interacted before to any meaningful degree. The reason he went to my talk page, presumably, is because Llamma took the earlier dispute there (and up until the last day or so, if I was going to be "friendliest" to anyone involved here, it would have been Llamma, not you or Trek). So drop that conspiratorial BS already. Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    [54] Andy Dingley (talk) 13:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a somewhat odd definition of what constitutes a "revert". Rewording your addition is not the same thing as removing it, partially or wholesale, which is what a WP:REVERT actually is. In any event, altering your edit on a page he created hardly constitutes evidence of hounding. Now can you answer my question please? Parsecboy (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What part of this is not a simple reversion? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I did not see your first edit in that chain. Nevertheless, hardly evidence of hounding behavior. Please answer my question. Parsecboy (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    stop This is about Trekphiler. Misunderstand each other somewhere else, please.
    As far as I can tell, we got: For Trekphiler: 2 × indef block, 1 × support for sanctions and 1 × not against sanctions // For Andy Dingley: 2 × support for sanctions. I hope this is correct. (Objection?) --Jojhnjoy (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I retract any support for sanctions against Andy. So as it stands it is just Parsecboy and his crusade/vendetta against Andy Dingley and let the world see Parsecboy for what he is. Llammakey (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect your "change of heart" will rather be more illuminating about you... Parsecboy (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Spotted the Bomarac/Arrow comments here, and started reading through. Such a fascinating piece of our history - I think a lot of people forget that Canada ever had nuclear weapons, and Trudeau's role in eliminating - do they not discuss the Bomarac's in history class any more? But I, as usual, digress. Looking at the talk page however, I find Trekfiler's comments insufferably abusive, even from the first edit; and while others may slowly start to drop to their level, it's pretty clear where it begins. I also endorse an indefinite block. And then I look at some of their summary comments - my gosh! There's no excuse for that on such a regular basis! Nfitz (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Support moderate-term block (1 month?) for Trekphiler. I'm not super impressed by how Andy has approached this situation (especially the way he worded portions of his filing here), but Trekphiler's behaviour in numerous of the diffs presented here is beyond the pall. That he has been able to talk to other editors in the fashion he is, up to and including expletive-filled rages, is a sad commentary on our response time to gross incivility just now. Some of that behaviour is stale, but it is clearly a pattern that has continued up until the present day (and seems to have started early in his involvement on this project many years ago). Not only do I think a block for this behaviour is warranted even a handful of weeks after the last occurence, I think it should be substantially long enough to at least have a chance of getting this editors attention. I'd support any block on the order of a few weeks to a few months, for this purpose. Snow let's rap 02:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    That's probably fair - it's worth pointing out that Trek has been blocked twice in the past for incivlity, though they were both quite some time ago. Whether that's an indication of the fact that Trek can edit civilly or just that he didn't cause enough trouble to warrant blocks in the intervening seven years, I don't know. Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, abuse is rewarded. He has been blocked twice for incivility previously, continues to act in that manner, even stating that he will never change his ways and refuses to apologize for his previous actions and a short-term block is fair? So he can come back and abuse all those who touch his pages? No wonder this place drives editors away when they insist on keeping bad apples. A person at Google was just terminated for sending out a memo stating in civil language that women were not on par with men. That's the correct action. Here, someone can attack people and all the admins can say is sit nicely on the sidelines for a month. No wonder this place ends up in the news as a hostile environment the admins encourage this behaviour, instead of eliminating it altogether. Llammakey (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Rewarded...how...exactly? If the block makes Trek moderate his temper, what exactly do we lose, apart from your petty grudge? Parsecboy (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Here we go again with the personal attacks. Jesus, you just keep it up don't you Parsecboy. Rewarded because this is sanctioning his behaviour. He has already been banned twice, this is the third and fourth times at minimum he has done these things. At what point does it take to remove him? Ten? Twenty? (Personal attack removed) Llammakey (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Irony meter go boom! - Nick Thorne talk 16:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Reboot

    I visit WP in 10 minute chunks these days. I can't read thru this mess. In 5 minutes of review I definitely see unacceptable behavior from Trekphiler, I see borderline unacceptable behavior from Andy (there might be worse that I haven't seen), and I just removed an unacceptable comment by Llammakey. Possibly if I spent hours looking into it I'd find more, by these three and other people. But it doesn't matter, because I simply can't spend the time, and I doubt other admins can (or want to).

    My 5 minute solution would be an interaction ban between User:Trekphiler and User:Andy Dingley, or at least a ban from reverting each other. But without further research I can't tell if that's reasonable or not.

    The real problem is, ANI is not set up well to handle disputes. Particularly those that have been festering for, apparently, years. We don't actually have anything that is set up well to do this. So I have a sneaking suspicion that at this point, an interaction ban is the best that can be hoped for, even if both think it unfair, and even if it actually is unfair to one or the other. I wonder if both of you would consider agreeing to a ban from reverting each other to see if that solves the issue?

    Note that only scrupulously polite responses will be accepted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose This is what Trekphiler wants: to exclude me from "his" articles. To be free to insert his stupid changes (his term) and be free of review from (at least one) other editor.
    Seemingly, even in your 10 minute constrained time, I only deserve half that. If you haven't even read this "mess", why are you putting forward sanctions? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I explained why. There is no reason for me to continue here if you're going to snark at me too; I don't get paid to take it. Good luck with the status quo. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In have not been a party to this, but was watching another thread. The above suggestions does not (in effect) ban you form "his pages" what it doers is ban you form altering his edits (and him from altering yours). There is nothing to stop you editing materiel he did not add (or adding new material).Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse - This is more or less what I asked Andy to do in the first place - solve these issues without the undo button as a first resort - but since both of them seem to be incapable of doing that, I asked Andy to disengage, presuming him to be the one more in control of his emotions of the two (and the one who was actually discussing the issue with me at the time). Since he seems unwilling to do that, a formal IBAN might be the best way forward. I'd also suggest it be made clear to Trek that he's on very thin ice (if a block is not also handed out). Parsecboy (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What is needed here is for Trekphiler to follow WP:BRD, rather than revert-abuse-canvass, as he's been doing previously. No more than anyone else is held to.
    I am unwilling to let all of Trekphiler's edits go unchallenged, because no other editor gets a free pass like that, so why should he? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's you who has to improve their adherence to BRD - you have complained about Trek's reverts - that's the "R" in BRD. The burden is on the person adding the material to justify it (the "D" part - whether its you or someone else). Funnily enough, I recall lecturing you about this in the past. You were rather impolite.
    I've told you this time and time again, Andy, but you haven't seemed to figure it out. Trek is not your responsibility. Take the world off your shoulders, man. Parsecboy (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've avoided mentioning this all this time (AGF despite your clear biases in the section above), but if you're going to bring it up, then here we go. Your beef with me, all along, has not been about Trekphiler, it's about me opposing your GA on HMS Thunderer - see Talk:HMS Thunderer (1872). Your GAs are not up to standard, they're done by tag teaming between a small clique. I've not looked at others in bulk, but Thunderer fails significantly (major aspects of the article are simply inaccurate, unsourced or contradictory). When this was raised, and the article expanded, you simply started bulk reverts.
    Anyone interested in the backstory here: take a look at the Thunderer history and see if this is an "uninvolved" admin or not. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The heck are you talking about? I didn't write the article, or review it for GA - all I did was tell you to stop edit-warring. You seem to have me mistaken for User:Sturmvogel 66 - would you care to clarify this latest nonsensical allegation? Parsecboy (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Parsecboy is right, he only has one edit to HMS Thunderer (1872). Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - firstly that was not a personal attack, that was genuine, genuine concern. As for an apology, I will not apologize for concern for the welfare of children. Nice try trying to force me out of the conversation though Floquenbeam. Reiterate Indefinate ban for Trekphiler as four times at the minimum is enough. Llammakey (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Llamma, tread carefully. That's all the more I'll say to you at this point. Parsecboy (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Llammakey: I'm struggling to find words to express what I'm feeling right now. You're absolutely incredibly lucky to have not been blocked for that comment, which ought to be revdeleted. You've just gone after an editor's family because you're in an online dispute. Think about that for a second. Then do yourself a favor and back away from the keyboard for a bit. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Uninvolved admin needed! In what alternate Wiki-universe is this in any way acceptable? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 24 hours. I have explained at their talk page why they only got a very short 24 hour block and not a much longer or indefinite one for this totally unacceptable remark. Fram (talk) 07:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinte block for Trekphiler since his unacceptable edit behaviour is not limited to Andy Dingley. An interaction ban with Andy Dingley would not stop him from insulting others. Furthermore, Trekphiler demonstrated problematic edits, for instance by forcefully trying to erase the alleged "dysphemism" Nazi Germany from articles with edit warring. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Chickymomo28

    I have a question pertaining to User:Chickymomo28: apart from a bit of early vandalism and a few isolated minor (and not always valid) copy edits to a random selection of topics, the substantive bulk of their edit history has otherwise entirely involved persistent attempts to recreate the same poorly sourced article about Canadian comedy musician Joe Bird. If it gets redirected they'll just revert it; if the redirect gets salted so that they can't do that anymore, they try again at some alternate title (e.g. a different disambiguator or a non-standard alternate capitalization of the title) to evade the page protection.

    Prior discussion at Talk:Joe Bird (singer) has identified that their rationale for why the article should be allowed boils down to "he exists and I worked hard on it", but they seem unwilling to listen to any feedback about it — each new reiteration of the article is always a straight cut and paste of their sandbox page at User:Chickymomo28/sandbox, with no new edits to actually address what they've been told about needing to base it on reliable source coverage rather than YouTube videos and primary sources and circular references to other Wikipedia articles. And their other pattern is to simply try to erase anybody else's comments from talk pages, sometimes with an edit summary that consists of insults against the commenter. I don't know if this is a direct conflict of interest (i.e. the editor is Joe Bird) or just obsessive stanning, but they seem profoundly uninterested in actually collaborating in a constructive or productive manner or listening to anything short of "you can do whatever the hell you want". Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Stanning? L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]
    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Stanning — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a term for a fan whose behaviour is so obsessive that it verges on stalking: stalker + fan. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I've gone ahead and slapped an A7 on the sandbox. Twitbookspacetube 03:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Unlikely to be Joe Bird considering the article states that he died in 2009. Maybe an edit filter to stop this sort of disruption. Blackmane (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I didn't notice that. But they could conceivably still be someone who had a direct personal relationship with him, such as a son, daughter, brother, sister, friend or colleague. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposal: Topic ban from Joe Bird-related articles. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • A topic ban for a user who has only had 3 edits in 4 months - 2 of which are in their own talk space - does seem kind of overkill - particularly when there's no signs of any warnings on their talk page. How about a boomerang for User:Bearcat who is well aware of the mandatory requirement of notifying the user on their talk page? No new edits? Doesn't look like it from the sizes of the various versions. I'm not sure why this is being dealt with in this manner, than simply going to AFD - which doesn't appear to have ever happened. There's no question that Bird is notable - the only question really is he notable other than as part of the Trolls. This looks more like an administrator misusing the tools in an edit war against a user in the administrator's field of editing. Nfitz (talk) 07:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, AFD is not required to weigh in before an article is allowed to be redirected to a related topic. Nobody has at any point even suggested that the articles should be deleted outright, merely redirected to Three Dead Trolls. Secondly, notability on Wikipedia is a factor of the degree to which the person can or cannot be shown as the subject of reliable sourcing, but the editor has never made any attempt to show any at all — their attempts have been based entirely on YouTube videos and primary sources and circular sourcing to other Wikipedia articles and entertainment listings in a local WordPress blog, and not one of their attempts at recreating the article has ever contained even one reliable or GNG-assisting source at all. Thirdly, all I did here was raise a question for other fellow admins to look at and weigh in on; I did not presuppose that any particular remedy was required beyond the attention of other administrators, and the long-term consequence was proposed by somebody else other than me. And fourthly, the matter has been discussed directly with the editor in question, it just happened on the talk page of one of the article creation attempts (which I did provide a link to above) — so to suggest that they were unaware of why there's a problem here at all is not accurate: they were made aware of why there's a problem, and just chose to ignore it. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no question there is an issue with this editor, but with the current main-space edit rate of about 4 a year, I don't think any sanctions are necessary, as they pose no danger to the topic. Nothing wrong with a re-direct. But if the re-direct is challenged, take it to AFD - don't lock the redirect so only admins can edit. That's desysop territory as far as I'm concerned, and a far bigger issue than anything this occasional user has ever done. This is nothing more than a content dispute, and using your tools to win the argument, rather than going through an AFD process (that I suspect you'd win), is utterly disgraceful. No, their sources aren't great, but it's pretty easy to find mainstream media to support much of the content - but as you point out, really it probably just supports the TDT article, and not the standalone article; though a merge is not unreasonable. Nfitz (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There were sufficient warnings, they decided to delete all of them by blanking the talk page. Since they ignore warnings and really stick to this "Joe Bird", banning them from "Joe Bird" related articles is a good option. This is only one person, not an entire topic field. This user can show that they are capable of contributing since there are so many other things to work on here, even other musicans. This account appears like a single purpose account to me. If they continue working on "Joe Bird" with other accounts, an administrator should protect the article instead. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks more like a user, who have written a perfectly reasonable article, has red-taped to death, is losing interest, and is now up against an abusive administrator who should be desysopped. Nfitz (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that escalated quickly. Pray tell, how did this admin abuse their tools? Blackmane (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    By protecting the redirects Joe Bird (singer) and Joe Bird (musician) for admin edits only. See logs here and here. And then they come right here to ANI, after only 1 mainspace edit in 4 months, with no attempt to communicate with them on their talk page? And even after being notified 2 days ago, has yet to even notify the user of this ANI discussion in direct violation of the requirements? It's horrific administration. Should have simply taken the page to AFD. Nfitz (talk) 04:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, redirects are allowed to be salted if they're repeatedly subject to attempts to convert them into a standalone article which is not showing or properly sourcing any evidence of sufficient notability to qualify for a standalone article, no differently than if the article were being repeatedly recreated from a redlink. Secondly, I have attempted to communicate with the user in question, and I showed the evidence of that already — as has been noted, they routinely either ignore or attempt to simply blank any discussion that anybody undertakes with them about it. And thirdly, sure, I'd have taken the article to AFD if I had wanted the title to be deleted — but there is no requirement for AFD to weigh in before it can even be redirected to a related topic. This is not "horrific" administration — I've done nothing improper whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Accusations of canvassing

    [55]

    Softlavender (talk · contribs) seems to think that posting a notice to WP:FTN about a deletion discussion is "non-neutral canvassing". This same accusation was made previously in a successful attempt to derail the last discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Renard (3rd nomination). I ask that an administrator evaluate whether this accusation is warranted or whether this claim can be removed from the page. Thanks.

    jps (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This is neutral canvassing: [56]. This is non-neutral canvassing: [57]. You've done the latter regarding the same article three four times now. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hard to see how this is canvasing, beyond the idea that asking people to have a look at any given forum means you are canvasing that forum (an implication the forum is biased it would seem to me).Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The basic idea is that a neutral notification means saying "Here's a discussion you might be interested in" (or words to that effect), while non-neutral notification lays out your position in the discussion, so that it might attract editors who agree with you, or biases the editors who go there by having seen your side before they even arrive. JPS has been here long enough that he should know that. WP:Canvassing#Appropriate notification and WP:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification are very clear on the subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not seeing him laying out any position in his latest notification.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you think that this is neutral?

    Notable enough for a WP:FRINGEBLP? WP:AUTHOR? WP:GNG? Do we yet know who in the vast WP:Walled Garden of A Course in Miracles community is notable and who isn't? How do we decide? (At least Wayne Dyer did a huge number of PBS specials).

    Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    When did he say that, as this was his notification of the latest AFD [[60]]. Do not get me wrong, I think the user is a problem (and have said so many times, and said it would get worse over time, including over the related issue of the last AFD close on this subject). But I also do not see this as being as bad (or even an infringement) of what he did on the third AFD, or here his complaint about the close of that AFD (such as not dropping the stick).Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the second link in Softlavender's comment above, after "This is non-neutral canvassing." Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The second links is to a thread that started before this latest AFD (the 29th of June, over a month ago). How is that canvasing in the latest AFD?Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The notice was IN SOLID CAPS AND BOLDFACE, in a thread which was nothing but non-neutral canvassing and personal attacks from the very beginning. Any notice on that thread already was and is by definition non-neutral canvassing (no matter how cleverly it was worded); the fact that it was IN SOLID CAPS AND BOLDFACE made it even moreso. Softlavender (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "I am not seeing him laying out any position in his latest notification." The "latest notification" was IN SOLID CAPS AND BOLDFACE, in a thread which was nothing but non-neutral canvassing and personal attacks from the very beginning. Any subsequent notice on that thread was and is by definition non-neutral canvassing. The well was already poisoned. If jps had stopped while he was ahead and accepted the "no-consensus" administrator's close of his AfD, instead of DRVing (and non-neutrally canvassing for that) and then non-neutrally canvassing for the new AfD started less than 10 hours after the DRV was closed as a near-unanimous endorse, and then non-neutrally canvassing yet again for this ANI, he wouldn't be in the position he is in now -- that is, open to being boomerang sanctioned for his egregiously and repeated non-neutral canvassing and failure to drop the stick. Softlavender (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why then did it take you over a month to report it, and only after a new AFD? This smells of forum shopping and gaming the system. I agree (and said so) that he should have dropped the stick (and yes I am also going to say I think he forum shopped and has tried to game the system) but it does not alter the fact that his latest post was (as far as I can see) not canvasing (except to the degree I have said before about problems on the FTN).Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not open this ANI; please notice who did. I reported the first instance at the appropriate venue (jps's AfD) the day after it occurred, and I reported the subsequent occurrences the same way, as soon as they occurred. The "latest notification" was IN SOLID CAPS AND BOLDFACE, in a thread which was nothing but non-neutral canvassing and personal attacks from the very beginning. Any subsequent notice on that thread was and is by definition non-neutral canvassing. The well was already poisoned. Softlavender (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake, you did not even report it, just made a noise about it on the AFD page.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not "make a noise about it". I posted a standard notice to the closing admin. Softlavender (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slatersteven: As I already told you on the AfD (and now for some reason you are feigning ignorance even though you read and responded to my reply there): "It is clearly non-neutral canvassing. This is neutral canvassing: [61]. This is non-neutral canvassing: [62]. See WP:APPNOTE: Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief." Also read the rest of WP:APPNOTE, including the chart. Also, you yourself came here to ANI from the non-neutral canvassing his fourth instance of it for the same article) of this ANI thread that jps made on the same FTN thread. Jps's FTN thread is classic non-neutral canvassing, mixed in with assorted absurd false accusations about me, poisoning the well, and so on. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No I am not feigning ignorance of what you told me, I do not agree with your interpretation. Frankly (as I have also said before) you both have issues over this topic, and frankly I think the pair of you are gaming the system. Him by posting a notification that boarder on (but does not cross over into) canvasing and you by trying to provoke him into getting a procedural close on the latest AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not provoke anyone; I made a very standard notice to the closing admin. You responded to it and I answered you and you read and acknowledged and responded to my reply to you, but then came here posting as if you knew nothing about WP:APPNOTE. Softlavender (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, care to explain how the message was canvassing? jps (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You're earlier comments in the thread in question made it very clear what your desired outcome was and thus your purported neutral notification took on a perhaps unintended sarcastic tone. Regardless, this report is frivolous. Do you really think Softlavender has done anything actionable? Lepricavark (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to remove the comment as it is a lie and, WP:Pinnochio is a good standard. But having an admin do it is preferable to edit warring, isn't it? jps (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a difference between lying and having a difference of opinion. Lepricavark (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No argument there. Should I include a note to that effect in the discussion, in your opinion? jps (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to do so. I'm not sure if you mean this discussion or the AfD, but it's up to you either way. Lepricavark (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There doesn't look to be any improper canvassing in this instance. At FTN, questions at play related to fringe topics are normal for introducing what's going relevant to the noticeboard, and those all look like pretty standard intro questions. Sometimes fringe topics are called walled gardens too. Of course FRINGEBLP, etc. are going to be relevant metrics for that noticeboard to weigh in on. Had there been argument for a particular viewpoint on any of those things, that notice wouldn't be neutral anymore. I don't see anything remotely indicating that happened though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    DOC NOTE Just so we're clear. The message that Softlavender is claiming is "canvassing is the following:

    Followed by this notice which is also claimed to be "canvassing":

    Are false accusations of OMFG CANVASSING!!!11!!111! the new WP:CRYBLP? jps (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • RANT - I don't care whether he's notable or not. I do want all of these authors to refrain from discussing "non-neutral canvassing" on the AfD page, regardless of whether canvassing does or does not occur. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Frankly this whole thing bores me but I don't think we can ignore the fact that this neutral notice appeared in the same thread for the previous AFD where canvassing allegations were raised, frankly IMO justifiably.

    The silly thing is I have no idea why we even need this mess. In reality although non neutral since it was the FTN it probably wouldn't have actually influenced the !vote much. So why on earth not just leave a neutral notice in the first place? Jps has been here long enough that they should know of the need to leave a neutral notice in the first place, and placing the notification at FTN was justifiable.

    And why start a new AFD so soon after the previous AfD when I as I said in the AfD, the outcome was obvious. (Yes I know it wasn't Jps who did so.) Why not just wait at least 2 months so we have hope of having a different outcome and then posting a neutral message (e.g. the example cited above) rather than just wasting time both here and in the AfD? Yes I can understand why people concerned about FT may be concerned about an article on a possibly non notable on the person who promotes nonsense but there's surely a lot of other things relating to FT that could be done which would actually have a hope of achieving something.

    Nil Einne (talk) 10:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Aww jeez, are we still banging on about this? Jps, everyone except you said I closed AfD #3 properly (or at least within the bounds of admin discretion for those who would have preferred a "delete" outcome), you were warned that going to AfD #4 immediately (I appreciate you didn't start the latest AfD, but I think you would have if nobody else had got there first) would result in a bunch of procedural keeps, and I predicted somebody would be telling you to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. I just didn't realise that last one would be me as well. Meanwhile, Softlavender, stop rising to the bait. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Well you certainly haven't walked away from the issue and done something else have you? If I was going to assume bad faith, I would have ignored your views completely and closed AfD #3 as "keep". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Enough, please. GABgab 03:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Are you trying to make a run for the worst admin award or something? I work on what I think is best for the encyclopedia. Maybe I should work on having you leave? jps (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when is this kind of personal attack okay? Lepricavark (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, come now! I am making no personal attack. I'm sure Ritchie333 is a perfectly wonderful human being. I am making a judgment as a Wikiepdian about whether we are following Wikipedia:ADMINBESTPRACTICE and whether Wikipedia would be better off if we could have foregone the problematic judgment exhibited above. jps (talk) 05:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a very light interpretation of your threat to attempt to drive him off of Wikipedia. And using terms like "worst admin award" is both a personal attack and extremely unlikely to garner you any sympathy. This entire thread has been frivolous from the get-go, although I'm increasingly suspicious that you started it with the primary intention of drawing more delete !votes at the fourth AfD. Lepricavark (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my stars! It positively immobilizes me whenever I hear the three nastiest words in the English language: "worst admin award". I am not here for sympathy, but I'm glad you're spending your time stoking suspicions other than being productive. Who knows what kind of damage you might do otherwise? jps (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting that you make a patronizing comment about my productivity. I've been making hundreds of productive, backlog-reducing edits while this discussion has dragged on. You've made a single article edit this month. In your defense, of course, you also started this thread to complaint over a non-actionable edit and you may be on your way to bringing the boomerang back on yourself before this is all wrapped up. So you haven't done absolutely nothing. Lepricavark (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this whole endeavor has been rather successful. I've also identified some troubling personality traits in you that I can log for future use, so that's nice. jps (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome to use any of my personality traits that you like. I think you'll find they work much better than yours. Lepricavark (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    What is so sad about this is that the WP:Walled Garden around A Course in Miracles is so very real, written from an "in-universe" pov, an almost impenetrable festering mass of crap that jps rightly brings to our attention. What a shame this thread is picking on jps, rather than having a damn good look at the issue. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I find that picking on me seems to be the thing that this place likes to do when a problem with actual content shows up. The content, it seems, is not as important as people who want to preserve some idol called "procedure". WTF is a "procedural keep" anyway? It's basically saying, "I think the party that is correct should go fuck themselves". And people wonder why I'm so cynical. Anyway, I do think it important that these issues be documented, for posterity, I guess. If anyone wants to go ahead and work on cleaning up the mess, be my guest. jps (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a flagrant misrepresentation, fabrication even, of what my !vote means. I guess you don't intend to hold yourself to WP:Pinocchio. Lepricavark (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... Let me think about this. "Procedural keep" must mean that "according to procedure, we should keep". But why would you say that if it wasn't just a matter of wikilawyering point-scoring? Otherwise you'd just write, "keep" and leave it at that. If you don't believe me, do a search for when people have used the phrase. If you don't like the company you're keeping, don't keep it. jps (talk) 05:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently you didn't do enough thinking. Setting aside your false equivalence between supporting proper procedure and "wikilawyering point-scoring" (is this a contest or something), I'm objecting to your assumption that my !vote was meant to be disrespectful to "the party that is correct." Quite frankly, it is absurd of you to 1) assume that I think you're correct, which I don't; 2) twist my !vote into something insulting; 3) do both of those things at an ANI thread you initiated to accuse someone else of misrepresenting your motives; and 4) double down on your error when I call you on it. Lepricavark (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously, enough. GABgab 03:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    My explanation clearly sailed right over your sorry little head. Welcome to Wikipedia! jps (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you don't have a good answer. Lepricavark (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep digging that hole! jps (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't. You've had the shovel for the past few days and you don't seem willing to give it back. Lepricavark (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Roxy the dog is spot on - if you'd spent more time arguing about the merits of the article and less time slagging off people who disagree with you, there probably would have been a consensus to delete at the previous AfD; I certainly didn't find anything myself that could have rescued the article, so had to rely on the arguments presented. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You had the power to close the discussion appropriately, but cravenly decided to refuse to do so. The presentations about content were made perfectly plainly and there is nothing more to add. I argued the merits of the article in spades as did others and the majority was in favor of deletion. Think about what is best for the encyclopedia instead of what you think the proper "procedure" should be. jps (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Cravenly? Come now. I think the AFD has enough eyes on it that this should be de-escalated rather than ramping up the rhetoric. Everyone back away from the keyboard and make a cup of tea. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have thought a lot about whether "cravenly" is the correct adverb. On careful consideration, I think it is. An admin who was brave enough to look at what was best for the encyclopedia wouldn't have made the threats and accusations lobbed above. In any case, I think having a cup of tea is a good idea. But I also think having a good WP:ENC is enjoyable. jps (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But as I said above, if there really is a problem, why on earth can't we deal with it properly? Why do people have to behave so poorly by posting a clearly non neutral notificating, and nomming again after such a contentious AFD which went through deletion review, ensuring that rather than us actually dealing with the issues, we're wasting time dealing with this shit. Don't blame the other side, because it was entirely within the power of either side alone to prevent this, but both sides utterly failed to do so. Nil Einne (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. In case it's still unclear, if there really is a walled garden A Course in Miracles related articles, then this is something we really need to sort out. It's possible the contentious article is one of those that needs to be dealt with, perhaps by deletion but that's not going to happen now. I'm assuming there are more though. If people would start dealing with these, including AFDing them properly, we would actually be working on the problem. Frankly we probably wouldn't need to be here, if the first (third) AFD was handled properly, e.g. by only leaving a neutral notification on the FTN or after it happened, not letting the discussion over canvassing take over the AFD. Either way, we can either start fixing the problem, or waste more time on these pointless discussions. The annoying thing is I personally hate pseudoscience with a passion, so it really irks me that those who feel the same and want to help keep it out of wikipedia are making such a mess of things when there are simple and obvious things they could do which would completely avoid such a mess and it should also be obvious that what they're doing is in no way needed. Nil Einne (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been working on clearing out that mess. This is the inevitable part of such processes where the wall guardians complain about people trying to tear down the wall. We need to put to bed the ludicrous idea that it is not "neutral" to point out that this is a shitty, shitty article and the people who are arguing to keep it are doing so on the basis of some of the least reliable sources I've seen. If you want to nominate someone else to do this work to clean out problems, please go right ahead. But so far, I don't see many others helping. In some ways, I'm glad we're here because there does seem to be some more notice than the last time. [63]. jps (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why has this be done inn the way it has been...because people are allowed to do it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Holy fuck, is this thread still open?!?! Somebody close it, please??? Pretty please? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Part of my reason for starting this was to avoid the argument at the AfD. I suppose I could have tried the talk page, but I was hoping that maybe an admin might see fit to remove the offending phrase. On the other hand, I think this thread has allowed us to segregate some of the distracting sniping so that commentators can comment on content. If that's all I achieved by opening this, it was worth it. jps (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Granting the assumption that all of this drama would have spilled over into the AfD, I can fully sympathize. But still. I tend to look at drama the way Elmer Fudd looks at Buggs Bunny. I want to kill it, even if it sometimes puts on a dress and seduces me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as long as we allow anyone to contribute, the drama-culture will endure. I guess I see this thread as a good illustration to the reasons behind the existence of WP:CIR. God, we're on the fourth(!) AfD for a person whose main claim-to-fame is having written books about a book due to the fact that he believes he was visited by a couple of ascended masters. Oh, and not a person who isn't part of this groupthink that such channeling is plausible has bothered to write anything about him. I wish I could wave the WP:ENC flag, but it's hard to do that when you're surrounded by people who want to use channeled books as sources for articles. jps (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • UPDATE: Ever since the fourth AfD was opened, jps has been edit-warring to gut the article: [64]. I think it's about time to suggest a boomerang in the form of a topic ban from Gary Renard, broadly construed, or a topic ban from A Course in Miracles, broadly construed. Softlavender (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The OP has been blocked 25 times, including three indef blocks (and at least one of those indefs was for block evasion): [65]. At what point does a user become a net negative and receive a sanction that will prevent further disruption? Softlavender (talk) 04:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User creating unreferenced BLP after block expiry

    DrRemish has been been blocked twice in as many weeks for adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Barely a day after the end of the second block he/she created this unreferenced BLP. It seems that the message is not getting through.

    Note: I moved the page to draft space before I realised there had been an AfD. It may perhaps be eligible as G4. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Procedural block extended to 1 week. Ideally should be longer based on edit summaries like this. Alex ShihTalk 18:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As a new administrator, I do not yet feel confident in calibrating the length of blocks. However, this editor's behavior seems egregious and I think one week is pretty lenient under these circumstances. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to both of you, matter resolved – at least for now. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Just anon blocked dynamic IP 73.183.26.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for WP:NPA.

    Now they've taken the harassment over to Wiktionary:[66]. I'm not an admin over there so could use admin eyes there. Thanks! - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @CorbieVreccan: You could try going to Wiktionary:Vandalism in progress if harassment continues. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The diff on EvergreenFir's talk page history may need revdel. Blackmane (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no problem hiding it if @EvergreenFir: wants it hidden. In these instances I sometimes vacillate on whether to deny recognition or leave the evidence in the open record so others can be aware of what sort they're dealing with. Whichever. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @CorbieVreccan: I'm fine either way. WP:DENY is generally what I employ as these trolls feed off of recognition. I just wish they had better insults to add to my collection though. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    At User talk:80.42.112.5 there was a threat posted, Boleyn Your constant unjustified changes and and attitude towards the subject of John Galea is verging legally on discrimination which if not corrected could result in legal action against the publication and the individuals who are accountable for this action. John Galea is a singer-songwriter who has been having his article repeatedly recreated, under about 50 names, since it was deleted at its AfD. See the sockpuppet investigation for more information, this has been going on since 2013. It has been recreated about 50 times under titles such as Jon Galea, John Galeaa, John Galea (musician) etc. The original creator was called User:Johngalea24 and another one of the many accounts re-creating the same material identified herself as Lucy, a member of his PR team. There have also been repeated attempts since 2013 to add his name to any article with a passing connection, e.g. adding him to a list of notable people from Great Yarmouth, to the point where this page has protection because of this. It just isn't stopping. I've repeatedly told the creator that they can re-submit via WP:AFC, but they refuse to do so, I've no idea why. I really wish there was a way to end this after 4 years, but really I just wanted to report the legal threats for someone who knows better than me how to respond appropriately. The threat is against me, other individuals 'accountable for this action [his article being deleted]' and Wikipedia itself. Boleyn (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your steadfastness in dealing with this very problematic COI editing. Alex Shih has just blocked the above-mentioned IP for one week for making legal threats. Have any or many of the possible article titles been edit-protected yet? If not, that might be the next step. MPS1992 (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Alex Shih and MPS1992. Yes, MPS1992, the article titles have been protected, it's just that there is no end to the possible article titles they could create, as they use misspellings of the singer's name as well as other variants. I keep the blocked ones on my watchlist and there is a block on John+Galea being used in any titles. I'm not sure what can be done beyond that, but I hope we come up with a way - they seem to be using an IP that's difficult to pin down, socks posting the exact same article soon after often fail a checkuser even if the behaviour is a clear case of WP:DUCK. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If they are posting the exact same article, maybe an edit filter would be useful. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    An edit filter does exist for this, but it was deactivated because of the length of time between creations. Perhaps it should be turned on again. Yunshui 雲水 08:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would strongly support this being turned on again, long-term. If this sockpuppeter isn't giving up after 4 years, I don't think they're giving up. The amount of time it's cost me (and other editors) is ridiculous, and it's so frustrating. Boleyn (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing as another IP decided to continue with these threats, I fully support the edit filter being reactivated. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And done -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 17:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Who's awesome? You're awesome! Thanks for that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MSMRHurricane has repeatedly restored copyright violations (episode summaries copied word-for-word from promotional material) to the Total Divas season articles. ("Total Divas" is a "reality" TV show dealing with professional wrestling.) In June, after I removed the copyright violations, he restored the copyvio text to Total Divas (season 2), Total Divas (season 3), Total Divas (season 4), Total Divas (season 5), and Total Divas (season 6). I warned him about copyright violations at that time,[67]. He stopped reverting/restoring at that time after another editor commented that the episode summaries should be rewritten in Wikipedia editors' "own words". However, today he restored the copyright violations to most of these articles, making the utterly groundless claim that "wiki policy" prohibits the simple removal of such copyright violations ("Unable to leave summaries empty, it's against wiki policy, therefore reverting")[68]. After I again removed the copyvios and again warned him, he nevertheless restored the copyvios, then abridged the summaries without otherwise significantly modifying them. 90-95% of the surviving text is word-for-word identical to the copyrighted source material (and is still fundamentally promotional). Abridging a text without making more than cosmetic changes to the copied text is still a copyvio; in principle it's no different than cropping a copyvio image.

    It's clear that MSMRHurricane doesn't adequately understand copyright policy. To avoid further disruption, I propose that they 1) be warned that any future violations of copyright policy will result in blocking; and 2) be topic-banned from restoring text that has been removed as a copyvio. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:3RRNO - revert and drop a request at EWN? Might get a quicker response. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Because too many admins at WP:3RRN only count reverts and don't bother with underlying policy. Just a few days ago an admin responded to complaints about an editor who restored an NFCC violation six times in 48 hrs and 15 minutes by . . . fully protecting the article with the violation included. With a few shining exceptions, the admin corps doesn't make copyvio removal a priority. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have yet to find an admin who refused to remove the offending copyright or BLP/infringing material. Granted it would be nice if they all checked first and got it Right First Time, but every one I have subsequently asked has done so when it has been pointed out. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Samankamal and List of universities in Sri Lanka

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

    The said user refuses to engage in the talk page discussion or willing to accept the consensus of the discussion. I am afraid, he has taken a popular political stance on the matter and POV pushing it in this Wikipedia disregarding our editing guidelines. He's been disruptive and uncooperative.--Chanaka L (talk) 04:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Chanakal: This is a content dispute that dates back to May 2017, surely some evidence of disruption/descriptions could help uninvolved editors to intervene better. With that being said, this is a case of serious IDHT from the new editor. As there hasn't been any new edits since the final warning was issued, nothing can be done at this moment. Any further reverts done by this editor would result in automatic sanction for disruptive editing. Alex ShihTalk 04:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alex Shih: Thanks for the swift attention. I will post any further development regarding this matter. Cheers--Chanaka L (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Chanakal: please read comments on Talk:List of universities in Sri Lanka I never refuse to engage in the talk page discussion as you previously said and discussed more than three months in talk page when a conflict of opinion had been arisen and add improvements to this articles.Also, I don't know what is mean by popular political stance with a universities list.Also if you can explain further it will be beneficial for me and Wikipedia community.However, Thank you Samankamal (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Alex Shih: Samankamal's disruptive politicking isn't limited to List of universities in Sri Lanka:

    --Obi2canibe (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Samankamal: I should've been more precise. Yes, you did participate in the discussion, however when the consensus was not in favor of your opinion, you were not so keen on participating in the discussion. Instead you resorted to edit warring, I am afraid, it's never OK. Well Saman, A hallmark of a good editor is putting aside their personal beliefs, honoring our guidelines when editing this wikipedia. Clearly your conduct was not like that. Hope you could identify your problematic behavior.--Chanaka L (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CorenSearchBot/manual is malfunctioning

    I've been waiting a few days for the bot to process my request and it hasn't yet. I eventually used the Copyvio site manually. After a quick look at the edit history, it doesn't look like this bot has processed a request for 10 months. Tdts5 (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think we admins can help you. We can stop a bot if it's doing the wrong thing (Special:Block), but we can't start it if it's not doing anything at all. Please contact the operator, or if that won't work, please go to WP:BOTR and ask someone to write another bot to over this one's job. Nyttend (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tdts5: Alas Coren's bot never recovered from Yahoo BOSS shutting down. We do have EranBot now, which front ends the CopyPatrol tool ([73]). For ad-hoc copyright checks The Earwig has a nice bit of code you can copy into your vector.js file which will put a link in the sidebar toolbox to instantly check the current page for copyvios. See User:The Earwig/Scripts for that and others. CrowCaw 22:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    long-term IP hopper tagging drafts with AfC to delete them (and apparently not a fan of mine)

    I could use some help sorting this out. Though some admin action seems like a good idea, I'm not quite sure what sort of action would be effective.

    An IP hopper has been tagging other people's drafts (apparently those he/she thinks should be deleted) with AfC submission templates for quite a while now. I opened an ANI thread when I first noticed it last year and though I had to revert once or twice since then, I haven't thought about it much.

    But now after reverting a few more yesterday, I see another IP with interesting edit summaries. It seems the user has a particular interest in me that I was not aware of. See User talk:82.40.180.42/Usage with the various "rhodoreaction"/"RR"/"rhodoedits" (that list is transcluded on 13 other pages). I came across that user page when trying to compile a list of IPs that have done this over the last year or two. Might as well ping the only two registered users who have edited that page: RHaworth and Sgroupace.

    Again, I'm not sure what course of action would be best. Not sure how they could be blocked; an LTA page seems like overkill; I have a weak suspicion about socking, but not enough evidence to name/insinuate (and to be clear, I'm not thinking of anyone I've named above); an edit filter likewise seems like a big much... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Damn Interesting vs Dave Anthony

    There seems to be some off-wiki drama leaking. There is an editor, AvaUVqSG3Nphw7wE (talk · contribs), whose nearly entire existence here has been to make an article for Damn Interesting and then to police a section on Dave Anthony's article about alleged plagiarism involving same. Recently, some other editors have come by to do their own cleanup, and our password-resembling friend has generally reverted them. I don't think it rises to the level of 3RR; I don't even know if it rises to a full edit war. But this is a BLP we're talking about, and I'm an involved admin so I won't lock it myself, but if we could get extra eyes looking at this (and an uninvolved party; I'm a huge fan of Anthony and the Dollop and while I think I can be objective, I know that true objectivity is impossible), that'd be great. Thanks. --Golbez (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well it definitely rises to the level of 3RR, as AvaUVqSG3Nphw7wE has reverted four times alone on Dave Anthony today. However they were never warned at any point, so I'm reluctnat to block even though they've clearly been very familiar with Wikipedia from their very first edit. Leaving a final warning now. Black Kite (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (I am somewhat new to editing Wikipedia [well, the talk pages anyway], so please excuse any rookie errors I may make here). I did register a Wikipedia user account and create the Damn Interesting page as a favor for a friend who is a fan of the site, and I added the plagiarism section to the Dave Anthony page as part of the same process. But please note that I have made other useful contributions to other wiki pages. The Dave Anthony plagiarism section as it stands is well cited, and modeled after similar sections in other authors' wiki articles who have been accused of plagiarism. The recent edits by Golbez quite clearly illustrate the bias caused by their personal fondness for Dave Anthony. The existing text was accurate and cites third parties, whereas Golbez's replacement text deliberately downplayed the plagiarism, and primarily cited Anthony himself as the source.
    I was reluctant to attempt to reach consensus with Golbez owing to their clear bias and their comment that "the adults are here now" regarding my reversion of their edit. Also, the Dave Anthony page had been very quiet until a recent flurry of edits from multiple users, leading me to suspect that someone is soliciting editors to change the page. Thank you. AvaUVqSG3Nphw7wE (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    On the one hand: Yes, my tone was poor. On the other hand, I wasn't just referring to you. There were people adding a lot of fluff to the article that shouldn't have been there. And also, there were other people reverting you, so it wasn't just about reaching consensus with me. --Golbez (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it appears you have now restored your original edit without bringing it to the talk page, or attempting consensus. You admit to being "a huge fan of Anthony and the Dollop", so you really ought not be editing an article about him, especially when you're omitting facts to improve his image. It seems you're a full participant in this so-called edit war.
    "it appears you have now restored your original edit" Nope. Pay better attention. I removed a section that predated you and of which you've shown no interest in. But sure, play the martyr. And I can edit whatever the hell I damn well please, especially if I'm open about my motivations, which so far you, who has spent well over 90% of their time here editing either Damn Interesting or Dave Anthony, have declined to do. --Golbez (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it considered bad to have a small stable of pages one watches over and improves? I have been very open about my motivations, but you seem to have missed that. Oh well, I should have learned from the past. Wikipedia was once open and wonderful, now it's just an insiders' club, and there's little point in an outsider attempting to preserve the integrity of the information. You win, I'm done. AvaUVqSG3Nphw7wE (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Request of removal of permission to use Twinkle for Adamgerber80

    Copied from my talk page per request of the IP 146.96.252.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

    Recently I added some material, well sourced (except a mistake: I mismemorized the year 1973 as 1968), to Kingdom of Sikkim, which was subsequently reverted by Adamgerber80 with a threat to block me. His edit and threat were subsequently reverted by another user (which was to my surprise, years ago it would just leave there).

    It would be a happy ending but later I realized Adamgerber80 do not at all think he has done anything wrong and questioned Kautilya3's right to "undo issued warnings". He attributed the issue to "ones which have a history of pushing their agenda", which he later clarified that it has nothing to do with "this particular case":

    As he insinuated my behaviour were the reason of the conflict while I have never added anything unsourced or done any vandalism in WIkipedia, I intervened into and told him even if he believes that a small part of my edit withour source, he could just undo the small part and ask for a reference about it, instead of undo all valid edits and issue a threat. Unfortunately, he didn't agree to change his "approach", using his word.

    I believe, if more than 1~2 percent of rollback from a user are false positive with false warning, granting him rollback right would do more harm than good, as Twinkle rollbacks and warnings give inexperienced users a facade that his edit might be reverted by an admin and he might be warned by an admin (thus more people would refrain from editing Wikipedia). Plus, without Twinkle, one can still undo edits, leave messages, etc. Also, I have noticed that this is not the first time Adamgerber80 has done a disputed rollback within the eight months he has rollback rights (see his talk page). For all of those reason above, I request a removal of Adamgerber80's Twinkle permission. --146.96.252.3 (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC) Posted by There'sNoTime on behalf of 146.96.252.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 19:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I have posted the above as per a request on my talk page. I'm yet to look into the situation -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 19:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Having now read around the issue, I agree with the IP that is not the first time Adamgerber80 has done a disputed rollback, and agree with the sentiment at Adamgerber80's talk page thread here that this sort of behaviour is most definitely biting and needs to stop. I am uncomfortable removing the rollback right yet for two reasons; I believe strongly in the idea that people can improve from constructive criticism, and as the administrator who granted the right in December 2016 I would prefer a second opinion. I would like to hear from Adamgerber80 on the above matter (though they did respond here on my talk page) -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 19:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    as a procedural note, their rollback permission can be revoked, but that's largely symbolic--the Twinkle rollback function that they're using doesn't depend on it, and their ability to use any of Twinkle's functions won't be affected. There's no way to remove someone's access to Twinkle, short of blocking them altogether. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: It doesn't matter. On one hand if his rollback right is withdrew I can keep an eye on him and report it when I see him using it without granting, on the other hand I don't think there's any necessity for me to do so because from my talk with him it seems he is a well-educated Indian, and will not do anything the community explicitly told him not to. In my opinion Adamgerber80 has a good respect of rules but poor understanding of people (allow me to be a bit "racist" by calling this "Anglicized-Indian personality"). It necessary to let him know that it's the community rather than laws that runs Wikipedia. --146.96.252.3 (talk) 06:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) My two cents. The IP made a series of edits of questionable quality. In particular the edits contained a POV WP:LABEL "puppet state" without a source. So the revert done by Adamgerber80 was appropriate even if it went too deep (too many edits reverted). I just disagreed that this warranted a level 3 warning. Adamgerber80's explanation was that, since the IP had already received a level-2 warning, he gave the next level. I thought it was an understandable situation, even if I didn't agree, and withdrew the {{trout}} that I slapped on his talk page. I think the discussion on his talk page as well as here is perhaps enough to caution Adamberger80. I don't recommend any further sanctions. I also don't think the IP's conduct is quite above board. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My two rupees (1.96 cents): I assume you got something wrong: this is not a discussion about sanctions. We are here to discuss whether Adamgerber80 can better serve Wikipedia with a rollback grant or without a rollback grant. I personally believes without a rollback grant it's better both for Wikipedia and for him. I totally agree with you that if Adamberger80 get cautioned, he will be a good rollbacker (I went back to some of his working history: needless to say he's indeed a hardworking one and it would be a loss to Wikipedia if he stop undo edits). Unfortunately, it's not the case: there's no sign that Adamgerber80 consider this a caution. P.S. for the "POV" claim, although I still believe differentiating "state administrated by India" from "Indian puppet state" might be trolling (we can consult with experts in that field later in a different thread), I agree with you that undoing of such a change, espcially the one with a wrong year 1968, is appropriate. Nevertheless I don't agree with you that doing it too deep with rolling back can still be appropriate (if this is not considered a misdemeanor then Wikipedia will become a more and more closed community). From Adamgerber80's post it seems he has some misunderstanding on my editing history and I'm going to leave him a message. --146.96.252.3 (talk) 06:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi There'sNoTime, This is going to be verbose but please bear with me. First the IP editor in question is misrepresenting facts and trying to portray him/herself as a victim here. The edits done by the IP on the particular page in concern(as verified by Kautilya3) was pretty much a POV. The references did have any mention of the word Puppet State yet was added. It was not a simple fumbling of years. Now this in the backdrop of a page which had recent a series of vandalized edits and POV pushes in recent days because of the on-going India-China standoff. In this situation, I did what most other editors would do aka revert back to Status Quo and ask the editor to discuss on the talk page. In hindsight, maybe I went a bit too deep but as explained above there was clear POV pushing in those edits. Second, as is the case when a page is being constantly vandalized I checked on the talk page of the IP in discussion. I did notice that another editor had given a second level warning(in July 2017) for vandalism to the IP. At this stage, I decided to elevate the level of warning because for me the IP was showing a pattern. This warning is standard Wikipedia Level 3 warning. In response, the IP depicted edit warring behavior and instead of a discussion reverted the edits back. Now the IP claims to be an experienced editor (see more here [User_talk:Adamgerber80#Don.27t_bite_newbies]) and if this is the case, then I would like to raise the following questions, why were they adding content which was not clearly in the references (this was not a simple year jumble up as claimed). Moreover, if their edit was reverted why did they not discuss this on the Talk page as other editors would do, instead jumped right into edit warring. Lastly, if the editor is indeed here to contribute Wikipedia why did they already have a warning from another editor for vandalizing.
    Second, you and the IP did make an observation, that "not the first time Adamgerber80 has done a disputed rollback". Can you please care to elaborate more on this? I would like to know that if I have erred and how to improve on it. AFAIK, I also revert back edits which have no references. If the editor does have an issue with it, we discuss this on the article talk page or my talk page and I think I have provided with sufficient and valid explanations on why it was reverted. Please do note here, that most of edits are related to Military related pages which see a high level of vandalism and POV pushing and when people are jingoistic. The only one instance where I think I messed up was when I accidentally rollbacked more edits when reverting some vandalism. I immediately apologized and have been careful about this.
    Third, about biting new editors. This is clearly not a case since the IP claims to be an experience editor and claims to know what they are doing. If you would prefer, please go again through my talk page. I have always been courteous to newcomers and explained to them what was wrong with their edits. I do want to do my part to retain new editors but when someone is here clearly to POV push or vandalize (not referring to anyone in particular here), editors who refuse to discuss on the talk page or heed warnings then I do report them to the admins as per the rules.
    Finally, I don't claim to be perfect and am learning every day I spend on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I think this has been blown out of proportion. Kautilya3 and I discussed this and put forth our points. I am cognizant of the what happened and we reached a consensus. I am happy to hear what you have to say on this. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Adamgerber80, a couple more points while we are here:
    • Almost all new editors would be "POV editors" from our point of view, because they come here when they see something that doesn't agree with them. Perhaps they think they know better and want to fix it. They don't know the standards expected for edits. So it is important to tell them Wikipedia policies (via welcome messages) and warn them when they don't adhere to them.
    • Increasing the levels of warnings is appropriate only when they repeatedly make the same mistakes in the same context. It is a mark of "exasperation", so to speak. A level-3 warning doesn't provide information about what they did wrong. It is expected that it has been told already. So starting with a level-3 warning for a particular issue doesn't make sense. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    AlexTrevex

    User warned. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This is a brand new account whose contribs consist entirely of soapboxing about pseudoscience being real on various pseudoscience pages. He's also editing other's comments. I think a WP:NOTHERE block is called for. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Since their contribs have all been to talk pages so far, NOTHERE is probably not called for yet. I've placed some warnings about talk page behavior on their user talk page, so if they continue in the same vein, or branch out into editing articles, a sanction of some sort will be warranted, I think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw that. I'm happy enough with that. I'm gonna close this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Repeated Vandalism of M-80 (explosive) by Department of Homeland Security IPs

    Pending changes extended to 3 months. Civil Service exams are held regularly at the local post office if anyone wants a job with the government. (non-admin closure) John from Idegon (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Special:Diff/794620902&oldid=794379468 This paragraph of obvious vandalism has been added to M-80 (explosive) 14 times by various IPs since April 2017, and edits are still being attempted despite Pending Changes protection. My concern is that 216.81.81.80, 216.81.94.69, 216.81.94.70 and 216.81.94.71 are registered to the Department of Homeland Security and listed as sensitive IPs. I'm not sure what action if any needs to be taken, but it seems like this needs closer attention than a typical vandalism report. Dlthewave (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me see if I have this right. IPs assigned to the US Department of Homeland Security are vandalizing articles? EEng 03:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that appears to be the case. Dlthewave (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's get Fox & Friends to cover it and then Trump can tweet about it and then... EEng 03:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocking the offending IPs or contacting their network admin would be more appropriate. Dlthewave (talk) 04:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    <Contacting their network admin>
    Wikipedian: Hello sir, some IPs from your range are vandalizing Wikipedia.
    Network Admin: That's fake news!
    W: But they are vandalising Wikipedia, sir...
    NA: They're making Wikipedia great again! I've had people -great people- look into these edits. They all tell me they're the best edits, really great. Everyone knows they're great edits. Vote Trump in 2020. <click>
    <dial tone>
    ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if should laugh or weep for the future of humanity... Twitbookspacetube 05:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd note that a quick look at the TPs suggests this isn't new. Okay some of them like [74] [75] are more silly and some I looked at don't seem clear cut vandalism to me. Still it's not hard to find stuff like [76] this which is actually a bit similar to the current problem although admittedly is at least under the alternate history section even if it's written like real history. Then there's an edit which I've submitted for oversight. Oh and this is classic childish vandalism [77]. I'm not certain that the IPs were DHS that far back, but other parts of the contrib history suggests to me they probably were. I believe DOD or US military IPs are sometimes used by family members and have been used for stuff like this (although likely not just from family members). I'm not so sure why this would apply to the DHS, but perhaps they have semi public wifi in waiting areas. Or maybe someone left their computer, phone or tablet connected to a VPN or let someone use their office computer when they shouldn't have. Or maybe these really were coming from DHS employees. Who knows..... I mean it sounds like someone had a problem with a co-worker who's name we can all guess [78] so I presume not a kid, so clearly some adults are involved sometimes. Nil Einne (talk) 06:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As this page is under PC protection already, I don't see a reason to overblow attempts at minor vandalism by bored people at work, even if they happen to be government workers with a computer. I've extended the PC protection, which was set to expire in 11 days, by 3 months. The activity levels on that page do not seem to warrant anything further. If anyone wants to pen a letter to Trump saying his employees are slacking off, that's their business. Swarm ♠ 06:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Please delete these articles. They are spam.

    (non-admin closure) Not this Wiki. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please delete these articles. They are unnecessary on the Roma Wikipedia. https://rmy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rita_Ora https://rmy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cher_Lloyd https://rmy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connect-R https://rmy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikavno:En

    Maybe delete these ones too: https://rmy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta https://rmy.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco https://rmy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Vegas https://rmy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nha_Trang

    Also please hide these offensive edits. Don't leave this type of racism to be seen on Wikipedia.

    "stinks" is on here 4 times

    This one is racist and implies that the Roma people are stinky. https://rmy.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romane_manusha&oldid=43370 https://rmy.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romane_manusha&oldid=43114 https://rmy.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romane_manusha&oldid=43360 https://rmy.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romane_manusha&oldid=43225

    This is one is very racist and should be hidden. This one is pure offensive, degrading stereotyping. It shouldn't be shown on Wikipedia. Hide this racist edit. It's promoting stereotypes and stirs hatred between Roma and non-Roma.

    "I HATE YOU GYPSIES, LIVING ON WELFARE AND YOU THINK WE ARE STUPID GAJO WHO CAN'T SEE YOUR BLOODY SCAMS. THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE YOU WORK AND LIFT YOUR FINGERS INSTEAD OF BEGGING AND TAKE SHIT EVERYWHERE IS TO DAMN FORCE YOU WITH MARIME. BIG FAT FUCKING MARIME" https://rmy.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romane_manusha&oldid=43938

    Use Wikipedia:Revision deletion to hide this racist edits.

    Just trying to keep the Roma Wikipedia neat, accurate and racist free :)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.254.93.162 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Since these articles are not on the English language Wikipedia, I'm not sure that it can be handled here. Also, this type of situation has occurred before and it needs to be looked at by someone with good fluency in the language concerned, not Google Translate or similar. Also, Google Translate doesn't seem to do Romani language.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Refusal to communicate and persistent creation of poor articles

    I've blocked them indefinitely and left a note explaining why and a permanent link to this discussion. The editor continued to edi after receiving the notification. Doug Weller talk

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

    For a year and a half, XerxesFalcon has been getting messages about poor articles, specifically creating unreferenced articles (please see User talk:XerxesFalcon). From what I see, XerxesFalcon has not responded to a single one of the messages, from different editors, which people have taken the time to write. Many were about unref blps. Many were tagged as blpprod because of this, but although XF seems to have continued to be active and continued to create new articles, they don't seem to have ever gone back to add sources to unref blps when their attention has been drawn to it, or work on articles moved to drafts pace such as Draft:Standish J. Lambert. Draft:Standish J. Lambert is a typical example of recent creations, a blp with the only ref as imdb, as well as lots with one or two sources but not WP:INLINECITED. I moved to draft in the hope XF would work on it there and that it would slow the rate of poor articles being created, but this seems to have been ineffective. Yesterday, XF created several unref blps, such as Per Frykman.

    I have tried to start conversations on XF's talk page several times, but never get a reply, and I have reminded XF that communication is required. Other editors have left similar messages, including explaining that XF is risking a block, but the only response has been more unref articles created. I'm not sure what to do from here. XF is one of the most prolific article creators at the moment, and has created nearly 400 articles, so this is a daily chore for myself and others in the New Page Patrol. Boleyn (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Creating unreferenced BLPs is just not on. I was about to impose a short-term block to see whether that action gets the message across. Activities like this represent a net-negative for the project, and in my opinion, those users should be blocked unless their behaviour improves. Schwede66 09:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A block would be perfectly good here. They've never used a talkpage or usertalk page, despite numerous warnings. As they're continuing their creations of unreferenced BLPs and other articles after warnings, there appears to be only one way left to get their attention. Competence is, after all, required. Black Kite (talk) 09:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I just pointed on the nom Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rescinded Formula One wins that I found that XF's record includes zero interactions on talk pages, either in user, article or WP: space. That's incredibly unusual for someone who has created so many articles, especially after 19 months here. Some kind of sanction is needed here. Even if they just say 'I'll improve' that would help things, but having to deal with non-communicative issues is a no-go for here. Nate • (chatter) 09:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm commenting as a new page reviewer who has come across several of this user's articles and warned them before. Unfortunately, this is not uncommon. I've had to spend hours nominating mass AfDs (like this and this) and participate in an ANI (this) due to at least three editors creating poorly sources content en masse. This case is different from the ANI I linked above because some of these BLPs are completely unreferenced which is a big no-no per WP:BLP because of the potential legal consequences. Also, the user's tenure here is not transient so they should have got used to WP:CIR. Unless changes in behaviour are made immediately, the only course of action to preserve the integrity of the encyclopedia is a block IMHO. DrStrauss talk 09:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I've been linked to WP:CIR for Communication is Required, should have been WP:ENGAGE. I think an indefinite block is our only option here, if XF then joins this discussion or on his/her talk page and agrees to keep to the guidelines, that can be lifted. Boleyn (talk) 12:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Another NPPer who's had to deal with multiple bad pages from this editor here. Agreed with all of the above, this is the third ANI of this type I've had to participate in lately because the user just wasn't getting the point. It seems like the only way to get them to pay attention is a block until they engage and at least acknowledge the rules. JamesG5 (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Some one trying to write hurt messages to my talk page repeatedly ...what can i do

    Kjpurak indefinitely blocked by Fram (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 10:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    ?

    (Kjpurak (talk) 09:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]

    Your account was created 5 minutes ago, and no one has contacted you since (obviously). So I have no idea at all what talk page you are referring to, or how anyone would have tried to send you "hurt messages", unless you have another account which you haven't disclosed yet. IF this is about something on another website, even if it is another language version of Wikipedia, then please note that we only deal with things which happen on English Wikipedia, not elsewhere. Fram (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is my alternate talk page , i am sending my original talk page link , the hurted message i received

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bonadea&diff=794522191&oldid=794458589

    (Kjpurak (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 09:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    So, basically, you're claiming you are User:Bonadea? I bet Bonadea will be surprised. A curved, aerodynamic hunting implement may be called for. Kleuske (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indef. Fram (talk) 09:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    This LTA is Nsmutte, for those uninitiated into the arcane world of troll-spotting. GABgab 02:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Edits by BladerKubo

    BladerKubo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made some alarmingly racist anti-Polish edits, e.g.:

    This is in addition to a number of page moves to either remove Polish names or minimise Polish involvement [79] [80] [81] [82] [83], even in cases where it's evident that the move is factually incorrect and/or against consensus (e.g. Talk:Antoni Wiwulski#Name and Talk:Olshanski), plus a habit of making personal attacks and engaging in other uncivil behaviour on both their user account [84] [85] [86] and their IP 78.61.230.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [87] [88].

    Overall, I'm concerned about the hugely anti-Polish sentiment they appear to have, although it's also worth nothing that they will remove other languages (even the English forms [89]) from articles relating to Lithuania, so it might be more accurate to say that they're anti-everything-except-Lithuania. They seem to have made some constructive edits, but I'm not sure that they're able to edit articles with any kind of national link objectively, and their attitude towards other editors is combative at best. I'd like to start a discussion on whether they should have a topic ban against editing Lithuania- or Poland-related articles, or whether they're simply WP:NOTHERE. After this edit to my user talk page in response to me warning them about the racist edits on Poles in Lithuania, I'm leaning towards the latter.

    (FYI, based on editing patterns, GMapping (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be BladerKubo's previous account [90] [91] [92] [93], which is only relevant in that it demonstrates that this is an ongoing behavioural issue. There was also a brief ANI raised for the IP on this topic back in March [94] that didn't get a response.)

    Pinging @Oliszydlowski: @Staszek Lem: @Hedviberit: @Volunteer Marek: @Yopie: for opinions, as they've previously discussed these issues with BladerKubo and/or the IP. Marianna251TALK 12:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just noticed BladerKubo has been blocked for 72 hours for disruptive editing. It's probably still worth discussing the issues, since this is a long-term behavioural problem, but I'm not sure if BladerKubo can contribute here while blocked? Marianna251TALK 12:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    They cannot, however if they have comments that they want to have made known, they can post on their talk page and have the comments copied here if needed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I've left a note on their talk page to that effect. Marianna251TALK 13:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I filed an SPI request Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BladerKubo. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • The IP is blocked. What you all should decide is what you want to do with BladerKubo--keep the block as is, or make it longer. I say let it ride and see what happens when they come back: if they continue, well, you know. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am somehow involved in this as I removed some of the Polish names in the past, but @Hedviberit: was very diplomatic and informed me on why the Polish names should be in the articles. I decided not to revert this user about whom the discussion was started as I did not want any edit war and predicted that he might get blocked at some point. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked in violation of policy

    Dear administrators,

    Recently, I found that a number of article about galaxies contained fanciful names invented, apparently, by an amateur astronomer from Belgium. These names have no legitimacy, no recognition and no place in any encyclopaedia article. So I began to remove them.

    At 00:02 on 29 July, I made this edit. At 00:05, the edit was undone by User:Winhunter. At 00:06, they left me a message accusing me of vandalism [95], and at 00:07, they blocked me for 72 hours, claiming vandalism [96].

    WP:VAND says "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge." It later says "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism."

    It is not possible to perceive my edits as vandalism. They were clearly not intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. They were clearly a good faith effort to improve the encyclopaedia. Nor were they misguided, disruptive or wilfully against consensus. Indeed, they had been explicitly endorsed by a consensus [97]. So the block was obviously wrong.

    The administrator who placed the block has made less than 200 edits since 2010. Approximately 30 of these were on 29 July this year, when they went on a spree to undo my edits. They broke sort ordering in a table that I'd fixed, replaced incorrect punctuation that I'd removed, and of course replaced nonsensical galaxy "names" in a series of astronomy articles.

    The administrator was vaguely questioned about the block [98], but has not responded. Given their extraordinarily sparse editing history, it seems unlikely that they ever will. They have not edited since their spree of reverts ended in the small hours of 29 July. The block was obviously incorrect, and the failure of the administrator to explain or account for their actions seems to me to fall far below the standards you expect. So I raise it here for your awareness. I think that an administrator who barely edits in a decade and then places such an obviously wrong block is a problem. I hope that you agree. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm gonna have to agree with the IP here. The block, in my opinion, was unwarranted. In particular, what's more troubling is that the blocking admin clicked the block button after the second warning when it is normally after four warnings unless the user is only here to truly vandalize. The IP's edits were seriously not vandalism at all. And 72 hours is seriously harsh. All of the IP's edits were WP:BOLD. Also, to revert all of the IPs' edits was also really unnecessary unless you have good reason (e.g., sock). In terms of content, I agree with the IP. The source used to name NGC 523 comes from a blog and the names are not known per consensus at the WikiProject page. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 21:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Someone needs to go back to admin school, and in the meantime needs to account for his/her actions. EEng 21:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, that's how ANI works. We look at ALL of the aspects of the case, not just the ones you'd like us to look at. While I understand your frustration at the block, you need to understand that civility is required. Your best course of action would be to apologize for it, or at the very least make clear that you understand that it's not acceptable. Note, I am not saying Winhunter's block was valid, but you both have issues in this case that need to be addressed. --Tarage (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking a look at my block log, I'm of the mind that it's a lot more helpful than insulting an admin trying to help you. The fact that you're still calling that help "contempt and trolling" is probably not helpful, either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No admin was trying to help. What makes you claim that they were? 2.25.45.251 (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Berean Hunter was offering you advice, and has even indicated that they were sympathetic to your situation before you blanked your page with that insulting edit summary rant and caught a block extension for it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That is simply not true. They did not offer any advice, nor indicate that they were sympathetic to my position. They stalled and refused to lift the clearly unjustified block, and said " I'll remove this from my watchlist and let another admin consider your case". 2.25.45.251 (talk)
    • That was a poor initial block, and WH should respond the next time they log on. Unfortunately it may be a while, as WH doesn't appear to be very active. WH is responsible for the poor initial block, and the IP and other blocking admins and reverters share relative blame (by some formula I don't plan to come up with) for the ensuing flameout. Advice: Don't block too quickly, don't assume all IP's are vandals, don't react too aggressively, don't punish someone venting on their talk page, don't revert something you don't understand just because you see other people doing it. That said, I'd say this is something that Wikipedia is best known for.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh lord that opens another can of worms. I'm not going to touch that one. Regardless, this is yet another troubling instance of administrators going well beyond their bounds with seemingly no means for the community to enact corrections. I realize there is a pending case in arbitration for something similar, but I have little faith that it will result in anything but a 'this is a one time issue' statement. We need better. --Tarage (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay I agree with Floquenbeam here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._K._Chesterton&diff=prev&oldid=791125842 is enough evidence that this is who we're dealing with. Someone needs to block ASAP. --Tarage (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also add the advice: don't insist on hearing from the blocking admin first, when that person typically shows up infrequently, especially when it becomes so obvious that the block was incorrect. All in all, I'd have been pretty livid too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just put this out there as well; an admin who (prior to reverting all of the IPs edits) had 19 edits to Wikipedia in 2017, two in 2016, and four in 2015. Black Kite (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For sure, it was a bad block for the wrong reasons, but given the above, it needs to be reinstated. --Tarage (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I keep seeing new things to comment on. Assuming this is not who I think it is, then I really think the long 1RR restriction imposed as a condition for the current unblock is unfair. Not sure how an incorrect 3 day block morphs into a 3 month 1RR restriction in order to get unblocked. Perhaps if it was also applied to WH and to the people who automatically reverted the IP again - people who actually reverted incorrectly, unlike the IP - but somehow I don't think that's likely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I just restored the IP's edits in Contemporary Latin per WP:MADEUP and WP:SELFREFERENCE, which should have been pretty clear-cut. Like Floquenbeam, I'd be pretty pissed off if I were the IP, making good faith efforts. It's no excuse, but certainly a reason to fly off the handle. Kleuske (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I second Floquenbeam and Kleuske. All in all, it was a bad block from the first blocking admin. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 22:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agh - that's really not good either. Whether or not the IP editor is BKF (at this point it doesn't really matter), I think there are a number of things that a number of editors could learn from the whole situation. But it did all stem from the original bad block, from an admin (and I'll say it again) with 25 edits to Wikipedia in the last three years. Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Kite, I agree completely. I wish we didn't have such a trigger-happy Recent changes patrol who are biased against IPs, and this block...yeah. I went back through the archives of my talk page: I have been in the middle of mindless reverts on the one hand and insults on the other hand since at least 2011. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, first let's get a factor that could possibly conflate the analysis out of the way here: If you dig far enough back into the IP's contributions, you do begin to see a pattern of needlessly inflammatory language in edit summaries: [99]. That's something the user is going to want to address regardless of the outcome here.
    That said, most of these comments are stale and none of them (as far as I can tell) were involved with the issues involved in the content dispute or the block. Certainly, no incivility issues were cited by the admin, as they should have been if they were contributing factors to the block. And that's just the tip of the iceberg with regard to this admin's inappropriate approach here. First off, they lept straight to a level three warning, assuming bad faith and perhaps forestalling otherwise productive discussion. Or at least, under normal circumstances it might have forestalled discussion, but Winunter doesn't seem to have cared for discussion regardless because, less than a minute later and for unexplained reasons, they changed their mind and blocked the IP altogether, without giving them a chance to process the warning and/or make a case for why their edits were not vandalism. And putting aside any possible, attenuated argument for how the IP's edits may have been disruptive in some form (and I don't think they were, in this instance) they clearly were not vandalsim. Even if said edit had been inappropriate (and they actually seem to align with our verification and sourcing policies, as well as consensus discussions on the matter), they were pretty clearly made in good faith to add permissible content, and thus not even in the remotest since WP:vandalism as the term applies on this project.
    In short, Winhunter's behaviour here seems completely sloppy, if not outright WP:disruptive. And their failure to account for any of it is not particularly reassuring; far from being a context to assume that they may have legitimate reasons for having taken the actions that they did, the fact that they may once again have gone into dormancy is actually strong additional cause to consider stripping them of the bit. We simply can't have admins empowered with the block hammer who make highly questionable choices in how they implement it, without sufficient explanation, and then just disappear into the aether again immediately. Indeed, the particular details of this case raise the question of whether it is advisable to allow a user to maintain such tools at all, after such a prolonged period of inactivity. Admins need to be completely up-to-date on community guidelines, be reasonably well-practiced in how to implement them and be regular, recognizable, and constructive contributors to the project in general. I sense we are about to hear yet more complaints about how the community ought to be able to desysop without needing to appeal to ArbCom, for the second time in as many weeks; I'm neutral on that issue, but I will say that this instance makes a much stronger case than the one that can currently be found at the top of the page.
    The one place where I will call out the IP is in their approach to that talk page discussion. Yes, they have cause to be frustrated here, but Drmies and other admins, having discovered the facts here, ultimately gave them a method to exit the mess and restore their full editing rights. All they were requested to do was repeat the unblock request (presumably for reasonable pro forma reasons) and instead chose to register their ire. That does raise the question of how they will cope with disputes or administrative matters in the future, I think. Nevertheless, I do think they deserve an apology for having been dropped into this mess in the first place. Snow let's rap 23:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that imposing 1RR as a condition for unblock is unreasonable when there's enough blame to go around, and should be removed. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The whole behaviour and general gameplay of this editor is the likely cause of the grief. The first and second blocks were really justified by saying things like "Don't be stupid." [100] and "just how stupid are you? it takes virtually no brainpower to distinguish between vandalism and my good edits,..." [101] (then delete it all just to avoid scrutiny!]. Editors here are all volunteers and should not be subjected to such behaviour, and it avoids the trumping policy of all - WP:GF - good faith. The pattern seems to me easily construed as deliberately WP:disruptive.
    I also responded to the various complaints of the reverts made by me here.[102]
    NOTE: I do suspect this unregistered User might be just another sockpuppet of the now indefinitely blocked Tetraquark [103], who also deletes Talkpage information they don't like or even blocks, turn quickly highly combative at any even minor slight, also edits astronomical pages (especially towards images), and equally shows similar poor and rude behaviour. (For a non registered User, they seem to know an awful lot about Wikipedia policies. e.g. Quoting WP:IG) Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he for sure is for sure the BKF vandal, which is why I am concerned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Best_known_for_IP --Tarage (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Do either of you have any evidence to back up these suspicions? If not, WP:ASPERSIONS, if so WP:SPI. Kleuske (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I do. Check out his edit history where there are numerous removals of phrases like 'best known for' with edit summaries straight out of that LBA page. If you want actual diffs I'll post them later tonight. It's pretty obvious. --Tarage (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, WP:SPI is the correct place to post the diffs. Kleuske (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)That was my initial thought as well, Kleuske (see my comments immediately below). But now that Tarage has linked to that longterm abuse page for the editor in question, I daresay the case is pretty strong and more than satisfies the WP:DUCK test, based on the contributions I have looked at since coming upon this thread. Unfortunately, SPI is going to be of less use than usual, since the use rin question does not register and hops from IP to IP. I do, however, agree that SPI should be the next stop: a sanction can still be implmented there, even without a CU, based on behavioural evidence (which i think is strong in this case). Filing at SPI will also allow exploration of the socking issues to be disentangled from the inappropriate admin actions being discussed here. Plus an admin action is more likely to be prompt at SPI, especially in light of the fact that admins may be hesitant to be the latest to reverse this editors status after the back and forth of the last 24 hours, if they first dsicover the situation via this mess. Snow let's rap 01:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, I'll leave it to you then. --Tarage (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)That theory sounds like a matter for SPI. I will say that there is apparently a second line of speculation as to this user being someone else above (at least, there is reference to such positions, apparently drawn from another discussion that is not being linked to here). I will say that certain elements of this IP's behaviour and knowledge of process do suggest an experienced editor to me, but without more substantial editing, I am not willing to assume that they are anything other than what they claim to be: a moderately experienced non-registered user who ran afoul of particularly under-experienced admin and then lacked the patience to negotiate the situation as easily as they might have. And I suspect most community members here will feel the same, pending deeper evidence.
    OhanaUnited, I initially shared your perspective and almost called on Drmies to reconsider repealing that restriction. Then I did a little more digging and saw the full context of how that came about. Bear in mind especially that Drmies' initial posts on that talk page were to validate the IP's position and call for all blocks and restrictions to be removed. Other admins/community members(both involved and uninvolved) then agreed, and the IP was asked to resubmit their unblock request, and was given back talk page access for that purpose. At this point the IP used that ability to speak their mind again to immediately balk and complain about the unfairness of having to take 15 minutes (at most, surely) to format that request. It was only at this point that Drmies changes their stance and implemented the 1RR restriction, while also removing the block. Even considering the frustrating and unfair context in which they were initially blocked, that was an impressive display of shooting themselves in their own foot. I'm not sure that 1rr is exactly the most targeted possible sanction here, given that edit warring does not seem to be their issue. But I suspect the intended preventative effect here was to make the editor think twice about acting impulsively when dealing with their fellow editors. Snow let's rap 01:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was pinged here as the blocking admin? I'm the unblocking admin, who disagreed to some extent with the initial block or at least the given block rationale; I'm the one who (with Anthony) broke a lance for the IP editor. I used to do that in the old days for some other editor whose name escapes me (though Floq might remember)...no, I can't come up with it now. Anyway, I imposed the 1R restriction because it seems to me that trouble starts when the IP gets reverted and then strikes back. Snow Rise, your comments are quite to the point and I appreciate them. If the community thinks that the restriction is too much, that's fine: overturn it. But do note that I have not reverted any of their edits, that I believe I have advocated for them (here and in a slew of messages on the ArbCom mail list, where this user posted with ever-increasing urgency, and that I offered assistance, saying that they could ping me if they got reverted. Mind you, I didn't even need for them to request to be unblocked again--I was just hoping they'd say something reasonable. User:OhanaUnited, in these circumstances, I don't think my restriction was unreasonable. At any rate, have at it, y'all--I did my bit by supporting the IP's initial case and unblocking them, and at the same time trying to protect all sides with a restriction that will require the IP editor to reflect and give them the opportunity to call in the cavalry--but I won't be surprised if this backfires spectacularly, given how the temperature seems to rise when this editor shows up, no matter how solid and positive their edits are. Please don't ping me anymore in this ANI thread: it's not a concern of mine. If the IP wants to ping me to point at some revert or other, my door is always open, of course. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • But I wasn't blocked for reverting anything, or striking back after reverting. I was blocked for vandalism, when I had clearly done no such thing. I am glad to see that the consensus here seems to be quite strongly that the block was not valid. I am extremely heartened to see that someone suggested I deserved an apology for it. I am less heartened to see I'm accused of being various sockpuppets but whatever.
      • As for what I said when asked to make one more unblock request: what was the need for it? I'd been blocked for vandalism, blocked for being angry about that, and then blocked for no actual clear reason for *three months*. I'd followed all the appeals right up to mailing the arbitration committee, which was crazy given how obvious it was (confirmed here) that the original block was wrong. And then someone says "I'll unblock you, but only if you ask me to one more time." It seemed really pointless. I stand by that.
      • And as for editing restrictions, well I'm not likely to edit any articles for a while anyway. You'll notice I have not edited any articles since being unblocked. The whole experience of being blocked for "vandalism" when making perfectly good edits was extremely unpleasant, and doesn't particularly make me feel like fixing errors I find, far less refixing them when other people have unfixed them, having been accused of "disruption" when I did that before.
      • Anyway I have found this a very useful and interesting discussion. Thanks. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Emmy Expert has been making an enormous number of edits, regularly making watchlists, for edits of very little worth, in this case changing images on the supposed premise of "updating" them, but in a completely nonsensical way, and typically without edit summaries.[104] [105] [106] Myself and other editors have spoken to him. He routinely removes our messages on his user talk. [107] On the plus side, he's apologizing and conceding wrongdoing in his edit summaries. [108] [109] [110] [111] On the downside, we're seeing an extreme case of WP:IDHT, as he goes right back to troublesome behaviour [112] [113] and revert wars [114]. Not sure if he's deliberately playing us or genuinely can't help himself in this area, but he's wearing us out. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm one of a few editors who has commented on Emmy Expert's talk page, and this edit summary of his was very telling: "I apologize, it’s just that I’m obsessed and dedicated to replace these images with one(s) of more currency of the person; that’s my reason. accept?" I've suggested that this is not a recommended practice, that he only "update" images to more recent ones when he believes they actually improves the article, explain his reasoning, and not revert others who challenge his updates, but my requests seem to have fallen on deaf ears. In many/most cases the new images are literally just more recent photos of similar quality in which the subject doesn't look different, so while there may be no real reason to revert the changes, the sheer quantity is making them disruptive.— TAnthonyTalk 02:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    OTRS member, confidential info and character assassination

    I have a problem with this attempt at character assassination by a member of the OTRS team. I'm not aware of any OTRS issues and if there are any, they certainly have no bearing on my opinion of whether a source is relevant or whether a theory should be included in an article. An OTRS member making ad hominem attacks based on what is supposed to be confidential OTRS information (if there is any) being used to discredit a discussion on a talk page seems unconscionable.

    I don't really care how the discussion on the article talk page turns out with respect to the content I objected to, but using someone's advanced privileges on Wikipedia to further their argument is BS. Toddst1 (talk) 03:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Wow, that's astonishing. An accusation from an OTRS member completely devoid of diffs and completely unprovable. And a personal attack to boot. That's not OK at all, not to mention which, behavioral complaints belong visibly on Wikipedia, either on ANI (or AN) or on user talk. I agree this is disturbing. Softlavender (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the discussion above I asked Toddst1 to keep a civil tone:
    Hey Assav, 2 edits is a far cry from f-ing owning an article. I'll remind you to AGFF. Perhaps you would have preferred that I didn't open this discussion? Facepalm Facepalm Toddst1 (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
    Please keep a civil tone. If you cannot contribute to talk pages without resorting to vulgarities, I will request that you be blocked for an appropriate time period. Asav
    It's correct that I advised him that OTRS has received complaints about this editor's abusive behaviour, and that numerous such complaints have been made on-wiki as well. It is to be expected that a long-time contributor (who has also been an administrator for a period of time) will encounter certain disputes, but that is no excuse for abusive behaviour or vulgarities, like the one seen above. Administratrors with access to OTRS tickets are requested to consult No 10156717 and No 7331715 in particular, the latter being particulalry egregious. Obviously, OTRS correspondance is confidential, so I cannot elaborate further on these individual cases, but I believe the one quoted above is sufficient to warrant a stern warning. Using vulgarities on talk pages is simply unacceptable, and this kind of (ongoing) behaviour ought to result in censure. Asav | Talk 04:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Why is that appropriate for an article talk page rather than the user's talk page? 2. Fucking profanities are not fucking prohibited and "f-ing" is fucking already fucking self-censored. Perhaps the fucking tone in that fucking quote isn't fucking sunshine and fucking lollipops, but there's no fucking personal attack. 3. If it's confidential, why are you broadcasting it on a talk page? Ribbet32 (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I know a guy who told me something about what happens to lollipops in places where people pay to see other people do things. "Fucking lollipops" is cute, but doesn't have to be metaphorical. And here I thought I knew of most fetishes under the sun. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Between this thread and another a few threads up, we seem to have an mini-epidemic of editors in positions of trust who don't know which way is up, possibly due to limited experience editing articles and discussing with other editors. [115] EEng 04:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find this very strange. I don't have access to OTRS, and it doesn't really matter--I really don't think it is appropriate to use these confidential reports as a kind of stick to beat someone with, and it seems to me that in this discussion you, Asav, may well have rekindled what had already gone down to embers. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and why are behavioral reports being accepted via some OTRS star chamber, anyway? Do they get acted upon in some way out of view of the community? If not, what's the point of accepting them? EEng 04:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly don't know what goes on at OTRS; however, there may be some cases which are so bad that users don't want to attract attention to them in public; the existence of such cases may be worth mentioning on-wiki if there's a clear patern of problematic behavior in a general "we've received lots of complaints" warning. Obviously, we can't have an explicit mention of who reported which edit, although I have no doubt that Asav made sure that many of these reports are correct before mentioning this to Toddst1. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't buy it. EEng 04:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine, but it is not relevant to this issue. Johnuniq (talk) 04:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, that's pretty bad, and Asav should demonstrate an understanding that using OTRS as a weapon is highly inappropriate and will not be tolerated. Further, "claim to ownership" under the circumstances is inappropriate—just stick to discussing content (apparently when this addition should be retained). Johnuniq (talk) 04:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not entirely sure what to think of this case. On one hand, I can see how someone could let that slip while making a case. On the other hand, it was a severe violation a privacy. What would everyone propose be done? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 05:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    After re-reviewing the page, I've decided that my opinion is that Asav was out of line. They entered a stale conversation they were uninvolved with and postured themselves immediately with hostility. Requesting blocks is not a good foot to start out on and looking to flaunt OTRS authority is even worse. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 05:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree that this is extremely disconcerting. If Asav were an admin, that kind of flatly authoritative "warning" (read: threat) in the midst of a content dispute would constitute flagrant abuse. Asav is not an admin, but clearly attempted to convey the same level of authority: taking an authoritative tone, signing their username with "OTRS member", and citing their access to "confidential" complaints, that Toddst1 could not review or respond to, as evidence that could be used against them in a block request. Shocking misconduct from a class of users who are usually and reliably the most upstanding members of the community, as de facto representatives of the WMF who are overseen only by a small body of OTRS admins. I'm not sure if there's a code of conduct for OTRS members, but I'm pretty sure it's implied that a complete lack of any sort of questionable behavior is a given prerequisite for OTRS applicants. I suggest we contact the OTRS admins with the recommendation of demotion for this user (assuming consensus continues to reflect what has already been said here). Swarm ♠ 05:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, and let me add that Ribbet32's humorous comment is also completely on-point. The civility warning itself was completely out of line, as was the bizarre accusation of ownership. Even admins do not take such a hard-line approach to the use of vulgarity. We are not the vulgarity police, even when the words are actually typed out. Such incredibly minor, self-censored "vulgarity" (it's a stretch to use that word given the comment) does not usually warrant any action of any kind, particularly a block or a threat thereof. Swarm ♠ 05:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) So in a thread started on 29 July and, as I as read it, had proceeded in a normal fashion suddenly sees Asav show up today and in their very first post makes an unfounded and unsupported accusation of ownership. Until then there had not been an uncivil post. I can well understand how that can unsubstantiated post could cause an editor to reply as Toddst1 did. Asav responds by threatening to request a block. Asav's next post claims that there are "numerous" OTRS complaints. IMO this is an attempt to place a chill on the conversation akin to what happens with a legal threat. Two OTRS tickets have now been provided as evidence but that can hardly be seen as "numerous" - quite the opposite in fact. It is possible that any of us who have edited over a long period of time may have a few complaints filed against them. I also note that no evidence of "numerous" on wiki complaints has been provided. IMO the claim of ownership is out of line and merits an apology. The use of alleged OTRS tickets to bludgeon the conversation is also out of line and flies in the face of the WP:PILLARS. Swarm's post was made while I was typing this and is very well said. MarnetteD|Talk 05:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Asav has made barely 3,000 edits to en-wiki, and barely 200 of those are to article talk: [116]. He comes in out of seemingly nowhere [117] to undeservedly bully and threaten a Master Editor IV who has made over 100,000 edits. Clearly something is wrong here. I don't know how editors are vetted for OTRS, but clearly there needs to be a more stringent process and there needs to be a permissions-removal process. Softlavender (talk) 05:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OTRS Admin Comment (edit conflict) Hello, all. I was just made aware of this thread, so apologies for the delay in responding.
    OTRS acts as a point of contact for users who are not familiar with the "wiki way" to contact experienced editors to request changes or provide additional information. Most of what the "info-en" queue handles are changes to articles (requested often by organizations or living people) and technical glitches (often that's "the book button won't render my book help"). OTRS agents are granted no special privileges when they are doing this, and must comply with all community guidelines as part of this work.
    As an admin, I will be looking into behavior that I have concerns over within OTRS. Meanwhile, Asav you are reminded that being an OTRS agent gives you no special bearing within any discussion. It's your responsibility to follow all of the procedures in force on Wikipedia. This includes all of the ones referenced above.
    If anyone has any questions about OTRS or how we work internally, feel free to reach out on my talk page or via EmailUser. ~ Matthewrbowker Say something · What I've done 06:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Matthewrbowker: Since OTRS falls outside the EN realm, how would you handle a community recommendation to remove the rights of one of your agents? nihlus kryik (talk) 06:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nihlus Kryik: Excellent question. Recommendations for removals of rights are discussed privately (I know, it sucks but it has to be private because of confidential information) among the OTRS admins. To begin the process, information can be sent to volunteers-otrs@wikimedia.org. My recommendation, should there be a discussion that results in consensus, is that the closing administrator email us with all necessary details, including a link to the consensus. ~ Matthewrbowker Say something · What I've done 06:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Matthewrbowker: Are you suggesting that, in spite of your involvement here, this complaint will not be discussed internally unless we "begin the process" via email? Or were you speaking generally? Swarm ♠ 06:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Swarm: I was speaking generally, as I read the question as a general question. In this case, I am already looking into the situation on the OTRS side. ~ Matthewrbowker Say something · What I've done 06:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotcha, thanks! Swarm ♠ 06:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict):*That happened when I was an OTRS agent and I think this was the on en.wiki discussion surrounding that while a separate discussion was held on OTRS mailing list regarding this too, where again consensus was similar (what Ponyo's post refers to). I only remember thinking back then that this was a waste of OTRS time. —SpacemanSpiff 07:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Please remove Asav as OTRS agent ASAP. I have just deleted Paul Vasquez (actor), a page they created today with the edit summary "Copied from draft page by OTRS, ref. ticket No. #2017072310011231. The article has yet to be edited.)", as it was a copyvio from the IMDb bio, and was already nominated for A7 speedy deletion as well. Coupled with all the above, I don't see how we can continue to have this user in a position of trust. Fram (talk) 07:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, @Fram: thank you for the pointer. I've noted it our discussion. ~ Matthewrbowker Say something · What I've done 07:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=794828315"