Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:44, 25 August 2017

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Shortcuts

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

Before posting:
- Read these tips for dealing with incivility
- If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on
  their talk page
- Try dispute resolution
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page;

pinging is not enough

.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352
353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362
Incidents (archives, search)
1138	1139	1140	1141	1142	1143	1144	1145	1146	1147
1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
464	465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472	473
474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482	483
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320	321	322
323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Attack page?

Would

WP:SPI

.

Recent reports regarding Morty C-137:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive956#Morty C-137: Battleground attitude, personal attacks and edit warring.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive343#User:Morty C-137 and User:Rjensen reported by User:Cjhard (Result: Warned)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive342#User:Pepe.is.great and User:Morty C-137 reported by User:KDS4444 (Result: Warned)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive953#Morty C-137

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has already been had by administators and answered, and I consider Guy Macon's filing here to be in obvious bad faith. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Morty C-137: Where did this admin discussion occur? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been attacked over and over [1] and I have every right to keep records given that we are "required to give evidence". Morty C-137 (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I asked. Where has an admin told you this page is OK? This page has been up for over a month with no SPI case filed. We can't keep pages like this around, per

WP:POLEMIC. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I just linked a diff for you above. Take it up with them. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since Morty's decide to revert the blanking, I've deleted the page per

WP:POLEMIC. These type of pages cannot be left around for long periods of time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, that proves this whole listing is in bad faith, since you gave me no actual chance to save the material offline and you're ignoring policy. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've undeleted for 10 minutes so you can copy everything. Then it's getting deleted again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm lucky I saw that at the 9th minute, such a "generous" amount of time. What a load of harassing crap. Morty C-137 (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I interject here? Morty C-137 none of those users nor an admin EVER said that you could do that. Dinah In Wonderland 19:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding this. It's possible Morty linked to the wrong diff, of course. If you're collecting evidence in this manner, it's best to do it off wiki. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two things here. A quick look through Cjhard's (very short) edit summary:

It screams "sock puppet" of the sleeper kind. The account has only approx. 815 edits but extensive knowledge not only of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines but it's internal politics, feuds, obscure cases and ANI reports (examples [2]. It made 16 edits in 2007, 8 edits in 2008, 4 edits in 2009, 4 in 2011, 3 in 2012 and then... it "woke up" and exploded with several hundred edits starting in May of this year. And a lot of these involve following and reverting Morty around - there's no freakin' way this is a legit account.
It's immediately obvious that the account HAS in fact been following and harassing Morty.

It's hard to tell who the sock master here is but at least this account looks like one of the socks of the same person.

I can easily see why Morty is frustrated here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to accuse me of being a sockpuppet, do it at SPI. Doing it here, incorrectly, without evidence, and without having the courtesy of pinging me in a conversation I hadn't already been made aware of, is an unacceptable personal attack. Honestly, I'm getting tired of it from Morty, and my tolerance for it is waning.

talk) 21:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Better yet, provide your input to the SPI case Morty finally opened:

talk) 21:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

If

talk) 20:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

AFAICT there's no "problematic" behavior at RN/B, which, incidentally, is not a discussion you yourself participated in. As far as I can tell.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on it now, though I'm not sure what your remark regarding my lack of participation is supposed to imply. I hope that, after the fourth invocation of

talk) 00:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

(copy of recent post to
WP:DELREV instead. But it pretty clearly qualifies to me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC) (end of copy)[reply
]

I'm not preventing Morty from continuing to compile evidence, I'm not preventing him from filing an SPI, I'm not claiming Sjhard is or isn't a sock, and I'm not Morty's enemies' newest buddy. But my experience has been that we enforce

WP:ADMINACCT. I've had more than enough, so I'm disengaging now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree. Whether the page in question should be deleted or not is subject to the usual administrative rules and guidelines (though I've seen other people do similar, just in a but less transparent way and get away with it). My point rather is that Morty's action were understandable and importantly, that this ANI report is completely pointless.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, I apologize for the jerk comment. That being said, I am frustrated because (a) the last person to blank that page was a freaking sockpuppet of a stalker and (b) you didn't explain ANYTHING of your blanking, followed by just up and deleting it when I reverted and tried to add the newest sockpuppet to the list. How the hell was I supposed to know what you were up to when you were too lazy to give an explanation? Morty C-137 (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a sock puppet. Nothing has been proven yet. --Tarage (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I learned today that this user filed a false allegation of sockpuppetry against me. It's certainly "Not Here" behavior. It needs to be stopped either on its own or by a hasty door showing. The attack page is a symptom of the problem. --DHeyward (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no shortage of symptoms; the repeated assumption/leap to accuse other users above (including intervening admins) of "harassment" demonstrates A) a pretty profound lack of understanding of basic process (which can always be remedied with experience) and B) a more fundamental sense of persecution and refusal to

WP:AGF (which is more problematic). We already see enough users show up here on a revolving door basis who are convinced that any time their wishes are thwarted or their behaviour questioned, it is a form of harassment. Best to disabuse this notion early, before it progresses to the conspiracy theory stage and truly disruptive discussions that usually follow. Snow ^{let's rap} 11:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Dheyward ran right in after someone was blocked. The Clerk on the case admitted "I can see why it looks suspicious." But hey, go ahead and roundly misrepresent everything. Morty C-137 (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are two sets of sockpuppets attacking Morty. The earliest one is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D.H.110/Archive A second set is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D.Pearson/Archive. I'll quote Bbb23, who is sadly now inactive here: " I can see the confusion because of the usernames, all the pepes and earsons, but they are separate masters editing from different continents and using different other technical data. I don't know why this person is mimicking the other.-" That is my finding also. Two different continents but the later one is mimicking the earlier. I have my own thoughts on this but need to ponder on the evidence a bit longer. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holy mother of

WP:IDHT

; you really need to stop assuming (and vocally asserting) that everyone who questions you is out to get you, and listen to what the experienced admins and users here are trying to tell you. A few things relating to your last couple of posts:

A) I wasn't commenting on Dheyward's assertions, but rather pointing to your behaviour above of attacking every administrator who takes action to keep you from trampling on policy. I don't see how I am "roundly misrepresenting" anything by pointing out that this is an incredibly self-defeating strategy.

B) You have so selectively quoted mz7's comments in the SPI that you opened against DHeyward (and mischaracterized their role in the SPI) so as to have essentially reversed the conclusion they came to. Here's the full quote, with the context you omitted: "I am not an SPI clerk, but for what it's worth, I agree that the reverts alone are insufficient evidence. I can see why it looks suspicious, but DHeyward is a longstanding editor (created in 2005), and the Doorzki account is not exactly new either (created in 2012). If these were single-purpose accounts with no other edits besides these reverts, we would probably call it a WP:DUCK. However, that's not the case here: both editors have coexisted for a while now without drawing suspicion of sockpuppetry. Given this, I would need to see more evidence of interaction between these accounts or other idiosyncratic behavior (e.g. similar writing style/editing philosophies) before blocking or even recommending CheckUser in this case."

C) Your latest SPI is an absolute nightmare of disorganized non-cogent accusations and non-contexualized links. Moreover, you clearly knew what you were adding to that page, because this was your edit summary for your second edit: "Fuck it. I was trying to get my head wrapped round it and was going to start paring things down and reformatting, but since I got harassed today and told "use it or lose it", it's up. Have fun, whoever.". Uhh, no. That's not how this works. If you want the community to take your accusations seriously, the responsibility is on you to make the argument in a structured and intelligible fashion. It is not the community's responsibility to go digging through that mess of gibberish to make heads or tales of which of the dozens of editors you accuse might actually be a sock, just because you still wanted to open another SPI but you were also angry and wanted to make a statement about your attack page being closed.

You need to take a pause for the cause here, because at ANI we look at the behaviour of all involved parties, even once we've established that one of them is problematic. It will do you no good at all to identify a sock who may or may not be harassing you if, in the course of trying to make your case, you demonstrate a profound inability to contribute to the project yourself without accusing every good-faith contributor and admin you come across of being in on the harassment, and just generally demonstrating a highly

WP:disruptive attitude. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Really, this user has been here for 4 months[3] and he has an enemies and sock accusation list. Not since Psycho in the movie Stripes has someone created a death list so quickly. It's hardly the type of activity new users find themselves embroiled in and arguing about. It's about time to call this one as an obviously returning editor. --DHeyward (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considering his SPI against Cjhard is failing(unsurprisingly), I think we need to start limiting the amount of accusations Morty is allowed to toss around. Yes, it is unfortunate that he has been the target of two sock puppet editors, but that is no excuse for slinging accusations at everyone and hoping some stick. --Tarage (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the SPI is as much as done; the CU found no relationship between Cjhard and any of the other editors. I'm actually pretty shocked jpgordon decided to run a CU in that situation at all, but perhaps they recognized it may prove necessary to refer back to that SPI as fruitless. In light of the polemic/attack page, the recurrent fruitless SPIs, the constant assumption of bad faith and unsubstantiated claims of harassment (particularly the accusations against

WP:disruptive attitude this user is bringing into every space they enter into, I'm fully prepared to support restrictions of some sort--a topic ban from SPI in particular. Frankly, at this point, it's beginning to feel less like IDHT and more like "I will never hear that", but the smallest targeted restrictions should be considered first. I definitely think something needs to be done though; this is a whole lot of drama for the community to have to contend with to indulge for a user who has been around for four months and spends half of their time grinding axes; harassment from socks gets one a certain amount of sympathy, but this user is primed to see foes no matter the circumstances. Morty either needs to learn what is an acceptable claim of harassment or, as has been suggested above, he will have to be shown the door. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

English Wikipedia has a history of sanctioning editors when they respond poorly to harassment. Some of this is unavoidable, but I still think we need to come up with a better approach. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how responding poorly to harassment by another editor gives Morty C-137 a free pass to abuse multiple editors who had no part in any harassment.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Morty C-137, given the wide variety of editors who you have accused of harassing you and acting in bad faith, could it be possible that the problem is you?

There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon presents a heck of a Gish Gallop, but none of those diffs show what he is saying, with the exception of one edit that I've already apologized for. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Respectfully NRP, multiple admins have attempted to approach this user with kids gloves only to be told to stop "harassing" him. I wasn't suggesting a block, but rather trying to isolate them from areas they don't seem yet competent to handle--areas in which they are currently sinking a lot of time into, and which are the nexus of all of the issues they are having with just about everyone they seem to be interacting with on the project now.

The smallest and most targeted sanction I could think of is a topic ban from SPI complaints, appeal-able in a few months once they have enough experience to know what really looks like suspicious activity, under this community's standards--not just the criteria of anyone who disagrees with them ever, on any article. Though, if I'm frank, it's the refusal to AGF / general hostility to anyone thwarting their will that is the real problem. If you think you can reach them, short of that sort of thing becoming a necessity, by all means have at it. But I'll direct you to the above, and this user's talk page, where numerous notably patient admins and veteran community members have tried. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Whilst dealing with true harassment is something we need to do much better, dealing with tactical (or misguided) cries of harassment based on a simple disagreement or failure to gain consensus is something we do poorly too. CRYHARASS can be similar to CRYBLP: a diversion from the underlying issue by appeal to the authority of an inapplicable generality which deliberately invokes strong reactions. Both of these are gaming tactics, and, historically, we've not dealt particularly well with that, either. NRP makes a good point, but, as you say, the issues are wide and nuanced. -- Begoon 10:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think what’s clear is that since his block Morty C-137’s conduct hasn’t improved since his first block. His behaviour on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is a great example of his personal attacks, tendentiousness and battlefield behaviour continuing unabated. His presence is almost inevitably disruptive in any political topic he engages with and his temperament appears to be inherently compatible with a collaborative project like Wikipedia. A series of increasingly long bans ending in retirement or an indefinite ban appears inevitable. However, Morty’s work on articles related to

talk) 09:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I suggest a short block for incivility and not assuming good faith, followed by longer and longer blocks until he either gets the point or is blocked indefinitely. His behavior has completely disrupted what would have otherwise been a calm, rational discussion on RSNB about whether a particular source, previously reliable, has become unreliable. This is interfering with the operation of the encyclopedia. I am agnostic on the politics topic ban, not having examined his behavior in that area. --Guy Macon (talk)09:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue his behaviour on RSNB is an example of his behaviour in the politics topic, given the nature of the sources discussed and what they're being used for.

talk) 10:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd argue that, as a party, jumping on some sort of perceived bandwagon might not be the best thing for you to do here. Despite the very poor SPI, people may still have questions. Your last couple of posts have not helped to convince me that you don't deserve deep scrutiny, yourself. -- Begoon 12:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with Morty's disruptive behavior and personal attacks? A Morty-free encyclopedia has a lot less drama overhead. Threatening his victims doesn't solve the problem. --DHeyward (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DARVO. Those who have been through abusive situations recognize this sort of behavior when someone tries it on them. I've done nothing to warrant the torrent of abuse you've heaped on me, I legitimately saw something weird in a pattern of edits and reported it. You've been page hopping for the past couple days insulting me and trying to get me "banned" while calling me things like "ban-boy" and it needs to stop. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No Morty. I've followed you to admin pages where you are abusing other editors including me. It needs to stop. Your behavior is deplorable and your accusations lack merit. I've not sought you out or even knew you existed until someone pointed out your merit-less SPI accusation in an apparent attempt to get me sanctioned and I learned that I was one of many. I have done nothing but point at your poor behavior. It's incompatible with Wikipedia. I have not started any ANI/SPI/3RR or any other process against you but that seems to be your sole contributions as there are at least 4 open ones about you. Your familiarity with these avenues, your long list of "bad users" and attitude suggest this isn't your first rodeo. I personally find that those that see sockpuppets at every turn are often the worse sock puppeteers and is why they think a torrent of socks are out to get them. --DHeyward (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that DHeyward has now begun stalking my edits and reverting me wherever he can find me, in an attempt to get me angry. [15][16] [17] Morty C-137 (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?"[18] --Monty Python and the Holy Grail

According to

WP:WIKIHOUNDING, "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam." DHeyward appears to be simply correcting related problems on multiple articles that you have edited. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Repeat: to repeatedly confront... with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress. Dheyward has never edited those pages before - they were following me in hopes of creating irritation, annoyance or distress. Morty C-137 (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If these edits you cited [19] [20] annoyed you, you are in the wrong place. You called them reverts when in fact your exact text and citation were retained. You didn't bother to check that the source and content were duplicated. --DHeyward (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Morty C-137, it appears that pretty much everything causes you "irritation, annoyance or distress", including the most innocuous of edits. Right now it looks like you are heading toward an indefinite block, and your continued claims of harassment and bad faith are making that block more likely. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive commentary by LynnWysong, lashing out at an editor she has a beef with, but irrelevant to this discussion, even if she unhats this, again. LynnWysong: You're rapidly putting yourself into a place where other editors are going to start considering you a net negative to the project if you keep inserting yourself into discussions you know nothing about, merely to slag off one of the editors you've taken a dislike to. My advice is to knock it off. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know if anyone's opinion here is influenced by this. Seems like whether or not keeping a page like this, the real issue here, is okay, depends on who you are. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Morty C-137, but what I see here is that he/she was brought here because they were keeping a page to prepare for an SPI. In the edit summary they provided, they were told that they shouldn't keep it more than six months without taking action. That forced him to file an SPI before it was ready. Now, he's being accused by the object of the SPI of having brought the accusation here instead of at SPI in the first place. Uh, no, he didn't. And now, he's being told that since he made that accusation, his own behavior is under review.

In the meantime, a couple of years ago, an established editor was keeping a similar page. When it was pegged for deletion, the community rallied to her side. This is hypocrisy at it most pathological.

If what Guy Macon (talk · contribs) was really upset about was the editor's behavior at other articles, that's what this ANI should have been about. Right now it looks like a bait and switch. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(

WP:BOOMERANG; everyone's behavior is scrutinized. ansh 666 02:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

But, didn't it say that Morty's page had only been there for one month?

Yes, he could have, and, upon having not had his hand called, he may have not filed it all.

Ah. I misunderstood

How does
WP:BOOMERANG apply when then the person supposedly being boomeranged didn't bring the action? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Lynn, I don't even know where to start. To begin with, most of the commentary here has nothing to do with the

WP:POLEMIC

, in case you've missed it the dozen or so times it's been cited here already. It doesn't matter if, once upon a time, in one discussion, the community failed to uphold that policy (or decided under the facts of those circumstances that it was appropriate)--that's not a reason for doing so again here.

Meanwhile your argument that deleting that policy-violating page "forced Morty to file an SPI prematurely" makes absolutely zero sense. No one put a clock on Morty and no one tried to (or realistically could) prevent Morty from compiling his evidence offline, if he felt that was a worthwhile use of his time. He was simply prevented from hosting the information in his user space. Again, per policy. Certainly no one encouraged Morty to file any one of those SPIs without proper merit or evidence (other than "they got in my away, why else would they do that if they weren't out to get me?").

Lastly, I don't really care what Guy's other concerns with the user were and which issue he should have raised first, according to you. The community members who have responded here are all discussing what they perceive to be a complex of issues with this user, but all of them going back to a short fuse and an inability to have their actions questions or their will thwarted without lashing out with accusations of "harassment". And frankly, your off-base argument that they are being singled out or treated differently from other members of the community (when almost all longterm POLEMIC pages are deleted upon discovery) is not going to help this user correct course, but only encourage them to turtle up further into the comforting assumption that they are being persecuted. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just bringing up what I see to be a true flaw with ANI, which is that it never seems to deal with the issue at hand. (edit) The editor was brought here ostensibly for keeping a page against policy, and he/she is being threatened with a boomerang, when they didn't bring the action. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Until Ansh's response to you above,

WP:BOOMERANG wasn't mentioned once, and nobody is being "threatened" with anything. The user's conduct is being examined. There is no prohibition here against noting relevant problematic behaviours just because they happen to not be the focus of the OP's original comments; that would make zero pragmatic sense for this space. Certainly the community is not required to turn a blind eye to an issue that is explicitly on display in the ANI itself. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Unlike what many people assume, BOOMERANG doesn't just apply to the filer of a case (or whatever the applicable metaphor is), it applies to everyone involved. (oh, I see - I wasn't addressing Morty specifically on that last point, just speaking generally) ansh 666 03:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"And frankly, your off-base argument that they are being singled out or treated differently from other members of the community (when almost all longterm POLEMIC pages are deleted upon discovery) is not going to help this user correct course, but only encourage them to turtle up further into the comforting assumption that they are being persecuted." I don't think that doing a bait and switch at ANI, bringing up a minor problem-a POLEMIC page that had only been up for a month when others are not only allowed to stay longer but even defended, and then switching to what "the community" perceives as the real problem, helps with a feeling of persecution either. Also, he's being taken to task for filing SPIs, that don't appear to be entirely frivolous or vindictive. In my experience, discouraging filing SPIs when someone thinks they have legitimate cause will lead to much worse behavior. Believe me, I've been the victim of it, so I'm coming from a different perspective here. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 03:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is thoroughly off the rails. I request an un-involved admin close it with no action against any editors.

talk) 04:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I've changed the template from {{

cot}} to prevent edit warring. But hopefully off-topic discussions can stop here. Alex Shih ^Talk 04:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Respectfully, with Lynn's divergence being now hatted, I must disagree with your description of the discussion and with your recommendation. There are real and substantial issues still being addressed here, and (Lynn aside) all of the community members who have responded to this thread are roughly of the same mind that the behaviour in question is problematic (even if no clear solution / response from the community has been proposed). Morty has responded to every halfway critical appraisal of his actions with cries of "harassment", even while under community scrutiny and while responding to admin directives here at ANI. If he's willing to shout accusations in the faces of admins trying to restrain him, how can we reasonably believe he's about to change his approach when dealing with the rank and file in disputes on some random article--especially the highly charged socio-political ones he favours? I don't see the point in closing this thread when it's virtually certain the user will be back here at ANI or back spamming SPI before we can blink. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic Show me an ANI thread with this much activity that wasn't off the rails after 36 hours. I'd honestly like to know what that looks like. Absent some kind of ground rules, firmly enforced, there aren't any rails to be off of. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My point also. The ANI was filed in response to what was called an "Attack Page". Now, I didn't see the page, and I don't know if there was anything on it that could be termed an "attack" rather than part of compiling an SPI case, but it sounds like that was what it was, and that it wasn't a frivolous case, as per Volunteer Marek. "Not frivolous" as opposed to "valid"...I'm not making judgements on the validity of Morty's suspicions, but it does seem to me that he was doing what he was supposed to do when one has suspicions of socking, and that is to file an SPI. Sounds like he filed a couple, ended up with egg on his face, and was being more cautious with the third, when all of a sudden his hand is forced. So, he files the SPI in response to that, and now he's being attacked himself on all fronts, for one being accused of "spamming" SPI. This is the problem with ANI. This thread went off the rails as soon as it stopped being about the "Attack Page" and whether or not it was okay to have it. Which means it went off the rails in lines 2-5 of the thread, when Guy Macon started bringing up the recent ANIs that had been brought against Morty. And, as to how long one should be allowed to maintain a page of difs related to sockpuppet suspicions, what is the "timely manner" (quote from policy) in which it should be used? The answers are: "It depends on whether or not you've recently been brought to ANI" and/or "It depends on what editor is keeping them, and who they are keeping them on," neither of which is an objective, rationale response that is going to diffuse an editor that is already feeling persecuted.

So yes, this should be closed without action. If another ANI is opened, there should first be a perusal of Robert's Rules of Order by all parties. The dogpile method that ANI currently uses is not just dysfunctional, it's something out of Lord of the Flies. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cjhard has now been closed: "Checkuser finds nothing interesting connecting Cjhard with any of these accounts or with any problematic accounts at all."

Meanwhile, the previously listed problem behavior ([21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]) has continued with [32][33][34][35].

There is a broad consensus that the behavior of Morty C-137 is problematic. Everyone who criticizes Morty C-137 in any way is accused of bad faith, harassment, or sockpuppetry. If this is closed without administrative action, someone will open a new report when the behavior continues. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Proposal

talk) 17:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I note that I can't promise that other editors will consider this sufficient.

talk) 17:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

And I note that I think that the object of the ANI has been met, which was to address the "Attack Page." It's gone. But you're right, he probably should walk away from articles like that for a while (why 1932?). I, for one, wouldn't touch one of those types of articles with a 10 foot pole (My focus is on the fur trade and nice, un-contentious articles about horses Oh, wait) My observation is that anyone who does edit those ends up getting regularly brought to ANI and blocked. Just part of the whole "encyclopedia anyone can edit" scenario. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

Power~enwiki: Have I made any bad edits on that page? Can you point to any? I'm willing to bet you can't. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Not the right response Morty. He didn't say you made questionable edits, but that your editing the page was questionable. You need to walk away from all this for a while. Believe me, I know what it feels like to be dogpiled, and that's why I took hits here calling that out, but if you don't settle down you're going to be right back here and it will probably be for the right reasons next time. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there is no "right response", ever. No matter what policy is complied with, there's another contradictory policy. Trying to report harassment results in more threats; filing quickly when there are likely sockpuppets gets attacked, trying to put it all together to get it right gets attacked the same way. Whatever I say, whatever I do, someone with an agenda will twist it and misrepresent it in some way. They won't do shit about people who hunt me page to page, they won't do shit about the people constantly making new accounts to harass me, but they'll go after me nonstop. Morty C-137 (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And your belief that is the case is a good reason for the proposed TBAN. Your non-political edits seem to be stress free for you but your political edits have you seeing boogeymen at every turn. That's a problem for all of us much more than any problems you are dealng with. --DHeyward (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And there's a reason someone who stalked my edits trying to irritate me will have no impact on my opinion. Morty C-137 (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. Being blocked from editing Wikipedia has been show to be an effective method for impacting the opinion of editors like you.

You are claiming that it's always someone else, never you. For some inexplicable reason dozens of people who don't know each other have somehow gotten together and decided to harass poor, innocent you, while the vast majority of editors get along fine with everyone else.

The fact of the matter is that we do care about those who legitimately harass you, and we are putting in our absolute best effort to identify them and stop them from posting to Wikipedia. But none of that changes the fact that your behavior is a problem as well.

Here are some diffs. Study them, and identify the things that you are doing that others here are not doing. Then stop doing those things.

"Bullshit and WP:WEASEL words"[36]
"The repeated dishonesty ... just designed to try to irritate and provoke "[37]
"Rudely and dishonestly misrepresenting ... false accusation"[38]
"Fraudulent ... in bad faith"[39]
"Obvious bad faith"[40]
"Inappropriate and done in a manner calculated to harass."[41]
"That proves this whole listing is in bad faith"[42]
"You'd prefer to beat me up. Now I see why admins are considered suck stuck up jerks on wikipedia."[43]
"What a load of harassing crap."[44]
"Go away. You know you only posted that garbage to harass me."[45]
"But hey, go ahead and roundly misrepresent everything."[46]
"Not sure what game you're playing or if you just decided you hate my guts for some reason."[47]
"Such a sad individual."[48]
"So many personal attacks."[49]
"Stalking my edits and reverting me wherever he can find me, in an attempt to get me angry."[50].

Free clue: The thing you keep doing that is pissing everyone else off involves accusing others of harassment, accusing others of bad faith, and in general acting like a total jerk.

I propose a short block for the above behavior, followed by longer and longer blocks if he keeps doing it. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know full well you decided you hate me and want me blocked, and you won't shut up nor stop misrepresenting my edits till you get your way. Such as your rank mischaracterization of when I noted the many personal attacks from DHeyward after he launched a flurry of them including calling me "ban-boy". Morty C-137 (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, bad behavior (real or imaginary) by others does not excuse your behavior. If you think that either I or DHeyward have misbehaved, file an ANI report with diffs supporting your claims. Your continued assertions that it is never you, always someone else are making it more likely that you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Morty C-137, your post right above is an example of the behavior Guy was pointing out. It probably isn't really helpful to your cause. May I suggest you consider moderating your behavior some? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've already posted the diffs here. LynnWysong was right about one thing, Guy Macon posted this just to cause a dogpile because this board isn't for resolving things, it's for a bunch of vultures to get their fill ripping into victims and engaging in DARVO. Morty C-137 (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Votes on action against Morty C-137

Support short block Enough of this. This has wasted way too much time and the editor, even after a failed malformed SPI, still doesn't get it. --Tarage (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support short block as a minimum option to deal with Morty. Hopefully it'll cause him to look at the criticism he's received here and correct his behaviour, but his levels of
talk) 23:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Then what's the point? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also support a topic ban on political topics as a measure which might be more effective in preventing Morty's disruptive behaviour in the long term.

talk) 01:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

OpposeThis ANI has been a cluster. The fact that it started by characterizing Morty's draft SPI report as an "Attack Page" fatally flawed it from the beginning. Process should mean something. Even if you have to let someone off the hook that probably doesn't deserve it, you can't use flawed process to justify retribution. Let's piece the conch back together and do make people do it right. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion on the "draft SPI report"

Of course it was an attack page. It was (quite properly) deleted under
WP:POLEMIC
:

"Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Unrelated content includes, but is not limited to the compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used..."

or read

WP:ATP

, which says

"keeping a 'list of enemies' or 'list of everything bad user:XXX did' on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate. Bear in mind that the key to resolving a dispute is not to find and list all the dirt you can find on somebody."

--Guy Macon (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"...the compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted." Compiling evidence for an SPI is a legitimate action, and should not be termed an "Attack Page". The key words there are "timely manner" and "imminently." That should have been the focus of the ANI, unless there were things on there that didn't apply to the ANI. I don't know, and you didn't provide difs of any, instead you brought up his past ANIs. Not right. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep insisting (although everyone else here keeps telling you otherwise) that it is somehow "inappropriate" to bring up multiple issues about a problematic user? This isn't a court case,

nor is Wikipedia a bureaucracy. And Guy didn't pull any kind of "bait and switch" as you've implied repeatedly above. He brought an initial issue here, which could have been resolved quickly, except for the fact that Morty instead chose to accuse every admin and community member here who tried to get them to what was wrong with their approach of harassment. That is what lead to community looking into the broader issues with this user's conduct, insofar as I can tell from the above. Your insistence that Guy did something wrong or that the other community members here are acting inappropriately by no turning a blind eye to clearly problematic behaviours that were not mentioned by the OP has no basis in policy or community consensus and is, frankly, nonsensical. I appreciate that you identify with this user's aggravation and also that you don't have a high impression of Guy, but I don't think you're keeping proper perspective here and you're out on a limb as a result. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I have no impression of Guy at all, other than that I think he set up this ANI in an unfair manner. And, the fact that I am "out on a limb" for providing a dissenting opinion here is yet another indication of why this process is so dysfunctional. No, ANI is not a court, but it would serve the community much better if some ground rules, based on common court procedures, were established, rather than the free-for-all it currently is. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well of all of the possible pro forma adjustments to the approach of ANI that you might suggest, the recommendation that we refuse to address behavioural problems not raised in the original post is pretty close to single most non-pragamtic and counter-intuitive suggestion you could make, and not one I think you will ever generate much support for, for that very reason. Snow ^{let's rap} 17:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad. Because that is why ANI discussions constantly derail, resulting in bad decisions that don't resolve the issue at hand. I'm not saying that behavior can't be an exacerbating factor in a case, but in this case, the discuss veered so off-course the proposed "prevention of disruption" doesn't even fit the issue brought to ANI, and that is that Morty was planning another SPI report in the wake of two that were bad choices of action. So, the logical consequence would be to ban him from filing any more SPI's, but that doesn't seem necessary anymore, so, I guess the "community" has to find some other way to justify all this. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support both block and TBAN - As a pending changes reviewer, I am witnessing the reversions made on
talk) 00:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Extended discussion regarding socks

O.M.G. You mean the reversions made by BanMorty (talk · contribs) and MortyKillYourself (talk · contribs)??????!!!!!!! No wonder the guy's got a huge chip on his shoulder. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but do notice that both of those uers has been already blocked. This community has done, and will continue to do, what it can to shield Morty from this trolling. What it cannot and will not do is allow Morty to see a foe (and then pursue them as such) in every person he comes across who questions his generally bombastic approach, for purely good-faith reasons. What would you have us do, block everyone he suspects of being a sock? Or just let him file SPI after SPI against longterm good-faith contributors, simply because they reverted him on an article that happens to be one of those where he has clashed with his troll? This user needs to learn that

WP:DUCK ≠ "person who criticized me". Until they learn and internalize community standards on such things, it's hard to see any alternative to restraining their contributions. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Snow RiseI am simply pointing out that there are mitigating circumstances here. The guy is under attack and isn't dealing with it well. He was accused of seeing "socks everywhere" when in reality, there are socks everywhere. He filed a couple of un-advisable SPI's, (but I don't think they were entirely frivolous-it does sound like he had a reason to believe there was socking involved) and seemed to be realizing he needed to be more methodical if he did another one, hence the "Attack Page". He's like a high strung dog that was attacked by a pack of coyotes, when the other dogs came into help him he was so worked up that he couldn't tell friend from foe. He may have continued to calm down but what happens? He gets dragged here under the auspices that his more methodical manner of dealing with socks is an "Attack Page".

Yes, the difs provided by Guy are concerning, and those are what he should be taken to task for. But that issue has been so buried in the red herring of the "attack page" that right now, any block or topic ban is probably not going to send the right message, and would instead seem arbitrary and capricious. That is why process is important here. This idea of "well, we can't really punish you for what you were brought here for so we'll find something else to punish you for is, in my mind, the sign of a "community" devolving into anarchy. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what this place is for and what the goals of the community are in a situation like this:

prevent further disruption. Would it be nice if we could do that short of restricting his participation on the project? Of course. But multiple admins and community volunteers tried that approach, only to be told they were "clearly out to get/smeer/misrepresent/troll/harass" Morty, or something similar, all while the editor continues to exhibit problematic behaviours in both mainspace and in community spaces and on procedural pages. And I'm sorry, but your argument that if he had just been left in peace to plan his attack page, everything would have turned out rainbows and sunshine does not track for me, to put it mildly. Nor is the fact that a troll amped him up excuse for his lashing out at everyone else; we need our editors to show a more baseline level of restraint than that. And I think it's just plain histrionic to suggest that this project is "descending into anarchy" because the community has decided to do something about this situation; insisting that our editors comport with just the most very basic and essential provisions of our community behavioural guidelines is the opposite of anarchy. And like most community sanctions, Morty will be able to appeal any topic ban after a time, once he can demonstrate a period of non-disruptive editing and identify what went wrong here (without alluding to alleged harassment by the community). Snow ^{let's rap} 17:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Now you're putting words in my mouth and twisting what I said, which means this discussion, like this whole Action, has devolved into a hopeless mess. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support either or both short block and topic ban. Morty C-137 has clearly indicated that he will not stop his disruptive behavior unless forced to do so. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support block and AP2 topic ban. --DHeyward (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support short-term block and (especially) topic ban from AP2 topics. The IDHT is off the charts here and Morty seems incapable of distinguishing community concerns from genuine harassment. In my opinion the troll who has pestered him (presumably after locking horns with him on some article or another) has only exacerbated an underlying and pronounced difficulty with the collaborative process that seems to be fundamental to Morty's approach on this project. In other words, I'm quite certain that Morty's battleground attitude is a feature of his general attitude while editing here, and that it has been (and will continue to be) present, even in the absence of any kind of actual provocation. A preventative block to temporarily disengage him from his current feuds, combined with removing him from the especially contentious areas until he has demonstrated an understanding of our behavioural standards stands the best chance of forestalling further attacks on passers-by. Personally I would have started with a much more narrow ban from SPI, but the AP2 topic ban being the one put forward, I can support it without qualms. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban of some kind, no opinion on a possible block. I think that a tban from SPI (broadly construed to prevent Morty from throwing about these blanket accusations regarding others being socks in general - we're smart enough to be able to get rid of the two sockfarms when they pop up) would be better than a tban from AP2, but if that's the consensus there's no opposition from me. ansh 666 05:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per comment below, I'd also support a lengthy block at this time. ansh 666 05:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - both block and TBAN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for Snow Close

It is clear that there is community consensus for a short block followed by a topic ban.

I propose that this report be closed with a short block followed by a six month topic ban from filing new sock puppet investigations and from all edits about and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States, broadly construed. This should be accompanied by a warning about accusing other editors of harassment or bad faith, and an explanation that any further accusations should be in the form of ANI reports, not inline comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not as a

talk) 22:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Not a block, that would purely be punitive; TBAN is another thing. By the way, any admins thinking of closing this might want to first examine the rev-del'd edits a few minutes ago to this section. Black Kite (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A block would not be punitive if the behavior is ongoing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...Which opens up a golden opportunity for User:Morty C-137. Are you listening Morty? All you have to do is give us the slightest indication that you understand why eight people just supported having you blocked and/or topic banned and indicate that you will make a good-faith effort to change. Pretty much everyone here (including me) would love to close this with "no administrative action required" and move on. Just give us a reason to think that things will change. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, that's good advice, and I've left a note on Morty's talk page urging him to heed it. It doesn't look like he's edited since you left the offer – let's see how he responds before this proceeds further. Mojoworker (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For those of us who were unable to see the rev-del edits, can you give us some understanding as to how they pertain to this? --Tarage (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was a grossly uncivil comment against the editor in question from a likely

sock. Alex Shih ^Talk 02:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

A CU confirmed (by me) sock. There have been two unrelated sets of socks attacking Morty. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D.H.110/Archive stopped in April. The ones mentioned there in June are part of this set: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D.Pearson/Archive. They are definitely unrelated other than the target - the second set is mimicking the first. Except at the beginning, when D.Pearson suddenly appeared to defending Morty and to help him edit war, leading to a possible/inconclusive SPI.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morty C-137/Archive. Doug Weller talk 08:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's another one on there right now. So childish. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So is User:Morty C-137 laying low or reappearing in different form after contemplative period? --DHeyward (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I've been wondering. Sro23 (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe waiting for the next exciting Rick and Morty episode? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All joking aside, he was with his grandmother in hospice, and then attended her funeral. He won't be editing anytime soon, so the compassionate thing would be just to close this as unnecessary, or simply let it archive. Mojoworker (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the appeal to compassion, but sanctions on Morty remain necessary. Morty has retired before, only to be back shortly later. I'm certain that "anytime soon" will be in the span of one or two months, and the behaviour and disruption will continue as it has. I accept that the short block may be unnecessary, but if there's consensus for an AP2 ban, that should be instituted.

talk) 21:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

It pains me to say it, but I think an indef block is necessary here. Morty should do a clean-start under a new account if he ever feels like contributing here again. I hate to suggest something that seems to reward the most abusive and nasty troll I've seen on Wikipedia, but after Morty's last comment [51], I think the situation is irreparable.

talk) 00:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd wager most people would be willing to look the other way on the PAs because of the circumstances, but at the same time Wikipedia is not therapy, and I think Morty would certainly benefit from not participating in a project that seems to cause them so much stress at such a stressful time in their life, at least for a while. So yeah, I'd agree with that. Although technically it wouldn't be a valid clean start due to ongoing sanctions, and like Guy Macon I do have a suspicion that this wouldn't be their first time doing it. ansh 666 05:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mass deletions and edit warring across celebrity articles by Hillbillyholiday

Noted issues

There are some recent mass deletions that I view as disruptive. As seen in the edit histories of the

WP:IDON'TLIKEIT

." Hillbillyholiday's response was that he or she is willing to listen, but that the content is "mountains of unimportant, irrelevant garbage" that "have reintroduced clear BLP violations and highly questionable sources" and that "The trouble is, most decent folk here are too scared of making drastic but necessary cuts, and too many articles are guarded by their creators, who are loathe to see anything go, often in the mistaken belief that because there is a star on the page it must be fine. Some of these bios got their 'GA' status nearly a decade ago and haven't been reassesed since. The whole concept of FA/GA is basically meaningless, and it's rather embarrassing having to use the terms in an argument, but if these articles are the best Wikipedia has to offer, or are seen as models for other bios, then we should all be ashamed."

I stated that if Hillbillyholiday is willing to discuss, he or she would not be mass deleting non-BLP violating content without first addressing the matter on article talk pages and discussing it. He or she would not be edit warring all over the place. I also asked Hillbillyholiday what WP:BLP violations are the issue? I pointed to this Britney Spears deletion, for example, and commented: "In that edit summary, you stated that there is a WP:BLP violation. If so, then you should delete the WP:BLP violation, not delete chunks and chunks of material because you don't like it. We lose a lot of important material with these huge chunks you make to these articles. Overquoting is easily remedied." I also noted that I get Hillbillyholiday's point about WP:GAs and WP:FAs, but "

WP:OWN

is clear about treading carefully on WP:FA articles. In a lot of these cases, it doesn't matter that the article reached WP:FA years ago. There is still the fact that a lot of care went into these articles, including a lot of discussion about how they should be formatted."

When there is back and forth edit warring, and content deletion without giving editors a chance to justify their edits, and when some editors can barely catch their breath because they watch a number of these articles, I just don't see how these mass deletions are helpful (unless cutting WP:BLP violations and/or unencyclopedic content). Pinging the following involved editors:

talk) 03:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I was only involved with the Jennifer Lawrence page. Regardless of overall article quality, Flyer is right that mass deletions (except for things like blatant BLP violations) should at least be discussed beforehand. Edit warring only makes things worse. I thought about bringing Hillbilly to WP:AN3 for it, but wasn't sure at the time if the user had reverted enough to warrant a block. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this thread. It's particularly outrageous when such mass deletion is done for high-quality FA-class articles, and in the case of Lawrence, when it was featured on the bloody main page! On top of that, taking a snarky dig at my support for feminism is outrageous. I understand if this editor has issues with the sexualisation of women in mainstream media, but does Hillbilly really think that attacking well-meaning editors will help solve the issue? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing new to add here, my comments can be seen at

Flyer22 Reborn concerns and the starting of this thread. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I had problems with Hillbillyholiday on

ownership issues with a number of articles; when told that there might be a discussion here, Hillbillyholiday's response was "I doubt I'll be participating". Sundayclose (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, per that response, I don't think Hillbillyholiday is taking the problems others have expressed with his or her mass deletions seriously. Like I recently stated, "That supposed lack of concern, as though it's fine and dandy to keep doing this, is one of the problems. [...] Hillbillyholiday's reasons are not always very good. Hillbillyholiday often removes stuff on a
talk) 16:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 00:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

(It's he.) Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 00:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: When someone's edit history comes up a sea of undiscussed massive deletions [52], including of cited information, and undiscussed (or snarkily and dismissively discussed) edit-wars to keep the material deleted, that's a problem. If it doesn't stop, I suggest a topic-ban on direct editing of BLPs (at least until the crusade dies down). Softlavender (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You'd keep stuff like this? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a massive deletion. And we all know that the talk) 14:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
You know what, I'm done with this editor, their constant "I know what's best" attitude and
WP:OWN issues are too much. I suggest they replace the {{retired}} on their talk and take it to heart. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Flyer, you have said that it is fine to have a section on a BLP entitled "Mental health" which uses sources such as msn.com and usmagazine.com to provide facts about the subject's "depression", "paranoia", hospitalization, and diagnoses. (Talk:Kanye_West#Recent_deletions)
You think saying someone had a "public meltdown" in Wikipedia's voice is acceptable. (
WP:BLP/N#Britney Spears
)
Forgive me if I don't put much store by your comments when it comes to appropriate sourcing for BLPs. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how anyone can evaluate the sourcing on these articles so fast. --Moxy (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hillbillyholiday, so you have finally graced us with your presence. Like I relayed before, get your story right when reporting on what I've stated. To repeat what I stated at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard: "As for the Kanye West matter, I clearly stated [...] The sources for the Mental health section of the West article are solid, except for one source. The sources are WP:BLP-compliant. So I am right about the sourcing. Whether or not the content should stay is another matter." I did not state that the section was fine. I stated that sources in that section are WP:BLP-compliant. I also stated that I had been concerned about the section before and had almost removed it. I also stated "we can ask about it at the
The Los Angeles Times source states that West was persuaded by authorities to commit himself to a hospital. Not a WP:BLP violation. This Entertainment Tonight source states that West is formally undiagnosed. Not a WP:BLP violation. And this CNN
source states that West was released from the hospital. Not a WP:BLP violation.

And I've explained the Spears matter well enough.

Stop trying to make it seem as though your massive deletions are normally removing egregious BLP violations and therefore you should not be sanctioned; that simply is not the case.
talk) 14:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I never said CNN, Billboard, et al. were unreliable or BLP violating -- stop putting words in my mouth. I simply asked whether msn.com and usmagazine.com were acceptable sources for a subject's mental health issues, and you said they were ok. You also reckon "meltdown" (source: MTV) is a suitable descriptor. If you can't see how these opinions are problematic, I think you may need a topic-ban from BLP-related articles. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And how exactly is MSN a BLP-violating source? Same goes for Us Weekly. Like I stated to you before, Us Weekly is the same category of sourcing as People magazine, which I remind you yet again was deemed to be generally fine for WP:BLPs. As I noted back then, that People RfC should not have focused solely on People since the disagreement was about People magazine and sources like it.

And, as you have no doubt seen, EdJohnston has also stated that he does not consider the Spears matter to be a WP:BLP violation.

The only topic ban here should be yours.
talk) 15:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

My recent edits speak for themselves. I'm done here. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You state that you are done, but I guarantee that you are going to wait for this matter to cool down and then start up your disruptive deletions and edit warring again, which is why I think that
talk) 15:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment
Flyer22 Reborn are undoubtedly good, edits like this one and this one are problematic (note the edit summary on the latter). I caution this user that they are likely to be blocked if they attempt to edit-war material that they themselves acknowledge breaches BLP into articles. There are better ways to challenge a deletion that you disagree with. --John (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you John for putting this into the correct perspective. He "does and has done valuable work in refining and enforcing" and it is out of order to label him as a vandal; little doubt why so many well-intentioned, enthusiastic editors walk away from Wikipedia. Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones (The Welsh Buzzard) 20:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Archive 14#Continuing disruption by User:John on biography articles, or this comment from I JethroBT noting the following: "John's arguments were not persuasive during the RfC and they shouldn't be elsewhere if that is the basis for disagreement."? A number of editors, including NeilN, Binksternet, NE Ent, Rivertorch, Johnuniq and Herostratus were of the opinion that you either acted disruptively and/or were WP:INVOLVED when it came to me. So I was waiting for you to show up since it was your massive deletions and misguided BLP assertions, as seen in that ANI case, that inspired Hillbillyholiday's disruption. It was also you, as the sole editor, who voted "No" to People magazine, while everyone else voted "Yes.
"

Neither this nor this are WP:BLP violations. In the latter case, the only supposed BLP violation that Hillbillyholiday noted is "public meltdown," but editors, including EdJohnston, disagree with Hillbillyholiday that use of "public meltdown" is a BLP violation in the case of the breakdown/meltdown that Spears acknowledges she had.

So nice try when it comes to trying to point the finger in my direction.
talk) 20:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Mmmm. So what did A lot of this is not WP:BLP violations in any way. Do stop mass deleting content, especially on WP:GAs or WP:FAs. mean then? I suggest you modify your own behaviour, or it'll get you blocked. I can't really make it any simpler than that. --John (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so you interpret me stating "A lot of this is not WP:BLP violations in any way" as stating that there were some BLP violations in the content? I was not. I was giving Hillbillyholiday the benefit of the doubt even though I did not see any BLP violations. And, as we can see, the only "BLP violation" he cited is "public meltdown," which is something others do not agree is a BLP violation. And even if there had been a BLP violation, it does not justify his mass deletions at that article. That is why both
WP:3RRNO
as an exception to our edit warring rules. Such removals need editor consensus."

So your threat of blocking me is uncalled for. Not only that, it is in direct conflict with the WP:INVOLVED policy. Just like all those years ago with your silly threats about blocking me over use of People magazine, you are back to threatening me. I see that you haven't changed. And let's not pretend that you are talking about someone else blocking me; your tone, including in your edit summary, clearly shows that you intend to be the one doing the blocking. I suggest you modify your line of thinking, or otherwise be sanctioned for administrative abuse. Any block you throw on me would be undone in a matter of minutes.
talk) 20:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for explaining what your edit summary meant. As for the rest of it, you've been warned and should now either retire and reconsider or save it for the unblock request. Your choice. I won't reply to you again here. --John (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So not only do you not admit that you are wrong, you double down on your block threat? I repeat: A number of editors found you to be wrong all those years ago and noted that you are WP:INVOLVED when it comes to me. You were wrong all those years ago. And you are wrong now. You have not at all shown how Hillbillyholiday is in the right. You are simply here making baseless threats that are obviously unbecoming of an administrator, all because of your silly grudge and your skewed interpretation of what BLP violations are. You really think you are untouchable, don't you? You remember that
talk) 20:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Flyer22, I am very surprised to hear this kind of taunting coming from you. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's understandable when dealing with taunting such as "I suggest you modify your own behaviour, or it'll get you blocked. I can't really make it any simpler than that." and "you've been warned and should now either retire and reconsider or save it for the unblock request. Your choice. I won't reply to you again here." Both of the comments make it seem like I was the one being wholly disruptive and that I am a detriment to BLP articles. John did all this years ago because I was using and defending People magazine. It took NeilN starting an RfC about People magazine to stop the block threats (John's misguided threats to block me) and John's mass deletions of material sourced to People magazine. And now he's portraying this matter as though Hillbillyholiday is in the right and that I'm halting Hillbillyholiday's good contributions, despite all evidence to the contrary, including what EdJohnston stated at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard. I think you've seen me be frustrated before; my above responses to John are tame in comparison to some things I've stated about him before.
talk) 22:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

There has to be a middle way here. EdJohnston says the Britney Spears material isn't a BLP vio; I take them at their word. However, it is hard to deny that even the non-BLP violating material in these articles is just egregiously excessive, and even when not sourced to the Daily Mail or papers like that, it's gossip tabloids. No one, least of all me, wants to go through those articles and their endless chatter about boyfriends and girlfriends and whatnot, though I did remove the names and dates of birth of children in Megan Fox--even if verified, that kind of information is just totally unnecessary; "leave the children out of it" is a matter of convention, as far as I'm concerned. And while Hillbillyholiday may have been guilty of 3RR, we should note that in Amanda Bynes none of his reverters had a decent explanation--"read BRD" is not a decent explanation, it's just tag-teaming. I reverted the last editor, who also gave no explanation, and who seems to have no interest on Wikipedia besides that one single person (a lot of this stuff is just creepy, really).
We should really look better at such content. "Not a BLP violation" does not mean that certain BLP info should be in our articles. "It's verified" (by People, US Weekly, etc.) doesn't mean it should be included. Even if HBH is incorrect in this or that article, he is not an idiot r a vandal and should be taken seriously. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wholly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. We are not a bureaucracy and should be careful of any tendency to force an editor with clue and taste away in favour of retaining creepy tabloid kludge about "celebrities". Be better if no tools had to be used but looking at some of the behaviour, my hopes aren't high. --John (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I agree that we should not be including any and everything. I certainly was not arguing that. I have made big cuts at celebrity articles over the years, but not in a way that anyone has deemed disruptive. And the cuts were never based on me simply not liking the content.
talk) 22:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

As for Amanda Bynes,
talk) 22:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I tend to agree with drmies here, a lot of the stuff that goes into some of our pop culture articles is often entirely too much detail and reads like a gossip sheet rather than an encyclopedia. It appears that things have become a bit entrenched on both sides, but calling each other vandals isn't going to help matters. Try discussing the actual content and justifying why it needs to be included rather than being upset that another editor has removed it. The world will not end if something gossipy stays out of an article for a while ...Ealdgyth - Talk 12:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 13:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Flyer22 Reborn, please forgive me for commenting. I already said that I wouldn't, as I have had no involvement in those particular articles. But can't we all now agree that the deleting and reverting behavior that you have raised here has now stopped? Or are you now seeking some kind of punitive action to be taken against Hillbillyholiday? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Martinevans123, I stated above (my "15:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)" post) and at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard that I think that Hillbillyholiday will resume this behavior. For years, I've seen editors do this -- stop the disruptive behavior and let the matter cool down and then resume afterward. I've seen Hillbillyholiday do this as well; he is no stranger to slow-burn edit wars. Hillbillyholiday has shown time and again that he believes that he is right and that everyone else is wrong and that he will continue to make sweeping deletions even at the objections of multiple editors, sometimes incorrectly citing that there is a WP:BLP violation. So I stand by my earlier statement that I think that an administrator should propose an immediate block if (rather when) Hillbillyholiday starts back up again. But I know that since he has stopped the disruption for now, it is likely that this thread will be closed with no action. I have no doubt that we will be back here again in the future, however.
talk) 13:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Are you now seeking some kind of punitive, or "pre-emptive", action to be taken against Hillbillyholiday now? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to reply, but since FinalPoint1988 pinged me below, I'll go ahead and state that I feel that I've been clear on what I think should happen. Yes, I believe that Hillbillyholiday should receive a stern warning to not engage in this type of disruption again; this affected multiple articles, not just one. But, again, I am not expecting that any action will be taken since Hillbillyholiday has gone into temporary hiding.
talk) 16:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

So sad to see such overreactions between established/very valuable contributors such as
Flyer22 Reborn, Martinevans123 and John; like Gareth Griffith-Jones said, such things can trigger the sudden absence of great editors like Hillbillyholiday (also an overreaction), In my personal POV, if some established editor removes some "doubtful material" in the future, (providing good reasons in the summary), it would be a good idea to take the matter to the talk page, before reverting him/her, I agree with Drmies, not all the sourced info should be included, there are tons and tons of fan sites and gossip magazines for such chattery...and of course, none of you is a vandal for reverting others..Take it easy...and happy to see Flyer, John and SNUGGUMS taking actions on the matter. FinalPoint1988 (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm sorry but I'm not quite sure how my input counts as "overreaction". I was just seeking some clarity. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I certainly don't view my and others' views of Hillbillyholiday's disruption to be overreactions either.
talk) 16:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I am seeing 1RRs (Hillbillyholiday removes 1 or more large segments, someone restores all or partial, Hillbillyholiday removes again, another restores, and that's it, no more reverts), so I'm not sure if this is necessarily edit warring. I think it is appropriate BOLD behavior on BLPs with questionable material, but not the type of BLP material that 3RR exemptions would apply to (that is: it is sourced, and not necessarily contentious, but is it really appropriate/necessary to include in a BLP?) I think Hillbillyholiday should be trouted to avoid the 1RR and take to talk page when things are reverted, or better, take to talk page after removing such large parts of the article, just to let other editors know their concerns beyond the scope of an edit summary message, but the removals all do appear to be within proper good faith of what BLP is meant to help protect. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The number of reverts by Hillbillyholiday at
talk) 16:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Short break and back at it - FlightTime (open channel) 22:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The user has mass deleted sourced information on the page for Jeremy Meeks and due to multiple edits, it's not possible to revert back the information that's been deleted. AnonUser1 (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's "possible to revert". One would simply edit and save the version prior to the consecutive edits, or use Twinkle's "revert to this version", with an edit summary. Simple. Of course, I'm not saying you should do that - you should talk about it first - I'm just saying that your implication that multiple, consecutive edits make reversion harder isn't really correct. You had 8 consecutive edits just prior to Hillbilly's 4, and there's nothing wrong with that at all. -- Begoon 11:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly recommend anyone wishing to retain their editing privilege not to revert this series of edits. I'll go further; anyone who even thinks this was a loss to the article should not be anywhere near a BLP article. John (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@John: Regardless if you're correct or not it is very un-administrator like to make a blatant community threat such as this. Are you open to recall ? And before anyone goes off on me, I've been here almost 9 years and this is the first (and last, hopefully) time I've called anyone anything. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Community threat? This is me doing the job I was chosen to do! The tabloid trash that was removed from this article on a living person should never have been put there. Removing it was a good thing. Restoring it would be a bad thing, and knowingly restoring it would be a blockworthy act. If you genuinely don't know good from bad, or what BLP means, it's far better to stay completely away from biographies of living people. John (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to think John is right here. And I'm pretty sure we can't say "regardless" like that? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hillbillyholiday is back to removing a lot of material that he does not like, such as at
talk) 18:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I think that was "a lot of material that nobody likes very much"? It looks like you may soon be asking for this thread to be closed? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Rihanna article, I can't judge the material that way since it was added there, presumably, by a number of editors and had been there for some time. So it seems to me that some people care(d) about the material. Maybe even a lot of people since the subject is Rihanna. When it's substantial material, even if about a lot of tattoos, I think it is often better to discuss the removal first. See again what SNUGGUMS stated above. In some cases, some features of a celebrity have received substantial media attention and are a part of that celebrity's public image. In the Rihanna case, I would not have added that much detail about her tattoos; I would have perhaps named a few, the ones which seem most relevant, judging by sources on the topic, and included a bit of author commentary on the matter and a bit of commentary from her, if available. I take more of an analytical and
WP:Undue
. Not just for celebrity articles, but for all types of articles.

As for this thread, I obviously still think there are issues with Hillbillyholiday's editing; so I don't regret starting this thread. And I do think there will be problems with Hillbillyholiday's big deletions in the future. So I won't request that the thread be closed. Be patient. It will either be closed or be archived without being closed.
talk) 20:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I think you make some very cogent, reasonable and valid points there. I'm not sure Rihanna's tattoos are worth preserving in an encyclopedia but, hey, what do I know. I guess there's a place for most things. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Hillbillyholiday has a fundamental issue of not understanding
YO 😜 00:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
talk) 00:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Since I was pinged: policy is that we get consensus for restoration of material that has been challenged even if it is verifiable, not vice versa (see
WP:V, which is our most core content policy). In BLPs, I think this policy makes even more sense. The consensus at BLPN was that the removal of the content from Bynes was largely justified: we're working towards restoring some of it in line with the BLP policy, but even the small parts I restored were not universally uncontroversial. Re: the behavior as a whole, I agree that this seems like a trend of being BOLD without discussion. At the same time sometimes it is a lot easier towards working to restore from history, especially with BLPs. I'd encourage Hillbillyholiday to be more conservative with their removals, and if they feel the need to blank for BLP concerns to immediately open a talk page discussion or BLPN discussion to see what people can reach consensus to include. This seems to be the best way to manage the tension between ONUS and PRESERVE in these cases, especially when there are legitimate BLP concerns. I also don't see any need for sanctions at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Obviously the articles can always be improved (ie add better sources, and cutting out stuff that as time has passed we can see it's not really of any real importance, etc), but Hillbillyholiday is removing huge chunks of articles because
YO 😜 01:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for commenting,
talk) 01:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

As for WP:ONUS,
talk) 01:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I didn't realize Hillbillholiday's behavior was so egregious. He removed an entire, profusely cited Personal-life section at Tila Tequila with the outrageous edit summary "not worth sorting out". Just because one editor can't be bothered to "sort out" something doesn't mean he can unilaterally remove a huge, cited biographical section. If that editor doesn't want to "sort it out," no one requires him to. Others may choose to do so. If there are specific uncited personal-life claims, we remove them, obviously. But we do not summarily erase entire sections because we're too lazy to "sort it out" or to ask other editors for help. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources.

I do generally look out for better sources when improving a section but the "Personal life" of Tila Tequila is of little to no importance. Any valuable information can be incorporated into an career section if needs be. Where were the required high-quality secondary sources? Answer: There were none. Or maybe you happen to agree with Wikimandia's frankly laughable and rather insulting comment that I need "a tutorial in what reliable sources are and what the difference is between primary and secondary sources"? --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can outline what your belief of a secondary source is? To some (me included), you have an odd focus on secondary sources. Review your commentary at the Jennifer Lawrence talk page and what others stated to you about secondary sources. If, for example, a celebrity's legal troubles are reported in high-quality news sources, why are you expecting the material to be covered in academic sources? Most of the book sources on celebrities are unauthorized biographies, tell-all books, or some other type of book source that is of relatively poor quality. For celebrities, the best sources are going to be media sources. So what type of secondary sources are you expecting? Even in the case of our political articles, most of the sources are going to be media sources because either the books haven't caught up and/or the editors have not thought to replace the media sources with book sources, or they don't see the need to replace them. You stated that you "do generally look out for better sources when improving a section," but your edit history generally does not reflect that. So your idea of a better source is one of the issues with your editing.
talk) 16:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

User has picked up his edit warring behavior again. Is an administrator going to get involved in this continued behavior? He averted a block last time by taking a couple hour "wiki break," but returned just to continue his behavior. —
talk) 17:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Yeah, as I predicted.
talk) 17:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Go on then, I'll indulge you. I recently looked at
ISBN 978-1-902806-71-6
. A decent, academic publication that not only looks at the matter, but puts it in some kind of context!

Your mischaracterization of my work (and canvassing and regular diversions into irrelevant ancient history) is becoming quite tiring. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a rare instance of an academic book covering such a matter about a celebrity. Go ahead and review again the book you attempted to provide as justification for your arguments at the Jennifer Lawrence talk page. I stand by my statement that "Most of the book sources on celebrities are unauthorized biographies, tell-all books, or some other type of book source that is of relatively poor quality." And, really, I should know since I actually look to build articles, rather than tear them down, and rely on academic sources for other types of articles (meaning that looking for such sources is not lost on me), and since I keep the WP:Preserve policy (yes, a policy, not simply a guideline) in mind. And either way, there is no guideline or policy that academic book sources are preferred for celebrity articles. You are going around chopping articles partly because of your idea of what subpar sources are and because you want these articles to be built to your "high-quality" standards. That is disruptive. As for your
talk) 17:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Just another example of Hillbillyholiday not taking any of the concerns expressed by me and others seriously.
talk) 18:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I've reviewed the edits at
WP:BLPSOURCES and you express this by reverting poorly-sourced material into an article about living person, you risk getting an extended period for self-study. Don't do it folks. --John (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk) 20:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
See
WP:NOT3RR. --John (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. You mean that part where it suggests discussing instead of edit warring? —
talk) 20:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
No, I was thinking more of the sentence before that. BLP trumps everything, including user conduct policies like 3RR. --John (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fairly precarious position given that this user has invoked BLP when it may not have been appropriate. I think the better area for you to link to is
talk) 20:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I guess we should be expecting you to block
talk) 20:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm the closer of this AFD subjected to this ANI discussion, where he reverted my close and then re-revert closures again and taken to DRV. I'll vote keep once he renominates this article again. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 20:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with any editor arguing at article talk that some of the removed material satisfied both
WP:WEIGHT. I have no problem with any editor politely asking HBH at his user talk to be a bit more conservative in his removals. But neither of those is a fit matter for WP:AN/I. As far as editor behaviour goes, I agree that HBH has not been perfect (see Masem upthread), but while I am certainly not looking to block anybody, someone knowingly reverting in noncompliant material on a BLP because some of it was ok is a red flag for me and I will block for that after a warning, to protect our encyclopedia and the subjects of our articles, and to enforce WP:BLP. --John (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, clearly I and a number of others disagree with you that Hillbillyholiday's disruptive behavior is not a matter for WP:ANI.
talk) 20:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Here's the thing: Hillbillyholiday was not simply removing possibly noncompliant content. He was unilaterally erasing entire sections which, as User:TonyBallioni and other careful, responsible editors have shown, actually contained well-cited and pertinent biographical material. All it took was a little collegial discussion and some judicious cuts. Anyone going through Wikipedia with a sledgehammer is incredibly, needlessly disruptive and appears to not want to play well with others. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give another example: At Michael Michael, where he has been edit-warring blatantly, Hillbillyholiday removed passages with completely RS book and History Channel citations. We cannot have an editor going around with a chainsaw and no judiciousness whatsoever. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Despite clear warning, Tenebrae has just made this edit
X is an English career criminal of
Greek
Cypriot descent,<ref>Rat shopped wife mother, brother and lover http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/144139/Rat-shopped-wife-mother-brother-and-lover.html?print=yes</ref>
Another part of that edit was to re-add a section heading Murder of Charlie Wilson, an area in which the subject is only tangentially involved. (As far as I can gather. The sources given are notoriously unreliable.) It was not some drive-by "sledgehammering" on my part, it took some delicate rewording to bring a semblance of neutrality and accuracy to the article. Tenebrae needs to be, at the very least, temporarily banned from going anywhere near BLPs. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I've been here 12 years and have created well over 100 biographical articles and have stood up for BLP, especially with purported birthdates, countless times. How dare you, after the few years you've been here, presume to attack a longtime, highly responsible editor out of your own petty pique. You are exactly demonstrating the issue multiple other editors have with you, which is that you seem to lack basic civility or any capacity to behave in a collaborative manner. You're also clearly guilty of
WP:OWN at Michael Michael and possibly elsewhere. When multiple editors are in agreement that your editing is careless, bludgeoning and own-ish, maybe it's not everyone else that's the problem. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
You have over 130,000 edits??!! I am truly appalled. You know you are currently edit-warring to restore a MASSIVELY BLP-VIOLATING version, right? You should do if you've been here that long. Why? 'Petty pique', I suspect. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll repeat, since you seem guilty of I-can't-hear-you: At Michael Michael, you are edit-warring to remov passages with completely RS book and History Channel citations. You don't have a blanket right to edit-war; I don't know why you think you do. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you are as responsible an editor as you claim, then the reason for your current edit-warring can only be sheer spite. You've just re-added a section Murder of Charlie Wilson which neither mentions the subject of the BLP, nor the murder of Charlie Wilson. Twice. In 1990, the former treasurer of the Great Train Robbery Charles Frederick "Charlie" Wilson had moved to Marbella, Spain, where he was suspected to be involved in drug smuggling.[4][5] Engaged to launder some of the proceeds from the Brink's-Mat robbery, he lost the investors £3million.[6] Astonishing. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I was going to add an "expand section" tag, but you were edit-warring so swiftly and vociferously I didn't have a chance to lest I over-revert. That's the collaborative way of doing things, and you clearly have no interest in behaving collaboratively with any of the multiple editors here and on the edit-warring noticeboard. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is as blatant a BLP violation as is possible to get. You twice put in a section heading: "Murder of Charlie Wilson". With no details of the murder! The subject of the BLP was not involved in the actual murdering as far as we know, and no source says he was. In response you claim because there is a book and the History Channel (lol!) you are justified in edit-warring. It's simply incredible. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a pattern developing here? Is most of the content being deleted is embarrassing content related to women? Is there wiki-wide consensus that all the sources being deleted are unreliable? QuackGuru (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The case is beyond women, including supposedly embarrassing content related to women, and unreliable sources. As noted above, valid content is being removed as well and edit warring is happening across a number of these articles partly because of that.
talk) 20:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
If this is not for AN/I then it is for
unhelpful. QuackGuru (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Proposed site ban

This is not happening. Consider the proper process of proposing a short-term preventative block, which has been suggested below. Alex Shih ^Talk 15:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

After seeing this reply to engage in a talk page conversation.....I don't see how this editor will be able to engage with the community on a positive level. What are we to do it they are unwilling to talk about there actions. --Moxy (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Two respectable admins have approved my edits to that particular article. I'm currently involved in conversations regarding this blatantly BLP-violating idiocy at three separate venues (here, AN/3RR, and RfPP), but because I won't talk about it at the article's talkpage you propose a siteban? --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~indef block~~ two week block: He's failed to communicate in a civil environment, and showing editorial bias and disruption between BLPs. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 00:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: it would been overkill to implement an indef block, so instead let's see if further improvements happen during the temporary block. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 01:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KGirl, you think that the Daily Mail, well-known for its Islamaphobia, is a suitable source for a possibly Muslim-related terrorist attack. (User_talk:KGirlTrucker81#Citing_the_Daily_Mail_as_a_source) Perhaps others should take your views on "editorial bias" with a pinch of salt. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But I think it's inappropriate to use Daily Mail as a source on BLPs, should be only used on crime and news articles only. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 00:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know whether to laugh or cry. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KGirlTrucker81:Please look at this [53]. Funnily enough, @Hillbillyholiday:, this was your RFC. Blackmane (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support short block - Strong oppose indefinite ban - They've had one 24 hr block for edit warring in 2013. Granted, this is a serious case over numerous articles, but an indefinite block is jumping the gun. Block them for a week or two and see if the behaviour changes.
talk) 00:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I've not looked closely enough to figure out if there should be a block or not, but we are getting back to the "great BLP wars" where someone makes major changes to an article, often deleting whole sections, and then is rude and not collaborative when people point out that they're removed things that are, in part, reasonable and good. This is one place in Wikipedia where you will get non-trivial admin support for behavior that is otherwise problematic. I'd like a very clear message sent to the user that if the continue to behave in this way they will be blocked--possibly indefinitely. A short block might be the best way to get that across. The user does appear to likely be a net positive, but does so in a way that causes nearly as many problems as it solves. If they can manage to be collaborative they will end up being more successful even if it is less satisfying than hurling insults and being overly terse in their communication. Hobit (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Completely unwarranted. Blackmane (talk) 01:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Overkill. -- ψλ ● ✉ 01:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Yikes. Responding to the proposal in the section heading and not the various other ideas people have thrown out, it's just way too far. There are multiple steps that can come before a siteban. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I don't think a site ban is warranted, although the edit warring is egregious. I would support a temporary block in an effort to get the user to
DISENGAGE. AlexEng^(TALK) 01:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose and may I request that Hillbillyholiday take the time to explain the specifics of why they have removed text on any talk page and engage with editors there or if it comes to a stalemate, bring it to BLPN where people tend to be very strict on BLP policy, and will listen to both sides. A lot of their content removals were good under BLP policy, but what people are getting angry over is that there isn't any collaborative spirit shown, which is an issue. A site ban is completely unwarranted at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 13:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose Blocks are preventative not punitive and this proposal is the latter. MarnetteD|Talk 01:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Misguided proposal. As per TonyBallioni, a lot of the contentious content removals have been in line with BLP policy. Anyone who's been doorstepped and forced into hiding by Paul Dacre's henchmen, for his loyalty to this encyclopedia, deserves a little better. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

oppose per Martinevans123. I do nor see where cutting excessive quotes and material that probably is a BLP violation is a problem. Yeah, he could probably be a bit more talkative on talk pages, but when something is challenged on BLP grounds, even in an FA, the proper course of action is to discuss, not revert the material back into the article. Frankly, jumping to a site ban proposal looks like trying to win a content dispute by eliminating the opposition. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 13:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Why should editors "have to put up with edit warring re-additions" of BLP breach material"? Why not restore only the parts which do not breach BLP? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Essenially what Martinevans says...there is nothing magical about an FA that prevents someone finding BLP violations ... frankly I agree with most of his deletions. Just because something can be sourced, doesn't mean it should be in an article. If someone removes something, try discussing and seeing the other side, rather than edit warring. And I'd someone alleges BLP, even if it is later decided it's not, chances are good that there are issues with the content. Long quotes about relationships and excessive detail on personal life when the subject's notability is not from their relationships is most often not encyclopedic. Too many of our celebrity articles (even the FAs and GAs) read like celebrity gossip sheets with long unneeded quotes and too much detail. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's flip that: Why can't Hillbillyholiday restore the parts which do not breach BLP? Or better yet, not remove them in the first place? The simple answer is that he does not care for it and will even edit war to keep it out as well. This is not simply a matter of overquoting either. Removing content that should be in the article per
talk) 15:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose per Martinevans123. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support block for failure to communicate when edits are challenged and for edit warring. Sundayclose (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support temp block - 1. What is "two respectable admins"? Is there a Respectable Admins List that I'm unaware of? 2. Getting some BLP right does not give one carte blanche to trample accepted standards of editor behavior. This editor clearly believes that it does, and only an involuntary wikibreak seems likely to stand any chance of correcting that misconception. This is preventative. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed one-week block

Pinging all participants in the site ban proposal. If anyone wants to scan the parent section for other participants, they have my blessing to knock themselves out. @
Flyer22 Reborn, MarnetteD, Martinevans123, Ealdgyth, Gerda Arendt, and Sundayclose: ―Mandruss ☎ 15:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Support - 1. What is "two respectable admins"? Is there a Respectable Admins List that I'm unaware of? 2. Getting some BLP right does not give one carte blanche to trample accepted standards of editor behavior. This editor clearly believes that it does, and only an involuntary wikibreak seems likely to stand any chance of correcting that misconception. This is preventative. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question What would the proposed block achieve? I am struggling to see where the editor has done anything coming close to requiring a block. Which part of
WP:BLOCK are we talking about? --John (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 15:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
We would not be discussing a block if this editor had made any kind of acknowledgement that his/her behavior needs modification, agreed to partake in talk page discussion, and will brush up on sourcing basics etc. Instead, editor continued edit warring despite warning, with insistence that he/she is right, so it doesn't matter, and using the excuse that 3RR doesn't apply because everything is a BLP violation in his/her view. (See the edit-warring report here where Hillbillyholiday pops up to continue to argue.) There is especially troubling behavior to me in that this editor continually cites his/her removal of text by claiming things like "No RS" or "all primary sources/no secondary sources" even though that's demonstrably false, which means one of a few things: this editor does not understand the basic tenets of WP sourcing, which would suggest a competency issue; this editor is being deliberately dishonest and just hoping nobody will challenge assertions; or even possibly a third possibility, this editor has such a toxic case of
YO 😜 16:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

@John: it's pretty clear to me that the intention is to prevent disruptive behavior in the form of edit warring per WP:Blocking policy#Disruption. Was that not clear to you from the discussion above, and the AN3 thread? AlexEng^(TALK) 21:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support two weeks for both HBH and Tenebrae (who was also edit warring at the same time and knows better per his block log and the comments left by the last two blocking admins "The [three-revert] rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times."; "Edit warring: Across multiple BLP's - clearly refuses to understand either EW or BLP"). A longer block will hopefully get the message across and give them both time to think about why they were blocked and that such actions leading to the block will not be tolerated. In addition, I suggest that there be the assurance that there will be escalating block lengths for future similar behavior or any attempts for either to
game the system. If other editors are not in agreement with two weeks, support one week as proposed, but only for both editors. If not both, it should be neither. This was an equal effort by both and I believe Tenebrae actually contributed to HBH's behavior by edit warring himself and just placing warning templates and "communicating" via edit summary rather than actually trying to talk. This is a common theme for Tenebrae that has proven over time to do nothing but escalate the edit warring scenarios he frequently finds himself in. -- ψλ ● ✉ 18:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment:
talk) 15:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Support at least one week block and then indef – I didn't comment above before it was closed, and while I wouldn't have agreed with a site ban, there needs to be something done. I would much prefer a temporary topic-ban related to BLP and celebs, but the edit-warring are violations of overall WP guidelines. I think one week is to lenient given the belligerence and arrogance here, and that this editor was blocked for the same thing in 2013. I had mistakenly thought he/she was a newcomer who just didn't understand the rules. I have looked more at this user's other edits. See my comments below about the proposed sanction as to why I am saying indef after this.
YO 😜 15:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Support one-week block in addition to current block for failure to communicate when edits are challenged and for a pattern of edit warring. Sundayclose (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support one-week block the severe edit warring over mass deletions warrants much more than just a 24-hour block. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mainly due to the fact that, even at the ANEW, HBH was still refusing to
velut luna 15:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Support - Any block, but anything less than 30 days, would just have ~~Hillbillyholiday laughing as a joke. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Support at least a one-week block in addition to the current block and to the revert-limits proposed below. I think anything less will be simply a slap on the wrist and make a mockery of an extensive discussion involving collective hours and hours of editors' time. While I understand Hillbillyholiday's good intentions, it pales beside his unrepentant combativeness, incivility and ownership tendencies, which are destructive for Wikipedia as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenebrae (talk • contribs) 16:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support with sanctions - The community will decide in the place of administrator inaction. —
talk) 16:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I think any consideration of the length of the ban needs to factor in what they told the admin who applied the 24-hour block: "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! What a shit-shamble of mongsters! ...You're an absolute embarrassment." This is just simply remarkable, and it shows in clear-cut terms, by their own words, the kind of person we're dealing with. They have no respect for Wikipedia, for fellow editors, for admins .. for anyone generous enough of their time to volunteer for this task. If that's the essential personality, that's not going to change any more than expecting someone to become "more presidential" if that's not their personality. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tenebrae, I'd see HBH's intemperate language as a sign of his frustration, not of some deep-seated psychopathic personality trait. You know what happened to HBH when he proposed the ban on Daily Mail, a while back, all for the good of this project, don't you? I too thought that 24-hour block might calm things down. But then I actually read the diffs, and then I too was embarrassed. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the reason matters. Whether a schoolyard bully is frustrated or has parents who beat him, the kid he bullies still winds up on the ground with a bloody nose, a black eye and ripped clothing. The bully needs to be kept away from others — whether in treatment or in juvenile hall doesn't much matter, as long as he can't continue to bully others. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support two week block per my previous comment above. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 17:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unless there's a pattern far longer than one angry and recent comment in response to a block, this is excessive.
talk) 18:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 18:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

This proposal was created 23 minutes before HBH's comment in response to the block. The proposal for site ban was created 15 hours before the comment; the ANI complaint was opened 5.5 days before the comment. I fail to see how you could perceive this as being about the comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I did imply that. I felt that there was no reason to even consider supporting this without noting his angry comments. The normal blocks for edit-warring are sufficient and this definitely won't encourage him to use talk pages more.
talk) 18:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose This is purely punitive. GoldenRing (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 18:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
And how does a one-week block solve any of that? GoldenRing (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For one, it lets him know that his disruptive behavior will not be tolerated by the community. Two, it is one step for further sanctioning. And this thread has repeatedly shown that there is a need for sanctioning in this case.
talk) 19:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

@
talk) 19:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Support. There is no net positive in retaining an editor who edit wars across multiple articles, does not discuss his changes unless essentially forced to do so after being reverted by multiple editors, belittles editors (admins and regulars alike), disregards all opinions but his own and those who disagree with him, and misinterprets the BLP policy this much.
talk) 19:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Support as proposed. The violation of 3RR was egregious in this case and the attitude in response to these discussions shows nothing but contempt for policy. A week-long block will give the editor time to cool down and return to productive editing. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose In all the discussions above, Hillbillyholiday has referred to specific issues in content, while his opponents have replied with vague references around "is 'x' a reliable source" (to which the answer is "it depends"). I am disappointed to see editors restore BLP violations to The Sun and would remind everyone that the
burden of proof over whether something belongs in an article is with the editor who adds or restores it. Not everything that is reliably sourced needs to be in an article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong oppose as per User:Ritchie333. Did I just hear someone say "cool down"? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. User:Ritchie333 is entirely correct. It is also not the responsibility of the editor who removes dubious content from a BLP to scour the internet for better sources for the bits of salvageable content in the manure piles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed sanction

While I agree that the proposal to indef Hillbillyholiday was brought on way too quickly and was never going to happen, something needs to be done longterm. Since it appears HBH has a problem with reverting while discussions are ongoing, I propose the following restriction:

Hillbillyholiday is restricted to one revert per article per every 72 hour period in the BLP topic area, broadly construed, except in cases of obvious vandalism unrelated to sources. Hillbillyholiday is encouraged to take disputes to the article talk page or the BLP noticeboard.

I'm completely open to discussion on length and content of the sanction. I believe, that even with the recent 24-hour block, that this will continue given the user has been blocked for edit warring before, so something besides a block is needed to control his editing once he returns.

Support as drafter. —
talk) 15:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Support - As I feel this is the only realistic, effective action. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FlightTime: Apparently not, since you are supporting two of them. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: I was supporting anything that was going to get this editors attention, since you feel that both can not be supported, I've struck out my short block support. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All things being equal, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive; this could commence the moment the above finishes. —
velut luna 16:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk) 16:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

@FlightTime: I have no objection to supporting both, but your comment above seemed inconsistent with that. In hindsight I may have been too picky about language. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, @Mandruss: seems to have a predisposed attitude against any I do of late anyway, so I'll just stay here and be done with it. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No comments to you or about you outside of this subsection, ever in my Wikipedia career, unless memory fails. Clearly you are yet another victim of my shit list. Alrighty then. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - as drafted, in addition to the above section's proposal for a ban of at least one week, for the reasons I give there. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This is pointless. Hillbillyholiday has demonstrated that he/she does not know what "obvious" BLP violations are and does not care about anyone else's viewpoint. Please look at Hillbillyholiday's contributions since recent return from absence. Aggressive insistence on removing mass amounts of text and declaring it all BLP violations, all while refusing to engage in discussion, and general rude behavior/comment summaries. Also please take a look at this AfD Hillbillyholiday created, which summarizes the pattern of behavior: he/she doesn't like something and will not take no for an answer, all while refusing to follow Wikipedia guidelines even after being reminded (in this case, listing deletion criteria, mandatory for creating an AfD). Finally, look at the abusive comments Hillbillyholiday directed at the admin who blocked him/her for the edit warring violation. THIS rage for a mere 24-hour block. I think this is crossing into
YO 😜 16:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

While I understand your concerns, this will allow administrators and the community a greater ability to respond to his actions without having to go through another ANI/AN3 process. —
talk) 16:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The reason I say it is pointless is because "one revert per article per every 72 hour period" will not stop this editor's disruptive pattern, merely slow it down. There are millions of Wikipedia articles Hillbillyholiday can fuck with, some of which may not be high-profile enough to be noticed right away for another editor to revert. Look at the AfD I added to my comment above. Hillbillyholiday refused to follow even the most basic requirements and then declares he/she "will not accept" the outcome. I do not see any evidence that this person is here to truly contribute to an encyclopedia.
YO 😜 17:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. —
talk) 18:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Support I do see HBH's removes as reasonably appropriate under BLP, which is generally treated as "remove first, ask questions later". As I noted above, though, these aren't clear BLP viols that would allow for edit warring under
WP:3RRBLP. HBH has every right to remove what I see as a lot of potentially slimy, gossipy-type things that are questionable that should be discussed if they should be included or condensed. (eg are they reasonable to keep in a bio article decades after these things happen?) But HBH does need to engage in that discussion, so that if one of their removals is reverted, they need to seek talk page/ BLP/N discussion rather than revert. That's not happening too much currently, and to that end, some type of throttle and that encourages discussion is needed. If it ends up that HBH is basically removing material as fast as this allows, and is not engaging on reverts, then further blocks make sense. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose If the material should be removed on BLP grounds, then it is those re-adding the material that are disruptive, not those removing it. GoldenRing (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem, it's not being removed on BLP grounds. The massive wall of text above shows that he is indiscriminately removing perfectly good material and telling others to sort it out. So, he is being disruptive. —
talk) 18:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

(
talk) 18:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose per Goldenring. It's time to talk about
Australasian measures. --John (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:BOOMERANG doesn't apply in this case, no matter how much you want it to.
talk) 18:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Why not? ANI can examine the conduct of anyone involved in the matter. In this case, it's clear John is referring to examining your conduct; I assume he means your over-eager participation here.
talk) 19:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Sure, let's examine Flyer22's conduct. Examine mine, too. Meanwhile we can examine John's conduct, GoldenRing's conduct, and various other conduct, in exhaustive and exhausting detail, until this ANI complaint has grown far beyond human capacity to process it. You're going to have to define "over-eager" as something other than taking a lead in opposition to your views. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this discussion overall is spiraling out of control. On the other hand, Flyer22 Reborn has made 48 comments here, and is approaching
talk) 19:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not aware that the essay WP:BLUDGEON has ever been successful grounds for a boomerang sanction. Is that all you've got? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Below, John notes that he is disappointed in us for trying to stop mass disruption, including removal of valid content and the constant display of
talk) 18:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Question Can you look at this edit, which you want another editor sanctioned for, and tell me what is wrong with it? --John (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As noted before, getting some things right does not excuse all of the things he's getting wrong.
talk) 19:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I see. What percentage of things do you think he is currently getting wrong? I picked that diff because that is what he is currently blocked for. --John (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John, I and others have already been over the issues throughout this thread.
talk) 19:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
But you certainly haven't suggested any percentage, or even a rough proportion. You've just characterised HBH as being a wholly disruptive edit warrior, hell-bent on serial wanton destruction, who will "never be a collaborative editor". You're telling us, essentially, that every single one of his deletions is wrong? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I and a number of others have been clear on our positions. For the last time: Valid edits here and there do not justify disruptive behavior, including removal of valid content on an "I don't like it" basis. There is a reason that
talk) 02:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment "Hillbillyholiday is not a collaborative editor, and he will never be one" What utter nonsense. I have collaborated with him on many articles, as have many other editors, over many years. And in what crystal ball do you see his future, as an editor, mapped out so precisely? I think a comment like that is wholly unjustified, inflammatory and biased. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given his documented behavior in this thread and elsewhere, I have to disagree. He's been here since 2013 (a few years), and it was 2013 when I first became aware of him, as indicated earlier on in this thread. Any collaborative behavior I might have seen in him in his early years (and that is a big might) is collaborative behavior I no longer see. If one wants to state that it's just a bad week for him, they can, but this bad week of his has a lot to do with not being collaborative.
talk) 19:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Please explain to me how you can know, with such categorical certainty, that "he will never be one"? That's quite a ridiculous statement. And one that suggests that you think any kind of sanction will essentially be a complete waste of time? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Flyer22 means HBH will never be a collaborative editor with Flyer22. Blackmane (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. But I do have one prediction: If Hillbillyholiday's disruptive editing is allowed to continue,
talk) 23:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC) [reply
]

Abstain I'd like to hear if Hillbillyholiday has anything to say about his use (or non-use) of talk pages before !voting here.
talk) 18:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose We do not sanction editors for upholding BLP Darkness Shines (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 20:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

support and here is why.

I just read through this whole saga. My thoughts: I think we should use high quality sources, and we should follow NPOV and think carefully about what is DUE and UNDUE, especially for living people. That is what BLP is all about.

The whole argument above is not really about BLP, but rather about sourcing, and what is DUE and UNDUE based on the set of sources considered reliable.

With the piles and piles of celebrity gossip rags out there, there are always going to be plenty of sources that people can say are "reliable" for content about celebrities, and people can pile them up about with respect to piece-of-gossip-X and say it is DUE to include X in a BLP article.

Now, my vision for what celebrity articles should look like, is way more like John's and Hillbillyholiday's than those opposing them.

But I find Hillbillyholiday's strategy of trying to aggressively force a view of source quality and UNDUEness based on that view of sources, to be unacceptable, and John's providing cover for that strategy to be bad judgement. In this regard, Flyer's bringing this thread and trying to drive a resolution to sanction Hillbillyholiday, 100% Wikipedian.

The Wikipedia way to go for Hillbillyholiday and John, would be to try to build consensus for a guideline about "reliable sources for living people" (more elaborate in terms of stratifying the "literature" than what we have now at
WP:BLPRS
). I have no idea what the community went though to get MEDRS built, but .... it got there, somehow. And to the extent that people are saying that BLP is so, so important, working hard to build a more meaningful sourcing guideline for content about living people makes sense, right?

The other way to do this, would be to work collaboratively on an article-by-article basis and persuade people to adopt the higher sourcing standard, and build consensus that way.

But until there is consensus for sources for content about living people, Hillbillyholiday's essentially battleground approach to raising source quality is going to be nothing but continued disruption. The sanction proposed here is reasonable, since Hillbillyholiday has expressed no understanding of how un-Wikipedian their behavior is. Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative view

I am genuinely baffled to see so many editors, including some whose level of
WP:3RR
.
I'm afraid I can't disagree with Hillbillyholiday's reaction to his perverse block. This whole affair brings the Wikipedia community into disrepute. I am ashamed of you. Martinevans123 asks a good question here. I challenge the hanging mob that has formed here to read the history of Michael Michael and argue that HBH's edits were not justified under the BLP exemption to 3RR. Whether it was optimal to make so many reverts rather than report to an admin noticeboard is another question, but these edits were in line with policy. The edits against him were not. I was hoping that the matter could pass off without any blocks, and to block HBH (who was right and following policy) and not Tenebrae (who was wrong and carelessly edit warred to restore libellous and inaccurate material to a BLP) cannot be allowed to stand. HBH may need some coaching about the style he uses in interacting with others, but this block is unjust and the notion of sanctioning someone who is hard-working and understands BLP (as so many commenting here appear not to) is untenable. --John (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect — and I didn't respond to your previous comment on my talk page out of respect for your hard work as an admin and your own rightful respect of BLP — your characterization of my edit is highly out of context.

I restored because I saw an editor edit-warring who was taking a chainsaw approach — and I immediately went back into the article to remove passages cited to Daily Mail and other non-RS cites. But by then Hillbillyholiday had already slammed the Undo button and I got an "edit conflict" when I tried to save. He outright
WP:OWNs
articles by not giving other editors a chance to edit before he hits the revert buzzer. I think if one would have taken even a cursory look at my editing history, one would have seen edit summary after edit summary saying things like "Claims of birth date / birthplace / middle name require RS citing. WP:BLP" and "Unless an interview with the subject him/herself, Daily Mail is not RS." Saying "carelessly edit warred to restore libellous and inaccurate material to a BLP" tars me unfairly.

And your own hyperbole with the term "hanging mob" is equally unfair to all the hardworking editors who have had to put up with Hillbillyholiday's demeaning, bullying, combative behavior, which is not good for Wikipedia, as well as his ownership tendencies and his edit-warring. I think you disrespect those of us who have taken the time to comment in detail and provide copious examples regarding someone you seem to be excusing for mistreating and belittling others and who refuses to collaborate — collaboration being a cornerstone of Wikipedia.

I should also think you would stand up for a fellow admin whom he needlessly insulted and laughed at. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You did wrong and should be ashamed of your lack of care to our project, our values and our subjects. I hope you have learned from your mistakes. If you have finally realised why your reverts were wrong, at the least you owe HBH an apology. Have you, though? It isn't obvious from reading your response. --John (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae--"There's no BLP loophole when you revert RS sources"? Drmies (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To John: I tried treating you with respect and got none in return. You are in the distinct minority for allowing HBH to get away with bullying, intimidation, ownership and edit-warring, and I think you owe me and the vast majority of us an apology — me for your horrifically out-of-context tarring of me, and the many others for unconscionably name-calling us a "hanging mob." And your attempt at intimidating me and, I gather, others with your threatening template shows a gross misappropriation of admin power and privilege. I think it's time to bring up admin revocation. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: 3RR doesn't apply to reverting BLP vios. However, when an editor starts edit-warring over material containing RS sources and removing personal-life claims just because he doesn't like them, 3RR does apply. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tenebrae, sorry, but I think what you're saying is that I'm right. I don't want to be right, but I want this point made: BLP is a valid excuse until the claim is proven invalid, and you can't just say "editor X doesn't like it". You've been here a while; you know that's a lame reason. Next time, if the shoe is on the other foot and you, with some reasonable explanation, invoke the BLP, I will be on your side. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Not sure I follow. I think we agree, but from what you wrote, I'm honestly not sure. That's OK; we're talking about HBH's behavior. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"He doesn't like it" is not a valid argument. 3RR did not apply given the invocation of the BLP, with at least a few admins agreeing on that; that some others disagree doesn't make it invalid: we err on the side of caution. RS or whatever has nothing to do with; reliable sources don't always get it right, and reliable sources aren't always used properly. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tenebrae, have you apologised to Hillbillyholiday yet? Do you intend to repeat your behaviour of edit-warring BLP-busting material into an article? It's understandable and very human that when when you're caught doing wrong you cast about and blame others, but at some point there has to be honest self-reflection. The alternative is that you won't be able to edit BLPs. Think about it. --John (talk) 06:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your continual haranguing on my talk page and here is verging on harassment. You have now sunk to threatening me — and, may I add, over a single edit. I will ask you to stop addressing me, stop coming to my talk page and stop threatening me. Your intimidation tactics make you unfit for adminship and if you continue it will lead this issue to ARBCOM. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, John. You're in the camp that believes that being in the right justifies, even requires, all manner of disruption (and it's been shown that this editor's BLP judgment has been far less than perfect anyway). Many of us disagree, and we are going to have to live with the fact that you are ashamed of us. You minimize and excuse, we don't. We recognize that there are ways to accomplish these ends that are not disruptive, although they often take longer and require some patience and self-control. It's unfortunate but this battle has to be re-fought again and again on this page because these opinions arise from personalities, core beliefs, and worldviews that don't change. For policy support for our position, you can start at
WP:BLP. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
As far as I am concerned the disruption has been caused by a group of editors who care more about Wikipedia's internal rules (which in the big scheme of things don't matter a damn) than they do about falsely accusing a living person (who would have the right to sue us for defamation) of having been concerned in a murder. If this is the "camp" you are identifying with, you have no place on the project, or at least should not come within a mile of BLPs. --John (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel compelled to personalize this with derogatory comments about an editor you know nothing about outside this subsection, and this will end our interaction, but for your information I've collaborated quite peacefully at the Donald Trump BLP for about the past year. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to hear. If you saw someone accusing Trump on his article of being a murderer based on some sources which didn't mention him, would you be fine with that? Especially if removing it might cause "disruption"? Because that is what we are talking about here.--John (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John, what are you talking about? At what point was This person "falsely accused" of having been "concerned" in a murder? What is the defamation? Mentioning a murder? I don't know who either of these people are, or where exactly you live, but Wikipedia does not fall under the jurisdiction of Fantasyland. You have to have actually, you know, defame someone to be guilty of defamation. Mentioning a murder is not accusing someone of doing it. There are many incidents and things that are tied together in many ways that do not involve anyone actively doing anything, they are just somehow associated. If the incident is a crime, people can be involved as witnesses. They could have been a secondary victim. It could have occurred on their property. How many on here have subsections about the 9/11 attacks? Hundreds? Thousands? Does that mean they are accused of plotting with al-Qaeda?
YO 😜 20:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
So that's a normal thing, on a neutral BLP, to discuss a murder of a third party, without any of the reliable sources connecting the subject with the murder? I'm not convinced you have thought through the implications of this. --John (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly question its relevance, but maybe it was somehow relevant. Maybe the guy whose article it was about was suddenly back in the news because he gave 700 interviews about the murder offering his opinion. But I would not claim it was falsely accusing someone of murder and subjecting to Wikipedia to a defamation lawsuit. On what grounds would that be defamation? That's completely absurd and it must be called out as such, because you are using such a claim to defend this editor's pattern of behavior in violation of Wikipedia's rules.
YO 😜 21:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
"Maybe" isn't good enough. It would definitely be potential defamation to link this living person with a murder using tabloid sources, though IANAL.
WP:ARBBLP in any case.) --John (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
If there is actually a controversy about whether a murder should be mentioned in a BLP without any explanation of what connection there allegedly is between the BLP subject and the murder, the answer is obviously not. I'm not going to speculate on whether a court would find it defamatory (the answer might vary anyway depending on the jurisdiction), but it's not appropriate article-writing on Wikipedia. Not commenting on other aspects of this situation in case it winds up at ArbCom. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Newyorkbrad To be clear, the diff that John presented above was explained by Tenebrae way above here - apparently that bit was being fiercely edit warred over (from the history that is obvious) and Tenebrae was going to tie it in. If you look at a bit older version of that article just before the edit warring, say here, you can see where the content did clearly relate the subject of the article to the topic of the murder. Sourced to The Sun, but tied in. One needs to be very careful making judgements with apparently-egregious diffs in a case like this, and I think John is acting badly by slinging that diff around that way. Jytdog (talk) 04:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The diff speaks for itself. "I was going to add an "expand section" tag" is not an acceptable justification for adding potentially libellous material to a BLP. "Sourced to The Sun" is just as good as "totally unsourced" for our purposes. --John (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to the block for edit-warring here, but don't feel any ANI-based action is called for. Using the talk page is the desired way to make large changes such as this, not repeatedly reverting. Even in the case of an IP editor restoring questionable (but long-standing) material that may be a BLP violation, some discussion on the talk page should be expected.
talk) 18:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 18:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Just to clarify, User:John, are you saying that you "can't disagree" with this reaction even including the part of it that uses what Wikipedia describes as a derogatory term for a person affected by mental disorder? MPS1992 (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't identify with the tone of the comment, but then I have never been wrongly blocked as a result of a campaign against my correct edits, so I don't know how angry I would be. I do identify with HBH's annoyance. He is right to be annoyed. --John (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but agree with John. I've read through every edit made by HBH in the past two weeks in the articles linked in the complaint. As far as I can tell, they were all justified on BLP grounds. They were all removing either egregious BLP violations or swathes of gossip-column rubbish, mostly sourced to tabloid newspapers. They did indeed remove entire sections of articles; that is because those articles had entire sections of crap. We should be supporting this type of editing. What is disruptive is re-adding this material without discussion. Where material is challenged on a BLP, the onus is on those in favour of inclusion to establish consensus for it; this is BLP 101. I am sorely tempted to hand out six month topic bans from BLPs to several editors involved here to drive that point home. GoldenRing (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"They were all justified on BLP grounds"? Not true at all. No BLP violation here. No BLP violation here (as noted by an admin later on). Editors felt that the material in this case should be trimmed, but the material was not deemed a BLP violation and some of it was kept. No BLP violation here. No BLP violation here. Just a lot of "I don't like it" removals. When it comes to Hillbillyholiday, there are various cases like that.
talk) 18:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Really?
WP:BLP says Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. How is describing someone as one of the "sexiest women in the world" sourced to primary sources not a violation of that? And describing someone as having a "public meltdown" in Wikipedia's voice? Your characterisation of the BLPN as "not deemed a BLP violation" is just wrong; nearly every editor commenting there agreed there were problems. The policy says, BLPs should not have trivia sections. How does a list of Rihana's tattoos not violate that? As regards Cristiano Ronaldo, you've cherry-picked one edit out of a series that included removing the names of his children. These are clear BLP issues and if you can't see that, you shouldn't be editing BLPs. GoldenRing (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

All those are cases of being BOLD in light of what BLP recommends: the initial wholesale removal, and likely the 1st removal re-revert by HBH is completely in line with policy because they are questionable BLP material. Now, after some discussion some of this material has been deemed by editors to be appropriate (I have my doubts on some of these, but let's assume there was consensus after debate), so removing it again after that point would be blatantly disruptive. But that I don't see being done by reviewing their history.

What is of issue is definitely the lack of starting discussion by HBH after being reverted or re-reverted. I don't think the initial removals need to be explained (but it would be advisable to start a talk page section on such massive cuts), but re-reverting to remove should be an automatic trigger to either start a new discussion or engage in a new discussion to gain the consensus or whether to keep or not. That's not been happening so some cautionary sanction to get them to participate in discussions more is needed. That said, it would also significantly help that if HBH has done one removal, that those re-adding should start a discussion/continue one on why the material is okay. There's a general lack of communication overall here, edit warring by edit summaries is not helpful.

Separately, I do think there needs to be a review of BLP in relationship to "gossip" news as most of those are. They aren't gross violations of BLP but they step over a line I think an encyclopedia should be handling. The fact that many editors think this okay material to include is troubling. However, that's beyond the scope of this. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:BLPN and participated in discussions at Talk:Megan Fox, Talk:Shia LaBeouf, Talk:Kanye West and Talk:Britney Spears - so I'm not sure I see the problem here. GoldenRing (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

He started those discussions after edit warring. And, no, articles should not be held hostage by his skewed view of BLP violations and because he removes things he does not like.
talk) 20:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

GoldenRing, yes, really, which is why a respected admin did not find the Britney Spears matter to be a BLP violation. Spears has acknowledged the breakdown/meltdown; it happened and is described as a breakdown/meltdown in numerous reliable sources. There is nothing contentious about the bit at all. The bit is about inspiration for a character specifically based on Spears's breakdown. You asked, "How is describing someone as one of the 'sexiest women in the world' sourced to primary sources not a violation of that?" Do read the Jennifer Lawrence talk page again. Being perceived as physically attractive is a significant aspect of Lawrence's public image; it should be covered with
WP:Undue. Not just for celebrity articles, but for all types of articles." And as we can see with this edit, Martinevans123 replied, "I think you make some very cogent, reasonable and valid points there. I'm not sure Rihanna's tattoos are worth preserving in an encyclopedia but, hey, what do I know. I guess there's a place for most things
."

My characterization of the BLPN discussion is on point; where are all editors there stating that the material is a BLP violation? "Some problems" does not equate to "BLP violations." As for the Cristiano Ronaldo article, that is not cherry picking; that is me pointing to one edit that is not a BLP violation since you incorrectly asserted that all of Hillbillyholiday's removals are BLP violations. Judging by your comments in this thread, you simply do not want to include "looks" and "fashion" material because you do not like it; Wikipedia does not work that way. Thank goodness we have editors working on these celebrity articles who know what should be included per WP:Preserve and comprehensiveness.
talk) 20:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
You quote from
WP:BLPN. I don't care if Lawrence's appearance is significant or not; the policy explicitly states if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources. The statement was entirely primary-sourced. Describing a "public meltdown" is tabloid trash and it was sourced to a single source (mtv.com). I can't believe we're even discussing this, but at that BLPN discussion, Collect, Ritchie333, TonyBallioni and Tenebrae either objected to the material on BLP grounds or wrote words equivalent to "I agree with HBH". Wikimandia was the only editor at that discussion to argue there was no BLP problem with the removed material (SundayClose appears to have accepted that there were BLP problems but thought the removal was too broad and DIYeditor didn't express an opinion). Policy is clear that you must not re-insert material challenged on BLP grounds without consensus; that some of the material is not (or may not be) a BLP violation is no excuse. In that case, you re-insert only the parts that are not a violation. Again, I can't believe I have to explain this to you. I've seen other editors arguing that they were re-inserting so that they could then edit the material down; this is again explicitly disallowed by the BLP policy; The idea expressed in Wikipedia:Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. Wikipedia works by following our policies, BLP is among the most important of them, and on all of the above points, policy is excruciatingly clear and you are simply ignoring it. GoldenRing (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Some of us tried to "re-insert only the parts that are not a violation." HBH refused to allow even that, and edit-warred, without discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You stated, "You quote from
talk) 21:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Including material about a celebrity being perceived as physically attractive or being known for their fashion sense or tattoos is not a BLP violation when sourced to high-quality primary or secondary sources. (emphasis mine) This is simple IDHT. I've pointed out to you repeatedly that
WP:BLP states, in simple language, that secondary sources are required for BLPs. GoldenRing (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The idea that all of HBH's removals were justified is absurd. As I have pointed out, a big clue that HBH is not acting in good faith is his ENTIRE removal of the personal section about Amanda Bynes which he/she then claimed was all primary sourced, with no secondary sources and had no reliable sources. Not ONE single source was primarily sourced. And the majority were sourced to the LA Times, with the rest CBS News, NBC News, and a few People mag (which is not considered tabloid) and I think one or two E! Online. HBH also claimed it was a "blow-by-blow" retelling of Bynes issues, which is an absolute lie, since Bynes' troubles went on for years and there were dozens upon dozens of other widely covered incidents that were not included. And on top of that bullshit, HBH complained indignantly that there was no attempt to "add perspective" or "weave it into the story of her career!!!!!" Where oh where in BLP guidelines are we instructed to add personal perspective of criminal arrests and medical incidents as it relates to their careers? And HBH superfans, please explain, was HBH lying, or does he/she not understand what a primary vs secondary source or what meets the definition of reliable source?
YO 😜 20:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:PRIMARYNEWS and then come back and strike the above comment. News articles (such as all those cited in that section) are, according to our policies, primary sources. GoldenRing (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The key language of concern is from
WP:3RRBLP: Removing violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. Very little of what HBH removed fits "libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material", meaning that HBH cannot edit war to retain. The material falls under the second point "what counts as exempt" and which is "controversial" (for example: this discussion shows that there is question if the material is of this type). Thus, after being BOLD, and the edits reverts, continued edit warring without discussion is a problem. Again, I think there is also a larger problem of what is being considered acceptable under BLP, but that's not this board's purpose to solve. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Luckily we don't have to solve it,
WP:ARBBLP already clarified: Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached. I would argue that all or almost all of HBH's edits fell into this. --John (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose This is purely punitive.
talk) 18:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm struggling to parse this. Can you explain what your point is? --John (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Threatening to block users in a situation in which one is
talk) 19:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
This is just bizarre. I'm not involved. I didn't threaten to block anyone. Do you have any other points to make? Or perhaps you'd consider striking this? GoldenRing (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. If we are talking about GoldenRing, what makes him INVOLVED in your opinion? And a six-month topic ban is not a block. I agree that we need sanctions against the worst offenders here. BLP is too important to allow those who do not understand it anywhere near it. --John (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(
talk) 19:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Where has GoldenRing stated that? --John (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"...to drive that point home." —
talk) 19:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I find that strange considering that you yourself referred to
WP:BLOCKDETERRENT at 15:44. If HBH is to be sanctioned I think there are a whole swathe of people who should also be. --John (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't disagree. I think there are two users who edit warred alongside him; however, I believe HBH is the crux of the problem and the most important to resolve first. —
talk) 19:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

This is not a ban to make a point; this is perfectly normal topic ban for editors who have consistently edited against policy under BLP DS. GoldenRing (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious (since I genuinely don't know), I thoughts bans can only be handed out unilaterally by administrators via discretionary sanctions, right? Are BLP articles included in that? (I couldn't find anything on it so I don't know.) —
talk) 19:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
(ec) @
WP:ARBBLP. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised. GoldenRing (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks. Then I wouldn't be opposed to them on certain users as long as HBH was included. —
talk) 20:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Speaking for myself, I will not sanction someone for upholding BLP policy. There is a fundamental difference between reverting violations out of an article and reverting them back in. GoldenRing (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we can respectfully disagree on the events that took place and who is responsible for what. However, you don't need my support or approval to enforce Arbcom sanctions. —
talk) 20:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Very concerning that so many here are missing the main point......even if every edit was justified and all agree that all edits where BLP compliant. We as a community have behavioral expectations .......one of the main ones is communication ....especially when asked to do so by others. What we as a community are looking for are those with the abilities to talk things out and explain to others what reasoning there is behind edits. Read
WP:CAUTIOUS.--Moxy (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

John's chilling effect tactics

Closed means closed. GoldenRing (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is nothing wrong with giving DS alerts; it is explicitly
authorised by policy. GoldenRing (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Do note John's'
talk) 20:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Boilerplate notifications are hardly chilling lol. So long as you ain't violating blp that is. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(
talk) 20:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

They are when he is WP:INVOLVED and intends to block for content that is not a BLP violation. If he is going to be upholding all of Hillbillyholiday's problematic edits, that is a problem, as outlined quite well by
talk) 20:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The Arbcom notice is required for sanctions to be placed. There is no indication the sanction will come from him, as placing sanctions is the only thing
talk) 20:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

As others have noted, and as the template clearly says (This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.), there is no implication of guilt in placing the notice. It's just an administrative notice as you have to be made aware of an Arbcom restriction in case you breach it. Only by breaching it after the notice would you be at risk. And it probably wouldn't be me placing the restriction or block. Nothing to worry about. By the way, you're supposed to notify me if you start a discussion about me. I've taken the liberty of correcting the spelling of my name, I hope you don't mind. --John (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Did I "outline that quite well"? That's news to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinevans123: I did wonder how you would feel at having your name taken in vain. Flyer22 Reborn has repeatedly taken your comment earlier in this discussion as support of their position. GoldenRing (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean to ping Mandruss, not you.

As for the rest, I think it is abundantly clear why John added the templates. He views us as in the wrong and believes he is in the right, despite a number of editors disagreeing with him. As noted near the beginning of the thread,
talk) 21:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

@
talk) 21:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
After having your assertion of the essay BLUDGEON as a call for boomerang shot down in flames, you persist in abusing well-known and well-understood editing principles. STICK applies when the target is in a clear minority, usually a minority of 1. Please stop throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what the magic words are. Flyer22 Reborn is on a crusade to get this user banned permanently at ANI, and he's past the point of being reasonable. If he doesn't let other editors discuss this, somebody should take action against him.
talk) 21:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

You've had the policy that explicitly allows any editor to place these templates explained to you. Repeating the false allegation is a personal attack. Stop. GoldenRing (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sighs.
talk) 21:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Clarification

This has nothing to do with HBH. Please take it somewhere else. (
talk) 08:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

talk) 21:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Agreed, in principle, that hypothetically
WP:INVOLVED admins shouldn't be closing threads, but the place to discuss that is an AN closure review, not yet another sub-thread. . AlexEng^(TALK) 22:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I believe it is unconscionable for an involved editor to close a threat. That is pure conflict-of-interest. If one is certain one is in the right, then one lets a disinterested editor close.

As for John's template placed on the talk pages of editors who opposed him, that is clearly designed as intimidation. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John placed the template, yes. He doesn't seem to agree with those he templated, true also. He did so because he truly believed that those he templated were not careful enough. Y'all, this is just a template. You can remove it, you can shrug it off--it's not a block. It's not "clearly designed as intimidation", Tenebrae, and I wish you'd show a bit more good faith. BTW GoldenRing or any other admin isn't involved (as in
WP:INVOLVED) until it is clear that they...well, you can read it for yourself. That they're in here expressing an opinion about policy and its application doesn't mean they can't close a subthread. I'm sorry, but what is this complete lack in admins' ability to walk and chew gum simultaneously? They went through quite an ordeal to get the mop; have a little faith in them. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I can't agree with you about Johh, but I'm over this particular template issue. And I did indeed remove it from my talk page. But I do want to note that there are also proposal sub-threads; John and GoldenRing would be WP:INVOLVED if they closed those.
talk) 01:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
While I hadn't planned on posting more here after saying my piece, I should probably respond to conversation involving me. I would ask: If the template wasn't meant to be intimidating, why did he place it only on the pages of those editors who disagree with him? Second, why place the template at all when, for example, I haven't touched a single page involved in the HBH ANI since becoming joining it? And third, who places discretionary sanctions? Admins. So call it a warning, call it a threat. Whatever you call it, I don't believe I'm showing bad faith — if I had bad faith, I wouldn't have opened up my very first comments to him at the ANI with an acknowledgment of admins' hard work and respect for what I thought were his good intentions. My concern is based on the three well-thought-out reasons I have given here. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:QuackGuru and Judeo-Christian related articles

TOPIC BANNED

Consensus on the TBAN is clear. It was suggested below that the scope be narrowed, but I think it's clear that there is not much support for that, and many who initially supported it have changed their mind. Therefore:
QuackGuru is indefinitely banned from all articles and edits related to religion, broadly construed. For the avoidance of doubt, this does not ban him from editing noticeboards (eg
WP:FTN so long as his edits are not related to religion.
I am going to leave the discussion on a site ban below open; I don't see consensus for it yet, though it may yet develop. GoldenRing (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User has recently started making these kinds of posts in Judeo-Christian related articles and talk pages:

"Adultery and forced sex with Bathsheba" and "David is a rapist" where he is caught cherry picking to push a rape interpretation when (as was quickly demonstrated by other users, sometimes with the very sources QuackGuru cited to begin with) scholars are quite divided on the issue.

Citing a vanity-press published work to argue against the notion of a creator deity (not simply young earth creationism, but something that, by definition, is outside the boundaries of science)

Citing a 1829 work for the "scientific view" (which he soon started treating as only the view held only by non-religious persons) regarding a metaphysical belief.

"God is a Rapist?" - where he engages in misrepresentative
WP:SYNTH to push the idea that Jesus was the product of rape. This wasn't a good-faith suggestion of incorporating material about Pan(d/t)era
into a relevant part of the article, this was trying to portray followers of Abrahamic religions as rape-worshipers.

Arguing that the Jesus article (which explains what atheists think of Jesus and does not claim that anyone outside of Christianity believes Jesus is divine to begin with) doesn't explain the non-religious view, which he tried to resolve by replacing the content on atheism with undue weight on New Atheism.

Responding to a warning to quit disrupting an article with "I will continue"

Please see Talk:Jesus for more.
Between the
I know not in what proportions
) apply here. Regardless of whichever worldview one is being a sectarian for, regardless of whichever group of people is being vilely misrepresented, we don't allow that kind of sectarianism to get near our articles.
This behavior is very recent but given this user's prior history for similar behavior on other topics, maybe he could use an earlier heads up to change course. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru's recent history includes extended tendentious discussion at
WT:V. Details in my comment below. See also his extensive block log. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The content I recently added to Bathsheba is still in the article per talk page consensus. And another editor added the same content I added to Bathsheba to the David article.

I discussed what was the issue with the Xulon Press source after the content was removed.

I did discuss the controversial issues at the Jesus talk page after I read many sources. I was not trying to portray followers of Abrahamic religions as rape-worshipers. That's absurd. There are things that are not clearly explained in the article. The same as other pages. See Talk:Bathsheba#David is a rapist.

The article is unclear and I am discussing it on the talk page.[54]

See Talk:Jesus#Failed_verification. The content failed verification. I provided a source to verify the claim. The source was removed with the edit summary "rv WP:UNDUE. Everyone who isn't a Christian rejects Jesus's divinity". The revert does not clearly explain why the edit was reverted. Providing a source to verify the claim is not WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue does not apply to content that failed verification. The source stated "New Atheists"[55] not atheists in general. I made a small change to the content in order for it to pass verification using the source presented.

I was not responding to a warning. I was stating that I was continuing my editing on another page by providing a link to another article.

Ian.thomson Stated "I'm focusing on
WP:FOC: "Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor." QuackGuru (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Ah, this explains QuackGuru's ill-fated attempt to rewrite WP:Administrators. I assume that this was the secret underlying dispute that QuackGuru wouldn't disclose and was trying to win when he tried to add an oddly-specific line to WP:ADMIN a few days ago: [57], Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Replacing sourced content with failed verification content. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, WP:Gaming the system? That level of deliberation makes it hard to assume good faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, that attempt to insert the block-the-admin-for-a-year is one of the silliest, most ham-handed things I've ever seen an experienced editor do. E Eng 18:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This enough leads me to question QG's intentions. Gaming and POV-pushing are absolutely clear. I recommend the editor to back off this topic area completely for a while until they lose this malicious momentum. It isn't too late to apologize and move on. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 18:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I spotted the failed verification content just today. This edit was made on 19:32, 16 August 2017. It is completed unrelated to this revert made on 15:44, 20 August 2017. This edit was made on 15:40, 20 August 2017. Check the dates. This is a new dispute. I added a source to verify the content and made a small tweak to the content. The content still fails verification. See Talk:Jesus#Failed_verification. QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way to tell if there's a real connection and I'm not going to agree or disagree with you. But since you made that edit to
WP:ADMIN, and then proceeded to carry out controversial actions along the same lines, the first and clearest assumption is some hidden POV pushing agenda. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 18:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I've had my own run-ins with QuackGuru, and I would heartily welcome his absence from any of the articles I edit. But I think this is rather more complicated than POV-pushing against Christians and I would advise against closing this thread early or imposing a simplistic solution.
QG's basic modus operandi is to defend the scientific viewpoint against the unscientific one by paying close attention to the scientific sources, and when he does it in articles about medical content this is viewed as a net positive by the community, because it tends to exclude people who want to push homeopathy or acupuncture from being able to edit in medical topic areas. That's the main reason why an editor with his rather extensive block log is still unbanned: he is source-focused and he prefers the scientific sources to the in-bubble ones. Taking that approach into articles about Abrahamic religions strikes me as a little unwise, but it's consistent with all of QG's well-established behaviours.
I actually think that what we need here is a way to distinguish Quackguru's valuable and useful behaviours from the unproductive ones that make him really really annoying to deal with. The thing he does with "failed verification" tags is a longstanding behaviour, and I think that underneath it all he doesn't get the fundamental concept of verifiability. He's got a history of using {{
fv}} tags on individual words. I think he doesn't see that verifiability is on the level of facts, theories and concepts rather than words and phrases; and won't listen to that if you tell him because he assumes you are the one pushing the unscientific POV. I also think he doesn't get the fundamental concept of source reliability, because he acts as if the most skeptical source is always the most reliable one. But what he isn't doing is intentionally pushing a POV. That's not him. These behaviours are motivated by a genuine wish to improve the encyclopaedia ---- combined with an unfortunate tendency to inappropriately personalise content disputes by classifying editors as "scientific" or "unscientific" and treating the "unscientific" ones as hostile. Forget I spoke.—S Marshall T/C 18:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Please see Talk:Jesus#Failed verification. Adding a source to verify a claim should not be a problem. The problem is when the source is removed and the content still fails verification. QuackGuru (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You see, Quack, this is exactly the kind of thing I mean. Someone wrote "Atheists reject Jesus' divinity", and you tagged it with {{
fv}}. And you don't understand why that calls your editorial judgment into question.—S Marshall T/C 19:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

After reading the source it did not verify the content. And then I added a source to verify the content and made a small tweak to accurately reflect the source. See
WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION: "Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{failed verification}} or removed." Rather than leave a tag I added a source. QuackGuru (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

S Marshall, you confirm my impression of what I've seen of his presence on other parts of the site, which is why I haven't suggested blocking. Hopefully, a notice from the community that he should focus on other topics would be enough. Otherwise a restriction like (as you mention below) a topic ban might be necessary. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He won't do what you tell him to do. You're going to need something logged and enforced. Expect him to conform to the letter of the restriction while trying to circumvent of the spirit of it, so if we do go down the topic ban route, we'll need to define the scope of the ban very carefully. It may be better to identify specific problem behaviours, rather than a range of articles, for him to avoid (or a combination of some behaviours and some specific articles). Awilley has extensive experience of this user and what he says is worth reading closely.—S Marshall T/C 21:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If QuackGuru doesn't appreciate the problematic nature of some of his contributions, a block is certainly called for.
talk) 18:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

~~No, do not block Quack. At most the remedy should be a topic ban from articles about religion. On medicine, we need him.~~ Changed my mind. We don't need him that badly.—S Marshall T/C 19:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded re not blocking for now. Were this a user who had not demonstrated any usefulness elsewhere, I'd probably be filing this just to confirm that it was OK for me to have already pulled the trigger on a
WP:CIR/Trolling block, but QG has shown some usefulness on particular topics. I can't say that a topic ban from all religion articles is necessary yet. Broadly construed, that would overlap with quackery related articles since some quacks love to use religion as a shield. So far, there's only been issues with stances on Biblical matters but there is the question of whether or not the behavior will spread to other religion articles. "Bible-related articles" would end up covering some pages that don't necessarily concern religion (e.g. Philistines). "Bible-related religion articles" still has occasional overlap with quackery if broadly construed as possible, though an amendment "except where modern medical practice is concerned" would fix that in any case. Though this is only if a topic ban proves necessary. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
It looks like he will move on to other articles about other religions. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to resolve this dispute regarding the content. See "Ian.thomson, do you have a suggestion on how to resolve this dispute since the current content fails verification?"[58] I think it can be quickly resolved by adding one source to verify the content since the source at the end of the sentence does not verify this part. QuackGuru (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a topic ban from religious articles. QuackGuru's single-minded approach and tenacity combined with numerous competence issues make them a pain to work with in any capacity. They are amazingly
WP:SOUP that it's usually easier to just edit elsewhere. That said, I think an outright block/ban would go too far, as QG's knowledge of medicine-related sources is valuable to the encyclopedia. I appreciate their efforts to expose quackery and defend science, and I applaud people who look at religious belief with a critical scientific eye. But QuackGuru's hamfisted approach is not going to improve articles about religious belief, and the degree of their misdirection can be seen by their bizarre proposal to add the following sentence to the Lede section of our Jesus article: "According to science, Jesus is not God's son." Thank you, science, for clearing that up. ~Awilley (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I made a proposal but did not add it to the article. @Jytdog: explained on the talk page your POV reversions to the David article. I partially reverted your changes. Because there is disagreement does not mean an editor should try to topic ban another editor. My edits did improve articles about religious belief. If an editor reverted my edit I did discuss it. QuackGuru (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But surely we can hardly allow QG's "hamfisted approach" in areas where it suits us but ban it in others? Surely what we must do is hold them to the same editing standards as everyone else, and if that is impossible, dispense with their services? This is what we generally do. --John (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@John, it is my view that QG is a net-positive on medicine-related articles despite being annoying and sometimes disruptive, and a net-negative on religion-related articles. ~Awilley (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been watching QG's entrance into this topic with some.... well watchfulness. QG often gets involved in articles where there is some long-term POV pushing that is harming the neutrality of our content, and generally QG has been on the side of the angels, which is why the community has continued to tolerate their somewhat "beserker" tactics. In the case of the David/Bathsheba stuff, it is absolutely true that QG eventually arrived at very well-sourced and excellently neutral content dealing with the very terse biblical text about David and Bathsheba, which had consensus from everyone at the talk page. I don't think there is need for any action here. The OP said that the purpose of their post was to warn QG not to take the tactics too far, and I believe that has been accomplished. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basically all of QuacksGuru's comments at
talk) 04:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Here are the two sources.[59][60] I understand you think the sources are not useful for that article. QuackGuru (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe try addressing the concerns of the people in this thread instead of doubling down on the baiting and insincerity.
talk) 04:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

QG is an overall positive to the project. They closely follows sources which is generally a good thing. Agree with the concerns around them adding FV tags as sometimes it is appropriate to paraphrase more. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban on religion, broadly construed. The observable gaming, baiting, clearly disruptive editing, POV-pushing, and the single-minded behavioral problems all add up to the need for a specific sanction here that will hopefully still leave QG free to edit medical and scientific articles. As others have noticed, he won't do what someone tells him to do, so a specific logged and enforceable sanction is needed. QG is a problem editor and has been blocked over a dozen times, but he has not yet reached net negative and still has use in some areas of Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 08:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Site ban based upon recent behavior. If he is unwilling/unable to listed an ANI, he will never do so when editing an article. Second choice; Ian Thomsons's suggested topic ban ("QuackGuru is topic banned from religious articles, talk pages, and topics except where modern medical practice is concerned or where the discretionary sanctions for complimentary and alternative medicine apply.") BTW, shouldn't that be "religion articles" instead of "religious articles"? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC) Modified 04:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Topic ban from Religion broadly construed. Unlike Guy above, this is not an 'unwilling' issue, its an 'unable'. Sorry, anyone who has dealt with QG for more than 5 minutes knows two things 1)QG is always right, 2)QG will never change his position once taken. The argument may change, if you present evidence he will just fall back to another reason why he is right. Anything short of a broadly construed ban across the entire topic will result in wikilawyering and attempts to game the system so he is in the right - as the change to the policy RE admins amply shows. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Topic Ban from religion articles per above. Agathoclea (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Topic ban from Religion ~~broadly construed~~ according to the wording suggested by Ian Thomson,since it is felt the editor is useful in other areas, for reasons given above by others. Yesterday Jytdog said "The OP said that the purpose of their post was to warn QG not to take the tactics too far, and I believe that has been accomplished" but this is not the case as QuackGuru is still fighting to put a "Failed Verification" tag on the statement "Atheists reject Jesus' divinity" [61]. So silly, juvenile, a waste of everybody's time and needs to stop and stop now.Smeat75 (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not fighting over it. I simply added a tag because the content failed verification. I discussed it on the talk page. I requested a source for the content that failed verification. See "Per policy that content still fails verification. I recommend a source for the content. See
WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION: "When using templates to tag material, it is helpful to other editors if you explain your rationale in the template, edit summary, or on the talk page." That's what I have done."[62] Your edit summary was "Undid revision 796515523 by QuackGuru (talk)rv silliness"[63] There should be no problem with spotting FV content and recommending a source for the content. Following policy is not a waste of time. Do you understand the content FV? Banning an editor for spotting content that fails verification is not helpful to improving the article. Adding a tag is not taking tactics too far. QuackGuru (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Support Topic Ban from religion articles based on users inability to comprehend or addresses the concerns raised by others.--Moxy (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

support topic ban from all religion topics, broadly construed. The inability to understand and listen to others is a major problem. The extreme rigidity may be an asset elsewhere, but it is not helpful in this case and QGs inability to see other arguments is on full display here. If the people editing in the medical area can put up with this IDHT behavior, more power to them. Other good faith editors shouldn't be forced to. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I support this proposal or not, but I will say that it has been my experience that QC's ability to determine whether content is supported by sources is
Tell me all about it. 13:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Support Ian Thomsons's suggested topic ban - Specifically that; "QuackGuru is topic banned from religious articles, talk pages, and topics except where modern medical practice is concerned or where the discretionary sanctions for complimentary and alternative medicine apply". Whoever said we need a scalpel and not a sledge hammer is right. Also nice analogy. They can always ask for the ban to removed after a period of time.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban on religion articles, broadly construed. QG has essentially ignored the negative feedback in this thread. Simply telling him that his editing is problematic has obviously not been effective, so we need to take tougher action. I understand and appreciate the arguments against the "broadly construed" part, but doesn't it send a mixed message to QG to tell him that his editing approach is okay with medicine articles but not ok with religion articles? Tendentious wikilawyering is a problem and it's a slippery slope if we only chose to address it in certain areas.
Lepricavark (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

"Broadly construed"

No. "Broadly construed" is a mistake, and is insufficiently thought through. As Ian Thomson has rightly said above, there are real areas of overlap between the medical articles and the religious ones, such as Faith healing. If we're going to install a topic ban then the boundaries should be more carefully drawn than "religious articles, broadly construed". There should certainly be an exemption specifically permitting QG to edit anything in Category:Supernatural healing and Category:Alternative medicine, and I would urge that the correct wording for any topic ban from religion should be "narrowly construed". Forget I spoke.—S Marshall T/C 12:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed topic ban phrasing of "QuackGuru is topic banned from religious articles, talk pages, and topics except where modern medical practice is concerned or where
WP:FTN whenever a thread about a religious topic comes up though we don't want him handling religion matters there. Specifying modern medical practice (instead of medicine broadly construed) should prevent behavior like editing the Cronus page to point out the medical impossibility of children surviving being eaten by their fathers, Aphrodite to point out the medical impossibility of being born from castration, or Athena to point out the medical impossibility of being born as a grown adult from one's father's forehead. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

honestly, I don't think QG is an asset anywhere. He may have the right POV, but his behavior is a great example of how not to appproach collaborative editing. I support the broadly construed wording, and the only reason I'm not pushing for a full site ban is that the various medical editors do not support one. But there is no need for such uncollaborative editing behavior and IDHT actions to be allowed elsewhere. His editing behaviors are not helpful and tend to waste other editions time. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted content that failed verification. I requested a source to verify the content I discussed it on the talk page. There are other issues I discussed on the talk page. For example, Jesus's self-perception is not clearly explained in the article. I found a source that says "The Christian Trinity was not taught by Jesus. Nor did Jesus ever say that he was the Son of God. Only the disciples wrote that Jesus is the Son of God."[64] There may be better sources or other sources that explain it more clearly. QuackGuru (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Requiring a source for "atheists deny the divinity of Jesus" is unreasonable and disruptive. You are taking our policies to extremes and pissing people off in the process. When everyone is telling you that you are doing something wrong, stop arguing that you are right. Accept that you are indeed doing something wrong. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly with Blueboar. This particular argument is so far beyond pointless that it resembles trolling.
Tell me all about it. 15:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Blueboar, I tried adding a source, but it was removed. Then I thought adding a tag for others to help find a source. It appeared editors have acknowledged the content failed verification. Numerous articles have tags in them for years. Why is it disruptive here but not on other articles that have tags? I spotted content that failed verification on another article and discussed it on the talk page. Is that also disruptive? QuackGuru (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
QC, you also changed the text to specify "
Tell me all about it. 16:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I could not find a source to verify the exact current wording. I made a small tweak in order for it to be more accurate. I am also fine with just adding another source without changing the current wording. QuackGuru (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need a source for the statement that Atheists reject a claim of divinity. There are no sources contradicting it, it's common knowledge and it's true by definition. Indeed, it's what makes atheists atheists. There is no source needed, and even if it did need a source, you could have gone to
Tell me all about it. 16:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Before adding one of the sources at Atheism they can be read to check to ensure they support the claim "Atheists reject Jesus' divinity". The sources at Atheism support the absence of belief in the existence of deities in general. In order to use a source it should state specifically opposing Jesus' divinity. I don't want to add a source that could be perceived as failing verification. QuackGuru (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
<facepalm> ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is the reason you are arguing over this? After this discussion your behaviour towards me has changed drastically. QuackGuru (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice of you to link to an example of you making a rather ironic personal attack in your edit summary. You're doing a wonderful job of making me reconsider abstaining from supporting the topic ban. Oh, and to answer your question: Because you have -once again- taken a complete non-issue and used it as an excuse to pick an argument with another editor, then proceeded to resort to a line of argumentation that would get you kicked out of a freshman rhetoric course. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak for ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, but for me I am torn. Part of me wants to strongly praise you for the fine work I have seen you do on various pseudoscience and fringe theory articles. Part of me wants to criticize you for your obvious trolling on various religion articles. And part of me just wishes you would dial in down a couple of notches in pretty much all of your interactions with others. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You said "Part of me wants to strongly praise you for the fine work I have seen you do on various pseudoscience and fringe theory articles." That's not what I remember you said about me before. I remember years ago you criticized me at the fringe noticeboard for cleaning up one of the alt-med articles because I did not have consensus. Many of these articles were littered with primary sources and unreliable sources. I was surprised you reverted back to an old version. It was in 2013‎. I'm not going to bother digging up the diffs. That was a while ago. I noticed editors who have disagreed with me in the past are showing up here. QuackGuru (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I was not aware that to you "part of me wants to strongly praise you for the fine work I have seen you do on various pseudoscience and fringe theory articles" means "I am never allowed to disagree with you". Now that I know this, I have zero desire to praise you in any way. You might want to take the fine advice found at Law of holes. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm showing up here for no other reason than to say (1) delivery matters, (2) sometimes things aren't always what they seem, and (3) the little reed, bending to the force of the wind, soon stood upright again when the storm had passed over. ~Aesop ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per Ealdgyth. Its religion on all pages or nothing for me. If there is an intersection at a specific article of religion and medical, the topic ban on religion should prevent editing in that area. No loopholes. The above couple of comments should suggest why leaving exceptions is a bad idea. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: No loopholes. We need to not create a loophole for bad faith editors who are predictably going to go "You can't revert me because %_alternative_therapy_% is part of my religion!" The reason this whole problem is so complicated ---- the reason Quack wasn't site-banned years ago ---- is because he does genuinely good work dealing with, well, quacks. (His account is really well-named.) Articles on medical topics are watched by relatively few editors and are under constant siege from people who want to push their favourite brand of snake oil. Quack's skepticism and genuine knowledge in that topic area are valuable and if we're going to hamstring him in this way then there really isn't a reason to keep him around. But we'd need to take two or three good editors off their other work to keep an eye on Quack's watchlist.
~~The Wikipedian tendency to attach "broadly construed" to topic bans is to be avoided in this case. It's a problem that needs a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer.~~ Nope, changing my mind about this.—S Marshall T/C 16:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"if we're going to hamstring him in this way then there really isn't a reason to keep him around" - you may find people would actually rather take that option. "he does genuinely good work dealing with, well, quacks" - to be accurate what he does is act badly towards everybody, but the way he acts badly has a positive outcome when directed at quacks. If I shoot 1000 people, it doesn't make it right just because some of them were criminals. I cant see a benefit in putting a topic ban on him if its not going to be as wide as possible given his wikilawyering and tendentious editing. The only other restriction I would support is a blanket 1rr *everywhere*. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to concede that that's a reasonable position, and that Quack's edits immediately above are really undermining my attempts to keep this contained.—S Marshall T/C 17:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of stories I could tell. I will pick one that pissed off some editors. There were too many citations for one sentence at Vani Hari. Four citations was overboard. Only in death does duty end disagreed. I eventually fixed it by removing the citations that failed verification and replacing them with citations that passed verification. I did not get reverted after I fixed the problems. S Marshall, you mentioned I genuinely good work dealing with, well, quacks. That's only part of the story. There are problematic skeptics adding misleading content. I keep editors on both sides honest. I know that gets some editors pissed off at me because I followed policy and focused heavily on the content. I read the sources and ensured the content was neutral and sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hey, TBAN train. Above I noted that QG gets involved where there is entrenched POV pushing.

Please take a breath.

There is a legitimate point of view that QG is representing in some places here - a feminist one , which holds that images and metaphors about sexuality and gender, specifically around Mary but more broadly many others derived from the Bible, have contributed fundamentally to rape culture in Western civilization. Some of these things are not just minor references in passing texts but core notions in some Christianities.

Looked at with irreligious eyes, Jesus is a bastard and God can be described as a rapist with respect to Mary, and the Bible describes God using rapist language elsewhere. Above QG here cited
pieta
after 9/11.... Mary is a powerful construct)

The story of David and Bathsheba can be read as fitting into countless examples of powerful men taking the bodies of women. "Grab 'em by their pussies" much, anyone?

The statement, "Atheists reject the divinity of Jesus" is somewhat of a begging-the-question formulation. Kind of like saying "Sarah Palin rejects
death panels
." or perhaps "Jytdog rejects the claim that pink unicorns like to eat marigolds". One reads anyone of those three and says "Well yes but that is kind of a strange thing to say...."

These are somewhat sacred cows I know.

I have worked through the years on some content related to the Bible and other religious topics. There are large swaths of WP that have been captured by True Believers; and places that are expressions of faith in WP's voice rather than being encyclopedic content. (that last sentence is an example parallelism, a hallmark of poetry in the Hebrew Bible btw)

I wouldn't raise these issues the way that QG is, but ~some~ of the !votes here appear to me, to be more knee jerk reactions written in a lack of awareness of these very legitimate lines of critique, or just not seeing them, than they are about what QG is writing per se.

So let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream, but breathe, ya'all. RIghteousness is not a simple thing sometimes. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Jytdog points out above, this is in some respects not as straight-forward as it superficially appears to be. I agree with those who see QuackGuru as a net positive to the encyclopedia, but it appears to me that precisely those qualities which makes QG valuable in medical articles makes them problematic when they are applied to a much more complex social and historical phenomenon such as religion -- and I say this as a longtime atheist (lapsed Catholic) myself. Religion can be dealt with in the same fashion that QG deals with medicine, but really only in POV writings such as those of
WP:MEDRS. (Note that WP:Religion is a failed proposal.)
The upshot of all this is that I support Ian.thomsons's suggested topic ban, which reads "QuackGuru is topic banned from religious articles, talk pages, and topics except where modern medical practice is concerned or where the discretionary sanctions for complimentary and alternative medicine apply." I think this strikes a good balance, allows QG to apply his strengths where they will be helpful to the project, but keeps QG away from articles which -- quite apparently -- they don't know how to deal with appropriately. QG is essentially a one-trick pony, but that trick is a powerfully good one when applied appropriately, and the encyclopedia benefits enormously when they do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Oh, I did want to mention that while Jytdog makes a valid point about religionists in many cases forcing religion articles to be (essentially) the equivalent of "in universe" articles, freezing out non-believer views which would make those article more rounded and less skewed toward the religious viewpoint, I'm very certain that QG's approach to editing those articles is the worst possible way to go about changing that. Someone who wishes to make religion articles less, well, religious, needs to take a softer approach, and be a good listener, a good rhetorician, and a person able to strike compromises between a hard-core believer position and a hard-core non-believer one. Those articles need to be opened up incrementally and with great tact and respect. QG is not that person. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLUE is "knowing what works" and what you wrote about approaching it more delicately is just the way things are here in en-WP. This is very third-rail-y. Yep. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
There's a rather distinct difference between interpretation of religious belief and medical science. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ian.thomson this is true -- very true -- but it is also true that it just as possible for page to be "captured" by advocates for a Christian POV as it is for a page to be captured by advocates for alt-med, and there is no difference in the kind of violation of NPOV that both represent. Circling back to the difference.. the means of resolving the problem are much different especially as the relevant literature is so different, and that is where strategies/tactics that BMK discussed above, and that I think you are concerned about as well, come into play. I am not unsympathetic to your opening this thread. It just not a black and white thing to me. But I should have noted the difference in subject matter and sources and how that changes the negotiation more clearly. You called that out well. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To show you what I mean about capture, not that long ago the lead of David looked like this. That is horrible and getting that fixed was way more of a struggle than it should have been. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(
WP:PRIMARY
quotes) that sometimes only tangentially connect to some undeniably uncommon interpretations and presenting those interpretations as scientific facts. That difference, QG's apparent inability and unwillingness to acknowledge that difference, plus the continued "can do no wrong" attitude QG displays (which is simply incompatible with the sort of cooperation needed in editing articles on subjective topics), are why people are supporting a topic ban.

If you have evidence that the Christianity article is horrendously skewed by a POV that needs to be fixed, by all means present (on the talk page) some tertiary sources to demonstrate what perspectives are not given due weight. I even grant that it could use more material covering feminist perspectives, as I am familiar that there's plenty of sources feminist theology and feminist interpretations of theology out there and I think it'd be great to see them given due weight in the article -- but I know that there's a hell of a lot more to it than trying to empirically claim "God is a rapist" like some MRA parody of "feminazis."

I don't see it as black and white either. The gray is a mixture of "he may not have the mindset needed to properly collaborate on subjective topics" and "he is useful on empirical topics," and "some of our articles deal with subjective matter" and "some of our articles deal with empirical matter." Beyond that, the former or current state of articles doesn't really matter because this is a behavioral matter and not a content dispute. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See here. Jesus' self-perception is not mentioned in the article. If historians are unclear or disagree that can be included in the article. Rather than just focus on improving the article you accuse me of disruption. I focused on the article.[65][66] It is a behavior problem to comment on the editor on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That you assume that a historical figure's self-perception is so easily grasped shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how history works. Unless we have something written by a historical figure, we don't truly know what they thought of themselves, only how other historians interpret that figure. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say or think that Jesus' self-perception is so easily grasped. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I explained if historians interpretation of Jesus' self-perception are unclear or disagree then that could be included. You appear to be against including any historians interpretation of Jesus' self-perception. Sources I have read say similar things like: "The Christian Trinity was not taught by Jesus. Nor did Jesus ever say that he was the Son of God. Only the disciples wrote that Jesus is the Son of God."[67] We can work together and find better sources and clarify this point in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Unless I am greatly mistaken, there are no "historical interpretations of Jesus' self-perception", since the only writings we have about Jesus came from people who never knew him, and were working with received mythology passed down orally through time, larded with a great deal of total invention and fabrication by the writers who wished to present a particular view of the man. So what we have are interpretations of someone's perception of what Jesus' self-perception may possibly have been if he did the things people who never knew him write that he did. That's fine if you're discussing the mythical Jesus and not the historical Jesus.
A great deal of time and energy has gone into trying to distill some small grains of fact from the Gospels, and there has been considerable improvement in our knowledge of the historical man, but we are nowhere near the point where anyone can say with finality that the historical Jesus absolutely did X or absolutely did not do Y. Herein lies your problem: history is not science, biography is not science, religion is not science, so attempting to deal with the putative biography of a quasi-mythical quasi-historical religious figure as if it were amenable to the same techniques that one uses in science is simply absurd, as there are no answers, only more or less convincing arguments -- and what is "convincing" is different from person to person. Your attempt to deal with this subject matter as if it is -- to pick up on a trope in this discussion -- either black-or-white is fundamentally flawed and unworkable in this context. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a historical figure's self-perception is only known if they wrote something down about themselves. That's something that one has to understand to get beyond any introductory studies in the humanities. Asking for historians' interpretation of his self-perception is asking for their interpretation of something they don't have. This is not something you approach as you would an empirical matter, which seems to be the only way you know how to approach things.

You started off approaching this using sources that largely rejected
calls your competency with this topic into question. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I did not say to use AuthorHouse in the article after I was told it was unreliable. I was using it as an example in this thread. I was explaining what sources I have read said. I said above "We can work together and find better sources and clarify this point in the article." That means I want to find better sources. See "If there is no academic consensus on the matter then we can include different interpretations or views regarding Jesus' self-perception."[68] Historians have commented on Jesus' self-perception. I gave one example to show it is possible to find historians commenting on Jesus' self-perception. QuackGuru (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quack -- you're in a hole. Stop digging. Please.—S Marshall T/C 22:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We've been in many disputes before. I thought you were going to comment here eventually. Are you trying to make me look bad? QuackGuru (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
QG: At the risk of stating the obvious, the only one here who is making you look bad is you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And that is perhaps the real problem here... Quack is a tenacious "Wiki-lawyer", especially when he feels he is right... to the point where his tanacity becomes disruptive. He needs to learn to stop digging when consensus is against him. Blueboar (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have been in many disputes with you too. This was a new dispute regarding Jesus' self-perception. I'm sure I or others can find better sources. Is it a problem to using better sources for Jesus' self-perception for the article? QuackGuru (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@QuackGuru: Read this whole thread carefully and think about how people besides you see things. Imagine that it is about someone else covering a topic you're willing to admit you know nothing about. This is not about article content, this is about your behavior. Notice that the closest anyone is coming to defending you (a minority that somehow includes me) is pointing out that you have good intentions, that you're helpful in other areas, and there are problems in the articles -- no one is agreeing with your tactics. Almost everyone has stated that your behavior is problematic and more users than I'd like to see are ready to have you topic banned from all religion articles.

If all the traffic is coming your way, you're in the wrong lane. From an outside perspective, you are in the wrong here. Whenever I see a user without your history cause this sort of uproar on ANI, that user always got at least a topic ban, if not an indefinite block or even a community ban. That some users (including myself) have pointed out that you're useful in medical articles is not an excuse to keep fighting, it is your chance to back down before an uninvolved admin decides you're just not worth the trouble. That S Marshall and I have argued that any topic ban should exclude medical topics would demonstrate to anyone with an iota of awareness that we are actually trying to balance helping the site with helping you as a member of the community.

If you are not willing to (or worse, cannot) consider what any other member of the community has to say except when it's backing you up, you do not belong on a collaborative project. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with BTMK and S Marshall. Ian.Thomson's suggested wording is far better. Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"BTK"? I've seen "BYK" before, which I've always assumed meant "Beyond Your Ken", but "BTK is a new one on me. "Beyond Their Ken"?, "Beyond Thy Ken"? "Benighted Tacky Ken"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Er ... oops. Black Kite (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support religion topic ban. Just his continued hammering and failure to listen in this thread is enough evidence for that. Elsewhere I recall his behavior fitting the patterns he is showing here. Legacypac (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

support tban as framed by ian. QG is not going to demonstrate the necessary CLUE here. QG you have done buried yourself here. Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is, again, one of these ridiculously over-complicated TB proposals. TBs are about a subject and edits related to that subject. Not pages. When did this whole pages TB become a norm? Normally with a TB you could edit a page that had some content related to a TB so long as your edits didn't broach the subject of your TB. There's worries that broadly construed could, say, stop QG from commenting on FTN because there's likely to be some religion related content on the page. Just simplify this: QG is topic banned from all edits relating to religion broadly construed. Which I'd Support. Capeo (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support either religion topic ban or Ian's wording. I don't know much about the user's history to able to tell if he can edit articles involving both medicine and religion without intentionally causing trouble or controversy.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just going by the behaviour on ANI alone, I support the broadly construed topic ban. Blackmane (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Site-ban discussion

(Non-Admin Close)
Tell me all about it. 14:00, 24 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 closed the discussion above and imposed the topic ban for which there was clear consensus; I don't think we are yet seeing consensus for a site ban, but the discussion does seem to be trending that way so I'm leaving this section open to see what develops. GoldenRing (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that some earlier comments in the now closed section (above) apply to this discussion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru has an extensive history of IDHT, of waving his hands around about this or that problem (such as allegations of OR and non-verifiability), of demanding sources from others for even the plainest statements, but disdaining to support his claims or point to specific cases, of being deaf to what he doesn't want to hear.

E.g., his attempt to unilaterally change the
WT:V#Problem with wording), which in turn appear to have been his attempt to get some leverage in a content dispute at Chiropractic (see Talk:Chiropractic/Archive_38#Too_many_problems_with_recent_changes_to_lede
) for a sample.

In all these cases QuackGuru is often in the situation (such as noted above by Blueboard [15:42: 21 Aug]) where everyone present is telling him something, but he adamantly refuses to hear. While some editors might agree with some of his results, the problem is that he is not amenable to the process, being too full of his own self-rightousness, and this diminishes the work everyone could be doing. I concur with all the above comments, but especially Ian's: QuackGuru does not belong on a collaborative project.

Support a ban on this, and ALL other topics and policies, including talk pages. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a community ban as outlined above by User:J. Johnson and I challenge anyone to read the tortuous discussion above and seriously argue QG is a net asset to the project. --John (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support a community ban as outlined by J. Johnson for the reasons outlined by them and Only in Death.~~ That Quack's inability to collaborate with others may sometimes yield positive results in certain topics doesn't excuse that behaviour when it does yield positive results.
talk) 21:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdrawing support and opposing site ban, based on QG's response to this thread. I do so without striking out the part about bad behaviour which yields positive results, as I believe that the principle applies and QG should be reminded to cease this behaviour, rather than only applying it in non-religious topics.
talk) 11:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Update: Continuing CIR issues on WP:CIR applies here, not just tendentiousness on religion articles. Softlavender (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Softlavender is right. The history of Talk:Jesus shows unequivocally that even as the AN/I consensus snowballs, this user is still not getting the message; his block log is a disgrace; and Arbcom warned him in 2015. I withdraw all my objections to a site ban.—S Marshall T/C 23:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, I think there is a
WP:RSN) and then following it up with another citation to another blatantly self-published source. St Anselm (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Support for his continued actions in the face of community admonishment and censure from Arbcom.
talk) 09:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Tentative oppose QG has done positive work over the years within the medical and science topic area. I do need to see an immediate assurance that the issues mentioned above will stop and not resume. I believe that with such an assurance a site ban would be a net negative to the project. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Normally I would advise waiting to see if the TBAN did the trick, but [69] strongly indicates that it won't. If, after six months, QG posts an appeal that shows that he understands why he was site-banned and is willing to change I would be willing to open up a discussion regarding whether to give him some one-stike-you-are-out
~~WP:ROPE. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)~~[reply
]

Oppose: per this comment:[70] --Guy Macon (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tentative oppose per Doc James, QG is an asset to Wikiproject Medicine his opinions are valuable there(however QG should give assurance that the issues mentioned above will stop)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative oppose for now. QG was informed about the TBAN today at 9:03 (UTC). If he violates the TBAN on purpose, I will support a site ban but we should at least give him time to demonstrate if he is willing and able to abide by such a restriction. Regards So Why 10:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am taking this feedback on board seriously. Medical and science topics is where I make most of my positive contributions. I realize that sometimes I push things too far and do not drop issues when consensus is against me. I will do my best to change this behaviour going forward and avoid
not getting it. I understand it is better to stop writing, listen, and read carefully what others are saying even when I feel strongly that I am right. I will make a strong effort to see their side of the issues, and work on finding points of agreement and move on when consensus is against me. I agree to fully follow the topic ban above. QuackGuru (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks QG. Glad to hear you are taking these concerns seriously. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, out of process This discussion is out of process. Site bans are not a first step, but rather, they follow violations of other measures. The topic ban on religion just began today. QG has not violated that topic ban. If there is a violation then take further steps, but after a remedy is in place that should end the discussion. I have spoken up on behalf of QG in the past where they engage with controversial medical topics in a way that has led to constructive Wikipedia article development. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm don't know what's going on here and at this point I'm afraid to ask. Yes, there's an extensive block log. Yes, he's legitimately helpful in medical articles. Yes, he didn't listen to anyone while the topic ban discussion was going on. Yes, he has promised to take the feedback in a way that shows awareness of the issues. I'd just like to state that when I said "you do not belong on a collaborative project," it was an if/then statement (with an admittedly implied "then") that was bolded for emphasis, not a !vote. As such, the bold statement in this post is my !vote regarding a community ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the discussion above, I found a clear consensus for a topic ban on religion. The point of leaving this section open is that it was not clear to me whether there was consensus that the disruption outside that topic merited further sanctions (almost certainly a site ban). So comments of the "wait and see if the topic ban is violated variety are missing the point. The point of this whole thing is to prevent disruption; the question for this section is, "Does removing them from the topic of religion sufficiently prevent disruption, or do they have a track record of disruption in other areas that needs to be addressed with further sanctions?" For my money, the answer is that the topic ban is sufficient for the time being (especially given the response from QG above). But I don't get a super-vote. GoldenRing (talk) 11:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Bluerasberry, Guy Macon, Doc James. Doesn't seem like a necessary step at this point. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose site ban at the moment but Support topic ban from everything except medical and science articles and their talk pages (or something better that someone else writes that does the same thing). To my mind, the two major contributing factors to the disruption that QG causes are: 1 Their view on sourcing, citing and verifiability is radically different from the vast majority of the community (but appears to be closer to the consensus as to how medical articles are referenced) and 2 They appear to be incapable and/or unwilling to communicate in such a manner that will alter anyone's existing opinions regarding these topics (but appears to be capable of working somewhat more collegiately with those who hold views already closer to their own). Most of the recent discussions I've either been involved in or witnessed that illustrate these have already been referenced above, but I can supply a few more if anyone's feeling particularly bored or masochistic. The events at Jesus, David & Bathsheba are entirely unsurprising to me, as they demonstrate the idiosyncratic interpretations of policy backed up with a willful refusal to engage or moderate their viewpoint. If QG was to start editing the article on Golf tomorrow I have every expectation that every line would be tagged as requiring verification, including that grass is green. However, QG does appear to be able to offer useful content and research within medical articles, as their views are closer to existing consensus and even those who work with QG there and who are obviously somewhat exasperated seem to think that they would be missed. So, why not let them stay there and leave the rest of the wiki alone? Scribolt (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: per Guy Macon. Editing in the medical field, I have always found QG to be someone who wants to improve the encyclopedia, even if his means sometimes leave much to be desired. I believe his assurances given in his response to this proposal, and will be quick to remind him of the likely consequences if there's even a hint of him not living up to his promises. --RexxS (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on site ban, but propose extended topic ban to include policies. QG has been disrupting the discussions at
Reliable Sources Noticeboard seeking clarification, application, or enforcement of existing policy or guidelines without modification." Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I am open to hearing any problems which anyone would raise. I do not want to make a big deal out of contesting a topic ban on policies, but also, I do oppose such a ban on the basis of a case with examples not being made.

I am responding to TransporterMan here to confirm that I see the issue raised. I would like to think that this could be put aside for a while because this conversation is already overly heated and because we just got a new topic ban remedy in place which I think will cool some tension. However, if a topic ban on policies is to be discussed, then I would like to see that matter examined independently. Again, I expect any editor which jumps into contentious spaces to have a history of conflict. I expect civil behavior everywhere but when anyone enters a vexatious topic space I feel that they should expect to encounter vexatious bureaucracy and that banning the bureaucracy or bureaucrats will not make a topic less contentious. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per Doc James: QG has done positive work over the years within the medical and science topic area Cloudjpk (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's looking like a site ban is not going to pass, even though it is warrented and would he imposed on most other editors for all the disruption. Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ...best not to ban....much harder to follow socks....best keep an eye on them.--Moxy (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per my comments in the above section. QG can be problematic in certain circumstances, but overall he's a net positive. I am also heartened by QG's comment above, which shows what I think is real thought as to the potential downside of their methodology. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

oppose site ban. still does valuable work in their core area. Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the TBAN is probably sufficient.
talk) 21:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose as unnecessary considering topic ban has been enacted. Blackmane (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A topic ban was just enacted and an acknowledgment of acceptance from QG that it wasn't unwarranted. I see no point in jumping to a site ban from that. Capeo (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A couple comments:
My compliments to whoever wrote this formal apology. It goes directly to the heart of the problem and eloquently ticks all the boxes that admins look for in apologies (acknowledgement and understanding of the problem, specific commitments to change, etc.). It is one of the better apologies I have seen on Wikipedia, and perhaps its biggest shortcoming is that it doesn't sound anything like QuackGuru, who in my experience has never demonstrated that level of situational awareness, introspection, and general cluefulness. It is certainly a dramatic turnaround, and I sincerely hope that QG will make a concerted effort to understand and live up to the commitments they made by clicking the Submit button on that post.

I weakly oppose a site-ban as I still feel they are a weak net positive at articles regularly edited by medicine-focused editors like User:Doc James. I would change my mind if QG fails to live up to the aforementioned commitments.

I would support some sort of Wikipedia policy space ban, as QG's sole interest in policy and guidelines seems to be driven by disputes in which they are involved. For example, see these thinly veiled attempts to stack the WP deck against (admin)
WP:1RR restriction would be helpful, although it would largely overlap with their current 1RR restriction at articles related to alternative medicine. ~Awilley (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose siteban. I support extension of the topic ban to policy pages, given the obvious attempts at "gaming" there. And yes, per Awilley, if I ever have a need for "the perfect apology", I want that author. -- Begoon 07:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose siteban at this point in time. A further discussion of such a siteban should look at behaviour after the mentioned apology. I support an extension of the topic ban to policy pages for obvious reasons. Agathoclea (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing site ban per Doc James et al. From the time I spent lurking articles under WikiProject Medicine, QuackGuru is a net positive to the community, if only for his contributions to those particular topics. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he will address concerns regarding
WP:IDHT per his comment. I also weakly support a proposed ban on policy edits per TransporterMan and Awilley. --auta coid 11:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

User:Zbunyip

User:Zbunyip has been involved in many disruptive edits on Adelaide Park Lands (and subsequesntly other pages), and despite attempts to engage them on User talk:Zbunyip, they have refused to respond, and seem to have engaged in edit warring. Their modus operandi is to replace content that was supported by reliable references with their own biased POV that is contrary to the statements that were there, and they do NOT supply any reliable references to support their own opposite POV. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Zbunyip for the trail of havoc they are creating. I would revert their edits, but don't want to be involved in, (or classified as being involved in), an edit war. The inaccuracies and falsehoods they have been introducing worry me. Advice please. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that many of this editor's edits are problematic. I haven't looked at them all in detail, but they have included removal of sourced material with refs and addition of unsourced material without refs. In particular I've had to revert his changes to Tjilbruke (see diff 1) because he substituted the name of one Aboriginal tribe with another, and another editor has just reverted his multiple edits to Kaurna (see diff 2). He has also edited articles on other Aboriginal tribes, the Ngarrindjeri (see diff 3, and the Ramindjeri (also since deleted by another user, see diff 4).

This is a controversial subject area, requiring specialised knowledge of the sources, and I'm not particularly well qualified to go into this very deeply - but it seems that this editor is taking a partisan stance (particularly in the Kaurna/Ramindjeri dispute), and his edits in these particular articles (as well as in other areas), which commenced on 19 August 2017, are similar to those previously made by Mifren, who last edited on 1 August 2017. Bahudhara (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zbunyip's writing style doesn't remind me of Mifren, despite the thematic similarity of their contributions - I'd be quite surprised if this is a case of sockpuppetry. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, now having seen more of his work, I agree, the styles are very different. And he is now reaching out for advice at the Teahouse and user talkpages. Bahudhara (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames of Donald Trump

Looks like hours after article List of nicknames of Donald Trump was deleted via [73], article
WP:G4?. Objective3000 (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The article is definitely G4, deleted to Make Wikipedia Great Again. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for reopening a closed discussion on ANI. I think that someone higher up the food chain than I ought provide guidance to Keizers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The editor appears insistent upon adding rather gross nicknames for a living person on many articles. The last strawish thingy for me was citing an article discussing female genitalia on an article about a nursery rhyme. I'll provide diffs is needed; but, just look at their contribs. Or tell me I'm wrong and reclose. Objective3000 (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a big secret that I think Trump is an asshole, yet somehow I manage to refrain from
disrupting articles to express this view. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Never give up hope, we can agree on some points, POV disruption and assholes :) - FlightTime (open channel) 13:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following three diffs are sufficient for any uninvolved admin to indefinitely topic ban Keizers (talk · contribs) from all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. I only just added that notification to the user's talk but I do not believe that is an impediment to a topic ban.

the nickname Shitgibbon

"Cheeto Jesus" and variations thereon

real name was "Fuckface Von Clownstick"

Would an admin please stop the disruption. Johnuniq (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, a ban is not necessary, I have received the message. I would like to point out that no one at any time made it clear that it was not allowed to mention genuine RELEVANT events (e.g. the Twitter war between Jon Stewart and Trump). The REAL issue here seems to be that I must censor the offensive name in particular. I think you need to be absolutely clear to users about this. In any case the message is clear to me. Keizers (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I have just removed (censored) the offensive name in question from the Jon Stewart article. I did leave the mention of the Twitter war, please let me know if the entire subject must be removed from Wikipedia, due to its potentially being upsetting to our President. Thanks. Keizers (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Pointy sarcasm is almost guaranteed to help here, under the circumstances. Well done.-- Begoon 13:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) @
WP:AC/DS#aware.aware
does allow sanctioning of editors who have been made aware of DS but haven't edited since, it would be extremely unusual and, I suspect, quite controversial. They were alerted to BLP DS at 01:55 today, made twelve edits (all related to nicknames of Donald Trump but more than half of them to article talk or user talk) and then were alerted to AP2 DS at 11:20, since which time they haven't edited. While that does technically give us leeway under BLP DS, I don't think sanctions are appropriate right now.

@Keizers: you are clearly editing against consensus regarding nicknames of Donald Trump. Drop the stick now and go do something else, or there will be sanctions. Note after EC: I'm glad you've got the message. Leave it alone and let other editors sort it out. GoldenRing (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A typo destroyed the ping @Johnuniq: GoldenRing (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please also give me feedback regarding the editing of other articles e.g. Jon Stewart. Is it permissible to add content from secondary, reliable sources about relevant events (e.g. Twitter war with Trump), but simply NOT permissible to mention the insulting name that Stewart used? Keizers (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback? Yeah, stop being a fool. We're mostly bored with that. -- Begoon 13:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ad hominem attacks have no place here. Keizers (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@
editing content related to living people. That something is verifiable in reliable, independent, secondary sources is not grounds for inclusion in an article. Verifiability is necessary for it to be included in an article, but not sufficient. In particular, when you add content related to a living person and someone reverts your edit, the burden is on you — not to demonstrate that the content you added is verifiable, but that there is consensus among editors for it to be re-added to the article. Where your edits related to living people are reverted, you must not re-insert them without getting consensus for the material (or, where an editor has objected on specific grounds, you must not re-insert them without genuinely addressing those grounds). Your edits to Jon Stewart have been reverted; you must not re-insert them without solid consensus behind them. You have taken the first step, by starting a discussion on the talk page; now let it play out. GoldenRing (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for the constructive feedback. If I had had that guidance before, we could have saved a lot of time Keizers (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Begoon: I don't think personal attacks are going to help here, either. GoldenRing (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment. I phrased it very badly, and I apologise for that. My intent was to criticise the specific behaviour, not the person, and I obviously failed to do that. -- Begoon 05:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Jon Stewart article is the only one where you may have an argument for inclusion as Stewart and Trump are having a bit of a tussle. (Although, I think it’s trivia at this point). OTOH. Trump is not having a battle with Humpty Dumpty and Cheetos’ mascot, Chester Cheetah. But, you’ll need to gain consensus on the Stewart talk page. Objective3000 (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on this article I'm not going to revert after the first unsubstantiated revert, as the reason given was "it doesn't belong here": I've removed the offensive term in question, but kept the mention of the Twitter war. I agree that some people might find it trivial (I do not), however no more so than half the article.Keizers (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was a lot of nicknames. I appreciate the time you spent gathering them. I'm not sure which ones are common. The inclusion criteria that they must be common is too restrictive. QuackGuru (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See this. If Keizers cannot make a definite statement with explanation why he understands that edits like that one are totally inappropriate, I think it may be time to consider a topic ban on inserting the Donald's name anywhere. John from Idegon (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Need somebody to look at the interaction between QubixQdotta and myself as it has descended into personal attacks and now threats

I'm not sure if this is the best place for this but things seem to be getting rather out of hand between User:QubixQdotta and myself to the point that I think that it can be considered an incident.
He has accused me of Gaslighting (diff), which is not a term I had heard of before, but based on the article I take to be a personal attack as it refers to an intentionally abusive form of dishonest manipulation. I am genuinely unable to see how my actions could be interpreted that way so I removed the comment and warned him for personal attacks. He has doubled down on this, reposting the accusation on his own talk page(diff) he has since posted what I take to be a threat on my talk page: diff (I'm not too bothered by the first part of that but the part saying "You might be seeing me a lot these days, so maybe trying to be my worst enemy right now isn't the best idea. Just saying." doesn't seem too healthy.)
OK. So how did we get here? Did I provoke him? I'll admit to taking a robust line with the large number of editors seeking to engage in revisionism on Fascism, Nazism and related articles. (Nice uncontroversial subjects, right?) I see the attempts to recast Fascism and Nazism as being left wing, or anything other than right wing, as revisionism and contrary to the historical consensus, and that has long been the general line on those pages' talk pages. That said, I also try to remember that there are intentional revisionists and those who have been confused into repeating the revisionist line in good faith and not to bite these people. I am also well aware that the motivation for this is more to distance right wing politics from Nazism than to attempt to rehabilitate it. I am sympathetic to those who do not wish to be associated with Nazism (I mean, who would?) but this is not a legitimate was to do it. In this case I may have jumped the gun a little but I think I was correct to see something more than a confused editor here.
Let's step through it chronologically: (I'll prefix QQ for QubixQdotta and DR for myself)

QQ: diff - It starts here. An unreferenced revisionist edit to Nazism.

DR: diff - I revert.

DR: diif - I issue a level 2 warning for deliberate factual errors. I am prepared to concede that that was a little harsh. We have had a tidal wave of this sort of bad editing and I may have let my annoyance with others spill over into this. In retrospect maybe it should have been a level 1 or 2 for unreferenced changes.

QQ: diff - The usual revisionist line about the Nazi's being "socialist" on my talk page but far more egregiously than normal he flat out accuses the mainstream history books which we use as sources of dishonesty.

DR: diff - I reply explaining why this is wrong. I'll admit that my annoyance is showing as I have heard this line so many times before and I do find it hard to believe that it is advanced in good faith when combined with an attack on the sources in general. I'd call it robust not abusive. I use the word "stupid" to refer to the idea of taking Nazi terminology at face value but I do not call QubixQdotta stupid. I try to send him off to look at the Talk page archives, look at the sources and to use the article talk page, not my talk page, if he wants to press it further. I'll admit the end is a bit overdramatic but I think the basic point, that anybody who doesn't recognise mainstream sources as valid is not going to get very far here, is valid.

QQ: diff - Replies with the accusation of "gaslighting" and a claim that he is trying to work constructively, which I find hard to take seriously. (Over on Talk:Nazism he was questioning sources again, not in any specific way, just not really accepting that sources are valid in general, a line his has since softened.)

DR: diff - I revert the accusation and rollup what has gone before.

DR: diff - I warn him, only at level 2, against personal attacks.

QQ: diff - Copies the accusation to his talk page.

QQ: diff - Posts two messages on my talk page. One is a general expression of annoyance, which I'm OK with, but the second one seems to be a quite blatant threat and that is what brings us here.

And that's where we are. There is also some back and forth on Talk:Nazism but that is not as bad and I won't bore you all by itemising it.
In retrospect, I would have handled it differently, playing out the rope a lot more calmly for him to hang himself with, but I do not believe that I provoked him in any way that can justify a complaint of gaslighting (which, based on the article, is a much more serious accusation than it may at first sound) or that final threat in which he seems to be saying that he is moving in and taking over here. The threat is seriously disturbing. That is why I have brought this here. Maybe, or maybe not, the rest of the story is overkill but I didn't want to give the false impression that this came from nowhere.
It would be great if somebody could look this over and decide where, if anywhere, we go from here. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You called me "stupid" and a "horse that was brought to water" when I was simply trying to have a civil discussion with you. I tried to keep my cool and talk to you, but you went back to insults towards my intelligence and motive for editing here (not constructive and by far not
WP:GOODFAITH). I am here to help the project and I have gotten nothing but negativity and insults about me. What I meant by my statement was that I don't want to be your enemy if I'm going to be working with you on the article. I admit the statement could definately be taken out of context but thats not what I meant. But anyways, I don't care for the way I've been treated by DanielRigal and I can honestly say that I have never sent any bad words your way about what you believe in or about your intelligence. From an honest place of respect for you coming into this article, I feel very disrespected as a fellow editor and it really isn't okay. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 00:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Gaslighting is making one question their own perception (you claim was an "attack"; it was more of a expression of how I felt) - which I said based on the fact you said, "If you really do believe that all the history books are wrong (and intentionally dishonest) then Wikipedia is probably not for you. In fact, that seems to be a view incompatible with any understanding of the real world at all." Another insult towards my intelligence, I was honestly offended because I'm a free thinker and I question everything. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 01:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although the rhetoric got slightly out of hand, at the core of this is a content dispute. QQ made an unsourced edit based on their interpretation of Nazism, basically
WP:OR
, which was correctly reverted and Daniel has admitted to being harsher than necessary.

QQ's followup comment, Daniel's 4th diff, shows a misunderstanding of sourcing. Irrespective of what we, as editors, think of the source material, if the source is reliable and states that Nazism is far right wing then that is what will be entered. QubixQdotta, the "stupid" comment could not be interpreted as being directed at you and rather as a generic statement. At this point, what I see is that QubixQdotta overreacted a bit and things got heated but nothing that can't be mended. However, if you, QubixQdotta, want to push an edit like the one that started this mess then you better make sure you have solid reliable sources that back you up. Blackmane (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That original edit was made on the fly because I thought it was vandalism. I don't usually edit political articles, so I didn't even know people considered Nazism far-right. It was alien to me. "QubixQdotta overreacted a bit and things got heated but nothing that can't be mended." I appreciate the kind words but honestly, I'm positive I kept my cool the whole time. (maybe tone doesn't translate well through text?) While I'm sorry I didn't source on the "far-left" edit, that doesn't change the fact DanielRigal escalated the whole thing into calling me names, insulting my intelligence, and a "horse that was brought to water" and even recently "playing out the rope a lot more calmly for him to hang himself with". With all due respect, I didn't say anything of that nature to DanielRigal. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 02:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another misunderstanding is that my motivation is to take away sources. That's not my motivation. It's to elaborate on why academics think in these diverse ways. I read the Nazism article and noticed very simplistic bouts of information being sourced heavily with pages and pages of information from textbooks: "The majority of scholars identify Nazism in both theory and practice as a form of far-right politics." (sourced here Nazism#cite_note-Fritzsche_Eatwell_Griffin-13). It made me extremely curious as to how this extremely sophisticated 3-in-1 source could be summed up into such a simple sentence (it wasn't even sourced a second time), and it made me extremely curious to know what was in those pages and how I could utilize them more effectively. The article just left a lot to be answered. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 02:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you're coming here to look for answers and make edits and to elaborate on why academics think in these diverse ways then you're in the wrong place. The whole point of Wikipedia is to act as a collation of what reliable sources say and not to provide a forum on the discourse of whichever topic one may be curious about. Nor is it a place to
interpret what one source says against what another says. If you don't see what the main goal of Wikipedia is and how your first edit set things off, then DanielRigal is correct in saying that Wikipedia is not for you. Blackmane (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Once again with due respect, you're missing what I'm saying. I did not say anything about interpreting sources or providing a forum. I'm talking about taking what these academics have said and providing their information as is. What I'm doing is totally based on Wikipedia policies about
WP:NPOV. What I want to do is the exact opposite of interpretation. It's pure fact and facts about the views of academics. I discover facts, I don't interpret. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 04:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
You misunderstand
WP:UNDUE weight.
So, bottom line, you've been here a little over a year, but you apparently haven't totally grasped how things are done and what our editorial policies are. I'd suggest that you bone up on those before you get yourself in another editing dispute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
And please, fix your sig. It's not only unreadable, it's so far down below the line that it visually interferes with the line below it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I actually didn't misunderstand NPOV. I read the part about undue weight too. I'm talking about taking what these academics have said and providing their information as is. What I'm doing is totally based on Wikipedia policies about
WP:NPOV. What I want to do is the exact opposite of interpretation. It's pure fact and facts about the views of academics. I discover facts, I don't interpret. [qub/x q;otta] ▤▧ 05:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
(ec) Yes, you actually have misinterpreted it, because you're still saying the same thing, and it's not what NPOV means. You may have read the part about "undue weight", but you obviously didn't understand it. Considering how adamant you are about this, and how resistant you are to accepting that you are wrong, I think it may be worthwhile for editors to take a look at your article edits to see if you've been following this false reading of NPOV in them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Thank you for altering your sig. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@
velut luna 09:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
On my browser, the username is unclickable. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, his username isn't linked. :P —
talk) 14:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The boxes after the name appear to have the required link. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The comment about QQ being around for a little over a year reminded me of something QQ said about having been "a very experienced Wikipedian" when I welcomed them back in May 2016. This led to a rabbit hole, and I ended up filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jump Guru. Oops. It plausibly looks to me like a dormant account was reactivated to !vote in an AFD in 2016. It's a bit stale, but regardless, QQ definitely claimed to be an experienced editor shortly after the account was created. Grayfell (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what a surprise, you could knock me over with a feather! Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

so the OP's main reason for filing was this diff by QubixQdotta, and the part of that the OP found somewhat disturbing was: You might be seeing me a lot these days, so maybe trying to be my worst enemy right now isn't the best idea. Just saying. I agree that this is... thuggish.

Above, QubixQdotta wrote: I don't usually edit political articles, so I didn't even know people considered Nazism far-right.

Really?

I looked at their contribs. Here is their edit count. They have made about 750 edits, with 20 deleted.
Around 200 of those edits are related to Peckerwood gangs, which arose in prison in opposition to black gangs and have some roots in/affiliations with the Aryan Brotherhood. (per the editing statastics, Qubix is the leading contributor by far to the peckerwood page.

It is true that Qubix doesn't contribute much to mainstream political pages, but their biggest chunk of Talk is at Alt-right (see their contribs there; that includes a string of edits in May (their last edits to the page) that were so offensive they were redacted as you can see in the history here. In their second comment from back in January they give very strong and clear views on alt-right politics. I see no sense of ignorance about politics there.

By February at the alt-right page they were being asked to propose concrete changes already, and replied by continuing to write things like this: ... "White supremacy" is a label that often gets swept over things that people are too lazy to further investigate. I understand it makes you guys happy to see nazis get burned alive on Wikipedia, but I rather see truth about the matter, not what I see on the news everyday. ...Excuse me if I get passionate about the truth of topics but it really means alot to hear truth which includes the truth about the movement's racism and Richard Spencer's crazy bigoted garbage. I'm used to my community telling me alternative facts/weird conspiracies about politicians and that I'm supposed to believe them. I come to Wikipedia for truth and to spread truth.

By April they were writing things like this: I know right OP? It's almost like elitist editors on this page completely ignored
WP:NPOV
. And why so passionately too? Oh I think I know: $$$. :)

So we have some of the The Truth and the usual accompanying conspiracy theorizing going on here...

And then there is stuff related to Nazi page already discussed above.

QubixQdotta is s[bringing the tiger into Wikipedia way too much (per
WP:Beware of tigers). I am not sure what the right answer is but Qubix definitely needs to rethink how they are approaching these topics, and other editors at them. The SPI is also turning very strange... I cannot make sense out of what this is person is doing in WP or the various voices they use here and ways/topics they edit. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I was looking at the SPI and wondering whether I could/should say anything helpful/useful but the truth is that I can't really make head nor tail of it. I'd just like to thank everybody for their time taken looking into this matter which has become far more complex and time consuming than I expected. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The SPI may be confusing, but some things have been pretty well established:
QQ had a previous account User:QubixRaver, so when QQ said (spontaneously, in two different places) that they were around before, they were telling the truth, and when they said on the SPI they were making that up, they were not telling the truth;

QubixRaver also said they had a previous account, in words very similar to those used by QQ

QQ claimed responsibility for the article Scribner's Magazine, which had been heavily edited by User:Jump Guru

QQ and Jump Guru both !voted "keep" at AfD for an article on a window company which was deleted as promotional. Neither editor's normal contributions show any proclivity for dealing with such a subject, which is completely outside their usual territories.

There's some more, but those are the main points. If nothing else comes up, an admin will have to determine whether a CU is justified or if a block on behavioral grounds is warranted on the basis of that information. I'm continuing to look to see if there's anything else worth reporting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

96.240.96.130

(non-admin closure) Vandal blocked 1 month. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Someone please block this IP
chatter) 02:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

You can use
Twinkle or rollback to easily revert multiple edits. There haven't been any edits in the past few hours, so I posted a level 3 warning. I'll try to remember to keep an eye on the IP's edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Due to recent disruptive editing and the long-term nature of the issue, I've blocked this IP address for 1 month using {{anonblock}}. Mz7 (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Phone number spam (Previous title: Anyone want to help roll back vandalism?)

Hi. User:185.212.169.218 has been adding the same phone number to a large number of articles about universities. I've reverted some but have to go do other stuff tonight. Does anyone have time to revert this IP's other contributions? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This also needs a block as the spree is ongoing. I've reported at AIV. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. I'll revert it whenever I see it. RC is moving a bit too quickly for my comfort, right now. --a u t a c o i d ^(stalk) 06:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:185.212.169.201 seems to be related, if not the same person. Reverting their changes. --a u t a c o i d ^(stalk) 06:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiples. Can we get a range block? —
talk) 06:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
It has been done ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Oshwah. User:51.15.153.37 seems to follow the same pattern. Reverted all of their edits I've seen so far. --a u t a c o i d ^(stalk) 06:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Poof! Like magic, it stops editing ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@
Ravensfire (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Now 162.244.81.106 (talk · contribs) is doing it. Reported at AIV. Would love help to revert contributions. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked and reverted. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this looks like a scam rather than simple vandalism. I'm concerned that the RC patrollers and watchlisters are seldom picking it up. Is there a good way to bring the issue to the attention of our RC patrollers? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The latest IP range used was a webhost, which I range blocked. If the same phone number is being spammed, one can suggest an edit filter at
WP:EF/R. I'm not really aware of an area where you post alerts to RC patrollers, but some patrollers probably hang out at IRC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks and disruption by Etherialemperor

User was blocked by There'sNoTime for 48 hours. (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The edit that spurred this report is here where Etherialemperor calls me a "fag".
This coolness after disruption on
WP:NPA) for disagreeing. This user's POV and apparent dislike of certain types of people is affecting their editing and causing disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Blocked 48 hours for the personal attack, given there's no doubt it was meant as such. There are other issues here, but initially I'd like to see how they act once their block expires --
to explain) 07:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
NB. edit referenced above has been revision deleted --
to explain) 07:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for your swift response! EvergreenFir (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Best practices (re-creation of deleted page)

Monitor Records (New York) was prodded by TenPoundHammer (note, I'm pinging but not "notifying" because his actions were absolutely correct and not up for review) because there was no indication of notability. I know this to be an important classical label in the 1960s-1970s, so I de-prodded and found sources. However, it became blindingly obvious that the article was a blatant copyright violation of the Smithsonian page, so I deleted the article. I plan on creating this article again (non-copyvio) with the sources I found, and my question is thus: Should I re-create the article, which would give me credit in editing history for having created the article (when in fact I am not the true "originator" of the subject), or would it be better to restore the article, and then revdelete all previous versions prior to the "replacement" version I create (thereby giving article creator credit to the copyright violator). I've not run into this situation before in my editing "career" here, and I'd like broader input into what the community deems the most ethical course of action in this situation. Not typical ANI material (fortunately) and maybe this belongs at Village Pump, but I want eyes. Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Create it as a new article. You shouldn't feel guilty about appearing to be the first person to create a proper article on the subject, because you will be that, but if you wish you can put a short note of explanation on the article talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well; we should only submit articles that are in line with policy. If someone has failed to do that before you, that's of no concern of yours. Pace NYB, but I do not agree that TP notes are necessary- think how many times this actuall happens- even accidentally, where one is not aware of a previous version. Anyway. —
velut luna 14:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree that a talkpage note is not at all necessary; was merely noting that it is permissible if desired. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, thanks. I also agree there's no harm in it whatsoever, and it's to be praised as an example of how occasionally editors can go beyond the spirit of collegiality, and by doing so, make up a little ground for those who do not :) —
velut luna 16:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Put the Deletions in the Template:Article history on the talk page, then anyone can see the history. - X201 (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More eyes as requested :P Create the new version and template the talk as suggested by X201. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per FIM and NYB, this is fine. Talk page suggestions by NYB/X201/FT are not harmful, but not needed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, I truly appreciate everyone's perspective. I have recreated the article. I will do as X201 suggests, although unfortunately it appears that "Create" is not one of the valid parameters, so that will require a separate note. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lankandude2017

British Sri Lankan Tamil. This has been discussed at Talk:British Sri Lankan Tamil (and Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#British Sri Lankan Tamil article), but Lankandude2017 continues to revert to his preferred version of the article, against talk page consensus. This has already resulted in one block for editing warring, and Lankandude2017 has now returned from that block to continue the same behaviour. He has also been warned for accusing me of racism, as discussed at User talk:Lankandude2017#Accusation of racism and in the couple of sections below. I have generally been trying not to rise to this, as it is clear that several other editors are keeping an eye on the situation, but he has now signed a talk page post as me, which is getting pretty disruptive. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
And now Lankandude is adding frivolous/malicious AIV reports against Cordless Larry and myself. --bonadea contributions talk 15:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bonadea (with no evidence of sockpuppetry). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SPI page deleted (by me), and Lankandude blocked for a week (by Alex Shih). --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to the admins already handling this, this is hallmark behaviour of a particular sockmaster, and I've re-blocked accordingly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Violation?

(non-admin closure) Violator blocked 1 week. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is this a violation of this? Tiderolls 16:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That it is. E Eng 16:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and there have been several recent crystal-clear warnings that this type of post is a violation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked one week by
velut luna 16:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Well I was pretty blunt so I cant see how they do not know that is a violation. Albeit of the griping category. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If not for Only in death's warning I might have let this go, we do allow some leeway for users to adjust to their community-imposed restrictions. But with the plainly-worded warning there's really no way that I can see that they weren't aware that the edit would definitely be in violation of the restriction. This wasn't just testing the limits of the ban, it was repeating almost exactly the sort of edit (objecting to "de-Americanizing" a biography) which led to the ban discussion in the first place. Easy and necessary block, in my opinion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone offering an opinion. My take was that the warnings were adequately explicit; I was a bit stunned to see Light show's post. I thought it was possible I was overlooking something obvious. Regards, Tiderolls 17:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

user:Emanuel argento disruptive edits

I'm not an expert of such situations, I don't know exactly where to ask for help and I apologize in advance if this is not the proper place to make such requests.
The new user Emanuel argento is erasing content on the article Cassata. Nothing big, honestly, but the problem is that he neither gives substantial arguments, nor shows sources. He didn't stop even when I provided sources to motivate the presence of such content on that page. He kept reverting my fixes, erased the source I provided and trolled me on the edit summary. Today I found out that he erased again my edit. At this point I don't know what to do.
While he has never been warned before on en.wikipedia, I found out that he accumulated a lot of controversy on it.wikipedia, as you can see here (Sorry for linking a page in a foreign language, but I think it is necessary. A web translator may help). Despite admins and reviewers gave him several suggestions, advice and warnings to stop his damaging edits, he ignored everything and everyone. He was also notified with a "block" warning (sorry, I don't know how this procedure is called on en.wikipedia) after several admins and reviewers reverted 84 edits by him in 2 weeks (!). In his defense, he said he doesn't want to be annoyed by admins, because what he say is true (!!). That's how collaborative this guy is.
In the last weeks I reverted other odd edits by him (for example, here), so I suppose he is probably giving the same, bad contribution here on en.wikipedia. That's why I showed you his it.wikipedia talk page.
I just read on the guidelines that, in order to solve an edit war (like the one occured on the cassata article), a discussion on an article's talk page is the best thing to do, but in this specific case I think it'd be useless (he doesn't listen to admins, why should he listen a regular user? He's completely uncollaborative).
On a side note, I noticed he seldom motivates his edits, but when he do, he writes in Italian. I think this is not completely fair and constructive to the community (I can understand him since I'm Italian, but what about other non Italian-speaking editors?).
That said, I kindly ask an admin to keep an eye on Emanuel argento's diruptive behavior on en.wikipedia. I also ask that some admin could help me to restore all the legit content he erased from the cassata article.
Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simostar (talk • contribs) 17:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing topic ban for all articles related to Palermitan cakes or confections, narrowly construdeled. E Eng 19:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC) Seriously, can we change the header on this page to read This page is for reporting and discussing urgent or chronic matters ~~incidents~~ on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors? Not that anyone would read it anyway. But really – an argument over whether a cake does or does not have chocolate in it [74] is an ANI matter? On the other hand, there seems to be a pattern here [75] so maybe we should take this to Arbcom.[reply]
"Tastes great!" "Less filling!" "Tastes great!!" "Less filling!!" Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great rate! Less billing! E Eng 21:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism always looks so much more artistic in Italiano doesn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

User:Ejdjr account appears to be in use for promoting advertisement of his affiliated institution and personnel using Wikipedia as a platform

The use of Wikipedia for the purpose of advertisement of an institution with which
Dennis Charney several times. User:Ejdjr appears to be involved in the use of his account on multiple occassions for furthering the purposes of his affiliated institution and its related personnel by trying to create a new article to promote it and by trying to delete referenced materials associated with personnel at his affiliated institution. He has been informed on his Talk page that if he persists in using Wikipedia for the purpose of creating an advertisement page again for his affiliated institution or deleting referenced material from articles associated with personnel related to his institution that his account priviledges may be restricted which User:Ejdjr continues to ignore. Since I am only an infrequent editor at Wikipedia, it seemed appropriate to leave this report for further eval. 146.203.126.241 (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for posting this. I've left a message on that user's page as well. I do appreciate the cleanup you have been doing behind Ejdjr's quite blatant POV editing, which has indeed violated policy on several occasions (e.g. here). I encourage you to create an account, and continue contributing! Thanks again! Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the account seems to have been used for undisclosed promotional editing. Thanks for giving them warnings and advice, Jytdog and 146.xx. But since it's been over a month since they last edited, I don't think there's much more we can do until they return — if they do — and, hopefully, respond to you. Their promotional article draft has been rejected so many times they may have given up. Bishonen | talk 21:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Conduct of User:Xenophrenic with respect to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 4

I have no doubt that User:Xenophrenic is a good and well-meaning person, but his passion for defending atheism ~~as a viewpoint from which he is convinced no ill can come~~ has led to tendentious editing and accusing editors who disagree with him of having an anti-atheist agenda. To this end, Xenophrenic made 64 posts in the discussion regarding Category:Persecution by atheists, challenging virtually every editor who disagreed with him, and including unpleasant comments like "That is yet another demonstration of the quality of your reading comprehension skills", "please troll at a different discussion page", "You're agenda is showing, and I don't think a closing editor is going to take you seriously". Granted, there were provocations going both ways, but Xenophrenic was the most active participant in this conduct. It was also pointed out in that discussion that Xenophrenic has tended towards edit warring in attempting to depopulate categories that he feels portray atheists negatively.
My involvement with this topic began when I closed this long-backlogged discussion (a very difficult close, due to the extensive discussion and numerous options proposed by participants), finding no clear consensus to delete, but renaming the category to a title with much narrower scope that was suggested by multiple participants in the discussion, Category:Persecution by atheist states. Xenophrenic appealed the close, which is certainly his right. The appeal was closed as endorsing the close of the initial discussion. However, Xenophrenic's conduct of confronting every disagreeing participant at length continued during the appeal. In a discussion with only about a dozen participants, Xenophrenic made 28 comments, often with the imprimatur that those who disagree with him just don't get it, aren't reading the discussion, or have an anti-atheist agenda.
I also sought to populate the newly refined category with clearly relevant articles and subcategories such as Category:Persecution of Christians in the Eastern Bloc and Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union, as articles in these categories clearly describe efforts to impose state atheism through persecution of religious practitioners. The population of such a category is, in my view, standard operating procedure, the same as when I close a discussion as "delete", and then remove links to the deleted target from articles, or when I close a multimove request as moved, and then update the links to reflect the changed page titles. Generally, these efforts are uncontroversial. In this case, Xenophrenic reverted these edits, and has continued to edit war over these additions - he has, for example, removed the category from the subcategory eight times, and has been reverted eight times, by several different editors. Clearly Xenophrenic knows to time his reversions to avoid the letter of 3RR, but not the spirit of it. Xenophrenic's rationale continues to be the belief that the category should not exist at all, that atheism can not be a motivation for people (or states) to act negatively, and that any sources to the contrary must be biased and agenda-driven.
I have no further interest in this topic, but I feel constrained to seek some limitation on Xenophrenic's conduct in this area - even if only a break from this topic for a few months. bd2412 T 20:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. This user seems to be on a very persistent mission, starting on July 5, to see that category deleted. They were clearly highly invested in that deletion discussion, and although the consensus and the Deletion Review consensus, were against them, as of today they're still on a mission to remove that category.[76] While the edit warring problem is obvious, especially given their block log, I'd say this crosses strongly over into
WP:RGW issues. Swarm ♠ 20:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
@Swarm: Since this thread seems to be about more than edit warring, maybe it would be best to conditionally and/or temporarily unblock in order for him to participate here? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: Absolutely. If a community sanction is imposed, I will absolutely be in favor of unblocking in deference to said sanction. If such a sanction is implemented, any admin may unblock without any objection or input from myself. Swarm ♠ 03:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Swarm: hmm that didn't generate a notification for some reason. Regardless, what I mean is that since we're talking about Xenophrenic in the context of more than just edit warring, it seems a shame that he is unable to comment/defend himself. I could be wrong, but isn't it pretty common in such scenarios to allow for a restricted unblock (i.e. only to edit this page)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. Blocked users may have their comments transcribed to AN/I, but I've never heard of easing a restriction for the purpose of AN/I. Given the fact that the only questioning of the block is escalation, I would certainly not support any unblock in absence of a stronger sanction. Swarm ♠ 04:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Perhaps I was confusing the practice with that at AE/ARB. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban: I have conflicted with Xenophrenic on this topic, and I have not seen many of his edits elsewhere. Hopefully, he makes good content edits, and if so, hopefully, he can prove himself so he does not need a topic ban. However, Xenophrenic does appear to be on a mission to whitewash WP content on atheism -- this is seen in his edit warring even after discussions were closed against what he wanted, along with his accusations that user like myself have the bias. I make no apology for my personal religious/political beliefs, but I am not pushing them on WP -- I think the "persecution by atheist states" category is noncontroversial, as there were atheist states in history that engaged in religious persecution (this fact does not condemn all atheists, just as the Inquisition does not condemn all Roman Catholics -- and I speak as a Protestant). --1990'sguy (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations like a viewpoint from which he is convinced no ill can come and attempting to depopulate categories that he feels portray atheists negatively should really come with diffs. That's not to say Xenophrenic has been a model of good faith collaboration, and it's likely he's stepped over the line edit warring somewhere recently, but his arguments are pretty solidly based on policy and sourcing.

Adding context: This ordeal began in response to a category Jobas (now indeffed for sock puppetry) began as one of several anti-atheism editing projects. The first CfD attracted several SPAs, many poor arguments, and blatant canvassing. (As an aside, since BD2412 and I have disagreed on the definition of an SPA, I define it here as a user with few or no edits on enwiki outside of a particular topic or purpose [i.e. including users active on other Wikimedia projects with few-to-no edits on enwiki who happened to find this obscure projectspace discussion]).

Xenophrenic has challenged the sourcing in several places, engaging with more or less the same group of editors, with arguments on both sides repeated ad nauseum. It's often about wanting sources establishing the concept "persecution by atheists" as opposed to a synthesis of something like "they were atheists" and "they persecuted religious groups" therefore categorize not just as "anti-clericalism," "persecution of communists," "religious persecution," etc. but also "persecution by atheists" (I've paid a little less attention to the new category's debates, though it seems to suffer from the same issue). But the content particulars aren't for ANI, of course.

I'm sympathetic to Xenophrenic's position, if not his methods, and appreciate that this is an effort to demand better policy arguments and sources despite being outnumbered, but that in an effort to make up for being outnumbered his editing has gotten rather out of hand. An edit warring block is probably deserved, but I would oppose further sanction without evidence that extends beyond this particular mess. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not unsympathetic to the fact that atheists are a much maligned group. I would note that a closer could have legitimately closed the original CfD as "no consensus" and left the category as it was. I would consider the category rename to be at least a partial "win" for those supporting deletion, since it no longer is directed at atheists generically. bd2412 T 22:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In a way, it seems like you're characterizing this debate as one of atheists vs. non-atheists here and in the way you've described Xenophrenic (the objection I started with above). Neither Xenophrenic nor I have been arguing about the plight of atheists or that they aren't depicted fairly on Wikipedia. The problem has nothing to do with the treatment of atheists (or absolution of atheists, etc.) such that the category has now been improved by being less about atheists broadly... the problem is that it's a loss for Wikipedia to have categories based on
WP:SYNTH, and that the substance of an editor's policy-based arguments are being misrepresented by characterizing that editor having "a viewpoint from which he is convinced no ill can come". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

In retrospect, I withdraw the portion of my statement regarding "a viewpoint from which he is convinced no ill can come". Perhaps Xenophrenic's views are not that absolute. His edit warring and battleground conduct is what it is irrespective of his motivations. bd2412 T 17:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Topic Ban for Xenophrenic on all Religion/Atheism Articles Appears impossible for this user to accept that credible sources see things differently on this topic. desmay (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What credible sources are those? People keep claiming their existence, but none were produced at the
WP:OCEGRS, so the vote was counted. The category at CfD was empty at the time of its nomination and anyone wanting the renamed category included in articles would need to produce reasons based on sources. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I have spent significant time looking at the case and Xenophrenic is not the problem. The fundamental difficulty is that several agenda-driven editors have been pushing the idea that atheism is evil by inserting connect-the-dots factoids in articles along the lines that persecution has occurred because of atheism. Atheists have committed persecution, but so have people with black hair, and secondary sources known to be reliable for the relevant historical period are required to determine which were the significant factors that lead to persecution. Discussions have been closed based on a vote without reasonable assessment of the policy-based information presented regarding underlying sources. For example, the Soviets used atheism to crush opposition—souces do not suggest Soviets crushed religion because they were atheists. Johnuniq (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^^ This. The claim is still problematic, even if there are a greater number of accounts supporting it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have categories like Category:Lawyers from Tulsa, Oklahoma and Category:Crimes committed by law enforcement. This does not imply that coming from Tulsa causes people to become lawyers, or that becoming a law enforcement officer causes people to commit crimes. These categories merely catalog overlap. bd2412 T 23:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V. No one is pushing the idea that there is anything wrong with lawyers or Tulsa so advocacy does not arise. By contrast, advocates are using poorly sourced factoids and categories to POV push regarding atheism. Johnuniq (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I disagree with this user on the facts, but I'm having some trouble connecting his conduct with the need for a topic ban, and I'm not completely sure a two week block is fully justified. He's engaged passionately in a debate about whether a category should exist ---- and lost. He's also removed the same category from articles and has got overexcited with reverting. And... what else? Please could someone help me join this up?—S Marshall T/C 22:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I did not propose a block. However, I was unaware of Xenophrenic's block history, which includes a half dozen blocks for edit warring, most recently a one-week block in February of this year. Typically, blocks for edit warring are progressively longer. bd2412 T 22:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I see. OK, the block's hard to argue with. Topic ban still seems a bit strong to me.—S Marshall T/C 23:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through Xenophrenic's edit history, when he disagreed with the outcome of the previous debate on this category, he went ahead and removed that category from every article to which it had been added. I have nominated plenty of categories for deletion in my time, and when I have been on the losing side, I've never taken a step like that. bd2412 T 23:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a followup: I think the block was very reasonable, if not lenient. This would be a typical block for continued edit warring, without factoring in the strong POV-pushing associated with this user's behavior. This aggravating factor was handily present. Swarm ♠ 03:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't at all agree with Xenophrenic's 'methods', but I can share his frustration in face of demonstrable
WP:SOAPBOXing
and all the (seemingly networked) bad-faith 'in-group' behaviour required to 'push' it; wikipedia is obviously not prepared for such affronts, and those responsible for such behaviour are no doubt quite aware of that, too. And this is a problem that goes beyond this particular topic.

Demonstrating unverifiability (in addition to the above behaviour) is not 'POV-pushing' (and it is disingenuous to call it so): even a cursory search should be enough to demonstrate whether something is commonly-accepted and widely-demonstrated fact (or a fringe-opinion created/promoted by one particular 'in-group'), but when pages of responses to that request by those pushing a claim (and even deciding administrators) do everything but that (and are deflection, vote-counting that doesn't add up, and 'let's find a behaviour fault' (often non sequitur) ad hominem accusations instead), that makes a situation that pretty well describes itself, and makes this look like an additional effort to remove opposition.

I'm not sure whether we (or who) are supposed to even 'vote' here (and any rational decision should, again, consider more than that), but: sanctions for bad behaviour, yes, but topic-ban, no, especially when those seeking the ban are incapable of defending (by any demonstrable means) their this-topic-related claims that are the root of all this. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What's more, it should be further noted that the reporting admin (and the 'decider' admin in earlier discussions leading to this) is clearly siding with the
verifiablilty, as this misuse of Wikipedia, as far as I can see, is becoming a disquieting and increasingly organised trend. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I had no involvement in this matter, nor any interest in the topic, prior to my closure of the long-pending CfD discussion. The most substantial portion of the conduct noted above had already occurred by then. There is no conspiracy at work here, and no agenda beyond carrying out the best available consensus of the community. bd2412 T 21:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's claiming any 'conspiracy', but I have full confidence in the ability of anyone deciding whatever here to judge that for themselves. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the first deletion discussion(
WP:SYNTH and clearly cannot be verified (or hasn't been as yet). Topic-banning someone for pushing a POV that's technically correct cannot be logical, surely, regardless of the edit-warring issue. I am becoming seriously concerned that there is a group of editors who are pushing for their "opponents" to be removed from the arena, as has already happened with QuackGuru in one of the sections above. I don't think letting them get their wish is a very good idea at all. Black Kite (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I've seen many sanctions applied where the administrator explained that good edits don't justify edit-warring, or whatever other bad behavior. Now I see the opposite. Black Kite is even threatening the editors who had their consensus overridden by Xenophrenic's edit-warring with an "investigation" into offsite coordination. On what evidence?

The message is clear: ignore policy and consensus if necessary to make sure your edits stick. And don't worry if you're reported, we'll protect you because we agree with your POV. Administrators don't get a super-vote on content decisions, especially after the fact. Enforce the rules consistently or not at all.
talk) 15:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Perhaps you've forgotten that if I was using a "super vote" then I would have closed the CFD as Delete, wouldn't I? Perhaps actually reading around the issue might be useful here; as Johnuniq and The Promenader amongst others say above, demnstrating unverifiability of an issue (and don't forget
WP:V is policy) is perfectly good editing (it is not POV editing), even if edit-warring is not. Those who wish to see the category retained but have still not fixed the verifiability issues with it cannot hold the moral high ground here, sorry. Especially editors like yourself whose very short editing histories here seem to be characterised mostly by editing warring and POV editing themselves (how ironic, eh?). Black Kite (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

No, I read the deletion discussion (including all 61 of Xenophrenic's comments.) The majority were in favor of keep. Ignoring the canvassed votes the majority was even greater. You said the "keep votes were very poor indeed in regards to policy" without explaining what policies or why and closed as "no consensus", so I don't know what point trying to prove. If you'd closed as "delete" it would have been overturned.
talk) 16:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Really? 99 article space edits and you're giving Black Kite grief on AN/I about how to close discussions? Seriously?—S Marshall T/C 18:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban on atheism/religion topics or Use 1RR restriction: Wow, now that others mention it, Xenophrenic does have a long history of being blocked [77] for constant edit warring through the years. Especially lately he has been engaged with many editors over religion, atheism and politics pages. I know that atheism/religion pages and politics are very hot topics and are controversial, but seriously, the fact that admins have had to step in to block him in the past few years over constant edit warring in these these topics says quite a bit. Clearly temporary blocking has not been effective at reducing his passionate, but unfortunately aggressive and impatient posting - especially when faced with editors with whom he disagrees with. For instance, like User:BD2412 has experienced recently about Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union in the talk page. The same behavior of constantly over-commenting to every other editor's post happened in the recent attempt to delete a category on atheism [78]. The same persistent behavior was active when Xenophrenic contested the decision [79] last week. Even before this, the same behavior was present in another attempt on the same atheism category back in January 2017 [80] with him even ignoring the other side's arguments and/or actually diminishing the points that the "other side" in a summary table (it was very messy). I had to re-summarize the points of the "other side" in order to keep objectivity and honesty intact - people made many points and to diminish their efforts looks condescending rather than trying to be fair what the others are saying. On another article Persecution of Buddhists I tried to expand on a source, almost verbatim and preferred the quote in the end, that was already there on theism, atheism, and repressive governments. I included both theism and atheism since that is what the source said in that section and he changed it to be about defending atheism in general, which was not the relevant part for that article. Instead of reaching a consensus (no one but him agreed with his proposed wording) it looks like he timed and spread out his + 10 reverts (he sometimes reverted manually, without hitting the revert button, to avoid detection) of 3 editors from April 29, 2017 to May 17, 2017 to avoid violating the 3 RR rule despite him not having a consensus favoring his edit after a pretty long discussion with him commentating on pretty much on every post.

Like even User:BD2412 noted, Xenophrenic knows how to time his reverts to avoid detection of admins. When another user was around, Xenophrenic apparently did 43 reverts in less than 2 hours! - per User:Fram's comments at the bottom of his own ANI reprot found here [81]. This is just too much. That was a widespread edit war over atheism/religion too, over many articles. Its one thing to be a passionate editor, it is another to be undiplomatic and to constantly edit war and to be impatiently reverting edits one disagrees with. Filibustering or tiring out editors is not a good strategy to gain allies.

Originally, when I saw this, I thought maybe a temporary ban for a few months would be enough, but seeing that such actions have not deterred such agressive and impatient behavior, I think it may be better for a permanent topic ban on atheism/religion pages OR a very long topic ban with restrictions after it ends such as strictly enforcing a 1RR so that he limits his edit wars and seeks consensus from all other editors. One has to accept the results. Many chances have already been given already to see if his behavior would change, but unfortunately it looks like it has not. I would have wished that it would not have come to this.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really think if you're going to make a whole lot of new accusations you really need to back them up with diffs, otherwise you're just jumping on the dog-pile. You also probably need to address the point that whether or not Xenophrenic has been using the most collegiate approach, he has an entirely valid point about the appropriateness of the category in question at the root of all this, per
WP:V?) - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, the issue is not the category for me. I could go either way on it (I was middle ground on it). The issue that I brought forward was the reverts and the blocks that have resulted from edit warring and of course filibusting (some links are there). These are about behavior, not a category. Does that help?Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is that we should ignore the context within which Xenophrenic acted and examine his actions in isolation? Because if that's the case then why do we have policy if a group of editors can simply ignore it and seek to get a lone editor trying to uphold that policy sanctioned for doing so? Like I say below, Xenophrenic probably deserves a trout for over enthusiasm, but his detractors appear to get a free pass to provoke without consequence and then get to jump on the dog pile here. Yes, very collegiate. - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone supporting a further sanction against Xenophrenic please identify whether they have a COI—Huitzilopochtli1990's (User:Ramos1990) first edit concerned religiosity and intelligence and mentions atheism six times. Regarding the substance of the above comment, what about the behavior of people who, without suitable secondary sources, sought to change articles to suggest that persecution has occurred because of atheism? I tried to clarify when the persecution category should be used here where the only comment supporting use of the category was from Desmay whose user page announces "Founder of the http://www.escapingatheism project". Secondary sources reliable for the relevant history should be used, but Xenophrenic is about the only editor referring to them. Johnuniq (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Johnuniq, it appears that your claim about Xenophrenic being the only editor to provide sources is false: (myself: [82][83]; Desmay: [84]) --1990'sguy (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As standard in this discussion, those diffs show nothing but superficial obviousness ("The USSR praciced state atheism and had it as its goal"). The actual issue concerns a bunch of ILIKEIT votes concerning questions of history—did the Soviet government persecute religious figures because the politicians preferred atheism, or was it because the government persecuted all opposition figures and used atheism as a tool to remove alternative sources of authority. Johnuniq (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Johnuniq,
WP:BOOMERANGed by being blocked for edit warring by reverting 43 times in 2 hours across multiple pages with another editor a few months ago (see his ANI report here in the blocked section at the bottom [85]), do you think that something should be done? His block history is quite long too with 6 blocks since 2011 and at least 3 in the last year and a half over religion/atheism topics (meaning that independent admins have had to step in, including this time with User:Swarm and User:BD2412 taking action and filing this current ANI report). Sanctions such as restricting to 1RR is a decent option which I advocated already. Another option is a topic ban, which I would NOT have advocated if the constant and needless edit warring in recent years had not occurred - which User:BD2412 brought up.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Johnuniq, it simply doesn't matter whether the leaders in atheist states believed atheism or used it -- their states were atheist states either way. The atheist state persecution category we were discussing has NOTHING to do about the people, it DOES have to do with the governments those people led. There is a big difference. I don't care whether the people in charge of the atheist states were true believers or opportunists -- what I do care in this case is whether their governments officially made state atheism the official religious/theological view. The sources that at least I and Desmay provided prove just that. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is only 'proof' that you're looking exclusively for sources (opinions) that 'agree' with you (and even presenting those 'require' your added 'interpretation'). If the claims you're
WP:SOAPBOXing
were true, any mainstream reference would echo them: by all means, please show us source that isn't an apologetic-opinion and/or anti-atheist hit-piece; even a cursory search is enough to demonstrate that 'state atheism' (and similar claims) is an opinionated concept purely a product of these.

Again, the claim itself isn't the main focus of my criticism: it's the selective-reality, rather 'in-group'
WP:V, none of that would be 'necessary'. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

(
WP:V which is policy. - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Should be noted that, while he didn't want it copied here, on his user page, Xenophrenic responded/rebutted some of the claims in the original post above. May be worth reading. I also want to note that the only ones supporting a topic ban here are those actively engaged with Xenophrenic in one or many fronts. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will only add that the same could be said of those opposing the ban. The only ones not supporting a topic ban are those who have aligned with Xenophrenic in one or many fronts. Of course other options are available.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose topic ban Frankly, at most Xenophrenic deserves a trout for not tip-toeing around the sensibilities of those quite blatantly seeking to impose a POV against policy. I took the time to read through all this and check out the diffs provided, really, there's been a fair amount of
bear poking going on. Xeno, you know these guys will not play fair, just cool it man. - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: For what it's worth, some admins, such as Ad Orientem have supported a topic ban for Xenophrenic on all atheism/religious persecution topics in the past for edit warring and POV pushing: [86] --1990'sguy (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User Pichku on article Carl Freer

A user User:Pichku has recently started editing the article Carl Freer. At first the edits appeared well intentioned and constructive, but the user has now started acting in a disruptive manner, reverting other changes, including clean up by bots and administrators back to the most recent of their edits. Attempts to communicate with the user in their talk page end up deleted without reply, and the user has started a section on the talk page seeking consensus, but not willing to consider that removing reliably sourced content is not a way to reach consensus. As there appears to be little interest in the page now, it might take more editors to convince the user of what a real consensus looks like. —Fugu Alienking (contribs) 11:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute which Fugu is trying to avoid by doing this. In all my good faith, I have started a discussion on talk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carl_Freer#WP:BLP_violating_edits_by_Fugu_Alienking

I have mentioned the BLP violations that Fugu made and only want to discuss how they are editing the article. I eventually noticed that from 2007 to 2017, Fugu's user history is only to revert Carl Freer (related articles) and another BLP (also related). This is single purpose editing. I have amended or redacted info that I thought oughta be discussed first due to BLP concerns. Please direct this person to a discussion page or enforce a discussion which they are avoiding. As I understand they should discuss reverts. BLP concerns should be discussed first. It would be a lie that I did not respond to their message on my talk page. They misused "disruptive editing" warnings on my talkpage but I did respond on the article talk page and edit summary. Every one can take a look at the article talk page in my discussion shown above. There is not one instance where they discuss merit of their sources and content. I clearly do discuss their BLP issues. --Pichku (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed a content dispute - there are faults on both sides here, but fundamentally you both need to
to explain) 11:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
There may also be a conflict of interest that Fugu has not disclosed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fugu_Alienking They say they only met the subject in a lift but their editing on the article in 10 years span of time with no interest any where on wikipedia unrelated to this subject and related articles and single purpose editing only is what drove me to edit the article more and more. There'sNoTime, you can see that I have asked more than once on the talk page of the article inviting Fugu to discuss changes. I have been ignored and reverted. Just trying to learn how to handle him and I did not report him first because I dont have good faith. --Pichku (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@
to explain) 11:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you. My comment was on basis of their history only of 10 years. I am requesting Fugu's first opinion on their new edits on your mentioned thread before heading to 3O in good faith. --Pichku (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits to citations by User:Quinton Feldberg; editor is not reponsive

WP:MEATBOT
-like edits that are erroneous, useless, or both. Many of his edits have been useful and constructive, but his error rate is far too high. He has been notified multiple times on his talk page of the errors and has been asked to correct his scripts and do a better job of previewing edits. He has responded a couple of times saying that he would look into it, but the edits have continued.
Yesterday, I asked him to stop editing until his scripts and previewing behavior were fixed. He did not do so. He continued editing, with an error/useless-edit rate of around 25%. The edits continue as I write this. I am requesting that an administrator review this situation to determine if I am overreacting or if some sort of official response is warranted.
User talk:Quinton Feldberg#Citation edits becoming disruptive is a good place to start. There are multiple sections above and below that section with links to diffs and explanations of the problems with the edits.
If this is the wrong venue or I could have done something on my own, I apologize in advance and will be happy to receive a trout for your trouble. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have told them to stop doing semi-automated edits and join this discussion. Given the high error rate and disruptive nature of semi-automated editing where the editor does not respond to concerns, I will block the account should they continue --
to explain) 13:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I have unfortunately had to block the account (3 hours) to prevent continued disruption - hopefully this will spark some constructive discussion. --
to explain) 13:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Interesting. I've seen this user's contributions on my watchlist a lot of late, but always thought they were doing good. Hopefully they'll reply to the block notice. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As others have noted, perhaps three quarters of their edits are useful, but the error rate is too high. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will fix the script. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MTA Bridges and Tunnels (Police)

Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority Police

MTA Bridges and Tunnels#Law enforcement

GySgtHartman (talk · contribs)

108.30.149.204 (talk · contribs)

2604:2000:7083:8100:4CF1:94C7:1033:F28E (talk · contribs) and other IPv6's on this range

I'm honestly not sure where to report this. The above users have been engaging in a long term edit war over these two articles, resulting in the indef semi-protection of TBTA Police by C.Fred (talk · contribs), as well as multiple shorter term protections on MTA Bridges and Tunnels. GySgtHartman appears to have a COI, by being an employee of the agency in question. He is also the only logged in user involved, meaning that he can edit through the protection. However, he also appears to be editing while logged out as the IPv4, except when necessary. Could an admin look at this and consider applying some blocks? Thanks. – Train2104 (t • c) 13:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a sockpuppet situation in these articles:
Mr Johnson SI (talk · contribs)

Said user focused on law enforcement accounts in New York state with a particular focus on changing any mention of "police officer" in many articles to "peace officer". Some—but not necessarily all—of the IP edits may be from him. The semi-protection of TBTA Police was in relation to this block evasion (although I didn't realize I made it indef). That's why I've been actively monitoring these articles. —C.Fred (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editwarring (would report to 3RR, but i'm involved)

The original issue has been dealt with - Stuffedturkey was blocked for 24 hours for
edit warring. While the user is hinting at sock puppetry or what-not, he hasn't edited since (over 24 hours now) and if we see further disruption, we can deal with it in the correct channels. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

User:Stuffedturkey seems to be on a crusade about Gap Inc. and seems to be operating under the impression (s)he can make up their own rules. They have been editwarring againnst several editors, removing sourced content and (apparently) not accepting archive.is as a substitute.

Nope, this is getting nipped in the bud. There will be only one accepted archiving platform.

I can do this all day, lad... (I'm a lass, but never mind that)

This is an extremely strong claim in every regard. I refuse to let you contribute it with such flimsy evidence.

Nope, I'm fine with this. I will not allow such low quality sources be the only citation needed for a claim of what would be nearly universally panned.

I have tried several times to appeal to this users reason, but to no avail. This response to a formal 3RR warning was the straw than broke the camels back. The user in question is either incapable or unwilling to cooperate. Kleuske (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While you were posting this, I was in the process of blocking Stuffedturkey for an absolutely clear-cut case of Righting Great Wrongs edit-warring. I've only made it 24 hours in the hope that it will serves as enough of a shock to jolt ST into becoming a productive editor. Since ST appears to be a single-purpose account dedicated purely to edit-warring on this issue, if it starts again when the block expires the next block will be indefinite. ‑
Iridescent 23:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I saw that. Thanks. But I think the issues are deeper than just editwarring. Maybe they learn. Kleuske (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks as well. Would it be appropriate to revert Stuffedturkey's last edit, or should it be left alone? NewEnglandYankee (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave that to people who know about the topic to decide—I neither know nor care whether ST is correct, just that they're refusing to comply with Wikipedia's rules despite having them repeatedly explained. ‑
Iridescent 23:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I took the risk and reverted per
WP:IAR despite it being my 4th revert. If they return, they can make their case on the talk-page. It may even be a good case. Kleuske (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

A
Iridescent oblige once more? Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Since they only appear to have a single interest, I've just semi'd the page until they get bored rather than waste my time playing whack-a-mole with the socks. ‑
Iridescent 23:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
That should do the trick. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I expect we haven't seen the end of this. See Special:Diff/796937853. —Guan aco 00:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but since they only appear to have a single interest the socks should be easy enough to spot. I assume this is a particularly inept PR department, as a 15-year-old dispute over labor conditions is unlikely to be a topic that would attract much interest from the general public. ‑
Iridescent 00:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Incidentally, ST's original claim, that sources don't exist for the "forced abortions in Saipan" story, is manifestly false, as a five second search on gap saipan abortion demonstrates. ‑
Iridescent 00:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Copyvio, IDHT, OWN, 3RR and related disruption by User:JackW436

I am loathe to open this ANI thread - as myself and a half-dozen other editors have bent-over-backward to try and positively assist and resolve. However, a pattern of behaviour needs escalation at this point.
In short, despite repeated attempts by various editors to assist JackW436 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) with project guidelines and norms, he/she continues to engage in COPYVIO, IDHT, OWN, 3RR, contra-consensus, and generally disruptive editing behaviours.
Largely bypassing all the other advisories on the editors talk page (about article ownership, removing cleanup/speedy tags, editing contrary to consensus, editing other's userpages, or changing other's talkpage comments), I will focus on two main issues of concern. Being (1) continued COPYVIO issues, and (2) continued VER/CITE issues. With a side-order of (3) incongruous AGF issues.

On COPYVIO, myself ([87] [88]) and other editors ([89]) have advised about the issues with adding copyvio content or images. Despite this, the editor continues to add copyvio content ([90] [other examples since removed from page history - per copyvio process]), and continues with attempts to add copyvio images ([91] [92] [93]).

On VER/CITE, a half-dozen editors ([94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99]) have highlighted VER/CITE issues. Despite this, the editor has continued to add uncited material ([100]) and remove cited material ([101] [102]).

On AGF, I would note that the editor has (without a hint of justification) claimed "racist" "discrimination" ([103] [104] [105]). While at the same time (without a hint of irony) discounting other's contributions- on the basis that they are "not from here" ([106]).

While I feel we're perhaps at the point where aspects of
IDHT could be considered ("if the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed"), I'd be delighted with any advice or suggestions that the ANI community might have. For myself I'm out of ideas. And low on patience w/unrequited assistance ([107] [108] [109] [110]).... Guliolopez (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Also that is an infuriating typing quirk, putting ()s around their sentences... --Tarage (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your concerns:
1. Yes, they were
copyright violations
. However, I'm not seeing a recent violation of this policy - not since the end of July.

2. Let's cut him some slack with the
manual of style issue. It's an extensive guideline and it's easy for new users to trip up there - I sure did when I was new :-). The recent issues with adding unreferenced content and removing referenced content (1, 2, 3) is concerning - including this
.

3. I took that response as trolling more than anything. He was given a message simply discussing the use of ref tags, and responds calling it "racist" (1, 2, 3)? And what's with this response? ...

I think we need to focus on recent edits that have caused repeated disruption despite numerous warnings. Some of these concerns have this; some do not. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP whitewashing events

Reported IP has been blocked for
block evasion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

I have dealt with this IP,
WP:SOAPBOX
, even when it isn't. When one reverts its edits, it reverts them back, with personal attacks, like evading a block or a sock puppet, when it isn't.
I suggest blocking that IP, and semi-protecting pages he attacked. That has nothing to do but to cause edit wars and throw personal attacks. -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 07:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hatting personal attacks

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

this guy is a sock of a permanently banned user how obvious can it be - his method is always the same disagree with him and he starts an afd like this one - he is WP:BLOCKEVASION WP:SOCKPUPPET) - he then waits for an admin to buy the afd lies cause he has a named account and I always use an anonip — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:FF0E:1200:150C:31B:85B8:805E (talk) 08:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
he comes to wiki to push his endless bias how obvious can it be!--2600:8800:FF0E:1200:150C:31B:85B8:805E (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
he literally has been doing this exact same thing for years!!!--2600:8800:FF0E:1200:150C:31B:85B8:805E (talk) 08:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All those messages by that IP are personal attacks. Please ignore them.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
who does he think he is kidding I can name over a hundred named accounts now which all follow the same pattern just as this one is doing - you may ask why don't I just start a sock puppet investigation? what would be the point? even now I am sure he is starting 10 more new socks to get his way as HE HAS DONE FOR YEARS!!!--2600:8800:FF0E:1200:150C:31B:85B8:805E (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP /64 subnet blocked for one month for block evasion, personal attacks and disruptive editing. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@
hounding me, at every revert and report of his disruptive edits. Thanks for the help. -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 09:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

User:ChocolateTrain’s personal attack

Meow, my time was NOT wrong, as you very well know. You must also accept that, this time, my image was actually better and was 'time-stamped' correctly. You have absolutely no grounds for changing it, and providing a lie to justify yourself is deceitful.

I cannot agree if claiming someone ‘providing a lie to justify yourself is deceitful’ is not a personal attack, yet that person cannot provide any proof. However, I have proof of my timestamp that is based on NASA’s website. He also cannot provide proof of his image that ‘was actually better’, as his image is modified too much. In fact, mine has a better scale and ratio, and it looks more natural. People also voted for my Patricia image as a featured picture, so I cannot understand why someone would dislike my efforts very much. As he also described me as highly arrogant and supercilious in his talk page, this severe personal attack is definitely not his first time. I don’t come here for asking administrators to block him. I just hope administrators could do some actions to stop the conflict. 🐱💬 09:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would agree with @Meow: after working with her for a few years, especially in the images part. She has made numerous amount of fantastic images in the TC community and have trusted her ever since for that. Regarding to this, I found the user's edit summary not pretty decent and don't really see these kind of comments around. This user has been having rough times and have a couple of issues since several weeks ago. Just atm I am still trying to see his actions. Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@
talk) 09:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
So sorry about this. I never used the noticeboard before so I was not aware of. 🐱💬 10:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to single you out for criticism, it's not an uncommon error. But there is really no excuse for ignorance about that given the big red box near the top of this page. Editors need to read the instructions before they use any board for the first time; they are there for a good reason. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we need an "I acknowledge" checkbox like on license agreements when you install software. E Eng 23:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You mean that checkbox that we always check without reading what we "acknowledge" to have read, just because we can't continue until we do? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a personal attack. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've warned the user. If it repeatedly continues, please let me know or file a report. I think that, as of now, this is the best action to take - remind the user. If anybody disagrees, let me know. Otherwise, we should call this thread 'resolved'. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mattb2314 edits to pulmonary hypertension

Pinging those who might have interests in this: @Ozzie10aaaa: and @Doc James:
An editor, Mattb2314 has been continuously making heavy changes to the pulmonary hypertension page. As one who is not a member of WikiProject Medicine, I just noticed the very huge edit on RC patrol, and found out that the editor has had a history of edits on the page which have caused contention (in that case from Ozzie10aaaa). This user has warned Mattb2314 before about large, breaking edits [111] but I see no response, no discussion at all. Another 'silent' editor.
Hopefully something can be done here. I reverted the edits in question, FYI. Thanks, ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 14:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found this. Will warn about COI/PAID. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 14:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
well I was going to respond to the question of their edits(they added 73 edits/36,000 bytes[112]...and were reverted 6 times by four different editors[113]), however apparently COI has been found[114]...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are with PHA Europe. Happy to have them join us. The issue is more regarding
WP:MEDHOW. Well they have been provided these details they are not responsive :-( Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I've also warned for
edit warring. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

NLT

Reported user has been blocked for
making legal threats. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Resolved

There's plenty of disruption around this for anyone who wants to dig into it, but this is a pretty clear cut legal threat. So...just seems easier that way.
TimothyJosephWood 17:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

This editor seems to have a history of making legal threats.
Tell me all about it. 17:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Blocked. Enough editors have tried to help and all they do is offer to settle things in court. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disruptive editing still persists in
Zapad 2017 exercise

Although
Zapad 2017 exercise. As I already suggested, the best option would be to semi-block the article. The issue may be way more serious than somebody being just stroppy.Axxxion (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The level of possible disruption on this article isn't nearly high enough to warrant protection of this article right now. Report the individual users for violations of policies if it gets to that level - if you think these accounts are sock puppets, file an
AN3. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The Oklahoma Vandal returns

(non-admin closure) Vandal blocked 2 weeks. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This time he's at 50.96.158.181. KFOR-TV: [116] [117] [118] List of programs broadcast by MeTV: [119] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not forget to notify the reported user. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request for review of administrative actions: User:John

No positive outcome will arise with this thread remaining open. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

here
involving an editor other than myself. John is by far in the minority regarding community feeling toward the editor under discussion, and has used intemperate and uncivil language, referring to those who disagree with him as "a hanging mob." Attempts to speak with him with respect and in a reasonable tone are met with inappropriately defensive, accusatory language.
But what makes this serious enough to warrant review is his misuse of admin privileges, through his attempts to intimidate and harass those who disagree with. At that same ANI, another editor started the thread
WP:ANI#John's chilling effect tactics after John went to those editors' talk pages — and only the talk pages of those who disagree with him — to place discretionary-sanctions template. As the other editor wrote, "Do note John's chilling effect here, here, here, here, here and here
simply because he is not getting his way."
Compounding matters is that after not even a half-hour, another admin involved in the overall discussion, who agrees with John, peremptorily closed down the John discussion. (That seems a conflict of interest to me, but that's a separate issue.) Since John's attempt at intimidating editors who disagree with him did not get a proper airing out, it seems reasonable to bring it here as per instructions at
~~WP:ADMINABUSE~~
~~, in the hope that other admins will allow the issue to even be discussed. Any admin who goes around to those who disagree with him to implicitly threaten them deserves scrutiny.~~
I say all this with the full expectation that, given his behavior, he may claim "discretionary sanctions" to block me simply for bringing this up, even though I have not touched any of the articles mentioned in the ANI since the ANI began over a day ago.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae, as seen at
talk) 02:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

If you're serious about this, you should take it to ARBCOM. If you're not serious, you should withdraw this thread.
talk) 02:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

it seems reasonable to bring it here as per instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship
Help me out here, Tenebrae, I don't see said instructions on linked page. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; it appears at
WP:ADMINABUSE, which says in part: "[I]f the matter is not resolved between the two parties, users can proceed with dispute resolution (see this section below for further information). One possible approach is to use Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to request feedback from the community...." Since the discussion about John's intimidation was cut short by a non-disinterested party, I am following those instructions and opening a formal abuse discussion here. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

This has now moved into the category of Theater of the Absurd. Another thread very similar to this about the same editor/admin was already quickly closed above. Can an uninvolved administrator close this before it gets any further out of hand and ridiculous? -- ψλ ● ✉ 02:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tenebrae, I will note, though, that in that first discussion I linked to above, admin
talk) 02:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
For the record:
talk) 02:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Per
clearly involved and should not have done that close. GR, whether or not you were "right", selectively closing a sub-section in a discussion that you have already involved yourself is quite obviously not allowed and will virtually never make a situation better. I understand you're a new admin, but this is basic, basic stuff and you're going to be expected to exercise better judgment than this. Swarm ♠ 03:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Furthermore,
WP:INVOLVED close, borders on serious abuse. Given the fact that your RfA was a serious outlier/long-shot, and that you were only promoted by a margin of about one or two 'crat votes (and with my support), I'm honestly shocked to see you behaving so arbitrarily in your administrative capacity. Swarm ♠ 03:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I do not see how the margin of GR's RFA is relevant to the validity of their administrative actions. As one user concluded in their 2009 study, "The overall support percentage in an RfA is a very poor predictor of how successful the administrator will be." Moreover, as noted in the aforementioned cratchat, "The [RFA] opposition is based almost exclusively on concerns about the candidate's activity levels and numbers of edits," not of potential abuse (emphasis mine). Is an admin whose RFA passed in the discretionary zone deserving of greater scrutiny than one who had a >75% support RFA? GAB^gab 04:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:300 one. As such, they should be seen as an administrative warning, with a bit of personal disappointment expressed on the side. Not some sort of convoluted criticism based on their RfA. Swarm ♠ 04:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Or, put more simply: That's a strawman. I pointed out the borderline RfA for this user's own sake. Don't detract from the seriousness of their actions. Swarm ♠ 05:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I'd caution against using a 2009 study of the RfA process in an argument about recently made admins. As anyone watching ANI will be aware, the RfA process and standards have evolved considerately in the past 8 years, so that many of the successful RfAs of yesterday would be snow-closed today.
talk) 05:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Swarm, I thought Golden Ring wasn't really INVOLVED and said as much; looking over the thread again, I see that it was not a good choice for them to close that subthread. However, once a thread is closed, editors should respect that. As far as John is concerned, I am not aware that he took any administrative action, so this whole thing is a bit moot. If placing a templated AC/DS warning counts as intimidation, then hundreds of us are guilty of thousands of acts of intimidation. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Editors should respect a closure. I agree. Unfortunately,
WP:TPO is pretty straightforward. You can't just delete other people's comments. You just can't. It's not allowed. Simple as that. Swarm ♠ 05:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I disagree that TPO is that simple. Editing closed discussions is clearly disruptive, which TPO describes as a "borderline case". In this case, the extent of my involvement is to have spent around three hours reading diffs and the whole of a very acrimonious discussion which Flyer22 Reborn has done their best to bludgeon, then comment on it. Flyer22 Reborn then chose to interpret a perfectly ordinary discretionary sanctions notice as a sort of administrative abuse. I considered closing the section swiftly a and explaining their error a kindness. When they persisted (and repeating an unfounded allegation is a personal attack) I closed again as a gentler option than just blocking them for the PA. In summary, I am sorry to have disappointed you; my intentions were good.

As regards this report, policy is absolutely crystal clear that any user may post discretionary sanctions notices to anyone, so long as the user has not received the same notice in the past twelve months. For someone who has been here as long as Flyer22 Reborn, and has received a DS notification in the past, it is stretching AGF to believe they don't know this, but I decided to treat it as a good-faith misunderstanding. For Tenebrae to bring it up here again after it has been explained repeatedly, is simply disruptive. Someone should use the fish appropriately and close this. GoldenRing (talk) 09:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reporting a User for Abusing their 500/30 For Their Bias - User: Bolter21

I would like to report a user User:Bolter21.
Please check the user's Wikipedia History. He is editing anything with the name "State of Palestine" or "Palestine" and is replacing it with "Palestinian territories" in order to de-legitimize it. Palestine is recognized by 136 countries as shown here which is obviously more than a majority of countries. In his talk here about Palestine, he ends off his sentence with "Regardless of what you have to say, "State of Palestine" is completely unacceptable" which basically shuts off any discussion as the user does not wish to accept.
The user clearly resides in Israel and it looks like, by their edit history, that just because Israel does not recognize Palestine, that doesnt mean majority of the world does not recognize Palestine. Back to the talk page, he even tries to say that even if 193 countries recognize Palestine, it still "does not exist". He is seriously violating Wikipedia's rule on Point of View. This is not the first time this user has gotten into fights or edit wars, there are many such as here, here, here, here, here (This shows his POV side instead of staying neutral on the political party Fatah), here, and alot more.
Ohh yea, and then apparently anything that is in favor of Palestine, even if its correct, is POV, and another member also tells him this by "not feeding the trolls" here. Not to mention this "very professional" response to an edit he replies here.
I would like the moderators to investigate this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThisIsAgain32 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to report me, but be aware I am here only for the weekends. Anyway, I gave plenty of source-based-explanations for my edits. It is quite stupid to report me without mentioning them, let alone the fact the reported hasn't engaged in any discussion with me before reporting. The admin who will waste his time on this matter can go to the relevent talk pages and read my reasoning but generally my main argument was that, by fact, the State of Palestine doesn't exist. the "establishment of a free and independent State of Palestine". If a state needs to be established, it doesn't exist. I hope this will go back to the relevent talkpages without wasting the admins' time, since this is no more than a content dispute.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bolter21:
"Anyway, I gave plenty of source-based-explanations for my edits. ", Really? Because after I just showed the links. They dont seem like it. In fact you literally swore at a member and was not civil or did you skip that in my statement?
"Feel free to report me, but be aware I am here only for the weekends." Ahh okay so according to you, breaking rules are okay on weekends. Got it.
"The admin who will waste his time on this matter" No, admins dont 'waste their time here', they check over people who get reported.
"main argument was that, by fact, the State of Palestine doesn't exist." Which you are WRONG. Majority of countries and even the UN are against your point. Deny all you want but its a real place. Im sure they didnt teach you that in military.
"If you want a quick proof, look at the fact the "President of the State of Palestine" called for..." - The magic word is INDEPENDENT. Crimea is owned by Ukraine but occupied by Russia just like how Palestine is a country but has alot of illegal Israeli settlements. Of course, you can go ahead and tell me what the military said but that does not change anything.
"I hope this will go back to the relevent talkpages without wasting the admins' time, since this is no more than a content dispute." - Backing out i see? You are good at that.

I am not going to argue with you on content disputes in the Administrators' noticeboard. If you want, move that discussion to my talkpage or to the relevent article's talkpage and please don't make it a
WP:FORUM.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Actually I am just going to go straight in with a request for a topic ban from the IP area for Bolter here. Anyone who seriously argues the State of Palestine does not exist cannot be allowed to edit in the IP area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only in death and Godric on Leave: Feel free to read this article and this article and understand that my edits and views are not based on mere POV. In my opinion the State of Palestine doesn't exist, but it is indeed a subject of debate. While this is all nice and good, when a state's existence can't be confirmed, Wikipedia cannot claim that a university is located in that state. I understand the problems you see with my edits and I will respect your reverts and comments, as I will not break the wiki's policies to prevent a discussion. If you have a problem with my edits, revert all of them, but instead of demanding a topic-ban with a poorly-written reason, debate, bring sources, offer solutions and help the project. I keep believing in my way, as I see that even the less controversial edits I make, like this one, which claims the State of Palestine, whether it exists or not, administrates anything, are being reverted, so I know that while you claim I push a POV, it is clear that the other side is no better, and the best way to solve that, is with discussion.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In general Bolter21 is a good editor, and this report is quite poorly presented, so it pains me to say that the complaint has merit. Bolter21's attitude to this issue is one of pure arrogance. He knows perfectly well that sources differ on the question of what the "State of Palestine" is, but as far as he is concerned "only a dishonest person, an ignorant, or an innocent reader of Wikipeida would think that, yes, there is an actual state called Palestine, that exists at this very moment" [120] That is, Bolter21 knows best, everyone else knows nothing, we must all do what Bolter21 wants. Bolter21 has to be taught that collaborative editing doesn't work like that. I propose an indefinite topic-ban on the concept of "State of Palestine". I'm expressing that as narrowly as possible because, with this inexplicable exception, Bolter21 is capable of excellent contributions. Zero^talk 09:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been editing about this topic for almost three years now and while my attitude has changed a lot, my opinion on the matter hasn't changed a bit. I was yet to be presented with a proof that the State of Palestine exist beyond the papers. If a state hasn't yet been established, a university cannot be located in this state, and a state with no government, cannot administrate cities. Since late 2012, when a the UN accepted the PLO under the name "State of Palestine" as a "non-member observer state", a handfull of users has stuck the term "State of Palestine" every where, to the point of replacing the original terms "Palestinian Territories" for the land and "Palestinian Authority" for the government, with "State of Palestine", while completely ignoring the reality expressed by the hundreds and thousands of sources out there, who were not influenced by that insiginificant symbolic event. This topic was handled poorly throughout the years, with democratic polls and rush to ANIs. I am far from the only one supporting my edits. Suggesting a topic-ban after two broken discussions is not going to solve anything. Handle it in the relevent talk pages rather than going to ANIs. Last time I said such thing, people tried to ban me from Wikipedia, but I will remain stubborn on this matter, as long as the State of Palestine is not existing de-facto. My edits are no more POV pushing than the edits of the other side, which happens to have far more supporters in Wikipedia.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment, absent from my admin tools right now, on the following:
"...The admin who will waste his time on this matter can go to the relevent talk pages and read my reasoning but generally my main argument was that, by fact, the State of Palestine doesn't exist. the "establishment of a free and independent State of Palestine". If a state needs to be established, it doesn't exist...." (my emphasis).
I'm really quite disturbed by an editor who sees "the State of Palestine" and "a free and independent State of Palestine" (my emphasis) as being synonymous. To reduce to simplicity, the absence of a red balloon does not imply the absence of a balloon. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to discuss that with you on relevent talkpages.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bring a T-ban:--Per Only in death.Incompetent editing in a narrow area.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 10:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang Why is an editor with fewer than 500 edits -- who is obviously aware of
WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 -- editing articles about Israel, Palestine, and the status of Jerusalem? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Speaking of
WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
If you think 500/30 prohibits editors who have not reached the threshold from reporting problems in the area at a relevant noticeboard, you are sadly mistaken. If a complaint has merit, it is not ignored because the filing editor has not reached a specified edit-count. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in
WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 prohibits any editor from filing a complaint at ANI. Softlavender (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Support topic ban on I-P areas for Bolter21. Softlavender (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban per OID. Agree with "Anyone who seriously argues the State of Palestine does not exist cannot be allowed to edit in the IP area." That should be a "no-brainer". -- Begoon 12:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unjustified reverting by User:Jytdog

I now think this is much more to do with user conduct than a specific article, so I'll just base my description of the situation around what I put on Talk:Neal D. Barnard when I hoped to get more people to notice what was going on.
On August 20, I made this edit which consisted of mostly cosmetic improvements - in the infobox, I capitalized the first letter of the occupation, I added the birth and date template to the existing date of birth and put the date of birth from the infobox to the body of the article, I moved the individual's place of work to the title section, as suggested in the guidelines, I created the sections Bibliography and Filmography as per the MOS to give more visibility to some of the works that were already in the article, I removed the link to the doctor's website because it was a redirect.
I also added some new information that I believed was not questionable at all - the city of birth which could be found at his organization's website, two more films he's been in, some of the books he's written, and the fact that the person was vegan. I saw a video where he said the latter but I wasn't sure if it would be a great source, so I didn't back it up and instead added the article to my watch list, so that I would find a better source if anyone had questioned it.
Minutes after that, the edit was fully reverted by
WP:ROWN reasonably says, this can be disruptive because it does nothing to improve the article. Instead of removing or asking for references for the things that were questionable, all of the cosmetic changes were removed as well. There were no attempts to point at the parts that were questionable, and keep the cosmetic ones. Less than 7 hours after the initial edit, I added a source
to back up Barnard's veganism, making the entirety of my small contributions hard to question.
Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appeared (the user has a long history of showing up whenever Alexbrn needs to be backed up; maybe there's a technical way to see how often they cross paths on Wikipedia) and made a full revert as well. After I explained my edits on the talk page and made a different edit that contained the same cosmetic improvements and a source for Barnard's place of birth, Jytdog fully reverted that and accused me of adding the individual's unsourced date of birth to the article, even though it was there before I made the first edit. The city of birth was still not in the article after 21 more edits by Jytdog. Just recently, days after the first edits took place, a user moved parts of the content from the lengthy lede to a new "Early life" section, as seen in most good Wikipedia articles, and Jytdog reverted that as well, claiming it added no value.
Jytdog appears to have been briefly blocked from editing Wikipedia 3 times, and although I don't think all of their edits are disruptive and have little to no value, it's impossible to improve something when they revert every edit, be it sourced or cosmetic. --Rose (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Possible topic ban violation: Looking at the details of their block history just now, I also noticed that the user is topic banned "from all matters related to COI editing. This includes investigations and allegations against other editors, and edits to the COIN noticeboard and its talk page", yet just days ago they were asking a user if they "had anything to disclose per PAID or COI". I don't know the full story behind that ban, so I'll just leave the information here. --Rose (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advice: (1) Always precisely describe everything you have done in each edit via the edit summary. (2) Don't do more than one thing/task in each edit; you will be less likely to be reverted if you only make one change per edit, and clearly describe what change you have made and why. (3) Make sure any text or date you add is cited. (4) Don't file an
WP:RFC; yours most certainly did not [121] and I have removed the template and the RfC label. Softlavender (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

In terms of Jytdog, his topic ban on COI concerns was lifted long ago. In terms of meatpuppetry, if you want an editor interaction analysis between Jytdog and Alexbrn, here is the tool: [122]; I have filled it out: [123]. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=797183766"~~

@@ Line 1,435: / Line 1,435: @@
 **Speaking of [[WP:ARBPIA3#500/30]], the complainant shouldn't have been allowed to start this discussion ''per [[WP:ARBPIA3#500/30]]''. —&nbsp;[[User:MShabazz|MShabazz]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Malik Shabazz|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/MShabazz|Stalk]]</sub> 12:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 ***If you think 500/30 prohibits editors who have not reached the threshold from reporting problems in the area at a relevant noticeboard, you are sadly mistaken. If a complaint has merit, it is not ignored because the filing editor has not reached a specified edit-count. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 12:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
+***Nothing in [[WP:ARBPIA3#500/30]] prohibits any editor from filing a complaint at ANI. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 12:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 *'''Support topic ban''' on I-P areas for Bolter21. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 12:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 *'''Support topic ban''' per {{u|Only in death|OID}}. Agree with {{tq|"Anyone who seriously argues the [[State of Palestine]] does not exist cannot be allowed to edit in the IP area."}} That should be a "no-brainer". --<span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> [[User talk:Begoon|Begoon]]</span> 12:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Revision as of 12:44, 25 August 2017

Attack page?

A Proposal

Votes on action against Morty C-137

Proposal for Snow Close

Mass deletions and edit warring across celebrity articles by Hillbillyholiday

Proposed site ban

Proposed one-week block

Proposed sanction

An alternative view

John's chilling effect tactics

Clarification

User:QuackGuru and Judeo-Christian related articles

"Broadly construed"

Site-ban discussion

User:Zbunyip

Nicknames of Donald Trump

Need somebody to look at the interaction between QubixQdotta and myself as it has descended into personal attacks and now threats

96.240.96.130

Phone number spam (Previous title: Anyone want to help roll back vandalism?)

Personal attacks and disruption by Etherialemperor

Best practices (re-creation of deleted page)

User:Lankandude2017

Violation?

user:Emanuel argento disruptive edits

User:Ejdjr account appears to be in use for promoting advertisement of his affiliated institution and personnel using Wikipedia as a platform

Conduct of User:Xenophrenic with respect to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 4

User Pichku on article Carl Freer

Disruptive edits to citations by User:Quinton Feldberg; editor is not reponsive

MTA Bridges and Tunnels (Police)

Editwarring (would report to 3RR, but i'm involved)

Copyvio, IDHT, OWN, 3RR and related disruption by User:JackW436

IP whitewashing events

User:ChocolateTrain’s personal attack

Mattb2314 edits to pulmonary hypertension

NLT

Disruptive editing still persists in Zapad 2017 exercise

The Oklahoma Vandal returns

Request for review of administrative actions: User:John

Reporting a User for Abusing their 500/30 For Their Bias - User: Bolter21

Unjustified reverting by User:Jytdog

Disruptive editing still persists in
Zapad 2017 exercise