Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1008

Editing on SNC-Lavalin Affair by User:Curly Turkey and others
Hi, I'd like to get an outside look at the talk page discussions and article edits on this page. Certain edits by Curly Turkey have I think been uncivil. ("this kind of bullshit", "Jesus Christ, this is exasperating. (...) Do I have to hold your hand and walk you through our sourcing guidlines?", "Aside from your contempt for our sourcing guidelines, you seem to have a vested interest in including "LavScam" in the lead paragraph", "don't make a fool of yourself, Legacypac", [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=891924215&oldid=891922180 "The belligerence some of these editors continue to show—and the facile dismissal of all evidence provided—demonstrates this is a behavioural issue that won't be solved through discussion. The bad faith is so thick you can cut it with a knife—just take a look at Legacypac's FUD that I'm pushing some unnamed "agenda" below."] (Referencing this by Legacypac), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=891938386&oldid=891937807 "I've brought you to task over the intransigent, bad-faith, POV-pushing, policy-violating manner in which it is presented. ANI will decide whether you'll get away with it."])

Other edits have had less than civil remarks in the edit summaries, like "a single-mindedness that should be treated with great suspicion", "WP:WEIGHT is WP:POLICY; if you continue to violate policy, we can sort this out at WP:ANI, if you'd like", "learn how to use a source"

I am also concerned about certain of their arguments regarding sources, but I don't know if this is the right place to talk about that. All other editors currently in the discussion also have disagreements with many of their policy arguments, and accusations of misbehaviour of different types have been raised by others. I have tried to be calm and reasonable, as well as to ask for more specificity in P&G citations, but I don't feel it's helped much.

I have said something to Curly which I'm not sure about civility status on: "You don't need to ping me twice in the same reply to me on a page I'm watching. It comes off as aggressive and condescending, which I'm sure wasn't your intention." I would like some outside advice or input, or something, on the whole state of the discussion and what the bar for civility is, because I thought it was higher than this. The relevant talk page sections begin at Curly Turkey Edits. Curly has also opened a section on my talk page, Sourcing, about a couple reverts I made which make me think I've lost my patience. Safrolic (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to second what Safrolic has written here. Things have not improved since.  Other editors have tried to engage with Curly on improvements to the article but we are not able to discuss content.  Curly simply accuses anyone who disagrees with him of bad faith. When asked what specifically he thinks needs to be improved he tends to go silent or shift to allegations.  This is becoming extremely disruptive.  Unfortunately, I do not see this de-escalating without intervention.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

Now User:Bradv has started edit warring (second removal) and misrepresenting the talkpags discussion. When I reverted them once, adding yet another ref, they claimed it was all right wing media. Curly turkey needs a topic ban and Bradv needs a talking to. Google LavScam and look at how pretty much every media outlet in Canada and places like CNN (hardly right wing) are using this term. This is a politically charged topic and our job is to follow the socerces not whitewash the page and downplay everything. If many many media outlets call something X we also note that in the lede. Legacypac (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't appropriate or helpful. I asked for outside input, and mentioned others, for a reason. Bradv's got good judgment. Safrolic (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I took a look at the article in response to the conversation started here, and saw a pretty glaring NPOV issue right off the bat. I've now started an RfC. – bradv 🍁  06:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If there is a glaring NPOV it is because Curly turkey has been butchering the page. You never participated in the talkpage discussion. Explain your edit warring and removal of three sources. Legacypac (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So ... you're personally attacking editor who calls out your POV-pushing ... Littleolive oil, myself, Bradv ... who next? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Suspected astroturfing at SNC-Lavalin affair
''The following is an incomplete draft of an ANI report I've been working on. Long as it is, many issues and diffs are yet to come. Sorry I did not have the time to make it more concise and readable. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble!'' 07:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

While attempting to copyedit SNC-Lavalin affair, I kept running into sourcing issues: description of something as "illegal" where none of the three cited sources did; description of a hashtag as a "colloquialsim", later reverted three times with the same source about the term as a hashtag; Padding of a quotation with multiple sources, when only one gave the full quote; and so on ...

I've tried to fix the article in various ways: adding sources, rewording, and removing inappropriate sources. I've run into considerable pushback from other editors there, including one who asserts sources are "not required to support all the material in the paragraph, that's ridiculous" while removing a tag.



The most concerning behaviour has been the insistence on including the term "LavScam" in the lead sentence. The term is one of a large number of terms that have been used to describe the issue, including "Wilson-Raybould scandal", "PMO scandal", "Trudeau scandal", and a list of variations of the article title that I removed as redundant and predictable. The only term the editors have fought to restore is "LavScam", despite the fact that several terms (that are not variations of the current title) return a greater number of Google hits (see screenshots).

Early on, I characterized the article's issues as "sloppy", but the single-minded pushback over "LavScam" has made me suspicious. I searched for how the media used this term and found it rare or nonexistent in outlets such as CBC News, the National Post, and the Toronto Star, but the favoured term in the right-wing tabloid the Toronto Sun—in fact, of hits in a Google News search are from this single source ("Lavscam": 4940 hits, Lavscam" -torontosun.com': 1,650 hits). To put things in perspective: : 665,000 hits; : 655,000 hits. "LavScam" barely registers at all, and a supermajority of hits come from a single source.

I then went back through the article talk page and found a previous dispute these editors had had with User:Littleolive oil over who to highlight in the lead. The affair is a divisive one in Canada, and there is no consensus over who is to blame. Legacypac repsonded with this POV:

""I prefer the PM's picture. This scandal is about him, not the former AG who was allegedly pressured""

The AG being Wilson-Raybould; newssources differ on who is to blame, and many of them have named the scandal after Wilson-Raybould, the Prime Minister, or SNC-Lavalin.

Legacypac's first edit to the talk page was commentary "The most interesting part is how SNC paid for the son of a dictator to tour Canada hiring expensive call girls for him." Legacypac and Littleolive then engaged in some editwarring until this comment was finally removed:. Legacypac clearly has a POV and has a history of fighting for it on this article. Other editors who have participated include Harris Seldon, Darryl Kerrigan, and Safrolic.


 * ... Work in progress: Persistent WP:IDONTHEARTHAT behaviour, and dismissal of empirical evidence and policies, including WP:INTEGRITY, WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH ...

The consistent pushback against my attempts to clean up the article's sourcing, dismissal of numerous policies, single-minded focus on the term "LavScam", explicit expressions of POVs ... these have me suspicious of an astroturfing campaign there. At the very least, these editors have demonstrated an unwillingness to respect Wikipedia's sitewide sourcing policies and, consciously or not, have repeatedly introduced and reinforced (sometimes through editwarring) POV into a politically-sensitive article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Re: "not required to support all the material in the paragraph, that's ridiculous", that was my error- I thought we were talking about a paragraph with multiple citations for specific sentences, and that you were saying the source for only the last sentence, was also required to support all the material in the paragraph I thought was cited already. It was that leap/reaction which I was referring to above when I said I think I've lost my patience. Safrolic (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There was and is material in that paragraph that does not appear in any of the citations in the paragraph. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My sin here, and that of some others, has simply been disagreeing with Curly Turkey on the question of whether the term LavScam should be included. There seems to be some question about other edits and sourcing but I don't believe I have "participated" in that conduct. My disagreement with Turkey was limited, I believe, to placing the term LavScam back in the article when others agreed it should be there (Turkey excluded) and disagreeing with Turkey in the Talk page.  It is regrettable that we find ourselves here.  There have been assumptions of bad faith largely all around (by myself included). It is clear though that on the distinct issue of the inclusion of LavScam in the article, which seems to have become the main lightning rod here, Curly Turkey has formed the view that others cannot disagree with him on this issue without acting in bad faith.  That is regrettable.  That is why we are here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: there's now an editwar ongoing between Legacypac and Bradv over "LavScam" in the lead, in the middle of which Legacypac removed a Cite check template, despite the number of problematic citations that continue to turn up. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Check his diffs carefully because he is not being very accurate here. Just as anexample I removed a check cite tag while adding another cite. Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a straight-up lie—not only did Legacypac not add a cite, no cite has been added by any user since that edit. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think he's referring to his edit immediately before that one, where he adds a third reference, to the Toronto Sun, in addition to the two he restored after bradv removed the lavscam thing. I don't think it was a good source, or a good chain of edits, or that it addressed the actual concern re: the lavscam thing, or that that specific bit was the only reason you put that tag up. But I do think it's inaccurate and unfair to call what he said here a straight-up lie. Safrolic (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Does not compute: Legacypac's edit comment was "Don't need that tag", and the Check cite tags the entire article, which I've been systematically checking over the sources of for more WP:INTEGRITY violations. No, Legacypac was straight-up lying and spreading FUD. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Every other editor on the page is disagreeing with Curly and yet he persists on verbal assaults on other editors. This has gone too far. Time to remove Curly from the article as he is being very disruptive. Legacypac (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I concur. Curly Turkey is being disruptive and uncivil, and quite evidently does not WP:HEAR very well. Regardless of any problems that might exist with the article, he is in no way assisting with any resolution. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (Aside from being the only one who has identified and fixed any of the many policy-violating sourcing issues ...)
 * We're left with the same WP:IDHT about policy adherence that we've had since the beginning of this drahmah—policy enforcement is the "disruption" they object to, and which led to the earlier campaign against Littleolive oil (who identified WP:WEIGHT issues, POV issues, WP:INTEGRITY issues, and other issues until being bullied off the page).
 * Several of the editors involved are brand new with only a few hundred edits to their names (PavelShk, Safrolic, Harris Seldon, Darryl Kerrigan), so it's not so surprising that they'd misunderstand or undervalue our sourcing policies—a couple of them have admitted so themselves. Legacypac's vitriol and FUD appears have emboldened them to his ends, and they've followed his example in editwarring to retain policy-violating sourcing.  One example: there is currently an WP:INTEGRITY-violating source in the article (the quotation that precedes it does not exist in the source cited)—and this group refuses to allow it to be fixed, editwarring to keep it in its WP:INTEGRITY-violating state.  Here are my attempts to reason with them about it:  Yet it remains.  This example is lower priority than some of the others (such as the "illegal" one I link to above"), but it illustrates the unnecessary effort needed to fix  in this article.
 * So many other issues remain—the article still needs a full source check for WP:INTEGRITY given the numerous violations, and it has suffered from cherrypicked sources supporting particular POVs, as well as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues.
 * Our sourcing policies are not optional—particularly in a politics article involving BLPs—and cannot be left to the discretion of POV-pushers. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's a prime example of the exasperating IDHT from Darryl Kerrigan, from today:
 * DK: "You proposed multiple alternative names along with LavScam."
 * CT: "I proposed no such thing, and have responded to this WP:IDHT repeatedly. I pointed out it was a violation of WP:WEIGHT to single out "LavScam" when other, more common alternatives were available, and then pointed out that giving prominence to a term that appears in a fraction of 1% of sources—the majority of which are to a —is a violation of WP:WEIGHT."
 * DK: "Your arguments here have have been shifting, often vaugue, circular and ultimately dishonest."
 * CT: "you keep saying this, and yet I see no diffs to back it up. It's simple: follow our sourcing policies. Find me a diff of something I said that is not essentially "
 * DK: "Try reading discussion of LavScam above where you propose alterate names ..." (none of the requested diffs)
 * CT: "I never "proposed" alternate names (and you've provided no diff that I did). I names that appear as or more frequently as "LavScam" . I also  that including "LavScam" would  listing the alternate names per WP:WEIGHT, but that  for readability reasons. I strengthened my  when it was discovered that the term is used in a small fraction of 1%, 2/3 of which were from the Toronto Sun, per the same WP:WEIGHT argument."
 * DK: "The best anyone has been able to get out of you is that maybe you are talking about "Wilson-Raybould Scandal" as an additional term" (!!!!!!) (again none of the requested diffs)
 * Here's where I first mentioned "Wilson-Raybould scandal":
 * CT: "there's also "Wilson-Raybould scandal" and its variations, "SNC scandal" and its variations, "PMO scandal", and so on. Listing them would not be against the guidelines, but would be ridiculous and hinder readability. They may be appropriate elsewhere in the body, but cluttering up the  with them benefits no reader."
 * Note that not only do I not "propose" it, I explictly propose its inclusion, as I have consistently throughout these discussions.  This can be re-explicated only so many times before it's obvious one's dealing with deliberate WP:IDHT belligerence. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * CT: you really, really should consider that everyone else here – do you want a poll? – sees "deliberate WP:IDHT belligerence" as applying to you. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat made by Techbeatz1200
When I nominated his sandbox page for deletion, he responded:

Per WP:LEGAL, this is not allowed. User should be blocked indefinitely until he retracts this threat. theinstantmatrix (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure that's a legal threat as much as a badly-worded threat to take you to a noticeboard. —A little blue Bori v^_^v  Bori! 02:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The user has a choice to either conduct disputes via on-wiki methods or legally; it appears as though they, with this message, want to take the on-wiki route. It's isn't "not allowed" per se, nor are blocks from legal threats intended to force them to retract such threats. Vermont (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a legal threat, just someone who doesn't understand that you can't advertise on Wikipedia. I've deleted the sandbox and left a warning for promotional editing.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Arint and his edits on PewDiePie vs T-Series and Articles for deletion/PewDiePie vs T-Series (2nd nomination)
For the past few hours days, has been repeatedly marking PewDiePie vs T-Series spuriously for speedy deletion. Diffs include, (which included a page-blank) and. Arint is aware that article has passed a recent AfD discussion, closed as Speedy Keep (Articles for deletion/PewDiePie vs T-Series), which was why he even created Articles for deletion/PewDiePie vs T-Series (2nd nomination) (creation diff ).

Arint has been warned repeatedly on the user's talk page to stop tagging the article for deletion spuriously, but has persisted in doing so.

Throughout this, Arint has kept insisting that the article should be deleted/speedily deleted in his own thinking. His repeated ignorance of warnings demonstrate his failure to learn and understand deletion policies and procedures. Moreover his edit at demonstrates his refusal to discuss this issue civilly and maturely. Immediate action should be taken against Arint to prevent further disruption to the articles and Wikipedia. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 17:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Diff on 19 April: (where his request for speedy deletion was declined by Praxidicae . His insistence on having it his way has gone back even further than a few hours that I initially thought. All in all Arint has demonstrated extreme disruptive behaviour to make a point.  Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 17:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Arint has also attempted to refactor comments on the first closed AfD (diffs, and even after warning).  Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 17:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging the users who were involved in reverting his tagging. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 17:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I was trolling. Also, stop referring to me as a male. I am gender fluid. --Arint (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well please do us all a favor and dry up. EEng 10:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have blocked Arint for one week for disruptive editing (trolling), with a warning that if they resume trolling, the next block will be indefinite. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  18:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to finish the cleanup? I have tagged Articles for deletion/PewDiePie vs T-Series (2nd nomination) for deletion: G6, spurious creation of article. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 18:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 18:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

66.35.116.133
Could someone please look at. This one is a puzzler. My initial response was leaning towards "just someone having a bit of fun, might as well post a humorous reply". Right now I am 50/50 between "this is a misunderstanding caused by language/culture and "I am being trolled and we should discuss the possiblity of WP:NOTHERE". --Guy Macon (talk) 06:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I just want to help. Forget about it now I guess. Nobody wants to help me so I will go elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.116.133 (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * 66.35.116.133 blocked with an expiration time of 2 weeks (anon. only, account creation blocked) (CheckUser block). --Guy Macon (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Guy Macon, I extended an olive branch- hopefully when the IP comes back, they'll be a bit more serious and/or interested. We'll see. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit. Please don't do it again. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Lute88 & Galassi
Quite a long time it is known that one of these accounts is a sockpuppet. See discussions: Requests for checkuser/Case/Lute88 of 2008, Sockpuppet investigations/Lute88/Archive of 2017. But strangely, no measures have been taken so far. In the meantime they continue to support each other. For example, Galassi reverting edits of the user Αντικαθεστωτικός in the one article: and Lute88 reverting the same user in the mentioned article:  It seems to me, that Lute88 account is usually used in a more aggressive manner. Thus, today, Galassi had reverted my edit, but then he made self-revert. But then, suddenly, Lute88 made a revert again: This is some kind of abnormal situation. So, I think it will be better to block the Lute88 account, so that Galassi does not feel free from compliance with the rules of Wikipedia.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You should file a case then at SPI if sockpuppetry is the main problem. 2601:1C0:6D00:845:A1CC:ECC6:F0C4:44F4 (talk) 05:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, the question has already been disassembled at SPI in 2017. But perhaps it’s worth finding out why users with dynamic IP of 2601 series and disruptive behavior and Lute88 support each other so often.--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, well it appears it was already established that Lute88 and Galassi share an IP address, so any major collusion between the accounts would obviously be a possible matter of either sock or meat puppetry. Pinging, the original checkuser at the SPI. Black Kite (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I also have to point out that Galassi was put under an indefinite revert limitation back in 2011 under Eastern Europe DS, which they seem to have ignored routinely while I wasn't watching closely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And my past interactions with Lute88 suggest that they should be put under a similar limitation, if not topic-banned from EE topics at all.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree. Totally inpolite. I don't understand why he does such things. He has been reverting everything i wrote, but i didn't understand that he was the same person. Now i known. thank you. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It should not be arxived without a summary, even if the summary is that nothing should be done at this point, or that ANI is not a right venue.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * To prevent automatic archivation--Ymblanter (talk) 07:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * User Nicoljaus was blocked for harassment. G. and L. are two different people. Yes, they edited the same page. But there was no anything problematic with their edits on this page, in terms of content or anything else. Please close this thread. My very best wishes (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE
So I think that is displaying some major WP:COMPETENCE issues. To wit:


 * Violations of WP:RECENT
 * Unsourced BLP content
 * Unsourced recording dates on albums
 * Addition of nonexistant categories
 * Creation of redundant articles (e.g. Longest Gaps Of Original Material From Musicians)

Their talk page is a minefield of disambiguation link notifications stretching over a year, which shows absolutely zero attempt to learn from mistakes or fix them. Edits like this show no evidence of learning how to interact with other editors, asking "WHO REMOVED Closer Tour? Bring it back" to no one in particular.

This user has been here for over a year and has displayed no improvement in editing skills whatsover: no acknowledgement of their myriad warnings, no real content creation, no concept of basic Wikipedia skills such as talk pages, addition of sources, etc. What should be done? Is this block worthy? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Their userpage alone is enough to bring up WP:COMPETENCE problems. Also, this just happened. Vermont (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * yeah, that is pretty damning evidence here. No one who's been here over a year should be editing like that. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This user is now blocked for sockpuppetry. J ACKINTHE  B  OX   • TALK 13:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry at Spygate from r/The_Donald
There has been a spike in editing on Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump). It is complicated to summarize, but has found that it is a meatpuppetry campaign courtesy of r/The_Donald. Also pinging, , ,. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * - I'd like to correct that description. What I found is that r/the_donald recently has been featuring, and linking to the Spygate page on Wikipedia, and the posters and commenters have been very displeased that Spygate is being described as a false conspiracy theory. starship.paint ~  KO   05:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Title of thread (this one is new, 7 hours) There is a big argument between Wikipedia editors on "Spygate" here. Clearly some of them suffer from TDS. Quoted comment:
 * "some" Lol Understatement of the century.
 * holy fuck how did I not read further down. That person literally spat in the face of logic and sources. Insane. Fucking insane. 


 * Title of thread: In case anyone doubts Don Jr’s tweet about Wikipedia, get a load of the official article on the Spygate scandal. Uncorrected, unrepentant. Quoted comment:
 * Can Wikipedia be blitzed with people making changes?
 * Article is very one sided and doesnt even touch into the intricate connections between Halper...


 * Title of thread: The reason Wikipedia cannot be cited as a credible source. #StopTheBias Quoted comments:
 * I can change it, and I will. Unless it’s blocked. I have an account It’s right saying it has multiple issues
 * It’s no longer a conspiracy theory. It’s conspiracy fact. Fuck Cuckipedia.
 * False conspiracy theory as in proven correct
 * Wikipedia must die. 


 * Title of thread: 1984: Wikipedia Edition VERY FAKE NEWS Quoted comments:
 * Time to archive all the edits coming in the next few months. something tells me there will be a lot.
 * Untrustworthy citations were always the biggest issue but now we see that bad actors/editors are a significant issue also. 


 * Title of thread: Donald Trump Jr. on Twitter: "Wow this is a big deal, Wikipedia is everywhere and a primary search tool for many. Who wants to bet which side was protected???" Quoted comment:
 * Case in point: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spygate_(Donald_Trump_conspiracy_theory)


 * Title of thread: Wikipedia Editors Paid to Protect Political, Tech, and Media Figures DRAIN THE SWAMP Quoted comment:
 * The only evidence you need to know that Wikipedia is complete 1984 Orwellian wetdream: Spygate (Donald Trump conspiracy theory) Someone please archive it so we have complete proof that Wikipedia is fake news bullshit. starship.paint ~  KO   05:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Plus even newer links  starship.paint ~   KO   14:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I opened an SPI at two weeks ago after I received a warning at AN/3 for reverting a bunch of new editors in this article. I suspected they were all coming from somewhere off-Wiki. O3000 (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Who cares? The article is bad and more eyes on it are desperately needed. Please don't canvass only the sympathetic editors Muboshgu. Also, you are involved at the article and should not be using your tools. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - how is Muboshgu misusing his tools? I wasn’t even aware he was an admin. More eyes aren’t necessarily good when the people coming don’t know how Wikipedia works. Its not good if instead of using reliable sources people use their own definition. It’s good if people follow the rules. It’s bad if people do not follow WP:RS. starship.paint ~  KO   11:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Muboshgu is WP:INVOLVED at the article and used their tools to apply protection here. I never stated this was tool misuse (see the 3rd paragraph of INVOLVED), but in general Muboshgu should not be using admin tools in AmPol topics. That article is in desperate need of more eyes. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No comment, I’m going to ping to explain his actions. starship.paint ~   KO   12:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Mr Ernie is right. I should have taken the request to WP:RFPP for an uninvolved admin to protect the page. The page became unprotected and a swarm of disruptive editing began and I reacted too quickly. The page needs to be protected, nobody was following WP:BRD, but it should've been someone else to do it. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It was the right thing to do. Controlling influx of disruptive edits to an article is part of an admin's job and easily passes WP:INVOLVED exceptions. Any admin would have done the same. If being politically right is the issue, maybe Muboshgu could have asked another admin for a second opinion but there is no way anyone can call this a bad decision. Admins are expected to do what's needed. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We have methods of asking for more eyes. Canvassing in an off-wiki conspiracy thread isn't one. O3000 (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

If there was ever a time when WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS apply, it is now. Comments by Barr are being taken as the final arbiter of truth, even though they were uncertain, off-hand, without evidence, spoken to please saying what pleases his boss, and he's pulled back on what he said. Sheesh! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * BLP applies to Barr too, and you've no idea if he said what he said "to please his boss." Barr is the Attorney General of the USA, and made a claim to Congress that he thinks spying occured (he also called it unauthorized surveillance). He said he's investigating whether it was adequately predicated or not. Our articles do not reflect this information. Now I know you hold strong opinions of editors who support Trump, but it just might be possible that everyone has a bias that impacts their editing (or reporting), and even our precious "RS" may have gotten some aspects of this story wrong. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Barr presented no evidence. He gave an opinion and acknowledged he couldn't back it up. We have nothing to go on but the reliable sources that reaffirm that nothing untoward has come to light. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, did you really just say "even our precious "RS" may have gotten some aspects of this story wrong."? And what if they did? What are YOU going to do about it? How would you propose to rectify that situation? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Mr Ernie, I'm still waiting for an answer. I really get tired of experienced editors who show a disregard for our RS policy. We follow that policy, and we only change our content when the RS change. We don't make changes, especially a total reversal of a whole article (in this case) based on weak information, poor sources, or the hem hawing utterances of believers in conspiracy theories, even when they are Barr and Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * my apologies for not answering yet and making you wait a few hours - I made some new friends and was playing the guitar with them. It was great - we nailed a playthrough of All Right Now (but nobody comes close to Paul Kossoff's complete mastery of vibrato) and I had a TON of fun, even if we didn't all speak the same language. Regarding your question, there is nothing I will or can do to go against what RS choose to write on the topics I am interested in. I hope I have not made such changes to any articles. I'm not as good a writer as you, and therefore limit my participation mainly to talk pages of contentious topics, hoping that the more talented editors can use my comments to help improve articles. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand. Glad you had a good time. Music is important. I don't know how I'd live without it. Life would be poorer without it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , would you believe it if I said I actually got goosebumps playing the lead to the Allman Bros. song Blue Sky, harmonizing with another guitarist with whom I could not speak? I do not understand how those young guys from Florida created such an incredible sound that I'm enjoying nearly 50 years later. Let's all take a minute and listen to a favored song or two. Before I was 24, I always thought of what I'd accomplish by the time I was Duane Allman's age when he died. Now that I'm far past, I reflect on that young man's short life and the truly priceless gift he gave to so many. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I can definitely believe it. (Blue Sky) I was a young stoner when I bought Eat a Peach, and we spent many hours enjoying the talents of the Allman Brothers. What a trip! His death came as a huge shock. What a loss. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

439 posts by 53 users in the last three days
Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) has had 439 posts by 53 users in the last three days. That's more that the talk page saw between the creation of the article and four days ago. At what point do we do something about this?

Now I know that the usual easy answer is some sort of temporary protection, but if an admin wants to be a white knight and do a bit of extra work, it might be worthwhile to look at the contributors and apply some WP:NOTHERE blocks. A lot of them have been disruptive on other politics pages, and it looks like it would be pretty easy to identify the few veteran users trying to deal with the flood and the meatpuppets from r/The Donald who are disrupting multiple articles. Or should I compile that list myself and post it at WP:SPI? --Guy Macon (talk)
 * Good point. Not only are a number of newcomers NOTHERE, but several of the regulars who attack RS and push conspiracy theories need topic bans. Their lack of competence is quite evident because they show they are more interested in pushing fringe theories found in unreliable sources than in following policy. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Guy. I agree completely. Allow me to now name a few of the accounts that I suspect of meatpuppetry, for any white knight UNINVOLVED admins:
 * , account inactive for three years prior to this
 * , account inactive for a little over a year prior to this
 * , account inactive for two years prior to this
 * , new account, no edits except the Spygate talk page, where the user acknowledged coming here from r/The_Donald, this user has been more upfront and constructive than the others I think
 * , account inactive for almost a year
 * I apologize if I made any errors, but this is suspicious behavior. I will now notify these accounts on their talk pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I was not solicited to come here, and I am not here to "sway consensus." I check Reddit occasionally and did see discussion about this article. However, I didn't decide to create an account and edit simply because I saw a post on Reddit - I am here to correct egregious factual errors in the Spygate article irrespective of how I found the article. Moreover, I believe that the tone and tenor of Muboshgu's commentary on the talk page betrays a profound political bias, and I feel it is more than a little inappropriate for this user to seek administrative punishment against me for suggesting revisions in the talk page in full transparency and good faith. I do not believe I have violated any rules but will respect the Administrator's judgment in any case. I have not even tried to edit the article itself - just provide factual evidence and feedback in the talk page. Happy to answer any further questions. SIPPINONTECH (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , for the record, I appreciate your forthrightness on why you came to Wikipedia. I am not seeking administrative punishment against you, but rather we are discussing the influx of new editors. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have a similar story to SIPPINONTECH. I am a real person who doesn't have the need to edit or log into wikipedia very often even though I use it almost every day. When I saw this page and the discussions that were happening it frustrated me, so I commented but I was not solicited to do so. It appears that there is a pretty significant bias in play for those who are guarding this page from editing and I think the comments you are seeing here go beyond being rationalized away by accusing people of meatpuppetry but, rather, there are actual issues with the accuracy of the page. justncase80 (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I have made the EC protection indefinite and am invoking ACDS post 1932 American Politics. Muboshgu technically should have asked someone else to protect the page, but his reasoning was sound. No harm no foul. I have also logged the protection at WP:AEL. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The EC protects the article, but does nothing about the 439 posts in 3 days on the talk page. The obvious meatpuppets are disrupting many other pages as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This topic has been featured heavily in the news these past few days. Folks interested in learning more naturally come to Wikipedia, and perhaps are surprised that the article is somewhat lacking. They make an account to then help, improve, and participate in Wikipedia. This should be encouraged, not stifled by posts such as this at ANI. If misbehavior occurs, deal with it. Otherwise, WP:BITE applies. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what meatpuppetry is, but no one tells me when to contribute to Wikipedia. I decided to post on the SpyGate talk page because it's amazing to me how there is plenty of publicly available evidence that Trump was spied on, (including a book titled SpyGate) and so it seems unbelievable Wikipedia still calls it a false conspiracy theory. Now, the author of the book (a former cop and secret service agent!) is called a "clown" by longtime Wikipedia editors, and his word is "not to be trusted." That slander keeps them ignorant.


 * As I wrote on the talk page, imagine if Bush 43 had been wiretapping Obama, and Wikipedia refused to acknowledge it, and only called it a conspiracy theory. You would think you are living in crazy times. The other amazing thing is how many people here are implicitly defending unauthorized surveillance (by saying it didn't happen) and defending the politicization and weaponization of the US intelligence community. The US federal government has committed crimes, and Wikipedia defends democracy by saying it didn't happen. KeithCu (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - if you trust Dan Bongino (and even want to use him as a reliable source), you’re probably massively misinformed. Being a former Secret Service agent doesn’t make you reliable. See my example below (the green box) starship.paint ~  KO   22:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You appear to be implying that Obama was wiretapping Trump, and several other crimes. There is not even a hint of evidence of any such. Please don't bring conspiracy theories here. In any case, this is not the place for content disputes. O3000 (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

.The Russia investigation started with information on George Papadopoulos. This has been confirmed twice, first by Republican staff for the House Intelligence Committee in Feburary 2018, then second by Republican congressmen on the House Intelligence Committee in April 2018. However, Dan Bongino, after these two confirmations, makes the opposite assertion in March 2019: not George Papadopoulos, but the Steele dossier,     and doubles down at least 4 (!) times. Multiple reliable sources have written in fact checks that the Steele dossier wasn’t the origin, it was George Papadopoulos. Factcheck.org Politifact Associated Press Washington Post Bongino by goes against other RS while never once acknowledges the strongest counterargument for this statement of fact - the House Intelligence Committee which was controlled by Republicans, allies of Trump. Clearly, Bongino has no basis in reality regarding Trump, either by way of ignorance of the House Intelligence Committee, or simply lying about the situation. starship.paint ~  KO   23:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I have blocked The3taveren as an obvious sock and KeithCu as clearly NOTHERE. Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 19:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * why did you block KeithCu? Please clarify. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Defending Breitbart as a reliable source and IDHT advocating of conspiracy theories are both clear evidence of NOTHERE. Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 18:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * All I see is a few talk page edits and 0 mainspace edits. That is not enough for any IDHT territory, what I do see is then your bias clouding your judgment. You don't get a NOTHERE block from a talk page discussion. This was a bad block. And you might want to check the talk page, there is currently a RM discussion there and calling it a conspiracy theory is indeed up for discussion. You should unblock. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - Agree with Sir Joseph that this block is unwarranted. There was no disruption warranting an indef. Talk page discussion was ongoing and progress has been made. You've come completely out of nowhere - before April you have basically no posts to the administrator noticeboards. You shouldn't be coming in and dropping blocks like this. You've barely even edited in the last 6 years. Why are you still an administrator? Mr Ernie (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Indef block is a bit much, but it's plainly obvious that KeithCu is incapable of making useful contributions to any discussion of American politics. At the very least a topic ban was inevitable if he kept going. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's for the community to decide if and when the time comes. This was actually a bad block.  NOTHERE is just an essay; it is not part of blocking policy.  When admins (who know what they're doing and have been active any time in recent years, not popping back in from the Age of Dinosaurs) mention NOTHERE in a block rationale, they have other rationales that are within WP:BLOCK, and are using NOTHERE as a shorthand. In this case, there is no actual block rationale, since nothing disruptive was happening.  And this is a topic area under WP:AC/DS, so it's actually twice as easy to come up with a legit rationale that it would be normally.  So, complete FAIL as a blocking decision. (I predict nothing will be done about it, because this site has become completely dominated by leftists.  I say that as someone on the left of most issues, too; just being honest.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, these comments by in his unblock requests and edit summaries are the opposite of reassuring. I'm getting a strong sense of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS here. starship.paint ~  KO   11:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What's good is it gives me new material to talk about in my updated Wikipedia chapter
 * I would investigate the agenda of people to refuse to admit that a mountain of evidence exist, even while more comes out every day. My agenda is the truth, apparently we are in a tiny minority on the politics portion of Wikipedia, and banning me is easier than fixing Wikipedia falsehoods.
 * Why are the media covering up for crimes? Are Wikipedia's "reliable sources" dangerously wrong sometimes? I would hope that the people and companies who lied to us about SpyGate and said it never happened should have their Wikipedia pages reflect, with some sort of Scarlet Letter. End of quotes from KeithCu. starship.paint ~  KO   11:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between "righting great wrongs" and maintaining WP:NPOV. There is evidence to suggest that the FISA system was abused. Fox news, which is considered a reliable source per WP:RSP, has reported on the abuse of the FISA system/court. Specifically, that have reported on the fact that the FISA court was lied to about the funding behind some of the evidence it was presented. This may or may not have affected the issuance of the FISA warrant, and one would have to defer to WP:RSOPINION before drawing a conclusion from this. However, to completely ignore the sources documenting how the FISA court was lied to would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Based on the article's title, and Keith's assertions, it would seem that the article is completely ignoring evidence that "SpyGate" is not merely a conspiracy theory. Likewise, suggesting a correction to the article is not "righting a great wrong". As far as the RS status of breitbart is concerned, I agree that that should not be discussed here or on the "SpyGate" talk page. Instead, if Keith really wanted to try to get its status changed, they should open a discussion over at a subpage of WP:RSP (I don't recall the exact page off the top of my head). However, the problem with dismissing Keith's claims offhand due to his reliance on breitbart is that FISA "misleading" was documented by Wikipedia's RSs too. Hence, to claim that the FISA court was lied to is not WP:FRINGE or WP:OR, rather, it is a fact that should be noted in the article per WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:RS. Also, why does it matter that Keith took a wiki-break for a few months/years? I would suggest that we should assume good faith and that we should not attribute to malice that which can be attributed to ignorance (Hanlon's razor). If they made a mistake after their absence it is more probable (to me at least) that they merely forgot some of the rules rather than that they remembered all the rules but decided to break them. Also, per WP:BITE, ignorance of the rules can be a valid defense. Was he even officially warned, or did we jump to an indef ban? Either way, I fail to see how the indef ban on Keith is justified. ElectroChip123 (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure if FISA is relevant to the Spygate article as is, which refers to the May/June 2018 allegations. As I have pointed out to other editors, they might be better off creating “Allegations of improper surveillance of the 2016 Trump presidential campaign”, because clearly we are arguing on different matters. Anyway, the rest of your post from Also, why does it matter that... does not seem to be a relevant reply to me. I never argued for KeithCu’s block on those rationale. I merely point out that some of his post-block comments are concerning. starship.paint ~  KO   16:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * aren't the "Allegations of improper surveillance of the 2016 Trump presidential campaign” and Spygate one and the same? Sorta like how the "Special Council Investigation... 2017" is related to / another name for "the Mueller Investigation"? As far as I am aware, the spying allegations are based on the (presumed) "improper surveillance of the 2016...", and thus one "article" would actually be a subsection of the other. I never argued for KeithCu’s block on those rationale. This is true. I had meant to ping all the editors involved (some of whom used that rationale). Likewise, I apologize if it looked like I was singling you out for that, that was not my intention. ElectroChip123 (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * unfortunately your definition of Spygate has failed to get much traction among reliable sources. So the thing is, you have to find sources explicitly defining Spygate in that way. starship.paint ~  KO   00:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is that this shows the bias of Wikipedia. Comey himself says that there was a FISA warrant and "intelligence gathering" on Trump's campaign, but doesn't call it spying. Barr says, that is what the definition of spying is, using intelligence to gather information. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - I fail to see how that is a relevant reply to my post. Is this a general comment? starship.paint ~  KO   14:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, it's a talk-page, not mainspace. There was 0 mainspace edits,and even 0 talkpage edits that were disruptive. This was a bad block by an administrator who came out of nowhere and just placed a terrible block. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You are right, this is clearly a bad block. The editor acted in good faith and did not intentionally violate any policies (and its very questionable whether he violated any policies at all). He got blocked for suggesting that Breitbart was not a conspiracy theory website. Note that he didn't even try to incorporate it in an article. I know everyone wants to pretend that wikipedia doesn't have a political bias problem, but it does and we have several administrators that strongly enforce it by banning or blocking editors.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I have been engaging KeithCu on his talk page, mainly because I do believe he will be unblocked, and thus would like to help him better conform to policy. In my view KeithCu has a long way to go regarding following WP:V in the vein of WP:VNT, as well as WP:RS. If you will read the following quotes: starship.paint ~  KO   01:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The media saying 100 times he wasn't spied upon isn't evidence of anything.
 * If 100 people say I've never been shot, but I have a bullet hole in my arm, which evidence is more definitive? I realize Wikipedia is in a tough position right now, but that the media said 100 times Trump wasn't spied upon means there are (probably) two scandals.
 * Here for example is the first NYT article which discussed the spying... it doesn't mention the two-hop rule ... For that, you have to go to a source which is unreliable by Wikipedia standards: https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/256333/fisas-license-to-hop ... Even then the big media tell the truth about SpyGate, they carefully avoid telling the most scandalous facts. These are quotes from KeithCu. starship.paint ~  KO   01:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

This shows a lack of competence, which is natural and common for new users, but unforgivable in more experienced users. The hard part follows next: Will he accept the advice from more experienced users, or persist in righting what he sees as great wrongs, and pushing for his version of truth over verifiable RS, etc? His reactions will determine whether he should be unblocked or not. If he refuses to drop his reliance on Breitbart and such sources, he will likely never be suited to edit controversial and political article. He must show evidence of a positive learning curve. The quotes above are not promising. Sad.

He also seems to think that we should allow discussions on talk pages which show reliance on unreliable sources, as long as they are not used in actual edits. That's not true. An editor who shows ignorance or disdain for our RS policy is showing that they are not competent to edit controversial and political articles. They need to learn to not read or use such poor sources. They are showing that they are more interested in advocating fringe ideas and conspiracy theories than advocating what is found in RS. The two types of advocacy are very different. The first is literally forbidden here, while the second is required per policy, and this is usually happening on talk pages. Such editors may sometimes be rescued by using topic bans, rather than complete banishment. I'm not sure that would work in this case because of the strong nature of his statements above. NOTHERE seems to describe the situation well. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

A conspiracy theory cannot be false
According to Wikipedia, a conspiracy theory is [...] the unnecessary assumption of conspiracy when other explanations are more probable. If we only have 'rather improbable', we don't have false, because false would at least requires a 0 probability. Don't start saying that Wikipedia is not a Reliable Source about the Truth&copy;: Wikipedia is a Reliable Source about how to parse words and terms used in a Wikipedia discussion. If someone was saying "Trump launched Spygate as a good designed campaign to do such and such", this could be a conspiracy theory. Because another explanation comes to mind, i.e. "Trump launched Spygate due to an irrepressible compulsion to tweet something, day after day". And then we can weight the sources to say which is the more probable explanation. Saying "Stefan Halper was approaching the Trump campaign advisers in order to learn how to win a presidential campaign" would be a conspiracy theory, because the odds are very low indeed, whatever could be the alternate hypothesis (remember: at that time, Democrats were so sure to win). But saying that "... to spy the Trump's campaign" is a conspiracy theory would need --by definition-- to provide an alternate, more probable, explanation. To sell chocolates, may be ? When we have a "low quality assertion", it suffices to say so, because this can be backed by sources. Pldx1 (talk) 09:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , by definition, any theory is more probable than one for which the probability is zero. Ergo, you are wrong in the first—though ignoring what you quoted for two of your own words is not a good start. In the second, Wikipedia discussions preferentially draw definitions from projectspace pages, not mainspace articles, i.e. Notability and not Notability and we note that such definitions may differ. As for when a lack of conspiracies can be considered more probable, I draw you to Occam's razor, and the more specific Hanlon's razor. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * When you draw at random a number x among the set of all the integers, the probability of "x=3" is exactly 0. This doesn't imply that "x=3" is false. If you obtain "x=3", this doesn't prove that the process was wrong, but if you obtain ten 3 in a row, this is no more a conspiracy theory to guess that the process was not uniformly random. And here, if one only want to say that, one more time, this Trump emitted a "low quality assertion", it suffices to tell it that way, since this is provable, and avoid the "conspiracy theory" formulation that is not provable, and only leads to never ending and useless discussions. Pldx1 (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Technically the probability "approaches zero", it does not "equal zero". If it was equal to zero, then over an infinite amount of draws, x would never be equal to 3. But 3 is in the set of integers, and one is selecting an integer at random. Thus it is possible that x = 3. Hence, we have arrived at a paradox: x can be equal to 3, because 3 is an integer, but x cannot ever be 3 because the probability of that event is 0. This is a contradiction, and given that 3 is an integer, by modus ponens we have that the assumption that probability x = 3 is zero is false. ElectroChip123 (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear User:ElectroChip123. Technically, you don't understand what could be a probability. Proof: you are equating "the probability of this event is equal to 0" with "this event is impossible". And thus, you were right when not signing your post. Pldx1 (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear, a probability of zero means an event is impossible. Furthermore, the chance of picking a 3 at random from the set of integers is not zero. It's infinitesimally small, but it's not zero. Limit wise, one could say that the probability of the event approaches zero but one cannot conclude that the probability is zero. ElectroChip123 (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, I intended to sign my post, but probably forgot to because I was responding to multiple things at the same time. I have now fixed that mistake. ElectroChip123 (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've seen "false conspiracy theory" come up so many times in other articles, and it is correct that there is no such thing as a false conspiracy theory. At the heard, a conspiracy theory is a theory about how something happened or the like, so it can be accepted, or it can be disproven or rejected, but it can't be false because there's no "truth" aspect of the theory. Even in the case where there's a mountain of evidence that clearly shows that none of the events were even possible, that's not saying the theory was false, it was just wholly disproven. A conspiracy theory can be built on false information but still as a theory, it's not "true" or "false", but "accepted" or "rejected" or some other state like that. --M asem (t) 16:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am genuinely confused as to what is going on here. Let's accept these premises for the sake of argument: (1) the idea that NASA faked the moon landing(s) is a conspiracy theory; and (2) the moon landing(s) actually occurred.  Surely said conspiracy theory is then "false?"  We're straying a bit too close to Karl Popper here, but it seems to me that some conspiracy theories are falsifiable, even if some are not?  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Dumuzid. (1) is what is called a fringe theory, i.e. a set of assertions that largely diverts from the mainstream corpus, and whose supporters only form a small minority. To obtain a conspiracy theory, you have to add an pseudo-explanation using a conspiracy. Example: they have invented all this moon landing story in order to (1) hide the fact that the Earth is flat (2) and then use the money to buy chocolates (or to finance their wars, or what else, there is so large a choice). It is to be noticed that more than often, the terms 'fringe theory' and 'conspiracy theory' are only used to convey a negative opinion, rather suggesting a diagnostic of stupidity or paranoia ... without any other proof than 'I don't like this guy'. Once again, "low quality assertion" is largely more efficient as a characterization. Pldx1 (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Pldx1, I understand, and agree that there are certainly times when "fringe" or "conspiracy" are used as mere pejoratives. However, if we assume my (2) is true, then isn't your conspiracy theory still false, as it is based on something untrue?  After all, if I promulgate a conspiracy theory that things fall upward after sundown, and this is done by the government to aid the airline industry, it would seem to me this could be shown false simply by demonstrating that things continue to fall down after sunset.  Thanks for taking the time to explain.  Dumuzid (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * When reliable sources say that something is false, it is not for us to decide that what they really mean is "low quality assertion" or whatever. Wikipedia weights viewpoints based upon their prevalence in reliable sources, not based on our interpretations of existential philosophy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

There's an RfC about this at Talk:Conspiracy theory. Leviv&thinsp;ich 23:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% that a theory can't be false - no matter how absurd. Any claim about the objective reality is inherently subjective - and hence fallible; you can find more on this on epistemology. Even if RS are unequivocal about the fact that a certain conspiracy theory is highly unlikely or wholly disproven, we still can't conclude that it's false. The better phrasing would be, as mentioned "wholly disproven", "discredited", "rejected", etc. O l J a 00:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oldstone James--while I have a lot of sympathy for your universal skepticism position, I still find it hard to square this with a certain illogical strain of thought. Pizzagate averred that there were illicit activities in the basement of a restaurant which, in fact, has no basement (to Pldx1's taxonomic point, I believe this was supposed to have some sort of explanatory power for political events).  Mindful of NorthBySouthBaranof's good point above, that we should not supplant the epistemological positions of reliable sources with our own, I am fine calling at the very least the basement portion of that theory "false," as it is based on about as close as we can get to objective untruth.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * What about tying "false" to "allegation" and tying "discredited" to "conspiracy theory"? starship.paint ~  KO   01:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding an edit to "Mera Joota Hai Japani"
I need to edit the title page of the Japanese Wikipedia about a song "Mera Joota Hai Japani" as I firmly believe that オイラの靴は日本製,このズボンは英国製,頭の赤い帽子はロシア製 and でも心はインド製 are the incorrect translations of "Mera Joota Hai Japani, Yeh Patloon Inglistani, Sar Pe Lal Topi Rusi, and Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani" and 私の靴が日本語,この ズボン が イギリスタン語,頭 の 赤い 帽子 が ロシア語 and しかし 心 が ヒンドスタン語 are the correct translations of "Mera Joota Hai Japani, Yeh Patloon Inglistani, Sar Pe Lal Topi Rusi, and Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani", so I want to replace the former lyrics with the latter lyrics, but the other few editors are not letting me edit this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.8.250.238 (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC) You both are wrong my friends,I am not forum-shopping at all,it's true that I've asked at the Administrators' Noticeboard of the English Wikipedia at the Incidents' section to clarify the difference between reviews,and also that I've asked it at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard of the English Wikipedia as you are saying,I am not at all relentlessly harassing you in the Help Channel of the English Wikipedia,Of course you are going to do as I ask,since what I'm demanding someone to do is to replace replace a wrong translation with a translation I created myself,the reason for my not using ja.wp and all related IRC channels is that nobody is there for helping me with this matter,It's not that I straight-up refuse to use them or I simply "cannot" use them when pointed there,so if it stands more likely for you,then improve your "appearances", I might revert off adverse responses,there is no "chutzpah" in responding to such bogus kind of accusations,Finally I'm not starting to torque you off,I've been neither forum-shopping here nor on IRC for the past week,I don't have any refusal to listen to anyone so it's useless to ban me on sight when I'm on the Help Channel of the English Wikipedia,I often start randomly pinging people if on long enough just for getting help regarding this issue,Obviously I am convincing everyone so if you fear that it may ultimately take rangeblocks of my ranges on en.wp and ja.wp to get me to stop this,that is nonsense
 * Unfortunately the English and Japanese Wikipedias are completely different things, so unless a ja.wiki admin happens to read this, there's nothing we can do for you here. Black Kite (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop forum-shopping. You've asked at WP:AN ( and ), you've asked at WP:DRN, you've been relentlessly harassing us in #wikipedia-en-help. We are not going to do as you ask, since what you're demanding someone do is replace an accurate translation with a "blind idiot" machine translation. You have repeatedly been pointed to ja.wp and relaated IRC channels yet from all appearances you straight-up refuse to use them (or, more likely, you cannot use them). —A little blue Bori v^_^v  Bori! 09:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. You just revert off adverse responces. —A little blue Bori</i> v^_^v  Bori! 09:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * One almost has to admire the chutzpah of responding to an accusation of reverting adverse responses by reverting it. —Cryptic 10:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, this guy's starting to torque me off. He's been forum-shopping on here and on IRC for the past week, and his refusal to listen to anyone is such that he's ban-on-sight if he shows up in -en-help (though this is only part of the issue; he also, if on long enough, starts randomly pinging people). I'm fearing that it may ultimately take rangeblocks of his ranges on en.wp and ja.wp to get him to stop this. He's not convincing anyone. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i> v^_^v  Bori! 10:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Replace a wrong translation" is an outright lie. Native Japanese speakers at ja.wp have specifically told you the translation you want to put in is gibberish, and your responce to that, as detailed above, is to revert off the rebuttal which explains why your translation is incorrect. And yes, you have been relentlessly pestering -en-help, and the channel operators there can back me up on that, given that they're the ones who have to send you packing because of your continued refusal to listen to anyone who knows what the hell they're saying, your constant reverting of rebuttals to anything you say, and your tendency to mass-ping people if the helpers in channel refuse to jump aat your command. You've had two of your IPs blocked within the past day for editing or reverting people's comments on en.wp pages, you've forced ja.wp to semi-protect the article in question and their non-Japanese-speakers help page as a direct result of your sterile obstinance, and you are ban-on-sight if you show up in -en-help because you refuse to listen to anything us helpers have to say that isn't "How high?" Darklords show more contrition and self-awareness than this, and that isn't a compliment on their part, either. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i> v^_^v  Bori! 07:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * While we're at it, you have also been, on your IPv4 address, reverting off my explanation of the situation at the DRN thread you started. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i> v^_^v  Bori! 08:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * When you find yourself in a hole, the best course of aaction is to stop digging. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i> v^_^v  Bori! 05:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Move to close, and block obvious troll Can someone just close this and block the blatant troll who opened it for however long we normally block blatantly NOTHERE trolls/vandals who are editing from IPs and so can't be indeffed? The IP either believes that Google Translate (or whatever) created a better Japanese translation of whatever that text in the lead is than an actual human, despite the text being gibberish, or knows perfectly well that the text is gibberish. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on what I've been seeing IP-wise you'd need rangeblocks on a v4 and one or two v6s, just based off edits made to en and ja. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i> v^_^v  Bori! 03:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Close and block, per Hijiri. I don't agree with everything expressed there, but I trust their expertise. Give the IP some time to cool off and consider how they could improve their edits. If that's possible. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

US Highways - Possible sock


Possible sock, they created a hoax article, Interstate 570. <b style="background:#0000ff;font:Helvetica;padding:0.4em;font-size: 80%;border-radius: 2em;margin: 0.25em;"> Cards84664 </b> (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

User claims to be. <b style="background:#0000ff;font:Helvetica;padding:0.4em;font-size: 80%;border-radius: 2em;margin: 0.25em;"> Cards84664 </b> (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Here are the userlinks for 2006 December:
 * Another admission is here in the edit summary: "I'm 2006 December, don't tell Kinu". I suggest User:Jackson Tennessee Rules be blocked as a sock of User:2006 December. The reference to User:Kinu in their edit summary is to the admin who originally blocked 2006 December. Probably this case is too stale for checkuser. EdJohnston (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * <b style="background:#0000ff;font:Helvetica;padding:0.4em;font-size: 80%;border-radius: 2em;margin: 0.25em;"> Cards84664 </b> (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Indefblocked user:Jackson Tennessee Rules. Materialscientist (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Indefblocked user:Jackson Tennessee Rules. Materialscientist (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Repeated problematic edits
The following user has made in a period of one week several problematic edits on Eurovision Song Contest 2019. I have warned the specific user two times in total, but either they don't look at their talk page or don't understand the warnings. —<b style="color: #18b26f;">Dimsar01</b> <b style="color: #282aaf;">Talk</b> ⌚→ 07:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC) Some examples of their edits:
 * Problematic – Correct (after revert)
 * Problematic – Correct

Debi Prasad Misra edit warring on Help:IPA/Sanskrit (again)
The previous report from a month ago resulted in a short block for User:Debi Prasad Misra. Now, he's edit warring on Help:IPA/Sanskrit again - see or, more specifically,,  and.

More specifically, he keeps reinserting the unneeded dental diacritic, uses an incorrect diacritic to denote voiceless aspiration ($⟨⟩$ instead of $⟨⟩$), changes other symbols without consideration for Help talk:IPA/Sanskrit and refuses to engage in discussion. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Propose indef block The user has not addressed any of the numerous warnings (see their talk) or the previous block in any way whatsoever and has continued reinstating their reverted edits not just on Help:IPA/Sanskrit but on several other pages. Not once have they written a word in the edit summary or on their own talk, or any talk. Evidently they don't possess the most fundamental ability to WP:ENGAGE required to edit Wikipedia. Nardog (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Kbb2, you need to inform them of this ANI thread. I'll this for you, along with a message beyond the traditional template. Hopefully they'll pay attention to that and address some of their issues here. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Correction: Kbb, my apologies. I just saw your ANI notice to them. It was buried in a previous section though, and while they were likely notified, I still posted an additional one just in case, in its own section. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk)
 * Sweet, they just keep inserting questionable content with absolutely no communication despite our warnings and Symmachus Auxiliarus's repeated notification of this thread and plea to communicate. They're practically begging to be blocked. Nardog (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Oldstone James


Per the discussion at Answers in Genesis, and considering that the previous block and page protection had no effect, I believe that Oldstone James should be topic banned from creationism.

Also see --Guy Macon (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is unbelievable! What have I even done after the block? Even if you don't consider these diffs:  self-reverts, which they are (I have simply restored the version before I started editing; here is the lede section as of 11 April: )), I'm only on two reverts in 24 hours. Furthermore, please consider the context of the situation: jps and Roxy the dog were constantly restoring a version which not only had no consensus but also wasn't even discussed on the talk page, amid a month-long discussion concerning the lede section. Even so, I at first tried to find a compromise . Only after my compromise was reverted did I restore the status quo.


 * Also, please consider the blocking of user:Roxy the dog, who launched numerous personal attacks on me ("Would you like me to recommend an optician for your much needed eyesight test?", "Grow a thicker skin or fuck off" as some examples) and appears WP:BATTLEGROUND on me, as this is not the first time he reverts my edits with no explanation. This time in particular, though, he appeared to restore an edit with no consensus. O l J a  16:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * That's not what a self revert is. A self revert is when you make one edit, then you make another edit that undoes your first edit. When you make the same edit multiple times, that's edit warring, not self reverting. You appear to understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines just fine when is suits you. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This is exactly what I had done. I had first introduced an edit; then it was modified; I reverted my initial edit and hence restored the version prior to it. Your last sentence is pure gold, as it sums up your behaviour better than I could have ever put it myself. Apparently, Wiki policies only apply when they suit you. WP:CONSENSUS only applies when it's me editing. WP:SYNTH only applies when it's anyone but you editing. WP:BRD only applies when it works against me. O l J a 16:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If that's what you did then it's not a self-revert, but a revert of both yourself and the person modifying your edit. This isn't any comment on the rights or wrongs of what you did, which I haven't looked into, but simply a clarification of what "self-revert" means, which does not include reverting anyone else's edits along with your own. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, I didn't know this, although this rule seems kind of silly: getting blocked for 3RR for reverting your own edit which was later corrected (e.g. after identifying some possible problems with it) seems very unreasonable to me. O l J a 16:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually it makes complete sense. The only edit you "own" is any edit you make. If someone else makes an edit, that's not your edit. It's someone else's edit. If I make an edit and it's reverted by person A and then person B comes along and reverts to my version the latest reversion is not my edit. It's the person B's edit. I cannot self revert anymore than I could when person A first reverted me. I could revert person B's edit but that's reverting person B's edit, it's not reverting myself since my edit was already reverted. If person A and person B engage in a 10 revert war in the next 1 hour, I am only responsible for my first edit. I'm not responsible for person A and person B seriously violating 3RR. Likewise when someone else has modified my edit, any reversion of their changes is not a self revert since it's not my edit. If it's possible to self revert without affecting their changes then I can simply self-revert, but if it's not than any revert is not simply a self revert since I'm changing someone else's edit. Otherwise we'd have the ridiculous situation where I change 1234567890 to 2134567890 and someone else changes it to 3214567890 and so on until it's 0987654321 and I come along and change it back to 1234567890 and claim all I did is self revert which is clearly nonsense. Nil Einne (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a weird one, people. I don't know why Oldstone James doesn't want to collaborate. It seems like maybe he is suffering a bit from WP:OWN? I actually don't know what to make of it. jps (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * No, I did collaborate... until you simply reverted one of my compromise edits. In hindsight, you did add in some pieces of my edit, but most of your errors still remained. Remember that your edits had zero consensus, so I was in full right to restore the status quo. We eventually managed to work our versions into a satisfactory compromise. A better question to ask would be why Guy Macon, Roxy the dog, and some other editors stubbornly refuse to collaborate at all costs, reverting every new edit done to the page and refusing to give explanations. WP:OWN would be a very appropriate explanation for this type of behaviour, I believe. O l J a 16:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * On 29 March 2019 I told Oldstone James:


 * "You have two choices. [1] create a specific proposal and see what the consensus is for your change, or [2] Go ahead and assume that your change is OK without checking, make the change, and get blocked. Most administrators have a very low tolerance for someone who edits after edit-warring protection expires without a clear survey of participants asking if they object to that specific change. When in doubt, ask. If you have no doubts, ask anyway."


 * He chose #2, and as I predicted, was blocked for it. After the block expired he went right back to the same behavior that got him blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I note, also, that wikistalked Roxy the Dog to fascism. ,. It's surprising to me that he is then turning around and citing WP:BATTLEGROUND above. jps (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Important clarification: I was not wikistalking; this was a coincidence. I had edited on related pages in the past, too. O l J a 17:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that is a behavioural slam dunk James, sorry. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 17:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Really, Oldstone James? You had never edited Fascism before. And purely by coincidence — not by following Roxy there — you reverted a Fascism edit by Roxy, after consulting the book sources for the sentence. That happened only 11 minutes after you posted a long argument on Talk:Answers in Genesis in which you attacked Roxy ("out of nowhere yet comes Roxy the dog and reverts my self-revert..!"). Is that what you're saying? Bishonen &#124; talk 09:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC).
 * Yep. When I edit on Answers in Genesis, it is usually because I am looking something up on Wikipedia and, using the opportunity, check my watchlist (AiG was one the most recent entries at that time, following an edit by jps). At the time, I was looking up information on WWIII, which eventually got me to WWII and hence fascism. I had edited on articles related to WWIII and WWII before (MAD as one example, there are others). I must admit that seeing that the most recent change was made by user:Roxy the dog encouraged me to check into what the edit actually was, but I was not in any way houding the user. Please assume good faith, and that's what my edit was. I myself was very surprised to see the same user who had just reverted my edit on AiG was also the user who made the most recent change to the page I was then viewing. O l J a 11:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban from the topic of creationism as proposer. Recent comments by Oldstone James have made it clear that he intends to continue to try to get his way through reverts rather than through discussion and consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note I restored the above !vote by, after it was deleted by with the edit summary of "Not sure you can vote on your own proposal". Paul August &#9742; 00:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My apology. This has previously been done to me a couple of times, so I assumed it was within my right's to do - which, in hindsight, I absolutely shouldn't have done. Once again, I apologise for this edit. O l J a 00:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak support mostly because of the historic problems combined with the fact this is a contentious topic but the editor seems to lack the most basic WP:competence given their claims above that reverting someone else's changes along with their own counts as a simple self revert. I think the editor needs to edit less contentious areas until they understand better how wikipedia works. Nil Einne (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: I had an interesting discussion with this user which ended with this comment: I think that this, perhaps, indicates we are working with an editor who may need to get a little perspective on their editing and perhaps mature just a bit (although I bet he won't take kindly to me saying this). In any case, this is the advice I gave him. This is one of the extremely rare cases where I think mentorship may help, if he would be open to it. Unfortunately, none of the people with whom he's gotten into arguments (including me) would be appropriate. We'd need to find someone he would listen to. jps (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I absolutely do need a decent perspective of why my editing is considered unconstructive, while the editing of Macon and Roxy is condoned; so far, this perspective hasn't at all been provided. And you may be surprised to find that I do appreciate your sincerity, as you could have easily supported my topic ban by citing one of my reverts as evidence, and you haven't done so; instead, you opted to give your honest take on the matter. Also, "lack of maturity", in the sense of being to rash and (perhaps unnecessarily) aggressive with editing, is not one of the qualities that I would argue with if they were attributed to me. Following that up, I would indeed be very open to mentorship, if it is given that the mentor knows very well and respects Wikipedia polcies, and that the mentor can explain to me why my some of my particular edits are unconstructive. Based on my experience, user:EdChem would be a good candidate. Lastly, I am still very open to your advice, too, and will absolutely listen to you. The fact that I've gotten into an argument with you means nothing. Users that I wouldn't listen to include only those who have repeatedly demonstrated either a lack of WP:CIR, a lack knowledge or respect of Wikipedia policies, delibarate bad-faith editing, or a complete lack of understanding of the situation. O l J a 12:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're open to advice and don't want a topic ban (which looks like it may come through according to my wiki-divination), I would recommend (a) apologizing for reverting and personalizing the disputes and by all means stop being argumentative, (b) explain exactly what you think mentorship will entail -- including an endgame which might be agreement by your mentor that the relationship is finished and then perhaps informing the community of such on WP:AN, for example -- and make it binding (I don't know that EdChem will want to mentor you, but if he does, I would recommend saying that you will run by all your edits on creationism-related topics with him first before you do them and wait for his advice on how to proceed even if it means not doing anything for days or up to a week.), and (c) maybe commit to moving to some other articles other than AiG for a bit to show that you can stick to such a plan. Right now, it seems like you are just setting yourself up for more and more disciplinary action. jps (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban. I avoided commenting here at first because I was so baffled by Oldstone James's statements about "self-reverting": I thought I might be getting dumber. Thank you for clearing it up, . I agree the editor needs to gain more understanding of how Wikipedia works. Controversial articles about creationism and their talkpages aren't good places to practice. I notice that the user comes across as self-righteous and aggressive, even here, even when they're wrong and an experienced editor attempts to explain, as above: "Apparently, Wiki policies only apply when they suit you. WP:CONSENSUS only applies when it's me editing. WP:SYNTH only applies when it's anyone but you editing. WP:BRD only applies when it works against me." Admittedly, that was in response to a somewhat aggressive post by Guy Macon, but even so: Guy's post had explained self-reverting clearly and correctly. In view of this, do you really think mentoring is indicated, jps? Also, it's hard enough to find a mentor under the best of circumstances; if it's conditional on "someone he would listen to", it may be impossible. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC).
 * Just a comment: I did not get aggressive because I thought I was right; I was wrong, and I admitted I was wrong in a reply to Phil Bridger's comment. I got aggressive in response to Guy Macon's aggressive post and his hypocrisy (also, please note how users like Guy Macon and Roxy the dog have talked to me in the past; their manner of speech is just as "self-righteous" and aggressive as mine was in that comment). Also, when you say that I need to gain more understanding of how Wikipedia works, I assume you do so based on my (former) incorrect understanding of what a self-revert is. However, can you really make such a big statement as that I need to gain a better understanding of how Wikipedia works, and hence such a big conclusion that I need to be topic-banned, based on only one instance? Such instances occur also with experienced editors and even admins such as Doug Weller, who cited "If it isn't broken, and I agree that it isn't, don't fix it" as an argument against a proposal, which contradicts WP:TALKDONTREVERT. Of course, that does not mean that they don't understand how Wikipedia works - they are an admin, after all. Finally, even if you do believe that my understanding of WIkipedia is not good enough for me to have the right to edit on contentious topics, why topic-ban me? I've just recently been blocked, and I haven't violated any Wikipedia policy that warrants a block, like 3RR, since. I would politely ask you to reconsider your !vote. O l J a 00:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Shrug? Oldstone James seems to be thin-skinned and when he perceives himself as under attack he lashes out in a spectacularly hypocritical fashion. If we cannot find someone that Oldstone James will check in with or listen to, then certainly mentoring won't work. jps (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oldstone James has been told -- repeatedly -- what he should do when he knows that the change he wants to make is opposed by multiple editors (stop edit warring, post a specific proposal on the article talk page, make his arguments, and try to get consensus for the proposed change). He has been told this by a wide variety of editors. He has been told this gently and respectfully. He has been told this aggressively and forcefully. He has been told this in the form of a block by an administrator. He has been told this by an uninvolved administrator who reviewed the block and denied his appeal. I question whether any mentoring will be acceptable to him. I think that the moment the mentor tells him to stop edit warring and seek consensus he will instantly add the mentor to the list of inferior beings who he will not listen to because it is all their fault. I also question whether, given his present attitude, he has the ability to contribute constructively on any page related to creationism. I have not yet concluded that he cannot contribute constructively on other topics, which is why I am asking for a topic ban and not for another block. This may be one of those cases where someone is topic banned, learns how to get along with other editors on articles where his feelings are not quite so strong, gets the topic ban lifted after six months, and goes on to make real improvements to the article that he formerly edit warred over. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know what exactly you are trying to achieve with this comment. My reverts have not been making any change to the status quo. Instead, they reverted such changes, because the user who made these changes had not followed the steps that you have described in your comment. Furthermore, if you believe that your advice ("stop edit warring, post a specific proposal on the article talk page, make his arguments, and try to get consensus for the proposed change") is right (which it is), why did you not follow your own advice? Why did you make a change to the status quo, which was opposed by at least one editor (me) and not post "a specific proposal on the article talk page", made your arguments, and tried "to get consensus for the proposed change"? O l J a 00:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Oldstone James, your edits here and (good faith but mistaken) removal of another editor's comments seem to me to be doing irreparable damage to your cause. Just something to think about. Dumuzid (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right. It's just that the same thing was done to me on numerous occasions, so I assumed it didn't violate any WP policies. Of course, I absolutely shouldn't have done that. I'll think extra carefully before any following edit I opt to make. O l J a 00:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Re: "I don't know what exactly you are trying to achieve with this comment", what part of "stop edit warring, post a specific proposal on the article talk page, make your argument, and try to get consensus for the proposed change" are you having trouble understanding? And yes, you have been edit warring. An actual self-revert undoes an edit that you made without undoing any edits (additions or deletions) by any other editor. Re "It's just that the same thing was done to me on numerous occasions", if someone has been editing your comments outside of the exceptions listed at WP:TPOC, report them at ANI. Someone else violating a Wikipedia policy or guideline does not give you permission to violate  Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. BTW, you are wasting your time pinging me in a conversation that I am already participating in. In the preferences tab there is an option to mute users, and I have set it so that I don't see any pings or username mentions from you. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Having been on the receiving end of advice given from people whom I don't respect, I think it unsurprising that it does not work, and it's not really up to us to decide who it is anyone respects. To that end, you may be 100% correct that he may not find any mentoring acceptable. If that's really the case, my idea is flushed. jps (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose I haven't violated 3RR or any other policy that warrants a block or topic ban (since my last block). On the contrary, I have now reached an agreement (in terms of what the lede should be) with the editor I was accused of edit-warring: ("the edit you just made was fine"). If some users are not happy with my editing, a good compromise would be limit my edits on creationism-related topics to 1RR or similar. Although if editing is anything to go by when considering a topic ban, I believe a similar ban should be imposed on Roxy the dog and Guy Macon, who have repeatedly ignored several Wikipedia policies such as WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DONTREVERT, WP:PERSONAL among others.  O l J a  00:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Diffs or it didn't happen James. I'd also like you to stop talking about me all over the project without notifying me, and ask you to read WP:NPA and WP:HOUNDING. Support topic ban. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 08:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Already quoted some of your comments at the top of the page. You had violated both WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DONTREVERT with this edit: . I mentioned you once in this thread, so what's the point of mentioning you again? O l J a 11:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It isn't just Roxy who you have been accusing of wrongdoing.
 * You have accused me of violating WP:BRD. Please post diffs showing this behavior.
 * You have accused me of violating WP:CONSENSUS. Please post diffs showing this behavior.
 * You have accused me of violating WP:PERSONAL. Please post diffs showing this behavior.
 * You have called for me to be topic banned from creationism. Please posts diffs showing the behavior that requires a topic ban.
 * In fact, if I am as evil as you imply, you should file a separate ANI report laying out the evidence of my disruptive behavior. Be sure to include all of my previous blocks and all of the the times that I ignored warnings. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that's an easy task: There you go. Reinstating an edit that had no consensus at the time. That also happens to violate WP:BRD, as you have been bold and you have reverted, but you haven't discussed. But there's more: this quote "but so far there is no such consensus, so my preference is for the existing wording" means you don't understand TALKDONTREVERT; this edit:  is a perfect example of WP:SYNTH. I have not accused you of WP:PERSONAL, but there are many other WP violations by you, too. These are just some notable, defining examples. O l J a  15:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is now clear that you are unable to tell the difference between a content dispute and a policy violation, and you appear to lack the ability to read and understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Go ahead and file an ANI report naming me if you think you have a case. I am going to stop responding to you and disengage for the obvious reason. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - Despite the scrutiny this ANI filing has drawn to their editing, they are still reverting, and are still taking it upon themselves to be the judge of what's consensus. If you can't step back when your behaviour is under scrutiny, when can you? Guettarda (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see what the edit actually is. The edit summary of the edit reads: "Please revert this edit if you believe my judgement is wrong". The revert was simply because the user who made the edit appeared to contradict the apparent outcome of a recent discussion on the talk page, and hence just follows WP:BRD. Judging by the fact that the following edit after my revert appeared to fix the issue, I would assume that my judgement was indeed correct. O l J a 11:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The actual edit is immaterial. The advice here to you is, in essence, to disengage. The fact that you won't take that advice is the problem here. The issue isn't whether you're right or wrong on content, it's behaviour. Guettarda (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I did disengage as soon as you've given me this advice. Giving an advice and then claiming that I didn't follow it in the same comment is a bit like blaming someone for not doing something that's about to be asked of them. Prior to your comment, the only advice I was given was to stop edit-warring, which I did. O l J a  14:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Answers in Genesis is on my watchlist and I finally got around to looking at recent activity. Oldstone James is not able to collaboratively edit according to policies in this area. Johnuniq (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you don't believe my edits were appropriate, that's fine (although I would still be very grateful if you could provide an explanation). However, please also assess appropriateness of user:Roxy the dog and Guy Macon's edits, which simply reverted my edits entirely without any explanation. This alone contradicts WP:DONTREVERT. However, if you look at what they were actually reverting, you will see that they simply reinstated an edit which had no consensus (or any attempt at being discussed, for that matter) at the time. The manner of the mentioned users' editing is continuous. If I am to be topic-banned, which, based on the number of 'support' !votes, will most likely happen (whoever eventually imposes the ban, please don't use this comment as evidence that I agree with such a decision), I believe Guy Macon and Roxy the dog should be topic-banned as well, if the reason for my future topic ban is my edits being unconstructive or uncollaborative. O l J a 11:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support (1) I sympathise with the feeling of being hounded in this situation and responding defensively. (2) It seems clear that both sides have contributed to some extent, if only by choice of words, to heating up this conflict. (3) Bishonen is correct in that creationism is not the best playground for learning the wiki ways. (4) Guettarda is correct in that continuing to battle while a discussion is ongoing is disruptive. I think this is not really excusable by lack of wiki experience, it's just an obviously generally bad idea. (5) This is a major conflict that needs to be resolved. (a) It is a topic of global interest and importance, and thus, a core part of our mission. (b) Aside from that, it is a well-documented source of conflict for Wikipedia specifically. (c) This is a case of a dispute that's survived a period of full protection and is thus, at this point, a hardened dispute. (6) Many of the issues raised w.r.t. article content have come up before, like softening the wording to be more sympathetic towards creationism. Given the very intense and lengthy discussion around these very points in the past, there is no sensibly foreseeable need for discussing them again. Enforcing the established consensus on creationism seems extremely reasonable. (7) At this point, I'm not sure what the chances of any sort of amicable solution are, so as an overall less preferred but apparently necessary option, I hereby endorse the proposed topic ban. In doing so, I would not like it to go unmentioned that Oldstone James has, considering the situation, civilly and constructively argued his case. Even if not everyone here may depart as friends, I think a certain amount of mutual appreciation is appropriate. Samsara 10:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a few clarifications:
 * 1) Note that the edit Guettarda was referring to was not continuing a battle but instead following WP:BRD on a completely new issue. The editor didn't appear to have read a particular talk page section which contradicted the edit, so I reverted it as per WP:BRD, with the edit summary "Please revert this edit if you believe my judgement is wrong". My judgement turned out to be correct, and an appropriate edit followed straight after.
 * 2) Also note that my edits are not aimed at softening the wording in favour of creationism. In fact, it wouldn't make sense for them to be, me being a convinced atheist. Instead, most of my edits are simply aimed at correcting grammar and/or better reflecting the source cited. There is nothing in particular that makes creationism stand out among the numerous other topics in which I edit, with the exception of the many stubborn editors who are, in opinion, refusing to collaborate.
 * 3) Here is a proposed amicable solution: give me the last chance (I haven't even been warned of a topic ban after my block) and limit me at 1RR. I make more than a single revert in 24 hours, and I am blocked. Surely, that is an amicable solution?
 * 4) I appreciate your understanding of my position, and it's refreshing to find someone who can see both sides of the coin, though you appear to be in a very insignificant minority. O l J a 11:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment James appears to be exhibiting fairly classic WP:IDHT. I have left him the advice to stop while this discussion is ongoing.  I sincerely hope he heeds it. - <b style="color: darkblue">Nick Thorne</b> <sup style="color: darkblue">talk  12:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The funny thing is that I was actually arguing from consensus. If you look at the page history, you will see that it was me who was restoring the satus quo, while other users kept reinstating an edit that had no consensus at the time. Furthermore, my edits all address different sections of the article, so I am not sure WP:IDHT applies here. Frankly speaking, I am not sure what it is exactly that I am to be topic-banned for, but my two best bets would be "unconstructive editing" and "lack of understanding of WP policies". I'm not sure IDHT is relevant. O l J a 13:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This comment, Oldstone James, is an example of being argumentative and it is the kind of response that is doing you no favors here. See WP:JURY. jps (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Another page with relevant advice: Law of holes. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I was pinged above in relation to the question of mentoring. I am aware that our AiG article is again being edited heavily. I have not been watching, having been distracted y other matters both on and off wiki. I have read this ANI thread and looked at some of the diffs, but certainly not all. Some thoughts: The issue of scope would also need consideration, because the amount of time I have is limited. EdChem (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As can be seen on talk:AiG, I tried to distill some coherent progress from a dispute there, which I think produced some progress.
 * ("OJ") expressed appreciation on his user talk page, and we had a useful conversation. Others can comment on how it went, I know I'd be interested in other views.
 * OJ did have concerns that were valid and his approach was hindering this being recognised. In some cases, it took a while for me to figure out what concerned him, and in at least one case my first impression of one of his issues turned out to be completely wrong.  I think he does have valuable contributions to make to this article.
 * Unfortunately, his style and approach are problematic at times – the effort put in above to concerns about other editors is familiar to anyone who has seen many previous disputes / ANI discussions as a strategy from the "shooting yourself in the foot" school. (Sorry, OJ, but there is quite a bit in this thread that looks bad and which has caused the number of support !votes to increase.  You make think that is unfair, that you are putting forward reasonable points, but you really need to focus on you here.)
 * I'm willing to discuss the possibility of mentorship in some form, but only if OJ really wants it and will abide by some restrictions, such as:
 * Contributions to talk:AiG will be about content only, not about other contributors. If some contributor issue arises, OJ can raise it with me and I'll do something if I think it is worth it.
 * No edits to the AiG article – not grammar corrections, not fixing typos, nothing – without talk page agreement (as in, other editors saying "yes, that's a good idea", not OJ deciding independently there is a consensus) or agreement from me.
 * Following editors from AiG to other pages (wikistalking) is disruptive. If you come across something problematic and it is by an active AiG editor, start a talk page discussion but don't revert / modify their edit.  If others agree on the talk page, the change will happen; if they don't, it doesn't have consensus support.  Disputes between editors that cross into other topics / articles are a fast way to earn a block, so avoid even the appearance of doing this.
 * You need to learn when your style is not helping pursue your goals. Above, for example, you have reflected on most Wikipedians saying that being able to see both sides of an issue is rare.  Most people don't become more open to considering suggestions if the speaker starts by insulting them.  There could be times when I would refactor / redact unhelpful comments from article talk pages and discuss them on your user talk.
 * I haven't done a formal mentorship, so any other suggestions are welcome. I'm also not an admin.  However, OJ, for this to work you need to understand and accept that I will tell you if I disagree with you, or if you are being disruptive, and if needed I would call for a block or a t-ban.  You'd be free to disagree or try to persuade, but you'd need to agree that if I say "don't" you need to not do whatever it is, or you need to end the mentorship arrangement.
 * Honestly, I am very happy to follow all the rules that you have described here. In fact, your mentorship would at most times be better than me editing by myself, as most of my edits will get reverted straight away simply because of the reputation that I have built for myself. I will definitely respect your time, and, trust me, I won't be proposing nearly as many edits as I have on the talk page, as I believe that most of the issues in the article have now been fixed. Furthermore, I won't have to spend nearly as much time justifying my points when there is only one user I can communicate my points to.
 * P.S. I think your 4th bullet point describes the issue very well. I was wondering what was causing such an overwhelming amount of support !votes: but it appears it's not so much the gist of my editing as it is my behaviour and aggressiveness which accompanied my edits. I've definitely created a bad first impression of myself, of an editor that is "self-righteous", "uncollaborative", and "aggressive", and my most recent edit summaries certainly did not help. I know this might seem obvious to other editors, but no one has yet brought this up, apart from a slight allusion by user:jps, so the fact that it's my behaviour that's causing the stir-up is very valuable insight for me. Not to accuse anyone, but giving me pieces of advice on my editing which, when taken, do not seem to make the situation much better, only make me more confused, hence more deluded, and hence you hear more angry claims from me of other editors being unfair on me. If anyone had taken the time to explain what exactly it wass that I was doing very wrong, you'd hear much less aggression from me. Of course, that's not at all to say that I'm not at fault here. O l J a 17:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban. They have been blocked 4 times over the course of 4 years for the exact same reason, yet no sign of improvement has been seen. This may be a case of WP:NOTHERE. However, I definitely support a topic ban because to my points stated, and per all of the above.  The Duke  21:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: On his talk page and in this ANI case Oldstone James has indicated that he was confused over what a revert is and appears to be surprised by the "in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material" part of the edit warring policy.
 * I find it difficult to believe that there has been the slightest confusion. Oldstone James was informed of the exact wording of the policy at least four times:
 * "To revert is to undo the action of another editor. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period." --Guy Macon (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." --Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." --Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." --Black Kite (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * In addition Oldstone James has been to WP:3RRNB an additional four times, twice as the one doing the edit warring (blocked both times) and twice as the one doing the reporting (One was declined as a "pure revenge report", the other as "no violation" along with a note from the closing admin regarding Oldstone James' claims of consensus "Even a cursory look at the talkpage would reveal this to be flat-out false.")


 * I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide whether the above shows evidence of confusion or of purposely ignoring multiple clear warnings. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's not have this turn into a competition in vindictiveness - you may yet inadvertently win. Samsara 00:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no desire to be vindictive. I don't even want Oldstone James to be blocked. What I would really like is for Oldstone James to stop edit warring, stop saying that his proposed changes have consensus without asking whether anyone agrees that they have consensus, use the talk page rather than trying to get his way though repeatedly reverting, and to either stop accusing other editors of wrongdoing or to put together some evidence and report them at ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you would really like for me to stop edit-warring, shouldn't you support getting me a mentor? Surely that would keep me from edit-warring? O l J a 22:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I choose to not state my position on whether you are a good candidate for mentoring or whether mentoring would stop your disruptive behavior.
 * I want you to stop edit warring. I don't care why you stop or how you are forced to stop, just that you stop.
 * I want you to stop saying that your proposed changes have consensus without asking whether anyone agrees that they have consensus. I don't care why you stop or how you are forced to stop, just that you stop.
 * I want you to use the talk page rather than trying to get your way though repeatedly reverting. I don't care why you do this or how you are forced to do this, just that you do it.
 * I want you to either stop accusing other editors of wrongdoing or to put together some evidence and report them at ANI. I don't care why you do this or how you are forced to do this, just that you do it.
 * I want you to stop blaming other people for your actions. I don't care why you stop or how you are forced to stop, just that you stop. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Oldstone James is not the only editor to AiG with problematic behaviour. Just yesterday: I'm not here to defend OJ, but I would note that Calton's edit was not appropriate and the edit summary was worse. Roxy defended Calton (inaccurately) and criticised OJ for making a mess without acknowledging that Calton did change content and in a way that was unjustified. Guy actually looked at the issue, got advice, and made the appropriate correction (thank you, very helpful). I leave it to others to evaluate my actions. I, however, am disappointed that OJ's problematic behaviours are the sole focus here. There are topic ban discussions at ANI where one editor is the problem and source of all conflict and needs to be removed. In this case, OJ is a problem, but so is the failure of others to recognise when he is making helpful edits or raising legitimate concerns. I have expressed willingness to become a mentor, which will include OJ not editing the article without consensus or my agreement, as that is needed to reduce tensions and the temperature. If I thought he was simply a disruption, I would have supported the topic ban proposal (which I recognise may still be the result). Note: Just to prevent any confusion, I am not advocating that ANI impose a sanction on Calton or Roxy, but they do offer a timely example of how the problems in this area have issues with behaviour of editors other than OJ as well. EdChem (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * OJ added a hyphen to the phrase "Noah's Ark themed amusement park" with a strange edit summary... I think it was a copy and paste of a summary but it had nothing to do with the edit.
 * reverted with an edit summary "It'S not that I don't trust you ... wait, I don't trust you." – if not a violation of NPA, it's very close.
 * I posted to talk:AiG to ask about the revert. Calton has not edited since making the reversion.
 * responded blaming OJ (who he described as my "potential protégé") and characterised Calton's revert as a null edit (which it was not... it was not even a dummy edit as it removed the added hyphen, even though both the edit and the revert involved size changes of 0 bytes).
 * responded by starting a discussion at WT:MOS.
 * I thanked Guy for starting a helpful discussion for outside input. I also responded to Roxy, explaining that Calton's action was not a null edit, noting Calton's problematic edit summary, and pointing out that reverting OJ is ok if his edit is disruptive / flawed but not ok if it's basically "I don't like OJ."
 * Roxy's response did not actually address the points that I had made, instead implying that I was wrong and politely asking that I "read carefully."
 * I asked Roxy to be direct if he had a problem with me and again explained why Calton's edit was not a null edit. I also noted the accuracy of Guy Macon's observation that both OJ and Calton's edit summaries were out of line.
 * OJ subsequently explained his edit summary, which highlights (amongst other things) that he is not always sure what an edit summary is for and doesn't know the difference between a null edit and a dummy edit.
 * Meanwhile, Guy Macon's post at WT:MOS had been productive, leading to the advice that an ndash was needed (rather than a hyphen), which is what he then added to the article.
 * I'm sorry, but my part in this was owing to a misreading on my part: I thought I was reverting some wording, not a punctuation change. I apologize for that.
 * However, maybe you shouldn't be trying to draw attention away from Oldstone James's severe IDHT problem, especially given his obviously bogus claims of not understanding what he's doing wrong: look at the history of his talk page and you'll see YEARS of warnings regarding edit-warring -- and not just on Answers in Genesis -- that he claims to be unaware of. So no, I don't trust him. --Calton &#124; Talk 02:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am in 100% agreement with EdChem above. In particular, I would encourage Roxy to dial it down from 11 to 2 or 3. Calton, nobody at ANI will do any more or less about Oldstone James because of the behavior of others. ANI sees the Tu quoque fallacy a lot -- most recently by Oldstone James -- and will not allow anyone else's behavior to excuse bad behavior. (There is a minor exception; if someone is being extremely insulting we tend to give less weight to someone insulting them back than we would to an unprovoked insult). It is perfectly reasonable to look at my behavior, your behavior, and Roxy's behavior while dealing with Oldstone James' behavior. The key is how we respond when we are informed/warned that we could have reacted better. If we apologize and make a good faith effort to not do it again, that is usually the end of it. ANI isn't here to punish, but rather to prevent future disruption.
 * On a personal note, Early off (after being a real jerk when I first started editing Wikipedia as an IP in 2006) I figured out something that has kept me block-free for 12 years and 45,000 edits: I try to follow the rules, and If I get a warning from an administrator or an established editor I immediately stop doing what they warned me not to do. Even if I am convinced that they are completely wrong I stop doing it and start discussing it with them. I also don't do the kind of things that result in instant blocks, like WP:OUTING, but nobody had to tell me that. This is fiendishly clever; as long as I stop when warned the only possible block would be a block without any prior warning, which is frowned upon. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose: On many YEC-related articles, there is also problematic behavior on the "other side," from WP:POVFIGHTERs who claim to be fighting for science against those dumb Trump-loving YECers. This often leads to over-the-top edits that give YEC articles a POV in the opposite direction (like these, for example, in a another article where editors have since reached a consensus:--also, see EdChem's examples above). However, despite this POV, I've only seen editors like Oldstone James, who's edits do not have a clear anti-YEC tone (though I think he's stated he's an atheist), be targeted. I don't endorse the aggressiveness of his efforts but I also oppose the behavior of some of the other editors. Thus, a topic ban is way too extreme and one-sided for this dispute. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If there are other editors exhibiting the same behavior and causing the same level of disruption, then start bringing specifics. Saying a problematic editor's behavior should be ignored because it balances out other problematic editors is an underwhelming argument. Grandpallama (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I did provide specifics (see the diffs above), in addition to also referring readers to EdChem's specific examples above. I'm not interested in bringing anyone to ANI, if that's what you're implying. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I'm saying. When someone causes problems, an appropriate response is not to point to other people causing similar problems as an excuse to allow this person to continue doing what they're doing. Instead, we recognize that we should also hold other people to the same standard. In other words, your rationale is really for bringing other supposedly problematic editors to ANI, not for excusing the behavior of this editor. Grandpallama (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You have presented no evidence or argument to oppose a topic ban other than four unrelated diffs by unrelated editors. Johnuniq (talk) 05:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Clearly tendentious editing. And it seems obvious to me that, assuming good faith, this is a clear-cut case of IDHT. Because it's otherwise some catastrophic competence issues, which I don't believe is at all justified from the edits and the articulation of rationales. Grandpallama (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What has been deemed to be my tendentious editing - more specifically, the violation of 3RR - has already warranted myself a week's block . From then, the only reverts that I have made apart from this one: (whose edit summary, by the way, said "Please revert this edit if you believe my judgement is wrong", and the following edit respected this revert) were all reverts to the WP:STATUS QUO, of an edit that had no consensus . I haven't even violated WP:3RR. Can you please explain why you believe this is a case of IDHT? O l J a  22:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You do realize that addressing every single person who supports this topic ban in an attempt to argue with them is counter-productive, right? Grandpallama (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We do give quite a bit of extra leeway to the editor who's behavior is being discussed and who is facing potential sanctions. It wouldn't be fair to give a dozen accusing editors several comments each while limiting responses by the accused.
 * For those who are convinced by Oldstone James' arguments/explanations his 22 comments so far insure that he was able to clearly state his case. For those who are not convinced his 22 comments are an example of the Law of holes, under the assumption "if this is how he behaves when he is on his best behavior, how will he behave after the ANI report is closed?"
 * If you watch enough ANI and arbcom cases, you will notice that immediately ceasing all editing of Wikipedia as soon as the report is filed gives you the best chance of escaping sanctions if the case is marginal. I have seen plenty of editors talk themselves into a block or topic ban by pounding on the "I am right, everybody else is wrong, those who complain about my behavior should be sanctioned" drum. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Guy Macon, in no way did I suggest his responses should be limited. I suggested he should reconsider his current strategy, with pretty much exactly the same thinking you just laid out. Grandpallama (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. To the point that we have a handy page about it: WP:BOOMERANG. -- The Anome (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I see your point, and, indeed, it is a strong one and has probably already had effect in this thread; however, please note that "I am right, everybody else is wrong, those who complain about my behavior should be sanctioned" is not at all my position; my position is more closely represented by "I am wrong; two other editors - specifically, you and Roxy the dog - are also wrong and should be sanctioned if I will be; I will listen to those who complain, but I will respond if I don't agree with their argument", which is a bit different. O l J a 14:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel this discussion is now coming to a natural end, per WP:STICK. I suspect that if Oldstone James quietly walks away at this point, and bears in mind the advice given them above, and changes their editing behavior to match, everything should be well. Otherwise, I suspect that someone is going to close this soon by imposing the topic ban. -- The Anome (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * At the risk of prolonging a discussion that has probably run its course,, your position here is entirely counterproductive if your goal is to continue to volunteer your time at this website. The variety of defense (such that it is) that you are contributing here is to complain that other people who got here first are also doing bad things. Aside from the obvious tu quoque cringe-worthy-ness of this argument, it's also been philosophically lampooned in other contexts at Wikipedia with the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS tag. The way Wikipedia disciplinary actions function is that people who make these kinds of arguments get shitcanned on the regular. And anyway, Yeah, but they're just as bad! is just about as weak an argument you can make... so don't make it. I know it probably frustrates your sense of justice and fair play, but you're really much better off if you just let it go as The Anome intimates above. jps (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's just my position - not an argument. Never said stating this position is a good idea; likewise, never said it would make a good argument: I just pointed out that what Guy Macon described in his comment didn't represent my position at all well. That said, I've already stomached the fact that tu quoque isn't going to help my case. O l J a 17:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I've reopened this as per below - there's still an unresolved topic ban proposal. And per "Please feel free to reopen the discussion if you like, per WP:BOLD" from the closer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Community-imposed topic ban?
So the result is nine editors in favor of a topic ban, two (one of whom is Oldstone James) opposing, and the additional oppose !vote having a very weak argument ("there is also problematic behavior on the 'other side'"), but this report is closed with "This discussion now seems to have naturally come to a close" and no sanctions? Not even a warning? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree that the close does not reflect the course of the discussion, nor does it take into account the consensus. Grandpallama (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the implication, given the benefit of the doubt, is that my behaviour has changed, and that if it is found otherwise, I will probably get topic-banned: I am already de facto unable to edit the AiG article. This thread in itself is one massive warning. Also, not that it's relevant, but saying an argument is "weak" is subjective, and I believe some of the 'support' arguments were weak, also. O l J a 10:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, a quite stupid close. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 10:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)-Roxy, the dog . wooF 10:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLD applies :) I don't think the close has been invented that can't be reversed.Except, of course.  ——  SerialNumber  54129  10:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I closed the discussion on the basis that the message had got through, and Oldstone James has taken to heart the advice given, resolving the problem that required the topic ban in the first place. If that's not the case, a topic ban would be the next port of call, all the discussion having been done already above. Please feel free to reopen the discussion if you like, per WP:BOLD, or just ask me on my talk page, and I will do it for you; closure is not an act of final authority, but an editorial function to summarize discussion when a process had come to a close, which in this case seemed to to me to have happened by editor behavior change rather than sanction. -- The Anome (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that further discussion would be useless, and would advise against simply opening the discussion so we can get more of the same. What I disagree with is the lack of sanctions given that there has not been a single administrator who expressed an opinion that there was nothing sanctionable. I think pretty much everyone expected a topic ban, block, or an agreement to be mentored. I do not agree that "Oldstone James has taken to heart the advice given, resolving the problem that required the topic ban in the first place". To be specific:
 * I asked him to stop edit warring. He appears to have stopped and he appears to agree that edit warring is bad. I haven't seen him agree that he was using the wrong definition of self-revert, but maybe he accepts that as well.
 * I asked him to stop saying that his proposed changes have consensus without asking whether anyone agrees that they have consensus. I have seen zero evidence that he has agreed to do this.
 * I asked him to use the talk page rather than trying to get his way though repeatedly reverting. So far so good on this one.
 * I asked him to either stop accusing other editors of wrongdoing or to put together some evidence and report them at ANI. I have seen no retraction of the accusations against me personally, nor have I seen an ANI case with my name on it.
 * I asked him to stop blaming other people for his actions. He denies that he ever did that. I could put together a long list of diffs and we could spend a week discussing exactly what he did and did not mean, but instead I will leave it as this: if you believe him, mark this as resolving the problem. If you believe that in the future he will respond to ANI reports, user page warnings, etc. with Tu quoque, mark it as not resolved.
 * Finally, even if everyone agrees that "Oldstone James has taken to heart the advice given, resolving the problem that required the topic ban in the first place" it is an established fact that he didn't do that until faced with sanctions at ANI and that in the events leading up to this report he refused to listen when a dozen different people told him he was violating our policies and guidelines -- and he continued the behavior after his block expired. At the bare minimum this should result in an unclose followed immediately with a new close that contains a clearly worded warning (keeping in mind how often he misunderstands our basic policies and guidelines) telling him exactly what is expected of him going forward. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've accepted I was wrong about the definition of a self-revert and stated that in several comments:  are some examples. If anything, I didn't know that I was, nor did I intend to, edit-war, limiting myself at 1RR ever since the block. Of course, it turned out that my understanding of what a self-revert was wrong, so I did end up edit-warring, but that was not my intention.
 * I will not claim consensus ever again, even when it seems obvious to me that there is consensus, as a safety measure. I will, however, say that I believe where there is consensus and where there is not; I will of course not use this as a justification for my edits.
 * I do not want to file an ANI report, as I already have a lot of things to do both here on Wikipedia and in real life. I did, however, already provide you with diffs backing up my accusations.
 * I do not deny I ever did that, and, furthermore, I have repeatedly said that I will stop doing that. Here is one example:, but there are many more.
 * It is not at all an established fact that I didn't listen to advice I was given - especially after the block. I am not going to list pieces of advice that I took on before the block, because that wouldn't be of any use, but here is such a list for advice that I took on after the block and before ANI:
 * "Do not reinstate your edit without having first reached consensus"
 * "Do not edit-war (as stated above, the edit-war that I did end up being involved in was due to my misunderstanding of what a self-revert is, but my intention was to limit myself at 1RR)"
 * "Discuss your changes on the relevant talk page if you see that your edit has been reverted"
 * "When you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns"
 * There are more examples, but these are some important ones.
 * Finally, I have only misunderstood two subtle WP policies so far - what counts a self-revert and what counts as a dummy edit - which isn't that many, as I've even seen some admins misunderstanding a few policies here and there (and sometimes later admitting to misunderstanding them). O l J a 17:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Just another comment on my reopening. A close should summarize the consensus, and the close summary didn't really address anything that was covered in the discussion. I don't see a consensus that "Oldstone James has taken to heart the advice given". As a topic ban was proposed, I think a close should address that explicitly - and I'm happy to leave that to someone else. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Since I guess we're going to keep talking about this
An object lesson: Discussion on my talkpage about an edit Oldstone James did not like at AiG, Discussion at WT:MOS about this. Arguable as to whether these venues are the correct ones or not, and perhaps not everyone would have taken as kindly as I did to the level of belligerence that Oldstone James evinced on my talkpage (There are people on this site that would feel justified in lashing out violently if you told them something like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83&type=revision&diff=892913220&oldid=892910301&diffmode=source "...when it comes to correcting grammar, don't correct something that you aren't 100% certain is false. I've already noticed that some of your earlier good-faith edits were attempts at correcting grammar but turned out to be unnecessary/incorrect in the end. I may not be a good editor when it comes to behaviour, but I do believe I know a thing or two about grammar..."], but it amuses me more than bothers me.), but in any case, I think this indicates the right direction that things can go in. jps (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am still waiting for the "Gosh, eight people disagree with me on this and nobody agrees with me, so I am going to go along with the consensus here" post. Note that I am not talking about that subset of his proposals that some other editors support. I am talking about that subset where everybody disagrees and WP:1AM applies. If you can't reach a compromise even when you are sure you are right, you are unable to work with others on a Wikipedia article. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that as long as disruption in articlespace isn't happening, that's a positive. I'm inclined to accept implicit sorts of acquiescence. If a person lets the other side have their way but does not post that they were wrong, does it matter? jps (talk) 10:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Please read these two diffs from today.
 * Would you describe them as:


 * [A] Oldstone James explicitly asking on the talk page whether his proposed changes have consensus instead of assuming without asking that they have consensus?
 * or as
 * [B] Oldstone James trying to get his way through reverting rather than using the talk page?


 * Now look at this conversation at MOS Talk:
 * Would you describe the conversation as:


 * [1] Oldstone James hearing the arguments of the multiple editors who do not agree with his preferred wording and deciding to go along with the consensus?
 * or as
 * [2] Oldstone James stubbornly continuing to argue for his preferred wording no matter what?


 * He is not, as you claim, letting the other side have their way. Go ahead. post a diff where he agrees to go along with consensus instead of continuing to argue in the face of significant pushback by multiple editors.


 * If this is how he acts as his behavior is being scrutinized at ANI and the consensus is to topic ban him and after several people have told him to back off of the creationism pages until the ANI case closes, that tells me that he is incapable of letting it go.


 * And he is now in the middle of Yet Another Creationism Content Dispute. This one is just starting, but would anyone like to take bets on whether he will end up agreeing with the other editor? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that the results are what matter. I don't really care if Oldstone James never says he agrees to go along as long as he doesn't muck about in articlespace with the attitude that it is his and his way alone. jps (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't have to achieve consensus for every edit that I make – that would make Wikipedia uneditable. I need to achieve consensus if and when there is disagreement about the edit that I just made, which is what I am trying to do at Talk:Genesis creation narrative. I don't see any problem with me continuing to argue for my wording on the TP, although I'm not sure why you feel I'd do so "no matter what", given there are already several examples of me changing my stance following arguments provided by other editors.
 * As for the discussion at MOS, here are two examples of me agreeing with other editors: . Either way, I really don't see why I must definitively concede that I am wrong even when I believe that I am right. If I don't agree with some other editor, that does not mean that I haven't considered their arguments – it means that I've considered their arguments and concluded they weren't strong enough to convince me. You are making a lot of big claims about me, but big claims require big evidence. I don't see any evidence of me assuming consensus or neglecting other editors' arguments just because they contradict my pov or me not letting the other side have their way ever since this thread was posted at ANI. Speaking about the latter, the current version of the article in question (Answers in Genesis) is against my preference; I have accepted that and do not try to force my preferred version into the article. O l J a  13:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Just note that I did not mean to belligerent as you claim. I just wanted to share something that I've noticed, even admitting you may take it with a grain of salt. I apologise if you found my approach to be aggressive. That said, I've been addressed with a far more belligerent approach, including by you as well, and I've been rightly told that responding violently is never justified, even in such situations. O l J a 11:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * And the purpose of once again pointing to the misbehavior of other editors is? If, as you claim, you are not trying to point at the misbehavior of others to justify or excuse your own misbehavior, why are you once again pointing at the misbehavior of others? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not fishing for an apology here, and I am personally fine with upping the level of critique at Wikipedia. Just be aware that in community discussions there is a reasonable aphorism that "impact does not equal intent". In that vein, there is no reason to apologize to me, but instead you should be aware that this sort of engagement style could cause problems with others. On Wikipedia, people will throw around WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL in regards to such. jps (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If I might throw in my two cents here, I have had some minor interactions with Oldstone James recently, and they were fine. That being said, if I could give one piece of advice, it would be that the editor in question needs to watch his (or her?) defensive reflex.  It is fine to argue for one's point, of course, and in a one-on-one context, I really don't think it's a problem.  However, when one gets the same message from four or five other editors, or, say, an entire noticeboard, it's time to accede, no matter how righteous one's cause or how justified the conduct.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Oldstone James: Call for close
It is my opinion that there is 100% agreement that further discussion will not change the final result here. If you think this should not be closed yet, please speak up now. I am calling for an uninvolved administrator please write up a summary that reflects their evaluation of what the consensus is, close this discussion, and apply any sanctions or warnings that are appropriate. If anyone has an opinion as to what the consensus is, please post that opinion below (just that one narrow point without repeating anything that is covered in the sections above, please). Please note that it is perfectly reasonable for someone who !voted for A to then opine that the consensus is for B.


 * Consensus is for a topic ban, possibly put on hold with mentoring. My count is:
 * Two Editors (one of whom is Oldstone James) called for no sanctions of any kind.
 * Three editors (one of whom is Oldstone James, another is the proposed mentor) were for mentorship. jps wrote "This is one of the extremely rare cases where I think mentorship may help, if he would be open to it. Unfortunately, none of the people with whom he's gotten into arguments (including me) would be appropriate. We'd need to find someone he would listen to". Oldstone James wrote "I would indeed be very open to mentorship, if it is given that the mentor knows very well and respects Wikipedia policies, and that the mentor can explain to me why my some of my particular edits are unconstructive. Based on my experience, user:EdChem would be a good candidate." EdChem wrote "I'm willing to discuss the possibility of mentorship in some form, but only if OJ really wants it and will abide by some restrictions" followed by a list and by Oldstone James replying "I am very happy to follow all the rules that you have described here".
 * If Oldstone James and EdChem agree on this, I would like to see any topic ban be put on hold, this discussion closed, and a new discussion between Oldstone James and EdChem started on EdChem's talk page. I would also call for the closing admin to evaluate whether a topic ban should or should not be applied if the mentoring falls apart and EdChem resigns from it.
 * I don't see any point in collecting the inevitable slew of !votes agreeing with mentoring, but if anyone opposes mentoring, please speak up now or we will assume that everyone agrees.
 * Ten Eight editors were for a topic ban from all pages relating to creationism, broadly construed. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Consensus was initially for a topic ban, possibly put on hold with mentoring. To make the job easier for whoever will close this, here is the actual !vote count:
 * 2 oppose !votes
 * 7 support !votes
 * 1 weak support !vote

And here is the opinion count for editors involved in this thread:
 * 8 editors directly for topic ban
 * 2+1 editors agree that mentorship would solve the problem (me, user:EdChem, user:ජපස)
 * 2+1 editors say no ban is necessary (me, user:1990'sguy, user:The Anome)
 * 1 editor doesn't express a strong opinion but says their interactions with me "were fine", also warning that I should listen to other editors' advice in the future
 * Feel free to comment down any errors with my counts underneath O l J a 18:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support --Guy Macon 02:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support --Nil Einne 05:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban --Bishonen 20:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC).
 * Support --Guettarda 03:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support --Johnuniq 09:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support --Samsara 10:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban. --The Duke of Nonsense 21:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support --Grandpallama 14:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support topic-ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In case anyone missed it, "ජපස" and "jps" are the same user. Also The Anome did not !vote on this proposal. Please don't confuse closing an ANI thread (which is supposed to involve evaluating and reporting what the consensus is) with being part of that consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, they did not, and I did not claim they did. However, I did take closing the thread with the comment "Oldstone James has taken to heart the advice given, resolving the problem that required the topic ban in the first place" as meaning they did not think a topic ban was necessary. I can't exclude the possibility that I'm simply being biased, though. The best way of finding out would be to ask user:The Anome themselves. O l J a 22:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: I was pretty discouraged by this. I don't see that Oldstone James has run this escalation by his proposed mentor. jps (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me take this opportunity to state/clarify that I think the ban is necessary. Starting yet another fire in a new venue is starting to make this whole affair rather unbearable, and OJ was under no duress to do so. Samsara 21:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

There is an edit war going on at Genesis creation narrative with plenty of blame to spread around.

While this ANI report is about Oldstone James, it sure looks to me that some of the other editors on that page are worth looking at. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 20:07, 22 March 2019 In this edit, Oldstone James makes a bold edit, changing a claim that reading the Genesis creation narrative as history rather than theology is misreading it, to a claim that either reading is valid. No problems so far; this is the B in BRD.
 * 09:42, 19 April 2019 Pico reverts Oldstone James. This is also fine; it it the R in BRD.
 * 10:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC) BRR instead of BRD.
 * Revision as of 10:39, 19 April 2019 Theroadislong reverts Oldstone James. BRRR.
 * 11:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC) The edit/revert is first discussed on the talk page (Initiated by Theroadislong, not by Oldstone James. An extensive ond ongoing discussion ensues, with no agreement so far. BRRRD.
 * 17:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC) Oldstone James makes an unrelated edit that improves the wording without changing the meaning. Nothing wrong at all with doing this. Another B
 * 22:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC) Pico reverts Oldstone James and another editor. No good explanation for the revert. BR.
 * 23:41, 19 April 2019 Oldstone James reverts Pico. BRR.
 * 04:59, 20 April 2019 Pico reverts Oldstone James. BRRR,
 * 13:06, 20 April 2019 Oldstone James make a very different edit. Definitely not a revert. B.
 * 20:22, 20 April 2019 ජපස  /jps reverts Oldstone James. BR.
 * 21:07, 20 April 2019 Oldstone James reverts ජපස  /jps BRR.
 * 21:15, 20 April 2019 Theroadislong posts an EW warning on Oldstone James' talk page
 * 21:24, 20 April 2019 Oldstone James self-reverts. This converts the previous BRR to BR.


 * Guy, if I can just comment since I'm mentioned: you say that I didn't give an adequate reason for my revert on 22:59, 19 April 2019, so I'll explain here: Oldstone James had made a minor edit on a point of grammar, which I found problematic because it broke the link with the preceding sentence; at this point another editor, Epiphyllumlover, made an edit which had nothing to do with Oldstone James's edits but was substantive and looked like leading to yet another long thread on the talk page. I felt it would better to avoid that (we have only so much time and energy) and so reverted with a request (I said "please") for editors to refrain from editing for a while. I'm trying to preserve the article at the last stable stage. But, if my editing is a problem, I'll offer to stay out of it for a week or two.PiCo (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

As the "proposed mentor," I'll offer a few thoughts:
 * jps commented that he was pretty discouraged by this. and that he doesn't see that Oldstone James has run this escalation by his proposed mentor. I have already encouraged OJ to use dispute resolution procedures, so I see a positive in the approach taken.  I wasn't consulted, but then with no agreement in place, I also see no obligation.  To me, moving to DRN is reasonable in theory.  Without looking in detail, I can't comment on it being wise, but it certainly better than edit warring.  I also note that GM's summary above shows edit warring behaviours from several editors and the self-revert to return from "BRR" to "BR" (as GM puts it) shows willingness to follow policy.
 * and, you have both offered summaries to assist the closer. No doubt your intentions are good, but neither of you is exactly an unbiased observer.  I would like to see more thoughts on mentorship from contributors to this thread (including those who expressed views on a topic ban) and anyone else who cares to comment.  I'm not trying to delay the close, but there is a considerable difference between a mentor arrangement agreed solely between me and OJ and one backed by ANI with agreed parameters.
 * I would especially welcome input from, both because I respect her and because she has considerable experience.
 * OJ, a minor quibble: you wrote that you, me and jps agree that mentorship would solve the problem.  I am saying I'm willing to try mentorship, but am not certain whether it will work.  I hope it can solve the problem, and I believe that it may solve the problem, but there is no certainty.  I do not presume to speak for jps, but I'll be surprised if he doesn't have a similar view.  For it to work, you need to be willing to adapt, I need to successfully answer your questions / explain what you don't understand, etc.  Since the idea was first raised, I've seen some positive / encouraging signs, and also some problems.  I've considered posting a formal oppose to the proposal, noting progress and invoking WP:ROPE to say it is worth allowing you the space to demonstrate your developing approach... but have ultimately not done that as real life has limited my on-wiki time meaning there is a lot to catch up on.  OJ, I believe you have skills to be a good Wikipedian – I would not be willing to offer my time if I thought otherwise.  To be a valued contributor, however, requires the ability to work with others when controversy arises, it requires a commitment to content that aligns with policy (which can be a problem when self-confidence and belief leads to advocacy) and the skills for encyclopaedic writing that is a distinct style of its own, and it is helped by the judgement to know when to step away or concede.
 * I think OJ has demonstrated the willingness to change and reassess his approach in the discussions that have started at his talk page. I think he has tried to respond to Guy Macon's comments earlier in the sub-section preceding this one.  I am disappointed that Guy has not given more acknowledgement of that, though I recognise his right to his views... and I do thank him for the summary immediately above noting the edit war involving multiple editors, it shows the sort of objective description that is helpful.
 * Taking all the evidence, I cannot support a topic ban being imposed. If a mentoring arrangement is to be agreed, I would rather it has input from others on parameters, discussion with OJ and me, and be formally recorded in a close.  Consequently, a close for a mentorship to be sorted out in a new sub-section is a reasonable way forward.  EdChem (talk) 01:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * jps commented that he Example text? (smile) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In principle, nothing wrong with DRN, but given the dramah that has been going on, it would have been nice if he had asked on the talkpage whether we would all like to do this first. It feels pretty WP:GAME-y, is all, especially when the discussion is ongoing. Plus, I hate WP:DRN. It doesn't work when people who are involved in the dispute are not a fan of the venue you're dragging them. jps (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Asking on the talk page would have be a suitable courtesy, no doubt. Starting it before asking for a self-requested block was an, umm, interesting choice too.  EdChem (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is just added concern for me. Don't get me wrong, I love me some requested blocks, but it seems to me it is a good idea to think about other people you have involved in various discussions before slamming the door behind you. At least have the courtesy of closing your request if you're going to abandon the entire venue? Sigh. jps (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge Oldstone James' willingness to change. I think he is sincere. What I don't believe is that OJ is able to change at this time. I think that a topic ban will tell us two things: [1] Is Oldstone James able to edit productively in other areas? [2] Will the bad behavior by other editors on the creationism pages continue without Oldstone James? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Having been on the receiving end of such an interrogation, I personally refuse to sit in judgment who is able to change and who is not. Also, I think there is perhaps a two steps forward, one step back approach towards improvement that tends to occur in such matters. I'm not as convinced as you are that there is an epidemic of "bad behavior" on the creationism pages. jps (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words, EdChem. I don't see how this thread can be closed with anything other than an indefinite topic ban from creationism and all related pages, in view of the robust consensus for such a ban. Closing without instituting a topic ban would be an egregious supervote IMO. Neither a mentor nor a self-requested block can change this. I appreciate your kindness in offering to mentor the user, EdChem, and I should think he well would need a mentor even with a topic ban. What he needs to do during the topic ban, which preferably shouldn't be appealed before six months have passed, is edit in other areas, and do it without getting into trouble. The more and better he edits other areas, and also edits in Wikipedia's sister projects (which he is free to do in all areas, as a topic ban here would not apply to them), the better his chances of having the topic ban lifted if and when he appeals it. A mentor can help him do this, assuming that he's willing to learn. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC).
 * Thank you for responding, . I was wondering more about your view of mentorship and the specific boundaries that I'd suggested, to be honest, and whether it is wise.  I asked before he asked for the block, though, and that decision from OJ changes the landscape, as far as I can see.  :(  EdChem (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're still considering it, EdChem, there should preferably be an explicit agreement that either of you can end the mentorship at any time if it becomes burdensome, and that there will be no interrogation about why either party is ending it. Obviously it's already a fact that mentor and mentee can end at any time, but having a reminder of it spelled out may be useful. And you may need to set yourself some limits on how much you'll do, Ed, whether explicitly or just in your head. OJ says above that "Furthermore, I won't have to spend nearly as much time justifying my points when there is only one user I can communicate my points to,", and that sounds like a misconception on his part that he'd be either obliged or encouraged to talk only to you. If he does that, it might devour your Wikipedia time fast. Perhaps I misunderstood him.


 * A helpful part of mentorship can be that anybody who wants to warn or advise OJ alerts you to the issue, Ed, by copying to you, or indeed approaching you first. A prominent note to this effect on OJ's page could be useful.


 * The essay Mentorship seems pretty good to me. The "Involuntary mentorship" section in it, about mentoring as an alternative to sanctions, shouldn't come into play here IMO (note the final sentence in the section). In other words, I believe mentoring OJ should be a purely informal arrangement between the two of you, based on trust, and not a replacement for a TBAN or other sanction. Consequently it needn't be mentioned as a sanction or condition in the close of this thread, or logged anywhere. As for whether it would be wise for you to take on mentorship of OJ.. you can probably tell I have some doubts. And yes indeed, somebody please close, per below! Bishonen &#124; talk 12:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC).

Again, I call for someone to make a decision and close this. Further discussion will not change the result. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * (...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, very disappointing. Aren't there any uninvolved admins reading this? - <b style="color: darkblue">Nick Thorne</b> <sup style="color: darkblue">talk  12:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Oldstone James now has a self-requested 1 month block
He requested this 11 hours ago and User:Black Kite agreed to it. I was one of the Admins he asked to do it but Black Kite beat me to it. Doug Weller talk 10:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * ...And now, 14 hours after being blocked, he has submitted an unblock appeal on UTRS. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * No, it was a fake unblock request, evidently we've been getting these. Doug Weller  talk 16:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Just when it looked like a topic ban was about to be imposed OJ gets a dose of the vapours and asks to be blocked for a month.  Well fine, they're not causing any disruption for that time, however I strongly recomend that we continue to impose an indef topic ban on creationism articles, broadly construed, so that when they return to editing we don't get another episode of their behaviour and find ourelves involved in another massive time sink here. I should not have to point out that there is a pretty clear consensus for this sort of a TB, the voluntary one month block does not alter that fact. - <b style="color: darkblue">Nick Thorne</b> <sup style="color: darkblue">talk  02:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I had hoped that consensus might evolve to support a mentorship arrangement, but having now requested a block for a month, OJ can't participate in advancing that approach or assuaging concerns. In these circumstances, with a consensus clear, I can see no alternative tan to close this discussion in line with that consensus.  I agree with Bishonen that any other close would be a supervote, which is not appropriate, and with Guy Macon and Nick Thorne that OJ's self-requested block should not lead to holding open this thread nor does it alter the existing consensus.  I support Guy Macon's call for an uninvolved administrator to assess consensus and close this discussion accordingly.  EdChem (talk) 05:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am deeply cynical of requests for self-requested blocks, which are, first, an admission by the requester that they have no self-control, and, second, a device to game the resolution of a conduct dispute. At this point the only question in my mind is whether to impose the topic-ban or to impose a site-ban.  In case of doubt, do the less drastic and impose the topic-ban.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Alleged abuse of admin tools
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TPU.ro&diff=893859261&oldid=893859156

The page was a disambigation page for several years. Then it was unilaterally be converted into something else and moved. DAB was restored and reasoning provided. Bkonrad reverted w/o providing a reason. Then he abused his administrative tools to force his position into the page. 77.191.191.222 (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You turned an article into a disambiguation page, while other users thought you were being disruptive. There are several ways to resolve that type of dispute, but edit warring from two different devices is not one of them. I'm glad to see you're trying to use the talk page now. You should also consider just leaving polite messages on the talk pages of users who have reverted you. If your changes are an obvious improvement to the project, they will probably agree with you. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Just noting that it is all sorted out now - page histories had to be split. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on edit summaries, IP appears to be a sock of User:Tobias Conradi. Sro23 (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Really? A user from 12 years ago is still haunting us? Rockstone   talk to me!   04:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is pretty clearly a sock of Tobias Conradi, who is globally banned.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * After a final decision is made I would suggest removal of this thread per WP:BMB and/or WP:DNFTT. If others disagree that is fine but could we at least change the title of the thread since Bkonrad has done nothing wrong. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 08:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Has it really been that long? I feel old. Guettarda (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Legal Threats from a New User
I left Mraids, a new user, a discretionary sanction. They have responded by saying that they are going to report me for hate crimes, twice, here and here.

Please do the needful. Thanks.--Jorm (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh. Uh, looks like it was taken care of already. --Jorm (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Continued addition of unsourced info despite repeated warnings
Please could someone look at the edits of Mrjackmarley. Despite repeated final warnings and 3 blocks, he continues to mass change genre's without providing any sources whatsoever.  Rob van  vee  14:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Indeffing now, with any unblock contingent on acknowledging prior warnings and a statement that he will not continue to make unsourced genre changes. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 17:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

NOTHERE trolling
Basically there's not anything to say other than "look at their contributions, especially on their talk page." (Talk page 1, talk page 2) No chance that this person is interested in contributing usefully, disruption is already evident, responses to warnings indicate every intent of continuing. Notifying shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel B. Lewis (talk • contribs) 13:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The editor's response to notification of this report ("Oh no! I beg you, please don’t report me to an admin! Wikipedia is the only thing I have - it is my identity, my life, my purpose!") looks very like trolling to me, and suggests that this editor is not here in order to improve the encyclopaedia. RolandR (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * To be pointlessly pedantic, that response was not to the ANI notification, it was to a separate warning (by ). But it was the reason I decided to go ahead and file this.  --JBL (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And I have just noted the username, which is a further indication that this user is trolling us. RolandR (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. --JBL (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Refusing to acknowledge a consensus
For some time now, a lengthy debate has been going on at WikiProject World Rally. It has been through article talk pages and a DRN and ultimately an RfC. The RfC expired this past week and I implemented changes to one of the affected articles based on the results. However, Pelmeen10 subsequently reverted those changes, claiming that "no such consensus had been reached". However, I believe that it is evident from the RfC discussion that the consensus does exist&mdash;though perhaps not unanimously&mdash;and that Pelmeen10 is deliberately misrepresenting things to prevent it from being implemented. Here are some of the things he has said in the RfC thread since it closed:
 * ''"Most of the people involved in this discussion were against, including me."

This is incorrect. There were only six people involved in the discussion, and three of them voiced support for the proposed change. Pelmeen10 supported a different change, while another editor outright opposed it and the final editor only pointed out that Pelmeen10's proposal did not satisfy WP:MOSACCESS.
 * ''"This whole Rfc was so wrongly started."

I do not know what he means by this. The RfC was started as a suggestion of the DRN and as the person who started it, I did not receive any notification that I had not followed the procedure correctly.
 * ''"Like there is only 3 possible ways to go."

Again, I'm not sure what he means by this. The RfC was open for a month and there was ample opportunity to put forward proposals. I limited it to three because I could not think of any more.
 * ''"Most people actually preferred not to make any changes."

Again, this is incorrect. Pelmeen10 himself suggested minor changes and three editors supported completely reworking the table.
 * ''"Anyway, this discussion has not been closed yet."

A bot removed the RfC template after 30 days, taking the RfC off the list of active discussions. The discussion itself had run its course two weeks previously.

All in all, I believe that a consensus has been formed as the result of the RfC. Pelmeen10 is refusing to acknowledge it and has taken to misrepresenting things to justify reverting edits he disagreed with. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So, I'm pretty new here edited, but I think in this situation, where the issue is contentious or consensus may not be clear, you might want to request a formal closure by an uninvolved editor or admin at WP:ANRFC. Just letting the rfc template expire doesn't appear to have created a solution. There's also no actual time limit on RfCs, so you could just add the tag back for a while. Safrolic (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; I'm actually not that new. I used to post under another name and had 35,000+ edits before I forgot my password and had to create a new account. This issue has been to multiple talk pages, DRN and now an RfC. The time has come to move things along. By his own admission, Pelmeen10 forgot about the RfC discussion for two weeks, by which time the initial 30 days had elapsed so I don't think he can reasonably claim that the discussion is not only unresolved, but that there is no consensus. I will take things to ANRFC, but given how he has misrepresented the situation by claiming no-one supported the proposal, I think ANI is an appropriate place to raise the issue. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, awkward, sorry about that. Safrolic (talk) 07:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

That Rfc was the continuation of discussions that happened at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World_Rally, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World_Rally, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World_Rally, Talk:2019_World_Rally_Championship. You received more opposition than support in those discussions, so claiming that your suggestion was the consensus is false. Adding the tag back or trying the Request for closure are both good solutions. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Prior discussions are not a part of the RfC. You cannot use them to circumvent an RfC discussion. If you could, it would be too easy for editors to oppose changes by citing previous discussions regardless of how old they are or how any participants in those discussions currently regard the issue. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I have, only eight days late, reviewed the results of the RFC. I am neutral, and originally tried to moderate the content issue at DRN but then closed that dispute as needing the RFC. I copied the table formats from the sandbox to the talk page so that the sandbox can be reused (after all, it's a sandbox). Unfortunately, the format of the RFC is confusing, and I can't come up with a consensus. I can close it with a finding to that effect, or I can leave it for someone else to close, or it can just go without a formal close, but I can't make any progress. You can ask for a formal closure at WP:ANRFC, and you might get one, or the closer might be at as much of a loss as I was as the would-be closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * My main concern at this point is what happens when a consensus is formed. How can we trust Pelmeen10 to honour it? He has clearly misrepresented the discussion to justify opposing a consensus; when that was pointed out, he started trying to drag the opinions of editors from previous discussions into the RfC&mdash;even though one editor (who is involved in the RfC) has changed his opinion in the past few months. He has even admitted to forgetting about the discussion, only to then claim that the discussion is ongoing. There is obvious support for one table format in the RfC, but Pelmeen10's actions appear to be a deliberate attempt to drag the discussion out and prevent a consensus from being formed. When a consensus is finally formed, I have no confidence that he will respect it based on this behaviour. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Resumption of Campaign - Please Resolve
User:Mclarenfan17 has now moved the campaign back to the article talk page, and is arguing there that there is a consensus. Since they opened this thread, this has aspects of forum shopping. I may be the "wrong" editor for this dispute, because I initially sent the disputant parties off to an RFC, but the resultant RFC is a mess, and I can't tease a consensus out of it. Maybe a wiser closer than I can resolve it, but if User:Mclarenfan17 keeps insisting that there is a consensus, in spite of vocal disagreement, then my own opinion is that Mclarenfan17 is trying to game the system and force a consensus. Can an uninvolved administrator please either find some consensus, or close the RFC with a finding that a new RFC is needed, or something? My own opinion, which is only my opinion, is that User:Mclarenfan17 bungled the RFC and it needs to be restarted. In any case, by insisting that there is a consensus when there clearly is not a consensus, they are being stubborn, and something needs to be done. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ''"Since they opened this thread, this has aspects of forum shopping"
 * I would like to dispute this. I opened this thread because I believe that an editor is deliberately trying to prevent a consensus from being formed by insisting that the discussion is still open. A week later and I am none the wiser as to what he wants to keep discussing. If a consensus is to be formed, how can we be confident that he will honour it if all he has to do is post words to the effect of "we haven't finished talking about it yet" in the RfC thread?


 * I was also unaware of the existence of WP:ANRFC until it was pointed out here. Had I known about it at the time, I would have gone there first.
 * ''"User:Mclarenfan17 keeps insisting that there is a consensus, in spite of vocal disagreement"
 * The current disagreement is coming from a single editor.


 * In the original RfC discussion, three people supported one of the proposals (albeit with minor changes). Two editors supported an additional proposal, but were told that it was not feasible under MOS:ACCESS. They then went silent. The sixth and final editor involved did not voice any support for any proposal and instead only pointed out the MOS:ACCESS issue.
 * ''"by insisting that there is a consensus when there clearly is not a consensus"
 * As I outlined above, I believe that there is clearly a majority support for one of the proposals. It may be slim, but with those opposed to it having gone quiet after being told that the version they favoured did not meet an important guideline, what am I supposed to think?
 * ''"My own opinion, which is only my opinion, is that User:Mclarenfan17 bungled the RFC and it needs to be restarted"
 * Why is this the first that I am hearing of this? I have started a handful of RfCs (under my old account) and never had a problem with it. I structured this one the same as every other one: a brief, neutral outline of the problem, then make my case in detail, then give opposed editors the chance to do the same, and then discussion. If the structure of the RfC was so flawed, it should have been raised before now. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

User:SSSB
This user has been inappropriately templating long-term users and moving newly-created articles to draft-space within minutes, long before any citations can be formatted. Might someone have a word? Kafka Liz (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think this incident requires administrative intervention, but I agree that a softer touch was due here. El_C 22:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , you being a long term editor is irrelevant and informing editors with a template is exactly what those templates are intended for. As for moving articles into draft space, at the time of this message this has only happended twice, both times with single sentence, unsourced, articles. It makes perfect sense to move this into the draft space as those two articles were not ready for the encylopedia and there were no tags indicating that they were being worked on. As far as I can see I have done nothing wrong. Further I fail to see how my templating was "inappropriate". SSSB (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally, it's just common courtesy to devote a few of your own words when commenting on an established user's talk page. I'm not sure whether you're aware of this or just disagree. My view is that this is something that would benefit you as much as it would the user/s in question, and would contribute to a more collegial environment on the project as a whole. El_C 22:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * El_C, will take your words on board, though I nearly always communicate in my own words. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I was unaware of this protocol besides my message was to inform that her article had been moved to the draft space, it was an alert which isn't actually covered by WP:DTR. I apologise if I have offended by not making it personalised but I think the messages on my talk page and this discussion are completely uncalled for, a simply message pointing out WP:DTR on my talk page would have been sufficent. SSSB (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, not templating the regulars is not policy or even a guideline, it's just an essay. But my sense is that this is something most editors tend to follow as a general etiquette. And as mentioned, my own personal view is that following it tends to reduce friction, which is always a good thing. El_C 23:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this ought be continued off ANI, unless you disagree. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Impersonation — CU, please?
I've just blocked what I take to be an LTA impersonating a user I blocked for edit-warring - appeared to be trying to fit up. Yesterday, I saw trying to impersonate  on ANI. A CU would be helpful.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is related to the spurious unblock request mentioned up the page for Oldstone James - I think we've got a troll looking for material on ANI.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm very sorry, Acroterion. I didn't see the connection, so I thought you might have pasted it there by mistake. Sorry. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC).
 * Techbeatz1202 is probably Nsmutte. NeutralUnbiasedUSA and ConcernedCitizenUSA are harder for me to read; they seem  based on geolocation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, Techbeatz1202 is one of the latest NSmutte batch (or someone doing a good LTA impersonation). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I blocked his range shortly before you posted this but it may take UTRS tool admins to block him from filing more UTRS requests. See blocked range. I've been looking at this for a bit and yes, 172.56.6.135/19 is an LTA making fake UTRS requests, anon edits to impersonate and sockpuppets for that purpose as well.
 * fake Request #24821 for ConcernedCitizenUSA
 * 172.56.6.135 made impersonator puppet NeutralUnbiasedUSA (this is an LTA throwaway so I haven't violated anyone's privacy)
 * fake Request #24820 for Oldstone James
 * Techbeatz1202 appears unrelated to the above LTA but yes, may be Nsmutte.
 * Those who are answering UTRS requests should consider that the fakes have .tk as the email extension.
 * The email domains are varied, but they all seem to be throwaway addresses to me. —DoRD (talk)​ 23:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Request #24795 for Partycity is from the same LTA.
 * Shouldn't OTRS be recoded to use OAUTH to verify that you are in fact the user on whose behalf you are requesting an unblock? * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">has returned 18:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The latest UTRS request in the name of ConcernedCitizenUSA contains the same legal threats used by the NeutralUnbiasedUSA sock. Probably time for UTRS access to be cut off.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, they're coming in from various IPs from a few different ISPs. —DoRD (talk)​ 23:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * How is that unfortunate? It actually is a good thing and evidence that I am not a sockpuppet. Just to be clear, I had no idea anyone submitted anything or took any action on my behalf. ConcernedCitizenUSA talk April 21, 2019 1-:47 PM (PST).
 * I think DoRD simply means it's unfortunate in that it makes it harder to cut off their UTRS access. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. —DoRD (talk)​ 12:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I am not those other users and I was not aware they made any request on my behalf or took any actions on my behalf. Thanks for spotting that and dealing with it. ConcernedCitizenUSA talk APR 21 2019 20:40 (PST)
 * Is this what you meant?-- Booth Sift  05:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. As you can see, they already determined that I have a differnt IP addy and ISP and someone was trying to set me up. I was not blocked for this. Now if I could just get my user link name to work! ConcernedCitizenUSA talk APR 21 2019 20:56 (PST)
 * Yeah, Acroterion explained it to me. Sorry for mistaking you as a sockpuppet-- Booth Sift  01:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Page move topic ban for Joseth Felix Torres


has a history of undiscussed, controversial, and disruptive page moves - earlier today Panthera leo leo to Northern lion then to North lion, and Panthera leo melanochaita to Southern lion then to South lion (both reverted by ). They have been reverted and warned multiple times. I suggest an indefinite topic ban from making any page moves. Pinging who have raised this issue with me recently. GiantSnowman 13:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Unresponsive to reversals of decisions made in recently concluded talk page discussions. cygnis insignis 14:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This editor seems too confused to be able to follow a topic ban. They almost never use talk, and their article edits are nearly 100% reverted by others. It would be more practical for an admin to issue an indefinite block. EdJohnston (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Regretfully, I'd advocate an indef block here. Just about every edit the editor has made so far has had to be reverted. They are clearly well-intentioned but completely unresponsive and ham-fisted; lots of fun was had when they got hold of what appears to be the substantially altered English translation of the 10th edition of Systema Naturae and used that to work over an article that is based on the original Latin version. Edit-warring, zero responses. Now they've gotten onto two-step page moves to misspelled common names; again, no reaction to objections. I think by now there have been enough chances to show some basic cooperative ability. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The person has continued to edit without responding here, so I've gone ahead with an indefinite block, per my above reasoning. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * that works as well! Thanks, GiantSnowman 20:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Legal attacks

 * Here by User:Kodasnap. Peoples thoughts? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd say a crank rather than a credible legal threat, but I'd be inclined to block them under WP:NOTHERE to save them wasting more time unless their contributions are so high-quality we want to bend over backwards to keep them. &#8209; Iridescent 19:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, Doc, I'd say they're insulting you, and possibly a bit closer to WP:NOTHERE (as Iridescent said), insofar as questioning your credentials is concerned. Regardless, I've left a notice on their talk page regarding this discussion. &mdash;Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 19:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn’t call it a legal threat, but implications of contacting someone’s employer are harassment in my book, even if the person has a public identity. Indef’d. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes they state they emailed by university. That is significant harassment.
 * Yes they state they emailed by university. That is significant harassment.


 * I have removed my university from my user page to hopefully help decrease this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Acupuncture: not sure what to do here


I have two questions about this edit/revert

and about these two talk page discussions:

Question #1: Is it true that according to the RfC cited, It is impossible for acupuncturists to have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing acupuncture? Is there something that needs to be done about Middle 8's editing of Acupuncture, or should I advise Roxy and JzG to stop questioning Middle 8's editing of Acupuncture?

Question#2: If something needs to be done here, is this something that should be discussed at ANI, or should I go to WP:AE?

I don't know what the right thing to do here is.

Possibly related: --Guy Macon (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture.
 * User:Middle 8/COI
 * Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 139


 * I think it's actually fairly straightforward - the RfC said "Do practitioners of alternative medicine ... have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing their field of practice? - in other words, do they automatically have a COI - this was opposed. It did not say "Can practitioners of alternative medicine ...", because clearly, yes they still can, depending on what and how they're editing. Indeed the RfC close specifically said this - "Editors are reminded that any role or relationship outside of Wikipedia may undermine their primary role here of furthering the interests of the encyclopaedia and that editing articles directly in such situations is strongly discouraged.". Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. Should Middle 8 be requested to not make the claims he makes on User:Middle 8/COI and on the two talk pages I cited above? Should I withdraw this ANI report and bring up the question of whether Middle 8 has a COI at WP:COIN? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * An editor's on-wiki conduct bears on problems like TE and ADVOCACY, not COI. Per EXTERNALREL and the recent RfC clarifying same, COI arises from an editor's external relationships "within their field of expertise" (e.g. The Who's manager has a COI for The Who but not band manager).  Otherwise we'd be seeing COI tags and COI/N cases with lots of professional fields. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 23:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC); edit for clearer example, 00:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't want to re-litigate something that has been the topic of one Arbcom case, at least two RfCs and a boatload of talk page discussions (ANI deals with user behavior, not article content), but I would like to address Middle 8's "it isn't a COI at all and thus I am not guilty of any COI violation" argument. The counterargument (which may be something Arbcom needs to rule on -- I still would like advice on that) is that our band manager article doesn't contain anything remotely resembling the "Acupuncture is a pseudoscience because the theories and practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge" claim that is currently in our accupunture article. If our band manager article said that bands that only pretend to have a band manager work just as well and make just as much money as bands that have them then the band manager for The Who shouldn't edit that article. The key here is that Middle 8, like all acupuncturists, suffers direct financial harm from the fact that our acupuncture article documents through WP:MEDRS-compliant sources that it doesn't matter where you stick the needles in, and that it doesn't even matter whether you stick the needles in -- the outcome is the same. Direct and personal financial harm caused by the content of a Wikipedia article equals a clear conflict of interest regarding that article. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You already made those exact same reasonable arguments at the RFC (right down to the band manager example), where they were duly considered alongside other reasonable arguments. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 02:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That RfC was about whether alternative medicine practitioners in general have a conflict of interest. This ANI report is about whether you personally have a conflict of interest, and was triggered by you repeatedly claiming that the RfC in question had a result of "It is impossible for Middle 8 to have a COI regarding acupuncture". And you were the one who brought up the band manager argument. Did you really expect such an argument to stand unchallenged? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you're having difficulty extrapolating from the general case to a specific one. Please see my comment here. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 04:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, good, give a pointer to a place where you tried to explain basic logic to a PhD mathematician after they corrected you. Brilliant.  The RfC as decided cannot possibly settle the question of whether any particular individual has a COI.  (Although probably at this point you should be blocked for tendentiousness and wikilawyering.) --JBL (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You're not wrong about negation, you just picked the wrong statement to negate. Take the heat down a notch, please, and see my reply below ("If A, then B"). addendum: No, the RfC can't say that a given editor has no COI of any kind, but it can and does say that the principle that profession doesn't cause COI generalizes to CAM professions.  This, as far as I can tell, is what Guy Macon disputes: he thinks I might have a COI because acupuncture (.... repeat arguments from RfC). --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 20:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC); fixed 20:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC), 20:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC), 21:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC); addendum 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyway, this isn't the right venue to (re)litigate my putative COI -- COI/N is. The "is it impossible" issue is really a red herring (the article tag being minor) -- the main question IMO is whether am I being accused of COI, and why, and whether in light of the RfC result it's even proper to do so. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 09:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll just repeat what JBL said, in slightly different wording: It for the RfC you are trying to rely upon to make it "improper" to raise CoI concerns about your or anyone else's editing. This is a WP:IDHT act you can drop now.  At best, the RfC indicates nothing beyond the fact that for WP purposes, you don't  have a CoI just because you're an acupuncturist.  You may well still have one (or may not; it depends on the evidence). This thread seems mostly to be about where to present it, and it probably would have just been more productive to present it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure I or anyone could have a COI for lots of reasons, but not simply because of their profession -- even for alt-meders. That's what the RfC said.  Remarkably Guy Macon, while arguing that this result was merely "general", has come here offering no specifics about me -- did you catch that part?  The main drafter of the RfC close did.  As for whether it's proper for Guy to start an RfC because of me, then after not getting the result he wanted go to different forum repeating the same old arguments, I leave that up to you.  --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 16:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point of your response. I said that you don't  have a CoI just because you're an acupuncturist, and that evidence behind why someone thinks you have a CoS should be presented [i.e., rather than further argument about where to present it]. You've simply reiterated the same two things.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess that's because we agree on those two things. :-) Which is good, because they're central (where we're at, where to go).  --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 09:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * As it applies to this instance, would it be fair to state the RfC question as, "Do acupuncturists have a conflict of interest with regard to Acupuncture?" (Acupuncture being "content describing their field of practice".) Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 18:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Simply having a profession (doctor, engineer, needle poker) doesn't create a COI for that profession, including CAM's -- that's how I read the RfC. And remember, COI by definition comes from one's roles off-wiki, not from one's edits.  So I can't imagine any other way one could have a COI for their (or any) broad professional area, can you?  If I'm wrong, then I retract my assertion that it's impossible.  But I maintain that that COI tag doesn't belong on any article about a profession, and that being an acupuncturist doesn't give me a COI for acupuncture.  I really thought that RfC laid such issues to rest, and that we could refocus on content, not contributors. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 01:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just get an admin or two to tell me that your interpretation of the RfC is correct, and I will gladly switch to telling Roxy and JzG to stop complaining when you make edits like these, Clearly neither of them agrees that you don't have a COI. I am fine with telling them to stop accusing you of having a COI and I am fine with telling you not to edit pages where you have a COI, but please don't expect me to decide which to do simply because an acupuncturist tells me which he thinks to be correct. You are hardly unbiased. There is nothing wrong with me asking what to do in this situation, so please stop implying that there is. I will get an authoritative answer, either here or from Arbcom. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems like IDHT. You already have a clear and authoritative answer from the RfC (which was closed by three uninvolved, experienced admins). --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 04:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ...and doesn't say what you have repeatedly claimed that it says. Don't forget that part. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't mean that simply being an acu'ist doesn't confer a COI, then Aristotle was wrong. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 06:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As I've already pointed out to you elsewhere, the negation of "X is always true" is "X is sometimes not true", not "X is never true". This is, literally, a basic failure of logic, and the fact that you repeat the error after being corrected reflects extremely poorly on you. --JBL (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, JBL, it's "If A, then B" ("If I practice a CAM profession, then that causes a COI for that CAM profession"), the negation of which is "A and not B" ("I practice a CAM profession and that does not cause a COI for that CAM profession"). --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 20:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC); improved wording 21:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. More than happy to reword my comments to clarify, fwiw. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy)
 * Middle 8 seems to be interpreting "COI by definition comes from one's roles off-wiki, not from one's edits" (which is Middle 8's own wording, not any RfC's) to mean something more like "CoI cannot be demonstrated by one's on-wiki edits, only by WP:OUTING-style connection of the editor to real-life role at particular organizations". This isn't a correct position (wasn't before or after the RfC we've been talking about). Maybe I'm misreading Middle 8, but everything I'm seeing here amounts to "it's impossible for me to have a CoI, because some RfC said so", yet it's not what the RfC said, and it's not how it works. Cf Black Kite's comment below: "the fact of whether Middle8 has a COI here is completely dependent on his edits."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish: see WP:COINOTBIAS, that's what I mean, also ACTUALCOI underneath.  If it says elsewhere in PAG (or an RfC) that COI is also demonstrated by edits, I stand corrected.  Also read our article Conflict of interest, esp the lede, 2nd para.  And no, it's not about outing (straw man), it's about disclosure.  Again:  yes, it's perfectly possible for me to have a COI, just not because I'm an acupuncturist.  But I have no other off-wiki connections that might apply, so.... --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 16:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh, who cares. We are talking about two edits about an edit notice that no one has probably even read. If it stays or goes who cares really? Other than drama what is the point of this and why did you ping JzG?  If you have an issue then take in to AE.AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I pinged JzG because, if the admins here or Arbcom say that Middle 8 doesn't have a COI, JzG and Roxy are the ones who I will be telling to stop saying that he does. Likewise, if the admins here or Arbcom say that Middle 8 does have a COI, I will be telling him not to edit pages where he has a COI. So far no admin has advised me to close this and go to AE, but I am perfectly willing to do that. I just want to do the right thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What makes you think any of the people involved need your input? You already opened an ill advised RFC that wasted countless hours and ended in the obvious conclusion.  If you want to do something then do it but this is just a drama magnet, and you don't need permission to go to AE.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Guy, don’t bother to tell me that M8 has no COI. I won’t believe you. Roxy, the dog . wooF 14:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't completely decided, but I am leaning towards Middle 8 having a COI. Clearly you, I, and JzG all think Middle 8 has a COI, and the existence of an RfC that essentially says that alt med practitioners don't automatically have COIs has not convinced any of the three of us that Middle 8 doesn't have a COI. Of course Middle 8 thinks that it should convince us, but he would say that, wouldn't he?
 * That being said, if I were to see several admins (or Arbcom) tell us to stop saying that Middle 8 has a COI then we need to abide by that decision whether we agree or not. It doesn't look like that is going to happen here, so if the admins continue to be silent on the question I intend to take it to AE as something that ANI is unable to resolve. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think, as I said above, the fact of whether Middle8 has a COI here is completely dependent on his edits. If he's making neutral sourced edits then it doesn't matter anyway.  If he's making disruptive  or anti-consensus edits that show a clear POV then he may well be said to have a COI.  But more importantly in this case, he should not be removing the edit notice because COI editors - whoever they are - should not be editing any article that they have a COI on; this one is no different.  Not only that, but (as I quoted above) the RfC that Middle8 is using to justify removing the notice actually backed up this fact. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't follow: could you specify which fact you say the RfC backed up, and why?  And again, you're mistaken re how COI arises.  It doesn't come from biased edits.  It comes from one's off-wiki roles.  See WP:COINOTBIAS . --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 20:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we're focusing on the wrong thing. What behavior of Middle 8 is being contested here?  Which edits were problematic?  What has been done in response to those edits?  Has Middle 8 showed a continued pattern of bad editing after being warned about such?  Your focus on the conflict of interest is a distraction.  The focus should be on good or bad editing behavior, and that's it.  The minutiae of the COI policies are a distraction, so focus instead on the behavior.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. Paul August &#9742; 00:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd love it if we could refocus on content; then bad reverts like this would be avoided (cf. WP:PRESERVE ). --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 21:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC); revise and abridge 01:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Guy, if Middle 8 was defending his particular practice, then yes - absolutely a COI. But the sidebar tactic of declaring someone has a COI because they practice a certain whatever, then you'd be preventing every declared liberal from editing Dem political articles and the same as it would apply to conservative who support Repubs. The same would apply to every dentist, dermatologist, massage therapist, etc. I think you see my point. Worse yet, we can't even get a majority to agree that paid editors should be prevented from editing articles they were paid to edit. Major time sink here. Provide the diffs you oppose or just start an RfC at the article, and get ready for the "come what may". Just my 5¢ worth. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 02:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Atsme, agreed re other professions, and the thing is, this was all discussed in the RfC and the "No COI" arguments (like yours) were found to outweigh the "Yes" ones. Yet Guy Macon is now suggesting I have a COI using -- wait for it -- those exact same arguments from the RfC (i.e. alt-meds like acupuncture are pseudoscience-y etc.).    How is this proper, and why did we even have the RfC?  And why isn't this at COI/N?  --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 09:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice obfuscation. First you tell a blatant lie about what is in an RfC ("it's not possible for an acu'ist to have a COI for acupuncture, per recent RfC") then when someone calls you on it, you write "this was all discussed in the RfC" and "How is this proper, and why did we even have the RfC?". I predict that if this ANI report closes without a consensus that you do have a COI and without a consensus that you do not have a COI, you will start claiming that "Per ANI I have no COI" and if anyone disagrees you will say that ANI settled the question and ask "why did we have a discussion on ANI?". --Guy Macon (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a lie at all, a reasonable inference from the RfC result as I've explained before you even posted here, in this thread, and later on your user talk page, which at the moment you're still ignoring in favor of this war/drama forum. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 04:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC); minor ce 05:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There's nowhere in the RfC that someone can claim that acupuncturists cannot have a COI at least. The RfC can mostly be summarized as while having a numerically higher oppose count, the arguments for the supports have stronger arguments, but a specific proposal wasn't needed since current guidelines already cover those viewpoints.
 * Comments like simply having a profession isn't COI tend to come up here a lot which is true, but that doesn't exclude that specific professions can have one. The key determinant is if that profession runs counter to Wikipedia's goals as an encyclopedia. Being a university professor, etc. doesn't have very much COI aside from an editor promoting their own research, etc. since their job is essentially presenting encyclopedic knowledge. Someone engaged in alternative medicine or pseudoscience though has a conflict since furthering encyclopedic knowledge runs counter to their profession as outlined in the first paragraph of WP:COI. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You read the RfC closing wrong, Kingofaces43. Consensus was on the 60%-ish majority "oppose" side.  It said "We find, however, that the oppose arguments are stronger. ... Thus, the proposal to single out alt-med practitioners in policy as having a COI is opposed."
 * I agree that the financial connection is tighter for the average alt-meder than the average professor, but you can read (or may recall) counterarguments from the RfC (that the slope is slippier than that, and that financial connections for any broad area are much more tenuous than the classic COI example of one's own business, et cetera). --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 00:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll pile on here as well, the RfC very obviously decided against singling out alt-med practitioners as having an inherent COI relative to any other area of interest or specialty. It refused to make a pre-emptive blanket ruling that alt-med practitioners have a COI by default. That does not make it a pre-emptive blanket ruling that alt-med practitioners cannot have a COI, and that is what Mid 8 is quite literally arguing here. Mid 8's supposedly-amicable demeanor is severely betrayed by his inability and/or unwillingness to accept that his unrealistic interpretation of the RfC is not correct. This alone is grounds for serious consideration of sanctions. That said, if accusations of COI are being made, the underlying evidence should be examined. There is no pre-emptive default stance either way as a result of that RfC, beyond the default stance that accusations of any kind need supporting evidence. ~Swarm~  {sting} 07:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As an authority on my own views, I object to being soundbited and misconstrued. I agree 100% with how one of the RfC closers paraphrased the RfC result:
 * "The result of the RfC was that an alt-med practitioner does not have a COI just because of the fact of them being an alt-med practitioner."
 * Compare that to "what Mid 8 is quite literally arguing here":
 * "P.S. In a nutshell, simply having a profession (broadly, like "electrical engineer") does not create a COI when editing in that topic area. The RfC clarified that this indeed applies to CAM professions."
 * Of course an alt-med professional can have still COI's for aspects of their topic area, e.g. for their own writings/inventions, but not for their alt-med area broadly, and not simply because of their being a alt-meder.
 * A brief talk-page exchange would've sufficed to clarify all this. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 21:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And I do regret removing the COI tag from the talk page. It was put there several years as part of a "singling out" campaign, and AFAIK hasn't been used on the article talk page of any other alt-med profession (let alone any other profession).  --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 21:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Specific edits
As requested, and without receiving a definitive answer regarding whether Middle 8 has a COI, I am posting a summary of Middle 8's edits that may or may not be COI violations, depending on whether or not he has a COI.

If you are looking for a smoking gun edit where Middle 8 has made blatantly biased or incorrect edits that would be sanctionable whether or not he has a COI, you can stop reading now. That did not happen. If you are looking for edits that paint acupuncture in a favorable light -- the kind of edit that would be OK if he has no COI but not OK if he does have a COI, read on.

(If you are sensing an undercurrent of me disagreeing with the basic plan of examining his edits without a determination of whether he has a COI, you are correct. I am not looking forward to the inevitable criticism that will follow me posting the following edits, but I realize that I will also be criticized if I don't post them.)

Middle 8 has spent the last ten years editing on and off in the area of Acupuncture. Middle 8 also has a direct financial interest in the Wikipedia acupuncture page and related pages painting acupuncture in a favorable light. I do not believe that Middle 8 is editing in bad faith. I believe that he wants Wikipedia to lean towards portraying acupuncture in a favorable light because he honestly believes that the existing content is too unfavorable.

In my opinion, the COI question is the key. If he doesn't have a COI, then making edits favorable to acupuncture would not be a problem. If he does have a COI they are a problem. That being said, here are some diffs:

His very first edit after registering was to change


 * "Complementary and alternative medicine treatments, including chiropractic, homeopathy, acupuncture and energy psychology, have never been proven effective in randomized controlled trials."

to


 * "Complementary and alternative medicine treatments, including chiropractic, homeopathy, and energy psychology, have never been proven effective in randomized controlled trials (RCT's). A review of 26 RCT's studying acupuncture for nausea and vomiting showed some effect, but those effects were equivocal for pregnancy-related nausea and vomiting."

Diff: 10:56, 28 January 2009

The next day he changed


 * "TCM theory predates use of the scientific method and has received various criticisms based on scientific reductionist thinking, lack of evidence, and since there is no physically verifiable anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians. "

to


 * "TCM theory predates use of the scientific method and has received various criticisms based on scientific reductionist thinking, lack of evidence, and since there is no physically verifiable anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians. (Hypotheses exist, however; e.g. Langevin and Yandow (2002) postulate a relationship of acupuncture points and meridians to connective tissue planes.) "

Diff: 05:46, 29 January 2009

I am not going to list a bunch of edits from years ago unless specifically asked to do that, but here are a couple of samples.


 * "Unlike established "woo", acupuncture's efficacy and mechanisms are unclear. The jury is out..."

Diff: 10:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "A perusal of Pubmed and Cochrane reviews also shows that acu is taken seriously and shows some evidence of efficacy (see here and here, as does the fact that it's used at numerous academic centers] including some of the best (Harvard, Stanford etc.). Yes, for most conditions acupuncture has been shown not to work, but certainly for pain and nausea there is mainstream debate, cf. Cochrane.  All these results are the fruit of recent, "wide and serious study". In fact, the single best MEDRS there is -- Vickers et. al. (2012)  -- concludes that acupuncture "is more than a placebo" and a reasonable referral option."

Diff: 10:25, 8 January 2015

This brings us up to recent edits:


 * "Harrison's states that acupuncture is of some benefit in dysmennorhea, and lists it as a non-pharmaceutical treatment for pain in ADPKD and an adjunctive treatment in knee osteoarthritis, for which it "produces modest pain relief compared to placebo needles" According to Harrison's, acupuncture can be considered a useful adjunctive treatment in PTSD and comorbid depression in war veterans if, despite the lack of evidence, patients find it calming and relaxing."

Diff: 05:47, 5 January 2019


 * Removed "Individuals with a conflict of interest (COI), particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest."

Diff: 07:48, 7 April 2019

Again, I posted the above edits because I was asked to, not because I believe that they answer the question I asked. And I really am asking whether Middle 8 has a COI, not trying to prove that he does have a COI, so please put your flamethrowers down. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Middle 8 here. The advice from Jayron32 above is superb, but that's not (at all) what Guy Macon is doing.  The diffs are selectively quoted (hence the wall of text and not just links), omitting material critical of acu, sources used, how I responded to any reverts, et cetera.


 * COI arises from one's off-wiki activities and not one's edits (a too-common misconception). Of course some of a non-COI editors' edits could be improper if they had a COI, but it's illogical (and unfair) to insinuate that such non-COI edits imply a COI.  That's putting the are-my-edits-conflicted cart before the do-I-indeed-have-a-conflict horse.  It's not how you handle either COI or editing concerns.  --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 00:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Another view
It seems to me that proponents of pseudoscience, in which category accupuncture clearly belongs, must be held to the highest standard when making claims about their particular brand of woo. For a start WP:MEDS edit +WP:MEDRSend edit seems like a bare minimum when making claims about possible health treatments. Whether of not an editor is a practicing accupuncturist or whether or not they have a COI, all edits about such subjects need impeccible citing to reliable secondary and tertiary sources. Wikipedia correctly subscribes to the mainline scientific view of such subjects and it is always going to be problematice when proponents edit in the areas of their particular interest. It is not akin to an engineer editing an article on engineering practice because there are going to be multiple RS to back up the engineer's claims. The same cannot be said for accupuncture. - <b style="color: darkblue">Nick Thorne</b> <sup style="color: darkblue">talk 03:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)  edit to correct link - <b style="color: darkblue">Nick Thorne</b> <sup style="color: darkblue">talk  03:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with Nick, and will add that it is important for us to exercise a level of caution in order to avoid excluding well-sourced material our readers expect to see in an encyclopedia; i.e., all relevant views presented with proper weight and balance per NPOV. We provide the whole picture, not a Photoshopped version of it in an effort to pursuade readers to accept a particular POV - we simply present the facts with proper weight given to the scientific mainstream view. If material is poorly sourced, UNDUE, etc. it is subject to removal. If the editor in question has created disruption (such as 3RR or is repeatedly citing unreliable sources) or has acted uncivil (PAs, threats, etc.) in an effort to prevent removal of poorly sourced/UNDUE material, then you have an actionable behavioral issue, but I have not seen any evidence to support such a claim. Circumstantial evidence may establish patterned behavior but is the behavior actionable if there is no evidence to support an actionable claim? What I'm seeing is an editor with a professional perspective. What professional doesn't have a noticeable POV involving their chosen profession? NPOV tells us to include all relevant views published by/cited to RS so our readers can make their own determinations. in comparison, do you consider Britannica's accupuncture article to be overly promotional or possibly authored by proponents of pseudoscience, or well-presented? Perhaps such a comparison will help answer your question about COI. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 12:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Good points that apply all around. When acupuncture has mainstream acceptance such as use in academic medical centers and the National Academy of Medicine calls it a "powerful tool" in pain management, perhaps the pseudoscience and quackery aspects shouldn't overwhelm our treatment of the subject and its practitioners and their possible COI's.  One might wonder based on this thread, and the lede of acupuncture, how well we're doing that. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 02:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that Brittanica are parroting the chinagov deception that the Chinese use acu to anaesthetise patients for surgery. How accurate is the rest of that article? -Roxy, the dog . wooF 12:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What Britannica does is irrelevant to this issue, because they do not claim to follow anything like our WP:NPOV policy. Many of their articles are written by a single person and reflect that person's point of view. That is a feature, not a bug. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Re Atsme's insightful comment above about avoid excluding well-sourced material our readers expect to see in an encyclopedia and simply presenting the facts with proper weight given to the scientific mainstream view, in the cases of acupuncture, the proponents really do believe that the scientific mainstream view is far more favorable towards acupuncture than the Wiipedia article is.
 * As Upton Sinclair once observed, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it".
 * So, how do we reach a balance between avoiding the exclusion of well-sourced material and the natural tendency of someone like Middle 8 to not understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it? We simply require him to read and obey Best practices for editors with close associations. Right now the problem is that he honestly believes that an RfC was closed with a conclusion that Best practices doesn't apply to him. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I do take COIADVICE seriously, and am careful, but I'm not 100% all-the-time bound by its mainspace-avoding-advice without a COI finding -- and it's disingenous to suggest I should have one in all but name. You may recall that you opened an RfC with me in mind that concluded (paraphrase, from one of the closing admins): The result of the RfC was that an alt-med practitioner does not have a COI just because of the fact of them being an alt-med practitioner."  Instead of forum-shopping and repeating old arguments from that RfC, please offer a reason why its result doesn't cover me -- IOW why my case is somehow more financially-connected than the default alt-med practitioner. Which per Ernst is small -- he thinks the idealogical "COI", almost evangelical fanaticism, is the much bigger problem.  Which we call bad editing.  If that's your concern about me, handle it the proper way, not underhandedly like this.  Like an actual conversation on user talk, which you have been avoiding.  --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 23:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC); minor ce23:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC), 23:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC), clarify to avoid another soundbite 23:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't feel like you need to follow COIADVICE if, as appears to be the case, you have a good-faith belief that you don't have a COI and absent a definitive answer from either the admins at ANI or the arbs at arbcom that you do have one. And likewise JzG and Roxy shouldn't feel like they need to stop telling you to follow COIADVICE if, as appears to be the case, they have a good-faith belief that you do have a COI and absent a definitive answer from either the admins at ANI or the arbs at arbcom that you do have one.
 * It is clear from your disparaging comments about my filing this ANI case and about the second RfC that you do not want any definitive answer from either the admins at ANI or the arbs at arbcom. You clearly want us to simply agree with your arguments. It is equally clear that Roxy (and I presume JzG) will never stop telling you that you have a COI and that you should follow COIADVICE unless they receive a definitive answer from either the admins at ANI or the arbs at arbcom telling them to stop doing that. So what do we do when editors are unable to agree about how to apply Wikipedia policy and ANI is unable to resolve this disagreement? We take it to arbcom, which I intend to do once this thread is auto-archived without a definitive answer.
 * Related discussion: Conflict of interest/Noticeboard --Guy Macon (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stop IDHT-ing and address the crux of the matter: exactly why I should be an exception to the RFC that you brought because of me. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 01:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll weigh in as the main drafter of the RfC close. Acupuncturists don't have an inherent COI when editing Acupuncture. That means that acupuncturists are not forbidden (or even strongly discouraged) from editing Acupuncture simply because they are acupuncturists. That doesn't mean that their edits don't deserve scrutiny. Discretionary sanctions apply to this topic and misuse of sources, POV-pushing, edit-warring, combative talk-page participation, wikilawyering, uncollegial or battleground editing, or just about any other sort of tendentious or disruptive editing should be reported to AE where admins willing to take arbitration enforcement action can do so.

IMO, editors on both sides of this dispute are much too fixated on the question of COI. On the one hand, some editors are still pushing the theory that because acupuncturists depend on the reliability of acupuncture for their income, they have an inherent COI with regard to acupuncture, despite the RfC clearly rejecting this line of reasoning. Some seem to be arguing that acupuncturists as a class don't have an inherent COI per the RfC, but that any particular practitioner necessarily depends on the efficacy of acupuncture to make a living and so does have an inherent COI. It is a bit hard to understand the internal consistency of this position. While I can see the advantage to these editors in classing those they disagree with as COI editors, the community has disagreed with them and it's time for them to drop it. If the editing itself is problematic, there is easy admin action available via AE. On the other hand, Middle 8 appears to have taken the result of the RfC much too broadly: no, being an acupuncturist doesn't inherently give you a COI that rises to the level of WP:COI; but yes, it is still perfectly possible for you to misuse sources, use poor sources (and MEDRS applies here), edit disruptively to make a point and generally edit in a way that seeks to promote acupuncture rather than improve the encyclopaedia. I haven't had a deep dig through their contributions, but if their user page is at all indicative of their approach to sourcing regarding acupuncture, I'd say they were on thin ice. GoldenRing (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know what in my userspace could be construed as my not grokking or ; I've asked at GoldenRing's usertalk.  That said, grateful for this clarification. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 02:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've responded at my usertalk; see there for details. GoldenRing (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's helpful, glad we clarified that. For the record:  I have no idea, though, what "Middle 8 appears to have taken the result of the RfC much too broadly" means.  Taking my "not possible for an acu'ist to have a COI for acupuncture" soundbite in context, it's clear that I mean "...simply by virtue of being an acu'ist".  See e.g. my talk-page follow-up to said soundbite (posted six hours before this ANI post) and my initial response in this thread.  Where then is the evidence that I stated or implied that the RfC somehow made it OK to "misuse sources, use poor sources (and MEDRS applies here), edit disruptively to make a point and generally edit in a way that seeks to promote acupuncture rather than improve the encyclopaedia"? --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 10:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC); fmt 10:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC) strike text -- I can see how it'd sound like bludgeoning.  It's not, I just don't do well at war/drama venues, sometimes losing sight of "less is more" and "forest for the trees".  Remember the human.  Happy editing. --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 13:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This needs to go to AE if and when you wish to pursue it. Middle 8's hardheadedness and bludgeoning make it impossible to move forward. ~Swarm~  {sting} 19:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I figured that it would come to this. :( I am on a hot project for the next week or two, so I won't be able to get to it immediately. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh? I responded to both your latest comments above, on point, citing the RfC, and neither of you has replied.  Now you're talking AE?  Over what exactly?  --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 22:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC); clarify latest 22:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC); diffs 22:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC) ; struck per strike above. --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 13:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree this should go to AE (to get back to the original question: what is the right venue?). The posting-length limits there will prevent the WP:BLUDGEON problem. That said, I would advise reading a bunch of AEs to see what sorts of evidence are expected in what format, and what tone, and so on. It's a rather legalistic and persnickety venue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

AEscalation?
It can be hard to deal with soundbites once they've caught on, cf. "You didn't build that".

When I said it's "not possible to have a COI for acu" remark, I meant that it's "not possible to have a COI for acu simply by virtue of being an acu'ist". I think that's a fair paraphrase of the RfC. I don't mean it's impossible to have a COI in any other way, which would be silly. In my case, apart from profession (which I haven't practiced in years and likely won't again, due to unfortunate factors beyond my control), I have no other off-wiki connections that could cause a COI. The only plausible MEDRS I've written is too old, and I don't edit other possible COI-invoking articles, mostly because they don't exist.

I realize it looked horrible for me to remove the COI tag at Talk:Acu, but FWIW it's used on very few, if any, of the talk pages of other articles on professions, including alt-meds.

That tag-removal, and my single "not possible" remark, caused Guy Macon to start this thread in less than a day. Two talkspace edits, after three months of no activity (by me) in the area. Guy could've noticed my subsequent partial clarification and said "Hey, Middle 8, before I put you in an invidious position on WP's most notorious war/drama forum with an odd-sounding comment, what did you mean?" Instead, he escalated, and made the curious argument that I should be an exception to the RfC he brought because of me, yet offering no specific reason. One could be forgiven for getting exasperated at this.

Under wikistress, I've expressed the above points sometimes awkwardly and forgetting to omit needless words.

The reader can decide if this amounts to an AE case. If this does go to AE and I'm not around, someone please repost this as my comment. Happy editing. --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 20:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Users Involved

 * - Filer / subject of accusations by IP
 * -Original revert-er and accused by IP
 * - IP


 * - User making uninvolved comment on IP's talk

Complaint
Hello, Optakeover originally reverted the IP for making changes on that involved changing the name of the place in multiple places in the article. The IP then reverted this so Optakeover took this to so I reverted the edit again. The IP then made the controversial changes again so I warned them for edit warring and reverted. The IP then stopped the edit war but has continued to complain about how they were reverted and refuse to discuss the edits claiming they don't need to prove anything and refusing to admit the talk page clearly shows that there is no consensus for the change and it must be discussed. I therefore ask that someone takes action to bring this to a close. RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 12:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In fact, the situation is just the opposite: it’s you who not explain your rollbacks, although my edits are not controversial or related to any non-neutral viewpoint. Instead of to justify your disagreement and the motivation for rollback, you answer only with threats and transfer the topic to a different direction. All discussion was conducted on pages User_talk:217.19.216.247 and partly Talk:Transnistria. The actions of these participants are a manifestation of unwarranted aggression, a provocation of a war of edits, a reluctance to engage in constructive dialogue, i.e., it may well be defined as bias-based vandalism. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd advise anyone reading this to read the IPs talk page where you'll see the issue explained multiple times RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 13:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * They can only see how you translate the discussion about my edits to the discussion about renaming of the article from the article talk page, which was going on separately and does not apply to my edits and your actions. Not to one direct question about what was wrong with my last edits, and each of it in particular, was not answered. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * "The IP then stopped the edit war". So, we have nothing to do here then, hm?  People are quite encouraged to defend their positions using talk pages.  We don't sanction people for that.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , They've multiple times accused us of using the undo function improperly. I'd like action taken on them for unfounded accsuations. RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs)
 * IP has now restored the edit that changes the name which is the root of this. I'm not going to revert to avoid an edit war but can someone take action. RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 14:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And on what basis are you going to revert the edit? If you have not noticed, I asked you the same question on the article's discussion page. I specifically returned only one of my edits to give you the opportunity to put forward their claims on it. But no, no dialogue. Expected. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Also pinging as you've interacted with them a bit  RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 13:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments of the attacked editor(s)

 * User:Optakeover: "His replies have been to repeatedly state that the name just is biased, that somehow what he wrote is the fact" - this is a blatant lie, because there are two sources that directly confirm this. Any comments on them are missing again, just edits were canceled.


 * User:Optakeover: "Not only Anon has failed to gain the support from any other recent discussion participant or consensus from the community, but has already demonstrated his refusal to discuss with us just because we disagree with him" - it's a lie again. It was I who repeatedly asked to justify my actions and continue the discussion on the talk page of the article. Not? Then stop pushing your points of view, hiding behind rules that you don’t follow. 217.19.208.96


 * About sources concerning the name of the state and offensive terminology. I brought two sources:


 * The President of PMR told how to “correctly” call Pridnestrovie in English (Rus.: Transnistria или Pridnestrovie? Красносельский рассказал, как «правильно» называть Приднестровье по-английски)
 * “Zadnestrovie” - “Transnistria” was invented by the Romanians, and Pridnestrovie was accepted by the people (Rus.: «Заднестровье» - «Транснистрия» придумали румыны, а Приднестровье принял народ)


 * That is, direct quotations of direct participants (President of PMR and Professor of History of the Pridnestrovian State University) are given through official mass media. I suppose that an adequate person cannot raise any questions here, I cannot even find what one can argue about here. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Optakeover
I am a recent-changes and vandalism patroller, and when I came across this set of edits that removed a set of placenames en masse, I decided to revert them. However, sensing that the edit was a matter of content dispute, I decided to seek advice from as RhinosF1 mentioned. RhinosF1 did assess the edits and decided that the edits were going against consensus that was already being built on the article talk page (through a move discussion; more on that below), and did decide to revert their further edits, an action I personally endorse, while I personally made only one revert to the article page. It is very apparent 217.19.216.247 (Anon) is aware of the controversy surrounding the topic of the name.

The pertinent issue seems to be deciding whether the current name used, "Transnistria" is somehow politically "biased", and "Pridnestrovian" should be used instead. Talk:Transnistria, a discussion to move the page to "Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic" was closed as No Consensus back in 2018, and since then we have settled on WP:COMMONNAME as the decider of what that name should be. Anon has since repeatedly attempted to push through with his edits, claiming that the current name in his own thinking and his own research that the current name is "biased". As the discussion had moved to his talk page, I have repeatedly requested sources that proves the current name is biased. His replies have been to repeatedly state that the name just is biased, that somehow what he wrote is the fact. I have already informed him of Wikipedia policies and guidelines WP:NPOV, WP:RELIABLE and WP:COMMONNAME. I have especially understood that based on Neutral Point of View, whatever any user/editor thinks is right, Wikipedia doesn't take sides, and editors must present reliably-sourced information, using sources free from their own editorial slant and bias to back any content, especially controversial content. Not only Anon has failed to gain the support from any other recent discussion participant or consensus from the community, but has already demonstrated his refusal to discuss with us just because we disagree with him:


 * "Until the arguments against me are provided on the points of each rolled out change, I have nothing to discuss with you. So far I have not seen anything but charges, threats and attempts to transfer here the discussion about renaming an article that is not related to my edits and your rollbacks." 217.19.208.96 (talk) 10:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC), on User talk:217.19.216.247

Anon has also demonstrated behavior that shows his reluctance to listen to other editors, and has already made up his mind about users having views that differ from his:


 * "It is more appropriate to say that pro-Romanian editors of Wikipedia themselves are engaged in the promotion of this terminology through English version of this encyclopedia." 217.19.208.96 (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC), on Talk:Transnistria

I think this quote is pretty telling that this user is not only refusing to reach a middle ground and consensus with any editor, he is simply refusing to get it, and somehow we are ridiculous or as biased as the powers-may-be who came up with such a biased "Transnistria" name just for explaining the prevailing sentiment on the choice of the name for the subject topic, thereby disagreeing with his sweeping edits.

The Anon is certainly quite a sharp editor, and has repeatedly responded to most of our quotations on policy and procedural quotes in an attempt to exploit piecemeal interpretations of them, like subsequently repeatedly requesting for discussion on the issue on the article talk page (Despite his thinly-veiled contempt towards those who disagree with him - branding them as failure to respond to his "arguments" as "biased", etcetera ad nauseam), and especially his sudden change of tone after this edit, where he wrote:


 * "Nobody argued with me, did not make a single argument or even words in general against the amendments, which are mostly stylistic in nature. What then to discuss with you? Idiot." 217.19.208.110 (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC), on User talk:217.19.216.247, for which he received a warning from El_C.

On the matter of sources
Anon has mentioned about the sources he used in direct citation to his edits on the name. I leave it to all the participants here to discuss and decide how to interpret these sources, but I shall express my own views here, and let this ANI discussion be the place where we get to decide on how reliably and neutrally-sourced Anon's edits actually have been.

Anon was probably referring in particular to the edits in the range of. Out of all the links used (most were in citation for information on the Holocaust, etc and thus weren't pertaining to the controversial name), the only link I shall comment on is https://novostipmr.com/ru/news/19-04-19/zadnestrove-transnistriya-pridumali-rumyny-pridnestrove-prinyali.

I make these comments:


 * 1) This source still only comments on the name controversy on one side. Changing the name in favor of one version on the back of sources that only side one side of an issue is NOT NPOV.


 * 2) The source is published by a publisher that claims to represent the partially-recognized Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic. Where a reliable, neutral source is concerned, this source is already called into stark question.


 * 3) And my most important point: on Wikipedia, NPOV is the recognizing of multiple opinions and pieces of information, whether they are right or wrong, true or false. However as a neutral encyclopedia that claims to document articles and issues by stating all angles of an issue fairly, how then do we state information that is meant to provide the facts of what something is, in difference to all the opinions? I think it's very clear to (most) Wikipedians the fact is we engage in collaboration and discussion to separate fact from opinion, thereby writing fairly by documenting factual information backed up by sources, and covering a spectrum of opinions, even disproved or contradicted ones, by which their notability and existence as pieces of opinions are also verified by sources. This collaboration and discussion is important when we actually start to come to agreements and compromises, based on our own converging viewpoints on all these issues, about what should and should not be included.

And with that, as far as I'm concerned the Anon has made zero attempt to provide meaningful sources that are reliable, and free from their own editorial bias. It's kind-of like an irony, in my way of seeing how things have panned out so far.

Conclusion
I think it's very clear that Anon's behavior has been extremely disruptive. His refusal to assume good faith while engaging editors, insisting that what he wrote is the cold hard fact, uncivility and continuous attempts to reintroduce his own edits contrary to current contributing community's sentiments are a definite sign of his refusal and failure to get the points that we have all been making, and Anon should and must be sanctioned for his role in this content dispute. I hope this ANI discussion is where we will finally clarify and iron-out this controversy. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 16:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This looks to be a conventional edit war between an IP-hopper and a group of regular editors on the Transnistria article. The IP seems to be engaged in WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS since they added "is considered very offensive to the locals" to the article in Wikipedia's voice, when referring to the name 'Transnistria'. Apparently the word 'Trans' is what is considered offensive, since the left bank of the Dniester is only 'beyond Dniester' from the viewpoint of Romania, whose army occupied the area during the Second World War. I suggest we semiprotect Transnistria and invite the IP to open a move discussion at Talk:Transnistria if he thinks it is not the best name. That move discussion will probably fail since a related move proposal was voted down in January 2018. The IP addresses that are warring on this article geolocate to Moldova. EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. I'd be happy to proceed with giving the article whatever level of protection is needed and forcing a discussion although I do suggest someone uninvolved like you reverts the IPs last edit to the article per WP:STATUSQUO. My only other concern is the IPs behaviour in relation to calling people 'idiot' and refusal to get the point which led to this this so I'd recommend the IP is strenly warned about how to handle disputes with blocks happening if personal attacks and aggressive pushing of opinions and false accusations happen in the future. RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 17:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You are talking about the existence of a dispute where a consensus was not reached, so for some reason it was decided to leave the article in one version, but not in another (it is not clear why). In this case, you will provide a link to the discussion where was discussed about where to use the official name, and where name which the spoken in certain circles (and not about how to call it: this is a discussion right now). On the talk page, I also explained why rule WP:COMMONNAME is out of place here, but this refers to the discussion about renaming an article, not my edits: I did not rename the article. But you did not want to substantively lead the discussion, it is easier for you to attack a specific editor.


 * "His replies have been to repeatedly state that the name just is biased, that somehow what he wrote is the fact" - this is a blatant lie, because there are two sources that directly confirm this. Any comments on them are missing again, just edits were canceled.


 * "Not only Anon has failed to gain the support from any other recent discussion participant or consensus from the community, but has already demonstrated his refusal to discuss with us just because we disagree with him" - It's a lie again. It was I who repeatedly asked to justify my actions and continue the discussion on the talk page of the article. Not? Then stop pushing your points of view, hiding behind rules that you don’t follow. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I brought two sources:
 * Transnistria или Pridnestrovie? Красносельский рассказал, как «правильно» называть Приднестровье по-английски
 * «Заднестровье» - «Транснистрия» придумали румыны, а Приднестровье принял народ
 * That is, direct quotations of direct participants (President of PMR and Professor of History of the Pridnestrovian State University) are given through official mass media. I suppose that an adequate person cannot raise any questions here, I cannot even find what one can argue about here. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Dear 217.19.208.96, my request is to please stop adding your comments to my statement body. It's much better if you add them below as comments to my comment. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 17:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I placed them at the top. Some kind of crash. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask you to remove your comments. For transparency's sake I have reverted your deletion of your own comments. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 18:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As you like, I, especially, have not finished writing them yet. In general, I commented on your statements about me, but I wanted to put it in a separate block. And already managed to place them higher in the text. And already managed to place them higher in the text. Here you formulate the essence of your claims, then we will discuss (as long as there is nothing really in the case), otherwise it is just inconvenient to even write anything in such a stream of edits. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point massively, The sources you have given above are useless as we need independent, reliable sources and at no point have we 'hid[den] behind rules [we] didn't follow' we have only enforced consensus which means until otherwise decided the article should as it is. Despite the fact you never moved the article, you have still repeatedly throughout the article changed which word is used as the name which still is against consensus even if you can't technically move the page. I also ask that you stop accusing us of breaking rules unless you can back this up or action needs to taken in that regard. RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 18:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * After reading the comments here and seeing that the IP has been edit warring, I've gone ahead with three months of semiprotection for Transnistria. If anyone still believes that Transnistria is incorrectly named, use Talk:Transnistria to get consensus for your view. If the editors decide to use WP:COMMONNAME as the criterion, they will find from a Google search that the name 'Transnistria' is twenty times more common than 'Pridnestrovie'. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Hopefully, this will settle it. RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 19:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Legobot blocked
Just a headsup: I have blocked Legobot for 48 hours, due to a recurrent malfunction which I have described at User talk:Legobot.

I have blocked the bot for 48 hours to prevent any recurrence. Any admin who believes that the problem has been resolved, please unblock. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 05:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just curious, what was the glitch? -- Booth Sift  05:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * couldn't/shouldnt you have talked with the user first, before blocking them? — <span class="monospaced" style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (talk)  05:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Boothsift. I included a link. If you want to know the answer, please follow it.

Iwouldificouldbuticant. The bot was doing this at 2 minutes past the hour, ever hour. The bot owner is, who has not edited for 2 days. And I have blocked the bot, not its owner: see WP:Blocking policy. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 06:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The glitch appears to have been a malformed timestamp added to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Carnatic music when BrownHairedGirl created the page without one. Legobot, having been presented with bad data, seems to have choked on it. I have fixed the timestamp, which should presumably let Legobot do the job it was programmed to do. In the meantime, the WP:GAN page is not being refreshed, one of Legobot's many other tasks that are not being done. Would appreciate an admin looking into this and at least letting the bot do another try. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I was just kidding — <span class="monospaced" style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (talk)   06:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Effin hilarious, Usernamekiran. Not.
 * Dealing with this sort thing takes enough energy without being joke-trolled. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 06:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologise, I had no intention of trolling, I just wanted to lighten up the situation. Sorry again. — <span class="monospaced" style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (talk)  07:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Unblocked.  AGK  &#9632;  06:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all. is a clear example of GIGO. Legoktm (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Drmargi
User has been told eventually the list will be build and for consistency across the list of broadcasters article, but it appeared that the user ignoring it. 2028 Summer Olympics. --Aleen f 1 13:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a content dispute. There are only three posts on the talk page at this time so no WP:CONSENSUS has been reached. Feel free to start a WP:RFC but this thread should be closed. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 15:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Personal Attacks and Editwarning by User:Wm.Tarr
<div class="boilerplate archived" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Attempts to resolve. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wm.Tarr

Personal Attacks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaffir_lime&oldid=893782054

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaffir_lime&oldid=893782525

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaffir_lime&oldid=893784802

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LakesideMiners&diff=prev&oldid=893790676

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bazza_7&diff=prev&oldid=893776966

Edit Waring https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaffir_lime&action=history

He has been told to stop and talk on the talk page but is continuing his uncivil. behavior. First ANI report so let me know if I missed anything. LakesideMiners My Talk Page 16:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly edit warring and personal attacks even after being warned. Given him a 1 week block.  In the future, edit warring can be handled on its own noticeboard, WP:ANEW.   Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b>  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jabrona



 * After I revert User:Jabrona's edit on A Nightmare on Elm Street, he called me an idiot after he reverted mine. He made more personal attacks on my talk page, calling me "hard-headed ass", "cluts, a retard, a curse, a failed mistake of life, and a whimpering dog tail", and "hopefully die by being deported" before User:IanDBeacon kindly helped removing them. From what I saw on User:Jabrona's talk page, he was blocked before on similar incidents. This time, he needs to be blocked indefinitely.  I do not feel safe of editing if there is one editor who would resort to rude name callings.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Jabrona
The user has a long history of personal attacks on other users. Recently he reverted a good faith edit by User:NeoBatfreak with this edit summary. He then went and posted this message on his talkpage. If you look in his contributions, this is not the first time he's done this type of thing. He was blocked for 72 hours last month for the same type of behavior. See here for example.

I'm not sure what it'll take to get him to understand that this behavior is unacceptable, but I'm posting here so that you admins can be notified. User:NeoBatfreak initially posted on WP:AIV, but I feel that this is the wrong venue, mostly because he isn't a vandal. Rockstone  talk to me!   23:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This is the right place. I've blocked Jabrona indefinitely. This isn't the first offense or block for the same behavior, and the last diff on Neobatfreak's talkpage is completely out of bounds.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! I really appreciate it, and I'm sure Neobatfreak does too!  Rockstone   talk to me!   23:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Kesha disruption from Russia and Belarus
A handful of IPs are being disruptive at articles related to Kesha, the singer. The IPs are from Russia and Belarus, and they very likely represent block evasion by Special:Contributions/Denis7248427, Special:Contributions/Dionis_Zhmailik and Special:Contributions/Денис_Жмайлик. Involved IPs listed below. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 22 Apr –
 * 13 Apr –
 * 6–11 Apr –
 * 5 Apr –
 * 4 Apr –
 * 25 Mar –
 * I have pending-changes protected for some time; disruption is steady, but with low frequency. Lectonar (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That will help with the main Kesha biography. Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * At first I read this section header as though Kesha was waging war on us from her bunkers in Russia and Belarus. The Moose  07:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For good measure, I have semi-protected the template, and pending-changes protected 2 more articles; fwiw, I do not think the last 3 IP's are block evading, as they targeted said articles only sporadically. Lectonar (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Dianaatflourish
Referred from WP:AIV. This user's name implies a company position and appears to be working to promote soccer players but has refused to engage on their talk page after a period of weeks and several warnings about COI and PAID. Pinging and  if they would care to comment also. shoy (reactions) 20:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the name implies that, but they only appear to have added some images at Commons (which appear to be valid, they have EXIF information etc.). They have however created a couple of articles about players who don't appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY - I am about to PROD those. Black Kite (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI Earwig:  . Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich  21:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Uh, yeah. Deleted that article as pretty much a complete copyvio.  I think it's notable, though - and could be re-created if done properly. Black Kite (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks like the user uploaded pix for pretty much the entire Jamaican women's soccer team, and a number of the pix are labeled as "professional" or "Word Cup photoshoot," implying they're official portraits. Implies some degree of COI, at least. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If Dianaatflourish is an employee at a PR agency (the most likely scenario), then they are not the copyright holder of the photos and Commons needs permission through OTRS from the copyright holder in order for the photos to be hosted on Commons.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

"Petty, uncivil little editor"
After having several well-explained edits reverted without explanation here and here, SchroCat tells me very kindly to stop "being a pain", to stop "being a pain" and editing their articles, and to "stop being so bloody petty". After my last edit, he or she says: "hopefully that will be the back of the petty, uncivil little editor". My guess is that I was caught in a running feud between Gerda Arendt and SchroCat, but whatever the background, this name-calling and shooing is disgusting. Surtsicna (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no knowledge of any prior disagreement relevant here, but happened to see this after looking at another section. Just commenting to note there doesn't look to be anything really actionable here IMO. Some sub-par communication, perhaps. SchroCat could've really made better use of edit summaries there, but the "petty, uncivil little editor" followed this comment, in which you inferred an WP:OWNership claim and told SchroCat "Time to grow up". Surely that could be understandably taken as uncivil (though not egregious on its own, either, of course). SchroCat could've saved time/energy by using better edit summaries, and you could've made more of an effort on the article talk pages to explain the changes you want to make. That seems to be all there is to do here at this point. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 23:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rhododendrites, both you and SchroCat could have saved time by using better explanations and using better edit summaries.-- Booth Sift  01:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I was called. I took the liberty to clarify that the header is a quote. Today is 23 April, which (as the Main page tells you) is Der kleine Tag (the little day), a play with music in which the little day turns out in the end to have been the most peaceful day. I know of no (personal) feud between two users. I know I am part of the socalled infobox wars, - and how about ending them today? SchroCat and others sometimes call infoboxes idiotboxes, while I and others believe in also serving idiot readers. SchroCat called a woman by her given name throughout an article, and I thought that was solved long ago (February 2018), thanks to John whom I miss. Today is a funeral day for me. I am open to better understanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Seriously? Bringing this tiny nonsense to ANI two days after the interaction, and after your continued "own" accusations (which you have continued in your opening statement)? FFS - life is too short to be dragged to the peanut gallery by someone who thinks it appropriate to delete someone else's talk page thread with the summary "Take a chill pill, Your Royal Highness". Yeah, I'll stick with both "petty" and "uncivil". My profuse and grovelling apologies for calling you "little". - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The interaction with you must be the most unpleasant experience I have had in all my years on Wikipedia. No freaking wonder you needed two clean starts. Surtsicna (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Both of you should take a voluntary (better than an enforced one) IBAN and reconsider getting annoyed with one comment. This is still relatively civil, noting ofc the subjectivity of Wikipedia's civility policies. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 22:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This was our first interaction. If an IBAN is desirable after a single interaction, we are not talking about something relatively civil. Surtsicna (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Help Impersonator!
I need help over everyone, someone is impersonating me. This fool: User:Andrew the astonaut. I need to know, can someone see what IP this fool is using to help me back my claim, which is that I am not that user, nor am I the kind of guy to sockpuppet. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Here is the board in which people suspect I am sockpuppeting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * He says in his edit summary here that he is with you - i.e. he agrees with you - not that he is you. Is there something else that makes you think he's impersonating you? Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  18:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops, never mind, just saw the ongoing SPI, apologies. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 18:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * OrbitalEnd This is a clear legal threat and you risk being blocked if you do not retract it immediately. I agree with GirthSummit that it is a simple misunderstanding.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a legal threat, a personal attack and the worst WP:BITE I've ever seen. I've no idea whether it's a sock or not, but if it is a genuine new user then someone needs to step in pronto and make some reparations. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  18:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I've blocked the user for the legal threat. I've also noted that their screaming invective all over Wikipedia has become intolerable. They will have to address that too if they want to be unblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I see the SPI has come back negative. I think someone should say something to the new user - a welcome and an explanation that what they just got on their userpage isn't par for the course around here. I'll be happy to do it, but will stay out if you are already on the case or if you think it would be more appropriate coming from an admin. Hell of an introduction... Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  18:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed the attack from their page in the meantime and will welcome them. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the language used in this report (“this fool”) and the now deleted WP:BITE/threat call for some sort of boomerang for incivility. Kleuske (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Since the user has been blocked.... should we close this? Also, I'm fairly certain that the user is just immature. Hopefully in a few years they will have matured and be a welcome member of the community... Rockstone  talk to me!   05:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

IP Hopping POV Warrior at John Hope Bryant
Somebody is making weird edits at the page on John Hope Bryant, and has been for the last 4 days. It appears to be the same person on different IPs, and the event that the IP continually removes from the page (ejection from an AER race) is verifiable using documents directly from said racing series, and in the context of most racing series is quite egregious and worthy of inclusion in this page. The IP also uses the same sort of summary (something along the lines of ¨removed inflammatory information¨) every time they make one of their edits. I am not sure if this belongs at RPP or SPI, or anywhere else, so I decided to drop it here.

I only notified the most recent IP used for the edits - hopefully that´s alright.  Joel.Miles925  (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Update: user just hopped IPs again. Same exact edit summary, this time making edits under this address.  Joel.Miles925  (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Second update: User now has an account - Tom1war3 - which is making the same edits.  Joel.Miles925  (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I protected the article until such time as the dispute is discussed and a consensus is reached. Please start a thread on the talk page.  I presume this is preferable to you over blocking the both of you, as you were equally as at fault for continuing the edit war.   Please start that discussion.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I have opened a discussion on the talk page. My view was that it was pretty noncontroversial to remove it, since the incident in question got a fair bit of coverage in the racing world, and from a racing fan´s POV (mine) was completely crossing a line as far as rules go. Perhaps the other user simply did not know this or has a different reason for removing it. Again, sorry, on review I assumed bad faith.  Joel.Miles925  (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Information being cited is from an amateur racing series and does not paint the entire picture of how the events transpired. The narrative that was written doesn't include his public response to the incident and comes off as extremely one-sided and biased. It does not belong in such a prominent location in the "biography" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom1war3 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Having this much of the article focused on this incident certainly seems like WP:UNDUE to me. Now that the Tom1war3 is no longer an IP, I would think that this really belongs back on the article talk page. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

El_C unilaterial action, to stop discussion and consensus form.
El_C has been on an authoritarian campaign to silence certain views about people relating to the Cultural Marxism section, and about discussing certain thinkers who DIRECTLY RELATE.

They have used their admin powers to bully users off the page. They have also reverted constructive edits on the Trent Schroyer talk page. This is on YOU Wikipedia. This is on YOU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.150.46 (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Please refer to User_talk:Jobrot and 14.203.75.52. They repeatedly placed a longwinded fake obituary and then, once it was removed by multiple editors (and finally, by yours truly), various polemical diatribes on Talk:Frankfurt School, which I also semiprotected. Some edit warring also followed on DRN. El_C 12:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC) ‎


 * Is the IP a sock of the blocked editor? If so, you'll probably be OK. But, even so, when one has extensively edit-warred (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff) over the content of a page, it's probably best—all things being equal—to let another uninvolved admin place the protection, particularly when it is protecting your preferred version. Take care! ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no my preferred version in this instance — there's a disruptive and a non-disruptive version, full stop. El_C 12:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Key ingredient: uninvolved admin :). Lectonar (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the admins should be responsible to the users. It is a key ingredient. As for uninvolved, I believe dispute resolution was being sort, but was refused. --203.220.150.46 (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am an uninvolved admin. El_C 12:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC) — Sorry, I thought you were speaking to me. El_C 12:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * These diffs depict disruptive edits — please review these. El_C 12:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sure Serial meant an(other) uninvolved admin; but reverting disruption does not make one involved if any reasonable administrator would have probably done the same thing. Lectonar (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the typo now corrected, uninvolved was definitely intended :)   ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Moved from AN to here, as it concerns a specific user. --MrClog (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Now that you've done your bloody adminy bit, would you mind restoring my last edit—both portions of it? Thanking you. ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , sure, you did add those portions after I had already moved the discussion, so that's why they didn't move as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrClog (talk • contribs)
 * sez it's not unjustifiable to fly off the handle and to get into a state; but don't worry,, I won't :) Many thanks for that!  ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Claiming the obit was fake certainly sounds like muddying the waters. Also, you roll backed 2 different versions (of text on the talk page, possibly more). So where is the violation of 3RR you were claiming? I'm not sure I follow the logic of what you've done on the talk page, or why discussion of trent schroyer in relation to the origins of the term and the over all topic is out of place? Care to explain?


 * That is to say "admin did it" isn't a wikipedia policy as far as I can tell. You're still subject to WP:GF and I'm failing to see any on your part. Sorry. Also, there are serious complaints of bullying if you look at the disputes notice board history. --203.220.150.46 (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The talk page is neither intended for lengthy obituaries nor polemical exclamations — it is to be used to suggest specific improvements to the article. El_C 13:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It just looks from here like a very targetted kind of action you took for a talk page (and especially as the topic developed), and then to (as an admin) pursue them to stop complaints about you - it doesn't look good for an Admin on User action... especially as it's just a talk page (and there seemed to be multiple version offered and then rolled back by you). It seems lacking in cooperation and consensus building. It looks a lot like trying to stifle conversation in a specific way (de-platforming legitimate public discussion). I could understand if it was in namespace. But from here it looks er... like questionable behaviour. --203.220.150.46 (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It also looks a bit like you were trying to cover your tracks when you're weaving between multiple related topics, and deleting sections of their talk pages, such as here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATrent_Schroyer&type=revision&diff=894202230&oldid=894192133 and on the disruptive editing board. I'm not sure what you're about, why you're WP:HERE or why you chose not to try to WP:LISTEN before taking action in this many ways, across this many pages. I guess I'm just confused about the logic of it that was going on in your head. --203.220.150.46 (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What was saying there seems to constitute campaigning and therefore El C was justified in removing it and blocking the user. --MrClog (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It does look like one side (the user) has taken it as an act of bullying, which as I'm sure we all know - the Wikimedia Foundation do take very seriously. --203.220.150.46 (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

To be Frank, El_C - it looks a lot like you've banned someone for trying to talk on a talk page - rather than talking to them and having a reasonable discussion where you can hash out the issue with others. This is highly problematic behaviour from someone in a position of power across multiple wikis, and essentially a huge disappointment for the community here. --203.220.150.46 (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC) - I'm not interested in responding to innuendo. Yet again, lengthy obituaries and polemical exclamations are not allowed on article talk pages, so there was nothing to discuss there. The user was warned about this on their user talk page, but they did not reply (indeed, they could have discussed it further on their user talk page instead of continuing to abuse the article talk page). They were warned again, this time they gave the indication that they were done. But soon enough they were back at it at it, even after that final warning. As a result, they were blocked for 24 hours. Then 203.220.150.46 arrives, a user who has no other contributions beside this. There's also 14.203.75.52 whose contributions also do not extend beyond this and has since been blocked for block evasion. Is that clear enough? El_C 15:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I have opened a sockpuppet investigation into and  over here. --MrClog (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * If editors want to discuss whether to include information on Trent Schroyer or his views in the article Frankfurt School, they are entitled to do so if they can present sources suggesting it belongs for some reason and outline based on these sources why they believe it belongs, and even better what they propose to add to the article. But there is absolutely zero justification to include a probably WP:COPYVIO obituary on the talk page. The obit doesn't even seem to include anything useful to suggest that info or views of the person belongs in the article. (Of course, even if it did, this could be handled simply by linking to it and quoting the relevant parts not copying and pasting the whole thing.) While the subject's friends and family have our sympathies, it doesn't mean we should include their obit in irrelevant places. I mean the obit doesn't even belong in the subject's talk page.Nil Einne (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Competence block requested
Hi all - We've got a new-ish user who is repeatedly making poor articles that are being speedily deleted (and it appears he's sometimes recreating them). The user claims to be an admin on the Hindu Wikipedia however it looks more likely that they've done a copy/paste of someone else's userpage considering the barnstars and such. Can someone put him in time out please? <b style="color:#F00">D</b><b style="color:#F60">u</b><b style="color:#090">s</b><b style="color:#00F">t</b><b style="color:#60C">i</b>*Let's talk!* 06:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I blocked the user indefinitely. From what I can see, we have a serious lack of competence and comprehension of the English language, at the very least. El_C 06:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Block for review, topic ban? (User:Tony1)
I've brought this block here, because the moment I decided it needed to be made I expected some howls of protest, so I'll ask my peers to review it. It's User:Tony1 again, who has just come off a 1 week block for personal attacks relating to the Featured Article process. Almost his first action was this, to accuse people involved in the FA process of being "bullies and pseudo-intellectuals". Criticizing the process is fine, but attacking the people involved is not. I've re-blocked for 2 weeks, and I invite your comments. I'm also thinking maybe we should impose a topic ban on Tony1 from all aspects of FA, broadly construed, including commenting about it anywhere on Wikipedia. To be honest, and having looked at Tony1's blocks and bans on other Wikimedia projects too, I can't help feeling he'll be indef blocked or banned here eventually, but I think a TBAN is worth a try. It would be a shame to lose him as he's a great contributor when he's not angry with someone, but unfortunately he seems very prone to anger, and his approach to others in disagreement is incompatible with the collegiality required here. Thoughts? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * When I offered to copy any comments here for him, Tony1 expressed a preference for me to link to his talk page section so people can read his comments there. It's at User talk:Tony1. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban. I supported one on him in 2011, I support it today. I would support a community ban as first choice, but a topic ban will at least prevent him abusing FA processes for personal reasons. Good block if too short.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As for his undertaking, it only covers pings. It does not cover whatever the next thing is that makes Tony fly off the handle, and then we will see the argument, he should have been warned, etc. Enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Tony's intentions regarding FAC were made very clear last year; "I'll be devoting considerable effort over years to letting the community know that FAC is dysfunctional, and at its worst shows clear signs of having fallen into corruption—you see, I know the details from insider observation. I'll strongly discourage editors from participating in the forum, whether as nominators or reviewers." His first two actions on the ending of his most recent block were to burnish the anti-FAC diatribe on his Talkpage and to express the same views elsewhere. In my view, this rather undermines his claim to have moved on from the episode. KJP1 (talk) 08:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support TB per KJP1's recalling of Tony1's stated purpose. If a year, perhaps, demonstrates that they have renounced that approach and can comment on (let alone at) FAC and its processes amicably and civilly, then it can (=should) be re-visited. But at the moment, unfortunately, although they have, this comes only hours after also advising the world I advise editors to stay well away from [FAC]. What a pity, which suggests that it may not be founded in such depth of commitment as would be preferred. Whether, incidentally, this amounts to a coarse attempt at blackmail, I say nothing... ——  SerialNumber  54129  09:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And this most recent comment does not inspire hope that Tony1 understands (or, worse, ever will understand) what exactly problematic behavior has brought us to this point: In a discussion regarding one's approach to editors at FAC, accusations of houding—having been released from a block only minutes earlier having committed not to cast aspersions, etc.—are troubling. ——  SerialNumber  54129  10:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've unblocked Tony on the basis of the commitment at his talk page never to comment on the FA process or those who carry it on. This is not intended in any way as a comment on the block; I think it was a good one, but that it has served its purpose.  As I've said on Tony's talk page, if they do not keep to this commitment then I think the next step is an indefinite block.  I also take no position on whether a topic ban is necessary on top of the commitment he's given; in some ways it is good to formalise these sorts of commitments, but in other ways it is unnecessary.  GoldenRing (talk) 09:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, GoldenRing. I've really tried to demonstrate that a topic ban is unnecessary. I've never made such a total, strongly worded undertaking on WP such as is on my talkpage now. I'm sorry if I've upset anyone. I'd like to move on. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  09:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban. If he has a self-imposed topic ban, there is no problem in formalising it. Self-imposition is often flexible (as my dietician can testify), and a formal incentive to keep to the ban would be best. - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ShroCat, I think you should trust me. There's nothing flexible about my undertaking. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  09:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I may have been inclined to, Tony, but since then you've referred to "the show-trial last year that hounded me out". I'm not sure you've 'over it' at all. And to clarify what many people said in the discussion about your approach to reviewing (or "show trial", if you prefer), you were not 'hounded out': you walked away from FAC. I was one of many people who asked you to continue reviewing, but to temper your approach in doing so. If you're still using intemperate language about it now, I don't think you are 'over it', and I don't think you will be able to restrain yourself voluntarily. If you are committed not to comment on FAC or the people involved in it, then having a formal ban shouldn't be an additional burden. - SchroCat (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm amazed, SchroCat, to find our names taken in "negativity" on Tony1's talk page only minutes after the unblock. That speaks more to grudges kept than to turning over a new leaf. It reminds me of advice I used to give clients, "Yes, I understand you feel that way but at least keep it to yourself until you're outside the courthouse".--Wehwalt (talk) 10:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for declaring your interest. If you can't trust me to fulfill the undertaking, I have no place as an editor and will leave. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  10:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be a shame if you did that, but that would be your decision. I think your logic is off: most editors on WP don't go near FAC and spend their time happily editing without feeling they need to review, talk about or discuss the process or those involved. SchroCat (talk) 11:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I only see an undertaking not to make personal attacks, which is the rule for everyone, something then followed up by the mentioning of three editors including myself on his talk page in a negative way that is probably not a personal attack, but illustrates how wide the world is outside the narrow confines of the undertaking and the potential for wikilawyering.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Why don't we take Tony at his word? If in the future he is not true to it, you can topic ban him.  I should say, I know nothing about this issue, have not looked at FAC or his talk page, nor intend to, but as Tony has been a guiding light on Wikipedia, whose especial care in language-related topics has benefited countless editors—at least since I joined in 2006—especial care is in turn owed to him before anything drastic is done.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose at least it's good that you admit you don't know what you're talking about as you haven't even looked at the problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Question Which area is a topic ban supposed to cover? Just the FAC process, as it seems like from the talk page discussion? JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said in my proposal, "from all aspects of FA, broadly construed, including commenting about it anywhere on Wikipedia". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as worded. Such a blanket ban pretty much means that he can't try to improve an article at FAR, for example. If the problems are PAs, craft a remedy around PAs. But also ask that the people he finds himself in conflict with avoid him as well. There's nothing wrong with campaigning for the end of a Wikipedia process. We can't sanction someone for advocating for reform. Guettarda (talk) 11:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you thikn they do not? ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that wasn't what I meant. I'm sorry that it came across that way. Guettarda (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is not campaigning for the end of a Wikipedia process, it's the personal attacks on other individuals involved in the process, as I explained above when I said "Criticizing the process is fine, but attacking the people involved is not." Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, and just to clarify what I mean a little further, do you really think "Go to hell and burn" and "Piss off Now, you miserable little swine" constitute acceptable ways for campaigning for the end of a Wikipedia process or advocating for reform? (see link below) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, and I apologise to SN for that. As soon as I'd pressed the button I felt: eek, that's over the top. Which is why I willingly accepted a one-week block for it. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  12:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that I thought they weren't PAs. What I meant was that I didn't think the remedy was focused on the right issue. Guettarda (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I got you. Yes, I agree. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. For anyone who doesn't know what this is actually about, please see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1007 which documents what led up to the previous block a week ago. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose if it's about personal attacks, that's already covered by site policy, regardless of the venue. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the sake of compromise, but with a warning. The undertaking [which] is total should include a total undertaking not to comment on contributors as here. It appears to me, based on [most] comments on Tony's talk page, that they are sincere in their desire to continue working on this project (Wikipedia) and it seems that that desire outweighs their need to wage war on FAC – at least I hope it does; this last episode was about an upset caused six months ago, sparked by a ping a week ago. The distinction between imposing a TBAN and not is that with a TBAN any comment on FAC will result in a lengthy block whereas without a TBAN any inappropriate (e.g. attacks, incivility, aspersion-casting etc) comment on FAC (and likely anywhere else) will do the same. From that reference view, a TBAN doesn't change much. I did note Goldenring's observation that the voluntary undertaking may be the worse option and end a la TGS, and that has some merit. However, TGS point blank refused to abide by their voluntary self-defined restrictions despite multiple warnings. Anyway you look at it this is an extension of rope. Tony, should you breach the community trust here, there is every possibility that a long or indef-block will be imposed. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Insightful. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  12:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM as redundant and superfluous. The issue at hand here is really Tony's rather appalling behavior to other editors, and this ill-defined TBAN is simply a meretricious way of punishing him for said behavior rather than addressing the behavior itself. The fact that some people here believe he will be eventually indef blocked anyway speaks to this. WaltCip (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a bigger problem than FAC; if he's voluntarily stepping away, it also makes the TBAN superfluous. Like WaltCip above, this opposition is not "what Tony1 has done is OK", but rather it is more "What Tony1 has done is unacceptable, and it's probably going to get him indeffed anyways, lets just give him that rope".  Either he will treat other people with decency and respect going forward, or he won't.  A topic ban won't affect either outcome.  I invite him to behave properly in the future, regardless of whether or not I expect it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've been following Tony's pledge to keep away from the FA topic and the subsequent discussion at his talk page, and I've also been pondering the comments made here. The point that a topic ban from personal attacks at FA is not needed as that is covered by Wikipedia policy anyway is obviously correct, but my proposal for a complete topic ban was to help avoid the temptation that could lead to getting involved in personal attacks in the first place. But Tony's reactions to the current block and to this proposal have been refreshingly positive, and at this stage I'm drawing away from a topic ban and would prefer to trust him with his voluntary withdrawal from FA. The bottom line, though, is that personal attacks and aggressive expressions of anger must stop, everywhere on Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. I have to go to bed. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  13:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Essentially per everyone above this seems to go beyond FAC, I would rather support a warning and hope they would gradually change their behaviour instead of topic bans and blocks. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Context. I understand Boing's reasoning here, considering the earlier comments towards one editor, but context is everything. I don't perceive that what actually happened here is that Tony1 went right back to <whatever it was related to the previous problem>, rather Tony continued the participation he has always had at the talk page of the TS article, and with me, as someone heavily involved in the FA process.  Perhaps that conversation should have been on my talk page, but that's hindsight now—too late to fix.  A question was asked there, and I answered it there, even though my answer went off-topic. Tony's copyediting is the reason that Tourette syndrome had thirteen years ago—and maintains to this day—the strongest and fastest level of support ever seen at FAC; there is no doubt that Tony's prose standards once prevailed at FAC, were recognized and rewarded, and there is no doubt that those standards have considerably fallen. (And I should add that the prose at that article deteriorated for reasons related to issues at a different WikiProject, but that's a whole 'nother discouraging story.) Tony has always followed the TS article, because he helped (lovingly) build it, and considering my long involvement with the FA process, Tony and I have more than a decade of history of frank discussions of the FA process. Had the discussion been on my talk page, would the frank discussion have been more acceptable? With context, I don't think Tony intended to go right back to something, rather to continue a discussion he and I have had for more than a decade. So, where I am confused ... If I say today the same truths that Tony said, will I be blocked?  The FA process has serious problems today—if we ban someone from the process for calling it like it is, does that lead to a good outcome for Wikipedia? As to whether this matter should be solved at ANI ... There was a time when it was always abundantly clear that the FA process handled its own problems, and it did just that. The FA process had a director, and all the pieces (FAC, FAR, WIAFA, FAS, TFA) worked together, and trouble was dealt with.  That is no longer the case: with a moribund WP:FAR, that bronze star no longer has any meaning, since thousands of deficient FAs have not been demoted, while sub-standard FAs are being promoted, and the pieces of the process no longer work together to assure standards are upheld.  Criticism should be good for the process; stifling it concerns me.  Particularly if some of the same people who enjoy the relaxed standards at FAC are now advocating for a ban against someone who upheld standards. I understand that what got Tony blocked a few weeks ago was over the top, and I respect Boing's reasoning here, but I submit that this comment was a continuation of discussions Tony1 and I have always had, and that need to be had, with frankness allowed.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Re: "So, where I am confused ... If I say today the same truths that Tony said, will I be blocked? The FA process has serious problems today—if we ban someone from the process for calling it like it is, does that lead to a good outcome for Wikipedia?" - I don't think there is any problem at all with civil discussion of the problems of FA (and I'm happy to disclose that I have no idea what they are, having never had anything to do with the process). As Iridescent says, below, it's actually nothing to do with FA itself. It's all about telling people to "Go to hell and burn", to "Piss off", that they're a "miserable little swine" and "bullies and pseudo-intellectuals" (and a whole list of personal attacks the length of your arm going back years). If you can discuss FA (or any other topic) and interact with people involved in FA without that kind of behaviour, you should have nothing to fear. (And no, I don't think it would be permissible to attack another group of editors as "bullies and pseudo-intellectuals" at your talk page either - I'd suggest that if you want to have a discussion that belittles other editors with such insults, it's maybe better done off-wiki?) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Boing! said Zebedee, speaking of "belittling other editors with such insults" ... Wehwalt, taunted and insulted Tony1 below, at a time when he and we all know that this is a targeted, inflammatory and belittling comment. Wehwalt couches his belittling insults in a way that he can claim plausible deniability; perhaps these contrasting examples demonstrate why those who know the dynamic affecting the FA process are reluctant to lose a reviewer who holds others to a writing standard that they might not want to be held to. Editors who have been watching this unfold for several years might use the word "bullies" to describe the general environment in a general conversation directed at no particular individual. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. FAC just happens to be the venue on this occasion, but Tony1 directs his bile virtually at random; Greek water polo, how to translate the German title Ministerpräsident, when it's appropriate to link to [[Australia] ]and whatever the hell this is are just a handful of recent instances. Either the rules apply to him or they don't; we shouldn't be making some kind of deal that provided he stays away from FAC he's allowed to carry on abusing random passers-by as much as he likes. &#8209; Iridescent 15:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, no, I wasn't suggesting abuse is fine providing it's not at FA. In fact, my condition for not opposing an unblock was "a convincing commitment that from this day forward you will not make any more personal attacks on any other Wikipedia editors". But I do agree FA isn't the problem, and I'm happy to withdraw the TBAN proposal if anyone feels like closing this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Although I voted to support a Tban, I'd agree with ^^^. T1 has had a pretty clear warning here, and per WP:ROPE, his takeaway should be that regardless of past glories, there is such a thing as conduct unbecoming. The future holds two possibilities: T1 reining in his temper and becoming a productive editor (in whatever area he chooses), or T1 leaves (on either his or the community's terms). Either way, the project is the beneficiary, whether as the recipient of a productive editor or by removing a source of toxicity.  ——  SerialNumber  54129  07:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Reluctant support for topic ban, since I'm sorry it has come to this. Tony1 was once active in the League/Guild of Copy Editors, but seems to have become another copyeditor who gives the rest of us a bad name. No one is irreplaceable, and he may be hurting the encyclopedia more now than helping it.  Mini  apolis  22:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Tony is a long-term, valued colleague who has made a very considerable contribution to improving FAC. This was not a good block. He was expressing general concern about what's happening at FAC. He didn't refer to any individual, not even indirectly; there was no personal attack. Clearly, he could have phrased his comment more diplomatically, but he went through a hurtful experience at FAC recently. We need understanding and de-escalation, not a topic ban. SarahSV (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Tony's comments don't look that abusive to me. He's obviously not happy with certain processes, and is saying so in strong terms sometimes, but he's is not totally unreasonable.  He's a super valuable long-time editor, and we may lose him over our deteriorating values, but let's not add to that possibility.  Just warn him to cool down. Dicklyon (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sandy Georgia and SarahSV. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Tony does fly off the handle. He does get in a state sometimes. That's a bad thing, perhaps especially in the text medium. I understand why he was blocked. But I'm glad GoldenRing unblocked. As for a FAC topic ban, that is surely unnecessarily humiliating for someone who used to be one of the FAC greats. I think his calmly made undertakings at this point should be trusted, and I agree with every word SarahSV says above. (Well, except that I can well understand Boing!'s block.) Also, please read the context by SandyGeorgia, another of the FAC greats. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC).
 * That's fine. As far as I am concerned, this can be closed. Either Tony1 is silent at FAC (I would say that nominators can freely remove his comments, if only to save him from himself) or if he is not, all the boxes on the "have you tried everything short of this" prerequisite for an arbitration case are well and truly checked. And I would concur with Bishonen, perhaps more widely than she intended, "How are the mighty fallen". --Wehwalt (talk) 10:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * While you remain the master at delivering an insult for which you can claim plausible deniability and won't be blocked. That is a taunt, and at a time when Tony1 is clearly vulnerable to such, and your behavior should finally be dealt with. Your response provides a good pointer towards why this matter is better handled at FAC than at AN/I, since most people regularly involved in the FA process have a pretty good understanding of what factors have driven this matter to this unpleasant place. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that "How are the mighty fallen" verges on a sort of grave dancing and ought to be struck. GoldenRing (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems to me it's more than a fair reply to such comments as "Particularly if some of the same people who enjoy the relaxed standards at FAC are now advocating for a ban against someone who upheld standards." Don't slyly impute motives if you're not prepared to take a like reply. In the interests of peace, I will agree to a mutual striking of comments, if that is acceptable.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So in the world of Wehwalt, it is OK for you to taunt and possibly inflame Tony1 because you disagree with something *I* said about the FA process. And so it goes ... another example demonstrating why Tony1's more direct honesty is appreciated among so many involved in the FA process, even though "Tony does fly off the handle".  At some point, most people with "normal" emotional settings would fly off the handle, all things considered. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It was a direct reference to you, as you are fully aware, and which your impugning of other's motives had converted into fair comment. And the heavy handed way you ran FAC that the community revolted against.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Broken record, and your admission makes my point about what is driving this onslaught aimed at Tony1. Your imaginary "revolt"—that never happened—is in evidence in this thread. Your remark taunting Tony is still there, you have shown you will target someone else to go after me, and you may get away with it (again, in a thread of insults as long as that listed here for Tony1), but will it get you what Tony has and deserves, which is respect from fellow writers?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've made a reasonable offer, I hope? You take down your comment, I'll take down mine.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If she agrees, someone let me know. I'm busy with content.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Sandy Georgia, SarahSV & Bishonen. Johnbod (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Shock Brigade Harvester Boris who that we are grown ups here. Are we? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Consensus against the ban is blindingly clear at this point. Can someone uninvolved please close this before it degenerates further?  GoldenRing (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Hidden Tempo and Rusf10
In the aftermath of 's recent AE sanction, Hidden Tempo is evading his longstanding block and making false accusations against me at User talk:Rusf10, and when I deleted those accusations (per WP:BE), reverted me and restored them. What can be done about this? R2 (bleep) 21:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If there was ever a frivolous filing here, this is it. Ahrtoodeetoo needs to mind his own business. I'm being brought here because I reverted something on my own talk page???? How ridiculous, Ahrtoodeetoo doesn't have the authority to delete content on my talk page. I reverted it not as a show of support to the IP user, but as a matter of principle. Second, if R2 knows that the IP user is HiddenTempo as he alleges, then he clearly knows more than I do and should share with the rest of us how he knows. I can think of at least 10 or 15 disgruntled users than also could be the IP or it could even just be a troll trying to start trouble. If you look through my talk page, you'll see that I never even responded to the IP user. It's people like Ahrtoodeetoo that keep engaging him and bringing even more attention to his comments. The only comment made by the IP user about Ahrtoodeetoo was "I don't know if you noticed or not but R2 went crying to Awilley's talk page to tattle on me for supposed "disruption" and "block evasion"." That is not a false allegation, that's a fact . By not minding his own business, Ahrtoodeetoo is making the problem worse. --Rusf10 (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I'm not asking that Rusf10 be sanctioned. I just want the offending content removed from their userspace. I'm not up on the intricacies of WP:OWNTALK, but I'm pretty sure that disruptive edits by block evaders are fair game anywhere in Wikipedia. And if Rusf10 cannot recognize that that was a disruptive comment then we have another problem. R2 (bleep) 22:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My opinion (which is worth exactly as much as any other single persons is) is thus: There's nothing wrong with your trying to remove the message, per WP:BMB, but once Rusf10 restored it, it should end there. It's his talk page, it's his business.  Molehills should not be turned into mountains, especially ones this insignificant.  Let it go.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 23:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe that WP:BP and WP:DE reach even into supportive editors' user spaces. Otherwise disruptive block editors could run amok in all those walled gardens. If I'm mistaken, I'm mistaken. R2 (bleep) 00:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There are two separate questions to be answered here. Question 1 is "Is what happened right" and question 2 is "what should I do about it."  It should be noted that even if we concede the answer to question 1 is, unequivocally, "no, it isn't", the answer to question 2 is still "nothing at all".  People can be wrong, but it doesn't mean it deserves a response.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If any admin feels that the former Wikipedia username is at all important, I can shed light on how it's known. To my mind, it's sufficient that a respected admin blocked one of the IP addresses used by clearly one individual, the individual under discussion, for block evasion. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If it was Hidden Tempo, I can understand the consternation and would not call it frivolous. If there is a walled garden, that’s another issue. If the IP is blocked and it was HT, we can close this for now as he tends to go silent for a time after a block. Just my opinion. O3000 (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

--- A user's talk page should be their domain, so long as it's not disruptive. This is borderline as block evasion is disruptive in and of itself — but another admin has already hatted the disputed comments, so that seems like a good enough compromise. I blocked the other IP for block evasion and will semiprotect the page, if necessary. El_C 00:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I was fine with the hatting approach until I was called out and accused of battlegrounding, which is exactly what I try to avoid in Wikipedia. I believe the type of "us-versus-them" mentality being fomented by Hidden Tempo and Rusf10 is a cancer on the AP space. Of course it's a symptom of a much larger off-wiki problem, but as a community we should try to make Wikipedia a friendly, collaborative place where editors of different political stripes can communicate and learn to understand each other. And I never knew we "compromised" on block evasion. And yes, this was admitted block evasion, and yes, it was Hidden Tempo. R2 (bleep) 00:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We compromise when it makes sense to do so and are not bound to the letter of the law. El_C 00:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And what is the purpose of this compromise? To allow an editor a safe space to harbor block evaders? R2 (bleep) 01:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I evaluate every case according to its particular circumstances. In this case, I wasn't involved at that stage — your best bet is hearing from the admin who was. El_C 02:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * According to our policies, "Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user... Material that clearly does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed (see below), as may edits from banned users" (emphasis mine). So on policy grounds, R2 is unambiguously correct, and Rusf10 is incorrect in describing these actions as "frivolous". More generally, it is difficult to see what constructive motivation Rusf10 could possibly have had for restoring a litany of personal attacks and ill-informed partisan griping by a banned editor, and his actions reflect poorly on him&mdash;particularly as he just narrowly avoided a sanction for battleground behavior . In that context, I think a logged warning regarding battleground behavior in the context of the American-politics discretionary sanctions would be appropriate, but will await input from other admins. MastCell Talk 16:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Accusation of undisclosed WP:PAID editing / large scale reversion of edits
This morning, I noticed that a new account, User:Renmap0o, was reverting lots of edits by Britishfinance with identical edit summaries - see for example this diff, but there are numerous others with identical edit summaries. I reverted, and left a note on their talk page saying that the username alone wasn't a valid reason to revert their edits - see the discussion at User talk:Renmap0o.

Renmap0o responded by noting that there was an article in the Irish Times accusing Britishfinance of making numerous paid edits - there is a link in the user page discussion linked to above, and on investigation I found several other such article - see this, this and this.

I want to be clear that I have no view about whether Britishfinance has indeed been engaging in paid editing - British and Irish financial matters are not areas I have much expertise in, and I don't feel qualified to judge whether their edits are indeed biased or suggest paid editing. I do note that Britishfinance has been around a while, has a clean block log, and seems to have been involved in editing in lots of areas aside from finance. Nevertheless, given the accusations that Renmap0o has been making, the mass reverting (which I have got myself involved in by unreverting), and the Irish Times articles, I thought I should bring the matter here for consideration. I will notify both users now. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 15:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , WP:COIN is probably the most appropriate board. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 16:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , WP:COIN is probably the most appropriate board. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 16:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sensing a recommendation that WP:COIN might be the most appropriate board. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I will make my main comment below, per normal conversation flow practice, but want to intervene here to correct an inaccuracy - neither the Irish Times ("IDA Ireland has paid for changes to Wikipedia pages about itself and its chief executive") nor the Times are, as stated to have been stated, "accusing Britishfinance of making numerous paid edits" - this simply is not in the articles, with the Times simply noting the editor's level of activity and topics (but the subtitle of the article, without much grounding, does suggest the editor was "attacking Ireland's probity"). So the whole question of paid editing / COIN is poorly based - what the Times touches on is potential negative bias.SeoR (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * , I feel this is unfair to me. A new user has entered WP today and been blanking large sections of tax-related articles and PROD'ing other articles.  The newspaper article he is quoting I have discussed on my talk page with .  The article is not about my bias per se, but about the Irish IDA Ireland paying other editors to make their CEO, Martin Shanahan look good.  I had the unfortunate experience to come across these paid editors a few months ago (see the Martin Shanahan talk page), and they accused me of bias and bath faith.  I left that page and never returned to it.
 * I am not a paid editor and nor am I on WP for conflict/warring. I am fully happy to have any WP:COIN review on my work.  While many of my WP articles I wrote in my first 6 months were not WP proper standard, I believe that I am writing good WP articles now, and I re-written almost every earlier article I wrote (still a few to finish; just did Tax inversion last night).  My tax-related editing uses the highest quality tax academic sources (you can see on Double Irish arrangement, which the Council on Foreign Relations noted as being the "best source" on these tax schemes, noted on its talk page).  Just a few days ago, Nobel prize-winning Paul Krugman cited my re-write of Leprechaun economics on this twitter feed (see its talk page).
 * I am not an FA/GA ranked WP editor (yet), but I think I am doing very good work on bringing WP's tax-related articles to good academic quality. The editor above is a vandal with an agenda that has nothing to do with building good tax articles on WP. Also note, I am not a tax-SPA, per my user page, I have lots of other non-tax articles. Britishfinance (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you feel this report was unfair. To be clear, I am not saying that I agree with the accusation - I did note, in my initial post above, your clean block log and your extensive work in areas outside finance. I'm happy to reiterate that, aside from the newspaper articles (which themselves offer no evidence about you), I have no reason to doubt your good faith or to suspect you of being a paid editor. I just thought that, given the aspersions that had been cast, the new user's reverts and my own unreverts, a review of the situation by third parties may be in order.
 * Thanks for the suggestion WBG - if I was confident that there was actually a COI problem here, I would have raised a report at COIN. As it is, I am not certain whether the problem is with Britishfinance's work, or whether there is a behavioural problem with User:Renmap0o's casting aspersions and hounding Britishfinance. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging and, since they have also been involved in undoing some of Renmap0s's reverts and PRODs and may wish to comment.  Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the articles created and vast edits by BritishFinance. I don't contest that the user has other articles, nor that they don't have citations for the information. It's designed in a way to look like it's within the rules, but its effectively a vast web of propaganda type posts and one-sided information presented to destroy Ireland's reputation internationally. For example, the user might edit the Wikipedia entry/article on tax havens, filling it with information referring to Ireland, pictures of Ireland and slip in examples which also refer to Ireland. Many articles seem to have been corrupted by the user in this way. This user has made 40k+ edits with a big focus being discrediting Ireland in Wikipedia entries. The user has created many pages/articles labeling Ireland as a tax haven and describing the so-called schemes. Then, linking their articles to the other main pages referring to Ireland. It's a vast system and complex web of misinformation. Ireland is primarily referred to as tax haven by eccentric journalists. It's not on the standard lists. It doesn't even have the lowest corporate tax rate in Europe. Nine countries have lower, two have the same and seven are within 5% of the Irish rate. There is obviously some controversy over tax schemes, in not just Ireland, but in many countries worldwide. The user's posts and edits are designed to portray Ireland as not just a tax haven, but the worlds worst offender in the eyes of the international community. Hopefully, the journalists (or authorities) blow open the story of who is really behind this account. It's clearly politically motivated, with a high conflict of interest. If you have any doubt about this, just look at the pages created by the user, links they added and the edits they did. Renmap0o 17:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The above sounds like the same bad faith and conspiracy-theory type arguments that the IDA Ireland COI marketing team made to me on the Martin Shanahan talk page. No other tax haven-type jurisdiction has ever made a bad edit to the main WP tax haven-type articles in my time, not one; however, we have had several aggressive edits on the Irish-related content.  The irony is that the newspaper articles quoted above, if you read them properly, really concern the fact that IDA Ireland pays editors to make Ireland look good tax-wise on WP.  And judging by the PROMO/POV state of the articles when I got to them, they got value for money.  The issue exploded when Paddy Cosgrave tweeted on this COI-UDP on his twitter feed:  here here.
 * Google "Ireland tax haven" and you get thousands of Tier 1 RS newspapers on the subject (i.e. it is WP:GNG notable). However, my edits try and avoid even that kind of RS where possible as it leads to WP:SYN; I instead focus on the most cited academic papers on tax-issues from the most cited authors.  I can see from WP tax articles that I have edited on that such academic references used to exist, but the articles became so broken from POV editors fighting both sides of the debate.  My goal is to restore the encyclopedic integrity of these articles and present the facts as they are.  Unfortunately, these facts, as they pertain to Ireland, attract some very inappropriate editing and allegations. Britishfinance (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned awhile back, I'll add some background. I just saw the article in The Times and in it the IDA effectively accused Britishfinance of being a paid editor. NOt the usual stuff you see in the papers about Wikipedia. Following my usual practice when paid editing is suspected I just asked Britishfinance whether he was paid or not (Note, I don't accuse anybody when I ask these questions. It does amaze me how often - one way or another - that paid editors will expose themselves when asked. Britishfinance's answer pretty much satisfied me that he wasn't. There was none of the usual paid editor song and dance that usually accompanies a denial.  I'd said that I'd likely put a notice at WP:COIN if I found anything further, so I looked for the usual indications of paid editing (they are usually pretty obvious, but not 100% proof of course) I didn't find anything, so I didn't post anything to WP:COIN.  Of course I did notice that User:Corecontent and User:IDAComms had each declared, after some prodding and poking, that they were being paid by IDA Ireland, and I'm still amazed they weren't dealt with more harshly. It looks like sockpuppetting to me. I suppose IDAComms was only blocked for a Username violation because of his total ignorance of our rules.

I did send a note to one of the journalists involved saying that I though the accusations against Britishfinance looked to be completely out of line. He responded with a question, so I went back and checked more carefully on the public pages where this type of thing can be investigated. There's nothing that I can see that suggests User:Britishfinance is a paid editor. If would like, I'll give any reporter from any respectable paper the basic public data and my reading of it and I do think that would clear his username. Please note that my investigations into this type of thing have been mentioned in the Wall Street Journal and the Times of Israel. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would be comfortable with you sending on public information and your comments to the reporter. appreciate that. Britishfinance (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I see no evidence at all that Britishfinance is a paid editor, but plenty of evidence that there has been paid editing on behalf of some Irish government organisations. Of course absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so, as far as anyone else is concerned, there is just as much chance that Britishfinance is paid as that I am, but what is needed is evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I see nothing in Britishfinance's edits that make me think paid editor. When I hear another editor claiming that Britishfinance's edits are part of a "vast web of propaganda type posts and one-sided information presented to destroy Ireland's reputation internationally," that makes me wonder about that editor's agenda, though.  I'm thinking WP:Boomerang here. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the user, Britishfinance is paid or not, it appears to be highly politically motivated with questionable links. It is not about presenting information in an unbiased way, but a concerted effort to push a political view and present things in a deeply negative light, based on their agenda. The Times in the UK and other reputable publications have linked the account to Paddy Cosgrave, asserting he is manipulating Wikipedia entries for a political campaign against tax systems. I don't know if that is true, but I can see clearly the true purpose of the account, the pages/links created and edits are primarily political purposes and misinformation. His ad campaign and page has just been banned on facebook for these reasons. Even if it is not this person, its clearly a user that is not acting in an honest way, but trying to manipulate perceptions and the reputation of a country based on their own agenda. Renmap0o 19:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Do not attempt to OUT other editors by associating an account with a real life name. Attepmts to out others warrant something rather more severe than Boomerangs.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it's all in the public domain anyway. The name associated and that users attempts at manipulating Wikipedia articles for their political purposes is all over the media User:Renmap0o, 20:42, 16th April (UTC)
 * I don't think Renmap0o is claiming that Britishfinance is Paddy Cosgrave, but that these two individuals may be connected in some way. The media has already been speculating about this in the public domain. These allegations have been made without any hard evidence and therefore cannot be taken seriously by the community. Unless Renmap0o can produce clear evidence that establishes a pattern of POVpushing and biased editing, there is nothing more we can do here. Continuous badgering over the same issue without production of evidence will not be taken seriously or looked at kindly either. It's entirely possible that there may be some NPOV issues with articles whose latest versions Britishfinance has primarily authored (mainly because there were no other editors to challenge their edits), but based on my limited review of Base erosion and profit shifting and Double Irish arrangement, I have not seen any egregious instances of POVpushing. On the contrary, I have benefited from perusing at least these two articles in my professional capacity. — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  20:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I find some of the above, and the attempted interference with several articles, disturbing. First, on the paid editing, I cannot find any actual direct accusation against Britishfinance, rather there is renewed coverage of editing by IDA staff and an agency employed by IDA Ireland. But even if there were such an accusation, I would find it wildly improbable. I noticed Britishfinance's editing in their first few weeks on the encyclopedia, and even then their professional knowledge of finance, and their approach to editing, with a large number of small incremental edits (hence the large totals - this is one editing pattern in Wikipedia, with others dropping one massive edit changing many kb), were clear. The editor in question, as it happens, semi-retired in late March, a pity, but during their 13 months of Wikipedia activity, they made a decent contribution to a whole range of areas. We need editors like this, and I hope the community takes a seriously dim view of unfounded allegations thrown about by new single-purpose accounts against people with solid track records. I see no evidence for statements like "The Times in the UK and other reputable publications have linked the account to Paddy Cosgrave" - as far as I can see, Cosgrave just referenced some articles in recent days, but they were edited months ago, or more. To me the edits themselves had and have the look of "insider" - not politically motivated, but the knowledge of someone in the legal, tax management or accounting professions. We don't need to know, but we can note that the user, I think in an early discussion about their chosen username, disclosed "finance professional" and lately mentioned that they had been able to be so active as they had had some time off mainstream work (great that Wikipedia got a good chunk of said time - many of us could use more time to work on the project not taken from after-bedtime evenings, lunch, etc.). I also see no evidence of special anti-Irish bias - the use of Ireland's tax regime by various corporate entities is well-known for decades, is the topic of much writing and debate, and these tactics are important to many large entities (the 13+ billion Apple episode is not a random thing). And Britishfinance has also edited general "tax management" articles, which, if read, make clear that many other countries accommodate some "tax tactics" - see deals done by Luxembourg, the Netherlands, etc. As the new user today notes, Ireland is far from the bottom of the corporate tax league on the base rate - but I see no evidence that Britishfinance ever said any such thing anyway. What they and other editors did explain was how one might, and many do, achieve effective near-zero tax liabilities. All in all, this seems a clear case of unjustified attack, and, ironically, attempted biased editing.SeoR (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The attacks against Britishfinance by a newly created, potentially paid SPA and the rumors spun by some Irish media outlets don't exactly strike me as significant. In fact, the articles doesn't accuse him of paid or COI editing at all, its just an Irish government spokesman fuming about his writings on Ireland's unorthodox tax structures and the use of these structures by large multinationals to avoid paying loads of European taxes. Parroting these accusations is embarrassing, and this should not have been brought up without better evidence. Additionally, even attempting to connect a user to an identity is a violation of WP:OUT and redacting the name from this noticeboard is something admins with more experience on the outing policy should consider. Finally, given the fact that the Irish government (IDA) has paid for editing to wikipedia, and its statement about that editing mentions BF's editing specifically, I think its entirely possible is carrying out dirty work for his employer by casting aspersions and mass reverting and this report plays right into his hands. SWL36 (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * there are 2 or 3 not-so-subtle hints above that you have a WP:COI or are a WP:Paid editor. I really do think that it is better to ask clearly - without accusing anybody - if somebody is a paid editor. So, Renmap0o, are you a paid editor and/or do you have any connection to IDA Ireland?
 * Similarly, are you accusing Britishfinance of being a paid editor? Do you have any evidence of this? Smallbones( smalltalk ) 01:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, allegations of editorializing were first made in August 2018 on the talk page of the article. The discussion was archived by Britishfinance and can be found here &mdash; Talk:Ireland as a tax haven/Archive 1. It took me a couple of hours to analyze a section of the article "Ireland as a tax haven", where I found some serious issues. You are welcome to take a look and comment: Talk:Ireland as a tax haven. — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  01:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I use two of these articles, and I’d say they’re a good summary. And pretty fair. But anyway, the original point of this notice seems invalid, no Paid Editing or CoI.  What’s left might be some work in balancing of tone.  For example, Nearly Headless Nick cites two blocks of content.  In the first, BritushFinance seems to have been scrupulous in a debate.  In the second, Nick may have found room fit textual and POV improvement.  But this is not Article Improvement space, is it? 91.193.178.5 (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thus, from Renmap0o, is just embarrassing Conspiracy Theorist rubbish: “It's designed in a way to look like it's within the rules, but its effectively a vast web of propaganda type posts and one-sided information presented to destroy Ireland's reputation internationally.“ Seriously? Propaganda, destroying Ireland’s reputation? All Europe knows about the tax games.91.193.178.5 (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "[...] Nick may have found room fit textual and POV improvement." &mdash; No, that's a mischaracterization. The entire section on "Captured state" in Ireland as a tax haven is full of misrepresentations, original research and original synthesis; and I haven't even started looking at the remainder of the article. In any case, I believe there may be a need for a thorough review of these articles, just to be sure. — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  06:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think if you read the discussion referred to at Talk:Ireland as a tax haven/Archive 1, you will see that (1) almost all the refs the editor quoted were actually already in the article, and (2) in almost all cases, the refs they quoted proved the editor was wrong in their interpretation. I think reading Talk:Ireland as a tax haven/Archive 1, which I protected and archived as help for future discussions, will hopefully show the good-faith lengths I have gone to in responding to this specific article.  I am not a perfect WP editor, but I am not a "conspiracy theory" or PAID editor, and I do think my tax-related articles materially improve WP in an area that it is really weak on (the WP Tax Project is largely dead).  Per my earlier statements above, Paul Krugman and the Council on Foreign Relations have publically referenced two of them? I will do the same reply to Sir Nicholas comments on the "Captured State" sub-section, which I believe I can resolve (but I appreciate that tighter wording can be used in place), however, I am in a new job and just can't get the time to do just now. Again, I think I deserve some fairness and balance here. Britishfinance (talk) 08:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am an agreement that this is Renmap0o with the problem. I see no specific issues with Britishfinance's work (far from it, it appears to be high quality and well cited). Suggesting a single editor or small group of editors is some how under orders to demolish Ireland's reputation is a huge leap and in any case vastly overrates the power of Wikipedia. No case to answer. QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that Renmap0o has exactly zero contribution to the article space (all of their contributions were reverted), and that all their contribution to other namespaces consists in casting aspersions, it looks to me that this is an appropriate case for a NOTHERE indefinite block.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No doubt Renmap0o's approach to the whole situation was ill-advised, and it's probably because they are not well-acquainted with our project. However, I think there are enough reasons to go ahead with a thorough review of the articles (see Talk:Ireland as a tax haven). In the meantime, we should AGF with Britishfinance. There is no evidence of WP:COI/WP:PAID, although the possibility of NPOV issues with their edits cannot be completely discounted (see link above). This is a wiki after all and the community has the power to evaluate the edits of its users, including yours and mine. As the Russians would say: doveryai, no proveryai. — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  10:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am never imposed opposed to an investigation but the arguments presented are incredibly weak. E.g, Britishfinance has edited a lot: Lots of people have lots of edits because they have lots of time - it is not an indication that they are paid to edit. Britishfinance only edits on one subject: I see plenty of work that is not even tangentially related to Irish tax system. E.g., this article expansion. Journalists claiming something is biased is hardly a clinching argument given how biased the media is. Etc. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree Renmap0o's arguments are weak specially when their allegations of bias are not backed by diffs and links. They should stop with the allegations of paid editing immediately and instead focus on backing their assertions with evidence. Or else, it won't be long before an administrator blocks them. — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  11:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't open this discussion of paid editing and am not pursuing it per ce, as its almost impossible to prove anyway. I was discussing the bias in the user's articles/editing which is now well known and commented on in the newspapers, media, radio, several Reddit threads and I believe, even the Irish finance minister commented in recent days. You are correct that the approach was ill-advised and I wasn't familiar enough to go through the correct process. Would you suggest the best approach is gathering clear evidence and starting a discussion in the COI section? Easy to prove given the scale of it, but just time-consuming. I can see some other work too, but the main focus is “link Ireland and its stakeholders to negative stories, particularly on economics, taxation and Brexit”. Everything I went through personally just confirmed that, but your correct. Needs to be cataloged and evidenced clearly. Renmap0o 18:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I’m not paid and don’t have any connection to IDA. I just had a look and was shocked by what I saw. I don’t know if they are a paid, but I’d be confident they are receiving funding from somewhere given the large amount of time spent maintaining and pushing this political view on Wikipedia over the past year. I don't know how you can produce evidence of this, but hopefully, the journalists uncover something. The user is responsible for 40k+ edits on Wikipedia since last March, with the prime purpose of labelling Ireland as a tax haven. Sure there are controversy and issues there. I don't think anyone is denying that, but one-sided tone/information presentation is an understatement. It's incredibly biased and reads more like the input of a political group/campaigning. The user created many pages, edited many and linked most information on Wikipedia regarding Ireland to this label, by either selectively inserting examples and/or linking back to the pages they created themselves for this purpose. The more I read, the more I realised how brilliant it was (in terms of manipulation). I'll give them that and it would make a great case study for a student. Even things like slipping in pics/examples of Ireland on Wikipedia articles broadly discussing offshore, offshoring, tax or tax havens. This user and their vendetta/crusade against the Irish tax system has been a discussion on Reddit threads as far back as 6 months ago Here and it looks like a previous history of controversy on Wikipedia too. They are obviously savvy about the system, rules and how to manipulate it. Probably someone from a tech background, which fits the profile of who the media is associating this account with and its not just the Irish media, but also international. It's likely not the end, but just the beginning of the scandal, as new articles are popping up. In recent days, it's heated up when the user has been linked to a political campaign against the Irish tax system, which makes sense based on the key theme of most of their editing. That group/person was banned from Facebook for running a fraudulent and deceitful ad campaign. Highly biased and manipulative Wikipedia articles are created by User Britishfinace here, and then this campaign/group links to those articles for credibility. Is it acceptable for a user, that at the very minimum, is clearly representing a political vendetta, to manipulate Wikipedia articles on such a massive scale, as to serve their own personal political purposes and agenda? Does the platform accept editors who are this biased, running misinformation and political campaigns? Renmap0o 10:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * When you make claims of "political campaigning", "selectively inserting examples", "linking back to pages" etc, it would be really helpful if you could link us to such instances, or produce diffs to back up those claims. — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  11:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you look up anything related to Ireland and it's tax system and check the history of it you can see britishfinance has got his mitts on most of it. It's like a full-time job. Here is an example of a page the user created and edited personally this year. Its one of many. They usually link this page they created to most other Wikipedia pages regarding Ireland, tax havens or its tax system in the "See Also" section, along with editing those pages/articles with sections, pictures and examples pushing the "Ireland is a tax haven" line. The "See Also" section is a great way to scan through pages created and edited by the user. I found heaps but was only scratching the surface. I was very impressed by the scale of this. It's a lot of work. As has been mentioned, 40k+ edits since March last year mainly focusing on this political crusade against the Irish tax system. Renmap0o 11:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I call rubbish (to be polite). After discussions 2016-2018, even the European Parliament voted that the Netherlands, Ireland, Luxembourg, among others, are tax havens. Look at the billions being processed. Who is it you work for? See: “The Netherlands is a tax haven alongside Ireland, Malta and Cyprus, say MEPs” at dutchnews.nl and many similar records of recent days. 195.239.200.134 (talk)< —Preceding undated comment added 20:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

You're referring to political controversies, of which plenty of hay can (and has) been made, likewise newspaper journalists are frequently prone to simplistic analyses and comparisons. The WP articles in question read like the diatribes of a particularly determined crank (however polite and courteous he may act to avoid drawing the ire of the moderators), it's frankly incredible they've survived in their present form for so long, and this user has been able to blatantly POV patrol his pages with impunity.

Let's have a little actual data, because context is sorely needed in this discussion, and frankly, the tone and volume of this user's commentary (and it is commentary we're talking about) are quite blatantly unbalanced. Firstly, let's remember the definition of a tax haven, this from investopedia (many similar definitions exist).

"A tax haven is a country that offers foreign individuals and businesses little or no tax liability in a politically and economically static environment. **Tax havens also share limited or no financial information with foreign tax authorities.** Tax havens do not require residency or business presence for individuals and businesses to benefit from their tax policies. Due to the globalization of business operations, an increasing number of U.S. corporations, including Microsoft, Apple and Alphabet, are keeping cash in offshore tax havens to minimize corporate taxes."

The OECD's global forum on tax transparency published it's report on tax transparency in November 2018. Ireland is one of only a handful of countries listed as compliant, so already it fails the most basic definition - far from being shrouded and opaque, Ireland is extremely transparent in it's corporate tax disclosures (higher than Germany, Belgium, the UK or the US). Is there any authority on tax transparency superior to the OECD? Has there been any similar effort to quantify this metric which produced a contrary result?

Secondly, since 2014, Ireland has participated in the OECD's BEPS resolution programme, and there is no reason to assume they wouldn't continue to follow the second round of recommendations (which involve changes to treaties to resolve the Malta situation, which our erstwhile author has eagerly leapt upon with gusto. The schemes these articles are concerned with (which resulted from the complex interaction of the residency rules in *multiple jurisdictions* - not simply the 'cheating Irish' as implied in these articles) have largely been closed. This is not the end of the story, as it's a global whack-a-mole game, but the implication that Ireland has been a bad actor in this regard frankly cannot be substantiated. As recently as February, the Irish finance minister, in conjunction with his French counterpart signalled support for a Global model for tech taxation, and endorsed the efforts of the OECD to define best practices in that regard.

Is there any other jurisdiction which has made such wide reaching changes specifically to combat corporate tax evasion? It is also worth stating that the Irish rules merely allowed the transfer of funds to a company's headquartered parent jurisdiction if the funds were originated outside of Ireland (predominately British overseas territories and crown dependencies). These rules were intended to allow US firms to tax their revenues in the US, and these schemes could only exist because the US permitted large scale offshoring on an indefinite timespan for many decades (ultimately, most of those taxes are still owed to the US, as seen by their attempt to join the appeal against the Apple tax case ruling). Obviously, this is beyond the ability of the Irish government to regulate or anticipate.

It is necessary to mention this, because the entire context here is either deeply hidden or totally absent from the articles in question, and the user Britishfinance has fought fiercely to ensure that remains the case, conceding only where absolutely forced to. I cannot fathom how the egregious and blatant POV pushing on these pages, and the clear examples of bias within them haven't been addressed (despite having been flagged several times and warned once by a former mod). I'm sure there'll be plenty of "polite" rebuttals from the man himself citing the "thousands" of newspaper articles on the subject, which of course will be twisted to fit the exact fringe narrative being pushed here. Of course he knows quite well that it would take months to go through the many thousands of barely substantiated references in his commentary (pretty clear gish galloping), and so it has reached the point where the Irish government and media have had to get involved. I hope this results in a more balanced representation, because what has existed up until now is, to say the least, problematic and out of touch with the facts. I am not a government or paid representative - just another passer-by versed enough to recognize propaganda and an agenda being pushed when I see it - I'm sure there'll be many more like me in the next few weeks. 37.228.243.242 (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "I am not a government or paid representative - just another passer-by versed enough to recognize propaganda and an agenda being pushed when I see it" So, to be clear, you have no involvement with the Irish government, the Irish tax system, or the Irish economy?  In other words, your only interest in making this post is a desire that Wikipedia be the best encyclopedia it can be?  Frankly, given this post, I find that hard to believe.  "I'm sure there'll be many more like me in the next few weeks."  What makes you sure of this? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You're editorialising. This is not the place. Just edit the articles, if you have well-founded and referenced points to add. On the face of it for now, the articles (I've reviewed 5 related items, and I'm a chartered accountant and familiar with the terminology at least) are well-researched and in line with widely-held views. And for crying out loud, Ireland has facilitated tax "management" so big it had to revise its national economic measurements! Even the US authorities believe that Ireland is at least a major "conduit" if not an outright "haven," and both national and EU parliaments have issues with the obscure and over-flexible Irish tax regime. But this is not a forum for article content so again, please take this to the pages in question. Stop attacking an individual editor's work and bona fides. And by the way, are you accusing the user of misusing "patrol" rights, which they only gained early this year? That would be a serious, and as far as can be seen, utterly unfounded, accusation. Now, go contribute!185.68.145.229 (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I spent some time checking your points over breakfast. They are mostly addressed in the articles, some, like the definition of "tax haven," in painful detail. So I think Britishfinance and others have been very fair on this. I don't see where the anti-Ireland point comes from, there are a lot of references, and the companies who use these mechanisms have bet a major part of their global revenue strategy on them. And multiple other countries are mentined, notably the UK and its vestigial empire, and good old Holland. And of course it's all legal, but not at all transparent, a point again discussed in much detail. Could it be an agenda? Yes, if you think the user is a French deputy or a Nordic social warrior. But why someone does editing is not the question, only whether their edits are well-made, and that the balance of article content is, well, balanced. But please don't ask Wikipedia to say black = white. I think we all get that big money is involved, literally trillions of dollars, and so I am sure there will be attacks, but Wikipedia is able to handle this kind of thing.185.68.145.229 (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * People have tried to add balance to these articles. They have been edit warred relentlessly by this user until they gave up. It seems ridiculous to even need to have this discussion. This editor's activities have been so egregious it's now become a subject of a national media controversy. My point above is that there is at least room for balance in these articles, but the way they're written (quite deliberately), the tone and content is nigh unassailable, and presents an extreme view, as if Ireland is some global lynchpin of tax evasion - it isn't, it is at most a link in a chain. Even a cursory look at the actual numbers involved will show it's clearly dwarfed by the likes of London. As for the "leprechaun economics", it's a perfect example. The anomalous GDP growth statistic mainly stemmed from the relocation of an aircraft leasing company to Ireland (17 percentage points out of 26% growth were this one company). It's a high revenue, low profit margin business, so there's very little taxable income, but it inflates the GDP. Does the leprechaun economics article give appropriate focus to this? Of course not, it's just another loop back into the rest of this individual's meandering diatribes. These headline high percentage growth rate controversies also ignore the simple fact that large capital movements will show a disproportionate impact on a smaller starting figure. Similar movements wouldn't have raised any eyebrows in the UK, Germany, or the US (and indeed - they happen all the time), because the starting base figures are higher in the first place. This user has played a cynical game quite professionally, and gamed wikipedia to hell and back, putting essays of his own opinions up, and guarding them with prejudice. Wikipedia is not the platform for this - he should write a book if he wants to put his opinions out there to this degree. It is a disgrace that it's possible for one person to completely control the narrative on an entire country's economic affairs - a country which, it has to be said, the author's home country has been hostile to in both the past and recent years, and was a former colonizer of - and yes, that is a relevant bit of context. If he were blanketing the narrative about Indian topics with anti-Indian commentary, we would not be having this discussion. 37.228.244.72 (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * To answer the above, which answered me earlier, this presents a vision of some master manipulator, which is just not very likely. And what's all this colonial stuff?185.68.145.229 (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, this is very unfair to me. I have not been "edit warring" on any WP articles (tax or otherwise; and I have done BLPs on controversial characters such as Catherine Blaiklock, Daniel Ivandjiiski and Seán Gallagher).  I have never hit the WP:3RR rule in WP, and have only rarely even gotten to 2RR.  This a hobby, not something that I want conflict on.  The main edits I encounter on articles that are Irish tax-related are blanking of sections or PROD for deletion.  They come in waves.  I have shown above the time I have taken to respond fully, even where an IP-editor started their discussion with "anti-Irish bias" (per Talk:Ireland as a tax haven/Archive 1).  That is very unfair to me.
 * In addition, if you actually read the newspaper articles above, and has been pointed out by other editors, the national media controversy is twofold:
 * Firstly, it involves the act that I accidentally discovered the IDA Ireland were paying editors to make the WP BLP of their CEO look good (per Martin Shanahan). It was so WP:PROMO, that one of the most experienced editors on WP,, tagged it as being COI .  When I tried to fix it, I met an aggressive and nasty group of editors who were later revealed to be the marketing department of IDA Ireland. They made unfair comments about my edits on Irish tax-related articles.  I cannot prove this, but given how bad these articles had become before I got to them, I feel that this group were also active in manipulating them to meet an IDA agenda.
 * Secondly, a public figure called Paddy Cosgrave not only tweeted the above IDA Ireland counter, but he also ran a Facebook campaign that linked to two articles that I have worked on: QIAIFs and Double Irish arrangement. I did not create Double Irish, it was a large article before I got to it, but was not of good quality.  I have re-written it with mostly academic references or Tier 1 RS.  As I said above, the economist from the US Council of Foreign Relations noted the article as the "best source" on the topic.  I did create the QIAIF article.  You will notice that the Irish Times asked a tax partner in Dublin to comment on it and he seemed to have no issue with it.  Ironically, he then listed two other major tax havens (Luxembourg and the UK) as having similar structures (which they do).  Again, this is about trying to write good quality fact-based articles that would be of interest to readers.
 * Again, I did not create the Leprechaun economics article, however, when I got to it, it was junk. The IP-editor above claims that it misrepresents the event and that it was the effect of aircraft leasing (which was the IDA Ireland's official response).  However, if you read the article, you will see that a detailed Massachusetts Institute of Technology report even shortly after the affair cast doubt on this.  You will also see that in 2018, Seamus Coffey, the person that the Irish State employed to review its entire corporate tax code in 2016, stated, unequivocally, that the source was Apple.  Other economists later did the same analysis.  This is the point of the re-writes, to chronicle the actual facts, and the highest quality facts versus opinions (although I am sure my editing is not perfect).  Again, per above, Nobel-prize winner Paul Krugman just recently referenced the Leprechaun economics article.  It can't be that bad.
 * There is also an allegation above that "linking articles" or adding "See also" is in some way a devious act. The tax topics of Double Irish, BEPS, Tax haven, Tax inversion, EU illegal State aid case against Apple in Ireland (and others) ARE RELATED.  For example: The Double Irish is a BEPS tool that Apple used in Tax haven type activities in Ireland from 2004–2014 that ended up in a 13bn EU fine (who disclosed in large public documents the scale of 100bn, the Irish tax rate of 0.005%, and the mechanism of the BEPS tool); that caused Ireland to be blacklisted as a Tax haven by Brazil, and caused Apple to scrap its Double Irish and adopt another BEPS tool which it used in 2015 to execute a Tax inversion to Ireland which caused Leprechaun economics.  I can't put it any simpler, and I have taken honest efforts to ensure these related articles are coherent and consistent (my OCD side), which is important given their complexity, to help readers.
 * If anything does come out of this ANI, it will hopefully show the community issues regarding Irish tax-related material. Unlike other tax jurisdictions who don't seem to edit their WP articles and/or try to remove material they don't like; it does happen with Irish ones.  It feels as if I am writing on WP:ACDS type-articles (which I avoid).  I have just completed Tax inversion, but I fully expect it to be blanked/PROD'ed in the next few months (even though it is really a "historical" tax article, as the US and UK have effectively stopped inversions for good).  However, that is the reality.  I face aggressive fact-free allegations like the ones above.  In every major academic study since 1994 (per Ireland as a tax haven), Ireland has featured as one of the biggest tax havens.  However, the IDA Ireland line is that the OECD doesn't consider Ireland to be a tax haven (which is true, and I note this), yet they forget to mention that the OECD only consider Trinidad and Tobago to be a tax haven (they must be truly awful).  The Tax haven article, before I came to it, had a whole section on the OECD definition of a tax haven (which I am guessing, but cannot prove) that the IDA Ireland paid for.  We even had an editor on the Tax haven article try to blank all reference to James R. Hines Jr., the "father" of tax haven research, and yet another 2013 IDA Ireland paper, written by two Irish State employees, and published in the Irish-state funded economic journal, tried to dismiss Hines as an insignificant figure in tax (no real economic journal would have published this article) (covered here) The Irish State and IDA heavily quote the OECD and the 2013 piece as "independent academic research" even though they wrote it in their own sponsored journal. see here here
 * I am not a perfect editor and I am sure I have written my share of poor content; however, I think my work improves WP, and should be interesting to readers (including Irish readers). I appreciate and am thankful for the kind sentiments expressed by many editors above, and hope the community will help me with these articles when the pitchforks and torches arrive again.
 * Britishfinance (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I have made my comments already, and would like to leave ANI to the administrators, as I've managed to do for more than a decade, but one comment above needs to be addressed, as it is an unjustifiable piece of exaggeration. There is a claim "This editor's activities have been so egregious it's now become a subject of a national media controversy." This is total nonsense. There was a report in a good but minority paper, the Sunday Business Post, followed up by a few lines in the paper of record, the Irish Times, and a modest report in the Times of London, and all of these were at least as much about the IDA-related paid editing as Britishfinance. I can assure you that this matter is not the subject of national debate, not a word of it around the dinner tables of Dublin. By all means let's work to make the articles on important economic topics even better, and ensure balance, but let's stop what looks suspiciously like targeted harassment by outsiders. The volunteer community, as someone said above, is well able to review the work of any editor. And bodies like IDA Ireland have real and important work to do.SeoR (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I started this thread because I thought that the community should look into these allegations in more detail. Over the last couple of days, it seems to me that that has happened - Britishfinance's contributions have been reviewed by various experienced editors, and nobody aside from Renmap0o and the 37.228 IPs seem to think that there is are any PAID or COI issues surrounding Britishfinance's work - that seems to have been dealt with. Nearly Headless Nick thinks that the articles could be reviewed for NPOV issues - that's fine, it can happen in the background, we don't need an ANI thread for it. The only outstanding problem, then, is the continued allegations of bias, edit warring and gaming the system being levelled against Britishfinance. I propose that this thread be closed, with a warning to these editors that unless they have any new evidence to bring to light, they should stop this immediately. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  13:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m happy for it to be closed too. I no longer think its paid and didn't open the discussion here. There may or may not be COI, but I don’t know how that can be proved. I am certain of bias and gaming the system, but I realise this is the wrong approach. and, I agree that the allegations need to be backed by evidence and have nothing further to say on the matter for now. I have been going through it systematically to establish a clear pattern along with evidence and examples of the process that's was used. Its a lot of work (hence why I didn't do this in the beginning) and will take a few days at least. If it's being reviewed, in the interests of fairness, could someone look at the evidence/examples I’ve gathered showing how it's been done/gamed, even if its in a private setting? Renmap0o 14:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * In response to ping - thanks for the calm approach. Certainly we can all study, and more heads at least sometimes provides more wisdom, and always more context, so by all means, let us look. To be transparent, I do not believe that there has been any CoI, or any great conspiracy going on, and as an ordinary Irish citizen who tries to follow business and current affairs, I am well aware of these matters at a superficial level over more than 20 years, and have seen the good and bad of national promotion, and hope I can use these all to provide perspective. I look forward to "seeing" all involved on the relevant pages, beavering away.SeoR (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this had been a very unfair process. An editor with just a handful of edits (despite their skills) walks into WP, blanks sections of articles with nothing other than an allegation that User:"Britishfinance", most likely a political organisation attempting to manipulate the information by targeting a certain country and presenting one-sided information, and then tries to delete other articles.  They make wild allegations and completely false statements (both about me, and about subject matter, per above), and other "IP-editors" appear with the same allegations.  One administrator raised past POV issues, however, they never explained that I had gone to great lengths to answer these past POV allegations (per Talk:Ireland as a tax haven/Archive 1) showing that there was no POV (as I said above, not only where their refs in the article, but their refs actually disproved the IP-editor making the POV allegation).  In addition, they then raised "serious issues" at Talk:Ireland as a tax haven. I have responded to all 15 of these "serious issues" raised.  I would love other experienced editors to look at the 15 issues and my response and tell me if they are "serious" and that I have major POV issues.  What is the incentive for a volunteer to keep doing this? Britishfinance (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Britishfinance I sympathise with your feelings of unfairness - I think it's very disappointing that Renmap0o is still making allegations in their last post despite everything that has been said. Renmap0o, I don't know whether anyone has pointed you towards WP:AGF yet, but if you haven't read it, now would be a good time. I'm going to formally propose that this be closed with a warning to Renmap0o and the IPs about these ongoing aspersions. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal
This thread be closed with no findings of any PAID, COI or bad faith editing by Britishfinance based on any evidence presented. Renmap0o and anonymous editors from 37.228 IP addresses are warned to stop casting aspersions about Britishfinance's editing. They may work on the articles in question and discuss them on the articles' talk pages, but any discussion must focus on improvements to the content, not on Britishfinance or their motives.
 * Support as nom Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: with thanks to Britishfinance for patience with all this, and all that good editing and time given to the project.SeoR (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: I'm left with the opinion some people are conspiring to play games here on this ANI. Peoples will undoubtably have been checking the geolocates of the anon. IP's and one resolving to a VPN IP in Russia might just be a co-incidental or might be deliberate but at a simplistic level its just adding to the fog or complex conspiracy theories.  With Britishfinance we seem to have sustained openly auditable contributions over a longish period giving good provenance.  I'll confess I feel a bit for Britishfinance as they got a bit a bit of a rough ride at a recent AfD trying to to a WP:HEY and I'm inclined to think a few too many lesser quality references were used and content a little over-egged but that was a bio rather than the articles we have here.  Not a great argument and I like SeoR's reasoning better.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I hope there is no more sustained work by any outside "force." I don't put too much weight on IP checks, with so many people using VPNs for various reasons, often no more than accessing more or cheaper content than available locally - my daughter's tablet, for example, which I used recently, routes via various strange places, depending on what she wants to watch - but there is a little too much editing of the Irish tax-related articles from a series of Irish IP addresses, and I would be disappointed if these turned out to be those of an Irish State agency or its' communications contractors.SeoR (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support as a common sense end to what looked like an externally-triggered witch-hunt. I think I must address a point here also. Both Djm-leighpark and SeoR have raised points about "IP editors". There is also a little bias about edits from Ireland and Russia. I'm sure there are issues, including some dirty tricks by tax-deal promoters. But guys, unless I misremember, the majority of Wikipedia edits are made by anonymous editors weighing in on their areas of interest. One of you is around since 2009, the other 2017, I seem to see. But I, for example, have been editing since maybe 2005. On and off, from dozens of countries. Mostly, I like to think, helping. So don't knock those of us who don't choose to have an account which someone, somewhere might track. Our hotel, café or mall IPs could be anyone, and that has value too.185.68.145.229 (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @185.68.145.229 I yield to your comments noting how you have made assumptions (actually but not necessarily correct) about the length of my contribution history based on publicly visible held information on my account which you have used. I however at am the disadvantage as I have to good faith rely on your comments of the length of contribution history (which seems credible) and the quality of an individual set of edits.  If in attempting to indicate the increased difficulties because of lack of provenance with anon IP's I appeared to scummer anon IPs them then I apologise.   Both anon IP's and short life accounts appear to be often used by the little people.  But at one point I too had an account with short life and would use an anon IP if on for example a public library computer ... Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @185.68.145.229 And while this may be off-topic, I answer too, as the last thing I want to do, especially in the context of this business, is to put off any contributor. I believe in an inclusive and expansive Wikipedia, and I know there are many reasons people edit without an account. As it happens, as with djm-leighpark above, I registered pretty much from the start, but to each their own. In this case, I hope it was clear that I was only disturbed by certain specific bad editing actors (even then, I accept that they may have thought they were acting in some "national interest" - I would disagree - but we disallow such behaviour because of the need for consistent and fair policy, not ideology). Wikipedia is not going to be the source of solutions for corporate tax games, or personal ones, executive pay disparity, wealth distribution, or any such topics, to be valuable it must remain a neutral source for all. So please, whoever and wherever you are, do keep contributing!SeoR (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a note on what may be a first for this page. The Times has quoted this section:
 * "By the end of the week, Wikipedia administrators proposed that a discussion thread about Britishfinance be closed with “no findings” of any paid, conflict-of-interest or bad-faith editing by Britishfinance."

- The Times
 * Perhaps this page could get its own logo As seen in The Times.
 * (Sorry for the joke) This is actually a serious matter - suggestions that a Wikipedia editor is paid and acting improperly - made by a government agency which itself has done clearly improper paid editing on Wikipedia. Perhaps we can modify the conclusion here to report that the accuser, IDA, has engaged in "paid, conflict-of-interest and/or bad-faith editing". See User talk:IDAComms and User:Corecontent. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a little bit serious, yes. And, while respecting all IP edit contributions, it would be good to clarify if the two 37.228 addresses above (243.242, etc.) are "one voice" as they seem to be. Meantime, another address, perhaps someone quite different (there must be many addresses in the set), 37.228.255.113, made some surprising edits to the article on Ireland's Taoiseach (Prime Minister), dragging in the "Tax Haven issue" at a time when other topics would be far more acute and obvious. I really hope we can resume normal editing on this important area of topics, and on all the other topics Ireland offers for editing.178.176.23.66 (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I see someone beat me to the point, as I was going to mention here that in the course of normal article watching, I bumped into the "tax haven question" on the Leo Varadkar page, and it turned out it had some history. Which could be someone "setting up a controversy" - or an entirely innocent coincidence. A 37.228 address, as referenced by Girth Summit, but I have no way of telling if it was connected to any other such address. But no need for repetition then. Good observation, I had not noticed that the 37.228's in this discussion were not consistent, and had just assumed they were a single person. I must be more attentive. But for now I am going to continue my regular project work. albeit I'll keep my eyes peeled for 37.228 for a while.SeoR (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If I understand the quote above from The Times referring to wikipedia administrators to be accurate (I haven't registered to read it) I would note that that none of the current participants in the proposal (to close) subsection actually appear to be wikipedia administrators ... Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed - for the benefit of any journalists who might be reading this, I am not an administrator - I'm an ordinary user, who started this thread because of I was concerned about the allegations, but felt ill-equipped to look into them myself. They have now been investigated by users experienced in these matters, and no issues have been brought to light - hence my proposal to close. I'm available for interviews, but lunch is on you. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  19:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – what a waste of Times. With thanks to GS for bringing this to the community's attention and to BF for their contributions to the encyclopedia. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 19:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The above affair even reached The Washington Post today, and I think again reflects on the quality of the articles in question (it is written by an Irish professor): Ireland is a tax haven — and that’s becoming controversial at home. Is it too late to include this into the above ANI record as a final comment? Britishfinance (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

IP range harassing users
A number of IPs from the same area have been harassing User:Garchy and User:Bbb23 for several months. The talk page posts are particularly offensive, including false use of the deceased template. I'm not sure whether some sort of rangeblock, and/or protecting User talk:Garchy, would be best. (User:El C protected User talk:Bbb23 last week.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I wonder if this is the same user who's been attempting to impersonate Bbb23 these past few weeks? —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i> v^_^v  Bori! 06:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's an indefinitely blocked editor who has been a constant pain ever since his block. Commenting on IP block evasion is awkward as a checkuser, so that's about all I can say.  If it gets out of hand the range is 2600:1011:B100::/40. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

user:Manabimasu
Someone please block user:Manabimasu and undo his dozens of disruptive redirect changes to Roman Catholic Church topics, being done without discussion and against stable primary topic redirects. He is doing them faster than I can keep up. I reverted some, he reverted right back. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, I am requesting a moderator. I was redirecting multiple pages to the disambiguation page. Can I have chance to voice my edits? In other words, may there be a arbitration on this matter? I have put it on the talk page. I have not changed the content only redirects to the page. Please I want to be civil.Manabimasu (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You have changed dozens of long-time stable redirects against previous consensus, and are edit-warring against changes back. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I have not violated the 3 revert rule and I have stopped. Please be civil. I initiated discussion before doing the changes. I do not know how consensus is done on wikipedia. I put my topic in the Talk Page. Also, to Hyperbolick, I hinted that we could go to the arbitration committee in my talk page. You escalated it quickly. I appreciate that you are looking out for Wikipedia. I was willing to go to arbitration. Why did you threaten to block me in Talk? Let us be civil. Manabimasu (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Undo your remaining link changes. They continue to violate WP:INTDABLINK. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I rollbacked those changes as I feel (mass) redirection to the dab page is against long-standing consensus. My suggestion would be to further evaluate what the consensus is on the talk page of Catholic Church or in another centralized venue. El_C 02:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Ok, Thank you for your civil response. El_C. Manabimasu (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Just noting the humour of two consecutive threads about Japanese sockpuppetry (or at least, sockpuppets with Japanese usernames) showing up apparently spontaneously. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not accusing sockpuppetry. Just contentiously bad editing. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPA/WP:CIV review for a comment
User:Djm-leighpark made a surprising and rather unfriendly comment here. I've asked him to self-revert it since it seems to me like a clear AFG/NPA violation that also sets a negative tone for the subsequent discussion at that AfD. He refused and told me to report him to WP:ANI:. So, well, here I am asking for a review of this. If he doesn't want to blank/WP:REFACTOR this himself, I hope someone else can deal with this. I know we get stressed and whatever, but if one doesn't want to refactor/withdraw from flaming themselves, well, that's why we have you (the admin corps), earning the big wikibucks, right? :) PS. User has been notified . --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * On the continuum of incivility, this is barely registers. It's not the most friendly comment, but it hardly merits any meaningful response... -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Case of WP:NOTHERE
is frequently calling other editors terrorists and his other edits and user page appear to be a case of WP:NOTHERE. Having his account created hardly four days ago, it is likely that he is not even a new editor but a sockpuppet account.

--RaviC (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked for WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Victor sunsay: nationalist pushing, casting aspersions, and NOTHERE
This person so far has made 136 edits, most of which are related to the sensitive issue of Kiev vs Kyiv. I never came across them before, and today, when I saw them at Talk:Kiev, I thought they are asking a genuine question and tried to provide an answer. Instead, they started to directly attack me (apparently based on the info that my mothertongue is Russian) and at this point posted there a "warning" to other user that "my" president Putin attacked Ukraine - this is despite me telling them I am not Russian. Even if I were Russian, this behavior would not be acceptable, and currently it is not just unacceptable, it additionally misses the point. I saw that they attacked other users at their talk page. Could we please do smth about this please. I am slowly getting used to that I can be attacked at any moment on the only basis that my mothertongue is Russian, but I am still having difficulties accepting that such attacks are ok.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Now they called me a "dirty liar" --Ymblanter (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have blocked Victor sunsay for 31 hours for personal attacks/harassment. I have made it clear that resumption of this behavior will result in longer blocks. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  15:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've also dropped the ARBEE DS notice on their TP with a few more hints. If this continues after the block expires, AE is probably the right forum.  GoldenRing (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I owe you an apology here. Victor sunsay was arguing about propaganda on their talk page, and I quoted WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS (albeit with a typo, I said Write and not Right, oops). I asked them to start a discussion on the talk page of Kiev if they had an issue and gain consensus. I clearly did not expect it to go down this rabbit hole. Once again, I'm sorry for the abuse you had to put up with. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem, you do not need to apologize. If their goal is to contribute to creation of encyclopedia, they definitely had many chances to reflect on what many users told them in response to their quieries. They in fact still have a chance to start constructive editing after their current block expires. If they have a different goal, they simply should not be editing. You gave them a good advise, and they had a chance to use it.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

User won't stop adding flag icons to infoboxes which violate MOS
Hello, I'm relatively new to this process.

User:Luis dani palago is persistent in his attempts to add flag icons and other useless info to infoboxes in articles. See: history of the La Voz (Mexican TV series) page. Can an administrator please do something about him? I learned about this from who posted the question in the Teahouse. Actually, I should have just posted his original thread:

— BladeRikWr  22:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I initially blocked for 24 hours, but reconsidered when I saw they are a blocked vandal from eswiki. So, they are either here to continue vandalizing, or they aren't here in bad faith but they lack the competency to communicate in English or willingness to heed communications, which are both things that are required. So, blocked indef per WP:NOTHERE/WP:CIR. ~Swarm~  {sting} 22:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Swarm. Much appreciated. — BladeRikWr  22:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Personnel section changes again, North Italy IPs
As reported two months ago at North Italy IPs making changes to music personnel, IPs in the range Special:Contributions/213.213.29.115/21 have been making a lot of unsupported changes to personnel sections. An example from yesterday is adding Clapton to the guitarist list, even though the album credits do not list Clapton. This guy should be stopped. Binksternet (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Special:Contributions/213.213.29.115/21 for one month. Let me know if the problem continues. This looks to be hundreds of edits per month, and at first glance everything in the range is by the same guy. Since there appears to be no effort to source any of these changes, the behavior can be considered vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Restoration of Clarice Phelps
The Clarice Phelps article has been recreated again, this time via an admin restoration that over-rides a prior salting. The admin in question is, there have been two prior deletions and a DRV under that title, and another one under Clarice E. Phelps. I can't see where Rama approached the previous involved admins. What to do? - Sitush (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Arbcom, case by motion, summary desysopping for wheel-warring. ——  SerialNumber  54129  08:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am afraid this is indeed a straightforward ArbCom case.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd support the above motion. Overruling two AfDs resulting in two speedy deletions and a salting of the article because "I said so" is incompatible with the bare minimum expectation that an admin should be held to. It's admins with these attitudes that worsen the prospects of valuable editors at RfA because they show us that you with the tools shouldn't be trusted. That said, keep the damn article. If we can have an article on a common wench and petty criminal from 19th century Wales then surely there's some space on the server for a nuclear scientist who is doing something for society. Yeah, yeah "otherstuff" – clearly I don't care. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is, the recent coverage is based on op-ed stuff written by Wikipedians and I rather think some of the sprawl that has followed is perpetuating errors of fact or interpretation made in the original article. We're in danger of legitimising a CIRCULAR here and keeping the restored article in defiance of usual procedure runs the risk of legitimising rogue admin actions to Right Great Wrongs. - Sitush (talk) 09:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Obvious wheel-warring. Lectonar (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources aren't independent of Wikipedia, and regardless aren't WP:SUSTAINED in relations to the WP:BLP1E of Wikipedia deletion of Clarice Phelps. As for the undeletion - should got to ARBCOM - Rama knew what they were doing - their edit summary when undeleting was "Evidently notable, deletion of the article is a major embarassement for Wikipedia : https://undark.org/2019/04/25/wikipedia-diversity-problem/".Icewhiz (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that . I'm happy for consensus to be enforced and the article redeleted until or unless new evidence and/or further discussion concludes otherwise. Take my comment about keeping the article as a !vote in the wrong forum, and as voicing some frustration with the bizarre inconsistencies of Wikipedia. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Explanation for third parties: I was not involved in this article until I became aware of its deletion from a press article. The article in question makes a convincing case that the article is victim of an unfortunately selective enforcement of notability criteria, and is an embarrasment to Wikipedia. The biography was already well-sourced before its deletion, and is now almost notable from press articles about its deletion alone. Wikipedia is known to have a problematic gender gap, insufficient coverage of minorities, and recently Katie Bouman's case has been indicative of deliberate attempts on the general Internet at minimising the contributions of women in science.

My undeletion of Clarice Phelps's biography is an emergency measure to answer criticism in the press and show Wikipedia to be responsive, responsible, and capable of correcting mistakes quickly. I understand that this disregards the previous Deletion Requests, but doing otherwise would amount to a dismissive and defiant "Wikipedia is not for Social Justice" attitude, which would be irresponsible and deeply suspicious. Rama (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Rama, either you redelete it and go to DRV, or you don't and will get desysopped at ArbCom. This is not an emergency (in the sense of a compromised admin account or the like, or having information which actively and unjustly harms a BLP), this is a knee-jerk reaction to limited press coverage which could easily have followed normal procedures. Fram (talk) 09:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Rama there is no emergency. Do you think nobody else in this debate is aware of the coverage to which you refer? AFAIK we don't change our processes just because someone in the press misunderstands the way Wikipedia's notability rules work (essentially they are shooting the messenger because our failure to cover Phelps is simply reflective of the wider world's failure to do so). While I can perhaps assume good faith that you believed there was a necessity to act, let me tell you now that your assessment is incorrect. You have overridden the repeated actions of other admins and the community's consensus based on your own opinions, and unfortunately that will likely lead to an escalation unless you revert yourself. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ...as opposed to contesting the deletion and generally doubling down, I guess... ——  SerialNumber  54129  09:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If there is no emergency, why the Speedy Deletion request? Rama (talk) 09:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Because that's the proper process. Speedies aren't for emergencies, they are for situations where policy is obvious. Which seems to be the case here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "they are shooting the messenger because our failure to cover Phelps is simply reflective of the wider world's failure to do so" — there are TWENTY-EIGHT references in the article. Rama (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Rama please don't fall on your sword. El_C 09:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I am in agreement with Fram's recommendation and observation. The proper process to restore this article would have been through DRV, or otherwise allowing reasonable time prior to re-visiting re-creation. — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  09:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Case request sent to ARBCOM Nosebagbear (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Before this is closed, it should be said that it is not correct to say there was consensus to salt. There was not; it was a unilateral admin action. The second AfD was only open for 8 hours and multiple people (myself included) argued against salting. There has been only one AfD–the first–which was upheld at DRV, but there have since been multiple new RSes published about Phelps. I don't see how this is "wheel warring", since it's the second admin action and not the third. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 14:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm just popping in briefly here as I have a very busy day in real life. But I have to say something as I think it would be a real shame to see you lose your admin bit over this. I'm not offering any opinion on the Clarice Phelps article, and that's the point - when it comes to admin action, we absolutely must not implement our own personal opinions. Admins have *no jurisdiction whatsoever* over content decisions, and we are also forbidden from overturning community decisions based on our own reasoning. That includes not being allowed to unilaterally reverse the result of an AFD or a DRV. Whatever your (or my) opinion of the article itself, you abused your admin tools by using them to override a community consensus with your own decision - and that's breaking a pretty hard and fast rule. I know you did it in good faith, but you're simply not allowed to. I urge to to reconsider your action and make amends before it's too late. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Arbcom

 * ArbCom case now filed. Iffy★Chat -- 09:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

DreamHost revdel request
Not sure if this is the right venue, but can I request a revdel for this edit at DreamHost, please? -- Scjessey (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  12:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, NJA. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Has been done, see above; next time please follow this- Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Aah! Will do. Thank you, Lectonar. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Another Competence block requested
is mass creating CSD articles. Can someone put him on a stool in the corner? <b style="color:#F00">D</b><b style="color:#F60">u</b><b style="color:#090">s</b><b style="color:#00F">t</b><b style="color:#60C">i</b>*Let's talk!* 04:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have blocked them &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

LTA of Rogers Communications

 * Any many other article that suffered from English and date format variation vandal
 * Previous ANIs:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive981
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1005
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive981
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1005

Every time after the unblock of the IP LTA from the ISP Rogers Communications, the vandal made the same English variant vandalism again and again as well as for example changing the company name to hoax. For example, on the name of Cathay Pacific, the ip vandalized the name on 2 April, blocked for 3 days, and then after the expiration of the block, vandalized again (Special:Diff/891423678). The ip was blocked for 2 weeks, and then the block expired again. And again on 24 April the same vandalism Special:Diff/893977769. Please advice a more meaningful way to stop him/her from making any more vandalism. Matthew hk (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Per WP:DENY i don't think he need ANI-notice, so i did not send the msg to him. Matthew hk (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Changing "Marsh Harbour" to "Marsh Harbor" in Marsh Harbour Airport is amazing. Shenme (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * To be fair, Marsh Harbour or are both used in the media . So, sometimes hard to tell the LTA edit is legit or not (.e.g. his edit in Marsh Harbour Airport in March).


 * However, the most recent edit after the expire of the block are almost all EngVar and date format related:
 * Special:Diff/894086151 company name vandal on Spring Airlines on 25 April
 * Special:Diff/894275822 rarely legit edit on changing date to mdy at Fort Lauderdale–Hollywood International Airport, Florida, United States
 * Special:Diff/894277838 changing to mdy for a Japanese airport, Narita International Airport
 * Special:Diff/894278263, ditto at Haneda Airport, Japan
 * Special:Diff/894278746 ditto at a Warsaw airport, Poland
 * Special:Diff/894615571 EngVar at SriLankan Airlines
 * Special:Diff/894730457 EngVar at cubic zirconia
 * Special:Diff/894771464 EngVar at Toronto Pearson International Airport, Canada
 * Special:Diff/894772757 changing to mdy for a Korean airport, Incheon International Airport


 * Since also, the LTA received uw-lang yet again on 29 April 2019, it seem counter-productive of assuming GF and not knowing the policy Manual_of_Style existed. Matthew hk (talk) 05:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Something odd
I am not sure what is going on but has just moved 's talk page. I tried moving it back but may have messed it up. Any help will be appreciated. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 05:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have moved the page back and issued a final warning to Xtremedranzer. Favonian (talk) 05:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you . MarnetteD&#124;Talk 05:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Naruhito page moves
There's currently a requested move dicussion in progress at Naruhito, Crown Prince of Japan. Someone removed the template from the article, and others have moved it a couple of times already, currently to Emperor Naruhito of Japan. I don't know whether to move it back, request move protection, or what... It's not entirely clear whether he became Emperor at midnight (15:00 GMT), or whether that happens at the accession ceremony tomorrow morning. In any case, there seems to be a reasonable consensus that the new name should be simply Naruhito, whenever it's changed. Advice? --IamNotU (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see why this page shouldn't be simply moved to Naruhito. That name is correct, whatever the precise time of his accession to the throne may be. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussion has been closed by an admin and the page has been moved according to consensus, we're done here, thanks! --IamNotU (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

User:MarchOrDie personal attack
On 01:37, 1 May 2019 UTC I reported User:MarchOrDie for violating active community sanctions WP:GS/ISIL on the 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings article. In response to my notice to him about the report that was filed aginst his violation, he called me a "wanker" on his talk page -- Eng. M.Bandara <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:Black">-Talk  22:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * He didn't call you a wanker, he said it was a "wanker's move" to report instead of using the talk page. I think the editor was probably unaware of 1RR and upset that we was getting reported for what seems to be a good-faith removal of poorly sourced and unnecessary (WP:WEIGHT) content (listing 10 landmarks that were lit up just clutters an important article with useless information). SWL36 (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Seeing as I filed the report he is insinuating the personal attack towards me. The content is irrelevant, I reported him for vioating active community sanctions and he called me wanker for doing so. -- Eng. M.Bandara <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:Black">-Talk  23:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Questionable changes
I have noticed an editor, Burscrave, has made about two hundred changes in the last five days with no edit summaries and most seem to have no good reason. For example, changing the CONVERT template to CVT and removing abbr-on so the end result is no changes in the rendered output. I think someone should take a closer look at this activity. At the least it clutters up watchlists and my spot-checking shows at least some have already been reverted. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 04:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to make checking on this easier . MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The first step would usually be to discuss your issues with the editor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have asked the user to stop altering double spacing. - DVdm (talk) 10:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This looks very much like an effort to build up the edit count required to achieve extended confirmed status. It will be interesting to see if this editor steps into areas where that status is required once the 30 days/500 edits target is achieved. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Checkuser blocked by Bbb23.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Specialized in removing excess whitespace . - DVdm (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Sinovoip


User:Sinovoip has a clear COI regarding [ http://www.sinovoip.com.cn/ecpzs.asp ]. I noticed that their userpage was deleted under U5, so I asked for a copy of the deleted page. Big shock: More COI. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I gave Sinovoip an indefinite soft username block. They have only made three edits in the past six months. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  17:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Prema Sridevi
The article on Prema Sridevi's claims of significance are that she is the first journalist to get a few docs regarding the cases she's been reporting. The claims though are on youtube videos posted by the company that employed her at that time : Times group, thus a primary source. The reason why I believe its not credible is because -
 * 1. Times group usually leans bit towards sensationalization.
 * 2. The videos start with the words "Exclusive reports by our debutee reporter Prema Sridevi", the issue here is all news channels do that with all their reporting and investigative journalists.

I posted this here because another user who is not the creator keeps removing my CSD tags, so it would be helpful if an admin looks at the article.


 * P.S: the creator of the article has been given a UPE warning, and the article was made without responding to those.

Daiyusha (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * An editor has contested the speedy deletion in good faith. The response to that is not to edit war and then report that editor at ANI. If this report results in anything then that should be a WP:BOOMERANG against the poster for edit warring. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , nominating this article for A7 is soundly inappropriate as working for The Times Group clearly establishes significance. If you feel the article's subject falls short of our notability guidelines, WP:AFD is thataway. Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  16:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would add that the statement, "another user who is not the creator keeps removing my CSD tags", is an admission of edit warring. It would not be possible for anyone to keep reverting you if you didn't keep reverting them. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Sridevi left Times Now and subsequently joined Arnab Goswami's Republic where two of stories she covered, one on Robert Vadra and the other on Shashi Tharoor drew significant coverage, ultimately resulting in Vadra suing both the channel and Sridevi while the Times Group sued Sridevi and Goswami for theft of intellectual property. Clearly, this topic is beyond a CSD. While notability, no doubt, still remains an important factor, the article doesn't qualify for wither a CSD or a PROD. If there are still doubts about the notability, please take it to an AfD. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft blacklist
Draft:High-ranking Ottoman officials, who were assassinated by agents of "Committee of Union and Progress" (CUP) in 1915 was repeatedly recreated and repeatedly deleted and then salted for being an unambiguous copyright violation. Now, the similarly-named Draft:Ottoman high-ranking officials, who were assassinated by agents of "Committee of Union and Progress" (CUP) in 1915 is being recreated, and it's a copyright violation. The user who created the latest one doesn't seem to have a talk page, and the script usually leaves a message about deletion, so it appears that there are several accounts involved (although I could be wrong, I can't see the deleted edits). Please could an admin add "Draft:High-ranking Ottoman officials..." to the title blacklist as whoever's behind this doesn't seem to be getting the message? Thanks,  SITH   (talk)   20:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've blocked and requested a global lock. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Admin Abuse
I have no idea if I'm in the correct place to report Admin Abuse. I tried to follow the instructions for reporting, but I got so confused I don't know what's up or down. I hope I'm in the correct place. If not, I apologize. (I was directed here a moment ago by a courteous admin, so I "think" I'm in the correct place)

Since I am a mere layman (computer idiot) I have tried to add an article about an influential person. Instead of receiving help (except for one nice Admin who said: "Hello and thank you for participating in Wikipedia. It looks like you got a pretty rough welcome! The standard mantra is Don't bite the newbies but that's theory and not always practice") ... I have been called names, been belittled for not "knowing what I was doing" formatting, etc and have been told outright to "deal with it".

I have been nothing but kind and courteous to ALL admins and have posed sincere questions on receiving some kind of help. I have sat on recreating this article for 10 years as being humiliated doesn't strike my fancy. Again, I know nothing about how to professionally create on Wikipedia. I don't understand all the {{ and [[ and :: and )) et al.

Why is it so difficult for a layman to post an create/edit/update an article? The only "training" I have is TYPE and hit ENTER.

If someone...anyone could help me without the holier than thou attitude and name calling, I would be SO appreciative.

I'm going to try once again to create the page for Finney Ross: Master Leathersmith for the Rodeo Cowboy Association for 40 years. (Precursor to the PRCA) and Master Knife Maker.

If anyone could render some assistance, I will be absolutely grateful.

Thank you very much, Todd Davis Vintagedirtbiker (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My advice would be not to. The article's been deleted so many times that at this point it may result in your account being labelled a so called "single purpose account", which puts you in the cross hairs for a block. You may also want to check out WikiProject Military history/Academy, its set up for those editing military history articles, but the information is relevant to various degrees for other articles. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you here complaining about something that happened in 2011? —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i> v^_^v  {{sup| Bori! }} 23:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jéské Couriano for you kindness,understanding and courtesy. You are the "type" I was speaking about.

Todd DavisVintagedirtbiker (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be rude. AN/I is generally for things that are happening in the here and now. An incident that happened in 2011 isn't something that we can really deal with today, especially without links to the specific diffs where you were insulted or attacked. And odds are, with there being about 8 years between the incident and today, said admin could very well be blocked, have lost their tools, or left the project. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i> v^_^v  {{sup| Bori! }} 03:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see any abuse by admins — but if you have evidence, please feel free to compile it for us in the form of diffs. El_C 23:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * El_C,
 * I've been told it is all archived (whatever that means).
 * I took screen shots of everything. I'll be happy to send those to whomever would like to see them.
 * I just have no idea how to go about it. I clicked on DIFF and don't understand it.
 * Thank you,
 * Todd DavisVintagedirtbiker (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Vintagedirtbiker - A "diff" (short for "difference") is a link that shows the exact edit to an article or page containing the information you're talking about. You would look through the page's history, find the edit where the uncivil message was added, then compare the two changes. The URL in your browser that links to the resulting comparison page is the "diff" that we're looking for. For example: I just edited the Wikipedia Sandbox and added the word "TEST!" in order to show you what I'm talking about. Here's the diff here. If you click on it, it takes you to the difference comparison page where it shows that I added that test edit. A diff is simply the URL to the comparison page that shows exactly where the uncivil abuse you speak of was added. It helps us when you provide these, so that we can immediately navigate to exactly what you're talking about and without any confusion. Else, it would take others much longer to try and look for it... :-)  ~Oshwah~ {{sup|  (talk)  (contribs)  }}  02:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Everything is archived here. Go to the history of the page/s in question and try to trace the exact date of the respective revision you're after, click on it, then copy that link back here. It may not be that immediately-intuitive but it is fairly straightforward. El_C 02:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Vintagedirtbiker - I took a look through your user talk page and some of the history, and I don't see anywhere where other users are being uncivil to you and where you were "called names", "belittled", or where you were "told outright to 'deal with it'". Where exactly did this happen? Can you please provide me with diff links that show where this happened and who said these things to you? I don't want you to feel this way nor do I want users to be uncivil to you, but we can't assist you until you show us exactly where this happened.  ~Oshwah~ {{sup|  (talk)  (contribs)  }}  02:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This presumably is about Finney Ross. I assume the user feels they were beaten down with repeated deletions. That aside, it was deleted in 2011 because it failed verification. That's a long time, and I see nothing wrong with trying to re-create it now. You can start the article again at Draft:Finney Ross and apply for an WP:AfC review. Well, as long as things have changed since then (meaning, you can demonstrate the the subject is notable and the content is verifiable). No one is going to give you a hard time, don't worry. ~Swarm~  {{sup| {sting} }} 02:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * {{u|Vintagedirtbiker}}, when you file a report about "Admin abuse", the very first step is to name the adminstrator who abused you. Who was it? We can then hear that administrator's side of the story. This all seems to be about events of 8 to 11 years ago. Anyone interested can read Articles for deletion/Finney Ross to get an overview of the controversy. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  02:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Cullen328 - Thank you for the AFD link. I haven't read through it yet, but I would understand Vintagedirtbiker's thoughts and their disheartened feelings if they came from edits made to that AFD discussion. Some responses to AFDs and other similar discussions can come off as pretty harsh, discouraging, and even uncivil to new users when they're made by participants without keeping that thought in mind. I think that this ANI report should, if anything, be a good reminder to editors and participants in discussions: Your comments make more of an impact onto others than you realize (both good ones, as well as bad ones).  ~Oshwah~ {{sup|  (talk)  (contribs)  }}  03:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth I'm looking at edits made around the time of the AfD discussion (particularly around 07/08-Apr-2011) but I'm not finding anything. Could it be possible that it was on some deleted userpage? {{ping|Vintagedirtbiker}}, what was the name of the user who sent you the nastygram? —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i> v^_^v  {{sup| Bori! }} 03:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Personal attacks at talk:Patrick Moore
I have attempted to discuss this edit at User talk:Hob Gadling. As I said there I find the phrase Even if it were allowed, you are bad at it particularly unhelpful, but there are other problems with the post IMO.

You are moving further and further away from reality was part of a subsequent post. 

I don't want the user (or myself!) banned from the discussion. But I think it would be good to avoid these personal attacks. Is this unreasonable? Andrewa (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That looks pretty mild and nowhere near a personal attack. Is there some backstory I'm missing? What do you think someone should say if they believe persistent errors of logic are being presented on a talk page? The discussion seems to concern whether someone with a forestry PhD can be regarded as an expert in ecology and Hob Gadling's response (essentially, "no") seems fine. Johnuniq (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, so if I reply that (in my opinion) he is the one out of touch with reality, that would be OK? I recognise that while WP:NPA leaves no wiggle room, in practice it seems there's no longer any consensus to enforce it strictly.
 * The question under discussion is, does the PhD in any way make ecologist a better disambiguator than environmentalist? The RM is to move away from (environmentalist), and my proposal is (ecologist) as the new name, and I find the suggestion that the PhD is irrelevant bizarre... many reliable secondary sources (as well as primary ones such as Moore himself) call it in Ecology, and there's no such evidence to support the existing name. But that the PhD is irrelevant seems to me to be exactly what Hob Gadling and others are suggesting.
 * So it seems to me that they are the ones denying reality on this specific issue. Whether that's true or not, it's my honest opinion, so is it OK for me to express it there? (Not sure whether I will but if it's disapproved here I won't.) Andrewa (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry but the no personal attacks policy addresses stronger abuse than the two examples provided above. There is a strong disagreement and people will decorate their comments with insults but the ratio of comment-on-content to low-level-insults was good. I'm not saying the comments are desirable and I'm not saying their logic is sound. They just don't rise to a level where ANI action is required IMHO. It would be different if their every comment included a snide remark. This is not the place to discuss the issue but you might like to take a different approach and suggest that if the title Patrick Moore (environmentalist) would be appropriate when he was president of Greenpeace Canada, then it should be appropriate now, even if his opponents claim otherwise. Johnuniq (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, and thanks for your time. I'll reluctantly deal with these low-level PAs as I can... the perpetrator is leading with their chin IMO. And thanks, good point about the history. As no admin has even commented here, suggest we close this as no trouble found. Andrewa (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I need help in translations from Emglsh to English
My apologies for posting here for the second time in three days. I had an inspiring conversation with the user yesterday: Talk:Republic of Crimea. I suspect they do not speak English and use a machine translation. Today they added a nonsensical material into the Republic of Crimea and I reverted them. Now they have come to my talk page, User talk:Ymblanter, and I am completely lost. They are apparently asking me some questions using English workds but I completely do not understand the meaning, and, despite my explanations, they do not stop. Could someone help me please. I can of course just let it go as yesterday, but then they could return adding rubbish to the articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think what he was trying to say in the Crimea article is "Only Ukraine recognises human rights and is in compliance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights" (as opposed to other powers in Crimea which do not respect human rights). Here I'm connecting the two verb ideas (recognising and being in compliance) with an "and", but he apparently was asking if he could use a verbal adverb construction instead, with the "in compliance" part hanging off of the "recognize".
 * On your talk page, he's giving you a bit of grief in a joking manner, saying effectively "Dude, who made you sole arbiter of the English language? Where are your credentials? Where are your grammar books?" I would guess that he's an enthusiastic but somewhat unpolished student of english rather than someone using machine translation. Cheers, gnu 57 19:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this might be correct. (The article is about the Russian administrative division, but may be he did not get it).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Now they got engaged in posting complete nonsense on my talk page and would not atop even after being asked so.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I might AGF on the original content ("might" because I'm not going to bother spending enough time on it to really figure it out), but the subsequent posts have descended into either trolling or CIR,. in my opinion. Meters (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is indeed my estimation. For the time being they stopped, and provided they do not resume I am going to let the matter drop.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Absolute refusal of communication by Debi Prasad Misra
is back. Please see Administrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive1008 (and do something). Nardog (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Blocked for 1 month and watchlisted. ST47 (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

User talk:ThatIPGuy
User talk:ThatIPGuy had brought up an old issue that was dropped months ago on the Talk:Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019 film) article. The issue was to add the alternative title Godzilla II: King of the Monsters in the lead. The matter never reached a consensus and was dropped. The alternate title is already covered in the Release section of the article, so it's not like it's being ignored. Today, ThatIPGuy wished to restore it and even deliberately manipulated support to have consensus be in his favor, example here. I suspect ThatIPGuy created sock puppet accounts to further manipulate consensus in his favor, example here and here. The sock puppet accounts made edits identical to ThatIPGuy and have made no contributions to any other pages other than the Godzilla talk page and to voice support to ThatIPGuy's argument. Hasell94's contributions can be found here and KingZerox22's contributions can be found here. I tried being reasonable and the user has pulled sock puppets in turn. Armegon (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, well, he and the sockpuppets have been blocked for abusing multiple accounts so I guess that clears this up. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

RHaworth, again
Last year, I expressed disappointment and criticism at the conduct of over deletions, not so much over whether the deletion was justified but proper adherence to WP:ADMINACCT and by extension WP:CIVIL. In the past month I have spotted several issues, and I feel like I'm spending far too much time cleaning up after him and performing the necessary level of "customer service" to keep editors on board and active in the project.


 * Jeff Oster was deleted per WP:G4 despite being rewritten from scratch. The creator, asked for restoration and got given a canned message "I continue to be annoyed when somebody leaves a message to me about an article and provides no wikilink to the article. How do you expect me to read the article if you don't link to it?" My answer would be "Which of the two of you has more experience in the technical side of Wikipedia and should therefore be expected to provide support to the one who doesn't?" The response, "I'm getting really disappointed with trying to submit work to Wikipedia.  I'm trying to follow the rules and better document New Age artists, and once I get an article edited to the point where it is approved, it gets deleted. Does Wikipedia what to suppress new authors?" was somewhat predictable.
 * Articles for deletion/MyTicket.co.uk was closed as "delete" with just the nomination and no other !votes, to which I would normally expect a soft delete or a redirect. The subsequent creation of a redirect seems a bit odd (nobody asked for it at the AfD).
 * Draft:Víctor Manzanilla (now moved to Víctor Manzanilla Schaffer) was deleted by RHaworth, and restoration requested by See here. For some reason, RHaworth dug his heels in and refused to give a straight answer to GiantSnowman, so I restored it for him and added a few sources.
 * complained about the deletion of Threatin. See here. RHaworth's reply was "I should have ignored you both because neither of you is capable of providing a link." which got the response "You've been kind of unfriendly so excuse my lack of enthusiasm for replying". Elsewhere on this talk page archive I see comments from RHaworth such as "I and probably many other Wikipedians, view IP address editors as a very low life form" (see WP:IPHUMAN) and "Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no CoI thinks your company is notable and writes about it here" which he was specifically told not to say at the last ANI thread.
 * took exception to RHaworth deleting Vivian Li, saying, "Disappointed that you feel my efforts were deficient. As a Wikimedia UK volunteer, I was trying to encourage and support new editors (acknowledged in the article Talk page). I was racing against a speedy deletion (apologies for the typos - I had other things going on....), and now you tell me I am undeserving". See here. After I intervened, RHaworth did apologise.

I'm not saying the deletions were blatantly wrong or against policy - perhaps they were, perhaps they weren't, but I'm just completely unhappy that somebody can seemingly think that certain policies don't apply to them, when they would certainly cause an RfA to fail in today's climate. I admit my temper is fraying in this area, and I should probably just back out completely, but I don't really want to sit by and see new editors have a bad experience and quit. So somebody needs to look to see if there's anything we can do, and what a typical level of WP:ADMINACCT should be set at. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "I and probably many other Wikipedians, view IP address editors as a very low life form" - ooooh, I thought we weren't supposed to say that (just think it, as I do but have never stated).Smeat75 (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just on the Articles for deletion/MyTicket.co.uk AfD - another user tagged it for CSD while I was filling in the AfD proposal. The CSD tag was placed by the time I submitted the nomination, so the conflict was my bad, not theirs. I was pondering what to do for the best when RHaworth deleted the page; I didn't request the redirect, but in fairness it was probably appropriate (the website belonged to the company that it was redirected to). Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  16:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It sounds a reasonable compromise, sure; the issue is more the reply from RHaworth, which is the somewhat unhelpful "The discussion says "the result was delete" so why do you ask the question?". <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We all know that IPs are subhuman. Frequently, ANI is protected and we can not even post here. We all have IPs, you know. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I have anything to say here other than my disappointment on RHaworth's comments on IPs. Like I understand that some editors are against allowing IPs to be able to edit and I respect that opinion, but calling IPs as "very low life forms" seems too much. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 17:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I will add another issue to this thread: While Ephixa was still in draftspace, and a deletion review closed as "Accept draft", RHaworth declined a G6 request and salted the redirect as "trying to circumvent DRV". Seems like an obvious rush in not reading the full story before declining. Luckily, after discussion, we were able to accept the draft, but I still had the feeling the decline was rushed. I'm not saying he was wrong in declining the G6, though, I'm just disappointed in how it was handled. Jalen D. Folf   (talk)  17:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm sure if he's told to restrain himself from vocalising his views on IPs—shared, of course, by so many of his colleagues—then both he and us can get back to what we're here for...to paraphrase the OP :D   ——  SerialNumber  54129  18:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, I've questioned RHaworth's deletions several times over the past couple years, usually to no avail. I'd love to see an WP:ADMINACCT Arb Com case opened for RHaworth's conduct. I certainly don't have the time to present evidence here, but I would in a case request. This is an ongoing problem that doesn't look like it's ever going to be resolved otherwise, as the conduct since the "acknowledgment" in the previous thread has demonstrated. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've certainly on many occasions gone to remove the deletion tags from pages which appear to have been tagged in error, to find that RHaworth has deleted the page in question in the meantime. AGF and all that, but he's clearly just opening CAT:EX and CAT:CSD and hitting the "batch delete" button since there's no possible way he could actually be checking the articles and their histories in the time taken. (If you've ever wanted to see what 100 deletions in one minute looks like, here you go.) There are also some distinctly goofy log entries. I'm not sure if Arbcom is necessary—hopefully an "I'll slow down, take more care and stop being an asshole to other people" is all that's necessary—but just a skim over his talk page isn't promising. &#8209; Iridescent 19:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The last ANI thread was archived as RHaworth has acknowleged the communication issues and no futher action is required. Unfortunately, acknowledging is not the same as actually improving. I explicitly did not comment last year because he and I have distinctively different views on speedy deletion and I didn't want that to be the focus after Ritchie had mentioned it but I think Ritchie has demonstrated now that RHaworth is not willing to follow ADMINACCT regardless of his mistaken applications of the speedy deletion policy and thus I would welcome an ArbCom case to analyze his behavior if this (again) fails to sanction him. Regards So  Why  19:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And even if this did go to Arbcom, it would waste everyone's time, with the Arbs (eventually) coming back with the standard "RHaworth is admonished" line.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ritchie333, I am away from home at the moment without my usual display facilities. Please provide your own replies to messages on my user talk page which you consider are unsuitable and reply on my behalf to all the new messages there. I will study your responses and try and learn from your example.
 * Everybody else, is it sufficient for me to say that I accept my admonishment? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And why do you think that that's in any way sufficient? You have been disrupting Wikipedia for well over a decade by speedily deleting articles that don't remotely qualify for speedy deletion and by salting the titles when editors have tried to question your actions. I, for one, won't let this thread go until your obvious incompetency leads to your admin rights being removed. I'm about to go to bed now, so won't look up the diffs until tomorrow, but I would have thought that it's pretty obvious to anyone looking at your record that what I say is true. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - hi, firstly just an indication of interest specifically in diffs of retributive saltings tomorrow. Secondly, I feel that if it's just bad speedies, then I'd advocate a TBAN without a loss of general sysops rights. If there are true retributive saltings, then that's definitely cause for de-sysopping. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * RHaworth is an absolute gentleman compared to several other Admins I deal with regularly. I watch his talkpage and respond to requests from time to time. He is fast to delete when we are doing bulk CSDs like G13s and willing to restore based on any reasonable and sometimes unreasonable request. Not the Admin that needs ro be dragged here for a beating. Legacypac (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've got to say that I'm of the opposite opinion. RHaworth has been, IMO, the single most difficult admin I've dealt with (though I'll acknowledge there are one or two others who come from  time to time).  I'll fully admit that's over many years, not just since the last time this came to ANI.  But honestly I can tell when it's one of his deletions at DRV just from the deletion request.   My sense is that he gets overturned for really poor deletions pretty often.  And I've commonly seen him be really terse when dealing with others, especially new users and IPs.  It's not like I follow him, just go look at discussions related to DRVs he's involved in.  Is there a good/easy way to see how admins have faired at DRV?  I'd be willing to put together a list of the issues I've had if there is.  But I've no idea how to search for them. Hobit (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me also acknowledge that he does a lot of good work around here. No doubt. Hobit (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a minor comment: according to WP:NOQUORUM it is acceptable for the admin to close the discussion according to the nominator's suggestion. That is a hard, rather than soft, delete. That should generally be less common though. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 05:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * RH does excellent work, and is correct in his judgments as often as I am, or as anyone who does as much work as he does.  But since there is always the possibility of error (indeed, the certainty of making a few errors), it's unfair to new users to assume their objections do not need to be considered.  It's also unfair to the rest of us   who feel obliged to rescue rescuable articles and who have to deal with the new editors subsequently.  In past years, there were quite a few other admins acting similarly, and it seemed unreasonable to single him out among them, but the others have in general  either changed or left. I know it's hard to break a pattern, and I suggest we need patience while waiting for improvement. But I hope we really do  actually see improvement.  DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I broadly concur with DGG's comments. I note RHaworth has accepted his admonishment ... and I [AGF that means an attempt to improve communications towards current sysop/admin norms ... and I guess we will be back here if not.   Thread closure may be more productive than a Good Friday crucifixion of RAHaworth.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Me too. Those of us who dare to carry out deletions - almost always at the request of other contributors - expect and get considerable criticism. I don't see any reason for him to do more than apologise if he gets it wrong once in a while. Deb (talk) 08:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said at the top, "I'm not saying the deletions were blatantly wrong or against policy - perhaps they were, perhaps they weren't". That is not the purpose of this thread. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, when I said "gets it wrong", I did not mean to refer only to deletions but to general conduct. Deb (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * +1 I'm not, obviously, a clearer of backlogs—indeed, I'm more likely to cause them :)  but, notwithstanding that no-one's irreplaceable, I do wonder who exactly would do the work that RH does; not, it would seem, the admins currently calling for arbitration (103 G11s/U5s over their last 1500 collated deletions;, , ). Happy days!  :) Of course, no-one has to do anything they don't want to do, but a few pro rata errors are a small price, I think, to pay for the heavy lifting to be done while allowing the rest of us to wander the halls of enlighten/ment. I grant you that RH can be brusque; but he's never told anyone to fuck off, people—and there are a fair few admins who that can't be said of! They, I suggest, would justify an occasional outburst on the grounds that they are permanently dealing with vandals/socks/LTAs and other such unsavoury characters, and after all, if you sleep with dogs you rise with fleas. I expect RH's occasional terseness stems from much the same thing: permanently hearing the same thing over and over, most of the time from blatant spammers and Garage Bandists.Poor for the soul I'd imagine; rather RH than me. And, I suspect, rather RH than most/of/us/here right now...  ——  SerialNumber  54129  09:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The examples I gave above do not fit this pattern - do you really think Phil Bridger, Paul W and GiantSnowman are vandals, socks or LTAs? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Supercilious disingenuity. I was referring to mindsets, not individuals, as you well understand. And I was replying above to Deb, not you. ——  SerialNumber  54129  09:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Then you're arguing a Straw man. This thread is not about people who do a lot of CSD deletions, and it is certainly not meant to be a campaign against their excellent work. It's about a particular pattern of behaviour in which one admin has refused to engage with veteran editors on reasonable queries about deletions, and also exhibited WP:BITE behaviour towards other good faith newbies. You can't wave that one away just by saying there are lots of vandals and trolls out there. It's something that needs to be examined, and RHaworth needs to acknowledge that the examples presented above do not constitute satisfactory conduct and that they will do better in the future. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That being the case it would have been closed at the point where RH explicitly acknowledged so—over twelve hours ago. It wasn't. However, I note this discussion is relevant; I'd be personally tempted to suggest a moratorium on all but the most egregious (but how to define, naturally) incivility being brought her while a consensus is being established. If it is of course. ——  SerialNumber  54129  11:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "I and probably many other Wikipedians, view IP address editors as a very low life form" - ooooh, I thought we weren't supposed to say that (just think it, as I do but have never stated)." I don't see why. I go through my watchlist several times every week, and check what such editors are up to. Several of them are reverting vandalism, correcting typos, or using the talk page to mention errors and omissions. On the other hand several editors with signed names are vandalizing pages, trolling, and leaving misleading messages such as "fixed typo". Dimadick (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Try editing as an IP for a few days. I tried, making the same kinds of edits I normally do, and I was reverted without explanation and threatened with a block. IPs are treated that way, so it's reasonable to conclude that a lot of editors think of them that way. Guettarda (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding IP editors, I would encourage, and everyone else to read WP:HUMAN. Paul August &#9742; 23:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Quick comment on the Víctor Manzanilla Schaffer debacle seeing as I've being pinged here - this was a clearly notable article which was moved to draftspace for no reason and then he refused to answer questions about it. Very concerning conduct. GiantSnowman 12:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment RHaworth seems to have resumed activities although the last comment here is he was on limited capability device which I totally understand especially can understand especially given the Easter holiday period. Gets a WP:TROUT doing a CSD in a batch with a rate of about 10+/min on a page with a contest in progress from a person giving him support earlier in the thread.  To be fair there may be timing issues here and posting this here may influence matters.  This may of course be a godd faith attempt to help out while resources are light which I can totally appreciate. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I also need to WP:TROUT myself here for not simply removing the CSD notice first rather than writing on the take page which was the incorrect procedure for contesting the deletion by a not page owner (In haste hit the big button in lieu of carefully reading small print).Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I will observe quickly RHaworth has just restored the page in question and has been thanked by me for doing so.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Did he pull a userfied page from Meta in MA and then tag it for speedy deletion? Muthian (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am reasonably sure this was the incident mentioned at the top of the thread and which was probably the key triggering incident for the thread and to an extent has been implicitly acknowledged already by RHaworth.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * So, as the thread draws to a close, do we have any conclusion? A couple of people have suggested Arbcom, a couple have said that RHaworth has got the message, others are "meh". RHaworth has reached out to me, but I can't see the response is particularly conciliatory. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have been avoiding this issue for the last few days, because I believed that RHaworths incompetence was so obvious to anyone looking at his record that this would be settled without my having to offer any more evidence. It's very difficult for a non-admin to come up with diffs because nearly all of them would be to deleted articles, which I can't see.


 * Firstly I would note that this is not the first time that this admin has been brought to WP:ANI on these grounds, and he has previously promised to do better in the future but those promises have not been kept, so we should not just lie back and accept similar promises this time. I would also say that this thread should not just be concerned with incivility towards anyone who this admin seems to consider to be inferior to him, who are basically any non-admins and especially people who choose not to log in to edit or who are not experts in the technicalities of Wikimedia mark-up, but also about gross incompetence with speedy deletion, which I can't substantiate because of my inability to see deleted articles, but I have experienced many times over the years. He seems to just delete almost anything that's nominated (which, of course, would result in many correct decisions, because most nominations are correct) rather than check whether the articles actually meet speedy deletion criteria.


 * I have been editing for over a decade, mostly logging in but for a time without. On many occasions I have contested a speedy deletion, explaining in my edit summary why the speedy deletion tagging was incorrect, but found that an hour or two later the article was speedily deleted anyway without explanation. On nearly every such occasion the deleting admin was RHaworth. To address DGG's comment above making the claim that there is any equivalence between their approaches, on the one occasion when DGG was the deleting admin the deletion was immediately reverted with an apology, something that I have never seen from RHaworth.


 * The most recent occasion when RHaworth has disrupted my editing by inappropriately salting a title was at Manoj Paras. The subject of this article clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN, and I provided a source to confirm this, so I tried to revert RHaworth's move to user space per WP:BRD, but after I messed this up by forgetting to change the namespace in my move RHawarth salted the mainspace title. Going back many years, showing that this problem has been here for many years, I had a similar experience with Cheveley Park Stud. These are not just two isolated occurrences, but just the latest and earliest that I can remember where there is still some undeleted evidence available. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * For another recent example of inappropriate involved protection see Articles for deletion/Geometry of an algebraic curve. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The most recent CSD you contested that involved RHaworth was Great Dane Airlines on 15 April. The article as you saw it was tagged CSD A7 and the prose in its entirety was "Great Dane Airlines is a startup airline that is based in Aalborg, Denmark. It is due to launch its inaugural flight on 21 June 2019 to Dublin, Ireland." You declined the A7 and added a citation to the Irish Times. It was then deleted by RHaworth per CSD G11, with no further edits or tags. Houston, we have a problem. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. 's complete lack of silence here is also very concerning per WP:ADMINACCT... GiantSnowman 10:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Per a comment I've made elsewhere, I initially counselled against taking this to Arbcom. However, despite his claim that he's unable to respond at the ANI thread because "I am away from home at the moment without my usual display facilities" he's continuing to perform mass deletions (while he's not yet back to his 100-deletion-per-minute rate, he made 14 deletions in one minute just a couple of hours ago). He's also still batch-deleting without actually checking the articles he's deleting, unless he's going to try to justify deleting a page that has existed since 2009 and is unquestionably accurate (albeit of questionable appropriateness) as a "blatant hoax". I now consider his non-response to concerns a blatant case of ANI flu in an attempt to evade scrutiny (the alternative—that he doesn't have the technical ability to read the pages at present but is still running deletion scripts anyway—is even worse). &#8209; Iridescent 14:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * RHaworth's attitude towards editors who come to his talk page is not acceptable. I can't think of a more inappropriate analogy to a collaborative encyclopedia that anyone can edit than the petty point scoring and infantile back-and-froth that is the House of Commons, but apparently RHaworth thinks it is ok to state on his user page, I have a well-justified reputation for blunt speaking on talk pages. But such pages are not a vicar's tea party. I take my standards from parliamentary language - if a Speaker would allow it then I use it. Similarly his edit notice (which I see has just been nominated for deletion) says that he reserves the right to ignore messages from those to fail to correctly format a wikilink, even if they provide the link as a URL instead! This is incompatible with WP:ADMINACCT.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * RHaworth replies at last - and still away from base. Editing Wikipedia is a collaborative process. But collaborators may have differing views. If you see an action of mine that you disagree with, simply reverse it! Chances are that I will never notice or, if I do notice, I will accept it. If you don't have the relevant rights, ask Ritchie333, or any other admin to do it for you or request the change on my talk page.


 * I will make the following specific changes to my behaviour:
 * Insisting on wikilinks: I feel that in an, admittedly somewhat perverted way, I am helping the person to become a better Wikipedian. But I will change: as long as I can identify what the person is talking about, I will respond. (I had two cases recently of an IP address that had made no other edits making a complaint where it was totally impossible to work out what they were talking about!)
 * I will treat IP addresses as being just as human as logged-in users.
 * Regaring my mantra; "kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no CoI thinks you are notable and writes about you here". I really do not see what Ritchie333 is objectiong to but I will switch to the following. "When you become notable enough that other people write about you in third-party independent reliable sources, then someone with no CoI will be interested enough to come here and write your biography". (Based on a suggestion by DGG.)


 * Are there any other changes needed? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's one of "I'll slow down, take more care and stop being an asshole to other people" covered, but what about the other two? We wouldn't be having a discussion about your replies to people questioning your mistakes if you didn't keep abusing the batch-delete function to speedy delete everything that has been nominated for deletion without bothering to check for yourself if it had been tagged correctly. Per my comments elsewhere, my allegation would be trivially easy to refute were I wrong, as even if we very generously assume that only one in 50 taggings are wrong (the real number is much higher than that, and for some of the more widely misunderstood deletion categories like WP:A7 is probably nearer 50%), then for someone deleting at this kind of volume it should be simple to point me towards numerous diffs of "deletion declined, this has a credible claim of significance" or "I'm not sure this is uncontroversial so I'll take it to AfD". Seeing as I've repeatedly made this accusation against you at Wikipedia's highest-profile drama board (and one where false accusations invariably attract boomerangs) and nobody provided any such evidence—and that even  all these concerns have been raised you're still carrying out obviously incorrect speedy deletions—I'm assuming you've not taken on board any of what anyone above is telling you. &#8209; Iridescent 16:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's one of "I'll slow down, take more care and stop being an asshole to other people" covered, but what about the other two? We wouldn't be having a discussion about your replies to people questioning your mistakes if you didn't keep abusing the batch-delete function to speedy delete everything that has been nominated for deletion without bothering to check for yourself if it had been tagged correctly. Per my comments elsewhere, my allegation would be trivially easy to refute were I wrong, as even if we very generously assume that only one in 50 taggings are wrong (the real number is much higher than that, and for some of the more widely misunderstood deletion categories like WP:A7 is probably nearer 50%), then for someone deleting at this kind of volume it should be simple to point me towards numerous diffs of "deletion declined, this has a credible claim of significance" or "I'm not sure this is uncontroversial so I'll take it to AfD". Seeing as I've repeatedly made this accusation against you at Wikipedia's highest-profile drama board (and one where false accusations invariably attract boomerangs) and nobody provided any such evidence—and that even  all these concerns have been raised you're still carrying out obviously incorrect speedy deletions—I'm assuming you've not taken on board any of what anyone above is telling you. &#8209; Iridescent 16:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I will try and explain a few things, but first I need to reiterate that you're a nice guy and you deserve to have a hug (but I'm probably not the best person for that) and I'm not doing this because I like having a pop at other admins; on the contrary, I find it tiring and draining, and saps my mental energy which would be better spent on other things. Rather, it's because I get a semi-regular stream of off-wiki complaints about you, and I'm fed up of having to defend you, as that saps my mental energy even more. So this comes from just a total state of exhaustion over the issue. Now onto the individual points:
 * "If you see an action of mine that you disagree with, simply reverse it!" I don't intrinsically have a problem with that, I have that prominently displayed on my user page and generally don't need anyone to ask permission. The key problems are: 1) it's not immediately obvious that you're okay with this 2) the default position, as stated by the policy on tool misuse is "Reversing the actions of other administrators – Only in a manner that respects the admin whose action is involved, and (usually) after consultation.", so it would be reasonable to assume that people don't know this. 3) It's not reasonable to expect new users (such as the editor who created Great Dane Airlines that you unilaterally deleted on a questionable pretext that you haven't justified yet) to know that administrator actions can be reversed if you ask the right ones. Particularly if they get brushed off with excuses like "I don't talk to IP addresses" or "For heaven's sake! Do you not know what a wikilink is?"
 * The problem with "kindly have the decency....." is (as linked to at the top of the thread), you were asked to do this at the previous ANI thread from April 2018, and didn't - or possibly more likely, you adhered to it for a bit, then slipped into your old habits. That's really what I was getting at.
 * You really need to address Iridescent's points above. If you're systematically going through CAT:CSD and deleting everything, expecting other admins to revert anything that people disagree with, then that's not really a working method that's compatible with adminship. Actions such as deletion should be a last resort - as the deletion policy says "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page". I appreciate admins go on holiday and can't respond; indeed, if you look at my contributions you'll discover I was away at Easter and only managed to grab brief periods online; but if that's the case, I wouldn't expect any admin actions, or any edits at all bar holding replies.
 * I fully admit I'm frustrated by this, and I'm sure you are as well, and it's not nice to basically tell an admin ten years my senior effectively how to suck eggs. But I think everyone on the thread is optimistic that there can be improvements in this area. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would give you a hug, RH... :-) Deb (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that anyone whose competence has been called into question, and who is in a place where they don't have the ability to reply properly to concerns that have been raised, would have the self-awareness to refrain from performing speedy deletions until this thread has been resolved. I see that you have restored one article that has been mentioned in this thread, but what about the very many others that you have deleted in error, and the very many editors that you have been responsible for scaring away from Wikipedia? No hugs from me. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Good timing, I was about to comment about you, Phil. I feel I am being subjected at the moment to a zero-tolerance policy. Am I not allowed to make any mistakes? My deletion of Great Dane Airlines was a simple edit-conflict-type mistake. I had the 2019-04-15 11:58:35 state of the page open in a browser tab. So when I deleted it at 2019-04-15 12:44:46 I never saw that you had removed the speedy tag. If you had contacted me, I would have restored the page promptly. Why did you not do so? Now see if I have excuses for some of the other pages that I have "deleted in error". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not do so for the simple reason that I did not even know you had speedily deleted the article until it was pointed out in this thread. I cannot be expected to spend my editing time checking up on your mistakes, and neither can any other editor. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "My deletion of Great Dane Airlines was a simple edit-conflict-type mistake." That brings to mind the old proverb, "a bad workman always blames his tools". I think what Phil was asking is why you thought Great Dane Airlines (a stub containing one sentence and a table) met the criteria for G11 ("unambiguous advertising or promotion") and deleted it. According to the deletion policy, "If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators normally will not delete it.". This is why people are annoyed at you, because you're doing things that seem to be contradicted by core policies, and hoping things will just blow over of their own accord. I've been dragged off to ANI and asked to justify myself to a bunch of angry users, and it's not nice - but it comes with the territory of being an admin, so you've got to do it. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would add to my previous comment that it's blindingly obvious common sense that articles should be checked just before speedily deleting them, not 45 minutes previously, and I know that I pointed this out to you many years ago, and that others have done so since then. Even if I had noticed that you had speedily deleted this I probably wouldn't have gone to your talk page, because my long experience has been that pointing out your mistakes there only leads to your use of admin tools to salt article titles, so furthering your disruption. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm still waiting (1) an explanation as to why despite being able to edit and delete numerous articles you were unable to post here to acknowledge the discussion and concerns and (2) a full explanation of the Víctor Manzanilla saga. Why did you move it into draft, and why did you not respond to the concerns of me and another editor on your talk page? GiantSnowman 07:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

And I'm still waiting for the diffs of "deletion declined, this has a credible claim of significance" or "I'm not sure this is uncontroversial so I'll take it to AfD" that would demonstrate that you're not just opening CAT:CSD and bulk deleting the entire contents each day without bothering to actually review whether the articles are correctly tagged. In the absence of such diffs, I'm going to consider working on the assumption that your inability to provide them is implicit evidence that you're abusing your sysop bit to apply a delete everything and see who appeals policy. Assuming you're not still continuing to abuse the batch-delete function, you can no doubt give me a good explanation as to why this page you incorrectly deleted a couple of hours ago constituted "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". &#8209; Iridescent 08:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Dask library. This was (in retrospect probably incorrectly) deleted as A7 by me (as web content without claim of importance, but it probably should be considered software instead, which isn't A7 deletable). Page creator came to my talk page, I replied and undeleted. 30 minutes later, Rhaworth deletes again as A3 (incorrect) and G11 (also incorrect). We all make poor deletions (like I said, mine was probably not correct either), but to do this during a discussion about such deletions, on a page which had just been deleted and undeleted already, and with two incorrect rationales at once, is a bit too much. Fram (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am becoming increasingly concerned that you can find time to make poor deletions but you cannot find the time to respond to concerns here. GiantSnowman 13:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Replying to GiantSnowman's (1) above: speedy deletions receive careful consideration from me but rarely take more than a few minutes. Thus they can be done to occupy an idle moment. Replying to the messages here is a totally different matter. I compose very slowly especially when my message requires careful wording. So my reply got left until I had time to find an hour or two to do it..
 * To GiantSnowman's (2): I encountered Victor Manzanilla in this state . I was puzzled by this curious edit which simultaneously added categories and a speedy tag. I decided that it might survive better in draft space. My action was queried here on my talk page. I gave what I considered a perfectly adequate reply at 14:09, 8 April 2019. Within 24 hours the situation had been rectified. I think this a good example of Wikipedia collaborative editing at work to correct the action of a disruptive editor, namely 他删之石.
 * To Iridescent, I say: search my contributions history for the keyword "unspeedy". I do not feel the need to provide a more extensive edit summary: it is implicit that I disagree with the speedy tag.
 * And… here's the perfect demonstration of why your reputation for incompetence and sloppiness is deserved. On searching your contributions for "unspeedy", the very first thing I come to is an error by you. &#8209; Iridescent 22:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've searched your mainspace contributions for the last month for "unspeedy" in the edit summary. It appears five times:
 * Lakshmi Bai College wasn't even nominated for speedy deletion, so, as Iridescent pointed out, your edit summary was in error.
 * Marlon Mullen was created with a db-copyvio tag already in place, and you rightly removed it.
 * Víctor Manzanilla Schaffer has already been mentioned above. You rightly removed the speedy deletion tag (which had no rationale) after it was moved back from draft space but obviously wrongly moved an article about someone who easily passes more than one count of WP:POLITICIAN to draft in the first place.
 * Snowdon alplily was correctly tagged for WP:G5 but you removed the tag without explanation.
 * Off of was incorrectly tagged for WP:G8 and you correctly removed the tag.
 * There is not one instance of you removing an incorrect WP:A7 tag, which must be the most common speedy deletion error made, and only one of your "unspeedy" edit summaries relates to an article where you have simply correctly removed a tag placed by someone other than the creator without disrupting things by moving a valid article to draft space. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It does feel as though I am being required to justify every action of mine in fine detail.
 * Regarding Lakshmi Bai. To Iridsecent I say: please review these edits and these admin actions and explain to me very carefully wherein my error lay. To Phil Bridger I say: my action may appear different if you view it as this diff.
 * I have now deleted the edit to Snowdon alplily which violated WP:G5. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You were the one who suggested searching your contribution history for "unspeedy", so I don't see how you can complain that I have done so. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dask library: the only way that it could have come to my attention is that I found it in CAT:CSD in this state timestamped 09:07, 25 April. As I explained in my message stamped 22:21, 24 April above I may leave a tab open for some time before I action it. The fact that the tab was still open in my browser three and an half hours later may be explained by the fact that in most of the interim I was driving down an English motorway. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't be misled when RH says "speedy deletions receive careful consideration from me but rarely take more than a few minutes." He has said earlier that I do actually look at articles (in some cases for more than 10 seconds!) before I delete them but I may not even look at the speedy tag. (emphasis mine) which is more likely to be true. SD0001 (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I recognise I've arrived rather 'late to the party', but I would like to add my support to the concerns expressed by and . RH's actions with regard to article deletion has bothered me for some time. I'd not realised I wasn't alone in that. As a Teahouse 'host', I try to support and guide new editors who come to ask questions about article tagging. Over the last year I've been quite frustrated by a number of lightning-fast deletions which I didn't feel were necessary, or needed to have been done so rapidly, and I think almost all those that were of concern to me turned out to have been deleted by . (Though at other times I've been pleased to see he'd been busy and active!). I was probably wrong not to have challenged him over those that did concern me, but instead I simply resigned myself to losing yet another new editor to demoralisation from the actions of an over-efficient admin. But seeing this thread makes me regret not checking further or challenging these poor actions (I won't call them decisions, as it doesn't sound like that much thought went into some of them). If, has has been suggested, there is a clear pattern of gung-ho and unwarranted mass deletion of anything with a sniff of a CSD tag ever attached to it, and a poor attitude towards some other types of editor, then perhaps requiring a break from that particular activity is appropriate, just as we might topic ban any other editor (grumpy or otherwise) on the grounds of WP:CIR. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm late, too. I've not had many dealings with RH, although probably they have speedied numerous of my nominations. This one, though, is something I still find rather mind-boggling. - Sitush (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Did I just read RHaworth actively admitting to shooting first and asking questions later? I hope that was sarcasm, because it wasn't and the attitude is verifiable, that would be a convincing argument for a desysop. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to make of it, which is why my mind is boggled. It all seemed rather odd then and still does. - Sitush (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

So, what happens now?
I repeat Ritchie333's question of a few days ago. It appears to me that anyone who has looked at RHaworth's record, rather than just said that he's a nice guy, has come to the conclusion that there is an issue that needs to be addressed. There wouldn't be any point in a non-admin such as myself starting an Arbcom case because I don't have access to most of the evidence about incompetence in the area of speedy deletion, which is in deleted articles. Is one of the admins involved in this discussion going to start a case or do we just accept that he will carry on being the most disruptive admin on English Wikipedia? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I've laid into RHaworth enough over the past week; if Iridescent, Fram or somebody else wants to take it to Arbcom, then I'll support them but I think the case probably wants to be started by somebody else. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Let us try some quantification. It is possible that even the most diligent deleter will make straight mistakes and errors of judgement. Please specify an acceptable level for such actions as a percentage of total deletions. Now tell me what percentage of my deletions fall into these categories.
 * Are there any other of my specific actions for which anybody would like a detailed post-mortem? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm off to bed, but I just want to say this - why can't you say "I'm sorry. It was a mistake. Please accept my apologies.". <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for admin errors, the only answer is "It varies based on the type and severity of the mistake. If the administrator is taking on difficult judgement calls at the fringes of the established policy, I could live with an error rate as high as 1 in 10.  If an administrator is handling a bunch of bulk CSD's, an error rate of 1 in 50 to 1 in 100 is completely reasonable.  There are some egregious errors where I would expect a lower error rate, but I'd be hard pressed to think of an example that I couldn't live with at a 1 in 1000 rate.  These are just my personal opinions of where the acceptable line is, they are very rough numbers.  I haven't been following this, so I don't know what your error rate is.  I'm not an admin, so maybe I have no business trying to guess what these acceptable error rates are.  I will point out that bad calls should be judged in the context of an admins entire body of work.  An admin who makes 10 bad calls out of 10,000 deletions is a model to be emulated.  An admin who makes 10 bad calls out of 12 is a problem.  An admin who makes 10,000 deletions, has 50 of them randomly reviewed, and has 10 errors in that sample suggests a BIG problem.  Tazerdadog (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The error rate isn't the only part that bothers me. It is the dismissive attitude toward others, especially IPs. It's been going on for years. Richie333 documented this fairly well at the start of this section. Hobit (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sorry: insisting on wikilinks on my user talk page was a mistake. Please accept my apologies - I shall relinquish the policy.
 * I am sorry: refusing to talk to IP addresses was a mistake. Please accept my apologies - I shall relinquish the policy.
 * I am sorry: a small proportion of my deletions were mistakes. Please accept my apologies - I shall take more care over speedies in the future. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * None of this warrants any more than a slap on the wrist and a pointer towards the right direction. I've seen RH elsewhere and I have not seen them to be particularly daft, so as long they understand policies, I say we should let this be and reopen this another day if they are really being a net negative to Wikipedia (which right now, mostly they are not). --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 13:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I couldn't disagree more that RHowarth's very long term BITEY behaviour and long history of improper speedy deletions warrants only a slap on the wrist. He's had them before and it hasn't changed a darn thing. I'm not sure what the answer is, but sweeping it under the carpet is very much not it. RH generally does understand the policies, he just doesn't follow them and fails to respond in an appropriate manner when people try to discuss this with them. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My understanding was that RH will do better, atleast for the very reason for not having to face consequences. R333/Iridescent, in Ritchie's own words, has laid into him a fair amount over the past week and I am confident if RH does not improve his dealings with editors, they will be out of ROPE the next time around. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 18:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do you think not facing consequences this time will result in RH suddenly upping his game when it hasn't on any previous occasion over the years when his behaviour has been discussed? Thryduulf (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not often that RH has been brought to ANI and hung out to dry and given his written apology on this noticeboard, which is not particularly as easy task to do, I can see why he would write a somber word-to-word reply just like Ritchie asked. I just think we should extend the maximum amount of rope plausible to an editor, and only when they cross the point of no return (WP:NOTHERE) should we impose sanctions. I do not disagree with the fact that RH may be deserving of some consequences but I would like to see them return to work as a volunteer with a positive work outcome, as they have said they will. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 13:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Although the three apologies above do not come across as particularly sincere, I'm willing to take at his word. But, of course, the proof of the pudding will be in the tasting. Paul August &#9742; 23:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * .... and with that Draft:Balaguer Guitars, reading " Balaguer Guitars is an American manufacturer of musical instruments, best known for solid body electric guitars and basses. The company was founded by Joe Balaguer in 2015, though prototypes were made between 2013-2014 prior to official release in 2015. Balaguer Guitars has manufacturing facilities in USA, South Korea, and China." and easily sourceable such as Music Radar is nuked by RHaworth per WP:G11. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , that's sheer G11 stuff. Created by a conflicted account and a blatant sales-page in entirety. G11 has not got anything to do with notability and if you deem it so, that's outlying.  &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 19:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ....using vintage and traditional inspiration with modern design implementation.....The Artist Series come in both Select and Standard variations. All quality control and final inspections are done by the staff at the Pottstown, Pennsylvania headquarter......The Balaguer Guitars Standard Series is an affordable production line with multiple finish options and configurations.....
 * I guess your continued involvement with RHW is hampering your objectivity. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 19:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The only cited source in the entire article was the website of the shop. BalaguerGuitarsWiki, rather obvious COI conflicted editor, created the article. The language used, a sampling of which WBG provided, is basically stripped from the website. It looks like a G11 to me. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * But WP:G11 says "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." As this was a draft, which doesn't have to be proved notable unless being submitted to review via WP:AfC, that means policy says if you can clean up the article and remove puffery and add independent sources, do that instead of deleting. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Barring you (and SoWhy), 9 of 10 sysops would have deleted that spam on sight. Extending your wiki-lawyering; we can safely exclude draft-space from the purview of G11. You might wish to read Adam9007's archives; as to gauging the community reception when someone starts quite intensive wiki-lawyering with CSD policies.
 * FWIW; it's (probably) prudential to note that I don't have much of sympathies for RHW's communication patterns. Long back, I asked him to refund some article and my impressions were heavily unfavorable. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 10:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW; it's (probably) prudential to note that I don't have much of sympathies for RHW's communication patterns. Long back, I asked him to refund some article and my impressions were heavily unfavorable. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 10:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW; it's (probably) prudential to note that I don't have much of sympathies for RHW's communication patterns. Long back, I asked him to refund some article and my impressions were heavily unfavorable. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 10:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The only realistic next step would be ArbCom, but it's not at that point yet. So, either RHaworth gets the message and the issues stop, or he doesn't and it ends up at ArbCom later. Either way there's nothing more to be achieved here. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 10:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I did a small experiment to see how prolific a deleter RHaworth is, and whether their deletions are commonly reversed. I took a sample of 10,000 mainspace deletions (9,122 distinct page titles) from a year ago (roughly 2018-04-01 to 2018-04-18). RHaworth was the user in the plurality of these deletions (6.1%). I then checked to see whether a page with the same title exists today. For all deletions, the page exists 31% of the time, but only 8.3% of the time for deletions performed by RHaworth. Hence it would appear that RHaworth's deletions "stick" more than the average. Bovlb (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Re ''Please specify an acceptable level for such actions as a percentage of total deletions. Now tell me what percentage of my deletions fall into these categories.... RHaworth 21:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)'' -- no comment on the quantity or nature of RHaworth's deletion errors but I don't support this concept of an acceptable percentage. That misdirection is a favorite ploy of disruptive bot abusers and we should not give it any credence. Where I'm from if you get (simplified) 3 traffic tickets in 2 years you lose your license and it doesn't matter whether you drove 100 miles in that time or 1 million miles. It's not a percentage, like "1 ticket per 10000 miles" or anything like that: it's 3 tickets, period. So as for these deletion errors, I care more about whether the absolute number is too high than what the percentage is. And going by the traffic ticket example, I'd say the number is too high if you've gotten community pushback about it 3 times in 2 years. If you get frequent pushback then stop deleting, absent a positive consensus (say in an AN thread) that you can continue, maybe under some restriction like "just AfD's, no more speedies" or whatever. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Clear WP:CIR issues


This should be all that's needed.

However, a look to this editor's talk will show clearly that they are persistently editing disruptively and absolutely refusing to onboard any advice. Guess that's what should be expected from an editor who admits editing a GA review while stoned. John from Idegon (talk) 03:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Uggh. I want to keep them as an editor in the hopes that they will improve, as they do some good things and have enthusiasm. However, I am concerned that they do not understand sourcing very well, and there have been some poor/incorrect edits. --Rschen7754 03:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is bad to edit stoned or intoxicated but it happens more than you think, especially years ago. 2601:1C0:6D00:845:7965:AC4C:DB8C:2EE1 (talk) 04:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You are charitable,, which is a wonderful trait. However, their talk page is a litany of warnings mixed with good faith advice, and the patterns of editing against policy continue. I have given them an indefinite (not infinite) block. It is up to this editor to convince an administrator in an unblock request that they understand what they did wrong, and to make a sincere and overt pledge to edit productively in the future. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure editing under the influence happens all the time, probably more today than in the past. Whereas that may or may not be an issue, stating unequivocally that you are editing under the influence, especially as poorly as the editor in question is editing, is intolerably disrespectful of our project and of their fellow editors. IMO, the only appropriate response is to indeff until they can convince the community that they are prepared to act in a sufficiently adult manner to be reinstated. I ran a charitable organization that was staffed entirely by volunteers (myself included) for many years, and I fired more than a couple volunteers for showing up to volunteer intoxicated. Our clients deserved better in that example, and our readers deserve better in this example. John from Idegon (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Unicornblood2018
has been posting long sections of soapboxing at Talk:Falun Gong, devoid of reliable sourcing suggestions, with aspersions against other editors. There has been an uptick in this sort of thing recently, and I've hatted one lengthy set of IP discussions and reverted a couple of incidents of soapboxing by Unicornblood2018 per WP:NOTFORUM   following this   by Unicornblood. Per their latest post on my talkpage (spread over 12 diffs) in response to the DS warning I placed, I'm not getting through to them that it's under active sanctions, reacting with outrage that a 12-year-old arbitration case is still valid grounds for sanctions. Would somebody more patient than me like to give a try to explaining that the talkpage isn't a free webhost for their complaints about FG, and that "freedom of information" arguments and accusations of censorship aren't sufficient grounds for them to post long arguments on talkpages? The FG talkpage is getting unreadable.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed the because it appeared to be broken (explained in my edit summary), but just for technical reasons.  The discussion that was there seemed to be fairly bonkers.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 15:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Unicornblood2018's bazillion intervening edits appear to have broken the hatting. My hatting was only for the IP's contribution.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Let's get the elephant out of the room. Editors have been deleting content on FG page not because the information is wrong. But they soapbox their own narratives on why the information is unfair to be written in.

My whole argument was not to make biased excuses. They hate the Chinese government and vast majority of their reasons are that it is what the Chinese government want the world to know. And that is really their only reason for censoring those info despite being factual, and attacking me by smearing me as a ccp apologist. Despite my sources are well backed and most are directly from FG LEADER himself.

The rich irony is that if anyone are apologists. It's people who remove information that they are threatened by and they too often have cited invalid political reasons to back their censoring.. But Wikipedia is no place for taking sides in politics.

I bring up a topic.. Another disagrees but goes on a soapbox filler rant about ccp.. I either respond by highlighting the flaws in that logic and continue to give my relevant explanation on why certain information needs to be added in.. And they go off topic with another irrelevant political soapbox.

The real problem is that we quarrel less on logic but only too much of politics. Despite they can not deny a single information i wanted added to the article, was either false or lacking strong sources. If they can tell me one, I'll Listen. But instead they alway reply by giving me another rote filler off topic speech about "evil ccp" and generally avoid to even debate what i had talked-about that I want uncensored.

I highlighted the entire background and explained why they needed to be inputted into the article. However it is hard enough to deal with a community of editors whose group consensus is against me before I begin, regardless of facts. So only by explaining it thoroughly to the point that it's undeniable. They now want to find any excuse to rid me because our stance conflicts.

Their strongest argument is that i write too much. Or soapbox despite they soapbox constantly about off topic politics. Whereas I stay relevant by explaining what to add into the article while giving decent explanation or context on why it should be added and not to be censored.

If i get banned.. It will not be because I lied or mislead. But mostly because i bring full awareness to multiple accounts of censoring. And editors got beef with me, because i refuse to be politically orientated and go with their program. And we butt heads. That's the real reason.

There is no decent reason why we can't meet halfway but politically minded people ignore and deny facts that will always be secondary and lesser to their politics, which i can never be okay with..

Censoring information not because it is infactual, trivial nor lacking evidence but simply because it is threatening at a political egotistic manner shouldn't be okay.

The fair solution is to ask if I am advocating adding the wrong or right information and if it is factual, relevant, significant and backed by a reliable source?

If not. Then i want to hear it from the board. To tell me why my information is infactual or the sources wrong. Because i have been trying for a long time for them to give me a decent answer on why my information is infactual..they can't, 🙊 and if they can't, and they want to censor.. Then me explaining to them why that is wrong or questioning it, is not the worst evil here.

They are the ones trying to hide information and the only excuses given are mostly off topic politics that has peanuts to do with the relevant topic i was even trying to discuss with them.

You can read the entire discussion on talk page and they also recently removed my original section which can be found on the url link below.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_41

Unicornblood2018 (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Talk about mooning the jury... I'm indefinitely blocking for both the rant here and the stream of consciousness screeds that have rendered the Falun Gong talkpage an all-out assault on the eyes. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 16:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This discussion continues in a rather spirited fashion on Unicornblood's talk page... Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If nothing else, said talkpage certainly inspired me to consume some spirits. Sometimes I just can't even... The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 04:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * They are way too repetitive. It's the same message times 20. Or a 100. 2601:1C0:6D00:845:7965:AC4C:DB8C:2EE1 (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at Unicornblood2018's talkpage? It's getting to be absolutely out of control, I almost had a Raiders of the Lost Ark moment just looking at the latest edits to it. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 03:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And, long past the point I thought it was possible, it continues to get even worse. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 04:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk page editing revoked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

DePiep edit-warring at Juliana of the Netherlands and threats of "You better behave"
Queen Juliana of the Netherlands had four daughters. As children and their succession are important to monarchs, we record this. DePiep seems to disagree, and has twice removed the first two "all or none""as I wrote in my es: all (7) children or none. Not that hared is it?".

I have no idea what they mean here. Yes, we should cover all four of the children. We did so, until they started removing them. Juliana did not have 7 children. This would be trivial ANEW stuff, and I said as much at User talk:DePiep. However their response was "unhelpful", in their perennial fashion (see Special:Log/block), with a threat of "You better behave", followed by "You better behave better. Depending on your response, I might report you for trespassing WP:3RR." I am not prepared to put up with that sort of abuse (and still a lack of explanation or any real discussion) from DePiep. We've been down this path far too many times before and I'm sick of this sort of attitude from them. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * And now they start another thread, Talk:Juliana_of_the_Netherlands Andy Dingley (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WTF. My initial edit was:, I removed two children from section #Marriage, es "all or none". What is the problem? -DePiep (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you removed the births of two of the four children. Why?   Do you really think that they all have to be listed in the same paragraph?   And why claim later on that she had seven?
 * Besides which, this isn't about factual issues, or even you edit-warring, it's about your attitude. You do not get to threaten other editors, "You better behave" and you have been told this and blocked for it over and over. I am sick of your behaviour like this – if you can't control it, other editors should not have to put up with you. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * you removed the births of two of the four children. Why? -- Because there were mentioned only two out of four. -DePiep (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I (not Andy Dingley) started the BRD talk (21:13). Before (21:08),  Andy started with a Bad Faith approach on my talkpage.
 * That is: I started the BRD talk, Andy started a BF talk on my talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe the bad faith attitude by Andy, from the first relevant edit onwards, should be considered too. Without this attitude, likely this would no have endded on ANI. -DePiep (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe the bad faith attitude by Andy, from the first relevant edit onwards, should be considered too. Without this attitude, likely this would no have endded on ANI. -DePiep (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It's very clear why the births of two of the children are in one section, and the others later on; the later two were born during a completely different period in her life. Frankly this is verging towards a WP:CIR problem, and this just makes it worse.  I do wonder if DePiep's ten previous blocks haven't really got the message across. Black Kite (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Does not explain why Andy or anyone else could not have clarified this on the talkpage at moment #1+. Does not explain why Andy's BF is justified. -DePiep (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, seems like Andy is admitting/backtracking somehow . -DePiep (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * How many posts have there been since? And yet you are still repeating this "Because there were mentioned only two out of four." nonsense (to make it quite clear, the article began by mentioning all four children, but you started removing them.).
 * If it's BRD you had wanted, I'd be happy to do that. But you'd already chosen to go for B-R-Do it again anyway-abuse other editors.  You want AGF?  Sorry, but you burned that assumption years ago. We all know how you behave when questioned, and tonight you're doing exactly the same thing again. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * He's not backtracking at all. He's (quite correctly) pointing out why your edits are wrong. Black Kite (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree, and with your comments above. I added information bit trying to ease the situation, to satisfy both povs, but DePiep immediately reverted it. His "my way of the highway" attitude here is unacceptable. Moriori (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, Moriori, I revered because you were editing an issue that is under discussion aka POV (a BRD discussion *I* started). -DePiep (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not true. I gave no opinion on whether there should be two or four children in that section, which is what your dispute is about. My addition was informative and encyclopedic.Moriori (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And now we are in the "Look over there, that guy did something too so my behavior is excused." phase of this? Who cares who started a discussion? You kept removing info for no legitimate reason, there is no guideline that says "all or nothing" so you removed it because you wanted to. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Jeeee, MPJ-DK is ediding issues under discussion . + an arrrogant es. -DePiep (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So I don't know what an "es" is, but i know what a clear case of I didn't hear that behavior is. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * es=editsummary. Bit of essential basic knowledge when you engage in an ANI thread. But keep freely spreading IDHT. -DePiep (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have been editing Wikipedia for 14 years and I have NEVER seen anyone use that abbreviation for "edit summary". So no, it's not a "[b]it of essential basic knowledge", it's either something you made up or something ludicrously esoteric, so you don't get to use it pretend you have some greater knowledge. --Calton &#124; Talk 05:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I use it all the time: . <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 05:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) You're now the SECOND person in 14 years I've seen do that: do you know a third? 2) this makes it my second option ("something ludicrously esoteric"); 3) you actually used it as an abbreviation ("e.s.") and in an actual sentence, so if you had been the first person I'd seen doing it, there would be an actual chance of understanding what you meant. --Calton &#124; Talk 15:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) Whatever. This is clearly content dispute that should have been done at Talk. No ANI issue at all. -DePiep (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Behavioral issues belong here, your refusal to actually accept the fact that ALL FOUR children are in the article, jus different sections is the ANI issue, and your comments. So distraction, now downplaying in. Can we fast forward to where you get blocked again? MPJ-DK (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Content disputes don't involve nonsense like this (and your "arrogant" comment three lines above this). My advice to you would be to back away from this very quickly before it becomes eleven blocks. Black Kite (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. ALL FOUR children are in the article is not the issue. The point is that only two were mentioned in section #Marriage. Then again, Andy escalated to usertalk non-talks and ANI but did not Talk. -DePiep (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So please explain what Wikipedia guideline has given your the impression that "it all has to be in the same section"? The article is chronological (you know "in the order it happened") and broken into logical groups for better organization and readability. A discussion cannot take place when one side holds their hands over their ears and go "la-la-la-la can't hear you" (hint - that person is you). MPJ-DK (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, ANI is not for content disputes. Do you agree that this could & should have been fleshed out at the Talk page, easily? -DePiep (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point - this report is not about "content dispute" but your behavior and actions. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So far, your posts here are about content. Anyway, can you explain why my behaviour would be problematic since *I* started the BRD discussion while Andy started BF Usertalk posts & an ANI, ranting? -DePiep (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You are all about asking questions here, I got one for you. Were all four children mentioned in the article before you removed sourced content? Answer that and I'll answer you. MPJ-DK (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Enough of these ranting escalations. I stand by my edit and its es. -DePiep (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not ranting when you simply tell someone they are wrong. How can you read everyones words here and still stand by your bad edit? Accept that you made a mistake. 2601:1C0:6D00:845:7965:AC4C:DB8C:2EE1 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 05:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I have blocked DePiep for one month for continued disruption, with reference to their long previous history or prior blocks. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Boomerang check for User:Andy Dingley, please

 * -DePiep (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * When Everyone is telling you that your Behavior is wrong then Perhaps it is time you Liston to some of them Jena   (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Reviewing the above conversation, the article talk page, and the article history, Andy Dingley does not seem at risk of being boomeranged. CMD (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Really really not going to happen. You're making things worse for yourself, in fact. --Calton &#124; Talk 03:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose I don't really see a reason why a boomerang check is really needed.  I Need Support  :3 18:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The user (Andy Dingley) has very valid points, and in fact he/she tried to give you advice to avoid an incoming block, which unfortunately you ignored. So the boomerang will go towards you instead of the other user.  I Need Support  :3 18:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Issue regarding a deleted article titled: Astute Tutors
Hello all, an article previously written and published by me (titled: Astute Tutors) was proposed for and later deleted because of a logo. I would like to have the article restored and would like to obtain the source code that I wrote up in the creation of the article. The logo is owned by me (Yevgeniy Sazhnyev), and I was the one who uploaded it to Wikipedia. I also specified that I own it and thus posted it on the article for Astute Tutors (a tutoring company). I'm not sure why someone thought it would be a good idea to remove the article. Thanks for the help! Sazhnyev (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The deletion log entry for this says that it was deleted under WP:A7: "Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject" - nothing to do with the logo, which is a separate issue. The place to ask for a copy of the article, in the first instance, is User talk:JJMC89, the talk page of the admin who deleted it. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * One other note - if you have a relationship with Astute Tutors, you shouldn't be creating or editing an article on the company, per WP:COI. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Wolfgang8741 mass-rating articles as stubs
User:Wolfgang8741 has been rapidly working through hundreds of articles about lakes assigning them to WP:WikiProject Lakes and adding infoboxes, which is useful. He appears to automatically rate them "stub+low importance", which is not. Most lake articles are in fact gazetteer-type low importance stubs, but some that he has recently rated, for example Bluff Lake (San Bernardino County, California), Alder Lake (New York), Redd's Pond, Menemsha Pond, Jamaica Pond etc. are more substantial.

I noticed the issue when Wolfgang8741 stub-rated two articles I had started: Lake Menghough (5 April 2019‎ ) and McArthur Lake (Idaho) (7 April 2019‎). I pointed out in User talk:Wolfgang8741 that he should read articles before rating them, or just not rate them. He seems to have ignored this advice, and on 28 April 2019 stub-rated another article I had started, Mirond Lake. In User talk:Wolfgang8741, Wolfgang8741 insists he is reviewing the articles before rating them, but I see no evidence of this.

My concern is that a newbie may carefully research and compose an article on a local lake, then get disheartened and give up when Wolfgang8741 rates it a stub. We are desperately short of newbies. Can someone here please tell User:Wolfgang8741 to stop rating articles without reading them? Ideally he also would go back over the articles he has rated stub, and update his ratings where needed. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As I stated on my talk page, I have been reading and reviewing, abite I have made a few mistakes and did correct those which 1. When pointed out by Aymath2 I reassessed themse page and 2. Already noted that 3 out of the thousands were unfortunately were related to this user's work, a non statistically unlikely event. I also asked for mentorship on what I may be missing between stub and start. 3. I already stated I planned a QA of my own work using tools in Wikipedia. Though I have not been presented with a systemic issue of my tagging as stub, only these three have been brought to my attention thus far. I'm happy to work with anyone on 1. improving my stub vs start assessment and 2. I do not believe there has been a significant misassessment in the work, please see the talk page and review my contributions to see if I created a larger issue. I'm already starting my own QA process, and as stated before I do assess each page before classifying. Please let me know how if an actual issue is here or if I am within a means of error of being human. Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you rate all lake articles "stub+low importance" you will often be right. Out of these thousands of articles, how often was your initial rating other than "stub+low importance"? I did an unscientific analysis (see User:Aymatth2/sandbox - Wolfgang8741 contribs analysis) and find for a sample period 34 pages rated stub out of 36, with perhaps one third of the pages rated wrong. If you cannot rate them right, do not rate them. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

After final warning


So this was rejected at AIV (makes sense, edits are not clear vandalism), so here we are. This user violated WP:SYNTH after final warning with this edit and this edit. The source cited says nothing of the team breaking up at all, yet that's what the user put in the articles. Was previously warned for removing maintenance templates, adding unsourced content, adding unsourced content and adding unsourced content. Has not responded to talk page messages since his first one. StaticVapor message me!   01:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I added reliable sources in the edit. IDK what's wrong? I picked the reliable website. I didn't break any rules, nor did I vandalise the article

HygorHubner (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, removing maintenance templates is breaking the rules...-- Booth Sift  02:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The problem is that multiple times you have added unsourced content or you have cited a reliable source, but the content you add is not in source. That is called WP:SYNTH or WP:NOR. I have dropped a few messages on your talk page, linking to pages such as WP:V AND WP:NOR and you have you to respond till now. StaticVapor message me!   02:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Wait, what? I didn't remove anything. I just added stuff. I didn't delete anything! Jeez...

HygorHubner (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there is a misunderstanding. Hygor is confused as in what he did wrong and StaticVapor is trying to explain, but not doing so in a way that Hygor would understand. What Static means is that while you may have added unsourced content, your edit may violate a rule that we have that is called: "Synthesis of published material", "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.[i] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of feudsthe article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article." -- Booth  Sift  02:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean I did drop them multiple messages before this, and they did not respond until now. StaticVapor message me!   07:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * So I unarchived this because I did not receive an administrator response. I do not find the user in question responses satisfactory and I'm not just going to let this disappear. StaticVapor message me!   19:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that things like "feuds" are being presented here as facts, when they are clearly fictional, and only sourced to web sites that routinely present such fiction as facts. We wouldn't put up with such content about topics such as history, medicine or genuine sports, so why do we do so about this topic? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So that is the problem? Not everything outlined above about behavior and lack of sources etc.? No the fact "feuds are presented as real" is obviously why this ended up at ANI. Focus on the actual issue please. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Intense arguments about kayfabe baloney get people who are not wrestling fans really irritated. HygorHubner has not edited at all since replying here four days ago. The situation is stale. What the heck do you expect administrators to do right now? <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  20:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly I expected a short term block or a stern warning for violating Wikipedia policy after a final warning. StaticVapor message me!   22:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , this editor got raked over the coals four days ago and hasn't edited since. It would be an abuse of administrative powers to block them four days later. As for a "stern warning", any editor can issue a warning, not just administrators. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  22:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think "raked over coals" is not even close, one user not including me responded and only explained what WP:OR was. I expected a block around the time of posting, I didn't expect a block now, just a response from an Admin and hopefully a message to the user I made this posting about. I know anyone can issue a warning, I just did not want the user to feel as if it is just me attacking their contributions and just making stuff up. They seem to not have bothered to click any of the links to WP:V and WP:OR (until now hopefully) that I have given them. So I had hope that another voice telling them that what they are doing wrong would stop future behavior. StaticVapor message me!   22:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) None of those problems would exist if we applied the same standards towards kayfabe in articles about professional wrestling as we did to other fictional topics. It all stems from treating fiction as fact. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well technically it is "making up fiction" based on info that does not exist in the source - that's not unique to pro wrestling. But you know I am glad you enjoy your little soap box moment, as misplaced as it is in this discussion. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What is obvious to anyone apart from obsessives is that nearly all of the sources used in our articles about professional wrestling are unreliable, so complaining about one editor's lack of reliable sourcing is just silly. This whole topic needs the same sort of focus that we recently had on porn actors to eliminate the routine acceptance of sources as reliable when they actually peddle totally fictional bollocks. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Your comment about kayfabe literally has nothing to do with this issue. We are discussing a disruptive user, not the subject the article falls under. StaticVapor message me!   17:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You are still off topic and trying force in something that is irrelevant. Since Pro Wrestling is under a "General Sanction" you should be aware that disruptive editing can result in admin action. If that is the bug in your ear find an appropriate venue to do something about it. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The user changed the article of a tag team saying they we're broken up and disbanded. Yet the source they used said nothing of the sort. This is the issue. I had to clean up multiple articles due to this incorrect information added. This user already received a final warning due to other disruptive edits, that I linked above. So do we do nothing about disruptive users anymore just because they have WP:ANI flu? StaticVapor message me!   22:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocks are meant to preventative, not punitive. What disruption would be prevented now by a block if the user has not edited for a week? –FlyingAce✈hello 17:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I know. See my responses to Cullen328 above. Also if I was a newer user I might have got WP:ANI flu too, why does that immediately make the issue not matter? All I wanted was an administrator to comment on the inappropriate behavior. A warning to the user that isn't from me, is not too much to ask is it? It is disheartening seeing these types of responses. StaticVapor message me!   07:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I see your point, and I am sorry that you have found this disheartening. It seems that HygorHubner stopped editing after Boothsift posted a simple explanation of the issue above, so if we are to AGF we could think that HygorHubner chose to move on after being shown what was wrong with their edits. In this case, there would be nothing left for us to do.
 * I could be wrong, of course, and it could be a case of ANI flu as you mention; but we would not know until the user starts editing again. If this turns out to be the case and the edits resume, you can open a new report and refer to this one; there would be no need to go through the whole warning cycle again, IMO. –FlyingAce✈hello 20:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Atsme
Eyes needed there before things get out of hand. R2 (bleep) 22:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You probably should just stay off the talk page like you've been asked to. Natureium (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I most certainly will. I only posted my ANI notice, as I was required to do. R2 (bleep) 22:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

This does appear to be going out of bounds now. After the ad hominem made against me for posting that DS reminders are OK, I made a simple response that the PA was noted -- and my response was removed. No big deal -- just not good form. But now, Sir Joseph has made a post containing an out of context quote suggesting that I am a holocaust denier. Even ignoring my Jewish heritage, that would be way out of bounds. And, I'm not allowed to explain as my posts there are deleted. I don't think this how WP is supposed to work. O3000 (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * R2 and O3000 should be get the fuck off Atsme's talk page and never return. /thread.--v/r - TP 01:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I simply stated that DS refreshers are required. In return I received two PAs, one suggesting that I am a holocaust denier, neither of which I am allowed to respond to and both of which remain. Have you been accused of such an obscenity and not been allowed to respond? Can you give me a better understanding of how you think I have erred? I do not understand your profane response. O3000 (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * FTR, Atsme has removed my sole comment on the page, as "harassment", because it failed to support her. Nuff said as far as I'm concerned; all reasonable editors know the difference between constructive criticism and harassment. If I may be forgiven for a rare bit of snark, I suggest that User talk:Atsme be moved to User praise:Atsme. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Jean Monnet/problematic admin decision


I'm posting here because I'm puzzled by the judgment of an admin,, to full-protect Jean Monnet under the pretense that the reverts on the article constitute an edit war/content dispute when it should seem obvious to a reasonable viewer that the edits being reverted are blatantly conspiratorial trolling/vandalism: specifically, I'm referring to these repeated additions by alleging that Monnet was a "CIA operative" (note that none of the sources added actually substantiates this claim). In my view, it seems to have been obviously conspiratorial vandalism and the IP should be blocked, rather than warranting a full-protection on the basis that the reverts on the article constituted edit-warring, since despite the IP's claims, they were the ones clearly engaging in bad faith (and I have my doubts that they were a "new editor" if they were fully aware of 3RR, etc. rather than a recurring vandal). While the admin in question has since self-reverted, I don't believe that their initial decision here can be said to have been reasonable – these are the types of edits that should be obviously understood to constitute blatant vandalism and warrant a block, not full-protecting the page while keeping the addition of content that was blatant trolling. (I'll note that I reverted the IP repeatedly under WP:NOT3RR, seeing as their edits, at least in my eyes, seemed to be obvious vandalism.) Mélencron (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It appears that he protected the article in the exact version you prefer. I'm confused about what more you want done.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, though as noted on both my talk page and the article’s talk page I welcome another admin reviewing the decision and supplanting their view in this case. Life is too short and as such I do not plan to involve myself further in this case. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  16:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm questioning the decision of the admin not to immediately block the IP for blatant vandalism, rather than full-protecting the article in question and only self-reverting the addition in question after two other editors pointed it out. The article in its current state is fine, and I don't have an objection to that – but this seems to have been a case of seriously bad judgment by an admin in interpreting obviously bad-faith trolling as a mere "content dispute". Mélencron (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There was clearly an issue here that needed to be dealt with quickly, and this admin decided that the way to do it was full protection. The IP address used looks like it is dynamic so blocking it would not be likely to solve the problem. Maybe semi-protection would have been better than full protection, but my judgement about that has been made on reflection rather than in the face of clear disruption that requires immediate action. You should be thanking this admin for acting quickly rather than criticising here. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "You should be thanking this admin for acting quickly rather than criticising here": The admin intervention actually wasn't especially helpful. User:NJA interpreted a clear-cut case of disruptive editing by an unregistered user as a "content dispute", gave the page full protection on the IP-version thereby preserving the problematic edits, and initially refused to revert the page to the original version. Endymion.12 (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Requesting closure; no further admin action should be required here. Mélencron (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Improper behavior
The user DVdm has been constantly reverting my correct edits. Please block this user. Somebody356 (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you do not want your edits reverted, source them. has done nothing wrong. I'll leave you some info on how Wikipedia works on your userpage, but I'd strongly suggest not reporting other users here until you have a much better understanding of how Wikipedia works. Request someone close this. John from Idegon (talk) 09:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: I have reverted - again, for the fourth time, an unsourced, borderline nonsensical edit at Gluon . Left a final warning on their talk page. - DVdm (talk) 09:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User seems not very interested in how Wikipedia works. - DVdm (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * One has to wonder how a user that new even knows where ANI is. John from Idegon (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And then there is this. Some people will just never get it. This is likely one. Good luck. John from Idegon (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior/abuse after repeated addition of unsourced genre's
I would be grateful if someone could look into the edits of Sgt. Kingdoomer. After continued requests for this editor to source their genre additions they resort to extremely uncivil/abusive replies on their talk page, here and here.  Rob van  vee  19:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Gross, totally inappropriate. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "I shouldn't have to use a damn website to find the exact thing I'm looking for." If you want to edit Wikipedia you do.  BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocking now. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 20:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And talkpage access revoked after the potty-mouthed rant upon receiving the block notice. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 00:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the assistance!  Rob van  vee  05:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans: copyright violations and civility violations


User:Snooganssnoogans has a regular pattern of violating copyright on en.wp. I've added the most recent example uncovered first:


 * On 26 October 2017 they plagiarized the BBC (here). After I removed the long-standing copyvio here on 18 April 2019; they restored a close paraphrase without in-text attribution in the subsequent edit, without any acknowledgment of the WP:COPYVIO.
 * On 26 October 2016 they plagiarized the Daily Beast (here). This was drawn to their attention on the talk page here. Their reaction was typically aggressive.


 * On 30 December 2018, they misattributed copyrighted text written by Harry McGrath to Elizabeth Teague and reacted aggressively when I corrected their mistake.

Civility has been a chronic problem for Snooganssnoogans. Despite being blocked for WP:CIV by EdJohnston in 2016, their behavior has not improved. POV has also been a recurrent problem. On May 24, 2017 they were banned from making mass edits to en.wp entries at AE. This despite support from a number of like-minded editors, including a sockpuppet of Cirt (Sagecandor). (AE case)


 * On 21 April 2018 they attacked other editors (1, 2) who sought to have their biased content removed. The RFC was unanimous § in rejecting their contribution as written.


 * On 21 April 2019 they removed my attempt at getting them to reflect on their repeated violations of copyright law, calling this request that they follow WP policy "unhinged rambling" . A look at the history of their TP edit summaries show that they routinely engage in name-calling against editors who attempt to rein in their abusive behaviour.  Snooganssnoogans will need to provide evidence that they've asked me to stay off their talk page, I have no such recollection of them doing so, but will do so now that they have asked (I believe) for the first time.

I believe that Snoogans should be indefinitely blocked for the copyright violations and civility infractions, though as soon as they recognize the problem with their behavior in an unblock request I would see no problem with their being welcomed back as long as they promise to follow WP policy. The block I am requesting is preventative, as they have shown no awareness that civility and copyright issues are taken seriously on en.wp.

Of course, perhaps I am mistaken, perhaps WP:CIV and WP:COPYVIO are not core policies. This request will help determine that. Thank you for your attention to these matters. SashiRolls t · c 15:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not seeing a real copyvio problem here. Those of us that know Snooganssnoogans are aware he adds quotes from daily news stories on American political articles. It does seem very lazy to add quotes instead of paraphrasing however in Snooganssnoogans defence over the years they have run into problems with their interpretation of sources especially because of the nature of the topics  and news sources used...thus the eventuality of just quoting has come to the for front. As for civility...its an ongoing problem with many editors and theses examples above are not  outrageous in my view...more of a  sign of frustration.  -- Moxy 🍁 16:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, civility is a big issue for snooganssnoogans, and has been for years, although no one seems willing to do anything about it. Natureium (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * After having the pleasure of discussing quotefarms with Snoog at Talk:2018 United States elections, I gave up and left the topic area. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 18:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * As for the purported copyvios: the first example (one sentence sourced to BBC – with the BBC as a cited ref) is just a case of close paraphrasing in one sentence, which can happen when one reads a source and seeks to summarize its contents. The second example (one sentence sourced to the Daily Beast - with the DB as a cited ref) is a clear copyvio, and I do not exactly remember the circumstances behind that 2.5 yr old edit - the text should of course be fixed and has been fixed. The third example is just an accident where one link was copied into the cite-ref generator rather than another (something I’m sure every prolific editor has done). After almost three years of stalking my edits (note that I’ve added a lot of content during that time), this is the sum of what SashiRolls comes up with. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Context for what's going on here: In September 2016, SashiRolls (SR) got topic-banned from the Jill Stein article for trying to add a bunch of fringe nonsense to the article and for being abrasive on the talk page. At that point, SR began a stalking and harassment campaign against me (whom he blamed for the topic-ban), where he followed me to pages that he’d never been to before, only to revert me nilly-willy. After SR removed my addition of a peer-reviewed study in a top journal to one obscure article, an admin, Neutrality, explicitly stated in Nov 2016 that SashiRolls's "edits basically appear part of a strategy to harass Snooganssnoogans and drive him off the project." Another admin, Tryptofish, called SR out for vandalizing my talk page during this harassment episode. During this harassment, I told SR to “stop following me around and leaving crazed comments on my talk page. Leave me alone, you sociopath.” At that point, half of my talk page was full of SR’s rambling commentary and threats, and SR was stalking me across Wikipedia articles. However, because I personally insulted SR over his stalking, I was blocked for 48 hrs by EdJohnston. This is not an excuse for the civility violation (which I’ve already served my punishment for), but I was clearly provoked at the time (I was also very green as a Wikipedia editor and unaware of appropriate procedures to resolve that kind of situation). A month later, SR was banned for something unrelated. However, the creepy harassment did not end there. SR continued following my edits, obsessively analyzing them and complaining about them on off-Wiki forums. On Wikipediocracy alone, Google shows 84 results for “snoog” and 46 results for “snooganssnoogans”. The overwhelming majority of these references are made by SR, and this does not count references on other off-wiki forums and other iterations of my username by SR. At some point, admins decided to allow SR to edit Wikipedia again. Of course, the tendentious editing resumed when SR came back. On the Tulsi Gabbard article, SR decided to block any and all changes made by me, and refused to explain why. (Note that the Tulsi Gabbard is another page that SR stalked me to in 2016 only to indiscriminately revert me - this is his first edit there) SR was informed by the admin Awilley that this was not an appropriate way to edit. When SR could not simply block things without explanations, SR instead filibustered changes to the article by filling the talk page with WP:NOTFORUM ramblings and casting of aspersions. The behavior was erratic, as SR accused me and MrX of tag-teaming, posted weird rants connecting me to content disputes on unrelated pages that SashiRolls has grievances about (pages that I've never edited), and requested that I be topic-banned for fairly standard and uncontroversial edits.. When SR was allowed to edit again, multiple admins and editors expressed the sentiment that this editor would be up to trouble again in no time, and that he’d be kept on a short leash. I think I’ve documented a long-standing harassment campaign that has culminated in this spurious request to have me banned over a copyvio of one sentence in 2016 and for telling SR to stay off my talk page (SR inaccurately suggests that I've never instructed him to stay off my talk page before). Would it be possible for an admin to please tell this editor to leave me alone and refrain from mentioning me again? It's been almost three years of this creepy harassment. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It would not be inaccurate to say that Snoogans' biased writing on Ajamu Baraka was why I became an active editor in 2016. It would be inaccurate to say that I "stalk" them. I avoid them, except when they edit topics that interest me (generally anti-war politicians is where our interests intersect).  As for the copyvio:
 * BBC text: Wikileaks itself fuelled the conspiracy theory by offering a reward for the capture of Mr Rich's killer and hinting that he may have been the source of the emails. (source: §)
 * Snoogans' text: WikiLeaks fuelled the conspiracy theories by offering a reward of $20,000 for information leading to the capture of Rich's killer and hinting that Rich may have been the source of the leaked emails.


 * it is worth noting that the $20,000 is not in the source, which means that strictly speaking the source should not be used for what was added to mask the copyvio. SashiRolls t · c 19:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is 100% indisputable that SR stalked me here (never mind all the other instances I cited). It was so brazen and blatant that an admin chastised him for it and explicitly characterized it as harassment. That SR is lying about something so blatant and easily disprovable should put everything else in context (and is also a good illustration of what I put up with). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That content from a non-BBC source is also in there undermines your case that text is just being plagiarized verbatim and supports my claim that the text was written from memory. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hm... that was over two and half years ago. I did in fact see that edit in your list of contributions two or three months after I became an active editor.  I was correct to try to get you to fix the grammar (singular verb / plural subject).  Since you would not, I deleted it because I did not have access to the source to determine whether what you wrote was true or not:  all that was obvious was that it was ungrammatical.  You mentioned Tulsi Gabbard above.  Those interested should feel free to look at your biased editing on that page.  However, I don't want to distract from the straightforward copyvio problem documented in this thread... '27 of 33 identical words would seem to me to be a copyright violation.  Perhaps it would be good for someone to lay down the law about this. SashiRolls t ·  c 20:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The language used in the BBC is identical to language used in many of the sources. The particular grouping and order of the language does appear to be copied from the BBC, but considering how much the same language is repeated in other sources I feel like this is being blown out of proportion.  I am not familiar with the copyright policy though.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I've been trying to stay away from wiki-conflict lately, but having been pinged, I feel that I should comment briefly. Please note that I am not an admin (nor do I play one on TV). I'm unfamiliar with what's going on at the pages in question. I've had positive interactions with Snooganssnoogans in the past, although I also realize that recent US politics (a topic that is under Discretionary Sanctions) is a contentious editing area. As for civility, when I said this a few weeks ago: (in the GMO DS topic area), SashiRolls responded with this: . Maybe I should have come here complaining that "civility has been a chronic problem" for him. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Trypto, you never did explain to me why you thought this quote was a useful addition to Jill Stein's BLP Stein has said: "For science geeks, you can show yourself if you have any doubt that I too am a science geek. (source: §)  I found that quite peculiar at the time.  Still do, actually. SashiRolls t ·  c 20:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Since it has become a theme here, that diff is from about three years ago. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a WP:BATTLE by User:SashiRolls. I would suggest to close it without action or WP:BOOMERANG. My very best wishes (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * SashiRolls is going to eventually either get Snooganssnoogans banned or otherwise drive them off the encyclopedia, and there’s nothing we can do about it. Even banning SashiRolls didn’t help - they’ll just keep getting themselves unbanned. We have two options here: we can get rid of Snooganssnoogans and the problem goes away, or we can ignore it and let the harassment reach its natural conclusion. 207.38.146.86 (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * In fact, had Snoog been willing to accept that there was a problem we wouldn't be here. Following WP:COPYVIO policy I posted first on their talk page and had no intention of escalating until they were dismissive and insulting. I assumed they would say something logical and conciliatory after being caught red-handed. The next step listed at WP:COPYVIO for dealing with violators is ANI. I believe I have followed procedure to the letter:  If a contributor has already been clearly warned of copyright infringement but carried on, you may want to seek advice from an administrator familiar with copyright policies or report it for administrator attention at the administrators' incidents noticeboard. You may also want to open a request at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations.  They were warned in 2016 on the page of an anti-war politician.  They have continued (who knows how much, I've looked at less than 0.01% of their edits). Still, I gave them an extra chance.  They chose not to take it. SashiRolls t ·  c 21:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but ... did you really just start a thread on a user with 20,000 edits claiming that they have " a regular pattern of violating copyright" and then provide three examples in the last two and a half years? I think the phrase we reach for here is "you're going to have to do better than that". Black Kite (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I did. 3 violations of copyright law that I have seen in a sample of perhaps 150 edits to mainspace that I've studied carefully enough to compare with sources is a 2% copyvio rate.  I have been encouraged not to investigate further because that would be considered "stalking".  That's convenient.  SashiRolls t ·  c 22:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you investigated further and actually made a case for something you posted at ANI I'm pretty sure no-one would complain about it. As it is, it just reads like "here's something I lazily threw together about an editor that I don't get along with". Black Kite (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Black Kite, in the last few months I've improved 4 articles to the point where they were included on the front page of Wikipedia with me as the #1 editor (François Rabelais, 2018-2019 Sudanese protests, 2019 Algerian protests, & Yellow vests movement). On none of those pages have I engaged in copyright violation.  Many of these pages involved reading sources in several languages.  One of the pages should not have appeared on the main page (Rabelais) because it was based on an erroneous death date.  I have dug into archives (well, ok, just went to the library ^^) to verify that information for en.wp. Please watch who you are calling lazy:  it seems to me it should be reserved for the person who doesn't bother to rewrite what they read.  As Rabelais says (in all caps): DO WHAT YOU WANT. I'm done here.  If others want to dig into the Snoog's edit, I'm pretty sure they will find more of the same.  However, I have been quite clearly told not to go out of my way to investigate the power-users after having been blocked for exposing the Cirt / Sagecandor affair, which  I recall you getting involved in.  SashiRolls t ·  c 22:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm quite aware of the good work you do here, and I'm not calling you lazy; I'm saying this is a lazy report, because it is. If you're going to make a case for a sanction against another user, you need to make sure it's pretty watertight, and asking for a copyvio sanction against someone and providing 3 diffs in 30 months is definitely not that. Black Kite (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment/Boomerang: I don't really know either of the two editors here, aside from just seeing them around. But reviewing this thread and the diffs, I think a boomerang may be order. This is sort of ridiculous. A "2% copyright in three years"? That's not uncommon for even veteran editors.
 * This is either obsessive frivolity, or some sort of retaliatory effort. And Sashi Rolls, your sarcastic comments about admins (presumably) warning you not to Wikistalk the reported user are not helpful. Just stick to the facts. The current examples you provided are not suitable for any sort of administrative action, as far as I can see. This is a statistically normal result, especially when quoting sources. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "2% copyright in three years"? That's not uncommon for even veteran editors. It definitely should be. I would say a 0% copyright violation rate is all that's acceptable for veteran editors. Natureium (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Further on boomerang: It's worth keeping in mind that SashiRolls was previously indeffed as an AE sanction:, and was given the opportunity, about six months ago, to return to the community under what is essentially WP:ROPE: . We may indeed be deep into boomerang territory. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Boomerang. This reads and feels like a bad-faith revenge attempt and is laughable on its merits. Even the comments about "We'll see if these are core policies or not" are a dare to do something. --Jorm (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Boomerang - This report seems clearly filed in bad faith, especially considering how SashiRolls has persistently gotten into conflict (and possibly harassed) with Snoog. The civility issues may be of some merit, but ideally not on this bad-faith thread. Nanophosis (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it's important to take a look at Talk:WikiLeaks to see the context of the claim of copyright violation.  It seems like it might be an excuse to remove text in order to push a POV.  I don't think it's fair for SashiRolls to complain about civility issues when they have themselves been uncivil:"ps for the peanut gallery (Snoog / Neutrality / Calton): there is a conspiracy theory circulating that Wikipedians are doddering cockatiels who keep repeating 'conspiracy theories'. We should try to correct that image we're giving of ourselves as doddering cockatiels who keep repeating 'conspiracy theories'."Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As an English teacher, I have occasionally had the unpleasant duty of giving failing grades for similar copyright infringements on assignments, though I generally give students the opportunity to redo their work since nobody else risks being penalized because student papers are not published. I did not realize that people were not even warned for copyright infringement here. I assumed the policy was taken as seriously as it in education (where in principle you can be failed for an entire year for a single occurrence). My apologies for bringing a stricter set of standards to en.wp than what I apparently should have.  However, I will not apologize for bringing Snoog to ANI; their incivility is notorious and gets under a great many editors skin (cf. User:Snooganssnoogans or any of their 52 noticeboard pages).   If I am to be blocked for the "crime" of following procedure, then I guess I'll find something more productive to do than collaborating on front-page entries.  With regard to the new accounts piling on, there's not much I can do about that.  Regarding KB's decontextualized quote, this was written because people were defending the repetition of "conspiracy theories" in three consecutive sentences (in a section titled "conspiracy theories").  To apologize for that I would have to apologize for being a writer. SashiRolls t ·  c 01:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Every act of incivility has context. I can't speak to Snoog's incivility, but their context must be considered as well.  Note that I added a link to Talk:WikiLeaks where the context of your statement, the current copyright issues, and incivility can be evaluated.  You have not addressed the concerns about your behavior.  Instead, your comment feels like passive aggressive blame shifting.  This is an example of uncivil behavior.  I understand you feel piled on, but you have not helped yourself.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing you've done warrants any sort of block, although a suggestion to avoid continued conflict with Snoog or, at worst, an IBAN may be proposed. You definitely do good work here, and I want to make clear that my previous comment is not an endorsement of a block. Nanophosis (talk) 02:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course it's taken seriously here, when it's spotted. This is not anything worth sanctioning or even actionable, though. A copyright vio of 2% in 150 edits is effectively null, especially considering the sorts of articles Snoogans edits; much of it is likely quotes. I'll admit I didn't delve deep into it beyond what you posted, because prima facie, this is a frivolous request. I'm also not sure why you're bringing up their alleged incivility, as this wasn't the basis of your request, and honestly makes me think this request is more about a grudge, and was filed in bad faith. I don't "know" either of you, but I am familiar with your editing habits, as I watch many of the pages that both of you happen to edit. Snoogans certainly makes sweeping and opinionated statements about various subjects, which probably isn't kosher for article talk pages in some cases. But they rarely say anything directly about editors, especially a specific editor. WP gives some latitude in this area, and I'm not sure if it's actually "incivility". And the community is well aware of the meatpuppetry, canvassing, and the effect that conspiracy theories have on the traffic and editing in these subject areas. I'm not sure why you put "conspiracy theories" in quotes. Maybe we're not on the same page here, and I'm just not following you, in so far as what specific point you're trying to make here.


 * And there's no point in preemptively engaging in apologetics to justify what seems to be a request without merit. Sashi, I don't know you, and I honestly don't know your motivations or your mind. But acting like a martyr here is not helpful. Do you honestly think this ANI request has substance beyond "Snoogs is snarky"? Or the original premise this was based on? I'm really confused as to your motivations here; this is one of the flimsiest cases I've seen brought here by a veteran editor, and you seem to be trying to change the subject when it's been pointed out.


 * I'm not suggesting a block, though I'll of course assent to the community consensus. Mainly because I'm not sure a block would fix this sort of behaviour. At the very least, a ban on filing cases in ANI and a one-way IBAN might be warranted. Honestly, I'm just not sure why you thought this was a good idea. It's rather transparent this is a personal matter. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Boomerang: a frivolous report and battleground mentality. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This is neither a frivolous report nor do I have a battleground mentality. I am focused on building an encyclopedia.  Whenever I have to interact with Snoog I put on "emotional armor" because I know they will accuse me of being "unhinged", "batshit insane", "tiresome", a "sociopath", that my questions are "excruciating" "pointless" "quibbles", etc.  Let's take one example from Tulsi Gabbard, whose talk page I think should be required reading for anyone wanting to know how Wikipedia really works.  As most people probably know, she is a representative from Hawaii running for president.  On 12 February, her BLP contained the word Syria 47 times, which I hope people will agree is a bit excessive.  On 13 February, Snoogans edited her BLP in order to add 12 more occurrences of the word (+2 in the edit summary), so that if you search the following link to the state they left the article in, you will find 61 occurrences of the word: §). Taking a look at the "syria trip", "counterterrorism" and especially the "foreign policy / syria" section should be enough to convince anyone that there is something quite unhealthy about these editing practices.  Whole sentences were repeated twice in the same paragraph, for example, three times in the article. There were also a few specific inaccuracies in that text, such as the claim that al-Qaeda & Al-Nusra were exclusively "Syrian terrorists" which I had to correct since they had duplicated it into two different sections.  Since that time, the BLP is much somewhat improved.
 * They have started an RfC now, I see, and have started off the discussion by saying "I have gone above and beyond to deal with SashiRolls, who has effectively held up any and all changes to this article (see the last two months of excruciating and pointless talk page discussions)."  In order to decide whether this was "excruciating" or "pointless", I encourage anyone wanting to weigh in here to take a look at the Tulsi_Gabbard section, which is still more than exhaustive but is now better written than what you saw in the above link... because I fixed it.  Needless to say, I have not participated in the RfC, as I believe the well to have been poisoned. SashiRolls t ·  c 08:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:WALLOFTEXT. -A la d insane  <small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)  15:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you can't handle reading a paragraph, this might not be the website for you. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 15:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite a fair point, and I apologize. -A la d insane  <small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)  15:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Snooganssnoogans' version of events is pretty much exactly what I have observed, starting with the Jill Stein article and onward. SashiRolls has some sort of obsession with Snooganssnoogans which results in all manner of disruption. This vexatious complaint is yet another example of harassment. SashiRolls even started to stalk me a couple of months ago here. Note the wacky interrogation, which I took to be a be an attempt to harass me shortly after similar interactions on talk:Tulsi Gabbard:
 * "I will not speculate as to Snoogans' motivations for misrepresenting the article being cited in the topic sentence of the paragraph, but will suggest that they are not making themselves look like someone who should be trusted to edit this BLP given their demonstrable record of one-sided editing on this page. I will ask Snoogans to self-revert. We will see if they can play fair or if their mission is contrary to en.wp's and topic-banning becomes necessary."
 * "A topic-ban from this article would be the simplest: en.wp does itself a disservice by continuing to allow such underhanded tactics to be deployed."
 * "Speaking of x-tools, I would remind Snoog & MrX that tag-teaming is a well-known strategy that is frowned upon."
 * "By reverting me restoring information you removed from the lede, you are subverting the BRD process in your typical gaming style"
 * "More to the point, it's always good to ask who is doing the stirring. I think I'll unwatchlist this page for a few days and !watch other people play. Go, SnooX!"
 * This is a continuation of the same type of behavior that resulted in SashiRolls being indeffed in 2017. - MrX 🖋 15:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

To those editors bringing up Sashi's indef from 2017, as well as those who may not know, let me share more details there. SashiRolls was blocked for continually bringing up behavioral issues from a former administrator using a sockpuppet to evade a topic ban, put in place to prevent exactly the type of issues Sashi was identifying. Nearly each time Sashi brought up the issues, commenting editors attacked Sashi, allowing the socking former admin to continue editing in violation of the topic ban for several more months, and earning Sashi an indef. Since returning, Sashi has been a valuable content contributor, and a net positive to the project. In the presented diffs, Snoogans does appear to have run afoul of copyright violations. I think the simple thing would be for Snoog to acknowledge that some editors take issue with that, and strive to make sure it doesn't happen again. No boomerang. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Mr Ernie. All I've asked is that 1) Snoogans be required to take the comments concerning civility, POV, and copyvio on-board, 2) apologize and 3) promise not to do it again. (Of course, others could quite legitimately think that this is far too soft.) A friend that I mentioned this recent ferkluffle to sent me another example of sloppy editing where Snoogans seemingly got really confused. This is the paragraph from the Syrian Civil War section of Seymour Hersh's BLP that they added a couple weeks ago:


 * Politico 's Jack Shafer described the story as "a messy omelet of a piece that offers little of substance for readers or journalists who may want to verify its many claims."


 * The only problem with this is that, in fact, Shafer is talking about an article about bin Laden, that has nothing to do with the Syrian civil war. So in the end the first and third sentences of the new paragraph Snoogans created refer to articles about bin Laden, not Syria, while the middle sentence (which Snoog pulled from preexisting text in the article) is the only one in the paragraph that is actually about Syria.  I've looked at this pretty carefully and just cannot understand how or why that mistake could have been made.   The irony is that in that sentence Bellingcat is accusing Hersh of sloppy journalism (perhaps correctly, I have no opinion on that).  All I know is that that paragraph's topic sentence is sourced to articles not about what Snoog's text claims they are about, and the "smoking gun" quote they found in Politico to end the paragraph is not referring to Hersh's reporting on Syria either.  It's a bit depressing, really, that I have to risk being boomeranged for pointing out these problems. , could you explain this mistake?   I would object ahead of time to those who would say this is a "content" issue that we are seeing just too many sloppy edits for this not to be considered behavioural. SashiRolls t ·  c 20:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is very simple: In a large edit covering critiques of Hersh's journalism on both the killing of Bin Laden AND the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War, one sentence critiquing his Bin Laden story ended up in the paragraph on the Syrian Civil War. Why on Earth is this being brought to this noticeboard rather than just fixed on the article like any other editing error? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, this is a good example of the unhealthy and disturbing obsession with me: that this editor is talking with and working with other editors to find dirt on me. And after three years of this creepy stalking of nearly 20,000 edits, this is the sum of what this editor could cobble together? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * So, by pointing out a mistake a friend pointed out to me, I am a creep?  One does wonder if there is much hope for improvement regarding WP:5P4. I would really like to see less toxicity at Wikipedia.  Also, I did mention this on the talk page of the entry, along with another potential concern that does not involve you.  I saw you fixed the final sentence but not the topic sentence.  Why didn't you fix the topic sentence as well?  You are still saying that a 2015 article in WaPo criticized a piece published in 2017. SashiRolls t ·  c 20:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It may just be me, but I would much rather deal with an editor who is being honestly uncivil than one who is passive aggressive and makes me feel manipulated. You just created two straw men.  Snoogans accurately described you as talking with another editor about him.  Your friend wouldn't have pointed out Snoogans' mistake to you if you hadn't spoken to your friend about them.  I can't say whether your behavior was "creepy" or problematic, but I can say that you've misrepresented the complaint.  You state: It's a bit depressing, really, that I have to risk being boomeranged for pointing out these problems.  This is not why you're at risk of being boomeranged.  It is your underlying behavior which I have witnessed for only maybe two days.  There are two other editors on Talk:WikiLeaks who I find far more disruptive, but that's another story.  If you want to help yourself, start by owning your own problematic behavior rather than continuing it.   Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * What?! This is a public website; Snoog's mistakes just like yours or mine are a matter of public record.  I have been blocked from this site before -- for over 500 days -- because of machinations to protect a defrocked admin socking.  A couple of the same people involved in that affair are here now (Trypto, MrX, more indirectly Snoog).  Why would I not speak to my friends about this?  It just so happens that I have friends who know that this contributor is (AGF) careless.  I mean, sure, if you want me to cuss at Snoog I could (though that would get me blocked pronto).  I prefer to be diligent and stick to the facts, both in this affair and in my contributions to mainspace.  I'm getting a little tired of the harassment/2-bit psychology from you Kolya.  Have we met before?  SashiRolls t ·  c 21:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, we have not met. I see that you are continuing to not address your behavior and are instead shifting the blame onto me.  I may leave it at that because I see that I'm not getting anywhere and there are others who have known you longer than two days.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think that would be best. SashiRolls t ·  c 22:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Mr Ernie correctly points out that SashiRolls did indeed get caught up somewhat unfairly in the antics of a serial sockpuppeteer, which was the proximal cause for the indef block, and that the major reason that the community decided to lift the block was because of that unfairness. But no one should come away from that thinking that the consensus was that everything else was OK. Rather, as can be seen in my earlier link to the unblock decision, there was significant concern over battleground-y conduct, and an explicit warning that the unblock came with a short WP:ROPE.
 * Setting aside the wall of text over content disputes, the first question here is whether there is sufficient evidence presented to require admin intervention directed at Snooganssnoogans. No there isn't.
 * But the reciprocal question, raised by multiple editors, is whether there is a basis for some sort of boomerang. SashiRolls was warned about future conduct when the block was lifted. Since then, based on information in this ANI discussion, he has engaged in battleground behavior in two topic areas under Discretionary Sanctions: Am Pol, and GMOs. And the very filing of this ANI report is clearly battleground conduct over a content dispute in Am Pol, possibly accompanied by a personal grudge. Snoogans has commented here in an appropriate manner, whereas SashiRolls seems to be throwing everything at the wall to see if anything sticks. I'm not seeing a net positive there. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Anyone puzzled as to why Trypto is talking about rope may want to read the guide.
 * This is just a reminder that, every so often, it's good to laugh rather than to call people "tiresome" or "grudge-y". (On the battle page mentioned above, it is even suggested that when battlers call you names, you should not respond in kind.)  SashiRolls t ·  c 02:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyone who is puzzled by that probably doesn't know what WP:ROPE is about. The reason why I'm talking about it is because it's relevant. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Boomerang. In my view, a highly experienced editor is effectively asking for a boomerang when you're told explicitly by an admin to stop harassing an editor, and then you come back and file an ANI report on the same editor based on 3 copyvios in 3 years. It doesn't matter how much time passed in the meantime. The vengeful ex doesn't get to say, "But officer, we dated 3 years ago!" Or, "But officer, the last time you caught me me harassing my ex was 2 1/2 years ago!" When you're told to stop harassing someone, you stop harassing them forever. R2 (bleep) 20:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Boomerang: an utterly frivolous report per MrX and R2D2 and others. Three copyvios in nearly three years, at least one of which would better be described as a close-paraphrase of brief content. Regarding civility, I would characterise interaction as "sometimes abrasive meets often snarky", so take your pick as to which is less constructive. Snarky is more in evidence in this ANI. Word of advice Sashi, don't bring frivolous ANI's, and you won't have to spend "time being sucked into dodging boomerangs being thrown at" you. Pincrete (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

More diffs
What you refer to as my "first diff" wasn't the first diff, so let me break it down further in hopes it will be clearer what is going on: Do you think this is acceptable? Why does it matter that one of those 13 editors was topic banned? Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 19:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No boomerang for Sashi and no boomerang for me for posting this:
 * At MS-13, back in July 2018, Snoog posts on the talk page "... article should cover Trump's rhetoric about MS-13, and outline all the falsehoods ..." In December 2018, they add to the lead that "The gang is a core component to Republican Party messaging ... Republican politicians, President Trump in particular, have falsely accused Democratic politicians of supporting MS-13. ..." and like an 8k section with the heading "Republican Party discourse". If someone reverts all or part of that, per WP:BRD, Snoog should be seeking consensus on the talk page, but instead it's revert, revert a 2nd editor, revert a 3rd editor, revert a 4th editor, revert a 5th editor and 2RR and 3RR, revert a 6th editor, revert a 7th editor, revert an 8th editor and 2RR, revert a 9th editor, revert a 10th editor, revert an 11th editor, revert a 12th editor, revert a 13th editor (2RR), 3RR with the edit summary "restoring the longstanding version". On the talk page: "How about you actually bother to read the contents of the study"; to another editor: "Your sole contributions were to add ramblings by far-right crackpots to this article..."
 * At The Wall Street Journal, adds negative information, adds "The Journal editorial board has promoted fringe views on scientific matters ...", and to the lead: "The editorial board is known for promoting fringe views on scientific matters. ...". Then months of revert, revert, revert, revert, revert, revert, 2RR, 3RR, revert, 2RR, 3RR with the edit summary "stop helping an IP vandal to remove reliably sourced long-standing content", revert, 2RR. To be fair, a few days ago Snoog started an RfC at Talk:The Wall Street Journal and as of now there is unanimous support.
 * Last month at Republican Party (United States): 1RR, 2RR, 1RR, 2RR, 3RR, 1RR, 2RR, 3RR
 * Last week at Dan Crenshaw: removes "... Crenshaw argued for working and partnering with the Mexican government to reduce illegal immigration to the United States ...", adds "Crenshaw said that climate change is real but that there is a 'very reasonable debate going on' about the extent to which human activity contributes to it ... (the scientific consensus on climate change is that human activity is a primary contributor to climate change)." and "|In 2019, Crenshaw voiced opposition to HR 1, legislation introduced by Democrats to make voting easier.]]"; and adds "... Crenshaw defended Trump's proposal ...". Then revert, revert a 2nd editor, revert a 3rd editor, revert a 4th editor. On the talk page: "Stop whitewashing."
 * At Talk:Wikileaks: "... your obfuscatory fringe version ...", "You are also violating WP:BRD ...", and:
 * A recent EWN report against Snoog, based on different diffs than those above (at Candace Owens going back almost a year) resulted in no action. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 05:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, like I explained at the spurious EWN filing where I was seriously being accused of edit-warring for removing BLP vio text that claimed that Sarah Silverman supported the transnational crime organization MS-13 (seriously): when you edit pages that deal with conspiracy theories, fringe content and falsehoods, you end up reverting a lot. In most cases, editors are not regular, do not bother at all to engage on the talk page and do not cite Wikipedia policy. The WSJ article is a good example, as IP numbers repeatedly edit-warred out the disputed content, only for me to start a RfC as soon as regular editors started removing it, and the RfC has of course unanimous consensus with eight votes after 3 days. You suggest that my edit summary "Undid revision 893037220 by Victor Schmidt (talk) the content is sourced in the body: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal#Science. stop helping an IP vandal to remove reliably sourced long-standing content)" is some kind of egregious civility violation, yet I was thanked by the regular editor whom I reverted for this edit summary (which explained what was going on). It's the same with the Dan Crenshaw page, where an editor removed Crenshaw's views on a major piece of legislation without any justification, I started a talk asking for reasons for the removal, stated that it amounted to "whitewashing", the other editor never bothered to respond and some other regular editor restored the content (that's how it traditionally goes). The "How about you actually bother to read the contents of the study" is literally in response to an editor who admits to not reading a study, yet who still went ahead with writing inaccurate text summarizing the contents of the study (and who was threatening to edit-war his summary into the article). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that editor objected to your calling their attempt to improve the article whitewashing and chose not to engage with you? Mr Ernie (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, it's important context here to clarify how Levivich and I know each other: Levivich sought to remove long-standing content out of the 2018 United States elections by falsely claiming to have a consensus and then by brazenly removing content that was closed as a consensus via a RfC. That's how I know this editor and how this editor knows me: I sought to keep long-standing content in the article that adhered to RS coverage whereas the other helped to edit-war the content out and replace it with poorly sourced rubbish. My version was of course approved in a RfC, and even then, the other editor sought to remove it. Again, what I'm I supposed to do when someone (in this case, Levivich) literally removes "consensus" text: let someone force out this consensus text? Start another RfC whose result this editor will ignore? Or should I revert it and thus be guilty of "edit-warring"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's time to give up the "long-standing content" line. As the diffs posted above demonstrate, you add new content, edit war when anyone tries to change it, then eventually claim it's "long-standing content". What you're supposed to do instead is follow WP:BRD, even if you're reverted by an IP editor. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 14:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Should I have started a second RfC after you removed text that had just been declared "consensus" in a closed RfC? Is this seriously the burden that I need to shoulder? It is not feasible in the slightest that I start a talk page discussion every single time that I revert someone (certainly not when it's consensus text) and it's certainly not something that other editors do. If you disagree with the consensus reached in a RfC, I'm pretty sure the burden falls on you to start a talk page discussion or start a new RfC. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You are expected to shoulder the same burden as the rest of us: to not edit war, to edit collaboratively, to follow WP:BRD, etc. I posted diffs of your recent editing at MS-13, The Wall Street Journal, Dan Crenshaw, Republican Party (United States) and WikiLeaks–leading right up to this past week. Your responses have been about my editing at 2018 United States elections–from January and February. The difference is that I followed BRD at that article; I didn't edit war; I took it to the talk page after I was reverted. The editing history and talk page of that article speak for themselves (as does the RfC closing statement). You, however, routinely ignore BRD and edit war, falsely claiming you are restoring a "longstanding version", or that the editors who disagree with your edits are "whitewashing" or otherwise pushing POV or being disruptive. There is nothing about you or the topics you edit that justify an exception to the rules of orderly, collaborative editing. That you can't seem to see that is why I think a short topic ban from AP2 may help. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 16:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at your diffs. In this MS-13 nonsense, looking at your first diff, I see Snoogans reverting a user called . It should probably be noted that BreakingZews was soon after Topic Banned from AP2 in this thread . The next diff in your list is this one, , in which an editor tries to insinuate that the Democratic Party might be supporting MS-13. Do we need to talk about that, or do you already understand how ridiculous that is? Seriously, is that your argument against Snooganssnoogans? If that's the best you can do, then you deserve that boomerang. Geogene (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at your diffs. In this MS-13 nonsense, looking at your first diff, I see Snoogans reverting a user called . It should probably be noted that BreakingZews was soon after Topic Banned from AP2 in this thread . The next diff in your list is this one, , in which an editor tries to insinuate that the Democratic Party might be supporting MS-13. Do we need to talk about that, or do you already understand how ridiculous that is? Seriously, is that your argument against Snooganssnoogans? If that's the best you can do, then you deserve that boomerang. Geogene (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Snoog adds 9,174 bytes of new content to MS-13. Under WP:BRD, this is a bold addition. It is not a revert of anything or anyone. It is before BreakingZews edited the article.
 * 2) Over the next four months, 13 different editors changed or removed part of that 9k passage. Each of these is a BRD revert, to which the proper response is discussion on the talk page. Instead, in each case, Snoog reverted the revert, reinstating their original bold addition, sometimes multiple times. I linked to each of those in my long post above.
 * Yes, the very first one of those editors was topic banned from AP2 soon afterward. The next edit seemed to be trying to insinuate a conspiracy theory (that Democrats are possibly working to promote MS-13) when Snooganssnoogans reverted them. Edits like that should be challenged. We need more editors reverting edits like that, and we need fewer editors trying to get those editors topic banned for it. How long a text needs to remain in an article unchallenged before changing it, as opposed to reverting changes to it, becomes the WP:BOLD action seems like a less important issue, one that we're unlikely to find a consensus on here. Geogene (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And the other 11 editors? Were they all trying to insinuate a conspiracy theory? Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 20:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know, since the first two were without merit I stopped looking. Geogene (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Here's a TLDR version of with just EC accounts at MS-13: Snoog added 9k to the article, then reverted 's edit to the language, as well as reverted 's edit, reverted 's edit, reverted 's edit, reverted 's edit, and reverted 's edit, with the justification "...restoring the longstanding version". On the talk page, Snoog wrote to Rich Farmbrough "How about you actually bother to read the contents of the study" and to Niteshift36 "Your sole contributions were to add ramblings by far-right crackpots to this article...". Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich  00:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

One of Levivich's examples is edit-warring on the WSJ page to remove climate change-related content. Every editor who removed the content was an IP number (as soon as regular editors removed the content, I started a talk page discussion and a RfC). Three days after the start of the RfC, there are seven votes in support of my version, with one vote against my version. Despite this consensus, the IP numbers are back removing the text. If I now restore this long-standing content which obviously has consensus support, should I expect Levivich to count that as an example of edit-warring? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The reason I posted so many is so that you couldn't get away with cherrypicking one or two and excusing them. 13 editors at MS-13, ironically–they weren't all IPs. They weren't all vandals. They weren't all new editors. There are even more editors once you factor in the other articles I posted. If you think it'll help, we can ping them all, and ask them if they're "real" editors or if they're the kind of editors we can ignore. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 21:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC) Update: I pinged some of them, we can ask. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich  00:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm a real person. My edit was correcting information which wasn't supported by any of the three sources cited. I figured it would be a non-contentious edit, as all I did was change the term "focused on" to "mentioned" (because, as described in the edit summary, Snoog's sources either did not use the term "focus" anywhere, or they were in direct contradiction by saying the focus was on healthcare and other issues). It was a surprise to see it reverted. From this short interaction with him or her, it appears to me that  is trying to push a POV and is uninterested in truth. 84percent (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This set of diffs is more convincing the the first one.The extensive POV edit-warring and incivility is a huge problem. He editwars without even attempting to provide sources. A claim such as "There is no evidence that weak immigration enforcement or sanctuary city policies contribute to MS-13 activity." needs a source and I can't believe after being told that by other editors he continues to add it back in without a source. That Republicans cited Joe Biden's past support of delaying judicial nominations until after an election as justification for their opposition to Merrick Garland as reported by the new york times is "fringe"  does not even make sense. You can't just label things "fringe" because you disagree with them and only present half the story. Just take a look at the page user:Snooganssnoogans and you can see he's WP:NOTHERE. What kind of legit editor keeps a list of 50 or so mostly off-wiki criticisms of his editing? He is here to improve content or just to make more outrageous edits to draw attention to himself? That a single editor could have received that much negative attention really makes Wikipedia look bad. Why would anyone be proud of this?--Rusf10 (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (1) The text "There is no evidence that weak immigration enforcement or sanctuary city policies contribute to MS-13 activity." is sourced to the Associated Press, FactCheck.Org and ProPublica (in the body of the article). Furthermore, the text is entirely consistent with the state of the academic literature, and consistent with language used on Sanctuary city and Immigration and crime. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (2) There are a number of peer-reviewed studies that characterize the Republican move as unprecedented (cited in the body of the article). The so-called "Biden precedent" that Republicans cobbled together was both misleading and ultimately something that one Senator at one time remarked rather than acted on. So it is indeed fringe to rebut peer-reviewed assessments of the move as unprecedented with political rhetoric from partisans. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Those are valid points... that should have been raised on the talk page after the first time you were reverted. That your bold addition was "correct" isn't a reason to ignore BRD. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 17:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, they are not valid points. 1. The sources provided, while critical of President Trump, do not actually say "no evidence that weak immigration enforcement or sanctuary city policies contribute to MS-13 activity." 2. I don't care whether you personally think that citing the "Biden rule" is misleading, sure its open to debate whether circumstances were different then, but that doesn't make it "fringe" (and note that the source doesn't use that work either).--Rusf10 (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You're now just flat-out telling falsehoods about the sources (this is an extremely good example of the kind of time-consuming veto tactics that one frequently encounters on American politics pages that relate to conspiracy theories, fringe rhetoric and falsehoods). (1) AP: "It’s inaccurate for Trump and his administration to assert that weak immigration enforcement is leading to “unchecked” crime, including from the “vile gang MS-13.”", FactCheck.Org describes Trump's claim that "The weak illegal immigration policies of the Obama Admin. allowed bad MS 13 gangs to form in cities across U.S." as "distorts the facts" and cites as an MS-13 expert literally saying "Gangs do not flourish because of weak immigration policies.", ProPublica likewise rejects the assertion,, NBC News: "there's no evidence that sanctuary cities, which limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, foster crime or gangs, and authorities have said sanctuary policies actually help them fight crime." (2) "Fringe" as in contradiction to mainstream academic scholarship (which is all cited in the article in question). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. I'll concede that the sources actually say that weak immigration polices do not lead to gang activity, but they do so without much proof. The AP article says "Several studies have shown that immigration does not lead to increased crime." without even citing those studies. An intelligent reader would first ask, whether those studies came to the conclusion that immigration as a whole (including legal immigration) doesn't lead to increased gang activity or that specifically illegal immigration (what Trump was actually talking about) doesn't lead to increased gang activity? Then the next question would be, are there also other studies that came to different conclusions? I'm not saying the conclusion here is wrong or right, just that it needs better evidence. 2. The source was written by "mainstream academic scholarship": Not true, it was written by a reporter, his bio is here So it's basically an opinion piece, which is fine and the author makes the argument that circumstances were different in 1992, which is also fine. So, to be clear there is nothing wrong with this as a source, but to say that anyone who disagrees with this particular reporter or any other for that matter is "fringe" is disingenuous and inflammatory. You seem to have a view that intelligent people cannot have disagreements and therefore anyone who has a different view that you is "fringe" and this type of mentality should not be accepted here.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (1) RS are not required prove things. Especially not when RS are just describing an obvious and apparent research consensus. Since you're interested in learning more about the relationship between Immigration and crime, research shows both that (a) legal immigration does not increase crime and (b) illegal immigration does not increase crime. (2) I'm not referring to the PolitiFact article as "mainstream academic scholarship", I'm referring to the "mainstream academic scholarship" cited in the Wikipedia article (i.e. the mainstream academic scholarship that you want to rebut with "But Republicans say otherwise"). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The only reference to scholars is in the NPR article which say "Scores of scholars — law professors, historians and political scientists — urged the Senate to at least have a process for Garland as a duly appointed nominee with impeccable qualifications. But some lawyers and academics pointed out that the Constitution empowered the Senate to "advise and consent" but did not require it do so. (Some adding that they thought the Senate still ought to do so.)" 1. I don't' see anything about the Biden rule there. 2. Nor do I see anything that categorizes Republican views as fringe. All is says is they are doing the opposite of what scholars "urged" them to do.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There are four academic sources cited in the body regarding the blocking of Garland. Please read more carefully. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to play this find the mystery source game with you. Why don't you just provide the academic source that asserts that citing the Biden Rule is a fringe view?--Rusf10 (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * None of the academic sources (AFAIK) specifically address the "Biden rule" (why would they? it's a faux rationale). They describe the blocking of Garland as "unprecedented", a "culmination of this confrontational style," a "blatant abuse of constitutional norms," and a "classic example of constitutional hardball." The addition of the "Biden rule" is to rebut these assessments by making it seem as if the move was not unprecedented and just normal everyday politics (that's the "fringe" part). This chapter is not cited in the Wikipedia article but it specifically addresses the "Biden rule", effectively calling it BS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "None of the academic sources (AFAIK) specifically address the "Biden rule"", so what you're relying on is WP:SYNTH.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, what I'm relying here on is WP:FRINGE. We don't add fringe arguments to articles to rebut mainstream academic scholarship just because they haven't been specifically addressed by academics (i.e. we wouldn't say "Some scientists say human activity contributes to climate change. Others say [insert inane arguments for why humans don't contribute to climate change]"). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, you are just labeling something fringe because you disagree with it. What theory, fringe or otherwise is being pushed here. It is not a theory that Biden wanted to delay judicial nominations until after the 1992 elections, that's true. It is the opinion of Republicans that this set a precedent to oppose the Garland nomination. It is the opinion of other people that it did not. Do you understand the difference between a theory and an opinion??? The underlying facts are not in dispute, the dispute is over how to interpret them.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

*No boomerang. I was drawn here by my mention above. Snooganssnoogans did, in fact, add a lot of material to the MS13 article, specifically in the lead (not a lede). The material has been removed or challenged by a number of editors and his constant reversion with the claim of 'it's long-standing' is, in my view, dishonest. When it was pointed out that his version spent over half of the lead discussing one issue in a very POV manner, his "solution" was to just fill the lead with more info instead of addressing the undue weight issue. I can't see where he is trying to work towards consensus on that article. No comment on the other articles that I'm not involved in. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Fact checking Snoogans' initial statement


This has all become way too long, as usual when you have to fact-check Snoogans. But it does need doing since unfortunately it is always "feasible in the slightest" for Snoog to type out screeds full of adverbs and adjectives "every single time" they talk about everyone's behaviour except their own. Therefore, I would like to briefly point out 3 of the verifiable lies as well as a dubious half-truth in their initial statement:

1) SR began a stalking and harassment campaign against me (whom he blamed for the topic-ban), where he followed me to pages that he’d never been to before, only to revert me nilly-willy. After SR removed my addition of a peer-reviewed study in a top journal to one obscure article

Anyone clicking next on the link Snoog gave above would see that first he reverted me without correcting his two subject-verb agreement errors, and then I corrected the errors in the subsequent edit and walked away from the page and never edited it again. I did not "revert [him] nilly-willy", but precisely once after politely trying to get them to correct their own error by leaving a message on their talk page. Verdict: pants on fire

2) I watchlisted Tulsi Gabbard's BLP around the time that she resigned from the DNC as ⁭I figured that would lead to negative consequences for her BLP.  Sure enough, shortly thereafter, Snoogans began modifying... deleting positive things from her page and curiously "massaging" some negative wiki-text which was sourced to a long-since deleted blogpost.  So, contrary to what he stated above, what angered him enough to call me "batshit insane" & a "sociopath" was not my correcting his agreement errors, but my calling out his misrepresentation of a no-longer existent source (which he admitted he had not read "I did not and I have never read that blogpost. I changed the language because it read weird). (Actually they changed the wiki-text from the past to the present tense to make it sound more recent.) So concerning their description of the reason for their block... Verdict: pants on fire

3) Concerning Neutrality's comment about the trivial episode mentioned in #1, Snoog has obviously not seen fit to include my response to it which pointed out how trivial it was to be complaining about me correcting a grammatical error. People can find that response by clicking next from the provided diff. Neutrality's original complaint was made but was unwarranted.  The only communication I've had with Neutrality since returning was to thank him for a good edit he made on a page I principally authored. Verdict:  half truth

4) Concerning AWilley, I'm surprised they haven't commented, since Snoog has completely misrepresented their position: @Snooganssnoogans: There are ways out of this. I think the best way would be for you to understand what is at the root of SushiRolls's objections and start editing from a more neutral point of view. (Not an endorsement of SashiRolls's POV) ~Awilley (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)  Verdict:  Pants on fire

Fact check evaluation:  Four Pinocchios . — Preceding unsigned comment added by SashiRolls (talk • contribs)


 * (1) You stalked me to a page which you never edited before and which you had zero reason to ever encounter only to remove my edit in its entirety (which was a summary of a peer-reviewed study in a top journal).[] That you're still BSing about this and can't cop to stalking me to this page is beyond belief. Do you seriously think anyone is buying it? An admin literally described it as part of an intentional campaign to harass me and drive me of the project. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (2) You're asking us to believe that you happened to make your first edit to the Tulsi Gabbard page shortly after I edited the page, and where you coincidentally happened to revert my edit in its entirety, because you watchlisted the article in anticipation that some bad people would start editing the article? And you did all of this at basically same time that you stalked me to other articles and filled my talk page with incoherent and threatening commentary in what an admin described as a harassment campaign? Hard to believe. In particular, given that you can't even admit to the most brazen and blatant stalking. This is beyond the point (your creepy harassment) but I removed poorly sourced content and added RS content to the Tulsi Gabbard page. This is the edit in question (so readers can judge). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (3) Why on Earth would I include your ranting in response to an admin warning you not harass me anymore? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (4) That's an extremely misleading and deceptive recounting events. You're completely misrepresenting my interaction with Awilley. After describing how you indiscriminately reverted all my edits on the Tulsi Gabbard page and refused to explain why (holding the page hostage), I asked him/her "whether it's OK to hold a page hostage like this", to which Awilley answered, "Ugh, that is definitely not how things are supposed to work." Then later, after you were informed by Awilley that you couldn't block things without explanation, and after I spent ten days trying to converse with you on the Tulsi Gabbard page (during which time you filled the talk page with WP:NOTFORUM rambling and casting of aspersions), I asked Awilley "is there seriously no way out of this?", to which Awilley gave the response that you just quoted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) are we still talking about your error on Reconquista?
 * 2) Why do you neglect to mention that it was your first edit ever to Gabbard's page?  By all means people are welcome to read your initial edit and my subsequent improvements to the page and my TP edits concerning my revert of your edit. (Cf.  BRD)
 * 3) There are lots of reasons.  Again, are we still talking about your grammatical error on Reconquista?  It's fixed, get over it.


 * 4) I think people should investigate your representation of this matter.   prefers to avoid drama, but it is true they did reply "ugh no" to your one-sided presentation of the matter on your TP and shortly thereafter thanked me on the same page for filling in the missing gaps in your story.  I cited their last comment on the matter, after you'd been pinging them fairly regularly.  My impression was that they wanted you to understand that they did not wish to be your muscle.  That is a very respectable position, IMO. SashiRolls t ·  c 20:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Since I was pinged... I both criticized SashiRolls for mass-reverting and gaming the BRD rule to hold Snooganssnoognas's edits hostage with talkpage discussion, and I chided Snooganssnans for essentially failing to write for the opponent. ~Awilley (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Well then, we will have to agree to radically disagree on the "mass-reverting and gaming" charge, which is nonsense. SashiRolls t ·  c 22:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

5) Snoogans, you seem to want to give me the reputation of a stalker, by providing evidence of a grammar correction I made in November 2016.  A newish editor, below, wants to call into question whether I had the Tulsi Gabbard article watchlisted when you made your first edit to it in November 2016, though I've explained my reasoning above for doing so.  Digging back into it, I remember that the exact date was probably closer to around the time that DWSchultz said she would resign, because by then I was pretty aware that there was very strong partisanship on Wikipedia.  (At the time I didn't yet know that the CCO of the Clinton Foundation was a WMF donor & contractor though)

On 22 September 2016 13:45 I made some edits to Haiti-United States relations. Snoog, you made your first ever edit to that page on 22 September @ 14:34 (less than an hour later) to revert my edit with the ES "bilateral US-Haiti relations nothing to do with Clinton Foundation which is a private entity".

First, one does wonder how you found that edit so quickly without having the page watchlisted. Second, this ES also deserves a Pinocchio/pants on fire fact-check rating: the first of several articles added as a source was a Politico article by Jonathan Katz which Politico had (and has) tagged as "Clinton Foundation," and which includes a picture captioned "At left, workers walk through the $300 million Caracol Industrial Park campus in the north of Haiti last month. The three-year-old park—a key project of the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state—was intended to have thousands more jobs by now but is far behind initial projections"  Four hours later you still hadn't opened discussion on the Talk Page, so I did so at 18:25 on 22 September 2016. WP:BRD?

I've edited quite a few articles on Haiti and have never seen any evidence of your presence in that area of Wikipedia. How did you happen to find that obscure article Snoogans? Did you have it watchlisted? If so, could you explain why? If not, who was "stalking" whom, in fact? Out of curiosity: would you agree that a foundation's CCO being a donor and employee-contractor of the WMF should have no bearing on whether we include RS descriptions of their activities? SashiRolls t · c 22:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Just maybe it had something to do with your 13:22, 22 September 2016 edit on Political_positions_of_Hillary_Clinton where there is a link right there to Haiti-United States relations.  The question is, how did you find this edit by Snoogans which perfectly fit your narrative, and without noticing the obvious explanation?  It took me all of five minutes to verify what happened.  Secondly, what do you mean by "around the time that DWSchultz said she would resign"?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Aha! Thanks KB.  I had forgotten that I'd added that link.  I ran into this again when I had to dig up the diff from his TP to show that Snoog was misrepresenting the reason for his block. I saw: "Not sure why you're following me around, but..." and a request for him to rewrite what he didn't like) It's funny how he could remove something which required hours of reading for me to prepare for the encyclopedia within 45 minutes of my adding it.  But that is a question about bias not about "stalking".  You are correct.  I notice though that you didn't correct your misstatement below about whether or not I reverted JBL.  Could it be that you made a mistake?  How did you make that mistake? Why haven't you corrected it?  To answer your question, I'm not sure exactly which day I added TG's BLP to my watchlist, all I know is that it was well before Snoogans' started editing it, probably closer to the end of the primaries than to the date of the general election. SashiRolls t ·  c 06:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, so when you said you thought you watchlisted Tulsi Gabbard "around the time that DWSchultz said she would resign", that was a mistake too? It is unclear at this point.  You are now suggesting you may have watchlisted the article around the end of the primaries?  Please ping me next time when I've made an error so I'm sure to notice.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

6) Another example of !stalking that maybe Mr/s Butternut will explain.  Snoog followed me to the Daily Mail article on Christmas Day to revert a sourced contribution I made critical of en.wp process during the first RfC about banning the DM. (It was and remains their only edit ever to the page).  They eventually retracted their position when I pointed out they had fought to use the same source they were objecting to as non-RS to post negative POV about Jill Stein during the 2016 election.  Let's be clear:  I am not advocating for the Daily Mail or for Jill Stein by pointing this out.  I am advocating for NPOV.  Let's also be clear:  I don't see anything *procedurally* illegitimate about Snoog coming and reverting me on Christmas Day, 2018 (edit:  actually, by BRD they should have opened disussion on the TP, but let's not be too strict about it). Their double standard on sourcing and their crying wolf about "stalking" is another matter entirely. SashiRolls t · c 11:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * SashiRolls, you have been repeatedly told to stop making baseless personal attacks against other editors. Most recently you have attacked me,  after I corrected the one small error in my documentation of the dishonesty in just one piece of your statements.   You are now again making the baseless accusation that User:Snooganssnoogans has been stalking you.  On Christmas Day 2018, you two were participating in a discussion at WP:RSN #Media Bias Fact Check where you provided a link to your Daily Mail edit in response to Snooganssnoogans.   I am curious how you are able to find these supposed occurrences of stalking without noticing their context within your editing history on the same day.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * As Mr/s Butternut knows, their link above does not lead directly to the edit in question. Only by following the sequence of edits did Snoog find the edit they reverted.  If you are so concerned about honesty, you really should be accurate in the research you did in the last two hours.  It's true that I had spaced that 4 months ago I made a comment about the use of  Media Bias/Fact Check on the Daily Mail.  See also the use of the Daily Mail on Wikileaks.  (the article where the initial copyvio that started this thread occured)


 * Once again, allow me to repeat... I don't see anything *procedurally* illegitimate about Snoog coming and reverting me on Christmas Day, 2018 (edit: actually, by BRD they should have opened disussion on the TP, but let's not be too strict about it).  Their double standard on sourcing and their crying wolf about "stalking" is another matter entirely.  SashiRolls t ·  c 15:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I empathize with Snooganssnoogans' use of the phrase "incoherent ramblings" to describe your behavior. Your above comment has no substance and serves only to distract from the merits of my criticism.  Snoogans reverted edits which you had made to WP:Daily Mail on the same day that you sent him a link to WP:Daily Mail.  I can't make any sense of your statement.  Here is the editing history where you were reverted by Snoogans and User:Aquillion   Regarding your last comment, I am discussing the accusations of stalking, which you personally requested that I investigate, and which are as you stated: "another matter entirely" from the actual edits, so when you change the subject to the edits themselves you are distracting from what you asked me to discuss.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Any merit to your statement above, as below, is undermined by your deliberate misrepresentation. Above you say  you two were participating in a discussion [...] where you provided a link to your Daily Mail edit, implying that it is the same edit I mentioned above, which it was not.  If Snoog wanted to verify that nothing was up with that edit, they would only have needed to click on the link I provided at RS/N and see that I had indeed removed the Media Bias/Fact Check link that they said had said was unreliable.  Nothing would have led them to go digging further into my edits.  It is worth noting that on the Daily Mail page  1) I did not engage in edit-warring but let Aquillon, who you just canvassed, Calton, Snoog & Neutrality have their way.  2)  WP:BRD states that when you revert you should start a TP discussion (technical foul) 3) by their own subsequent admission, their revert was not justified on the basis that both Snoog and Aquillon had claimed ("random academic", "obscure figure", Forbes op-ed is not RS) (shifting goalposts).


 * Twice now you've misrepresented your opposition research (conducted minutes beforehand) in ways unfavorable to your opponent. I am quoting from memory (from 2.5 years ago and 4 months ago) and I'm doing much better than you as far as accuracy goes.  I did have TG watchlisted before Snoog showed up there and before Volunteer Marek supported Snoog without any participation in the discussion; I did not revert anyone neutral in the discussion about the deleted blogpost sourcing Snoog's rewrite of the wiki-text.  Incidentally, the "Leftward Journey" article you mention below was also a dead link when I returned to the page. I dug the correct link up, because I have no problem "writing for the enemy".  Snoog on the other hand, isn't very good at that as this example shows.  (They are claiming what they've written is "long-standing content" when in fact they had changed the "long-standing" text without discussion.  That should remind people about what was said above (in the "more diffs" sections) about the 13 people they reverted at another page I was not involved in.  You have denied you are a sockpuppet, so I will have to assume (according to wiki-rules) that your behavioral similarities to Cirt (note the blue drama ice-cap in the graph) are just a coincidence, and that you really have only ever made 341 edits to mainspace (note the blue drama ice-cap in your graph.  Note the lack of blue drama ice-cap in my graph. SashiRolls t ·  c 18:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This discussion is about you accusing Snoogans of stalking you to WP:Daily Mail, which I have shown did not happen. You state "If Snoog wanted to verify that nothing was up with that edit, they would only have needed to click on the link I provided at RS/N and see that I had indeed removed the Media Bias/Fact Check link that they said had said was unreliable. Nothing would have led them to go digging further into my edits."  You didn't just remove the Media Bias/Fact Check link, you also removed the following line which was sourced from The Guardian: "Support for the ban centred on claims of 'the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication'."   Snoogans must have then looked to see that the article at that time included inline attribution to The Guardian along with a Forbes op-ed which they objected to. Their edit summary includes "The Guardian is RS, so no need to attribute".    I'm not going to argue further about your bad faith or at best strange inferences.  If you want to discuss who you think I am you can invite me to your talk page, but the rest of what you wrote has nothing to do with me.  I don't know what I'm supposed to be seeing in those graphs, but I don't appreciate the backhanded accusation of sockpuppetry.  You invited me to correct what you felt was Snoogans' copyright violation ; here at ANI you have accused Snoogans of copyright violation; I saw and continue to see what I feel is dishonesty, which I do not appreciate.  Snoogans clearly has conduct problems too (which seem well investigated by others), but like I said, an editor who is being honestly uncivil isn't my biggest peeve.  I don't want to clutter up this space anymore, so please invite me to your page if you have personal concerns.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As you conveniently don't mention, were your theory true, they would have been satisfied by clicking next just once as I restored the sentence in the very next edit.  Let me suggest that  you go do something useful for the encyclopedia as I have done this evening.  You haven't made a mainspace edit in at least 4 days. SashiRolls t ·  c 01:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you would stop making false statements and accusations I wouldn't feel the need to participate here any longer. There is a pattern here of you either assuming the worst intentions of people or of you outright lying.  You did not restore the sentence you deleted without changing it.  You changed the sentence to "Support for the ban centred on a competitor's claims about "the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication".   Note that you added the word "competitor's".  Snoogans would only have had to click "next" one more time to see that you added inline attribution to The Guardian,  which they disagreed with.   There is no merit to your accusation that Snoogans stalked you to WP:Daily Mail. Please let this go.  Please stop making this personal about me.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Fair enough I added a word. I didn't notice.  You win.   Bravo. SashiRolls t ·  c 03:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You're demonstrating a battleground mentality. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Since we seem to be creating subsections
It looks concerning to me when editors are explaining their reasoning by posting little animated faces expressing scorn, or giving Pinocchio ratings to what other editors have said. Looks battleground-y to me, like maybe the reasoning would look considerably weaker without the visual embellishments. And it sure looks like the exporting of a content dispute to ANI. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This very much seems battleground-y to me and I seriously wonder about the rhetorical skills involved in posting Pinocchio ratings. This is sad.--Jorm (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I show you a ton of recent diffs of an editor edit warring with over a dozen other editors across multiple articles to keep their own bold additions in, and what "looks concerning" to you is my use of a smiley? Now that is sad. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich  20:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I said. I wouldn't, however, call it a smiley – more like a snarky. { --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Fact checking SashiRolls
SashiRolls claimed above: "I watchlisted Tulsi Gabbard's BLP around the time that she resigned from the DNC as ⁭I figured that would lead to negative consequences for her BLP. Sure enough, shortly thereafter, Snoogans began modifying...". Tulsi Gabbard resigned from the DNC on February 28, 2016, while SashiRolls' first edit to Tulsi Gabbard was not until November 11, 2016, the day after Snooganssnoogans' first edit to Tulsi Gabbard. On Novermber 11, Snoogans said on Talk:Tulsi Gabbard "you're just here to revert my edits whatever they happen to be.", to which SashiRolls responded: Look, I'm watching your edits for bias, you know that, especially concerning politicians like Tulsi Gabbard.".

SashiRolls reverted Snoogans' edit which was supported by two other neutral editors, as User:Joel B. Lewis wrote:"You are simply restating your a priori position as if it were the result of a discussion that hasn't happened. So far, two neutral editors have weighed in; I have expressed skepticism of your position and V.M. has reverted you. I strongly opposed inclusion of long, mundane quotes from press releases; if you want to write something proper using secondary sources, go ahead, but you haven't done that. I am also skeptical of your position on the older stuff, though I haven't thought as much about it yet. I am going to revert to the last version before the personal attacks broke out and we can continue to discuss how to rewrite it. --JBL (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC) Full discussion here." Snoogans' edit was restored by User:Volunteer Marek, which SashiRolls reverted, and by JBL, which SashiRolls reverted. SashiRolls claimed above that Snoogans "misrepresent[ed] a no-longer existent source (which he admitted he had not read 'I did not and I have never read that blogpost. I changed the language because it read weird'). (Actually they changed the wiki-text from the past to the present tense to make it sound more recent." It is reasonable to think the language "read weird".  The word "initially" feels somewhat taken out of context in this paragraph which ended the section: "Her father, Mike Gabbard, is a staunch anti-gay marriage Democrat (formerly a Republican) who is the State Senator for Hawaii's 19th District. The familial connection, and her previous stance,[22] initially caused voters to doubt the sincerity of her support for LGBT causes.[123] Snoogans' edit"  SashiRolls later deleted the last clause, which they had found to be negative, because the source was "no longer active", when they could have instead just added the archived source. Notice that they did not actually remove the citation or the other text using that citation. Search for "Expression" magazine:. But they didn't just delete the text sourced to the "no longer active" link, they also removed the preceding reference without explanation in their edit summary. The sentence, which was then without any citations, was later removed.
 * Boomerang: dishonesty. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) My choice of words was incorrect, in retrospect I should have said "when your name pops up on my watchlist" rather than "I am watching your edits".
 * 2) You are correct that I was mistaken about the watchlist date, it would have had to have been later.  You are not correct about the substance.  I added TG to my watchlist because I knew her BLP would get spun and did not edit it until it started being done.
 * 3) I reverted only Snoog & VM because neither discussed (Cf. BRD). NB: This was Volunteer Marek's first edit ever to the article, just as it had been Snoog's. When JBL asked me to rewrite, I did. I did not revert JBLewis.  Could you correct your statement above saying that I did or provide evidence of it, please?
 * 4) At the time, I did not know about archived links.  I did try to find  the blog but did not find it because it had been deleted.  A blog is not an RS.
 * 5) I need to get to my day job.  I would like to be working on more pressing things on en.wp but find my time being sucked into dodging boomerangs being thrown at me. SashiRolls t ·  c 09:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * that is some class detective work from someone who has been active in Wikipedia only since January 2019. I'm not for dismissing diffs if they're the posted by the "wrong person", but given that this topic area has been plagued by sockpuppets (Sagecandor, Dan the Plumber etc.), it would be nice if someone like you left advocating boomerangs for someone else. --Pudeo (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Since I was quoted: that one comment is an accurate but not complete summary of my observations of that interaction; both editors were acting in difficult or otherwise less-than-ideal ways. --JBL (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

General comments

 * Incivility I have not looked at the copyvio claims, but I found Snoogans response to be extremely incivil, and did not give the appearance of either AGF of having good faith. I have not met with this type of response since the guy who quoted Julius Caesar then accused everyone who objected of effectively being illiterate.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC). <br I/>
 * Calling someone illiterate is just about the worst kind of personal attack. After all, it's not a person's fault if their mother and father weren't married. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 08:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, FFS, now everyone in the office knows I'm not working... GoldenRing (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Leave it to EEng to attempt to diffuse a situation while blaming it on his illiteracy...and I mean that illiterally. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 14:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear: this editor is referring to my response to him. "How about you actually bother to read the contents of the study rather than add your own OR description of its contents and then threaten to edit-war your false original research back into the article?" does not seem like a horrifically inappropriate response when someone inaccurately summarizes a study (which was freely available through a google search), admits not to reading it and then threatens to edit-war that inaccurate description of the study back into the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * True, it's not horrifically inappropriate. Horrifically inappropriate would be something like "it's probably cancer", or violent imagery involving sandpaper and hot sauce. But I think we should aim higher than "not horrifically inappropriate". Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 17:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There are two problems with your responses to me on that page, and your previous revert without starting a discussion. That is that they were both wrong and and rude.
 * I did point out AGF to you, but your next response was as bad or worse. I think it quite reasonable when a reference takes one to an abstract with a paid link to the full paper, to take the abstract at face value.  Moreover the abstract did agree with the paper when I found a freely accessible copy.
 * The paper allowed a significant claim to be reasonably present in the article, albeit one weaker than that which was there. The other two references, from newspaper columns, merely stated "no evidence" for a contrary position, and should have been removed, or moved to support that which they actually did.
 * I know you want (and I think introduced) a stronger claim, which may very well be true, but it simply isn't supported by the sources.
 * This was really the only change I was intending to make to the section, and it seems unexceptional, whereas your response came across ass both ABF and WP:OWN.
 * Looking back on the history of the page since you introduced the changes there seems to be a lot of dispute over them, on the basis of WP:UNDUE and (though not expressed as such) WP:COATRACK. I have not formed a firm opinion on these issues, but there certainly seems to be a case to answer, and some of this material might well do better in other articles.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC).


 * Just to follow up, accusing me of adding "OR" and "threaten[ing] to edit-war your false original research back into the article?" is egregiously incivil, not to say demonstrably wrong. By posting my conclusions before reinstating my version (which I have still not done) I was inviting dissent, in the event that you or someone else had something constructive to say.   Had I wished to edit war, which in 15 years editing I don't believe I have ever done, I would have simply made the change.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC).


 * The text sourced to those studies was introduced by another editor. I added the weaker claim ("no evidence"). I would never add sources to an article which do not specifically refer to the subject of the article, even if those studies are obviously pertinent to the subject of the article. But if those studies are in the article, they better be described correctly. Furthermore, all the studies make causal claims and the study which you did not initially read explicitly says that these studies used causal inference methods, not just correlation. Studies in top journals in the social sciences do not just do correlation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Now that everything has been settled...
At this point, I think that it's becoming abundantly clear that nothing is going to be settled about this, here at ANI. So here's a thought. I'm pretty sure that all of the point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint and so on is within the American Politics topic area of Discretionary Sanctions. So to all the editors who are rootin-tootin sure that the other guy is evil incarnate, how about you STFU? Team Boomerang, Team No-Boomerang, Team Pinocchio, Team Pants-on-Fire, I'm talking to you. Give a DS alert at the talk page of anyone you are pissed off at, if they haven't gotten one for Am Pol in the last year. And then go to WP:AE with it. I've heard that they have word limits there. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * support Govindaharihari (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think Tryp is right, except I'm not sure if AE is the best venue. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 22:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure if AE is the best venue either. This seems like an issue of both editors' conduct unrelated to the topic areas.  After I did my best to accurately describe SashiRolls' behavior  I was personally attacked, and when I complained about being attacked I was again attacked.   Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Also not sure if AE is the best venue. DS notices are the best way to move forward, absent additional escalation. However, as the articles are controversial (all AP-1932 is), I must ask: do notices regarding discretionary sanctions really address the root cause? I beg to say no, not entirely. I'd honestly also support IBANs for both, in lieu of DS notices. Look, it's pretty clear to me that these two are like oil and water: they don't mix well (or at all), and anything about one complaining about the other invariably spirals out of control (see above sections), and it's mighty apparent to me that the best way to resolve any future conflict is to lay out some hard and fast rules now (i.e. IBANs). For the sake of a more genial community, DS sanctions just don't go far enough, and I don't want to see this being repeated next month or in six months or whatever. &mdash;Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 15:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Since there seems to be some misunderstanding about what WP:AE is, I'd like to clarify some things. First of all, this is largely about user conduct, so any dispute resolution venue below ANI is unlikely to resolve anything more than what we see here. (It might be a good idea to propose a two-way IBAN here, although that can create problems with a "first-mover" advantage. But if someone wants to create a subsection just below and propose that, please do so.) At the "top" of the dispute resolution ladder is WP:RFAR, but there is zero point in going there, because there has already been an ArbCom decision on modern American politics. That decision means that Discretionary Sanctions are already in place. Putting Template:Ds/alert on an editor's talk page does not constitute a sanction; it is only a formal informational notice that DS exist, so the editor cannot claim that they were not aware. Once an editor is officially "aware", they can be taken to AE, where uninvolved administrators are empowered to take decisive action if justified. There, there is no threaded discussion, and each editor is held to word and diff limits that largely prevent walls of text. There, as here, boomerang applies, but the discussion is much more focused, and the results can be quite strong. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Some data-driven analysis: I think an ArbCom case is warranted for an editor whose red line (# of reverts) frequently exceeds their gold line (# of talk page edits) if admins are unwilling to take action on the mass of civility / POV / copyvio evidence presented here. If someone is making more reverts than talk-page edits, they are definitely not respecting WP:BRD and would seem to be frequently edit-warring (which does not require going beyond 1RR or beyond 3RR). (See their graph, which establishes this pattern based on neutral data.)  I have contributed significantly less to AmPol since returning and as a result my green line (# of main space edits) is way above my yellow line (# of talk space edits).  My redline (reverts) has always been negligible (which is normal for most contributors). (my graph) SashiRolls t ·  c 20:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you initiated this ANI report, and you like the idea of a new ArbCom case, WP:RFAR is that-a-way. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * We wouldn't be here if it weren't for Snoogans' WP:IDHT response to my TP request that they stop with the copyvios. I do not like the idea of a new ArbCom case (I gather you and MrX like ArbCom cases and have been involved in GMO and AmPol1 respectively),  I like the idea of the multiple contributors who have commented here being heard.  SS promising to respect WP:BRD,taking more care to ensure their their contributions actually reflect the sources they are citing, and treating other contributors with respect would be an excellent end to this ANI report, especially if they followed through and tried to bring their redline and POV into line with the expectations WP:HERE. Incidentally I just rewrote the nothere section of that essay to make it (a lot) easier to read and less redundant and rambling.  SashiRolls t ·  c 19:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I see. I take it, then, that you no longer wish to have anyone sanctioned by an admin, and that you will be satisfied if everyone commits to editing cooperatively, rather than as a battleground. I'm saying "everyone" because, as they say, it takes two to tango. And, to use yet another cliché, the proof in the pudding will not rest in any promises here, but rather in editor conduct going forward. Personally, that sounds good enough to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * My initial statement was that I did not want Snoog to be perma-banned but to be sent a clear message that they needed to prove they had heard (through an unblock request) the concerns in the thread. They have shown no signs that they have heard the legitimate complaints above.  According to the essay often used as a block reason:  someone who is "here" exhibits an ability for: Self-correction and heeding lessons: When mistakes are made, there is visible effort to learn from them.  I didn't mess with that section.  I'm not sure you could point out any evidence of that above, despite the many mistakes highlighted.  I've streamlined the !here sections "Consistent agenda pushing" and "Little or no interest in working collaboratively" to make them easier to understand.  You might want to take a look at them yourself, to see if there is anything needing improvement. SashiRolls t ·  c 20:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I still think this needs to be closed, but in any case, you need either to drop it or to demonstrate that you want to do something more than just filibuster here. If I understand correctly, you just massively re-wrote WP:NOTHERE so that it would make your point. You seem to be trying to stop the discussion here from being closed, but when you said that the situation requires a full ArbCom case and I pointed you to where you could file the case, you suddenly changed your tune. And you have shown a remarkable lack of interest in taking your complaints to WP:AE. I think it's becoming abundantly clear that you are the one who is WP:NOTHERE. Somebody please close this. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This thread, as Atsme illustrated has become WP:ROPE. The rope ends here.  I am not holding up decision.  As I said before, DO WHAT YOU WANT. Jimbo isn't going to swoop in and close it for us.  I would suggest just doing something sensible. SashiRolls t ·  c 19:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I filed a request for arbitration. After looking into Cirt's sock that SashiRolls insinuated that I was I found that SashiRolls' behavior towards me was the same as what he has been blocked for in the past.  I felt this needed to escalate above AN/I and it looked like no one else was going to do it.  Snooganssnoogans' conduct seems like a whole separate issue.   Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that. I've responded here and will update iff the behavior continues.  For the moment, just a policy reminder:


 * "Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always), the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing." (source)  SashiRolls t ·  c 20:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Snooganssnoogans from my interactions with them on various articles is a very passionate and bold editor who needs to cultivate better social skills with others and take the time to read what others have written. All of us, at one time or another, have a need to improve our social skills and interactions with others (including me).  My frustration with this editor is that they completely ignore and disregard talk page discussions about controversial edits and frequently borderline edit war.  By way of example, the article Brexit has been flagged as POV and a variety of editors, me included, have been attempting to resolve the debate, only to have this editor come along and revert any edits they disagree with like a bull in a china shop without following through on WP:BRD and participating in the discussions and completely ignoring consensus, which is very frustrating.  For almost two months I and others have attempted to add the "remain" viewpoint to the article with valid and cited content, but this editor will blindly revert it without considering the opinions of other editors or even participate in a reasonable way in these discussions, which is somewhat disruptive. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Somebody please close this. Nothing more is going to come of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Very loud resonating in an echo chamber....will one of our trusty admins PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD? Well, actually it's no longer a thread, it's a hawser - and it may well be longer than any of our longest articles! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  Talk 📧 21:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls: battleground mentality and personal attacks
This AN/I discussion appears to be the best place to continue to discuss User:SashiRolls's conduct, rather than the arbitration request I had made whose contents I will mostly repeat here: My dispute and observations of SashiRolls' conduct occurred in the above AN/I discussion for Snooganssnoogans. This conduct is unrelated to content. SashiRolls has demonstrated a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality: as in a previous arbitration request concerning SashiRolls, he is continuing same exact behavior as in previous blocks: Pattern of engaging in personal attacks, WP:Casting aspersions, ad hominem. As can be seen in their unblock request from December, this pattern has been ongoing for years.

My short experience with SashiRolls can be understood by reading the short thread in the above AN/I discussion for Snooganssnoogans where I react to SashiRolls' false accusation that Snooganssnoogans was stalking him, after Snooganssnoogans first made accusations of stalking at SashiRolls. The thread can be found by searching for the text "6) Another example of !stalking that maybe Mr/s Butternut will explain." and reading all of my links and diffs there.

Another example of SashiRolls falsely accusing Snooganssnoogans of stalking can be found at the above AN/I discussion beginning at the line "5) Snoogans, you seem to want to give me the reputation of a stalker".

In summary, SashiRolls made false accusations that Snooganssnoogans was stalking him, intimidated me and accused me of being a sock and a liar after I researched some of his accusations against Snooganssnoogans which I found suspicious. After researching the sock who SashiRolls insinuated that I was, (Cirt), I learned of SashiRolls' past history/behavior and I feel the way he treated me in our short interaction shows he has not changed. I know that my behavior in my four months of active editing has had problems, but I feel like someone has to take action, and I hope this won't boomerang on me because I have only just learned about WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:NOTHERE. I intend to improve moving forward by avoiding wikidrama. After I made a request for arbitration SashiRolls made more accusations against me which seem similar in nature to what commenters in his above referenced December unblock request have described as conspiracy-theorizing about other editors. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I turned this into a subsection of the above larger thread.  Pinguinn     🐧   23:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that was my intention. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: IBAN between Snooganssnoogans and SashiRolls
I'm withdrawing the proposal. I never felt strongly about it, but just thought it would be worth suggesting. I think the arguments against it are solid, and I think it's best to bring this to an end and have everyone move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: and  are placed under a two-way interaction ban.
 * Comment as proposer: This ANI section has been hanging here for a long time without really going anywhere. It seems to me like these two editors would be better off steering clear of each other, and it would save the community from further drama between them, so I'm proposing this. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Snooganssnoogans has not commented for a week. If you don't like this ANI section, suggest closing it. w umbolo   ^^^  23:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did, quite some time ago. But no admin closed it, and I felt that if it's going to just sit here until a bot archives it, it might be useful for me to propose something to resolve it. But I would have no objection to making it instead a one-way IBAN that only restricts SashiRolls. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it'd be more useful to drop the stick and let the bot archive this thread. As someone wisely said elsewhere, the community is clearly not interested in imposing any sanctions against anyone here. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 16:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Tryptofish & Kolya Butternut trouted & possibly banned from drama boards

 * Comment as proposer: Every time the flame has gone out in this thread, one of them has come to light it.  I also notice further chattering on talk pages where the harassment continues...   SashiRolls t ·  c 20:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The Menu: Fish, butternut and sashi rolls? Sounds delectable but will an admin please salt it and make it go away?? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 00:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Please close this
Per what Atsme said just above, would an uninvolved admin please close this entire thread? The one thing that seems to have consensus is that it's past time to close this down. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support closure of this thread. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Musician biographies
IP user 67.21.155.6 is persistently changing birth and death dates and other details on biographies of musicians. Today's examples are Bruce Fowler, Erica Yohn and Steve Roach. No new citations are ever offered – indeed existing ones are frequently misrepresented – no edit summaries are used, and talk page notices obtain no response. Could these activities please be investigated and appropriate action taken? <b style="color:seagreen">Bhunacat10</b> (talk),  21:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 6 months this time. Mfield (Oi!) 21:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Graywalls
In 11+ years editing Wikipedia, I'm not sure I've ever posted here. This is not a page I watchlist, so I'm not very familiar with how to present your case, but I'm asking for help from other editors regarding User:Graywalls. This editor registered in September 2018, starting with the Mook (graffiti artist), Cope2, Glossary of graffiti, Graffiti in the United States, Graffiti, Cornbread (graffiti artist), and John Fekner pages. They moved on to articles related to Oregon, Portland, and homelessness:

Portland Loo, Right 2 Dream Too, Neighborhoods of Portland, Oregon, Squatting, Squatting in the United States, Homelessness in Oregon, Homelessness in the United States by state, Outside In, Overlook, Portland, Oregon, Portland Mercury, Dignity Village, Sunderland, Portland, Oregon, Oregon NORML, Baker City, Oregon, Voodoo Doughnut, Old Town Chinatown, No Vacancy Lounge, First Unitarian Church of Portland, Nostrana (restaurant), O'Bryant Square, Downtown Portland, Oregon, Holocene (Portland, Oregon), Hawthorne, Portland, Oregon, Willamette Week, Metro, Street Roots, Bud Clark

Also, starting with Hawks PDX, they seemed to focus on LGBT-related content about Portland:

Pride Northwest, Prism Health, Cascade AIDS Project, Oregon Bears, Second Foundation (Oregon), Terry Bean, Club Portland, CC Slaughters, LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon, Escape Nightclub, Embers Avenue, La Femme Magnifique International Pageant, Darcelle XV

Our paths crossed in March when we disagreed over merging Homelessness in Oregon into Homelessness in the United States by state. After this interaction, the editor started focusing on me and my work: Right 2 Dream Too, Turf War (Banksy) (nominated for deletion and kept), Hawks PDX, CC Slaughters, No Vacancy Lounge, Nostrana (restaurant) (since promoted to Good article status), Escape Nightclub, LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon, Holocene (Portland, Oregon), etc.
 * Hounding


 * Allegation disputed: Those articles are connected through neighborhood, category and sometimes overlap in categories within a certain article leads to propagation. If article A is included in "category A" in which I find article B, and I find a similar pattern in articles within category A, you having edited on them or having created them shouldn't be used to invoke hounding allegation to avoid me from, to put it in your own word you used in the last few days "tampering". Graywalls (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

For nearly 2 months now, I've logged in to Wikipedia to see pings, talk page notes, and watchlist diffs from this editor, and they've been occupying a tremendous amount of my time and energy, not to mention the elevated stress levels. Following is a brief overview of content they've worked to remove (sometimes successfully, but with an unnecessary community cost, and sometimes not) -- I've collapsed some content for easier browsing by uninterested editors:

Speedy deletion: They inappropriately nominated a couple articles for speedy deletion, which I then had to work to rescue: Bit House Saloon and Draft:Elephants Delicatessen, which remains in the draft space. White Owl Social Club was also nominated for speedy deletion, but the tag was removed.

AfD: They have also nominated other articles for deletion, which were kept: Dante's, Glossary of graffiti, Hawks PDX, and No Vacancy Lounge. They were successful in deleting my World Famous Kenton Club article (AfD), but I was not willing to expand the article just to convince folks the article was appropriate. I've since recreated Draft:World Famous Kenton Club, which remains a work in progress. They were also successful with deleting a few of my other articles, which I've said I would have redirected to spare the wasted volunteer time: Sullivan's Gulch Bar & Grill (AfD), Oregon Bears (AfD). The Second Foundation (Oregon) and Holocene (Portland, Oregon) AfDs remain ongoing here and here, respectively. They editor seems to prefer deleting over redirecting.

Oddly enough, but unrelated to my work, they want to Northwest District Explosion (likely not notable). They also seem to focus on drug use: diff at Pioneer Courthouse Square, Cascade AIDS Project, Club Portland, First Unitarian Church of Portland, Outside In, etc.

All of the above is simply to say this editor and I have interacted on many articles. I'll give a new editor a pass for inappropriately nominating a few articles for speedy deletion, or flagging for AfD, but they are continuing to target articles I've created even after demonstrating they have a less than stellar judgement of notability and source appropriateness, and they don't seem to care about wasting volunteer time (insisting on deleting over redirecting when the latter is totally appropriate).

I've spent a significant amount of time rescuing multiple speedy deleted articles and expanding multiple recently-AfD'd articles, and I've asked Graywalls to simply try redirecting and/or posting their concerns on talk pages before going straight to AfD. I can't keep dropping whatever I'm doing to clean up after them, and I'd rather be spending my volunteer time improving the project in other ways. I should note, Graywalls was asked to stop hounding me by Reywas92.

I wish hounding were the only problem, but actually that's my lesser concern. User:Tedder posted a note on their talk page about their behavior back in early April, but unfortunately, their behavior has continued to be combative, obstructive, and generally disruptive. Following are just a few talk pages demonstrating their feet dragging, preference to keep tags over addressing simple problems, unwilling to compromise, ignoring consensus, and edit warring: Talk:Embers Avenue, Talk:Outside In (organization), Talk:CC Slaughters, Talk:Hawks PDX, Talk:Club Portland, Talk:No Vacancy Lounge (currently awaiting 3O response), Talk:LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon, Talk:Holocene (Portland, Oregon), Talk:Street Roots, etc. I could go on and on.
 * Behavior

Now, I fully admit, I'm sure Graywalls can and will provide some evidence that I've also behaved inappropriately, or point to some editorial disputes where they are actually correct and I am wrong w/r/t policy interpretation. I'm not suggesting everything I want is right and everything they want is wrong -- in fact, many times I've tried to get uninvolved editors to weigh in on discussions because I thought third opinions would be helpful. I've been subjected to relentless poking for many weeks now, and my interactions with this editor have been incredibly frustrating. Just getting the editor to agree to allowing "c. 2012" to a business article's infobox was excruciating, and wasted a lot of volunteer time. I've tried hard not to edit war, but at the same time, sometimes I feel like I'm fighting a vandal/troll. I do apologize if I've been overly aggressive, but again, I've never encountered this much obstruction and resistance in a decade of editing. I've probably not done a good job summarizing our interactions, but I can definitely say being on the receiving end has been very unpleasant, and I would not wish this on any Wikipedia editor. Hard to describe, but their pokes often seemed retaliatory -- if I replied unfavorably on one talk page, they'd start a new one on a related page, or reignite a past discussion elsewhere.

In short, I will own up to any of my behavioral mistakes, but I feel justified in bringing this problem to other editors. Simply put, I cannot continue to engage with this editor, and I don't contribute to Wikipedia to work with such disruption. I am clearly not alone in my frustration. I am bringing my concerns to the administrator noticeboard because I don't know what else to do. Below I've created a list of articles they've worked on, which can be used or ignored to trace some of their edits.

I don't know if this is helpful or not, but I've created a list of articles I think might need a little scrutiny:
 * Discussion


 * Mook (graffiti artist)
 * Cope2
 * Glossary of graffiti
 * Graffiti in the United States
 * Graffiti
 * Portland Loo
 * Right 2 Dream Too
 * List of tent cities in the United States
 * Portland, Oregon
 * Neighborhoods of Portland, Oregon
 * Portland Parks & Recreation
 * Squatting
 * Squatting in the United States
 * Homelessness in Oregon
 * Portland Mercury
 * Portland Bureau of Transportation
 * St. Johns, Portland, Oregon
 * Homelessness in the United States by state
 * Outside In (organization)
 * Overlook, Portland, Oregon
 * Turf War (Banksy)
 * Dante's
 * Dignity Village
 * Sunderland, Portland, Oregon
 * Oregon NORML
 * Hawks PDX
 * Halothane
 * Baker City, Oregon
 * Pride Northwest
 * Prism Health
 * Cascade AIDS Project
 * Second Foundation (Oregon)
 * John Fekner
 * Terry Bean
 * Washington Project for the Arts
 * CC Slaughters
 * Old Town Chinatown
 * Turner Construction
 * No Vacancy Lounge
 * Nostrana (restaurant)
 * Don Leicht
 * Wooster Collective
 * Escape Nightclub
 * O'Bryant Square
 * Northwest District Explosion
 * Hoffman Construction Company
 * La Femme Magnifique International Pageant
 * Hawthorne, Portland, Oregon
 * Willamette Week
 * Sanyo
 * Sharp Aquos
 * Metro (Oregon regional government)
 * Street Roots
 * Bud Clark

I invite other editors to please share their experiences, if they feel inclined. I've observed some of your interactions with this editor on various talk pages, and wonder if you'd care to add any comments or concerns. I'm sure Graywalls will deem this a cherry-picked list, and that's fine, they are welcome to invite whomever they'd like to this discussion. I feel like I'm opening a can of worms here, but I stand by the vast majority of my edits.

I'd like to think my edits to Wikipedia over the years demonstrate a clear net positive contribution to the project, and an enthusiasm for the movement in general. I've been struggling to assume good faith with Graywalls for a while now, so I'm putting them on others' radar so I don't have to worry about this any longer. Even if no action is taken, I feel better going on the record and identifying my concerns. Thank you. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am not one bit surprised to see this posting. I think it's unfortunate Graywalls has chosen Another Believer to focus on, for whatever reason, but it beggars belief Graywalls is just happening across articles AB has created or heavily edited. Graywalls stated on their talk page, "They just all happen to be his." That, frankly, is unbelievable. Instead, Graywalls has been WP:WIKIHOUNDING AB since early March, posting WP:DRIVEBYTAGs on articles, adding questionable content (see this discussion), or nominating many articles for deletion (covered above in AB's post). AB is not the only one to notice this behavior, either. stated "I've seen a pattern of editing that comes off as disruptive, hostile, or prickly." I would second that statement with the caveat I don't think it's just "prickly" behavior; with Graywall's unusually adept WP editing (for such a new account), they are choosing to be intentionally hostile. Indeed, some of their edits (example here) come across as deliberately trying to provoke. I think AB did an appropriate job of laying out examples above, so I don't see the need to get into even more of those. What I would like to point out is that AB has been a consistent and dedicated volunteer for years; I don't think he would come to this noticeboard lightly (nor should people). But it is warranted. --Kbabej (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This interaction report, where one of the parties has only about 1600 edits and most of the edits are separated by seconds/minutes, makes it awfully hard to frame this as anything other than hounding. Is it possible this could be resolved as simply as this recommendation? - Graywalls, please don't follow AB's edits. If you continue, something like a one-way interaction ban is possible, and that's always a hassle that's best avoided when possible. So maybe take a voluntary step back, realizing that hounding can have a negative impact on a fellow community member, regardless of good intentions? There are a whole lot of articles AB has not been a major contributor to that could use your attention, after all. :) This isn't to say you haven't raised any valid points, but unless a user shows a clear pattern of unambiguously problematic edits, following their edits isn't ok. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 04:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Graywalls responding to Another Believer's allegations
My interest focuses on topics, as well as things in my area. Articles touched or created by Another Believer substantially overlaps. With the number of edits made by AB, the prevalence of articles in Portland area having been touched by him is very high. The probability of articles having characteristics that is of my interest having been touched by him should be considered. I disagree with the allegation of hounding and you can see from my edits that I don't interact with his articles outside of my area. Hounding would be following after a particular editor; rather than topic. When the number of articles that have been touched or created by a certain editor is disproportionately high, the probability of overlapping is correspondingly high. I follow articles through things that branch from articles and categories in which they're listed. I agree with other concerns on politeness and respectful interaction brought up by tedder and I have been conscious and aware to maintain politeness. Part of the reason where my AfD significantly overlaps his creation relates to the fact many of the articles, such as those on a bunch of bars, taverns, restaurants and clubs have been created by him; as well as much of "establishments" listed in the neighborhood categories. After reading news stories like these, I've been watching different debates, discussion, noticeboard talks which is how I am familiar to processses. https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/bnppw4/wikipedias-co-founder-is-wikipedias-biggest-critic-511 https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/kwpqmn/is-the-pr-industry-buying-influence-over-wikipedia

Interacting with AB, regardless of his other involvements, I'm getting the impression as he's lording over anything he's created or contributed as if he's claiming an implicit ownership. It's outrageous he's listed essentially every article I have worked on as "might need a little scrutiny". I'm beginning to feel some of his interactions are not in good faith, but rather to get his way anyway he can, such as very directly asking people in AfD who comment in contrary to his desired input if "they'd mind changing their vote"; and asking other users very directly "making very specific edits", admin shopping and airing out charged allegations against me with loaded language in disparaging way, specifically framing me as the problem onto WikiProjects page, and on other users talk page who have shown any sign of sympathethy with him. Following the "admin shopping" discussion, it was suggested to me by Ritchie333 to use AfD to nominate questionable articles for deletion; and I don't nominate them because they are AB, I nominate them, because I believe they are run of the mill local venues. AB admitted stacking up sources after AfD has been nominated to save the article; which I see as disruptive, because loading up the article with a bunch of calendar events can significantly add work load on AfD participants and hinder transparency into lack of the article's true notability.

When disputes arise, he has a tendency to "ping" specific editors he's already familiar and after seeing those users interaction on matters that relate to us, I've come to an opinion that these people are likely to side with him. He's not heeded advise from 3rd opinion here that Wikiprojects are not the best forum for editorial disputes. The interaction here referencing another editor's voice expressing concerns about his article points that there has been issues concerning his edits long before I was even on the map. arguing with every opponent on clearly questionable notability entries. this one AB cited in his complaining statement involves a self-promo/puppets. My use of 3rdOnion has been a way of trying to obtain fair consensus. perhaps by having AB no longer have autopatrolled status, it could avoid the proliferation of run of the mill local venues that became the point of disagreements.

Graywalls (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's pretty simple - if you find yourself constantly editing the same articles as someone else, find a way to work with them in a collegial manner. AB was there first, and he's a generally polite person. Your comments towards him have a tendency to be snarky and rude. Can you commit to being polite?
 * The point is that whatever your intent, you're making the editing process for AB stressful. It looks like HOUNDING. What are you willing to do to change that? Guettarda (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As are his towards mine. I have been being mindful to avoid making snarks. I have been trying to keep it polite after tedder's comment on my page and I'm committed to remaining polite. I didn't think order of arrival made a difference. After all, if that played a role, then he'd been grandfathered over others in a ton of articles. Graywalls (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You keep implying I'm being paid for my contributions to Wikipedia, which I don't appreciate. You've also nominated several articles for so-called "run of the mill" venues, which were kept by the Wikipedia community, so perhaps you need to change your definition of "run of the mill". Also, there's nothing wrong with expanding an article after a deletion nomination, in an attempt to demonstrate notability. You seemed upset when I expanded a couple articles you nominated for deletion, which is odd -- most editors would say, "thanks!" and move on to other things. I don't claim ownership of any article(s), but I sure don't like them being tampered with or flagged for deletion unnecessarily. Regarding "admin shopping" -- we've already been over this. I was not threatening Deb, I was merely starting with them for help as the deleting admin, but I'd go to someone else for help if they were not willing to assist. What's wrong about this? I was just asking for help restoring a page into the draft space, which I felt was improperly deleted. This is not controversial or against policy. Yes, I've pinged specific editors on specific talk pages based on their editing histories and work on related articles. I don't expect editors to agree with me just because I've invited them to a discussion. Also, I won't apologize for asking AfD participants if they'd be willing to change their vote from delete to redirect, when redirecting is a solid option. I'm very tired of explaining myself and many of my edits to you. After the comments above, your suggestion is to take away my autopatrolled status? Give me a break. I've written almost 100 Good articles, several of which are specifically about Portland restaurants, local history and culture, public artwork, and other venues. I think I have a decent understanding of appropriate sourcing and notability criteria. I could easily go through your edits and cherry-pick tons of problematic diffs, but I'd rather we focus on the big picture here. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I did in the past said I believed you might be a paid editor, but didn't believe it was frowned upon. It has not happened after but you continue to charge that I'm "keep implying". I don't know where your referencing to "threatening Deb" is coming from. I was referencing your comment that looks like you are admin shopping which to me looks like you'll just keep looking until you find one that will give you what you want. Changes you do not like referenced as "tampering" sure sounds like snarky way to exhibit territory of a sort; and referring to your own edits as "contribution" and referring to mine or others you don't agree as "tampering" is the big picture of the comment I left on your page regarding dismissive comments.


 * . I am wondering if you could elaborate a little bit on "concerns from others" you referenced here?
 * Graywalls (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Gosh, I don't remember exactly now. I might have been thinking of this or this. Deb (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh? User:Muboshgu retracted the warning and has since encouraged me to apply for administrator status. The interaction with Ss112 was just about creating new pages in the draft space vs. expanding existing redirects. Not really related to this discussion. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I said "might have been". What you're doing now is exactly what you were doing in our previous interaction and I'm not going to be led down the garden path again. Deb (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I acknowledge you said "might have been", and I was just explaining those interactions. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , Admin shopping, threatening, whatever. You're saying I was wrong to ask an editor who deleted a page if they'd be willing to restore. If Deb was unwilling to restore, then I would have gone to someone else. Getting a page restored is not a problem, and the page was properly restored. You're focusing on a very specific case when there's clearly a much larger issue here. Knowing your M.O., I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you here. I will just let others take over from here. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd love to not have to interact with AB and I'd be willing to agree to not interacting with you outside of art category and Portland metro area stuff. Given the sheer quantity of his stuff, it would basically cripple me from being able to participate on Portland stuff. Since his articles are everywhere, perhaps and about a lot of other things, perhaps I could avoid him outside of Portland area/art stuff, and he could just avoid this area/subject.Graywalls (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Knowing your M.O", does it surprise you that a pattern of comments like this reinforces me to develop a doubt about good faith? You, the complainant started this grievance and "I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you here." seems like a line to avoid having to provide a detailed explanation. Graywalls (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think this is a kind of stalking, but Graywalls probably believes it falls into the category of "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles", which is allowed; this isn't black and white. It's hard to understand how someone who's been here as long as User:Another Believer has can be so insensitive to the annoyance caused by repeatedly asking questions to buy time in order to avoid having to answer straight questions like this quite reasonable one from another user. I certainly felt harassed by Another Believer on 12 March, when he bombarded me with follow-ups in order to get this draft, which he hasn't touched since 14 March. I would suggest that User:Graywalls stays away from future interaction, for the sake of his own sanity. Deb (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , You'd need to lay out a case for 'harassment' w/r/t getting the draft page restored. But, for the record, I do apologize if I came across too aggressive, truly. I haven't touched the March 14 draft because I've been a little occupied, and there's no requirement I work on the draft immediately. I've also been working on other pages (drafts and live articles) nominated for deletion by Graywalls, so that's been a major distraction. I merely wanted the original markup restored, which is not a problem. And, I totally agree, I would also suggest Graywalls stay away. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If it gets deleted, so what? I don't nominate things for deletion because of who created them. Things I have nominated for deletion are based on contents concern, promotional (for example, authored by the article subject, or its owner, executive director, etc. Even if something has been G11'd as promotional, it doesn't preclude others from re-creating the same article if it isn't substantially similar. Graywalls (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I believed a page was wrongfully speedy deleted, and I asked for its restoration. I believe the topic is notable, and I'll expand the draft at some point in the future. I'm glad the original markup has been restored, so I don't have to start from scratch. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would indeed suggest we should avoid interacting, but not at the expense that I have to avoid pages in Portland area solely because they have been touched/created by you. I'm open to the idea that you refrain from art topic; and Portland area; and I don't interact with articles outside these criteria that you have worked on. Graywalls (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm glad you're open to avoiding me, but why are you bringing up art articles? We've been discussing Oregon, Portland, homelessness, and LGBT-related content. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It overlaps with the area of topic you brought up in the opening sentence of your complaint. Graywalls (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. I was just noting your initial edits to the project. I do not watchlist these pages, nor am I particularly interested in graffiti. I write a lot about public art and sculpture, so thanks for clarifying. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

There are several patterns of behavior that are interesting- and certainly graywalls can't claim ignorance to rules, they have come into editing over the past year showing substantial knowledge of how things work. And yet.. the patterns are there. Seemingly coincidental editing of articles, accusations of "admin shopping" and "pinging other editors to maintain ownership" come up over and over again. Congrats on having boorish behavior that stops just short of going over the line, I guess. tedder (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You do pickup a lot from reading a lot of conflicts that goes on here. I've been doing plenty of lurking. With my disputes intensifying with AB, I have been finding myself having to rely more and more on argument based on policies. The guidelines here says AfD arguments that appeal to policies are good. When I do that you say I'm "lawyering". I actually concur with you on the need to remain polite for the sake of maintaining peace around other editors and duly noted. Graywalls (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * 22 Feb Portland Loo
 * 3 March Right 2 Dream Too
 * 3 March Portland, Oregon
 * 6 March Homelessness in Oregon
 * 6 March Homelessness in the United States by state
 * 6 March Overlook, Portland, Oregon
 * 6 March Outside In (organization)
 * 9 March AfD nom Turf War (Banksy)
 * 9 March AfD nom Dante's
 * 9 March Portland Mercury
 * 10 March Pioneer Courthouse Square
 * 11 March AfD nom World Famous Kenton Club (AfD)
 * 11 March AfD nom Hawks PDX
 * 11 March Bit House Saloon
 * 11 March White Owl Social Club
 * 11 March Sunderland, Portland, Oregon
 * 11 March National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
 * 11 March Oregon NORML
 * 11 March Dignity Village
 * 21 March Voodoo Doughnut
 * 31 March AfD nom Second Foundation (Oregon)
 * 28 March Cascade AIDS Project
 * 28 March Prism Health
 * 28 March Pride Northwest
 * 28 March Alberta Arts District
 * 30 March AfD nom Oregon Bears
 * 31 March Terry Bean
 * 1 April Ground Kontrol
 * 1 April Club Portland
 * 2 April CC Slaughters
 * 2 April LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon
 * 4 April Old Town Chinatown
 * 5 April Bradley Angle
 * 6 April AfD nom No Vacancy Lounge
 * 9 April First Unitarian Church of Portland
 * 9 April Nostrana (restaurant)
 * 11 April Escape Nightclub
 * 11 April Embers Avenue
 * 11 April O'Bryant Square
 * 13 April AfD nom Holocene (Portland, Oregon)
 * 14 April Hawthorne, Portland, Oregon
 * 14 April La Femme Magnifique International Pageant
 * 14 April Darcelle XV
 * 14 April Lake Oswego, Oregon
 * 15 April Willamette Week
 * 16 April Multnomah County Courthouse
 * 16 April You Are Here (sculpture)
 * 16 April Street Roots
 * 17 April Bud Clark


 * AFAICT, in each case above, Another Believer is the first editor and Graywalls is the second. I found no cases in which G was the first editor and AB was the second. In almost all cases, G is also the last editor. Meaning, the pattern is usually AB->G, or AB->G->AB->G, rarely AB->G->AB, and never G->AB or G->AB->G->AB. 8 out of 11 of G's AfD noms are of articles created by AB. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 17:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd look carefully at the dates, though; in many cases there's a year or more between AB's first group of edits and G's first. Deb (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , indeed, my impression is that this is true in most cases. I image this can easily happen when a new editor enters a niche area where there's already been a prolific editor editing before. "Second editor" in and of itself doesn't mean much. What made me raise an eyebrow is the prevalent pattern of AB->G or AB->G->AB->G, but not AB->G->AB, which suggests G continues to edit so long as AB edits, but once AB stops, G stops. The other thing that sticks out is that it's been like this for almost two months straight. I cannot imagine that G was not aware that they've been editing and nominating for deletion so many articles that were created by or primarily edited by AB. I can understand significant incidental overlap; I can't understanding not noticing this much overlap after this much time. Although nobody "owns" articles, at some point, one must realize they are effectively "hounding", even if it's unintentional, and if it is unintentional, one usually stops, even if they don't have to. Graywalls' comment above (I'd be willing to agree to not interacting with you outside of art category and Portland metro area stuff) is kind of funny because the only place they've interacted is in Portland metro area stuff. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 18:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't argue with that, but the area where they have interacted is - as you pointed out - the area where AB is complaining about G's edits. If that's the case, then perhaps the problem is not as widespread as is being suggested. G is presumably watching this particular set of articles and it's ringing alarm bells with him when he sees AB editing them. Deb (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * , gosh, given how prolific he is, then things in Portland having been touched by him at some point in the past is really likely high. I don't choose what to edit based on whose touched the article. After you posted your analysis, I decided to conduct a quick investigation on my own. Pride Northwest This is something I came upon from branching off from articles and categories. It appeared promotional ish to me and I start working on it. AB came rushing to it an hour and half later. How long ago did he work on it before me? Some 14 months ago. This was identified as an article with potential UDPE(not saying or implying he had anything to do with) issue. Outside In I start working on it...  comes rushing a short while later... This too was found to be suspected undisclosed paid editing / connected contributor  Street Roots I work on it.. AB comes rushing after the same day.  This too is possible UDPE. Bud Clark I edit... AB comes rushing after the same day. So, seriously, who's following who now with the timing of matter taken into context? It's pretty ridiculous to keep AB in the loop simply from having touched it at sometime in the distant past. Graywalls (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Addition: Bud Clark. Sequence: GW-> AB (1hr 58 minutes later) ->GW. (if one is going to be include "touched at some point", then AW precedes me by an edit that occurred four years ago). I'm the one who feels getting followed around. Graywalls (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , have you ever interacted with under a prior account, as an IP, or otherwise, before your interactions with this account? Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich  04:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I have not. Graywalls (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This doesn't surprise me. Given that he's been on here for years (and I've been here a few months) his extremely high level of activity and the strong overlap in the area of interest, it's unsurprising he's already tread on them first. Had his activity not been so prolific and there's a pattern that my edits follow him, rather than topics, I think that makes for hounding. I'd also guess that his participation here is probably at the upper few percentile range. Go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Neighborhoods_in_Portland,_Oregon. Go into a neighborhood, then pick an article within a neighborhood. The probability of running into an AB touched article is extremely high. Pretty much the same with a lot of Oregon related topics. Graywalls (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , This is super helpful, thanks for sharing. You have a point, Graywalls, but I'm not worried about the articles I've edited minimally. You're not owning up to your actions fully, but you've clearly targeted articles I've worked on more substantially, and your pokes feel retaliatory even if that's not your intention. Also, you've wasted significant community time by going against consensus, dragging out discussions way longer than necessary, and going straight to AfD when redirecting was entirely appropriate. Only World Famous Kenton Club has been deleted, and even that article should probably exist, hence why I'm working in the draft space on a new entry. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * what you call "consensus" is moot as you often appoint yourself to arbitrate the consensus and declare "consensus has been reached" on something you're a party to the dispute; and you have used something like "3 agree with AB, 2 agree with GW, therefore consensus is with AB" but I feel that you're knowingly ignoring WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DEFINECONSENSUS by counting numbers and emphasizing votes and disregarding argument presented and their validity in scope of guidelines. Graywalls (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , Please. When 3 people say they don't like your image, and you keep adding it back to an article, that's going against consensus. I can point to other examples. You throw around abbreviations, acronyms, and policy pages often, but still seem to ignore editors' preferences. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * this is the example I had in mind. I call there was no "clear" consensus but you or I, as someone involved would be inherently biased in the determination; and this is not the only example of where you help yourself to the podium and arbitrate a concern you're involved in. I suggested 3-O or RfC(well after additional editors have become involved), but you were apprehensive to that. I believe I have reasonable cause to believe you're soliciting those likely to side with you by choosing those likely to have similar ideology or have previously been sympathetic to your side. "WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race." and after having personally seein Jonesey95 show sympathetic to your POV but I've not seen you invite Deb along even though she's been involved in a dialogue that involved both you and Joesey95 at the same time. Do you see me as combative with 3PO comments? One suggested advert tag wasn't warranted and something more appropriate should be used. They said they probably wouldn't use it, but it was more appropriate than the advert. (re: bithouse). Graywalls (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , You're grasping, and you can interpret this as me being unwilling to go into detail about specific editorial disputes if you want, but I don't feel a need to reply here. I will respond to other editors, but I'm tired of rehashing everything to you all the time. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * How about you both agree not to edit any articles on Oregon for the next, say, six months? You never know, you may get interested in something else and forget all about this particular topic. :-) Deb (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , That's absolutely not something I'd agree to voluntarily. First of all, I edit articles about plenty of other topics, but why should I stop editing articles about Oregon? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Because those are the ones you are having the issues with. Deb (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , Obviously, but why should I be punished or restricted from editing certain topics? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I was suggesting a voluntary topic ban for a temporary period to allow you both time to cool down and forget your differences. If either of you objects, it may appear that you have ownership issues with these articles. Deb (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No ownership issues, but I came here to identify a problematic editor, not to voluntarily stop editing articles about specific topics. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Deb, I don't think that suggestion is realistic. The issue here is GW is hounding and harassing AB. Why should AB be punished for GW's behavior? Also, not readily jumping to agree to your suggestion = ownership issues? That's a false dichotomy. --Kbabej (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if it were reasonable at a base level, 6 months is what we'd do for a sanctionable TBAN - it's insanely OTT. I personally am against it basically at all. Other than both parties not participating in it during the course of the ANI discussion, I feel it is unfair punishment of the innocent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs)

Arbitrary Break
Even though Reywas92 doesn't agree with the interactions that have gone on between us, he does share common point with me over the underlying issue about notability concerns. For as long as Another Believer has been here, he should have a good idea of notability requirements. If he feels I'm "hounding" because of AfDs and there are some comments in AfDs suggesting obvious concerns in common with my concern about articles on run of the mill places. There's bound ot be slight disagreements in the grey area, but there shouldn't be such a drastic idea as to what should be notable. If AfD ends up in "no consensus" that is not an indication that it wasn't called for.

AfD on Oregon Bears perhaps he ought to consider the absurdity of creating a bunch of pages on local dive bars, restaurants, every gay gar in town and so on. The fact our clash don't extend past the Portland area articles and comments in the AfD above is an indication that churning out pages on venues that likely won't meet notability is a major part of problem. By not creating those questionable articles, the amount of volunteer time that has to be spent dealing with them would be cut. I've already made commitment to politeness, however I admit to no wrong doing in nominating articles on legitimate notability ground. Having his autopatrol removed would help those articles go through review scrutiny and avoid having them become a point of concern in the first place. This AfD was not nominated by me, yet for the exact same reason that have got me to AfD such similar articles is an indication that I'm not selectively nominating them, because of who created the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sullivan%27s_Gulch_Bar_%26_Grill Graywalls (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Both Oregon Bears and Sullivan's Gulch Bar and Grill just needed to be redirected to LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon, plain and simple. Or you could have raised your concerns on the articles' talk pages. I wouldn't have put up a fight for either. You're still focusing on specific editorial disputes and what you deem to be "absurd" topics like restaurants, gay bars, etc, which you think "likely won't meet notability". What you're failing to recognize is that most of the articles you've nominated for deletion have been kept by the community, after editors looked into sourcing, or redirected because the topics deserved coverage in some form and the pages served a purpose. I've created many quality articles about local gay bars and restaurants: Lutz Tavern,  Nostrana (restaurant),  Red Cap Garage,  Rimsky-Korsakoffee House,  Starky's,  Three Sisters Tavern, etc. For you to suggest I have no idea what I'm doing w/r/t notability of local establishments is unfair. Sure, maybe I've created some stubs that should be redirected or deleted, but I don't think you're helping the project by questioning notability of every local thing you deem "absurd" or "run-of-the-mill". You're taking an unnecessary toll on the community. And, sorry to say, you're still focusing on notability here and not your behavior, specifically feet dragging, consensus ignoring, etc. --- Another Believer  ( Talk ) 23:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * See the CC Slaughters talk. I'm questioning the rationality, in general, of what you declare "consensus". Graywalls (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to discuss specific editorial disputes here. That's a distraction from the larger issue. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to end this
I made a suggestion above that both contributors take a voluntary break from the articles on which they interact. (This wouldn't of course stop User:Another Believer from working on drafts like the one that was so urgent on 12 March that it had to be created immediately but which he hasn't bothered with for several weeks.)

AB has indicated that he's not willing to take any break because he wants User:Graywalls to be punished. G hasn't said whether he's prepared to take a break. A few other people have been quick to disagree with my initial proposal but no one has suggested an alternative. If neither of the antagonists is willing to consider this compromise, I suggest this report be closed because it's just wasting everyone's time repeating arguments they've already had on their talk pages. Deb (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not wanting to get into an adversarial terms with you; but six months of avoiding the only area of articles I work on is excessive. Since AB works in a lot of different areas and we have problems only in specific area, if he'd avoid the same topic areas that I work on (Oregon area, some art topics); I think he can go peacefully work on plenty other things he work on; and I can work on things in Oregon area; thus allowing both of us to continue doing our things on Wikipedia while avoiding a section where we would have to co-exist. From what it sounds like. I don't see this grievance was made in a good faith given inflammatory language like "vandal", "troll", "tampering" that in general expressing diminutive and marginalizing contributions he disagrees with. Despite acknowledging he's been too aggressive at times, such actions don't show any willingness to make changes; while I have agreed to; and have been trying to maintain politeness which can be seen in the more recent edits. Listing out essentially every single page I have worked on and framing it as "articles possibly needing scrutiny" doesn't suggest he's trying to resolve problems rather than to project blames. Graywalls (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Six months was a suggestion, not a command. Three months would be fine. Deb (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have any comment on the alternative I just proposed before you replied? Graywalls (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a practical alternative. There are other areas you can work on as well. Deb (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, I didn't come here to "punish" Graywalls. I came to identify a problem. And now Deb is suggesting we both stop working in a topic area, and Graywalls has suggested I stop working on Oregon articles while they be allowed to continue working on Oregon articles? What planet am I living on? I came here to report harassment, and if the community is not going to take this seriously, then I am quite bothered and disappointed. I've made my concerns known. Graywalls, you've not really owned up to your actions or volunteered to back off, but you seem to acknowledge some behavioral changes are needed. If we need to end this discussion, fine. But you need to know, editors are watching you carefully, and if you continue to drag your feet, ignore consensus, and act in a retaliatory fashion, I will report you immediately. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * One of the things this omits, and is especially evident both here and on AfDs, is what reported on for interaction patterns. It's hard to articulate how problematic it is when *every* response by *every* editor is responded to and challenged by the same person. This is asymmetric behavior, not "both of you are equally at fault". tedder (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that Graywalls has been stalking, and has been overly aggressive in the course of this discussion. I also believe that AB has aggravated the problem by his own insistence on having the last word. I've now made a constructive suggestion to end the problematic behaviour and you haven't come up with an alternative as yet. If you have a proposal, please make it so that others can approve or reject it. Deb (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm confused how AB is having the last word when Levivich's data shows that's entirely inverted. I'm not saying I have the right answer, but it's a bit of a fallacy to exclude opinions that don't have a better plan. tedder (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I was a bit confused by this as well. I actually feel like I walked away plenty of times because Graywalls had to have the last word. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My personal experience of you, User:Another Believer, is that you like to have the last word - and you've just proved it - and will hang on indefinitely in order to get your own way. User:Graywalls is a lot newer than you are so, although I'm not condoning his behaviour, it may be that he hasn't yet learned the lessons that you've had time to learn. Deb (talk) 07:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate 's efforts to make a proposal to bring some kind of resolution here, particularly where the proposal is for a voluntary break and not an imposed sanction. One thing we haven't yet discussed is the possibility of closing this with a warning? Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 15:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Plans for future problem avoidance
this dispute really shouldn't have occurred in the first place. I should have done away with the abrasive comments in talk and summaries. That, I will avoid in the future. As long as AB has been here, verifiability is something he should have been familiar with. When there's a doubt about something, the requirement that a reliable source directly verify the claim is non-negotiable. In this case, there's no source directly supporting when the business opened up and shouldn't have turned into an argument over keeping inferred information that is not directly supported. Regardless of how people feel at the talk page level, this is something that shouldn't be overridden according to WP:CONLEVEL. I think that when problems of this nature arrives, it should go by the policy; and if we have a disagreement over the interpretation, we should research the noticeboard archives and ask questions there if answer can not be found. I have generally been happy with 3-O comment system. So, maybe for the next three months, we can both stick to ONE RR in regards to reverting each other, directly or indirectly (by asking others if they would make specific changes) and make use of third opinion rather than ping specific individuals to weigh in.

As for AfDs, I don't believe it's improper that I nominate things around Oregon in categories and neighborhoods listing when I see what I believe to be run of the mill. After all, if AfD determines it's notable, it has no impact on the article. I can agree on not going back and forth in the AfD debate and would like, in return from AB to not add a list of trivial calendar events, reviews from local alternative weeklies and such as soon as they're nominated to make notability determination more time consuming than necessary. Waiting for AB to comment. Graywalls (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, like Deb's suggestion, that's punishing AB for Graywall's behavior. Most all users besides Graywalls have stated their behavior is either stalking or hounding, neither of which should be acceptable. Why punish AB for Graywalls obviously targeting them? That makes no sense, and would deter AB (and possibly other users) from reporting harassment in the future. --Kbabej (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Graywalls, thank you for acknowledging your inappropriate behavior at Talk:Hawks PDX. I don't feel a need to comment here further about a specific dispute. Nor will I apologize for expanding articles you've unnecessarily nominated for deletion. Again, you're distracting from a much larger problem. Even Deb has said this conversation has devolved into specific disputes we've already been over and over. This seems to be your M.O. -- distracting and rehashing the same things over and over. What a massive waste of time. I will say it again, I don't appreciate your hounding or going against consensus, or your unnecessary deletion nominations, which take a toll on the community. If you continue to act out of line, I will report you. I am disappointed this discussion has not been more fruitful, but oh well. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What were you trying to accomplish by this complaint? I don't agree that my deletion nominations are unnecessary. I can commit to politeness and modify how I say things but I'm not willing to avoid area of my interest (Portland area/some art topics) simply because you have been to it before. I'm talking about the way you attempt to reach consensus and how you determine consensus has been reached whose MO hasn't been restricted to the specific examples. I believe 1RR is something we can give it a try for a while, say a month or two. If I see some hole in the wall place while looking in Portland categories, that's a legitimate reason to nominate for AfD without any consideration to who created it. I'm not going after something because you made them. Graywalls (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , You seem quite frustrated when I expand an article after your nomination deletion, which is a perfectly appropriate reaction to seeing an article about a notable topic flagged for deletion. You've also done a great job not owning up to your retaliatory behavior. Fellow editors, I am more than happy to address any of your questions or concerns, but I am no longer interested in communicating with Graywalls directly. This disruption has very much negatively impacted my editing experience the last couple months. I've made my concerns known, and I've made it very clear I'm willing report any and all shenanigans moving forward. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I was only frustrated with the addition of long list of routine happenings with event listings and calendars as citations that only occurred after the AfD. Graywalls (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: Sorry, I'm not sure what happened here exactly. I think an edit conflict. But User:Deb's comment to User:Kbabej was removed. Letting all involved know. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal (iban)
No editor above (besides Graywalls themselves) believes Graywalls ins't stalking or harassing AB. The fact that GW can't see that, or chooses not to admit it, is problematic. Stalking/harassing should be taken seriously, as it can push good editors off WP. What I'm proposing is simple: An WP:IBAN for Graywalls on articles that Another Believer has created or edited. There are literally millions of articles on the English WP. As stated to both AB and Graywalls, "[Graywalls] "You never know, you may get interested in something else and forget all about this particular topic." There's no reason GW needs to be harassing and hounding a particular editor and their work. Indeed, they already stated they have other interests in graffiti. I'm sure there's more to be interested in as well. Out of millions of articles, avoiding one particular editor shouldn't be difficult, especially for such a new editor. This could be an opportunity into broadening their horizons and focus on different parts of the project, rather than engaging one person over and over. --Kbabej (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I certainly didn't say that. Action may be needed but I don't think it's practical to make that kind of blanket ban. He could easily breach it without being aware of it. Deb (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , Above you said, "I think this is a kind of stalking" as well as "I agree that Graywalls has been stalking, and has been overly aggressive in the course of this discussion." Sorry, but what "certainly didn't you say"? I am confused. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm confused then as well. You've stated twice Graywalls has been stalking, as AB has shown. --Kbabej (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure Deb didn't mean the stalking/hounding part. Deb did NOT say What Deb DID say was  which was directed at both Gray & AB in the context of a voluntary stepping away. Very, very different than how Kbabej was quoting it. TelosCricket (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, understood now. Very helpful, thank you. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant to apply her quote to GW, not necessarily that she said that exactly. Didn't do that well, admittedly. My apologies. --Kbabej (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Updated above quote to not distract from the proposal. --Kbabej (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Deb (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

No way. This would be reasonable if he wasn't so prolific, but considering how much breadth he has in the things of my local interest, it would essentially allow him to claim dominance by grandfathered stake. Graywalls (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't expect you to agree to this, . I'm asking other editors if they agree this is how we should proceed. You've shown an inability to recognize the harassment and stalking you've done, so I didn't expect you to agree to something that would force you to change your harassing behavior. --Kbabej (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is getting to the heart of what I've noticed. It's also problematic to allow an editor to hound another when it involves taking many articles to AfD. tedder (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Just came across this discussion. AB is a passionate editor about the Pacific Northwest. See Cascadia for evidence. Any remedies that would tend to extinguish that passion, or throttle AB's contributions unnecessarily, would lessen Wikipedia IMO. The one-way IBAN (on Graywalls) sounds reasonable to me. He/she can find other things to do here. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging editors who have contributed to this discussion. What are your thoughts on this proposal, ? And (Please note I have not left anyone out intentionally. If I have missed an editor, please ping them, or let me know, and I will.) --Kbabej (talk) 03:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , sorry, I'm confused because IBAN says the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages, and the proposal as written is for an IBAN on articles that Another Believer has created or edited, which sounds more like a TBAN? Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 05:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My understanding of IBAN was that a user could not "undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means." But yes, thank you for pointing out that I am effectively proposing a TBAN and IBAN. --Kbabej (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * - it's both a TBAN and a 1-way IBAN, I'd say. I do actually feel Gray has something that this would be a staggeringly large TBAN. I feel it would need some limitations. Perhaps articles posted on by AB in the last month? This would be a nuisance, but far less so than cutting off such a large realm. The normal 1-way IBAN limitations would also apply (user talk page etc etc). Thoughts? Nosebagbear (talk) 09:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For such a new editor, I don't think this would be "staggeringly large". There are millions of articles on WP, and most people have varied interests. Why should harassment and hounding be allowed to continue just because AB has focused on PDX articles? Graywalls has exhibited a pattern of behavior that is intentional, hostile, and targeted toward AB. Again, I view this as an opportunity for GW to actually focus on other areas and contribute in a positive way to the project instead of becoming focused on following one user around. --Kbabej (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the main issue is the way Graywalls has been treating Another Believer over the past two months:


 * Graywalls' first edits are a few days in September, a day in November, and a few days in January and February, almost exclusively to Mook (graffiti artist). Then in March they bump into AB at homelessness-in-Portland-related articles. They start removing content, merging articles, applying CSD tags, and nominating articles for deletion.
 * On March 11, they're not yet extended confirmed, but make this comment on AB's talk page: When many of your articles have the same fundamental issue (lack of basic notability and obvious promotional intent hinted by tone, and participation by the businesses by the means of direct editing), I'd be wasting other editors' time to list them for deletion consensus building. So if you aren't ignorant of notability guidelines, you're gaming the system by trying to increase the work load as a deterrent to deletion. Again on March 13, they refer to AB as an experienced editor who has a track record of prolifically creating articles on run of the mill local businesses that absolutely fails to establish the core requirements of notability with information provided reasonably concludes it is advertisement listing. How does a non-EC editor know about AB's "track record" after essentially editing in this area for a couple of weeks, when AB has 300,000 edits and almost 5,000 articles created? The other comments there, An experienced editor like him should know better than slapping a bunch of sticky note drafts and expecting other editors to establish organization notability, and if disputed, put other editors go through all the AfD hoop. I personally liken this to patent troll lawsuits which are known to create the burden. and With the level of experience held by Another Believer, he knows better that its disruptive to introduce a sub stub quality junk articles., suggest a battleground mentality against an editor they just met.
 * On March 30, GW suggests AB uses A tactic very frequently employed by marketing and public relations people. (The whole talk page is worth reading.)
 * And in this AfD: Although it might appear to those seeing AfDs as I'm choosing after the creator's articles, it just happens that a large number of questionable articles I come across are the ones created by him. I see it as absolutely absurd he's essentially trying to make an article on practically EVERY LGBT related organizations and businesses like gay bars and unfortunately, I'm frequently seeing more or less the same concern.
 * On April 1: At the request of the creator, who has been serially spawning articles of this nature... and again: You've been editing long enough and know better than that.
 * April 2: You're plastering on things that are of anything remotely LGBT, including clearly non-notable organization. and again: Then stop creating poor quality articles in the first place and work on fewer and higher quality ones.
 * Accusation of canvassing on April 4.
 * On April 4, posted a note on GW's talk page cataloguing behavioral issues, which are different from (and worse than) those I just posted above. It's worth reading.
 * GW wrote in this ANI I agree with other concerns on politeness and respectful interaction brought up by tedder and I have been conscious and aware to maintain politeness. and I have been trying to keep it polite after tedder's comment on my page and I'm committed to remaining polite. However, after Tedder's April 4 post...
 * On April 9, another COI suggestion: @Another Believer:, you presented yourself as something along the line of editing expert. I'm looking through the edit history in this article and I see highly obvious self-editing flew right past you. With your level of experience, I would like to ask why you let it fly without saying a thing.
 * On April 11: What a coincidence that those "better ones" you're referencing are taken by you, thus repeating my concern about your grandiose attitude towards others.The article doesn't exist to appease to aesthetics senses of Another Believer. First and foremost is the encyclopedic value. Secondary is the subjective quality. Quite frankly, I'm not a fan of your composition.
 * Graywalls nominated No Vacancy Lounge for deletion. It was unanimously kept. During the AfD, AB expanded the article and added sources–basically a standard rescue. GW took exception to this. The AfD closed on April 13. The same day, Graywalls posts a 3PO request, in which he complained that additional sources were added and suggested rolling it back to the point prior to AfD nomination and working from there. That is, after nominating an article for deletion, and having it rescued, he suggested rolling it back to pre-rescue form–the state it was in when they nominated it for deletion. (To their credit, this part of the request was removed by GW in a subsequent edit.)
 * On April 14, in response to AB saying they've expanded the article to add more sources, Those are things that should have been done prior to the article even being created, are they not? which shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the article creation process (and suggests no WP:BEFORE searches are being done, and nominations are being made based on the state of the article rather than the state of available sourcing)
 * On April 17, refers to AB's comments ...as manipulative, coercive and threatening that is trying to intimidate me into succumb to his way....
 * In addition to the above, see these entire threads: Talk:Hawks PDX, WT:WikiProject Oregon, and Talk:Street Roots. The last one is from a few days ago.
 * Finally, in this ANI, GW has continued to accuse AB of wrongdoing and called for AB to be punished in a number of ways:
 * perhaps by having AB no longer have autopatrolled status, it could avoid the proliferation of run of the mill local venues that became the point of disagreements.
 * Having his autopatrol removed would help those articles go through review scrutiny and avoid having them become a point of concern in the first place.
 * I'm open to the idea that you refrain from art topic; and Portland area;...
 * Since AB works in a lot of different areas and we have problems only in specific area, if he'd avoid the same topic areas that I work on (Oregon area, some art topics); I think he can go peacefully work on plenty other things he work on; and I can work on things in Oregon area; thus allowing both of us to continue doing our things on Wikipedia while avoiding a section where we would have to co-exist.
 * This was identified as an article with potential UDPE(not saying or implying he had anything to do with) issue...This too is possible UDPE.
 * I believe I have reasonable cause to believe you're soliciting those likely to side with you by choosing those likely to have similar ideology or have previously been sympathetic to your side.


 * Per the above, I support a one-way IBAN preventing Graywalls from interacting with Another Believer. My concern about a TBAN from Portland is that it misses the target, because I think Portland is just a proxy for AB. I'm not sure that it's necessary over and above an IBAN. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 19:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are implying that you don't believe Graywalls is a new user, I feel you should come right out and say it. Deb (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No I’m not implying that at all, and it wouldn’t matter if they were or weren’t anyway. I’m saying GW has been harassing the first editor they had a content dispute with. It would make more sense if these statements I quoted came after years of disagreement, but GW went from zero to nuclear in no time, and kept it up even after a talk page warning, even during this ANI. Hence why I think an IBAN is appropriate. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 23:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually G11'd Elephant's Delicatessen; because it looked very promotional; and there was a tell tale sign of significant editing by the business. I was shocked at the chain reaction that took on. Some have been saying how I continue to bring this incident back. When someone directly says " If you're not willing to help, I will find another admin who is willing to restore the page." While AB says I continue to "bring back" the past, the big picture is that a comment like this comes across as he'll just shop around until he gets his way. Is this interpretation unreasonable?
 * "Please stop. I'll agree to not seeking outside input here if you'll agree to my proposed path forward above." This is the instance which I was referencing when I said coercive and manipulative; because his statement comes across as ""accept my proposal.. else if...".
 * I do find his remarks, edit comments etc dismissive. I've shared that concern with him. And I am digging around for this discussion and it seems like I'm not the only one made to feel that way with his demeanor. this. This to me looks like the same back-n-forth that has been wearing me out, and possibly what Deb at one point describes as "haranguing".
 * this chattering says others are also finding his stubby articles a point of concern. And nominating those things for deletion because I actually believe something don't have notability isn't going after the PERSON who is making them.
 * and another back and forth
 * Obviously, interactions can not happen between us if one of us wasn't around. These interactions suggest AB has a confrontational tendencies with others who do not agree with his way. It's a mischaracterization to say I'm "treating him poorly" just because.
 * Graywalls (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I support a 1way IBAN, 3 months seems appropriate. Again, IBAN covers the problematic behavior well, as it includes (preventing) deleting content and AfDs. Lev, I appreciate the work you've done reviewing behavior (again), as it shows a clear pattern. tedder (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I won't argue against it, but I do believe there is fault on both sides and both editors have shown intransigency in getting us to this situation. Deb (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Belated response to request for opinion. I have to concur that I've found User:Graywalls problematic. It appeared to me that many of their edits ought have gone through TALK first, and that being dictatorial and argumentative, rather than collaborative, seemed the heart of the tension, both in my experience, and around other edits of theirs that I looked through in order to assess. AHampton (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously, interactions can not happen between us if one of us wasn't around. These interactions suggest AB has a confrontational tendencies with others who do not agree with his way. It's a mischaracterization to say I'm "treating him poorly" just because.
 * Graywalls (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I support a 1way IBAN, 3 months seems appropriate. Again, IBAN covers the problematic behavior well, as it includes (preventing) deleting content and AfDs. Lev, I appreciate the work you've done reviewing behavior (again), as it shows a clear pattern. tedder (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I won't argue against it, but I do believe there is fault on both sides and both editors have shown intransigency in getting us to this situation. Deb (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Belated response to request for opinion. I have to concur that I've found User:Graywalls problematic. It appeared to me that many of their edits ought have gone through TALK first, and that being dictatorial and argumentative, rather than collaborative, seemed the heart of the tension, both in my experience, and around other edits of theirs that I looked through in order to assess. AHampton (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * , I certainly felt harassed when you reverted your comments back onto my page in violation of policy on restoration after I acknowledged your message and left you message on your page to express my willingness to continue on the article concerns on the article's talk page. I felt further harassed when you demanded that I restore your content and threatened else if you're going to file a frivolous complaint here and you did not followup to say this was a misunderstanding, therefore it's assumed that you're maintaining your position. Graywalls (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This is why it took me so long to weigh in. To quote another editor (above): you were as "snarky and rude" then as now. What do you think your TALK pg is for? I had intended, in fact, to be polite by addressing you individually, not on an article's TALK page, and because you were the main issue, so that was the place for the notes. Maybe you can't recognize polite, though. As has been stated (above): "Can you commit to being polite?" Can you? I'd say all of your issues here are a direct result of not behaving collaboratively, or even with respect to other editors.
 * FYI: As for restoring what you so hastily deleted from your TALK page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Graywalls&diff=890679380&oldid=887367796I) — Unfortunately, I had been led astray about that policy by another editor, long ago, or I would not have... Quote: "never, ever modify existing content in talk pages, especially in talk pages of other editors, and even if it's your own text. It's a huge no-no." - 03:40, 26 September 2017, when all I did then was add another sentence to my own post, because I had forgotten to answer part of their question. (Maybe they'll turn up here and handily spout some other policy about that.) I didn't bother mentioning it then, because attempting to reason with you was a clear waste of time. Immediately deleting a polite note on your TALK page belies your aim at the time. AHampton (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In principle, what I wrote, still applies.


 * The idea was, that an editor does not change another editor's text in Talk.
 * If it's your own text, and you want to add something, start a new line, and sign it again.
 * If it's something that another editor wrote that you disagree with, then you do not modify their text, and you will add your own disagreement.
 * If it's your own text, and you want to fix punctuation, spelling, or grammar mistakes without changing the spirit of what you wrote, then you can do that. But in this case, us the  tags &mdash; like this &mdash; to show which parts of text you are no longer in agreement with &mdash; without removing what was entered before.
 * But you should not delete what you wrote.
 * Archival is quite another matter.
 * If it's someone else's text that unsigned, then I think there is a bot or a template to append to that other person's text, that "this unsigned comment was added by (typically an IP address) at this time on this date."
 * There may be some instances, where inexperienced editors might break formatting by mistake, in which case it's permissible to fix formatting or code. Most of the time, it involves indentation.
 * - Mardus /talk 17:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Idea", indeed. Despite what appears to be your decree of opinion, which is not here supported by any accompanying policy; Mr. Graywalls here had been quick to counter with actual WP policy, when I claimed that TALK should not be modified, per you. Incidentally, "The idea was, that an editor does not change another editor's text in Talk" never occurred and the only line from your text above that applies is "If it's your own text, and you want to add something, start a new line, and sign it again." The rest is a grandstand. Is that your opinion, or policy? Your "idea" also runs contrary to the policy that I was told by an Admin who had deleted their own ill-advised comment in another discussion, at the suggestion of another editor. (Twice burnt, as it happened.) Since you answered so fully, yet without any policy to back up your opinion, and I have taken us off-topic due to a need to answer to Graywalls' "harrassed" statement, subsequent to my ascribing to your apparently unfounded admonishment of 2017; I will take this discussion to my own TALK page, reprint it there, and we can carry on,, aside from this discussion.)
 * Except do not use <strike ></strike>; that hasn't been valid HTML since the 1990s. The element is <s ></s>: like this . Ping .  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * With that listicle, I did not reply to you, User:SMcCandlish. My current list very much expands from a short one-sentence "no-no" that I'd written before, and which was referenced in this Talk. You can consider it an evolution, if you so wish.


 * And now to «"idea"», which is called policy. Changing someone else's text in Talk is generously called 'disruptive editing'. And with regard to Talk, there's an entire section about behaviour that is totally unacceptable, which does indeed support my arguments that support my earlier statement, that Talk entries should not be modified. That section is clear, concise, and unambiguous. Exceptions are also listed, and they are not in conflict with what I wrote above.


 * An administrator can delete their own text, and that is because they are an administrator. Even if some might brand that as 'reaching' on that administrator's part, then most likely, the text was possibly prohibitive material, maybe a harmful post, or perhaps off-topic.


 * still works, and there is no reason to only use, as   is descriptive, and therefore very easy to understand in article source code. As is   - Mardus /talk 06:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I know neither what "listicle" means nor what most of what you've just posted refers to. I was making a technical point. It is not correct that that "there is no reason to only use <s ></s>". See Help:HTML in wikitext, WP:LINT, WP:HTML 5, WP:WikiProject Check Wikipedia, Parsing/Replacing_Tidy/FAQ, meta:User:SMcCandlish/lint.css, WP:WPCleaner, etc. Every time you use invalid HTML on this and related sites, you are impeding our migration to full HTML 5 compliance, and creating work that other editors will have to repair eventually. (You're also wasting your own time, albeit a tiny bit at a time, since <s ></s> is much shorter.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – I've noticed that over this past week, both editors have continued to edit productively, even in the same topic area, without "bumping into" each other, which is very encouraging. Waters seem to have calmed. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 17:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , They've been editing more pages not on my watchlist, which has made my editing experience more enjoyable. I am still concerned about some of their recent contributions, but I am actively avoiding them and waiting for this discussion to close before I revisit some of the articles where we've disagreed in the past. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt Another Believer and I massively disagree on editorial decision and which concerns take precedence. I don't disagree that there has been mutual poking and jabbing here and there. After seeing how quickly AB pounced on me on things, I think I'm the one hounded. Things he sees as a major deal aren't necessarily a big deal to me and on the flip side, he doesn't appear to hold undisclosed paid editing and undisclosed connected contributor to the same degree of concern as I do. per WP:ASPERSIONS, I realize I shouldn't accuse without evidence. I don't believe my allegation of canvassing was evidence less, because Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oregon. [] and pinging others in this manner on the page itself is not a neutral way of involving others into editorial dispute. I don't think those discussions that clearly infer to me was presented in a neutral manner. Graywalls (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Graywalls, do you really think you are making your case by implying AB is a paid editor and then saying "I shouldn't accuse without evidence"? tedder (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've shared my opinion back in March that I believed he's a PR professional after I've read the discussion here, but at the time, I wasn't aware sharing such opinion is discouraged so I retracted that opinion. I just provided explanation on how I felt he was shopping around for input non-neutrally. The comment you replied to wasn't stating or implying he's a paid editor. It was describing our editorial opinion differences which isn't saying, implying and isn't intended to be construed as implying he's a Paid-editor. Graywalls (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Support a 3-month one-way IBAN preventing Graywalls from interacting with Another Believer. Evidence from Levivich is too much to ignore on stalking. starship.paint ~  KO   12:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support a 6-month one-way IBAN preventing Graywalls from interacting with Another Believer. After reading everything discussed above, as well as coming across this diff where the first three letters in the word "Assuming" were capitalised, probably as a form of homophobic dog-whistling .—<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 16:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all, dogs cannot whistle. Second of all, I'd like to see even the slightest evidence that there's such a thing as a homophobic dog. An extraordinary idea, when you think about it. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 10:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment FWIW, I don't see homophobic overtones there, but rather a reference to assume in the context of "when you assume, you make an ass out of you and me." In other words, that it's a bad assumption. No position on the rest of the debate, just thought I'd mention that. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec): A wee off topic, but I feel it prudent to point out that the "ASSuming" was unlikely to be "homophobic dog-whistling". There is a saying that when one assumes, it makes an ASS out of U (you) and ME. Graywalls was probably referencing that saying. Still, calling another editor an ass isn't civil or the best way to be collaborative (imo). TelosCricket (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * simply addressing 's remark " probably as a form of homophobic dog-whistling" is incorrect and a baseless and uncalled for personal attack of accusation of making a bias comment. Graywalls (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Struck that part, my assumption (no pun intended) was because of the article being about a gay bathhouse. That said, I stand by my assessment of supporting a 6 month, one-way IBAN as I originally stated. I cannot in good conscience support calling other users an "ass", or whatever explanation you’re going to give next for using the word. Secondly, at least some of the AB articles you nominated for deletion (I’ve weighed in on No Vacancy Lounge) clearly had enough reliable sourcing to not be deleted.—<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 07:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Having been through a recent censorious, pseudo-progressive, faux-liberal witchhunt (and a witness to another one a week later), I'm going to say this loud and clear – as an actual progressive and a classical liberal, not any kind of conservative: Any time you use the terms homophobic (or anything-else-phobic) or dogwhistle toward another editor here you are making a mistake. You are very definitely breaching WP:CIVIL and WP:ASPERSIONS, and it's very likely you're actually crossing the WP:NPA line. I'd be entirely supportive of editors who engage in this hyper-politicized fingerpointing being ANIed themselves, for topic-bans from whatever it is that triggers them to turn character-assassinating ad hominem and argument to emotion weapons against their fellow editors. None of us are fucking mind-readers. You, I, and the next person have no idea what someone other editor's personal views on various socio-political issues might be (absent some kind of forthright statement on their user page or whatever), and none of us are in a position to make judgmental assumptions about such matters. This has been getting worse and worse over about the last three years, and it has to stop. It's almost entirely coming from far-left, activistic editors who don't seem to understand what WP:NOT, WP:NOT, WP:NOT, and WP:NOT say and mean. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I just wrote what I interpreted. Clarification was given and I struck my comment, providing other reasons to sustain my vote for an IBAN. It’s not that deep. Please move on.—<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 13:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm making a general point about politicized accusations of this sort, not one about you in particular.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You, I, and the next person have no idea what someone other editor's personal views on various socio-political issues might be. . . It's almost entirely coming from far-left, activistic editors Hmm. Grandpallama (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's not employ an elementary-school level of logic, please. I wrote "absent some kind of forthright statement on their user page or whatever" for a reason. We have that kind of forthright statement when editors wear their political hearts on their sleeves with a bunch of a userboxes, or devote inordinate amounts of their editorial time to bashing other editors for "political incorrectness", in the same extremist activism language, over and over again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There was some elementary (il)logic at play there, but it wasn't coming from me. Nice to collapse something you started, too. Grandpallama (talk) 09:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Re: None of us are fucking mind-readers. You, I, and the next person have no idea what someone other editor's personal views on various socio-political issues might be (absent some kind of forthright statement on their user page or whatever), and none of us are in a position to make judgmental assumptions about such matters. This has been getting worse and worse over about the last three years, and it has to stop. It's almost entirely coming from far-left, activistic editors ...
 * While I understand that this reflects what you experienced as a recent censorious, pseudo-progressive, faux-liberal witchhunt, but I would point out that the community CONSENSUS has not really interpreted this incident in the same way. Also, in spite of the above, what was at stake in that particular issue was not "mind reading". As WP:CIVIL wisely enjoins us to ask, "How would I feel if someone said that to someone I love who cannot just 'brush it off'?". Expecting contributors to take this principle into account is by no means to expect "mind-reading". Newimpartial (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't rewrite MfD history. The one on The Signpost piece concluded that the community had an editorial interest in suppressing to an extent (short of deletion) an essay some people did not like in The Signpost, as the community's own e-newspaper (i.e., a collective statement of the community). The MfD on the exact same material in its original userspace location concluded the opposite. In both MfDs, and in several other venues, various initial finger-pointers felt compelled to retract their uncivil accusations (particularly given that their interpretation of the meaning and intent of the piece was clearly and demonstrably incorrect).  of these discussions (MfDs, ANI, RfArb, another on meta) resulted in a consensus for censure toward me or any Signpost editor, despite loud activistic calls for it from one side of the debate. Nor was the other side weakly represented; it would take a long time to count up the number of editors who raised serious concerns about censorship and politically motivated harassment. Way more to the point, however: Your quoted "How would I feel ..." material applies, obviously, to exactly the kinds of nasty, politicized character-assassination crap I'm addressing above; the underlying principle is the very reason I posted what I did here. It cannot be magically okay, just because the attacker happens to be in your political camp, for someone to objectively be a flaming asshat to another editor for political reasons, yet for opinions you don't like to suddenly be considered a problem just because you and your buddies subjectively take offense at your own straw man construction of what it might have meant.  See WP:KETTLE (also relevant are WP:YDOW and various other pages).  Being an asshat to other editors is  a problem.  The fact that the community has been lax (due to WP:BIAS issues – WP's dominant demographics are well-studied and independently documented) in enforcing this principle against leftists who attack right-wingers or (increasingly often) centrists and other leftists who have a doctrinal divergence from the aggressors – is a serious meta-problem that we have to wrestle with, sooner rather than later.  It's ironic to me that I get way more flack from other alleged progressives (really censorious and thought-policing ones – an attitude neither progressive nor liberal under any sensible definition) for calling them on their bullshit, than I would ever get if I were a conservative offering a conservative response. No one is savaged more by elements in the left than someone who agrees with most of their ideas but "fails" to parrot every word of those elements' preferred doctrine. It's why the left is so weak so much of the time; it's like a wolf pack that hunts its own offspring instead of going after rabbits and deer. If you wonder how Trump and Brexit could happen, within living memory of the fascist debacle of the mid-20th c., there's your answer. The right don't do this; when they want a socio-political result, they focus hard on the values they have in common, and set their differences aside as something to maybe argue about later. The world is not going to change much until the left learns to do this. Back to WP: if WP doesn't learn to restrain instead of condone this behavior, its balance and credibility are going to continue to erode, both though editor attrition and the skew in encyclopedic content that will necessarily result from that attrition.

AB: "I am still concerned about some of their recent contributions, but I am actively avoiding them and waiting for this discussion to close before I revisit some of the articles where we've disagreed in the past." CW: "[We] massively disagree on editorial decision and which concerns take precedence. ... AB pounced on me on things, I think I'm the one hounded. ... he doesn't appear to hold undisclosed paid editing and undisclosed connected contributor to the same degree of concern as I do. per WP:ASPERSIONS, I realize I shouldn't accuse without evidence." (But did it anyway. It's like "Yeah, I know I shouldn't be trying to rob this liquor store right in front of a bunch of cops." See also Don't moon the jury.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC); rev'd. 05:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * A one-way i-ban does appear warranted. Despite protestations, this would not bar Graywalls from editing within their preferred topic area, or even at the same articles as Another Believer, just the one should not revert the other or engage with that editor on the talk pages, since it seems to lead nowhere constructive.   this ended up being gamed, which seems unlikely, then a two-way i-ban would be appropriate, but the editor being hounded shouldn't be subject to an i-ban; that's a "blame the victim" scenario.  PS: Compare their back-to-back statements above for the major attitudinal difference; one is what we expect and hope to see, one reeks of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIR:
 * and he's already started pushing forward with his own "path forward" on No Vacancy Lounge. Basically, a 1 way would result in "editing under consent of Another Believer" situation where I can not revert him, but he can revert me. I think TWO way would be fair. ONE way would be reasonable if the complainant was a model editor within the scope of the conflict we've been having but I believe he's far from it. Graywalls (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Addressing this in a combined reply to your much longer post, below.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

New response by Graywalls, and comments thereon
commenting on, presumption here seems to be that the complainant is being single sidedly harassed. Regarding civility, there has been comments that the complainant played significant role in provocation. On the matter of civility, I realize I need to maintain it and at the same time, the complainant, in my opinion is just as culpable on this.

Civility: ridiculing comment/edit comments
 * "like pulling a tooth here" which happened after I justified my edit to verifiability requirements and I take it as a snarky jab directed at me.
 * facepalm dismissive/riduculing
 * trolled dismissive.

Editorial: "hound".. outside of Portland area where I feel HOUNDED by Another Believer.
 * Articles_for_deletion/Snatch_Game_(2nd_nomination) canvassing concerns about the complainant surfaced from another editor.
 * [] On an article in which we feuded and there was a 3PO request which was deterred away due to this ANI has been pushed forward by the complainant to the way he wants it, including the insertion of factually incorrect statement like "in downtown Portland's Old Town Chinatown neighborhood." which isn't directly supportable by the source. Many of our editorial disputes are over different interpretation of what sources say.
 * I said something on talk and hours later Another Believer is editing on article space.

The complainant asserted at some point he's tired of having my edits "pop up" on his watch list. Given the fact complainants have a large number of items on his watch list on articles he has touched at some point in the past, when other editors start working on a number of articles in an overlapping area, it's expected that such pop-up will happen, but his argument is that I am targeting him. Usually, we become involved in talk as a result of the complainant objecting to contents and editorial matters, reverting me and insisting that I take it to "talk". I'm made to feel like he's implying I need to seek "his permission" to work on certain things. Per the description in WP:WIKIHOUND, I am the one who feels getting hounded by the complainant in some situations. For example, this one, First Unitarian Church of Portland. I edited there, because I felt it is relevant to another article I was editing. The complainant came rushing immediately and objected to my edit, as he's done to many of my edits. I'm made to feel like he's exhibiting ownership to articles and lording over them in such a way I feel uncomfortable I'm consistently getting objected/reverted within a short time frame from the same editor, the complainant in this ANI. Here's an example of how the complainant acted when he did not get his way, and remarked how he was getting "trolled" which was remarked at someone else.


 * I edit, about 5 months after a COI edit here AB decides to get involved less than a month later and I feel followed.

This diff is yet another example of the complainant reverting my edit on his subjective values, which seems to be favoring of creating more and more articles, while mine favors not creating a whole bunch of stubs. This is my own impression at this discussion as well as my interaction with him Talk:Bud_Clark. I feel this revert was imposing of his values on me. This is how I perceived he was implying this is my article, go make your own, going back to WP:OWN. I realize I wasn't a model editor, but the complainant's own behaviors certain exacerbated the matter. In evaluating this dispute his civility and tendentiousness of how he approaches editorial and contents dispute shouldn't be ignored. I'm editing some of these articles, because they're in my area of interest. What does the spirit of our policy say when the SAME editor, the complainant comes rushing after, usually within hours and days of my edit to revert and demand discussing in talk first or to complain? Graywalls (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

And additional concern when I can't even participate in AfD discussion without having following me around and making unnecessary remarks and continuing with his tendentious editing like thisGraywalls (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously accusing me of following you around when you cast a delete vote with no assessment of secondary coverage on an article I created? Give me a break. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * GW is assuming that I'm presuming. I am not; I've reviewed the material and the discussions of it, and am agreeing with several others here that this is a unidirectional problem. I also said nothing about "harassed". I don't think this actually does quite rise to WP:HARASS levels; it seems more like a mixture of a WP:TE and WP:DAPE, with a dollop of WP:SPA on top.  A two-way i-ban is not needed; if AB engaged in a demonstrable pattern of going around reverting GW, without clearly defensible cause on a case-by-case basis (or even having such defenses but doing it with enough single-mindedness as to be a WP:HOUNDING problem), that would be WP:GAMING the system for WP:WIN / WP:OWN purposes, and would itself be actionable grounds for a topic ban. I think AB is both smarter and more good-faith than that.  Just the fact that GW is couching all of this in terms that smack of WP:WIN and WP:BATTLEGROUND, instead of in terms of dispute reduction/resolution and improving the encyclopedia, is itself evidence of a WP:CIR problem.  I would take GW's concerns more seriously if there were clear evidence of AB pushing a personal viewpoint, injecting original research, falsifying sources, engaging in personal attacks, or otherwise acting either with bad faith or gross negligence – doing nonproductive or harmful things to the encyclopedic content or the community – but there isn't. To address some specific new GW points: AB responding, very concisely, to GW's enormous fountain of invective is not "following [GW] around and making unnecessary remarks and continuing with [GW's] tendentious editing". It's not hounding, and not tendentiousness, but entirely defensible and normal (even quite restrained) response to a whole pile of verbal abuse. As for diffs of GW's posts: "like pulling a tooth" is not uncivil; "facepalm" is not uncivil (we all have a right to describe our own reactions to things); asking other editors "Am I being trolled? Am I being unreasonable?", in expressing confusion and concern about another editor's very pointed interactions with oneself in particular is not uncivil. Moving on: re "I said something on talk and hours later Another Believer is editing on article space" – The  of the talk page for a WP article is to engage editorial attention to improving that article. GW complained earlier at great length that it wasn't reasonable for us to suppose that interactions of GW toward AB were any kind of unconstructive pattern, but just an innocent and harmless coincidence because they're both interested in the same topic area; it is thus farcically hypocritical for GW to claim "I feel followed" because AB edited the same article GW did within the same . This is just getting ridiculous, wandering into an "all is well when I do it, but it's a crime if someone else does" fantasy land.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Consensus discussion

 * I strongly suggest that this be closed with a one-way GW→AB i-ban, quickly, before GW digs their own hole so deep that stronger remedies are required. Normally at this point I would recommend a topic ban, but GW has made it clear that they'll simply have no interest in participating at all if they can't edit Oregon topics, so try the lesser remedy first.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. Let's come to a consensus. It's certainly not unanimous but it's fairly easy to see that there is a consensus being formed up above towards a 3-6 month IBAN. Yes, it isn't perfect, but it's clear there is problematic behavior and it's mostly in one direction. GW appears to be a skilled editor with strong opinions. Hopefully they can put their powers to good. For that reason I recommend a 3 month IBAN, then we can revisit if there are problems.
 * I feel there's been enough discussion here to show good faith towards GW. If there wasn't a recognition of this it'd be easier to simply throw warning templates up and not deal with this, but... let's go build a wiki.
 * Finally, GW (and AB to a much lesser extent), please don't reply and rebut in this section. It's a bit of a retcon but I'm trying to help draw this to a consensus, not litigate further. tedder (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I second the request for silence from both central parties in the matter, per WP:BLUDGEON. The purpose of this forum is community input/review and eventual administrative decision, not furtherance of two-party bickering. If an idea, e.g. 1-way i-ban, is too much or too weak, others (without a vested interest in the outcome) will say so.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)